Content uploaded by Moon Joung Kim
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Moon Joung Kim on May 30, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Seoul Journal of Business
Volume 22, Number 2 (December 2016)
The Effects of Trait Positive Affect on Autonomy and
Task Cohesion:
The Moderating Roles of Individual Affective
Dissimilarity and Group A ffective Diversity
Moon Joung Kim*
Seoul National University
Seoul, Korea
Abstract
In the present study, I examine how an individual’s trait positive affect
(TPA) may interact with those of group members to generate important
individual outcomes, such as autonomy and task cohesion. The proposed
multilevel moderated mediation framework was tested using data collected
from 293 employees in 66 workgroups. Results demonstrated that the
indirect effect of TPA on task cohesion through autonomy is stronger when
individual affective dissimilarity is low and group affective diversity is
high. The analysis also confirmed the role of autonomy as the mediating
mechanism between TPA and task cohesion.
Keywords: trait positive affect, affective dissimilarity, affective diversity,
autonomy, task cohesion
With the rise of team-based organizations, individuals are
likely to work with people from different backgrounds, who have
different perspectives and distinct emotions in collaborative and
interdependent relationships (Williams, Parker, and Turner 2007).
As dealing with differences becomes increasingly important, a topic
that warrants attention is the effects of a person’s dissimilarity
to others in the work group on the psychological and behavioral
* Visiting Researcher, Institute of Industrial Relations, Seoul National University,
E-mail : mjkim1@snu.ac.kr
2
Seoul Journal of Business
outcomes of the dissimilar person (Chattopadhay 2003). Although
surface-level, demographic differences have been the main focus of
the literature (Tsui and O’Reilly 1989), dissimilarities in the deep-
level, psychological features are now garnering more attention
(Harrison et al. 2002).
Beyond simple demographic characteristics, trait affect—a stable
and enduring personality trait expressed by the tendency to respond
to situations in a positive or negative way (Kaplan et al. 2009)—
is a valid and dening feature of an individual member’s personal
characteristics by which people identify differences (Barsade and
Gibson 1998; Huang 2009). By having a positive or negative frame
of mind, trait affect is found to play a significant role with regard
to the individual’s work attitudes and behaviors (Barsade and
Gibson 1998; Ng and Sorensen 2012). Despite its importance, the
implications of affective dissimilarity in groups have rarely been
studied in relational demography and group diversity literature
(Barsade et al. 2000). As such, in the present study I aim to gure
out how an individual’s trait affect may interact with those of group
members to generate important individual outcomes, such as
autonomy and task cohesion.
Task cohesion is defined as commitment of group members to
the task environment in which the group is working (Bernthal
and Insko 1993; Zaccaro 1991). Unlike social cohesion, which is
built upon the commonalities within homogeneous groups, task
cohesion based upon the task rather than the social aspects of
the group, has been suggested as a more appropriate concept for
diverse groups (Knouse 2006). In order to capitalize on the diversity
of its members and avoid suffering many of the social problems
associated with subgroup identities, groups are recommended to
focus on the task rather than functioning as a social entity (Salas,
Bowers, and Cannon-Bowers 1995; Zaccaro, Gualtieri, and Minionis
1995). Although task cohesion has been considered an effective
mechanism for bringing together diverse groups (Knouse 2006),
it has rarely been examined in relation to affective dissimilarity
or affective diversity in groups. By examining task cohesion as a
significant outcome of affective dissimilarity in a group setting, I
attempt to extend previous research on group dynamics that has
overemphasized the collective nature of the group.
Furthermore, I examine autonomy, that is, regulation by the self
or self-determination, as a key driver for task cohesion by using the
The Effects of Trait Positive Affect on Autonomy and Task Cohesion
3
framework of self-determination theory (SDT; Deci and Ryan 1985,
1991). SDT is an empirical approach to motivation and personality
in which autonomy is a core concept (Ryan and Deci 2006). Within
SDT, autonomy reflects the quality of behavioral regulation and
plays a critical role in enhancing engagement and generating
wellness. When individuals experience work as being more
autonomous and less controlling, they tend to be more engaged
(Greguras et al. 2014; Kearney, Gebert, and Voelpel 2009).While
autonomous motivation is determined to some extent by personality,
it is also either facilitated or inhibited by specic social conditions.
In the present study, I examine whether individuals’ trait affect
might influence their tendencies toward autonomous functioning,
and ultimately their commitment to a task. In this process, I focus
on the interplay between trait affect and affective contexts, including
individual differences within the team in terms of trait affect and
affective diversity, which might yield either facilitation or inhibition
of autonomy.
I examine whether the effects of trait affect on task cohesion via
autonomy may vary depending on the affective context by exploring
multilevel dynamics. Although prior research on affect has been
predominantly conducted at a single level of analysis, a multilevel
approach to affect research is necessary in that affective processes
in organizations are multilevel phenomena (Kim, Shin, and Kim
2013). The affective contexts surrounding individuals are found
to exert a strong influence on the affective processing of those
individuals’ affect and their attitudes and behaviors (Barsade and
Gibson 1998). In the present study, I examine whether the level of
autonomous motivation experienced by individual members and
their intrinsic commitment to tasks are influenced by affective
situations of two distinct levels, the relational and group levels
of analyses. Individual affective dissimilarity is ‘a focal member’s
differences from other members’ (Harrison and Klein 2007: 1200)
whereas group-level affective diversity refers to a ‘unit-level,
compositional construct’ operationalized by within-group standard
deviation (SD) (Harrison and Klein 2007). By examining differential
effects of social comparison (self-other comparison) at different
levels, I identify affective contexts that may lead to enhanced
autonomous motivation and task cohesion.
The present study makes the following contributions. First, I
expand upon previous research by considering affect in context.
4
Seoul Journal of Business
Although past research on affect has paid little attention to the
context within which the focal person performs roles (Hackman
1992), I examine individual affect in comparison with peer affect.
Individuals assess the context in which they are presenting
themselves and adjust aspects of presentation according to
contextual cues, by which they determine whether they are
similar to their reference groups and whether their sense of
self is acceptable (Boyd 2001). Second, I address the mediating
psychological mechanism (autonomy) through which trait positive
affect (TPA) increases task cohesion. By identifying autonomy as
a key mediating mechanism between TPA and task cohesion, this
study captures group processes other than social aspects in group
settings. Furthermore, I incorporate multilevel perspectives and
suggest that the indirect effect of TPA on task cohesion mediated
by autonomy may vary depending on group affective contexts.
