Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 2014, Vol. 143, No. 3, 980 –984
© 2013 American Psychological Association 0096-3445/14/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0035226
BRIEF REPORT
How Instructors’ Emotional Expressions Shape Students’ Learning Performance: The Roles of Anger, Happiness, and Regulatory Focus Evert A. van Doorn, Gerben A. van Kleef, and Joop van der Pligt
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.
University of Amsterdam How do instructors’ emotional expressions influence students’ learning performance? Scholars and practitioners alike have emphasized the importance of positive, nurturing emotions for successful learning. However, teachers may sometimes lose their temper and express anger at their pupils. Drawing on emotions as social information (EASI) theory, we hypothesized that expressions of anger can benefit learning performance. In Experiment 1, participants who were confronted with an angry instructor exhibited more accurate recognition of word pairs after a week of learning, compared with those who were confronted with a happy instructor. In Experiment 2, we conceptually replicated this effect on a recall task, but only among participants in a promotion rather than prevention focus. Present findings thus show, for the 1st time, that instructor anger can enhance students’ performance. Findings are consistent with a conceptualization of emotion as social information and call into question the generally endorsed positivity paradigm. Keywords: interpersonal emotions, instruction, learning, motivation Supplemental materials: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0035226.supp
Lüdtke, Pekrun, & Sutton, 2009) and create a safe environment in which pupils can flourish (Fredrickson & Losada, 2005; Lyubomirsky, King, & Diener, 2005). In addition, instructors who express positive emotions may be seen as warm and competent (Fiske, Cuddy, & Glick, 2007; Gaddis, Connelly, & Mumford, 2004), which may also be conducive to successful learning. Although we do not dispute the importance of a positive learning environment, there are reasons to believe that negative emotional expressions can be motivating. Displays of anger are no exception in the classroom and other settings that involve learning and training. For instance, military training program instructors routinely use expressions of anger, which are thought to build character and enhance discipline. According to emotion as social information (EASI) theory (Van Kleef, 2009), expressions of anger can have beneficial effects because they provide relevant information about the situation. Expressions of anger signal that behavioral adjustment is needed, whereas expressions of happiness suggest that all is well (see also Cacioppo & Gardner, 1999; Keltner & Haidt, 1999). Therefore, anger displays may motivate behavioral change. Supporting this idea, expressions of anger have been found to elicit greater concessions in negotiations than expressions of happiness do (Van Kleef, De Dreu, & Manstead, 2004), and leaders’ negative emotional displays have been shown to increase effort (Sy, Côté, & Saavedra, 2005), motivation, and team performance (Van Kleef, Homan, Beersma, & Van Knippenberg, 2010) compared with positive emotional displays. Student learning tasks lack the divergent interests and focus on concessions that characterize negotiations, and they differ from the formal, instrumental relations and focus on team performance studied in team leadership. Nevertheless, we assume that the
We all recall some of our teachers. Some are remembered for their excellent teaching qualities, others for the conspicuous lack thereof. Some we remember for their likable personality and positive approach, others for their intimidating diatribes. But do we also recall what they tried to teach us? From whose lessons do we remember most details: those of the happy chap whom we liked or those of his grumpy counterpart whom we despised? Although it seems plausible that the emotions of teachers influence students’ learning performance (Hascher, 2010; Reyna & Weiner, 2001; Sutton & Wheatley, 2003), the nature of this influence is as yet uncharted. Drawing on recent theoretical insights, we developed and tested the hypothesis that teachers’ expressions of anger enhance students’ learning performance. In doing so, we challenge the popular (yet untested) belief that teachers should express positive emotions and suppress negative emotions to facilitate learning. This belief is rooted in the idea that positive emotions create a supportive atmosphere (Pekrun, 2006; Reyna & Weiner, 2001). Instructors’ expressions of positive emotion may inspire similar emotions in pupils (Frenzel, Goetz,
This article was published Online First December 23, 2013. Evert A. van Doorn, Gerben A. van Kleef, and Joop van der Pligt, Department of Social Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. We thank Rosa Polak for her assistance during data collection. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Evert A. Van Doorn, who is now at the Department of Industrial Engineering, Fontys University of Applied Sciences, Rachelsmolen 1, Building R1, Room 1.27, Eindhoven, The Netherlands. E-mail: [email protected] 980
HOW EMOTIONAL EXPRESSIONS SHAPE LEARNING
underlying theoretical notion that expressions of anger signal a need for behavioral adjustment can be extended to the teaching domain. Thus, in two experiments, we examine for the first time whether an instructor’s anger can enhance students’ learning performance.
Experiment 1
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.
Method Forty-five undergraduate students (40 women, Mage ⫽ 20.71 years, SD ⫽ 2.82) participated. An “instructor” (actually a trained actor) explained the procedure in a short film clip, which was designed to look like a live webcam stream. Participants received a list of 100 combinations of a six-letter nonsense word and a six-letter word in one of two different orders (order had no effect and is not discussed further). After participants had spent 15 min reading the word pairs, baseline recognition was measured with a categorization task in which participants indicated whether each of 96 combinations had been on their list. Recognition scores were ostensibly sent to the instructor, who then conveyed four learning tips in either an angry tone or a happy tone. Participants were not informed about their actual performance, and tips were standardized across conditions. Emotional tone was manipulated nonverbally via facial expressions, tone of voice, and body posture of the instructor. In the happy condition, the instructor looked cheerful, spoke with an enthusiastic tone of voice, and smiled often. In the angry condition, the instructor frowned a lot, spoke with an angry tone of voice, clenched his fists, and made irritable gestures (for similar procedures, see Barsade, 2002; Van Kleef et al., 2010). Afterward, participants rated their own positive and negative affect (“I feel [positive/negative]”) and indicated how warm (␣ ⫽ .96) and competent (␣ ⫽ .76) they found the instructor (three items each; e.g., “Do you think the instructor is [friendly/competent]?”). Participants were instructed to take their list home and to spend a minimum of 5 min a day memorizing the combinations. One week later, participants repeated the recognition task, indicated how many minutes they had spent memorizing the words during the week, and indicated to what extent the instructor had expressed anger and happiness (“Was the instructor [angry/happy] when he gave you tips last week?”). Except for the time measure, all questions were answered on 7-point scales (1 ⫽ not at all, 7 ⫽ very much so). Finally, participants were debriefed, compensated, and dismissed.
