Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 156 (2020) 69–81

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/obhdp

Thanks for your ideas: Gratitude and team creativity T

a,1 b,⁎,1 c c,⁎
Nashita Pillay , Guihyun Park , Ye Kang Kim , Sujin Lee
a
Set Apart, 2 Havelock Road #04-15, Singapore S059763, Singapore
b
Australian National University, Australia
c
Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, South Korea

A B S T R A C T

Many ideas and products are borne out of collaborative efforts among members of teams and workgroups, and thus finding ways to improve team creativity is of
significant interest. Adopting a collective information processing perspective, we argue that gratitude intervention for teams would serve as a powerful facilitator for
information elaboration—whereby team members engage in more deliberate and thorough integration of others’ ideas—and, in turn, enhance team creativity. Study
1 found that teams in the gratitude condition increased information elaboration more than those in the neutral condition. Study 2 compared teams in gratitude
emotion and teams in positive emotion in general. Teams in the gratitude condition generated highly creative ideas, due to more information elaboration. On the
other hand, teams in the positive emotion condition expressed greater enthusiasm and confidence in their ideas and immediately accepted the ideas suggested, which
led to an increase in the quantity of ideas. Our findings suggest that gratitude facilitates intellectual exchange in groups, which in turn enhances team creativity. We
discuss our findings’ implications for team creativity and potential directions for future research.

1. Thanks for your ideas: Gratitude and team creativity
Teams that achieve a high level of creative performance often find
that their creative process is more like a journey filled with obstacles
and uncertainties, in which members encourage, challenge, and de-
velop each other’s ideas, continually deepen their understanding of the
issue, and improve their solutions (Hargadon & Bechky, 2006; Harvey,
2014; Kurtzberg & Amabile, 2001). Given the nature of a creative task,
no set routine serves as a checklist; specific individual contributions
cannot be anticipated nor a clear outcome guaranteed. Creative teams
often rely on each other’s knowledge and perspective as much as on the
benevolence and prosocial intentions fueled by heartfelt recognition
and appreciation of one’s team members. Hargadon and Bechky (2006)
found that creative teams shape their ideas through an evolving cycle of
asking for help, providing help, and engaging in collective reflection,
whereby members experience a sense of gratefulness for each other’s
efforts and contributions.
This study aims to gain a deeper, richer, and more nuanced un-
derstanding of team creativity by examining the effect of a specific form
of positive emotion—gratitude—on team creativity by delineating its
impact on collective information processing. Gratitude is defined as a
positive emotion that stems from valuing and being aware of one’s
surroundings, such as the presence of helpful others (McCullough,
Kilpatrick, Emmons, & Larson, 2001); gratifying events (Graham &
Barker, 1990); and even chance (Wood, Froh, & Geraghty, 2010). Of the
multiple specific types of positive emotion (e.g., joy, serenity, awe,
hope, pride; Fredrickson, 2013), we chose gratitude to examine team
creativity because it is unique, due to its tendencies to find and re-
ciprocate others’ contributions (Algoe, 2012; Fredrickson, 2013).
Therefore, while positive emotion in general encourages team members
to exhibit upbeat attitudes (George, 1990; Lyubomirsky, King, &
Diener, 2005), gratitude triggers team members to reframe an experi-
ence, by which they become aware of their teammates’ contributions. In
turn, this can motivate them to think deeply about novel and useful
ways to reciprocate and benefit others (e.g., DeSteno, Bartlett,
Baumann, Williams, & Dickens, 2010; Fredrickson, 2004; Grant & Gino,
2010; McCullough et al., 2001).
By focusing on a specific positive emotion (i.e., gratitude), we
provide a much needed and nuanced understanding of what positive
emotions actually do for group creativity. Indeed, the effects of positive
emotions on group dynamics and information processing are largely
paradoxical. Positive emotion facilitates and solidifies social bonds
among members—but it may also discourage the rigorous processing of
information (George & King, 2007; van Knippenberg, Kooij-de Bode, &
van Ginkel, 2010). The hazards of groupthink are well known, by which
team members’ optimism and confidence can result in failure to co-
ordinate their collective intelligences (Janis, 1982). Positive emotions
facilitate trust, inclusion, and lenient views of team members’ ideas

⁎
Corresponding authors at: Research School of Management, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia (G. Park). Graduate School of
Innovation and Technology Management, KAIST, Daejeon, South Korea (S. Lee).
E-mail addresses: Guihyun.park@anu.edu.au (G. Park), sujinlee@kaist.ac.kr (S. Lee).
1
The first two authors contributed equally to this article.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.11.005
Received 7 September 2017; Received in revised form 17 August 2019; Accepted 14 November 2019
Available online 30 November 2019
0749-5978/ © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
N. Pillay, et al.
(Forgas & Moylan, 1987). Positive mood could put groups at risk of
engaging in shallow processing and consensus-seeking tendencies
(Forgas, 1992; Schwarz & Clore, 2003). Sunstein and Hastie (2015)
warn against “happy talk,” by which expressions of enthusiasm and
confidence erode the group’s likelihood of thoroughly considering di-
verse perspectives. Gratitude is a deeply social emotion that focuses on
the benefits received from others and motivates individuals to engage in
thoughtful reciprocation (Fredrickson, 2004). Members feeling grateful,
therefore, would be less likely to engage in the typically shallow chatter
of groups that feel highly positive. Instead, an individual member’s
ideas would be received and reciprocated with careful consideration by
fellow members. Gratitude, therefore, provides a fertile environment
for diverse ideas to be expressed, considered, and integrated during
group discussion.
Using a controlled laboratory study that randomly assigned parti-
cipants to groups and manipulated three affective states—gratitude vs.
neutral (Study 1) and gratitude vs. positive (Study 2)—we shed light on
how experiencing gratitude influences the quality of team information
processing and team creativity. Specifically, this study makes three
unique contributions. First, by decomposing positive emotion as a
specific positive emotion—gratitude—and examining its role, this study
clarifies the creativity-boosting effect of positive emotion on teams and
affords more precise prediction of team creativity. Second, using a
group information processing approach, this study unpacks the “black
box” of positive emotions and team creativity. That is, we examine the
extent to which groups engage in shallow, consensus-seeking processing
or careful, deliberative processing of ideas during discussion. Finally,
while the benefits of gratitude have been widely discussed as an ante-
cedent of individual-level well-being or satisfaction in close relation-
ships (e.g., Emmons & McCullough, 2003; Froh, Sefick, & Emmons,
2008; Tsang, 2006), its impact on group-level performance has been
little investigated in organizational science. Our research, which ex-
amines gratitude’s impact on team information processing and team
creativity, offers a precise and powerful tool for predicting and facil-
itating team performance in organizations.
2. Theory and hypotheses
2.1. Definition of gratitude
Gratitude, which is a specific positive emotion that stems from va-
luing and being aware of one’s surroundings or events (Graham &
Barker, 1990; McCullough et al., 2001; Wood et al., 2010), is a benefit-
related experience that arises when an individual appraises a positive
outcome as having been caused by external influence (Tugade, Shiota,
& Kirby, 2014). Gratitude is often described as a high-level positive
emotion, attitude, or experience initiated by a cognitive process such as
pride, interest, or contentment (Fredrickson, 2004). While gratitude has
positive emotional valence (Lazarus & Lazarus, 1994; Mayer, Salovey,
Gomberg-Kaufman, & Blainey, 1991; Ortony, Clore, & Collins, 1988), it
differs from happiness and other positive emotions because it is linked
with the external attribution of positive feeling (Weiner, 1986) and
stimulates actions to promote positive outcomes for others, including
but not limited to the original benefactor (Fredrickson, 2004; Weiner,
Russell, & Lerman, 1979). Gratitude is related to, but distinct from,
optimism and hope; optimism is the expectation of good future out-
comes (Emmons & McCullough, 2003), and hope is the pathway for
attaining those outcomes (Geraghty, Wood, & Hyland, 2010).
Gratitude carries unique implications for human sociality (Roberts,
2004). It distinctively produces constructive, meaningful interpersonal
engagements and motivates generous actions that benefit others
(McCullough et al., 2001). Other positive emotions, in contrast, are
vague in their social implications. For example, pride is linked to an
urge to share news of individual achievement and visions of greater
future success; joy is linked to an urge to play and push physical limits;
and interest is linked to an urge to explore, have new experiences, and
70
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 156 (2020) 69–81
gather information (Fredrickson, 2004). Bonnie and de Waal (2004)
argue that a feeling of gratitude has evolved by allowing humans to
engage in reciprocal exchanges of resources, which reinforces a cascade
of beneficial actions as the result of more effective collective actions.
Unlike perspective taking, which involves a cognitive effort to under-
stand another’s perspective (Hoever, van Knippenberg, van Ginkel, &
Barkema, 2012), feeling grateful involves finding or being reminded of
positivity and the benefits associated with the person (Algoe, 2012).
Gratitude is also distinct from indebtedness and obligation, which stem
from negative or uncomfortable encounters; gratitude, in contrast,
arises from contentment or positive experiences (McCullough et al.,
2001). Feelings of gratitude can be induced by practicing gratitude—for
instance, by writing in a journal about the generosity and benefits one
has experienced (e.g., Ban Breathnach, 1996; Emmons & McCullough,
2003; Hay & Friends, 1996).
2.2. Gratitude as a team-level emotion
Because this is the first study to examine gratitude in a team con-
text, we use an inclusive definition of team gratitude: the average of
group members’ feelings of gratitude, by which we assume that the
team boundary contains a meaningful implication on the level of gra-
titude its members experience during teamwork. An extensive literature
examines how affective experiences can be treated as group property by
considering how group members share and regulate their feelings while
working together. Specifically, studies suggest that group emotions are
formulated through social interaction in both top-down and bottom-up
processes (Barsade & Knight, 2015; Bartel & Saavedra, 2000; George,
1990).
A top-down perspective explains the mechanism by which group
characteristics and shared events shape members’ feelings in the group
(Barsade & Gibson, 1998; Barsade & Knight, 2015). Groups offer ample
opportunities to experience events that can spur feelings of gratitude
(Fehr, Fulmer, Awtrey, & Miller, 2017). Some groups may have a gra-
titude-enhancing norm and culture (Fehr, Fulmer, Awtrey, & Miller,
2017). For instance, a group might have a ritual in which all members
are expected to express and reciprocate their appreciation of one an-
other while celebrating the end of a project. Group leaders can also
promote the importance of recognizing contributions made during a
project, which would enhance the gratitude felt by group members.
