Group Interaction Sustains Positive Moods and Diminishes Negative Moods

Abstract

The social interactions of task groups were investigated for their influences on member moods. Initially, participants’ received an induction of positive, negative, or neutral moods via listening to music that continued throughout the experimental session. Moods were measured after the induction. Students then made decisions on four choice dilemmas alone or as members of a four-person group. Subsequently, positive and negative moods were again measured. Positive moods of participants who worked with other group members on the task were sustained, but diminished for those working alone. Negative moods of participants working in groups diminished over time, but were sustained for those working individually. These results were interpreted in the context of motivational systems theory of group involvement (Park & Hinsz, 2006). Additionally, although there was a tendency for member moods to homogenize over assessments, this did not reach significance. Results document the affective benefits that often accompany task group interaction suggesting that group interaction has features of positive mood induction. This report highlights the need to consider social influences on affect in task settings so that group dynamics, processes, and behaviors can be better understood.

Although researchers have begun to study affect in groups (e.g., Barsade, & Gibson, 1998; Bartel & Saavedra, 2000; Bramesfeld & Gasper, 2008; George, 1990; Kelly & Barsade, 2001; Pescosolido, 2002), existing literature seems sparse considering the perceived importance of the topic. To date, group affect is often explored with a two-pronged approach (Barsade & Gibson, 1998). This strategy involves the study of how group affective tone influences members, as well as how members influence group affect. Progress has been made in understanding these mutually interacting influences (e.g., Kelly & Barsade, 2001), but at least one important consideration seems to be yet addressed. More specifically, little attention has been devoted towards the basic question of whether groups inherently induce affect in its members (Hinsz, 2005). This question deviates from previous work because the primary focus of analysis is on the individual rather than the group, and what is of interest is not how a particular feeling is spread, but how members generally react and feel in task-group settings.

Identifying associations between group contexts and affect is critical to fully comprehend group dynamics. Awareness of how group interaction influences members’ feelings should enhance our ability to predict the cognitive and behavioral tendencies of groups and their members. In addition, realizing how participation in groups induces affect in various ways will enrich our understanding of the social nature of human affect. To truly appreciate the function and nature of affect in groups, we must continue to address and integrate both how groups influence member affect and how member affect influences group responses. A reasonable starting point is to examine how working with others influences how we feel. To examine how working with others might influence how one feels, the effectiveness of mood induction procedures between group members and individuals were compared. For reasons discussed shortly, our general prediction was that positive affect would be sustained longer in group compared to individual settings, while the reverse was expected for negative affect.

Positive and Negative Affect in Group Settings

Extensive research has demonstrated that two factors, positive affect and negative affect, represent the major dimensions of moods (Watson, 2000). Positive affect (PA) indicates people’s pleasurable engagement with their environment. High levels of PA can be construed as enthusiasm, energy, mental alertness, and determination, while low levels of represent states such as lethargy. Negative affect (NA) is indicative of a person’s general level of distress, with high levels indicative of feelings such as guilt, fear, tension, and sadness, while low levels include states such as calmness and serenity.

Positive Moods in Groups

Group interactions are likely to precede and accompany affective states because moods and emotions frequently result from the actions of others and are commonly directed towards others (Fischer, Manstead, & Zaalberg, 2003). Social interaction research supports the hypothesis that working in groups will be associated with positive mood (Watson, 2000), and this relationship exists regardless of whether interactions are fun/active or necessary/informational in nature (Vittengl & Holt, 1998). However, because the experience of working on a group task can be quite distinct from daily social interactions, it remains to be seen whether group interaction is a positive mood induction (Hinsz, 2005).

Working together in a group could change member feelings for numerous reasons. One plausible reason for groups to influence member affect is the inherent value of groups and the functions they fulfill for members. For example, groups naturally provide opportunities to develop relationships, they help members successfully accomplish goals, and they assist in executing tasks that could not be accomplished if working alone (Forsyth, 1999). Furthermore, most people believe that group settings facilitate personal productivity and goal attainment (Hinsz & Nickell, 2004), and several studies of small groups report that participants enjoy their experiences more when assigned to work in groups rather than by themselves (e.g., Paulus, Dzindolet, Poletes, & Camacho, 1993). If groups are associated with these types of advantages and rewarding outcomes, members should respond positively while interacting in these settings.

