Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
0j
=
01
(C1) +
02
(C2) +
03
(C3) +
04
(C4) + u
0j
.
In this model, experimental conditions were represented by
four dummy-coded (0, 1) variables. C1 was coded 1 for high-
pleasant/high-energy condition groups and 0 for the other
three conditions, C2 was coded 1 for the high-pleasant/low-
energy condition, C3 was the high-unpleasant/high-energy
condition, and C4 was the high-unpleasant/low-energy condi-
tion, and u
0j
represented the error of
0j
. Differences among
the groups were examined using comparisons of fixed
effects (Bryk and Raudenbush, 1992: 4952). For example,
C1 and C2 represented the two pleasant-affect groups, and
C3 and C4 represented the two unpleasant-affect groups,
and so the main effect for valence of affect was examined
using a contrast code of 1, 1, 1, 1. These zero-intercept,
dummy-coded analyses provided the functional equivalent of
the comparisons provided by a traditional ANOVA while
retaining the benefits of MRCM.
RESULTS
Manipulation check. As shown in table 1, analyses of partici-
pants perceptions of the confederate showed that the con-
federate successfully enacted the affective behavior required
for each experimental condition. Participants who were with
the pleasant confederate perceived the confederate as more
pleasant than participants who were with the unpleasant con-
federate [overall means = 6.59 versus 3.89;
2
(1) = 42.67, p
< .001]. Moreover, there was no significant effect of the con-
federates energy level on ratings of his pleasantness, nor
was there an interaction of energy and pleasantness on
these ratings. With regard to energy, participants who were
with the high-energy confederate perceived the confederate
as more energetic than participants who were with the low-
energy confederate [means = 7.68 versus 3.27;
2
(1) =
152.52, p < .001]. Although there was no main effect for
pleasantness in the analysis of confederate energy, there
was an interaction of pleasantness and energy such that both
differences were significant: the difference between the
high- and low-energy confederate was greater when the con-
federate was unpleasant (8.38 vs. 2.65) than when the con-
661/ASQ, December 2002
Ripple Effect
#9705ASQ V47 N4December 2002file: 02-barsdale
federate was pleasant (6.98 vs. 4.14). Because this differ-
ence in perceptions of the confederates energy was unex-
pected, I controlled for it in all of the hypothesis-testing
analyses by including it as a covariate at the individual level,
and it did not change the results. Table 2 reports the means
and standard deviations of each of the variables and their
correlations.
Emotional contagion.
3
Hypothesis 1 examined whether
emotional contagion would occur in the groups at the individ-
ual level and at the group level. Video-coder ratings of partici-
pants Time 2 mood and participants self-reported change in
mood were used to operationalize participants emotional
contagion.
Hypothesis 1 was first tested by comparing video-coders rat-
ings of participants Time 2 pleasant mood across the experi-
mental conditions. Participants were not video-taped before
beginning the experiment (Time 1), so change scores could
not be analyzed; nonetheless, because participants were ran-
domly assigned to experimental conditions, differences in
Time 2 video-coders ratings of participants pleasant mood
can be inferred to represent differences due to the experi-
mental manipulations. To be more conservative, preexisting
differences in Time 1 self-reported pleasant mood was
included as a covariate at the individual level (none of the
demographic or task control variables were significant covari-
ates). Supporting hypothesis 1, this analysis showed a main
effect of confederate pleasantness on ratings of participants
pleasant mood, as shown in table 3. Video-coders rated the
mood of participants who were with a pleasant confederate
as more positive than the mood of participants who were
with a negative confederate (means = 2.75 versus 2.33). Nei-
ther confederate energy level nor the interaction of confeder-
ate pleasantness and energy significantly influenced partici-
pants displayed pleasant mood.
Hypothesis 1 was also tested with participants self-reported
contagion, and for clarity of presentation, self-reports of con-
tagion were operationalized as the change in participants
3
The results reported here have experi-
mental condition as the independent vari-
able. The same results were found using
subjects perceptions of the confederates
valence and energy as the predictor vari-
ables.
