Sei sulla pagina 1di 19

See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at:


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262299657

The magic of collective emotional


intelligence in learning groups: No
guys needed for the spell!
Article in British Journal of Psychology April 2015
Impact Factor: 2.37 DOI: 10.1111/bjop.12075

CITATIONS

READS

131

4 authors, including:
Petru L Cureu
Babe-Bolyai University
73 PUBLICATIONS 676 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

Helen Pluut
National University of Singapore
10 PUBLICATIONS 39 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE

Available from: Smaranda Boros


Retrieved on: 08 July 2016

217

British Journal of Psychology (2015), 106, 217234


2014 The British Psychological Society
www.wileyonlinelibrary.com

The magic of collective emotional intelligence in


learning groups: No guys needed for the spell!
Petru L. Curseu1*, Helen Pluut1, Smaranda Boros2 and
Nicoleta Meslec1
1
2

Department of Organisation Studies, Tilburg University, The Netherlands


Vlerick Business School, Brussels, Belgium
Using a cross-lagged design, the present study tests an integrative model of emergent
collective emotions in learning groups. Our results indicate that the percentage of women
in the group fosters the emergence of collective emotional intelligence, which in turn
stimulates social integration within groups (increases group cohesion and reduces
relationship conflict) and the associated affective similarity, with beneficial effects for
group effectiveness.

Groups are social systems with cognitive and emotional emergent properties. Although
traditionally emotions have been conceptualized as a hallmark of individuals (Frijda, 1986;
Mayer, Roberts, & Barsade, 2008), during the last decades substantial conceptual work has
been devoted to understanding group emotionality as an emergent group-level property
(Barsade & Gibson, 1998; Walter & Bruch, 2008). In the group emotions literature, of
particular importance are the emergence of collective emotions (i.e., affective similarity)
and collective emotional competencies (i.e., collective emotional intelligence [CEI]).
Group cognition research shows that gender diversity is conducive for the emergence
of group rationality (Curseu, Jansen, & Chappin, 2013) and group cognitive complexity
(Curseu, Schruijer, & Boros, 2007), while the percentage of women in the group is
positively correlated with collective intelligence (Woolley, Chabris, Pentland, Hashmi, &
Malone, 2010). In this context, as group scholars devoted substantial conceptual work to
explore emotional intelligence as an emergent group-level competence (Ayoko, Callan, &
Hartel, 2008; Druskat & Wolff, 2001; Jordan & Troth, 2004; Koman & Wolff, 2008), it
becomes important to better understand the role of gender differences in groups for the
emergence of CEI. Collective emotional intelligence is defined as the ability of a group to
develop a set of norms that promote awareness and regulation of member and group
emotions (Druskat & Wolff, 2001). Therefore, CEI is a group-level competence that
emerges from the integration of individual competencies through interpersonal interactions. Due to their higher social sensitivity and relational orientation, women promote the
emergence of collective competencies by facilitating the coordination of individual
competencies during social interactions (Curseu et al., 2013; Woolley et al., 2010). Thus,
the first aim of our study is to test the relation between the percentage of women group
members and the emergent CEI in a group.

*Correspondence should be addressed to Petru L. Curseu, Department of Organisation Studies, Tilburg University, Room 2.105,
Warandelaan 2, PO box 90153, 5000 LE Tilburg, The Netherlands (email: p.l.curseu@uvt.nl).
DOI:10.1111/bjop.12075

218

Petru L. Curseu et al.

Studies on collective emotions have focused mainly on the valence of group affect
rather than the level of affective similarity within the group. In trying to explain the causal
relations between the emergence of affective similarity and group dynamics, recent
models portray an affective spiral (Walter & Bruch, 2008). On the one hand, high quality of
social interactions in groups is conducive to positive affective similarity, or the degree to
which group members align their positive individual affects. This effect is explained by
processes such as interaction synchrony (the non-conscious process by which one
individuals behaviour is adjusted to coordinate or synchronize with another) and
emotional contagion (the process where the affective states of one individual are
transferred to nearby individuals) (Kelly & Barsade, 2001; Walter & Bruch, 2008). On the
other hand, affective similarity generates interpersonal attraction and as such is conducive
to positive interpersonal relations. Emergent group emotions are therefore conceptualized both as antecedents and consequences of interpersonal interactions (Walter & Bruch,
2008). Thus, a second aim of our research is to answer the call for further research on
affective similarity in groups (Collins, Lawrence, Troth, & Jordan, 2013) and test these two
proposed causal directions and specify more clearly the dynamics between affective
similarity and teamwork quality (as indicated by cohesion and relationship conflict).
To conclude, the current article aims to test a comprehensive socio-emotional model
of groups that integrates both collective emotional competencies and affective similarity
as they relate to quality of interpersonal relations and effectiveness in groups and as such
uncovers the mechanisms through which the percentage of women in groups contributes
to group effectiveness.

Theory and hypotheses


Collective emotional intelligence is defined as the ability of a group to develop a set of
norms that encourage expression, awareness, and regulation of the affective dynamics
within the group, improving the ability of group members to work together effectively
(Druskat & Wolff, 2001). Currently there are two main perspectives in the approach to
CEI: one sees CEI as the sum of the individual emotional intelligence resources members
bring to the table (Jordan & Troth, 2004), while the other refers to the degree of
emotional intelligence group members appear to use when they interact with each other
[. . .], a set of norms or patterns about the way people behave with each other (Elfenbein,
2006, p. 166). While the first perspective focuses on the individual resources brought by
group members, the second capitalizes on the style of interacting that a group uses (i.e.,
the emotional quality of interactions in the group context). It focuses on how much
emotional intelligence is displayed and actually used in interactions among group
members, rather than the fixed individual attributes of teammates, as a predictor of group
performance (Druskat & Wolff, 2001; Elfenbein, 2006).
Previous research systematically points towards gender differences in emotional
experience (Wegge, van Dick, Fisher, West, & Dawson, 2006), as well as emotional
expression, awareness, and regulation (Ciarrochi, Caputi, & Mayer, 2003), with women
scoring higher in emotional intelligence (Mandell & Pherwani, 2003). With respect to the
style of interacting used in groups, women have higher social sensitivity than men (Hall,
1978). Recent studies indicate that due to womens higher social sensitivity, the
proportion of women in the group has a positive influence on the emergence of collective
intelligence (Woolley et al., 2010). Women also consistently score higher on measures of
communal traits. They are caring, emotionally aware, oriented towards maintaining good
relations (Abele, 2003; Twenge, 1997), and display less direct aggressive reactions

Collective emotional intelligence in groups

219

(Lawrence & Hutchinson, 2014), which makes them focus on maintaining a good group
atmosphere and catalyses the formation of norms that foster emotional awareness
and regulation in the group. Hence, the heightened communal orientation in women is
likely to be conducive to the creation of emotionally intelligent norms in the groups they
belong to.
We contend that womens participation in a group (i.e., the percentage of women in
the group) improves CEI through the emotional resources they bring to the group
(developed individual emotional intelligence) as well as the interaction norms they help
to develop in the group that support the awareness and regulation of group affect (due
to their social sensitivity and other communal traits). In line with the arguments of
womens contribution to both the compositional and interactional aspect of CEI, we
hypothesize that the proportion of women in the group is positively related to the
emergence of CEI.
Hypothesis 1:

The proportion of women in the group has a positive effect on the emergence of
collective emotional intelligence.