Negative Moods in Groups

Overall, group members hold a considerable advantage in avoiding losses relative to a lone individual (Forsyth, 1999). Groups also often provide individuals with a sense of safety and invulnerability (Janis, 1982; Park & Hinsz, 2006), and if a “safety in numbers” belief is prevalent (Park & Hinsz, 2006), then belonging to a group should be related to feelings of security and reductions in distress. And since groups provide opportunities to satisfy various psychological needs (e.g., belongingness; Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Betts & Hinsz, 2013), reductions in negative mood are expected through need fulfillment.

Predicting the impact of working in groups on negative mood is not necessarily self-evident though and studies sometimes fail to detect associations between NA and social activity (e.g., Watson, Clark, McIntyre, & Hamaker, 1992). Changes in negative mood may depend on the degree of need satisfaction derived from group experiences (Sheldon & Bettencourt, 2002), and reductions in negative mood may not always appear because only low levels of negativity are generally reported in social settings unless some threat exists (Watson, Wiese, Vaidya, & Tellegen, 1999). If negative moods are relatively low, opportunities to detect decreases are limited. Thus, we hypothesize that participation in task groups will decrease NA when settings produce levels of negative mood sufficient enough to detect reductions.

Homogenization of Affect in Groups

Group homogenization of member responses is a theme within the small groups literature (e.g., Hinsz, Tindale, & Vollrath, 1997). Existing conceptualizations of groups suggest there are widespread pressures toward uniformity in group settings (e.g., Festinger, 1950). Homogenization was demonstrated in a variety of judgment settings (e.g., Einhorn, Hogarth, & Klempner, 1977), in information processing in groups (Hinsz et al., 1997), and for affect in groups (Barsade & Knight, 2015; Spoor & Kelly, 2009). Given that members often interact with their environments in unison, they are likely to share the same affective reactions to these interactions (Kelly & Barsade, 2001). Moreover, research on affective contagion explains how group interaction enhances the sharing of affective experiences and states (Barsade, 2002; Spoor & Kelly, 2009). For these reasons, it is thought that group interaction will lead group members to have more similar positive and negative affective responses, particularly in face-to-face interactions in which members share the same task and context experiences (Hinsz, 2009). We investigate the potential robustness of the homogenization of member affect in groups by examining changes in the degree of convergence among members’ positive and negative affective responses.

Overview for Study

This report considers whether task group interaction influences the positive and negative moods of group members. If social features of task contexts impact moods, it is plausible that the intensity and duration of experienced moods will differ between group and individual work settings. As suggested, to detect potential changes in member moods, it is important to ensure there is room for movement on the administered response scales. This issue is addressed by experimentally inducing positive or negative moods in participants at the onset of the study. Moreover, to demonstrate the potential for group interaction to change member affective states, assessments of positive and negative moods are made prior to and after group interaction. Consequently, our general aims were: 1) to examine whether working in task groups alters member moods, and 2) to see if group interaction homogenizes members’ affective responses.

Method

Participants and Design

Undergraduate students (158 females and 89 males) at North Dakota State University volunteered to participate in this study in exchange for extra-credit in their lower-level psychology courses. Participants were randomly assigned to conditions in a 2 (individual or group) × 3 (positive, neutral, or negative mood induction) between-subjects design.

Procedure

Upon arrival, participants were randomly assigned to different rooms which placed them in either the individual or four-person group condition. Participants were informed that the study concerned the effects of background music on decision making. They were told the music would be played throughout the entire experiment, in part, to control for unwanted background noise.

Mood Induction

One of the three classical music selections that have been shown to induce mood in previous studies was then played for seven minutes (Albersnagel, 1988). The positive mood music was "Coppelia" by Delibes (Albersnagel, 1988; Martin, 1990), the neutral mood music was Debussy's "Prelude l'Apres Midi d'un Faun" (Albersnagel, 1988), and the negative mood music was Prokofiev's "Russia under the Mongolian Yoke" recorded at half speed (Martin, 1990). Participants were asked to listen to the music with focused attention, saturate themselves with the atmosphere or mood expressed in the music, and to keep this atmosphere or mood with them after having listened to the music (Albersnagel, 1988).

