Journal of Business and Psychology, Vol. 19, No.

1, Fall 2004 (Ó2004)

AFFECT, CURIOSITY, AND SOCIALIZATION-

RELATED LEARNING: A PATH ANALYSIS OF
ANTECEDENTS TO JOB PERFORMANCE
Thomas G. Reio, Jr.
University of Louisville

Jamie L. Callahan
Texas A & M University

ABSTRACT: This study examined the influence of affect, curiosity, and sociali-
zation-related learning on job performance, with 233 service industry employees
from a diverse variety of occupations completing surveys at their places of work.
Both state and trait curiosity and socialization-related learning (learning asso-
ciated with employee socialization) were hypothesized to mediate the relationship
between affect (operationalized as state and trait anxiety and anger) and job
performance. Structural equation analyses indicate that the data are consistent
with the theoretical models proposed. As expected, anxiety negatively influences
curiosity, socialization-related learning, and job performance; conversely, anger
positively influences curiosity, socialization-related learning, and job perfor-
mance. Overall, the findings suggest that affects indeed predict perception of job
performance, but through the mediation of curiosity and the learning associated
with the socialization process. These results highlight the importance of the
complex interplay between affect, curiosity, and learning when thinking about
successful employee socialization and best possible job performance.

KEY WORDS: affect; curiosity; learning; socialization; job performance; anxiety;

anger; structural modeling; interruption theory.

INTRODUCTION

Until recently, the subject of affect or emotions in organizational

settings has been sidestepped because it does not easily lend itself to
empirical investigation (Turnbull, 1999). Nevertheless, researchers are
increasingly investigating the potential of a wide variety of emotions and

Address correspondence to Thomas G. Reio, Department of Leadership, Foundations,

and Human Resource Education, 331 Education Building, University of Louisville, Louis-
ville, KY 40292. E-mail: thomas.reio@louisville.edu.

0889-3268/04/0900-0003/0 Ó 2004 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.

4 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

emotion-based phenomena to predict behavior. In particular, both affec-

tive states and the disposition to experience affective states (stable per-
sonality traits) have been shown to affect the way people perform their
jobs (George & Zhou, 2002). Organizational researchers (e.g., Barrick &
Mount, 1991; Gardner & Koslowski, 1993; Saks, 1996) have found that
affect correlates with job performance, yet this relationship has been
found to be weak and of questionable meaning. Noting these results, Côté
(1999) suggested that there may be moderators or mediators of the rela-
tion between affect and job performance. He called for examination of
state-trait models of affect, where Côté considered affect in terms of both
short-term states and long-term traits, because little research has been
conducted in this area.
Taking up that call, Fox, Spector, and Miles (2001) explored the role
of trait anxiety and anger as mediators and moderators associated with
job stress and counterproductive work behavior. Their work suggested
that trait affects may play a role as mediator in work behaviors associ-
ated with stress, strain, and subsequent negative or counterproductive
activities. Nevertheless, they advocate that additional factors may play a
role in the relationship between trait affect and work behavior. Thus, in
this study, we explore potential mediators of the relationship between
both state and trait affects and job performance.
In particular, we follow the call of Saks and Ashforth (1997) who
suggest that organizational socialization and learning associated with
socialization may be mediators of job performance. They call for the
study of contextual and personal factors that may influence various areas
of organizational socialization, such as socialization-related learning.
Thus, we specifically investigate the influence of anger and anxiety on
curiosity and socialization-related learning (the learning associated with
the employee socialization process), the hypothesized mediators, and the
subsequent influence of all of these emotions on job performance.

Review of the Related Literature

In recent years, academic interest in affect or emotions has inten-
sified in the behavioral and social sciences (Izard, 2002). Affect is ‘‘a
broad generic term that covers both the intense feelings and reactions
people have, which are commonly referred to as emotions, and the less
intense, but no less important, feelings often called moods’’ (George,
1996, p. 145). Organizational researchers have recognized the promise of
empirical examination of the nature, causes, and consequences of emo-
tions and their effects on complex workplace behaviors and outcomes
(Fitness, 2000). Nonetheless, while scholarly investigation of affect in the
workplace is quickening, knowledge of its precise relevance in complex
organizational settings is incomplete.
 THOMAS G. REIO, JR. AND JAMIE L. CALLAHAN 5

Modern organizational research on emotion can be traced to sociol-

ogist Hochschild’s (1983) seminal book, The Managed Heart: Commercial-
ization of Human Feeling (Fisher & Ashkanasy, 2000). Her research on
‘‘emotion work’’ has stimulated a line of research exploring emotion as a
social construct and how this construct relates to gender issues (Calla-
han, 2000a), corporate change programs (Turnbull, 1999), the military
(Callahan, 2000b), and organizational control (Fineman & Sturdy, 1999),
among other areas. In the meantime, more psychologically oriented
emotion researchers have explored affective states and the disposition to
experience these states (a stable personality trait) with respect to
understanding leadership and adaptation (Lewis, 2000), creativity
(George & Zhou, 2002; Higgins, Qualls, & Couger, 1992), job satisfaction
and intention to leave one’s job (Grandey, Tam, & Brauburger, 2002),
risk taking (Hockey, Maule, Clough, & Bdzola, 2000), job performance
(Jalagas & Bomme, 1999) and other workplace issues. The state-trait
model that Côté recommended has also been useful in gender and cross-
cultural studies (Ben-Zur & Zeidner, 1988; Lin, Endler, & Kocovski,
2001). Whatever the research approach, emotions clearly have implica-
tions for organizational behavior.
One area of emotion research that has been neglected by organi-
zational researchers is employee job performance, ‘‘behaviors or actions
that are relevant to the goals of the organization in question’’ (McCloy,
Campbell, & Cudek, 1994, p. 493). In Performance Improvement Theory
and Practice (1999), a recent monograph on job performance and per-
formance improvement, for instance, the subject of affect, emotion,
mood, and feeling is never mentioned. Systematic job performance
research guided by Hochschild’s (1983) work has been noticeably ab-
sent as well. Much of the research on emotion and job performance
has been limited to examining job performance through the proxy
variable of job satisfaction, often with contradictory results (Fisher,
2000). To explain these anomalous findings, Côté (1999) and others
(e.g., Staw, Sutton, & Pelled, 1994) have proposed the existence of
moderators and mediators of the relation between affect and job per-
formance.
The identification of moderators and mediators of the affect-job
performance relationship has been informed by George’s (1991) work
in which state and trait affect (moods) influenced prosocial work
behaviors and group customer service performance. Later work by
George and Brief (1996) proposed that both state and trait affect play
central roles in proximal and distal work motivation (i.e., effort levels)
through the mediation of cognitive processes (e.g., mood-congruent
recall) on worker expectancy judgments. Similarly, Hochwarter,
Perrewe, Ferris, and Brymer (1999) found support for George and
Jones’ (1997) notion that managerial personnel value attainment,
6 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

