anger and attitudinal reactions to negative feedback: the effects of emotional instability and power
TRANSCRIPT
ORIGINAL PAPER
Anger and attitudinal reactions to negative feedback: The effectsof emotional instability and power
Jana Niemann • Barbara Wisse • Diana Rus •
Nico W. Van Yperen • Kai Sassenberg
Published online: 15 March 2014! Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014
Abstract Feedback is a basic tool that is used to stimu-late learning and performance at all organizational levels.
However, negative feedback can sometimes evoke defen-
sive responses such as feelings of anger or the repudiationof the feedback. In two experiments we explored whether
people’s negating responses to feedback are grounded in
their emotional instability, and if this effect is stronger forthose who hold more power. The findings from Study 1
(N = 84) showed that in response to negative feedback
more emotionally unstable individuals experienced moreanger. In Study 2 (N = 47) we indicated that anger med-
iated the negative effects of emotional instability and
power on liking of the feedback provider, perceived abilityof the feedback provider, and feedback acceptance. Our
findings indicate that power strengthens the influence of
emotional instability on responses to negative feedback and
point to the importance of anger as the underlying factorinfluencing crucial attitudinal feedback reactions.
Keywords Power ! Emotional instability ! Anger !Feedback
Introduction
Feedback, whether positive or negative, is increasingly used
at all organizational levels to promote learning and perfor-mance (Bailey and Fletcher 2002; Zimmerman et al. 2008).
Particularly negative feedback (i.e., information indicating
unsatisfactory performance) is crucial when it comes toraising awareness for problematic behavior (Bee and Bee
1998). Especially if their performance is not up to standard,
employees need negative feedback to be able to take cor-rective action, to change their behavior and to improve task
performance (Ilgen and Davis 2000). Yet, negative feedback
does not always have its intended positive effects. In fact,some individuals do not take negative feedback well and
respond with negative emotions such as anger, shame, worryor sadness (Belschak and Den Hartog 2009; Ilies et al.
2010). Among these negative affective reactions, anger is
probably the most problematic one, given that anger is theonly negative emotion that is associated with blaming others
and with holding those others instead of oneself accountable
for unfavorable events (Harmon-Jones and Harmon-Jones2007; Smith et al. 1993). This in turn may foster the
development of low quality relationships and create the
unwillingness to change one’s own behavior.Given that anger reactions may potentially evoke such
adverse consequences, two fundamental and interrelated
questions pertaining to the role of anger in negative feed-back processes arise. First, which individuals are
J. Niemann (&) ! B. Wisse ! N. W. Van YperenDepartment of Organizational Psychology, University ofGroningen, Grote Kruisstraat 2/1, 9712 TS Groningen, TheNetherlandse-mail: [email protected]
B. Wissee-mail: [email protected]
N. W. Van Yperene-mail: [email protected]
D. RusCreative Peas, Amsterdam, The Netherlandse-mail: [email protected]
K. SassenbergKnowledge Media Research Center, Eberhard Karls UniversityTuebingen, Konrad-Adenauer-Straße 40, 72072 Tuebingen,Germanye-mail: [email protected]
123
Motiv Emot (2014) 38:687–699
DOI 10.1007/s11031-014-9402-9
particularly prone to respond with anger when given nega-
tive feedback? This information is important because it mayoffer suggestions as to how feedback receivers could learn to
cope with their negative emotions and when feedback pro-
viders should be particularly attentive to monitor and addressthe evoked anger. Second, does evoked anger in response to
negative feedback indeed influence the receiver’s opinion
about the provider of the feedback or about the feedbackitself? Research, showing that individuals often hesitate to
provide vital but negative feedback out of a fear to be viewedin more negative terms by the receiver of the feedback
(Kudisch et al. 2006; Milliken et al. 2003) makes this latter
issue particularly pressing.
Emotional instability and anger reactions to negative
feedback
A factor that seems to be particularly predictive of the like-
lihood that people experience anger is emotional instability.Emotional instability is a basic personality dimension that is
included in all conventional personality models (De Raad
and Barelds 2008; Goldberg 1990; McCrae and Costa 2008).Emotional instability, sometimes coined neuroticism, has
been defined as the tendency to experience negative affect
(Penley and Tomaka 2002). Basically, individuals high inemotional instability tend to view the world through a neg-
ative lens and are likely to exhibit poor emotional adjust-
ment. Previous research has consistently shown that the moreemotionally unstable individuals are, the more likely they are
to experience anger (Bolger and Zuckerman 1995; Feltman
et al. 2009; Ode et al. 2008). The literature has indicated tworeasons that make emotionally unstable individuals espe-
cially likely to experience anger. First, emotionally unstable
individuals are more likely to interpret events as unpleasantand unsettling (Kling et al. 2003; Tong et al. 2006; Gunthert
et al. 1999; Hemenover and Dienstbier 1996) which likely
stimulates anger reactions. Second, stressful situations moreeasily evoke anger in individuals with higher levels of
emotional instability (Bolger and Zuckerman 1995; cf.
Gunthert et al. 1999). Because receiving negative feedback isa potentially stressful and unsettling event (Cianci et al.
2010), emotional instability may also increase individuals’
anger reactions to negative feedback.We propose, however, that emotional instability does not
influence all individuals’ affective reactions to unfavorable
feedback equally strongly. In fact, based on recent researchthat suggests that power strengthens the correspondence
between individual predispositions and behavior (Chen et al.
2001; Rus et al. 2010), we argue that power may also affectthe extent to which emotional instability influences indi-
viduals’ anger reactions to unfavorable feedback. Power is
an understudied but important factor when it comes tounderstanding feedback processes. Power has been argued
to play a key role in all social arenas, but mostly so in those
that are characterized by formal or informal hierarchies orthose that require the need to distribute scarce resources
(Tjosvold and Wisse 2009). Because the relationship
between the feedback provider and the receiver can often bedefined in terms of differential dependencies and hierarchy
(as for instance in organizational settings) power may sub-
stantially impact feedback processes.
The interplay between power and emotional instabilityon anger reactions
Power, defined as asymmetric control over valuableresources (Galinsky et al. 2008; Keltner et al. 2003), has
been argued and shown to have wide-ranging psychological
and behavioral consequences (Galinsky et al. 2003, 2008;Gruenfeld et al. 2008; Guinote 2007; Keltner et al. 2003).
One of the most prominently documented effects of power is
that it allows individuals to act in accordance with theirinternal states, traits, and predispositions. Individuals in sit-
uations of power are less dependent on others for acquiring
valuable resources. This relative independence of those inpower frees them from the shackles of normative constraints
and, therefore, allows them to behave in a trait-consistent
fashion (Galinsky et al. 2008; Guinote 2007; Keltner et al.2003). For instance, it has been shown that high-power
groups have a greater interpersonal variability in behavior
than low-power groups, which points to a stronger influenceof individual predispositions on the behavior of power-
holders (Guinote et al. 2002). In addition, it has been shown
that various individual difference variables (e.g., effectiveleadership beliefs, social dominance orientation, communal/
exchange orientation, social value orientation) influence the
behavior of individuals in power more than they influencethe behavior of individuals that lack power (Maner and
Mead 2010; Rus et al. 2010; Chen et al. 2001). Likewise, it
has been shown that being in a position of power increasesthe correspondence between that individuals’ predisposi-
tions and their cognitions and opinions (cf. Bargh et al.
