1
Causal relationships between proactive
behavior and moods.
Edwin de Jong
10289674
Supervisor: Inge Wolsink
28-06-2015
2 Inhoudsopgave ABSTRACT 3 1. INTRODUCTION 4 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 5 2.1 PROACTIVE BEHAVIOR 5
2.1.1 THE IMPORTANCE OF PROACTIVITY IN ORGANIZATIONS 5
2.1.2 RESEARCH GAP ON PROACTIVITY 6
2.2 MOODS 6
2.2.1 MOOD REGULATION 6
2.2.2 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MOODS AND EMOTIONS 7
2.2.3 MOODS AND PROCESSING 8
2.2.4 HOW MOODS CAN BE REGULATED 9
2.2.5 MOOD EFFECTS ON BEHAVIOR AND BEHAVIOR EFFECTS ON MOOD REGULATION 9
2.3 PROACTIVE BEHAVIOR AND MOODS 10
2.3.1 POSITIVE MOOD EFFECTS ON PROACTIVE BEHAVIOR 10
2.3.2 PROACTIVE BEHAVIOR EFFECTS ON POSITIVE MOOD 11
2.3.3 NEGATIVE MOOD EFFECTS ON PROACTIVE BEHAVIOR 11
2.3.4 PROACTIVE BEHAVIOR EFFECTS ON NEGATIVE MOOD 12
3. METHOD 13
3.1 DESIGN AND SAMPLE 13
3.2 MEASURES, TASKS AND PROCEDURES 13
3.3 ANALYSIS AND PREDICTIONS 15
4. RESULTS 16
4.1 MOOD MANIPULATION CHECK 16
4.2 EFFECT OF POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE MOOD ON PROACTIVE BEHAVIOR 18 4.3 EFFECT OF PROACTIVE BEHAVIOR ON POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE MOOD 19
5. DISCUSSION 20
5.1 POSITIVE MOOD AND PROACTIVE BEHAVIOR 20
5.2 NEGATIVE MOOD AND PROACTIVE BEHAVIOR 21
5.3 INTERESTING FINDINGS 22
6. CONCLUSION 23
3
Abstract
Previous studies concluded cross-sectional relations between mood and proactive behavior, using surveys. Literature implies that positive and negative moods have a positive effect on proactivity, however causal effects were not tested. Results of this study indicate a contrary direction of this relation so that it is proactivity that has an effect on mood. We designed an experiment in which we manipulated mood and tested proactivity. Results did not support our hypothesis H1a: Positive mood has a positive effect on proactive behavior, nor H2a: Negative mood has a positive effect on proactive behavior. We did however find support for H1b: Proactive behavior has a positive effect on positive mood, and H2b: Proactive behavior has a negative effect on negative mood. Thus it appears that there is no effect of mood on proactive behavior, as suggested by previous studies. But instead, proactive behavior appears to have an increasing effect on positive mood and a decreasing effect on negative mood. Meaning that someone’s overall mood can be positively influenced by proactive behavior.
Statement of originality
This document is written by Student Edwin de Jong and I declare to take full responsibility for the contents of this document. I declare that the text and the work presented in this document is original and that no sources other than those mentioned in the text and its references have been used in creating it. The Faculty of Economics and Business is responsible solely for the supervision of completion of the work, not for the contents.
4
1. Introduction
‘Are you ambitious, up for a new challenge and proactive? Then you’re exactly what we’re looking for!’ A lot of job openings start with a similar sentence. Being ambitious and up for a new challenge makes sense to put in the text because that’s what makes people switch jobs. Then there is the popular concept of proactivity, which apparently is a positive characteristic to possess. According to Crant (2000) the reason for the popularity of proactive people is that the nature of work has become more dynamic and decentralized in the 21st century. Proactive behavior can provide the skills to engage successfully in such environment (Bateman & Crant, 1993).
Being proactive is about taking initiative and challenging the status quo in order to change the environment (Parker, Bindl, Strauss, 2010; Grand & Ashford, 2008). Several studies were dedicated to proactive behavior and its relation with different variables, most of them used surveys and established correlational effects (Crant, 2000; Parker, Williams & Turner, 2006; Fritz & Sonnentag, 2007). So concluded Fritz and Sonnentag (2007) that certain affective states are related to proactivity on the same and following work day, results were obtained conducting surveys. Another study of Sonnentag (2003) used questionnaires to establish a relation between attitudes of employees and day-level proactive behavior. More recently, another study also using surveys found support for a relation between positive and negative moods and proactivity (Bindl, Parker, Totterdell & Hagger-Johnson, 2012). So all these examples used surveys and concluded with some kind of relation of mostly antecedents, and sometimes consequences, of proactive behavior. Also striking is that these variables associated with proactivity are rather specific and situation-related. What is lacking in these studies are directions and prove of causality in the relation between antecedents and consequences of proactive behavior.
So current studies on proactivity primarily use surveys and several conclude that proactivity is related to some specific mood, which also tends to be situation related. An example for such a specific and related mood is someone feeling sad at work because he just heard he will not get promoted. An unrelated and non-specific mood is for example the negative mood someone has at work due to a high speeding ticket he or she received that morning. How the exact mechanisms between general mood
5
states and proactive behavior work exactly and in which direction the effects point is only suggested and thus underemphasized. This study will contribute to existing literature by designing an experiment in which moods are manipulated and proactivity is tested, in order to find relations and directions of the relations between mood and proactivity. This study comes down to answering the question: Are there causal relationships between proactive behavior and moods?
