Levine - Original Work

This article was downloaded by: [Universitat Politècnica de València]
On: 24 October 2014, At: 21:33

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Human Performance
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hhup20
Cross-National Explorations of the Impact

of Affect at Work Using the State-Trait
Emotion Measure: A Coordinated Series
of Studies in the United States, China,
and Romania
a a b c
Edward L. Levine , Xian Xu , Liu-Qin Yang , Dan Ispas , Horia D.
d e e d
Pitariu , Ran Bian , Dan Ding , Roxana Capotescu , HongSheng
e d
Che & Simona Musat
a
University of South Florida
b
Portland State University
c
Illinois State University
d
Babes-Bolyai University
e
Beijing Normal University
Published online: 10 Nov 2011.
To cite this article: Edward L. Levine , Xian Xu , Liu-Qin Yang , Dan Ispas , Horia D. Pitariu ,
Ran Bian , Dan Ding , Roxana Capotescu , HongSheng Che & Simona Musat (2011) Cross-National
Explorations of the Impact of Affect at Work Using the State-Trait Emotion Measure: A Coordinated
Series of Studies in the United States, China, and Romania, Human Performance, 24:5, 405-442, DOI:
10.1080/08959285.2011.614302
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2011.614302
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [Universitat Politècnica de València] at 21:33 24 October 2014
Human Performance, 24:405–442, 2011
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0895-9285 print/1532-7043 online
DOI: 10.1080/08959285.2011.614302
Cross-National Explorations of the Impact of Affect

at Work Using the State-Trait Emotion Measure:
A Coordinated Series of Studies in the United States,
China, and Romania
Edward L. Levine and Xian Xu

University of South Florida
Liu-Qin Yang
Portland State University
Dan Ispas
Illinois State University
Horia D. Pitariu
Ran Bian and Dan Ding

Roxana Capotescu
HongSheng Che
Simona Musat
This series of studies using samples drawn in three diverse cultural contexts—the United States,
China, and Romania—focused on the role of discrete emotion feelings (Izard, 2009) in predicting
job satisfaction and performance. Our research goals required that we develop and validate a new
measure, the State-Trait Emotion Measure (STEM), which provides assessments of a diverse array
of discrete emotion feelings, dispositions corresponding to these, and aggregations of these to index
Correspondence should be sent to Edward L. Levine, Department of Psychology, PCD 4118G, University of South
Florida, 4202 East Fowler, Tampa, FL 33620. E-mail: elevine@usf.edu
406 LEVINE ET AL.
state and trait positive and negative affect. Positive evidence for STEM’s validity allowed for rigorous
tests of hypotheses, which revealed, consistently across countries, that discrete emotion feelings show
variations in their relationships with outcomes of performance and satisfaction and add incrementally
to their prediction over dimensional measures of positive and negative affect. At the same time,
the patterns of relationships across countries (e.g., positive relationships between positive emotion
feelings and job satisfaction) were consistent with past research.
The impact of affect in the workplace has become an increasingly important topic for organiza-
tional scientists (e.g., Brief & Weiss, 2002). However, surprisingly little research has focused on
cross-cultural issues (Fischbach, 2009). The research reported here intends to address this gap
by examining the impact of both discrete emotion feelings, which have not received sufficient
attention in past research (e.g., Weiss, 2002a), and general dimensions in work settings using
samples drawn from three countries—China, Romania, and the United States. As indicated, the
primary focus here is on the exploration of relationships across cultural contexts between discrete
emotion feelings as defined by Izard (2009) and outcomes, including job satisfaction, core task
performance, organizational citizenship behavior (OCB), and counterproductive work behavior
(CWB). The construct of emotion feelings is defined as “a phase of neurobiological activity that
is experienced as motivational and informational and that influences thought and action, a felt
cognition or action tendency” (Izard, 2009, p. 3). This definition and Izard’s subsequent elabora-
tion of theory surrounding it obviate the need to force a distinction, sometimes artificial, between
emotion and mood, which has been the source of much attention in the literature (e.g., Frijda,
1993; Lazarus, 1991; Lord & Kanfer, 2002; Watson, 2000; Weiss, 2002a).
To relate this construct of emotion feelings more closely to definitions advanced by other
scholars in the domain of affect, we regard emotion feelings as a multifaceted, psycho-
physiological response system. It consists of a complex state of a person with a covarying,
but often loosely coupled, set of components, including experienced feelings, expressions of
feelings through verbal and nonverbal signals, physiological states, cognitions, action tenden-
cies, and behaviors. The level of covariation among these components may at times be minimal
(Cornelius, 1996; Lazarus, 1991; Plutchik, 2001; Russell, Bachorowski, & Fernandez-Dols,
2003; Watson, 2000; Weiss, 2002a). Izard’s (2009) conception, in contrast to incorporating both
moods and emotions, retains a distinction between general dimensions of emotion feelings,
like positive versus negative emotion feelings, and states with more specific content such as
anger.
To facilitate the primary focus of the research, a new measure, the State-Trait Emotion
Measure (STEM) was created, which is reflective of the need for both dimensional and dis-
crete emotion feeling states as well as parallel dispositions. A secondary focus of this research
was therefore to evaluate the reliability and validity of the measure in three versions—English,
Mandarin, and Romanian. Positive evidence of the measure’s psychometric quality cross-
nationally would, if found in our research, offer researchers studying affect an additional option
when choosing a scale that may best help in accomplishing their research goals.
Three coordinated studies were conducted, the first in the United States (Study 1), the second
in China (study 2), and the final one in Romania (Study 3). Our coverage begins with the rationale
for the research, its focus on discrete emotion feelings, and our need for a new measure, which
STATE-TRAIT EMOTION MEASURE 407
ultimately resulted in the STEM. Each study is then described in turn, including method, results,
and discussion, and the article concludes with a general discussion.
BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE FOR THE STUDIES
Research on emotions in the workplace may be traced as far back as the 1930s (e.g., Hersey,
1932), but it soon appeared to have been replaced by an almost-exclusive focus on job satisfac-
tion. Several possible explanations for the lack of interest in the study of emotions have been
proposed (Muchinsky, 2000), including the cognitive emphasis in psychology and a belief that
people in organizations should be rational (e.g., Whyte, 1956).
However, in the mid-1980s and the 1990s, research on affective experiences (emotions
and moods) in the workplace flourished (for reviews, see Barsade & Gibson, 2007; Brief &
Weiss, 2002; Lyubomirsky, King, & Diener, 2005; Thoresen, Kaplan, Barsky, Warren, &
de Chermont, 2003). Following theoretical developments in the field (Isen & Baron, 1991;
Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996), emotions and moods have been linked to important outcomes
in the workplace such as employee well-being (Thoresen et al., 2003), organizational justice
(Barsky & Kaplan, 2007), prosocial behaviors (e.g., George, 1990; George & Bettenhausen,
1990; S. Williams, Shiaw, & Tze, 1999), counterproductive work behaviors (e.g., Judge, Scott, &
Ilies, 2006; Spector & Fox, 2005), absenteeism (George, 1989), turnover intentions (Thoresen
et al., 2003), team performance (Cole, Walter, & Bruch, 2008), job satisfaction (Brief, Butcher, &
Roberson, 1995; Connolly & Viswesvaran, 2000; Weiss, Nicholas, & Daus, 1999), and general
performance (Cropanzano, James, & Konovsky, 1993; Staw & Barsade, 1993). However, most
of this research has focused on generic positive affect (PA) and negative affect (NA; Weiss,
2002b) and the study of generic mood was overemphasized “at the expense of discrete emotions”
(Brief & Weiss, 2002, p. 297).
In this regard, Watson (2000), one of the authors of perhaps the most widely used mea-
sure of affect—the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS; Watson, Clark & Tellegen,
1988), stated, “Affective experience is hierarchically arranged such that these general dimen-
sions [Positive and Negative Affect] can be decomposed into substantially intercorrelated—but
nevertheless distinct—types of affect” (p. 61), and further declared, “Most notably, it clearly is
necessary to examine both levels of the hierarchy in any complete investigation of mood” (p. 59).
Without question, his views herald a need for measures of affect that capture both its general and
specific dimensions.
Corroboration of this perspective comes from another theoretical orientation wherein discrete
emotions arise from a generic affective response, which forms into discrete emotion feelings as a
function of situationally based appraisals (Clore & Ortony, 2008). Again there is a clear mandate
for research on emotion feelings to take account of general affective responses when studying
discrete emotion feelings.
Brief and Weiss (2002) have likewise asserted that discrete emotions are important elements of
everyday experience. The feelings of anger, joy, and envy and the consequences of these emotions
cannot be completely subsumed under a simple structure of positive–negative states. They also
went on to express their hope for seeing “a shift in emphasis to balance the interest in moods with
an interest in discrete emotions” (p. 298).
408 LEVINE ET AL.
The views just expressed should not be taken to mean that no research has dealt with dis-
crete emotion feelings. Indeed Weiss (2002a), for one, provided a summary of studies that have
dealt with discrete emotion feelings. Watson (2000), however, placed a serious constraint on the
acceptance of findings on the impact of discrete emotion feelings. He suggested that these must
be shown to add an additional impact over and above the impact of general dimensions. Without
such a demonstration it is not possible to conclude that the discrete content of the feeling states
explains their impact as opposed to the general dimensional (e.g., positive vs. negative valence)
effects. Thus studies that use only measures of discrete emotion feelings without controlling for
dimensional effects are deficient in this regard. The bulk of those studies known to us that have
used measures of discrete emotion feelings as predictors or correlates have not provided such
evidence. The only study we have located that has done this is by Lee and Allen (2002), whose
results offer support for the distinctive impact of discrete emotions over dimensional affect.
These considerations led to the first key research question we explored in our three studies:
When controlling for the effects of general dimensions of emotional feelings, will discrete emo-
tion feelings add incrementally to the prediction of job satisfaction and performance? This leads
to our first hypothesis to be tested in our three studies:
H1: Discrete emotion feelings will add incrementally over general dimensional measures to
the prediction of job satisfaction and selected facets of performance.
Evidence supporting H1 is in our view necessary but not sufficient to demonstrate the value
of using measures of discrete emotion feelings. What must also be shown is that the discrete
measures must exhibit differential relationships with outcomes including job satisfaction and
performance. This leads to our second hypothesis.
H2: Measures of an array of discrete emotion feelings will exhibit variations in their
relationships with outcomes of job satisfaction and selected facets of performance.
However, in addition to the conclusion that the bulk of research concerning the impact of
affect in the workplace has dealt with general affective dimensions, there is an additional gap
in our knowledge. Our search for those studies that have (a) been cross-national, (b) included
non-English-speaking populations, and (c) dealt with the relationships among discrete emo-
tion feelings and the outcomes of job satisfaction and facets of performance yielded only one
study: Bagozzi, Verbeke, and Gavino (2003). They examined the relationship between shame
and performance using samples from the Netherlands and Philippines. They found no relation-
ship between shame and performance in the Netherlands sample but positive relationships in the
Philippines sample.
This leads to our third research question: Would the incremental impact of discrete emotion
feelings and the differential level of their association with outcomes be observed in samples
drawn from three different countries? This leads to our third hypothesis.
H3: In samples drawn from the three countries included in the investigation, including two
non-English-speaking countries, measures of discrete emotion feelings (a) will add
incrementally over and above general dimensions to the prediction of job satisfaction
and performance, and (b) will exhibit variations in their level of relationships with job
satisfaction and performance.
This hypothesis represents, of course, the expectation that evidence supporting H1 and H2,
if found in the U.S. sample, will replicate across samples drawn from the other two nations we
included (China and Romania). Consistencies in the pattern of outcomes across these countries
will mitigate strongly in favor of generalizability, due to the substantial differences in the cultural
contexts from which our samples of research participants were drawn. For example, past research
has shown that China is more collectivistic on the continuum of Individualism-Collectivism and
lower in Uncertainty Avoidance than the United States, with Romania in between (Hofstede,
2001; House, Hanges, Jarvidan, Dorfman, & Gupta, 2004; Spector et al., 2001). However,
because there is little past theory and data to guide us, we offer no hypotheses about whether
the level of relationships between particular discrete emotion feelings and outcomes will vary
systematically as a function of cultural context. Of course the evaluation of the third hypothesis
is presented after data from all three studies are discussed.

