ON THE SOCIAL INELUENCE OF EMOTIONS IN GROUPS 281 informational influences may have been at work as well.Further open for re-ac anger may produce lasting changes in the ore.the finding tha rece ing angry aw This may of s of th the type 2:h 10.000 nd the des reve mining whe in Study 3:B 8 (p val For i References otives translate into behavior.Further research may Aiken.LS West S.G..&Reno.R.R.(1991).Mulriple eression conformity was not produ ns.Academy of Mo d1023072sa oml39.12-148 or transgre 00 2007).Althoughw s.E.(19561. n all stu .120 eve showed that our mar did ot affect self den oramechanism through induced guilt ccoun for conformity ourse.a situation in whic ember deviates from the estricted to this sp fic situa ion.For MR (1995)The ced to belong:Desire fo 17.497-529.d10107A0 0091173407 eople may feel rejected if other people expres nger toward cister,R. of the relati well-de (e.s Neur ne (2010) 4 070 n (e.g..B arsade 2002:Tou th 2005 of h takes place in a group context and the M.B.1991.Th2 nto a better description of how emotions shape intragroup ence we have shown that i and rejec Effects of le and anger are interpreted as signals of target' the comic 03)0006 C L (2008)Exctude tance between the individual and the group.By leaving the doorinformational influences may have been at work as well. Further￾more, the finding that receiving angry reactions from a majority reduced a group member’s influence in Study 4 may also be explained by withdrawal. This may be seen as a case of conformity by omission (Cialdini & Trost, 1998), where one fails to behave in a certain way (i.e., contribute ideas) because others would not approve of this behavior. These various types and reasons for conformity may well reflect the two opposing consequences of feeling rejected that we studied in Study 2: the desire to leave the group, and the desire to remain in the group. It is likely that the situation is crucial in determining whether one motive prevails over the others, and which strategy individuals choose to balance these competing behavioral tendencies. For instance, whether a participant is forced to give a response (i.e., perform one identity or another; Klein et al., 2007) may be crucial in determining how different motives translate into behavior. Further research may shed light on this issue. An alternative explanation for our findings could be that the observed conformity was not produced by feeling rejected, but by feeling guilty or shameful of the norm transgression (Baumeister, Stilwell, & Heatherton, 1994; Eisenberg, 2000; Nugier, Niedenthal, Brauer, & Chekroun, 2007). Although we did not discuss this in the respective sections, we did in fact include measures of guilt and shame in all studies. The results, however, showed that our manipulations did not affect self￾reported guilt and shame, nor did we find any indirect effects of anger on the dependent variable through self-reported guilt10 and shame.11.Thus, a “moral” mechanism through induced guilt and shame appears to be unable to account for conformity induced with anger. Of course, a situation in which one member deviates from the group’s consensus is but one of the many permutations of group settings that could be analyzed. Thus, it is an important question to what extent our findings are restricted to this specific situation. For instance, it may not require a majority who expresses anger in order to feel rejected as a deviant. Similarly, it is possible that people may feel rejected if other people express anger toward them even though they are not yet deviant. Thus, whether people feel rejected or accepted if others express anger or happiness about their behavior and whether this results in social influence may depend on a complex array of factors. Considering the potential complexity of the situation, it is no surprise that research so far has focused mainly on relatively well-defined dyadic situations (e.g., negotiations; van Kleef, De Dreu, & Manstead, 2004a, 2004b) or has focused mainly on group-level processes such as emotional contagion (e.g., Barsade, 2002; Totterdell, 2000). We think that it is important to further our understanding of the more intricate emotional processes that impinge on individuals within groups, as most of human life takes place in a group context and the many processes that play a role in those settings determine much of human behavior. Thus, we consider this set of studies an initial step into a better description of how emotions shape intragroup influence dynamics. In conclusion, we have shown that in a group context, happiness and anger are interpreted as signals of a target’s inclusionary status. It is happiness that produces the comfortable feeling of acceptance, whereas anger creates a temporary sensation of dis￾tance between the individual and the group. By leaving the door open for re-acceptance, anger may produce lasting changes in the behavior of individual group members. 10 No main effects of the emotion manipulation on guilt were found in Studies 1, 2, 4, or 5, and moderated mediation analyses revealed no mediating role of guilt between the effect of majority emotions and conformity pressure in Study 3: Bcooperative
0.002, p
.54; Bcompetitive
0.001, p
.96 (p value is based on bootstrapping with 10,000 resamples). 11 No main effects of the emotion manipulation on shame was found in Studies 1, 2, and 5, and moderated mediation analyses revealed no medi￾ating role of shame between the effects of majority emotions and confor￾mity pressure in Study 3: Bcooperative
0.06, p
.18; Bcompetitive
0.01, p
.78 (p values are based on bootstrapping with 10,000 resamples). References Aiken, L. S., West, S. G., & Reno, R. R. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Amason, A. C. (1996). Distinguishing the effects of functional and dys￾functional conflict on strategic decision making: Resolving a paradox for top management teams. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 123–148. doi:10.2307/256633 Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 70(9, Whole No. 416), 1–70. Averill, J. R. (1982). Anger and aggression: An essay on emotion. New York, NY: Springer–Verlag. doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-5743-1 Barsade, S. G. (2002). The ripple effect: Emotional contagion and its influence on group behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47, 644 – 675. doi:10.2307/3094912 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. 81–102). Stamford, CT: JAI Press. Baumeister, R. F., Campbell, J. D., Krueger, J. I., & Vohs, K. D. (2003). Does self-esteem cause better performance, interpersonal success, hap￾piness, or healthier lifestyles? Psychological Science in the Public In￾terest, 4, 1– 44. doi:10.1111/1529-1006.01431 Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psycho￾logical Bulletin, 117, 497–529. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497 Baumeister, R. F., Stillwell, A. M., & Heatherton, T. F. (1994). Guilt: An interpersonal approach. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 243–267. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.115.2.243 Berkowitz, L. (1957). Effects of perceived dependency relationships upon conformity to group expectations. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 55, 350 –354. doi:10.1037/h0040540 Berns, G. S., Capra, C. M., Moore, S., & Noussair, C. (2010). Neural mechanisms of the influence of popularity on adolescent ratings of music. NeuroImage, 49, 2687–2696. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.10 .070 Bond, R. (2005). Group size and conformity. Group Processes & Inter￾group Relations, 8, 331–354. doi:10.1177/1368430205056464 Bourgeois, K. S., & Leary, M. R. (2001). Coping with rejection: Derogat￾ing those who choose us last. Motivation and Emotion, 25, 101–111. doi:10.1023/A:1010661825137 Brewer, M. B. (1991). The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 475– 482. doi:10.1177/0146167291175001 Buckley, K. E., Winkel, R. E., & Leary, M. R. (2004). Reactions to acceptance and rejection: Effects of level and sequence of relational evaluation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 14 –28. doi:10.1016/S0022-1031(03)00064-7 Chow, R. M., Tiedens, L. Z., & Govan, C. L. (2008). Excluded emotions: The role of anger in antisocial responses to ostracism. Journal of 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 281