Affect Convergence in Groups: the Role of Group Composition

Page 1 of 18 ANZAM 2011

Affect Convergence in Groups: The Role of Group Composition

Amy L Collins

Griffith Business School

Griffith University,

Nathan, Australia

Email: [email protected]

Peter J Jordan

Griffith Business School

Griffith University,

Nathan, Australia

Email: [email protected]

Ashlea C Troth

Griffith Business School

Griffith University,

Nathan, Australia

Email: [email protected]

Sandra A Lawrence

Griffith Business School

Griffith University,

Nathan, Australia

Email: [email protected]

ANZAM 2011 Page 2 of 18

Affect Convergence in Groups: The Role of Group Composition

ABSTRACT

The study of emotions is an important area to consider within a workplace context, as the experience of emotions has been linked to employees’ psychological outcomes and performance. This is especially important in a group context, as individuals working within a group can converge emotionally, producing a group affective tone. Models describing the emergence of group affective tone have generally ignored the role of group diversity. We develop a model which considers how the diversity of a group (in terms of personality) influences the development of groups’ affective tone, through its impact on group identification, and also specify the impact of group affective tone on group performance. Practical applications of the model for a workplace context are discussed.

Keywords: emotions, group processes, interpersonal behaviour, communication

INTRODUCTION

Research into emotion in the workplace has been identified as an important area for research

(Ashforth & Humphrey 1995). Researchers have found that understanding the role of emotion in the workplace provides managers with important information enabling individuals, groups, and organisations to better manage their changing work environments (Ashkanasy 2003; Ashkanasy,

Härtel & Zerbe 2000). In contrast to the developing profile of emotions research in the workplace, extensive team research has been conducted over a substantial period (Belbin 1981; Beyerlein,

Johnson & Beyerlein 1997; De Dreu & Weingart 2003), primarily in terms of improving team performance. One area gaining more attention is research regarding the role of emotions in teams

(Druskat & Wolff 2001; Garcia-Prieto, Bellard & Schneider 2003).

Research reveals that emotions impact on team performance (Jordan & Troth 2004; Kelly &

Barsade 2001; Pirola-Merlo, Härtel, Mann & Hirst 2002), and also that the emotions of group members can coalesce or converge after prolonged interaction of members (e.g., George 1990), through mechanisms such as primitive emotional contagion (Hatfield, Cacioppo & Rapson 1992,

1994), to produce a group affective tone (George, 1990). As group affective tone has been shown to impact on group functioning (e.g., group cooperation and coordination; Barsade 2002; Sy, Côté &

Saavedra 2005) and group performance (e.g., Totterdell 2000) it is important to investigate when and how group members’ affect will converge, so that measures can be utilised to prevent the detrimental Page 3 of 18 ANZAM 2011

influence of a negative affective tone in workgroups. A number of variables which influence the

likelihood of an individual converging with another individual or group have been identified (e.g.,

expressivity; Sullins 1991), however, the possible role of group composition in terms of diversity has

yet to be explored (Kelly 2002), despite the fact that group diversity has consistently been linked to

group performance (van Knippenberg & Schippers 2007), often through affective group processes

such as conflict (e.g., Pelled, Eisenhardt & Xin 1999). In line with researchers who have suggested

that a greater comprehension of diversity may be gained through a consideration of the role of

emotions (e.g., Ashkanasy, Härtel & Daus 2002), we suggest that the relationship between diversity

and group outcomes will be further clarified by considering the mediating role of groups’ affective

tone. In this paper we review models on both affective convergence and diversity within teams and

present a model in which group composition (in terms of personality heterogeneity) contributes to the

emergence of groups’ affective tone through its impact on group identification, and affective tone, in

turn, then influences the contextual performance of the group.