Although we expect differences in the degree to which elements in our set of discrete emotion
feelings relate to outcomes within countries, what might we expect in terms of the general trends
across countries when measures of emotion feelings are correlated with workplace outcomes?
For positive emotion feelings, albeit measured primarily as dimensions, past theory has predicted
and empirical data have shown that they are positively related to the outcomes of job satisfaction,
task performance, and OCB but negatively related to CWB. Although a thorough review of the
relevant theory and data are beyond the scope of this article, several kinds of dynamic connec-
tions between affect, cognition, and behavior have been demonstrated in past research, which
account for these findings. For example, it has been shown that PA fosters the adoption of more
challenging goals (George & Brief, 1996), and sequences of PA are associated with increased
job satisfaction (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). The converse has been theorized and observed
for negative emotion feelings (e.g., Brief & Weiss, 2002; Lyubomirsky et al., 2005; Spector &
Fox, 2005). For example, NA impairs interpersonal relationships (Staw, Sutton, & Pelled, 1994).
Based on past research we expect that relationships between both discrete emotion feelings and
general dimensions will follow the same patterns across countries. Although, for example, the
correlations between joy and pride with outcomes may differ within each country’s data, as pre-
dicted by H2, both are expected to have positive relationships with outcomes like job satisfaction.
These considerations lead to our fourth hypothesis.
H4: Positive emotion feelings, both discrete and dimensional, will correlate positively with
job satisfaction and OCB but negatively with CWB across samples from all three coun-
tries, whereas negative emotion feelings will have an opposite relationship pattern with
those three work outcome variables across samples from all three countries.
In only one sample drawn from Romania were we able to assess core task performance.
Consistent with the direction expressed in H4, we expect that positive emotional feelings will
positively correlate with core task performance, whereas negative emotional feelings relate to it
negatively.
THE NEED FOR A NEW MEASURE OF EMOTION FEELINGS
To provide data bearing on our hypotheses we decided to create a new measure, because we
viewed the scales we located in the literature as not fully consonant with our research goals.
The measure we designed, the STEM, provides scales for a diverse array of discrete emotion
feelings and general dimensions, permits measurement of parallel dispositions, and is designed
410 LEVINE ET AL.
specifically for the workplace. These features were viewed as critical to allow us to address our
research questions most fully.
The measurement model that guided our developmental efforts consisted first of the general
dimensions of positively and negatively valenced emotion feelings as have been prominent in
past factor analytic work (e.g., Stanley & Meyer, 2009). The second dimension often associated
with emotion is sometimes termed activation or potency (e.g., Watson, 2000). We incorporated
this dimension by using an extent scale in the measure to gauge the intensity of the feelings
experienced by respondents.
With the positive/negative dimension as a foundation our next consideration was what dis-
crete emotions to include. This is a daunting task given the literally thousands of emotion terms
presumably indicative of numerous emotional states (Whissell, 1989; C. M. Whissell, personal
communication, July 13, 2004). Our selections drew from a careful consideration of the sub-
stantial literature on emotion feelings, including research done in work settings and elsewhere
(Ahmed & Brathwaite, 2006; Barsade & O’Neil, 2004; Berkowitz & Harmon-Jones, 2004;
Cohen-Charash & Mueller, 2007; Csikszentmihalyi, 2000; Frederickson, 2003; Frederickson &
Losada, 2005; Frijda, Markam, Sato, & Wiers, 1995; Izard, 1994, 2009; Kitayama, Markus,
& Kurokawa, 2000; Lazarus, 1991; Mauro, Sato, & Tucker, 1992; Mesquita & Frijda, 1992;
Plutchik, 1989; Shaver, Schwartz, Kirson, & O’Conner, 1987; Shweder, Haidt, Horton, & Joseph,
2007; R. H. Smith & Kim, 2007; Spector, Dwyer, & Jex, 1988; Spielberger, 1979; Tangney,
Wagner & Gramzow, 1989; Van Katwyk, Fox, Spector, & Kelloway, 2000; Vecchio, 2000;
Watson, 2000; Watson et al., 1988; Watson & Clark, 1994/1999). Our choices were intended
to include an array of emotion feelings that sampled from both so-called basic and self-conscious
emotions (e.g., Izard, 2009), which we viewed as potential influences on workplace outcomes,
and as such could best serve the purpose of testing our hypotheses. For example, Frijda and
colleagues (1995) found that joy/happiness, sadness, anger, love/affection, and anxiety are
among discrete emotions reported as common across 12 countries in North America, Europe,
and Asia in their study. In addition, shame, guilt, and pride were found to exist across American,
Japanese, and Chinese cultures (Mauro et al., 1992) and to be informative for understanding
cross-cultural differences in affect research (Kitayama et al., 2000). Finally, evidence has also
been found to support the cross-cultural similarities and differences in envy, contentment/calm,
and attentiveness/interest (Buunk & Hupka, 1987; Cheang, 1993; Csikszentmihalyi, 2000; Izard,
1994; Kitayama et al., 2000; Silivia, 2008).
These considerations led to the selection of 10 emotions, 5 positive and 5 negative, that we
considered potentially relevant and important in work settings: affection, anger, anxiety, attentive-
ness, contentment, envy, guilt/shame, joy, pride, and sadness. We make no claim that our choices
are a comprehensive sample of emotion feelings. Rather we thought their inclusion would allow
measurement of an array of discrete emotion feelings and by combining these into scales of
positive and negative dimensions we could generate data that would allow strong tests of our
hypotheses. Following the influential work of Spielberger (1979) and Watson (2000), our mea-
surement model stipulated that for the general positive and negative dimensions and the discrete
scales, we would attempt to capture parallel dispositions, such that our measure would assess
states and traits.
There might be a question raised about our choice of joining guilt and shame in a single
scale. The decision, made in the first study in the United States, was based on the desire to bal-
ance between the number of positive and negative emotions, and on Lazarus’s (1991) discussion.
He declared, “Guilt and shame are usually treated as overlapping emotions. . . . Both are said
to involve thoughts or actions that violate a social prescription” (p. 240). In addition, Edelstein
and Shaver (2005) found that most English speakers and even dictionaries do not clearly distin-
guish between shame and guilt. Of interest, Mauro and colleagues (1992) showed that shame and
guilt are similar in terms of the components of cognitive appraisal (e.g., certainty, appropriate-
ness, and attention) across the United States, Japanese, and Chinese cultures. In addition, these
two emotions had a similar pattern of differences in the components of subjective experience
(e.g., activation, negativity), across the aforementioned cultures (Mauro et al., 1992). Although
we could not be entirely sure that the overlap between guilt and shame in Chinese and Romanian
cultures would be as high as that in the U.S. culture, for consistency’s sake the scale was carried
over as designed in the U.S. study to the other studies.
Three additional considerations were important in developing STEM. The first was whether
to contextualize the measure for the workplace. Past research in the personality domain sug-
gested the value of providing the workplace as a frame of reference (Bing, Whanger, Davison,
& Van Hook, 2004; Hunthausen, Truxillo, Bauer, & Hammer, 2003; Schmit, Ryan, Stierwalt, &
Powell, 1995). Work-specific items, as Johnson (1981) pointed out, can make self-presentation
easier, can provide all participants with the same frame-of-reference, and may reduce error vari-
ance and therefore increase validity. Although the value of establishing context has not been
definitively established in the domain of emotion feelings, past research has illustrated the impact
of emotion display rules at work and theoretical perspectives on the impact of organizational pres-
sures on the regulation of affect (Ashforth & Kreiner, 2002; Grandey, Tam, & Brauburger, 2002).
Moreover, affective reactions specifically centered at work seem to influence employees’ percep-
tion of their degree of fit with their organization, which in turn influence subsequent workplace
affect (Yu, 2009). These considerations led us to provide the work context as a frame in our mea-
sure. A significant aspect of our attempt to ground the emotion feelings in the work context was
the inclusion of work-based scenarios that were meant to suggest some possible events that could
be associated with an emotion feeling. Moreover, these scenarios were not confined to situations
of an individualistically oriented nature. Rather, a number of scenarios were included that dealt
with teams and coworkers. It was hoped that these could permit the use of the measure in both
individualistic and collectivist cultures.
The second consideration was the scaling approach. Virtually all of the extant measures of
emotion feelings we found relied on Likert scales (e.g., PANAS, Watson et al., 1988; Berenbaum,
2002; Scollon, Diener, Oishi, & Biswas-Diener, 2004). When these measures are related to vari-
ables like job satisfaction, which are also typically measured using a Likert-type scale, the
possibility of mono-method bias arises, suggesting that correlations may be in part artifacts
of common measurement modalities. Although controversial (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, &
Podsakoff, 2003; Spector, 2006), it seems appropriate to lessen the probability that mono-method
bias may inflate relationships between a measure of affect and its assumed outcomes. We chose
therefore to rely on a Thurstone scaling approach where scales of emotion feelings were defined
and carefully marked with anchors; their placement on the scales was governed by the ratings
provided by Whissell (1989; C. M. Whissell, personal communication, July 13, 2004) reflecting
levels of intensity of the emotion feeling experienced by the respondent.
One final consideration was the expectation that emotion feelings are often experienced as
complexes of various, related emotions (e.g., Lazarus, 1991). Although we could not expect
to eliminate this potential confound, we attempted to control it somewhat by including in
412 LEVINE ET AL.
STEM’s instructions the following phrase: “Emotions often occur together so each should be
rated independently and without concern for the other ones you may have felt.”
In sum, the measurement model guiding the development of STEM consisted of four separate
dimensions—state PA, state NA, trait PA, and trait NA—from which stem 10 scales correspond-
ing to the 10 discrete emotion feelings, 5 positive and 5 negative, for states and 10 more for
parallel traits. STEM, including the English version, the Mandarin version, and the Romanian
version, was constructed based on a Thurstone scaling approach analogous to the creation of
Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales (P. C. Smith & Kendall, 1963) and was centered in the
context of the workplace.
As a prelude to tests of our hypotheses on the affect–job outcome relationships, the reliability
and validity of STEM are investigated in each of our three studies. Validity evidence consistent
with accepted kinds listed in the Standards for Educational and Psychological Tests (American
Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & the National Council
on Measurement in Education, 1999) is provided to establish that STEM is suitable for test-
ing our hypotheses. For example, Watson and Clark’s (1994/1999) PANAS-X, Spielberger’s
(1979) State-Trait Personality Inventory (STPI), and a few other cognate scales corresponding to
emotions measured in STEM were included in the survey of all samples in our research in order
to gather evidence for STEM’s convergent validity. Thus in addition to providing data relevant to
the key research questions we investigated, the studies provide data on the psychometric quality
of an instrument that may be useful for emotions researchers, including those who study emotion
feelings across nations.
STUDY 1: EMOTION FEELINGS AND OUTCOMES IN A U.S. SAMPLE
The first study involved assessing the relationship of emotion feelings with job satisfaction and
two facets of performance—OCB and CWB via a survey. To assess emotion feelings, both dis-
crete and dimensional, the original version of STEM was created. A pilot study, described in the
Method section, was conducted to check the survey questionnaire’s soundness and provide an
initial reading on two of our hypotheses. Presentation of the results begins with data bearing on
the validity of STEM, followed by initial tests of three of our four hypotheses, which are tested
again in the following studies.
Method
Participants
Surveys were completed by 142 randomly selected faculty and staff at a large southeastern
university. Invitations were sent via e-mail to 1,000 faculty and staff, of whom approximately
205 accessed the survey. An additional 200 were sent via hard copy. Using 405 as our base, the
response rate overall was 35%. Of those reporting demographic information, 33% were male and
ranged in age from 22 to 68, with an average of 47. Almost all (97%) worked full time, and 56%
were faculty, whereas 44% held staff positions.
Measures
STEM. The newly constructed scale consists of five positive and five negative emotions:
affection, anger, anxiety, attentiveness/energy, contentment, envy, guilt/shame, joy, pride, and
sadness. Each emotion feeling was carefully defined based on numerous sources (e.g., Lazarus,
1991), and several instances drawn from the work setting were provided as potential situations
within which the emotion feelings might arise. Respondents were asked to provide the extent
to which they experienced each emotion feeling, both at a particular time (State) and generally
(Trait) on a 10-point scale, which included scaled anchors placed along the scale to illustrate
levels of intensity from low to high. For an example of the scale for “joy,” please refer to Table
A1 in the appendix. Higher order emotion feelings were measured by summing the positive and
negative emotions, respectively, for state and trait indicators. The Cronbach’s alpha reliabilities
for these summed scales were .83 (state) and .86 (trait) for the five positive emotions and .63
(state) and .65 (trait) for the five negative emotions.
PANAS-X. Developed by Watson and Clark (1994/1999), PANAS-X showed test–retest

reliability, convergent and discriminant validity for both the lower order scales (i.e., specific
moods) and higher order scales (i.e., PA and NA). We chose only those items, 43 in all, of the
lower order mood terms grouped into their specific mood scales (i.e., fear, hostility, guilt, sad-
ness, joviality, attentiveness, and serenity), which corresponded to the respective scales in STEM.
In addition to these specific affective experiences the items selected allowed for measurement of
PA and NA included in the earlier PANAS scale. Participants were asked to indicate on a 1-to-
5 Likert scale, ranging 1 (very slightly or not at all) to 5 (extremely), the extent that they felt this
mood during the past few weeks. In the present study, the coefficient alpha was .90 for PANAS-X
PA and .83 for NA.
Pride, envy, and liking scales. To obtain evidence on convergent validity for the pride,
envy, and affection items in STEM, established measures on each of these three emotions were
included. The five items for pride were selected from the Management of Pride State (E. Ahmed
& J. Brathwaite, personal communication, November 10, 2004) with the coefficient alpha of
.81 for state pride and .82 for trait pride.
The five envy items were obtained from Vecchio’s (2000) measure of employee envy, which
was based on previous research by Mathes (1992), and Hupka and Bachelor (1979). The alphas
of this scale were .77 (state) and .78 (trait) for the present study.
The liking scale used in this survey includes two items from Jehn (1995) and three items from
Liden and Maslyn’s LMX scale (1998) to measure liking toward both coworkers and supervisors.
Coefficient alphas were found to be .85 (state) and .85 (trait).
All items on pride, envy, and liking were rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (def-
initely not true of me) to 5 (extremely true of me). Participants were asked to indicate how the
statement describes them both in general (trait) and during the most recent day of work (state).
A sample item for pride is “feel good about myself,” for envy is “most of my coworkers have it
better than I do,” and for liking is “I generally like the other members of my work unit.”
STPI. The STPI was developed by Spielberger (1979) and includes 80 items on state and
trait anger, anxiety, depression, and curiosity. All items were employed except for the 20-item
curiosity dimension to assess convergent validity for the STEM items of anger, anxiety, and
414 LEVINE ET AL.
sadness, respectively. State items were rated on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all)
to 4 (very much so). A sample item for the anxiety dimension is “I feel calm.” All trait items were
also rated on a 4-point Likert scale, ranging 1 (almost never) to 4 (almost always). A sample item
for the anxiety dimension is “I am a steady person.” The alpha coefficients in our study were
.89, .88, and .90 for state anxiety, anger, and depression, and they are .81, .75, and .90 for trait
anxiety, anger, and depression, respectively.
Criterion variables. To test the relationships between the emotion feelings, both general
and discrete, and outcomes, three outcome measures were employed. First, Spector’s (1985) Job
Satisfaction Survey was used, which assesses satisfaction with nine work facets using four items
for each. Internal consistencies ranged from .60 to .91 for the facets based on a sample of 2,870
(Spector, 2001). All items were rated on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (disagree very
much) to 6 (agree very much). A sample item is “I feel I am being paid a fair amount for the work
I do.”
Second, Van Dyne and LePine’s (1998) 13-item measure of OCB (α = .90) was employed,
which includes 7 items on helping (α = .83) and 6 items on voice behavior (α = .93). Participants
indicated how much they agree with the items on a scale ranging 1 (strongly disagree) to 7
(strongly agree). Third, Bennett and Robinson’s (2000) 19-item measure of CWB (α = .73) was
used, including 12 items for CWB toward individuals (CWBI; α = .70) and 7 items for CWB
toward the organization (CWBO; α = .64), in which participants were asked to rate on a fre-
quency scale from 1 (never) to 5 (every day) how often they engage in specific, undesirable
behaviors. Sample items are “Taken property from work without permission” for CWBO and
“Made fun of someone at work” for CWBI.
Procedure
Invitations were sent via hard copy through internal mail or via the Web to randomly selected
employees. Questionnaires containing all measures, with the outcome variables toward the end
of the questionnaire and STEM at the beginning, were completed voluntarily and anonymously.
Responses to the Web-based survey were entered into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet file, whereas
hard copy responses were coded in exactly the same fashion and added to the database. The
research design, being cross-sectional in nature, does not of course permit any conclusions about
whether the emotion feelings are antecedents of the variables designated as outcomes.
Pilot Study
As a standard procedure for survey research (e.g., Cascio & Aguinis, 2005; McIntire & Miller,
2007), we conducted a pilot study to check the soundness of the questionnaire containing all
the measures and to obtain some preliminary data bearing on our hypotheses. Participants were
98 undergraduate psychology students whose mean age was 22 years, 95% of whom were work-
ing an average of 26 hr per week. We found that the questionnaire was understandable and easy to
use. Of interest in terms of results were correlations between discrete emotion states and disposi-
tions, on one hand, and measures of OCB and CWB, on the other. Sixteen of the 20 correlations
between discrete positive emotional states and dispositions and the voice and helping scales
were positive and significant. The highest correlations observed were between pride and voice
(r = .33 and .40, p < .01, for state and trait pride, respectively). Although correlations between
negative emotions and CWB were all in the positive direction, only 8 of the 20 possible links
reached significance. Of these the highest were the correlations between anger and CWB toward
individuals (r = .33 and .44, p < .01, for state and trait anger, respectively). Perhaps as informa-
tive as the overall trends in the results is the observation that there were clear differences among
the discrete emotions in the degree of their relationships with the criteria. For example, the rela-
tionship between joy (trait) and OCB-V was .17 (ns) compared to .40 for pride (trait). Even larger
differences were observed among the negative emotions. For example, the relationship between
sadness (state) and CWBI was –.06 as compared with .33 for anger (state). These data provide
initial albeit tentative support for the value of considering the potential differential effects of dis-
crete emotional experiences and for the predicted direction of the relationships between emotion
feelings and outcomes (H2 and H4).
Results
Validity of STEM
Three sources of evidence recognized by the Standards for Educational and Psychological
Tests (American Educational Research Association et al., 1999) were used to assess the validity of
STEM—evidence from content, evidence from the internal structure of the test, and relationships
with other variables. In terms of content evidence, the careful definition of the domain for each
emotion feeling, including the scenarios to help establish a frame of reference, and the anchors
chosen to belong to the emotion feeling and to illustrate levels of intensity suggested a high level
of coverage of the domain of each emotion feeling.
Table 1 provides the descriptive statistics for the STEM summary scores, including scales for
both higher order affect and the specific emotions. Table 2 contains the intercorrelations among
the dimensional scales. These show positive correlations between corresponding state and trait
measures and negative correlations between positive and negative scales as would be expected
(cf. Watson, 2000).
Another test of STEM’s internal structure was based on evidence concerning the presumed
measurement model. We proposed that STEM’s measurement model at the aggregated level com-
prises four factors—PA (trait), PA (state), NA (trait), and NA (state). Whereas a close link was
found between state and trait scales (e.g., the correlations in Table 2), tests using confirmatory fac-
tor analysis with AMOS 4.0 (Arbuckle & Wothke, 1999) demonstrated that the four-factor model
fits the data, χ 2 /df = 1.73, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .07, normed
fit index (NFI) = .86, comparative fit index (CFI) = .94, significantly better than a two-factor
model (only general positive affect and negative affect specified), χ 2 /df = 2.99, RMSEA = .12,
NFI = .75, CFI = .82. However, this is a tentative conclusion considering the small sample size.
Internal Consistency of STEM and Its Relation to Cognate Scales
As mentioned in the Method section, the coefficient alphas were .83 (state) and .86 (trait)
for the aggregate of five positive emotions and .63 (state) and .65 (trait) for the aggregate of
five negative emotions (see Table 2). These coefficients suggest that responses to the items on
negative emotions appeared to be more varied and less interrelated than the positive emotions.
416 LEVINE ET AL.
TABLE 1
Descriptive Statistics for State-Trait Emotion Measure (STEM): U.S. Sample
Scale N M SD
STEM-PA (state) 136 29.83 9.23