2. Theoretical framework
2.1 Proactive behavior
2.1.1 The importance of proactivity in organizations
Proactivity can be a vague and easily mixed up concept, therefore we start with discussing relevant findings of previous studies. Bateman and Crant (1993) describe proactive behavior as having a great effect on changing situations and simultaneously being relatively unconstrained by forces in these situations. In a research of Crant (2000) conducted some years later he complemented by stating that proactive behavior is self-starting, so it is initiated by the same person who conducted the behavior. People being reactive to situations tend to do the opposite; they behave only passively and reactively to situational forces. Closely linked to proactive behavior is proactive personality. These concepts differ in that proactive personality is more the tendency to take initiative (Bateman & Crant, 1993) while behavior focuses more on actually taking initiative or having effect on change (Grand & Ashford, 2008). This effect on change is not focused on short-term goals but is future oriented according to Grand and Ashford (2008). All this taken in consideration, for the rest of this study we will define proactive behavior as ‘self-starting anticipatory actions intended to effect the environment in the long-run’. Proactive behavior of employees is of crucial importance for an organization. Because new forms of management minimize surveillance, managers increasingly rely on proactive behavior of employees to identify and solve problems themselves (Frese, Fay, Hilburger, Leng, & Tag, 1997). A conclusion stated in the overview of Grant and Ashford (2008) was that proactive behavior improves the achievements within an organization and that creativity and innovation are
6
dependent of it. In the rapidly changing environments businesses have to compete in today, creativity and innovation are important characteristics to possess. Therefore it is essential for businesses as well as academics to find causal effects in order to better understand and eventually manage proactivity.
2.1.2 Research gap on proactivity
Because of the many different forms and definitions and the complexity of proactive behavior, there is a lot of research conducted on the subject. Most of these studies focus on one particular constructs of proactive behavior, like personal initiative (Frese et al., 1996), instead of discussing the whole concept of proactive behavior. However there are studies who did focus on the whole concept. For example Fritz and Sonnentag (2007) found that positive moods are related to proactive behavior. So previous studies found, among others, a relation between initiative and proactivity and also a relation between positive moods and proactive. It is conspicuous that all these studies establish some kind of
correlational effect between proactive behavior and a particular antecedent, but none of them mentions a causal effect. Also striking is that these studies focus on very specific situations like the study of Frese et al. (1996) on differences between East- and West-Germany. Or very specific constructs like taking charge, career success or an emotion like feeling excited (Morrison & Phelps, 1999; Seibert et al. 1999). Lacking in literature are non-related antecedents or consequences and non-specific situations related to proactive behavior. So the research gap on proactive consists of the lack of causal effects and more general antecedents or consequences. In this study we will try to find causal relations between proactive behavior and moods. We focus on moods because they are more general and long-term oriented in comparison to emotions, as will be explained in the following section.
2.2 Moods
2.2.1 Mood regulation
Several studies have shown that moods can influence whether systematic or heuristic processing is adopted. Positive mood is associated with heuristic forms of processing that are overly dependent on
7
activated or salient information. For example, people in positive mood are more likely, as compared to people in sad mood, to rely on stereotypic constructs (Bodenhausen, Kramer, & Susser, 1994),
peripheral cues in persuasion (Mackie & Worth, 1989), scripts (Bless, Bohner, Schwarz, & Strack, 1996), abstract categories (Gasper & Glore, 2002; Isen & Daubman, 1984) and dispositional
information (Forgas, 1998). In contrast, negative mood is associated with elaborative processing. For example, people in negative mood (sadness in particular) are more likely to base their attitudes on argument strength (Bless, Bohner, Schwarz, & Strack, 1990), are better at tasks that require analytical thinking (e.g., Melton, 1995), tend to seek diagnostic information in judgment and decision making (Edwards & Weary, 1993; Hildebrandt-Saints & Weary, 1989) and are more likely to avoid
stereotypic responses (Bodenhausen, Sheppard, & Kramer, 1994a). Several studies have shown that moods can influence whether systematic or heuristic processing is adopted. Positive mood is associated with heuristic forms of processing that are overly dependent on activated or salient information. For example, people in positive mood are more likely - as compared to people in sad mood - to rely on stereotypic constructs (Bodenhausen, Kramer, & Susser, 1994), peripheral cues in persuasion (Mackie & Worth, 1989), scripts (Bless, Bohner, Schwarz, & Strack, 1996), abstract categories (Gasper & Clore, 2002; Isen & Daubman, 1984) and dispositional information (Forgas, 1998). In contrast, negative mood is associated with elaborative processing. For example, people in negative mood (sadness in particular) are more likely to base their attitudes on argument strength (Bless, Bohner, Schwarz, & Strack, 1990), are better at tasks that require analytical thinking (e.g., Melton, 1995), tend to seek diagnostic information in judgment and decision making (Edwards & Weary, 1993; Hildebrandt-Saints & Weary, 1989) and are more likely to avoid stereotypic responses (Bodenhausen, Sheppard, & Kramer, 1994a).
