Well, I feel differently: The importance of considering affective patterns in groups

Emich, Kyle J.

doi:10.1111/spc3.12523

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 72 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Convergence is important in formulations of socially shared affect because affect is implicitly assumed to be an individual-level phenomenon (Menges & Kilduff, 2015). And as individuals, the affect of group members would often be divergent in groups (Emich, 2020). Individual group members often experience different appraisals and thus different affective states (Elfenbein, 2014).…”

Section: Affect Sharingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Socially shared affect: Shared affect, affect sharing, and affective processing in groups.

Hinsz,

Bui

2023

Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: This review explores groups as affective processing social entities. We examine the reciprocal relationships between socially shared affect and the affective experiences of group members such as moods and emotions. Method: The review applies a unifying theme of social sharedness to consider affective processes in group settings which are demonstrated with shared affect (e.g., affect convergence) and affect sharing (e.g., contagion). Several group topics related to socially shared affect are discussed such as group cohesiveness, shared affect norms, task interdependence, member stability, leadership, and group effectiveness. Results: The sharedness of affective experiences of group members can be arrayed along three dimensions: affective events, affective states, and affective appraisals. Each of these dimensions is described for its relevance to socially shared affect, which is illustrated with shared affective appraisals incorporating shared awareness, shared sensemaking and shared representations of affect. The examination of socially shared affect highlights a number of patterns of relationships including shared affect and affect sharing biases in which groups process affect in ways that exaggerates the typical affective responses of group members. Many of these patterns can be appreciated by carefully examining the distributional characteristics of group member affective responses. Conclusion: This review provides insights gained from examining socially shared affect with a focus on how affective experiences are shared and are being shared in groups. This review generates implications for the vast assortment of group settings in general, while illustrating socially shared affect with teams in organizations and group psychotherapy as examples.

show abstract

Section: Affect Sharingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Socially shared affect: Shared affect, affect sharing, and affective processing in groups.

Hinsz,

Bui

2023

Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, team scholars could explore the tension between group members bringing unique thoughts, feelings, and behaviors to the team context, versus the tendency for teams to develop shared characteristics as they interact (Cronin, et al, 2011;Waller et al, 2016). Group affect research illustrates this point in having identified a set of factors that cause divergence in team members' affective states, despite continuous convergence processes (see Emich & Lu, 2020; Figure 3, for a summary; see also : Emich, 2020;Emich & Vincent, 2020), as does research in social cognitive theory showing that collective efficacy can vary among members of the same team (Gully et al, 2002;DeRue et al, 2010). Researchers could use the attribute alignment approach, for example, to develop hypotheses about how team member affect (e.g., anger) and cognition (e.g., collective efficacy) align to influence shared team processes and outcomes.…”

Section: Future Research Directionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Team Composition Revisited: A Team Member Attribute Alignment Approach

Emich

Ferguson

et al. 2021

Organizational Research Methods

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research methods for studying team composition tend to employ either a variable-centered or person-centered approach. The variable-centered approach allows scholars to consider how patterns of attributes between team members influence teams, while the person-centered approach allows scholars to consider how variation in multiple attributes within team members influences subgroup formation and its effects. Team composition theory, however, is becoming increasingly sophisticated, assuming variation on multiple attributes both within and between team members—for example, in predicting how a team functions differently when its most assertive members are also optimistic rather than pessimistic. To support this new theory, we propose an attribute alignment approach, which complements the variable-centered and person-centered approaches by modeling teams as matrices of their members and their members’ attributes. We first demonstrate how to calculate attribute alignment by determining the vector norm and vector angle between team members’ attributes. Then, we demonstrate how the alignment of team member personality attributes (neuroticism and agreeableness) affects team relationship conflict. Finally, we discuss the potential of using the attribute alignment approach to enrich broader team research.

show abstract

I'm Not Feeling It: The Role of Affective Diversity in Risk Management and Team Performance

Mitchell,

Awasty,

Hahn

et al. 2024

Human Resource Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Team performance is contingent on nuanced approaches to risk management—demanding both risky and cautious strategic orientations. However, research surrounding how teams navigate this balance is limited. We argue that both positive and negative affective diversity can aid team performance, through affective diversity's impact on the team's risky and cautious behaviors. Furthermore, we argue that team trait regulatory focus strengthens these relationships. Using a controlled laboratory setting with 58 teams in a complex, uncertain team task that requires both risky and cautious strategies for successful performance, results indicate that positive affective diversity relates to team performance through promoting risky behavior, while negative affective diversity relates to team performance through promoting cautious behavior. Teams high in trait prevention‐focus are more attuned to the information signals in teams with negative affective diversity, but we did not find that promotion focus impacted outcomes of positive affective diversity.

show abstract

Well, I feel differently: The importance of considering affective patterns in groups

Cited by 5 publications

References 72 publications

Socially shared affect: Shared affect, affect sharing, and affective processing in groups.

Socially shared affect: Shared affect, affect sharing, and affective processing in groups.

Team Composition Revisited: A Team Member Attribute Alignment Approach

I'm Not Feeling It: The Role of Affective Diversity in Risk Management and Team Performance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About