The bottom-up mechanism causes an individual member’s emo-
tional state to cascade upward to the group’s overall collective emotion
(Barsade, 2002; Kelly & Barsade, 2001; Totterdell, 2000). An individual
member’s feelings are transmitted through emotional contagion, vi-
carious effects, and interaction synchrony. The individual functions as
an emotional spark for his/her teammates, by which an initial emo-
tional expression spirals through the group and induces an affective
experience across group members. In particular, grateful people, feeling
approved and cared by benefactors, tend to see others as potential
benefactors for them and bind with others for the welfare and re-
ciprocation of one another. Thus, boundaries of benefactors are ex-
tended beyond a particular benefactor to collective level (Algoe &
Haidt, 2009; Algoe, 2012; Algoe, Haidt, & Gable, 2008). In this way,
individual members’ feeling of gratitude may trigger a group-level
gratitude in a team. For instance, a member can express his/her grati-
tude for a teammate in a range of ways, from a gesture or tone of voice
to a card or a gift. The grateful person’s emotions are expressed such
that the target person and other teammates experience a vicarious
feeling of gratefulness—in this case, for the teammate’s gratitude for
them. That is, grateful people are responsive to others’ needs, benefiting
and providing utility for others and groups in which they are em-
bedded. This feeling of mutual gratefulness would further escalate into
a team-level state of thankfulness.
N. Pillay, et al.
2.3. The collective information-processing perspective on team creativity
The collective information-processing perspective on team crea-
tivity highlights a team’s quality of information processing as a key
antecedent for the production of creative ideas (De Dreu, Nijstad, & van
Knippenberg, 2008; De Dreu, Baas, & Nijstad, 2008; Hinsz, Tindale, &
Vollrath, 1997). Teams that engage in information elaboration, which is
defined as actively deliberating on and systematically integrating team
members’ ideas (Hoever et al., 2012; Paulus & Brown, 2007), are more
likely to come up with creative solutions. Teams working on a creative
task begin their idea deliberation process with members expressing
undeveloped ideas and opinions. These initial ideas function as raw
ingredients that can be further processed by teammates. Information
elaboration transforms team members’ initially unconnected ideas into
well-integrated, coherent sets of ideas of higher creative quality. In a
team, one’s ideas are expressed and then acknowledged, endorsed,
evaluated, and/or modified with the help of teammates during discus-
sion. Team discussion that involves minimal information elabor-
ation—that is, when team members merely focus on expressing and
reinforcing their own ideas—gains little from the intersection of dif-
ferent ideas. Team output, in this case, will merely be an assortment of
unconnected ideas, with little advancement of their creative qualities.
In contrast, team discussion can include extensive information ela-
boration, whereby team members engage in a synergetic discussion of
different ideas and advance those ideas with greater creativity
(Kurtzberg & Amabile, 2001; Resick, Murase, Randall, & DeChurch,
2014).
Hypothesis 1: Team information elaboration will promote team crea-
tivity.
2.4. Gratitude, information elaboration, and team creativity
In this section, we propose that teams with high gratitude would
deeply and systematically process and respond to others’ ideas and put
more effort into integrating team members’ ideas during team discus-
sions. Gratitude entails recognizing others’ contributions and giving
others credit (Algoe, 2012). Teams with high gratitude are more likely
to be other-focused (DeSteno et al., 2010), by which they would attend
to teammates’ ideas and suggestions with a positive and sincere attitude
that encourages active listening and constructive conversation.
Awareness of external contributions inspires grateful individuals to see
the merits and benefits of conversing with teammates. By being more
attentive and responsive to team members’ comments and suggestions,
the whole team becomes involved in idea elaboration, which further
improves and integrates their ideas (Paulus & Brown, 2007). In his
essay on moral sentiments, Smith (1982) argues that gratitude helps
society develop a balanced understanding of issues that are highly di-
visive, such as theology, because it allows constituencies to remain
respectful toward those with different perspectives and recognize the
interdependencies that bring diverse ideas together. In contrast, when
team members are feeling ungrateful, they would be less motivated to
reciprocate their teammates’ contributions and efforts. Instead of col-
lectively building creative ideas, members in ungrateful teams would be
more likely to focus on expressing and reinforcing their own ideas
throughout the discussion.
Moreover, behaviors driven by gratitude are uniquely reciprocal
and thoughtful in nature (Tsang, 2006) and accompanied by a strong
focus on benefiting others and collectives (DeSteno et al., 2010).
Fredrickson (2004) argues that grateful individuals are creative, be-
cause they formulate actions that benefit others and their focus is not
limited to the original benefactor. Also, gratitude does not foster a
simple, mindless tit-for-tat or reciprocation for the exact benefit. In-
stead, gratitude motivates individuals to remain generous and creative
in their formulation of reciprocal actions and engage in mutually ben-
eficial collaborations. Therefore, in grateful teams, initial ideas shared
71
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 156 (2020) 69–81
by team members would be more likely to trigger a response gesture by
which the team works collectively to improve on the ideas.
The more effort teams with higher gratitude put into thinking and
systematically integrating others’ ideas, the more likely that these ideas
will become intriguing or novel—and would otherwise have been
harder to generate (Stasser & Titus, 1987). Team members who feel
grateful should be motivated to think deeply and thoroughly about how
to reciprocate the benefits they have received from others and, in turn,
engage in more information elaboration during team discussion,
thereby supporting and building on others’ ideas (e.g., Bonnie & de
Waal, 2004; DeSteno et al., 2010; Tsang, 2006). Active intellectual
exchanges among team members would increase the cross-fertilization
of ideas, which in turn enables teams to develop novel ideas (Kurtzberg
& Amabile, 2001; Nemeth, 1986). In sum, teams that feel grateful
would integrate and elaborate on others’ ideas more during team dis-
cussions, which in turn enhances team creativity (Bechtoldt, De Dreu,
Nijstad, & Choi, 2010; Hoever et al., 2012).
Hypothesis 2: A feeling of gratitude will facilitate information ela-
boration in teams.
Hypothesis 3: Information elaboration will mediate the effects of a
feeling of gratitude on team creativity.
2.5. Differential effects of gratitude vs. positive emotion
Despite the prevalence and significance of positive emotion for
teams, the literature has largely been divided: Positive emotions boost
collective morale, yet they can weaken the epistemic rigor of teams,
which is essential for team creativity (George & King, 2007; Jones &
Kelly, 2009; Sunstein & Hastie, 2015). We propose that a feeling of
positive emotions in general and of gratitude in particular trigger dif-
ferent interpersonal and social dynamics during group discussion,
which in turn dampen or contribute to team creativity.
Specifically, we expect that compared to teams that feel positive
emotion, teams feeling grateful would be more likely to engage in
careful information processing. Without feeling grateful, other positive
emotion would prompt teams to engage in superficial chatter, in which
members focus on demonstrating excitement about and enthusiasm for
ideas during discussion. Positive emotion signals success and solidifies
social bonds, by which teams feel an enhanced sense of unity and
confidence (e.g., Keltner & Haidt, 1999). When simply feeling positive,
teams would feel optimistic regarding their chances of success and
members would share more lenient evaluations of ideas suggested by
others (e.g., Bohner, Crow, Erb, & Schwarz, 1992; Isen & Means, 1983).
Under the influence of positive emotion, ideas would be shared with a
high level of enthusiasm and conviction, which triggers immediate
agreement with and acceptance of teammates’ ideas.
In support of our prediction, studies have shown that when speakers
exhibit a highly energetic, enthusiastic attitude, their ideas are per-
ceived as creative and convincing (Elsbach & Kramer, 2003; Goncalo,
Flynn, & Kim, 2010). When feeling positive, team members would ex-
hibit greater fervor and confidence regarding their ideas, and be more
likely to accept teammates’ ideas. Therefore, teams in the positive
emotion condition, compared to teams in the gratitude condition,
would be more likely to lose their opportunity to integrate and advance
their ideas. Instead, their ideas would remain largely unconnected in
the midst of a greater quantity.
On the other hand, gratitude is associated with distinct re-
ciprocating, binding behavioral tendencies that would reinforce highly
engaging discourse on others’ ideas and have an enduring positive
impact on the quality of group discussion. Gratitude would be more
likely to create chains of events that carry positive meaning for team
members, which fosters the successful integration of different ideas
during team discussion (Algoe & Haidt, 2009; Algoe et al., 2008; Algoe,
2012). Gratitude would function as a powerful reinforcement that
prompts individual to reciprocate others’ generosity (which is not
N. Pillay, et al.
necessarily related to other kinds of positive affect), and should thus
lead to more constructive responses to and elaboration on others’ ideas.
This, in turn should induce helpful suggestions and comments about
team members’ ideas. When a team member feels grateful, they would
not present their ideas with great ardor, which prompts the immediate
acceptance of their ideas. Rather, grateful team members would focus
on building on each other’s ideas collectively and reflecting on their
team members’ suggestions and comments.
Hypothesis 4: A feeling of gratitude (vs. positive emotion) will decrease
team members’ engagement in shallow information processing, such that
grateful (vs. positive) members will show less enthusiasm for and con-
fidence in their ideas (Hypothesis 4a) and are less likely to immediately
accept teammates’ ideas (Hypothesis 4b).
Furthermore, we predict that due to the negative impact of gratitude
on shallow information processing, gratitude will decrease the number
of ideas generated by teams. Teams that feel positive emotion in general
are expected to engage in superficial information processing, during
which they produce ideas that are large in quantity but lacking in
quality. Specifically, in the absence of gratitude, teams in the positive
emotion condition would spend more time complimenting each other
and praising themselves for how valuable they and their ideas are. On
these occasions, letting teams indulge in exuberant feelings would
allow them to run wild with their positive spirits and express as many
ideas as possible. In such teams, the initial ideas shared by team
members would remain a mere list—unevaluated, unelaborated on, and
unconnected. In contrast, because grateful (vs. positive) teams would
engage in less superficial and more deliberate information processing,
the overall quantity of ideas that teams generate would be lower.
Thanking each other for their contributions and elaborating on each
other’s ideas would take time, and thus hamper the generation of a
large number of ideas.
Hypothesis 5: A feeling of gratitude (vs. positive emotion) will decrease
the number of ideas teams generate via its impact on shallow information
processing.
