Does interpersonal affect regulation influence others’ task performance? The mediating role of positive mood

ABSTRACT

An important part of many job roles – such as coaches, instructors, and leaders – is trying to improve the performance of others. In this paper we examine whether affect-improving interpersonal affect regulation (i.e., deliberate attempts to improve the emotion and mood of another person) plays a positive role in this process. We develop a model which proposes that the positive relationship between the receipt of interpersonal affect regulation and task performance is mediated by positive mood. Results of two dyadic studies (one with academics and doctoral students, N = 78, the other with driving instructors and learner drivers, N = 100) support the hypothesized model, and show that the effects of interpersonal affect regulation are over and above the effects of emotional contagion. Our findings extend theoretical understanding of the effects of interpersonal affect regulation by illustrating a core mechanism through which it influences others’ task behaviour. Our research also provides new evidence on the relational and affective processes through which people holding key organizational roles (e.g., coaches, instructors, mentors, leaders) are able to improve others’ task performance.

KEYWORDS:

• Interpersonal affect regulation
• performance
• dyadic survey

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Janice Holman and Vanessa Haves for their help collecting data

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. IAR is different from processes such as the self-regulation of affect or emotional labour, as it concerns regulation of other people’s feelings rather than one’s own (Gross, 1998; Hochschild, 1983; Niven, 2017).

2. The results are almost identical using a three-item high activation measure of positive mood. The path from student highly activated positive mood to student task performance is significant (β = .50, p < .05), the path from supervisor IAR to student highly activated positive mood is significant (β = .42, p < .01), the indirect effect from supervisor IAR to student task performance via student highly activated positive mood is significant (β = .21, 95% CI LL = .01, UL = .48), and there is a significant direct positive relationship between supervisor IAR and student task performance (β = .45, p < .05). However, the results were slightly different when a three-item low activation measure of positive mood was used, as the path from low activation positive mood to student task performance was not significant (β = .28, ns.), whereas all other paths were significant.

3. We also tested whether emotional intelligence moderated the effects of IAR on positive mood, and whether negative affect mediated the relationship between IAR and performance but found no significant effects. We also tested whether affect-worsening interpersonal affect regulation strategies were related to performance via positive mood but found no relationship between affect-worsening interpersonal affect regulation strategies and positive mood. Full results and information on measures used available on request.