attitude, and affective disposition (positive and negative) moderated

the relationship between job satisfaction (defined as an affective state)
and performance.
To guide new research on emotion in the workplace, Fisher and
Ashkanasy (2000) presented five plausible idea clusters that might
stimulate the discovery of additional meaningful variables in the affect-
job performance association: determinants of emotions, the nature and
description of emotions, organizational processes and effects of emotion,
group and team processes and effects of emotion, and individual pro-
cesses and effects of emotion. One theme that runs through the five
clusters, at least implicitly, is learning. At the organizational processes
level, for example, the authors stress investigating the role of emotion
in the employee socialization process, considered by many researchers
to be a mostly informal learning process motivated by an employee’s
need to acquire the requisite technical and interpersonal information
needed to attain job proficiency and fit into the organization (e.g.,
Ostroff & Koslowski, 1992). Likewise, at the individual processes level,
the researchers note the importance of exploring the influence of
emotional arousal on behavior. Emotional arousal has been shown to
stimulate classroom learning behaviors like exploration, problem-solv-
ing, and critical thinking (Spielberger & Starr, 1994), yet few have
investigated the contribution of emotional arousal on motivating
workplace learning behavior. Even less information exists on how the
relationship between emotional arousal and learning is reflected in job
performance.

Organizational Socialization as a Mediator of the Affect-Job Performance

Relation
Kozlowski (1995) described organizational socialization as the pro-
cess by which new employees learn more about the organization and be-
come fully assimilated insiders. Socialization helps newcomers adapt to
their work environment by facilitating their adjustment to the organi-
zation’s values and norms; by clarifying role identities; by developing job-
and performance-related skills and capacities; and by helping them learn
whom to turn to for information needed to interpret organizational
uncertainties (Gardner & Kozlowski, 1993; Miller & Jablin, 1991). This
process by which newcomers ‘‘learn the ropes’’ has been found to be
consistent in union as well as nonunion settings (Fullagar, Gallagher,
Gordon, & Clark, 1995), and in the healthcare industry (Fisher, 1985),
government (Morton, 1993), law enforcement agencies (Bahn, 1989), and
engineering firms (Lee, 1994). Further, preliminary evidence indicates
that males and females generally navigate the socialization process
similarly, since both need to proactively seek information (technical and
 THOMAS G. REIO, JR. AND JAMIE L. CALLAHAN 7

interpersonal) to attain higher levels of job proficiency (Morrison, 1993;

Saks & Ashforth, 1997). Amason and Allen (1997), for instance, found no
gender differences in the relationship between either engineering or
university employees’ perceptions of top management, supervisor com-
munication, or organizational support, nor did significant dissimilarities
emerge when employees rated the quality of the information they re-
ceived from coworkers, all important aspects of fitting into or being
efficiently socialized into an organization.
Much of the socialization research views the socialization process
primarily as a process of newcomer assimilation (e.g., Lee, 1994), yet
considerable support exists for the notion that socialization occurs under
other circumstances (Chao, 1997). Schein (1988), for instance, proposed
that organizational socialization also occurs when one transfers between
departments, gets promoted to another rank, or returns to the organi-
zation after schooling. In fact, employee socialization most likely occurs
any time an employee acquires a new supervisor, joins a new work group,
or trains a newcomer. Further, socialization is surely not unidirectional.
An insider who is an undistinguished performer may have his or her job
motivation renewed by taking the responsibility of working with a
newcomer (Chao, 1997). Falcione and Wilson (1988) clarified the issue by
claiming that socialization is best considered to be a continuous process
that is vital throughout one’s career, since one always needs to learn,
adapt, and develop in response to marketplace contingencies. Therefore,
the socialization process and fitting in to an organization is not simply a
one-time phenomenon associated with new employees, it is a constant
process by which the employee responds to emerging external and
internal contingencies.
Currently, researchers use two main approaches to investigate
organizational socialization. One favors examining issues more distal to
the newcomer, such as the adoption of the traditions and culture of an
organization, that is, what is learned (e.g., Schein, 1988). A more recent
research emphasis involves more proximal factors that are related to how
and why learning occurs in relation to acquiring the information and job
knowledge required to perform one’s expected job tasks and roles (e.g.,
Miller & Jablin, 1991; Wanberg & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2000). In this
study, we focus on the latter approach—how and why the learning re-
lated to the socialization process occurs.
We argue that socialization-related learning may be an important
mediator between affect and job performance. Ostroff and Kozlowski
(1992) found that socialization has an important relationship to job
performance because the process of learning the ropes provides the em-
ployee with important technical and interpersonal information necessary
for optimal job performance. For example, Lee (1994) discovered that
new engineers who formed stronger social ties to their more experienced
8 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

