CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 309Team Dynamics and PerformanceSocial and Intergroup PsychologySocial Power and Status Dynamics

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 111 of the 112 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Group Affect

Open access
Barsade, Sigal G., Knight, Andrew P.·2015·Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior
DOI 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032414-111316
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Over two decades of research has indicated that group affect is an important factor that shapes group processes and outcomes. We review and synthesize research on group affect, encompassing trait affect, moods, and emotions at a collective level in purposive teams. We begin by defining group affect and examining four major types of collective affective constructs: (a) convergence in group affect; (b) affective diversity, that is, divergence in group affect; (c) emotional culture; and (d) group affect as a dynamic process that changes over time. We describe the nomological network of group affect, examining both its group-level antecedents and group-level consequences. Antecedents include group leadership, group member attributes, and interactions between and relationships among group members. Consequences of group affect include attitudes about the group and group-level cooperation and conflict, creativity, decision making, and performance. We close by discussing current research knowns, research needs, and what lies on the conceptual and methodological frontiers of this domain.

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-032414-111316

Cites

111 of 111 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?

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

Show all 112 references

Research works printed but not linked: 29

  1. Barsade SG, 1995, Diss. Abstr. Int. A Humanit. Soc. Sci., 56, 1876
  2. Barsade SG, Gibson DE. 1998. Group emotion: a view from top and bottom. In Research on Managing Groups and Teams , Vol. 1, ed. MA Neale, EA Mannix, pp. 81–102. Greenwich, CT: JAI
  3. Byrne DE, 1971, The Attraction Paradigm
  4. D’Arcey JT. 2013. Assessing the validity of FaceReader using facial EMG . PhD Thesis, Calif. State Univ., Chico
  5. Druskat VU, 2001, The Emotionally Intelligent Workplace, 132
  6. Ekman P, 2003, Unmasking the Face: A Guide to Recognizing Emotions from Facial Expressions
  7. 10.1080/078559812 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Elfenbein HA, 2014, Organ. Psychol. Rev, 4, 326
  9. Fischer AH, 2008, Handbook of Emotions, 456
  10. 10.1037//1089-2680.2.3.300 · DOI · Paper page
  11. 10.1037//0021-9010.75.2.107 · DOI · Paper page
  12. George JM, 2002, Emotions and Work, 183
  13. George JM, 2011, Organ. Psychol. Rev., 1, 147
  14. 10.2307/258605 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Hatfield E, 1994, Emotional Contagion
  16. 10.1037//0033-2909.121.1.43 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Hochschild AR, 1983, The Managed Heart: Commercialization of Human Feelings
  18. Isen AM, 2000, Handbook of Emotions, 417
  19. Isen AM, 1991, Res. Organ. Behav., 13, 1
  20. Knight AP, 2014, J. Appl. Psychol
  21. 10.1037//0003-066X.37.9.1019 · DOI
  22. Lundqvist LO, 1995, J. Psychophysiol., 9, 203
  23. 10.1037//0022-3514.79.4.602 · DOI
  24. Moreland R. 1987. The formation of small groups. In Group Processes , ed. CA Hendrick, pp. 80–110. Rev. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Vol. 8. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
  25. Rafaeli A, 1989, Res. Organ. Behav., 2, 1
  26. Van Maanen J, 1989, Res. Organ. Behav, 11, 43
  27. Watson D, 2000, Mood and Temperament
  28. Weiss HM, 1996, Res. Organ. Behav., 18, 1
  29. Williams KY, 1998, Res. Organ. Behav., 20, 77

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–200 of 309

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Barsade, S. G., & Knight, A. P.
Affiliations
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • Washington University in St. Louis (US)
ORCID
Knight, Andrew P.
Venue
Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior
Publisher
Annual Reviews
Published
2015-04-10
Volume
2
Issue
1
Pages
21-46
ISSN
  • 2327-0608 (ISSN-L)
  • 2327-0616
DOI
10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032414-111316
OpenAlex
W4213324522
Cited by
309
References
112
Citations by year
2026: 33 · 2025: 44 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 30 · 2022: 33 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 35 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 5
FWCI
2.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Team Dynamics and Performance
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social Power and Status Dynamics
Keywords
group affect, collective affect, emotional culture, group leadership, group process, group performance, creativity, decision-making, conflict and cooperation, collective attitudes, nomological network

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