Emotions as strategic information: Effects of other’s emotional expressions on fixed-pie perception, demands, and integrative behavior in negotiation

Abstract

Negotiators often fail to reach integrative ("win-win") agreements because they think that their own and other's preferences are diametrically opposed-the so-called fixed-pie perception. We examined how verbal (Experiment 1) and nonverbal (Experiment 2) emotional expressions may reduce fixed-pie perception and promote integrative behavior. In a two-issue computer-simulated negotiation, participants negotiated with a counterpart emitting one of the following emotional response patterns: (1) anger on both issues, (2) anger on participant's high priority issue and happiness on participant's low-priority issue, (3) happiness on high priority issue and anger on low-priority issue, or (4) happiness on both issues. In both studies, the third pattern reduced fixed-pie perception and increased integrative behavior, whereas the second pattern amplified bias and reduced integrative behavior. Implications for how emotions shape social exchange are discussed.

The Social Effects of Emotions are Functionally Equivalent Across Expressive Modalities

“…Some studies relied on verbal expressions of emotion, which were often delivered in the context of (simulated) computer-mediated interactions (e.g., Adam, Shirako, & Maddux, 2010;Bono & Ilies, 2006;Friedman et al, 2004;Melwani & Barsade, 2011;Van Kleef, De Dreu, & Manstead, 2004a, 2004b. Other studies used still pictures of facial emotional expressions (e.g., Hess, Blairy, & Kleck, 2000;Pietroni, Van Kleef, De Dreu, & Pagliaro, 2008;Van Doorn, Heerdink, & Van Kleef, 2012) or dynamic film clips containing emotional expressions in face, voice, and posture (e.g., Lewis, 2000;Van Kleef et al, 2009). Still other studies utilized face-to-face paradigms, in which confederates were trained or na€ ıve participants were instructed to emit certain emotional expressions in interaction with another person (e.g., Barsade, 2002;Sinaceur & Tiedens, 2006;Sy, Côt e, & Saavedra, 2005;Wang, Northcraft, & Van Kleef, 2012).…”

Analyzing the Multiple Dimensions of Negotiation Processes

“…Other findings indicate that resoluteness is associated with expressions of anger (e.g., Kopelman et al 2006), or that cooperative behaviors are associated with expressions of happiness (e.g., Stouten and Cremer 2010). Utilizing a computer-mediated negotiation simulation, Pietroni et al (2008) further found an interrelation between positive emotions and the reduction of fixed-pie perceptions, that is, an increase in integrative behaviors-and the inverse effect for negative emotions-, in particular when an issue was of high importance to a negotiator. Our results add to this research in finding that communication is enriched or supported by emotional expressions: Emotions can help to highlight the strategic action dimension of communication and, consequently, make it more salient.…”

Person perception from changing emotional expressions: primacy, recency, or averaging effect?

“…If the averaging principle accounts for trait inferences from dynamic emotional expressions, the resultant perception should be an average of the expresser's start and end emotions. Filipowicz, Barsade, and Melwani (2011) provided some evidence supporting this notion: Compared to those who expressed either anger or happiness throughout a negotiation, individuals whose expressions changed between happiness and anger were rated as intermediate in positivity (also see Pietroni, Van Kleef, De Dreu, & Pagliaro, 2008). However, the emotional changes in these studies were depicted by displaying two still photographs, which may not be representative of genuine dynamic changes.…”