CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 373Job Satisfaction and Organizational BehaviorPsychological Well-being and Life SatisfactionEmotional Intelligence and Performance

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 181 of the 181 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Positive Emotions at Work

Open access
Diener, Ed, Thapa, Stuti, Tay, Louis·2020·Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior
DOI 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012119-044908
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Positive organizational scholarship has led to a growing interest in the critical role of positive emotions for the lives of both workers and organizations. We review and integrate the different perspectives on positive emotions (i.e., positive valence, positive emotion regulation strategies, and positive adaptive function) and the four main mechanisms (i.e., cognition, affect, behavior, and physiology) that lead to positive organizational outcomes. There is growing evidence that positive emotions influence variables vital for workplace success such as positive beliefs, creativity, work engagement, positive coping, health, teamwork and collaboration, customer satisfaction, leadership, and performance. We additionally review dynamic features of positive emotions (i.e., intraindividual variability, reactivity, inertia, cycles, feedback loops) and their relation to psychological and work outcomes. Finally, we discuss additional questions and future directions for consideration.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012119-044908

Cites

181 of 181 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Positive group affect may have nonlinear or context-dependent effects, strengthening cohesion or performance in some circumstances while impairing analytical rigor or dissent in others.

    “Recent work has further highlighted that positive group affect may have nonlinear or context-dependent effects, strengthening cohesion or performance in some circumstances while impairing analytical rigor or dissent in others (Diener et al., 2020).”

    From The Groupfeel syndrome: a theory of a counterproductive group emotion (2026) · cites this paper as Diener et al., 2020

    The Performance Outcomes section reports that collective positive emotions can improve cooperation and team performance. The section Do Positive Outcomes Always Emerge From Positive Emotions? also links positive emotions to shallower cognitive processing, but it does not establish that positive group affect impairs analytical rigor or dissent. The cited passages do not describe a nonlinear group-level effect. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 16

  1. 10.5465/amr.2001.5393903 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Avey JB, 2011, Hum. Res. Dev. Q., 22, 12752
  3. Barsade S, 2016, Harv. Bus. Rev., 94, 58
  4. Danna K, 1999, J. Manag., 25, 357
  5. Ford M, 2018, Handbook of Well-Being
  6. 10.1037//1089-2680.2.3.300 · DOI · Paper page
  7. 10.1037/0003-066X.56.3.218 · DOI · Paper page
  8. 10.1037/0003-066X.43.5.349 · DOI
  9. Halbesleben JR., 2010, Work Engagem.: Handb. Essent. Theory Res., 8, 102
  10. Holman D, 2018, Handbook of Well-Being
  11. 10.1037/0022-3514.58.1.164 · DOI
  12. Rhodes M., 1961, Phi Delta Kappan, 42, 305
  13. 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.110 · DOI
  14. Thorndike RL., 1949, Personnel Selection: Test and Measurement Technique
  15. Wessman AE, 1966, Mood and Personality
  16. Wright TA., 2005, Research in Occupational Stress and Well-Being: Exploring Interpersonal Dynamics, 221

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Diener, E., Thapa, S., & Tay, L.
Affiliations
  • University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
  • Purdue University West Lafayette (US)
ORCID
Venue
Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior
Publisher
Annual Reviews
Published
2020-01-21
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
451-477
ISSN
  • 2327-0608 (ISSN-L)
  • 2327-0616
DOI
10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-012119-044908
OpenAlex
W2985728577
Cited by
373
References
181
Citations by year
2026: 45 · 2025: 96 · 2024: 55 · 2023: 70 · 2022: 51 · 2021: 43 · 2020: 13
FWCI
4.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Job Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Psychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Emotional Intelligence and Performance
Keywords
positive emotions, positive valence, emotion regulation, work engagement, creativity, positive coping, employee health, teamwork, customer satisfaction, leadership, employee performance, within-person variability, emotional reactivity, emotional inertia, feedback loops

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review