The Influence of Other’s Emotions on Self-Efficacy
Bachelorthese Sociale Psychologie Naam: S. Smit
Collegekaart nummer: 10012303 Datum: 25-06-2014
The Influence of Others’ Emotions on Self-Efficacy
"If I have the belief that I can do it, I shall surely acquire the capacity to do it even if I may not have it at the beginning." (Mahatma Gandhi, As cited in Pajares; 2002)
Strong words spoken by the great Mahatma Gandhi and a good example for an
apparently general drive to perform and achieve even in the face of certain setbacks. Sigmund Freud has contributed important knowledge to our understandings of Psychology, but before he became successful his ideas were openly ridiculed when he first presented his ideas to the scientific community of Europe. The now widely known Evolution Theory of Charles Darwin may have not existed if Darwin did not persist in writing about- and investigating animals, even when his environment did not have faith in his capabilities (Pajares, 2002). These achievements could not have been made if these great names did not have sufficient confidence in their beliefs about their capabilities to perform well in their domain of interest. Bandura termed this Self-Efficacy (Bandura, 1994). According to Bandura’s Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) self-efficacy beliefs determine how people feel, think and motivate themselves and how that influences their behaviors. One aspect of self-efficacy refers specifically to the emotions an individual feels in a particular situation. These emotions plays an important role in the self-efficacy process (Bandura, 1994). Yet, emotions are not only present inside a person, others also express them. People are in constant interaction with the environment, especially when it comes to employment. It is however unclear what the relationship is between other’s emotions on self-efficacy beliefs and performance. Ascribing the influence of other’s emotions to self-efficacy beliefs and performance at work could lead to a better understanding of the SCT.
In general, Bandura provided a model of human behavior in which the beliefs that
people have about themselves are central in the exercise of control and personal agency. Individuals are viewed as products and as producers of their own environments and social
structures. Thereby, emotions play a crucial role in social life. Social functionalist theorists say that emotions serve to adapt to the (social) environment (Frijda, 1986; Lazarus, 1991). For example, experiencing fear leads to avoidance, and anger leads to an approach tendency. While acknowledging the influence and interaction between the self, the environment, and self-efficacy, Bandura does not explain how emotions of others could influence self-efficacy beliefs. Explanations of emotional states remain on the intrapersonal level instead. However, early research suggested that feelings could work as social information (Clore, 1983; cited in Van Kleef, 2009). Reis & Collins (2004; cited in Van Kleef, 2009) argue that we not only feel our emotions, but we also express them during social interactions. It is not unlikely that these expressed emotions will be observed in a social setting, and this could implicate that we may be influenced by them. The Emotions as Information Model (EASI; Van Kleef, 2009) theorizes that emotions expressed by other’s influences the behavior of the observer. This paper will serve to link the SCT and EASI together to suggest an interpersonal model on self-efficacy. The next section will go further into elaborating on the SCT, then supportive research will be discussed. The second section will further introduce the EASI theory and supportive research for the model will be discussed. Here connections to self-efficacy will be explored and hypotheses for future research will be suggested. The third section will be dedicated to suggest further implications regarding the effectiveness of positive or negative affect.
The Social Cognitive Theory
Bandura further explains four major processes through which self-efficacy beliefs
affect human functioning: Cognitive, motivational, affective and selection processes. In short cognitive processes are activated during acquiring, organizing and consuming information. When undertaking action, motivation processes are activated. During this process level of motivation determines how people act and how much effort is put in the action. Affective
processes serve to regulate emotional states and to activate emotional reactions. Selection processes are involved when beliefs of self-efficacy shape the behavioral choices people make. Consequently, a strong sense of self-efficacy can lead to many personal achievements. The explanation for this is that people with high self-efficacy beliefs perceive difficult tasks as a challenge and not as a threat. That’s why people with a strong sense of efficacy persist and keep on trying when they face failure and this may lead to personal achievements. In addition, perceived self-efficacy acts on a general well-being where accomplishments reduces stress but a low sense of self-efficacy leads to avoiding difficult tasks. Avoidance in turn leads to a concentration on personal shortages and the encountered obstacles, rather than a focus on how to perform well. Thus, people’s negative beliefs in their coping capabilities reduces confidence in once’ capabilities and enhances stress and feelings of depression. (Bandura, 1994).
According to the SCT, individuals form their self-efficacy beliefs by interpreting information from several sources. Experiences from previous performance and observing other’s performing a task could provide information to the self. Furthermore, verbal
persuasions received from others in terms as verbal judgments could take the form as positive or negative persuasions providing evaluative information to the self. Physiological and emotional states as anxiety, stress, arousal and mood states also provide information about efficacy beliefs. Primarily important in this paper are verbal persuasions and physiological states. Positive persuasions may work to encourage and empower and negative persuasions may reduce self-beliefs. In addition, it is usually easier to weaken self-efficacy beliefs through negative appraisals than to strengthen such beliefs through positive appraisals (Bandura, 1994). The emotional reactions people experience when working on a task informs how well they are doing on a task. For example, self-efficacy beliefs could be lowered when someone experiences fears and negative thoughts about his capabilities. This can cause stress
and agitation which enhances the feeling of poor performance. (Bandura, 1994). Supportive evidence for the verbal persuasions source and physiological states source will be discussed in the following sub-sections.
The Influence of Verbal Persuasions on Self-Efficacy
According to the SCT self-efficacy beliefs can be influenced by exposure to verbal persuasion (Bandura, 1994). Considering that people are in constant interaction with others on a daily basis it is important to investigate the influence of others on self-efficacy beliefs and behavior. Especially in organizational settings people constantly interact with each other. One way of social interaction is giving evaluative feedback. The following studies will discuss the influence of receiving evaluative feedback on self-efficacy judgments.
