Featured White Papers
- Oct. 14th: Simplified IT with Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) (ZDNet)
- PCI DSS therapy for the smaller retailer (McAfee)
- The rise of Web commuting (Citrix Online)
Content provided in partnership with
Business Services Industry
The ripple effect: emotional contagion and its influence on group behavior
Administrative Science Quarterly, Dec, 2002 by Sigal G. Barsade
Table 1
Manipulation Check of Perceptions of Confederate's Pleasantness by
Experimental Condition (A)
High Low
Pleasantness Pleasantness
Conditions Conditions
High High Low Low
pleasant pleasant pleasant pleasant
high low high low
energy energy energy energy
Confederate Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4
Affective Behavior (N = 23) (N = 21) (N = 24) (N = 23)
1. Participant's percep- 6.95 6.29 4.13 3.65
tions of confederate's
pleasantness
2. Participant's percep- 6.98 4.14 8.38 2.65
tions of confederate's
energy level
Chi-squared test
High vs. High vs.
low low Interaction
Confederate pleasantness energy between
Affective Behavior conditions conditions conditions
1. Participant's percep- 42.67 *** 1.85 .04
tions of confederate's
pleasantness
2. Participant's percep- 0.02 152.52 *** 17.31 ***
tions of confederate's
energy level
* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001; two-tailed test.
(A) Means in table are ratings given by subjects and video-coders of
the confederate's level of pleasantness.
Table 2
Correlations, Means, and Standard Deviations (A)
Variable Mean S.D. 1 2
1. Exp. condition: .49 .50 --
Confederate pleasantness
2. Exp. condition: .50 .50 -- --
Confederate energy
3. Confederate pleasantness 5.20 2.29 .59 **** .14
rated by participants (91) (91)
4. Confederate energy 5.55 2.70 -.01 .82 ****
rated by participants (91) (91)
5. Time 1 pleasant mood 6.78 1.02 -.14 .10
(self-report) (93) (93)
6. Time 2 pleasant mood 6.85 .98 .20 * -.13
(self-report) (93) (93)
7. Time 2 pleasant mood .08 1.07 .31 *** -.21 **
minus Time 1 pleasant (93) (93)
mood (self-report)
8. Video-coder rating of 2.56 .50 .45 **** .06
participant Time 2 (93) (93)
pleasant mood
9. Participant's rating of 6.23 1.58 .09 .13
own cooperative behavior (93) (93)
10. Others' ratings of 6.11 1.32 -.06 -.08
participant's cooperative (93) (93)
behavior
11. Participant's rating of .01 .71 .21 ** -.19
own performance (z-score) (93) (93)
12. Others' ratings of 65.42 16.54 .01 -.21 **
participant's task (93) (93)
performance
Variable 3 4 5
1. Exp. condition:
Confederate pleasantness
2. Exp. condition:
Confederate energy
3. Confederate pleasantness --
rated by participants
4. Confederate energy .19 * --
rated by participants (91)
5. Time 1 pleasant mood .03 .15 --
(self-report) (91) (91)
6. Time 2 pleasant mood .24 ** -.17 .43 ****
(self-report) (91) (91) (93)
7. Time 2 pleasant mood .19 * -.30 *** -.56 ****
minus Time 1 pleasant (91) (91) (93)
mood (self-report)
8. Video-coder rating of .36 **** -.01 .02
participant Time 2 (90) (90) (92)
pleasant mood
9. Participant's rating of .17 * -.11 .19 *
own cooperative behavior (91) (91) (93)
10. Others' ratings of -.03 -.04 -.11
participant's cooperative (90) (90) (92)
behavior
11. Participant's rating of .18 * -.27 *** .08
own performance (z-score) (91) (91) (93)
12. Others' ratings of -.05 -.35 **** -.03
participant's task (90) (90) (92)
performance
Variable 6 7 8
1. Exp. condition:
Confederate pleasantness
2. Exp. condition:
Confederate energy
3. Confederate pleasantness
rated by participants
4. Confederate energy
rated by participants
5. Time 1 pleasant mood
(self-report)
6. Time 2 pleasant mood --
(self-report)
7. Time 2 pleasant mood .51 **** --
minus Time 1 pleasant (93)
