Abstract
In organizational groups, expertise and information are often distributed among group members, thus making information sharing a necessity for group success. We examine the role of mood diversity on the discussion of disconfirming information and evaluation of decision alternatives in groups. In a laboratory experiment, using a hidden profile task, we manipulated mood diversity in 36 four-person, same-sex groups. Results indicated that mood diversity (vs. homogeneity) was positively related to groups’ focus on disconfirming information, which ultimately led to a more accurate evaluation of their decision alternatives. Results of the study expand our understanding of how mood composition of groups affects their discussion dynamics and decision evaluation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
We also tested our hypotheses using our experimental conditions (coded as LMD-P = 1, LMD-N = 2, HMD = 3) as the independent variable and replicated our effects. These results are presented in footnotes 2 and 4.
We also tested our hypothesis using the experimental conditions as the independent variable (coded as LMD-P = 1, LMD-N = 2, HMD = 3). The results of one-way ANOVA revealed that the experimental conditions were a significant predictor of groups’ discussion of disconfirming information, F(2, 33) = 3.33, p = .048. Specifically, groups in the HMD condition shared higher levels of disconfirming information (M = .09, SD = .08) than those in the LMD-P condition ((M = .03, SD = .06), t(25) = 2.09, p = .047, d = .83) and LMD-N condition ((M = .04, SD = .05), t(24) = 1.94, p = .064, d = .77). LMD-P and LMD-N conditions did not significantly differ from each other in their sharing of disconfirming information (p = .88). Thus, Hypothesis 1 was supported.
We also conducted a regression analysis, entering groups’ evaluations of Candidates 2 and 3 in the first step, and the experimental conditions (0 = low mood diversity; 1 = high mood diversity) in the second step of the equation predicting groups’ evaluation of Candidate 1. The results indicated that mood diversity had a marginally significant effect on groups’ evaluation of Candidate 1 (β = .86, SE = .43, R2 change = .11, F(1,32) = 3.92, p = .056).
We also tested our hypothesis using the experimental conditions as the independent variable (coded as LMD-P = 1, LMD-N = 2, HMD = 3). The results of one-way ANOVA revealed that, controlling for the effects of groups’ ratings of Candidate 2 (p = .62) and Candidate 3 (p = .40), our experimental conditions had a marginally significant effect on groups’ evaluation of alternatives, F(2, 31) = 2.98, p = .065. Specifically, groups in the HMD condition rated Candidate 1 significantly higher (M = 4.24, SD = 1.48) than those in the LMD-P (M = 3.10, SD = .57), t(35) = 2.31, p = .029, d = .86) condition. Groups in the HMD (M = 4.24, SD = 1.48) and LMD-N (M = 3.78, SD = 1.30) conditions did not significantly differ in their evaluation of Candidate 1 (p = .44). A bootstrapped mediation analysis with 5,000 resamples (Preacher & Hayes 2008) revealed that, the effects of the experimental conditions on groups’ ratings of Candidate 1 was mediated by groups’ focus on disconfirming information (95% bias corrected CI [.01, .72]). These results provided support for Hypothesis 2.
