Content uploaded by Smadar Cohen-Chen
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Smadar Cohen-Chen on Mar 09, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
INDIFFERENCE EXPRESSIONS IN CONFLICT 1
Meh, Whatever:
The Effects of Indifference Expressions on Cooperation in Social Conflict
Smadar Cohen-Chen
University of Sussex, UK
Garrett L. Brady
London Business School, UK
Sebastiano Massaro
The Organizational Neuroscience Laboratory, UK;
University of Surrey, UK
Gerben A. van Kleef
University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Corresponding Author: Smadar Cohen-Chen, Sussex Business School, University of Sussex,
Falmer, Brighton BN1 9RH, United Kingdom. S.Cohen-Chen@sussex.ac.uk
OSF link: https://osf.io/jrxkw/?view_only=27d73b6a8729406a9eb49573565c7d91
© 2022, American Psychological Association. This paper is not the copy of record and may not
exactly replicate the final, authoritative version of the article. Please do not copy or cite without
authors' permission. The final article will be available, upon publication, via its DOI:
10.1037/pspi0000392
INDIFFERENCE EXPRESSIONS IN CONFLICT 2
ABSTRACT
Conflicts are inherently emotional, yet parties in conflict may choose to explicitly express
indifference. It is unclear, however, whether this represents an effective strategy. Drawing on
emotions as social information (EASI) theory, we examined the interpersonal effects of
indifference expressions in conflict and the processes that underlie these effects. Study 1
indicated that people believe indifference expressions constitute a neutral emotional signal.
However, Study 2 demonstrated experimentally that counterparts’ indifference expressions
reduce focal negotiators’ cooperative intentions through both affective (negative affective
reactions) and inferential (decreased expected collaboration) processes when compared to
negative (anger, contempt), positive (hope), and neutral (no emotion) expressions. Study 3
revealed negative effects of indifference (vs. neutral) expressions on cooperative intentions,
expected collaboration, and heart rate variability as a physiological indicator of affective
responding. Results further showed an indirect effect through expected collaboration, but not
through affective reactions. Study 4 established the negative effects of indifference
expressions on a behavioral measure of cooperation through expected collaboration. Studies 5
and 6 (pre-registered) demonstrated that the impact of indifference expressions on
cooperative intentions (Study 5) and actual cooperation (Study 6) via counterpart’s expected
collaboration is reduced when a counterpart explicitly indicates cooperative intentions,
reducing the diagnostic value of indifference expressions. Across studies (N = 2,447),
multiple expressive modalities of indifference were used, including verbal and non-verbal
expressions. Findings demonstrate that explicit expressions of indifference have qualitatively
different interpersonal effects than other emotional expressions, including neutral
expressions, and cast doubt on the effectiveness of expressing indifference in negotiating
social conflict.
Keywords: indifference, emotional expression, cooperation, conflict, dispute resolution
INDIFFERENCE EXPRESSIONS IN CONFLICT 3
Meh, Whatever:
The Effects of Indifference Expressions on Cooperation in Social Conflict
Conflict is an endemic aspect of social life that pervades social interactions across all
domains of society, from interpersonal quarrels to organizational disagreements to extreme
forms of intergroup conflict (Kriesberg, 2003; Pruitt & Carnevale, 1993). It is therefore not
surprising that conflict has since long occupied the interest of social scientists (e.g., Deutsch,
1949; Fisher, 1990; Sherif & Sherif, 1953; Tajfel & Turner, 1979). In the past few decades,
this scholarship has increasingly pointed to the inherently emotional nature of conflicts
(Kelman, 1997; Van Kleef & Côté, 2018). Conflicts not only elicit strong emotional reactions
(Jarymowicz & Bar-Tal, 2006), but are often perpetuated and driven by the attitudinal and
behavioral consequences of emotions (Cohen-Chen et al., 2020; de Rivera & Paez, 2007;
Skitka et al., 2006). Given the inherently emotional nature of conflict, attempts at settling
conflict through negotiation or dispute resolution also tend to be pervaded by emotions
(Barry, 1999; Halperin, 2015; Lindner, 2006). Questions remain, however, regarding the
overall impact of emotions – or conversely the lack of emotions – in driving the course of
conflicts for better or for worse. Here, we investigate the effects of expressions of
indifference on cooperation in non-close relationship conflicts.
A large body of research has documented how conflict trajectories and outcomes are
shaped not only by emotional experiences but by emotional expressions (for a review, see
Van Kleef & Côté, 2018). These effects are multifaceted yet systematic, such that each
specific emotional expression is characterized by a unique combination of potential positive
and negative repercussions. Expressions of anger in workplace conflict, for instance, have
been found to help extract concessions by signaling toughness and ambition (Sinaceur &
Tiedens, 2006; Van Kleef et al., 2004), but they also reduce the likelihood of settlement
INDIFFERENCE EXPRESSIONS IN CONFLICT 4
(Kopelman et al., 2006) and incur the risk of (covert) retaliation (Van Kleef & Côté, 2007;
Wang et al., 2012). Expressions of happiness have been found to be conducive to
engendering a positive atmosphere and interpersonal liking, but they also invite exploitation
by signaling contentment (Van Kleef et al., 2004). Expressions of sadness or disappointment
can elicit concessions by functioning as a call for help (Sinaceur et al., 2015; Van Kleef et al.,
2006), but they can also backfire by signaling weakness (Lelieveld et al., 2013). Such effects
of emotional expressions have been observed across verbal as well as nonverbal expressions,
which have been characterized as “functionally equivalent” in the sense that the social effects
of emotional expressions are qualitatively similar across expressive modalities, even though
they may differ in magnitude (Van Kleef, 2017).
Given that every emotional expression studied thus far in the literature on conflicts
within non-close relationships has turned out to be a double-edged sword, the question arises
whether it might be better to avoid displaying emotions altogether in such settings. This
strategy is epitomized in the normative bargaining approach (Nash, 1950; Raiffa, 1982),
which assumes that parties involved in social decisions and interactions are “rational actors”.
According to this view, decisions are (and should be) based solely on a utilitarian analysis of
cost and value, without the interference, and indeed the encumbrance of emotions. From this
perspective, emotions entail a loss of control (Susskind & Cruikshank, 1987), and can be
interpreted as reflecting low power (Nierenberg, 1968), thus threatening to undermine a
negotiator’s bargaining position (Brett & Thompson, 2016; Emerson, 1962; Galinsky et al.,
2017; Kim et al., 2005; Malhotra & Bazerman, 2007). In support of this idea, research has
shown the benefits of demonstrating poise and emotion-control under conditions of pressure,
which enabled negotiators to extract more concessions from their counterparts (Sinaceur et
al., 2011). Although not directly advocating for indifference expressions, readers and
practitioners could be forgiven for interpreting the applied message of this literature as
INDIFFERENCE EXPRESSIONS IN CONFLICT 5
suggesting that expressing indifference is a good strategy, although this has never been put to
the empirical test.
If in fact emotions are tantamount to weakness and irrationality, as the normative
approach may imply to some (Thompson et al., 2001), people may be motivated to explicitly
communicate a lack of emotionality by expressing indifference. Indeed, a common
recommendation to professional negotiators is to “put on a poker face” (Thompson et al.,
2001), that is, to explicitly control one’s emotional expressions so as to communicate to
observers that one is not emotionally affected. Relatedly, Schneider and colleagues (2013)
define a poker face as selectively expressing or masking inner feelings depending on the
desired outcomes. However, despite the relative decisiveness coupled with such advice in
professional domains (Nash, 1950; Raiffa, 1982; Thompson et al., 2001), the effects of being
confronted with an explicit expression of emotional indifference in conflict have not been
empirically tested.
Conceptualizing Emotional Indifference – Experience and Expression
The phenomenon of emotional indifference is relatively understudied, both in terms of
experience and in terms of expression. In terms of experience, indifference is defined as a
low-arousal response to an emotionally-eliciting situation or person (Abbasi & Alghamdi,
2017; Opbroek et al, 2002; Price et al., 2009). Although under-researched in social and
cognitive psychology, important insight in the unique attributes of emotional indifference can
be gleaned from research in clinical psychiatry, clinical therapy, and neurology. For example,
emotional indifference has been described as flattened affect or a lack of arousal (Heilman et
al., 1978), as well as a decrease in emotional responsiveness (Opbroek et al, 2002). Others
define it as a sense of emotional detachment and diminished emotionality in interpersonal
relationships (Sansone & Sansone, 2010), and a reduction in emotional sensitivity (Price et
al., 2009), experimentally evidenced as weakened responses to emotionally-inducing stimuli
INDIFFERENCE EXPRESSIONS IN CONFLICT 6
(e.g., validated pictures from the International Affective Picture System [IAPS]; Drago et al.,
2010). Work examining attachment describes indifference as associated with low engagement
with events or people (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2005; Methot et al., 2017) with whom
engagement is expected (e.g., romantic partners; Abbasi & Alghamdi, 2017). This is unlike
neutral emotion, a state of quiet (Zelenski & Larsen, 2000) in which a person feels nothing in
particular (Gasper, 2018), often in response to stimuli imbued with no emotional meaning
(Fredrickson et el., 2000) or as a baseline before an emotionally-eliciting event occurs.
The fact that previous work used emotional terminology to define and describe
indifference (e.g., “feeling” indifferent; Hymel et al., 2005; Jensen et al., 2002) speaks to the
unique nature of indifference as a non-emotion (or anti-emotion) when an emotion is
expected. Incidentally, indifference is not the only emotional phenomenon that is described in
terms of the absence of an emotion. Despair, or hopelessness, has been defined as a total lack
of hope (Lazarus, 1999; Nesse, 1999), rooted within feelings of futility and an inability to
imagine a positive future (Sallfors et al., 2002).