Models of Affect Convergence in Groups

Models of affect convergence in groups have been developed to understand how emotions are

passed between group members, such that collective group affect becomes more similar ( affect

convergence ) and produces a group affective tone (George 1990, 1996) , defined as ‘consistent or

homogeneous affective reactions within a group. The term consistent is key; if affective reactions are

not consistent within groups, then it is meaningless to speak of an affective tone of the groups’

(George 1990: 108). For example, groups with a high positive affective tone may be characterised by

happiness and enthusiasm, whereas groups with a high negative affective tone may display extreme

levels of anger (George 1990). Research has demonstrated that groups often develop a consistent

affective tone (e.g., Bartel & Saavedra 2000; George 1990; Totterdell, Kellett, Briner & Teuchmann

1998). However, in some circumstances, groups may be less likely to develop an affective tone, such

as when groups are formed for a short amount of time, or when there is limited interaction between

members (George 1996). ANZAM 2011 Page 4 of 18

Current conceptualisations of group affective tone generally acknowledge that a number of different mechanisms may work separately, or in tandem, to influence affect convergence. One mechanism which is frequently considered is primitive emotional contagion, which has been defined as ‘a tendency to automatically mimic and synchronize expressions, vocalizations, postures, and movements with those of another person's and, consequently, to converge emotionally’ (Hatfield et al.

1994: 5). While this conceptualisation involves the transfer of emotions, the idea has also been extended to include the transfer of mood states from one individual to another (Neumann & Strack

2000). The mechanism by which both primitive emotional and mood contagion operate is termed the

Facial Feedback Hypothesis, where people spontaneously and unconsciously mimic the non-verbal behaviour of the people they are exposed to or interact with (e.g. in terms of facial expressions;

Dimberg 1982; Fujimura, Sato & Suzuki 2010; Hess, Philippot & Blairy 1998; Moody, McIntosh,

Mann & Weisser 2007), and afferent feedback processes (Adelman & Zajonc 1989; Zajonc 1985) lead them to feel the emotion they are displaying (e.g., Hess, Kappas, McHugo, Lanzetta & Kleck

1992; Levenson, Ekman & Friesen 1990).

While primitive emotional contagion is frequently considered a primary explanation for affect convergence (e.g., Barsade & Gibson 2007; Cole, Walter & Bruch 2008), other mechanisms may also account for the occurrence of similar affect. For example, George (1990) applied the attraction- selection-attrition (ASA) model (Schneider 1987), which proposes that organisations will be composed of people with similar personality traits because (1) people are attracted to, and will actively seek out, similar others, (2) organisational recruitment processes are designed to select people with certain attributes, and (3) people are more likely to leave if obliged to work with dissimilar others, all of which work to produce organisations composed of people with comparable personality and behavioural patterns. George (1990) extended this theory to specific groups, suggesting that groups may come to be similar in their affective reactions to workplace events via ASA processes, leading to consistency in group affect. George (1990) also suggested that the socialization of new group members will also lead to consistency in groups’ affective reactions, as when a person joins a group, they look to others in the group for cues to appropriate behaviour, including appropriate Page 5 of 18 ANZAM 2011

emotional reactions (Morrison 1993), an idea which has further been advocated by Bartel and

Saavedra (2000) and Barsade (2002), who suggest that conscious emotional comparison processes

may work in conjunction with unconscious primitive contagion, resulting in consistent affect.

Additionally, there are a number of individual and group variables which may influence the

affective convergence process within groups. For example, George and Brief (1992) suggested that

affect convergence via ASA and socialization processes is likely to depend on aspects of the group in

question (including group size, and proximity of group members).

Other researchers, such as Kelly and Barsade (2001) have applied the input-process-output

model of group effectiveness to the development of group affect, where input factors impact on group

outputs through the mechanism of group processes (Hackman 1987). Input factors can be considered

at the individual level (member attitudes, personality), the group level (group size), and in terms of the

environment (group task characteristics). These input factors are then expressed through process

factors (e.g., group interaction processes), which lead to group outputs, such as performance outcomes

(Hackman 1987). Marks, Mathieu and Zaccaro (2001) acknowledge that team processes can also lead

to emergent states , ‘cognitive, motivational, and affective states of teams’. Group affect is one

construct that has been identified as an emergent state by Kozlowski and Bell (2003).

Kelly and Barsade (2001) theorised that input variables including individuals’ dispositional

affect, emotions, mood, sentiments, and emotional intelligence, contribute to shaping groups’

affective tone (via processes such as primitive emotional contagion, empathy, and intentional

affective influence). They also suggested that aspects of the group itself are likely to play a role in this

process, including groups’ display norms, the emotional history of the group, as well as intergroup

factors (e.g., intergroup conflict).