Mood induction has been found to be very transitory, with effects usually lasting under ten minutes (Frost & Green, 1982), and can also be disrupted by intervening tasks (Isen & Patrick, 1983). To insure the mood did not dissipate, the music was played throughout the experiment but the volume was turned down after the first seven minutes to create background music for the rest of the experiment. In addition, when participants finished each of the written materials, they were instructed to turn over their sheets and once again immerse themselves in the music. To further strengthen the induction of positive moods, those in the positive mood condition were given a gift of candy to eat at the start of the experiment (whereas the candy was handed out at the end of the session for students in the neutral and negative mood conditions), because this practice has been shown to help bolster PA (Isen & Daubman, 1984).

Mood Measures

Moods were assessed using the Positive Affect Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) following the first seven-minute period of the induction procedure, and again after completion of the decision task. Participants responded to 10 positive and 10 negative affective descriptors by indicating "to what extent do you feel this way right now, that is, at the present moment" with answers ranging from 1 (very slightly or not at all) to 5 (extremely). The mean responses for the 10 positive and 10 negative descriptor composites were used as markers of positive (PA) and negative (NA) mood, respectively.

Decision Task

Following the mood assessment questionnaire, participants completed four choice dilemmas (adapted from Kogan & Wallach, 1964) individually without discussion. Each choice dilemma consists of a paragraph description of a central character facing a decision between a more desirable but less probable alternative and a less desirable but more probable alternative. Two of the choice dilemmas tend to produce risky responses while the other two tend to elicit cautious responses. The choice dilemmas were administered in two different sequences (risk-caution-risk-caution and caution-risk-caution-risk) to control for potential order effects. In every set of dilemmas, the order of the risky choice and cautious choice dilemmas were fixed.

After these initial individual responses were made, participants in the group condition discussed each of the hypothetical dilemmas together to arrive at a consensus group response. On the other hand, individual participants thought about and listed any arguments they would use in a hypothetical group discussion about the choice dilemmas, whether the arguments supported their position or not. After group participants reached consensus and individual participants completed the thought listing task for all four dilemma items, the PANAS was again administered to assess the degree to which the previously induced mood had been influenced by the grouping manipulation and the passage of time. After the mood assessment, participants again individually completed the choice dilemmas questionnaire a final time.¹ Afterwards, all participants were given a full debriefing and thanked for their participation.

Results

Mood Induction

Initial PANAS ratings had high levels of internal consistency for both the positive affect (PA; α=.90) and negative affect (NA; α=.82) dimensions. The positive induction led to greater positive mood (M=2.87, SD=0.80) than the negative (M=2.11, SD=0.72) or neutral (M=2.23, SD=0.73) mood conditions, F (2,235) = 20.26, p < .001, partial η²=.15. The negative induction led to greater negative mood (M=1.50, SD=0.51) than the positive (M=1.29, SD=0.38) or neutral (M=1.33, SD=0.46) mood conditions, F (2,235) = 4.10, p < .02, partial η²=.03. These results showed the inductions had their intended effects on the targeted mood without altering the other mood.

Mood Changes

Within each mood condition, PA and NA intensity did not differ across group and individual conditions. Collapsing across mood conditions, affective differences between the individual and group conditions were found though. Positive moods of individuals declined from the initial to the second PANAS assessment (M=-.189, SD=0.64), but group members’ positive moods (M=.015, SD=0.63) did not, F (1, 240) = 5.39, p < .03, partial η²=.02. Conversely, negative moods of individuals did not diminish over time (M=.044, SD=0.38), while group members’ negative moods did (M=-.101, SD=0.44), F (1, 234) = 5.46, p < .02, partial η² =.02. So, relative to individuals working alone, group interaction had the effect of maintaining positive moods while dissipating negative moods.

