Figure - available from: Group Decision and Negotiation
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
The Mediation Effects of Perceived Limits from Experienced Emotion and Communicated Emotion to Demand Level (Experiment 1) Note: *** indicates p < .001.
Source publication
Past work suggests that emotion deception in negotiations – communicating a different emotion than experienced – is perceived negatively. We, however, argue that this depends on the type of emotion deception. We compared two emotion deception types – communicating anger while actually being happy, and communicating happiness while being angry – to...
Similar publications
Research has shown that negotiators sometimes misrepresent their emotions, and communicate a different emotion to opponents than they actually experience. Less is known about how people evaluate such negotiation tactics. Building on person perception literature, we investigated in three preregistered studies (N = 853) how participants evaluate nego...
Citations
... The expression of happiness often elicits high demands or low concessions (Van Kleef et al., 2004a, 2004b. The expression of anger in general induces generous offers (Ye et al., 2023), but may also backfire when it elicits anger in the opponent . ...
... Kang and Schweitzer (2022), for instance, showed that downplaying anger, sadness, or happiness, was perceived as more ethical than exaggerating these emotions. More relevant for the current research, Ye et al. (2023) indicated in a salary-negotiation setting that negotiators evaluated opponents deceptively communicating anger more negatively than opponents deceptively communicating happiness. They suggested that deceptive happiness may be seen as a positive signal to promote the relationship between parties. ...
... Evaluations have been measured as positive versus negative impressions (e.g., Van Kleef et al., 2004a). Other studies included more specific evaluations, for example, in terms of ethicality/morality (e.g., Kang & Schweitzer, 2022), or prosociality (e.g., the intention to benefit the relationship with others; Ye et al., 2023). We agree that research may benefit from assessing specific evaluations. ...
Research has shown that negotiators sometimes misrepresent their emotions, and communicate a different emotion to opponents than they actually experience. Less is known about how people evaluate such negotiation tactics. Building on person perception literature, we investigated in three preregistered studies (N = 853) how participants evaluate negotiators who deceptively (vs. genuinely) communicate anger or happiness, on the dimensions of morality, sociability, and competence. Study 1 employed a buyer/seller setting, Studies 2 and 3 employed an Ultimatum Bargaining Game (UBG). In all studies, participants learned a negotiator’s (the target’s) experienced and communicated emotions (anger or happiness), before evaluating the target. Across studies, targets were evaluated lower on morality if they deceptively (vs. genuinely) communicated anger or happiness. Notably, negotiators deceptively communicating anger were evaluated lower on morality and sociability but higher on competence than those deceptively communicating happiness. Studies 2 and 3 investigated behavioral consequences by examining whether in a future negotiation participants chose the target to be their opponent or representative. Results showed that for opponents, participants preferred targets who genuinely communicated happiness (vs. anger), which was associated with their perceived morality or sociability. For representatives, participants not only preferred targets who had genuinely communicated happiness (vs. anger), but also targets who had deceptively communicated anger (vs. happiness), which was associated with their perceived competence. These findings show that when evaluating deceptive (vs. genuine) communication strategies, people distinguish between morality, sociability, and competence. The importance they attach to these dimensions is also contingent on the behavioral decisions they face.