Previous research investigating affect convergence in the group context has focused on how

attributes of individuals influence their likelihood of converging with the group’s collective affect,

while aspects of the group’s composition as a whole (i.e. the configuration of individual team member

characteristics) has remained largely untested (Kelly 2002). However, in a group context, it is

important to examine the interplay of individual member characteristics, as individuals within groups

are not isolated; they are aware of and interact with other group members. Thus it is argued that a ANZAM 2011 Page 6 of 18

greater understanding of the development of group affective tone will come from an examination of how individual group member attributes combine to influence the group as a whole. In the following section, we will outline how the variance of the group as reflected in group diversity has the ability to influence both group processes and group outcomes.

Models of Diversity in Groups

Focusing on research considering the variance of the group, a number of models have investigated how groups’ performance is determined, in part, by the diversity of a group, which has been defined as ‘the distribution of differences among members of a unit with respect to a common attribute’ (Harrison & Klein 2007: 1200). The rationale for these different group performance effects is that the similarities and differences between group members can influence the way they interact with and relate to one another (Milliken & Martins 1996; Northcraft, Polzer, Neale & Gamer 1995).

Diversity has commonly been conceptualised in terms of observable individual differences (e.g., ethnicity, nationality, gender and age), known as demographic diversity or surface-level diversity

(Harrison, Price & Bell 1998). However, diversity can also refer to underlying personality characteristics or values (e.g., personality, attitudes), sometimes termed deep-level diversity (Harrison et al. 1998). While there has been a great deal of research investigating the direct relationship between diversity and group performance, the mediating processes through which diversity produces group outcomes is still being investigated (Bell, Villado, Lukasik, Belau & Briggs 2011).

Milliken and Martins (1996) developed a model in which diversity in observable attributes

(race, nationality gender, and age) as well as diversity in underlying attributes (personality, cultural values, socioeconomic background) influences short term affective group processes (e.g. decreased group identification, increased group conflict). They suggest that in the long term, diversity will lead to increased turnover, and have a detrimental effect on individual and group performance.

A similar model was proposed by Harrison, Price, Gavin and Florey (2002) concerning the effects of group diversity on group functioning, which proposed that actual diversity in terms of surface variables (gender, age, ethnicity) and deep-level variables (personality, values, attitudes, beliefs) influence the perceived diversity of the group, which negatively impacts on the social Page 7 of 18 ANZAM 2011

integration of the group (which includes group cohesion, satisfaction with group members, and

positive interactions with group members), which in turn, negatively influences the group’s

performance.

The models of group composition outlined above emphasise the role of various group

processes (e.g., group cohesion, group conflict) in explaining how team composition diversity

indirectly impacts on the performance of the group. Affect and emotions also play a crucial role in the

functioning of teams (e.g., Jordan & Troth 2004). We therefore suggest that models linking groups’

composition of attributes to their performance should consider how group diversity impacts on

affective convergence processes to produce a group affective tone. As interpersonal behaviour is

affected by personality variables (Barry & Stewart 1997) and the composition of a team in terms of

personality variables has consistently been linked to group processes and group outcomes (e.g.,

Barrick, Stewart, Neubert & Mount 1998; Bell 2007; Mohammed & Angell 2004), we will focus on

the diversity of groups in terms of personality. In line with previous researchers (e.g., Stewart 2006),

and to avoid confusion with demographic diversity, we will use the term personality heterogeneity to

refer to groups’ diversity in specific personality variables.

PROPOSED MODEL

In this section, we extend prior research on the effects of group diversity on group processes

and group performance by proposing a model that considers the mediating role that emotions play in a

group context. Through the inclusion of group affective tone, our aim is to provide a greater

understanding of how diversity impacts on group performance (see Figure 1). Specifically, we

propose that the deep-level diversity of the group (in terms of personality heterogeneity) will

negatively impact on the level of group identification. We further suggest that the level of group

identification will then influence the group’s affect convergence, such that greater group identification

will lead to greater consistency in affective tone, and that this will in turn impact on the group’s

contextual performance. ANZAM 2011 Page 8 of 18

______

Insert Figure 1 about here

______

Personality Heterogeneity and Group Identification

Social identity theory suggests that individuals who share certain attributes (e.g., perceived interpersonal similarity) tend to categorise themselves as members of the same social group: ‘two or more people who share a common social identification of themselves, or, which is nearly the same thing, perceive themselves to be members of the same social category’ (Turner 1982: 15). Therefore, perceived differences between individuals may hinder their identification as a member of a collective group with those individuals (van Knippenberg & Schippers 2007). In line with this theory, both surface- and deep-level diversity variables have been found to influence group processes and attitudes toward the group, including group identification (e.g., Chattopadhyay, George & Lawrence 2004).