In terms of expression, the rich literature on non-verbal affective communication
focuses on different emotional expressions, including work on facial expressions (Ekman &
Friesen, 1969), bodily posture (Kleinsmith & Bianchi-Berthouze, 2007), and vocal tone
(Scherer, 1989). However, examinations of emotional indifference expressions have thus far
been sparse. As with the experience of indifference, evidence regarding the physical
manifestation of emotional indifference derives from neurological and psychiatric research
(Jaywant & Pell, 2010; Salem & Kring, 1999; Seidl et al., 2012). Indifference expressions
often involve apathy and flat affective responses (Truesdale & Pell, 2018). Such flat affect
and low arousal expressions are described in terms of unchanging facial expressions,
decreased movements, a paucity of gestures, loose posture, poor eye contact, and lack of
vocal inflections (Andreasen, 1989; Salem & Kring, 1999). Although not specifically
INDIFFERENCE EXPRESSIONS IN CONFLICT 7
mentioning indifference, research on postural emotional expressions (Dael et al., 2012;
Riskind, 1984) illucidates how non-arousal (vs. arousal) emotional responses can be
expressed using specific body actions and postures. Moreover, research has demonstrated that
indifference expressions are distinct from both neutral and highly emotional (passion)
utterances in terms of acoustic patterns, demonstrating significantly lower amplitude and
pitch. Furthermore, indifference expressions were marked by significantly higher use of
explicit affect-related words (such as “I don’t care”) as a vital characteristic compared to
neutral and passionate expressions (in which people were found to explicitly mention affect
significantly less).
All in all, what seems consistent is that unlike a neutral, non-emotional state or
baseline, indifference is a non-emotional cognitive response to an event that can be
considered or perceived as being emotionally evocative. This context – the presence of an
emotion-eliciting event – is what most directly differentiates indifference from a simply non-
emotional state. In terms of expression, indifference carries with it additional meaning
because the observer believes that the situation (or they themselves) should elicit an emotion
in the expresser, and the lack of emotional response signals low engagement with the
situation (and in conflict contexts, low motivation to collaborate).
Although the literature thus contains important insights into the nature and
manifestations of indifference, research has yet to examine the influence of expressions of
emotional indifference on observers’ responses. Whereas some previous work on the social
effects of emotional expressions included a control condition in which no emotional
expression was shown (Drolet & Morris, 2000; Kopelman et al., 2006; Sinaceur & Tiedens,
2006; Van Kleef et al., 2004), this work does not speak to the social effects of explicit
expressions of indifference. We contend that explicit expressions of indifference, which
INDIFFERENCE EXPRESSIONS IN CONFLICT 8
entail a distinct pattern of facial, vocal, bodily, and verbal displays as described above, may
hold special meaning and have unique effects that have thus far remained undiscovered.
The Effects of Indifference Expressions on Cooperation in Conflict
The normative bargaining approach holds that portraying poise (Nash, 1950; Raiffa,
1982; Thompson et al., 2001), which may be interpreted as reflecting indifference, serves
parties in conflict because it signals they are in control. Although such signals may have
favorable effects, extant perspectives fail to account for the role that emotional expressions
(or explicit lack thereof) play in social contexts by conveying crucial information that enables
social coordination. To develop an understanding of the possible social effects of indifference
expressions, we draw on emotions as social information (EASI) theory (Van Kleef, 2009,
2016), which is rooted in social-functional approaches to emotion (Fischer & Manstead,
2016; Fridlund, 1994; Frijda & Mesquita, 1994; Hareli & Rafaeli, 2008; Keltner & Haidt,
1999; Parkinson, 1996). Social-functional approaches emphasize the importance of emotions
in regulating social interaction by aligning people’s orientations to the situation and to each
other. Within this broad perspective, EASI theory delineates the processes and contingencies
that govern the interpersonal effects of emotional expressions to illuminate how one person’s
emotional expressions influence others’ affect, cognition, and behavior. Specifically, EASI
theory postulates that emotional expressions regulate social interactions by eliciting
inferential processes (deriving information from emotional expressions about the expresser,
the situation, and/or the self) and/or affective reactions (emotional contagion, sentiments
regarding the expresser or the situation) in observers, depending on individual and situational
contingencies (for a recent review, see Van Kleef & Côté, in press). We propose that
expressions of indifference may influence observers’ behavioral responses via both pathways.
In terms of inferential processes, expressing indifference may signal low motivation
to engage in a collaborative process towards resolving the conflict. According to appraisal
INDIFFERENCE EXPRESSIONS IN CONFLICT 9
theories (Ellsworth & Scherer, 2003; Frijda, 1986), emotions arise when events are appraised
as important and relevant to the person’s concerns. By reverse logic, indifference would
signal that a particular event is deemed irrelevant to one’s concerns (Van Kleef, 2016). Such
inferences may reduce expectations regarding the counterpart’s intentions to collaborate, as
the counterpart appears to be uninvolved in the situation. The importance of expectations
about a counterpart’s likelihood to collaborate in motivating cooperative behavior has been
documented in past literature. Deutsch (1949; 1958) argued and showed that individuals who
are exposed to a cooperative social situation tend to be more cooperative themselves, and that
their expectations about their counterparts’ collaboration plays a critical role in inducing
cooperation. Social exchange theory (Cropanzano & Mitchell, 2005) asserts that individuals
engage in social exchanges and pursue relationships perceived as beneficial. Relatedly, the
universal norm of reciprocity (Gouldner, 1960) outlines that individuals engage in reciprocal
behavior, “giving back” what they receive. Based on these perspectives, people seem to be
motivated to recognize and anticipate their counterpart’s intentions to cooperate or compete
in forming their own attitudes and behaviors. For instance, recent work has shown that
perceptions of a counterpart’s support for an agreement increased participants’ approval for
that agreement (Cohen-Chen et al., 2017) by increasing the extent to which it was viewed in a
positive light. More recently, Schroeder and colleagues (2019) evidenced the role of
nonverbal signals of collaboration (in the form of a handshake) in increasing participants’
perceptions of the counterpart’s cooperation, subsequently promoting cooperative intentions
in the workplace.
In terms of affective reactions, being confronted with another person’s indifference
might be experienced as affectively aversive. The message that the observer is irrelevant and
not consequential enough to elicit an emotional reaction (even a negative one in the context
of conflict) may well be interpreted, and experienced, negatively. One indication of possible
INDIFFERENCE EXPRESSIONS IN CONFLICT 10
effects of indifference expressions on negative affective reactions can be found in work on
emotion suppression (Gross, 2008), an emotion regulation strategy in which individuals
suppress the outward expression of felt emotions. Previous work (Butler et al., 2003; Gross,
2002; Uchino et al., 1996) has shown that interacting with individuals who are unresponsive
to emotional cues increased stress and negative affect in observers. Specifically, in conflicts
within non-close relationships, lack of accountability for wrongdoing (which could be
implied by indifference expressions), has been found to elicit anger (Smith & Lazarus, 1993).
In conflicts within close relationships, where positive regard and care of the other
(Cavallo & Holmes, 2013), manifested in emotional responsiveness (Overall et al., 2006,
2009) are comparatively more important, indifference may additionally lead to feeling hurt, a
blend of sadness and anger which occurs in a meaningful relationship when a person is
wronged (eliciting anger) but does not believe the perpetrator cares enough to remedy their
wrongdoing (Shaver et al., 2009). Furthermore, research in the context of romantic
relationships points to emotional indifference as a major underlying reason for relationship
dissolution (Barry et al., 2008). Indifference is listed as a symptom occurring in hurtful
family environments (Mills & Piotrowski, 2009; Vangelisti et al., 2007), indicating that
indifference expressions have negative affective implications under some conditions. The
possibility that explicit expressions of indifference can be experienced as negative resonates
with prior conjecture that, like contempt, expressions of indifference signal another person’s
inferiority (Fischer & Giner-Sorolla, 2016; Wagner, 2000), which may lead to negative
affective responses (Rozin et al., 1999). Thus, it is possible that expressing indifference
diminishes cooperation by increasing negative affect towards the expresser or the situation.
In sum, whereas widespread professional recommendations may be taken to suggest
that indifference expressions represent a strategic way of signaling a powerful bargaining
position and extracting cooperation from counterparts, we draw upon EASI theory to
INDIFFERENCE EXPRESSIONS IN CONFLICT 11
hypothesize that a counterpart’s indifference expressions can undermine a focal negotiator’s
cooperation by triggering negative affective responses and/or fueling inferences that the
counterpart is unlikely to collaborate.
Ambiguity and the Diagnosticity of Emotional Expressions
A core tenet of emotions as social information (EASI) theory (Van Kleef, 2009, 2016)
is that emotional expressions provide information about the expresser, which observers may
use to disambiguate fuzzy social situations and inform an adaptive course of action. This
argument implies that emotional expressions take on heightened importance in more
ambiguous situations, where less direct information is available about the behavioral
intentions of interaction partners. Conversely, emotional expressions would have a lesser
impact on observers’ behavior in situations where observers have more direct sources of
information about their counterpart’s behavioral intentions. Consistent with this logic,
expressions of anger increased concessions via inferences of toughness in negotiations that
entailed a mixture of cooperative and competitive incentives (rendering the counterpart’s
future actions unclear), but they backfired via negative affective reactions in negotiations that
contained uniformly cooperative or uniformly competitive incentives (Adam & Brett, 2015).
Furthermore, expressions of happiness versus sadness had a stronger impact on observers’
inferences of cooperation, trust, and conflict among group members when there was greater
ambiguity surrounding the group’s trajectory (Homan et al., 2016). Finally, expressions of
hope (vs. hopelessness) by an outgroup in social conflict were interpreted by ingroup
members as signaling the outgroup’s willingness to compromise when no direct information
about the outgroup’s stance was available, but had no effect when the outgroup explicitly
expressed support for an agreement (Cohen-Chen et al., 2017). These arguments and findings
suggest that any effects of a counterpart’s indifference expressions on cooperation in social
conflict might be reduced when explicit information is provided about the counterpart’s
INDIFFERENCE EXPRESSIONS IN CONFLICT 12
behavioral inclinations, because such explicit information would decrease the diagnostic
value of the counterpart’s emotional expressions.