co-workers and supervisors predicted higher job performance because

they were more likely to obtain the information needed to perform their
jobs well through their interactions. Conversely, new engineers who
formed stronger social ties to their newcomer peers instead predicted
negative job performance, as they were less likely to get hold of useful
information for performing their jobs more efficiently. Thus, without
proactively acquiring this all-important, job-related information through
being curious, i.e., observing co-workers performing tasks related to your
job, asking job-related questions of co-workers and supervisors, and
experimenting on one’s own, less workplace learning is likely and job
performance might suffer (Kozlowski, 1995; Miller & Jablin, 1991).
Therefore, curiosity, which has been found to increase learner
attention, motivate information seeking (Berlyne, 1960) and promote
adaptive advantage (Frijda, 1994), may be an antecedent to the learning
associated with the socialization process (socialization-related learning).
Curiosity is a state of emotional arousal, induced by a conceptual conflict
or uncertainty that induces information seeking or exploratory behaviors
to relieve the uncertainty. It thus results in the restructuring of knowl-
edge structures or learning (Berlyne, 1960). Curiosity can be thought of
as a desire for information and knowledge in the face of uncertain or
discrepant situations. It has been variously identified as an emotion
(Frijda, 1994) and a cognitive condition (Clore, Ortony, & Foss, 1987).
Cognition and emotion are clearly and inextricably linked (Izard, 2002);
nonetheless, the cognitive element of curiosity may act as a mediator
between learning and more overtly affective conditions such as anger and
anxiety. Anger, a state of tension and annoyance, may be seen as a
negative response to a perceived personal offense, while anxiety, a feel-
ing of unpleasant tension and apprehension, may be seen as a negative
response to an ‘‘uncertain, existential threat’’ (Lazarus, 1994, p. 164). At
medium-to-high levels, both variables can dampen curiosity and subse-
quently deter learning-related behavior and performance (Ben-Zur,
2002; Spielberger & Starr, 1994).
According to Spielberger and Starr (1994) and many others (e.g.,
Ben-Zur, 2002; Boyle, 1983), curiosity, anxiety, and anger each exist not
only as transient psychological states, but also as more enduring per-
sonality traits. Thus, each variable can be regarded as a stable indi-
vidual characteristic that expresses in consistent patterns of reactions
and behaviors in a wide variety of situations or contexts. For instance,
someone who is ‘‘highly curious’’ would be expected to be curious about
more things, for a longer duration, and in more situations than someone
who is less curious (Day, 1982). Likewise, highly anxious individuals
are more likely to interpret more circumstances as threatening, while
those who are more angry may tend to view a greater variety of situ-
ations as frustrating or annoying. Each personality trait is related to
 THOMAS G. REIO, JR. AND JAMIE L. CALLAHAN 9

different behavioral patterns. Curiosity is related to information seek-

ing or exploration of the environment, anxiety to avoidance of threat-
ening situations due to fear, and anger to aggressive action (Ben-Zur,
2002).

Anxiety and Socialization-Related Learning. Anxiety has been of

considerable scholarly interest since Yerkes and Dodson (1908) drew
the inverted U-shaped curve illustrating that anxiety can enhance
performance, but only when at low levels. Since that seminal research,
anxiety has been shown to interfere with curiosity, learning satisfaction,
depth and breadth of classroom learning (Spielberger & Starr, 1994),
academic test performance (Tobias, 1985), effort expended on computer-
related learning tasks (Rozell & Gardner, 2000), and self-efficacy as it
relates to academic performance (Bandura, 1997). Tobias (1985)
hypothesized that negative affects such as state anxiety interfere with
learning by dividing learner attention and decreasing concentration. In
an experimental study, Rodrique, Olson, and Marks (1987) demonstrated
that participants who were induced to be in a negative mood reported
significantly less state curiosity and desire for additional information
than elated or neutral participants.
According to Chorpita and Barlow (1998), anxiety is related to an
individual’s sense of situational control. When an individual is uncertain
about his or her ability to control outcomes (‘‘uncertain helplessness’’),
the resulting affective state is ‘‘aroused anxiety.’’ The level of control and
influence one has within one’s immediate environment can be a very
powerful motivator of behavior. More directly, one’s ability to influence
and ‘‘control’’ events and outcomes can determine the extent to which one
is willing to commit to the task at hand.
Saks and Ashforth (1997) called for additional investigation of anx-
iety, which they saw as an overlooked variable, with respect to under-
standing proactive employee information seeking and adaptation.
Anxiety is an important variable in the workplace in that the employee
socialization process by its very nature is often anxiety-inducing and
stressful (Fisher, 1986; Saks & Ashforth, 1997). Workers must proac-
tively engage in socialization-related learning activities like information
seeking and knowledge acquisition to reduce these high levels of uncer-
tainty (Miller & Jablin, 1991; Morrison, 1993; Wanberg & Kammeyer-
Mueller, 2000). Fisher (1986) suggested that anxiety may be a useful
variable for study in that low levels of anxiety motivate curiosity-
induced, exploratory learning behaviors and adaptation in the
workplace, especially for newcomers. Similarly, Reichers, Wanous, and
Steele (1987) suggested that the rapid acquisition of information reduces
the anxiety of new employees, thereby accelerating their adaptation
process. They further recommended that high levels of anxiety be
10 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

avoided because they impede proactive information seeking and em-

ployee learning, that is, socialization-related learning.

Anger and Socialization-Related Learning. Anger has been linked to

causal attributions of academic failure at many levels, through learners’
perceptions of their own low ability and their subsequent lack of effort
(Weiner & Graham, 1989), poor judgment of stimuli in social situations
(Rusting & Jones, 2000), and poor social functioning and peer-rejection in
pre-school and K-12 contexts (Lemerise & Dodge, 2000). With respect to
workplace socialization and socialization-related learning, moderate to
high levels of anger have been shown to impede learning, decision-
making, interpersonal relations, and performance, especially in stressful
environments (Caffray & Schneider, 2000; Fitness, 2000).
Missing from the literature is the examination of the intriguing,
possible positive contributions anger may have on socialization-related
learning and important organizational outcomes. One may initially think
of anger as a discrete emotion that would be negatively associated with
an increase in curiosity or socialization-related learning, and this may
often be the case. However, it may also be that low levels of anger can
increase learning motivation. The emotional control engendered by low
levels of anger may allow the individual to develop and emulate appro-
priate, intrinsic skills for solving problems effectively, an impossible task
under extreme emotional arousal (Deffenbacher, Thwaites, Wallace, &
Oetting, 1994).
Correspondingly, Mandler’s (1984) interruption theory holds that
frustration (a mild form of anger) associated with interruption of goal
achievement may mitigate further attempts to achieve goals. In other
words, low levels of anger may be associated positively with socialization-
related learning because it might drive an individual to be curious, explore,
and consequently learn new ways to achieve seemingly thwarted goals.
Thus, we propose that discrete emotions such as anxiety and anger
influence the affective-cognitive condition of curiosity (both positively and
negatively), subsequently affecting the socialization-related learning that
improves job performance. The present study explores this model with
both state and trait affect. Figure 1 presents the hypothesized direction of
relationships between the research variables in these theoretical models.