2.2.2 Differences between moods and emotions
A term easily mixed up with proactive behavior and causing a conundrum for psychologists is emotion (Beedie, Terry & Lane, 2005). For example, by saying that someone has swinging moods or is
8
but academics devoted whole studies on making a distinction. A study of Beedie et al. (2005) argues why this distinction is important. One is from a therapeutic perspective, when there is a difference between mood and emotion there will also be different causes and consequences, which will need different intervening methods. Another reason argued by Beedie et al. (2005) is that there is confusion in science about the terms and that conceptual clarity is necessary in order to use and apply them correctly. Thus making distinction is important and necessary, we will continue with discussing on what aspects the terms differ.
Rosenberg (1998) argues that emotions and moods differ in duration and focus. Duration of moods appears longer in contrast to emotions and their focus is more generalizable compared to emotions which tend to focus more on a specific object. This would imply that moods can influence behavior to a bigger extent compared to emotions. Another distinction made by Ekman (1999) is that moods don not have specific causes but emotions do, which creates the need for different regulation strategies. Thus moods differ from emotions because moods are more general, less target specific and longer in duration (Tong, Tan, Latheef, Selamat & Tan, 2008). And in this study we focus on
influences of general moods, because most studies on proactivity use specific emotions.
2.2.3 Moods and processing
Tong et al. (2008) argue that specific moods have a specific way on how people process things. People in a positive mood for example, tend to rely on stereotypic constructs which leads to a heuristic manner of processing (Bodenhausen, Kramer, & Susser, 1994). While on the other hand people in a more negative mood tend to process things in an elaborative way and rely more on analytical thinking based on diagnostic information (Bless, Bohner, Schwarz, & Strack, 1990). Feelings that can be associated with negative moods are being upset, afraid or hostile. In contrast, positive moods can refer to active, inspired or excited feelings (Watson, Clark & Tellegen, 1988). So for example, feeling inspired by a speech leads to an unrealistic or exaggerated perspective of reality which causes a
9
systematic way of processing the whole situation. Thus dependent on specific moods (positive or negative) people have different ways of processing things mentally.
2.2.4 How moods can be regulated
Considering that emotions have a specific cause a fitting moderation strategy could be to firstly identify this cause and when identified, try to reappraise or remove it (Thayer, 1996). In this same study Thayer suggests that an effective strategy to regulate mood, as opposed to regulate emotions, is to try altering ones feelings by for example engaging in physical exercise or listening to music. So regulating emotions focuses more on the source, while regulating moods emphasizes more on behavior unrelated to the target because it is often unknown (Beedie et al., 2005). Regulating moods can happen implicitly, explicitly, or by a combination of the two. According to Gross (2002), regulating moods explicitly takes effort and is therefore deliberative. On the other hand will regulating moods implicitly happen automatically due to the stimulus itself, for example because it feels unpleasant (Gyurak, Gross & Etkin, 2011). Kuhl (2000) developed a theory which states that automatically regulating moods happens through action orientation. Thus moods can be regulated implicitly and explicitly (Gross, 2002) which causes the need for different strategies on how to regulate these moods.
2.2.5 Mood effects on behavior and behavior effects on mood regulation
One effect mood can have on behavior is the loss of attention. People in a positive mood tend to bring more information to mind than people in a negative mood (Mackie & Worth, 1991). For example being energized leads to the longing of absorbing as much of your environment as possible. Absorbing as much information as possible has the effect that people have to focus on more aspects which causes the diffusion, and maybe even loss on some aspects, of attention. Following on this step, Mackie and Worth (1991) concluded that people in positive moods process information less efficient compared to people in negative moods. In line with this conclusion, Bless et al. (1990) stated that people in positive moods process information heuristically and people in negative moods more systematically. Which is probably caused by the quantity of information which they have to deal with. And because of the
10
systematic processing style of people in negative moods they are less easily persuaded than
heuristically processing positive people and can therefore behave stubbornly for example (Bless et al., 1990).
So positive and negative moods lead to different styles of processing information and assessing situations which has an effect on behavior. For example, positive mood can improve customer service and lead to helping colleagues, which in turn is positively associated with
performance behavior (George, 1991; Lee & Allen, 2002). On the other hand, negative moods can lead to less social behavior but can increase attention (George, 1990; George & Zhou, 2002). Thus it seems that negative moods can generate bad and good behavior. And positive moods can also lead to good as well as bad behavior, so they are not necessarily linked.
2.3 Proactive behavior and moods
2.3.1 Positive mood effects on proactive behavior
Several studies assume a direct or indirect relation between positive moods and proactive behavior. For example there is the “broaden-and-build” model of Fredrickson (1998) which indicates an indirect relation. In this study participants with positive manipulations named more things they would like to do than the people in the neutral and negative manipulations. So this model indicates that positive mood can serve as a resource to give attention, cognition and action a positive impulse. Which can in turn initiate proactive behavior which is an action and goal oriented activity. Parker, Bindl and Strauss (2010) also concluded that activated positive mood states leads to a feeling energized to do something which in turn leads to proactivity. A study of Rothbard and Wilk (2006) came to the conclusion that positive moods have a positive effect on resources such as energy and attention, which fosters proactive behavior. Also, the effect of positive affect on initiative is likely to be positive, but this link is suggestive and has not been tested (Belschak & Den Hartog, 2007). Positive affect is also positively related with approach behavior, which means moving towards something instead of avoiding
11
self-regulatory, goal-oriented and persistent aspects. And these aspects lead to active participation and engagement with the situation and environment, which are also indicators of proactive behavior. Another rather specific study of Fritz and Sonnentag (2007) concluded from their results that positive mood is positively related to proactive behaviors on the same and the following workday. Which indicates that positive mood might have a causal effect on proactivity.