Results and Discussion Treatment of data. We measured learning performance using a recognition task in which participants indicated of both learned (target) and nonlearned (distractor) combinations whether they had seen them before. We then used signal detection theory (SDT) to calculate informed responses, d=, and response bias, c (i.e., a tendency to be liberal or conservative when deciding in case of doubt). Higher scores on d= indicate greater ability to distinguish between targets and distractors. Scores on c that deviate from 0 indicate increasingly biased responding. Because these components are confounded in conventional analysis of means, SDT
981
offers a preferable test of memory (Stanislaw & Todorov, 1999). Descriptive statistics are shown in Table 1. Manipulation check. Participants perceived more happiness in the happy condition than in the angry condition, t(32.18) ⫽ 6.80, p ⬍ .001, d ⫽ 2.40, and more anger in the angry condition than in the happy condition, t(43) ⫽ 10.45, p ⬍ .001, d ⫽ 3.19. Hypothesis test. We controlled for response bias, F(1, 42) ⫽ 0.002, p ⫽ .97, to obtain an unbiased estimate of learning performance. An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) revealed that participants were more sensitive to the learned stimuli after seeing the angry rather than the happy instructor, F(1, 42) ⫽ 4.94, p ⫽ .032, p2 ⫽ .11. These results indicate that an instructor’s anger can enhance learning performance, as reflected in recognition of learned material. An analysis of variance without response bias as covariate yielded a similar result, F(1, 43) ⫽ 5.06, p ⫽ .030, p2 ⫽ .11. Including initial memory performance as an additional control variable, F(1, 41) ⫽ 10.96, p ⫽ .002, the initial effect remained significant, F(1, 41) ⫽ 7.09, p ⫽ .011, p2 ⫽ .15. Auxiliary analyses. Time spent learning did not differ between conditions, t(43) ⫽ 0.25, p ⫽ .80. Participants in the angry condition perceived the instructor as being less warm, t(43) ⫽ 9.84, p ⬍ .001, d ⫽ 3.00, and less competent, t(43) ⫽ 3.14, p ⫽ .003, d ⫽ 0.96, than did participants in the happy condition. Neither competence, r(42) ⫽ ⫺.17, p ⫽ .28, nor warmth, r(42) ⫽ ⫺.25, p ⫽ .10, correlated significantly with sensitivity scores. Self-reported positive affect did not differ between conditions, t(43) ⫽ 0.01, p ⫽ .99, nor did negative affect, t(43) ⫽ 0.29, p ⫽ .78. Also, neither positive affect, r(42) ⫽ .00, p ⫽ .99, nor negative affect, r(42) ⫽ .06, p ⫽ .72, correlated with stimulus sensitivity.
Experiment 2 Experiment 1 indicates that an instructor’s anger can enhance students’ learning performance, even though participants perceived the angry instructor as less warm and competent. The effect was independent of participants’ self-reported affect. This suggests that the effect is not carried by interpersonal impressions or felt affect but rather by the informational value of the emotional expressions (Van Kleef, 2009). According to EASI theory, expressions of anger in a performance context signal that better performance is expected, whereas expressions of happiness signal that performance is satisfactory. In Experiment 2, we extend this ar-
Table 1 Mean Scores by Condition in Experiment 1 Variable a
Stimulus sensitivity d= Time spent learning in minutes Manipulation check happiness Manipulation check anger Instructor warmth Instructor competence Participant positive affect Participant negative affect
Happy condition
Angry condition
0.74 (0.22) 19.91 (14.13) 4.74 (1.96) 1.65 (1.23) 5.38 (0.90) 4.01 (1.01) 3.91 (1.76) 4.48 (2.09)
1.43 (0.22) 21.17 (18.91) 1.64 (0.95) 5.64 (1.33) 2.45 (1.10) 2.97 (1.22) 3.91 (1.51) 4.64 (1.59)
Note. Values in parentheses are standard deviations, unless otherwise noted. a Controlling for response bias c, values in parentheses are standard errors.
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.
982
VAN DOORN, VAN KLEEF, AND VAN DER PLIGT
gument by considering the regulatory fit between the informational value of the teacher’s emotion and the student’s regulatory focus (Brockner & Higgins, 2001). Regulatory focus theory (Higgins, 1997) holds that people who strive toward a goal can be motivated to avoid losses (prevention focus) or to attain gains (promotion focus). These motivational states determine what strategies people use to reach their goal. Moreover, such strategies depend on the fit between the perceiver’s regulatory focus and properties of both task and feedback (Higgins, 2000). For instance, people meet their goals more easily when the framing of a task matches their regulatory focus (Shah, Higgins, & Friedman, 1998), when task and feedback are framed using the same focus (Stam, Van Knippenberg, & Wisse, 2010), and when the framing of the feedback matches the perceiver’s focus (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996, although see Keller & Bless, 2008). The expression of anger can function as a signal that better performance is required (Sy et al., 2005; Van Kleef et al., 2010). Accordingly, in Experiment 1, instructor anger increased students’ learning performance relative to instructor happiness. Notably, our task was framed in promotion terms, as students were instructed to memorize as many combinations as possible. The benefits of anger could thus be due to a regulatory fit between the framing of the learning task and the signal, conveyed by the instructor’s anger, that better performance is required. Under this explanation, inducing a promotion (but not a prevention) focus should yield results comparable to those of Experiment 1, because of regulatory fit between task framing, the emotion’s signal value, and students’ regulatory focus. To test this prediction, we added a manipulation of regulatory focus. We also replaced the measure of passive recognition with a measure of active recall and measured appropriateness to ascertain that effects were not due to the instructor violating display rules. Furthermore, we asked participants to complete the tasks within one experimental session to increase experimental control. Finally, we used a different actor to rule out idiosyncratic effects.