Consistent with social identity theory, we propose that:

Proposition 1. Greater personality heterogeneity in groups will lead to decreased group

identification.

Group Identification and Group Affective Tone

We suggest that identification will increase the likelihood of affective convergence mechanisms operating to produce a group affective tone. Many of the proposed mechanisms of affect convergence are dependent on attendance to others’ emotions, and willingness to be influenced by others’ emotions, including primitive emotional contagion (Hatfield et al. 1992,1994), empathy

(Decety & Jackson 2004), and socialization (Morrison 1993). Self-categorisation theory (an elaboration of social identity theory) suggests that people who identify themselves as part of a certain group will be ‘guided by the distinctive, emergent, irreducible properties of their group’ (Oakes, Page 9 of 18 ANZAM 2011

Haslam & Turner 1998: 81), and thus will be more likely to attend to, and be influenced by the

characteristics of their group.

Research supports these propositions at the dyadic level, as affect convergence is more likely

if individuals categorise the sender as an ingroup member (Bourgeois & Hess 2008; Epstude &

Mussweiler 2009; McHugo, Lanzetta & Bush 1991; Platow et al. 2005; van der Schalk et al. 2011;

Weisbuch & Ambady 2008). In a group context, individuals with more collectivistic orientations are

more likely to converge with the affect of their groups (Ilies, Wagner & Morgeson 2007), and

furthermore Tanghe, Wisse and Van Der Flier (2010) demonstrated in both field and laboratory

settings, that group identification was linked with affect convergence, such that groups with higher

levels of identification were more likely to develop a consistent affective tone (for both positive and

negative affect). Based on these results, we expect that:

Proposition 2a: The degree of group identification will influence the likelihood of positive

affect convergence, such that groups with higher identification will be more likely to develop

a consistent positive affective tone.

Proposition 2b: The degree of group identification will influence the likelihood of negative

affect convergence, such that groups with higher identification will be more likely to develop

a consistent negative affective tone.

Group Affective Tone and Group Performance

Researchers have questioned whether heterogeneity in affect could assist group performance

in certain types of tasks (e.g., in complex tasks; George & King 2007), while some studies have

demonstrated that group heterogeneity in affect may have a negative effect on group functioning (e.g.,

Barsade, Ward, Turner & Sonnenfeld 2000). However, focusing on groups that do converge to

develop a consistent affective tone, George (1990, 1996) theorised that groups with a higher positive

affective tone would provide a pleasant and enjoyable work environment, so members would be more

likely to exert extra effort for their group (engaging in contextual performance behaviours such as

organisational citizenship behaviours and prosocial organisational behaviours; Borman & Motowidlo ANZAM 2011 Page 10 of 18

1993). In line with this theory, positive affective tone has been linked to willingness to engage in organisational citizenship behaviours (e.g., Tanghe et al. 2010). George (1990, 1996) further suggested that groups with a high negative affective tone would provide highly unpleasant work environments, such that members would be less likely to exert extra effort for their group, and research has demonstrated a link between negative affective tone and a decrease in prosocial behaviours (George 1990). In line with these findings, we predict:

Proposition 3a. Positive affective tone will influence the contextual performance of the group,

such that positive affective tone will be positively associated with performance

Proposition 3b. Negative affective tone will influence the contextual performance of the

group, such that negative affective tone will be negatively associated with performance.

Overall Indirect Mediation

So far, we have argued for particular links in the diversity-group performance chain. At a broad level, we propose that group personality heterogeneity will indirectly influence group contextual performance via group identification processes and subsequently group affective tone.

Specifically, we suggest that groups’ personality heterogeneity will have a negative relationship with the level of group identification, and greater group identification will facilitate affect convergence mechanisms, leading to greater consistency in groups’ positive and negative affective tone. It is suggested that it is through these links that personality heterogeneity influences group performance.

Proposition 4a. There will be a net positive influence of lower group personality

heterogeneity on group contextual performance via increased group identification and

positive affective tone.

Proposition 4b. There will be a net negative influence of low group personality heterogeneity

on group contextual performance via increased group identification and negative affective

tone.

