The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between affective state and virtuality on group creativity, negotiation, and information exchange. Over 100 students watched a film clip to induce a positive or neutral mood and performed tasks as dyads or triads either face-to-face or distributedly. Although the affective state manipulation did not affect performance, the more positive affect the groups reported, the more words the groups used to communicate. Distributed groups did not generate more ideas or act less cooperatively than face-to-face groups. However, face-to-face triads performed better on the information exchange task than distributed triads; distributed dyads outperformed face-to-face dyads. An interaction between affective state and group type was also found for trust in the computerized communication medium. Implications are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AmabileT. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
2.
BaasM.De DreuC. K. W.NijstadB. A. (2008). A meta-analysis of 25 years of mood-creativity research: Hedonic tone, activation, or regulatory focus?Psychological Bulletin, 134, 779–806.
3.
BarsadeS. G. (2002). The ripple effects: Emotional contagion and its influence on group behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 644–75.
4.
BouchardT. J.HareM. (1970). Size, performance, and potential in brainstorming groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 54, 51–55.
5.
CarnevaleP. J.IsenA. M. (1986). The influence of positive affect and visual access on the discovery of integrative solutions in bilateral negotiations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37, 1–13.
6.
CookeN. J.GormanJ. C.PedersenH.BellB. (2007). Distributed mission environments: Effects of geographic distribution on team cognition, process, and performance. In FioreS. M.SalasE. (Eds.) Toward a science of distributed learning. Washington, DC: APA.
7.
DzindoletM. T.PierceL. G. (2004a). A computerized text analysis can detect deception. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Santa Monica, CA: HFES.
8.
DzindoletM. T.PierceL. G. (2004b). The Relationship between Word Use and Interactive Brainstorming Performance. Paper presented at the Society of Experimental Social Psychology Conference, Fort Worth, Texas.
9.
GasperK.CloreG. L. (2002). Attending to the big picture: Mood and global vs. local processing of visual information. Psychological Sciences, 13, 34–40.
10.
GrawitchM. J.MunzD. C.KramerT. J. (2003). Effects of member mood states on creative performance in temporary workgroups. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 7, 41–54.
11.
GrawitchM. J.MunzD. C.ElliottE. K.MathisA. (2003). Promoting creativity in temporary problem-solving groups: The effects of positive mood and autonomy in problem definition on idea-generating performance. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 7, 200–213.
12.
GrossJ. J.LevensonR. W. (1995). Emotion elicitation using films. Cognition and Emotion, 9, 87–108.
13.
HatfieldE.CacioppoJ. T.RapsonR. L. (1994). Emotion Contagion. New York: NY: Cambridge University Press.
14.
KerrD. S.MurthyU. S. (2004). Divergent and convergent idea generation in teams: A comparison of computer mediated and face-to-face communication. Group Decision and Negotiation, 13, 381–99.
15.
NaquinC. E.PaulsonG. D. (2003). Online bargaining and interpersonal trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 113–120.
16.
PennebakerJ. W.MehlM. R.NiedergofferK. G. (2003). Psychological aspects of natural language use: Our words our selves. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 547–77.
17.
PennebakerJ. W.FrancisM. L.BoothR. J. (2001). Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count: LIWC2001. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
18.
PetrieK. P.BoothR. J.PennebakerJ. W. (1998). The immunological effects of thought suppression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1264–72.
19.
SannaL. J.ParksC. D.ChangE. C. (2003). Mixed-motive conflict in social dilemmas: Mood as input to competitive and cooperative goals. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 7, 26–40.
20.
StuhlmacherA. F.CiteraM. (2005). Hostile behavior and profit in virtual negotiation: A meta-analysis. Journal of Business and Psychology, 20, 69–93.
21.
TrzcielinskiS.Wypych-ZoltowskaM. (2008). Toward the measure of virtual teams effectiveness. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing, 18(5), 501–514.
22.
VerleurR.VerhagenP. W.HeuvelmanA. (2007). Can mood-inducing videos affect problem-solving activities in a web-based environment?British Journal of Educational Technology, 38, 1010–1019.
23.
WarkentinM.SayeedL.HightowerR. (1997). Virtual teams versus face-to-face teams: An exploratory study of a web-based conference system. Decision Sciences, 28, 975–996.
24.
WatsonD.ClarkL. A.TellegenA. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1063–70.
25.
WebsterJ.StaplesD. S. (2006). Comparing virtual teams to traditional teams: An identification of new research possibilities. Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, 25, 181–125.
26.
WindsorD. (2001). International virtual teams: Opportunities and issues. In BeyerleinM. M.JohnsonD. A.BeyerleinS. T. (Eds.), Advances in Interdisciplinary Studies of Work Teams: Vol. 8. Virtual Teams (pp. 1–39). Kidlington, Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science Ltd.