The Present Research
In the present research, we investigated the interpersonal effects of explicit
expressions of emotional indifference on social responses in non-close relationship conflicts.
We started out by examining lay perceptions regarding indifference expressions in conflict.
Specifically, in Study 1, we examined whether people express indifference in conflict and
whether they perceive expressing indifference as a neutral message. Next, we conducted five
experiments to test the effect of indifference expressions on cooperative intentions and
behaviors. In Study 2a, we presented participants with an engaging conflict scenario during
which their counterpart verbally expressed indifference (compared with hope, anger,
contempt, and no emotion). Next, we measured participants’ cooperative intentions as well as
their expectations regarding the counterpart’s collaboration and (coded) negative affect. In
Study 2b we compared the effects of verbal indifference expressions to neutral expressions
on expected collaboration and negative affect (self-report) in a team-based conflict situation.
Study 3 was a lab study in which we employed trained actors to record videos showing a
counterpart’s verbal and nonverbal expressions of indifference (versus no emotion) prior to
ostensibly entering a conflict negotiation. We measured participants’ expectations regarding
the counterpart’s collaboration as well as their own cooperative intentions. Moreover, we
assessed participants’ heart rate variability (HF-HRV) as a physiological index of negative
affective responses to indifference expressions. In Study 4, we tested our model using a
behavioral measure of cooperation, operationalized as the decision to stay at the table and
continue interacting with the counterpart (as opposed to leaving the table). Lastly, in Studies
5 and 6, we examined whether the effects of indifference expressions on cooperative
intentions (Study 5) and behavioral cooperation (Study 6; operationalized as a first offer) via
INDIFFERENCE EXPRESSIONS IN CONFLICT 13
expected collaboration were moderated by the presence of direct expressions of intended
cooperation. Finally, we conducted an internal meta-analysis to provide a reliable estimate of
the size of key effects across studies.
Across studies, we report how we determined our sample sizes, and describe all data
exclusions, manipulations, and measures. All data, analyses syntax (where possible), and
research materials are available on OSF:
https://osf.io/jrxkw/?view_only=27d73b6a8729406a9eb49573565c7d91. Across studies, we
followed JARS (Appelbaum et al., 2018) guidelines for reporting quantitative results. We
received ethical approval from the relevant institutions for all studies. All assignment to
experimental conditions was random, determined either by Qualtrics or by a random
assignment process at the lab. Assignment to conditions was masked to participants and
research assistants involved in executing the studies. Data was analyzed using SPSS version
27, and Kubios version 3.0.0 Premium to analyze the HF-HRV data. Payment for online
studies was decided as follows. We used Qualtrics’ approximation of the survey completion
time, which was entered into Prolific as the time needed to complete the study. We then used
the recommended payment level provided by Prolific, which operates a “fair reward policy”
(based on national living wage in the UK). Payment for the lab study was set at £10 (standard
payment for participants in said lab), to which we added £1 as an incentive.
Study 1
Method
Participants and Design. Two hundred and fifty participants (Mean age 30.07, SD =
10.22; 46.4% Men) completed a study on their opinions regarding negotiations and conflict
management via Prolific Academic in exchange for £0.55. Sample size of over 193
participants was determined using G*Power (exact; r > .20; power = .80).
INDIFFERENCE EXPRESSIONS IN CONFLICT 14
Measures. Participants indicated whether (or not) they had ever explicitly expressed
indifference during a dispute. Next, participants indicated to what extent they perceive
indifference as a positive, negative, and neutral expression on a scale from 1 (totally
disagree) to 6 (totally agree). We also asked participants to report their age and gender.
Results
Regarding the prevalence of indifference expressions in everyday life, fifty percent of
participants (n = 126) indicated they had used an indifference expression in a dispute at least
once in the past. To test the perceived neutrality of indifference expression we ran a repeated
measures ANOVA (F(2,249) = 35.34, p < .001, η2p = .12) and found participants considered
indifference expressions to be significantly more neutral (M = 3.93, SD = 1.34) than either
positive (M = 3.06, SD = 1.12), p < .001, d = .70, or negative (M = 3.09, SD = 1.16), p < .001,
d = .67. No difference was found between the extent to which participants saw indifference as
positive or negative, p = .76. These results indicate that expressing indifference is perceived
as a neutral expression in a negotiation or conflict
1
.
Discussion
The results from Study 1 suggest that people believe indifference expressions are
neutral rather than positive or negative. Against this background, we examined in Studies 2 to
6 how people respond when faced with a counterpart’s indifference expressions in social
conflict.
Study 2a
Study 1 substantiated our assumption that expressions of indifference are perceived as
emotionally neutral (compared to negative or positive) in the context of social conflict. In
1
In addition, participants were asked: ‘If you had to choose one thing to express… during a dispute or negotiation, what
would bring the best results for you?’. Options were hope, anger, contempt, and indifference. When asked to choose one
expression that would yield the best results, 30% chose indifference expressions, compared to merely 4% who chose anger.
A chi-square test showed the difference between the anger and indifference choices was significant X2 (1,240) = 4.46, p
=.03, Cramer’s V = .13.
INDIFFERENCE EXPRESSIONS IN CONFLICT 15
Study 2, we wanted to test how people respond when confronted with expressions of
indifference by a counterpart in a social conflict. Specifically, we examined how expressions
of indifference would impact observers’ cooperative intentions. In doing so, we tested our
theoretical argument that a counterpart’s indifference expressions would decrease
cooperation by reducing expectations of the counterpart’s collaboration and/or increasing
negative affective reactions.
Method
Participants and Design. Four hundred and three participants (Mean age 30.94, SD =
11.05; 46% Men) were recruited via Prolific Academic in return for £1.5. Sample size of over
375 participants was determined using G*Power (effect size f = .18 computed from a pilot;
power = .80)
2
. No participants were omitted from the analysis based on our exclusion
criterion of duplicate IP addresses.
Procedure. Participants read a work-related conflict scenario based on a Negotiation
and Team Resources (NTR) case called “At Your Service” (Brett & Gelfand, 2007; Gelfand
et al., 2013), describing a conflict between two partners (entrepreneur and chef) of a
struggling restaurant. Participants were assigned the role of an entrepreneur who entered a
catering venture with an accomplished (yet businesswise inexperienced) Chef called Martin.
They read that profits were inconsistent in the first year, but that currently (year 2) the
business is steadily losing money and has had to start using the reserves in order to stay
afloat. The text expounded that the chef was mismanaging the business by offering elaborate
dishes with more expensive ingredients without increasing prices. Relations had turned
somewhat contentious as the chef recently ignored direct instruction to raise prices. This
required the entrepreneur (participant) to intervene by raising the new menu prices and
2
We used the effect size found in a pilot study comparing indifference expressions to anger and hope (f = .25; medium effect
size) to inform our sample size in Study 2, which included two additional conditions (Neutral and Contempt). We estimated
a slightly more conservative effect size of f = .18 due to the additional conditions, which is the mid-point between a small (f
= .10) and medium (f = .25) effect size.
INDIFFERENCE EXPRESSIONS IN CONFLICT 16
implementing a strict budget for ingredients. However, the business continues to lose money
and cash reserves are low.
Next, we provided information regarding what dissolving the partnership would entail.
For example, partners would have to decide what to do with the leases on the kitchen space
and equipment, which still have 18 months left. Terminating these leases early would cost
money, and partners would need to agree on who will pay for this expense. The instructions
also spelled out the implications of staying in business together. For example, partners would
have to agree on a new working process so they can be sure both will be disciplined in terms
of budget and expenses moving forward. This information was important because it
illustrates what the literature on conflicts in non-close relationships suggests as a key
characteristic of many conflicts: the long-term interdependence between parties. This long-
term interdependence means that disengaging from the relationship comes at a cost both to
the individual and to their counterpart (Brett, 2014, 2017). Thus, dissolving the business or
the relationship constitutes disengagement from the other side, but also a form of punishment,
with the acknowledgement that oneself, too, will incur a cost.
Lastly, participants learned that they had briefly discussed dissolving the business, and
that an upcoming and final meeting was set up, in which the fate of the business would be
determined
3
.
Participants were then presented with an imaginary email from the chef in light of the
upcoming meeting, saying “…I thought I should let you know how I feel about it before we
meet up to discuss the next steps.” Depending on the condition, participants saw one of five
additional sentences: “When I think about the situation I feel angry because my goals and
interests are being thwarted and I feel unjustly treated”; anger condition (n = 83); “When I
think about the situation I feel hopeful because I believe there is the possibility of us coming
3
The full original text is copyrighted and can be accessed at: https://www.negotiationandteamresources.com/product/at-
your-service/
INDIFFERENCE EXPRESSIONS IN CONFLICT 17
to a viable solution”; hope condition (n = 82); “When I think about the situation I feel
contempt because the things that have happened between us are beneath me; contempt
condition (n = 79); “I’ll meet you tomorrow at the restaurant, so we can talk about the
possibilities we both have in dealing with our situation”; neutral condition (n = 81); or “When
I think about the situation I feel indifferent because the things that have happened do not
really affect me emotionally”; indifference condition (n = 78).
Besides indifference, we included anger because this emotion has been found to signal
a low willingness to cooperate (Van Kleef et al., 2004), and hope because it has been found to
signal a high willingness to cooperate (Cohen-Chen et al., 2017), as relevant comparisons.
Furthermore, we included contempt because prior work proposed that indifference
expressions could potentially be interpreted similarly to contempt under certain conditions
(Fischer & Giner-Sorolla, 2016; Melwani & Barsade, 2011). Lastly, we included a no
emotion condition to differentiate between explicit indifference expression and a non-
emotional control condition.
