Abstract
Previous research on the interpersonal effects of emotions in negotiation suggested that bargainers obtain higher outcomes expressing anger, when it is not directed against the counterpart as a person and it is perceived as appropriate. Instead, other studies indicated that successful negotiators express positive emotions. To reconcile this inconsistency, we propose that the direction of the effects of emotions depends on their perceived target, that is, whether the negotiators’ emotions are directed toward their opponent’s proposals or toward their own ‘exit option’. An ultimatum game scenario experiment showed that negotiators who express positive emotion rather than negative, in addition to benefits in terms of relationship fortification, received better offers when participants perceived the negotiators’ emotions directed toward their own ‘exit option’. These findings indicate that positive emotions may signal the availability of better ‘exit option’, suggesting that happiness expressions can be strategically used to maximize both material and relational outcomes.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Allred KG, Mallozzi JS, Matsui F, Raia CP (1997) The influence of anger and compassion on negotiation performance. Organ Behav Hum Dec 70:175–187
Averill JR (1982) Anger and aggression. Springer, New York
Baron RA (1990) Environmentally induced positive affect: it is impact on self-efficacy, task performance, negotiation, and conflict. J Appl Soc Psychol 20:368–384
Barry B, Oliver RL (1996) Affect in dyadic negotiation: a model and propositions. Organ Behav Hum Dec 67:127–143
Barry B, Fulmer IS, Van Kleef GA (2004) I laughed, I cried, I settled: the role of emotion in negotiation. In: Gelfand M, Brett J (eds) The handbook of negotiation and culture. University Press, Stanford, pp 71–94
Camerer C, Thaler RH (1995) Anomalies: ultimatums, dictators and manners. J Econ Perspect 9:209–219
Carnevale PJ, Isen AM (1986) The influence of positive affect and visual access on the discovery of integrative solutions in bilateral negotiation. Organ Behav Hum Dec 37:1–13
Ekman P (1993) Facial expression and emotion. Am Psychol 48:384–392
Forgas JP (1998) On feeling good and getting your way: mood effects on negotiator cognition and behaviour. J Pers Soc Psychol 74:565–577
Fridlund AJ (1994) Human facial expression: an evolutionary view. Academic Press, San Diego
Friedman HS, Riggio RE (1981) Effect of individual differences in nonverbal expressiveness on transmission of emotion. J Nonverbal Behav 6:96–104
Friedman R, Anderson C, Brett J, Olekalns M, Goates N, Lisco CC (2004) The positive and negative effects of anger on dispute resolution: evidence from electronically mediated disputes. J Appl Psychol 89:369–376
Frijda NH (1986) The emotions. Cambridge University Press, New York
Giebels E, De Dreu CKW, Van de Vliert E (2000) Interdependence in negotiation: effects of exit options and social motive on distributive and integrative negotiation. Eur J Soc Psychol 30:255–272
Güth W, Tietz R (1990) Ultimatum bargaining behavior: a survey and comparison of experimental results. J Econ Psychol 11:417–449
Güth W, Schmittberger R, Schwarze B (1982) An experimental analysis of ultimatum games. J Econ Behav Organ 3:367–388
Handgraaf MJJ, Van Dijk E, De Cremer D (2003) Social utility in ultimatum bargaining. Soc Justice 16:263–283
Hatfield E, Cacioppo J, Rapson RL (1994) Emotional contagion. Cambridge University Press, New York
Hess U, Blairy S (2001) Facial mimicry and emotional contagion to dynamic emotional facial expressions and their influence on decoding accuracy. Int J Psychophysiol 40:129–141
Hietanen JK, Surakka V, Linnankoski I (1988) Depression: a self-presentation formulation. In: Baumeister R (ed) Public self and private self. Spinger, New York, pp 213–240
Keltner TD, Haidt J (1999) Social functions of emotions at four levels of analysis. Cogn Emot 13:505–521
Klinnert M, Campos J, Sorce J, Emde R, Svejda M (1983) Emotions as bahavior regulators: social referencing in infants. In: Plutchik R, Kellerman H (eds) Emotion theory, research, and experience. Academic Press, New York, pp 57–68
Knutson B (1996) Facial expressions of emotion influence interpersonal trait inferences. J Nonverbal Behav 20:165–182
Kopelman S, Rosette AS, Thompson L (2006) The three faces of eve: an examination of the strategic display of positive, negative, and neutral emotions in negotiations. Organ Behav Hum Dec 99:81–101
Lee F, Tiedens LZ (2002) Is it lonely at the top? The independence and interdependence of power holders. In: Staw BM, Sutton RI (eds) Research in organizational behavior. JAI Press, New York, pp 43–91
Leventhal GD (1980) What should be done with equity theory? New approaches to the study of fairness in social relationships. In: Berkowitz L, Walster W (eds) Advances in experimental social psychology. Academic Press, New York, pp 91–131
Lewicki R, Saunders D, Minton JW (1999) Negotiation: readings, exercises and cases. McGraw-Hill, New York
Lundqvist LO, Dimberg U (1995) Facial expressions are contagious. J Psychophysiol 9:203–211
Matsumoto D (1993) Ethnic differences in affect intensity, emotion judgments, display rule attitudes, and self-reported emotional expression in an American sample. Motiv Emot 17:107–123
Morris MW, Keltner D (2000) How emotions work: an analysis of the social functions of emotional expression in negotiations. Res Organ Behav 22:1–50
Neumann R, Strack F (2000) “Mood contagion”: the automatic transfer of mood between persons. J Pers Soc Psychol 79:211–223
Oatley K, Johnson-Laird PN (1987) Towards a cognitive theory of emotions. Cogn Emot 1:29–50
Pillutla MM, Murnighan JK (1996) Unfairness, anger, and spite: emotional rejections of ultimatum offers. Organ Behav Hum Dec 68:208–224