METHOD

Participants
This study extends previous socialization research in that it does not
rely on selective samples of new college graduates (e.g., Saks, 1996), nor
on homogeneous samples of individuals from a single occupation (e.g.,
 THOMAS G. REIO, JR. AND JAMIE L. CALLAHAN 11

Figure 1
Affective States/Traits, Curiosity, Socialization-Related Learning, and Job
Performance Path Model

E5

State/Trait Anger Job Performance

+
+ +

+ State/Trait Socialization-
+
Curiosity Related Learning

State/Trait
Anxiety E3 E4

engineers or architects). In line with Wanberg and Kammeyer-Mueller’s

(2000) call for research with more diverse samples of workers (e.g., less
educated, older, nonprofessional), our study covers a variety of occupa-
tions, to include managers (n = 47), graphic editors (n = 21), writer-editors
(n = 15), clerical personnel (n = 26), and landscape workers (n = 115). The
age of these participants was greater than typically found in socialization
studies (e.g., Fisher, 1985; Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992); the majority was
nonprofessionals with less than two years of college. Before combining
the diverse samples, we examined the strengths, directions, and patterns
of the relationships between the research variables for each respective
group and found few significant differences. Based on this evidence, we
combined the various occupational groups into one large sample. How-
ever, we must caution that the results of this study should be applied
cautiously to similar research populations.
The data presented in this paper is part of a larger study of work-
place learning (Reio & Wiswell, 2000). Participants were obtained from
four well-established, service-industry companies in the Washington,
DC, metropolitan area (N = 233). The cross-sectional sample consisted of
81 women and 152 men. Eleven females and 24 males were 17--20 years
old, 15 females and 62 males were 21--29 years of age, 23 females and 37
males were 30--39 years old, 23 females and 25 males were 40--49 years
old, and 9 females and 4 males were 50 or older. The mean age of the
participants was 32.5 years (SD = 8.8).
Most (86%) of the participants were Caucasian, 9% were African-
American, 3% were Hispanic, and slightly more than 1% were Asian.
Just 36% of the subjects earned more than $30,000 per year; only 22% of
the participants earned more than $40,000 annually. Approximately 62%
of the sample had at least some college education (less than 2 years).
Overall, the typical participant was a male Caucasian under the age of
12 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

40, with some college education and an annual salary of less than
$30,000 per year.

Procedure
The lead researcher administered a battery of instruments and a
demographic data sheet, fastened together for convenience, to the par-
ticipants at their workplaces, with an overall administration time of
roughly 40 min. He asked the participants to complete the paper-and-
pencil test battery as part of a study on employee training and devel-
opment. Before administering each instrument, he carefully explained
its instructions. Participation in the study was voluntary and anonymity
was assured; no one refused to participate. Data collection continued over
six months, and top management was briefed on the findings related to
their respective companies.

Instrumentation
Affect Measures. A wide range of measures reported in the literature
were investigated. The adult anger, anxiety, and curiosity scales found
were most commonly self-report measures assessing the respective
constructs as either affective states and/or personality traits (e.g.,
Boyle, 1983). From our examination of the literature, we selected one
measure, the State-Trait Personality Inventory (STPI) (Spielberger,
Barker, Russell, De Crane, Westberry, Knight, & Marks, 1980), because
it had demonstrated consistent internal consistency (.71--.82) in a number
of studies (e.g., Ben- Zur & Haid, 1988) and it lacked the apparent test
item ‘‘transparency’’ so prevalent in similar instruments (Boyle, 1983).
The STPI consists of both state and trait curiosity scales (10 ques-
tions each) and 10-item state and trait subscales of anger and anxiety, for
a total of six subscales (60 items). All of the state affect subscales ask
respondents to describe their present feelings on a 4-point scale ranging
from 1 = not at all, to 4 = a lot, while the trait affect subscales ask the
respondent to describe how they feel in general on a 4-point scale ranging
from 1 = almost never to 4 = almost always.

Socialization-Related Learning Measures. Socialization-related learning

was measured with a modified version of the Workplace Adaptation
Questionnaire (WAQ) (Morton, 1993), a self-report, 22-item instrument,
with three subscales measuring employee socialization-related learning
and one subscale measuring satisfaction with learning experiences.
Participants indicate the extent to which they agree with each item on a
five-point scale ranging from ‘‘strongly disagree’’ to ‘‘strongly agree.’’ The
subscales are job knowledge, acculturation to the company, establishing
 THOMAS G. REIO, JR. AND JAMIE L. CALLAHAN 13

relationships, and satisfaction with learning experiences. The first three

subscales are designed to measure perceptions of learning associated
with the socialization process.
The questionnaire was originally a 19-item instrument. We supple-
mented the job-knowledge subscale with three additional items sug-
gested by Morton’s (1993) factor-analytic work to add more technically
oriented questions. The first three subscales assess the socialization or
learning process at work: establishing relationships (five items), accul-
turation (five items), and job knowledge (eight items), with corresponding
alphas of .85, .86, and .96. The last subscale, satisfaction with learning
experiences, is a quite different construct and is not included in the total
instrument score.
The 8-item Job Knowledge subscale assesses the extent to which
respondents report mastering the tasks of their jobs (e.g., ‘‘I can complete
most of my tasks without assistance’’). Acculturation to the Company is a
5-item subscale measuring the extent to which employees perceive that
they have learned the norms, values, and culture of their organizations
(e.g., ‘‘I know what the acceptable image is for my organization’’).
Establishing Relationships, the 5-item third subscale, assesses employ-
ees’ perceived ability to identify coworkers who can provide useful
information or who know their way around the organization (e.g., ‘‘I
know which of my coworkers are interested in helping me’’). The items
for each respective subscale are summed to obtain a subscale score; the
three subscales are subsequently summed for a total score.
Examining the instrument through our preliminary factor-analytic
work provided substantial support for continued use of the instrument.
Internal reliabilities (.82--.96) and item factor loadings on each subscale
were virtually identical to those reported by Morton (1993). Further
separate factor analyses by gender and by occupational group yielded the
same number of factors as Morton found (three) as well as nearly iden-
tical item loadings. These findings provide evidence of the instrument’s
subscale factor stability and generalizability as Morton’s research was
conducted with quite a different research sample, newcomers in a gov-
ernment agency.