Emotions are at the core of social interactions in groups and therefore influence the way
members work together. Studies indicate that groups developing norms to better deal
with affective dynamics (i.e., develop CEI) are more effective in the long run (Wolff,
Druskat, Koman, & Messer, 2006). Quality of social interactions tends to improve when
emotions are managed appropriately (Lopes, Salovey, C^
ote, & Beers, 2005), and
emotionally intelligent groups are therefore more effective due to improved teamwork
(Druskat & Wolff, 2001). Two salient indicators for the quality of the intragroup
relationships are group cohesion (as a positive indicator) and relationship conflict (as a
negative indicator).
Group cohesion reflects the social integration in small groups, in other words the force
that keeps the group together (Evans & Jarvis, 1980). At the individual level, studies have
shown that emotional intelligence of group members promotes group cohesion (Prati,
Douglas, Ferris, Ammeter, & Buckley, 2003; Troth, Jordan, & Lawrence, 2012), which is
further beneficial for group effectiveness (Beal, Cohen, Burke, & McLendon, 2003).
However, studies investigating emotional intelligence as a group property and its impact
upon social cohesion are rather scant. We posit that CEI is likely to enhance the cohesion
in a group, as the development of norms that encourage awareness and regulation of
affective dynamics within a group creates an atmosphere of trust and psychological safety
which further enriches the social capital of the group (Druskat & Wolff, 2001). At the same
time, CEI may reduce the likelihood that groups suffer from relationship conflict (Yang &
Mossholder, 2004). Relationship conflict refers to interpersonal frictions and disagreements experienced by group members, and it has been systematically linked to impaired
group performance (De Dreu & Weingart, 2003). Collective emotional intelligence
enables groups to devise creative solutions to disagreements and avoid escalating these
conflicts (George, 2000) as well as the transformation of task into relationship conflict
(Curseu, Boros, & Oerlemans, 2012; Van Den Berg, Curseu, & Meeus, 2014). Appraising
the various emotions occurring in the group and understanding their full meaning allows
group members to recognize in time the downward emotional spirals of conflict and act to
prevent their potential damage (Yang & Mossholder, 2004). Furthermore, when conflict
occurs, these groups are more successful in comprehending the emotions arising from it
(Ayoko et al., 2008), and hence not giving way to the misattributions that lead to the
escalation and transformation of conflict (Simons & Peterson, 2000). Thus, we expect CEI

220

Petru L. Curseu et al.

to positively impact on group effectiveness through increased group cohesion and


reduced relationship conflict.
Hypothesis 2a:

Cohesion mediates the influence of collective emotional intelligence on group


effectiveness.

Hypothesis 2b:

Relationship conflict mediates the influence of collective emotional intelligence on


group effectiveness.

Building on previous conceptualizations of emergent group emotions (George, 1990;


Kelly & Barsade, 2001), Walter and Bruch (2008) put forward the positive group affect
spiral model centred on the reciprocal interdependence between the quality of
interpersonal relationships in the group and positive affective similarity. On the one
hand, they argue, group relationship quality promotes affective sharing through
emotional contagion, empathy, and emotional comparison. On the other hand, by
promoting mechanisms of similarity-attraction, positive affective similarity reduces the
incidence of conflict and promotes cooperation and trust, ultimately fostering social
integration. The question that we raise in our study is whether both mechanisms are valid.
In other words, we set out to explore whether affective similarity is an accurate predictor
for the quality of interpersonal relations in groups or whether the quality of social
interactions leads to emergent affect similarity. Group affect is a rather transient state
(Smith, Seger, & Mackie, 2007; Watson, 2000) that can fluctuate with individual moods
and emotions. We therefore argue that the emergence of affective similarity varies with
the quality of intragroup relationships (in our case indicated by group cohesion and
relationship conflict) rather than determining it.
Due to the high degree of social interdependence in highly cohesive groups, social
influence processes at play in these groups (e.g., conformity pressure, contagion, etc.) are
likely to enforce affective similarity. If group members are dependent on each other and
motivated to stick to the group, as is the case in highly cohesive groups (Evans & Jarvis,
1980), they will engage in mood scrutinizing activities and will be motivated to adapt their
emotional experience to the other group members (Bartel & Saveedra, 2000). Therefore,
we expect that members of cohesive groups are more likely, as compared to members of
non-cohesive groups, to recognize each others emotions, and more motivated to preserve
a positive emotional climate in the group. On the other hand, when group members are
engaged in relational frictions, they are not motivated to adapt their emotional
experiences to the other group members and therefore we expect relationship conflict
to inhibit the alignment of positive emotions within groups. The affective similarity that
subsequently does or does not emerge has been found to positively impact on group
performance (Barsade, Ward, Turner, & Sonnenfeld, 2000).
Hypothesis 3a:

Group cohesion is positively associated with affective similarity, which in turn


positively impacts on group effectiveness.

Hypothesis 3b:

Relationship conflict is negatively associated with affective similarity, which in turn


positively impacts on group effectiveness.

To conclude, we set out to test an integrative model of group emotions in which we


hypothesize that the percentage of women in the group (as a configural group property) is
conducive for the emergence of CEI, which in turn fosters social integration within groups
(stimulates the emergence of group cohesion and reduces the likelihood of relationship

Collective emotional intelligence in groups

221

conflict) and the associated affective similarity, with beneficial effects for group
effectiveness.

