Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 690

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Affect and Managerial Performance: A Test of the Sadder-but-Wiser vs. Happier-and-Smarter Hypotheses

Staw, Barry M., Barsade, Sigal G.·1993·Administrative Science Quarterly
DOI 10.2307/2393415
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

We thank Jennifer Halpern for her role in the original planning of this study and for her contributions to the development of the coding scheme used in this project. This study was made possible by a faculty research grant to the first author from the Institute of Industrial Relations at the University of California at Berkeley. This study provides a comparative test of two psychological theories concerning the relationship between affect and performance. Managerial simulations are used to test whether people who are positive in disposition perform better or worse on both decisional and interpersonal tasks. Results are consistent in supporting the happier-and-smarter as opposed to the sadder-but-wiser hypothesis, since they show positive relationships between dispositional affect and performance. The results are discussed in terms of their relevance to both the older literature on links between satisfaction and performance and the more recent controversy over the dispositional approach to job attitudes.'

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 · 10.2307/2393415

Cites

10 of 10 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

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 10 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Staw, B. M., & Barsade, S. G.
Venue
Administrative Science Quarterly
Publisher
JSTOR
Published
1993-06
Volume
38
Issue
2
Pages
304
ISSN
0001-8392 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.2307/2393415
OpenAlex
W1495906150
Cited by
690
References
10
FWCI
5.47
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.