Organizational Behavior: Affect in the Workplace
Abstract
▪ Abstract The study of affect in the workplace began and peaked in the 1930s, with the decades that followed up to the 1990s not being particularly fertile. Whereas job satisfaction generally continues to be loosely but not carefully thought of and measured as an affective state, critical work in the 1990s has raised serious questions about the affective status of job satisfaction in terms of its causes as well as its definition and measurement. Recent research has focused on the production of moods and emotions at work, with an emphasis, at least conceptually, on stressful events, leaders, work groups, physical settings, and rewards/punishment. Other recent research has addressed the consequences of workers' feelings, in particular, a variety of performance outcomes (e.g., helping behaviors and creativity). Even though recent interest in affect in the workplace has been intense, many theoretical and methodological opportunities and challenges remain.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Research into cognitive processing has identified three major sources of influence on how information is processed and evaluated: decision maker utility, affect, and heuristics.
“Research into cognitive processing has identified three major sources of influence on how information is processed and evaluated: decision maker utility, affect, and heuristics [66-69].”
From Rationality versus reality: the challenges of evidence-based decision making for health policy makers (2010) · cites this paper as [69]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 146 · Cited by 1,797
- Authors
- Brief, A. P., & Weiss, H. M.
- Affiliations
- Tulane University (US)
- Venue
- Annual Review of Psychology
- Publisher
- Annual Reviews
- Published
- 2002-02
- Volume
- 53
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 279-307
- ISSN
- 0066-4308 (ISSN-L)
- 1545-2085
- OpenAlex
- W2128954165
- Cited by
- 1,797
- References
- 146
- Citations by year
- 2026: 33 · 2025: 49 · 2024: 72 · 2023: 68 · 2022: 60 · 2021: 97 · 2020: 95 · 2019: 85 · 2018: 86 · 2017: 93 · 2016: 92 · 2015: 114 · 2014: 109 · 2013: 104 · 2012: 117
- FWCI
- 4.99
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Annual Review of Psychology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Job Satisfaction and Organizational Behavior
- Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Employee Performance and Management
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Workplace Health and Well-being
- Keywords
- job satisfaction, workplace emotions, mood, stressful events, leadership, work teams, physical work environment, reward and punishment, helping behavior, creativity, performance outcomes, affective states
- MeSH terms
- Affect, Behavior, Cooperative Behavior, Helping Behavior, Humans, Job Satisfaction, Leadership, Life Change Events, Problem Solving, Reward, Organizational Culture, Workplace
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