Methods
Sample and procedure
Our study uses a cross-lagged design, variables being evaluated at two distinct moments in
time. The sample consists of 528 (45.9% women) students enrolled at various courses
(Organizational Behaviour, Organization Development, Organization Theory, and
Research in Organizations) at a Dutch university. The respondents had an average age
of 21.1 years old, and the vast majority of the students were Dutch (86.9%). All courses
required students to form small workgroups for the entire duration of the course (i.e.,
group membership remained fixed), resulting in a total of 100 student groups ranging
from three (we excluded groups with less than three members) to seven members
(average group size of 5.0).
Our data were collected as part of a collaborative research project on social networks
of teams. In two different course workshops, students were asked to fill out questionnaires evaluating the variables included in the study. We developed both Dutch and
English versions of the questionnaires and used back-translation to ensure that the Dutch
version is accurate. Individual group members filled out the questionnaires, and grouplevel scores were aggregated from individual evaluations. The first questionnaire (T1)
measured collective emotional intelligence, group mood, group cohesion, and relationship conflict. Also, to be able to control for the effects of interpersonal familiarity, at T1
each individual group member was asked to report with whom they had a friendship tie
within their group. The within-group sum of friendship ties (all reported ties were
included, bi-directional ties were coded as two uni-directional ties) at T1 was further used
as a control variable. The second questionnaire (T2) assessed the same set of variables as
well as group effectiveness. In addition, both questionnaires contained items related to
demographical characteristics (age, gender, and nationality). The period between the two
evaluation moments covered 4 weeks. This cross-lagged design allows us to test the causal
sequencing of the study variables.

Measures
Collective emotional intelligence
Collective emotional intelligence was measured with a scale comprising two dimensions: emotional awareness and emotion regulation. Three items assessed emotional
awareness in the group (e.g., We knew how everyone felt just by looking at each other)
and five items were used to assess group emotion regulation (e.g., We made each other
feel better when we were down). We selected these items from scales on group
emotional awareness and emotion regulation that evaluate groups competence of
identifying and regulating collective emotions (Curseu et al., 2012). Answers were
recorded on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (=totally disagree) to 5 (=totally
agree). The reliability analysis pointed to two problematic (emotion regulation) items,
which were therefore excluded from the scale. The final scale consisted of six items in
total (three for each dimension) and had Cronbachs alphas of .736 and .741 for Time 1
and Time 2 respectively. The items were answered by each individual group member
and aggregated at the group level for further analyses.

222

Petru L. Curseu et al.

Affective similarity
To assess affective similarity in the group, we first measured group mood using a selfreport circumplex model (see e.g., Russell, 1980). This model categorizes mood along two
dimensions: hedonic valence (pleasant unpleasant) and arousal (high activation low
activation). Respondents were asked to rate the atmosphere in the group during their
work together on a scale from 5 to +5 for both hedonic valence (5 = unpleasant,
+5 = pleasant) and arousal (5 = low energy, +5 = high energy). Respondents reported
only positive values on both dimensions of group mood, which correlate significantly and
positively with q = .53 (p = .0001) at Time 1 and q = .32 (p = .001) at Time 2. This
supports aggregation and we therefore took the mean of the ratings on the two
dimensions to evaluate group mood. Affective similarity was then assessed by computing
the within-group
agreement
index (Rwg) for this mean by using the following formula:
h
i
rwgJ h

J 1s2xj =r2E

i 

J 1s2xj =r2E s2xj =r2E

, where s2x is the mean of item variance within groups and r2EU is
j

computed as: r2EU A2  1=12 for an assumed uniform distribution (A is the number of
intervals on the Likert scale used to evaluate each dimension in the circumplex). Rwg is an
index developed for assessing agreement among the judgments made by a group of people
with respect to a target, the estimators being sensitive to the similarity (among judges) on
the rank orderings of the target ratings as well as to the differences in the level of each
judges ratings (James, Demaree, & Wolf, 1993).

Group cohesion
For the measurement of group cohesion, we selected two items on group integration
related to the task (e.g., Our team is united in trying to deliver high quality assignments)
and three items referring to social group integration (e.g., The team members feel they
belong to this team) from the Group Environment Questionnaire (Blanchard, Poon,
Rodgers, & Pinel, 2000). Answers were recorded on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1
(=totally disagree) to 5 (=totally agree) at an individual level and group means were
further used for the analyses. Cronbachs alphas for the scale were .682 and .739 for Time
1 and Time 2 respectively.

Relationship conflict
Four items from the intragroup conflict scale (Jehn, 1995) were used to measure
relationship conflict. Individual members were asked about their experience of
relationship conflict in the group (e.g., How often are personality conflicts evident in
your team?). Answers were recorded on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = very rarely/little,
5 = very often/much) at an individual level and group means were further used for the
analyses. The Cronbachs alpha for the scale was .720 at Time 1 and .781 at Time 2.

Group effectiveness
Following Hackman (1986), we conceptualize group effectiveness as a composite
measure of group performance, group viability, and group (member) satisfaction. We
selected 18 items from a scale developed by Whelan (2007) for organizational settings and
adapted these to a higher education setting. Using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = totally

Collective emotional intelligence in groups

223

disagree, 5 = totally agree), five items measured performance (e.g., All team members
participate in the process of goal setting for my team), seven items measured viability
(e.g., Team members are willing to be flexible and perform different roles and jobs within
the team), and five items measured satisfaction (e.g., Team members are generally
satisfied to be working in this team). The items were collected at an individual level and
aggregated at a group level using the group mean. The Cronbachs alpha for the scale was
.877.