We included the appraisal statements underlying the emotional expressions for two
reasons. First, we aimed to make the expressions ecologically valid, as people involved in a
conflict would be unlikely to state their emotion without articulating why they feel that way
(Ellsworth, 2013; Scherer, 1999). Second, we wanted to minimize variance in interpreting
emotional expressions (for example, is the counterpart hopeful about dissolving the business
or about making the relationship work?) by being clear about the target and content of the
emotion. This is in line with previous work on emotional expressions in conflict, in which
specific appraisals were provided (Cohen-Chen et al., 2017, 2019).
Our operationalization of the indifference condition as verbally stating a lack of
emotional reaction was based on the work of Truesdale and Pell (2018), who demonstrated
that the explicit linguistic encoding of lack of affective responses is a fundamental and unique
INDIFFERENCE EXPRESSIONS IN CONFLICT 18
characteristic of indifference expressions that distinguishes them from neutral expressions,
which do not mention affect.
Pre-test of indifference manipulation. We verified the effectiveness of the emotional
indifference manipulation in a separate pre-test prior to the main study. A total of 351
participants recruited through Prolific Academic (mean age = 27.67, SD = 8.89 ;43% Men)
were randomly shown one of the the five emotional expressions described above, and
indicated to what extent they thought they reflected anger / hope / contempt / indifference /
no emotion (1 = not at all to 6 = entirely). A one-way ANOVA with Bonferroni correction
indicated, most importantly, that the indifference expression was rated significantly higher on
indifference than on all other emotions (F(4,346) = 12.54, p < .001; Mean Differences > 1.04;
ps < .002). Furthermore, the other emotional expressions were also rated significantly higher
on the corresponding emotions compared to other expressions (ps < .001). Thus, we
concluded that our manipulation of emotional indifference worked as intended.
Measures. Expected collaboration included three items adapted and expanded from
Schroeder et al. (2019): “Martin will be cooperative”, “Martin will try to work together with
you to achieve a mutually beneficial outcome” and “I believe maintaining our relationship is
important to Martin” (α = .85). Answers ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly
agree).
Both coded negative affect and cooperative intentions were derived from an open-
ended question, in which participants were asked to generate potential solutions for the
current conflict: “At this point we ask that you think about how you would proceed in this
negotiation. Please generate as many different and varied solutions to this negotiation as
possible.”
Coded negative affect was assessed by two coders who were blind to the hypotheses
and conditions from 1 (“completely positive… positive words, perceptions of the other
INDIFFERENCE EXPRESSIONS IN CONFLICT 19
side…”) to 4 (“completely negative, even aggressive… mentioning the negative things the
other side has done”). Inter-coder reliability was good (average measure ICC = .84; 95%
confidence interval [.811, .873]; F(389,389) = 6.45, p < .001), hence ratings were combined
in a single index of coded negative affect.
Cooperative intentions were assessed using two measures. To measure self-rated
cooperative intentions, we followed up the open-ended question regarding solution with the
question: “In the solutions you presented in the previous question, to what extent did you
focus on…”. Answers ranged from 1 (ending the business relationship) to 10 (maintaining
the business relationship). Additionally, two coders coded the level of cooperation intentions
found in participants’ solutions on a scale of 1 (“not interested in continuing the business”; an
example of such an answer was “He can buy me out with an offer, or we liquidate”) to 4
(“indicates unequivocal willingness to continue the business”; an example of such an answer
was “I will also agree on improving the quality of our ingredients and the dishes of our
restaurant. I hope to compromise with him and maximize our profits together without hurting
each other”). A high degree of reliability was found between the coders (average measure
ICC = .92; 95% confidence interval [.898, .932]; F(380,380) = 12.04, p < .001). We therefore
combined their ratings into a single index of the participant’s coded cooperative intentions.
We used the same two coders for all coding, but coding was conducted separately both
in terms of time (over one month apart) and in different files (so that coders could not see
each other’s ratings), and datasets were randomized in order to reduce single-source bias.
Coded cooperative intentions and coded negative affect were positively correlated (r = -.54, p
< .001), yet distinct from one another (29% shared variance).
Results
Expected collaboration. A one-way ANOVA indicated a significant effect of
condition, F(4,398) = 40.32, p < .001, η2 = .29. Planned contrast analysis revealed that
INDIFFERENCE EXPRESSIONS IN CONFLICT 20
indifference expressions reduced participants’ expectations of the counterpart’s intention to
collaborate compared to all other conditions combined t(398) = 8.76, p < .001. Bonferroni
post-hoc analysis revealed that indifference expressions yielded significantly lower expected
collaboration compared to all other conditions individually (mean difference > .51, ps < .01;
see Table 1).
Coded negative affect. A main effect on the measure of coded negative affect
emerged, F(4,386) = 2.62, p = .03, η2 = .03. Once again, planned contrasts revealed that
coded negative affect was significantly higher in the indifference condition compared to all
other conditions combined t(386) = 3.21, p = .001. Although Bonferroni post-hoc analysis
indicated the comparisons between indifference and all the individual conditions were not
statistically significant (see Table 1), the trend suggests that indifference expressions are
indeed experienced as negative.
Cooperative intentions. A one-way ANOVA indicated a significant effect of condition
on self-rated cooperative intentions, F(4,397) = 5.28, p < .001, η2 = .05. Planned contrast
analysis revealed that indifference expressions reduced participants’ cooperative intentions
compared to all other conditions combined t(397) = 4.12, p < .001. Bonferroni post-hoc
analysis (see Table 1) revealed that participants in the indifference condition rated themselves
significantly lower on cooperative intentions compared to the hope, anger, and neutral
conditions (all mean differences > 1.28, all p < .04) but not the contempt condition (mean
difference 1.09, p = .14). Coded cooperative intentions also showed a significant main effect
F(4,387) = 3.17, p = .01, η2 = .03, and the pattern was similar to the self-rated measure such
that participants in the indifference expression condition indicated a lower willingness to
cooperate than participants in all other conditions. Planned contrasts revealed that coded
cooperative intentions were significantly lower in the indifference condition compared to all
other conditions combined t(387) = 3.19, p = .002. However, Bonferroni post-hoc analysis
INDIFFERENCE EXPRESSIONS IN CONFLICT 21
showed no statistically significant differences between the indifference condition and the
individual comparison conditions (see Table 1). Coded cooperative intentions were strongly
correlated with self-rated cooperative intentions (r = .75, p < .001), indicating that they were
indeed aligned with one another.
INDIFFERENCE EXPRESSIONS IN CONFLICT 22
Table 1
Means and Standard Deviations for Study 2a variables. Effect sizes and significance levels for Bonferroni post-hoc analyses are presented for each
condition compared to the indifference expression condition.
Condition
Expected Collaboration
Coded Negative Affect
Self-Rated Cooperative
Intentions
Coded Cooperative
Intentions
Mean
SD
Comparisons to
indifference
Mean
SD
Comparisons
to indifference
Mean
SD
Comparisons
to indifference
Mean
SD
Comparisons
to indifference
p
Cohen’s
d
p
Cohen’s
d
p
Cohen’s
d
p
Cohen’s
d
Indifference
2.79
1.05
2.68
0.74
5.68
3.35
2.34
0.94
Anger
3.78
0.95
<.001
0.99
2.37
0.78
.08
0.41
7.14
2.66
.01
0.48
2.64
0.87
.26
0.33
Contempt
3.29
1.21
.01
0.44
2.40
0.77
.19
0.37
6.77
2.85
.14
0.35
2.63
0.88
.38
0.32
No emotion
3.79
0.94
<.001
1.00
2.39
0.71
.15
0.40
6.96
2.67
.04
0.42
2.65
0.85
.23
0.34
Hope
4.71
0.84
<.001
2.02
2.37
0.58
.07
0.47
7.61
2.28
<.001
0.67
2.81
0.71
.005
0.56
INDIFFERENCE EXPRESSIONS IN CONFLICT 23
Mediation analysis. Our theoretical argument based on emotions as social
information (EASI) theory (Van Kleef, 2009, 2016) model suggests that the hypothesized
negative effects of indifference expressions on cooperation are mediated by inferential
processes (operationalized as expected collaboration) and/or affective reactions
(operationalized as negative affect). To examine this, we conducted an indirect effect analysis
including both mediators with multi-categorical IV using PROCESS indicator coding (Model
4; Hayes, 2013), comparing the indifference expression condition to anger (X1), hope (X2),
no emotion (X3), and contempt (X4). Coded negative affect b = -1.64, t = -9.73, p < .0001,
95% CI [-1.97, -1.30] mediated the effect of indifference expressions on cooperative
intentions for all contrasts (X1a*b = .49, 95% CI [.11, .91]; X2a*b = .51, 95% CI [.16, .88];
X3a*b = .46, 95% CI [.09, .85]; X4a*b = .45, 95% CI [.06, .86]). Expected collaboration b =
.80, t = 6.69, p < .0001, 95% CI [.57, 1.04] mediated the effect of indifference expressions on
cooperative intentions for all contrasts (X1a*b = .81, 95% CI [.47, 1.18]; X2a*b = 1.54, 95%
CI [1.03, 2.09]; X3a*b = .79, 95% CI [.47, 1.18]; X4a*b = .36, 95% CI [.07, .69]; See Figure
1).