Page 11 of 18 ANZAM 2011

CONCLUSION

The model we have proposed has integrated past research on the effects of diversity in

groups, as well as the role of group affective tone, in an attempt to further unpack the complex

relationship between diversity and group performance. We suggest that groups which are more

heterogeneous in terms of personality will be less likely to develop a consistent affective tone (in

terms of both positive and negative tone) because they will experience less group identification. We

further suggest that groups’ affective tone will go on to influence their contextual performance.

However, the proposed model may not be applicable for all types of teams, as many of the suggested

processes of affect convergence (e.g., emotional contagion) depend on dynamic interactions which

may not occur in virtual teams (Bell & Kozlowski 2002). The proposed model suggests that, in a

workplace context, considerable attention should be given to those factors which facilitate and hinder

the processes of affect convergence, as the development of an affective tone has substantial

implications for the performance of the group. Managers may need to consider the possible

consequences of diversity when forming workgroups, for example, in groups which are highly

diverse, individuals may be less likely to spread their emotions to their group members, resulting in

less chance of a negative affective tone developing, which could be detrimental to the performance of

the group. Future research will be required to test the associations suggested by the model. ANZAM 2011 Page 12 of 18

REFERENCES

Adelmann PK and Zajonc RB (1989) Facial efference and the experience of emotion, Annual Review

of Psychology 40: 249-280.

Ashforth BE and Humphrey RH (1995) Emotion in the workplace: A reappraisal, Human Relations

48(2): 97-125.

Ashkanasy NM (2003) Emotions in organizations: A multi-level perspective, in Dansereau F and

Yammarino FJ (Eds) Research in multi-level issues , 2: 9-54. Elsevier Science, Oxford UK.

Ashkanasy NM, Härtel CEJ and Daus CS (2002) Diversity and emotion: The new frontiers in

organizational behavior research, Journal of Management 28(3): 307-338.

Ashkanasy NM, Härtel CEJ and Zerbe WJ (Eds) (2000) Emotions in the workplace: Research, theory,

and practice , Quorum Books, Westport CT.

Barrick MR, Stewart GL, Neubert MJ and Mount MK (1998) Relating member ability and

personality to work-team processes and team effectiveness, Journal of Applied Psychology

83(3): 377-391.

Barry B and Stewart GL (1997) Composition, process, and performance in self-managed groups: The

role of personality, Journal of Applied Psychology 82(1): 62-78.

Barsade SG (2002) The ripple effect: Emotional contagion and its influence on group behaviour,

Administrative Science Quarterly 47(4): 644-675.

Barsade SG and Gibson DE (2007) Why does affect matter in organizations? Academy of

Management Perspectives 21: 36-60.

Barsade SG, Ward AJ, Turner JDF and Sonnenfeld JA (2000) To your heart ’s content: A model of

affective diversity in top management teams, Administrative Science Quarterly 45(4): 802-836.

Bartel CA and Saavedra R (2000) The collective construction of work group moods, Administrative

Science Quarterly 45(2): 197-231.

Belbin RM (1981). Management teams: Why they succeed or fail , Hienemann, London.

Bell BS and Kozlowski SWJ (2002) A typology of virtual teams: Implications for effective

leadership, Group & Organization Management 27(1): 14-49. Page 13 of 18 ANZAM 2011

Bell ST (2007) Deep-level composition variables as predictors of team performance: A meta-analysis,

Journal of Applied Psychology 92(3): 595-615.

Bell ST, Villado AJ, Lukasik MA, Belau L and Briggs AL (2011) Getting specific about demographic

diversity variable and team performance relationships: A meta-analysis, Journal of Management

37(3): 709-743.

Beyerlein MM, Johnson DA and Beyerlein ST (Eds) (1997) Advances in interdisciplinary studies of

work team s, JAI Press, London.

Borman WC and Motowidlo SJ (1993) Expanding the criterion domain to include elements of

contextual performance, in Schmitt N and Borman WC (Eds) Personnel selection in

organizations, pp71-98, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco.

Bourgeois P and Hess U (2008) The impact of social context on mimicry, Journal of Nonverbal

Behavior 77: 343-352.

Chattopadhyay P, George E and Lawrence SA (2004) Why does dissimilarity matter? Exploring self-

categorization, self-enhancement, and uncertainty reduction, Journal of Applied Psychology

89(5): 892-900.

