ON THE SOCIAL INFLUENCE OF EMOTIONS IN GROUPS 263 inentions(van Klcef.09:van Kleef.De Dreu.Manstead. Cialdini.&Kenrick.006 Hayes.007:Homsey&Jeten.04 search on the functio ins ha yas any behavior o mainly been con ned with hov affect spreads in g oups.for t from other group m behaviors or opin ed as an act o 994).M 002:Barsade Gibsor 1998:Kelly Barsade 001:Smith arily in line with those of th 99 Spoor ey,200 group eek ou Leach.2004)and how group affe Fons 2004).For state of th the n many situati ions deviance is important for attaining group dra(2005)showed that teams with a leader 1991).Work on hidde n profile 1995)and hbited bettero indeed suffer wher ler who expresse negative affect expen more effor 100 n the communicative aspects of emotion instead of 198 an Knippen ers De Dre anoth of a on. of the hange a group dec 、n for the such motivation s ws that de stimulat Jeh is inte f the argu 100 e.but it s and behavic of fellow dange ring the harmony and tru ist in eatens effectiv goal pursuit when s re we an ested in how deviant Up n mbers'behavior 1991).For instance within plain h rring ce is often s ure on the role of deviance in groun soal attainment alons with oun hy placing them outside what is a nembers may c cally exeluded from the group by Deviance and Group Goals Although group members have a general tendency to maintain g and disen integral part of group life (Griskevicius.Goldstein.Mortensen. and Levine.1989)by increasing their communication to theintentions (van Kleef, 2009; van Kleef, De Dreu, & Manstead, 2010). Previous research on the functionality of emotions in groups has mainly been concerned with how affect spreads in groups, for instance via “primitive” emotional contagion (i.e., contagion via mimicry and afferent feedback; Hatfield, Cacioppo, & Rapson, 1994). Much research in this domain has focused on the interplay between individual-level and group-level affect (e.g., Barsade, 2002; Barsade & Gibson, 1998; Kelly & Barsade, 2001; Smith, 1993; Spoor & Kelly, 2004; Totterdell, 2000; Totterdell, Kellett, Teuchmann, & Briner, 1998; van Zomeren, Spears, Fischer, & Leach, 2004) and how group affect and affective variability within groups shape group outcomes (e.g., George, 1995; Tiedens, Sut￾ton, & Fong, 2004). For instance, Barsade (2002) found that a confederate’s affective state influenced the mood of the other group members and that contagion of positive affect increased cooperation and group performance. Similarly, Sy, Côté, and Saavedra (2005) showed that teams with a leader who expressed positive affect developed a more positive “group affective tone” (George, 1995) and exhibited better coordination, whereas teams with a leader who expressed negative affect expended more effort on the task. Focusing on the communicative aspects of emotion instead of how affect spreads within groups, another study showed that expressions of anger (as opposed to happiness) on the part of a leader can increase team performance when team members are motivated to consider the implications of the leader’s emotions. When such motivation was high, team members inferred from the leader’s anger that their performance was unsatisfactory, which led them to increase their efforts. The leader’s happiness, on the other hand, was interpreted as a sign that performance was satisfactory, and this inference led to a decrease in effort (van Kleef, Homan, Beersma, van Knippenberg, van Knippenberg, & Damen, 2009). This brief overview of prior research on emotions in groups is far from comprehensive, but it suffices to demonstrate that emo￾tional expressions of group members have the potential to influ￾ence the emotions, inferences, and behaviors of fellow group members. It also reveals that previous research has not considered the perspective of the individual within the group, and how other group members’ emotional expressions that are contingent on one group member’s behavior influence this individual. More specif￾ically, we are interested in how deviant group members’ behavior is influenced by the majority’s emotional expressions in response to their behavior. Thus, we take a communicative approach to the interpersonal effects of emotions within groups to explain how happiness and anger, when expressed by a majority within a group, may influence a