Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Introduction
Organizations often rely on groups for decisionmaking based on the assumption that groups
possess a broader range of informational resources
and more diversity of insights than individuals
(Ilgen et al., 2005; Jackson, 1991; Tindale, Kameda
and Hinsz, 2001). This is expected to enhance
decision quality when groups exchange and integrate the task-relevant information and perspectives that may be distributed over their members
(De Dreu, Nijstad and van Knippenberg, 2008;
Hinsz, Tindale and Vollrath, 1997; van Knippenberg, De Dreu and Homan, 2004). However,
group decision-making studies show that groups
typically are poor users of their distributed
informational resources. Groups with distributed
information often fail to discuss individual group
members unique information and focus more on
information known to all members before group
discussion (Stasser and Titus, 1985; Wittenbaum
and Stasser, 1996). Even when unique information and perspectives are entered into group
This research was nancially supported by Grant 40201-043 of the Netherlands Foundations for Scientic
Research (NWO) to Daan van Knippenberg.
r 2009 British Academy of Management. Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford
OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA, 02148, USA.
376
377
aectivity and not to the higher levels of negative
aectivity that may be observed in clinical samples
(Watson and Clark, 1984; Watson, Clark and
Tellegen, 1988), just as moods reect low-intensity
aective states that do not have the intensity of
emotions (Forgas, 1995). It is these mild levels of
negative aect that are associated with more
extensive information processing rather than with
some of the dysfunctional consequences of clinical
levels of negative aectivity.
Key to understanding the inuence of negative
aectivity on information processing is the proposition that aect has an important signalling function
aective states are informative to the individual.
Aect signals whether the state of things requires
attention and potentially action or is satisfactory
and does not require vigilant monitoring. Negative
aect signals that the state of things is problematic
and therefore requires attention and potential
action. As a consequence, negative aect is associated with more extensive information processing
and greater openness and attention to new information (Bless and Schwarz, 1999; Clore, Schwarz and
Conway, 1994; Forgas, 1995; Forgas and Bower,
1987; Forgas and George, 2001; Frijda, 1988;
Schwarz, 1990; Schwarz and Bless, 1991). Negative
aect does not simply inuence cognitive eort or
processing capacity, but rather induces a particular
style of processing (Bless and Fiedler, 2006). Negative aect supports a bottom-up processing style (i.e.
evidence-driven rather than preference-driven) focused on external/situational information relevant
to the issue (e.g. task) at hand. Negative aect thus
may motivate adapting the internal state (e.g. attitudes, beliefs, preferences) to new information (e.g.
the requirements of a problematic external state)
(Bless, 2001; Bless and Fiedler, 2006; Fiedler, 2001;
Forgas, 1995, 2002; Forgas and George, 2001).
At the individual level of analysis, these information processing benets of negative aect/
aectivity (i.e. of mild levels of negative aect/
aectivity compared with lower levels) have been
demonstrated for a variety of issues. Research in
persuasive communication for instance shows
that negative mood compared with positive mood
results in more careful information processing
(Bohner et al., 1992; Mackie and Worth, 1989)
and work by Forgas suggests that negative compared with neutral moods lead to more accurate
perceptions and attributions of external stimuli
(Forgas, 1998; Forgas, Laham and Vargas, 2005).
Negative aectivity is likewise associated with
378
379
Method
Sample and design
Two hundred and seventy students (175 male and
95 female) from a university in The Netherlands
participated in the study for monetary compensation (10 euro, approximately 13 US dollars or
9 pounds sterling). The majority of the participants were management students (70%). Their
mean age was 20 (SD 5 1.89). The experimental
design included distribution of information as an
experimental manipulation (distributed versus
380
fully shared) and negative aectivity as a quasiexperimental factor. Participants were randomly
assigned to 90 groups of three, and groups were
randomly assigned to the experimental conditions. Dependent variables were group information elaboration and decision quality.
Data of some groups could not be included because of missing values. For one group the decisions
were not available, ve groups were not videotaped
due to technical problems, in one group a participant did not ll out the questionnaire that measured
negative aectivity, and in two groups participants
did not ll out the items that measured the manipulation check for distributed information.1 Finally,
residual analysis identied two groups as outliers on
the information elaboration measures. When reexamining these groups using the audio-video data,
one of the groups seemed to have incorrectly
understood the instructions, while no irregularities
were found in the other group. Subsequently, this
one group as well as the nine other groups described
above were excluded from further analyses.
Decision task
The experimental task was a three-person decision
task that was an altered version of Architectural
Design Firm (Palmer and Thompson, 1998).