2.6. Overview of the studies
We tested our proposed relationship—that gratitude leads to in-
formation elaboration and then team creativity—in two lab experi-
ments. Specifically, we manipulated a feeling of gratitude to examine
the causal mechanism involved in team creativity. Furthermore, by
manipulating gratitude, we sought to determine whether organizations
could use it as a practical tool to enhance team creativity. Study 1
compared teams in a gratitude condition with those in a neutral con-
dition to determine whether gratitude increases team information
processing and team creativity from the baseline (Hypotheses 1–3). In
particular, Study 1 adopted the top-down perspective of group emotion
by letting participants work on a team task and then assigning them to
the condition of feeling gratitude or not. Study 2 further demonstrated
the differential effects of gratitude compared to positive emotion in
general on team information processing and the quantity and creative
quality of team ideas (Hypotheses 4–5). Here we adopted the bottom-up
perspective of group emotion: participants individually responded to
our gratitude manipulation without a preceding group task. Prior to
conducting the study, following Cohen (1992) power analysis with
power = 0.80 and a large effect size (d > 0.50) assumption, we tar-
geted a sample size of 30 groups for each condition, similar to related
studies by Hoever et al. (2012) and Park and DeShon (2018).
72
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 156 (2020) 69–81
3. Study 1
3.1. Participants
Two hundred and twelve undergraduate students (60 teams) were
recruited from psychology classes at a large public university in
Singapore and received extra credit. Of the participants, 70% were fe-
male and 88.3% Chinese; mean age was 21.04 (SD = 1.59).
3.2. Procedure and experimental manipulation
Groups of 6–8 individuals were directed to arrive at our laboratory
at a given time. On arrival, each group was randomly divided into two
teams of 3–4 members each and seated in separate rooms. Participants
were then told that they were going to work on three different tasks
(i.e., arithmetic, writing, and creativity tasks) as a team and given 3 min
to introduce themselves and come up with a team name.
For the first task, teams worked on a collective task in which they
collaborated to solve puzzles. Specifically, each team member was
given a Sudoku puzzle of medium difficulty on a sheet of paper.
Participants were then told that they were going to solve the puzzles
together by passing the puzzle they were working on to the team
member on their right every 90 s. After being informed that the top
10% of individuals with the most correct solutions would win $10, they
had 90s to complete as much as possible of the first puzzle they were
given. At the end of this interval, team members passed their puzzles to
the right and, in turn, began working on the puzzle given to them by the
team member on their left. This was repeated until everyone had
worked on each puzzle once.
After this, participants were told that they were going to work on a
writing task for 5 min. We adopted a manipulation that has been widely
used in previous research on gratitude (Emmons & McCullough, 2003;
Froh et al., 2008; Lyubomirsky, Sheldon, & Schkade, 2005; Watkins,
Grimm, & Kolts, 2004). As this study aims to motivate participants to
feel grateful by recalling instances in which they were grateful to their
teammates, we asked participants to write about their teamwork ex-
periences for five min. Half of the participants were randomly assigned
to the gratitude condition (n = 106; 30 teams) and given the following
to read:
There are many things in our lives, both large and small, that we might be
grateful about. For the next 5 min, think back and write in detail about
why you are grateful or thankful for your team members. These team
members include the people you just worked with and past team mem-
bers. Please elaborate on why you feel grateful or thankful and provide
contextual information where necessary.
The other half of the participants were randomly assigned to the
neutral condition (n = 106; 30 teams) and asked to write in detail about
their activities on a typical day and given the following to read:
For the next 5 min, write about your typical day starting with the first
thing you do in the morning. Please only write about the objective actions
that you typically do in a day.
After 5 min of the writing task, participants in both conditions were
informed that they would take part in a team creativity task.
Specifically, they were asked to generate, as a team, creative ways to
improve education at the university for 8 min, and told that it was
important to come up with highly creative ideas that were both original
and practical. The experimenter then further emphasized that those
ideas that are high in only one dimension, such as novelty or practi-
cality, but lacking in the other, such as practicality or novelty, would
not be considered highly creative. Participants were then informed that
the top 10% of individuals and the top 10% of teams with the most
creative ideas would win $10 per individual. This reward was designed
N. Pillay, et al.
to motivate participants and give them an opportunity to benefit
themselves (by producing creative ideas as an individual) or to benefit
their team (by producing creative ideas as a team) (De Dreu, 2007;
Tsang, 2006). Teams were provided with a lined worksheet and told to
write their ideas in point form (i.e., as a simple list) to be submitted at
the end of the discussion. The entire study lasted about 40 min.
3.3. Measures
Information elaboration. Participant interactions were videotaped
during the brainstorming session. Two research assistants who were
blinded to the study design and hypotheses rated each team’s level of
idea elaboration during the 8-min team discussion on a 5-point Likert
scale ranging from 1 (very low elaboration) to 5 (very high elaboration),
based on the coding scheme from Hoever et al. (2012). For example, a
value of 1 was assigned to teams in which members immediately started
writing down ideas with little or no systematic discussion of the in-
formation and/or team members’ perspectives, and a value of 5 to
teams in which all members acknowledged the information and per-
spectives shared by their teammates and elaborated on the ideas during
their discussion. We estimated the convergence between the two coders
on 10 teams by estimating the mean rwg coefficient, coefficient alpha
index, and two ICCs. All four agreement and reliability measures were
acceptable, which suggested adequate levels of agreement and relia-
bility (rwg = 0.81; α = 0.81; ICC1 = 0.57; ICC2 = 0.73). After checking
the convergence, average values for the two coders were used as the
information elaboration variable.
Team idea creativity. Each team was asked to submit their ideas on
paper at the end of the team discussion. Following Goncalo and Staw
(2006), the creativity of the team’s ideas was measured using a 5-point
Likert scale ranging from 1 (not creative at all) to 5 (extremely creative).
Two independent coders were asked to base their creativity ratings on
their perceptions of team ideas’ uniqueness and practicality. Specifi-
cally, guidelines were given such that a team was considered to be
highly creative if their ideas took an original, novel, or unique approach
to solving the university’s challenges; contained ideas that were useful
or practical for overcoming the challenges; and could easily and readily
be implemented. All four agreement and reliability measures were
found to be acceptable, suggesting adequate levels of agreement and
reliability (rwg = 0.94; α = 0.85; ICC1 = 0.73; ICC2 = 0.85).
Number of ideas generated. Although we used creativity ratings
provided by independent coders to represent team creativity, the
number of ideas that teams generate can also serve as an indicator of
idea-generation fluency and is, thus, a potentially interesting alter-
native proxy for creativity (Paulus & Yang, 2000). We measured this by
counting the ideas listed on the lined worksheet provided during team
discussion (De Dreu, Nijstad, et al., 2008; De Dreu, Baas, et al., 2008).
3.4. Results
Pilot testing. We conducted a separate pilot study before the study
to ensure successful manipulation of the gratitude and neutral
Table 1
Descriptive statistics and correlations for main variables (Study 1).
M SD 1 2 3 participant factor, showed a significant two-way interaction effect, F(1, 254) =
1. Conditiona 0.50 0.50
2. Team information elaboration 3.17 1.16 0.38**
3. Team idea creativity 3.11 0.69 0.29* 0.39**
4. Team idea quantity 12.56 7.06 −0.16 −0.20 0.11
Note.
N = 60 teams.
a
0 = neutral, 1 = gratitude.
* p < 0.05.
** p < 0.01.
73
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 156 (2020) 69–81
conditions. Twenty-seven undergraduates from the same subject pool as
Study 1 participated (52% female). Following prior studies on gratitude
(Emmons & McCullough, 2003; Froh et al., 2008), after the manipula-
tion, participants rated the degree to which they felt grateful, thankful,
and positive using a 5-point scale (1 = disagree to 5 = agree). Partici-
pants in the gratitude condition (M = 5.67, SD = 1.07) reported feeling
more grateful than participants in the neutral condition (M = 4.00,
SD = 1.56), t(25) = 3.150, p = 0.004, d = 1.24. Similarly, participants
in the gratitude condition (M = 5.75, SD = 1.29) reported feeling more
thankful than participants in the neutral condition (M = 4.53,
SD = 1.60), t(25) = 2.138, p = 0.042, d = 0.85. Participants in the
gratitude condition (M = 4.72, SD = 1.07) and the neutral condition
(M = 4.41, SD = 1.03) showed no significant difference in their re-
ported general positive affect, t(25) = 0.76, p = 0.452.2
Hypothesis testing. Table 1 provides preliminary statistics, such as
the correlation coefficients of all variables measured, along with their
means and SDs. Hypothesis 1 predicted that team information ela-
boration would promote team idea creativity. To test this hypothesis,
we conducted a simple regression analysis where we entered team in-
formation elaboration as the predictor of team idea creativity. Con-
sistent with our hypothesis, there was a significant positive relationship
between team information elaboration and team idea creativity
(β = 0.39, p = 0.002).
Hypothesis 2 predicted that a feeling of gratitude would promote
information elaboration. To test this hypothesis, an independent-sam-
ples t-test was conducted to compare information elaboration in the
gratitude versus neutral condition. Consistent with our hypothesis,
there was a significant difference in information elaboration for the
gratitude (M = 3.60, SD = 1.21, 95% CI [3.11, 4.00]) and neutral
(M = 2.73, SD = 0.94, 95% CI [2.42, 3.07]) conditions; t(58) = 3.08,
p = 0.003, d = 0.80. This indicates that teams in the gratitude con-
dition were more likely to engage in information elaboration, during
which they actively elaborated on different ideas during team discus-
sion.
Hypothesis 3 predicted that gratitude would have an indirect effect
on team creativity through information elaboration. We first tested the
direct effect of gratitude on team idea creativity. There was a significant
difference in team creativity for the gratitude (M = 3.25, SD = 0.55,
95% CI [3.04, 3.43]) and neutral (M = 2.90, SD = 0.70, 95% CI [2.65,
3.16]) conditions; t(58) = 2.32, p = 0.024, d = 0.60. This indicates
that teams in the gratitude condition were more likely to generate
highly creative ideas than teams in the neutral condition. Next, to test
the overall proposed mediation model (gratitude → team information
elaboration → team idea creativity), we used Preacher and Hayes
(2004) bootstrapping estimation approach with 1,000 samples. Results
indicate that the indirect effect of gratitude on team creativity through
information elaboration was significant, b = 0.1655, SE = 0.0979,
95% CI = [0.0298, 0.4319], supporting the overall model proposed
2
In a separate pilot study, we further examined whether our gratitude ma-
nipulation is relevant for people with organizational team experience. Our
sample contained 256 full-time employee MTurkers (Mage = 36.13, SD =
10.58; 52% female) who had worked with teams in organizational settings. A 2
(manipulation: gratitude, neutral) x 2 (measure: felt-gratitude, positive affect)
repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA), with the measure as a within-
7.08, p < 0.01. Subsequent multivariate analyses showed that participants in
the gratitude condition felt a significantly higher degree of gratitude (M =
3.89, SD = 0.10) than those in the neutral condition (M = 3.44, SD = 0.10),
p < 0.01, 95% CI = [0.170, 0.731]. However, positive affect levels for the
gratitude condition (M = 3.55, SD = 0.08) and the neutral condition (M =
3.38, SD = 0.08) were not significantly different, p > 0.10, 95% CI =
[−0.044, 0.396]. This demonstrates that people in the gratitude condition felt
significantly more grateful than those in the neutral condition. Thus, our gra-
titude manipulation effectively induced a feeling of gratitude among full-time
employees with organizational team experience.