1995; Galinsky et al. 2008). Whereas to date, the effects ofpower on the convergence between individual predisposi-
tions and emotions have not been investigated, we expect
power to have similar effects when it comes to the affectivedomain. We hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 1 Emotional instability is positively relatedto the experience of anger in response to negative feedback
particularly for individuals that have high power.
The effects of anger on attitudes
Anger plays a critical role in the formation of attitudes andthe display of behavior (Belschak and Den Hartog 2009;
688 Motiv Emot (2014) 38:687–699
123
Clore and Schnall 2005). Angry individuals typically pro-
cess information in heuristic ways, not stopping to thinkabout alternative options before acting (Bodenhausen et al.
1994; Lerner et al. 1998; Tiedens 2001). Moreover, anger
has been found to be associated with a sense that the self isoffended or injured (Lazarus 1991). Feeling angry has also
been associated with the belief that another person (as
opposed to the situation or the self) is responsible for thenegative event (Lerner and Tiedens 2006). Perhaps as a
consequence, angry individuals are faster in accreditingnegative (vs. positive) attributes to others (DeSteno et al.
2004) and are more likely to engage in adverse interper-
sonal behaviors such as gossiping or taking revenge (Boothand Mann 2005). Research has also shown that angry
individuals are inclined to be prejudiced against those who
might potentially pose a threat to them (DeSteno et al.2004). Moreover, if individuals experience anger at work,
they are also more likely to be interpersonally aggressive
(Hershcovis et al. 2007) and to display deviant workbehaviors (Belschak and Den Hartog 2009; Fox 2008; Lee
and Allen 2002).1
These previous findings indicate that anger is typicallyassociated with the tendency to defend oneself against
potential threats and to settle the score with the other
person. Likewise, angry individuals may also try to defendthemselves against the threats induced by the negative
feedback or to restore balance between themselves and the
negative feedback provider (Carson and Cupach 2000;Cupach and Carson 2002). Although so far empirical evi-
dence on the matter is largely lacking, logical strategies to
achieve these goals would be to reject the feedback or todevaluate the person providing the feedback (i.e., by call-
ing into question the feedback provider’s likeability or
abilities). Therefore, we argue that, if individuals feel moreanger following negative feedback, they will evaluate the
feedback provider (i.e., the provider’s likeability and
ability) and the feedback more negatively (i.e., low feed-back acceptance). Given that we previously argued that
anger reactions to negative feedback will be determined by
the interactive influence of emotional instability andpower, we hypothesize the following:
Hypothesis 2 Emotional instability is negatively relatedto liking of the feedback provider, perceived ability of the
feedback provider and feedback acceptance, particularly
for individuals that have high power.
Hypothesis 3 Anger mediates the effects of emotional
instability and power on liking of the feedback provider,
perceived ability of the feedback provider and feedbackacceptance (see Fig. 1).
Notably, our hypotheses include expectations regarding
all three basic attitudinal components (Breckler 1984; Ea-gly and Chaiken 1993). The affective component (i.e.
feelings toward an object) is represented by the receiver’s
liking for the provider. The cognitive component (i.e. overtthoughts about the target) is represented by perceptions of
the provider’s ability. The behavioral component (i.e.
behavior or behavioral intention) is represented by thereceiver’s feedback acceptance. We deem all three com-
ponents to be relevant because they may affect the rela-tionship between the feedback provider and the feedback
receiver as well as impede learning processes essential for
feedback effectiveness.
Overview of the studies
We explored the expected relationships in two laboratory
studies in which we manipulated the receiver’s power and
measured emotionally instability and feedback reactions. InStudy 1, we explored the interactive effects of emotional
instability and power on anger reactions to negative feed-
back (Hypothesis 1). In Study 2, we extended our focus andassessed whether anger mediates the interactive effect of
emotional instability and power on attitudinal feedback
reactions regarding the feedback provider and the feedbackitself (Hypotheses 1–3).
Study 1
Method
Participants and design
A total of 84 participants (44 % males; Mage = 23.33,
SD = 6.83) voluntarily took part in this study. All partic-
ipants were inhabitants from the Netherlands and thereforethe sample was mainly Dutch (92.9 %; German 6.0 %; not
specified 1.2 %) with the majority having an intermediate
(40.5 %) or higher (47.6 %) educational degree. Partici-pants were randomly assigned to one of two power con-
ditions (high vs. low). Emotional instability was added to
the design as a continuous independent variable.
Fig. 1 Mediated moderation hypothesis
1 All three studies indicated that anger had an effect over and abovegeneral negative affect or other specific negative emotions.
Motiv Emot (2014) 38:687–699 689
123
Procedure
Participants were seated in individual cubicles. Allinstructions and stimuli were presented on computer
screens.
Emotional instability First, emotional instability wasassessed using Davis’s (1980, 1983) personal distress scale.
Participants rated items like ‘‘I am usually pretty effective
in dealing with emergencies’’ and ‘‘When I see someoneget hurt, I tend to remain calm’’ on a scale from 1 (does not
describe me very well) to 5 (describes me very well;
Cronbach’s a = .75).2
Power manipulation Participants were led to believe that
for the upcoming task they would work together with another
person, communicating via a network connection. The par-ticipants filled in a questionnaire unrelated to power and,
ostensibly based on their responses to this questionnaire,
were assigned to either the high-power position (supervisor)or the low-power position (subordinate) in the dyad (cf.
Anderson and Berdahl 2002; Galinsky et al., 2003). To
manipulate power, or control over resources, participants inthe high- (low-) power condition read inter alia:
You are assigned the supervisor (subordinate) role.
You are (your supervisor is) responsible for evaluat-ing the performance of your subordinate (your per-
formance). You also have (your supervisor also has)the possibility of rewarding your subordinate (you)
later on in the study.
To strengthen the power manipulation, only supervisorscould allocate between zero and ten lottery tickets (3 prizes
of 25 Euro would be allotted) to their subordinates as a
reward (cf. Galinsky et al. 2003). After the powermanipulation, participants filled out the power manipula-
tion check.
Task Next, participants were asked to imagine that theywere working for a marketing company that had to develop
an advertising campaign for a pub. A brief description of
the pub was provided. Participants were given 10 min toprepare the first draft of the campaign, which had to
include proposals, for instance, for a name, a slogan, and
key selling features. Participants then sent their campaignto their alleged dyadic counterpart and got informed that
the other would provide feedback on it.
Feedback After about 3 min of waiting, participants
received preprogrammed negative feedback. Their alleged
partner introduced the feedback by saying that they hadread the participant’s campaign materials and had used a
10-point scale ranging from 1 (very bad) to 10 (outstand-
ing) to judge the quality of the campaign based on differentcriteria (i.e., originality of the name, suitability of the
slogan, etc.). Participants received a score between 2 and 4
on each dimension, and were informed that the overallrating they received for their work was 2.8 points, implying
that their performance was judged to be highly insufficient.