However, these results only hint towards a causal path and therefore we developed an
experimental design to test the following hypothesis: Positive mood has a positive effect on proactive behavior (H1a).
2.3.2 Proactive behavior effects on positive mood
The previous paragraph indicates that the positive mood – proactive behavior link is well established. There is good evidence that positive moods and proactive behavior are correlated, but the exact mechanisms of this relation have not been investigated. The most common explanation has been that because of its energizing, broadening effect, positive mood must effect proactivity. However, another possibility is that it is proactive behavior that gives the energy and satisfaction which causes a positive effect on moods. For example, the indirect relation indicated by the “broaden-and-build” model of Fredrickson (1998) could also be the other way around. So that it is proactive behavior that serves as a resource to give attention, cognition and action a positive impulse, which in turn leads to positive mood. Current studies all indicate some kind of relationship between moods and proactive behavior and most imply that mood serves as the initiator. However the exact mechanisms are still unknown and it could as well be the other way around: That proactive behavior has a positive effect on positive mood. Which we will test with the following hypothesis: Proactive behavior has a positive effect on positive mood (H1b).
2.3.3 Negative mood effects on proactive behavior
Now we discussed the relationship between positive moods and proactive behavior it is time to take a closer look at the relation between negative moods and proactive behavior. Previous studies already
12
concluded that people with negative moods process information more efficiently (Mackie & Worth, 1991) which leads to a more systematic way of thinking (Bless et al., 1990). Negative moods also increases creativity which has a direct relation with proactive behavior (George & Zhou, 2002). But others (e.g. Davis, 2009) suggest the relation between intensive affect states and creativity is curvilinear, thus intensive negative and positive affect relates to creativity. Thus current literature suggests that target specific negative emotions have a positive effect on proactivity, in this study we will try to establish a causal relationship between negative moods and proactive behavior in an experimental design. We will also distinguish from previous literature because we will investigate unrelated negative moods, while current studies all use related and specific negative moods or emotions which can also be concluded from all examples give so far. Therefore we will test the following hypothesis: Negative mood has a positive effect on proactive behavior (H2a).
2.3.4 Proactive behavior effects on negative mood
Negative mood creates a need for control and persistence, these impacts create the want to actively act in order to change the situation (Parker, Bindl & Strauss, 2010). The reason people want to change this situation is because there is a mismatch between the actual and desired situation. And in order to get rid of feelings one might have in such a situation like anger or frustration - people act proactively to change it (Carver & Scheier, 2000). This would indicate a positive effect of proactive behavior on negative mood in order to regulate unwanted situations and feelings. However, recent studies establish only a correlational relation between proactive behavior and negative moods. Therefore we will try to obtain a better understanding of the exact mechanisms by testing the following hypothesis: Proactive behavior has a negative effect on negative mood (H2b).
13
3. Method
3.1 Design and sample
The research group in this study consists of a total of 189 business and psychology students of the University of Amsterdam, where the recruitment took place as well. A compensation of ten euro or one participant point per participant was given. Participants underwent the experiment in pairs due to the social construct involved in the proactivity part. A total of 15 participants were excluded from analysis: 11 participants because of missing data, one because of age, two because they were aware of the purpose and one because of misinterpretation. Leaving a total of 174 participants with an average age of 22.13 (SD = 4.515) consisting of 120 females and 54 males. The group was approximately equally distributed among the conditions: 58 in the negative, 56 in the control and 60 in the positive.
3.2 Measures, tasks and procedures
The experiment started with a seven-point scale survey varying from totally agreeing (1) to totally disagreeing (7) on statements about moods - established and tested by Hess and Blairy (2001). This scale proved to be reliable: Results of this this test will be referred to as the mood baseline or A1. After the mood baseline test a mood manipulation took place in which participants were distributed in three conditions; negative, neutral or positive. We needed to manipulate the moods of the participant in order to investigate causal relations between proactive behavior and moods and vice versa.
Participants got to see a slideshow of images on a computer while at the same time listening to music. There were three conditions which were randomly distributed to the participants, the combination of images and music could be negative, neutral or positive. The images used were proven valid by Marchewka, Zurawski, Jednoróg & Grabowska (2014). After the mood manipulation participants filled out the mood survey for the second time so effects of the manipulation could be measured, this test will be referred to as the mood manipulation check or A2. The next step in the experiment was a test on proactivity.