Cole MS, Walter F and Bruch H (2008) Affective mechanisms linking dysfunctional behavior to

performance in work teams: A moderated mediation study, Journal of Applied Psychology

93(5): 945-958.

Decety J and Jackson PL (2004) The functional architecture of human empathy, Behavioral and

Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews 3(2): 71-100.

De Dreu CKW and Weingart LR (2003) Task versus relationship conflict, team performance, and

team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis, Journal of Applied Psychology 88(4): 741-749.

Dimberg U (1982) Facial reactions to facial expressions, Psychophysiology 19(6): 643-648.

Druskat VU and Wolff SB (2001) Building the emotional intelligence of groups, Harvard Business

Review 79(3): 81-90.

Epstude K and Mussweiler T (2009) What you feel is how you compare: How comparisons influence

the social induction of affect, Emotion 9(1): 1-14. ANZAM 2011 Page 14 of 18

Fujimura T, Sato W and Suzuki N (2010) Facial expression arousal level modulates facial mimicry,

International Journal of Psychophysiology 76(2): 88-92.

Garcia-Prieto P, Bellard E and Schneider S (2003) Experiencing diversity, conflict and emotions in

teams, Applied Psychology: An International Review 52(3): 413–440.

George JM (1990) Personality, affect, and behavior in groups, Journal of Applied Psychology 75(2):

107-116.

George JM (1996) Group affective tone, in West MA (Ed) Handbook of work group psychology ,

pp77-93, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, Chichester.

George JM and Brief AP (1992) Feeling good-doing good: A conceptual analysis of the mood at

work-organizational spontaneity relationship, Psychological Bulletin 112(2): 310-329.

George JM and King EB (2007) Potential pitfalls of affect convergence in teams: Functions and

dysfunctions of group affective tone, in Mannix EA, Neale MA and Anderson CP (Eds)

Research on managing groups and teams , pp 97-123, JAI Press, Oxford UK.

Hackman JR (1987) The design of work teams, in Lorsch JW (Ed) Handbook of organizational

behaviour , pp315-342, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs NJ.

Harrison DA, Price KH and Bell MP (1998) Beyond relational demography: Time and the effects of

surface-and deep-level diversity on work group cohesion, Academy of Management Journal

41(1): 96-107.

Harrison DA, Price KH, Gavin JH and Florey AT (2002) Time, teams, and task performance:

Changing effects on surface- and deep-level diversity on group functioning, Academy of

Management Journal 45(5): 1029-1045.

Hatfield E, Cacioppo JT and Rapson RL (1992) Primitive emotional contagion, in Clark MS (Ed)

Review of personality and social psychology: Emotions and social behavior , pp151-177, Sage,

Newbury Park CA.

Hatfield E, Cacioppo JT and Rapson RL (1994) Emotional contagion , Cambridge University Press,

Cambridge. Page 15 of 18 ANZAM 2011

Hess U, Kappas A, McHugo GJ, Lanzetta JT and Kleck RE (1992) The facilitative effect of facial

expression on the self-generation of emotion, International Journal Psychophysiology 12: 251-

265.

Hess U, Philippot P and Blairy S (1998) Facial reactions to emotional facial expressions: Affect or

cognition, Cognition & Emotion 12(4): 509-531.

Ilies R, Wagner DT and Morgeson FP (2007) Explaining affective linkages in teams: Individual

differences in susceptibility to contagion and individualism-collectivism, Journal of Applied

Psychology 92(4): 1140-1148.

Jordan PJ & Troth AC (2004) Managing emotions during team problem solving: Emotional

intelligence and conflict resolution, Human Performance 17(2): 195-218.

Kelly JR and Barsade SG (2001) Mood and emotions in small groups and work teams, Organizational

Behavior and Human Decision Processes 86(1): 99-130.

Kelly JR (2002) Mood and emotion in groups, in Hogg MA and Tindale S (Eds) Blackwell handbook

of social psychology , 3: 164-181, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford UK.

Kozlowski SWJ and Bell BS (2003) Work groups and teams in organizations, in Borman WC, Ilgen

DR and Klimoski RJ (Eds) Handbook of psychology , 12: 333-375, Wiley, New York.

Levenson RW, Ekman P and Friesen WV (1990) Voluntary facial action generates emotion-specific

autonomic nervous system activity, Psychophysiology 27(4): 363-384.