Although the original task was a negotiation task,
the task was changed to make it a purely cooperative decision task. Participants received a case in
which they had to design a house, and in which a
client specied required features and a limited
budget. Participants were told that they were a
team of experts who had to work together to (a)
make a design that met the requirements and
budget of the client and (b) earn maximum prot
for the architectural rm. All participants were
given information about pricing for various
options they could include in the design plan, a
prot schedule (indicating the amount of prot for
the rm if an option would be included in the
3
381
382
Dependent measures
Manipulation check. To assess the success of the
distribution of information manipulation we used
four items (responses on ve-point scales: 1 5 disagree, 5 5 agree). Examples of items are The other
two group members had partly other information
than I and The other two group members had
exactly the same information as I (reverse coded).
To assess interrater agreement we used the awg(1)
value (instead of the more frequently used rwg(1)
index), following the recommendations of R. D.
Brown and Hauenstein (2005). We did not rely on
ICC(1) because indices of agreement in this context
seem more important than indices of consistency in
scores over group members (cf. Kozlowski and
Hattrup, 1992). The awg(1) value for the manipulation check was 0.79, indicating strong agreement,
so this variable was aggregated to the group level
(a 5 0.98).
Information elaboration. Group information elaboration was assessed through behavioural observation using audio-video recordings of the group
discussions. Coding followed the logic of the coding scheme developed by van Ginkel and van
Knippenberg (2008), which is rooted in van
Knippenberg, De Dreu and Homans (2004) analysis and denition of group information elaboration
(also see van Ginkel and van Knippenberg, 2009;
van Ginkel, Tindale and van Knippenberg, in press;
Homan et al., 2007; Kooij-de Bode, van Knippenberg and van Ginkel, 2008). The rating scheme used
in the present study resulted in scores on a ve-point
scale, where each scale point is operationalized in
terms of specic behavioural standards observable
from the audio-video recordings. In line with earlier
research in distributed information these standards
include such behaviour as the exchange and repetition of information (e.g. Larson, Foster-Fishman
and Keys, 1994; Stasser, Taylor and Hanna, 1989).
Based on the conceptualization of information
elaboration these standards also include behavioural indicators of the actual use and integration of
distributed information such as asking questions
about information introduced in group discussion
or drawing conclusions from the combination of
dierent pieces of information (note that these
behaviours cannot exist independently from the
exchange of information).
A score of 5 was given when the group elaborated
thoroughly on the information, i.e. when the three
Results
Treatment of the data
Regression analyses were conducted for the manipulation check for informational diversity and the
three hypotheses. We dummy-coded distribution
of information ( 0.5 for distributed information
and 0.5 for fully shared information). We centred
negative aectivity and computed the cross-product of negative aectivity and the dummy for
distribution of information following the recommendations of Aiken and West (1991).
Manipulation check
Hierarchical regression of the manipulation
check on negative aectivity, distribution of information and their cross-product only showed a
main eect of distribution of information,
b 5 0.93, po0.001. Groups with fully shared
information indicated less diversity of information (M 5 1.81, SD 5 0.70) than groups in
which information was distributed among group
members (M 5 4.58, SD 5 0.29). No inuence of
negative aectivity was observed, b 5 0.02, ns,
nor was there an interaction eect of distribution of information and negative aectivity,
b 5 0.01, ns. We concluded that the manir 2009 British Academy of Management.
383
Information elaboration
Decision quality
Distribution of information
Distributed
Fully Shared
Decision Quality
Information Elaboration
70
69
68
67
Distribution of information
Distributed
Fully Shared
66
65
1SD
+1SD
Negative Affectivity
1SD
+1SD
Negative Affectivity
384
Discussion
Groups often make suboptimal use of their
distributed information (Wittenbaum and Stasser, 1996). Research has identied group members tendency to search for common ground and
to process information in a preference-driven way
(as opposed to a bottom-up, evidence-driven
way) as key inuences in this respect. This leads
group members to follow emerging group consensus based on the information already available
to all prior to group discussion, while ignoring
distributed information that may argue against
emerging group consensus. The current analysis
points to group member negative aectivity as an
important inuence to the good here, because
negative aectivity is associated with a processing
SE b
1.26
0.88
1.92
0.02
1.90
2.85
1.30
Boot con. ind. eects
2.91
0.45
0.42
0.23
0.80
0.97
0.56
1.90
0.26
Boot SE
0.92
0.94
p
3.14
3.89
2.39
0.002
o0.001
0.019
0.02
3.37
1.50
4.95
Boot z
3.17
0.48
0.98
0.001
0.14
o0.001
Boot p
0.002
0.63
Note. Step 1 consists of regressing information elaboration on negative aectivity, distribution of information and their interaction.