Method Ninety undergraduates (82 women, Mage ⫽ 20.55 years, SD ⫽ 3.11) participated. Half of them learned that they would receive 2.5 course credits but would lose a credit if their errors on the second task exceeded 40% (prevention focus). The other half learned that they would receive 1.5 course credits but could earn an additional credit if their correct responses on the second task exceeded 60% (promotion focus; see Shah et al., 1998). Next, the instructor introduced himself via a “webcam connection” (see Experiment 1). Participants then read the list of 100 word–nonword combinations for 5 min. To establish baseline recall, we asked participants to enter the words that had been paired with each of the 100 nonwords from their list. If participants did not know an accompanying word, they could skip the trial. After this task, participants received standardized feedback in an angry or a happy tone (see Experiment 1). Participants were asked to learn the combinations and to click a button when they felt ready to take the test (the computer automatically recorded learning time). Next, participants completed the recall test for the second time and answered a number of questions assessing the warmth (four items; ␣ ⫽ .94) and competence (four items; ␣ ⫽ .79; see Experiment 1 for examples) of the instructor,
the appropriateness of the way the tips were given (three items; e.g., “Do you think the instructor’s response to your scores was appropriate?”; ␣ ⫽ .88), and their positive (three items; ␣ ⫽ .87) and negative (five items; ␣ ⫽ 87) affect (e.g., “To what extent did you experience [happiness/irritation] following the response to your scores?”). Manipulation checks for emotional tone of the instructor involved two items that assessed anger, r(90) ⫽ .86, p ⬍ .001, and two items that assessed happiness, r(90) ⫽ .85, p ⬍ .001 (e.g., “The person who viewed my scores was [angry/happy]”). Finally, a dichotomous question asked which type of regulatory focus instruction the participant had received (i.e., if they were to obtain a high score or avoid obtaining a low score). Apart from this dichotomous choice, participants answered all questions using 7-point scales (1 ⫽ not at all, 7 ⫽ very much so). Finally, participants received 2.5 course credits (regardless of performance), were debriefed, and were dismissed.
Results and Discussion Treatment of data. To obtain recall scores, we computed the ratio of correctly entered words to all entered words. We controlled for the number of words participants entered (i.e., trials that participants skipped) in all analyses that included recall scores. Descriptive statistics are presented in Table 2. Manipulation checks. Participants perceived more anger in the angry condition than in the happy condition, F(1, 86) ⫽ 22.53, p ⬍ .001, p2 ⫽ .21, and more happiness in the happy condition than in the angry condition, F(1, 86) ⫽ 54.23, p ⬍ .001, p2 ⫽ .39. Regulatory focus did not predict perceived emotions (ps ⬎ .12). Responses on the dichotomous check showed that all participants correctly identified the regulatory focus manipulation. Hypothesis test. An ANCOVA on recall scores, with emotional tone and regulatory focus as factors, yielded a significant emotion by focus interaction, F(1, 85) ⫽ 6.19, p ⫽ .015, p2 ⫽ .07, in the absence of any other effects (see Figure 1). Simple-effects analyses showed that within the promotion-focus condition, participants who received angry instructions outperformed participants who received happy instructions, F(1, 85) ⫽ 5.17, p ⫽ .025; within the prevention-focus condition, participants who received angry instructions did not perform differently than participants who received happy instructions, F(1, 85) ⫽ 1.60, p ⫽ .21. Auxiliary analyses. Time spent learning was not affected by emotional tone, regulatory focus, or their interaction (ps ⬎ .31). Analyses on self-reported affect yielded a main effect of regulatory focus on positive affect, F(1, 86) ⫽ 4.17, p ⫽ .044, p2 ⫽ .05, in the absence of other effects (ps ⬎ .31). Participants under promotion focus reported more positive affect than did participants under prevention focus. Learning performance did not correlate with self-reported positive, r(87) ⫽ ⫺.03, p ⫽ .77, or negative affect, r(87) ⫽ ⫺.11, p ⫽ .30. Analyses on ratings of instructor warmth and competence yielded only main effects of emotional tone (other effects, ps ⬎ .16). Participants perceived the angry instructor as less warm, F(1, 86) ⫽ 33.70, p ⬍ .001, p2 ⫽ .28, and competent, F(1, 86) ⫽ 11.27, p ⬍ .001, p2 ⫽ .12, than the happy instructor. As in Experiment 1, neither perceived warmth, r(87) ⫽ ⫺.07, p ⫽ .51, nor perceived competence, r(87) ⫽ .05, p ⫽ .63, correlated with learning performance.
HOW EMOTIONAL EXPRESSIONS SHAPE LEARNING
983
Table 2 Mean Scores by Condition in Experiment 2
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.
Happiness
Anger
Variable
Promotion focus
Prevention focus
Promotion focus
Prevention focus
Recall ratioa Time spent learning in minutes Manipulation check happiness Manipulation check anger Instructor warmth Instructor competence Participant positive affect Participant negative affect Appropriateness of response
0.52 (0.06) 34.35 (17.76) 4.30 (0.94) 2.15 (1.03) 4.37 (1.00) 4.12 (0.63) 2.88 (1.02) 2.52 (1.08) 4.36 (1.16)
0.67 (0.06) 27.66 (8.86) 4.39 (1.28) 1.87 (0.86) 4.65 (0.88) 4.49 (0.72) 2.42 (1.17) 2.63 (1.23) 4.62 (1.15)
0.71 (0.06) 30.50 (15.20) 2.72 (1.27) 3.00 (1.33) 3.33 (1.30) 3.66 (0.94) 2.75 (1.07) 2.59 (1.12) 3.26 (1.39)
0.56 (0.06) 31.04 (19.96) 2.50 (0.92) 3.54 (1.71) 3.08 (1.03) 3.79 (0.95) 2.29 (1.05) 2.63 (1.24) 3.92 (1.42)
Note. Values in parentheses are standard deviations, unless otherwise noted. a The recall ratio is the ratio of the number of correctly recalled words relative to the total number of recalled words, controlling for number of skipped trials; values in parentheses are standard errors.
Overall, participants considered an angry response to be less appropriate than a happy response, F(1, 86) ⫽ 11.12, p ⫽ .001, p2 ⫽ .12, and participants in a promotion focus considered the instructor’s response to be marginally less appropriate that those in a prevention focus, F(1, 86) ⫽ 2.90, p ⫽ .092, p2 ⫽ .03. No interaction was found, p ⫽ .46. Ratings of appropriateness correlated negatively with learning performance, r(87) ⫽ ⫺.12, p ⫽ .05, but controlling for appropriateness did not change the interaction of instructor emotion and participant regulatory focus on learning performance, F(1, 84) ⫽ 5.68, p ⫽ .02, p2 ⫽ .06. Replicating and extending Experiment 1, these findings indicate that an instructor’s expressions of anger improved learning performance (as reflected in active recall) among promotion-focused students but not among preventionfocused students.