Reynolds (2006) investigated the influence of feedback on job-specific self-efficacy. For this study managers from the restaurant industry were informed that a new boss was hired and that their individual performances were being rated by the new boss via a video
conference. Before the video treatment participants had to rate their confidence in
management skills on budgeting, performance appraisals, interviewing, client relations and interpersonal skills ranging from complete lack of confidence to complete confidence. The participants randomly received positive feedback, negative feedback or innocuous feedback via the video conference. After the receiving the feedback they completed the self-efficacy questionnaire again. The results were that positive feedback enhanced the self-efficacy judgments of the managers and receiving negative feedback reduced self-efficacy judgments. This implicates that type of feedback received from a supervisor has an influence on an individual’s self-efficacy judgments. Negative feedback reduces self-efficacy beliefs and positive feedback enhances it. The following research support these findings by replicating the findings on future behavior and performance.
self-efficacy judgments and performance of learners of a motor task. For this study participants had to throw a tennis ball with their non-dominant hand to a target while they were wearing opaque goggles that distorted their vision. The closer the participant threw the ball to the center of the target, the more points they earned. The participants randomly received information about their throw results and the feedback was not based on real information. Before each block participants had to rate their level of confidence in the task on a self-efficacy scale. The results were that participants who received positive feedback enhanced their self-efficacy beliefs and participants who received negative feedback lowered their self-efficacy beliefs. In addition they found that type of feedback also had an influence on their future performance. Positive feedback enhanced future performance and negative feedback reduced it. These effects remained even after a 24 hour retention phase. This is quiet striking as the feedback was not related to actual performance, meaning that only the efficacy beliefs had an effect. Taken together, type of feedback influences self-efficacy and performance (Reynolds, 2006) and also impacts future performance (Saemi, et al., 2011). The suggested findings support the activation of cognitive and motivational processes through the use of verbal persuasion in line with the SCT (Bandura, 1994). Cognitive processes seem to inform the participants that they did (not) perform well and consequently self-efficacy beliefs are altered. Furthermore positive feedback enhanced future performance, suggesting the activation of motivational processes. Another influential source on perceived self-efficacy are physiological states. Evidence from clinical observations support the effect of mood on perceived capabilities. Depressed people are self-critical and often hold negative opinions about themselves (Beck, 1976; cited in Kavanagh & Bower, 1985). The influence of an individual’s physiological states on self-efficacy beliefs will be discussed in the following section.
Early research from Kavanagh and Bower (1985) suggest that emotions work as a filter through which certain information becomes salient, and that the experienced emotions work as a framework on how people interpret and evaluate their capabilities. In their experiment subjects had to recall one of their most successful or unsuccessful romantic events, or a neutral situation to create a happy, sad, or neutral mood. While experiencing the emotional state, subjects had to judge their capabilities on several situations, ranging from romantic encounters, dangerous situations, athletic activities, and situations that require general social-skills. The participants had to rate their self-efficacy while having experienced each of the three moods and therefore after each trial their moods where removed by using hypnosis. The results were that sadness reduced self-efficacy beliefs below the neutral level, however there was only a moderate increase in self-efficacy beliefs when happiness was manipulated.
These findings offer a general base for the suggested influence of emotions on self-efficacy. Investigating the influence of emotions on performance through self-efficacy judgments is an important implication of these findings to provide more specific support. Thelwell, Lane, and Westona (2007) investigated the relationship between mood states, self-set goals, self-efficacy and performance in academic examinations. Before students were put to an examination test, they were asked to indicate their current mood. They were then asked to indicate the grade that they set as a goal for the examination. They were also asked to rate to what extent they were confident in that they will achieve the goal. After the questionnaire examination performance was assessed. The results were that feeling higher positive moods as happiness and calmness and feeling lower negative moods as tension seemed to be associated with higher self-set goals and perceived self-efficacy which in turn led to higher levels of performance. Thus, positive moods influenced a positive perception of the situation where higher goals were set and self-efficacy thereby predicts performance.
Putting it together, feeling emotions influence self-efficacy beliefs. Where feeling sadness leads to lower self-efficacy and feeling happiness to an increase in self-efficacy. Also emotion seems to be predictive for performance through the influence on self-efficacy. Feeling a positive mood leads to more positive perceptions of the situation and one’s capabilities and therefore positively influences performance. However Kavanagh and Bower (1985) reported only a moderate increase in self-efficacy as a result from feeling happiness, where Thelwell et al., (2007) reported a clear increase in performance through self-efficacy. The slight difference could exist in the mood manipulation. In the latter study self-report measures of mood were used and Kavanagh and Bower (1985) experimentally manipulated mood. Further research on emotion manipulation should be done in order to find more support. The discussed findings provide supportive evidence for the physiological states source and the verbal persuasion source to explain the influence of interpersonal feedback and feeling emotions on self-efficacy. Until now, it is still not clear how other’s emotions displays could influence self-efficacy. Other’s emotions may also be interpreted as evaluative feedback, and thereby, may act on physiological sources. As a result, the Emotion as Social Information Model (EASI; van Kleef, 2009) will be introduced and discussed which explains the importance of social influence of emotions on behavior. Further suggestions will be made of self-efficacy as a mediating factor in the EASI.
The Emotions as Information Model (EASI)
Previous research has shown the social functions of emotions. Reis & Collins (2004; cited in Van Kleef, 2009) argue that we not only feel our emotions, but we also express them during social interactions. Roseman, Wiest, & Swartz (1994) found that anger had a social distancing function, expressed in order to change another person(‘s) (behavior). They also found that happiness had an affiliation function where happiness is expressed to share positive experiences with others. It is not unlikely that these expressed emotions will be
observed in a social setting, and this could implicate that we may be influenced by them. The EASI model theorizes that emotions expressed by an individual triggers inferential and/or affective reactions in the observer which in turn affects an individual’s behavior.