Step 2 consists of regressing group decision quality on negative aectivity, distribution of information, their interaction, and
information elaboration. Step 3 consists of testing the conditional indirect eects of negative aectivity on group decision quality
through information elaboration for groups with distributed information and groups with fully shared information using
bootstrapping.
Distribution of
Information
Negative Affectivity
Information
Elaboration
Decision Quality
Figure 3. Interaction eect of negative aectivity and distribution of information on decision quality: mediation by information
elaboration.
style that is less bound by preferences and particularly attuned to new information. In support of
this analysis, groups with distributed information
engaged in more information elaboration (Hypothesis 1) and reached higher-quality decisions
(Hypothesis 2) the higher their members were in
negative aectivity. Further corroborating our
proposition that this inuence of negative aectivity is tied in particular to the processing of
new (i.e. distributed) information, group member
negative aectivity did not aect information
elaboration or decision quality in groups with
fully shared information. Supporting our proposition regarding the key role of information
elaboration in mobilizing distributed information, the interactive eect of negative aectivity
and distribution of information was mediated by
information elaboration (Hypothesis 3).
Implications for theory and practice
Perhaps somewhat counter-intuitively, the present study thus suggests that negative aectivity
the moderate as compared with lower levels
studied here may have positive eects. For group
tasks requiring the careful elaboration of new
information it may pay o to compose teams with
members with moderately high negative aectivity.
While we emphasize that the current ndings
concern trait aect and not state aect and that
conclusions regarding the role of state negative
aect require future research, the implication of
these ndings for negative mood states is interesting and potentially important. Our ndings
would suggest that just as negative aectivity
may have good eects, a negative aective state
is not necessarily a bad thing. Indeed, it may be
very functional that situational inuences that are
typically associated with negative aect and
distress such as crisis and uncertainty elicit negative
aect (cf. Frijda, 1988). Negative aect may
motivate appropriate responses to the situation if
it leads group members to be more vigilant and to
r 2009 British Academy of Management.
385
better process new information that is potentially
relevant to resolving the problems at hand. Rather
than only focusing on alleviating negative aect
states in times of crisis and uncertainty, it may
therefore be valuable to try to mobilize these states
in situation-appropriate responses. This, however,
is a hypothesis to be tested in future research and
not a conclusion that can be based on the current
ndings. In that sense, the present ndings invite
future research to extend the current research to
the inuence of negative mood states to more
comprehensively cover the inuence of negative
aect in groups.
An interesting implication of the nding that
negative aectivity is especially benecial in groups
with distributed information lies in the clear link
between distributed information and diversity
(van Knippenberg and van Ginkel, in press; van
Knippenberg and Schippers, 2007; Williams and
OReilly, 1998). As van Knippenberg, De Dreu
and Homan (2004) argue, the potential benets of
work group diversity for group performance lie in
diversity as an informational resource in the pool
of task-relevant knowledge, expertise and perspectives available to the group. Viewed from this
perspective, diversity is a distributed informational
resource, and it requires group information elaboration to mobilize this informational resource.
Integrating these observations with the present
analysis, we may thus propose that group member
negative aectivity may be instrumental in harvesting the benets in diversity.
An important point to note here is that negative
aectivity does not imply negative relationships
between group members. Good relationships may
be conducive to the eective use of distributed
information (Gruenfeld et al., 1996; Kooijde Bode, van Knippenberg and van Ginkel, 2008;
Phillips, Northcraft and Neale, 2006) and to group
performance more generally (De Dreu and Weingart, 2003; Mullen and Copper, 1994). If group
member negative aectivity were to disrupt relationships between group members, we would not
expect to obtain the current ndings. Negative
aectivity need not lead to dysfunctional social
behaviour, however, nor does negative aect in
a group necessarily lead to problematic outcomes.
Sy, Cote and Saavedra (2005) for instance
observed that groups in a negative mood were
more persistent in task performance than groups in
a positive or in a neutral mood. In a related
vein, both Damen, van Knippenberg and van
386
387
388
our propositions regarding the inuence of negative aect. Future research that would also include
such motivational measures might in that sense be
valuable.