After reading the feedback, participants filled out aquestionnaire containing the dependent measures. Partici-
pants were carefully debriefed and thanked for their
participation.
Measures
Power manipulation check Participants responded to a
four-item power measure (cf. Galinsky et al. 2003) on a
scale from 1 (not at all) to 7 (a lot). The power measureassessed in how far individuals perceived that they had a
say in the situation, that they were dependent on the other
in the dyad (reversed coded), and that they could exertinfluence and control over the other person (Cronbach’s
a = .89).
Anger reactions Participants rated on a 5-point Likertscale (1 = very little, 5 = very much) to what extent they
were experiencing feelings of anger ‘‘right now’’. Anger
was measured via the following three items: ‘‘angry’’,‘‘irritated’’, and ‘‘annoyed’’ (Cronbach’s a = .78).
Results
Following the guidelines of Aiken and West (1991), power
was dummy coded (.5 and -.5 for high and low power,respectively) and the continuous independent variable,
emotional instability, was mean centered (i.e. we sub-
tracted the mean from each individual score on that vari-able). In Step 1 of the regression analyses the main effects
of the predictor variables (i.e., power and emotional
instability) were entered, and in Step 2 their interaction wasadded. Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations are dis-
played in Table 1.3
2 Numerous authors have argued that dispositional personal distressin fact reflects general trait emotionality (Carlo et al. 1999; Ormelet al. 2004; Spreng et al. 2009) because it is strongly correlated with aproneness to experience negative emotions, emotional vulnerability,and uncertainty (Davis 1983).
3 We performed a principal component analysis using OBLIMINrotation of the emotional instability items. The results indicated thatone factor explained 46.02 % of the variance, and all items loadedabove .57 on that factor. A principal component analysis of the angeritems generated one factor, which explained 69.64 % of the variance.All items loaded above .78 on the intended component.
690 Motiv Emot (2014) 38:687–699
123
Manipulation checks
As intended, a regression analysis on the power indexrevealed only a main effect of power (b = 2.95, SE = 0.22,
p \ .001). Individuals in the high power condition indicated
higher perceived power (M = 5.29, SD = 0.97) than thosein the low-power condition (M = 2.36, SD = 1.01).
Anger reactions
We expected that the effect of emotional instability on anger
would be stronger for individuals in the high- than for thosein the low-power situation. The hierarchical regression
analysis on anger revealed a main effect of power (b = -
0.31, SE = 0.15, p = .04; R2 = .20) and a main effect ofemotional instability (b = 0.45, SE = 0.12, p \ .001;
R2 = .20) at Step 1. As predicted, these two main effects
were qualified by a Power 9 Emotional instability inter-action (b = 0.51, SE = 0.25, p = .045; R2 = .24,
DR2 = .04). To explore the strength of the association
between emotional instability and anger at different levelsof power, we conducted simple slope analyses (Aiken and
West 1991). Simple slopes analysis revealed that emotional
instability had a positive relationship to anger for individ-uals in the high-power situation (1 SD above the mean,
b = 0.71, SE = 0.17, p \ .001), but did not reveal a sig-
nificant relationship between emotional instability andanger for individuals in the low-power situation (1 SD below
the mean, b = 0.20, SE = 0.18, p = .28; see Fig. 2).
Study 2
Method
Participants and design
A total of 47 undergraduates (23.4 % males, Mage = 19.23,
SD = 1.56) participated in exchange for partial course
credits. All but one of the participants had work-experience
(97.9 %). Their average work experience was 2.36 years(SD = 1.61) and they were working on average 12.5 h per
week (SD = 9.15). Participants were randomly assigned to
one of two power conditions (high vs. low). As in Study 1,emotional instability was added to the design as a contin-
uous independent variable.
Procedure
The task we used was similar to the task in Study 1.
Moreover, we again measured participants’ emotional
instability and manipulated power.
Emotional instability First, emotional instability was
examined using the emotional stability subscale of the Big
8 personality questionnaire (De Raad and Barelds 2008).Participants indicated on a 4-point Likert scale ranging
from 1 (does not describe me very well) to 4 (describes me
very well) how well the 15 statements described them(Cronbach’s a = .86). The scale was reverse coded so that
higher scores represent higher emotional instability.
Task Participants were then informed that they wouldwork together with another person in a hierarchical
Fig. 2 Interaction between emotional instability and power on anger
Table 1 Descriptive statisticsand intercorrelations among thevariables of Study 1 (N = 84)and Study 2 (N = 47)
* p \ .01; ** p \ .05
Variable M SD 2 3 4 5 6
Study 1
1 Emotional Instability 2.61 0.60 -.09 .40*
2 Power 3.93 1.77 -.27**
3 Anger 1.85 0.76
Study 2
1 Emotional instability 2.17 0.48 -.01 .12 -.12 -.29** -.25
2 Power 3.94 1.49 -.11 .04 .14 .18
3 Anger 2.13 0.97 -.52* -.45* -.43*
4 Perceived ability 3.80 1.59 .45* .54*
5 Liking 3.33 1.37 .31**
6 Feedback acceptance 4.15 1.16
Motiv Emot (2014) 38:687–699 691
123
relationship and that their task consisted of developing an
information campaign for a health care organization. Theirposition in the dyad was ostensibly based on their own as
well as on the other person’s answers to earlier question-
naires, which included questions concerning work experi-ence. All participants were assigned the supervisor role and
the alleged other was assigned the subordinate role. Par-
ticipants were informed that, as supervisors, it was their jobto prepare and deliver a presentation about the proposed
campaign; their subordinate would be responsible for pre-paring a brochure for the campaign.
Participants were told that they could communicate with
their subordinate via a network connection, that their pre-sentation would be videotaped and shown to their subor-
dinate who would comment on their presentation, and that
they would need to evaluate the subordinate’s brochure.Participants were given 11 min to prepare the presentation
and 2 min to deliver it in front of a webcam.
Power manipulation Power (i.e., asymmetric controlover valuable resources) was manipulated using an ex-
periental power prime (Galinsky et al. 2003) that was
introduced after task completion (i.e., after participants haddelivered their presentation), so as not to influence task
performance. The power manipulation was introduced as
an unrelated study, ostensibly geared at keeping partici-pants busy while waiting for their subordinate to finish
watching their presentation. Participants were asked in the
high- (low-) power condition to vividly recall and describean incident in their lives when they had high (low) power
and to depict how they had felt in that situation. We
informed participants that high (low) power implies thatthey were in a situation in which they controlled the ability
of one or more persons to get something they wanted or
were in a position to evaluate one or more other individ-uals (that they were in a situation in which someone else
controlled their ability to get something they wanted, or in
which someone else was in a position to evaluate them).Note that we used a different type of power manipulation
than in the first study. We decided to do so because it
aligns with other studies on power and because it enhancesthe robustness of our findings (cf., Galinsky et al. 2003,
2008; Magee et al. 2007; Rus et al. 2010, 2012 for similar
procedures).
Feedback After completing this ‘unrelated’ study, par-
ticipants received an email message from their alleged
partner containing preprogrammed negative feedback,informing them that their subordinate considered their
presentation to be of low quality. Specifically, the subor-
dinate remarked that the presentation was disorganized,that it was difficult to follow, and that the chances of
success with this presentation were low.