14
to play the role of the leader and the other to be the subordinate. In reality we assigned all participants to be the subordinate. We did this because proactivity is a self-initiated thing, so if the participant showed initiative it was beyond job-requirements and extra role-behavior and thus proactive behavior. Profiles of three (A, B and C) possible candidates to become the new dean of the faculty were handed out to the participants containing positive, neutral and negative qualities of the candidates. According to the information the participants received, candidate profile A contained the most positive qualities and was therefore the most obvious choice.
But we also told the participants that the leader could receive other information regarding these profiles. After the participants read the profiles they had the possibility to initiate a virtual conversation with the leader, but this was their choice. So participants had the possibility to explain their choice. Which if they did was a sign of taking initiative because it is self-started and extra-role behavior. In case participants initiated the conversation the leader responded with a pre-fixed answer. This pre-fixed response explained that the leader reviewed the information by taking notes on which qualities were found to be positive, neutral or negative and concluded with suggesting that the
subordinate should have a look at these notes. Consequently the experiment leader entered the cubicle and handed the information the fictive leader received, including notes we made beforehand, to the participant. In case the participant did not initiate the conversation, the message of the fictive leader popped up anyhow after a time limit of 10 minutes and the notes of the leader were handed out. So at this stage the subordinate had both sets of information and when he or she would add up all positive - neutral and negative qualities - the obvious choice would be candidate C. After the experiment leader handed out the notes to the subordinate, the leader indicated that his/her choice was candidate B. Then the subordinate participant had the choice to go along with the leader, or challenge his/her choice. To be sure the task measured actual proactive behavior instead of just initiative or just challenge, we made a scale of proactive behavior in which scores on both are added.
Following on the proactivity test was the third and last mood survey, which will be referred to as proactivity mood check or A3. This time it was to check whether the moods of the participant were influenced by the way they behaved in the proactivity test. This mood survey was employed to
15
of internal consistency as the Cronbach’s Alpha in all constructs were widely above .7 as can be seen in the descriptive table in the result section. Last there was an exit questionnaire with, among others, questions about what the participants thought the experiment was about, this is to control for bias.
3.3 Analysis and predictions
We started analyzing by checking whether the mood manipulations actually worked with a one-way ANOVA on positive and negative mood in the different conditions. This test showed whether there is a significant difference in mean between the three conditions. For the positive mood in A2 we expected the following values per condition: high values in the positive, values around zero in the control and low values in the negative. Expectations for the negative mood values were the exact opposite: high in the negative, around zero in the control and low in the positive condition.
Then we proceeded with a one-way Anova to test the effects of positive and negative mood on proactive behavior. We expected that both positive and negative moods had a positive effect on proactive behavior, which is in line with hypotheses H1a and H2a. Also, we performed a Spearman’s rank-order correlation test to assess the relationship between the change in positive and negative mood between A1 and A2, and proactive behavior. Here we expected to find a significant positive
correlation between both positive and negative mood and proactive behavior.
Last, we performed a multiple regression test to see whether proactive behavior has an effect on the difference between the second and the third measure of positive and negative mood. We expected to find a positive effect of proactive behavior on increases in positive mood and a negative effect of proactive behavior on decreases in negative mood. Which is in line with hypotheses H1b and H2b.
16
4. Results
4.1 Mood manipulation check
A one-way Welch ANOVA was conducted to determine whether the increase in negative and positive mood from the first to the second mood measure was different for all three conditions. Participants were classified into three conditions: negative (n = 58), control (n = 56) and positive (n = 59). Data were normally distributed for each condition as assessed by Shapiro-Wilk test (p > .05) and there was heterogeneity of variances, as assessed by Levene’s test of homogeneity of variances (p < .005).
Table 1: descriptive and reliability mood
Mean Cronbach Alpha
A1 Positive 66.557 .908 A1 Negative 23.148 .864 A1 total 44.853 .886 A2 Positive 62.418 .955 A2 Negative 26.228 .914 A2 total 44.323 .935 A3 Positive 65.607 .939 A3 Negative 20.895 .880 A3 total 43.251 .910
As expected, negative mood after manipulation went from high in the negative condition (N = 58, M = 19.653, SD = 16.003) to low in the positive condition (N = 59, M = -5.311, SD = 7.328). Also,
positive mood after manipulation went from low in the negative condition (N = 58, M = -18.483, SD = 16.578) to high in the positive condition (N = 59, M 3.411, SD = 8.615). Values in the control condition for both negative (N = 56, M = -.653, SD = 8.770) and positive (N = 56, M = -1.286, SD = 9.124) were between the other conditions as expected. The differences between the conditions were statistically significantly for both Δ’s in negative mood: Welch’s F (2, 105.896) = 58.179, p < .001 and Δ in positive mood: Welch’s F (2, 107.884) = 39.727, p < .001.
