The Role of Group Member Affect in the Relationship between Trust and Cooperation
| Date | 01 June 2010 |
| Author | Henk Van Der Flier,Jacqueline Tanghe,Barbara Wisse |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2009.00643.x |
| Published date | 01 June 2010 |
The Role of Group Member Affect in the
Relationship between Trust and
Cooperation
Jacqueline Tanghe,
1,2
Barbara Wisse
3
and Henk van der Flier
1
1
Department of Work and Organizational Psychology, VU University, Amsterdam, Van der Boechorststraat 1,
1081 BT Amsterdam, The Netherlands,
2
Institute of Integration and Social Efficacy, Faculty of Behavioral and
Social Sciences, University of Groningen, Grote Kruisstraat 2/1, 9712 TS Groningen, The Netherlands, and
3
Department of Social and Organizational Psychology, University of Groningen, Grote Kruisstraat 2/1, 9712
TS Groningen, The Netherlands
Corresponding author email: J.A.L.Tanghe@rug.nl
It is widely acknowledged that trust greatly affects work group functioning. Whereas
trust may facilitate cooperation, distrust may impede it. Insight into when distrusters
may be prompted to cooperate may therefore be of importance. Empirical studies point
to several moderators of the effect of trust on cooperation. Unfortunately, these studies
largely ignored the potential role of group member affect. Our study shows that group
members’ affective displays (particularly the activation level of the displays) have a
substantial impact on the relationship between trust and cooperation. First, a scenario
experiment(n 580) revealed that low trusting individuals were more willing to
cooperate when confronted with group members who display high (versus low)
activation affective states, whereas for more high trusting individuals cooperation was
not contingent on other group members’ affective displays. Second, a laboratory
experiment(n 578), employing a social dilemma paradigm, replicated these findings
and indicated that this effect is explained by the extent to which others are expected to
cooperate. The discussion focuses on theoretical implications and managerial
ramifications. Our study testifies to the significant role that affect may play in keeping
up cooperation in organizations and work groups when trust is withering.
Group member cooperative behaviour is essential
for organizational and work group effectiveness,
efficiency and goal attainment (Tyler and Blader,
2000). The question of how to promote coopera-
tion in groups and work teams is therefore a
relevant one, and has led to numerous studies
that focused on uncovering determinants of
cooperative behaviour (e.g. Dawes, 1980; Gam-
betta, 1988; McAllister, 1995; Pruitt and Kimmel,
1977; Tyler and Blader, 2000; Yamagishi, 1986).
There is substantial evidence showing that trust
engenders group member cooperation (Kramer
and Tyler, 1996). Trust allows people to manage
the uncertainty or risk that is associated with
social interaction (Yamagishi, 1986), thus enhan-
cing cooperation (cf. Gambetta, 1988). Distrust,
or the lack of confidence in others’ intentions,
impedes cooperation. Given the importance of
cooperation for work group effectiveness, trust
deserves all the research attention it has received
so far. A number of moderators of the effect of
trust on cooperation have already been identified
(e.g. Coletti, Sedatole and Towry, 2005; De
Cremer and Stouten, 2003; De Cremer, Snyder
and Dewitte, 2001; Messick et al., 1983; Parks,
Henager and Scamahorn, 1996). Yet, these
studies hardly considered the role of affect, and
We would like to thank Peter Dekker for his advice on
the statistical analyses.
British Journal of Management, Vol. 21, 359–374 (2010)
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8551.2009.00643.x
r2009 British Academy of Management. Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford
OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA, 02148, USA.
consequently we know little about how the
affective states of group members may influence
the relationship between trust and cooperation.
This study aims to fill this void and focuses on
the interplay between other group members’ affect
and own trust on the decision to cooperate. We
propose that people who are less trusting (versus
more trusting) will be more cooperative when
their group members are displaying a high
activation affective state (e.g. enthusiasm or
anger) than when their group members are
displaying a low activation affective state (e.g.
relaxation or boredom). We also argue that
distrusters, more than trusters, scan the environ-
ment for cues that help them to predict others’
behaviour. As particularly high activation affec-
tive states communicate willingness to cooperate,
our hypothesized effects may be explained by the
extent to which others are expected to cooperate.