deviant individual’s tendency to persist in devi￾ance or to yield to this majority by conforming. Before theorizing about the process underlying these effects, we first review litera￾ture on the role of deviance in group goal attainment, along with evidence regarding naturally occurring emotional responses to deviance. Deviance and Group Goals Although group members have a general tendency to maintain their similarity to others by conforming to the opinion and behav￾ior of other group members (e.g., Asch, 1956), deviance is an integral part of group life (Griskevicius, Goldstein, Mortensen, Cialdini, & Kenrick, 2006; Hayes, 2007; Hornsey & Jetten, 2004; Ridgeway, 1978). We define deviance broadly as any behavior or expression of an opinion or idea that is intentionally or uninten￾tionally different from other group members’ behaviors or opin￾ions. Thus, for instance, in the opening example, the suggestion to go to a nearby Asian restaurant could be construed as an act of deviance. Unintentional deviance is likely to surface frequently within groups, as an individual’s preferences, ideas, intentions, beliefs, and behavior are not necessarily in line with those of the group. In addition, group members may intentionally seek out different roles or diversifying positions to maintain a sense of uniqueness while still belonging to the group (Brewer, 1991; Homan, Greer, Jehn, & Koning, 2010; Hornsey & Jetten, 2004; Mullen & Hu, 1989). In many situations, deviance is important for attaining group goals. These include situations that require creativity and divergent thinking to find the optimal solution to a problem (see, e.g., Kruglanski & Webster, 1991). Work on hidden profiles, diversity, groupthink, and the common knowledge effect show that group performance may indeed suffer when group members suppress deviance by being too critical of new information and converging too much (e.g., Gigone & Hastie, 1993; Janis, 1982; Stasser & Titus, 1985, 2003; van Knippenberg, De Dreu, & Homan, 2004). To avoid this situation, deviance is required. For instance, an expert individual may seek (minority) influence through deviance to change a group decision for the better (Moscovici, Mucchi￾Faina, & Maass, 1994). Similarly, work on constructive conflict shows that deviance can indeed stimulate group performance (Amason, 1996; Jehn, 1995; Schweiger, Sandberg, & Ragan, 1986). Thus, because deviance can be crucial for obtaining good group outcomes, groups that are aware of the value of deviance may encourage it (for similar arguments, see de Wit, Greer, & Jehn, 2012; Kruglanski & Webster, 1991; Tjosvold, Wedley, & Field, 1986) and respond to it with happiness or enthusiasm. On the other hand, deviance may constitute a threat to the group’s goals, because it violates the shared reality in the group, thereby endangering the harmony and trust in the group (Mannetti, Levine, Pierro, & Kruglanski, 2010; Marques, Abrams, Paez, & Martinez-Taboada, 1998; Sani, 2005). Furthermore, deviance threatens effective goal pursuit when coordinated action is re￾quired or when one course of action should be decided upon (Kruglanski & Webster, 1991). For instance, in the restaurant example, one person’s deviating dinner preference may undermine or slow down group decision making. Indeed, in naturally occurring contexts, deviance is often se￾verely socially sanctioned by passively (e.g., ignoring, ostracizing) or actively (e.g., rejecting, bullying, see Molden, Lucas, Gardner, Dean, & Knowles, 2009) excluding the deviant individual. People holding a deviant opinion may be metaphorically ostracized from their group by placing them outside what is an “acceptable” opinion for members of their group (Eidelman, Silvia, & Biernat, 2006; Marques et al., 1998; see also Williams, 2007). Group members may even be physically excluded from the group by voting them out (Schachter, 1951). Deviance in groups usually does not lead to immediate social exclusion, however (Levine, 1989). Instead of ignoring and disen￾gaging from a deviant group member, groups may attempt to resocialize the deviant member (Levin & Moreland, 1994; More￾land & Levine, 1989) by increasing their communication to the This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. ON THE SOCIAL INFLUENCE OF EMOTIONS IN GROUPS 263