N. Pillay, et al.
Fig. 1. The indirect effect of gratitude on team creativity through information elaboration (Study 1).
(Fig. 1).
Additional analysis. We examined whether teams in the gratitude
and neutral conditions generated different numbers of ideas. There was
no significant difference in the number of ideas generated between the
gratitude condition (M = 11.41, SD = 6.16, 95% CI [10.84, 16.59])
and neutral condition (M = 13.66, SD = 7.77, 95% CI [9.46, 13.62]), t
(58) = −1.23, p = 0.224.
3.5. Discussion of Study 1
Findings from Study 1 demonstrate that gratitude felt toward team
members increases the likelihood that team members will elaborate on
ideas and, in turn, increase the team’s creative performance. That is,
teams with a higher feeling of gratitude seemed to value different
perspectives and actively integrate diverse information, such that they
achieved a higher level of creativity and reaped the benefits of working
as a team. In particular, such information elaboration accounted for
felt-gratitude’s beneficial effect on team creativity.
While Study 1 elucidated the effect of the gratitude condition
compared to the neutral condition on team creativity through in-
formation elaboration, a comparison of gratitude and general positive
emotion would further highlight the unique effects of gratitude on team
information processing and team creativity. Thus, Study 2 examines:
Would both teams feeling positive emotion and teams feeling gratitude
be equally motivated to further elaborate and build on each other’s
ideas? Would teams in both condition rush to accept members’ ideas
with enthusiasm and bypass the opportunity to further develop the
ideas? Would a feeling of gratitude function as a trigger that enriches
the quality of team collective information processing?
We expected that a feeling of gratitude (vs. positive emotion) would
result in less shallow information processing and fewer (in quantity)
and more creative (in quality) ideas generated by teams. Accordingly,
Study 2 examined the same three hypotheses that were tested in Study
1; a positive relationship between team information elaboration and
team creativity (Hypothesis 1), a positive relationship between grati-
tude and team information elaboration (Hypothesis 2), and an indirect
effect of gratitude on team creativity via team information elaboration
(Hypothesis 3). In addition, Study 2 tests additional hypotheses re-
garding shallow information processing and team idea quantity; a ne-
gative relationship between gratitude and shallow information pro-
cessing (Hypothesis 4), and an indirect effect of gratitude on the
number of ideas generated by teams via shallow information processing
(Hypothesis 5).
In Study 2, we employed a slightly different manipulation method
for gratitude to examine the effects of various sources of grateful feel-
ings. Specifically, in Study 1, we gave teams an opportunity to work
74
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 156 (2020) 69–81
collectively on Sudoku puzzles and asked individuals to reflect on
moments of gratitude they experienced while working in teams. This
manipulation is consistent with the top-down perspective of group
emotion and specifically tied to a feeling of gratitude during the
teamwork experience. However, previous studies have argued that
gratitude can come from diverse sources, such as help from others, a
belief in personal luck, or a blessing from God (e.g., Graham & Barker,
1990; McCullough et al., 2001; Solomon, 1977). Would team members’
feelings of gratitude toward their teammates be a necessary condition
for teams to benefit from gratitude? Or does a source of gratitude not
need to be team-related, and could instead be more general? In Study 2,
we adopted the bottom-up perspective of group emotion and had par-
ticipants reflect on moments of gratitude without prompting them to
think about their team experience. We examined whether and how such
a gratitude manipulation has an effect on group-level outcome, team
creativity.
4. Study 2
Study 2 sought to determine the effect of gratitude versus general-
ized positive emotion on information elaboration and the quantity and
creative quality of team ideas. We examined whether a feeling of gra-
titude that is specific to particular teammates and irrespective of teams
increases team creativity. Since Study 1 demonstrated that gratitude
boosted team creativity compared to the baseline (neutral condition),
we simplified Study 2′s experimental design, and randomly assigned
participants to either the gratitude or positive emotion condition.3
3
In a separate study, we examined the effectiveness of our manipulations of
all three conditions (gratitude, positive emotion, and neutral) for full-time
employees with organizational team experience. Two hundred and sixty-two
MTurkers (M age = 37.39, SD = 10.71; 54% female) participated in our study.
A 3 (manipulation: gratitude, positive emotion, neutral) x 2 (measure: felt-
gratitude, positive emotion) repeated-measures ANOVA showed a significant
two-way interaction effect, F(2, 259) = 13.93, p < 0.001. A subsequent mul-
tivariate test showed that the level of felt-gratitude of participants in the gra-
titude condition (M = 4.38, SD = 0.11) was significantly higher than that of
the positive emotion condition (M = 4.05, SD = 0.12, p = 0.04, 95% CI =
[0.013, 0.651]) and the neutral condition (M = 3.47, SD = 0.11, p < .001,
95% CI = [0.613, 1.221]). The degree of felt-gratitude among participants in
the positive emotion condition was higher than those in the neutral condition
(p < 0.001, 95% CI = [0.264, 0.908]). The level of positive emotion of parti-
cipants in the gratitude condition (M = 3.77, SD = 0.08) was significantly
higher than those in the neutral condition (M = 3.45, SD = 0.08), p < 0.01,
95% CI = [0.102, 0.542]. There was no significant difference between the
gratitude and positive emotion conditions (M = 3.65, SD = 0.09, p > 0.30,
95% CI = [−0.112, 0.350]). This is consistent with previous studies that
N. Pillay, et al.
4.1. Participants
Two hundred thirty-one undergraduate students were recruited
from a large public university in Singapore and paid for their partici-
pation; 68% were women and 87.8% Chinese. The mean age of parti-
cipants was 21.53 (SD = 1.69).
4.2. Procedure and experimental manipulation
Groups of 6–8 individuals were instructed to arrive at our laboratory
at a given time. On arrival, each group was randomly divided into two
teams of 3–4 members each and seated in separate rooms. Participants
were then told that they were going to work on two different tasks (i.e.,
writing and brainstorming) as a team and given a few minutes to in-
troduce themselves and come up with a team name.
Participants in the gratitude condition (n = 118; 31 teams) were
asked to recall and write in detail about some things in life that made
them feel grateful or thankful. They were first asked to sink into the
situation again and re-experience how they had felt. They were then
asked to write what made them feel grateful or thankful at that mo-
ment. Participants in the positive emotion condition (n = 113; 31 teams)
were asked to recall and write in detail about some things in life that
made them feel positive or happy. They were first asked to sink into the
situation again and re-experience how they had felt. They were then
asked to write what made them feel positive or happy at that moment.
After 5 min of the writing task, participants in both the gratitude
and positive emotion condition were informed that they would take
part in a team creativity task. Specifically, they were asked to come up
with creative ways to improve education at the university, and were
told that it was essential to come up with ideas that were both original
and practical. Teams were given paper and pen and asked to generate
creative ideas on the topic for 6 min. Participants were then informed
that the top 10% of individuals and the top 10% of teams with the most
creative ideas would win $10 per individual. This reward was designed
to motivate participants and give them an opportunity to benefit
themselves (by producing creative ideas as an individual) or to benefit
their team (by producing creative ideas as a team). The interaction was
videotaped so that the team process could be analyzed. The entire study
lasted 30 min.
4.3. Measures
Felt-gratitude. Following prior studies on gratitude (Emmons &
McCullough, 2003; Froh et al., 2008), after the manipulation partici-
pants responded to how grateful and thankful they felt using a 5-point
scale (1 = disagree to 5 = agree; r = 0.88, p < 0.01). We averaged the
two items and used the mean as an index of felt-gratitude.
Positive emotion. Participants also responded to 10 positive emo-
tion items (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) using a 5-point Likert scale
(1 = disagree to 5 = agree) after the manipulation. The items were:
interested, excited, strong, enthusiastic, proud, alert, inspired, de-
termined, attentive, and active (α = 0.85). The average of the items
was used as an index of positive emotion.
Information elaboration. Participant interactions were videotaped
during the brainstorming session. Two research assistants who were
blinded to the study design and hypotheses rated each team’s level of
(footnote continued)
suggest gratitude as an activating, pleasant emotion (Emmons & McCullough,
2003; Overwalle, Mervielde, & De Schuyter, 1995; Pekrum 2011; Reisenzein,
1994). While not expected, there was only a marginally significant difference
between the neutral and positive emotion conditions in terms of their positive
emotion, p > 0.08, 95% CI = [−0.436, 0.030]. In sum, these results show that
the gratitude manipulation—and not the positive emotion manipulation—did
indeed cause full-time employees with organizational team experience to feel
grateful.
75
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 156 (2020) 69–81
information elaboration based on the same coding scheme used for
Study 1. All four agreement and reliability measures were acceptable,
which suggested adequate levels of agreement and reliability
(rwg = 0.97; α = 0.95; ICC1 = 0.90; ICC2 = 0.95). Average values for
the two coders were used as the team’s information elaboration.
Team idea creativity. Each team was asked to submit their ideas on
paper at the end of the team discussion. Two independent coders, who
were different from the coders for information elaboration, were asked
to base their creativity ratings on the same criteria used in Study 1.4 All
four agreement and reliability measures were found to be acceptable,
suggesting adequate levels of agreement and reliability (rwg = 0.84;
α = 0.75; ICC1 = 0.61; ICC2 = 0.76).
Number of ideas generated. An independent coder counted the
number of ideas each team generated (De Dreu, Nijstad, et al., 2008; De
Dreu, Baas, et al., 2008).
Number of utterances (individual level). Two independent co-
ders who were blinded to the experimental manipulations counted the
number of utterances made by each individual team member using
video recordings of the team discussion (Park & DeShon, 2010). One
rater watched all recordings and recorded the number of utterances,
while a second rater rated a random selection of 25% of the recordings
(59 individuals). Agreement and reliability measures were found to be
acceptable (α = 0.97; ICC1 = 0.94; ICC2 = 0.97).