Group Homogenization of Moods

The prior analysis shows group interaction had differential effects for patterns of PA and NA. Groups may also impact the homogeneity of responses such that group members’ PA and NA become more consistent over time. The intraclass correlation (ICC; Shrout & Fleiss, 1979) is a measure of the degree of interdependence in responses that can be used to indicate this homogeneity. After the mood induction procedures, participants had significant levels of homogeneity in PA (ICC=.14; F(42,129)=1.66, p<.02) and discernable homogeneity in NA (ICC=.08; F(42,129)=1.35, p<.11). Importantly, this homogeneity increased in the second mood assessment for both PA (ICC=.20; F(42,129)=2.01, p<.002) and NA (ICC=.24; F(42,129)=2.23, p<.001). Although there were increases in ICC for both PA and NA, these differences in ICC were not statistically significant (Cohen & Doveh, 2005). It is noteworthy that there seemed to be a greater influence of group interaction on the homogeneity of negative moods than positive moods, which is consistent with Spoor and Kelly (2009) who suggest that because of its alerting function, there should be more reactivity for negative affect in group situations resulting in the diffusion of negative affect in those group conditions.

Discussion

This paper explores the interplay between small group interaction and group member moods. Drawing from research on social interactions (e.g., Fischer et al., 2003), mood influences (e.g., Watson, 2000), and work associated with moods and emotions in groups (e.g., Barsade & Knight, 2015; Kelly & Barsade, 2001), we hypothesized that working on group tasks with others would lead to increases in positive mood and decreases in negative mood. Two interesting main effects regarding group interaction influences on mood were revealed. Collapsing across mood conditions, positive affect of group members was sustained over the course of the study while positive affect of individuals diminished over time. Conversely, negative affect of group participants diminished over time, while negative affect of individuals working alone was sustained. Moreover, although not statistically significant, there was a general tendency for positive affect and negative affect to homogenize as a function of group interaction.

Group interaction seems to reinforce positive feelings and minimizes negative feelings. In addition to the implications these findings have for research methodology pertaining to the induction of affect in groups, these findings potentially uncover a functional aspect of group interactions. Because group work is instrumental for survival and it facilitates goal attainment (Park & Hinsz, 2006), mechanisms that increase the desirability of working in groups should exist. The systematic influences of groups on affect may serve this purpose by strengthening the perception that the advantages of group membership outweigh the relative disadvantages (Forsyth, 1999).

Motivational Systems Theory of Group Involvement

Although the results of this study are consistent with Motivational Systems Theory of Group Involvement (Park & Hinsz, 2006), the study predated its publication. The theory builds upon frameworks that suggest there are two approach and avoidance motivational systems, and the positive and negative dimensions of affect are subjective components of these behavioral systems of approach and withdrawal (Fowles, 1987; Gray, 1987; Watson et al., 1999). More specifically, NA has been viewed as the subjective component representing the withdrawal-oriented behavioral inhibition system (BIS; Fowles, 1987), while PA represents the subjective component of the approach-oriented behavioral activation system (BAS; Fowles, 1987).

The purpose of the behavioral inhibition system is to inhibit behaviors likely to lead to pain or punishment. BIS activity focuses attention on analyzing the environment with an emphasis on threatening stimuli that signal potential danger (Gray, 1987). Negative feelings have been shown to promote the same vigilance and apprehension that is characteristic of the BIS, therefore, NA reflects the subjective component of this motivation system. The behavioral activation system, on the other hand, is an appetitive system of behavioral approach which focuses on situations and experiences that have the potential to yield pleasure and reward. This approach system responds to rewards by motivating and activating behavior to increase the likelihood of obtaining resources that are essential to the survival. PA has been shown to be both a motivating source and an affective reward for these very types of behavior, thus, PA is seen as the subjective component representing BAS activity.

We argue that these motivational systems are often activated in group settings to shape various aspects of group functioning (Park & Hinsz, 2006), and therefore reiterate the need for more research on affect and groups. Understanding that the two motivational dimensions signify mood states provides theoretical grounding for understanding how group interaction might influence mood. Motivational systems theory of group involvement builds upon these notions by suggesting that involvement in groups makes two core beliefs salient. A “strength in numbers” belief arises that suggests that through the various resources available to groups, group members believe that they are more capable and likely to overcome barriers and access rewards available in the environment. A “safety in numbers” core belief suggests that because of the protection and diffusion of threat in groups, group members will perceive that they are less likely to suffer the perils of threats which also will be perceived as less dangerous. Thus, activation and changes in members’ affective reactions to environmental conditions will follow from these salient beliefs.