Figure 1 (taken from, Van Kleef, 2009) demonstrates a visual representation of the EASI model. The EASI model further explains that affective reactions may be activated when observing someone expressing his or her emotions and this may affect behavior. These affective reactions are associated with feeling mutual emotions and feelings of increased or decreased liking for the expresser. The inferential process is triggered when behavioral choices are made from interpreting the emotional display. Emotional displays can be seen as success or failure feedback that may influence followers’ inferences regarding the quality of their performance (Gaddis et al., 2004). The following description illustrates the activation of both pathways as follows:
Imagine you are working in the food service industry and your supervisor is not satisfied with the way you serve your customers. Your supervisor expresses anger regarding your lack of hospitality. On the one hand, your supervisor’s anger may lead you to realize that s/he is upset with you, that you lack social skills, and that this is inappropriate (a sequence of inferences), which may motivate you to be more hospitable to your future customers (behavior). On the other hand, the anger may upset you and make you dislike the supervisor and/or job (affective reactions), and possibly cause you to decide quitting your job.
Figure 1. schematic representation of the EASI. Reprinted from; Van Kleef, Gerben A. "How emotions regulate social life the emotions as social information (EASI) model." Current Directions in Psychological Science18.3 (2009): 184-188.
The following studies will give supportive evidence for the EASI model by discussing studies on leadership and attitude change. Leaders give evaluative feedback to their
subordinates when job performance is evaluated, so the studies on leadership could be used to make implications to the self-efficacy theory. Attitude change studies could clarify when and how behavior change occurs and so, implications could be made to self-efficacy adjustments.
The Influence of Leaders Emotional Displays on Performance
The concept of a leader influencing others to accomplish a goal is the key element behind leadership, where social influence is central to this process. (Yukl, 2010; cited in Van Kleef et al., 2011). Research from Sy, Côté, and Saavedra (2005) found that teams with a leader in a positive mood experienced a positive mood themselves and they also showed a better team coordination than teams with a leader in a negative mood. The study also found that more effort was spent by team members in teams with a leader in a negative mood. This
result could be explained by presuming that these teams interpreted the negative mood as a response to unsatisfactory performance. The following studies will address this influence more specifically.
Van Kleef et al., (2009) examined how leader emotional displays affected team
performance. For this study four-person teams were randomly assigned to the happy or angry condition. The teams had to work on a challenging and demanding task to stimulate team performance. All participants received training on the task, after the training the team members had to gather in a room where they received feedback from their leader expressed through a videoconference. The leader was a confederate of the study and the feedback consisted out of non-specific comments about team performance and improvement. The feedback was the same for both conditions only the emotions were manipulated. In the happy condition the leader expressed happiness through non-verbal cues and voice tone; cheerful, enthusiastic frequent smiling. In the angry condition the leader spoke with an angry and irritable voice and also expressed his anger non-verbally. In both conditions the leader explicitly made clear that he was happy or angry. After the feedback the teams had to work on the actual task and they completed a questionnaire at the end measuring affective reactions and liking for the leader. Also the teams had to report how satisfied they were with the quality of group performance. The results were that regardless of the standardized feedback script the participants in the angry feedback condition inferred that they had performed poorly and the participants in the happy feedback condition inferred that they had performed well. Thereby, it was also found that the emotional display of the leader predicted affective reactions in the subordinates. Participants in the happy feedback condition showed more positive affective reactions and more liking for the leader than participants in the angry feedback condition. In sum, a negative leader emotion display has a negative influence on affective reactions and perceived performance, and a positive leader emotion display has a
positive influence on affective reactions and perceived performance. As mentioned above self-efficacy has been found to be a predictor of (future) performance. (Reynolds, 2006; Saemi et al., 2011). Applying Van Kleef’s (2009) findings to self-efficacy, observing a negative emotional display may serve as evaluative feedback that performance is insufficient (trough verbal persuasions) reducing self-efficacy beliefs and thereby performance and effort. Self-efficacy may serve as a mediator for future performance, thus the following hypothesis is proposed in order to find an answer on the influence of other’s emotions on self-efficacy:
Hypothesis 1: There is an influence of other’s emotion displays on performance through self-efficacy judgments. Where other’s negative emotions displays reduce performance through reduced self-efficacy beliefs and other’s positive emotions displays enhance performance through enhanced self-efficacy beliefs.
However the predictive strength of both inferential and affective processes seems to be mediated by information processing motivation (epistemic motivation) and factors that determine the perceived appropriateness of the emotional expression.
Epistemic Motivation. The level of desire to develop and maintain a rich and accurate
understanding of situations is referred to as epistemic motivation (Kruglanski, 1989; cited in van Kleef et al. 2009). When Van Kleef et al. (2009) controlled for epistemic motivation (measured in terms of need for structure; Neuberg & Newsom, 1993; cited in Van Kleef et al. 2009) the results were different. Van Kleef et al. found that the interaction between epistemic motivation and performance inferences predicted team performance. Performance inferences predicted team performance when epistemic motivation was high, hence more attention was paid to the meaning of emotion. Affective reactions predicted team performance when epistemic motivation was low, meaning that the emotions were passively ‘caught’ by the observer. Team performance was also predicted by the interaction between leader emotional display and epistemic motivation. Teams with high epistemic motivation performed better
under an angry emotional display, whereas teams with low epistemic motivation performed better under a happy emotional display. Thus, epistemic motivation seems to moderate the effect of emotional displays on team performance: low epistemic motivation causes behavior guided by affective reactions and high epistemic motivation causes behavior guided by performance inferences.