General Discussion Challenging the popular belief that positive emotions are more conducive to successful learning than negative emotions
Figure 1. Mean scores on recall measure in Experiment 2. The figure displays the ratio of correctly recalled words relative to the total number of recalled words, corrected for skipped trials. Error bars represent standard errors.
are, we demonstrated that expressions of anger by an instructor can result in better learning performance than expressions of happiness do. In Experiment 1, participants exhibited better recognition of word pairs 1 week after receiving learning instructions that were given in an angry rather than a happy tone. Experiment 2 yielded similar learning benefits on active recall of learned material, but only among participants in a promotion focus. These effects occurred independent of the perceived warmth and competence of the instructor, participants’ selfreported affect, and the time participants spent learning. These experiments are the first to experimentally address the effects of instructor emotions on student learning performance. Our results suggest that potential benefits of expressing negative emotions generalize from previously examined negotiation and leadership settings to learning situations. The present findings may thus also inform theorizing about the role of emotions in related fields, such as sports coaching (Jowett & Cockerill, 2002), consultancy coaching (Short & Yorks, 2002), and management (Humphrey, 2002). Before the current results can be translated into practical advice, research on boundary conditions is required. For example, it is unclear whether instructor anger would improve learning performance for tasks that involve more complex mental operations. For such tasks, an instructor’s anger may be particularly frustrating or stressful, as students might not be able to improve their performance. It also seems important to examine whether the effects differ as a function of gender and age, given that these factors have been associated with emotional competence (e.g., Garner, 2010). Examining the effects of repeated expressions of emotions over time could provide more insight into the durability of the beneficial effects of anger. Finally, future research could include a control condition to examine the relative impact of anger and happiness. Using a novel, interpersonal approach to effects of instructor emotion on student performance, we demonstrated that expressing anger can have positive effects on students’ learning performance. Our findings thus provide nuance to the dominant idea that negative expressions of emotion are harmful to learning performance.
VAN DOORN, VAN KLEEF, AND VAN DER PLIGT
984
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.
References 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 Brockner, J., & Higgins, E. T. (2001). Regulatory focus theory: Implications for the study of emotions at work. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 35– 66. doi:10.1006/obhd.2001.2972 Cacioppo, J. T., & Gardner, W. L. (1999). Emotion. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 191–214. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.191 Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., & Glick, P. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 77– 83. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.005 Fredrickson, B. L., & Losada, M. F. (2005). Positive affect and the complex dynamics of human flourishing. American Psychologist, 60, 678 – 686. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.60.7.678 Frenzel, A. C., Goetz, T., Lüdtke, O., Pekrun, R., & Sutton, R. E. (2009). Emotional transmission in the classroom: Exploring the relationship between teacher and student enjoyment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 705–716. doi:10.1037/a0014695 Gaddis, B., Connelly, S., & Mumford, M. D. (2004). Failure feedback as an affective event: Influence of leader affect on subordinate attitudes and performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 663– 686. doi:10.1016/j .leaqua.2004.05.011 Garner, P. W. (2010). Emotional competence and its influence on teaching and learning. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 297–321. doi: 10.1007/s10648-010-9129-4 Hascher, T. (2010). Learning and emotion: Perspectives for theory and research. European Educational Research Journal, 9, 13–28. doi: 10.2304/eerj.2010.9.1.13 Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280 –1300. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.52.12.1280 Higgins, E. T. (2000). Making a good decision: Value from fit. American Psychologist, 55, 1217–1230. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.11.1217 Humphrey, R. H. (2002). The many faces of emotion and leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 493–504. doi:10.1016/S10489843(02)00140-6 Jowett, S., & Cockerill, I. M. (2002). Incompatibility in the coach–athlete relationship. In I. M. Cockerill (Ed.), Solutions in sport psychology (pp. 16 –31). London, United Kingdom: Thomson Learning. Keller, J., & Bless, H. (2008). When positive and negative expectancies disrupt performance: Regulatory focus as a catalyst. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 187–212. doi:10.1002/ejsp.452 Keltner, D., & Haidt, J. (1999). Social functions of emotions at four levels of analysis. Cognition & Emotion, 13, 505–521. doi:10.1080/ 026999399379168 Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary
feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 254 –284. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254 Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. (2005). The benefits of frequent positive affect: Does happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin, 131, 803– 855. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.131.6.803 Pekrun, R. (2006). The control-value theory of achievement emotions: Assumptions, corollaries, and implications for educational research and practice. Educational Psychology Review, 18, 315–341. doi:10.1007/ s10648-006-9029-9 Reyna, C., & Weiner, B. (2001). Justice and utility in the classroom: An attributional analysis of the goals of teachers’ punishment and intervention strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 309 –319. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.93.2.309 Shah, J., Higgins, E. T., & Friedman, R. S. (1998). Performance incentives and means: How regulatory focus influences goal attainment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 285–293. doi:10.1037/00223514.74.2.285 Short, D. C., & Yorks, L. (2002). Analyzing training from an emotions perspective. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 4, 80 –96. doi: 10.1177/1523422302004001006 Stam, D. A., Van Knippenberg, D., & Wisse, B. (2010). The role of regulatory fit in visionary leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 499 –518. doi:10.1002/job.624 Stanislaw, H., & Todorov, N. (1999). Calculation of signal detection measures. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 31, 137–149. doi:10.3758/BF03207704 Sutton, R. E., & Wheatley, K. F. (2003). Teachers’ emotions and teaching: A review of the literature and directions for future research. Educational Psychology Review, 15, 327–358. doi:10.1023/A:1026131715856 Sy, T., Côté, S., & Saavedra, R. (2005). The contagious leader: Impact of the leader’s mood on the mood of group members, group affective tone, and group processes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 295–305. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.2.295 Van Kleef, G. A. (2009). How emotions regulate social life: The emotions as social information (EASI) model. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 184 –188. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01633.x Van Kleef, G. A., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Manstead, A. S. R. (2004). The interpersonal effects of anger and happiness in negotiations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 57–76. doi:10.1037/0022-3514 .86.1.57 Van Kleef, G. A., Homan, A. C., Beersma, B., & Van Knippenberg, D. (2010). On angry leaders and agreeable followers: How leaders’ emotions and followers’ personalities shape motivation and team performance. Psychological Science, 21, 1827–1834. doi:10.1177/ 0956797610387438
Received July 9, 2012 Revision received October 1, 2013 Accepted October 5, 2013 䡲
© 2013 American Psychological Association 0096-3445/14/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0035226
BRIEF REPORT
How Instructors’ Emotional Expressions Shape Students’ Learning Performance: The Roles of Anger, Happiness, and Regulatory Focus Evert A. van Doorn, Gerben A. van Kleef, and Joop van der Pligt
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.
