Get angry, get out: The interpersonal effects of anger communication in multiparty negotiation

Research on multiparty negotiation has investigated how parties form coalitions to secure payoffs but has not addressed how emotions may affect such coalition decisions. Extending research on bilateral negotiations which has generally argued that it is beneficial to communicate anger, we argue that it constitutes a considerable risk when there are more than two people present at the negotiation table. Using a computer-mediated coalition game we show that communicating anger is a risky strategy in multiparty bargaining. The main findings of three studies were that participants: (1) form negative impressions of players who communicate anger and therefore (2) exclude such players from coalitions and from obtaining a payoff share, but (3) make considerable concessions on those rare occasions that they choose to form a coalition with an angry player, or (4) when they had to form a coalition with an angry player. We discuss the implications of these results for theorizing on emotions, negotiations, and coalition formation.     

Honesty pays: On the benefits of having and disclosing information in coalition bargaining

People typically think of negotiations as competitive, which often leads them to engage in secrecy and even deception. In three experiments we show that this approach can backfire in coalition bargaining. Results show that, even though bargainers with an outcome advantage only obtain favorable outcomes when this information is public, they rarely choose to reveal this information. Fairness motivations fueled decisions to reveal this information and make attractive offers whereas self-interest fueled decisions not to reveal and make unattractive offers. Finally, perspective taking increased proselfs' inclinations to keep their advantage private whereas it increased prosocials' inclinations to reveal. These findings suggest that many people are not naturally inclined to reveal private information when they have an outcome advantage, but that fairness motives encourage revelation and, ironically, increase revealers' outcomes in coalition bargaining. Thus, in this context, honesty pays.     

Do-no-harm in coalition formation: Why losses inhibit exclusion and promote fairness cognitions

Previous research on coalition formation has established that people will not hesitate to exclude others in order to maximize their payoff. The authors propose that this view is too narrow and that the decision to exclude depends on the valence of the payoff. Consistent with a “do-no-harm” hypothesis, Experiment 1 showed that participants were more reluctant to exclude in order to minimize their losses than to maximize their gains. Experiment 2 replicated this effect and showed that participants were most affected by payoff valence when they were disposed to consider the viewpoint of others. Additional analyses revealed that participants were more motivated by fairness (Experiment 1) and that fairness was more cognitively accessible (Experiment 2) when payoffs were negative rather than positive.     

Social reconnection revisited: The effects of social exclusion risk on reciprocity,trust, and general risk-taking

We hypothesize that people at risk of exclusion from groups will engage in actions that can socially reconnect them with others and test the hypothesis in four studies. We show that participants at risk of exclusion reciprocated the behavior of an unknown person (Study 1a) and a potential excluder (Study 1b) more compared to two control groups (people who received a non-social negative feedback and people who were actually excluded). Study 2 replicated the results of Study 1a with trust as the dependent variable. Study 3 showed that people who were at risk of exclusion took less general risk compared with both control groups. These results demonstrate socially adaptive responses of people who are at risk of social exclusion.     

Mirror,mirror on the wall,who’s the fairest of them all? Thinking that one is attractive increases the tendency to support inequality

Five studies tested the hypothesis that self-perceived attractiveness shapes people’s perceptions of their social class (subjective SES), which, in turn, shape how people respond to inequality and social hierarchies. Study 1 found that self-perceived attractiveness was associated with support for group-based dominance and belief in legitimizing ideologies, and that these relationships were mediated by subjective social class. Subsequent experiments showed that higher self-perceived attractiveness increased subjective SES, which in turn, increased SDO (Study 2 and Study 5); promoted stronger beliefs in dispositional causes of inequality (Study 3); and reduced donations to a movement advocating for social equality (Study 4). By contrast, lower self-perceived attractiveness decreased subjective SES, which in turn, led to a greater tendency to reject social hierarchies and to construe inequality in terms of contextual causes. These effects emerged even after controlling for power, status, and self-esteem, and were not simply driven by inducing people to see themselves positively on desirable traits (Study 4 and Study 5).     