When epistemic motivation was low the results were in line with the self-efficacy theory, because the affective reactions followed from a negative emotional display may have caused feelings of distress in the follower. In line with the physiological states source of Bandura these negative feelings may have reduced self-efficacy beliefs and thereby performance. However when epistemic motivation was high participants experiencing a negative emotion display inferred that their performance was insufficient and more effort was spent in a later task. This is in contrast with the self-efficacy theory. The negative emotional display should have led to inferring that performance was insufficient and therefore causing feelings of distress leading to less effort in result. A possible explanation could be that a high epistemic motivation is related to a higher self-efficacy in general. High epistemic motivation implicates an overall tendency to process information more extensively. It may be that these people perceive information more as a challenge to work with rather than as a threat, because they may have higher self-efficacy beliefs in general. Thereby, research by Nease, Mudgett and Quiñones (1999) showed that people high in self-efficacy are less accepting towards receiving negative feedback than people low in self-efficacy. Combined with high epistemic motivation receiving negative feedback may have led to better future performance because self-efficacy beliefs were not affected. Hence the second hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2: Self-Efficacy mediates the process that leader displays of anger lead to better team performance than do leader displays of happiness when teams have high epistemic motivation, whereas leader displays of happiness lead to better performance than do leader
displays of anger when teams have low epistemic motivation.
As mentioned earlier the predictive strength of both processes seems also to be mediated by factors that determine the perceived appropriateness of the emotional expression.
Perceived Appropriateness. A follow up study by Van Kleef, Homan, Beersma, and
Van Knippenberg (2010) tried to replicate the findings of Van Kleef et al.’s (2009) initial experiment by controlling for level of perceived appropriateness of a leader’s emotional display. Perceived appropriateness was operated as level of agreeableness because according to McCrae and Costa (1987; cited in Van Kleef et al., 2010) agreeable people have a strong desire for social harmony where civil and respectful behavior is valued. Thus, it may be suggested that agreeable people are more likely to perceive an angry emotional display as inappropriate. The results were that participants high in agreeableness performed better in the happy feedback condition and participants low in agreeableness performed better in the angry feedback condition. Mediation analysis showed that agreeable participants performed poorly under an angry leader because the leader’s anger caused strong feelings of negative affect. In conclusion, the discussed studies are in line with the predictions of the EASI model that the effects of the emotional expressions of the leader on follower’s performance are mediated by affective reactions and inferential processes. People who seek social harmony perceive negative emotional displays as less appropriate than people with a low desire for social harmony. The negative affective reactions (e g. stress) agreeable followers then experience causes poor performance. The predictions that could be made for self-efficacy theory is that a negative emotion display may affect the self-efficacy beliefs of the agreeable follower trough negative affective reactions (physiological states), thus lowering
performance. The findings for less agreeable followers are in contrast with the verbal persuasion process of the SCT, because performance of less agreeable followers enhanced under a negative emotion display while it should have been reduced. A possible explanation
may involve cooperativeness. Agreeableness is known to be associated with cooperativeness thus the reverse may be possible associating low agreeableness with competitiveness. Furthermore, Van Doorn, Heerdink and Van Kleef (2009) found that anger displays increase competitiveness. So less agreeable followers are more competitive in general and the angry emotion display may have triggered this further causing the individual to infer that
performance should be improved. Thus, it may be possible that self-efficacy was not affected in less agreeable followers because the anger display was interpreted as motivational and the competitive drive may have been dominant over potential self-efficacy adjustments. Hence the third hypothesis:
Hypothesis 3. Self-Efficacy mediates the process that leader displays of happiness lead to better team performance than do leader displays of anger when teams have high levels of agreeableness, whereas leader displays of anger lead to better performance than do leader displays of happiness when teams have low levels of agreeableness.
Putting in together, the relative strength of both processes through which other emotions influence performance seem to depend on level of motivation to process
information and level of appropriateness of the emotional expression. It is possible that self-efficacy could explain why performance was affected by other’s emotions, at least when the affective reactions pathway is more salient. The influence of other’s emotions on attitude change will be discussed in the following section. Reviewing this literature could be relevant as adjusting self-efficacy beliefs may be similar to the attitude change process.
The Influence of Others Emotions on Attitude Change
Supportive evidence found on the relationship between EASI and attitude change is
relevant for the applicability to the self-efficacy theory, because changes in attitude could be related to changes in self-efficacy. It has already been discussed that the verbal persuasion source is relevant for perceived self-efficacy. Research on the intrapersonal effects of
emotions have reported that affective states influence the processing of persuasive messages, showing that a positive mood led to less extensive processing of the persuasive message than a negative mood. (e.g., Schwarz et al., 1991; as cited in Van Kleef et al., 2011). The
following study investigated the influence of others emotions on attitude change. Self-efficacy beliefs could be changed using the same process.
Van Kleef and Van den Berg (2011; cited in Van Kleef et al., 2011) investigated the influence of emotional displays on attitudes about a Dutch television show called Lingo (Around the time of the study there were plans to discontinue the show). The participants read a reaction in response to the announcement that there were plans to discontinue the show. The reaction was manipulated and while keeping the content of the message the same, the reaction contained verbal expressions of anger, sadness, happiness, or no emotion. The participants in the happy condition read that; “The source was happy that the show was being discontinued, because some other show would take Lingo’s place’’. Participants in the anger condition read the same information but in this case the source was angry, and the source was sad in the sad emotion condition. Participants in the non-emotional control condition read that the source ‘had heard’ that the show was being discontinued. Participants had to report how they felt after reading the reaction. The results were that participants in the anger or sad condition reported more favorable attitudes towards Lingo than participants in the happy or neutral condition. These findings suggest that the influence of emotional expressions on attitude formation were mediated by inferential processes and not affective reactions. In the latter case, the happy condition would then have reported more favorable attitudes due to affect infusion (Forgas, 1995; as cited in Van Kleef et al., 2011), rather than presumably inferring from the negative emotional reactions that the show must have been important and should be continued.