Measures
Manipulation check Participants indicated on a scale from 1(not at all) to 7 (very much) to what extent they felt ‘‘in control’’,
‘‘powerful’’, ‘‘independent’’, ‘‘weak’’ (reverse coded), ‘‘domi-
nant’’, ‘‘dependent’’ (reverse coded), ‘‘powerless’’ (reversecoded), and ‘‘in-charge’’ (Cronbach’s a = .91; cf. Galinsky
et al. 2003).
Anger reactions To assess feelings of anger, we used thethree anger items from Study 1 and we specified whom the
anger was directed at (i.e., ‘‘angry with the subordinate’’;
Cronbach’s a = .93).
Attitudinal reactions Attitudinal reactions were assessed
using a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (totally dis-
agree) to 7 (totally agree). Liking of the feedback providerwas assessed using three items: ‘‘I think that my subordi-
nate is a nice person’’, ‘‘I think that my subordinate is a
pleasant person’’, and ‘‘I think that I can get along wellwith my subordinate’’ (Cronbach’s a = .94). Perceived
ability of the feedback provider was measured using three
items: ‘‘I think that my subordinate is able to give usefulcomments’’, ‘‘I think that my subordinate possesses the
necessary abilities to adequately appraise my presenta-
tion’’, and ‘‘I think that my subordinate is able to provideadequate comments’’ (Cronbach’s a = .92). Feedback
acceptance was measured using four items: ‘‘My subordi-
nate rightfully criticized me’’, ‘‘I fail to see what themessage is about’’ (reverse coded), ‘‘I do not understand
what the comment is about (reverse coded)’’, and ‘‘If I
meet my subordinate later I will acknowledge that mysubordinate was right’’ (Cronbach’s a = .72).
Results
In all reported regression analyses the main effect terms
for power (dummy coded .5 and -.5 for high and lowpower, respectively) and emotional instability (mean
centered, c.f., Aiken and West 1991) were entered in
Step 1, and the power by emotional instability interactionwas entered in Step 2. Descriptive statistics are displayed
in Table 1.4
4 We performed a principal component analysis using OBLIMINrotation of the emotional instability items. The results indicated thatone factor explained 34.68 % of the variance, and all items loadedabove .31 on that factor. A principal component analysis of the itemsused to assess the dependent variables anger, perceived ability of thefeedback provider, liking of the feedback provider and feedbackacceptance generated four factors, which explained 80.00 % of thevariance. All items loaded above .52 on the intended component andcross-loadings were not higher than .42.
692 Motiv Emot (2014) 38:687–699
123
Manipulation check
The regression analysis on the items of the power manip-ulation check revealed only a main effect of power
(b = 2.37, SE = 0.27, p \ .001). Participants in the high
power condition indicated higher perceived power(M = 5.18, SD = 0.65) than those in the low power con-
dition (M = 2.85, SD = 1.11).
Dependent variables
We expected that the effect of emotional instability onanger, perceived ability of the feedback provider, liking of
the provider, and feedback acceptance would be stronger
for high- than for low-power individuals.
Anger reactions A regression analysis on anger only
yielded the expected Power 9 Emotional instability inter-
action (b = 1.25, SE = 0.59, p = .039; R2 = .12.DR2 = .09). Simple slopes analysis indicated a positive
relationship between emotional instability and anger for
individuals in the high-power condition (1 SD above themean, b = 0.88, SE = 0.41, p = .04), but not for indi-
viduals in the low-power condition (1 SD below the mean,
b = -0.37, SE = 0.42, p = .38).
Liking A regression analysis on liking of the feedback pro-
vider yielded a main effect of emotional instability, showing
that more emotionally unstable participants liked the feedbackprovider less (b = -0.87, SE = 0.41, p = .04; see Table 2).
More importantly, a significant Power 9 Emotional instabil-
ity interaction (b = -1.81, SE = 0.78, p = .025; R2 = .20,DR2 = .10) emerged. Simple slopes analysis revealed a nega-
tive relationship between emotional instability and liking of the
feedback provider for individuals in the high-power condition(1 SD above the mean, b = -1.71, SE = 0.54, p = .002), but
did not indicate such a relationship for individuals in the low-
power condition (1 SD below the mean, b = 0.07, SE = 0.56,p = .90; see Fig. 3).
Perceived ability A regression analysis on perceived
ability only yielded a significant Power 9 Emotionalinstability interaction (b = -2.65, SE = 0.91, p = .006;
R2 = .20, DR2 = .16). Simple slopes analysis indicated that
emotional instability had a negative effect on perceivedability of the feedback provider for individuals in the high-
power condition (1 SD above the mean, b = -1.76,
SE = 0.64, p = .008), but did not indicate such a rela-tionship for individuals in the low-power condition (1 SD
below the mean, b = 0.90, SE = 0.66, p = .18).
Feedback acceptance A regression analysis on feedbackacceptance only yielded a significant Power 9 Emotional
instability interaction (b = -1.36, SE = 0.67, p = .05;R2 = .18. DR2 = .08). Simple slopes analysis revealed a
negative relationship between emotional instability and
feedback acceptance for individuals in the high-powercondition (1 SD above the mean, b = -1.31, SE = 0.47,
p = .008), but did not provide evidence for such a rela-
tionship for individuals in the low-power condition (1 SDabove the mean, b = 0.05, SE = 0.49, p = .93).
Conditional indirect effect testing We predicted that
anger would mediate the relationship between the inter-action of power and emotional instability on expressed
attitudes toward the feedback provider and the feedback.
Specifically, we expected that, especially for individuals inthe high-power condition, emotional instability would be
related to more anger, which, in turn, should negatively
affect their ratings of liking of the feedback provider,perceived ability of the feedback provider, and feedback
acceptance. To test our mediated moderation hypothesis we
used a procedure suggested by Preacher et al. (2007) whichinvolves three different steps. First, a regression analysis is
conducted to test whether the interaction of power condi-
tion and emotional instability influences the mediator(mediator model). In step two, a regression analysis is
Table 2 Regression coefficients for the three hierarchical regressionmodels predicting liking of the feedback proivder, perceived ability ofthe feedback provider, and feedback acceptance (N = 47) of Study 2
Predictors ba b t(47) R2 DR2
Feedback provider liking
Step 1 .10 .10
Power 0.36 .13 .93
Emotional instability -0.87 -.31 -2.13*
Step 2 .20 .10*
Power 9 Emotionalinstability
-1.81 -.32 -2.33*
Feedback provider ability
Step 1 .04 .04
Power 0.52 .16 1.10
Emotional instability -0.48 -.15 -.97
Step 2 .20 .16**
Power 9 Emotionalinstability
-2.65 -.40 -2.90**
Feedback acceptance
Step 1 .11 11
Power 0.49 .21 1.50
Emotional instability -0.66 -.27 -1.90
Step 2 .18 .08*
Power 9 Emotionalinstability
-1.36 -.28 -2.01*
aUnstandardized regression coefficients per step
* p \ .05; ** p \ .01
Motiv Emot (2014) 38:687–699 693
123
conducted in which the dependent variables are separately
regressed on the independent variable, the moderator, theirinteraction, and the mediator (dependent variable model).