STEM-PA (trait) 139 31.23 8.53
STEM-NA (state) 140 11.95 5.76
STEM-NA (trait) 140 10.97 4.65
Joy (state) 141 5.86 2.514
Joy (trait) 141 6.57 1.871
Anxiety (state) 142 3.38 2.162

Anxiety (trait) 140 3.04 1.785
Pride (state) 140 6.08 2.306
Pride (trait) 141 6.29 2.105
Sadness (state) 140 2.27 1.986
Sadness (trait) 142 2.05 1.444
Attentiveness (state) 140 6.65 2.069
Attentiveness (trait) 142 6.84 1.831
Anger (state) 141 3.05 2.160
Anger (trait) 142 2.62 1.682
Affection (state) 138 5.37 2.410
Affection (trait) 140 5.41 2.391
Envy (state) 142 1.81 1.330
Envy (trait) 142 1.84 1.199
Contentment (state) 142 5.87 2.637
Contentment (trait) 142 6.24 2.415
Guilt/Shame (state) 142 1.43 1.132
Guilt/Shame (trait) 142 1.40 .870
Note. N = 142. PA = positive affect; NA = negative affect.
TABLE 2
Intercorrelations Among Higher Order Dimensions in State-Trait
Emotion Measure (STEM): U.S. Sample
1 2 3 4
1. STEM-PA (state) .83

2. STEM-PA (trait) .79∗ .86
3. STEM-NA (state) −.35∗ −.24∗ .63
4. STEM-NA (trait) −.36∗ −.37∗ .65∗ .65
Note. N = 142; the numbers in the diagonal are the reliability of each subscale.
PA = positive affect; NA = negative affect.
∗ p < .01.
With a purpose of establishing convergent validity, the dimensional and discrete scales of STEM
were correlated with cognate scales of the PANAS-X; STPI; and the scales of pride, envy, and
liking. Results showed a high degree of convergence in the expected directions. For example
STEM’s joy (trait) correlated at .64 (p < .01) with PANAS-X Joviality, whereas STEM’s Anger
(trait) correlated at .69 (p < .01) with PANAS-X Hostility. STEM’s Anxiety (trait) correlated .55
TABLE 3
Correlations Between Criteria and Higher Order Dimensions in State-Trait Emotion Measure
(STEM): U.S. Sample
OCB OCB OCB CWB CWB CWB Job Sat

Scales Total Helping Voice Total Ind. Org. Overall
STEM-NA (Trait) −.20∗ −.21∗ −.07 −.29∗∗ .20∗ .24∗∗ −.34∗∗

STEM-NA (State) −.20∗ −.17 −.13 .16 .18∗ .09∗∗ −.28∗∗
STEM-PA (Trait) .39∗∗ .30∗∗ .32∗∗ −.22∗ −.07 −.24∗∗ .61∗∗
STEM-PA (State) .32∗∗ .30∗∗ .23∗∗ −.19∗ −.15 −.14∗∗ .57∗∗
Note. N = 142. OCB = organizational citizenship behavior; CWB = counterproductive work behavior; Ind. = indi-
vidual; Org. = organization; Sat = satisfaction; NA = negative affect; PA = positive affect.
∗ p < .05. ∗∗ p < .01.
(p < .01) with STPI Anxiety, and STEM’s pride correlated .56 with the pride scale. These results
suggested that the STEM scales were sufficiently valid to allow tests of our hypotheses.
Tests of Hypotheses
These hypotheses focus on the relationships among STEM scales and the criteria. As predicted
by H4, data from Table 3 show that all positive and negative dimensional scores (state and trait)
correlated with the criteria in the predicted direction. Positive affectivity relates positively to job
satisfaction and OCB, but negatively to CWB, and conversely for negative affectivity. Of the
28 possible correlations (four dimensions of STEM against seven criterion measures), 20 are sig-
nificant. In addition, the correlations between discrete emotions and the criteria in (Tables 4 and 5)
indicate that the positive emotions and corresponding dispositions generally correlate positively
with job satisfaction and OCB but negatively with CWB. The negative emotions and correspond-
ing dispositions generally correlate negatively with job satisfaction and OCB but positively with
CWB. The data in Tables 4 and 5 provide further support for H4 in terms of the discrete emotions.
TABLE 4
Correlations Between Criteria and State Emotions in State-Trait Emotion Measure (STEM): U.S. Sample
Scales OCB Total OCB Helping OCB Voice CWB Total CWB Ind. CWB Org. Job Sat Overall
Affection .21∗ .15 .20∗ −.08 −.10 −.05 .44∗∗

Attentive .22∗ .29∗∗ .12 −.17 −.09 −.18 .27∗∗
Contentment .33∗∗ .28∗∗ .25∗∗ −.08 −.02 −.06 .53∗∗
Joy .27∗∗ .29∗∗ .15 −.15 −.16 −.08 .41∗∗
Pride .21∗ .16 .18 −.24∗∗ −.17 −.19∗ .51∗∗
Anger −.04 −.03 .00 .10 .21∗ −.02 −.24∗
Anxiety −.18 −.23∗ −.07 .18 .12 .15 −.13
Envy −.26∗∗ −.17 −.24∗∗ .19∗ .02 .25∗∗ −.24∗
Guilt/Shame .02 .05 −.01 .14 .19∗ .07 −.11
Sadness −.17 −.13 −.11 −.02 .05 −.09 −.20∗
vidual; Org. = organization; Sat = satisfaction.
∗ p < .05. ∗∗ p < .01.
418 LEVINE ET AL.
TABLE 5
Correlations Among Criteria and General Emotions in State-Trait Emotion Measure (STEM): U.S. Sample
Scales OCB Total OCB Helping OCB Voice CWB Total CWB Ind. CWB Org. Job Sat Overall
Affection .25∗∗ .20∗ .22∗ −.15 −.08 −.16 .45∗∗

Attentive .34∗∗ .27∗∗ .29∗∗ −.27∗∗ −.03 −.35∗∗ .34∗∗
Contentment .33∗∗ .26∗∗ .27∗∗ −.05 .05 −.08 .60∗∗
Joy .36∗∗ .32∗∗ .25∗∗ −.19∗ −.14 −.16 .51∗∗
Pride .34∗∗ .22∗ .32∗∗ −.27 −.07 −.30∗∗ .56∗∗
Anger −.05 −.07 .04 .23∗∗ .19∗ .17 −.38∗∗
−.12 −.14 −.03 .23∗ −.25∗∗
Anxiety .17 .16

Envy −.34∗∗ −.30∗∗ −.25∗∗ .25∗∗ .06 .30∗∗ −.18
Guilt/Shame .03 .02 .04 .20∗ .22∗ .15 −.03
Sadness −.16 −.17 −.05 .07 .02 .04 −.16
vidual; Org. = organization; Sat = satisfaction.
∗ p < .05. ∗∗ p < .01.
H2 predicts that there will be differences in how the discrete emotions relate to the selected
outcomes. This may be evaluated by looking across outcomes for each emotion feeling and across
emotion feelings for each outcome. As Tables 4 and 5 illustrate, differences arise in both direc-
tions for discrete emotion feelings. A surprising finding is that Envy shows the most consistent
pattern of significant relationships across all outcomes, whereas the negative emotions of anxiety
and anger are not as strongly related. As for the positive emotions there is less differentiation
among them in their relationships with outcomes.
We turn now to H1, which poses perhaps the acid test for the utility of measures of discrete
emotions, namely, whether they provide incremental validity for the prediction of the criteria
beyond the aggregated dimensions of positive and negative affectivity. A rigorous test was con-
ducted using hierarchical multiple regression, controlling for age, gender, job category (staff or
faculty), and job tenure in months. The analysis was confined to trait variables, because crite-
rion variables are intended to reflect performance over time. After entering the control variables
in Step 1, general PA or NA was entered in Step 2. PA and NA were represented by the sum
of the five positive or five negative emotions minus the one emotion in question. For example,
if the incremental validity of joy was examined, general positive affect is the sum of affection,
attentiveness, contentment, and pride. Significant results of the regression analyses provide some
support for the incremental validity of the discrete emotions above and beyond general affect.
This approach seemed to us the best way to test for incremental validity. Had we employed
another scale like the PANAS to represent general dimensions, the differences in measure-
ment models and scaling approaches might confound the analysis. To have included the target
emotion in the composite would have reduced the independence of the composite from the
target.
What did we find? First, pride as felt generally at work significantly predicted CWB over
the demographics and general PA (R2 = .03). Similar results were found for attentiveness
(R2 = .04) and contentment (R2 = .04). Second, pride added to the prediction of job
satisfaction over general affect (R2 = .04) and so did contentment (R2 = .06). When it
comes to negative emotions, envy significantly contributed to CWB (R2 = .03) and OCB
(R2 = .07) over general NA. The data provide at least partial support for H1.
Discussion
Based on three sources of evidence, the STEM scale was deemed sufficiently reliable and
valid to test our hypotheses. Reliability of the dimensional scales attained satisfactory levels
(cf. Nunnally, 1978). Although reliabilities could not be estimated for the discrete scales, a
meta-analytic study by Wanous, Reichers, and Hudy (1997) found that for the related concept of
job satisfaction one-item measures could attain satisfactory levels of minimum reliability. That
the items in STEM are arguably more comprehensively and carefully constructed than those of
many one-item measures suggests that they should be sufficiently reliable. Evidence for validity
based on STEM’s content, the internal structure of its scales, and their correlations with cognate
measures was also generally positive.
Data bearing on the incremental validity of discrete emotions over and above the general
affective dimensions (H1) yielded several positive outcomes. Pride, contentment, attentiveness,
and envy all added incrementally to the prediction of one or another of the criteria. H2 and H4 also
were generally supported. We found variations in the levels of association among the discrete
emotions and the outcomes. Of particular note was the relatively consistent impact of envy. The
directions of relationships as predicted by H4 were also observed for both the dimensional and
discrete emotion feelings. Positive emotion feelings were generally associated positively with
OCB and job satisfaction but negatively with CWB, whereas the converse was found for the
negative emotions.
Limitations included a small sample size, the use of a single organization, a cross-sectional
design, and reliance on self-report for our criterion measures. Studies 2 and 3 were planned and
conducted in order to address these limitations and to offer additional data bearing particularly
on H1 (incremental validity of discrete emotions).
STUDY 2: PREDICTING OUTCOMES WITH STEM IN CHINA
We sought to extend evidence bearing on our four hypotheses and secondarily on the validity of
STEM gathered in Study 1 by replicating its design in a very different cultural environment—
China—and drawing a larger sample of respondents from a larger set of organizations. Regarding
our key measure, we attempted to maintain its validity for testing our hypotheses and to attain
some degree of measurement equivalence by extreme care in translating and adapting the scale
to the Chinese work context and selecting a new set of anchors for each of the 10 emotions,
thereby rescaling the items rather than simply using a straight translation. Given linguistic and
cultural differences, we viewed this as a better means of maintaining measurement equivalence.
Past efforts (e.g., PANAS and the State Trait Anxiety Inventory [STAI]; Cheung, 2004; Huang,
Yang, & Li, 2003; Zhang, Jing, & Schick, 2004) provide successful examples of developing and
validating in China measures of affect originating from the United States. As in Study 1 we begin
the presentation of results with evidence for the validity of the Mandarin STEM and then provide
data bearing on our hypotheses.
420 LEVINE ET AL.
Method
Participants
A total of 345 individuals (response rate = 72%) completed the online survey, of whom
44% were male with ages ranging from 19 to 50 (M = 29). Almost all participants worked
full time (97%), and they had worked for their current organizations for an average of 42 months.
Participants were employed in a variety of organizations and held jobs in human resources (42%),
managerial positions (20%), and “other” (e.g., salesperson, secretary, and researcher).
Measures
STEM (Mandarin). The measurement model and scaling approach used in the United States
was followed in constructing the Mandarin version of STEM. For each emotion measured by
STEM (English), potential anchors for the rating scales were first selected from Whissell’s (per-
sonal communication, July 13, 2004) Dictionary by two of the authors who are fluent in both
English and Chinese, and then translated into Chinese and back-translated into English by bilin-
gual researchers from Mainland and Hong Kong of China. Twenty subject matter experts (SMEs)
including five psychotherapists and 15 Ph.D. or M.A. candidates from the School of Psychology
at Beijing Normal University were invited to do the sorting and rating. First, definitions of the dis-
crete emotions were presented. Second, the SMEs were asked to categorize the potential anchors
into each emotion and into only one emotion.
Next, only potential anchors that had an inter-SME agreement of above 0.85 were retained.
The SMEs were then sent the list of surviving anchors categorized under each emotion and were
asked to rate the intensity of emotion for each anchor. The final set of anchors was chosen accord-
ingly. The examples from the English STEM were also translated and back-translated by bilingual
researchers, sorted, and revised by the same group of SMEs using the same procedure. The orig-
inal scenarios were viewed as appropriate for the Chinese context and so were not changed as
a means of maintaining measurement equivalence. One item from STEM (Mandarin), Joy, is
shown in Table B1 of the appendix.
Once the Mandarin version of STEM was created, the authors looked for existing Chinese
counterparts of the other measures used in the U.S. validation study. If the Chinese version of
a measure could not be located, other available Chinese measures of the same construct were
examined. In cases where similar Chinese measures could not be identified, the English version
was then submitted to the process of translation and back-translation (Van De Vijver & Leung,
1997).
Cognate scales. Forty-three items of the PANAS-X (Watson & Clark, 1994/1999) were
translated into Mandarin (and back-translated) with a 5-point Likert scale. Cronbach’s alphas for
all dimensions were at or above .86. Translation and back-translation were also performed for
pride (5 items; Ahmed & Braithwaite, 2006), envy (5 items; Vecchio, 2000), and liking (5 items;
Jehn, 1995; Liden & Maslyn, 1998). Cronbach’s alphas ranged from .83 to .91 in this study (more
details in Table 6).
The 40-item revised Chinese version of the STAI (Ye, 1988) was adopted for the current study.
Respondents were asked to respond on a Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly
TABLE 6
Descriptive Statistics and Reliability for Key Variables (Mandarin Translation)
Scale Mean (SD) Reliability Scale Mean (SD) Reliability
STEM-PA (state) 21.64 (8.67) 0.85 PANASX_NA 20.27 (7.32) .88