By identifying and examining group affective contexts, this study
highlights the context-dependent nature of a TPA-individual
behavior relationship.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESES
Effects of Trait Positive Affect on Task Cohesion
Trait affect is a stable and enduring personality trait divided
into two types, positive affect (PA) and negative affect (NA) (Watson
2000). Watson et al. (1999) suggests that PA and NA represent
the subjective, emotional components of two basic bio-behavioral
systems that have evolved to promote survival. As a manifestation of
an “approach” system, termed the behavioral activation system (BAS;
Carver and White 1994), PA is considered to foster the vigor, energy,
and excitement that accompany reward-seeking behavior. On the
contrary, NA represents the behavioral inhibition system (BIS),
which is thought to promote survival by fostering avoidance-type
behaviors when the organism encounters potentially threatening or
aversive conditions (Kaplan et al. 2009).
Regarding affect valence, positive affect is my primary focus since
negative affect has been shown to be substantially less inuential
than positive affect in the group context (Damen et al. 2008;
McIntyre et al. 1991; Watson et al. 1992). For example, Watson et
The Effects of Trait Positive Affect on Autonomy and Task Cohesion
5
al. (1992) found no consistent relationship between negative affect
and various social processes, while nding consistent relationships
involving positive affect. Damen et al. (2008) also demonstrated
that positive affect is more important than its counterpart, negative
affect, when focusing on social interaction and affect congruency
effects. Although, semantically, negative affect may suggest the
theoretical possibility of the opposite situation of positive affect,
negative affect may be more related to internal states, such as stress
and psychopathology, but not to diverse indicators of social activity
and interpersonal satisfaction in the group context (Barsade et al.
2000).
As an approach system, PA has been theoretically suggested
to lead to an array of positive outcomes, such as enhanced task
cohesion as well as increased social cohesion. However, it is not easy
to nd an isolated hypothesis on the effect of PA on task cohesion.
Although task cohesion is recently getting more attention because
it emphasizes getting the job done above all else and encourages
the leveraging of heterogeneous skill sets in diverse groups, thus
being a better predictor for performance than a group cheer (Knouse
2006), both types of cohesion are closely intertwined. Those high
on PA tend to enjoy the activities in which they are engaged and
also enjoy strong social interactions with others, which again elicits
an increase in the shared commitment to the task among group
members (Tellegen 1985; Thorensen et al. 2003).
Empirically, it is not easy to draw a conclusion regarding the
relationship between PA and task cohesion. There has been a
substantial lack of empirical research on them, and the results of
those few studies have been inconsistent. For example, a relevant
piece of research done by van Vianen and De Dreu (2001) examines
the relationships between the Big Five personality traits, social and
task cohesion, and team performance, suggesting that high mean
levels of emotional stability (that is often used as a reverse proxy
for NA) contributed positively to task cohesion. High mean levels
of extraversion (that is often used as a proxy for PA), however,
contributed positively to social cohesion, but not to task cohesion.
Another relevant study done by Erdheim (2007) used state affect
as an indicator of team composition, reporting that mean state PA
was not related to task cohesion, but maximum PA was signicantly
related to task cohesion (β=.18, p < .05). Acknowledging weaknesses
surrounding laboratory experiments, Erdheim (2007) suggests that
6
Seoul Journal of Business
future studies consider trait affect, instead of state affect, in relation
to cohesion, that may not have been properly measured in a short-
term setting. The insufficient and inconsistent findings regarding
the relationship between TPA and task cohesion highlight the
importance of investigating mediating mechanisms.
Mediating Role of Autonomy
In order to further explore the mediating mechanism through
which TPA enhances task cohesion, I have identied a psychological
state, autonomy, as a plausible mediating mechanism. First,
PA, as an approach system, is more likely to increase autonomy.
Autonomy, the desire to ‘self-organize experience and behavior, and
to have activity be concordant with one’s integrated sense of self’
(Deci and Ryan 2000; Sheldon and Betencourt 2002: 27), can be
achieved through forming separation and often acting against the
crowd and social norms laid out by the collective, which involves
the risk of social embarrassment and punishment. Given that PA
is stimulated more by reward than punishment, a high PA person
is more likely to take the risk of social rejection when pursuing
autonomy. Those high in PA are also found to perceive less risk
and feel more in control of their environment (Isen 2000; Searle and
Parker 2013). Furthermore, PA is related with the concept of agency,
which refers to individuals’ strivings to individuate. Reected in the
tendency toward self-assertion and self-expansion, agency is found
to be signicantly positively related to PA (Saragovi et al. 2002). This
logic leads to my rst hypotheses:
H1: An individual member’s TPA will be positively related to
autonomy.
I further suggest that autonomy be a key driver for task cohesion
within the framework of self-determination theory. According to self-
determination theory, the satisfaction of the fundamental human
need for autonomy ultimately determines the quality of one’s
motivation to engage in a task (Gagne and Deci 2005; Liu, Chen,
and Yao 2011). If individuals feel in control of their actions and
experience work as being more autonomous and less controlling
(Greguras et al. 2014), they may concentrate on their tasks
without being disturbed by their relationships with others or their
The Effects of Trait Positive Affect on Autonomy and Task Cohesion
7
surroundings, and instead be intrinsically motivated to commit to a
task environment. (Kearney, Gebert, and Voelpel 2009).
Overall, I propose that TPA indirectly predicts task cohesion by
shaping autonomous motivation of individuals. Individuals’ TPA, to
some extent, may determine their tendencies toward autonomous
functioning, and autonomous motivation is in turn likely to facilitate
their engagement in a task. Those high on TPA tend to have high
motivation to be themselves and choose what they want to do, and
thus feel in control of their actions and experience work as being
more autonomous and less controlling (Greguras et al. 2014). Since
individuals who are highly autonomous rule themselves, and are
not ruled by external forces, they are, in turn, more likely to be
intrinsically motivated to commit to their tasks. Therefore, I assume
an overall positive, indirect effect of TPA on task cohesion through
autonomy. This logic leads to the following mediating hypothesis:
H2: Autonomy will mediate the relationship between TPA and
task cohesion.