Reflections on emergent states and preliminary data analyses


In our study, we focused on two emergent states (cohesion and relationship conflict)
and one emergent group-level competence (CEI) and in line with the non-linearity
often implied by emergence (Curseu, 2006), a simple additive aggregation of individuallevel scores into group-level variables is questionable. In line with this non-linearity
argument, previous research indeed shows that a single negative interpersonal relation
in a team shatters cohesion (De Jong, Curseu, & Leenders, 2014) and generates
relationship conflict (Chen, Sharma, Edinger, Shapiro, & Farh, 2011). One bad apple
can often spoil the whole barrel! In operational terms, it is therefore important to make
sure that our measures accurately capture the higher order (team level) emergent states
and competencies.
The notion of emergent states in team research originates in Marks, Mathieu, and
Zaccaro (2001) and it was further extended by Kozlowski in various instances (Kozlowski
& Chao, 2012; Kozlowski, Chao, Grand, Braun, & Kuljanin, 2013). In the original
conceptualization (Marks & Mathieu, 2001), emergent states were introduced to
distinguish state-like team attributes from team processes and later on Kozlowski and
colleagues distinguished between emergent states as compositional (convergent,
homogeneous) and as compilation (divergent, heterogeneous) phenomena (Kozlowski
& Chao, 2012; Kozlowski et al., 2013). In a compositional sense, emergent states at the
group level reflect the way in which individual perceptions/cognitions/behaviours
coalesce or diverge to create meaningful higher level patterns (Kozlowski et al., 2013, p.
586). In line with this compositional view on emergence and to use the group-level means
for further analyses, we have to first show that within groups, individual scores are
homogeneous rather than heterogeneous.
To explore the consistency of within-group individual evaluations of the variables
considered in our study, we used the group-size-corrected intraclass correlations (Bliese &
Halverson, 1998) and the within-group agreement index (James et al., 1993). We
computed the ICC(1) using Bliese and Halversons (1998) formula, based on the one-way
MSb MSw
random effects analysis of variance: ICC1 MSb N
, where: MSb is mean square
g 1MSw
between subjects, MSw is mean square within subjects and Ng is the arithmetic mean of
group sizes. ICC (2) reflects group-mean reliability and it is computed based on the ICC(1)
N ICC1
values using the formula: ICC2 1Ngg 1ICC1
In our sample, these two aggregation statistics exceed the generally accepted cut-off
points, showing a substantial within-group clustering of individual scores. The ICC(1)
values presented in Table 1 show that between 24% (CEI T1) and 38% (group cohesion
T1) of the score variance of our variables is explained by group-level factors. Moreover, the
Rwg scores higher than .70 show that group members report very similar ratings for each
of the variables considered in our analyses. In other words, combining the insights
revealed by the ICC(1) and Rwg values, we can conclude that individual ratings display a

224

Petru L. Curseu et al.

Table 1. Aggregation statistics

CEI (T1)
Relationship conflict (T1)
Group cohesion (T1)
Relationship conflict (T2)
Group cohesion (T2)
Team effectiveness (T2)

ICC (1)

ICC (2)

Mean Rwg (SD)

Range Rwg

.24
.27
.38
.31
.37
.26

.56
.60
.71
.63
.69
.58

.97 (.01)
.93 (.04)
.95 (.03)
.92(.04)
.94 (.03)
.98 (.00)

[.90, 1.00]
[.78, 1.00]
[.82, .99]
[.77, 1.00]
[.73, 1.00]
[.90, 1.00]

Note. CEI = collective emotional intelligence; T1 = time 1; T2 = time 2.

high degree of within-group homogeneity. Also the ICC(2) values were higher than .56,
showing sufficient team level inter-rater reliability. Based on these aggregation statistics,
we can conclude that using the group-level mean for further analyses provides an accurate
estimate of the group-level phenomenon investigated.

Results
We started out by testing the bi-directional causal claims put forward by Walter and Bruch
(2008) on the interrelation between affective similarity on the one hand and group
cohesion and relationship conflict (as indicators of relationship quality) on the other hand.
The cross-lagged data on affective similarity (AS) and relationship quality (RQ) allow us to
explore the temporal sequencing of these variables. Table 2 shows the correlational
matrix for affective similarity and relationship quality, evaluated at two moments in time.
The correlations show that AS at Time 2 and RQ at Time 2 are significantly related. The
correlation between AS at Time 1 and RQ at Time 2, however, is not significant. Also, the
correlation between AS at Time 1 and AS at Time 2 is not significant. This set of
correlations shows that affective similarity is a rather volatile and transient state, as it is not
persistent over time and does not influence relationship quality at a later point in time. A
different pattern of correlations can be found for relationship quality. RQ at Time 1
correlates significantly with both AS at Time 1 and AS at Time 2. Moreover, a strong
correlation exists between RQ at Time 1 and RQ at Time 2. This indicates that relationship
quality is not a transient state but rather reflects a stable pattern of interpersonal
interactions in the group. To conclude, the correlational findings show that (1) affective
similarity is a transient state; (2) relationship quality is persistent over time; and (3)
relationship quality is more likely to drive affective similarity rather than the other way
around. Looking at the partial correlations, we find that the association between RQ at
Time 1 and AS at Time 2 drops to a not significant relation when controlling for RQ at Time
2 (q = .02; p = .88 for the correlation involving group cohesion and q = .03; p = .77
for the correlation involving relationship conflict), implying that the association between
relationship quality at Time 1 and affective similarity at Time 2 is fully explained
(mediated) by relationship quality at Time 2. Based on these findings, we conclude that
affective similarity is an associated outcome of relationship quality within the group.
To further explore this interpretation, we tested a comprehensive model that builds on
the notion of affective similarity as an emergent state associated with group cohesion and
relationship conflict. In this comprehensive model, we also controlled for the number of
friendship ties within groups by adding this variable as a covariate for all mediators
included in the model. The hypothesized path model was tested with the AMOS software,

46.16
8.45
3.53
1.58
3.70
.94
1.72
3.71
.93
3.66

31.72
6.03
.31
.37
.42
.05
.47
.45
.05
.28

SD
1
.11
.31**
.24*
.26**
.09
.00
.13
.08
.11

2
1
.50**
.06
.58**
.03
.15
.55**
.08
.19

Note. CEI = collective emotional intelligence; T1 = time 1; T2 = time 2.


*p < .05; **p < .01.

1. Percentage of women
2. No. of friendship ties (T1)
3. CEI (T1)
4. Relationship conflict (T1)
5. Group cohesion (T1)
6. Affective similarity (T1)
7. Relationship conflict (T2)
8. Group cohesion (T2)
9. Affective similarity (T2)
10. Group effectiveness (T2)

Table 2. Means, standard deviations, and correlations

1
.36**
.69**
.19
.28**
.55**
.19
.43**

1
.35**
.23*
.64**
.30**
.24*
.36**

1
.22*
.25*
.71**
.27*
.37**

1
.07
.02
.18
.07

1
.45**
.36**
.53**

1
.40**
.62**

1
.46**

Collective emotional intelligence in groups


225

226

Petru L. Curseu et al.