Figure 1. Mediation model showing that indifference expressions reduce self-rated
cooperative intentions through reduced expectations of counterpart’s collaboration and
induced negative affect (coded). Each pathway (X1-X4) is a comparison of the indifference
expression condition to a different emotional expression. X1: anger; X2: hope; X3: neutral;
X4: contempt
INDIFFERENCE EXPRESSIONS IN CONFLICT 24
Note: Reported coefficients in model are unstandardized. * represents p < .05; ** represents p < .01
To test the robustness of our effects, we replaced self-rated cooperative intentions with
coded cooperative intentions, which again yielded a significant indirect effect of indifference
expressions through expected collaboration and affect. Both mechanisms had a significant
effect (coded negative affect b = -.58, t = -11.25, p < .0001, 95% CI [-.68, -.48]; expected
collaboration b = .15, t = 4.18, p < .0001, 95% CI [.08, .22]). Once again, both expected
collaboration (X1a*b = .15, 95% CI [.07, .25]; X2a*b = .29, 95% CI [.16, .44]; X3a*b = .15,
95% CI [.07, .25]; X4a*b = .07, 95% CI [.01, .14]) and coded negative affect (X1a*b = .17,
95% CI [.04, .32]; X2a*b = .18, 95% CI [.06, .31]; X3a*b = .16, 95% CI [.03, .29]; X4a*b =
.16, 95% CI [.02, .30]) mediated the effect of indifference expressions on coded cooperative
intentions for all contrasts. Thus, findings resembled the patterns found with self-rated
cooperative intentions.
Study 2b
In Study 2b we aimed to extend our findings in a number of ways. First, rather than a
coded measure of general negative affect, we used self-reported measures of negative affect
INDIFFERENCE EXPRESSIONS IN CONFLICT 25
and relevant discrete emotions in order to better understand affective reactions to expressions
of indifference and allow for a richer comparison with the inferential mechanism.
Furthermore, to enhance confidence in the generalizability of our conclusions to other (non-
close relationship) conflict settings, we situated Study 2b within a different conflict context,
although we remained within the domain of interpersonal conflict in non-close relationships.
Method
Participants and Design. Five hundred and fifty six participants (Mean age 28.20,
SD = 9.03; 36% Men) were recruited via Prolific Academic in return for £.88. Sample size
was determined using G*Power (effect size f = .25; power = .80). Although the effect size in
Study 2a was small-medium, we chose to be conservative and based the sample size on a
small effect size due to the new conflict paradigm which had not been used in the past. Five
participants were omitted from the analysis. Two had duplicate IP addresses, and 3 were
found to be outliers (3 SD from the mean for the DV). Analyses were conducted on the
remaining 551 participants.
Procedure. Participants were asked to imagine that they had been tasked with
organizing a conference with a teammate, and that they had been given some money for
expenses. This task was described as important as it would affect their assessment and
quarterly bonus. Participants were told that due to the COVID-19 pandemic said conference
could either be held online or face-to-face (“You have two options: 1. Due to COVID-19, the
event can be done online. In this case, the funding would be used to pay a company that runs
online conferences and events and manages the technical and logistical issues. 2. The second
possibility is to make the event face to face. In this case, the funding would be used to pay for
a physical venue and light refreshments for guests”).
Participants were asked to choose which option they would prefer and to briefly
explain this in order to enhance commitment to their position. Next, they learned that their
INDIFFERENCE EXPRESSIONS IN CONFLICT 26
partner had chosen the other option, a situation which created a conflict (“Your teammate
insists that an online / face-to face event is not a good idea, does not make sense and will not
meet your company’s high standards. You strongly disagree, and every discussion so far has
ended without a final decision and in a tense atmosphere. At this point, time is running out
and you must decide on what course of action to take. You sent your teammate an email
requesting a meeting to discuss your conflicting preferences”).
Participants were then presented with an imaginary reply to their email that included
the manipulations, which were based on Study 2a. Conditions were: “I’ll meet you tomorrow
at the office so we can talk about the possibilities we both have in dealing with our situation”
(no emotion condition; n = 273); and “When I think about the situation I feel indifferent
because the things that have happened do not really affect me emotionally” (indifference
condition; n = 278).
Measures. Expected collaboration was measured using the same scale as in Study 2a
(α = .82). We measured negative affect in two ways. First, we administered the Positive and
Negative Affect Scale (PANAS; Watson et al., 1998). Participants were given a list of ten
general affective responses and asked to what extent they were “feeling this way right now”:
“Interested; Distressed; Excited; Upset; Strong; Hostile; Enthusiastic; Irritable; Determined;
Nervous.” Answers ranged from 1 (Very slightly or not at all) to 5 (Extremely). Items 1, 3, 5,
7, 9 were combined to indicate positive affect (α = .80) and items 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 were
combined to indicate negative affect (α = .80). Second, we measured three negative discrete
emotions in light of the message using the following separate items: “Anger towards the
teammate”, “Hurt by my teammate”, and “Offended by my teammate”. Although items
yielded acceptable reliability as a scale (α = .86), we were interested in exploring the discrete
relationships of each emotion and therefore analyzed them as single items.
INDIFFERENCE EXPRESSIONS IN CONFLICT 27
Cooperative intentions were assessed the item: “To what extent do you intend to
cooperate with your teammate? Answers ranged from 0 (No cooperation) to 100 (High
cooperation).
Results
Expected collaboration. Participants in the neutral expression condition expected the
counterpart to collaborate significantly more (M = 3.43, SD =1.17) compared to those in the
indifference expression condition (M = 2.88, SD =1.33; t = 5.17, p < .001, d = .44).
Negative and positive affect. Participants in the neutral expression condition
experienced less negative affect (M = 2.38, SD = .88) compared to those in the indifference
expression condition (M = 2.54, SD = .95, t = 2.01, p = .045, d = .17). No difference was
found between the conditions in terms of positive affect (t = .68, p = .49).
Negative discrete emotions. Participants in the neutral expression condition were
significantly less angry (M = 2.40, SD = 1.18), hurt (M = 2.30, SD = 1.25), and offended (M =
2.32, SD = 1.27) compared to those in the indifference expression condition (Anger: M =
2.90, SD = 1.13; t = 5.04, p < .001, d = .43; Hurt: M = 2.76, SD = 1.28; t = 4.22, p < .001, d =
.36; Offended: M = 2.94, SD = 1.24; t = 5.76, p < .001, d = .49).
Cooperative intentions. Participants in the neutral expression condition reported
greater intentions to cooperate (M = 68.09, SD = 20.58) compared to those in the indifference
expression condition (M = 63.49, SD = 22.68; t = 2.49, p = .01, d = .21).
Mediation analysis. We examined the indirect effect of the indifference expression
on cooperative intentions through expected collaboration (inferential process) and through
general negative affect and negative emotions (affective process). We conducted the analysis
with separate discrete emotions as well as with the scale of negative emotions. All candidate
mediators were entered simultaneously. The indirect effect of indifference expressions on
self-rated cooperative intentions through expected collaboration (PROCESS Model 4; Hayes,
INDIFFERENCE EXPRESSIONS IN CONFLICT 28
2013) was significant (a*b = -3.12, 95% CI [-4.59, -1.81]), as was the indirect effect through
anger (a*b = -1.26, 95% CI [-2.45, -.22]). Negative affect (a*b = .02, 95% CI [-.38, .41]),
hurt (a*b = .71, 95% CI [-.27, 1.85]), and offense (a*b = -.98, 95% CI [-2.41, .42]) did not
mediate the effect (See Figure 2). Pairwise contrasts of indirect effects analysis showed that
expected collaboration was significantly stronger than all forms of affective responses (95%
CI of expected collaboration compared to anger [-3.70, -.17]; hurt [-5.67, -2.21]; offense [-
4.29, -.14]; negative affect [-4.64, -1.83]). Similar results were found using a scale of
negative emotions (Expected collaboration: a*b = -3.30, 95% CI [-4.83, -1.93]; Negative
emotions: a*b = -1.16, 95% CI [-2.20, -.20]; Negative Affect (PANAS): a*b = .02, 95% CI [-
.37, .42]). Pairwise contrasts of indirect effects analysis showed that expected collaboration
was significantly stronger than negative emotions (95% CI [.39, 4.02]) and negative affect
(95% CI [1.93, 4.86].
Figure 2. Mediation model showing that indifference expressions reduce self-rated
cooperative intentions through reduced expectations of counterpart’s collaboration and
increased anger. Dark arrows indicate significant mediation; light arrows indicate non-
significant mediation.
INDIFFERENCE EXPRESSIONS IN CONFLICT 29
Note: Reported coefficients in model are unstandardized. * represents p < .05; ** represents p < .01.
Discussion
Studies 2a and 2b provided the first empirical test of our assumptions about the impact
of indifference expressions on cooperative intentions. Our results revealed that indifference
expressions had a negative effect on observers’ cooperative intentions, compared to negative
(anger, contempt; Study 2a), positive (hope; Study 2a), and neutral (Studies 2a and 2b)
expressions. In line with EASI theory, findings further point to expected collaboration (an
inference) and negative affect (an affective reaction) as underlying mechanisms explaining
the effects of indifference expressions. However, although participants experienced their
counterpart’s indifference expressions as affectively aversive (coded negative affect in Study
2a; self-reported negative affect and discrete negative emotions in Study 2b), the inferential
path of expected collaboration was a stronger predictor of cooperative intentions.
Study 3
INDIFFERENCE EXPRESSIONS IN CONFLICT 30
In Study 3 we aimed to replicate and extend the findings from Study 2 to enhance
confidence in the reliability and generalizability of the conclusions. First, we utilized
additional operationalization channels for indifference versus neutral expressions. For this
purpose, we employed video-recorded messages from the counterpart enacted by trained
actors. In addition to an explicit verbal expression of indifference, we manipulated
indifference expressions using nonverbal communication, including slumped posture and
avoidant eye contact (Andreasen, 1989; Dael et al., 2012; Riskind, 1984; Salem & Kring,
1999). Second, we aimed to capture both between-subject effects and within-subject change
in cooperative intentions due to expressions of indifference. The lab environment and
commitment to a 60-minute session enabled us to assess our prediction that cooperative
intentions change when participants are faced with an indifference expression. Lastly, we set
out to replicate the effect of indifference expressions on cooperative intentions, including the
mediating role of expected collaboration as an inferential process and (negative) affective
reactions. To this end, we included a physiological measure of negative affective responding
to further establish the insight emerging from Study 2 that people experience expressions of
indifference as aversive. To allow incorporating this measure in the study, we limited our
experimental design to two conditions, comparing indifference expressions with neutral
expressions.