References
Argote L, Ingram P (2000) Knowledge transfer: a basis for competitive advantage in firms. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 82(1):150–169. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2000.2893
Barsade SG, Knight AP (2015) Group affect. Annu Rev Organ Psych Organ Behav 2(1):21–46. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032414-111316
Barsade SG, Ward AJ, Turner JDF, Sonnenfeld JA (2000) To your heart’s content: a model of affective diversity in top management teams. Adm Sci Q 45:802–836. https://doi.org/10.2307/2667020
Bartel CA, Saavedra R (2000) The collective construction of work group moods. Adm Sci Q 45:197–131. https://doi.org/10.2307/2667070
Brandon DP, Hollingshead AB (2004) Transactive memory systems in organizations: matching tasks, expertise, and people. Organ Sci 15(6):633–644. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1040.0069
Buhrmester M, Kwang T, Gosling SD (2011) Amazon’s mechanical Turk a new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspect Psychol Sci 6(1):3–5. https://doi.org/10.1037/e527772014-223
Conway AM, Tugade MM, Catalino LI, Fredrickson BL (2013) The broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions: form, function and mechanisms. Oxford Handbook Happiness. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199557257.013.0003
Forgas JP (1992) Affect in social judgment and decisions: a multiprocess mode. Adv Exp Soc Psychol 25:227–275. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60285-3
Forgas JP, George JM (2001) Affective influences on judgments and behavior in organizations: an information processing perspective. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 86(1):3–34. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2001.2971
Fredrickson BL (1998) What good are positive emotions? Review of general psychology. Special Issue New Direct Res Emotion 2(3):300–319. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.3.300
Frey D (1986) Recent research on selective exposure to information. In: Berkowitz L (ed) Advances in experimental social psychology, vol 19. Academic Press, New York, pp 412–80
Frey D, Schulz-Hardt S (2001) Confirmation bias in group information seeking and its implications for decision making in administration, business, and politics. In: Butera F, Mugny G (eds) Social influence in social reality: promoting individual and social change. Hogrefe & Huber Publishers, Ashland, OH, US, pp 53–73
Frey D, Schulz-Hardt S, Stahlberg D (1996) Information seeking among individuals and groups and possible consequences for decision making in business and politics. In: Witte EH, Davis JH (eds) Understanding group behaviour small group processes and interpersonal relations, vol 2. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc, Hillsdale, England, pp 211–225
Frijda NH (1993) Moods, emotion episodes, and emotions. In: Lewis M, Haviland JM (eds) Handbook of emotions. Guildford, New York, pp 381–403
George JM, King EB (2007) Potential pitfalls of affect convergence in teams: functions and dysfunctions of group affective tone. In: Mannix EA, Neale MA, Anderson CP (eds) Affect and groups research on managing groups and teams, vol 10. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley, UK, pp 97–123
George JM, Zhou J (2002) Understanding when bad moods foster creativity and good ones don’t: the role of context and clarity of feelings. J Appl Psychol 87:687–697. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.687
Gigone D, Hastie R (1993) The common knowledge effect: information sharing and group judgment. J Pers Soc Psychol 65:959–974. https://doi.org/10.1037/e722982011-034
Gigone D, Hastie R (1997) The impact of information on small group choice. J Pers Soc Psychol 72(1):132. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.72.1.132
Grawitch MJ, Munz DC (2005) Individual and group affect in problem-solving workgroups. In: Emotions in organizational behavior. Psychology Press. pp 134–157 https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410611895-17
Isen AM (1999) On the relationship between affect and creative problem solving. Affect Creat Exp Psychol Adjustment 3(17):3–17
Isen AM, Geva N (1987) The influence of positive affect on acceptable level of risk: the person with a large canoe has a large worry. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 39(2):145–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(87)90034-3
Isen AM, Johnson MMS, Mertz E, Robinson GR (1985) The influence of positive affect on the unusualness of word associations. J Pers Soc Psychol 48:1413–1426. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.48.6.1413
Isen AM (1987) Positive affect, cognitive processes, and social behavior. In: Advances in experimental social psychology. Academic Press. vol 20, pp 203–253 https://doi.org/10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60415-3
James LR, Demaree RG, Wolf G (1984) Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and without response bias. J Appl Psychol 69(1):85. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.69.1.85