University of Amsterdam How do instructors’ emotional expressions influence students’ learning performance? Scholars and practitioners alike have emphasized the importance of positive, nurturing emotions for successful learning. However, teachers may sometimes lose their temper and express anger at their pupils. Drawing on emotions as social information (EASI) theory, we hypothesized that expressions of anger can benefit learning performance. In Experiment 1, participants who were confronted with an angry instructor exhibited more accurate recognition of word pairs after a week of learning, compared with those who were confronted with a happy instructor. In Experiment 2, we conceptually replicated this effect on a recall task, but only among participants in a promotion rather than prevention focus. Present findings thus show, for the 1st time, that instructor anger can enhance students’ performance. Findings are consistent with a conceptualization of emotion as social information and call into question the generally endorsed positivity paradigm. Keywords: interpersonal emotions, instruction, learning, motivation Supplemental materials: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0035226.supp
Lüdtke, Pekrun, & Sutton, 2009) and create a safe environment in which pupils can flourish (Fredrickson & Losada, 2005; Lyubomirsky, King, & Diener, 2005). In addition, instructors who express positive emotions may be seen as warm and competent (Fiske, Cuddy, & Glick, 2007; Gaddis, Connelly, & Mumford, 2004), which may also be conducive to successful learning. Although we do not dispute the importance of a positive learning environment, there are reasons to believe that negative emotional expressions can be motivating. Displays of anger are no exception in the classroom and other settings that involve learning and training. For instance, military training program instructors routinely use expressions of anger, which are thought to build character and enhance discipline. According to emotion as social information (EASI) theory (Van Kleef, 2009), expressions of anger can have beneficial effects because they provide relevant information about the situation. Expressions of anger signal that behavioral adjustment is needed, whereas expressions of happiness suggest that all is well (see also Cacioppo & Gardner, 1999; Keltner & Haidt, 1999). Therefore, anger displays may motivate behavioral change. Supporting this idea, expressions of anger have been found to elicit greater concessions in negotiations than expressions of happiness do (Van Kleef, De Dreu, & Manstead, 2004), and leaders’ negative emotional displays have been shown to increase effort (Sy, Côté, & Saavedra, 2005), motivation, and team performance (Van Kleef, Homan, Beersma, & Van Knippenberg, 2010) compared with positive emotional displays. Student learning tasks lack the divergent interests and focus on concessions that characterize negotiations, and they differ from the formal, instrumental relations and focus on team performance studied in team leadership. Nevertheless, we assume that the
We all recall some of our teachers. Some are remembered for their excellent teaching qualities, others for the conspicuous lack thereof. Some we remember for their likable personality and positive approach, others for their intimidating diatribes. But do we also recall what they tried to teach us? From whose lessons do we remember most details: those of the happy chap whom we liked or those of his grumpy counterpart whom we despised? Although it seems plausible that the emotions of teachers influence students’ learning performance (Hascher, 2010; Reyna & Weiner, 2001; Sutton & Wheatley, 2003), the nature of this influence is as yet uncharted. Drawing on recent theoretical insights, we developed and tested the hypothesis that teachers’ expressions of anger enhance students’ learning performance. In doing so, we challenge the popular (yet untested) belief that teachers should express positive emotions and suppress negative emotions to facilitate learning. This belief is rooted in the idea that positive emotions create a supportive atmosphere (Pekrun, 2006; Reyna & Weiner, 2001). Instructors’ expressions of positive emotion may inspire similar emotions in pupils (Frenzel, Goetz,
This article was published Online First December 23, 2013. Evert A. van Doorn, Gerben A. van Kleef, and Joop van der Pligt, Department of Social Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. We thank Rosa Polak for her assistance during data collection. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Evert A. Van Doorn, who is now at the Department of Industrial Engineering, Fontys University of Applied Sciences, Rachelsmolen 1, Building R1, Room 1.27, Eindhoven, The Netherlands. E-mail: [email protected] 980
HOW EMOTIONAL EXPRESSIONS SHAPE LEARNING
underlying theoretical notion that expressions of anger signal a need for behavioral adjustment can be extended to the teaching domain. Thus, in two experiments, we examine for the first time whether an instructor’s anger can enhance students’ learning performance.
Experiment 1
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.
Method Forty-five undergraduate students (40 women, Mage ⫽ 20.71 years, SD ⫽ 2.82) participated. An “instructor” (actually a trained actor) explained the procedure in a short film clip, which was designed to look like a live webcam stream. Participants received a list of 100 combinations of a six-letter nonsense word and a six-letter word in one of two different orders (order had no effect and is not discussed further). After participants had spent 15 min reading the word pairs, baseline recognition was measured with a categorization task in which participants indicated whether each of 96 combinations had been on their list. Recognition scores were ostensibly sent to the instructor, who then conveyed four learning tips in either an angry tone or a happy tone. Participants were not informed about their actual performance, and tips were standardized across conditions. Emotional tone was manipulated nonverbally via facial expressions, tone of voice, and body posture of the instructor. In the happy condition, the instructor looked cheerful, spoke with an enthusiastic tone of voice, and smiled often. In the angry condition, the instructor frowned a lot, spoke with an angry tone of voice, clenched his fists, and made irritable gestures (for similar procedures, see Barsade, 2002; Van Kleef et al., 2010). Afterward, participants rated their own positive and negative affect (“I feel [positive/negative]”) and indicated how warm (␣ ⫽ .96) and competent (␣ ⫽ .76) they found the instructor (three items each; e.g., “Do you think the instructor is [friendly/competent]?”). Participants were instructed to take their list home and to spend a minimum of 5 min a day memorizing the combinations. One week later, participants repeated the recognition task, indicated how many minutes they had spent memorizing the words during the week, and indicated to what extent the instructor had expressed anger and happiness (“Was the instructor [angry/happy] when he gave you tips last week?”). Except for the time measure, all questions were answered on 7-point scales (1 ⫽ not at all, 7 ⫽ very much so). Finally, participants were debriefed, compensated, and dismissed.