How long does it last? The persistence of the effects of ostracism in the socially anxious

Previous research has demonstrated that ostracism (to be excluded and ignored) leads to detrimental effects on four human needs (belonging, control, self-esteem, and meaningful existence; Williams, 2001). These detrimental effects, however, may be more pronounced, or more prolonged, in particular individuals (see Williams & Zadro, 2001). In the present study, we examined the persistence of the detrimental effects of ostracism in high and low socially anxious participants. The results show that being ostracized affected both groups at the immediate test, and that the high socially anxious participants recovered their primary needs more slowly. The results also show that being ostracized affects personality/attractiveness ratings of sources of ostracism, and increases the likelihood of interpreting ambiguous situations in a threatening manner. Overall, the study illustrates that a comprehensive understanding of ostracism, and the effects of moderating factors such as social anxiety, requires assessing the effects across time rather than only focusing on immediate reactions.     

Power motivates interpersonal connection following social exclusion

Research has systematically documented the negative effects of social exclusion, yet little is known about how these negative effects can be mitigated. Building on the approach-inhibition theory of power (Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, 2003), we examined the role of power in facilitating social connection following exclusion. Four experiments found that following exclusion, high power (relative to low power) individuals intend to socially connect more with others. Specifically, following exclusion, individuals primed with high power sought new social connections more than those primed with low power (Studies 1–4) or those receiving no power prime (Study 1). The intention to seek social connection as a function of power was limited to situations of exclusion, as it did not occur when individuals were included (Studies 3 and 4). Approach orientation mediates the effect of power on intentions to connect with others (Studies 2 and 4).     

Social value orientations and the strategic use of fairness in ultimatum bargaining

One of the main issues in research on ultimatum bargaining is whether bargainers are motivated by self-interest or by a concern for fairness. It is difficult to distinguish between both motivations, because it may be in the own interest to make fair offers. In the current paper on ultimatum bargaining, it is investigated whether bargainers are truly motivated to be fair, or whether they merely strategically use fairness as a means to increase their own outcomes. The results of two experimental studies indicate that social value orientations play an important role: strategic use of fairness is mainly displayed by proselfs.     

Excluded emotions: The role of anger in antisocial responses to ostracism

In this article, we examined the role of anger in the link between social exclusion and antisocial behavior. We compared the effects of anger to another negative emotion, sadness. In Study 1, social exclusion was associated with feelings of anger, and anger was associated with antisocial behavior. In contrast, sadness was not associated with antisocial behavior. In Study 2, feelings of anger were manipulated by excluding participants for either a fair or unfair reason. Unfairly excluded participants were more angry and were more likely to engage in antisocial behavior than fairly excluded participants. Implications for the study of emotions in the context of social exclusion are discussed.     

Cognitive consequences of perceiving social exclusion

Although a great deal is now known about how people mentally represent individuals and groups, less attention has been paid to the question of how interpersonal relationships are represented in memory. Drawing on principles of categorization, this paper reports an investigation into how we mentally represent the relationships of others. In three experiments, evidence for assimilation effects following social exclusion (and subsequent categorization) is found. Experiment 1 uses a judgment paradigm to demonstrate that social exclusion influences the perception of interpersonal closeness. Experiments 2 and 3 employ a memory confusion paradigm to establish that representations of relationship partners are assimilated following the exclusion of a third party.     

Excluded from humanity: The dehumanizing effects of social ostracism

Humans have a fundamental need to form and maintain relationships. Social exclusion frustrates this need and has devastating psychological effects. The current research examines the relationship between social exclusion and the experience of dehumanization from the target’s perspective. When people were ostracized they judged themselves and those who ostracized them as less human (Studies 1 and 2), and believed they were viewed as less human by the perpetrators (Study 2). In both studies, essential ‘human nature’ was the dimension of humanness most sensitive to social exclusion.     

