emotion contagion in virtual teams affect performance self efficacy l.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 50

- PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 424 Views
  • Uploaded on

Emotion Contagion in Virtual Teams – Affect, Performance & Self Efficacy Arik Cheshin Prof. Anat Rafaeli Roy Israely What is team emotion? Bottom Up vs. Top Down Group 1 + OR + + What is the emotion of this group? Group Emotion Emotions in Teams

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about '' - Leo


Download Now An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
emotion contagion in virtual teams affect performance self efficacy

Emotion Contagionin Virtual Teams –Affect, Performance & Self Efficacy

Arik Cheshin

Prof. Anat Rafaeli

Roy Israely

bottom up vs top down
Bottom Up vs. Top Down

Group 1

+

OR

+

+

What is the emotion of this group?

Group Emotion

emotions in teams
Emotions in Teams
  • Team emotion convergence (Totterdell, et al., 1998).
  • Observed and Identified by outsiders (Bartel & Saavedra, 2000)
  • Emotional Contagion (Barsade, 2002)
emotion contagion
Emotion Contagion

Time 2

Time 1

what creates emotion contagion
What Creates Emotion Contagion?

Unconscious mimicking of others’ non verbal cues(Hatfield et al, 1994; Neumann & Strack, 2000).

Facial Feedback Hypothesis (Strack, et al, 1988)

what creates emotion contagion7
What Creates Emotion Contagion?

In social situations people blend in and match others’ tendencies.

Festinger’s Social Comparison Theory (1954)

Schachter’s Psychology of Affiliation (1959)

Salanick and Pfeffer’s Social Information Processing (1978)

research question
Research Question -

What happens when non verbal cues are absent?

Virtual Teams:

Can emotion of one member spread to other members?

virtual teams
Virtual Teams

Technology

Virtual Teams

Globalization

Group

Based Work

slide10

Computer Mediated Communication

  • Email
  • Chat rooms
  • Instant messenger
  • Video conferences
  • Voice over IP
  • Discussion groups
emotion in cmc
Emotion in CMC
  • Emotions perceived in email (Byron and Baldridge, 2005).
  • Emoticons :-) display nonverbal visual cues, however, problematic (Walther & Addario, 2001).
  • Emotions in CMC negotiation (Van Kleef, De Dreu, & Manstead; 2004).
competing hypothesis
Competing Hypothesis

No – Non Verbal Cues

OR

Virtual Teams

Emotion

Contagion

No – Non Verbal Cues

OR

Virtual Teams

Emotion

Contagion

shape factory task
SHAPE FACTORY TASK
  • Simulates an interdependent team of 4 players (shapes)
  • Each player is a specialist in one field
  • A negotiation task
  • Has both an individual and a group aspect
slide14

שלום!

אשמח לקנות ממך עיגולים.

תודה

manipulation
Manipulation
  • A confederate displayed either Angry or Happyemotion based on past research. (Based on Barsade, 2002; Kopelman, Rosette, Thompson, 2006; Van Kleef et al, 2004)

In negotiation tasks angry partners are described as:

Stubborn, asking for initial higher prices, are unwilling to concede…

While happy partners are described as:

Flexible, willing to give in for an agreement, cooperative…

angry confederate
ANGRY Confederate
  • Examples of Angry messages:

המחיר שלך מרגיז אותי!

אתה ממש מכעיס אותי עם המחיר הזה!

אוף איזה עצבים איתך!

  • Ask for high prices
  • Negotiation
  • Possibility to reach agreement
happy confederate
HAPPY Confederate
  • Examples of Happy messages:

מצוין! המחיר הוא בדיוק כמו שקיוויתי

כיף לעשות איתך עסקים!

איזה כיף לעבוד איתך :-)

  • Ask for reasonable price
  • Do not negotiate
experiment time line
Experiment Time Line

N=49 groups (25 happy)

51% female

Average age 24.7

Payment

DV

Task

Practice R

Instructions

PANAS

Arrival

~1 min

~3 min

~ 20 min

12 min

3 R X 12 min

~10 min

~3 min

nested model
Nested Model

Individual

Condition

Group

manipulation check

To what degree did expresshappiness?

T(47) = 9.34

p<0.001

Manipulation Check

To what degree did expressanger?

T(47) = 13.41

p<0.001

individual emotion

“To what degree did your shape display Anger?”

T(142) = 2.04

p<0.05

“To what degree did your shape display Happiness?”

T(142) = 0.84

n.s.

Individual Emotion
individual emotion negative affect
Individual Emotion - Negative Affect

F(1, 243) = 37.58 p<0.001

group emotion bottom up

+

+

+

AggregatedAnger Ratings

G E

T(47) = 7.43

p<0.001

AggregatedHappiness Ratings

T(47) = 4.57

p<0.01

Group Emotion – Bottom up

Rwg(j) = 0.87

group emotion top down
Group Emotion – Top Down

“to what degree was the atmosphere in the team Angry/Happy?”

The positive question was reversely coded (the two items were negatively correlated, r=-.263, p<0.01)

Rwg(j) – 0.77

T(47) = 3.36

p<0.01

mimicking

Number of negative messages sent

T(47) = 5.11

p<0.001

Number of positive messages sent

T(47) = 5.48

p<0.001

Mimicking???

Cohen’s Kappa =0.78

discussion
Discussion

Emotions can be identified in virtual teams

Emotion contagion can still occur without non verbal cues!

Social comparison probably plays a larger role in emotional contagion than previously thought.

Mimicking of message tone might play a role in emotional contagion as well.

So…..