Results and Discussion Treatment of data. We measured learning performance using a recognition task in which participants indicated of both learned (target) and nonlearned (distractor) combinations whether they had seen them before. We then used signal detection theory (SDT) to calculate informed responses, d=, and response bias, c (i.e., a tendency to be liberal or conservative when deciding in case of doubt). Higher scores on d= indicate greater ability to distinguish between targets and distractors. Scores on c that deviate from 0 indicate increasingly biased responding. Because these components are confounded in conventional analysis of means, SDT
981
offers a preferable test of memory (Stanislaw & Todorov, 1999). Descriptive statistics are shown in Table 1. Manipulation check. Participants perceived more happiness in the happy condition than in the angry condition, t(32.18) ⫽ 6.80, p ⬍ .001, d ⫽ 2.40, and more anger in the angry condition than in the happy condition, t(43) ⫽ 10.45, p ⬍ .001, d ⫽ 3.19. Hypothesis test. We controlled for response bias, F(1, 42) ⫽ 0.002, p ⫽ .97, to obtain an unbiased estimate of learning performance. An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) revealed that participants were more sensitive to the learned stimuli after seeing the angry rather than the happy instructor, F(1, 42) ⫽ 4.94, p ⫽ .032, p2 ⫽ .11. These results indicate that an instructor’s anger can enhance learning performance, as reflected in recognition of learned material. An analysis of variance without response bias as covariate yielded a similar result, F(1, 43) ⫽ 5.06, p ⫽ .030, p2 ⫽ .11. Including initial memory performance as an additional control variable, F(1, 41) ⫽ 10.96, p ⫽ .002, the initial effect remained significant, F(1, 41) ⫽ 7.09, p ⫽ .011, p2 ⫽ .15. Auxiliary analyses. Time spent learning did not differ between conditions, t(43) ⫽ 0.25, p ⫽ .80. Participants in the angry condition perceived the instructor as being less warm, t(43) ⫽ 9.84, p ⬍ .001, d ⫽ 3.00, and less competent, t(43) ⫽ 3.14, p ⫽ .003, d ⫽ 0.96, than did participants in the happy condition. Neither competence, r(42) ⫽ ⫺.17, p ⫽ .28, nor warmth, r(42) ⫽ ⫺.25, p ⫽ .10, correlated significantly with sensitivity scores. Self-reported positive affect did not differ between conditions, t(43) ⫽ 0.01, p ⫽ .99, nor did negative affect, t(43) ⫽ 0.29, p ⫽ .78. Also, neither positive affect, r(42) ⫽ .00, p ⫽ .99, nor negative affect, r(42) ⫽ .06, p ⫽ .72, correlated with stimulus sensitivity.
Experiment 2 Experiment 1 indicates that an instructor’s anger can enhance students’ learning performance, even though participants perceived the angry instructor as less warm and competent. The effect was independent of participants’ self-reported affect. This suggests that the effect is not carried by interpersonal impressions or felt affect but rather by the informational value of the emotional expressions (Van Kleef, 2009). According to EASI theory, expressions of anger in a performance context signal that better performance is expected, whereas expressions of happiness signal that performance is satisfactory. In Experiment 2, we extend this ar-
Table 1 Mean Scores by Condition in Experiment 1 Variable a
Stimulus sensitivity d= Time spent learning in minutes Manipulation check happiness Manipulation check anger Instructor warmth Instructor competence Participant positive affect Participant negative affect
Happy condition
Angry condition
0.74 (0.22) 19.91 (14.13) 4.74 (1.96) 1.65 (1.23) 5.38 (0.90) 4.01 (1.01) 3.91 (1.76) 4.48 (2.09)
1.43 (0.22) 21.17 (18.91) 1.64 (0.95) 5.64 (1.33) 2.45 (1.10) 2.97 (1.22) 3.91 (1.51) 4.64 (1.59)
Note. Values in parentheses are standard deviations, unless otherwise noted. a Controlling for response bias c, values in parentheses are standard errors.
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.
982
VAN DOORN, VAN KLEEF, AND VAN DER PLIGT
gument by considering the regulatory fit between the informational value of the teacher’s emotion and the student’s regulatory focus (Brockner & Higgins, 2001). Regulatory focus theory (Higgins, 1997) holds that people who strive toward a goal can be motivated to avoid losses (prevention focus) or to attain gains (promotion focus). These motivational states determine what strategies people use to reach their goal. Moreover, such strategies depend on the fit between the perceiver’s regulatory focus and properties of both task and feedback (Higgins, 2000). For instance, people meet their goals more easily when the framing of a task matches their regulatory focus (Shah, Higgins, & Friedman, 1998), when task and feedback are framed using the same focus (Stam, Van Knippenberg, & Wisse, 2010), and when the framing of the feedback matches the perceiver’s focus (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996, although see Keller & Bless, 2008). The expression of anger can function as a signal that better performance is required (Sy et al., 2005; Van Kleef et al., 2010). Accordingly, in Experiment 1, instructor anger increased students’ learning performance relative to instructor happiness. Notably, our task was framed in promotion terms, as students were instructed to memorize as many combinations as possible. The benefits of anger could thus be due to a regulatory fit between the framing of the learning task and the signal, conveyed by the instructor’s anger, that better performance is required. Under this explanation, inducing a promotion (but not a prevention) focus should yield results comparable to those of Experiment 1, because of regulatory fit between task framing, the emotion’s signal value, and students’ regulatory focus. To test this prediction, we added a manipulation of regulatory focus. We also replaced the measure of passive recognition with a measure of active recall and measured appropriateness to ascertain that effects were not due to the instructor violating display rules. Furthermore, we asked participants to complete the tasks within one experimental session to increase experimental control. Finally, we used a different actor to rule out idiosyncratic effects.