Job Performance Measures. Job performance and its two dimensions,

Technical and Interpersonal Performance (Motowidlo & Van Scotter,
1994), were assessed with a self-report questionnaire developed for this
study. This instrument was based in part upon Reeve’s (1989) explor-
atory research measuring task performance in a laboratory setting and
Gardner and Koslowski’s (1993) research measuring job performance in a
co-op. The six-item instrument consists of three, two-item subscales:
Overall Job Performance, Technical Job Performance, and Interpersonal
Job Performance. Sample items include ‘‘How would you rate your
14 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

overall job performance?’’ (overall), ‘‘How would you rate your overall
level of technical skill knowledge?’’ (technical), and ‘‘How would you rate
your overall level of interpersonal skill knowledge?’’ (interpersonal). The
other question in each subscale asks respondents to compare their
overall job performance and their technical and interpersonal skill
knowledge to that of their peers (Gardner & Koslowski, 1993). Thus, each
of the six questions asks employees about their perception of their cur-
rent job performance. The total instrument’s reliability was .90.

RESULTS

The means, standard deviations, and alphas for each of the six affect
subscales, the socialization-related learning instrument (only the WAQ
total scale was used for final analyses), and the job performance ques-
tionnaire (total scale score only) are presented in Table 1. Zero-order
correlational values between the variables of interest were determined
and investigated for meaningfulness (see Table 2). Socialization-related
learning and job performance were significantly and positively related
(r = .55, p < .001), indicating that socialization-related learning is a
moderately strong predictor of employee job performance. State and trait
curiosity were both positively related to socialization-related learning
and job performance, suggesting that higher curiosity or desire for
information might enhance socialization-related learning and job per-
formance. State curiosity had a significant, but low negative relationship
with state anxiety, indicating that anxiety might situationally deter
curiosity-related learning behaviors. State curiosity and anger demon-
strated a statistically significant positive, but weak association. Finally,
the relationship between state anger and job performance was low, yet
significant and positive. The results give tentative support for the notion

Table 1
Means, Standard Deviations, Reliabilities, and Number of Items for Instrument
Subscales*

Scale Subscale M SD a # of Items

SANG State anger 13.8 6.6 .77 10

SANX State anxiety 17.7 5.5 .78 10
SCUR State curiosity 27.4 5.1 .79 10
TANG Trait anger 20.6 6.0 .78 10
TANX Trait anxiety 18.7 5.5 .76 10
TCUR Trait curiosity 28.1 5.2 .80 10
WAQ Workplace adaptation questionnaire 73.5 8.6 .80 22
JP Job performance 29.9 6.4 .90 6

Note: N = 233. *Reliability estimates are Cronbach’s alphas.

 THOMAS G. REIO, JR. AND JAMIE L. CALLAHAN 15

Table 2
Research Variable Total Scale Intercorrelations

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. SANX 1.00 .67*** ).13* .61*** .55*** ).16* ).07 ).07

2. SANG 1.00 .17* .46*** .72*** .12 .13* .16*
3. SCUR 1.00 ).22** .12 .78*** .29** .28**
4. TANX 1.00 .55*** ).29** ).10 ).12
5. TANG 1.00 ).05 .08 .08
6. TCUR 1.00 .31** .31**
7. WAQ 1.00 .55***
8. JP 1.00

Note: N = 233. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. SANX: state anxiety (STPI); SANG:
state anger (STPI); SCUR: state curiosity (STPI); TANX: trait anxiety (STPI); TANG: trait
anger (STPI); TCUR: trait curiosity (STPI); WAQ: workplace adaptation questionnaire; JP:
job performance.

that temporary states of anxiety might deter curiosity and learning as

Spielberger and Starr (1994) proposed. These results also indicate that
anger (frustration or annoyance) might motivate an individual to explore
and learn new ways to achieve otherwise thwarted goals, as Mandler
suggests (1984), thereby enhancing job performance.
To investigate our research hypotheses further (we proposed two
theoretical models in which anxiety and anger affect affective-cognitive
curiosity, which in turn predicts the socialization-related learning that
positively influences job performance), we tested our theoretical models
with a structural modeling approach. We evaluated two structural
models (henceforth called ‘‘path models’’) with observed variables (Kline,
1998). Figures 2 and 3 represent these two theoretical path models.
We tested each a priori, theoretically derived, ‘‘recursive’’ path model
suggesting the ‘‘causal’’ influence of anger, anxiety, and curiosity on
socialization-related learning and perceived job performance. In recur-
sive path models, all effects among the variables are unidirectional
(Kline, 1998). The first model (Figure 2) represents affect as a state,
while the second model (Figure 3) represents affect as a disposition or
trait. Standardized path coefficients were calculated by EQS, version 5.4,
from a combination of the correlational matrix containing the five main
study variables (anger, anxiety, curiosity, socialization-related learning,
and job performance), their covariances, and their standard deviations
using a maximum likelihood criterion for estimation. All of the path
coefficients were significant at the p < .05 level. Various fit indexes are
presented in Table 3.
The first model (Figure 2) is an ‘‘over-identified’’ path model in which
perceived Job Performance is the dependent variable. Over-identified
models have fewer parameters than observations (Kline, 1998). State
16 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

Figure 2
Affective States, Curiosity, Socialization-Related Learning, and Job Performance
Path Model

E5

State Anger Job Performance

.16***
.18*** .47***

.67*** Socialization-
State Curiosity .27***
Related Learning

-.25***

State Anxiety E3 E4

Figure 3
Affective Traits, Curiosity, Socialization-Related Learning, and Job Performance
Path Model