662/ASQ, December 2002
#9705ASQ V47 N4December 2002file: 02-barsdale
Table 1
Manipulation Check of Perceptions of Confederates Pleasantness by Experimental Condition*
High Low
Pleasantness Pleasantness
Conditions Conditions
High High Low Low
Chi-squared test
pleasant pleasant pleasant pleasant High vs. High vs.
highenergy lowenergy high energy low energy low low Interaction
Confederate Group 1 Group 2 Group 3 Group 4 pleasantness energy between
Affective Behavior (N = 23) (N = 21) (N = 24) (N = 23) conditions conditions conditions
1. Participants perceptions 6.95 6.29 4.13 3.65 42.67
001.85
00
.04
of confederates
pleasantness
2. Participants perceptions 6.98 4.14 8.38 2.65 00.02
152.52
17.31
of confederates energy
level
p < .05;
p < .01;
.14 .
rated by participants .(91) .(91)
04. Confederate energy 5.55 2.70 .01 .82
.19
.
rated by participants .(91) .(91) .(91)
05. Time 1 pleasant mood 6.78 1.02 .14 .10 .03 .15
(self-report) .(93) .(93) .(91) .(91)
06. Time 2 pleasant mood 6.85 .98 .20
.13 .24
.17
(self-report) .(93) .(93) .(91) .(91)
07. Time 2 pleasant mood minus .08 1.07 .31
.21
.19
.30
.06 .36
.01
pleasant mood .(93) .(93) .(90) .(90)
09. Participants rating of own 6.23 1.58 .09 .13 .17
.11
cooperative behavior .(93) .(93) .(91) .(91)
10. Others ratings of 6.11 1.32 .06 .08 .03 .04
participants cooperative behavior .(93) .(93) .(90) .(90)
11. Participants rating of own .01 .71 .21
.19 .18
.27
.05 .35
.
(self-report) .(93)
07. Time 2 pleasant mood minus .56
.51
.
Time 1 pleasant mood (self-report) .(93) .(93)
08. Video-coder rating of participant Time 2 .02 .25
.21
.
pleasant mood .(92) .(92) .(92)
09. Participants rating of own .19
.39
.18
.22
.23
.30
.43
.17 .23
.18
.17
.03 .40
.40
participants task performance .(92) .(92) .(92) .(92) .(92) .(93) .(92)
p < .10;
p < .05;
p < .01;
00.33
.40
emotional contagion (.51) (.51) (.37) (.40)
Self-ratings of emotional contagion .66 .16 .07 .44 09.97
4.24
.10
(1.16) (1.11) (.99) (1.04)
p < .05;
p < .01;
.33 .40
participants emotional contagion (.42) (.37) (.31) (.30)
(mean of the video-coders aggregated group rating
of participants Time 2 pleasant mood)
Aggregated self-ratings of emotion contagion .57 .17 .03 .39 8.41
5.36
.00
(mean of the groups participants Time 2 (.72) (.26) (.42) (.63)
pleasant mood minus Time 1 pleasant mood)
Video-coders ratings of overall group pleasantness 4.31 4.83 3.14 2.81 20.68
.08 1.51
(.93) (.98) (.79) (.98)
Group members ratings of overall group pleasantness 5.73 5.42 4.61 4.45 10.10
.47 .09
(.62) (.67) (.94) (1.05)
p < .05;
p < .01;
1.38 1.85
(.20) (.20) (.10) (.19) (.10) (.10) (1.34) (1.64)
Percentage of funds 1.20 1.51 2.24 1.79 2.88
2.39
4.34 10.28
participant received (3.22) (3.23) (1.49) (1.62) (1.24) (1.14) (22.52) (18.27)
Emotional contagion
Video-coder ratings of 1.09 . 1.41
. .31 . 12.08
.
participants Time 2 mood (.79) (.57) (.30) (4.90)
Participants self-rating of . .73
. .47
. .38
. 3.96
p < .10;
p < .05;
p < .01;
.34
cooperativeness
4. Standard deviation of percentage of 0.06 .04 .37
.19 .26
funds distributed in group
5. Video-coder ratings of group conflict 3.71 .97 .42
.48
.92
.30
p < .10;
p < .05;
p < .01;