17 -25,0000 -20,0000 -15,0000 -10,0000 -5,0000 0,0000 5,0000 10,0000 15,0000 20,0000 25,0000
Negative Control Positive
Manipulation check
A1-A2-negative A1-A2- positive
50,0000 55,0000 60,0000 65,0000 70,0000 75,0000 A1 A2 A3
Positive mood fluctuation between conditions
Negative Control Positive
10,0000 15,0000 20,0000 25,0000 30,0000 35,0000 40,0000 45,0000 A1 A2 A3
Negative mood fluctuation between conditions
18
4.2 Effect of positive and negative mood on proactive behavior
We tested whether mood - positive and/or negative - has an influence on proactive behavior using a one-way Anova. Proactive behavior was not normally distributed (test statistic), but variance was equal between conditions (levels). Participants did show the expected pattern (see figure 2), since they were most proactive in the negative condition (n = 56, M = 4.7, SD = 2.008), followed by the control condition (n = 56, M = 4.05, SD = 2.219) and the positive condition (n = 60, M = 3.97, SD = 2.155), however, these differences were not significant F (2, 169) = 1.994, p = .139. This indicates that negative nor positive mood effects proactive behavior. So we did not find support for hypothesis H1a: Positive mood has a positive effect on proactive behavior, nor H2a: Negative mood has a positive effect on proactive behavior. However, to be able to control for the mood people were in when they entered the experiment, we also wanted to analyze whether actual changes in mood affected
proactivity. We thus proceeded with a Spearman’s rank-order correlation test to assess the relationship between the change in positive and negative mood between the first (A1) and second (A2) affect measure and proactive behavior. Preliminary analysis showed the relationship to be non-linear but monotonic, as assessed by visual inspection of a scatterplot. There was a weak positive correlation between change in negative mood (∆ A1-A2) and proactive behavior, Rs (169) = .153, p <.05, but no relation between changes in positive mood (∆ A1-A2) and proactive behavior, Rs (169) = -.065, ns). So these results indicate that negative mood does have a relation with proactive behavior – though weak - and positive mood and proactive behavior are not related.
0,00 1,00 2,00 3,00 4,00 5,00 6,00
Negative Control Positive
19
4.3 Effect of proactive behavior on positive and negative mood
We ran a multiple regression to predict the change in negative and positive mood from proactive behavior. The assumptions of linearity, independence of errors, homoscedasticity, unusual points and normality of residuals were met, one outlier (PPRN = 169) was excluded. The variable proactive behavior predicted the variable for change in positive mood between the second and the third affect measure (∆ A2-A3), F (1, 167) = 8.910, p = .003. Also, proactive behavior predicted ∆ A2-A3 in negative mood, F (1, 167) = 9.141, p = .003. This indicates that the more proactive participants are, the less negative and more positive they feel. We thus found support for hypothesis H1b: Proactive behavior has positive effect on positive mood, and hypothesis H2b: Proactive behavior has a negative effect on negative mood.
Table 2: Summary of multiple regression analysis
Dependent variable: B SEß ß
∆ A2-A3-negative -1.267 .419 -.228*
∆ A2-A3-positive 1.353 .453 -.225*
Note. *p <.05; B = unstandardized regression coefficient; Seß = standard error of the
coefficient; ß = standardized coefficients. And independent variable = Proactive behavior
Spearman correlation table
∆ A1-A2: ∆ A1-A2: ∆ A2-A3 ∆ A2-A3
Mean 1. P.B. 2. Positive 3. Negative 4. Positive 5. Negative
1. Proactive behavior 4.23 X -.078 .168* .231** -.293** ∆ A1-A2: 2. Positive -4.139 X -.685** -.593** .483** 3. Negative 3.079 X .522** -.616** ∆ A2-A3: 4. Positive 3.189 X -.764** 5. Negative -5.333 X
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). **. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
20
5. Discussion
This study examined relations between moods, positive or negative, and proactive behavior. Specifically, we examined causal effects of moods on proactive behavior and proactive behavior on moods in a unique experimental design. No causal effects of negative or positive mood on proactive behavior were found, which is contradictory with suggestions made in previous studies. We did find causal effects of proactive behavior on positive as well as negative mood, which provides new and useful insights on the causal relation between proactivity and mood.
5.1 Positive mood and proactive behavior
We started this study with hypothesis H1a - positive mood has a positive effect on proactive behavior. Results indicate there is no such positive effect. A study of Fredrickson (1998) indicated with its “broaden-and-build” model that positive mood can serve as a resource to give attention, cognition and action a positive impulse and implied that this in turn could lead to proactivity. Other studies (Parker, Bindl & Straus, 2010; Rothbard & Wilk, 2006) concluded that positive affect states lead to feeling energized which causes proactivity. However considering the results of our study, apparently there is no relation between positive mood and proactivity. It could be that certain specific emotions or affect states like feeling energized have a positive effect on proactive behavior. However, results of our study do not support a relation between a more general positive mood and proactivity. Belschak and Den Hartog (2007) suggested that the effect of positive affect on initiative is likely to be positive. As initiative was part of the proactivity test in this study, we can conclude that we did not find effects of positive mood on initiative - positive or negative. Thus, findings of this study do not support the causal effect of positive mood on proactive behavior, as was hinted by previous studies (e.g. Fritz &
Sonnentag, 2007).
Although results of this study did not support a causal relation of positive mood on proactive behavior, they do support our hypothesis H1b - proactive behavior has a positive effect on positive mood. So, previous studies on proactivity and moods all indicate some kind of relation and most imply that mood is the initiator. However in this study we found results indicating that it is proactive
21
behavior that has a positive effect on positive mood and not the other way around. Thus our results indicate that, for example, the “broaden-and-build” model of Fredrickson (1998) is the other way around so that proactivity serves as a resource to give attention, cognition and action a positive impulse, which in turn leads to positive mood. Also a specific positive emotion as feeling energized can be triggered by behaving proactive, but does not serve as a trigger to initiate proactivity. Thus, results of this study indicate that positive moods can be effected in a positive way by proactive behavior.