E5

Trait Anger Job Performance

.17***
.15*** .46***

.55*** .31*** Socialization-

Trait Curiosity
Related Learning

-.38***

Trait Anxiety E3 E4

anger and anxiety had direct but opposite influences on state curiosity,
which both in turn had directly affected socialization-related learning and
job performance. As predicted, state anxiety negatively affected curiosity;
thus, higher levels of state anxiety lower state curiosity and ultimately
deter socialization-related learning and perceived job performance. On
the other hand, state anger increased curiosity, indicating that higher
anger fostered a desire for information or curiosity, which leads to higher
socialization-related learning and job performance. It is important to note
that curiosity directly affected both socialization-related learning and job
performance, and socialization-related learning strongly and directly
influenced job performance, supporting the view that curiosity and
learning both enhance job performance. With a comparative fit index
 THOMAS G. REIO, JR. AND JAMIE L. CALLAHAN 17

Table 3
Summary of Fit Indexes for the Models Examined

Model CFI AGFI MFI IFI SRMR v2/df

State .95 .90 .97 .95 .05 2.81

Trait .99 .97 .99 .99 .03 1.39

Note: CFI: comparative fit index; AGFI: adjusted goodness of fit index; MFI: Mcdonald’s
fit index; IFI: Bollen’s incremental fit index; SRMR: standardized root mean-square
residual.

(CFI) value of .95, the data failed to disconfirm the model; all of the other
generated fit indexes fully supported this interpretation.
Similar results were found with the ‘‘over-identified’’ trait path
model (Figure 3), as each of the respective fit indexes indicated that the
data failed to disconfirm the theoretical model. The only major difference
was that trait anxiety exhibited a more pronounced negative influence on
trait curiosity, suggesting that high trait anxiety might be more likely to
be associated with lower trait curiosity, which would negatively influence
socialization-related learning and perceived job performance in this
particular sample of service workers.
According to Kline (1998), the next steps in validating these path-
analytic results would be to replicate the model across independent
samples, obtain substantiating evidence from experimental studies
involving the variables of interest, and accurately predict the effects of
various interventions on the model. We believe this additional evidence
would be necessary to support our theoretical models fully.
Overall, both theoretical models provide robust support for our
hypothesis that both state and trait positive and negative affect influence
workplace job performance, albeit through the mediation of curiosity and
socialization-related learning.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

This study provides empirical corroboration for the notion that some
types of discrete emotions often overlooked by organizational researchers
can either foster or deter workplace job performance through their
influence on individual curiosity and the learning associated with work-
place socialization. Clearly, the findings associated with both anger and
anxiety support our theoretical models in that anxiety was associated
with lower levels of curiosity and, subsequently, less learning and lower
perceived job performance; while anger was associated with higher levels
of curiosity and, subsequently, more learning and higher perceived job
performance. As hypothesized, both curiosity and socialization-related
learning mediated the important affect-job performance relationship.
18 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

Supporting Côté’s (1999) call for the identification of new mediators

between the affect-job performance relationship, we successfully identi-
fied two: curiosity and socialization-related learning. The exploration of
these two new variables may give further information about how to
optimize employee learning and performance.
Extending previous organizational research (e.g., George, 1991;
George & Zhou, 2002), we found additional support for the utility of using
the state-trait model for research on affect in workplace settings. This
study was distinctive in that it focused primarily on discrete intense
emotions instead of the broader moods favored by George (1991) and
others. Emotions represent a response to specific events in one’s envi-
ronment, which stimulate characteristic forms of adaptive behavior.
Explicit new knowledge of why discrete emotions occur and how they
effect workplace learning behaviors may provide researchers and man-
agers with important new information they can use to design workplaces
that embrace curiosity and learning, thereby fostering worker adapta-
tion. Identifying and researching additional short- and long-term, dis-
crete emotions such as optimism, jealousness, and timidity may yield
more insights into the antecedents and outcomes of complex organiza-
tional behaviors.
Perhaps the most interesting finding of this study was that curiosity
or the desire for information may be an important mediator between
emotion, socialization, and job performance. Consistent with previous
socialization research (e.g., Morrison, 1993; Ostroff & Kozlowski, 1992),
curiosity positively predicted socialization-related learning, through
which employees perceived themselves to be successfully socialized into
the organization. Both directly and indirectly, through the mediation of
socialization-related learning, curiosity predicted job performance. This
indicates the importance of fostering conditions that favor curiosity and
proactive information seeking in the workplace. Future studies should
explore the relationship of other emotions to curiosity as an affective-
cognitive condition that has some bearing on other formal and informal
learning-related organizational behaviors. Curiosity and learning should
be fostered if job performance is to be maintained or improved. Unmis-
takably, consideration must be given to worker emotions; otherwise,
learning and job performance could be impeded.
These findings have considerable practical use for organizations. The
negative effect of both state and trait anxiety on curiosity may impede
learning and performance in organizational contexts. Deming (1986)
argued that fear and anxiety must be driven out of the workplace to
foster optimum performance and quality. Anxiety reduces creativity
(Higgins et al., 1992), inhibits memory and learning (Tobias, 1985), and
increases the tendency for depression (Rodrique et al., 1987). This study
adds to our understanding of how the negative effects of anxiety can
 THOMAS G. REIO, JR. AND JAMIE L. CALLAHAN 19