STEM-PA (trait) 23.16 (8.64) 0.87 PANASX_PA 22.48 (6.03) .86
STEM-NA (state) 17.28 (6.74) 0.68 STAXI_anger (state) 13.97 (6.20) .94
STEM-NA (trait) 16.06 (6.50) 0.7 STAXI_anger (trait) 19.34 (5.56) .85
Joy (state) 3.96 (2.16) NA STAI_anxiety(state) 45.56 (10.65) .92
Joy (trait) 4.35 (1.99) NA STAI_anxiety (trait) 46.77 (8.96) .86
Anxiety (state) 4.40 (2.31) NA Envy (trait) 8.97 (4.14) .86

Anxiety (trait) 3.86 (2.14) NA Envy (state) 9.30 (4.20) .83
Pride (state) 4.19 (2.28) NA Liking (trait) 13.17 (4.41) .86
Pride (trait) 4.45 (2.23) NA Liking (state) 13.05 (4.33) .83
Sadness (state) 3.41 (1.87) NA Pride (trait) 14.25 (4.80) .91
Sadness (trait) 3.18 (1.82) NA Pride (state) 14.86 (4.79) .89
Attentiveness (state) 5.52 (2.45) NA Satisfaction with:
Attentiveness (trait) 5.84 (2.32) NA supervisor 17.06 (4.36) .86
Anger (state) 3.37 (1.99) NA coworker 15.42 (3.55) .90
Anger (trait) 3.04 (1.82) NA personal development 17.75 (5.25) .93
Affection (state) 3.99 (1.94) NA promotion 12.22 (4.29) .94
Affection (trait) 4.21 (1.96) NA social recognition 10.07 (3.04) .88
Envy (state) 3.42 (1.98) NA income (benefits and salary) 9.62 (2.89) .76
Envy (trait) 3.47 (1.92) NA communication 14.49 (3.59) .88
Contentment (state) 3.99 (2.13) NA overall job satisfaction 96.64 (21.49) .96
Contentment (trait) 4.30 (2.18) NA OCBI 37.26 (7.15) .89
Guilt/Shame (state) 2.68 (2.02) NA OCBO 30.48 (5.82) .86
Guilt/Shame (trait) 2.51 (1.95) NA OCB_total 67.70 (12.45) .93
CWBI 12.23 (5.95) .84
CWBO 21.11 (9.60) .87
CWB-total 33.34 (14.14) .91
Note. N = 345. STEM = State-Trait Emotion Measure; PA = positive affect; NA = negative affect;
PANASX = Positive and Negative Affect Schedule X; STAXI = State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory; STAI = State
Trait Anxiety Inventory; OCB = organizational citizenship behavior; I = individuals; O = organization; CWB = coun-
terproductive work behavior.
agree). In Chinese samples, this measure was shown to have test–retest reliability ranging from
.36 to .78 and to have adequate convergent validity with its cognate measures, with correlations
varying from .58 to .79 (Spielberger, 1983; Ye, 1988). The Cronbach’s alpha was .91 for state
anxiety and .86 for trait anxiety in our study. In addition, the Mandarin version of the State-
Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI; Lam, 1999; Spielberger, Sydeman, Owen, & Marsh,
1999) was used to measure state anger (10 items, α = .96 in the current sample) and trait anger
(10 items, α = .85 in the current sample). Minor modifications were made to render the items
appropriate for respondents in mainland China. Participants were instructed to respond on 4-point
Likert scales.
Criterion measures. Three self-reported measures of OCB, CWB, and job satisfaction
were included. The OCB items were from Farh, Zhong, and Organ’s (2004) People’s Republic
of China Organizational Citizenship Behaviors scale, including 13 items on interpersonal OCB
422 LEVINE ET AL.
(OCBI; α = .89) and 8 items on organizational OCB (OCBO; α = .86) with a 5-point Likert
scale. CWB was assessed using translated and back-translated items from Bennett and Robinson
(2000) with 12 items on CWBI (α = .84) and 7 items on CWBO (α = .87). Participants rated
on a frequency scale from 1 (never) to 7 (every day) to indicate how often they engage in certain
behaviors.
Job satisfaction was measured with a Chinese scale developed from the Minnesota Satisfaction
Questionnaire (C. S. Huang, 2004). This scale uses a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly dis-
agree) to 5 (strongly agree) and contains 44 items with 11 dimensions. To be as equivalent as
possible to the dimensions of the U.S. job satisfaction measure (Spector, 1985), we chose seven
dimensions from this scale: satisfaction with the supervisor (5 items), coworker (4 items), per-
sonal development (5 items), promotion (4 items), communication (4 items), social recognition
(3 items), and income (including pay and benefits, 3 items). Cronbach’s alpha for the subscales
ranged from .80 to .93 in Huang’s (2004) study and from .76 to .94 in the current sample.
Procedure
Invitations to participate in the online survey were posted on the Website of China Human
Resources Development Network Corporation that hosted the survey. Those who voluntarily
chose to participate completed online the questionnaire containing the measures previously
described. Basic background information about the participants such as age, gender, tenure, and
job title was collected as well. Anonymity was assured via replacing all e-mails with ID numbers
by the only technician who accessed the original dataset. Outcome measures appeared toward the
end of the questionnaire, whereas the STEM was placed first.
Results
Validity of the Mandarin Version of STEM
Table 6 provides the descriptive statistics of the higher order affect and the specific emotions
as well as all other scales used in the validation of the Chinese STEM. It also shows the internal
reliabilities of all the scales, which range from .68 to .96. “N/A” in the table denotes the single-
item scales for STEM’s discrete emotions or affective dispositions. The Cronbach’s alphas for
the aggregated scales in STEM are comparable but a bit higher than those found in the U.S. study,
with PA state and trait at .85 and .86, respectively, whereas NA state and trait values are .68 and
.70, respectively.
Evidence from content is strong in terms of careful definition of the domain, inclusion of
scenarios to establish a work frame of reference, and the scaling of anchors. In terms of inter-
nal structure, despite high correlations observed between the state and trait scales in STEM
(PA = .81, NA = .78) calling to question the proposed four-factor as opposed to a two-factor
measurement model, the four-dimension (i.e., PA state, PA trait, NA state, and NA trait) model of
STEM demonstrated significantly better fit indices (e.g., χ 2 /df = 2, RMSEA = .07, NFI = .97,
CFI = .99) than the two-dimension (i.e., PA and NA) model (e.g., χ 2 /df = 3.97, RMSEA = .11,
NFI = .94, CFI = .95). AMOS 4.0 (Arbuckle & Wothke, 1999) was used for the analysis.
We computed correlations between all of STEM’s scales against established scales of corre-
sponding constructs. In all cases correlations were positive and significant, providing evidence
supporting convergent validity for STEM in terms of its relationships with other variables. For
example, aggregated PA and NA (trait) scales correlated with those of PANAS-X at .50 and 34
(p < .01 for both), respectively. STEM’s joy correlated with the PANAS-X scale of joviality at
.51 and .27 (p < .01). Anxiety and anger as measured by STEM related significantly to anxiety
from STAI (state, r = .49, p < .01; trait, r = .41, p < .01) and anger from STAXI, respectively
(state, r = .50, p < .01; trait, r = .30, p < .01). Pride measured by STEM associated significantly
with the pride scale (state, r = .55, p < .01; trait, r = .48, p < .01). All told, Mandarin STEM
demonstrated a sufficient level of validity to proceed with tests of our hypotheses.
Tests of Hypotheses
H2 and H4. These hypotheses address relationships between STEM’s scales and criterion
variables. As shown in Table 7 STEM’s state and trait PA correlate positively and significantly
with aggregated job satisfaction, whereas STEM’s state and trait NA correlate negatively and sig-
nificantly with it. Discrete emotions and dispositions follow the same pattern as shown in Tables 8
and 9, with the exception of envy, for which the correlations (–.09 for both state and trait) are in
the predicted direction but not significant, and of guilt/shame, for which positive correlations of
.19 and .16 (state and trait; p < .01 for both) were observed. The range of correlations for the
positive discrete emotions and dispositions is .33 (attentiveness state) to .49 (joy state). The range
for negative emotions is –.09 (envy trait) to –.21 (sadness trait). These differences provide some
support for consideration of discrete emotions in addition to aggregate PA and NA.
H4 predicted that STEM’s positive scales will correlate positively with OCB but negatively
with CWB, whereas the converse is expected for STEM’s negative scales. Table 7, 8, and 9
contain the results for the aggregated scales and the discrete emotions. STEM PA (state and
trait) correlated significantly and positively with OCB but not with CWB. STEM NA (state and
trait) correlated significantly and positively with CWB but not with OCB. The positive discrete
emotions and dispositions all correlate positively and significantly with OCB (rs = .28–.42) but
not with CWB, except that attentiveness (trait) correlates negatively at –.12 (p < .05) with CWB
Total and –.17 (p < .01) with CWBO; attentiveness (state) correlates with CWBO at –.14 (p <
.05); both state and trait affection correlate with CWBI significantly (r = .12, p < .05 for both);
trait joy correlates with CWBI at .16 (p < .01). The correlations for joy and affection are opposite
TABLE 7
Correlations Between Criteria and Higher Order Dimensions in Mandarin State-Trait
Emotion Measure (STEM)

Scales Total Interpersonal Org. Total Ind. Org. Overall
STEM-PA (State) .44∗∗ .38∗∗ .44∗∗ .01 .10 −.05 .53∗∗

STEM-PA (Trait) .45∗∗ .40∗∗ .46∗∗ .01 .10 −.05 .50∗∗
STEM-NA (State) −.01 −.02 .01 .43∗∗ .37∗∗ .40∗∗ −.13∗
STEM-NA (Trait) −.02 .00 −.01 .39∗∗ .34∗∗ .37∗∗ −.14∗∗
vidual; Org. = organization; Sat = satisfaction; PA = positive affect; NA = negative affect.
∗ p < .05. ∗∗ p < .01.
424 LEVINE ET AL.
TABLE 8
Correlations Among Criteria and State Emotions in State-Trait Emotion Measure (STEM)
OCB OCB OCB CWB CWB CWB

Scales Total Interpersonal Org. Total Ind. Org. Job Sat Overall
Affection .37∗∗ .35∗∗ .35∗∗ .05 .12∗ −.01 .44∗∗

Attentive .34∗∗ .28∗∗ .37∗∗ −.09 .02 −.14∗ .33∗∗
Contentment .32∗∗ .29∗∗ .32∗∗ .06 .10 .03 .47∗∗
Joy .36∗∗ .32∗∗ .35∗∗ .04 .10 −.01 .49∗∗
Pride .34∗∗ .28∗∗ .37∗∗ −.01 .08 −.06 .41∗∗
−.04 −.06 −.03 .29∗∗ .27∗∗ .26∗∗ −.13∗
Anger
Anxiety −.09 −.12∗ −.04 .22∗∗ .17∗∗ .22∗∗ −.19∗∗
Envy .03 .03 .06 .29∗∗ .25∗∗ .27∗∗ −.09
Guilt/Shame .11 .11 .09 .33∗∗ .31∗∗ .29∗∗ .19∗∗
Sadness −.03 −.03 −.05 .31∗∗ .25∗∗ .30∗∗ −.19∗∗
Note. Total sample size ranged from 291 to 345. OCB = organizational citizenship behavior; CWB = counterpro-
ductive work behavior; Ind. = individual; Org. = organization; Sat = satisfaction.
∗ p < .05. ∗∗ p < .01.
TABLE 9
Correlations Among Criteria and Trait Emotions in State-Trait Emotion Measure (STEM)

Scales Total Interpersonal Org. Total Ind. Org. Overall
Affection .36∗∗ .33∗∗ .37∗∗ .06 .12∗ .02 .44∗∗