Marks MA, Mathieu JE and Zaccaro SJ (2001) A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team

processes, Academy of Management Review 26(3): 356-376.

McHugo GJ, Lanzetta JT and Bush LK (1991) The effect of attitudes on emotional reactions to

expressive displays of political leaders, Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 15(1): 19-41.

Milliken FJ and Martins LL (1996) Searching for common threads: Understanding the multiple effects

of diversity in organizational groups, Academy of Management Review 21(2): 402-433.

Mohammed S and Angell LC (2004) Surface- and deep-level diversity in workgroups: Examining the

moderating effects of team orientation and team process on relationship conflict, Journal of

Organizational Behavior 25(8): 1015-1039. ANZAM 2011 Page 16 of 18

Moody EJ, McIntosh DN, Mann LJ and Weisser KR (2007) More than mere mimicry? The influence

of emotion on rapid facial reactions to faces, Emotion 7(2): 447-457.

Morrison EW (1993) Newcomer information seeking: Exploring types, modes, sources, and

outcomes, Academy of Management Journal 36(3): 557-589.

Neumann R and Strack F (2000) Mood contagion: The automatic transfer of mood between persons,

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 79(2): 211-223.

Northcraft GB, Polzer JT, Neale MA and Gamer RM (1995) Diversity, social identity, and

performance: Emergent social dynamics in cross-functional teams, in Jackson SE and Ruderman

MN (Eds) Diversity in work teams , pp69-96, American Psychological Association, Washington

DC.

Oakes P, Haslam SA and Turner JC (1998) The role of prototypicality in group influence and

cohesion: Contextual variation in the graded structure of social categories, in Worchel S,

Morales JF, Paez D and Deschamps JC (Eds) Social identity: International perspectives , pp75-

92, Sage Publications, London.

Pelled LH, Eisenhardt KM and Xin KR (1999) Exploring the black box: An analysis of work group

diversity, conflict and performance, Administrative Science Quarterly 44: 1-28.

Pirola-Merlo A, Härtel CEJ, Mann L and Hirst G (2002) How leaders influence the impact of

affective events on team climate and performance in R&D teams, Leadership Quarterly 13(5):

561-581.

Platow MJ, Haslam SA, Both A, Chew I, Cuddon M, Goharpey N, Maurer J, Rosini S, Tsekouras A

and Grace DM (2005) “It’s not funny if they're laughing”: Self-categorization, social influence,

and responses to canned laughter, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 41:542-550.

Schneider B (1987) The people make the place, Personnel Psychology 40: 437-453.

Stewart GL (2006) A meta-analytic review of relationships between team design features and team

performance, Journal of Management 32(1): 29-55.

Sullins ES (1991) Emotional contagion revisited: Effects of social comparison and expressive style on

mood convergence, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 17(2): 166-174. Page 17 of 18 ANZAM 2011

Sy T, Côté S and Saavedra R (2005) The contagious leader: Impact of the leader’s mood on the mood

of group members, group affective tone, and group processes, Journal of Applied Psychology

90(2): 295-305.

Tanghe J, Wisse B and Van Der Flier H (2010) The formation of group affect and team effectiveness:

The moderating role of identification, British Journal of Management 21: 340-358.

Totterdell P (2000) Catching moods and hitting runs: Mood linkage and subjective performance in

professional sport teams, Journal of Applied Psychology 85(6): 848-859.

Totterdell P, Kellett S, Briner RB and Teuchmann K (1998) Evidence of mood linkage in work

groups, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74(6): 1504-1515.

Turner JC (1982) Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group, in Tajfel H (Ed) Social identity

and intergroup relations , pp15-40, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK.

van der Schalk J, Fischer A, Doosje B, Wigboldus D, Hawk S, Rotteveel M and Hess U (2011)

Convergent and divergent responses to emotional displays of ingroup and outgroup, Emotion

11(2): 286-298.

van Knippenberg D and Schippers MC (2007) Work group diversity, Annual Review of Psychology

58: 515-41.

Weisbuch M and Ambady N (2008) Affective divergence: Automatic responses to others’ emotions

depend on group membership, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 95(5): 1063-1079.

Zajonc RB (1985) Emotion and facial efference: A theory reclaimed, Science 228: 15-21.

ANZAM 2011 Page 18 of 18

Figure 1: Model of the Effects of Personality Heterogeneity in Groups