Idea acceptance (individual level). Two independent coders who
were blinded to the experimental manipulations counted the number of
times an individual immediately agreed after listening to teammates’
expressed ideas (Park & DeShon, 2018). For example, in the following
conversation example, Member 2 engaged with Member 1′s idea by
immediately accepting/agreeing with it.
Member 1: How about posting a class outline on social media?
Member 2: I agree, let’s write it down.
One rater watched all recordings and recorded idea acceptance,
while a second rater rated a random selection of 25% of the recordings
(59 individuals). Agreement and reliability measures were found to be
acceptable (α = 0.96; ICC1 = 0.92; ICC2 = 0.96).
Enthusiasm/Confidence (individual level). Two independent
coders who were blinded to the experimental manipulations rated the
extent to which each individual pitched their ideas with enthusiasm,
energy, and conviction using a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (not at all)
to 7 (extremely) based on the video recordings of team discussion. This
coding scheme is an adapted version of demonstrated enthusiasm scales
from previous studies on the creativity–enthusiasm link (e.g., Elsbach &
Kramer, 2003; Goncalo et al., 2010). One rater watched all recordings
and rated enthusiasm for each individual team member, while a second
rater rated a random selection of 25% of the recordings (59 in-
dividuals). Agreement and reliability measures were found to be ac-
ceptable (α = 0.85; ICC1 = 0.73; ICC2 = 0.85).
5. Results
Manipulation check. Participants in the gratitude condition
(M = 4.08, SD = 0.80, 95% CI [3.92, 4.22]) reported feeling more
grateful than participants in the positive emotion condition (M = 3.82,
SD = 0.96, 95% CI [3.64, 3.99]), t(229) = 2.26, p = 0.025, d = 0.29.
Participants in the gratitude condition (M = 3.08, SD = 0.67, 95% CI
[2.96, 3.21]) and the positive emotion condition (M = 3.20,
4
Following reviewers’ recommendations, we also calculated team creativity
using a multiplication function of idea uniqueness and idea practicality (e.g.,
Shalley, Zhou, & Oldham, 2004): Novelty: rwg = 0.85, ICC1 = 0.51, ICC2 =
0.68; Practicality: rwg= 0.85, ICC1= 0.65, ICC2 = 0.79. Using the multi-
plication method to calculate team creativity, our findings remained consistent
such that gratitude had a significant indirect effect on team creativity through
team information elaboration (b = 1.2545, SE = 0.7057, 95% CI = [0.0335,
2.8836]). More information on the analyses is available upon request.
N. Pillay, et al. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 156 (2020) 69–81

Table 2
Descriptive statistics and correlations for main variables (Study 2).
SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ICC1 ICC2

a
1. Condition 0.51 0.50
2. Utterance (Ind-level) 23.91 13.69 0.03 0.23 0.53
3. Idea acceptance (Ind-level) 1.39 1.64 −0.20** 0.34** 0.10 0.29
4. Enthusiasm (Ind-level) 3.84 1.25 −0.17** 0.68** 0.33** 0.29 0.60
5. Team information elaboration 2.76 0.71 0.49** 0.27* −0.18 0.03
6. Team shallow processing 0.00 1.65 −0.29* 0.62** 0.83** 0.83** −0.09
7. Team idea creativity 2.79 0.71 0.46** 0.07 −0.20 −0.09 0.45** −0.18
8. Team idea quantity 10.81 5.56 −0.19 0.19 0.45** 0.30* −0.57** 0.45** −0.25*

Note.
Numbers in roman type are correlations of individual-level variables (N = 231). Underlined numbers in italics are correlations of team-level variables (n = 62). For
example, correlation between team utterance and team elaboration is 0.27.
a
0 = positive, 1 = gratitude.
* p < 0.05.
** p < 0.01.

SD = 0.71, 95% CI [3.06, 3.32]) showed no significant difference in Hypothesis 3 predicted that gratitude would have an indirect effect
their positive emotion, t(229) = −1.29, p = 0.195—again, consistent on team creativity through information elaboration. First, we tested the
with previous studies showing that gratitude is related to, but distinct significance of the effect of team gratitude condition on team creativity.
from, positive emotion (Emmons & McCullough, 2003; Weiner, 1986). Teams in the gratitude condition (M = 3.11, SD = 0.63, 95% CI [2.90,
Team members showed a significant level of convergence in their gra- 3.33]) generated ideas with higher creativity than teams in the positive
titude (rwg = 0.81, ICC1 = 0.31; ICC2 = 0.62) and positive emotion emotion condition (M = 2.46, SD = 0.65, 95% CI [2.24, 2.68]), t
(rwg = 0.76, ICC1 = 0.31; ICC2 = 0.62) (Bliese, 2000; LeBreton & (60) = 3.98, p < 0.001, d = 1.02. Then, to test the indirect effect of
Senter, 2008). gratitude on team creativity through information elaboration, we per-
Hypothesis testing. Table 2 provides preliminary statistics, such as formed a mediation analysis employing a bootstrapping method
the correlation coefficients of all variables measured, along with their (Hayes, 2013) where we put team total utterance as a covariate. As
means and SDs. Hypothesis 1 predicted that team information ela- predicted, we found a significant indirect effect of the gratitude con-
boration would promote team idea creativity. To test this hypothesis, dition on team creativity through information elaboration (b = 0.2012,
we conducted a multiple regression analysis where we entered team SE = 0.1144, 95% CI = [0.0224, 0.4837]).
information elaboration as the predictor of team idea creativity Hypothesis 4 predicted that gratitude (vs. positive emotion) would
(Table 3: Model 1). Consistent with our hypothesis, there as a sig- decrease teams’ engagement in shallow information processing, by
nificant positive relationship between team information elaboration which members showed less enthusiasm for and confidence in their
and team idea creativity (β = 0.46, p < 0.001). ideas (Hypothesis 4a) and members were less likely to immediately
Hypothesis 2 predicted that gratitude would promote team in- accept teammates’ ideas (Hypothesis 4b). The data in this study have a
formation elaboration. Consistent with the hypothesis, teams in the multilevel structure in which individuals (Level 1) are embedded in
gratitude condition engaged in more information elaboration teams (Level 2). For hypotheses that involve only Level 2 variables (i.e.,
(M = 3.10, SD = 0.81, 95% CI [2.84, 3.42]) than teams in the positive Hypotheses 1–3), a linear least squares regression method provides an
emotion condition (M = 2.42, SD = 0.32, 95% CI [2.31, 2.54]), t accurate estimate of the effects of independent variables (i.e., team
(60) = 4.31, p < 0.001, d = 1.10. We also tested the effects using information elaboration) on dependent variables (i.e., team creativity).
multiple regression where we were able to use the team total utterances For Hypotheses 4a and 4b, in which hypothesized variables are at the
as a covariate (Table 3: Model 2). After controlling for the effects of individual level, the analyses must also account for Level 2 effects of
team utterances on team information elaboration, the effects of team team membership (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2002). For example,
condition on team information elaboration remained significant an individual could have exhibited more enthusiasm because they were
(β = 0.47, p < 0.001). surrounded by enthusiastic members. In such cases, neglecting these
team membership differences can lead to inaccurate estimates of hy-
pothesized relationships. Accordingly, we used hierarchical linear
Table 3 modeling to test Hypotheses 4a and 4b where we entered individual
Hypotheses testing for Study 2. utterance as a covariate of the analysis. Consistent with Hypothesis 4a,
B SE ß t R2 there was a significant negative relationship between the gratitude (vs.
positive emotion) condition and team members’ enthusiasm
DV: Team creativity (Model 1)
(γ = −0.46; F(1, 60) = 6.44, p = 0.014). Consistent with Hypothesis 4b,
Team total utterance −0.00 0.00 −0.06 −0.46
Team information elaboration 0.47 0.12 0.46 3.82** 0.20
there was a significant negative relationship between the gratitude (vs.
DV: Team information elaboration (Model 2) positive emotion) condition and team members’ immediate acceptance
Team total utterance 0.00 0.00 0.23 2.09* of the ideas (γ = −0.70; F(1, 60) = 8.73, p = 0.004).
Team gratitude conditiona 0.65 0.15 0.47 4.23** 0.29 Hypothesis 5 predicted that gratitude (vs. positive emotion) condi-
DV: Shallow information processing (Model 3)
tion would decrease the number of ideas generated by teams via its
Team total utterance 0.03 0.00 0.65 7.05**
Team gratitude conditiona −1.15 0.30 −0.35 −3.83** 0.50 impact on shallow information processing. To test this hypothesis, we
DV: Team idea quantity (Model 4) combined the two indicators of shallow information processing used in
Team total utterance −0.02 0.02 −0.15 −1.04 the study5 (i.e., enthusiasm and idea acceptance) after z-score trans-
Shallow information processing 1.85 0.49 0.55 3.75** 0.22
formation of the scores for each individual. To calculate a team-level of
Note.
a
0 = positive, 1 = gratitude.
5
* p < 0.05. The correlation between enthusiasm and idea acceptance was .33,
** p < 0.01. p < 0.001.

76
N. Pillay, et al.
shallow information processing, we aggregated individual team mem-
bers’ shallow information processing using an additive composition
approach (Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). We also calculated team-level of
utterance by aggregating the total number of utterances made by team
members (see Table 2 for ICC values of the aggregated variables). We
first predicted shallow information processing using team condition
(Table 3: Model 3). Consistent with our prediction, there was a sig-
nificant negative relationship between team gratitude (vs. positive
emotion) condition and shallow information processing (β = −0.35,
p < 0.001). We then predicted team idea quantity using shallow in-
formation processing (Table 3: Model 4). Consistent with our predic-
tion, there was a significant positive relationship (β = 0.55,
p < 0.001). This suggests that the more a team engages in shallow,
uncritical information processing, the more ideas the team will gen-
erate. We then tested the proposed indirect effect using Preacher and
Hayes (2004) bootstrapping estimation approach with 1,000 samples.
Results indicate that the indirect effect of gratitude condition on
quantity of team ideas through shallow information processing was
significant, (b = −2.0631, SE = 0.8858, 95% CI = [−4.3647,
−0.7285]). This means that teams in the positive emotion condition
(compared to teams in the gratitude condition) were more likely to
engage in shallow information processing, which then lead to more
number of ideas.