Moderating Roles of Individual Affective Dissimilarity and Group
Affective Diversity
According to self-determination theory (SDT), autonomy can
be either facilitated or diminished by social conditions as well as
personality traits (Ryan and Deci 2006). The interplay between
inherent tendencies and situations, therefore, has been focused
within the SDT framework. In the present study, I examine two
types of affective conditions, that is, individual affective dissimilarity
and group affective diversity. Affective dissimilarity is defined as
differences in TPA between a focal member and the rest of the group
(Harrison and Klein 2007: 1200) and group-level affective diversity
is a ‘unit-level, compositional construct’ operationalized by within-
group standard deviation (SD) (Harrison and Klein 2007). I examine
whether these two types of affective conditions interact with TPA and
serve to either facilitate or to hinder the autonomy of individuals.
Both individual affective dissimilarity and group affective
diversity are relevant to the notion of social comparison (self-other
comparisons), but the major difference between these two conditions
is related to the self-construal level that is salient (Stapel and Zee
2006). According to Stapel and Zee (2006), other-to-self effect is
8
Seoul Journal of Business
suggested to be determined by the self-construal level that is salient
(personal, relational, collective) during information processing.
For example, when a relational self is activated, individuals
would be most concerned with the regulation and coordination
of interpersonal interactions (Stapel and Zee 2006; Tiedens and
Jimenez 2003). However, when a personal self is activated, people
would be more concerned with individual traits and motivations
rather than afliative issues (Stapel and Zee 2006). I suggest that
individual affective dissimilarity and group affective diversity
activate a relational self and a personal self, respectively.
As a relational difference in TPA, individual affective dissimilarity
is expected to activate a relational self that is mostly concerned with
coordinating interpersonal interactions (Stapel and Zee 2006) and
is also expected to hinder the tendencies toward the autonomous
functioning of the focal person’s TPA. According to similarity-
attraction theory (Byrne 1971), individuals prefer similar others and
similarity basically determines interpersonal attraction (Berscheid
and Reis 1998). Affective dissimilarity, therefore, may have negative
effects on the afliative outcome (i.e., interpersonal conict or weak
social bonding) of the focal member. Empirical evidence also shows
that affective dissimilarity significantly reduces an individual’s
satisfaction with the group and lowers self-perception of one’s
influence in the group (Barsade et al. 2000). Since negative social
exchanges are found to undermine a person’s sense of autonomy
(Diehl et al. 2003), affective dissimilarity is hypothesized to reduce
the autonomy of the focal person.
In addition, a situation in which a focal person stands out from
the rest of the group may be interpreted as an “unsafe” environment
where one can be oneself without being judged. In the context of
trait activation theory (Tett and Burnett 2003; Tett and Guterman
2000), which proposes that individuals express their traits in
an environment that values such trait expression (Johnson and
Schneider 2013), a focal person who is affectively dissimilar from
the rest of the group is less likely to express the tendencies toward
autonomous functioning of TPA in a context wherein such traits
seem inappropriate and out of place. Therefore, based on similarity-
attraction theory (Byrne 1971) and trait activation theory (Tett and
Burnett 2003; Tett and Guterman 2000), I generate the following
hypothesis:
The Effects of Trait Positive Affect on Autonomy and Task Cohesion
9
H3a: The relationship between an individual member’s TPA
and autonomy will be negatively moderated by individual affective
dissimilarity such that the individual member’s TPA will be
more negatively related to autonomy when individual affective
dissimilarity is high than when it is low.
On the other hand, group affective diversity may activate a
personal self and positively influence the autonomous motivation
of individuals. At the group level, affective diversity refers to
compositional affective differences in position among group
members, operationalized at the group level by cumulating the
absolute or squared distances between pairs of individuals—
that is, within-group standard deviation (SD) (Harrison and Klein
2007). Since behavioral differentials between affectively similar and
dissimilar members would be less pronounced in groups with high
affective diversity, group affective diversity may serve as a contextual
variable that individuates members and activates a personal self,
allowing the autonomous functioning of TPA.
Furthermore, in the context of trait activation theory, trait
expression is also determined by the strength of the situation (Tett
and Burnett 2003; Tett et al. 2013). Building upon the research
on strong and weak situations (Meyer, Dalal, and Bonaccio
2009), situation strength is a continuum that refers to how much
clarity there is regarding what constitutes appropriate behaviors
(Judge and Zapata 2015). Strong situations provide clear uniform
expectations regarding appropriate behavior and thus result in low
variance in behavioral responses across personality traits, ultimately
attenuating personality-behavior relationships. Conversely, weak
situations provide more ambiguous expectations and result in
behavioral expressions that are in line with one’s basic personal
tendencies, amplifying personality-behavior relations (Judge and
Zapata 2015). I suggest group affective diversity may serve as a
weak situation under which the tendencies toward autonomous
functioning of TPA can be freely expressed. This logic leads to my
next hypothesis:
H3b: The relationship between an individual member’s TPA and
autonomy will be positively moderated by group affective diversity
such that the individual member’s TPA will be more positively
related to autonomy when group affective diversity is high than
10
Seoul Journal of Business
when it is low.
Mediations Moderated by Individual Affective Dissimilarity and Group
Affective Diversity
In the present study, I assume an overall positive effect of
TPA on task cohesion via autonomy in the absence of specific
contingencies and propose individual affective dissimilarity and
group affective diversity as contingency factors that may negatively
or positively moderate the relationship between TPA and autonomy.
In extending Hypotheses 3a and 3b, I further propose that TPA
may be positively related to task cohesion through autonomy
depending on the degrees of individual affective dissimilarity and
group affective diversity. The indirect effect of TPA on task cohesion
through autonomy is expected to be moderated by individual
affective dissimilarity and group affective diversity. When individual
affective dissimilarity is high, those on high TPA may interpret their
situations as unsafe, and suppress the natural expression of their
autonomous tendencies. Conversely, when group affective diversity
is high, those high on TPA may interpret their situations as normal,
and naturally express their autonomous motivation and actively
engage in their task environment. Finally, I propose the following
moderated mediation hypotheses.
H4a: Individual affective dissimilarity will negatively moderate
the indirect effect of TPA on task cohesion through autonomy,
such that the indirect effect will be less positive when individual
affective dissimilarity is high rather than when it is low.
H4b: Group affective diversity will positively moderate the
indirect effect of TPA on task cohesion through autonomy, such
that the indirect effect will be more positive when group affective
diversity is high than when it is low.
METHODS
Research Setting, Participants, and Procedures
The sample of the present study was drawn from four companies
(a semiconductor equipment manufacturing company, a at panel
The Effects of Trait Positive Affect on Autonomy and Task Cohesion
11
display equipment manufacturing company, a vacuum technology
company, and a marine and fire insurance company) in Korea,
during a two-week period in May, 2013. All of the companies
employed a team-based structure and team-level performance-
based incentives. Members of the same team who were physically
collocated interacted on a daily basis. The participants performed
various functions including sales, human resources, finance,
research and development, production, and quality control.