version 19 using Structural Equation Modelling. The fit summary of this model as well as
the standard path coefficients are presented in Figure 1. The chi-square value provides a
statistical test for global model fit and shows that the model is not significantly different
from the data, v2 (8) = 8.84, p = .35. Two categories of fit indices can be distinguished:
(1) absolute fit indices, which illustrate how well the data are reproduced by the
theoretical model and (2) incremental fit indices, which compare the tested model with
the baseline model (Widman & Thomson, 2003). We have focused on the Root Mean
Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA = .03) as an absolute fit index and we use the
TuckerLewis Index (TLI = .98), the Normed Fit Index (NFI = .95), and the Comparative
Fit Index (CFI = .99) as incremental fit indices. All values of the fit indices point to a good
fit between the model and the data and to the fact that the model cannot be substantially
improved (Hu & Bentler, 1999).
We find that the percentage of women in the group positively influences CEI (b = .25,
p = .004). Collective emotional intelligence, in turn, has strong effects on cohesion
(b = .36, p = .001) and relationship conflict (b = .26, p = .02). In line with the
argument that affective similarity is a group state that concurrently emerges from
relationship quality within the group, the data show that cohesion is positively associated
(b = .40, p = .001) and relationship conflict is negatively associated (b = .24, p = .023)
with affective similarity measured at the same moment in time. Cohesion, relationship
conflict, and affective similarity had significant associations with group effectiveness. As
hypothesized, cohesion (b = .41, p = .001) and affective similarity (b = .23, p = .007)
had a positive influence, while relationship conflict (b = .26, p = .002) had a negative
influence on group effectiveness. The number of friendship ties had significant positive
associations with CEI (b = .48, p = .001) and with cohesion (b = .37, p = .001), whereas
the associations with relationship conflict (b = .02, p = .83) and affective similarity
(b = .16, p = .14) were not significant.
SEM is an advantageous analytical approach because it allows the simultaneous test of
multiple mediators and more complex mediating chains (as we intended to test in our
study) and also provides global model fit indices useful to estimate the general accuracy of
comprehensive models (Tomarken & Waller, 2005). Nevertheless, to further check the
robustness of our analyses, we used a resampling procedure and individually tested
hypotheses 2 and 3 using bootstrapping as recommended by Preacher and Hayes (2004).

Group
cohesion (T2)
0.41**

0.36**
0.40**

% of women
in groups

0.25*

Collective emotional
intelligence (T1)

0.26**

0.40**

Affective
similarity (T2)

0.23**

Group
effectiveness (T2)

0.24*

Relationship
conflict (T2)

0.26**

Figure 1. A comprehensive model of collective emotional intelligence. Note. Model fit: Chisquare = 8.84 (df = 8; p = .35); TLI = .98; CFI = .99; NFI = .95; RMSEA = .03. Standardized path
coefficients are shown. We also controlled for the number of friendship ties within groups by adding it as a
covariate to all mediators in the model, yet for parsimony reasons, this control variable is not depicted in
the figure. *p < .05; **p < .01.

Collective emotional intelligence in groups

227

First, we tested hypotheses 2a and 2b using bias-corrected bootstrapping with 5000


resamples and to account for the covariance between relationship conflict and cohesion
we entered both mediators simultaneously. We used the sum of friendship ties as a control
variable, CEI evaluated at T1 as independent variable, cohesion and relationship conflict
evaluated at T2 as mediators and group effectiveness as dependent variable. The indirect
effect of CEI through cohesion is significant (effect size = .17) and the 95% confidence
interval does not contain zero [.08, .31]. Moreover, the indirect effect of CEI, mediated by
relationship conflict is also significant (effect size = .06) and the 95% confidence interval
does not contain zero [.01, .19]. The total indirect effect of CEI, mediated by cohesion and
relationship conflict is also significant (effect size = .24) and the 95% confidence interval
does not contain zero [.11, .39]. As the direct effect of CEI is only marginally significant
(b = .18, p = .05), we can conclude that hypotheses 2a and 2b were fully supported by
the data and that the effect of CEI on group effectiveness is mediated by cohesion and
relationship conflict (both reflecting relationship quality in groups).
Further on, we independently tested hypotheses 3a and 3b using the same
bootstrapping procedure with 5000 resamples. We controlled for the sum of friendship
ties and modelled group cohesion evaluated at T2 as independent variable, affective
similarity evaluated at T2 as mediator and group effectiveness as dependent variable. The
indirect effect of cohesion through affective similarity is significant (effect size = .07) and
the 95% confidence interval does not contain zero [.02, .15]. The direct effect of cohesion
on group effectiveness remains significant (b = .64, p = .001), therefore we can conclude
that the effect of cohesion on group effectiveness is only partially mediated by affective
similarity. We then tested the mediated effect of relationship conflict on group
effectiveness, controlling for sum of friendship ties and using as mediator affective
similarity. The indirect effect of relationship conflict on group effectiveness through
affective similarity is significant (effect size = .07) and the 95% confidence interval does
not contain zero [.14, .03]. The direct effect of relationship conflict on group
effectiveness stays significant (b = .32, p = .001), therefore we can conclude that the
effect of relationship conflict on group effectiveness is partially mediated by affective
similarity. To cross-check the robustness of our findings, we ran the same bootstrapping
procedure using cohesion and relationship conflict evaluated at T1 as independent
variables, affective similarity evaluated at T2 as mediator and group effectiveness as
dependent variable. The results were robust, supporting the same (partial) mediating
patterns as the ones obtained using the T2 evaluations of relationship quality (cohesion
and relationship conflict). Because the results of the bootstrapping procedure are
perfectly aligned with the results obtained in SEM, we can conclude that all of our
hypotheses are supported by the data.

Discussion
Our study tested a comprehensive model of CEI and its impact on group effectiveness in
gender diverse groups. We found strong evidence that the percentage of women in the
group improves the CEI. As such, we provide support for the claim that gender
composition is an important driver of group-level competencies. Also, we uncover a
mechanism for the impact of gender composition on group effectiveness and provide
insights into the group dynamics that explain this effect. More specifically, we looked at
the interrelation between interpersonal interactions and affective dynamics in the group.
Our findings align with existing evidence that groups with better emotional competencies

228

Petru L. Curseu et al.

due to a compositional effect of members emotional intelligence (Barsade & Gibson,