When ostracism leads to aggression: The moderating effects of control deprivation

We hypothesized that increasing or decreasing levels of control in an ostracized individual could moderate aggressive responding to ostracism. Participants were either ostracized or included in a spontaneous game of toss, and then exposed to a series of blasts of aversive noise, the onsets over which they had either control or no control. Aggression was defined as the amount of hot sauce participants allocated to a stranger, knowing the stranger did not like hot foods, but would have to consume the entire sample. Ostracized participants without control allocated more than four times as much sauce as any other group; ostracized participants who experienced restored control were no more aggressive than either of the groups who were included. Aggressive responding to ostracism may depend on the degree to which control needs are threatened in the target, and is discussed in terms of Williams’s (2001) needs threat model of ostracism.     

The world in black and white: Ostracism enhances the categorical perception of social information

In two experiments, ostracized individuals showed more pronounced categorical perception of inclusion- and exclusion-related stimuli. Specifically, ostracism enhanced the ability to distinguish between-category differences (e.g., between happy and angry faces) relative to within-category differences (e.g., between two happy expressions). Participants were socially included or excluded via Cyberball (a virtual ball-tossing task). In Experiment 1, ostracized participants showed greater perceptual acuity in distinguishing between subtly happy and angry expressions combined with a reduced ability to discriminate expressions within each expression category. Experiment 2 found analogous categorical perception effects for targets varying on the dimension of race. Importantly, this effect was specific to social information; categorical perception of non-social objects was not qualified by social exclusion. These results suggest that ostracism exacerbates categorical perception, attuning perceivers to the differences between various inclusion- and exclusion-related categories relative to within category acuity, making the world appear more ‘black-and-white’ than it might otherwise.     

Feelings of control during social exclusion are partly accounted for by empathizing personality

It has been demonstrated that social exclusion, or ostracism, results in a decrease in four fundamental human needs: belonging, control, self-esteem, and meaningful existence. We replicated these results, and examined how empathizing and systemizing cognitive styles accounts for variation in the experience of social exclusion (self-reported distress and the four fundamental needs) during an internet ball toss game. Participants’ standardized combined score (D Score) from the Empathizing Quotient (EQ-S) and Systemizing Quotient (SQ-S) (Wakabayashi et al., 2006) was a significant predictor of the decrease in the fundamental need, control. In other words, empathizers reported feeling less in control compared to systemizers during the ball toss game regardless of exclusion or inclusion. These findings suggest that individuals who score high on empathizing struggle more with the lack of control when involved in an situation where they do not have influence over the social interaction in which they are taking part.     

When constituencies speak in multiple tongues: The relative persuasiveness of hawkish minorities in representative negotiation

Although constituencies often consist of opposing factions, we know little about the way such opposing factions influence the representative’s negotiation strategy. This study addressed this issue: Representatives negotiated as sellers on behalf of a group consisting of hawkish (competitive) and dovish (cooperative) factions. Experiments 1–3 showed that a minority of hawks was sufficient to influence the representatives to acting in a competitive way; only when all constituents unanimously advocated a cooperative strategy were representatives more conciliatory towards their negotiation partner. These tendencies did not differ as a function of the representatives’ pro-social versus pro-self value orientation, or the unanimity versus majority rule putatively used in the constituency to accept of reject the representative’s negotiated agreement. We conclude that hawkish minorities are persuasive and influential because representatives accord more weight to hawkish than to dovish messages.     

The faultline activation process and the effects of activated faultlines on coalition formation,conflict, and group outcomes

This research examines the effects of group faultline activation on coalition formation, conflict, and group outcomes. We distinguish between dormant faultlines (potential faultlines based on demographic characteristics) and activated group faultlines (members actually perceive subgroups based on the demographic characteristics) and hypothesize that while dormant faultlines do not automatically turn into active group divisions, a group’s entitlement configuration can activate divisions among group members. Study 1 was a construct validity study to verify the psychometric properties of the activated group faultline measure and explain its connection to other process variables. In Studies 2 and 3, we tested our hypotheses and found that groups with activated faultlines were more likely to form coalitions, have high levels of group conflict, and lower levels of satisfaction and group performance than dormant faultline groups. Furthermore, team identification moderated the effects of activated faultlines on group processes such that a strong workgroup identity decreased the likelihood that activated faultlines led to coalition formation and conflict.