Incomplete forms were excluded from the initial sample of 459
employees from 68 teams, and the final analysis sample was
composed of 293 employees from 66 work teams (64% response
rate). Participants’ education levels were: high school (10.9%), two
years of college (41%), bachelor’s degree (41.3%), and graduate
degree (5.1%). Their job positions were: staff (21.8%), senior
staff (21.2%), assistant manager (28.3%), department manager
(24.6%), and deputy general manager or higher (4.1%). The average
organizational tenure of the subordinates was 4.63 years (SD =
3.70). The average age was 33.03 years (SD = 5.13) and 12.6% of the
employees were female.
Measures
Study variables were assessed using multi-item scales with
acceptable reliability. All items were measured on a Likert-type scale
ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree).
Positive trait affect. To assess the trait positive affect of
employees, I used 10 items taken from Positive and Negative Affect
Schedule (PANAS; Watson, Clark, and Tellegan 1988). These 10
items were used to measure trait positive affect (a = .91): “In general,
I feel (1) interested, (2) excited, (3) strong, (4) enthusiastic, (5) proud,
(6) inspired, (7) determined, (8) attentive, (9) active, and (10) alert.”
Affective dissimilarity. Following Tsui and O’Reilly’s (1989)
method, I measured affective dissimilarity by using the formula for
Euclidean distance:
( )
2
1
1
2
−
∑
=
n
j
ji
n
SS
12
Seoul Journal of Business
Where Si = the respondent’s own score on the dimension being
examined, Sj = each of the other team members’ score on the
dimension being examined, and n = the number of team members.
Affective diversity was measured through heterogeneity in trait
affect at the group level. To measure group-level affective diversity, I
used the standard deviation of members’ trait affect.
Autonomy. Using a three-item measure (a = .87) developed
by Sheldon and Bettencourt (2002), I assessed the autonomy of
group members. The scale included the following items: “How free
and choiceful do you feel as you participate in this group?”, “How
much do you feel wholehearted (as opposed to feeling controlled or
pressured) as you do things for this group?”, and “To what extent
does this group membership allow you to express your authentic
self?”
Task cohesion. Carless and DePaola (2000)’s measure of Group
cohesiveness has three subscales: Task cohesion, Social cohesion,
and Individual attraction to the group. I used the first subscale,
Task cohesion. The items (a = .81) are: “This group is united in
trying to reach its performance goals.”, “I’m unhappy with my
group’s level of commitment to the task (R).”, “Our group members
Figure 1. Research Model
The Effects of Trait Positive Affect on Autonomy and Task Cohesion
13
have conflicting aspirations for the group’s performance (R).”, and
“This group does not give me enough opportunities to improve my
personal performance (R).”
Control variables. In addition to the study variables described
above, I included several control variables that might have
significant influence on interpersonal and task-related processes
(Amabile 1996; Mumford and Gustafson 1988) in the statistical
analyses. Following other researchers, I controlled for gender, age,
and tenure at the individual level, and company, team size, and
mean level of TPA at the group level.
RESULTS
Preliminary Analyses
Conrmatory factor analysis
To examine the empirical distinctness of the study variables
(i.e., trait positive affect, autonomy, task cohesion), a conrmatory
factor analysis (CFA) was conducted with a maximum likelihood
estimation. The results confirm the three-factor structure (χ2 (df
= 102) = 383.129, p < .001, χ2 /df = 3.756, CFI = .890, TLI = .853,
RMSEA = .097), which ts the data better than conceptually feasible
alternative models do. For example, the results show that a two-
factor model in which trait positive affect and autonomy are loaded
onto a single factor produces a worse t (χ2 (df = 104) = 755.775, p <
.001., χ2 /df = 7.267, CFI = .744, TLI = .665, RMSEA = .147). Tables
1 and 2 present the descriptive statistics and intercorrelations
among all study variables and control variables.
Tests of Hypotheses
I employed hierarchical linear modeling (Raudenbush and Bryk
1992) to test my hypotheses, the results of which are presented in
table 3. In model 0 in table 3, I created a model that included all
control variables. Among the control variables at the individual level,
gender had a negatively signicant relationship with autonomy (β =
- .58, p < .05), suggesting that female employees had less autonomy
14
Seoul Journal of Business
than their male team members. At the group level, group size had
a negatively signicant relationship with autonomy (β = - .13, p <
.01). Famously known as ‘Amazon’s two pizza rule’, which suggests
that teams should not be larger than what two pizzas can feed, my
results also support the notion that small teams make it easier to
stay autonomous and decentralized by encouraging independent
ideas rather than groupthink.
Hypothesis 1 suggests a direct, positive effect of TPA on autonomy.
As expected, in model 1 in table 3, the analysis showed that TPA
exerted a signicant, positive effect on autonomy (β = .45, p < .001),
Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations: Individual Level (N=293)
Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Gender .13 .33 --
2. Age 33.03 5.13 -.28** --
3. Tenure 55.65 44.41 -.05 .47** --
4. Trait Positive Affect 3.86 .80 -.01 .10 -.08 --
5. Affective
Dissimilarity .89 .41 -.14* -.01 -.20** -.10 --
6. Autonomy 3.53 1.10 -.19** .07 -.06 .36** .10 --
7. Task Cohesion 3.84 .66 -.10 -.03 -.00 .30** .04 .42** --
Note. * p < .05; ** p < .01.
Table 2. Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations: Group Level (N=66)
Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Company 1 .63 .48 --
2. Company 2 .09 .29 -.41** --
3. Company 3 .21 .41 -.66** -.16 --
4. Team Size 4.44 1.82 .07 -.02 -.00 --
5. Group Affective
Diversity .70 .29 .06 .10 -.08 .02 --
6. Aggregated
Trait Positive
Affect
3.87 .42 .08 -.14 .03 .17 -.22 --
7. Aggregated
Autonomy 3.53 .69 .09 .00 .02 -.01 -.09 .07 --.38**
8. Aggregated
Task Cohesion 3.84 .44 .14 -.12 -.24 .00 -.04 .01 --
Note. ** p < .01.
The Effects of Trait Positive Affect on Autonomy and Task Cohesion
15
thus supporting hypothesis 1. Hypothesis 2 posits a mediating role
of autonomy in the relationship between TPA and task cohesion.