mood (self-report)
8. Video-coder rating of .25 ** .21 ** --
participant Time 2 (92) (92)
pleasant mood
9. Participant's rating of .39 **** .18 * .22 **
own cooperative behavior (93) (93) (92)
10. Others' ratings of .11 .21 ** .23 **
participant's cooperative (92) (92) (92)
behavior
11. Participant's rating of .55 *** .43 **** .17
own performance (z-score) (93) (93) (92)
12. Others' ratings of .16 .17 * .17 *
participant's task (92) (92) (92)
performance
Variable 9 10 11
1. Exp. condition:
Confederate pleasantness
2. Exp. condition:
Confederate energy
3. Confederate pleasantness
rated by participants
4. Confederate energy
rated by participants
5. Time 1 pleasant mood
(self-report)
6. Time 2 pleasant mood
(self-report)
7. Time 2 pleasant mood
minus Time 1 pleasant
mood (self-report)
8. Video-coder rating of
participant Time 2
pleasant mood
9. Participant's rating of
own cooperative behavior
10. Others' ratings of .30 ***
participant's cooperative (90)
behavior
11. Participant's rating of .23 ** .18 *
own performance (z-score) (91) (93)
12. Others' ratings of .03 .40 **** .40 ****
participant's task (92) (93) (92)
performance
* p < .10; ** < .05; *** < .01; **** < .001; two-tailed test.
(A) Number of subjects in parentheses. These correlations are based on
single-level analysis, pooled estimates of variance.
Table 3
Hierarchical Linear Modeling of Effect of Confederate's Emotion on
Subjects' Individual-level Contagion of Pleasant Mood (A)
High Low
Confederate Confederate
Pleasantness Pleasantness
Low High Low High
energy energy energy energy
Variable (N = 23) (N = 23) (N = 22) (N = 24)
Video-coder ratings of 2.76 2.75 2.25 2.41
participant's emotional (.51) (.51) (.37) (.40)
contagion
Self-ratings of emotional .66 .16 -.07 -.44
contagion (1.16) (1.11) (.99) (1.04)
Chi-square Test
Confederate Confederate
Variable pleasantness energy Interaction
Video-coder ratings of 10.30 *** .33 .40
participant's emotional
contagion
Self-ratings of emotional 9.97 *** 4.24 * .10
contagion
* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .005; two-tailed test.
(A) Unstandardized beta coefficients. Standard errors are in
parentheses. All analyses control for participants' self-reported Time
1 pleasant mood.
Table 4
ANCOVA Results of Effects of Confederate's Emotion on Subjects' Group-
level Contagion of Pleasant Mood (A)
High Low
Confederate Confederate
Pleasantness Pleasantness
Low High Low High
energy energy energy energy
Variable (N = 7) (N = 7) (N = 8) (N = 7)
Aggregated video-coder ratings 2.70 2.75 2.24 2.43
of participants' emotional (.42) (.37) (.31) (.30)
contagion (mean of the video-
coder's aggregated group
rating of participants' Time
2 pleasant mood)
Aggregated self-ratings of .57 .17 .03 -.39
emotion contagion (mean of the (.72) (.26) (.42) (.63)
groups' participants' Time 2
pleasant mood minus Time 1
pleasant mood)
Video-coders' ratings of 4.31 4.83 3.14 2.81
overall group pleasantness (.93) (.98) (.79) (.98)
Group members' ratings of 5.73 5.42 4.61 4.45
overall group pleasantness (.62) (.67) (.94) (1.05)
F-test
Confederate Confederate Inter-
Variable pleasantness energy action
Aggregated video-coder ratings 10.30 *** .33 .40
of participants' emotional
contagion (mean of the video-
coder's aggregated group
rating of participants' Time
2 pleasant mood)
Aggregated self-ratings of 8.41 *** 5.36 * .00
emotion contagion (mean of the
groups' participants' Time 2
pleasant mood minus Time 1
pleasant mood)
Video-coders' ratings of 20.68 *** .08 1.51
overall group pleasantness
Group members' ratings of 10.10 *** .47 .09
overall group pleasantness
* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .005; two-tailed test.