Attentive .37∗∗ .32∗∗ .40∗∗ −.12∗ −.01 −.17∗∗ .33∗∗
Contentment .33∗∗ .31∗∗ .32∗∗ .08 .10 .05 .42∗∗
Joy .42∗∗ .38∗∗ .41∗∗ .07 .16∗∗ .01 .44∗∗
Pride .34∗∗ .29∗∗ .38∗∗ −.02 .07 −.07 .39∗∗
Anger −.04 −.04 −.02 .28∗∗ .24∗∗ .26∗∗ −.17∗∗
Anxiety −.08 −.07 −.06 .23∗∗ .16∗ .23∗∗ −.18∗∗
Envy .03 .04 .03 .23∗∗ .24∗∗ .20∗∗ −.09
Guilt/Shame .10 .12∗ .09 .32∗∗ .32∗∗ .28∗∗ .16∗∗
Sadness −.06 −.04 −.09 .27∗∗ .21∗∗ .27∗∗ −.21∗∗
Note. Total sample size ranged from 291 to 345. OCB = organizational citizenship behavior; CWB = counterpro-
ductive work behavior; Ind. = individual; Org. = organization; Sat = satisfaction.
∗ p < .05. ∗∗ p < .01.
to expectations. Scales for the negative discrete emotions and dispositions all correlate positively
and significantly with CWB (rs = .16–.33), but only anxiety (state) correlates negatively with
OCBI (r = –.12, p < .05), and contrary to prediction guilt/shame correlates positively with
OCBI (r = .12, p < .05).
Taken together these findings provide partial support for H2 and H4. Generally, the pattern of
correlations is in the direction predicted, that is, positive emotion feelings, state and trait, correlate
positively with OCB and job satisfaction but negatively with CWB, whereas the converse was
found for negative emotion feelings. The reversals that were found for the discrete emotion scales
provide evidence partially supportive of H2. Notable among these was the anomalous positive
correlation of guilt/shame with OCBI. However, there seems to be more homogeneity among
correlations between negative emotions and CWB and positive emotions and OCB than was
apparent in the U.S. data.
H1. H1 predicts that discrete emotions and dispositions will add incremental variance to the
prediction of criteria over and above the general affective dimensions. Hierarchical regression
was conducted again with OCB total, CWB total, and job satisfaction aggregated as the dependent
variables, finding stronger evidence than that in the U.S. study. State emotions were also included
on an exploratory basis. All the negative emotions and all the positive emotions but pride added
incrementally to the prediction of one or another of the criteria. For example, both trait and state
guilt/shame had significant incremental validity in predicting CWB total, with R2 at .03 for
both situations. The incremental R2 s (with a median of .04 among significant R2 changes) of
discrete emotions in the Chinese sample were comparable to those in the U.S. sample (with a
median of .03 among significant R2 change). H1 therefore is strongly supported by these data.
Discussion of Results From China
Compared to Study 1, the China study employed a substantially larger sample from a variety of
organizations. It also provided a rigorous test of the generalizability of STEM’s reliability and
validity, where a translated version was evaluated in a markedly different culture. Findings sug-
gest that the emotion constructs incorporated into STEM, both state and trait, both aggregated and
discrete, carry over and generalize, although we hasten to add that future research must investi-
gate measurement equivalence. Insufficient sample sizes precluded this in the current research.
Nevertheless, support for STEM’s validity was on balance stronger in this study than in Study 1.
Evidence from content was supportive as was the consistent convergence observed between all
STEM scales and cognate scales. Furthermore, the four-factor measurement model underlying
STEM was also supported by data in this study.
Tests of hypotheses employing Mandarin STEM were generally supportive. Numerous
instances of the incremental variance provided by the discrete scales supported H1, whereas
the pattern of directionality of relationships provided some support for H4. The exceptions to
the pattern, on the other hand, provide some support for the differential effects of predicted by
H2, although there was relative homogeneity in correlations of positive discrete emotion feelings
with OCB and negative discrete emotion feelings with CWB. There also seemed to be a greater
degree of independence in the associations between emotion feelings and outcomes. The negative
emotions affect (or are affected by) CWB but not OCB or job satisfaction, whereas the converse
is true for positive emotions.
This study, however, is not without limitations and unresolved issues. In terms of the validity
of STEM, we must continue to investigate ways to differentiate better between state and trait
variables. Some of the convergent validity coefficients were also lower than expected. Cultural
factors that we did not measure may account for these findings.
As for the data on outcomes, the unexpected positive correlations between guilt/shame and
OCBI and job satisfaction in this sample also pose an interesting question. Following Fiske’s
(2004) argument about people’s interdependent selves in collectivistic culture, it may be that our
Chinese participants tend to harbor guilt when feeling satisfied and celebrating their own job
success over their colleagues (e.g., promotion, training opportunities). This kind of guilt/shame
426 LEVINE ET AL.
may then be offset through performing OCB toward colleagues, which could account for the
positive relationship between this emotion and OCBI.
Another unique finding in validating Chinese STEM is the positive association of affection
and joy with CWBI. The scatter plots of these emotion–CWBI relationships demonstrated that
outliers contributed to the significance of the correlations. The positive association of affection
and joy with CWBI was no longer statistically significant with outliers excluded.
Regarding STEM, one of two key gaps in Study 1 and 2 is the question of the stability of
STEM over time, which also speaks to the need for reliability estimation of the one-item scales
in STEM. The other one is the lack of a performance criterion other than self-report, which
would provide a more stringent test of H4. Study 3 conducted in Romania was an attempt to fill
these important gaps and to offer more data bearing on the question of the importance of discrete
emotion feelings in their relationships with outcomes.
STUDY 3: PREDICTING OUTCOMES WITH STEM IN ROMANIA
In the Romanian study, three separate samples, all quite different from those used in the previ-
ous two studies, were enrolled to investigate all hypotheses. Once again the first element in our
investigation was to establish the validity of the Romanian version of STEM followed by tests of
our hypotheses.
Method
Participants
Sample 1. Participants were 108 professional female basketball players whose ages ranged
from 14 to 35 (M = 19.4) and whose tenure as players ranged from 1 to 23 years (M = 8.5).
Tenure with their current teams ranged from 1 to 9 years (M = 2.8). Response rate for this
sample was 100%. Some data from this sample were reported on by Pitariu, Levine, Musat, and
Ispas (2006).
Sample 2. Participants were 105 bank employees, 85 of whom were women, whose ages
ranged from 25 to 59 (M = 41). Median tenure approximated 5 years, and 62% possessed at least
a bachelor’s degree. Response rate for this sample was 87.5%.
Sample 3. Participants were 51 employees (23 women) of a manufacturing organization,
whose ages ranged from 21 to 57 (M = 35). Response rate for this sample was 68%.
Procedure
Identical questionnaires containing the measures described next were administered in small
groups of between 5 and 10 players for Sample 1 and between 2 and 5 employees for Sample
2. Outcome measures appeared in the questionnaire toward the end, whereas the STEM measure
was first. For Sample 3, the participants received two copies of the questionnaire in separate
envelopes with instructions to complete them 3 months apart. The envelopes had a reminder
with the date for the second administration, and the participants were asked to record the date
they completed the second questionnaire. Sample 3 received only the STEM items because these
participants were enrolled exclusively to estimate test–retest reliabilities. All participants were
told that the data would be used for research purposes only and that participation was voluntary.
Additional data not reported here were also collected.
Measures
Translation of STEM. In our efforts to create the Romanian STEM, we followed the same
measurement model as used in Study 1, including the use of the same defining scenarios. As for
cognate scales used to provide evidence of Romanian STEM’s validity, several scales (e.g., STPI)
were already available in translated and validated Romanian versions. For the other scales, we
used the translation/back-translation process as recommended by Brislin (1971). Minor reword-
ings were made to some scales to make them more meaningful to our first sample (e.g., we
replaced coworkers with teammates). The translation process involved multiple rounds and a
group of experienced bilingual psychologists and basketball players. One item from STEM
(Romanian), Joy, is shown in Table C1 of the appendix.
Cognate scales. Romanian translations were done for all the measures of corresponding
constructs, including PANAS-X; pride, envy, and liking; and the STPI (i.e., its anger, anxiety, and
depression scales), which contained the same variables, number of items, and response options
as the English and Mandarin versions.
Criterion variables. OCB and CWB scales mirrored the scales used in the U.S. study. Job
satisfaction was measured with the six-item satisfaction with the Work Itself scale from the
Occupational Stress Inventory (J. S. Williams, 1996). Participants indicated their levels of sat-
isfaction on a scale ranging from 1 (very unsatisfied) to 6 (very satisfied). Finally, for Sample 1,
objective performance data reflecting the basketball players’ performance during the prior year
were obtained from team records, including number of points scored, rebounds, assists, steals,
and the number of minutes played.
Results
Validity of the Romanian Version of STEM
Descriptive statistics and test–retest reliabilities of all STEM scales are shown in Table 10,
and descriptive statistics for the remaining scales appear in Table 11. Of particular interest in
light of the considerable time lag in investigating test–retest reliabilities are the estimates for
the trait scales as they reflect more permanent dispositional constructs. The estimates for the
aggregated scales are .71 for STEM-PA (trait) and .78 for STEM-NA (trait). Not shown are the
internal consistency estimates, which for STEM-PA (state) attained levels of .84 (Sample 1) and
.78 (Sample 2), whereas for STEM-PA (trait) the alphas were .84 (Sample 1) and .74 (Sample 2).
For STEM-NA (state) the alphas were .70 (Sample 1) and .85 (Sample 2), whereas for STEM-NA
(trait) the alphas were .66 (Sample 1) and .83 (Sample 2).
428 LEVINE ET AL.
TABLE 10
Descriptive Statistics and Test Retest Reliability for State-Trait Emotion Measure (STEM): Romanian
Translation
Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3

Test-retest
Scale M SD M SD M SD reliability
STEM-PA (state) 28.51 9.19 34.25 7.32 30.47 (25.67) 7.09 (5.69) 44∗∗
STEM-PA (trait) 31.08 8.2 35.25 6.62 32.31 (29.37) 6.26 (6.05) 71∗∗
STEM-NA (state) 17.63 7.41 17.23 9.65 16.06 (13.69) 8.29 (4.57) .61∗∗
STEM-NA (trait) 18.14 7.08 18.24 9.36 17.96 (15.53) 7.93 (6.25) 78∗∗
Joy (state) 5.87 2.24 7.3 1.98 6.73 (5.18) 1.91 (1.65) .34∗
Joy (trait) 6.32 2.17 7.41 1.55 6.82 (6.12) 1.85 (1.61) .77∗∗
Anxiety (state) 3.66 1.8 3.16 1.98 3.20 (3.14) 2.04 (1.61) .50∗∗
Anxiety (trait) 3.89 1.9 3.34 1.97 3.49 (3.12) 2.20 (1.82) .67∗∗
Pride (state) 5.51 2.44 6.49 2.15 5.84 (4.92) 2.06 (1.62) .40∗∗
Pride (trait) 5.76 2.15 6.68 2.09 6.12 (5.55) 1.72 (1.39) .74∗∗
Sadness (state) 3.74 2.32 4.08 2.8 3.37 (2.61) 2.49 (1.40) .48∗∗
Sadness (trait) 3.56 2.28 4.24 2.69 4.12 (3.06) 2.75 (2.18) .66∗∗
Attentiveness (state) 5.74 2.43 7.09 1.92 5.80 (5.86) 2.15 (1.76) .30∗
Attentiveness (trait) 6.58 2.04 7.23 1.96 6.63 (6.33) 1.85 (1.95) .52∗∗
Anger (state) 4.39 2.55 3.97 2.52 3.94 (3.10) 2.51 (1.36) .35∗
Anger (trait) 4.46 2.5 4.31 2.52 4.47 (4.24) 2.55 (2.19) .67∗∗
Affection (state) 5.95 2.4 6.59 2.02 6.16 (4.26) 1.98 (1.81) 41∗∗
Affection (trait) 6.36 2.12 6.92 1.97 6.51 (5.59) 1.83 (2.32) .55∗∗
Envy (state) 2.82 2.09 2.07 1.58 2.22 (2.47) 1.70 (1.33) .34∗
Envy (trait) 3.14 2.17 2.16 1.64 2.39 (2.73) 1.60 (1.80) .43∗∗
Contentment (state) 5.44 2.24 6.79 1.97 5.94 (5.45) 1.86 (1.81) .50∗∗
Contentment (trait) 6.06 2.03 7.01 1.78 6.24 (5.78) 1.88 (1.67) .68∗∗
Guilt/Shame (state) 3.02 2.18 3.95 3.08 3.33 (2.37) 2.52 (1.30) .36∗∗
Guilt/Shame (trait) 3.08 1.95 4.19 3.11 3.49 (2.39) 2.61 (1.52) .66∗∗
Note. Descriptive statistics for Time 2 are presented in parentheses; Sample 1, N = 108; Sample 2, N = 105; Sample
3, N = 51. Test–retest reliabilities are based on data from Sample 3 only. PA = positive affect; NA = negative affect.
∗ p < .05. ∗∗ p < .01.
As for the test–retest reliability of the one-item scales of discrete emotional dispositions, all
but envy (.43), affection (.55), and attentiveness (.52) ranged from the mid-60s to upper 70s.
Providing some support for the four-factor measurement model, the state measures show uni-
formly lower estimates in test–retest reliability. All correlations between Time 1 and Time 2
measures from Sample 3 are positive and significant. Overall, the levels of reliability observed for
both dimensional and discrete emotional feelings suggest that the scales in the Romanian STEM
should not preclude our finding significant convergent validity estimates and tests of hypotheses.
In terms of validity evidence based on scale content, careful definitions of our domain include
scenarios and anchors placed in accordance with their indications of intensity of emotion feelings.
We conclude that the evidence from content supports validity of Romanian STEM.
As we found in Studies 1 and 2, correlations between scales in STEM and cognate scales
in established measures were positive and significant. At the aggregate level, STEM-PA corre-
lated positively and significantly with PANAS-PA (state: rsample1 = .43, p < .001; rsample2 = .41,
TABLE 11
Descriptive Statistics for the Related Affective and Criterion Measures
(Romanian Translation)
Scale a M SD
Affect Scales
PANASX NA .80 (.83) 21.94 (15.86) 5.77 (4.49)
PANASX PA .65 (.63) 24.96 (27.47) 3.69 (3.97)
STPI Anger (state) .88 (.87) 16.00 (12.16) 5.89 (3.57)
STPI Anxiety (state) .81 (.85) 21.04 (16.15) 5.46 (4.68)
STPI Depression (state) .74 (.67) 19.12 (17.50) 4.73 (3.47)