We measured heart rate variability (HF-HRV) as an index of affective responding.
HRV refers to beat-to-beat changes in heart rate due to the influence of the autonomic
nervous system (ANS)—specifically the interplay between parasympathetic (vagal) and
sympathetic activity—at the heart’s sinus node (Acharya et al., 2006). Research has
conceptualized HRV as an index of the efficiency of central-peripheral neural feedback
mechanisms involved in the adaptability of several cognitive, affective, and behavioral
responses to stimuli (Appelhans & Luecken, 2006; Thayer & Lane, 2000). Specifically, the
INDIFFERENCE EXPRESSIONS IN CONFLICT 31
high-frequency band of the HRV spectrum (hereafter, HF-HRV) indicates moment-by-
moment parasympathetic modulation of the heart rate (Shaffer & Ginsberg, 2017).
Of particular relevance to the current research, decreases in HF-HRV have been
associated with heightened experiences of unpleasant (i.e., negatively valenced) emotions in
response to a negative stimulus (Appelhans & Luecken, 2006). The activity of the ANS is
context dependent (i.e., responsive to emotional triggers), and short-term decreases in HF–
HRV constitute a specific index of a decrease in ANS parasympathetic activity (Berntson et
al. 1997; Massaro & Pecchia, 2019). Following an unpleasant event, decreases in HF-HRV
reveal a withdrawal of the vagal brake on sympathetic activation. Conversely, increases in
HF-HRV occur when a certain stimulus does not pose a challenge in terms of processing or
regulation (such as functional social interactions; Smith et al., 2011). Decreases in HF-HRV
can be found when the ANS is struggling to regulate or control its activity because of a
heightened experience of unpleasant (i.e., negatively-valenced) emotions in response to a
negative stimulus (Thayer & Lane, 2000). Short-term decreases in HF-HRV are consistently
reported in psychologically stressful situations, indicated by the withdrawal of
parasympathetic inhibition (see Cacioppo et al., 1994). Similarly, Dishman and colleagues
(Dishman et al., 2000) used HF-HRV decreases as a marker for responses of anxiety, and
Schwarz et al. (2003) reported decreases in HF-HRV as a result of increases in feelings of
hopelessness. Finally, a growing body of research (e.g., Berna et al., 2014; Castagnetti et al.,
2018) has recently shown that that discrete decreases in HF-HRV are associated with
increased anger and/or exposure to anger eliciting stimuli. Based on the Study 2 finding that
indifference expressions elicit negative affective reactions (both coded and discrete negative
emotions), we anticipated that indifference expressions would elicit an HF-HRV response
indicative of negative affect.
Method
INDIFFERENCE EXPRESSIONS IN CONFLICT 32
Participants and Design. One hundred and twenty-six participants (Mean age 32.32;
SD = 13.05; 44% men) partook in a lab study in return for £11. Power analysis based on
Study 2 (d = .42, power = .80) suggested a sample size of above 142. However, data
collection was halted due to lab closure necessitated by the Covid-19 pandemic before we
reached the target number. Since the lab is situated in a large and diverse city, we were able
to recruit a diverse sample (17% East Asian, 11% Black, 27% South Asian, 1% Middle
Eastern, 10% Mixed / Mixed White background, 32% White and 2% Other). One participant
could not watch the manipulation video due to a technical issue and was therefore omitted
from the analysis. We conducted three outlier detection analyses on multiple variables: 3
Standard Deviations from the mean (Howell, 1998), Median Absolute Deviation (Leys et al.,
2013), and Cook’s distance (Cook, 1977). Two participants, who were found to be outliers
using two or more of these analyses were omitted as well.
Procedure. The research was performed according to the principles of the Declaration
of Helsinki, which set out the ethical principles for performing physiological and medical
research involving human participants. Participants were affixed with heart rate monitors
(Zephyr BioModule BH3-M1), after which an initial assessment of the ECG signals was
performed live through remote Bluetooth monitoring on paired mobile phones by visually
checking that the mean heart rate of each participant was within normal population
parameters (controlled by research assistants). Following this, participants completed filler
questions that provided roughly 5 minutes to measure ECG at rest. Next, participants read the
role materials (using the same scenario as in Study 2a with name changes for both roles to
gender-neutral names), and were asked to record a video message for their counterpart. They
were told their counterpart would be doing the same, however the counterpart video was in
fact pre-recorded and served as the experimental manipulation (indifference vs. neutral).
INDIFFERENCE EXPRESSIONS IN CONFLICT 33
Videos were recorded in advance by professional actors (one man and one woman) in
the same lab. This meant that the physical setting was similar to the participants’, enhancing
the credibility of our claim that they would be meeting their partner later on. Importantly, we
recruited both male and female actors to ensure that gender did not moderate the
manipulation. The use of pre-recorded video clips portraying expressions of trained actors
ensured that different participants within each condition would be presented with the exact
same, experimentally controlled expressions. Truesdale and Pell (2018) warn against testing
differences in vocal tone with actors (rather than spontaneous utterings) due to over-
expressiveness, which can influence pitch and amplitude. Therefore, we chose to focus on
body language rather than vocal tone. The expressions included the same initial spoken text
(‘I have years of experience doing this and have won awards for my abilities, so I think my
opinion should matter. I have the best interest of the business in mind and am trying to turn it
into an upscale place. Trying to limit my budget doesn’t help the situation’). However, the
indifference expression condition included an additional sentence (indifference expression
used previously: “Thinking about this situation, I feel indifferent because the things that have
happened do not really affect me emotionally”). The text was somewhat ambivalent,
including both positive and negative statements, to enable use for both conditions and to feed
into the materials regarding the conflict. In addition, indifference versus neutral emotion was
expressed via bodily displays and we ensured the manipulation worked as intended,
demonstrated by the pre-tests below. The indifference manipulation was validated in two
separate pre-tests.
Stimuli pre-testing. Actors were instructed to act “as if they do not care about the
situation and are explicitly making this clear to their counterpart”. We again relied on
Truesdale and Pell (2018) to operationalize indifference expressions in terms of explicit
affective encoding (stating indifference), to which we added instructions regarding body
INDIFFERENCE EXPRESSIONS IN CONFLICT 34
posture (loose posture) and inconsistent eye contact (with camera), associated with avoidance
(Methot et al., 2017) and indifferent body language (Ackerman & Puglisi, 2012; Andreasen,
1989; Salem & Kring, 1999).
To ensure that actors conveyed the intended expressions, we pre-tested the videos on
Prolific using two online studies. In the first pre-test (N = 201; Mean age = 30.14, SD =
11.09; 51% Men) participants were randomly assigned and presented with one of the videos
(Indifference Man; Indifference Woman; Neutral Man; Neutral Woman). After watching the
video, participants indicated perceived emotionality on a scale from 1 (extremely
unemotional) to 6 (extremely emotional). They were asked to what extent they perceived the
expresser as conveying indifference as well as experiencing indifference (in case they were
perceived as feigning indifference), both on a scale from 1 (absolutely not) to 6 (absolutely).
Expresser gender did not impact the extent to which actors were perceived to be indifferent,
therefore we collapsed across conditions. The actors in the indifference video were perceived
as conveying significantly more indifference (M = 4.39, SD = 1.54) compared to the neutral
video (M = 2.69, SD = 1.46; t(199) = 8.00, p < .001, d = 1.13). The actors were also
perceived as experiencing more indifference in the indifference videos (M = 3.51, SD = 1.71)
compared to the neutral videos (M = 2.56, SD = 1.43; t(199) = 4.28, p < .001, d = .60). No
difference was found in levels of perceived emotionality (Mindifference = 3.01, SD = 1.36;
Mneutral = 3.15, SD = 1.18; t(199) = .72, p = .47, d = .11), indicating that participants did not
see expressers as more or less emotional in the indifference condition (vs. neutral).
In the second pre-test (N = 199; Mean age = 25.90, SD = 8.77; 55% Men) participants
were presented with the same videos, but the sound was removed in order to focus on body
language only. Participants were asked to indicate their perception of the person’s posture
from 1 (slumped) to 6 (upright), and eye contact from 1 (avoidant) to 6 (consistent). Next,
they indicated to what extent the person in the video seemed engaged, involved, and attentive
INDIFFERENCE EXPRESSIONS IN CONFLICT 35
from 1 (absolutely disagree) to 6 (absolutely agree). Lastly, we asked to what extent they
thought the person was expressing indifference and neutrality (no emotion) from 1
(absolutely did not) to 6 (absolutely did).
Results showed that also when no verbal message was included (as the videos had no
sound), participants reliably differentiated between indifference and neutral expressions in
terms of non-verbal cues. The actors in the indifference condition were perceived as having a
more loose, slumped posture (M = 3.02, SD = 1.02) compared to the actors in the neutral
condition (M = 4.29, SD = 1.07; t(197) = 8.56, p < .001, d = 1.21), and they were perceived to
maintain less eye contact (M = 3.45, SD = 1.17) compared to the neutral condition (M = 4.68,
SD = 1.08; t(197) = 7.71, p < .001, d = 1.09). Significant differences were also found on
perceived engagement (Mindifference = 3.70, SD = 1.24; Mneutral = 4.24, SD = 1.32; t(197) = 2.99,
p = .003, d = .42), involvement (Mindifference = 3.92, SD = 1.23; Mneutral = 4.47, SD = 1.07;
t(197) = 3.39, p = .001, d = .48), and attentiveness (Mindifference = 3.73, SD = 1.14; Mneutral =
4.43, SD = 1.15; t(197) = 4.32, p < .001, d = .61). Lastly, results revealed significant
differences in the extent to which the person was perceived as expressing indifference
(Mindifference = 3.23, SD = 1.43; Mneutral = 2.78, SD = 1.37; t(197) = 2.28, p = .02, d = .32) and
no emotion (Mindifference = 2.58, SD = 1.43; Mneutral = 3.67, SD = 1.34; t(197) = 5.53, p < .001,
d = .79). Expresser gender did not impact the extent to which actors were perceived to be
indifferent, therefore we collapsed across conditions. Overall, the pre-tests validated our
manipulation as conveying indifference (compared to neutral, non-emotional expressions)
while also further establishing differences between indifference and neutral expressions in
terms of on both verbal and non-verbal cues.