5.1. Discussion of Study 2
Study 2 findings provide further evidence for the causal effect of
gratitude on team information elaboration and team creativity. Both
gratitude that was directed toward team members (Study 1) and gra-
titude that was unspecific to the participant’s teamwork experience
(Study 2) equally benefited information elaboration and team crea-
tivity. When team members brought past feelings of gratitude to the
team discussion, they engaged in more information elaboration, which
explains the team’s creativity boost. Our data clearly demonstrate the
beneficial effect of gratitude (vs. positive emotion) on information
elaboration and team creativity. By comparing the two conditions, our
findings show that gratitude’s beneficial effect on team creativity was
due to its ability to increase team information elaboration. An increase
in positive affect (compared to gratitude) led teams to engage in
shallow information processing, with greater enthusiasm for and im-
mediate acceptance of ideas, which in turn led to a greater quantity of
ideas (Fig. 2).
6. General discussion
Group creativity is largely determined by the quality of interaction
dynamics among members. A team member’s idea, depending on the
degree of careful attention it receives and team members’ helpful
The Proposed Model on Team Idea Quantity and Creativity (Study 2)
Fig. 2. The proposed model on team idea quantity and creativity (Study 2).
77
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 156 (2020) 69–81
suggestions, can be transformed into an idea with superior quality
through group discussion. Scholars who understand the consensus-
seeking nature of group discussion, however, contend that group
creativity is a paradox (Smith & Berg, 1987; Staw, 2009). Creative
groups need to deviate from commonly held views and seek to chal-
lenge the status quo, while simultaneously preserving a sense of active
collaboration and unity. Often, groups end up compensating for one
thing with another. For example, groups successfully remain collegial
and positive, yet their discussion is superficial, uncritical, and lenient
and they produced a list of underdeveloped ideas (Sunstein & Hastie,
2015).
This research unravels the paradox of group creativity by in-
vestigating gratitude as a potent emotion that boosts team creativity.
We argue that by enhancing the mutual encouragement of and open-
ness to team members’ ideas and suggestions to improve them, grati-
tude would be a viable positive emotion for team creativity. Due to its
respectful and attentive nature (Tsang, 2006), strong focus on others
and tendency to reciprocate (DeSteno et al., 2010), and concomitant
recognition of others’ contributions and efforts (Bonnie & de Waal,
2004), we argue that gratitude would advance the quality of ideas
through team information elaboration. Our results highlight the un-
iquely helpful role of feeling grateful for team information elaboration
and team creativity.
Our research makes three main contributions that encompass the
fields of gratitude, team information processing, and team creativity.
First, our findings demonstrate gratitude’s unique beneficial role in
team information processing, which is distinct from that of general
positive emotion. We believe the gratitude–team creativity link is in-
teresting scientifically, not only because it is a positive emotion but also
because of its distinct ability to boost the quality of team information
processing. Consistent with our expectation, feeling grateful prevented
teams from engaging in shallow, effortless processing of information.
By delineating the unique social interaction dynamics that gratitude
triggers in teams, we found that gratitude actually enhanced groups’
engagement in high-quality processing of information. Unlike members
who felt positive in general, members who felt grateful carefully pro-
cessed the information shared during the discussion in ways that went
beyond simple acknowledgment and acceptance of suggested ideas. We
also argue that future studies on positive emotion and team creativity
would benefit from not lumping positive emotions together indis-
criminately and delineating the specific team-level dynamics triggered
by different positive emotions.
Second, our findings offer enriched understanding of team creative
processes, in which we identified two distinct processes using the
comparison between the gratitude condition and the positive affect
condition. Specifically, teams with positive emotion mainly focused on
superficial chatter filled with enthusiasm and confidence that boosted
the quantity of ideas. On the other hand, teams with gratitude achieved
N. Pillay, et al.
a synergistic process in which ideas were elaborated on and integrated
during discussion; this, in turn, boosted the quality of the team solution.
Our discovery of the quantity vs. quality creative process is consistent
with previous studies of team information processing, in which the
failure to engage in deep and systematic processing of diverse ideas
yielded a list of unconnected, raw ideas put forth by individual team
members (e.g., Hoever et al., 2012). As one of the first studies to
identify the two distinct paths widely discussed in team discussion lit-
erature, our findings cannot be treated as conclusive evidence on the
quantity vs. quality dichotomy in team creativity. Rather, we argue that
team creativity studies need to consider team-level dynamics during
interactions (e.g., how members express opinions and perceive and
react to other’s ideas) as a key mechanism that drives team creativity.
Third, by delineating the unique positive role of feeling grateful on
collective information coordination processes and team creativity, this
study delves deeper into what has long been assumed, but never tested,
about gratitude and its impact on collectives. The role of gratitude in
the functioning of collectives has long been a subject of debate and
drawn the attention of philosophers, sociologists, and economists.
Adam Smith (1982), for example, argues that gratitude functions as
social capital and a balancing force between self-interest and social
interest, and allows society to flourish in a commercial world by in-
troducing natural kindness and sociability. In the same way, Bonnie and
de Waal (2004) argue that gratitude is a fundamental for group success
as a force that keeps distant tribal members entrained through ex-
changes of favors and gifts during hardships such as natural disasters.
In the social dilemma literature, gratitude allows the successful
coordination of collective actions, as it motivates helpful actions that
target other individuals—including, but not limited to, the original
benefactor (Harpham, 2004). Human beings essentially evolved to live
and thrive in small group settings. Pinker (1997) argues that many
positive emotions such as gratitude should be investigated from a group
perspective—that is, what effect a given emotion has on the survival
and success of groups—instead of the typical focus on the individual’s
perspective. Fredrickson (2004) contends that the external attribution
involved in feeling grateful carries a strong group-level implication that
is uniquely different from feeling other types of positive emotions. In
particular, she argues that gratitude creates stronger and more resilient
group dynamics, by which members experience and reciprocate mu-
tually beneficial interactions with one another. What we found in our
two experiments on gratitude confirms these strong contentions re-
garding the benefits of gratitude on groups: Gratitude motivates group
members to collectively process information more effectively, which
renders them better able to produce creative solutions.
In addition, not only does this finding support the theoretical per-
spective on gratitude, but it also offers an exciting opportunity for re-
search on the implications of gratitude in organizational settings, such
as team and organizational performance. It is not that gratitude has not
been applied in a business context. The vast majority of gratitude in-
terventions, however, have been used to improve employees’ well-being
or interpersonal relationships or as a marketing tactic that motivates
customers to keep coming back (e.g., Algoe, 2012, Emmons, 2013;
Jacobson, 2011). Our study highlights the positive effects of gratitude
on team-level processes and outcomes that extend beyond the findings
of previous studies on gratitude. Especially in Study 1, teams in both the
gratitude and neutral condition had the same experience, except that
gratitude teams also had the opportunity to reflect on what they were
grateful for. The change in perspective based on the gratitude condition
became a powerful motivator for team members; they valued their
teammates’ opinions and, by thoroughly and deliberately processing
information, produced highly creative ideas.
In a similar vein, even in the case in which gratitude was not spe-
cifically a team experience—such as in Study 2, in which we asked
participants to reflect on grateful events (vs. positive events) in their
life—the positive effect of gratitude remained: Members worked to-
gether to develop and integrate ideas and avoided engaging in a cursory
78
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 156 (2020) 69–81
discussion in which they failed to improve on the quality of ideas. This
is consistent with the gratitude literature, in which gratitude works not
by targeting the specific benefactor but by spreading the emotion
through generous and inclusive acts of kindness and thoughtfulness
(Fredrickson, 2013).
Finally, this study has implications on the group decision-making
literature. Team scholars have explored diverse ways to prompt teams
to engage in high-quality information processing and avoid groupthink.
One of the most widely used group decision-making interventions is the
devil’s advocate, in which a team member takes the role of dissenter
and offers alternative ideas and opinions that go against the team’s
dominant perspective. This provides an opportunity for teams to be
exposed to an alternative perspective and avoid making quick, con-
sensus-driven decisions (Schweiger, Sandberg, & Ragan, 1986; Valacich
& Schwenk, 1995). However, findings for the devil’s advocate method
are not widely supportive; this type of contrived dissenting intervention
lacks perceived authenticity, which is critical for motivating teams to
sincerely consider minority opinions (Nemeth, 2018; Schulz-Hardt,
Jochims, & Frey, 2002). Scholars have called for an intervention that
promotes genuine diversity in expressed opinions and a group climate
that encourages deep consideration of diverse opinions. Accordingly,
along with previous interventions suggested by researchers—such as
perspective taking (Hoever et al., 2012), having a developmental dis-
cussion leader (Maier & Hoffman, 1960), and a team learning goal or-
ientation (Park & DeShon, 2010)—our findings suggest that gratitude is
an effective, emotion-based intervention that can promote team per-
formance on tasks that require high-quality collective information
processing.
6.1. Practical implications
The recent popularity of practicing gratitude in the workplace
warrants rigorous scientific investigation (Emmons, 2013; Newman,
2018). Particularly with a construct such as gratitude, for which it is
difficult to perceive a downside to practicing, when tautological argu-
ments receive approval without much scrutiny, investigating the causal
mechanism is especially important. This study not only found scientific
evidence to support the current gratitude movement in organizations,
but it also showcased a unique positive effect of a gratitude intervention
on team creativity, which is critical for an organization’s success. An
especially attractive aspect of such a gratitude intervention is that it is
not necessary to have a special event or occasion to feel the emotion;
gratitude arises from finding and reminding individuals of the people
and circumstances they already have in their lives (Algoe & Haidt,
2009; Algoe et al., 2008; Algoe, 2012). As we have demonstrated in our
studies, individuals need only 5 min and the opportunity to reflect on
the events, people, and things they are grateful for. When overseeing
teams in organizations, therefore, instead of focusing solely on negative
qualities or performance gaps, we might also want to set aside time to
reflect on and show gratitude for teammates.
The teams in our experiments were all newly formed and short-
lived. Teams in organizations in which team members have longer ex-
perience working together would offer greater opportunities for the
effective implementation of gratitude interventions. For example, after
achieving an important milestone for a team project, the transition
meeting could incorporate a gratitude session in which members share
the events and dynamics that made them feel grateful during the past
project period, in addition to sharing constructive suggestions for ad-
vancing the project. We recommend using a gratitude intervention
during transition meetings instead of at the end of the whole project,
because gratitude would improve the overall group process (instead of
directly promoting the outcome), and it is important to establish a
healthy group process early in the group’s tenure rather than later
(Mathieu & Rapp, 2009).