In the third step, we tested the conditional indirect effects
of emotional instability via the mediator on the dependentvariables for individuals in the high-and the low-power
condition. Bootstrapping was used here because the dis-
tribution of product terms is only asymptotically normal(Shrout and Bolger 2002), and bootstrapping does not
require assumptions about the sampling distribution. The
conditional indirect effects of high (? 0.5) and low (-0.5)power conditions show the mediated relationship between
emotional instability and the dependent variables at con-
ditional values of power. For each of the following models5,000 bootstrap samples were used and 95 % bias corrected
and accelerated confidence intervals (BCa CI95 %’s; Efron
and Tibshirani 1993) for the effects of high and low powerwere estimated.
Anger as a mediator. As mentioned above, the interac-
tion term of power and emotional instability significantlyinfluenced anger. In step two, anger influenced liking of the
feedback provider (b = -0.48, SE = 0.19, p = .015; see
Table 3). In step two, bootstrapping revealed a negativeeffect of emotional instability via anger on liking of the
feedback provider for individuals in the high-power con-
dition (estimate: -0.46; BCa CI95 -1.10 to -0.03) but didnot reveal this effect for individuals in the low-power
condition (estimate: 0.18; BCa CI95 -0.20 to 0.8).
Anger also influenced the dependent variable perceivedability of the feedback provider (b = -0.69, SE = 0.22,
p = .003; see Table 3). Bootstrapping revealed a negative
effect of emotional instability via anger on perceived abilityof the feedback provider for individuals in the high-power
condition (estimate: -0.69; BCa CI95 -1.45 to -0.04) but
did not reveal this effect not for individuals in the low-powercondition (estimate: 0.24; BCa CI95 -0.42 to 0.99).
Finally, anger also negatively influenced the dependent
variable feedback acceptance (b = -0.40, SE = 0.17,
p = .021; see Table 3). Bootstrapping revealed a margin-
ally significant effect of emotional instability via anger onfeedback acceptance for individuals in the high-power
condition (estimate: -0.42; BCa CI95 -0.93 to 0.02), and
did not reveal this effect for individuals in the low-powercondition (estimate: -0.15; BCa CI95 -0.23 to 0.64).
Consequently, whereas anger was found to mediate the
negative effect of emotional instability on liking of thefeedback provider, perceived ability of the feedback pro-
vider, and feedback acceptance for individuals in the high-power condition we found no evidence for this mediation
in individuals in the low-power condition.
General discussion
Even though negative feedback is usually intended to help
the feedback receivers improve their performance, it can
elicit unfavorable responses in those who receive thefeedback (Belschak and Den Hartog 2009; Geddes and
Baron 1997). Importantly, our findings indicate which
individuals are likely to react adversely to negative feed-back. In two studies we have consistently shown that par-
ticularly powerful individuals who are emotionally
unstable show highly unfavorable reactions to negativefeedback. With increasing levels of emotional instability
individuals in power were more likely to experience anger
in response to negative feedback than individuals withoutpower (Study 1 and Study 2), which then resulted in less
liking of and lower perceived ability of the feedback pro-
vider, and in lower feedback acceptance (Study 2). Thesefindings are highly relevant for at least two reasons. First,
our findings point to the importance of considering super-
visors’ characteristics (i.e. emotional instability and power)when providing them with negative feedback. Second, our
findings suggest that means taken to reduce anger reactions
to negative feedback are effective in increasing feedbackacceptance and in attenuating negative consequences for
the provider of negative feedback.
These findings contribute to the literature in a number ofways. First, previous studies shed little light on which
individuals are actually likely to experience anger when
they receive negative feedback. The current study showsthat the combined effects of emotional instability and
power exert a substantial influence on the amount of anger
that negative feedback elicits. In line with our predictions,we found that the effects of emotional instability on anger
were stronger for individuals who were more powerful than
for individuals who were less powerful. Interestingly, ourstudies also seem to suggest that for individuals in situa-
tions of low power, emotional instability is not predictive
of anger at all. That is, we did not find evidence for anyrelationship between the two when individuals had low
Fig. 3 Interaction between emotional instability and power on likingof the feedback provider
694 Motiv Emot (2014) 38:687–699
123
Table 3 Regression results forthe conditional indirect effectsof Study 2 (mediator: anger)
Notes Results are presented perdependent variablea Unstandardized regressioncoefficients
* p \ .05; ** p \ .01
Mediator variable model(DV = anger)
Predictor ba SE t(47)
Constant 2.09 0.14 15.06**
Power -0.23 0.28 -0.82
Emotional instability 0.25 0.29 0.86
Power 9 Emotional instability 1.25 0.59 2.13*
Dependent variable model(DV = feedback provider liking)
Predictor ba SE t(47)
Constant 4.41 0.44 10.12**
Anger -0.48 0.19 -2.53*
Power 0.25 0.35 0.71
Emotional instability -0.71 0.37 -1.92
Power 9 Emotional instability -1.21 0.77 -1.56
Conditional effectsat high (?0.5) and low (-0.5) lower
Power W (a1?a3W)b1 SE BCa 95 % CI
High power -0.46 0.29 -1.10; -0.03
Low power -0.18 0.24 -0.20; 0.20
Dependent variable model(DV = feedback provider ability)
Predictor ba SE t(47)
Constant 5.33 0.49 10.80**
Anger -0.69 0.22 -3.17**
Power 0.36 0.40 0.90
Emotional instability -0.26 0.42 -.62
Power 9 Emotional instability -1.79 0.87 -2.06*
Conditional effectsat high (?0.5) and low (-0.5) power
Power (W) (a1?a3W)b1 SE BCa 95 % CI
High power -0.69 0.41 -1.45; -0.04
Low power -0.25 0.35 -0.42; 0.99
Dependent variable model(DV = feedback acceptance)
Predictor ba SE t(47)
Constant 5.04 0.38 13.26**
Anger -0.40 0.17 -2.38*
Power 0.40 0.31 1.13
Emotional instability -0.53 0.32 -1.65
Power 9 Emotional instability -0.86 0.67 -1.28
Conditional effectsat high (?0.5) and low (-0.5) power
Power (a1?a3W)b1 SE BCa 95 % CI
High power -0.42 0.28 -0.93; 0.02
Low power -0.15 0.22 -0.24; 0.64
Motiv Emot (2014) 38:687–699 695
123
power. Mischel’s theory on situation strength (Mischel
1977) may provide a possible explanation for this intrigu-ing finding. According to Mischel, the expression of indi-
vidual dispositions is inhibited in situations that exert a
strong influence on behavior, that is, in situations that areperceived as constraining individuals’ behavioral latitude
and personal discretion. Indeed, previous research has
shown that in strong situations, emotional instability doesnot affect behavioral intentions (Withey et al. 2005), while
it does in weak situations. Given that individuals who lackpower are highly dependent on others for acquiring
resources, they are strongly focused on the external envi-
ronment and they perceive much more constraints thanpowerful individuals (Keltner et al. 2003). Moreover,
negative feedback may represent a particularly strong sit-
uation for low power individuals, because others’ negativeopinions may be expected to reflect heavily upon their
outcomes and resources. Thus, we argue that negative
feedback entails a strong situation for those who lackpower, thus dampening the effects of emotional instability.