influence large-scale organizational performance. Leaders would be well

served to address issues of anxiety in the workplace.
In this study, the positive influence of anger on curiosity supports
the theory that thwarted attempts to achieve a goal may foster a more
concerted effort toward goal achievement (Mandler, 1984). Ironically,
many theories connecting emotions and organizations, learning, or cre-
ativity argue that anger has a negative influence since it is an otherwise
negative emotion (e.g., Higgins et al., 1992). If anger stimulates the
search for alternative methods for goal achievement, it may be important
for organizational leaders to be aware of the potential consequences of
such behavior. If the otherwise thwarted goals are aligned with larger
organizational goals, such behavior would have positive consequences for
the organization. But, if those thwarted goals conflict with larger orga-
nizational goals, such persistence may have negative consequences for
the organization. If managers are able to identify the existence of anger
and the goals associated with it, they may be able to manage behavior
and achieve more positive organizational outcomes.
We recognize that the findings presented in this study must be
interpreted with caution because they are based on self-report measures.
Although it is appropriate to use self-reports when interested in em-
ployee perceptions, as in this study, it may be useful to compare these
perceptions to those of coworkers and supervisors to develop more com-
plete understandings. Future research should acquire these independent
sources of information. Nevertheless, this study supports existing re-
search and raises some intriguing questions about how to work with
emotions in the workplace. Innovative methodological approaches that
link emotion behavior to learning and performance behaviors should be
explored in future studies.
In sum, the study of emotions and emotion-based phenomena as
predictors of organizational behaviors continues to substantiate their
relevance to both research and practice. Undeniably, the role of emotion
in learning the ropes of the workplace is one fruitful avenue for contin-
ued research. The present study opened the door to a better under-
standing of the role of two distinct types of emotion, anger and anxiety, in
learning and performance behaviors within service organizations.

REFERENCES

Amason, P., & Allen, M. W. (1997). Intraorganizational communication, perceived organi-

zational support, and gender. Sex Roles, 37, 955--977.
Bahn, C. (1989). Police socialization in the eighties: Strains in the forging of an occupational
identity. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 12, 390--394.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Barrick. M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job per-
formance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1--26.
20 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

Ben-Zur, H. (2002). Associations of Type A behavior with the emotional traits of anger and
curiosity. Anxiety, Stress, and Coping, 15, 95--104.
Ben-Zur, H., & Zeidner, M. (1988). Sex differences in anxiety, curiosity, and anger: A cross-
cultural study. Sex Roles, 19, 335--347.
Berlyne, D. E. (1960). Conflict, arousal and curiosity. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Boyle, G. J. (1983). Critical review of state-trait curiosity test development. Motivation and
Emotion, 7, 377--397.
Caffray, C. M., & Schneider, S. L. (2000). Why do they do it? Affective motivators in ado-
lescents’ decisions to participate in risk behaviours. Cognition and Emotion, 14, 543--
576.
Callahan, J. L. (2000a). Emotion management and organizational functions: A case study of
patterns in a not-for-profit organization. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 11,
245--267.
Callahan, J. L. (2000b). Emotion work and perceptions of affective culture in a military
nonprofit organization. In P. Kuchinke (Ed.), Academy of Human Resource Develop-
ment Conference Proceeding (Vol. 1, pp. 488--496). Baton Rouge, LA: Academy of Hu-
man Resource Development.
Chao, G. T. (1997). Unstructured training and development: The role of organizational
socialization. In J. K. Ford, S. W. J. Koslowski, K. Kraiger, E. Salas & M. S. Teachout
(Eds.), Improving training effectiveness in work organizations. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Chorpita, B. F., & Barlow, D. H. (1998). The development of anxiety: The role of control in
the early environment. Psychological Bulletin, 24, 3--21.
Clore, G. L., Ortony, A., & Foss, M. A. (1987). The psychological foundations of the affective
lexicon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 751--766.
Côté, S. (1999). Affect and performance in organizational settings. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 8, 65--68.
Day, H. I. (1982). Curiosity and the interested explorer. Performance and Instruction, 21,
19--22.
Deffenbacher, J. L., Thwaites, G. A., Wallace, T. L., & Oetting, E. R. (1994). Social skills and
cognitive-relaxation approaches to general anger reduction. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 41, 386--396.
Deming, W. E. (1986). Out of the crisis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Center for Advanced Engi-
neering Study.
Falcione, R. L., & Wilson, C. E. (1988). In G. M. Goldhaber & G. A. Barnett (Eds.), Hand-
book of organizational communication (pp. 151--169). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Fineman, S., & Sturdy, A. (1999). The emotions of control: A qualitative exploration of
environmental regulation. Human Relations, 52, 631--663.
Fisher, C. D. (1985). Social support and adjustment to work: A longitudinal study. Journal
of Management, 11, 39--53.
Fisher, C. D. (1986). Organizational socialization: An integrative review. In G. F. Ferris &
K. M. Rowland (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resources management (Vol. 4,
pp. 101--145). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Fisher, C. D. (2000). Moods and emotions while working: Missing pieces of job satisfaction?
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 185--202.
Fisher, C.D., & Ashkanasy, N. M. (2000). The emerging role of emotions in work life: An
introduction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 123--129.
Fitness, J. (2000). Anger in the workplace: An emotion script approach to anger episodes
between workers and their superiors, co-workers and subordinates. Journal of Orga-
nizational Behavior, 21, 147--162.
Fox, S., Spector, P. E., & Miles, D. (2001). Counterproductive work behavior (CWB) in
response to job stressors and organizational justice: Some mediator and moderator tests
for autonomy and emotions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 291--309.
Frijda, N. H. (1994). Emotions are functional, most of the time. In P. Ekman & R. J.
Davidson (Eds.), The nature of emotion: Fundamental questions (pp. 122--122). New
York: Oxford University Press.
Fullagar, C. J. A., Gallagher, D. G., Gordon, M. E., & Clark, P. F. (1995). Impact of early
socialization on union commitment and participation: A longitudinal study. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 80, 147--157.
 THOMAS G. REIO, JR. AND JAMIE L. CALLAHAN 21