Jehn KA, Northcraft GB, Neale MA (1999) Why differences make a difference: a field study of diversity, conflict, and performance in workgroups. Adm Sci Q 44:741–764. https://doi.org/10.2307/2667054
Joseph DL, Chan MY, Heintzelman SJ, Tay L, Diener E, Scotney VS (2020) The manipulation of affect: a meta-analysis of affect induction procedures. Psychol Bull 146(4):355. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000224
Kameda T, Ohtsubo Y, Takezawa M (1997) Centrality in sociocognitive networks and social influence: an illustration in a group decision-making context. J Pers Soc Psychol 73(2):296. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.2.296
Kaplan S, LaPort K, Waller MJ (2013) The role of positive affectivity in team effectiveness during crises. J Organ Behav 34(4):473–491. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1817
Kaufmann G (2003) The effect of mood on creativity in the innovation process. In: Shavinina LV (ed) The international handbook on innovation. Elsevier Science, Oxford, UK, pp 191–203
Kelly JR, Barsade SG (2001) Mood and emotions in small groups and work teams. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 86(1):99–130. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2001.2974
Kramer RM, Newton E, Pommerenke PL (1993) Self-enhancement biases and negotiator judgment: effects of self-esteem and mood. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 56:110–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002793037004003
Kung FY, Chao MM (2019) The impact of mixed emotions on creativity in negotiation: an interpersonal perspective. Front Psychol 9:2660. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02660
Louis MR, Sutton RI (1991) Switching cognitive gears: from habits of mind to active thinking. Human Relations 44:55–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679104400104
Martin LL, Stoner P (1996) Mood as input: what we think about how we feel determines how we think. In: Martin LL, Tesser A (eds) Striving and feeling: interactions among goals, affect, and self-regulation. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp 279–301
Medvec VH, Berger G, Liljenquist K, Neale MA (2004) Is a meeting worth the time? Barriers to effective group decision making in organizations. In: Neale MA, Mannix EA (eds) Research on managing groups and teams: time in groups. Elsevier Science Ltd, Oxford, pp 213–233
Penner LA, Shiffman S, Paty JA, Fritzsche BA (1994) Individual differences in intraperson variability in mood. J Pers Soc Psychol 66:712–721. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.66.4.712
Peterson R (2002) Negotiation and decision making exercises. Northwestern University, Dispute Resolution Research Center
Preacher KJ, Hayes AF (2008) Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behav Res Methods 40(3):879–891. https://doi.org/10.3758/brm.40.3.879
Rink F, Ellemers N (2010) Benefiting from deep-level diversity: how congruence between knowledge and decision rules improves team decision making and team perceptions. Group Process Intergroup Relat 13(3):345–359. https://doi.org/10.1037/t38177-000
Schulz-Hardt S, Brodbeck FC, Mojzisch A, Kerschreiter R, Frey D (2006) Group decision making in hidden profile situations: dissent as a facilitator for decision quality. J Pers Soc Psychol 91(6):1080. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.6.1080
Schwarz N, Skurnik I (2003) Feeling and thinking: Implications for problem solving. In: Davidson J, Sternberg RJ (eds) The nature of problem solving, pp 263–92. https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9780511615771.010
Stasser G, Stewart D (1992) Discovery of hidden profiles by decision-making groups: solving a problem versus making a judgment. J Pers Soc Psychol 63(3):426. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.3.426
Stasser G, Titus W (1985) Pooling of unshared information in group decision making: biased information sampling during discussion. J Pers Soc Psychol 48:1467–1478. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.48.6.1467
Stasser G, Stewart DD, Wittenbaum GM (1995) Expert roles and information exchange during discussion: the importance of knowing who knows what. J Exp Soc Psychol 31:244–265. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1995.1012
Staw BM, Barsade SG (1993) Affect and managerial performance: a test of the sadder-but-wiser vs. happier-and-smarter hypotheses. Administ Sci Q. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393415
Tiedens LZ, Sutton RI, Fong CT (2004) Emotional variation in workgroups: causes and performance consequences. In: Tiedens LZ, Leach CW (eds) The social life of emotions. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, pp 164–186
van Knippenberg D, De Dreu CK, Homan AC (2004) Work group diversity and group performance: an integrative model and research agenda. J Appl Psychol 89(6):1008. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.1008