Method Ninety undergraduates (82 women, Mage ⫽ 20.55 years, SD ⫽ 3.11) participated. Half of them learned that they would receive 2.5 course credits but would lose a credit if their errors on the second task exceeded 40% (prevention focus). The other half learned that they would receive 1.5 course credits but could earn an additional credit if their correct responses on the second task exceeded 60% (promotion focus; see Shah et al., 1998). Next, the instructor introduced himself via a “webcam connection” (see Experiment 1). Participants then read the list of 100 word–nonword combinations for 5 min. To establish baseline recall, we asked participants to enter the words that had been paired with each of the 100 nonwords from their list. If participants did not know an accompanying word, they could skip the trial. After this task, participants received standardized feedback in an angry or a happy tone (see Experiment 1). Participants were asked to learn the combinations and to click a button when they felt ready to take the test (the computer automatically recorded learning time). Next, participants completed the recall test for the second time and answered a number of questions assessing the warmth (four items; ␣ ⫽ .94) and competence (four items; ␣ ⫽ .79; see Experiment 1 for examples) of the instructor,
the appropriateness of the way the tips were given (three items; e.g., “Do you think the instructor’s response to your scores was appropriate?”; ␣ ⫽ .88), and their positive (three items; ␣ ⫽ .87) and negative (five items; ␣ ⫽ 87) affect (e.g., “To what extent did you experience [happiness/irritation] following the response to your scores?”). Manipulation checks for emotional tone of the instructor involved two items that assessed anger, r(90) ⫽ .86, p ⬍ .001, and two items that assessed happiness, r(90) ⫽ .85, p ⬍ .001 (e.g., “The person who viewed my scores was [angry/happy]”). Finally, a dichotomous question asked which type of regulatory focus instruction the participant had received (i.e., if they were to obtain a high score or avoid obtaining a low score). Apart from this dichotomous choice, participants answered all questions using 7-point scales (1 ⫽ not at all, 7 ⫽ very much so). Finally, participants received 2.5 course credits (regardless of performance), were debriefed, and were dismissed.
Results and Discussion Treatment of data. To obtain recall scores, we computed the ratio of correctly entered words to all entered words. We controlled for the number of words participants entered (i.e., trials that participants skipped) in all analyses that included recall scores. Descriptive statistics are presented in Table 2. Manipulation checks. Participants perceived more anger in the angry condition than in the happy condition, F(1, 86) ⫽ 22.53, p ⬍ .001, p2 ⫽ .21, and more happiness in the happy condition than in the angry condition, F(1, 86) ⫽ 54.23, p ⬍ .001, p2 ⫽ .39. Regulatory focus did not predict perceived emotions (ps ⬎ .12). Responses on the dichotomous check showed that all participants correctly identified the regulatory focus manipulation. Hypothesis test. An ANCOVA on recall scores, with emotional tone and regulatory focus as factors, yielded a significant emotion by focus interaction, F(1, 85) ⫽ 6.19, p ⫽ .015, p2 ⫽ .07, in the absence of any other effects (see Figure 1). Simple-effects analyses showed that within the promotion-focus condition, participants who received angry instructions outperformed participants who received happy instructions, F(1, 85) ⫽ 5.17, p ⫽ .025; within the prevention-focus condition, participants who received angry instructions did not perform differently than participants who received happy instructions, F(1, 85) ⫽ 1.60, p ⫽ .21. Auxiliary analyses. Time spent learning was not affected by emotional tone, regulatory focus, or their interaction (ps ⬎ .31). Analyses on self-reported affect yielded a main effect of regulatory focus on positive affect, F(1, 86) ⫽ 4.17, p ⫽ .044, p2 ⫽ .05, in the absence of other effects (ps ⬎ .31). Participants under promotion focus reported more positive affect than did participants under prevention focus. Learning performance did not correlate with self-reported positive, r(87) ⫽ ⫺.03, p ⫽ .77, or negative affect, r(87) ⫽ ⫺.11, p ⫽ .30. Analyses on ratings of instructor warmth and competence yielded only main effects of emotional tone (other effects, ps ⬎ .16). Participants perceived the angry instructor as less warm, F(1, 86) ⫽ 33.70, p ⬍ .001, p2 ⫽ .28, and competent, F(1, 86) ⫽ 11.27, p ⬍ .001, p2 ⫽ .12, than the happy instructor. As in Experiment 1, neither perceived warmth, r(87) ⫽ ⫺.07, p ⫽ .51, nor perceived competence, r(87) ⫽ .05, p ⫽ .63, correlated with learning performance.
HOW EMOTIONAL EXPRESSIONS SHAPE LEARNING
983
Table 2 Mean Scores by Condition in Experiment 2
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.
Happiness
Anger
Variable
Promotion focus
Prevention focus
Promotion focus
Prevention focus
Recall ratioa Time spent learning in minutes Manipulation check happiness Manipulation check anger Instructor warmth Instructor competence Participant positive affect Participant negative affect Appropriateness of response
0.52 (0.06) 34.35 (17.76) 4.30 (0.94) 2.15 (1.03) 4.37 (1.00) 4.12 (0.63) 2.88 (1.02) 2.52 (1.08) 4.36 (1.16)
0.67 (0.06) 27.66 (8.86) 4.39 (1.28) 1.87 (0.86) 4.65 (0.88) 4.49 (0.72) 2.42 (1.17) 2.63 (1.23) 4.62 (1.15)
0.71 (0.06) 30.50 (15.20) 2.72 (1.27) 3.00 (1.33) 3.33 (1.30) 3.66 (0.94) 2.75 (1.07) 2.59 (1.12) 3.26 (1.39)
0.56 (0.06) 31.04 (19.96) 2.50 (0.92) 3.54 (1.71) 3.08 (1.03) 3.79 (0.95) 2.29 (1.05) 2.63 (1.24) 3.92 (1.42)
Note. Values in parentheses are standard deviations, unless otherwise noted. a The recall ratio is the ratio of the number of correctly recalled words relative to the total number of recalled words, controlling for number of skipped trials; values in parentheses are standard errors.
Overall, participants considered an angry response to be less appropriate than a happy response, F(1, 86) ⫽ 11.12, p ⫽ .001, p2 ⫽ .12, and participants in a promotion focus considered the instructor’s response to be marginally less appropriate that those in a prevention focus, F(1, 86) ⫽ 2.90, p ⫽ .092, p2 ⫽ .03. No interaction was found, p ⫽ .46. Ratings of appropriateness correlated negatively with learning performance, r(87) ⫽ ⫺.12, p ⫽ .05, but controlling for appropriateness did not change the interaction of instructor emotion and participant regulatory focus on learning performance, F(1, 84) ⫽ 5.68, p ⫽ .02, p2 ⫽ .06. Replicating and extending Experiment 1, these findings indicate that an instructor’s expressions of anger improved learning performance (as reflected in active recall) among promotion-focused students but not among preventionfocused students.