Pinkley RL (1995) Impact of knowledge regarding alternatives to settlement in dyadic negotiations: whose knowledge counts? J Appl Psychol 80:403–417
Pruitt DG (1981) Negotiation behavior. Academy Press, New York
Pruitt DG, Carnevale PJ (1993) Negotiation in social conflict. Oxford University Press, Oxford UK
Rafaeli A, Sutton RI (1987) Expression of emotion as part of the work role. Acad Manage Rev 12:23–37
Rubin JZ, Brown B (1975) The social psychology of bargaining and negotiations. Academic Press, New York
Schwarz N, Clore GL (1983) Mood, misattribution, and judgments of well-being: Informative and directive functions of affective states. J Pers Soc Psychol 45:513–523
Shields SA (2005) The politics of emotion in everyday life: “Appropriate” emotion and claims on identity. Rev Gen Psychol 9:3–15
Sinaceur M, Tiedens LZ (2006) Get mad and get more than even: when and why anger expression is effective in negotiations. J Exp Soc Psychol 42:314–322
Steinel W, Van Kleef GA, Harinck F (2008) Are you talking to me?! Separating the people from the problem when expressing emotions in negotiation. J Exp Soc Psychol 44:362–369
Thaler RH (1988) Anomalies: the ultimatum game. J Econ Perspect 2:195–206
Van Dijk E, Tenbrunsel A (2005) The battle between self-interest and fairness in bargaining: Ultimatum, dictator, and delta games. In: Gilliland SW, Steiner DD, Skarlicki DP, Van den Bos K (eds) What motivates fairness in organizations? CT: Information Age Publishing, Greenwich, pp 31–48
Van Dijk E, Van Kleef GA, Steinel W, Van Beest I (2008) A social functional approach to emotions in bargaining: when communicating anger pays and when it backfires. J Pers Soc Psychol 94:600–614
Van Kleef GA (2008). Emotion in conflict and negotiation: Introducing the emotions as social information (EASI) model. In: Cooper CL, Ashkanasy NM (eds) Research companion to emotion in organizations. Edward Elgar, London (in press)
Van Kleef GA, Côté S (2007) Expressing anger in conflict: when it helps and when it hurts. J Appl Psychol 92:1557–1569
Van Kleef GA, De Dreu CKW, Manstead ASR (2004a) The interpersonal effects of anger and happiness in negotiations. J Pers Soc Psychol 86:57–76
Van Kleef GA, De Dreu CKW, Manstead ASR (2004b) The interpersonal effects of emotions in negotiations: a motivated information processing approach. J Pers Soc Psychol 87:510–528
Van Kleef GA, De Dreu CKW, Pietroni D, Manstead ASR (2006) Power and emotion in negotiations: power moderates the interpersonal effects of anger and happiness on concession making. Eur J Soc Psychol 36:557–581
Wild B, Erb M, Bartels M (2001) Are emotions contagious? Evoked emotions while viewing emotionally expressive faces: quality, quantity, time course, and gender differences. Psychiatr Res 102:109–124
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by a grant from Fondazione Edoardo Garrone, Genova, Italy.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix
Appendix
1.1 Scenario
Please read carefully and try to imagine yourself in the following scenario.
Imagine that you are spending a holiday in the United States and that, visiting Las Vegas, you decide to enjoy an evening at a casino. You are walking among slots machines and roulettes when you notice a 1,000 dollar note on the floor. You promptly bend down to pick it up but when you rise up again you see a guy just in front of you complaining that he was the first to notice that note!
A casino rule states that people are allowed to keep the lost money or fiches that they find, but the fact that two people are declaring to deserve the same note generates a conflict situation that needs to be negotiated under the supervision of the casino manager.
The casino manager proposes the following solution: one opponent (the allocator) proposes a way to split the 1,000 dollars with the other (the recipient). If the recipient accepts the proposal, both will get their agreed portion of the amount. If the recipient rejects the proposal, the note will be returned to the casino and both parties would not get anything.
Although frustrated and disappointed, you and the other guy accept to adopt this splitting up method and the manager randomly assigns the role of allocator to you and the role of recipient to the other. Then, in order to avoid further frustration and conflict escalation, the manager offers to you both an ‘exit option’ to enjoy in case of no agreement, that is, in case of rejection of your proposal by the recipient.
The manager hands each of you an envelope containing a random number (from 1 to 10) of lottery tickets that each give a 10% chance of winning a 1,000 dollar prize. Then, before formulating the allocation proposal, you open your envelope and count three tickets inside of it. Knowing that the number of tickets may vary, you attentively observe your counterpart, who stands in a corner, unaware of being observed.
You clearly noted him having a reaction of anger (happiness) after opening his envelope and expecting the contents. Thereafter he approaches you asking with an irritated (content) tone of voice for your allocation proposal.
Considering that your goal (and your counterpart’s) is to obtain as many virtual dollars as possible (virtual dollars will be converted to real lottery tickets for a 100 Euro prize at the end of this experiment; 10 virtual dollars = 1 ticket), please write down now your allocation proposal to hand to the other guy.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pietroni, D., Van Kleef, G.A., Rubaltelli, E. et al. When happiness pays in negotiation. Mind Soc 8, 77–92 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11299-008-0047-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11299-008-0047-9