STPI Anger (trait) .76 (.74) 24.84 (18.03) 4.97 (3.89)
STPI Anxiety (trait) .78 (.76) 21.29 (16.95) 5.03 (3.94)
STPI Depression (trait) .83 (.84) 19.63 (17.61) 5.19 (4.60)
Envy (trait) .61 (.81) 11.01 (8.69) 3.32 (3.71)
Envy (state) .63 (.68) 10.60 (8.62) 3.33 (3.62)
Liking (trait) .83 (.82) 15.68 (16.13) 4.26 (4.09)
Liking (state) .84 (.82) 15.13 (15.98) 4.30 (4.07)
Pride (trait) .61 (.68) 14.18 (16.82) 2.89 (5.48)
Pride (state) .64 (.78) 13.67 (16.32) 3.00 (3.56)
Criterion Variables
OCB-H .85 (.83) 34.01 (36.55) 6.60 (6.27)
OCB-V .81 (.88) 27.10 (30.70) 6.26 (6.70)
CWB-I .75 (.75) 19.16 (12.13) 6.22 (4.50)
CWB-O .77 (.77) 26.11 (17.30) 7.79 (6.36)
Job satisfaction .75 (.86) 24.47 (27.52) 3.76 (4.23)
Points scored NA 3.55 1.24
Rebounds NA 2.94 1.08
Assists NA 1.33 1.2
Steals NA 2.09 1.12
Minutes played NA 4.84 1.04
Note. Descriptive statistics for Sample 2 are presented in parentheses. Sample 1, N = 108;
Sample 2, N = 105. PANASX = Positive and Negative Affect Schedule X; NA = negative
affect; PA = positive affect; STPI = State-Trait Personality Inventory; OCB = organizational
citizenship behavior; H = helping; V = voice behavior; CWB = counterproductive work
behavior; I = individual; O = organization.
p < .001; and trait: rsample1 = .40, p < .001; rsample2 = .47, p < .001). Similarly, STEM-NA corre-
lated positively and significantly with PANAS-NA (state: rsample1 = .38, p < .001; rsample2 = .23,
p < .05; and trait: rsample1 = .31, p = .001; rsample2 = .30, p < .01).
All but two correlations between the discrete emotions and dispositions and their correspond-
ing scales of established measures were positive and significant. The correlations ranged from
.20 to .38. At the upper end of the range of correlations across the measures were the relationships
between STEM’s sadness trait scale and STPI’s trait depression scale (rsample2 = .33, p = .001),
STEM’s anger trait scale and PANAS-X hostility scale (rsample1 = .38, p < .001), and STEM’s
pride state scale against the pride state scale (rsample1 = .38, p < .001). The only two exceptions
involved STEM’s guilt/shame and contentment trait scales against PANAS-X guilt and seren-
ity scales in Sample 2. Overall, evidence based on reliability estimates and relationships with
430 LEVINE ET AL.
cognate variables was supportive of Romanian’s validity and justified the use of STEM in testing
our main hypotheses.
Tests of Hypotheses
H2 and H4. This study supplemented the results of Studies 1 and 2 by including objective
measures of performance in addition to self-report. Sample 1’s performance data include points
scored, assists, rebounds, steals, and number of minutes played in the last game. The correlations
of STEM scales with the objective performance measures of Sample 1 appear in Tables 12 and
13. In Table 12, the aggregated dimensions of STEM-PA, both state and trait, are significantly and
positively correlated with all objective measures, but none of the correlations involving STEM-
NA are significant.
As the performance data reflect past performance, it seemed most appropriate to relate dis-
crete emotional dispositions (traits) to the objective performance data. Of the 50 correlations in
Table 13, 19 are significant, which mainly involve the positive emotions. Exceptions among the
TABLE 12
Correlations Between State-Trait Emotion Measure (STEM) and Objective Measures of Performance:
Romanian Translation
STEM Points Scored Rebounds Assists Steals Minutes Played
STEM-NA Recent 0.06 0.01 −0.04 −0.02 0.09

STEM-NA General 0.04 0.02 −0.02 −0.01 0.09
STEM-PA Recent .26∗∗ .22∗ .27∗∗ .29∗∗ .32∗∗
STEM-PA General .37∗∗ .29∗∗ .26∗∗ .33∗∗ .41∗∗
Note. N = 108. NA = negative affect; PA = positive affect.

∗ p < .05. ∗∗ p < .01.
TABLE 13
Correlations Between Discrete Trait Emotions and Objective Measures of Performance
(Romanian Data From Sample 1)
STEM – General Points Scored Rebounds Assists Steals Minutes Played
Joy .17 .10 .15 .26∗∗ .21∗

Pride .23∗ .16 .09 .29∗∗ .24∗
Vigilance .24∗ .17 .19∗ .29∗∗ .25∗∗
Affection .29∗∗ .25∗∗ .16 .34∗∗ .34∗∗
Contentment .25∗ .12 .19∗ .28∗∗ .25∗∗
Anxiety −.06 −.07 −.16 −.14 −.11
Sadness .08 .06 .02 .04 .06
Anger .17 .21∗ −.02 .10 .15
Envy −.06 −.08 −.24∗ −.14 −.06
Guilt and shame −.05 −.00 −.01 −.03 −.02
Note. N = 108. STEM = State-Trait Emotion Measure.

∗ p < .05. ∗∗ p < .01.
TABLE 14
Correlations Between Criteria and State-Trait Emotion Measure STEM-PA and STEM-NA: Romanian
Samples 1 and 2
Scales OCB-H OCB-V CWB-I CWB-O Job Sat
STEM-NA General .05 (−.09) .03 (−.09) .23∗ (−.03) .07 (.04) −.18 (.01)
STEM-NA Recent .01 (−.05) .03 (−.06) .27∗∗ (−.05) .17 (.03) −.21∗ (.01)
STEM-PA General .33∗∗ (.23∗ ) .40∗∗ (.16) −.20∗ (−.14) −.30∗∗ (−.08) .42∗∗ (.31∗∗ )
STEM-PA Recent .29∗∗ (.28∗∗ ) .38∗∗ (.16) −.23∗ (−.20∗ ) −.36∗∗ (−.18) .39∗∗ (.26∗∗ )
Note. Correlations for Sample 2 are presented in parentheses. Sample 1, N = 108; Sample 2, N = 105.
PA = positive affect; NA = negative affect; OCB = organizational citizenship behavior; H = helping; V = voice;
CWB = counterproductive work behavior; I = individual; O = organization.
∗ p < .05. ∗∗ p < .01.
significant correlations are two that involve negative dispositions—anger with rebounds (r = .25,
p < .05), and envy with assists (r = −.24, p < .05). The direction of these correlations seems
plausible, as a tendency toward anger might spur aggressiveness needed to garner rebounds
and assisting other teammates might be less likely if envy is higher. Therefore, H4 is partially
supported for these objective performance indicators, particularly so among positive emotional
discrete and aggregated scales. As for H2, the data clearly show variations among the discrete
emotion feelings and objective performance. Correlations of positive emotions with performance
indicators range from .09 to .34, whereas correlations of negative discrete emotions range from
–.24 to .21. H2 is supported by these data.
Turning now to the self-reported criteria of job satisfaction, OCB, and CWB, we find support
for H4. Every significant correlation is in the predicted direction. The data for the aggregated
scales appear in Table 14, and the data for the state and trait discrete emotion scales are shown
in Tables 15 and 16. Positive scales correlate positively and significantly with job satisfaction,
OCBI, and OCBO but negatively with CWBI and CWBO, and conversely for the negative scales.
However, relationships involving positive emotion scales are stronger and more consistent than
those with negative emotion scales. Also of particular interest is the finding that correlations
involving several of the discrete scales are at levels approximating those of the aggregated
scales. This and the varying levels of correlations among the discrete scales and the criteria
again support H2. Among the discrete negative emotions, envy, anger, guilt/shame, and sad-
ness exhibit a significant relationships with either CWB or job satisfaction all in the predicted
direction.
H1. H1 predicts that discrete emotions and dispositions will add incremental variance to the
prediction of criteria over and above the general affective dimensions. As in the United States
and Chinese study, this hypothesis was tested using hierarchical regression with OCB, CWB, and
job satisfaction as the dependent measures and age and tenure as controls. Only trait variables
were employed in these analyses. In Sample 1, anger had significant incremental validity (R2 =
.04) for predicting CWBI. In addition, pride had significant incremental validity (R2 = .06) for
predicting OCB total, whereas for OCBO, anger and guilt/shame had significant incremental
validity (R2 = .06 and R2 = .05, respectively). In predicting job satisfaction, joy had a sig-
nificant incremental validity of .04. In Sample 2, guilt provided significant incremental validity
432 LEVINE ET AL.
TABLE 15
Correlations Among Criteria and Discrete State Emotions in State-Trait Emotion Measure (STEM):
Romanian Samples 1 and 2
Affection .32∗∗ (.18) .34∗∗ (.19∗ ) −.14 (−.13) −.16 (−.08) .27∗∗ (.08)
Attentive .20∗ (.23∗ ) .24∗ (.19∗ ) −.20∗∗ (−.11) −.37∗∗ (−.16) .38∗∗ (.14)
Contentment .15 (.25∗ ) .21∗ (.16) −.24∗ (−.11) −.27∗∗ (−.16) .31∗∗ (.30∗∗ )
Joy .11 (.10) .19∗ (.02) −.28∗∗ (−.18) −.38∗∗ (−.19∗ ) .28∗∗ (.23∗ )
Pride .35∗∗ (.25∗ ) .50∗∗ (.03) −.06 (−.18) −.24∗ (−.08) .28∗∗ (.20∗ )
.22∗ (−.04) −.04 (.03)
Anger .01 (−.02) .05 (−.07) .16 (.01)