In a related vein, when teams are feeling highly positive, such as
upon securing a large grant or receiving recognition for excellent
N. Pillay, et al.
performance, such an event could be reframed to introduce a sense of
gratitude. For instance, in research teams, in which it is important to
carefully deliberate on multiple perspectives and develop a synthesized
understanding of the subject matter, it would be beneficial to use these
positive events as opportunities to boost a sense of gratitude instead of
focusing on a jubilant reward. Feeling grateful to each other for their
contributions and all forms of help that made such a positive outcome
possible would not only further increase the viability of the team, but
also increase the quality of information processing and yield subsequent
creative performance. Team leaders are in a particularly good position
to shape the emotional tone of a team easily and quickly. When team
leaders share their feelings of gratitude, this exerts a strong top-down
process by which team members will find reasons to also feel grateful.
When a discussion leader responds graciously to team members’ ideas
and considers them thoughtfully, team members will be more likely to
join in and provide suggestions to further improve on the ideas.
For teams with a deep-seeded conflict or intergroup conflicts, in
which there is already an acute sense of resentment or distrust, grati-
tude intervention would be less likely to work—not to mention much
harder to implement. For a gratitude intervention to be effective, a
genuine feeling of gratefulness must be present (Emmons, 2013). The
main reason a commercialized expressions of gratitude, such as a thank-
you card from a sales representative, fails is because customers perceive
the gesture as disingenuous. Similarly, depending on a team’s social
dynamics, it could be significantly more difficult to elicit a feeling of
gratitude for a team experience if thanking each others is considered to
be involuntary or insincere. A failed gratitude intervention can backfire
and stir up more resistance and cynicism, which further damages group
information processing. Gratitude is a fertilizer for kindness and
openness to others and is not a solution for conflict, anger, or frustra-
tion.
It is also possible to combine the gratitude intervention with other
factors known to benefit the team information elaboration process. For
example, previous research demonstrates that perspective taking also
promotes elaboration in teams (Hoever et al., 2012). One thing that
differentiates the effects of perspective taking from those of gratitude
on information elaboration is that perspective taking requires diverse
perspectives to enhance team creativity. When there are homogeneous
views in a team, perspective taking is not effective for fostering team
creativity through elaboration. On the other hand, gratitude does not
require diverse perspectives. Rather, gratitude’s beneficial effect on
information elaboration is based on its other-focused nature (DeSteno
et al., 2010)—i.e., being more attentive and responsive to others’
comments and suggestions. Therefore, gratitude elicits information
elaboration through careful consideration of others’ ideas, whereas
perspective taking promotes information elaboration by offering op-
portunities to embrace diverse viewpoints. When gratitude practice is
combined with perspective taking, this would produce the synergetic
effects that enhance the quality of team information processing.
6.2. Limitations and recommendations for future research
In our study, the practice of gratitude was a one-time event.
Gratitude has often been used as a long-term tool to assist veterans and
other individuals in overcoming experiences such as posttraumatic
stress disorder and depression (Kashdan, Uswatte, & Julian, 2006).
Accordingly, we did not address the results of long-term gratitude
practice. However, the existence of the relationship between gratitude
and information elaboration in randomly assigned, short-term groups
also demonstrates the robust effects of gratitude and offers the potential
for future studies to investigate an immediate, short-term effect of
gratitude on organizational behaviors. In addition, by diversifying the
sources of gratitude, we demonstrate that a feeling of gratitude does not
have to arise from a current team experience. Our findings therefore
support the use of a gratitude intervention in organizations by pro-
viding scientific evidence of how gratitude practice could affect the
79
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 156 (2020) 69–81
workplace in new and impactful ways; specifically, by conferring tan-
gible benefits on creativity.
In this study, we operationalized team gratitude as an average of
team members’ grateful feelings. This conventional and inclusive ap-
proach to defining team gratitude was ideal, given that we are in the
early stages of concerted research on gratitude. The additive approach
for team emotion is also the most common method used in previous
studies of positive emotion and group creativity (e.g., Grawitch, Munz,
Elliott, & Mathis, 2003; Jones & Kelly, 2009; Klep, Wisse, & Van der
Flier, 2011). We recommend future studies to consider a configura-
tional approach to studying team gratitude. For instance, the ICC1 value
for gratitude in Study 2 was significant (0.31) – as the value represents
a large size of team membership effects on gratitude (LeBreton &
Senter, 2008). On the other hand, this also demonstrates that there are
considerable differences in members’ gratitude within teams that
cannot be explained by the team membership. This suggests that a
configurational model of team gratitude—i.e., investigating the pat-
terns whereby gratitude differs within teams—would be an important
aspect of future studies. For example, different combinations of grati-
tude dispersion and group member status (e.g., members with higher
status being grateful and members with lower status being less grateful,
or vice versa) would elicit different group dynamics and effectiveness.
Study 2 did not have a neutral condition, and caution is advised
when interpreting the results. That is, Study 2 compared gratitude with
positive emotion, by which the findings only can show what gratitude
does compared with positive emotion in general; they cannot identify
what effect positive emotion has on team information processing.
Therefore, it is inaccurate to conclude that positive emotion leads to
superficial discussion in general, as this conclusion requires a neutral
condition for comparison. Given that the focus of this study was on
gratitude and Study 1 already included a neutral condition, we believe
the omission of a neutral condition in Study 2 is not a critical flaw.
Nevertheless, it does limit the ability to generalize the findings and
allows less nuanced implications for the positive emotion condition.
Therefore, we believe that a proper neutral condition in future studies
would be advantageous for resolving conflicting views on the benefits
and pitfalls of feeling positive emotion for team information processing
and team creativity.
In a similar manner, given the study’s focus on gratitude, we in-
vestigated one type of positive emotion and its impact on team in-
formation processing and outcomes. The findings point out the need for
future studies to compare different types of specific positive
emotions. Recently, positive emotion researchers have urged that stu-
dies of the impact of positive emotions go beyond the previous gen-
eralized approach (Tugade et al., 2014)—that is, prior studies have
focused on finding common features and impacts of positive emotion,
rather than identifying the unique characteristics of different positive
emotions. As discussed earlier, pride is a pleasant and activating emo-
tion that is distinct from gratitude (Weiner, 1986); it involves believing
that a positive outcome is due to internal causes, such that it causes
people to become more selfish and even gloat about others’ in-
competence (Weary & Harvey, 1981). While this aspect of pride would
lead to a decrease in collaborative information processing, it also in-
dicates that such a pro-self characteristic could render individuals less
afraid to express unique ideas and thereby demonstrate their super-
iority to teammates (De Dreu, Nijstad, et al., 2008; De Dreu, Baas, et al.,
2008). Therefore, we believe that pride would have a positive influence
on individual-level idea creativity, especially when the reward structure
of the team is equity based (Goncalo et al., 2010). By going beyond a
generalized approach to positive emotion and linking a specific emotion
to team processes, this study and future studies will shed light on af-
fective interventions to motivate teams to listen to, consider, and ad-
vance team members’ ideas and ultimately promote team creativity.
N. Pillay, et al.
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2019.11.005.
References
Algoe, S. B. (2012). Find, remind, and bind: The functions of gratitude in everyday re-
lationships. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 6(6), 455–469.
Algoe, S. B., & Haidt, J. (2009). Witnessing excellence in action: The ‘other-praising’e-
motions of elevation, gratitude, and admiration. The Journal of Positive Psychology,
4(2), 105–127.
Algoe, S. B., Haidt, J., & Gable, S. L. (2008). Beyond reciprocity: Gratitude and re-
lationships in everyday life. Emotion, 8(3), 425–429.
Ban Breathnach, S. (1996). The simple abundance journal of gratitude. New York: Warner
Books.
Barsade, S. G. (2002). The ripple effect: Emotional contagion and its influence on group
behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(4), 644–675.
Barsade, S. G., & Gibson, D. E. (1998). Group emotion: A view from top and bottom. In M.
A. Neale, & E. A. Mannix (Eds.). Research on managing groups and teams (pp. 81–102).
Stamford, CT: JAI Press.
Barsade, S. G., & Knight, A. P. (2015). Group affect. Annual Review of Organational
Psycholology and Organizational Behavior, 2(1), 21–46.
Bartel, C. A., & Saavedra, R. (2000). The collective construction of work group moods.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 45(2), 197–231.
Bechtoldt, M. N., De Dreu, C. K. W., Nijstad, B. A., & Choi, H. S. (2010). Motivated in-
formation processing, social tuning, and group creativity. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 99, 622–637.
Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability:
Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein, & S. W. Kozlowski
(Eds.). Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organization (pp. 349–381). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Bohner, G., Crow, K., Erb, H. P., & Schwarz, N. (1992). Affect and persuasion: Mood
effects on the processing of message content and context cues and on subsequent
behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22(6), 511–530.
Bonnie, K., & de Waal, F. (2004). Primate social reciprocity and the origin of gratitude. In
R. A. Emmons, & M. E. McCullough (Eds.). The psychology of gratitude (pp. 213–230).
New York: Oxford University Press.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2002). Applied multiple regression/cor-
relation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
De Dreu, C. K. (2007). Cooperative outcome interdependence, task reflexivity, and team
effectiveness: A motivated information processing perspective. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 92(3), 628–638.
De Dreu, C. K. W., Baas, M., & Nijstad, B. A. (2008). Hedonic tone and activation level in
the mood-creativity link: Toward a dual pathway to creativity model. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 739–756.
De Dreu, C. K. W., Nijstad, B. A., & van Knippenberg, D. (2008). Motivated information
processing in group judgment and decision-making. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 12, 22–49.
DeSteno, D., Bartlett, M. Y., Baumann, J., Williams, L. A., & Dickens, L. (2010). Gratitude
as moral sentiment: Emotion-guided cooperation in economic exchange. Emotion, 10,
289–293.
Elsbach, K. D., & Kramer, R. M. (2003). Assessing creativity in Hollywood pitch meetings:
Evidence for a dual-process model of creativity judgments. Academy of Management
Journal, 46(3), 283–301.
Emmons, R. A. (2013). Gratitude works!: A 21-day program for creating emotional prosperity.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Emmons, R. A., & McCullough, M. E. (2003). Counting blessings versus burdens: An ex-
perimental investigation of gratitude and subjective well-being in daily life. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 377–389.
Fehr, R., Fulmer, A., Awtrey, E., & Miller, J. A. (2017). The grateful workplace: A mul-
tilevel model of gratitude in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 42(2),
361–381.
Forgas, J. P. (1992). Affect in social judgments and decisions: A multiprocess model.
Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 227–275). Academic Press.
Forgas, J. P., & Moylan, S. (1987). After the movies: Transient mood and social judg-
ments. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 13(4), 467–477.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2004). Gratitude, like other positive emotions, broadens and builds. In
R. A. Emmons, & M. E. McCullough (Eds.). The psychology of gratitude (pp. 145–166).
New York: Oxford University Press.