1998; Elfenbein, Polzer, & Ambady, 2007) or the development of norms that actively tend
to the groups affective dynamics (Ayoko et al., 2008; Druskat & Wolff, 2001; Wolff et al.,
2006) are more cohesive and experience less conflicts than less emotionally intelligent
groups. This increased quality of intragroup relationships fosters the emergence of
affective similarity within groups.
An emergent result that supports this claim is also the positive association of the
number of friendship ties with the emergence of CEI. Our results show that groups
composed of friends are more cohesive and in turn display more similar emotions. The
positive strong association between the number of friendship ties in groups and CEI needs
further attention. It is likely that friends can anticipate each others emotional reactions in
group settings and as such, groups composed of friends are more likely to be effective in
regulating group emotions than groups composed of members with no previous
interpersonal experience. A possible venue for future research opened by this emergent
result is the composition of groups based on relational preferences. Previous empirical
results show that groups composed by maximizing the reciprocated relational preferences of their members, experience higher teamwork quality and are more effective than
groups composed by maximizing diversity (Curseu, Kenis, Raab, & Brandes, 2010). Future
research could explore whether CEI is the mediating factor that explains the positive
effect of reciprocated relational preferences on group dynamics and effectiveness.
An important contribution of our article is that it reports an initial empirical test of the
positive affect spiral model. Testing the claims by Walter and Bruch (2008) through a
correlational analysis, we conclude that intragroup relationship quality (cohesion and
relationship conflict) drives affective similarity rather than the other way around. That is,
we did not find an effect of affective similarity on cohesion and relationship conflict at a
later point in time. Rather, we find that emotional intelligence (as a collective
competence) and not emotional similarity drives the quality of intragroup relations. We
posit that this is not surprising given the transient nature of group affective states (Watson,
2000). Our data indeed provide support for the transient nature of affective similarity in
groups, and we therefore tested the relationships cross-sectionally as well. We find that
cohesion is conducive to and relationship conflict is detrimental for affective similarity in
groups. We therefore contribute to the literature on emergent states in groups and argue
that affective similarity is an emergent result of social integration in groups.
Literature on emergent cognitive competencies in groups is yet unclear as to whether
these collective competencies are compositional or compilation phenomena. Collective
intelligence for example, reflects consistent collective performance across a variety of
group tasks and was shown to be unrelated to individual intelligence (Woolley et al.,
2010). Woodley and Bell (2011) argued that collective intelligence is a group-level
manifestation of the General Factor of Personality (GFP) as the GFP could account for the
correlates of collective intelligence (i.e., social sensitivity). Group rationality reflects a
collective set of cognitive competencies associated with making decisions aligned with a
normative ideal and it has been shown to be strongly related to individual rationality and
the decision rule used to guide individual interactions in groups (Curseu et al., 2013).
Because emotional intelligence is related to GFP (Woodley & Bell, 2011) as well as to the
quality of interpersonal interactions in groups (Curseu et al., 2012), future research
should explore the extent to which CEI explains the association between group
composition and emergent group-level cognitive competencies. For example, in line with
the claim that gender composition is an important driver of emergent collective
competencies, future research should extend our focus on collective emotional

Collective emotional intelligence in groups

229

competencies (i.e., CEI) to collective cognitive competencies such as group rationality


(Curseu et al., 2013) and explore whether the emergence of collective emotional
competencies mediates the impact of gender composition on group rationality. It is
reasonable to argue that prosocial and emotionally intelligent behaviours influence group
rationality through the social integration and affective similarity they generate within
groups.
In addition to its contributions, our article has also a few limitations. First, we did not
use an experimental design, and causal claims in our model should therefore be
interpreted with caution. Our independent variable is a group composition feature based
on a (relatively) immutable individual trait, therefore the issue of reversed causation is a
problem for the relations between our mediators and the dependent variable only. We
tried to correct for this by using a cross-lagged design and separating in time the
evaluations of these variables (i.e., the evaluation of CEI preceded the evaluation of the
other emergent states and group effectiveness), yet the reversed causation cannot be fully
refuted based on only temporal sequencing.
Second, we used self-report data and the common method could have influenced our
results, although we tried to reduce the concerns about common method bias by
separating our evaluations in time (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & Podsakoff, 2011). The use of
self-report data was the most suitable method for our purposes because our aim was to
explore individual perceptions of group-level emergent properties and their reports of
affective reactions. More problematic is our reliance on self-reports for evaluating group
effectiveness. Nevertheless, our multidimensional evaluation of group effectiveness is
theoretically grounded (Hackman, 1986) and previous research reported moderate
positive correlations between self-reports of the three dimensions included in the
effectiveness measure and objective performance indicators (Curseu & Schruijer, 2010) or
effectiveness ratings of external raters (Alper, Tjosvold, & Law, 1998). As meta-analytic
evidence strongly supports the positive association between group cohesion and
performance (Beal et al., 2003) and the negative association between relationship conflict
and group performance (De Wit, Greer, & Jehn, 2012), it was not our main aim to further
probe these relationships. Our main aim was to explore the dynamics of the emotional and
emergent states in groups. Third, we argued for womens advantage over men in building
CEI, yet we did not explicitly evaluate the specific mechanisms that explain their
superiority and we did not evaluate individual emotional intelligence. Although we build
on extant empirical literature that documented gender differences in the understanding
and regulation of emotions, this is a limitation of our study, and future research could
explicitly evaluate these mechanisms and explore whether CEI really transcends
individual emotional intelligence (evaluated as ability, see for details Austin, 2010).
Finally, our respondents were students and future research should replicate these
findings in groups working in other organizational settings. The benefit of using student
groups, however, is that these groups are likely to be in the same stage of group
development, an importantissuetobe controlled for when exploring the emergenceofCEI.
As argued by previous research (Curseu et al., 2012), norms for group emotion regulation
need time to develop. Having groups in different stages of group development might
therefore bias the results, as they could exhibit different norms for emotion regulation.
Our results have important practical implications. Due to EIs predictive validity for
individual performance across a wide variety of tasks, emotional intelligence scores are
extensively used in personnel selection (Mayer et al., 2008). We extend these insights and
show that emotional intelligence as an emergent group-level property is beneficial for
group effectiveness in collaborative learning groups. It becomes therefore increasingly

230

Petru L. Curseu et al.

important to support groups to develop their emotional competencies. One way of


fostering CEI is through group design, namely by finding those compositional variables
that are conducive to the emergence of CEI. Gender composition is just one of these
variables and it may be that in real organizational settings it is not always open to
manipulation. Other compositional variables (e.g., individual emotional intelligence)
could also play an important role in generating CEI. As CEI is an emergent competence,
normative interventions that prescribe interpersonal interactions could also create the
conditions for CEI to emerge (Curseu et al., 2012).
Finally, we address the issue of womens contribution to organizations. To date,
research and interventions have focused primarily on the issue of women leaders, and
paid less attention to the contribution that women bring to the workplace and the change
in culture that comes with it. Our findings showed that the percentage of women in a
group increases CEI and subsequently improves teamwork quality, ultimately enhancing
group effectiveness. By contributing to our understanding of how women contribute to
group effectiveness (Hoogendoorn, Oosterbeek, & Van Praag, 2013; Woolley et al.,
2010), we help in the long run to support organizations and their teams to reap the
benefits of gender diversity. The key practical implication of our findings is that womens
contribution to performance in the workplace will be maximized when women will not
act counter-stereotypically, as many management and coaching gurus suggest when
stressing the need to boost womens assertiveness and task-orientation at the cost of their
communal and emotional traits. We argue that women should rather build on their
strengths and make those an active part of organizations cultures. With this statement, we
align with the stream of research on servant leadership, which already recognized the
difference women can make in leading positions and changing leadership cultures
(Barbuto & Gifford, 2010). To conclude, on a more humorous note, we cannot but agree
with Woolley and Malone (2011) that managers working with groups should seriously
consider bringing in the women.