However, we did not assess individuals’ perceived situa-
tional strength in our studies, and therefore we encouragefuture research to investigate whether and if so in how far
the perceived situational strength of certain situations
indeed differs for individuals with high or low power.Research along these lines could provide valuable infor-
mation regarding the integrative potential of Mischel’s
situation strength theory (Mischel 1977) and the PowerApproach Theory (Keltner et al. 2003).
Second, our work also furthers the feedback literature by
showing that anger reactions exert a profound influence onindividuals’ attitudes towards the feedback provider and the
feedback itself. Although previous research focused on the
more general effects of feedback provoked anger, forinstance investigating how anger predicted counter-pro-
ductive work behavior, turnover intentions and absence
from work (Belschak and Den Hartog 2009; O’Neill et al.2009), the present study shows that anger can elicit effects
specifically directed towards the provider of the feedback. In
exploring the influence of anger, we follow a recent call byLee and Allen (2002) asking for research on the influence of
specific emotions (vs. general negative affect). Our findings
show that the other-directed negative emotion of angerinfluences cognitions directed toward other individuals or
objects. Future research effort is necessary to explore
whether and if so, which emotions influence more self-directed cognitions in response to negative feedback, such
as perceptions of one’s own competence or motivation.
Third, our finding that emotionally unstable individuals ina high power position are more likely to reject negative
feedback and to devaluate the feedback provider also
informs research linking emotional instability to maladap-tive coping strategies, such as escape–avoidance coping or
hostile reactions (Boyes and French 2012; McCrae and Costa
1986; Penley and Tomaka 2002). Previous research pointedto cognitive appraisals as mediators of the relationship
between emotional instability and attitudinal or behavioral
responses (Boyes and French 2012). Our research howeversuggests that feelings of anger may also explain the mal-
adaptive coping strategies of emotionally unstable individ-
uals. However, given that we did not actually assessindividuals’ coping strategies in our studies, more research is
needed before we can draw a more reliable conclusion on themediating role of anger and other negative emotions on the
link between emotional instability and coping.
Finally, so far feedback research has primarily beenconcerned with subordinates’ reactions to feedback (e.g.,
Belschak and Den Hartog 2009; Kinicki et al. 2004; Sparr
and Sonnentag 2008). In showing that supervisors’ reac-tions may differ from those of subordinates (Study 1), and
that reactions from supervisors holding high power may
differ from those of supervisors holding low power (Study2), our findings suggest that conclusions from feedback
studies with subordinates cannot be used indiscriminately
to make inferences about individuals holding more pow-erful positions in organizations. This finding is important
because feedback is increasingly used to steer performance
at all organizational levels.
Strengths and limitations
For our intended purposes, the experimental design repre-
sents a strength as it allowed us to draw causal conclusions
and generally is considered to have high internal validity(Mook 1983). However, concerns may be raised regarding
the generalizability of our findings. One reason may be that
we conducted our experiments among mainly students andother Dutch inhabitants whom we placed in an artificial
organizational setting. However, experimental findings
with Dutch students have repeatedly been replicated in thefield (Rus et al. 2012; Van Dijke et al. 2010; van Knip-
penberg and van Knippenberg 2005) and we have no rea-
sons to suspect that these individuals would behavedifferently from other populations (cf., Brown and Lord
1999; Dipboye 1990; Dobbins et al. 1988). In addition,
98 % of the participants in Study 2 had work experience,and thus, probably were able to immerse themselves in the
artificial organizational setting. Second, it might be argued
that generalizability of our findings is restricted because thesample in Study 2 was mainly female. Note however, that
we found the same pattern of results in Study 1, that had
44 % male participants. Nevertheless, we argue that futureresearch replicating our findings in a more diverse sample
of organizational leaders would be valuable.
Another side effect of our experimental set-up is that thefeedback receivers did not expect to interact with the
696 Motiv Emot (2014) 38:687–699
123
feedback providers in the future. Recent findings suggest
that the relationship between emotions and behavior isstronger if an individual expects future interactions with
another individual than if the individual does not expect
such future interactions (Klep et al. 2013). Therefore, webelieve that an expectation of future interactions would
have strengthened rather than weakened our finding that
emotional reactions to feedback influence attitudinal reac-tions to feedback.
Practical applications
Although implications for practice are to be regarded astentative, we see potential for our findings to be applied in
organizational settings. Organizations increasingly pro-
mote feedback at all organizational levels. In pointing tothe stronger influence of emotional instability on the
feedback reactions of individuals in power, our findings
emphasize that particularly those feedback proceduresgeared at informing those in power may need to take into
account the feedback receivers’ individual predispositions.
Moreover, organizations might benefit from using ourfindings in leader selection and development procedures.
Organizations may consider selecting leaders who are more
likely to deal constructively with negative feedback. Inaddition, organizations may support those who have more
problems with receiving feedback in acquiring useful
strategies in order to deal with it more effectively. Forinstance, organizations may offer workshops intended to
draw attention to the value of (negative) feedback and to
provide emotionally unstable supervisors advice on how tohandle negative feedback in more constructive ways. This
may make it easier for employees to confront their leaders
with their shortcomings, and thereby enhance leader per-formance. This study might be a first step in raising
awareness for the role of individual predispositions in
power-holders’ reactions to negative feedback.In addition, our findings also point to techniques that
feedback providers themselves can use to minimize
adverse feedback reactions in emotionally unstable butpowerful supervisors. One potential strategy might be to
attenuate their feelings of power, for instance by high-
lighting egalitarianism, teamwork, and shared fate. Indeed,although some people generally experience more power
than others, it is possible to alter individuals’ power per-
ceptions by using expressions that emphasize either high orlow power (Galinsky et al. 2008; Smith et al. 2008). Our
findings show that if feedback providers can manage to
attenuate feelings of power in emotionally unstable feed-back receivers and instead evoke feelings social equality,
these receivers will be less likely to give free rein to their
unstable personality and thus will be less likely to reactunfavorably to negative feedback.
Conclusion
The growing use of feedback at all organizational levelsimplies that leaders and subordinates with varying levels of
power are increasingly confronted with negative feedback.
From this point of view, it is surprising that previousresearch did not acknowledge the pivotal role of the
feedback receiver’s power on reactions to feedback. We
hope that our work stimulates researchers exploring theeffects of organizational feedback processes as well as
practitioners implementing feedback procedures to take the
power position of the feedback receiver into consideration.
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing andinterpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
Anderson, C., & Berdahl, J. L. (2002). The experience of power:Examining the effects of power on approach and inhibitiontendencies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6),1362–1377. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.83.6.1362.
Bailey, C., & Fletcher, C. (2002). The impact of multiple sourcefeedback on management development: Findings from a longi-tudinal study. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(7),853–867. doi:10.1002/job.167.
Bargh, J. A., Raymond, P., Pryor, J. B., & Strack, F. (1995).Attractiveness of the underling: An automatic power—sexassociation and its consequences for sexual harassment andaggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(5),768–781. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.68.5.768.