Fredrickson, B. L. (2013). Positive emotions broaden and build. In P. Devine, & A. Plant
(Eds.). Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 1–46). San Diego: Academic
Press.
Froh, J. J., Sefick, W. J., & Emmons, R. A. (2008). Counting blessings in early adolescents:
An experimental study of gratitude and subjective well-being. Journal of School
Psychology, 46, 213–233.
George, J. M. (1990). Personality, affect, and behavior in groups. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 75, 107–116.
George, J. M., & King, E. B. (2007). Potential pitfalls of affect convergence in teams:
Functions and dysfunctions of group affective tone. In E. A. Mannix, M. A. Neale, & C.
P. Anderson (Eds.). Research on managing groups and teams (pp. 97–123). Oxford: JAI
Press.
80
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 156 (2020) 69–81
Geraghty, A. W. A., Wood, A. M., & Hyland, M. E. (2010). Dissociating the facets of hope:
Agency and pathways predict attrition from unguided self-help in opposite directions.
Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 155–158.
Goncalo, J. A., Flynn, F. J., & Kim, S. H. (2010). Are two narcissists better than one? The
link between narcissism, perceived creativity, and creative performance. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(11), 1484–1495.
Goncalo, J. A., & Staw, B. M. (2006). Individualism-collectivism and group creativity.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 100, 96–109.
Graham, S., & Barker, G. P. (1990). The down side of help: An attributional develop-
mental analysis of helping behavior as low-ability cue. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 82, 7–14.
Grant, A. M., & Gino, F. (2010). A little thanks goes a long way: Explaining why gratitude
expressions motivate prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
98, 946–955.
Grawitch, M. J., Munz, D. C., Elliott, E. K., & Mathis, A. (2003). Promoting creativity in
temporary problem-solving groups: The effects of positive mood and autonomy in
problem definition on idea-generating performance. Group Dynamics: Theory,
Research, and Practice, 7, 200–213.
Hargadon, A. B., & Bechky, B. A. (2006). When collections of creatives become creative
collectives: A field study of problem solving at work. Organization Science, 17(4),
484–500.
Harpham, E. J. (2004). Gratitude in the history of ideas. In R. A. Emmons, & M. E.
McCullough (Eds.). The psychology of gratitude (pp. 19–36). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Harvey, S. (2014). Creative synthesis: Exploring the process of extraordinary group
creativity. Academy of Management Review, 39(3), 324–343.
Hay, L. L., & Friends (1996). Gratitude: A way of life. New Delhi, India: Hay House.
Hinsz, V. B., Tindale, R. S., & Vollrath, D. A. (1997). The emerging conceptualization of
groups as information processors. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 43–64.
Hoever, I. J., van Knippenberg, D., van Ginkel, W. P., & Barkema, H. G. (2012). Fostering
team creativity: Perspective taking as key to unlocking diversity's potential. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 97, 982–996.
Isen, A. M., & Means, B. (1983). The influence of positive affect on decision-making
strategy. Social Cognition, 2(1), 18–31.
Jacobson, H. (2011, November 23). Gratitude as a business strategy [Blog post].
Retrieved from https://www.fastcompany.com/1796660/gratitude-business-
strategy.
Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Jones, E. E., & Kelly, J. R. (2009). No pain, no gain: Negative mood leads to process gain
in idea-generation groups. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 13, 75–88.
Kashdan, T. B., Uswatte, G., & Julian, T. (2006). Gratitude and hedonic and eudaimonic
well-being in Vietnam war veterans. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 44, 177–199.
Kelly, J. R., & Barsade, S. G. (2001). Mood and emotions in small groups and work teams.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86(1), 99–130.
Keltner, D., & Haidt, J. (1999). Social functions of emotions at four levels of analysis.
Cognition & Emotion, 13(5), 505–521.
Klep, A., Wisse, B., & Van der Flier, H. (2011). Interactive affective sharing versus non-
interactive affective sharing in work groups: Comparative effects of group affect on
work group performance and dynamics. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41(3),
312–323.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. (2000). A multilevel approach to theory and research in
organizations: Contextual, temporal, and emergent processes. In K. J. Klein, & S. W. J.
Kozlowski (Eds.). Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations: Foundations,
extensions, and new directions (pp. 3–90). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kurtzberg, T. R., & Amabile, T. M. (2001). From Guilford to creative synergy: Opening the
black box of team-level creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 13, 285–294.
Lazarus, R. S., & Lazarus, B. N. (1994). Passion and reason: Making sense of our emotions.
New York: Oxford University Press.
LeBreton, J. M., & Senter, J. L. (2008). Answers to 20 questions about interrater reliability
and interrater agreement. Organizational Research Methods, 11(4), 815–852.
Lyubomirsky, S., King, L., & Diener, E. (2005). The benefits of frequent positive affect:
Does happiness lead to success? Psychological Bulletin, 131, 803–855.
Lyubomirsky, S., Sheldon, K. M., & Schkade, D. (2005). Pursuing happiness: The archi-
tecture of sustainable change. Review of General Psychology, 9, 111–131.
Maier, N. R., & Hoffman, L. R. (1960). Using trained“ developmental” discussion leaders
to improve further the quality of group decisions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 44(4),
247–251.
Mathieu, J. E., & Rapp, T. L. (2009). Laying the foundation for successful team perfor-
mance trajectories: The roles of team charters and performance strategies. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 94(1), 90–103.
Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., Gomberg-Kaufman, S., & Blainey, K. (1991). A broader con-
ception of mood experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 100–111.
McCullough, M. E., Kilpatrick, S. D., Emmons, R. A., & Larson, D. B. (2001). Is gratitude a
moral affect? Psychological Bulletin, 127, 249–266.
Nemeth, C. J. (1986). Differential contributions of majority and minority influence.
Psychological Review, 93, 23–32.
Nemeth, C. (2018). In defense of troublemakers: The power of dissent in life and business. New
York: Basic Books.
Newman, K. M. (2018, September 6). How gratitude can transform your workplace.
https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article/item/how_gratitude_can_transform_your_
workplace.
Ortony, A., Clore, G. L., & Collins, A. (1988). The cognitive structure of emotions. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Park, G., & DeShon, R. P. (2010). A multilevel model of minority opinion expression and
team decision-making effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 824–833.
Park, G., & DeShon, R. P. (2018). Effects of group-discussion integrative complexity on
N. Pillay, et al.
intergroup relations in a social dilemma. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 146, 62–75.
Paulus, P. B., & Brown, V. R. (2007). Toward more creative and innovative group idea
generation: A cognitive-social-motivational perspective of brainstorming. Social and
Personality Psychology Compass, 1, 248–265.
Paulus, P. B., & Yang, H. C. (2000). Idea generation in groups: A basis for creativity in
organizations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82(1), 76–87.
Pinker, S. (1997). How the mind works. New York: Norton.
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect
effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, &
Computers, 36, 717–731.
Reisenzein, R. (1994). Pleasure-arousal theory and the intensity of emotions. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 525–539.
Resick, C. J., Murase, T., Randall, K. R., & DeChurch, L. A. (2014). Information ela-
boration and team performance: Examining the psychological origins and environ-
mental contingencies. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 124(2),
165–176.
Roberts, R. C. (2004). The blessings of gratitude: A conceptual analysis. In R. A. Emmons,
& M. E. McCullough (Eds.). The psychology of gratitude (pp. 58–78). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Schulz-Hardt, S., Jochims, M., & Frey, D. (2002). Productive conflict in group decision
making: Genuine and contrived dissent as strategies to counteract biased information
seeking. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 88(2), 563–586.
Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (2003). Mood as information: 20 years later. Psychological
Inquiry, 14(3–4), 296–303.
Schweiger, D. M., Sandberg, W. R., & Ragan, J. W. (1986). Group approaches for im-
proving strategic decision making: A comparative analysis of dialectical inquiry,
devil's advocacy, and consensus. Academy of Management Journal, 29(1), 51–71.
Smith, A. (1982). The theory of moral sentiments. In A. L. Macfie, & D. D. Raphael (Eds.).
Original work published 1790. Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Classics.
Smith, K. K., & Berg, D. N. (1987). Paradoxes of group life: Understanding conflict, paralysis,
and movement in group dynamics. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Solomon, R. C. (1977). The passions. Garden City, NY: Anchor Books.
Stasser, G., & Titus, W. (1987). Effects of information load and percentage of shared
81
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 156 (2020) 69–81
information on the dissemination of unshared information during group discussion.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 81–93.
Staw, B. M. (2009). Is group creativity really an oxymoron? Some thoughts on bridging
the cohesion-creativity divide. In E. Mannix, M. Neal, & J. Goncalo (Eds.). Research on
managing groups and teams: Creativity in groups (pp. 311–323). Stamford, CT: JAI
Press.
Sunstein, C. R., & Hastie, R. (2015). Wiser: Getting beyond groupthink to make groups
smarter. LOCATION: Harvard Business Press.
Totterdell, P. (2000). Catching moods and hitting runs: Mood linkage and subjective
performance in professional sport teams. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(6), 848.
Tsang, J. (2006). Gratitude and prosocial behaviour: An experimental test of gratitude.
Cognition and Emotion, 20, 138–148.
Tugade, M. M., Shiota, M. N., & Kirby, L. D. (Eds.). (2014). Handbook of positive emotions.
New York: Guilford Press.
Valacich, J. S., & Schwenk, C. (1995). Devil’s advocacy and dialectical inquiry effects on
face-to-face and computer-mediated group decision making. Organizational Behavior
and Human Decision Processes, 63(2), 158–173.
van Knippenberg, D., Kooij-de Bode, H. J. M., & van Ginkel, W. P. (2010). The interactive
effects of mood and trait negative affect in group decision making. Organization
Science, 21, 731–744.
Watkins, P. C., Grimm, D. L., & Kolts, R. (2004). Counting your blessings: Positive
memories among grateful persons. Current Psychology, 23, 52–67.
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 and
Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.
Weary, G., & Harvey, J. H. (1981). Evaluation in attribution processes. Journal for the
Theory of Social Behaviour, 11, 93–98.
Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. New York: Springer-
Verlag.
Weiner, B., Russell, D., & Lerman, D. (1979). The cognition–emotion process in
achievement-related contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37,
1211–1220.
Wood, A. M., Froh, J. J., & Geraghty, A. W. A. (2010). Gratitude and well-being: A review
and theoretical integration. Clinical Psychology Review, 30, 890–905.