To test this hypothesis, I used the PROCESS procedure based on
a bootstrapping procedure (Hayes 2013). The analysis indicated
that autonomy was positively related to task cohesion (b = .21, 95%
bias-corrected confidence interval [CI]: .1385 to .2755). Moreover,
the indirect effect of TPA on task cohesion through autonomy was
also signicant (b = .10, 95% bias-corrected condence interval [CI]:
.0572 to .1613). Thus, hypothesis 2 was supported.
Hypothesis 3a proposes that individual affective dissimilarity
negatively moderates the relationship between TPA and autonomy.
In model 3 in table 3, the individual-level interaction between TPA
and individual affective dissimilarity was found to be negatively
significant (β = -.55, p < .05), confirming hypothesis 3a. I further
probed into the signicant individual-level interaction by comparing
the slopes associated with high and low individual affective
dissimilarity conditions (Aiken & West, 1991). Figure 2 shows that
group members’ TPA was positively related to autonomy when
individual affective dissimilarity was low (b = .23, p < .10) but their
TPA had a negative, nonsignificant relationship with autonomy
when individual affective dissimilarity was high (b = -.09, ns.).
Hypothesis 3b suggests group affective diversity positively
moderates the relationship between TPA and autonomy. I estimated
a slope-as-outcome model in HLM to test this cross-level moderation
hypothesis as shown in model 3 in table 3. The cross-level
interaction between TPA and group affective diversity was strongly
and positively signicant (γ = 1.40, p < .001), supporting hypothesis
3b. I further probed into the significant cross-level interaction by
comparing the slopes associated with high and low group affective
diversity conditions (Aiken & West, 1991). As expected, Figure 3
shows that the relationship between group members’ TPA and
autonomy was positively higher when group affective diversity was
high (b = 1.77, p < .001) than when it was low (b = 1.18, p < .001).
Hypotheses 4a and 4b suggest distinct conditional indirect
effects of TPA on task cohesion through autonomy at different
levels of affective conditions. To test these hypotheses, I used the
PROCESS procedure (Hayes 2013) which provides a test for the
entire moderated mediation model in an integrated analysis instead
of testing it in a piecemeal fashion. More specically, hypothesis 4a
suggests that individual affective dissimilarity negatively moderates
16
Seoul Journal of Business
the indirect effect of TPA on task cohesion through autonomy, such
that the indirect effect will be less positive when individual affective
dissimilarity is high than when it is low. As shown in table 4, the
indirect effect of TPA on task cohesion through autonomy was
signicantly smaller when individual affective dissimilarity was high
(b = .11, 95% bias-corrected condence interval [CI]: .060 to .165),
supporting hypothesis 4a.
Hypothesis 4b suggests that group affective diversity positively
Figure 2. Individual-level Moderation by Affective Dissimilarity
Figure 3. Cross-level Moderation by Group Af fective Diversity
The Effects of Trait Positive Affect on Autonomy and Task Cohesion
17
Table 3. Hierarchical Linear Models Predicting Autonomy
Variables M0 M1 M2 M3
Individual-level Process
Gender
Age
Tenure
Trait Positive Affect (TPA)
Affective Dissimilarity (AD)
TPA * AD
Group-level Process
Company 1
Company 2
Company 3
Group Size
Aggregated TPA
Group Affective Diversity (GAD)
-.58*
.00
-.00
.84+
.44
.62
-.13**
-.08
-.59*
.02
.00
.45***
.85+
.44
.66
-.13**
-.07
-.57*
.01
.00
.46**
.24
-.06
.87*
.46
.67
-.14**
-.06
-.59*
.01
.00
-.52+
-.30
-.55*
.93*
.60
.74
-.15**
-.06
-.09
Cross-level Moderation
TPA * GAD
AD * GAD
σ2
τ
∆σ2
Pseudo R2
.96
.12
.86
.16
.10
.06
.86
.15
.10
.06
1.40***
.52
.82
.17
.15
.08
Note. + p < .10; * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.
Table 4. Moderated Indirect Effects of Trait PA on Task Cohesion
Independent
Variable Mediator Dependent
Variable Moderator Level Effect Boot SE 95% bias-
corrected CI
Trait PA Autonomy Task
Cohesion
Individual Affective Dissimilarity
Low
High
.1540
.1056
.0456
.0266
(.0763
(.0600
.2584)
.1645)
Group Affective Diversity
Low
High
.0847
.1066
.0688
.0470
(.0000
(.0362
.2650)
.2302)
Note. Bootstrap sample = 10,000
18
Seoul Journal of Business
moderates the indirect effect of TPA on task cohesion through
autonomy. The current analytic procedure for testing conditional
indirect effects cannot accommodate the nested, multi-level data
structure; thus, I computed the indirect effects for three subgroups
by dividing the entire sample of 66 teams into groups with low-, medium-,
and high-group affective diversity. Each of the three subgroups
included 22 teams. Table 4 indicates that the indirect effect of TPA
on task cohesion through autonomy was signicantly larger when
group affective diversity was high (b = .11, 95% bias-corrected
condence interval [CI]: .036 to .230) than when it was low (b = .08,
95% bias-corrected condence interval [CI]: .000 to .265), providing
support for Hypothesis 4b.
DISCUSSION
As the workplace has become increasingly diverse, managing
differences and maintaining cohesion remain a significant
organizational challenge. In an effort to identify an effective
mechanism for bringing together diverse groups, researchers have
paid increasingly more attention to task cohesion (Knouse 2006).
Unlike social cohesion, task cohesion can be facilitated in diverse
groups that often suffer from a lack of social bonds. By moving
beyond the social aspects of group functioning and examining task
cohesion as a signicant outcome of affective dynamics in groups,
I attempt to identify positive effects of affective dissimilarity in a
group setting. Conrming my theoretical expectations, my analysis
demonstrated that TPA exerted a signicant positive effect on task
cohesion by increasing the autonomy of individuals. However,
autonomy became a meaningful intervening process for the
relationship between TPA and task cohesion when distinct types of
affective contexts were fully considered. The moderated mediation
analysis showed that TPA exerted a significant, positive indirect
effect on task cohesion through autonomy when individual affective
dissimilarity was low and group affective diversity was high. I
discuss the theoretical contributions and practical implications
of this study and identify the limitations that can guide future
investigations.