participants memorize a phone number before reading the reaction) thereby supporting the inferential process and suggesting that people do rely on affective reactions if under cognitive load. A second experiment used a similar method to explore if relevance played a role. This time the information was presented in the form of a newspaper article, which also contained a picture of either a happy- or a sad-looking person. In one condition the picture was inserted in an article on introducing kite surfing to the Olympic Games, and the text referred to the person in the picture. In another condition the picture was part of a different newspaper article unrelated to kite surfing, and the text did not refer to the picture. The results showed that the nonverbal emotional expressions in the picture only influenced participants’ attitudes about kite surfing when the pictures were placed in the newspaper article about kite surfing (as opposed to the unrelated article). Thus, the happy condition reported more positive attitudes than the sad condition when the emotion display was related to the article. This study suggests that people only use others’ emotional expressions as a source of information to adjust their attitudes when the expressions appear to be relevant to the attitude object. Applying these findings to self-efficacy it could be expected from the discussed findings on attitude formation that a leader’s anger can lead to inferring that the target performed unsatisfactory, thus reducing self-efficacy beliefs (attitude change). When information processing depth is low (because the information is irrelevant or cognitive capacity is depleted) affective reactions will be dominant and affect infusion (Forgas, 1995; as cited in Van Kleef et al., 2011) will lead to a focus on happy rather than angry or sad reactions. Thus, when information processing depth is low people will not be affected by negative emotions and self-efficacy will not be reduced. When information is relevant to the observer it is expected that people will be influenced by the emotional expressions of the leader, in line with verbal persuasions source. Also when observers had enough cognitive capacity to process the information there was more agreement with the negative emotion
display. This may implicate that observing a negative emotional expression regarding one’s performance could lead to agreement with the source that performance was poor. As a result self-efficacy may be affected. A study by Baccus, Baldwin and Packer (2003) on the
influence of emotions on self-esteem indicates that this might be true. They found that pairing smiling faces with self-relevant information increased implicit self-esteem (A person’s attitude towards the self). Implicit self-esteem increased because the smiling faces led to more favorable attitudes towards ones capabilities. Thus, perceiving the angry display will lead to inferring that performance was insufficient and this will lead to reduced self-efficacy beliefs (attitude change).
Hypothesis 4 : Responses to emotional expressions depend on the target’s information processing depth. When information processing depth is high, self-efficacy beliefs will be reduced through other’s negative emotions, While positive emotions will enhance self-efficacy beliefs when information processing depth is low.
In conclusion, the discussed studies support EASI theory’s suggestion that social emotional displays can influence the observer via affective reactions and/or inferential processes. The studies also suggest that the influence of other´s emotions on attitude change was moderated by relevance and cognitive capacity. Inferential processes were activated more strongly when the social emotional display was perceived as relevant for the attitude object and when the observer had enough cognitive resources to process the information. These findings support EASI’s proposition that responses to emotional expressions depend on the target’s information-processing depth. The suggested role of self-efficacy in this process also depend on level of information processing depth. Self-efficacy may partly mediate the results on attitude formation. Further suggested evidence on the influence of other’s emotions on behavior will be discussed in the following section. Further evidence for the EASI could be implicated from studies where the influence of catching others moods on behavior is
investigated. Similarities could be drawn to the affective reactions and/or inferential pathway and the findings could to a better understanding on the applicability of self-efficacy theory.
The Influence of Emotional Contagion on Performance
Emotional contagion is the transfer of mood among people. Research by Barsade
(2002) showed that emotional contagion occurs in groups when mood was induced or enhanced by a confederate before a group discussion took place. The following studies will give more supportive evidence on emotional contagion and connections to the EASI model and self-efficacy theory will be made.
Volmer (2012) investigated how leaders’ mood influenced individual team members’ mood, potency ratings, and team performance. For this study students were randomly assigned to a positive leader or negative leader mood condition in three person teams. Within the teams participants were randomly assigned to the leader or team member role. The teams had to work together on solving a puzzle task. Before the group task, participants with the leader role were separated from the group and their mood was induced by listening to happy upbeat- or sad depressing music clips. After mood was induced the leaders were shown the end state of the puzzle. The leaders completed the mood scale and went back to their groups to lead the puzzle task. After the task all participants had to complete the mood scale and had to fill in a questionnaire about potency. The results were that teams with a leader in a positive mood reported a more positive mood and showed better performance than participants in the negative mood condition. The positive mood teams also had higher potency ratings regarding their performance than negative mood teams. Thus, the positive mood teams thought they had more potential to complete the task than negative mood teams. What can be concluded from this experiment, is that team members caught their leaders’ mood state and this in turn influenced their potency ratings and level of performance. This is in support for the affective reactions pathway of the EASI model. In addition, not only the performance was influenced
by a leader’s mood. The teams also had different potency regarding their capabilities to solve the task depending on induced mood. This indicates that the team members inferred from the mood whether they were doing well on the task, and this influenced performance in turn. Not only is this in line with predictions of the inferential and affective pathway of the EASI, but these findings are also in line with predictions of the self-efficacy theory. However, it is not clear from this study if the leader just influenced the team by his/her mood or if the leader’s mood influenced how task instructions or task specific feedback was provided, acting on performance outcomes as result. The following experiment will give further support investigating the relationship with leaders’ affect on receiving failure feedback and performance.
Gaddis, Connelly and Mumford (2004) investigated how leader affect had an
influence on subordinates’ performance when receiving failure feedback. For this study students were randomly assigned to groups of three. The group leaders were confederates working with the experimenter blind to the purpose of the study. The experimenter instructed the groups that they should work as a team to make suggestions on how to improve a company’s human resource policies. The results were that subordinates had more positive affective reactions towards the leader during failure feedback when the leader expressed positive emotions as happiness and optimism than negative emotions as anger and disgust. The positive affect display also led to better task performance in general than negative affect displays. However, negative affect feedback reduced future performance more on the post-task, while positive leader affect did not increase future performance. These findings are in line with the EASI that emotional displays lead to affective reactions in the observer, and inferential processes seem to influence future performance. Self-efficacy could be the explaining variable for the further decrease in performance under a negative affect display. The subordinates experiencing the negative affect display may possibly have caught the
negative affect and this may have caused negative feelings of distress, acting on future performance in turn. In contrast, following the predictions of self-efficacy theory, the performance on the post task should’ve been increased as a result of a positive affect display. The inferential pathway of EASI could explain for this as people may have inferred that were going okay and no drastic actions were necessary.