The outcome of interest in the present study
was group decision quality, a group level variable, and the group process predicting decision
quality, information elaboration, clearly is a
group-level variable too. Negative aectivity,
even though aggregated to the group level for
obvious reasons in the present study (i.e. we study
group-level process and outcome), is inherently an
individual-level factor and members within the
group may dier in their level of negative
aectivity. Individual performance at work is often
also enacted in the context of a work group or
team (e.g. Hirst, van Knippenberg and Zhou,
2009), and an interesting question for future
research would therefore be whether in a group
context there are individual-level outcomes that
would be contingent on group member negative
aectivity. The more elaborate information processing of group members higher in negative
aectivity could for instance mean that group
members with higher negative aectivity learn
more (e.g. acquire new knowledge) in the course
of group interaction, or alternatively that all group
members learn more as a consequence of more
extensive group information elaboration in a group
where the average level of negative aectivity is
higher. Exploring such multilevel issues (i.e. group
composition and group process as predictor of
individual-level outcomes) in future research would
further advance our understanding of the role of
negative aectivity in work groups and teams.
While groups with distributed information
higher in negative aectivity engaged in more
information elaboration, they did not outperform
groups with fully shared information. This
nding should be seen in the context of this
current study, where methodological considerations require that groups with distributed information and groups with fully shared information
have access to the exact same pool of information
at the group level (i.e. information distribution
and information available to the group should
not be confounded). In organizational practice,
however, groups with distributed information
(e.g. cross-functional teams) will typically have
access to a larger pool of information than
groups in which information is fully shared (cf.
van Knippenberg, De Dreu and Homans (2004)
r 2009 British Academy of Management.
References
Aiken, L. S. and S. G. West (1991). Multiple Regression:
Testing and Interpreting Interactions. London: Sage.
Baas, M., C. K. W. De Dreu and B. A. Nijstad (2008). A metaanalysis of 25 years of mood-creativity research: hedonic
tone, activation, or regulatory focus?, Psychological Bulletin,
134, pp. 779806.
Baron, K. M. and D. A. Kenny (1986). The moderator
mediator variable distinction in social psychology research:
conceptual strategic, and statistical considerations, Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, pp. 11731182.
Barrick, M. R., G. L. Stewart, M. J. Neubert and M. K. Mount
(1998). Relating member ability and personality to workteam processes and team eectiveness, Journal of Applied
Psychology, 83, pp. 377391.
Barsade, S. G., A. J. Ward, J. D. F. Turner and J. A.
Sonnenfeld (2000). To your hearts content: a model of
389
aective diversity in top management, Administrative Science
Quarterly, 45, pp. 802836.
Beersma, B., J. R. Hollenbeck, S. E. Humphrey, H. Moon, D.
E. Conlon and D. R. Ilgen (2003). Cooperation, competition, and team performance: towards a contingency approach, Academy of Management Journal, 46, pp. 572590.
Bless, H. (2001). Mood and the use of general knowledge
structures. In L. L. Martin (ed.), Theories of Mood and
Cognition: A Users Guidebook, pp. 926. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Bless, H. and K. Fiedler (2006). Mood and the regulation of
information processing and behavior. In J. P. Forgas, K. D.
Williams and W. von Hippel (eds), Hearts and Minds:
Aective Inuences on Social Cognition and Behavior, pp. 65
84. New York: Psychology Press.
Bless, H. and N. Schwarz (1999). Sucient and necessary
conditions in dual process models: the case of mood and
processing styles. In S. Chaiken and Y. Trope (eds), Dual
Process Models in Social Psychology, pp. 423440. New
York: Guilford.
Bohner, G., K. Crow, H.-P. Erbs and N. Schwarz (1992).
Aect and persuasion: mood eects on the processing of
message content and contextual cues and on subsequent
behaviour, European Journal of Social Psychology, 22, pp.
511530.
Bramesfeld, K. D. and K. Gasper (2008). Happily putting the
pieces together: a test of two explanations for the eects of
mood on group-level information processing, British Journal
of Social Psychology, 47, pp. 285309.
Brief, A. P. and H. M. Weiss (2002). Organizational behavior:
aect in the workplace, Annual Review of Psychology, 53, pp.
279307.
Brown, D. J. and R. G. Lord (1999). The utility of experimental
research in the study of transformational/charismatic leadership, Leadership Quarterly, 10, pp. 531553.
Brown, R. D. and N. M. A. Hauenstein (2005). Interrater
agreement reconsidered: an alternative to the rwg indices,
Organizational Research Methods, 8, pp. 165184.
Clore, G. L., N. Schwarz and M. Conway (1994). Cognitive
causes and consequences of emotion. In R. S. Wyer and T.
K. Srull (eds), Handbook of Social Cognition, 2nd edn, pp.
323419. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Damen, F., B. van Knippenberg and D. van Knippenberg
(2008). Aective match: leader emotional displays, follower
positive aect, and follower performance, Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 38, pp. 868902.
De Dreu, C. K. W. and L. R. Weingart (2003). Task and
relationship conict, team performance, and team member
satisfaction: a meta-analysis, Journal of Applied Psychology,
88, pp. 741749.