(A) Unstandardized beta coefficients. Standard errors are in
parentheses. All analyses control for participants' self-reported Time
1 pleasant mood.
Table 5
HLM Regression of Subjects' Emotional Contagion on Individual
Cooperation and Task Performance (A)
Group
Subject's members'
rating rating of
of own subject's
cooperative cooperative
behavior behavior
Variable Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
Controls
Participant mood at Time 0.27 .76 **** -.18 .22
1 (.20) (.20) (.10) (.19)
Percentage of funds -1.20 -1.51 2.24 1.79
participant received (3.22) (3.23) (1.49) (1.62)
Emotional contagion
Video-coder ratings of 1.09 -- 1.41 ** --
participant's Time 2 (.79) (.57)
mood
Participant's self-rating -- .73 *** -- .47 **
of Time 2 minus Time 1 (.30) (.22)
mood
Overall model [R.sup.2] .04 .12 .53 .43
Group
Subject's members'
rating rating of
of own subject's
performance performance
Variable Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Model 8
Controls
Participant mood at Time .03 .27 *** -1.38 1.85
1 (.10) (.10) (1.34) (1.64)
Percentage of funds 2.88 ** 2.39 *** 4.34 10.28
participant received (1.24) (1.14) (22.52) (18.27)
Emotional contagion
Video-coder ratings of .31 -- 12.08 ** --
participant's Time 2 (.30) (4.90)
mood
Participant's self-rating -- .38 **** -- 3.96 *
of Time 2 minus Time 1 (.13) (2.17)
mood
Overall model [R.sup.2] .04 .20 .04 .02
* p < .10; ** p < .05; *** p < .01; **** p < .005 two-tailed test.
(A) Unstandardized beta coefficients. Standard errors are in
parentheses.
Table 6
Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations of Group-level
Contagion Measures and Group-level Processes (N = 26) (A)
Variable Mean S.D. 1 2
1. Group contagion: Video-coder 2.52 .40
ratings (aggregated group mean of
video-coder ratings of partici-
pants' contagion)
2. Group contagion: Self-report .12 .67 .29
(aggregated group mean of partici-
pants' self-reported contagion)
3. Video-coder ratings of group 4.07 .85 .44 ** .34 *
cooperativeness
4. Standard deviation of percentage .06 .04 -.37 ** -.19
of funds distributed in group
5. Video-coder ratings of group 3.71 .97 -.42 ** -.48 **
conflict
Variable 3 4
1. Group contagion: Video-coder
ratings (aggregated group mean of
video-coder ratings of partici-
pants' contagion)
2. Group contagion: Self-report
(aggregated group mean of partici-
pants' self-reported contagion)
3. Video-coder ratings of group
cooperativeness
4. Standard deviation of percentage -.26
of funds distributed in group
5. Video-coder ratings of group -.92 **** .30
conflict
* p < .10; ** p < .05; *** p < .01; **** p < .001; two-tailed tests.
(A) Correlations are based on pooled estimates of variance.
Find Research Guides for:
Find Featured Titles for: Arts
Most Popular Articles in Business
- Research and Markets : Tesco Plc - SWOT Framework Analysis
- Do Us a Flavor - Ben & Jerry's Issues a Call for Euphoric New Flavors
- eBay made easy: ready to start an eBay business? These 5 simple steps will ...
- Katrina's lawsuit surge: a legal battle to force insurers to pay for flood ...
- Wal-Mart's newest distribution center opened last month near the southwest ...
- More »