WHY SHOULD WE CARE????

performance
Performance
  • Affective Events Theory - emotional events in work influence performance as they distract workers (Weiss, & Cropanzano, 1996).
  • In the groups, happiness enhances cooperation which helps teams perform better (Barsade, 2002).
individual performance
Individual Performance

T(145) = 3.80

p<0.001

group performance
Group Performance

T(47) = 2.97

p<0.001

slide32
Did

Emotion

Influence

Performance

?

game data
Game Data

Might be influenced by

confederate behavior

corrected individual performance
“Corrected” Individual Performance

T(145) = 3.09

p<0.001

Angry: 128.15+24 =152.15, Happy: unchanged

game data35
Game Data

Might be influenced by

confederate behavior

Based ONLY on

individual behavior

discussion36
Discussion
  • Emotion effects performance both on the individual and the group performance
  • Happy emotion might increase cooperation which leads to betterperformance in teams.

But…..

WHAT IS THE MECHANISM?

self efficacy
Self Efficacy

‘..a judgment of one's ability to execute a particular behavior pattern..’ (Bandura, 1997)

Sources of Self Efficacy evaluation –

  • How well did I do in the past?
  • How well did others do?
  • What are people saying?
  • How do I feel?
hypothesis on self efficacy
Hypothesis on Self Efficacy

Interaction with an angry team member will decreaseself efficacy when compared to interaction with a happy team member.

Self Efficacy

experiment time line39
Experiment Time Line

SelfEfficacy II

N=31 groups (16 happy)

53% female

Average age 24.6

Payment

DV

Task

SelfEfficacy I

Practice R

Instructions

PANAS

Arrival

~1 min

~3 min

~ 20 min

12 min

3 R X 12 min

~10 min

~3 min

self efficacy40
Self Efficacy

F(1, 168) = 37.06 p<0.001

did emotion effect self efficacy
Did Emotion Effect Self Efficacy?

Explained Variable: Self Efficacy

Model 1

Model 2

Performance

0.50**

0.36**

Others’ Emotion

-

0.41**

F

33.7**

33.3**

R2

0.25

0.40

Adjusted R2

0.24

0.39

ΔR2

-

0.15**

** p< 0.01

mediation

Performance

Self Efficacy

Mediation

0.46**

0.50**

-0.53**

Emotion

0=Happy

1=Angry

-0.32**

-.08

** p< 0.01

summary
Summary
  • Emotion contagion can occur without non-verbal cues (in virtual teams).
  • Emotion influences individual and group performance.
  • Self efficacy is influenced by other’s emotion.
  • Self efficacymediates the relationship between emotion and performance.
future directions
Future Directions
  • Emotion and Behavior will be separated to create:
panas individual affect
PANAS – Individual Affect

לפנייך מילות תיאור. אנא ציין עד כמה תיאורים אלו מבטאים אתתחושתך כעת, ואת רגשותיך כעת.

licensing exam
Licensing exam
  • לאמיר עולה 30$ ליצר עיגול.שירה יכולה ליצר עיגול בזול. מה מהדברים הבאים הוא הבחירה הגרועה ביותר שאמיר יכול לעשות?
  • א. לבקש לקנות משירה עיגול ב- 40$.
  • ב. לבנות את הצורה לבד ולא לבקש עזרה משירה.
  • ג. לבקש לקנות משירה לקנות עיגול בפחות מ-30$.
  • 2. לליאורה יש הזמנה (order) הכוללת משולש, עיגול וריבוע. היא הצליחה לקנות משולש ועיגול משחקנים אחרים. היא עדיין ממתינה לתגובה מהשחקן שמייצר ריבועים, אבל הסיבוב עומד להסתיים. מה כדאי לליאורה לעשות?
  • א. להמתין ולקוות שהריבוע יגיע.
  • ב. לייצר את הריבוע בעצמה ולמלא את ההזמנה לפני שהסיבוב יסתיים.
  • ג. לשמור על הצורות ולהשתמש בהם בסיבוב הבא.
manipulation check49
Manipulation Check

Cohen’s Kappa =0.78

The average of negative messages written by

T(47) = 43.64

p<0.001

The average of positive messages written by

T(47) = 32.16

p<0.001

self efficacy questionnaire
Self Efficacy Questionnaire
  • הצלחה במשחק "מפעל הצורות" תלויה במספר גורמים שונים. לפניך כמה משפטים הנוגעים במרכיב המשחק השונים. לאחר קריאת ההוראות, ציין מהי רמת הביטחון שלך כי תוכל לבצע כל אחד מהם במהלך המשחק.
  • (בסולם של 0 עד 100, כאשר 0- לא בטוח כלל, ו-100- בטוח ביותר)
  • במהלך כל סיבוב תידרש למלא 5 הזמנות לצורות. עד כמה אתה בטוח כי תוכל:
    • למלא הזמנה אחת לפני תום הסיבוב? _____
    • למלא שתי הזמנות לפני תום הסיבוב? _____
    • למלא שלוש הזמנות לפני תום הסיבוב? _____
    • למלא את כל ההזמנות לפני תום הסיבוב? _____
  • במהלך כל סיבוב יעמדו לרשותך 9 צורות אותן תוכל למכור לאחרים. עד כמה אתה בטוח כי תוכל:
    • למכור שלוש צורות לאחרים לפני תום הסיבוב? _____
    • למכור חמש צורות לאחרים לפני תום הסיבוב? _____
    • למכור שבע צורות לאחרים לפני תום הסיבוב? _____
    • למכור את כל הצורות לאחרים לפני תום הסיבוב? _____