Motivational systems theory of group involvement proposes that when the core beliefs of strength and safety in numbers are salient to group members, they will respond with particular patterns of PA and NA. That is, when the approach-related BAS is activated along with its subjective component of PA, and the strength in numbers belief is salient to group members, then group members will experience higher or sustained levels of PA relative to individuals who are not involved in a group. On the other hand, when the avoidance-related BIS is activated with its accompanying subjective component of NA, and the belief of safety in numbers is salient to group members, then group members will experience lower levels of NA as the perceived need for BIS activity diminishes. Consequently, in the conditions of the present study, the findings that group interaction sustains induced PA and diminishes induced NA are consistent with this motivational systems theory of group involvement (Park & Hinsz, 2006).

Limitations and Future Directions

It is possible that particular task features of our study are necessary to prompt the observed mood changes. Group participants were instructed to reach a consensus decision, and perhaps PA was reinforced only after unanimous agreement was reached. When group members cooperate and work to achieve consensus, it also seems likely that self-awareness would decrease because attention is directed towards group processes and outcomes, and away from the self. Escaping self-awareness and focusing attention on the immediate environment reduces anxiety and unpleasant moods (Heatherton & Baumeister, 1991). If the group task used here reduces self-awareness, this may help explain why and when negative moods diminish in groups.

It is also possible that task features are a reason why some of the expected effects did not appear. The decision task was not particularly self-relevant. Thus, group interaction may have only had a minimal impact on the affect of members, emerging as a group main effect only when collapsing across mood conditions. If contexts were more personally involving (e.g., outcomes tied to rewards/punishments) one can imagine differences in affect more readily appearing.

Importantly, this study did demonstrate that mood changes differed depending on whether one was working in a group or by oneself, suggesting social aspects of task settings impact affective experiences. These findings can stimulate a host of follow-up questions to be addressed in future work. For example, is interaction necessary for mood effects in groups, or is identification with a group sufficient? How would the presence of an outgroup competitor influence affective experiences in groups? Do old-timers and newcomers in workgroups exhibit similar affective responses (Levine, Moreland, & Choi, 2001)? If working in groups is associated with PA, will group members apply stereotypes or heuristics more when making judgments (Nakanishi & Kameda, 2001)? Given that affective composition in groups can vary, will the majority “mood” influence occur or will one bad apple spoil the barrel (Barsade & Knight, 2015)? The development of new theoretical models on affect in groups should shed light on these and other important questions (e.g., Barsade & Knight, 2015; Park & Hinsz, 2006).

Although the results regarding the homogenization hypothesis were not significant, they were not inconsistent with the hypothesis. Clearly other group tasks with more substantive interactions might provide better tests. Regardless of the outcomes of these future tests, much can be learned about the sharing of affect in group interactions. Hinsz (2009) described how affective consistency among groups may be another example of the general tendency toward uniformity, sharing, and homogenization observed in other types of group member responses.

Summary

The results of this study expand our understanding of how group interaction influences member affective states and how mood manipulations differentially impact group member moods compared to individuals. The highlight of these results reflects the dynamic interplay between member affective states as manipulated and changes in moods accompanying group interaction. Specifically, group interaction sustained positive mood and diminished negative mood after mood manipulations. Because social motivations underlie many affective states, we must continue to examine how and why social interaction influences how we feel. As the literature demonstrates, these issues can be pursued from a variety of perspectives (Barsade & Knight, 2015; Spoor & Kelly, 2004) and much more can be learned from further conceptual, theoretical, and empirical efforts. As research continues to identify similarities and differences in affective experience among individuals and group members, our understanding of group processes, interaction, and performance will become clearer. Furthermore, knowing how and why people respond affectively in group settings will enhance our capability to predict and improve group processes and performance.