The Effects of Trait Positive Affect on Autonomy and Task Cohesion
19
Theoretical Contributions
By examining trait affect as a valid and defining feature of an
individual member’s personal characteristics by which people
identify differences, I extend prior research in the relational
demography and group diversity literature that has mainly focused
on surface-level, demographic differences. In addition, I depart from
previous research that draws heavily on the social aspects of group
processes, and instead open the possibility for positive effects of
affective diversity through integrating different types of mediating
processes and outcomes.
Although previous studies have identied affective homogeneity,
particularly the mean level of positive affect (often labeled as positive
group affective tone), as a significant group affective context that
positively influences various outcomes in terms of cooperation,
coordination, and collective efficacy (George 1990, 1995), I focus
on the possible beneficial effects of affective heterogeneity or
diversity on individual performance. The reason I focus on affective
diversity is that affective homogeneity has been reported to yield
negative outcomes when the task requires creative problem solving
and innovation (Barsade et al. 2000). In other words, affective
homogeneity might help individuals develop smooth interpersonal
relationships, but it may not be much help for going the extra mile
or being proactive with their tasks. In examining task cohesion,
that is, a going-above-and-beyond behavior in terms of tasks, group
affective diversity may be more important than group affective tone
even though the former has been often overlooked. While positive
group affective tone (mean level of PTA) is not the focus of my study,
I did control for it in my analyses to better capture the effect of
group affective diversity. As I expected, the results demonstrated
that positive group affective tone was not a significant factor for
autonomy (β = - .06, ns) as shown in table 3.
Furthermore, I extend previous studies that have focused on
the single-level effects of group composition on group processes
and outcomes (Choi 2007), and incorporate multilevel perspectives
(Kozlowski and Klein 2000). Through examining both individual-
and cross-level dynamics involving affective group composition,
I highlight the importance of investigating contingencies that
encourage or impede task cohesion across levels. By theorizing
and empirically validating, mediating, as well as moderating
20
Seoul Journal of Business
mechanisms that explain how TPA may translate into task cohesion,
I demonstrated that an individual’s TPA had positive effects on
the autonomy and task cohesion of the individual when individual
affective dissimilarity was low and group affective diversity was high.
Taken together, my findings contribute to the knowledge of “how”
and “when” task cohesion could be enhanced in group settings.
Practical Implications
The present study provides valuable practical implications
for team leaders and managers. Recent developments in group
dynamics literature suggest that group composition is likely to
be a critical input variable that has a signicant impact on group
effectiveness. In this study, I have suggested that the affective
composition of a work group influences task cohesion through
affecting the autonomy of individual members. At the relational
level, individual affective dissimilarity activated a relational self
and undermined the autonomous motivation of individuals. At the
group level, however, affective diversity activated a personal self and
facilitated autonomous motivation of individuals. These findings
might be signicant for effective stafng practices in that managers
may staff teams with similar or dissimilar members in terms of
particular trait affect for better emotional balance within groups.
Furthermore, my findings on contextual moderators may offer
insight into how affective diversity may induce individuals to fully
commit to their task. Group affective diversity may reduce the innate
fear of appraisal and the social risk of losing face among group
members, and instead encourage group members to express their
individuality and to have the courage to be different (Janssen and
Huang 2008; Rink and Ellemers 2007) since behavioral differentials
between affectively similar and dissimilar members would be less
pronounced in groups with high affective diversity. Furthermore, as
suggested by trait activation theory (Tett and Burnett 2003), which
states that trait expression is also determined by the strength of the
situation, group affective diversity may serve as a weak situation
under which the tendencies toward autonomous functioning of TPA
can be freely expressed. By considering group affective composition,
managers can effectively manage emotions in groups and guide
group effective processes in a favorable direction (Sy et al. 2005).
The Effects of Trait Positive Affect on Autonomy and Task Cohesion
21
Study Limitations
The present findings should be interpreted with caution
considering the following limitations of the study. First, data was
collected at a single point in time and the direction of causation
remains ambiguous. A future study may attempt to test alternative
theoretical possibilities related to the potential reciprocal inuence
between variables. Second, the current data was collected from a
manufacturing industry that is heavily populated with males. Thus,
this industry may have distinct norms that differ from those in
other industrial settings. Moreover, the cultural values of Korean
firms may affect the current pattern of results. Korean society is
often called “collectivist,” meaning that the group takes precedence
over the individual. The collectivist tendency of the participants may
inuence the patterns of my results, which raises the issue of the
limited generalizability of the findings. Further empirical studies
on diverse industrial and national settings should bolster our
understanding of the current multilevel dynamics.
Third, my hypotheses involve the same source data. I collected
individuals’ self-reports of TPA, autonomy, and task cohesion. Thus,
there is a possibility of correlated errors and common method bias.
However, I used the objective measure of relational demography
that requires the calculation of some index along with a standard
deviation index as moderators. Thus, it is unlikely that such bias
could explain the pattern of my results.
Despite these limitations, the present study offers meaningful
theoretical and empirical contributions to affect research and
diversity literature. First, the main theoretical contribution of
this study is its endeavor to identify an intervening mechanism
underlying the relation between TPA and task cohesion of
individuals in a group setting. In particular, I examined autonomy
as my key mediator, building upon self-determination theory. My
research ndings demonstrate that TPA leads to autonomy and in
turn task cohesion in the individual.
Moreover, my research ndings suggest that contextual inuences
in groups could either facilitate or constrain autonomy and task
cohesion of individual group members. The present study calls for
more investigation of the contextual factors that inuence individual
performance in organizations. Although it is often assumed that
individual group members get distracted by social factors and feel
22
Seoul Journal of Business
controlled, thus being disengaged from their tasks especially in
diverse groups, group affective diversity is found to individuate
members and motivate them to be themselves, thus intrinsically
engaging them to task.
The Effects of Trait Positive Affect on Autonomy and Task Cohesion
23
REFERENCES
Aiken, L. S., and S. G. West (1991), Multiple Regression: Testing and
Interpreting Interactions, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Amabile, T. M. (1996), Creativity in Context, New York: Westview.
Barsade, S. G., and D. E. Gibson (1998), Group Emotion: A View from Top
and Bottom, edited by D. Gruenfeld, E. A. Mannix and M. A. Neale, Vol. 1,
Research on Managing Groups and Teams, Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
Barsade, S., A. J. Ward, J. D. F. Turner, and J. A. Sonnenfeld (2000), “To
Your Heart’s Content: A Model of Affective Diversity in Top Management
Teams,” Administrative Science Quarterly 45, 802-36.