Bee, R., & Bee, F. (1998). Constructive feedback. London: CharteredInstitute of Personnel & Development.
Belschak, F. D., & Den Hartog, D. N. (2009). Consequences ofpositive and negative feedback: The impact on emotions andextra-role behaviors. Applied Psychology: An InternationalReview, 58(2), 274–303. doi:10.1111/j.1464-0597.2008.00336.x.
Bodenhausen, G. V., Sheppard, L. A., & Kramer, G. P. (1994).Negative affect and social judgment: The differential impact ofanger and sadness. European Journal of Social Psychology,24(1), 45–62. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420240104.
Bolger, N., & Zuckerman, A. (1995). A framework for studyingpersonality in the stress process. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 69(5), 890–902. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.69.5.890.
Booth, J., & Mann, S. (2005). The experience of workplace anger.Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 26(3),250–262. doi:10.1108/01437730510600634.
Boyes, M. E., & French, D. J. (2012). The mediating effect ofappraisal on the relationship between neuroticism and copingduring an anagram-solving task: A goodness-of-fit hypothesisperspective. Personality and Individual Differences, 53(3),306–311. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2012.03.037.
Breckler, S. J. (1984). Empirical validation of affect, behavior, andcognition as distinct components of attitude. Journal of Person-ality and Social Psychology, 47(6), 1191–1205. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.47.6.1191.
Brown, D. J., & Lord, R. G. (1999). The utility of experimentalresearch in the study of transformational/charismatic leadership.The Leadership Quarterly, 10(4), 531–539. doi:10.1016/S1048-9843(99)00029-6.
Motiv Emot (2014) 38:687–699 697
123
Carlo, G., Allen, J. B., & Buhlman, D. C. (1999). Facilitating anddisinhibiting prosocial behaviors: The nonlinear interaction oftrait perspective taking and trait personal distress on volunteer-ing. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 21(3), 189–197.doi:10.1207/15324839951036362.
Carson, C. L., & Cupach, W. R. (2000). Facing corrections in theworkplace: The influence of perceived face threat on theconsequences of managerial reproaches. Journal of AppliedCommunication Research, 28(3), 215–234. doi:10.1080/00909880009365572.
Chen, S., Lee-Chai, A., & Bargh, J. A. (2001). Relationshiporientation as a moderator of the effects of social power.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(2), 173–187.doi:10.1037/0022-3514.80.2.173.
Cianci, A. M., Klein, H. J., & Seijts, G. H. (2010). The effect ofnegative feedback on tension and subsequent performance: Themain and interactive effects of goal content and conscientious-ness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(4), 618–630. doi:10.1037/a0019130.
Clore, G. L., & Schnall, S. (2005). The influence of affect on attitude.In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), The handbook of attitudes (pp. 437–489).Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Cupach, W. R., & Carson, C. L. (2002). Characteristics andconsequences of interpersonal complaints associated with per-ceived face threat. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships,19(4), 443–462. doi:10.1177/0265407502019004047.
Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individualdifferences in empathy. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents inPsychology, 10, 85.
Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy:Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Person-ality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 113–126. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113.
De Raad, B., & Barelds, D. P. H. (2008). A new taxonomy of Dutchpersonality traits based on a comprehensive and unrestricted listof descriptors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,94(2), 347–364. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.94.2.347.
DeSteno, D., Dasgupta, N., Bartlett, M. Y., & Cajdric, A. (2004).Prejudice from thin air: The effect of emotion on automaticintergroup attitudes. Psychological Science, 15(5), 319–324.doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00676.x.
Dipboye, R. L. (1990). Laboratory vs. field research in industrial andorganizational psychology. In C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson(Eds.), International review of industrial and organizationalpsychology (pp. 1–34). Chichester: Wiley.
Dobbins, G. H., Lane, I. M., & Steiner, D. D. (1988). A note on therole of laboratory methodologies in applied behaviouralresearch: Don’t throw out the baby with the bath water. Journalof Organizational Behavior, 9(3), 281–286. doi:10.1002/job.4030090308.
Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes.Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers.
Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R. J. (1993). An introduction to the bootstrap.London: Chapman & Hall.
Feltman, R., Robinson, M. D., & Ode, S. (2009). Mindfulness as amoderator of neuroticism–outcome relations: A self-regulationperspective. Journal of Research in Personality, 43(6), 953–961.doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2009.08.009.
Fox, J. (2008). Applied regression analysis and generalized linearmodels (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
Galinsky, A. D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Magee, J. C. (2003). Frompower to action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,85(3), 453–466. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.3.453.
Galinsky, A. D., Magee, J. C., Gruenfeld, D. H., Whitson, J. A., &Liljenquist, K. A. (2008). Power reduces the press of thesituation: Implications for creativity, conformity, and
dissonance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,95(6), 1450–1466. doi:10.1037/a0012633.
Geddes, D., & Baron, R. A. (1997). Workplace aggression as aconsequence of negative performance feedback. ManagementCommunication Quarterly, 10(4), 433–454. doi:10.1177/0893318997104002.
Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative ‘description of personality’: Thebig-five factor structure. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 59(6), 1216–1229. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.59.6.1216.
Gruenfeld, D. H., Inesi, M. E., Magee, J. C., & Galinsky, A. D.(2008). Power and the objectification of social targets. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 95(1), 111–127. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.111.
Guinote, A. (2007). Behaviour variability and the situated focustheory of power. European Review of Social Psychology, 18,256–295. doi:10.1080/10463280701692813.
Guinote, A., Judd, C. M., & Brauer, M. (2002). Effects of power onperceived and objective group variability: Evidence that morepowerful groups are more variable. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 82(5), 708–721. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.5.708.
Gunthert, K. C., Cohen, L. H., & Armeli, S. (1999). The role ofneuroticism in daily stress and coping. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 77(5), 1087–1100. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.5.1087.
Harmon-Jones, E., & Harmon-Jones, C. (2007). Anger: Causes andcomponents. In T. A. Cavell & K. T. Malcolm (Eds.), Anger,aggression and interventions for interpersonal violence (pp.99–117). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Hemenover, S. H., & Dienstbier, R. A. (1996). Prediction of stressappraisals from mastery, extraversion, neuroticism, and generalappraisal tendencies. Motivation and Emotion, 20(4), 299–317.doi:10.1007/BF02856520.
Hershcovis, M. S., Turner, N., Barling, J., Arnold, K. A., Dupre, K.E., Inness, M., et al. (2007). Predicting workplace aggression: Ameta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 228–238.doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.1.228.
Ilgen, D. R., & Davis, C. A. (2000). Bearing bad news: Reactions tonegative performance feedback. Applied Psychology: An Inter-national Review, 49(3), 550–565. doi:10.1111/1464-0597.00031.
Ilies, R., Judge, T. A., & Wagner, D. T. (2010). The influence ofcognitive and affective reactions to feedback on subsequentgoals: Role of behavioral inhibition/activation. European Psy-chologist, 15(2), 121–131. doi:10.1027/1016-9040/a000011.
Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power,approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110(2),265–284. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.110.2.265.