5.2 Negative mood and proactive behavior
Results on our hypotheses concerning negative moods and proactive behavior are similar to the results on positive mood. We did not find support for hypothesis H2a: Negative mood has a negative effect on proactive behavior. Previous studies concluded that people with negative moods process information more efficiently (Mackie & Worth, 1991) which leads to a more systematic way of thinking (Bless et al., 1990) and thereby can initiate proactive behavior. Also, negative moods increase creativity, which has a relation with proactive behavior (George & Zhou, 2002). Another study conducted in 2009 by David suggested that the relation between creativity and mood is curvilinear. All these studies assume some kind of indirect relation or interaction between negative mood and proactivity. We tested this relation and results indicate that this assumption is incorrect and there is no causal relation of negative mood on proactivity, while previous studies implied it would. It is possible however that a relation between certain specific or related negative emotions and proactivity exists, but results of this study indicate that proactive behavior is not positively influenced by negative mood.
The assumption made in previous studies about a positive effect of negative mood on
proactivity appears to be incorrect, but a relation of some sort does exist. Results of this study support our hypothesis H2b: Proactive behavior has a negative effect on negative mood. This is in line with the study of Carver and Scheier (2000), who concluded that people want to get rid of negative feelings like anger and frustration and in order to achieve the desired affect state, they tend to use proactive behavior. Previous studies only established a correlational relation between proactivity and negative
22
mood, now we found support for the actual causal relation which indicates a huge step forward in understanding the exact mechanisms between proactive behavior and mood.
5.3 Interesting findings
As this was the first experimental design testing proactivity, there are some important matters to take into consideration. The first interesting finding concerns the mood manipulation, overall it worked as meant but effects in the positive condition were weak (see figures in result section). Thus the positive mood manipulation apparently was not strong enough. So for future research, or when replicating this study, it might be better to alter the positive mood manipulation. For example the manipulation method used in the study of Petty, Schumann, Richmand and Strathman (1993) could be used, in which positive mood was manipulated by showing a video of the Cosby show and which appeared to work convincingly. However, we do not believe that our weak positive mood manipulation influenced the results.
It would also be interesting for future research to include the variable proactive trait, meaning that someone is proactive in general and thus not just behaves proactive in a particular situation. So could be checked whether findings are the same for people who are trait proactive and people who are not. Another variable interesting to include in the experimental design is time. Little is known about the duration of manipulation effects, and what circumstances and variables are of influence. For example it could be that our negative manipulation effected participants for 30 minutes, and the positive manipulation only 15 minutes. Which in turn could be of influence on the proactivity task following on the manipulation. For the proactivity task itself it would also be interesting to consider the time it took participants before taking initiative or challenging the leader.
Lastly, it is very important for future studies to replicate and improve the proactivity task of our design. The most important aspect to further develop and improve is the way in which the proactivity task is programmed. It is hard to program the task in such a way that participants actually believe that they are communicating with another person. As this was the first experimental design on
23
proactivity, future research should indicate whether results and findings are different when the manipulation and the proactivity task are improved.
6. Conclusion
Innovations in IT and decentralization of industries are changing the nature of every day work, and create the need for proactive employees. Many studies on the antecedents and consequences of proactivity exist, an important concept related to proactive behavior appears to be mood (e.g. Bindl et al., 2012; Frese et al., 1997). This study therefore focused on causal relations of mood on proactive behavior and vice versa: proactive behavior on mood. Previous studies on the subject were all
conducted by surveys and conclude with correlational relations (e.g. Bateman & Crant 1993). Several studies found support for a relation between both positive and negative mood and proactivity, and also imply that it is the positive or negative mood that initiates the proactivity (e.g. Fritz & Sonnentag, 2007). To actually test which direction the relation between mood and proactive behavior has, we designed an experimental study in which we manipulated moods and tested proactivity.
We started by measuring mood, after which the participants were divided over three conditions and were manipulating their moods. Then moods were measured again to check whether the manipulation worked, after which participants proceeded with the proactivity task. In this task participants had the opportunity to take initiative and challenge the leaders’ decision, which we used to design our proactivity scale. Following on the proactivity task was a last mood measure. Thus we have results of three mood measures and a proactivity task with which we can measure causal relations between mood and proactive behavior .
Contradictory to existing literature we did not find support for hypothesis H1a - positive mood has a positive effect on proactive behavior, and hypothesis H2a - negative mood has a negative effect on proactive behavior. Indicating that affective state, either negative or positive, has no causal influence on behaving more or less proactively. This does not mean that all previous studies on the subject were wrong, and that there is no relation at all between mood and proactivity. Results of this study suggest the causal effect is the other way around. We found support for hypothesis H1b -
24
proactive behavior has a positive effect on positive mood, and hypothesis H2b - proactive behavior has a negative effect on negative mood. Meaning that proactive behavior initiates an increase in positive mood and a decrease in negative mood; so either way people feel better after behaving proactively. Previous studies suggested a relation between mood and proactive behavior and implied that positive and negative moods have a positive effect on proactive behavior. Now this has actually been tested it appears to be the other way around. So this study and results contribute to existing literature because it is the first to establish and test a causal relation between proactive behavior and moods.