In sum, leaders seem to affect teams trough emotional contagion, impacting
performance outcomes. These findings are in line with EASI. Also failure feedback given with a positive affect led to better performance. Failure feedback given with a negative affect led to poorer performance and further decreased future performance, indicating the possible mediating role of self-efficacy. The social influence of others emotions is discussed from several aspects throughout this paper, but what are the consequences of these findings and which emotional display is more effective under what conditions? Further implications will be discussed in the following section.
Further Implications
The Importance of Positive Emotions on The Workplace
As might have become clear from the previous sections, emotions serve several
functions for both the individual and environment. In some cases it is better for a leader to express anger in order to increase motivation and effort in the followers. In other cases expressing happiness and optimism leads to better results. There is a new and developing paradigm that stresses the importance of positive emotions. According to Fredrickson’s (2001) Broaden and Build theory of positive emotions they seem to have the complementary effect to broaden the array of thoughts and actions that come to mind.
According to this theory, positive emotions like joy, interest, contentment, pride and love, have the ability to broaden people’s momentary thought-action repertoires. They also seem to form durable personal resources varying from the physical and intellectual level to
social and psychological resources. Research has indeed shown that positive emotions such as joy, happiness, and interest have long-term adaptive benefits as broadened physical, intellectual, social and psychological resources (Fredrickson, 2001). Moreover, research on the broaden-and-build theory showed that momentary experiences of positive emotions trigger upward spirals toward emotional well-being. Meaning, that these resources function as reserves that can be useful when experiencing emotional states in the future. Joy, for example, appears to be linked to play and creativity (Frijda, 1986; cited in Fredrickson, 2001). A related construct to the Broaden and Build theory of Positive emotions is flow used by Csikszentmihalyi (1997, p. 29, as cited in Salanova, et al., 2006) to explain the positive feeling many people experience when involved in a pleasant activity without making effort: In this state, people are intensely involved in an activity and so nothing else seems to matter. In addition to the pleasure in the activity and the intrinsic interest to continue doing it, the total immersion in an activity seems to be a central aspect of the flow experience (Csikszentmihalyi et al., 1993; Ellis et al., 1994; Ghani and Deshpande,
1994; Larson and Richards, 1994).
Experiencing flow at work may be useful to keep a positive and effective work environment. The following study by Salanova, Bakker and Llorrens (2006) used a clever combination of Fredrickson’s Broaden and Build Theory of Positive Emotions (2001) and Bandura’s (1994) SCT to apply the concept of flow to an organizational setting. Specifically, they applied work
related flow as a construct of positive emotions to investigate the relationship between
organizational resources, personal resources and positive emotions. For this study responses to self-report questionnaires of school teachers were used. The questionnaires were filled out twice with an interval of eight months. Teachers were asked to rate their agreement on social support orientation at work as a result of organizational resources. The teachers were also asked to rate their level of self-efficacy regarding their job performance. Work related flow
was assessed by rating how motivated the teacher were, how much they enjoyed work, and how involved they were at work. The results were that work related flow developed over time when personal and organizational resources were sufficiently available. In addition there was a reversed causation effect where the experience of work related flow in the present had a positive influence on organizational and personal resources in the future.
In sum, experiencing a sense of self-efficacy in the present, seems to predict being in flow in the future, implicating self-efficacy as a powerful personal resource. There was a reciprocal relationship between resources and work related flow, suggesting the existence of Fredrickson’s predicted upward spiral. (Fredrickson, 2001). This upward spiral could also be implicated from the SCT. In addition, this study is also in line with predictions of the SCT that self-efficacy facilitates well-being. The contrary findings that a negative affect led to more effort and a positive affect led to less effort (Sy et al., 2005) should be considered. Well thought decisions should be made depending on the particular situation to decide whether or not to use positive or negative affect to influence behavior. These decisions could be made by evaluating personal traits (agreeableness and epistemic motivation) and time constraints (information processing depth) for example.
Conclusion and Discussion
In short, research was discussed to suggest the relationship between social emotional displays and Self-Efficacy. Because no research has been done on the social influence of emotions on Self-efficacy specifically, this paper reviewed existing research on self-efficacy- and intrapersonal- and interpersonal emotion studies to suggest the importance of why the interpersonal relationship between emotions and self-efficacy should be
investigated in the future. Research on feedback showed that receiving positive or negative feedback on task performance impacts an individual’s self-efficacy (Reynolds, 2006) and future performance (Saemi et al., 2011). Whereas positive feedback enhanced self-efficacy
and negative feedback reduced it. Feeling happy or sad during a task also produces these effects on self-efficacy (Kavanagh and Bower, 1985) and feeling an emotion influenced performance through self-efficacy beliefs (Thelwell et al., 2007). These results show support for the SCT of Bandura (1994) and provide a supportive basis to make suggestive
connections with the EASI model of emotions. This model stresses the importance of the influence of expressed emotions of other’s on an individual’s behavior through inferential and affective pathways. Research on leadership shows that negative emotions reduce feelings of potency and performance, where positive emotions show the opposite effect. (Van Kleef, 2009). Motivation to process information and perceived appropriateness mediates these results (Van Kleef et al., 2010). Findings on attitude change (van Kleef et al., 2011) show the moderating influence of processing depth. Studies on emotion contagion serve as further support for the EASI model (Barsade, 2002; Gaddis et al., 2004; Volmer et al., 2012) and suggested evidence for self-efficacy.