Measures. Expected collaboration was measured using the same scale as in Study 2 (α
= .78).
INDIFFERENCE EXPRESSIONS IN CONFLICT 36
We computed a number of measures capturing cooperative intentions. After
participants read their role materials and before the manipulation, we measured participants’
pre-manipulation cooperative intentions: “Regarding the conflict, to what extent will you
focus on…” with answers ranging from 1 (Dissolving the business) to 100 (Remain in
business together). We did this to allow for within-participant analysis, which provides a
direct test of our prediction that cooperative intentions change when participants are faced
with an indifference expression. Cooperative intentions were again measured just before
participants expected to meet their counterpart. They were instructed: “At this point we ask
that you think about how you will proceed with your counterpart face to face. This may
include – what would you offer your counterpart (regarding the lease on the space, the van
the equipment, the money, and your relationship)? What would you want in return? What are
some different ways in which you wish to move forward? Please write down your ideas in
advance.” Answers were coded by the same two external coders used in the previous study
(average measure ICC = .92; 95% confidence interval [.887, .945]; F(122,122) = 12.65, p <
.001) and averaged into a single index. Again, participants indicated to what extent their
written answers focused on cooperation using a measure similar to that used in Study 2 (“In
the solutions you presented in the previous question, to what extent did you focus on…”)
ranging from 1 (dissolving the business) to 100 (remaining in business together). Lastly, a
cooperative intention change was operationalized as the difference between the post-
manipulation and the pre-manipulation cooperation measures.
Heart rate variability was measured using two 5-minute ECG excerpts from both the
baseline segment at rest and immediately following the manipulation. From these, compliant
with guidelines for HRV data selection and pre-processing (Massaro & Pecchia, 2019), we
identified the RR series and computed HF-HRV as the natural logarithm of spectral density at
0.15-0.40 Hz. We followed the most recent procedures recommended for using HRV in
INDIFFERENCE EXPRESSIONS IN CONFLICT 37
behavioral research (Massaro & Pecchia, 2019). Because several factors can affect the ANS
functioning, and thus the resulting HRV features, we used stringently defined exclusion
criteria. Participants reporting nicotine (Sjoberg & Saint, 2011) or caffeine (Grant et al.,
2018) intake in the 6 hours preceding the experiment, regular alcohol or recreational drugs
use (Quintana et al., 2013), and/or use of cardioactive or psychotropic medications (Laborde
et al., 2017) were excluded prior to analysis. Further subjects were excluded due to issues
related to signal acquisition. The final sample for HF-HRV analysis was N = 76, a sample
that allows detection of medium effect sizes (see Quintana, 2017). To minimize possible
confounding effects due to individual differences, we subtracted baseline values of HF-HRV
from post-manipulation values (see Falk et al., 2018). The resulting index represents
participants’ responsiveness in cardiac vagal tone following exposure to the experimental
manipulation. An additional expert in HRV signal analysis who was not part of the current
research team and who was blind to our hypotheses independently assessed and confirmed
the quality of our analytical procedure. All data handling and analyses were conducted
following the completion of data collection and sample definition
4
. Self reported negative
affect was not assessed in this study.
Results
Expected collaboration. Participants in the neutral expression condition expected the
counterpart to collaborate significantly more (M = 3.57, SD =1.01 ) compared to those in the
indifference expression condition (M = 2.77, SD =.95; t(121) = 4.56, p < .001, d = .81).
4
The raw ECG recordings were pre-processed off-line; visual inspection, editing, and artifacts correction were performed
for irregular or ectopic beats. Following R-peak detection and RR-series extraction, we used the “smoothness priors” method
to minimize very low frequency trend components (500; interpolation rate 4 Hz) (Tarvainen et al., 2002). Data quality was
overall high and consistent with resting state recording conditions on baseline. The RR-series was analyzed using the
software Kubios HRV (version 3.0.0) to obtain estimates of relevant HF-HRV features. The frequency-domain features we
used here were computed via autoregressive (AR) estimates of frequency power. A model order of p = 16 was selected via
the corrected Akaike information criteria (Gustafsson & Hjalmarsson, 1995). An alternative method to compute frequency
bands in HRV research is the Fourier Transformation (FFT); however, AR has better peak resolution and more interpretable
information and HF component estimates than FFT (Burr & Cowan, 1992; Pichon et al., 2006).
INDIFFERENCE EXPRESSIONS IN CONFLICT 38
Cooperative intentions. No significant difference was found in cooperative intentions
prior to the manipulation t(121) = .11, p = .91. In contrast, in the post-manipulation measure,
participants in the neutral expression condition indicated higher cooperative intentions (M =
73.28, SD = 32.39) compared to those in the indifference condition (M = 59.84, SD = 31.02;
t(121) = 2.35, p = .02, d = .42). A mixed-model ANOVA substantiated the effect of the
indifference expression manipulation on cooperative intentions between the two timepoints
(Wilks’ Lambda = .93, F(1,121) = 8.89, p = .003, η2 p = .07), indicating that the change in
participants’ intentions to cooperate was due to the manipulation. The measure of cooperative
intention change showed that cooperative intentions decreased (compared to pre-
manipulation cooperative intentions) among participants in the indifference condition (M = -
6.24, SD = 29.86), whereas they increased (compared to pre-manipulation cooperative
intentions) among participants in the neutral condition (M = 7.69, SD = 21.11, t(121) = 2.98,
p = .003, d = .54). In terms of coded cooperative intentions, no main effect was found
between the indifference (M = 2.77, SD = .77) and the neutral (M = 2.79, SD = .74; t(121) =
.21, p = .83) conditions. However, the correlation between coded and self-rated cooperative
intentions was significant (r = .79, p < .001).
Heart rate variability. Results showed a relative HF-HRV decrease from baseline in
the indifference expression condition (M = -.22, SD = .32) compared to the neutral condition
(M = .34, SD = .46, t(74) = 6.13, p < .001, d = 1.41; Figure 3). A one-sample t-test showed
that the decrease of HF-HRV from zero for participants in the indifference condition was
significant (t(36) = 4.06, p < .001, d = .67), substantiating that participants experienced the
indifference expressions as aversive. However, although we found a a significant correlation
between HF-HRV and expected collaboration (r = .31, p = .01), no correlation was found
between HF-HRV and cooperation intentions (r = .08, p = .48).
Figure 3. Indifference expressions (vs. neutral expressions) significantly decrease heart rate
variability (HF-HRV) from zero. The y axis corresponds to the change from participants’
INDIFFERENCE EXPRESSIONS IN CONFLICT 39
own baseline (heart rate variation at rest), indicated as zero. Positive scores indicate an
increase in HF-HRV, which is associated with positive affect and effective emotion
regulation in response to stimuli. Negative scores indicate a decrease in HF-HRV,
representing negative affective reactions in response to stimuli.
*Note: Error bars represent standard error around the mean [95% CI]
Mediation analysis. We examined the indirect effect of the indifference expression on
cooperative intention change (to reflect the change over time found in the mixed-model
ANOVA) through expected collaboration (inferential process) and HF-HRV (affective
process). The indirect effect of indifference expressions on cooperative intention change
through expected collaboration (PROCESS Model 4; Hayes, 2013) was significant (a*b = -
6.37, 95% CI [-12.08, -2.11]; See Figure 4). On the other hand, and in line with the
aforementioned findings showing that HF-HRV did not predict cooperative intentions, the
indirect effect of indifference expressions on cooperative intention change through HF-HRV
(PROCESS Model 4; Hayes, 2013) was nonsignificant (a*b = 2.25, 95% CI [-3.54, 9.95]).
An indirect effect of expected collaboration was similarly found when conducting the
analysis with cooperative intentions as the dependent measure, and controlling for pre-
manipulation cooperative intentions (a*b = -5.84, 95% CI [-11.55, -1.82]), while none was
found for HF-HRV (a*b = 2.71, 95% CI [-3.25, 10.57]). We conducted the mediations
HF-
HRV
Indifference Neutral
INDIFFERENCE EXPRESSIONS IN CONFLICT 40
separately due to the reduced sample size used for the HF-HRV measure. However, similar
results were found when including both mediators in the model. Similar results were also
found when conducting mediation analyses with coded cooperative intentions (while
controlling for pre-manipulation cooperative intentions in line with the dependent variable).
Expected collaboration had a significant indirect effect (a*b = -.13, 95% CI [-.28, -.02]) while
HF-HRV did not (a*b = .12, 95% CI [-.01, .36]).
Figure 4. Mediation model showing indifference expressions reduce self-rated cooperative
intention change through reduced expectations of collaboration. Dark arrows indicate
significant mediation; light arrows indicate non-significant mediation.
Note: Reported coefficients in model are unstandardized. * represents p < .05; ** represents p < .01
Discussion
The results of Study 3 replicated the key finding of Study 2 – that indifference
expressions undermine cooperative intentions by reducing expected collaboration – in a
laboratory setting. The use of pre-recorded video clips allowed us to strengthen our
operationalization of indifference expressions by including a visual manipulation of
INDIFFERENCE EXPRESSIONS IN CONFLICT 41
indifference expressions. Importantly, we found that the direct effect of indifference
expressions on cooperative intentions was significant when considering expected
collaboration. We did not find a direct effect on coded cooperative intentions; however, we
did find support for the indirect effect through expected collaboration for both measures.
Study 3 further replicated the finding of Study 2 that indifference expressions are aversive by
demonstrating effects of indifference expressions on an established physiological index of
negative affective responding (HF-HRV). However, inferential processes appear to be a more
potent mediating mechanism in these studies compared to affective reactions.