De Dreu, C. K. W., B. A. Nijstad and D. van Knippenberg
(2008). Motivated information processing in group judgment
and decision making, Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 12, pp. 2249.
De Dreu, C. K. W., L. R. Weingart and S. Kwon (2000).
Inuence of social motives on integrative negotiation: a
meta-analytical review and test of two theories, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 78, pp. 889905.
van Dick, R., D. van Knippenberg, S. Hagele, Y. R. F.
Guillaume and F. C. Brodbeck (2008). Group diversity and
group identication: the moderating role of diversity beliefs,
Human Relations, 61, pp. 14631492.
390
391
Stasser, G. and W. Titus (1985). Pooling unshared information
in group decision-making: biased information sampling
during discussion, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, pp. 14671478.
Stasser, G., L. A. Taylor and C. Hanna (1989). Information
sampling in structured and unstructured discussions of threeand six-person groups, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 57, pp. 6778.
Staw, B. M. and S. G. Barsade (1993). Aect and managerial
performance: a test of the sadder-but-wiser vs. happier-andsmarter hypotheses, Administrative Science Quartely, 38, pp.
304331.
Steiner, I. D. (1972). Group Processes and Productivity. New
York: Academic Press.
Sy, T., S. Cote and R. Saavedra (2005). The contagious leader:
impact of the leaders mood on the mood of group members,
group aective tone, and group processes, Journal of Applied
Psychology, 90, pp. 295305.
Tindale, R. S., T. Kameda and V. B. Hinsz (2001). Group
decision-making. In M. A. Hogg and J. Cooper (eds), Sage
Handbook of Social Psychology, pp. 381403. London: Sage.
Tong, E. M. W., C. R. M. Tan, N. A. Latheef, M. F. B. Selamat
and D. K. B. Tann (2008). Conformity: mood matters,
European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, pp. 601611.
van Ginkel, W. P. and D. van Knippenberg (2008). Group
information elaboration and group decision making: the role
of shared task representations, Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 105, pp. 8297.
van Ginkel, W. P. and D. van Knippenberg (2009). Knowledge
about the distribution of information and group decision
making: when and why does it work?, Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108, pp. 218229.
van Ginkel, W.P, R. S. Tindale and D. van Knippenberg (in
press). Team reexivity, development of shared task
representations, and the use of distributed information in
group decision making, Group Dynamics.
Van Kleef, G. A., A. C. Homan, B. Beersma, D. van
Knippenberg, B. van Knippenberg and F. Damen (2009).
Searing sentiment or cold calculation? The eects of leader
emotional displays on team performance depend on follower
epistemic motivation, Academy of Management Journal, 52,
pp. 562580.
van Knippenberg, D. and W. P. van Ginkel (in press). The
categorizationelaboration model of work group diversity:
wielding the double-edged sword. In R. Crisp (ed.), The
Psychology of Social and Cultural Diversity. Malden, MA:
Wiley-Blackwell.
van Knippenberg, B. and D. van Knippenberg (2005). Leader
self-sacrice and leadership eectiveness: the moderating role
of leader prototypicality, Journal of Applied Psychology, 90,
pp. 2537.
van Knippenberg, D. and M. C. Schippers (2007). Work group
diversity, Annual Review of Psychology, 58, pp. 515541.
van Knippenberg, D., C. K. W. De Dreu and A. C. Homan
(2004). Work group diversity and group performance: an
integrative model and research agenda, Journal of Applied
Psychology, 89, pp. 10081022.
van Knippenberg, D., B. van Knippenberg, G. A. van Kleef
and F. Damen (2008). Leadership, aect, and emotions. In
N. Ashkanasy and C. Cooper (eds), Research Companion to
Emotions in Organizations, pp. 465475. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
392
Hanneke J. M. Kooij-de Bode received her PhD in business administration from the Rotterdam
School of Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands. She currently works as
researcher/advisor at the Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientic Research (TNO). Her
main research interest focuses on organizational processes and labour productivity.
Daan van Knippenberg is Professor of Organizational Behaviour at the Rotterdam School of
Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands. His research interests include
leadership, work group diversity, group decision-making, creativity and innovation, and social
identity processes in organizations. He is an associate editor of Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes and Journal of Organizational Behavior, founding editor of Organizational
Psychology Review, and co-founder of the Erasmus Center for Leadership Studies.
Wendy P. van Ginkel is Assistant Professor of Organizational Behaviour at the Rotterdam School
of Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands. She also received her PhD from
this school. Her current research interests include team decision-making, team diversity, team
leadership and shared cognition.
Copyright of British Journal of Management is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.