Anxiety .01 (−.09) .08 (−.07) .18 (−.05) .05 (.13) −.07 (−.06)
Envy −.13 (.01) −.09 (.05) .19∗ (.07) .11 (.08) −.13 (.17)
Guilt/Shame .02 (.01) −.05 (−.03) .06 (−.12) .08 (−.08) −.13 (.02)
Sadness .11 (−.09) .10 (−.08) .24∗ (−.01) .15 (.03) −.24∗ (−.07)
Note. Correlations for Sample 2 are presented in parentheses. Sample 1, N = 108; Sample 2, N = 105. OCB = orga-
nizational citizenship behavior; H = helping; V = voice; CWB = counterproductive work behavior; I = individual;
O = organization.
∗ p < .05. ∗∗ p < .01.
TABLE 16
Correlations Among Criteria and Discrete Trait Emotions in State-Trait Emotion Measure (STEM): Romanian
Samples 1 and 2
Affection .29∗∗ (.16) .39∗∗ (.16) −.09 (−.15) −.20∗ (−.09) .36∗∗ (.08)
Attentive .30∗∗ (.16) .26∗∗ (.14) −.18 (−.13) −.22∗ (−.13) .20∗ (.23∗ )
Contentment .15 (.08) .18 (.13) −.22∗ (.06) −.26∗∗ (.05) .38∗∗ (.32∗∗ )
Joy .22∗ (.07) .25∗∗ (.05) −.18 (−.05) −.26∗∗ (.01) .41∗∗ (.29∗∗ )
Pride .30∗∗ (.29∗∗ ) .46∗∗ (.07) −.09 (−.18) −.23∗ (−.08) .29∗∗ (.21∗ )
Anger .06 (−.07) .18 (−.08) .23∗ (−.09) .00 (−.05) −.05 (−.05)
Anxiety .03 (−.12) −.01 (−.15) .24 (.06) .06 (.15) −.11 (−.08)
Envy .03 (−.17) .06 (−.03) .11 (.19) −.02 (.29∗∗ ) −.11 (.16)
Guilt/Shame −.04 (−.03) −.15 (−.03) .08 (−.08) .11 (−.02) −.23∗ (.01)
Sadness .10 (−.01) −.02 (−.06) .09 (−.10) .10 (−.08) −.21∗ (.03)
Note. Correlations for Sample 2 are presented in parentheses. Sample 1, N = 108; Sample 2, N = 105. OCB = orga-
nizational citizenship behavior; H = helping; V = voice; CWB = counterproductive work behavior; I = individual;
O = organization.
∗ p < .05. ∗∗ p < .01.
(R2 = .05), as well as sadness (R2 = .04) and envy (R2 = .10), all for predicting CWB total.
H1 is supported.
Discussion of Results From Romania
Study 3 employed three diverse samples from Romania and filled two important gaps not
addressed in Studies 1 and 2. First, results suggest that the test–retest reliabilities for the aggre-
gated scales, STEM-PA and STEM-NA, are satisfactory, and those for the one-item scales of
discrete emotional traits are also acceptable, with the exception of lower than desired values for
envy, affection, and contentment. The discrete trait with the lowest test–retest reliability was envy,
which may be due to the possibility that it arises, more so than other emotional dispositions, in
response to particular contexts. It is also important to note that internal consistency estimates for
the aggregated scales are satisfactory. Second, we have correlated STEM scales to objective per-
formance measures and found many significant relationships. Of interest, the positive affective
scales are more consistently related to the various outcome measures than the negative ones.
Evidence based on Romanian STEM’s content and convergence with cognate scales supported
its validity. There was a consistent pattern of convergence of all STEM scales with those of the
cognate measures. That some of the correlations were lower than desired could be due to a variety
of factors including translation insufficiencies or cultural factors.
In support of H2 and H4 correlations between the STEM scales and self-reported criteria all
followed the predicted pattern, but the magnitude of the correlations varied among the discrete
scales. Of interest, positive affective scales were more potent predictors than negative. In terms
of incremental validity, as predicted by H1, Romanian STEM measures accounted for additional
variance, in some cases a reasonably substantial amount of variance, in predicting criteria over
and above the dimensional measures.
Study 3 is not without limitations. On one hand, it was cross-sectional with relatively smaller
sample sizes. Thus, firm conclusions may not be drawn about whether emotion feelings predicted
or caused outcomes. On the other hand, the diversity in the samples placed an added burden on
generalizing our results. Despite these limitations, the hypotheses received substantial support.
Consistency of Results Across Studies: Evaluating Evidence for H3
We have generated data across diverse samples from three quite different cultural contexts. Across
all the data sets we have found substantial consistencies. The validity of indigenous versions
of STEM was supported allowing tests of our hypotheses. As for the hypotheses themselves,
we found convincing and consistent evidence for the incremental validity of the discrete emo-
tion feelings over and above the dimensional measures, supporting H1. In addition we observed
variations in levels of correlations with both objective and self-reported criteria supporting H2.
GENERAL DISCUSSION
Research on affect, including emotions and moods, must wrestle with a set of phenomena that
is complex, often evanescent and whose internal manifestations are not observable. Valid mea-
surement of affective phenomena is clearly critical as we seek to understand these phenomena
and their impact in the work setting. A new measure, the STEM, based on a hierarchical model
of affect that focuses on both general dimensions and discrete emotions experienced at work was
created to allow us to test hypotheses concerning the impact of selected emotion feelings in the
work context. The new measure was subjected to a rigorous validation effort seeking to establish
generalizability of its construct validity across a diversity of samples drawn from a variety of
organizations in three countries. The studies sought to provide three types of evidence described
in the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (American Educational Research
Association et al., 1999)—evidence based on the measure’s content, the internal structure of the
434 LEVINE ET AL.
instrument, and its correlations with other measures (including numerous previously established
measures of corresponding constructs).
Evidence was supportive of the validity of all three versions of STEM, English, Mandarin, and
Romanian. We judged evidence from content as positive along with convergence of the scales
with cognate measures in all samples. The four factor measurement model was supported also,
tentatively by the U.S. data and more strongly by the China data. Nevertheless, more work is
necessary to assess the degree to which the separate constructs of states and traits are being cap-
tured by STEM, given the high level of relationships we observed among the corresponding state
and trait measures. As Elfenbein (2007) and Larsen, Diener, and Lucas (2002) have suggested,
achieving separation between these constructs is difficult. It may be, as Spielberger has shown
(e.g., Spielberger et al., 1999), that better separation may be achieved by varying items and scales
between the two.
That the emotion constructs stood up to translation and showed consistency in relationships
with outcomes across cultural contexts suggests some degree of universality in the experience
and impact of emotion feelings, which has long been a controversial issue in the domain of affect
(e.g., Cornelius, 1996; Weiss, 2002a). We emphasize, however, that caution is warranted due to
the differing levels of convergent correlations involving STEM and cognate measures observed
across countries. In addition, we were unable to evaluate measurement equivalence of the scales
used in the study due to small sample sizes, nor may we claim that we have captured in STEM all
the emotion feelings that may be associated, either as cause or effect, with important outcomes at
work. Surprise may be implicated in creativity. Disgust may be critical in fueling whistleblowing.
Hope may moderate the effects of stress. It remains for future research to explore the impact of
these and other emotion feelings, but in doing so it would be fruitful to ensure that they add
incrementally to predictions over and beyond the effects of other discrete emotion feelings and
corresponding dimensions (cf. Watson, 2000).
Turning now to the primary focus of the study, we believe we have established a strong case
for the impact of discrete emotion feelings. Those we measured with STEM indeed demonstrated
variations in their associations with criteria and added incrementally to the prediction of outcomes
over and above dimensional measures that have predominated in past research. Future theory
development and research must conjure with the welter of discrete emotion feelings in attempts
to assess their influence at work. One critical direction is to formulate testable hypotheses that
address the relationships among each of the discrete emotion feelings studied here, and others,
with important outcomes at work. These hypotheses and the theoretical models from which they
derive should of course incorporate the hierarchical nature of emotion feelings and the influence
of both states and dispositions (e,g., Spielberger, 1979; Watson, 2000).
With regard to job satisfaction, joy and contentment seem to emerge consistently as strong
predictors. However, there is more variability among the negative emotion feelings. Anger and
anxiety show negative relationships with job satisfaction in the U.S. and Chinese samples, but
not so in Romania. As for objective task performance in a unique sample of female professional
basketball players in Romania, it was the positive emotion feelings that held sway, with affection
exhibiting the highest correlations. The work of Frederickson in terms of her “broaden and build”
theory is given support by these findings (Frederickson, 2003; Frederickson & Losada, 2005).
The significant positive association of anger with rebounds and the negative association of envy
with assists seem instructive in hindsight.
The self-reported criteria, OCB, and CWB were chosen for study here because they appeared
to us to be especially vulnerable, potentially, to the impact of discrete emotions. Arguably the
positive emotion feelings were stronger predictors across studies, although in the Chinese sample
there appeared to be a greater degree of orthogonality in impact with positive emotions but not
negative predicting OCB and negative emotions but not positive predicting CWB.
Among negative emotions, perhaps surprisingly, envy turns out to be among the most con-
sistent predictors of criteria, and, aside from the positive relationship with anger to rebounds
just noted, we found one other notable reversal of the hypothesized direction of the relation-
ships between discrete emotions and outcomes. The exception appeared in the China study,
where guilt/shame was positively related to both overall job satisfaction and OCBI. Again, cul-
tural factors may account for this unexpected finding. Owing to an interdependent self concept
(Hofstede, 2001; Markus & Kitayama, 1991), our Chinese participants may have harbored guilt
when feeling satisfied and celebrating their own job success over their colleagues in the form
of promotions or training opportunities, which in turn led them to engage in more OCB toward
colleagues.
Given STEM’s focus on discrete emotions, future theory and research should attempt to for-
mulate and test more precise predictions regarding discrete emotions. For example, envy seems
to differ from the other negative emotions in the pattern of relationships observed here. Greater
understanding of its impact at work settings as well, perhaps, as improvements in its scaling
in STEM would be welcome. Recent evidence regarding anger, demonstrating its uniqueness
in relation to motivation, reinforces this point (Carver & Harmon-Jones, 2009; Harmon-Jones,
Harmon-Jones, Abramson, & Peterson, 2009). As another note, findings here involving objective
indicators of core task performance must be supplemented by studies dealing with many more
settings than a professional basketball league. Future research should attempt to use other reports
for criteria (e.g., coworkers for OCB and supervisors for task performance). Finally, to facili-
tate cross-cultural research, future research must establish measurement equivalence among the
various versions of STEM.
In conclusion, however, the evidence gathered in the three studies across three countries
suggests that (a) STEM is a worthy addition to the arsenal of measurement tools that may be
employed in research on affect and (b) that discrete emotion feelings must be included in attempts
to refine our understanding of and enhance our capacity to predict outcomes at work.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Xian Xu is now with IBM in Shanghai, China. Separate papers on the research conducted in each
country were presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational
Psychology in 2005 (the U.S. study) and 2007 (the studies in China and Romania). We thank
David Watson and Paul Spector for their comments on an earlier version of the paper on the U.S.
study and Gabriel Lopez-Rivas for his efforts in drawing the sample and analyzing the data for
the U.S. study.
This article is dedicated to the memory of Prof. Dr. Horia D. Pitariu, who passed away in
March 2010.
436 LEVINE ET AL.
REFERENCES
Ahmed, E., & Braithwaite J. (2006). Shame, pride and workplace bullying. In S. Karstedt, I. Loader, & H. Strang (Eds.),
Emotions, crime and justice (pp. 55–79). Oxford, UK: Hart Publishing.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and the National Council on
Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological tests. Washington DC: American
Educational Research Association.
Arbuckle, J. L., & Wothke, W. (1999). Amos 4.0 user’s guide. Chicago: Smallwaters Corporation.
Ashforth, B. E., & Kreiner, G. E. (2002). Normalizing emotion in organizations: Making the extraordinary seem ordinary.
Human Resource Management Review, 12, 215–236.
Bagozzi, R. P., Verbeke, W. J. M. I., & Gavino, J. C. (2003). Culture moderates the self-regulation of shame and its effects
on performance: The case of salespersons in the Netherlands and the Philippines. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88,
219–233.
Barsade, S. G., & O’Neil, O. A. (2004, August). Affective culture in organizations. In Seung-Yoon Rhee (Chair),
Exploring the dynamics of collective emotion: Perspectives from multiple levels, Symposium conducted at the annual
meeting of the Academy of Management, New Orleans, Louisiana.
Barsade, S. G., & Gibson, D. E. (2007). Why does affect matter in organizations? Academy of Management Perspectives,
1, 36–59.
Barsky, A., & Kaplan, S. A. (2007). If you feel bad, it’s unfair: A quantitative synthesis of affect and organizational
justice perceptions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 286–295.
Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 85, 349–360.
Berenbaum, H. (2002). Varieties of joy-related pleasurable activities and feelings. Cognition and Emotion, 16, 473–494.
Berkowitz, L., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2004). Toward an understanding of the determinants of anger. Emotion, 4, 107–130.
Bing, M. N., Whanger, J. C., Davison, H. K., & Van Hook, J. (2004). Incremental validity of the frame-of-reference effect
in personality scale scores: a replication and extension. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 150–157.
Brief, A. P., Butcher, A. H., & Roberson, L. (1995). Cookies, disposition, and job attitudes: The effects of positive mood-
inducing events and negative affectivity on job satisfaction in a field experiment. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 62, 55–62.
Brief, A. P., & Weiss, H. M. (2002). Organizational behavior: Affect in the workplace. Annual Review of Psychology, 53,
279–307.
Brislin, R. (1971). Back-translation for cross-cultural research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1, 185–216.
Buunk, B., & Hupka, R. B. (1987). Cross-cultural differences in the elicitation of sexual jealousy. Journal of Sex Research,
23, 12–22.
Carver, C. S., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2009). Anger is an approach-related affect: Evidence and implications. Psychological
Bulletin, 135, 183–204.
Cascio, W. F., & Aguinis, H. (2005). Applied psychology in human resource management (6th ed.).Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Pearson Prentice-Hall.
Cheang, A.W. (1993). Poetry, politics, philosophy: Su Shih as The Man of The Eastern Slope. Harvard Journal of Asiatic
Studies, 53, 325–387.
Cheung, F. M. (2004). Use of Western and indigenously developed personality tests in Asia. Applied Psychology: An
International Review, 53, 173–191.
Clore, G. L., & Ortony, A. (2008). Appraisal theories: How cognition shapes affect into emotion. In M. Lewis, J. M.
Haviland-Jones, & L. F. Barrett (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (3rd ed., pp. 628–642). New York: Guilford.
Cohen-Charash, Y., & Mueller, J. S. (2007). Does perceived unfairness exacerbate or mitigate interpersonal counterpro-
ductive work behaviors related to envy? Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 666–680.
Cole, M. S., Walter, F., & Bruch, H. (2008). Affective mechanisms linking dysfunctional behavior to performance in
work teams: A moderated mediation study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 945–958.
Connolly, J. J., & Viswesvaran, C. (2000). The role of affectivity in job satisfaction: A meta-analysis. Personality and
Individual Differences, 29, 265–281.
Cornelius, R. R. (1996). The science of emotion: Research and tradition in the psychology of emotion. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Cropanzano, R., James, K., & Konovsky, M. A. (1993). Dispositional affectivity as a predictor of work attitudes and job
performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14, 595–606.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper Perennial Modern Classics.
Edelstein, R. S., & Shaver, P. R. (2005). A cross-cultural examination of lexical studies of self-conscious emotions. In J.
L. Tracy, R. W. Robins, & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), The self-conscious emotions: Theory and research (pp. 194–208). New
York: Guilford.
Elfenbein, H. A. (2007). Emotion in organizations: A review and theoretical integration. Academy of Management Annals,
1, 371–457.
Farh, J. L. Zhong, C. B., & Organ, D. W. (2004). Organizational Citizenship Behavior in the People’s Republic of China.
Organization Science, 15, 241–253.
Fischbach, A. (2009). Cross-national cross-cultural research of emotions at work: a review and some recommendations.
Research on Emotions in Organizations, 5, 299–325.