Vosburg SK (1998) The effects of positive and negative mood on divergent thinking performance. Creat Res J 11:165–172. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1102_6
Wang L, Doucet L, Waller M, Sanders K, Phillips S (2016) A laughing matter: patterns of laughter and the effectiveness of working dyads. Organ Sci 27(5):1142–1160. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2016.1082
Watson D (2000) Mood and temperament. Guilford Press, New York. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1352465801213125
Westermann R, Spies K, Stahl G, Hesse FW (1996) Relative effectiveness and validity of mood induction procedures: A meta-analysis. Eur J Soc Psychol 26(4):557–580. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1099-0992(199607)26:4%3c557::aid-ejsp769%3e3.0.co;2-4
Wittenbaum GM, Park ES (2001) The collective preference for shared information. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 10(2):70–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.00118
Wittenbaum GM, Stasser G (1996) Management of information in small groups. In: Nye JL, Brower AM (eds) What’s social about social cognition? Research on socially shared cognition in small groups. Sage Publications Inc, Singapore, Washington DC, pp 3–28
Wittenbaum GM, Hubbell AP, Zuckerman C (1999) Mutual enhancement: toward an understanding of the collective preference for shared information. J Pers Soc Psychol 77(5):967. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.5.967
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix
Appendix
1.1 Information Distribution among Group Members
Candidate 1 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Valence | Information | HR | Marketing | Operations | Sales |
+* | Completed managerial leadership course offered by the company | x | x | x | x |
+** | CPA (Certified Public Accountant) qualification | x | x | x | x |
+ | Good at attention to detail | x | |||
+ | Good insight into organizational politics | x | |||
+ | Organized farewell tribute to the retiring CFO | x | |||
+ | Subordinates report that she is demanding, but fair | x | |||
+ | Extensive international travel and business consulting | x | |||
+ | Published extensively on how to improve internal audit practices | x | |||
+ | Mentors junior colleagues | x | |||
− | Does not remember to recognize the contributions of others once the project are complete | x | x | x | x |
Ø | Got good reviews for a part in a local play | x | |||
Candidate 2 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Valence | Information | HR | Marketing | Operations | Sales |
+ | An excellent public speaker | x | x | x | x |
+ | Worked in London for 2 years in the finance division of the European operation of Technology Solutions, which is PB Technologies' chief competition | x | x | x | x |
+ | Detail-oriented personality | x | x | x | x |
+ | Chaired the United Way Charity Drive for Technology Solutions, which is PB Technologies' chief competition | x | |||
+ | Two years ago, played a key role in stock issue for Technology Solutions, which is PB Technologies' chief competition | x | |||
+ | Staff say she/he is a master at understanding organizational politics | x | |||
+ | Was the volunteer CFO of a local homeless shelter for 2 years | x | |||
+ | Senior management in Technology Solutions (PB Technologies' chief competition) have expressed strong interest in keeping her at the company | x | |||
− | Some staff complain that she/he can be overbearing interpersonally | x | |||
− | Some staff complain that she/he can be moody | x | |||
− | Subordinates complain that they don’t like to work with her/him because she/he is overly demanding | x | |||
Candidate 3 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Valence | Information | HR | Marketing | Operations | Sales |
+ | Good at attention to detail | x | x | x | x |
+ | Has 18 years of experience in PB Technologies | x | x | x | x |
+ | Got good reviews as chair of company dispute resolution committee | x | |||
+ | Completed managerial leadership program sponsored by the company | x | |||
+ | CPA (Certified Public Accountant) qualification | x | |||
− | Has a habit of being late to meetings | x | |||
− | Staff members complain that she/he can be moody | x | |||
− | Not an inspiring speaker | x | |||
− | Has not followed-through on a couple of small projects | x | |||
Ø | Likes to play chess | x | x | x | x |
Ø | Placed first in a local photography contest | x | |||
1.2 Information Profile for the Candidates
HR | Marketing | Operations | Sales | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Candidate 1 | 4 + 1 − | 4 + 1 − | 4 + 1 − | 3 + 1 − 1 Ø |
Candidate 2 | 4 + 1 − | 4 + 1 − | 5 + | 4 + 1 − |
Candidate 3 | 3 + 1 − 1 Ø | 3 + 1 − 1 Ø | 3 + 1 − 1 Ø | 2 + 1 − 2 Ø |
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Tuncel, E., Doucet, L. Mixed Feelings: Effects of Mood Diversity on Groups’ Discussion of Disconfirming Information and Evaluation of Alternatives. Group Decis Negot 32, 729–748 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-023-09823-3
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-023-09823-3