Acknowledgements
We thank Jeroen de Jong, Jing Han, Steffie Janssen, Rob Jansen, and Gertjan Lucas for their help
with data collection.

References
Abele, A. E. (2003). The dynamics of masculine-agentic and feminine-communal traits: Findings from
a prospective study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 768776. doi:10.1037/
0022-3514.85.4.768
Alper, S., Tjosvold, D., & Law, K. S. (1998). Interdependence and controversy in group decision
making: Antecedents to effective self-managing teams. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 74, 3352. doi:10.1006/obhd.1998.2748
Austin, E. J. (2010). Measurement of ability emotional intelligence: Results for two new tests. British
Journal of Psychology, 101, 563578. doi:10.1348/000712609X474370
Ayoko, O. B., Callan, V. J., & Hartel, C. E. (2008). The influence of team emotional intelligence
climate on conflict and team members reactions to conflict. Small Group Research, 39, 121
149. doi:10.1177/1046496407304921
Barbuto, J., & Gifford, G. T. (2010). Examining gender differences of servant leadership: An analysis
of the agentic and communal properties of the Servant Leadership Questionnaire. Journal of
Leadership Education, 9, 421. doi:10.12806/V9/I2/RF1

Collective emotional intelligence in groups

231

Barsade, S. G., & Gibson, D. E. (1998). Group emotion: A view from top and bottom. In D. Gruenfeld,
E. Mannix & M. Neale (Eds.), Research on managing groups and teams (pp. 81102). Stanford,
CT: JAI Press.
Barsade, S. G., Ward, A. J., Turner, J. D. F., & Sonnenfeld, J. A. (2000). To your hearts content: A
model of affective diversity in top management teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 45,
802836. doi:10.2307/2667020
Bartel, C. A., & Saveedra, R. (2000). The collective construction of work group moods.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 45, 197231. doi:10.2307/2667070
Beal, D. J., Cohen, R. R., Burke, M. J., & McLendon, C. L. (2003). Cohesion and performance in
groups: A meta-analytic clarification of construct relations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88,
989. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.6.989
Blanchard, C., Poon, P., Rodgers, W., & Pinel, B. (2000). Group Environment Questionnaire and its
applicability in an exercise setting. Small Group Research, 31, 210224. doi:10.1177/
104649640003100204
Bliese, P. D., & Halverson, R. R. (1998). Group size and measures of group-level properties: An
examination of eta-squared and ICC values. Journal of Management, 24 (2), 157172.
Chen, G., Sharma, P. N., Edinger, S., Shapiro, D. L., & Farh, J. L. (2011). Motivating and demotivating
forces in teams: Cross-level influences of empowering leadership and relationship conflict.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 541557. doi:10.1037/a0021886
Ciarrochi, J., Caputi, P., & Mayer, J. D. (2003). The distinctiveness and utility of a measure of trait
emotional awareness. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 14771490. doi:10.1016/
S0191-8869(02)00129-0
Collins, A. L., Lawrence, S. A., Troth, A. C., & Jordan,P. J.(2013). Group affective tone: A review andfuture
research directions. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34, S43S62. doi:10.1002/job.1887
Curseu, P. L. (2006). Emergent states in virtual teams. A complex adaptive systems perspective.
Journal of Information Technology, 21, 249261. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jit.2000077
Curseu, P. L., Boros, S., & Oerlemans, L. A. G. (2012). Task and relationship conflict in short-term and
long-term groups: The critical role of emotion regulation. International Journal of Conflict
Management, 23, 97107. doi:10.1108/10444061211199331
Curseu, P. L., Jansen, R. J. G., & Chappin, M. M. H. (2013). Decision rules and group rationality:
Cognitive gain or standstill? PLoS ONE, 8, e56454. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0056454
Curseu, P. L., Kenis, P., Raab, J., & Brandes, U. (2010). Composing effective teams through teamdating. Organization Studies, 31, 873894. doi:10.1177/0170840610373195
Curseu, P. L., & Schruijer, S. G. L. (2010). Does conflict shatter trust or does trust obliterate conflict?
Revisiting the relationship between team diversity, conflict and trust. Group Dynamics: Theory,
Research and Practice, 14, 6679. doi:10.1037/a0017104
Curseu, P. L., Schruijer, S., & Boros, S. (2007). The effects of groups variety and disparity on groups
cognitive complexity. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 11, 187206. doi:10.
1037/1089-2699.11.3.187
De Dreu, C. K. W., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relationship conflict, team performance,
and team member satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 741749.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.741
De Jong, J. P., Curseu, P. L., & Leenders, R. T. A. (2014). When do bad apples not spoil the barrel?
Negative relationships in teams, team performance, and buffering mechanisms. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 99, 514522. doi:10.1037/a0036284
De Wit, F. R., Greer, L. L., & Jehn, K. A. (2012). The paradox of intragroup conflict: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 360. doi:10.1037/a0024844
Druskat, V. U., & Wolff, S. B. (2001). Collective emotional intelligence and its influence on group
effectiveness. In C. Cherniss & D. Goleman (Eds.), The emotionally intelligent workplace: How
to select for, measure, and improve emotional intelligence in individuals, groups, and
organizations (pp. 132155). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Elfenbein, H. A. (2006). Team emotional intelligence: What it can mean and how it can affect
performance. In V. U. Druskat, F. Sala & G. Mount (Eds.), Linking emotional intelligence and

232

Petru L. Curseu et al.