Kinicki, A. J., Prussia, G. E., Wu, J. B., & McKee-Ryan, F. M.(2004). A covariance structure analysis of employees’ responseto performance feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6),1057–1069. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.1057.
Klep, A. H. M., Wisse, B. M., & Van der Flier, H. (2013). When sadgroups expect to meet again: Interactive affective sharing andfuture interaction expectation as determinants of groups’analytical and creative task performance. The British Journalof Social Psychology, 52(4), 667–685. doi:10.1111/bjso.12000.
Kling, K. C., Ryff, C. D., Love, G., & Essex, M. (2003). Exploring theinfluence of personality on depressive symptoms and self-esteemacross a significant life transition. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 85(5), 922–932. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.922.
Kudisch, J. D., Fortunato, V. J., & Smith, A. F. R. (2006). Contextualand individual difference factors predicting individuals’ desire toprovide upward feedback. Group and Organization Manage-ment, 31(4), 503–529. doi:10.1177/1059601106286888.
Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York, NY:Oxford University Press.
698 Motiv Emot (2014) 38:687–699
123
Lee, K., & Allen, N. J. (2002). Organizational citizenship behaviorand workplace deviance: The role of affect and cognitions.Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(1), 131–142. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.1.131.
Lerner, J. S., Goldberg, J. H., & Tetlock, P. E. (1998). Sober secondthought: The effects of accountability, anger, and authoritarianismon attributions of responsibility. Personality and Social Psychol-ogy Bulletin, 24(6), 563–574. doi:10.1177/0146167298246001.
Lerner, J. S., & Tiedens, L. Z. (2006). Portrait of the angry decisionmaker: How appraisal tendencies shape anger’s influence oncognition. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 19(2),115–137. doi:10.1002/bdm.515.
Magee, J. C., Galinsky, A. D., & Gruenfeld, D. H. (2007). Power,propensity to negotiate, and moving first in competitive inter-actions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(2),200–212. doi:10.1177/0146167206294413.
Maner, J. K., & Mead, N. L. (2010). The essential tension betweenleadership and power: When leaders sacrifice group goals for thesake of self-interest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy, 99(3), 482–497. doi:10.1037/a0018559.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1986). Personality, coping, and copingeffectiveness in an adult sample. Journal of Personality, 54(2),385–405. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1986.tb00401.x.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. J. (2008). Empirical and theoreticalstatus of the five-factor model of personality traits. In G.J. Boyle, G. Matthews, & D. H. Saklofske (Eds.), The sagehandbook of personality theory and assessment (pp. 273–294).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.
Milliken, F. J., Morrison, E. W., & Hewlin, P. F. (2003). Anexploratory study of employee silence: Issues that employeesdon’t communicate upward and why. Journal of ManagementStudies, 40(6), 1453–1476. doi:10.1111/1467-6486.00387.
Mischel, W. (1977). The interaction of person and situation. In D.Magnusson & N. S. Endler (Eds.), Personality at the crossroads:Current issues in interactional psychology (pp. 333–352).Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Mook, D. G. (1983). In defense of external invalidity. AmericanPsychologist, 38(4), 379–387. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.38.4.379.
O’Neill, O. A., Vandenberg, R. J., DeJoy, D. M., & Wilson, M. G.(2009). Exploring relationships among anger, perceived organi-zational support, and workplace outcomes. Journal of Occupa-tional Health Psychology, 14(3), 318–333. doi:10.1037/a0015852.
Ode, S., Robinson, M. D., & Wilkowski, B. M. (2008). Can one’stemper be cooled? A role for agreeableness in moderatingneuroticism’s influence on anger and aggression. Journal ofResearch in Personality, 42(2), 295–311. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2007.05.007.
Ormel, J., Rosmalen, J., & Farmer, A. (2004). Neuroticism: A non-informative marker of vulnerability to psychopathology. SocialPsychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 39(11), 906–912.doi:10.1007/s00127-004-0873-y.
Penley, J. A., & Tomaka, J. (2002). Associations among the big five,emotional responses and coping with acute stress. Personalityand Individual Differences, 32(7), 1215–1228. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(01)00087-3.
Preacher, K. J., Rucker, D. D., & Hayes, A. F. (2007). Addressingmoderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and pre-scriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42(1), 185–227.
Rus, D., van Knippenberg, D., & Wisse, B. (2010). Leader power andleader self-serving behavior: The role of effective leadership beliefsand performance information. Journal of Experimental SocialPsychology, 46(6), 922–933. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2010.06.007.
Rus, D., van Knippenberg, D., & Wisse, B. (2012). Leader power and self-serving behavior: The moderating role of accountability. LeadershipQuarterly, 23(1), 13–26. doi:10.1016/j.leaqua.2011.11.002.
Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental andnonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations.Psychological Methods, 7(4), 422–445. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.7.4.422.
Smith, C. A., Haynes, K. N., Lazarus, R. S., & Pope, L. K. (1993). Insearch of the ‘hot’ cognitions: Attributions, appraisals, and theirrelation to emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy, 65(5), 916–929. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.65.5.916.
Smith, P. K., Jostmann, N. B., Galinsky, A. D., & van Dijk, W. W.(2008). Lacking power impairs executive functions. Psycholog-ical Science, 19(5), 441–447. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02107.x.
Sparr, J. L., & Sonnentag, S. (2008). Fairness perceptions ofsupervisor feedback, LMX, and employee well-being at work.European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,17(2), 198–225. doi:10.1080/13594320701743590.
Spreng, R. N., McKinnon, M. C., Mar, R. A., & Levine, B. (2009).The Toronto empathy questionnaire: Scale development andinitial validation of a factor-analytic solution to multipleempathy measures. Journal of Personality Assessment, 91(1),62–71. doi:10.1080/00223890802484381.
Tiedens, L. Z. (2001). The effect of anger on the hostile inferences ofaggressive and nonaggressive people: Specific emotions, cogni-tive processing, and chronic accessibility. Motivation andEmotion, 25(3), 233–251. doi:10.1023/A:1012224507488.
Tjosvold, D., & Wisse, B. (Eds.). (2009). Power and interdependencein organizations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tong, E. M. W., Bishop, G. D., Enkelmann, H. C., Why, Y. P., Diong,S. M., Ang, J., et al. (2006). The role of the big five in appraisals.Personality and Individual Differences, 41(3), 513–523. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2006.01.018.
Van Dijke, M., De Cremer, D., & Mayer, D. M. (2010). The role ofauthority power in explaining procedural fairness effects.Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 488–502. doi:10.1037/a0018921.
van Knippenberg, B., & van Knippenberg, D. (2005). Leader self-sacrifice and leadership effectiveness: The moderating role ofleader prototypicality. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(1),25–37. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.90.1.25.
Withey, M., Gellatly, I. R., & Annett, M. (2005). The moderating effectof situation strength on the relationship between personality andprovision of effort. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35(8),1587–1608. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2005.tb02186.x.
Zimmerman, R. D., Mount, M. K., & Goff, M. (2008). Multisourcefeedback and leaders’ goal performance: Moderating effects ofrating purpose, rater perspective, and performance dimension.International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 16(2),121–133. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2389.2008.00417.x.
Motiv Emot (2014) 38:687–699 699
123