General Discussion Challenging the popular belief that positive emotions are more conducive to successful learning than negative emotions
Figure 1. Mean scores on recall measure in Experiment 2. The figure displays the ratio of correctly recalled words relative to the total number of recalled words, corrected for skipped trials. Error bars represent standard errors.
are, we demonstrated that expressions of anger by an instructor can result in better learning performance than expressions of happiness do. In Experiment 1, participants exhibited better recognition of word pairs 1 week after receiving learning instructions that were given in an angry rather than a happy tone. Experiment 2 yielded similar learning benefits on active recall of learned material, but only among participants in a promotion focus. These effects occurred independent of the perceived warmth and competence of the instructor, participants’ selfreported affect, and the time participants spent learning. These experiments are the first to experimentally address the effects of instructor emotions on student learning performance. Our results suggest that potential benefits of expressing negative emotions generalize from previously examined negotiation and leadership settings to learning situations. The present findings may thus also inform theorizing about the role of emotions in related fields, such as sports coaching (Jowett & Cockerill, 2002), consultancy coaching (Short & Yorks, 2002), and management (Humphrey, 2002). Before the current results can be translated into practical advice, research on boundary conditions is required. For example, it is unclear whether instructor anger would improve learning performance for tasks that involve more complex mental operations. For such tasks, an instructor’s anger may be particularly frustrating or stressful, as students might not be able to improve their performance. It also seems important to examine whether the effects differ as a function of gender and age, given that these factors have been associated with emotional competence (e.g., Garner, 2010). Examining the effects of repeated expressions of emotions over time could provide more insight into the durability of the beneficial effects of anger. Finally, future research could include a control condition to examine the relative impact of anger and happiness. Using a novel, interpersonal approach to effects of instructor emotion on student performance, we demonstrated that expressing anger can have positive effects on students’ learning performance. Our findings thus provide nuance to the dominant idea that negative expressions of emotion are harmful to learning performance.
VAN DOORN, VAN KLEEF, AND VAN DER PLIGT
984
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.
References 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 Brockner, J., & Higgins, E. T. (2001). Regulatory focus theory: Implications for the study of emotions at work. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86, 35– 66. doi:10.1006/obhd.2001.2972 Cacioppo, J. T., & Gardner, W. L. (1999). Emotion. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 191–214. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.50.1.191 Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., & Glick, P. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 77– 83. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.005 Fredrickson, B. L., & Losada, M. F. (2005). Positive affect and the complex dynamics of human flourishing. American Psychologist, 60, 678 – 686. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.60.7.678 Frenzel, A. C., Goetz, T., Lüdtke, O., Pekrun, R., & Sutton, R. E. (2009). Emotional transmission in the classroom: Exploring the relationship between teacher and student enjoyment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 705–716. doi:10.1037/a0014695 Gaddis, B., Connelly, S., & Mumford, M. D. (2004). Failure feedback as an affective event: Influence of leader affect on subordinate attitudes and performance. The Leadership Quarterly, 15, 663– 686. doi:10.1016/j .leaqua.2004.05.011 Garner, P. W. (2010). Emotional competence and its influence on teaching and learning. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 297–321. doi: 10.1007/s10648-010-9129-4 Hascher, T. (2010). Learning and emotion: Perspectives for theory and research. European Educational Research Journal, 9, 13–28. doi: 10.2304/eerj.2010.9.1.13 Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280 –1300. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.52.12.1280 Higgins, E. T. (2000). Making a good decision: Value from fit. American Psychologist, 55, 1217–1230. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.11.1217 Humphrey, R. H. (2002). The many faces of emotion and leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 13, 493–504. doi:10.1016/S10489843(02)00140-6 Jowett, S., & Cockerill, I. M. (2002). Incompatibility in the coach–athlete relationship. In I. M. Cockerill (Ed.), Solutions in sport psychology (pp. 16 –31). London, United Kingdom: Thomson Learning. Keller, J., & Bless, H. (2008). When positive and negative expectancies disrupt performance: Regulatory focus as a catalyst. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 187–212. doi:10.1002/ejsp.452 Keltner, D., & Haidt, J. (1999). Social functions of emotions at four levels of analysis. Cognition & Emotion, 13, 505–521. doi:10.1080/ 026999399379168 Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary
feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 254 –284. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254 Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. (2005). The benefits of frequent positive affect: Does happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin, 131, 803– 855. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.131.6.803 Pekrun, R. (2006). The control-value theory of achievement emotions: Assumptions, corollaries, and implications for educational research and practice. Educational Psychology Review, 18, 315–341. doi:10.1007/ s10648-006-9029-9 Reyna, C., & Weiner, B. (2001). Justice and utility in the classroom: An attributional analysis of the goals of teachers’ punishment and intervention strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 309 –319. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.93.2.309 Shah, J., Higgins, E. T., & Friedman, R. S. (1998). Performance incentives and means: How regulatory focus influences goal attainment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 285–293. doi:10.1037/00223514.74.2.285 Short, D. C., & Yorks, L. (2002). Analyzing training from an emotions perspective. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 4, 80 –96. doi: 10.1177/1523422302004001006 Stam, D. A., Van Knippenberg, D., & Wisse, B. (2010). The role of regulatory fit in visionary leadership. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 499 –518. doi:10.1002/job.624 Stanislaw, H., & Todorov, N. (1999). Calculation of signal detection measures. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 31, 137–149. doi:10.3758/BF03207704 Sutton, R. E., & Wheatley, K. F. (2003). Teachers’ emotions and teaching: A review of the literature and directions for future research. Educational Psychology Review, 15, 327–358. doi:10.1023/A:1026131715856 Sy, T., Côté, S., & Saavedra, R. (2005). The contagious leader: Impact of the leader’s mood on the mood of group members, group affective tone, and group processes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 295–305. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.2.295 Van Kleef, G. A. (2009). How emotions regulate social life: The emotions as social information (EASI) model. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 184 –188. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01633.x Van Kleef, G. A., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Manstead, A. S. R. (2004). The interpersonal effects of anger and happiness in negotiations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 57–76. doi:10.1037/0022-3514 .86.1.57 Van Kleef, G. A., Homan, A. C., Beersma, B., & Van Knippenberg, D. (2010). On angry leaders and agreeable followers: How leaders’ emotions and followers’ personalities shape motivation and team performance. Psychological Science, 21, 1827–1834. doi:10.1177/ 0956797610387438
Received July 9, 2012 Revision received October 1, 2013 Accepted October 5, 2013 䡲