performance at work: Current research evidence with individuals and groups (pp. 165184).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Elfenbein, H. A., Polzer, J. T., & Ambady, N. (2007). Team emotion recognition accuracy and team
performance. In N. M. Ashkanasy, W. J. Zerbe & C. E. J. Hartel (Eds.), Research on emotions in
organizations (pp. 87119). Amsterdam, NL: Elsevier.
Evans, N. J., & Jarvis, P. A. (1980). Group cohesion: A review and reevaluation. Small Group
Behavior, 11, 359370. doi:10.1177/104649648001100401
Frijda, N. H. (1986). The emotions. London, UK: Cambridge University.
George, J. M. (1990). Personality, affect, and behavior in groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75,
107116. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.75.2.107
George, J. M. (2000). Emotions and leadership: The role of emotional intelligence. Human
Relations, 53, 10271055. doi:10.1177/0018726700538001
Hackman, J. R. (1986). The design of work teams. In J. Lorsch (Ed.), Handbook of organizational
behavior (pp. 315342). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hall, J. A. (1978). Gender effects in decoding nonverbal cues. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 845857.
doi:10.1037//0033-2909.85.4.845
Hoogendoorn, S., Oosterbeek, H., & Van Praag, M. (2013). The impact of gender diversity on the
performance of business teams: Evidence from a field experiment. Management Science, 59,
15141528. doi:10.1287/mnsc.1120.1674
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 155. doi:10.
1080/10705519909540118
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. (1993). rwg: An assessment of within-group interrater
agreement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 306309. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.78.2.306
Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 40, 256282. doi:10.2307/2393638
Jordan, P. J., & Troth, A. C. (2004). Managing emotions during team problem solving: Emotional
intelligence and conflict resolution. Human performance, 17, 195218. doi:10.1207/
s15327043hup1702_4
Kelly, J. R., & Barsade, S. G. (2001). Moods and emotions in small groups and work teams.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 99130. doi:10.1006/obhd.
2001.2974
Koman, E. S., & Wolff, S. B. (2008). Emotional intelligence competencies in the team and team
leader: A multi-level examination of the impact of emotional intelligence on team performance.
Journal of Management Development, 27, 5575. doi:10.1108/02621710810840767
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Chao, G. T. (2012). The dynamics of emergence: Cognition and cohesion in
work teams. Managerial and Decision Economics, 33, 335354. doi:10.1002/mde.2552
Kozlowski, S. W., Chao, G. T., Grand, J. A., Braun, M. T., & Kuljanin, G. (2013). Advancing multilevel
research design: Capturing the dynamics of emergence. Organizational Research Methods, 16,
581615. doi:10.1177/1094428113493119
Lawrence, C., & Hutchinson, L. (2014). The impact of non-aggressive behavior early in aggressive
interactions: Sex differences in direct and indirect aggression in response to provocation. British
Journal of Psychology, 105, 127144. doi:10.1111/bjop.12020
Lopes, P. N., Salovey, P., C^
ote, S., & Beers, M. (2005). Emotion regulation abilities and the quality of
social interactions. Emotion, 5, 113118. doi:10.1037/1528-3542.5.1.113
Mandell, B., & Pherwani, S. (2003). Relationship between emotional intelligence and
transformational leadership style: A gender comparison. Journal of Business and Psychology,
17, 387404. doi:10.1023/A:1022816409059
Marks, M. A., Mathieu, J. E., & Zaccaro, S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of
team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26 (3), 356376.
Mayer, J. D., Roberts, R. D., & Barsade, S. G. (2008). Human abilities: Emotional intelligence. Annual
Review of Psychology, 59, 507536. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093646

Collective emotional intelligence in groups

233

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2011). Sources of method bias in Social
Science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annual Review of Psychology, 63,
131. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452
Prati, L. M., Douglas, C., Ferris, G. R., Ammeter, A. P., & Buckley, M. R. (2003). Emotional
intelligence, leadership effectiveness, and team outcomes. International Journal of
Organizational Analysis, 11, 2140. doi:10.1108/eb028961
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in
simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36, 717
731. doi:10.3758/BF03206553
Russell, J. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
39, 11611178. doi:10.1037/h0077714
Simons, T. L., & Peterson, S. R. (2000). Task conflict and relationship conflict in top management
teams: The pivotal role of intragroup trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 314322. doi:10.
1037/0021-9010.85.1.102
Smith, E. R., Seger, C. R., & Mackie, D. M. (2007). Can emotions be truly group level? Evidence
regarding four conceptual criteria. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 431446.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.3.431
Tomarken, A. J., & Waller, N. G. (2005). Structural equation modeling: Strengths, limitations and
misconceptions. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 1, 3165. doi:10.1146/annurev.
clinpsy.1.102803.144239
Troth, A. C., Jordan, P. J., & Lawrence, S. A. (2012). Emotional intelligence, communication
competence, and student perceptions of team social cohesion. Journal of Psychoeducational
Assessment, 30, 414424. doi:10.1177/0734282912449447
Twenge, J. M. (1997). Changes in masculine and feminine traits over time: A meta-analysis. Sex Roles,
36, 305325. doi:10.1007/BF02766650
Van Den Berg, W., Curseu, P. L., & Meeus, M. T. H. (2014). Emotion regulation and conflict
transformation in multi-team systems. International Journal of Conflict Management, 25, 171
188. doi:10.1108/IJCMA-05-2012-0038
Walter, F., & Bruch, H. (2008). The positive group affect spiral: A dynamic model of the emergence
of positive affective similarity in work groups. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 29, 239
261. doi:10.1002/job.505
Watson, D. (2000). Mood and temperament. New York: Guilford Press.
Wegge, J., van Dick, R., Fisher, G. K., West, M. A., & Dawson, J. F. (2006). A test of basic assumptions
of affective events theory (AET) in call centre work. British Journal of Management, 17, 237
254. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8551.2006.00489.x
Whelan, C. (2007). Team performance management in the Irish Health Service (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation). Nottingham University Business School.
Widman, K. F., & Thomson, J. S. (2003). On specifying the null model for incremental fit indices
instructuralequationmodeling. PsychologicalMethods,8,1637. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.8.1.16
Wolff, S. B., Druskat, V. U., Koman, E. S., & Messer, T. E. (2006). The link between group emotional
competence and group effectiveness. In V. U. Druskat, F. Sala & G. Mount (Eds.), Linking
emotional intelligence and performance at work: Current research evidence with individuals
and groups (pp. 223242). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Woodley, M. A., & Bell, E. (2011). Is collective intelligence (mostly) the general factor of personality?
A comment on Woolley, Chabris, Pentland, Hashmi and Malone (2010). Intelligence, 39, 7981.
doi:10.1016/j.intell.2011.01.004
Woolley, A. W., Chabris, C. F., Pentland, A., Hashmi, N., & Malone, T. W. (2010). Evidence for a
collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science, 330, 686688.
doi:10.1126/science.1193147
Woolley, A. W., & Malone, T. (2011). What makes a team smarter? More women. Harvard Business
Review, 89, 3233.

234

Petru L. Curseu et al.

Yang, J., & Mossholder, K. W. (2004). Decoupling task and relationship conflict: The role of
intracollective emotional processing. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 589605.
doi:10.1002/job.258
Received 9 January 2014; revised version received 1 May 2014

Potrebbero piacerti anche