From all the discussed results the following hypotheses could be implied to find an answer on the relationship between other’s emotions on self-efficacy and performance: Hypothesis 1: There is an influence of other’s emotions on performance through self-efficacy judgments. Where other’s negative emotions reduce performance through reduced efficacy beliefs and other’s positive emotions enhance performance through enhanced self-efficacy beliefs.
Hypothesis 2: Self-Efficacy mediates the process that leader displays of anger lead to better team performance than do leader displays of happiness when teams have high epistemic motivation, whereas leader displays of happiness lead to better performance than do leader displays of anger when teams have low epistemic motivation.
Hypothesis 3: Self-Efficacy mediates the process that leader displays of happiness lead to better team performance than do leader displays of anger when teams have high levels of
agreeableness, whereas leader displays of anger lead to better performance than do leader displays of happiness when teams have low levels of agreeableness.
Hypothesis 4 : Responses to emotional expressions depend on the target’s information processing depth. When information processing depth is high, self-efficacy beliefs will be reduced trough other’s negative emotions, While positive emotions will enhance self-efficacy beliefs when information processing depth is low.
Caution should be used when developing an all-embracing experiment. None of
these studies took into account the personal level of self-efficacy itself. Although it might be important to measure the level of self-efficacy before and after the experiment to see if this might moderate the results. Nease, Mudgett and Quiñones (1999) investigated the role of varying levels of self-efficacy on feedback acceptance and found that high- and low-self-efficacy individuals interpret feedback in ways that are protective of their initial self-low-self-efficacy. Most importantly, individuals with high self-efficacy had a less accepting attitude towards continuing negative feedback than individuals low in self-efficacy. These results are in line with the self-verification theory of Swann (1987; cited in Nease, Mudgett and Quiñones (1999). The Self-verification theory explains that people have a tendency to process self-confirming information and disregard information that disconfirms their views of themselves.
Also, comparison of all the discussed studies may be problematical because some
experiments were done individually and other experiments was done in teams. Although individual performance was measured in all the discussed studies some participants may have been affected by their teammates. For example the ability to work in a team opposed to working individually may have caused the different findings. Future research should take this into account and all constructs should be measured using the same experimental setting.
Finally organizational implications are made to suggest the importance of positive
leaders should keep in mind the effects of their emotional displays on their followers and the effects of a positive and supportive work environment in general to create a continuing flow at work on both the individual and team level. They should also acknowledge that it is sometimes good to show a negative emotion display in order to motivate and increase effort. This will help followers to belief that they can do it and will help them to acquire the capacity to do it even if they might not have had it at the beginning…
Research Design Method
Participants. The participants are candidates of an employee agency who will be
told a cover story regarding the purpose of the study. They will be told they have been selected for a highly paid job and selection for the job will based on a challenge. The challenge is based on navigating skills what is needed for the job. The experiment will be a 2x2 design were half of the participants will be in the depleted cognitive capacity condition and half will be in the full cognitive capacity condition. Half of both conditions will be in the negative emotion condition and half of both conditions will be in the positive emotion condition. The winner of the game will be selected for the job.
Materials
Inspired by existing GPS teambuilding games (http://lamosca.nl/) were teams go
into town guided by an online map (on tablet or smartphone) to complete challenges, there could be a GPS game developed for individuals to investigate the influence of emotional displays on self-efficacy and performance. This game includes the use of a the tablet that serves as a map to guide the individuals through town and on every checkpoint they will receive a challenge. This tablet is also pre-installed with a video where a trained actor will express either happiness or anger trough facial expressions, vocal intonation, and bodily
postures. (for similar procedures, see Barsade, 2002; Van Kleef et al., 2009).
Epistemic motivation will be assessed with the need for structure scale (Rietzschel, De Dreu, & Nijstad, 2007). The questionnaire consists out of 11 items and participants had to rate their agreement with the items on a scale ranging from 1, “strongly disagree,” to 5, “strongly agree”. An example question is: “It upsets me to go into a situation without knowing what I can expect from it”. High scores reflected high epistemic motivation.
Agreeableness will be assessed with the 12-item agreeableness subscale of the
Revised NEO Personality Inventory-Short Form (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Example of an item is: "I try to be courteous to everyone I meet". Participants had to rate their agreement with the items on a scale ranging from 1, “strongly disagree,” to 5, “strongly agree”. High scores reflected high agreeableness.
Self-Efficacy will be assessed with a self-efficacy scale based on the skills needed
for the game. Example questions are: “I think I will do good in navigating in to town” and “I am confident in completing the challenges”. Participants had to rate their agreement with the items on a scale ranging from 1, “strongly disagree,” to 5, “strongly agree”. High scores reflected high self-efficacy.
Manipulation check. Perceptions of the supervisors’ anger were measured by four
items (e.g., “The supervisor appeared angry after the challenge”). Perceptions of the leader’s happiness were measured by four items (e.g., “The supervisor appeared happy after the challenge”). The average rating on this scale was indication for the perceived emotion.
Procedure
An employment agency will be asked to collaborate on this experiment. The
participants will be welcomed and after they heard the cover story they fill out the
negative emotion condition will receive the tablet where the game supervisor will provide negative emotion feedback to the participants and the positive emotion condition will receive the tablet where the game supervisor provides positive emotion feedback. The depleted cognitive capacity condition will be instructed that they will perform the game under time constraints and the full cognitive capacity condition will be instructed they will have to return when they completed the tasks. The game supervisor was a trained actor blind to the purpose of the study. In the negative emotion condition the actor learned to reproduce a non-specific script were comments will be focused on navigating quickly and efficient (these are aspects that can always be improved). The game supervisor spoke the same text in both emotion conditions, expressing either happiness or anger. The game supervisor “connected” with the tablet after every challenge to provide the standardized feedback and after the feedback the participants will be instructed to complete a questionnaire that included measures of self-efficacy and the manipulation check. After the game the participants will return to the meeting point and it will be revealed who is selected for the job. (Based on the real scores of the tasks). They will be thanked for coming and will gather in a room where the real purpose of the study will be told and debriefed. No actual candidate will be selected on this base because there was no actual job application.