Our study aims to contribute to the literature
on trust, cooperation and affect in several ways.
First, we are not aware of any published study
that empirically explores, or systematically theo-
rizes about, the relationship between group
member affect, trust and cooperation. Second,
this study explores the conditions that may foster
the cooperation of distrusters. As higher coopera-
tion feeds into work group effectiveness, it may be
of particular importance to gain insight into how
individuals that are less likely to cooperate may be
prompted towards cooperation. Third, we scruti-
nize the underlying process to explain why the
combined effects of trust and group members’
affect may engender cooperation. Fourth, our
study employs two types of experimental set-ups
and provides causal evidence for proposed
relationships. Last, our study focuses on the
activation dimension of affect, instead of on the
more often studied valence dimension of affect
(for instance, considering the effects of positive
and negative affect on team performance; Bar-
sade, 2002; George, 1990; Tanghe, Wisse and van
der Flier, in press; Wegge et al., 2006).
Cooperation in groups
Cooperation in groups may be viewed as the
extent to which people engage in behaviours that
are beneficial for the groups (i.e. organizations,
committees, clubs, societies) they belong to
(Derlaga and Grzelak, 1982). Cooperation thus
refers to the degree to which individuals are acting
to promote the group and its goals. Although not
always, cooperation is often pitted against com-
petition or self-serving behaviour (Tyler and
Blader, 2000). Cooperation is closely related to
helping behaviour or proactive social behaviour
(Derlega and Grzelak, 1982), in-role behaviour
(i.e. behaviour associated with the job descrip-
tion) and extra-role behaviour (i.e. behaviour that
goes beyond the job description) or organiza-
tional citizenship behaviour (Podsakoff, Ahearne
and MacKenzie, 1997), all of which feed into
group effectiveness. Cooperation is also relatedto
organizational productivity and economic perfor-
mance (Freund and Epstein, 1984; Katz, Kochan
and Weber, 1985), and reduction of friction
between group members (Podsakoff, Ahearne
and MacKenzie, 1997). Moreover, a lack of
cooperation leads to undesirable outcomes for
the group (Kramer, Brewer and Hanna, 1996).
So, given that cooperation is of paramount
importance for group functioning, the question
of what makes people cooperate is a relevant one.
Many researchers argue that trust is key in
people’s decision to cooperate (e.g. De Cremer
and Dewitte, 2002; Dirks and Ferrin, 2001;
Gambetta, 1988; Kramer, 1999; Kramer, Brewer
and Hanna, 1996; McAllister, 1995; Parks and
Hulbert, 1995; Pruitt and Kimmel, 1977; Tyler,
2003), and especially so when they do not share a
history of joint cooperation (e.g. Dawes, 1980;
Kramer, 1999; Kramer, Brewer and Hanna, 1996;
Messick et al., 1983). Trust may be defined as ‘the
willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the
actions of another party based on the expecta-
tions that the other will perform a particular
action important to the trustor, irrespective of the
ability to monitor or control that other party’
(Mayer, Davis and Schoorman, 1995, p. 712).
Trust thus involves the expectancy that others
will reciprocate cooperative actions, and this
enhances the likelihood that own cooperative
acts will be performed (Brann and Foddy, 1988;
Kramer, Brewer and Hanna, 1996; Messick et al.,
1983). One might argue that trust helps people to
overcome the risk of being exploited, or not being
reciprocated in cooperative acts (Colquitt, Scott
and LePine, 2007; De Cremer and Stouten, 2003;
Malhotra, 2004; Yamagishi, 1986; Yamagishi
and Sato, 1986). In contrast, distrust involves
the belief that the other party does not necessarily
have good intentions and that mutual coopera-
360 J. Tanghe, B. Wisse and H. van der Flier
r2009 British Academy of Management.
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeUnlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations
Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial
Transform your legal research with vLex
-
Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform
-
Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues
-
Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options
-
Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions
-
Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms
-
Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations