We proposed and tested the notion of a bidirectional influence of emotion expressions and context. In two studies (N = 215, N = 222), we found that the expressions shown by supporters and opponents of a player in a ball game were used by observers to correctly deduce the eliciting situationi.e. the outcome of the game. Conversely, knowledge of the outcome of the game (as well as real world knowledge of the negative interdependence of opponents in a competitive game) influenced the perception of both the emotions shown (Study 1) and the perceived bias/emotional control exhibited by the expressers (Study 2). This research contributes to a growing body of research that shows that both situations and emotion expressions contain intrinsic meaningful information and that both sources of information are used by observers in a social appraisal process.

How people react emotionally to an event can tell us much about the event itself. However, emotions vary in their situative informativeness, that is, in how much information about the situation they provide. We predicted that when emotions are shown that are low in situative informativeness participants rely more on context information, then when the emotions shown are high in situative informativeness. This hypothesis was tested in 2 studies in which participants were asked to evaluate the quality of a player's performance based on the emotional reactions of spectators to an unknown ball game. Spectators reacted either with awe (high in situative informativeness), or with happiness or neutrality (low in situative informativeness). Participant also received context information. The findings supported the predictions and illustrate how emotions and context interact to inform us about events. (PsycINFO Database Record

Two studies showed that emotion expressions serve as cues to the expresser’s willingness to take risks in general, as well as in five risk domains (ethical, financial, health and safety, recreational, and social). Emotion expressions did not have a uniform effect on risk estimates across risk domains. Rather, these effects fit behavioral intentions associated with each emotion. Thus, anger expressions were related to ethical and social risks. Sadness reduced perceived willingness to take financial (Study 1 only), recreational, and social risks. Happiness reduced perceived willingness to take ethical and health/safety risks relative to neutrality. Disgust expressions increased the perceived likelihood of taking a social risk. Finally, neutrality increased the perceived willingness to engage in risky behavior in general. Overall, these results suggest that observers use their naïve understanding of the meaning of emotions to infer how likely an expresser is to engage in risky behavior.

No abstract