Analyses
The hypotheses could be tested using a MANOVA. There will be more than two
conditions compared in combination with more independent variables on mean scores of more dependent variables. In this way main effects of each hypotheses will be controlled and there will be controlled for interaction effects.
Expectations
What could be expected is that participants with a leader in a negative affect
when epistemic motivation is low. Experiencing angry feedback will lead to worse
performance through self-efficacy judgments and experiencing happy feedback will lead to better performance through self-efficacy judgments. When epistemic motivation is high people will perform better when experiencing anger then happiness, and they will perform better when experiencing happiness then anger when epistemic motivation is low. This is mediated by self-efficacy. Agreeable people will perform better when experiencing an happy feedback than angry feedback and people low in agreeableness will show the opposite. This process is mediated by self-efficacy. Finally depleted cognitive capacity will lead to better performance for participants receiving the positive affect feedback. Performance would be better under a negative affect display when cognitive capacity is fully available.
Implications. These results first indicate that experiencing an emotion display will
lead to thinking about one’s capabilities and therefore performance will be influenced. Controlling for epistemic motivation and agreeableness will show when the inferential pathway will be activated. When epistemic motivation is high and when agreeableness is low, behavior will be guided by the inferential pathway. When epistemic motivation is low and agreeableness is high people will be guided by their affective reactions, hence self-efficacy beliefs about performance will influence performance. Last, when enough cognitive resources are available experiencing an angry display will lead to better performance trough inferential processes. When cognitive capacity is depleted happiness will lead to better performance (trough affective reactions). When cognitive capacity is depleted inferences about
performance cannot easily be made and therefore performance will be worse under an angry emotional display and better under a happy emotion display. When enough cognitive resources are available the inferential pathway will guide behavior.
Literature
Comment [CA1]: You have team
performance and team feedback but you are assisting individual measures. Is this team epistemic motivation or individual? Wouldn’t the team have an effect on performance and self-efficacy? Maybe teams with many high epistemic motivated members will be different than teams with low epistemic motivation (or
agreeableness).
Maybe you should have it done as an individual task and individual feedback?
Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human
behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71-81). New York: Academic Press. (Reprinted in H. Friedman
[Ed.], Encyclopedia of mental health. San Diego: Academic Press, 1998).
Barsade, S. G. (2002). The ripple effect: Emotional contagion and its influence on group
behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(4), 644-675.
Baccus, J. R., Baldwin, M. W., & Packer, D. J. (2004). Increasing implicit self-esteem
through classical conditioning. Psychological Science, 15(7), 498-502.
Gaddis, B., Connelly, S., & Mumford, M. D. (2004). Failure feedback as an affective event: Influences of leader affect on subordinate attitudes and performance. The Leadership
Quarterly, 15(5), 663-686.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2001). The role of positive emotions in positive psychology: The
broaden-and-build theory of positive emotions. American psychologist, 56(3), 218.
Kavanagh, D. J., & Bower, G. H. (1985). Mood and self-efficacy: Impact of joy and sadness
on perceived capabilities. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 9(5), 507-525.
Nease, A. A., Mudgett, B. O., & Quiñones, M. A. (1999). Relationships among feedback sign, self-efficacy, and acceptance of performance feedback. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 84(5), 806.
Pajares (2002). Overview of social cognitive theory and of self-efficacy. June, 20, 2014, from
http://www.emory.edu/EDUCATION/mfp/eff.html
Reynolds, D. (2006). To what extent does performance-related feedback affect managers’ self-efficacy?. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 25(1), 54-68.
Van Doorn, E. A., Heerdink, M. W., & Van Kleef, G. A. (2012). Emotion and the construal of social situations: Inferences of cooperation versus competition from expressions of anger, happiness, and disappointment. Cognition & emotion, 26(3), 442-461.
(EASI) model." Current Directions in Psychological Science18.3 (2009): 184-188. Van Kleef, G. A., Homan, A. C., Beersma, B., van Knippenberg, D., van Knippenberg, B., & Damen, F. (2009). Searing sentiment or cold calculation? The effects of leader
emotional displays on team performance depend on follower epistemic motivation.
Academy of Management Journal, 52, 562–580.
Van Kleef, G. A., Homan, A. C., Beersma, B., & van Knippenberg, D. (2010). On angry leaders and agreeable followers: How leaders’ emotions and followers’ personalities
shape motivation and team performance. Psychological Science, 21, 1827–1834.
Van Kleef, G. A., & Van den Berg, H. (2011). An interpersonal approach to emotion and persuasion: Effects of discrete emotional expressions on attitude change. Manuscript
in preparation.
Saemi, E., Porter, J. M., Ghotbi-Varzaneh, A., Zarghami, M., & Maleki, F. (2012). Knowledge of results after relatively good trials enhances self-efficacy and motor
learning. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 13(4), 378-382.
Volmer, J. (2012). Catching Leaders’ Mood: Contagion Effects in Teams. Administrative
Sciences, 2(3), 203-220.
Salanova, M., Bakker, A. B., & Llorens, S. (2006). Flow at work: evidence for an upward spiral of personal and organizational resources*. Journal of Happiness Studies, 7(1),
1- 22.
Sy, T., Côté, S., & Saavedra, R. (2005). The contagious leader: impact of the leader's mood
on the mood of group members, group affective tone, and group processes. Journal of
applied psychology, 90(2), 295.
Thelwell, R. C., Lane, A. M., & Weston, N. J. (2007). Mood states, self-set goals, self-
efficacy and performance in academic examinations. Personality and Individual