Bernthal, P., and C. Insko (1993), “Cohesiveness without Groupthink: The
Interactive Effects of Social and Task Cohesion,” Group & Organization
Management 18, 66-87.
Berscheid, E., and H. T. Reis (1998), “Attraction and Close Relationships,”
In The Handbook of Social Psychology edited by D. T. Gilbert, S. T.
Fiske and G. Lindzey, 193-281, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Boyd, danah (2001), “Sexing the Internet: Relfections on the Role of
Identification in Online Communities,” In Sexualities, Medias and
Technologies Conference, University of Surrey.
Bryk, A. S., and S. W. Raudenbush (1992), Hierarchical Linera Models,
Newsbury Park, CA: Sage.
Byrne, D. (1971), The Attraction Paradigm, New York: Academic Press.
Carless, Sally A., and Caroline de Paola (2000), “The Measurement of
Cohesion in Work Teams,” Small Group Research 31, no. 1, 71.
Carver, C. S., and T. L. White (1994), “Behavioral Inhibition, Behavioral
Activation, and Affective Responses to Impending Reward and
Punishment: The Bis/Bas Scales,” Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 67, no. 2, 319-33.
Chattopadhyay, Prithviraj (2003), “Can Dissimilarity Lead to Positive
Outcomes? The Influence of Open Versus Closed Minds,” Journal of
Organizational Behavior 24, no. 3, 295-312.
Choi, J. N. (2007), “Change-Oriented Organizational Citizenship Behavior:
Effects of Work Environment Characteristics and Intervening
Psychological Processes,” Journal of Organizational Behavior 28, no. 4,
467-84.
Damen, F., B. Van Knippenberg, and D. Van Knippenberg (2008), “Affective
Match in Leadership: Leader Emotional Displays, Follower Positive
Affect, and Follower Performance,” Journal of Applied Social Psychology
38, 868–902.
Deci, E. L., and R. M. Ryan (1985), Intrinsic Motivation and Self-
Determination in Human Behavior, New York: Plenum.
——— (1991), “A Motivational Approach to Self: Integration in Personality.”
24
Seoul Journal of Business
In Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, edited by R. Dienstbier.
Perspectives on Motivation, 237-88. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska
Press.
——— (2000), “The “What” and “Why” of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and
the Self-Determination of Behavior.” Psychological Inquiry 11, 227-68.
Diehl, Manfred, and Sherry L. Willis (2003), “Everyday Competence and
Everyday Problem Solving in Aging Adults: The Role of Physical and
Social Context,” Annual Review of Gerontology and Geriatrics 23, 130-
66.
Erdheim, Jesse (2007), “Positive and Negative Affect: How Do They Impact
Hackman’s (1987) Model of Group Effectiveness,” Graduate College of
Bowling Green State University.
Gagne, Marylene, and E. L. Deci (2005), “Self-Determination Theory and
Work Motivation,” Journal of Organizational Behavior 26, 331-62.
George, J. M. (1995), “Leader Positive Mood and Group Performance: The
Case of Customer Service,” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 25, no.
9, 778-94.
——— (1990), “Personality, Affect, and Behavior in Groups,” Journal of
Applied Psychology 75, 107–16.
Greguras, Gary. J., James M. Difendorff, Jacqueline. Carpenter, and
Christian Troster (2014), “Person-Environment Fit and Self-
Determination Theory,” In The Oxford Handbook of Work Engagement,
Motivation, and Self-Determination Theory, edited by Marylene Gagne.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Hackman, J. R. (1992), “Group Inuences on Individuals in Organizations,”
In Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, edited by
M. D. Dunette and L. M. Hough, 199-267, Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press, Inc.
Harrison, D. A., K. H. Price, J. H. Gavin, and A. T. Florey (2002), “Time,
Teams, Adn Task Performance: Changing Effects of Diversity on Group
Functioning,” Academy of Management Journal 45, 1029-45.
Harrison, David A., and Katherine J. Klein (2007), “What’s the Difference?
Diversity Constructs as Separation, Variety, or Disparity in
Organizations,” Academy of Management Review 32, no. 4, 1199-228.
Hayes, A. F. (2013), Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional
Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach, New York, NY: The
Guilford Press.
Huang, M. K. (2009), “A Conceptual Framework of the Effects of Positive
Affect and Affective Relationships on Group Knowledge Networks,”
Small Group Research 40, no. 3, 323-46.
Isen, A. M. (2000), “Positive Affect and Decision Making,” In Handbook of
Emotions, edited by M. Lewis and J. M. Haviland-Jones, 417–35. New
York: Guilford Press.
The Effects of Trait Positive Affect on Autonomy and Task Cohesion
25
Janssen, O., and X. Huang (2008), “Us and Me: Team Identication and
Individual Differentiation as Complementary Drivers of Citizenship and
Creative Behaviors of Members of Middle Management Teams,” Journal
of Management 34, 69-88.
Johnson, J. W., and R. J. Schneider (2013), “Advancing Our Understanding
of Processes in Personality-Performance Relationships,” Chap. 3 In
Handbook of Personality at Work, edited by Neil Christian and Robert
Tett, 30-52, New York, NY: Tayor & Francis.
Judge, Timothy A., and Cindy P. Zapata (2015), “The Person--Situation
Debate Revisited: Effect of Situation Strength and Trait Activation
on the Validity of the Big Five Personality Traits in Predicting Job
Performance,” Academy of Management Journal 58, no. 4, 1149-79.
Kaplan, Seth, Jill C. Bradley, Joseph N. Luchman, and Douglas Haynes
(2009), “On the Role of Positive and Negative Affectivity in Job
Performance: A Meta-Analytic Investigation,” Journal of Applied
Psychology 94, no. 1, 162-76.
Kearney, E., D. Gebert, and S. C. Voelpel (2009), “When and How
Diversity Benets Teams: The Importance of Team Members’ Need for
Cogonition,” Academy of Management Journal 52, 581-98.
Kim, Sun Young, Yuhyung Shin, and Min Soo Kim (2013), “Cross-Level
Interactions of Individual Trait Positive Affect, Group Trait Positive
Affect, and Group Positive Affect Diversity,” Asian Journal of Social
Psychology 16, 197-206.