Fiske, S. T. (2004). Social beings: A core motives approach to social psychology. New York: Wiley
Fredrickson, B. L. (2003). The value of positive emotions. American Scientist, 91, 330–335.
Fredrickson B. L., & Losada, M. F. (2005). Positive affect and the complex dynamics of human flourishing. American
Psychologist, 60, 678–686.
Frijda, N. H. (1993). Moods, emotion episodes, and emotions. In M. Lewis & J.M Haviland-Jones (Eds.), Handbook of
emotions (2nd ed., pp. 59–74). New York: Guilford.
Frijda, N. H., Markam, S., Sato, K., & Wiers, W. (1995). Emotion and emotion words. In A. A. Russell, J.-M. Fernandez-
Dols, A. S. R. Manstead, & J. C. Wellenkamp (Eds.), Everyday conceptions of emotions (pp. 121–143). Boston: Kluwer
Academic.
George, J. M. (1989). Mood and absence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 317–324.
George, J. M. (1990). State or trait: Effects of positive mood on prosocial behaviors at work. Journal of Applied
George, J. M., & Bettenhausen, K. (1990). Understanding prosocial behavior, sales performance and turnover: A group-
level analysis in a service context. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 698–709.
George, J. M., & Brief, A. P. (1996). Motivational agendas in the workplace: The effects of feelings on focus of atten-
tion and work motivation. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 18,
pp. 75–109). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Grandey, A. A., Tam, A. P., & Brauburger, A. L. (2002). Affective states and traits in the workplace: Diary and survey
data from young workers. Motivation and Emotion, 26, 31–55.
Harmon-Jones, E., Harmon-Jones, C., Abramson, L., & Peterson, C. K. (2009). PANAS positive activation is associated
with anger. Emotion, 9, 183–196.
Hersey, R. B. (1932). Workers’ emotions in shop and home: A study of individual workers from psychological and
physiological standpoint. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Hofstede, G. (2001). Cultural consequences: comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations
(2nd ed.). London: Sage.
House, R. J., Hanges, P. J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P. W., & Gupta, V. (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: the
GLOBE study of 62 societies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Huang, C. S. (2004). A study on the link between job satisfaction, organizational commitment and turnover intension,
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Xiamen University, Fujian, China.
Huang, L., Yang, T., & Li, Z. (2003). Applicability of the Positive and Negative Affect Scale in Chinese. Chinese Mental
Health Journal, 17, 54–56.
Hunthausen, J. M., Truxillo, D. M., Bauer, T. N., & Hammer, L. B. (2003). A field study of frame-of-reference effects on
personality test validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 545–551.
Hupka, R. B., & Bachelor, B. (1979). Validation of a scale to measure romantic jealousy. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the Western Psychological Association, San Diego, CA.
Isen A. M., & Baron, R. A. (1991). Positive affect as a factor in organizational-behavior. Research in Organizational
Behavior, 13, 1–53.
Izard, C. E. (1994). Innate and universal facial expressions: Evidence from developmental and cross-cultural research.
Psychological Bulletin, 115, 288–299.
Izard, C. E. (2009). Emotion theory and research: Highlights, unanswered questions, and emerging issues. Annual Review
of Psychology, 60, 1–26.
438 LEVINE ET AL.
Jehn, K. A. (1995). A multimethod examination of the benefits and detriments of intragroup conflict. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 40, 256–282.
Johnson, J. A. (1981). The ‘self-disclosure’ and ‘self-presentation’ views of item response dynamics and personality scale
validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 761–769.
Judge, T. A., Scott, B. A., & Ilies, R. (2006). Hostility, job attitudes, and workplace deviance: Test of a multilevel model.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 126–138.
Kitayama, S., Markus, H. R., & Kurokawa, M. (2000). Culture, emotion and well-being: Good feelings in Japan and the
US. Cognition and Emotion, 14, 93–124.
Lam, D. (1999). Parenting stress and anger: The Hong Kong experience. Child and Family Social Work, 4, 337–346.
Larsen, R. J., Diener, E., & Lucas, R. E. (2002). Emotion: Models, measures, and individual differences. In R. G. Lord,
R. J. Klimoski, & R. Kanfer (Eds.), Emotions in the workplace: Understanding the structure and role of emotions in
organizational behavior (pp. 64–106). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lazarus, R. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lee., K., & Allen, N. J. (2002). Organizational citizenship behavior and workplace deviance: The role of affect and
cognitions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 131–142.
Liden, R. C., & Maslyn, J. M. (1998). Multidimensionality of leader–member exchange: An empirical assessment through
scale development. Journal of Management, 24, 43–72.
Lord, R. G., & Kanfer, R. (2002). Emotions and organizational behavior. In R. Lord, R. Klimoski, & R. Kanfer (Eds.),
Emotions in the workplace: Understanding the structure and role of emotions in organizational behavior (pp. 5–19).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lyubomirsky, S., King, L. A., & Diener, E. (2005). The benefits of frequent positive affect: Does happiness lead to
success? Psychological Bulletin, 131, 803–855.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation.
Psychological Review, 98, 224–253.
Mathes, E. W. (1992). Jealousy: The psychological data. New York: University Press of America.
Mauro, R., Sato, K., & Tucker, J. (1992). The role of appraisal in human emotions: A cross-cultural study. Journal of
Personality & Social Psychology, 62, 301–317
McIntire, S. A., & Miller, L. A. (2007). Foundations of psychological testing: A practical approach (2nd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mesquita, B., & Frijda, N. H. (1992). Cultural variations in emotions: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 179–204.
Muchinsky, P. M. (2000). Emotions in the workplace. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 801–805.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Pitariu, H. D., Levine, E. L., Musat, S., & Ispas, D. (2006). Validarea chestionarului de masurare a emotilor ca stare si
trasatura (MEST-ro) la baschetbaliste [Validation of the State-Trait Emotion Measure (STEM) on Romanian basketball
players]. Psihologia Resurselor Umane, 4, 16–26.
Plutchik, R. (1989). Measuring emotions and their derivatives. In R. Plutchik & H. Kellerman (Eds.), The measurement
of emotions (pp. 1–35). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Plutchik, R. (2001). The nature of emotions. American Scientist, 89, 344–352.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research:
A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.
Russell, J. A., Bachorowski, J., & Fernandez-Dols, J. (2003). Facial and vocal expressions of emotion. Annual Review of
Schmit, M. J., Ryan, A. M., Stierwalt, S. L., & Powell, S. L. (1995). Frame-of-reference effects on personality scores and
criterion-related validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 80, 607–620.
Scollon, C. N., Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Biswas-Diener R. (2004). Emotions across cultures and methods. Journal of
Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, 304–326.
Shaver, P., Schwartz, J., Kirson, D., & O’Connor C. (1987). Emotion knowledge: Further exploration of a prototype
approach. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 52, 1061–1086.
Shweder, R. A., Haidt, J., Horton, R., & Joseph, C. (2007). The cultural psychology of emotions. In M. Lewis, J. M.
Haviland-Jones, & L. Feldman Barrett (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (pp. 409–427). New York: Guilford.
Silivia, P. J. (2008). Current directions in psychological science. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Smith, P. C., & Kendall, L. M. (1963). Retranslation of expectations: An approach to the construction of unambiguous
anchors for rating scales. Journal of Applied Psychology, 47, 149–155.
Smith, R. H., & Kim, S. H. (2007). Comprehending envy. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 46–64.
Spector, P. E. (1985). Measurement of human service staff satisfaction: Development of Job Satisfaction Survey.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 13, 693–713.
Spector, P. E. (2001). Job Satisfaction Survey. Retrieved from http://shell.cas.usf.edu/~spector/scales/jssovr.html
Spector, P. E. (2006). Method variance in organizational research: Truth or urban legend? Organizational Research
Methods, 9, 221–232.
Spector, P. E., Cooper, C. L., Sparks, K., Bernin, P., BuÈssing, A., Phil Dewe, M., et al. (2001). An international study of
psychometric properties of the Hofstede Value Survey Module 1994: A comparison of individual and country/province
level results. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 50, 269–281.
Spector, P. E., Dwyer, D. W., & Jex, S. M. (1988). Relation of job stressors to affective, health, and performance outcomes:
A comparison of multiple data sources. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 11–19.
Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2005). A model of counterproductive work behavior. In S. Fox & P. E. Spector (Eds.),
Counterproductive workplace behavior: Investigations of actors and targets (pp. 151–174). Washington, DC: APA.
Spielberger, C. D. (1979). Preliminary manual for the State-Trait Personality Inventory. Tampa: Human Resources
Institute, University of South Florida.
Spielberger, C. D. (1983). Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists
Press.
Spielberger, C. D., Sydeman, S. J., Owen, A., & Marsh, B. J. (1999). Measuring anxiety and anger with the State-Trait
Anxiety Inventory (STAI) and the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI). In M. E. Maruish (Ed.), The
use of psychological testing for treatment planning and outcomes assessment (2nd ed., pp. 993–1021). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Stanley, D. J., & Meyer, J. P. (2009). Two-dimensional affective space: A new approach to orienting the axes. Emotion,
9, 214–237.
Staw, B. M., & Barsade, S. G. (1993). Affect and managerial performance: A test of the sadder-but-wiser vs. happier-
and-smarter hypotheses. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 304–331.
Staw, B. M., Sutton, R. I., & Pelled, L. H. (1994). Employee positive emotion and favorable outcomes at the workplace.
Organization Science, 5(1), 51–71.
Tangney, J. P., Wagner, P., Gramzow, R. (1989). The Test of Self-Conscious Affect (TOSCA). Fairfax, VA: George Mason
University.
Thoresen, C. J., Kaplan, S., Barsky, A., Warren, C., & de Chermont, K. (2003). The affective underpinnings of job
perceptions and attitudes: A meta-analytic review and integration. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 946–972.
Van De Vijver, F. J. R., & Leung, K. (1997). Methods and data analysis of comparative research. In J. W. Berry, Y. H.
Poortinga, & J. Pandey (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 301–346). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Van Dyne, L., & LePine, J. A. (1998). Helping and voice extra-role behaviors: Evidence of construct and predictive
validity. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 108–119.
Van Katwyk, P. T., Fox, S., Spector, P. E., & Kelloway, (2000). Using the Job-Related Affective Well-Being Scale (JAWS)
to investigate affective responses to work stressors. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5, 219–230.
Vecchio, R. P. (2000). Negative emotion in the workplace: Employee jealousy and envy. International Journal of Stress
Management, 7, 161–179.
Wanous, J., Reichers, A., & Hudy, M. (1997). Overall job satisfaction: How good are single-item measures? Journal of
Applied Psychology, 82, 247–252.
Watson, D. (2000). Mood and temperament. New York: Guilford.
Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1994/1999). The PANAS–X: Manual for the positive and negative affect schedule–Expanded
Form. Iowa City: University of Iowa (Original work published in 1994).
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative
affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.
Weiss, H. M. (2002a). Conceptual and empirical foundations for the study of affect at work. In R. G. Lord, R. J. Klimoski,
& R. Kanfer (Eds.), Emotions in the workplace: Understanding the structure and role of emotions in organizational
behavior (pp. 20–63). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Weiss, H. M. (2002b). Introductory comments: Antecedents of emotional experiences at work. Motivation and Emotion,
26, 1–2.
Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective events theory: A theoretical discussion of the structure, causes and
consequences of affective experiences at work. Research in Organization Behavior, 18, 1–74.
440 LEVINE ET AL.
Weiss, H. M, Nicholas, J. P, & Daus, C. S. (1999). An examination of the joint effects of affective experiences and
job beliefs on job satisfaction and variations in affective experiences over time. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Process, 78, 24.
Whissell, C. M. (1989). The dictionary of affect in language. In R. Plutchik & H. Kellerman (Eds.). Emotion: Theory,
research, and experience (pp. 113–132). San Diego, CA: Academic.
Whyte, W. H. (1956). The organization man. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Williams, J. S. (1996). A critical review and further development of the Occupational Stress Indicator. Unpublished
dotoral thesis, UMIST, United Kingdom.
Williams, S., & Tze, W. (1999). Mood and organizational citizenship behavior: The effects of positive affect on employee
organizational citizenship behavior intentions. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 133, 656–668.
Ye, R. M. (1988). State-Trait Anxiety Manual. Shanghai Normal University Press.
Yu, K.Y. T. (2009). Affective influences in person–environment fit theory: Exploring the role of affect as both cause and
outcome of P-E fit. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 1210–1226.
Zhang, W., Jing, D., & Schick, C. J. (2004). The cross-cultural measurement of positive and negative affect examining
the dimensionality of PANAS. Psychological Science (China), 27, 77–79.
APPENDIX
TABLE A1
Sample Item, Joy, From the U.S. Version of State-Trait Emotion Measure
Ratings: Please circle the number on the 10-point scale

below (1= little or none and 10= highest) the extent of the
Definition Examples emotion you felt:
1. Joy is a pleasant 1. Winning a well-deserved During your most recent day of work:
emotion. It arises when award for our work; 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
we, or others we identify 2. Receiving a high prestige /____/____/____/____/____/____/____/____/____/
strongly with, make assignment from our boss; / / / /
progress toward 3. Getting a big raise because Little/None Amiable Cheerful Happy
achieving important of our excellent work.
How you generally feel when you are working:
goals, and when the 4. Achieving a promotion that
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
achievements are part of fulfills our career plan
/____/____/____/____/____/____/____/____/____/
a pattern that we expect 5. Development of a new,
/ / / /
will continue. Bodily successful product in our
Little/None Amiable Cheerful Happy
signals include smiling work team
and an outgoing bearing.
TABLE B1
Sample Item, Joy, From the Mandarin Version of State-Trait Emotion Measure
441
442
TABLE C1
Romanian State-Trait Emotion Measure: Sample Item for Joy
Evaluări:Vă rugăm să încercuiţi numărul corespunzător

emoţiei simţite pe scala cu 10 puncte de mai jos (1=puţin sau
Definiţie Exemple deloc şi 10= în foarte mare măsură):
1. Bucuria este o emoţie plăcută. Aceasta 1. A câştiga un premiu În timpul celei mai recente zi de muncă:
apare atunci când noi sau persoanele cu care binemeritat pentru munca 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
ne identificăm fac progrese spre atingerea noastră; /____/____/____/____/____/____/____/____/____/
unor obiective importante, şi când ne 2. A primi o sarcină ce denotă un / / / /
aşteptăm ca beneficiile să prestigiu crescut din partea Puţin/Deloc Prietenos Bine dispus Fericit
continue.Semnalele corporale include şefului
Cum vă simţiţi în general când munciţi:
zâmbetul şi gesture specifice. 3. A obţine o mărire de salariu
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
semnificativă pentru munca
/____/____/____/____/____/____/____/____/____/
excelentă.
4. A primi o promovare care / / / /
răspunde planurilor noastre de Puţin/Deloc Prietenos Bine dispus Fericit
carieră;
5. Dezvoltarea unui produs nou,
de succes, de către echipa
noastră.

Levine - Original Work

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Levine - Original Work

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [Universitat Politècnica de València]

On: 24 October 2014, At: 21:33

Cross-National Explorations of the Impact

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08959285.2011.614302

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Cross-National Explorations of the Impact of Affect

Edward L. Levine and Xian Xu

Ran Bian and Dan Ding

BACKGROUND AND RATIONALE FOR THE STUDIES

is presented after data from all three studies are discussed.

THE NEED FOR A NEW MEASURE OF EMOTION FEELINGS

STUDY 1: EMOTION FEELINGS AND OUTCOMES IN A U.S. SAMPLE

PANAS-X. Developed by Watson and Clark (1994/1999), PANAS-X showed test–retest

Internal Consistency of STEM and Its Relation to Cognate Scales

STEM-PA (state) 136 29.83 9.23

Anxiety (state) 142 3.38 2.162

Note. N = 142. PA = positive affect; NA = negative affect.

1. STEM-PA (state) .83

OCB OCB OCB CWB CWB CWB Job Sat

STEM-NA (Trait) −.20∗ −.21∗ −.07 −.29∗∗ .20∗ .24∗∗ −.34∗∗

Affection .21∗ .15 .20∗ −.08 −.10 −.05 .44∗∗

Affection .25∗∗ .20∗ .22∗ −.15 −.08 −.16 .45∗∗

Anxiety .17 .16

STUDY 2: PREDICTING OUTCOMES WITH STEM IN CHINA

Scale Mean (SD) Reliability Scale Mean (SD) Reliability

STEM-PA (state) 21.64 (8.67) 0.85 PANASX_NA 20.27 (7.32) .88

Anxiety (state) 4.40 (2.31) NA Envy (trait) 8.97 (4.14) .86

Validity of the Mandarin Version of STEM

OCB OCB OCB CWB CWB CWB Job Sat

STEM-PA (State) .44∗∗ .38∗∗ .44∗∗ .01 .10 −.05 .53∗∗

OCB OCB OCB CWB CWB CWB

Affection .37∗∗ .35∗∗ .35∗∗ .05 .12∗ −.01 .44∗∗

OCB OCB OCB CWB CWB CWB Job Sat

Affection .36∗∗ .33∗∗ .37∗∗ .06 .12∗ .02 .44∗∗

Discussion of Results From China

STUDY 3: PREDICTING OUTCOMES WITH STEM IN ROMANIA

Validity of the Romanian Version of STEM

Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3

STPI Depression (state) .74 (.67) 19.12 (17.50) 4.73 (3.47)

STEM Points Scored Rebounds Assists Steals Minutes Played

STEM-NA Recent 0.06 0.01 −0.04 −0.02 0.09

Note. N = 108. NA = negative affect; PA = positive affect.

STEM – General Points Scored Rebounds Assists Steals Minutes Played

Joy .17 .10 .15 .26∗∗ .21∗

Note. N = 108. STEM = State-Trait Emotion Measure.

Scales OCB-H OCB-V CWB-I CWB-O Job Sat

Scales OCB-H OCB-V CWB-I CWB-O Job Sat

Anger .01 (−.02) .05 (−.07) .16 (.01)

Scales OCB-H OCB-V CWB-I CWB-O Job Sat

Discussion of Results From Romania

Consistency of Results Across Studies: Evaluating Evidence for H3

Research on Emotions in Organizations, 5, 299–325.

organizational behavior (pp. 64–106). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ratings: Please circle the number on the 10-point scale

Evaluări:Vă rugăm să încercuiţi numărul corespunzător

You might also like