Gardner, P., & Koslowski, S. W. J. (1993). Learning the ropes: Co-ops do it faster. Journal of
Cooperative Behavior, 28, 30--41.
George, J. M. (1991). State or trait: Effects of positive mood on prosocial behaviors at work.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 76, 299--307.
George, J. M. (1996). Trait and state affect. In K. R. Murphy (Ed.), Individual differences
and behavior in organizations (pp. 145--171). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
George, J. M., & Brief, A. P. (1996). Motivational agendas in the workplace: The effects of
feelings on focus of attention and work motivation. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings
(Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 18). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
George, J. M., & Jones, G. (1997). Experiencing work: Values, attitudes, and mood. Human
Relations, 50, 393--416.
George, J. M., & Zhou, J. (2002). Understanding when bad moods foster creativity and good
ones don’t: The role of context and clarity of feelings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87,
687--697.
Grandey, A. A., Tam, A. P., & Brauburger, A. L. (2002). Affective states and traits in the
workplace: Diary and survey data from young workers. Motivation and Emotion, 26,
31--55.
Higgins, L. F., Qualls, S. H., & Cougar, J. D. (1992). The role of emotions in employee
creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 26, 119--129.
Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling. Uni-
versity of California Press: Berkeley, CA.
Hochwarter, W. A., Perrewe, P. L., Ferris, G. R., & Brymer, R. A. (1999). Job satisfaction
and performance: The moderating effects of value attainment and affective disposition.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 54, 296--313.
Hockey, G. R. J., Maule, A. J., Clough, P. J., & Bdzola, L. (2000). Effects of negative
mood states on risk in everyday decision making. Cognition and Emotion, 14, 823--
856.
Izard, C. (2002). Translating emotion theory and research into preventative interventions.
Psychological Bulletin, 128, 796--824.
Jalagas, D. S., & Bommer, M. (1999). A comparison of the impact of past and the threat
of future downsizings on workers. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 14, 89--
100.
Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: The
Guilford Press.
Kozlowski, S. W. J. (1995). Organizational change, informal learning, and adaptation:
Emerging trends in training and continuing education. The Journal of Continuing
Higher Education, 43, 2--11.
Lazarus, R. (1994). Universal antecedents of the emotions. In P. Ekman & R. J. Davidson
(Eds.), The nature of emotion: Fundamental questions (pp. 163--171). New York: Oxford
University Press.
Lee, D. M. S. (1994). Social ties, task-related communication and first job performance of
young engineers. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 11, 203--228.
Lemerise, E. A., & Dodge, K. A. (2000). The development of anger and hostile interactions.
In M. Lewis, and J. M. Haviland-Jones (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (2nd ed., pp. 594--
606). New York: The Guilford Press.
Lewis, K. M. (2000). When leaders display emotion: How followers respond to negative
emotional expression of male and female leaders. Journal of Organizational Behavior,
21, 221--234.
Lin, M. C., Endler, N. S., & Kocovski, N. L. (2001). State and trait anxiety: A cross-cultural
comparison of Chinese and Caucasian students in Canada. Current Psychology, 20, 95--
111.
Mandler, G. (1984). Mind and body: The psychology of emotion and stress. New York:
Norton.
Miller, V. D., & Jablin, F. M. (1991). Information seeking during organizational entry:
Influences, tactics, and a model of the process. Academy of Management Review, 16, 92--
120.
McCloy, R. A., Campbell, J. P., & Cudek, R. (1994). A confirmatory test of a model of
performance determinants. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 493--504.
22 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS AND PSYCHOLOGY

Morrison, E. W. (1993). Newcomer information seeking: Exploring types, modes, sources,

and outcomes. Academy of Management Journal, 36, 557--589.
Morton, S. (1993). Socialization-related learning, job satisfaction, and commitment for new
employees in a federal agency. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University.
Motowidlo, S. J., & Van Scotter, J. R. (1994). Evidence that task performance should be
distinguished from contextual performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 475--
480.
Ostroff, C., & Kozlowski, S. W. (1992). Organizational socialization as a learning process:
The role of information acquisition. Personnel Psychology, 45, 849--874.
Reeve, J. (1989). The interest-enjoyment distinction in intrinsic motivation. Motivation and
Emotion, 13, 83--103.
Reichers, A. E., Wanous, J. P., & Steele, K. (1987). Design and implementation issues in
socializing (and resocializing) employees. Human Resource Planning, 17, 17--25.
Reio, T. G., Jr., & Wiswell, A. K. (2000). Field investigation of the relationship among adult
curiosity, workplace learning, and job performance. Human Resource Development
Quarterly, 11, 5--30.
Rodrique, J. R., Olson, K. R., & Marley, R. P. (1987). Induced mood and curiosity. Cognitive
Therapy and Research, 11, 101--106.
Rozell, E. J., & Gardner, W. L., III. (2000). Cognitive, motivation, and affective processes
associated with computer-related performance: A path analysis. Computers in Human
Behavior, 16, 199--222.
Rusting, C. L., and Jones, J. T. (2000). Effects of trait and state anger on judgments of
ambiguous stimuli. In Proceedings of the Paper Presented at American Psychological
Association Annual Conference, Boston, MA.
Saks, A. M. (1996). The relationship between the amount and helpfulness of entry training
and work outcomes. Human Relations, 49, 429--451.
Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (1997). Organizational socialization: Making sense of the past
and present as a prologue for the future. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51, 234--279.
Schein, E. H. (1988). Organizational socialization and the profession of management. Sloan
Management Review, 53--64.
Spielberger, C. D., Jacobs, G., Crane, R., Russell, S., Westberry, L., Barker, L., Johnson, E.,
Knight, J., & Marks, E. (1980). Unpublished manuscript, Preliminary manual for the
State-Trait Personality Inventory (STPI), University of South Florida.
Spielberger, C. D., & Starr, L. M. (1994). Curiosity and exploratory behavior. In H. F.
O’Neil, Jr. & M. Drillings (Eds.), Motivation: Theory and research (pp. 221--243).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Staw, B. M., Sutton, R. I., & Pelled, L. H. (1994). Employee positive emotion and favorable
outcomes at work. Organizational Science, 5, 51--71.
Tobias, S. (1985). Test anxiety: Interference, defective skills, and cognitive capacity. Edu-
cational Psychologist, 20, 135--142.
Torroco, R. J. (Ed.) (1999). Performance improvement theory and practice. San Francisco:
Berrett-Koehler Communications.
Turnbull, S. (1999). Emotional labour in corporate change programmes: The effects of
organizational feeling rules on middle managers. Human Resource Development
International, 2, 125--146.
Wanberg, C. R., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2000). Predictors and outcomes of proactivity
in the socialization process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 373--385.
Weiner, B, & Graham, S. (1989). Understanding the motivational role of affect: Lifespan
research from an attributional perspective. Cognition and Emotion, 4, 401--419.
Yerkes, R. M., and Dodson, J. D. (1908). The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of
habit formation. Journal of Comparative Neurology, 18, 459--482.