Because this is the first study with an experimental design testing mood and proactivity, improvements can be made and the findings should be tested in future studies. We suggest that these future studies focus especially on improving the positive mood manipulation and programming the proactivity task. Also interesting is to test the influence of variables like time and proactivity as a trait.
25
7. References
Bateman, T. S., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior: A measure and correlates. Journal of organizational behavior, 14(2), 103-118.
Beedie, C., Terry, P., & Lane, A. (2005). Distinctions between emotion and mood. Cognition & Emotion, 19(6), 847-878.
Bindl, U. K., Parker, S. K., Totterdell, P., & Hagger-Johnson, G. (2012). Fuel of the self-starter: How mood relates to proactive goal regulation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97(1), 134.
Bless, H., Bohner, G., Schwarz, N., & Strack, F. (1990). Mood and Persuasion A Cognitive Response Analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16(2), 331-345.
Bodenhausen, G. V., Kramer, G. P., & Süsser, K. (1994). Happiness and stereotypic thinking in social judgment. Journal of personality and social psychology, 66(4), 621.
Carver, C. S., Sutton, S. K., & Scheier, M. F. (2000). Action, emotion, and personality: Emerging conceptual integration. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(6), 741-751.
Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behavior in organizations. Journal of management, 26(3), 435-462.
Davis, M. A. (2009). Understanding the relationship between mood and creativity: A meta-analysis. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 108(1), 25-38.
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.
Frese, M., Fay, D., Hilburger, T., Leng, K., & Tag, A. (1997). The concept of personal initiative: Operationalization, reliability and validity in two German samples. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70(2), 139-161.
26
Frese, M., Kring, W., Soose, A., & Zempel, J. (1996). Personal initiative at work: Differences between east and west Germany. Academy of Management Journal, 39(1), 37-63.
Fritz, C., & Sonnentag, S. (2007). Antecedents of day-level proactive behavior: A look at job stressors and positive affect during the workday. Journal of Management.
George, J. M. (1991). State or trait: Effects of positive mood on prosocial behaviors at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(2), 299.
George, J. M., & Zhou, J. (2007). Dual tuning in a supportive context: Joint contributions of positive mood, negative mood, and supervisory behaviors to employee creativity. Academy of
Management Journal, 50(3), 605-622.
Grant, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in organizational behavior, 28, 3-34.
Gross, J. J. (1998). The emerging field of emotion regulation: An integrative review. Review of General Psychology, 2(3), 271.
Gross, J. J. (2002). Emotion regulation: Affective, cognitive, and social consequences. Psychophysiology, 39(3), 281-291.
Gyurak, A., Gross, J. J., & Etkin, A. (2011). Explicit and implicit emotion regulation: A dual-process framework. Cognition and Emotion, 25(3), 400-412.
Hess, U., & Blairy, S. (2001). Facial mimicry and emotional contagion to dynamic emotional facial expressions and their influence on decoding accuracy. International Journal of
Psychophysiology, 40(2), 129-141.
Kuhl, J. (2000). A functional-design approach to motivation and regulation. Handbook of self-regulation, 111-169.
27
Ilies, R., & Judge, T. A. (2005). Goal regulation across time: the effects of feedback and affect. Journal of applied psychology, 90(3), 453.
Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. (2002). Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace deviance: the role of affect and cognitions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 131.
Marchewka, A., Żurawski, Ł., Jednoróg, K., & Grabowska, A. (2014). The nencki affective picture system (NAPS): Introduction to a novel, standardized, wide-range, high-quality, realistic picture database. Behavior Research Methods, 46(2), 596-610.
Martin, L. L., Ward, D. W., Achee, J. W., & Wyer, R. S. (1993). Mood as input: people have to interpret the motivational implications of their moods. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(3), 317.
Parker, S. K., Bindl, U. K., & Strauss, K. (2010). Making things happen: A model of proactive motivation. Journal of Management,
Parker, S. K., Williams, H. M., & Turner, N. (2006). Modeling the antecedents of proactive behavior at work. Journal of applied psychology, 91(3), 636.
Petty, R. E., Schumann, D. W., Richman, S. A., & Strathman, A. J. (1993). Positive mood and persuasion: Different roles for affect under high-and low-elaboration conditions. Journal of personality and social psychology, 64(1), 5.
Rosenberg, E. L. (1998). Levels of analysis and the organization of affect. Educational Publishing Foundation.
Staw, B. M., Sutton, R. I., & Pelled, L. H. (1994). Employee positive emotion and favorable outcomes at the workplace. Organization Science, 5(1), 51-71.
Tong, E. M., Tan, C. R., Latheef, N. A., Selamat, M. F., & Tan, D. K. (2008). Conformity: moods matter. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38(4), 601-611.
28
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. Journal of personality and social
psychology, 54(6), 1063.
Zhou, J., & George, J. M. (2003). Awakening employee creativity: The role of leader emotional intelligence. The leadership quarterly, 14(4), 545-568.