Knouse, S. B. (2006), “Task Cohesion: A Mechanism for Bringing Together
Diverse Teams,”. International Journal of Management 23, no. 4, 588-
96.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., and K. J. Klein (2000), “A Multilevel Approach to
Theory and Research in Organizations: Contextual, Temporal, and
Emergent Processes,” In Multilevel Theory, Research, and Methods in
Organizations: Foundations, Extensions, and New Directions, edited by K.
J. Klein and W. J. Kozlowski, 3-90. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lievens, F. (2010), “How to Use Trait Activation Theory in Assessment
Center Practice,” Ghent University, Belgium.
Liu, Dong, Xiao-Ping Chen, and Xin Yao (2011), “From Autonomy
to Creativity: A Multilevel Investigation of the Mediating Role of
Harmonious Passion,” Journal of Applied Psychology 96, no. 2, 294-
309.
McIntyre, C. W., D. Watson, L. A. Clark, and S. A. Cross (1991), “The Effect
of Induced Social Interaction on Positive and Negative Affect,” Bulletin
of Psychonomic Society 29, 67-70.
Meyer, Rustin D., Reeshad S. Dalal, and Silvia Bonaccio (2009), “A Meta-
Analytic Investigation into the Moderating Effects of Situational
Strength on the Conscientiousness–Performance Relationship,” Journal
26
Seoul Journal of Business
of Organizational Behavior 30, no. 8, 1077-102.
Mumford, Michael D., and Sigrid B. Gustafson (1988), “Creativity Syndrome:
Integration, Application, and Innovation,” Psychological Bulletin 103,
no. 1, 27-43.
Ng, Thomas W. H., and Kelly L. Sorensen (2012), “Dispositional Affectivity
and Work-Related Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis,” Journal of Applied
Social Psychology.
Rink, F., and N. Ellemers (2007), “Diversity as a Basis for Shared
Organizational Identity: The Norm Congruity Principle,” British Journal
of Management 18, 17-27.
Ryan, R. M., and E. L. Deci (2006), “Self-Regulation and the Problem of
Human Autonomy: Does Psychology Need Choice, Self-Determination,
and Will?,” Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 74, no. 6, 1557-
86.
Salas, E. E., C. A. Bowers, and J. A. Cannon-Bowers (1995), “Military Team
Research: 10 Years of Progress,” Military Psychology 7, 55-75.
Searle, B. J., and Sharon K. Parker (2013), “Work Design and Happiness: An
Active, Reciprocal Perspective,” In The Oxford Handbook of Hapiness,
edited by Susan A. David, Ilona Boniwell and Amanda Conley Ayers,
Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2013.
Sheldon, K. M., and B. A. Bettencourt (2002), “Psychologial Needs and
Subjective Well-Being in Social Groups,” British Journal of Social
Psychology 41, 25-38.
Stapel, Diederik A., and Karen I. van der Zee (2006), “The Self Salience
Model of Other-to-Self Effects: Integrating Principles of Self-
Enhancement, Complementarity, and Imitation,” Journal of Personality
& Social Psychology 90, no. 2, 258-71.
Sy, Thomas, Stephane Cote, and R. Saavedra (2005), “The Contagious
Leader: Impact of the Leader’s Mood on the Mood of Group Members,
Group Affective Tone, and Group Processes,” Journal of Applied
Psychology 90, no. 2, 295-305.
Tellegen, A. (1985), “Structures of Mood and Personality and Their
Relevance to Assessing Anxiety, with an Emphasis on Self-Report,” In
Anxiety and the Anxiety Disorders, edited by T. A. Hussain and J. D.
Maser, 681-706. Hiillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Tett, R. P., and H. A. Guterman (2000), “Situation Trait Relevance, Trait
Expression, and Cross-Situational Consistency: Testing a Principle of
Trait Activation,” Journal of Research in Personality 34, no, 397-423.
Tett, Robert P., and Dawn D. Burnett (2003), “A Personality Trait-Based
Interactionist Model of Job Performance,” Journal of Applied Psychology
88, no. 3, 500-17.
Tett, Robert P., Daniel V. Simonet, Benjamin Walser, and Cameron Brown
(2013), “Trait Activation Theory: Applications, Developments, and
The Effects of Trait Positive Affect on Autonomy and Task Cohesion
27
Implications for Person-Workplace Fit,” Chap. 5 In Handbook of
Personality at Work, edited by Neil D. Christian and Robert P. Tett, New
York, NY: Routledge.
Thorensen, C. J., S. A. Kaplan, A. P. Barsky, C. R. Warren, and K. de
Chermont (2003), “The Affective Underpinnings of Job Perceptions
and Attitudes: A Meta-Analytic Review and Integration,” Psychological
Bulletin 129, 914-45.
Tiedens, Larissa Z., and Maria C. Jimenez (2003), “Assimilation for
Afliation and Contrast for Control: Complementary Self-Construals,”
Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 85, no. 6, 1049-61.
Tsui, A. S., and C. A. O’Reilly (1989), “Beyond Simple Demographic Effects:
The Importance of Relational Demography in Superior-Subordinate
Dyads,” Academy of Management Journal 32, 402-23.
van Vianen, Annelies E. M., and Carsten K. W. De Dreu (2001), “Personality
in Teams: Its Relationship to Social Cohesion, Task Cohesion, and
Team Performance,” European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology 10, no. 2, 97-120.
Watson, D. (2000), “Mood and Temperament,” New York: Guilford Press.
Watson, D., and L A. Clark (1992), “On Traits and Temperament: General
and Specic Factors of Emotional Experience and Their Relation to the
Five-Factor Model,” Journal of personality 60, 441-76.
Watson, D., D. Wiese, J. Vaidya, and A. E. Tellegen (1999), “The Two
General Activation Systems of Affect: Structual Findings, Evolutioanry
Considerations, and Psychobiological Evidence,” Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology 76, 820-38.
Watson, David, Lee A. Clark, and Auke Tellegen (1988), “Development and
Validation of Brief Measures of Positive and Negative Affect: The Panas
Scales,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54, no. 6, 1063-
70.
Williams, Helen M., Sharon K. Parker, and Nick Turner (2007), “Perceived
Dissimilarity and Perspective Taking within Work Teams,” Group &
Organization Management 32, no. 5, 569-97.
Zaccaro, S. J. (1992), “Nonequivalent Associations between Forms of
Cohesiveness and Group-Related Outcomes,” Journal of Social
Psychology 131, 387-99.
Zaccaro, S. J., J. Gualtieri, and D. Minionis (1995), “Task Cohesion as a
Facilitator of Team Decision Making under Temporal Urgency,” Military
Psychology 7, 77-93.