Study 4
The objective of Study 4 was to further enhance confidence in the robustness of the
key finding evidenced in Studies 2 and 3 by examining the effect of indifference expressions
(vs. neutral expressions) on a behavioral measure of cooperation. Given that Study 2 revealed
expected collaboration of the counterpart as explaining more variance than affective reactions
(both coded and self-reported), and that Study 3 showed mediation through expected
collaboration but not through negative affective reactions, we focused on expected
collaboration moving forward.
Method
Participants and Design. Three hundred and thirty five participants (Mean age =
25.53, SD = 8.23; 60% Men) were recruited via Prolific Academic to take part in a 10-minute
study in return for £1.25. Power analysis (Chen et al., 2010) based on a small effect size
using G*Power [z-tests Logistic Regression; two tails; odds ratio = 2.5, Pr(Y=1|X=1) H0=.1;
alpha .05; Power .80; R2 other X = 0; Binomial; Xparm=.5] yielded a recommended sample
size of at least 308 participants. We oversampled to allow for participant dropout. Three
INDIFFERENCE EXPRESSIONS IN CONFLICT 42
participants were omitted from the analyses due to duplicate IP addresses. The analyses was
conducted on the remaining 332 participants.
Procedure. Participants were informed that they would be partnered with a fellow
participant online and engage in a negotiation. They then read the role materials (the same as
in the previous study) and were asked to send a message to their partner prior to their
interaction (“You now have the opportunity to send your counterpart a message prior to the
negotiation”). Next, they read the manipulation, which was received in the form of a message
from their alleged partner based on the script used by the actors in Study 3 (Indifference
added text: “When I think about this situation, I feel indifferent because the things that have
happened do not affect me emotionally”; both: “I suggest we get started.”). Subsequently we
measured the mediating and dependent variables.
Measures. Expected collaboration was measured using the same scale used in the
previous studies (α = .81). Our behavioral dependent measure operationalized cooperation by
capturing one’s intention to leave the negotiation. Removing oneself from a negotiation sends
a clear signal that one has no interest in working together with the counterpart (Galinsky et
al., 2009; Schweinsberg et al., 2012; Tuncel et al., 2016) and captures a decision that is not
made lightly given negotiators propensity to accept a bad deal over an impasse (Tuncel et al.,
2016). Therefore, in this study, we captured cooperative behaviors by allowing participants to
remove themselves from the negotiation altogether. To do so, we operationalized cooperation
with a binary measure capturing leaving the negotiation (coded 0) or staying in the
negotiation (coded 1). Importantly, to increase the ecological validity of deciding to forego a
negotiation, we paired the decision to leave with a cost to participants. The cost used by
Schweinsberg et al. (2012) was £5 added to the fictitious negotiated outcome over rent (rather
than actual payment to participants), while we chose to apply the cost to participants
themselves in the form of additional time.
INDIFFERENCE EXPRESSIONS IN CONFLICT 43
After receiving the message from their partner (including the manipulation:
expression of indifference vs. no emotion) and indicating to what extent they believed their
partner would collaborate, participants were offered the opportunity to either continue
negotiating with the same partner or to be assigned a new partner (“After receiving your
counterpart’s message you can decide whether or not you would like to engage in a
negotiation with this person”). However, participants were told that if they chose to be
reassigned, they would need to wait an additional minute for a new partner to be assigned
(“Please be aware that if you choose not to [continue], you will be partnered with a new
person which may take up to one additional minute”). At minimum, this would amount to
10% of the original study length (published as a 10-minute study), or £0.12 of lost value
based on the payment. This does not account for the time that it would take to resend a
message and receive a message from their new counterpart. We predicted that participants
who received an indifference expression would be less cooperative (i.e., more likely to leave
the negotiation), and that this would be mediated by reduced expected collaboration.
Results
Expected collaboration. As predicted, participants in the indifference expression
condition expected their counterpart to be significantly less collaborative (M = 3.16, SD =
1.14) than those in the neutral condition (M = 3.91, SD = .98; t = 6.37, p < .001, d = .70).
Cooperation. Participants in the indifference condition were three times more likely
to leave the negotiation (16.07%; 27 out of 168) than were those in the neutral condition
(5.39%; 9 out of 167). Logistic regression analysis revealed that the odds of participants in
the indifference expression condition leaving were significantly higher (β = -1.21, Wald =
9.01, OR = 3.34, p = .003; 95% CI [1.52, 7.45]) compared to the neutral condition.
Mediation analysis. We examined the indirect effect of indifference expressions on
cooperation through expected collaboration using PROCESS (Model 4 conducted with a
INDIFFERENCE EXPRESSIONS IN CONFLICT 44
binary dependent variable; Hayes, 2013). A significant indirect effect was found on
cooperation through expected collaboration (a*b = -.25, 95% CI [-.56, -.005]; Figure 5).
Thus, the indifference expression led participants to expect lower collaboration from the
expressing counterpart, which subsequently reduced levels of cooperation.
Figure 5. Mediation model showing indifference expressions reduce cooperation through
reduced expectations of collaboration.
Note: Reported coefficients in model are unstandardized. * represents p < .05; ** represents p < .01
Discussion
In line with our predictions and with the findings of Studies 2 and 3, Study 4 revealed
that indifference expressions reduced expectations of counterpart collaboration, which
subsequently decreased cooperation as captured by a behavioral measure.
Study 5
The aim of our final two studies was to test a theoretical contingency of the effects of
indifference expressions on cooperation. EASI theory (Van Kleef, 2009, 2016) posits that
responses to emotional expressions are mediated by affective and/or inferential processes,
depending on individual and situational contingencies. The results of the previous studies
indicate that this model applies to indifference expressions as well. The results of Studies 2 to
4 consistently show that the effects of indifference expressions on cooperation are mediated
-.96* (-1.21**)
Indifference
Expression
Expected
Collaboration
Cooperation
-.74**
.33*
INDIFFERENCE EXPRESSIONS IN CONFLICT 45
by inferential processes, specifically inferences regarding the likelihood of future
collaboration by the counterpart. Even though indifference expressions also elicited negative
affective reactions in Studies 2 (a and b) and 3, we obtained only limited evidence supporting
a mediating role of negative affective reactions. Specifically, in Study 2 negative affective
reactions mediated the effect on cooperative intentions but were weaker than the inferential
path; in Study 3 affective reactions did not mediate the effect of indifference expressions on
cooperative intentions. Thus, the responses to indifference expressions we observed in the
previous studies are better explained in terms of inferential than affective processes.
Given the apparent role of inferential processes in driving responses to indifference
expressions, we moved on to test an additional principle of EASI theory, namely that
inferential processes are particularly potent in explaining responses to emotional expressions
when observers are motivated and able to engage in thorough processing of the expressions
(Van Kleef, 2009). In other words, if responses to indifference expressions are indeed driven
primarily by inferential processes in non-close relationship conflicts, as our data suggest,
these effects should become weaker when there is a diminished need to engage in thorough
processing of the expressions. A key theoretical predictor of the need for thorough processing
of emotional expressions is the ambiguity of the situation (Van Kleef, 2016): The more
ambiguous the situation, the more attuned people should be to emotional expressions made
by others, because those expressions may help them to make sense of the situation. Empirical
evidence supports this view, showing that the effects of emotional expressions become
weaker when more direct information is available about the counterpart’s cooperative
intentions (e.g., Adam & Brett, 2015; Cohen-Chen et al., 2017). Building on this theoretical
notion and previous findings, we hypothesized that the effects of indifference expressions on
expected collaboration of the counterpart, and thereby on one’s own cooperative intentions,
would become weaker when more direct information about the counterpart’s cooperation is
INDIFFERENCE EXPRESSIONS IN CONFLICT 46
provided. We pre-registered the methods and analysis for this study:
https://aspredicted.org/blind.php?x=vx75bs
5
.
Method
Participants and Design. Three hundred and ninety five participants (Mean age =
27.37, SD = 8.23; 53% Men) were recruited via Prolific Academic to take part in a 4-minute
study in return for £.50. We determined our sample size using G*Power [F-test ANOVA:
Fixed effects, special, main effects and interactions. effect size f = .20, α = .05, power = .80,
numerator df = 1, Number of groups = 4. Total sample size required N = 199]. Given that we
sought to detect an interaction effect, we doubled this number as per advice regarding
G*Power and interactions (Giner-Sorolla, 2018). We recruited 415 participants to account for
our exclusion criteria. In line with our pre-registered exclusion criteria, 0 participants were
removed for having a duplicate IP address, 20 were removed for failing the attention check
question regarding the expression presented in the case (“Based on the message, to what
extent is the Chef indifferent”), and 0 were outliers (3 SD from the mean for the DV). The
final analysis was run on the remaining 395 participants.
Procedure. We utilized a 2 (indifference vs. neutral expressions) X 2 (cooperative
intentions vs. control) design, examining the interaction between the counterpart’s
indifference expressions and explicit cooperative intentions on participants’ own cooperative
intentions through expected collaboration of the counterpart. We utilized the same procedure
used in Study 2. Participants were asked to read the role materials (using the same case as the
previous study), and were then told about an upcoming meeting to determine the fate of the
business partnership. They were then presented with an email message from the counterpart.
This message contained the manipulations of the counterpart’s emotional expression and
cooperative intentions.
5
The pre-registered measure of expected collaboration is different from the one reported here due to the review process.
However, results are similar when using both measures.
INDIFFERENCE EXPRESSIONS IN CONFLICT 47
The first part of the message contained the emotional expression (indifference vs.
neutral). Participants in the indifference expression condition read: “Honestly, I’m indifferent
because the situation doesn’t affect me emotionally. I don’t really care.” The additional
statement regarding care was based on the findings of Truesdale and Pell (2018), according to
which this statement was used often in indifference expressions. Participants in the neutral
expression condition read: “Let's see how this turns out and what will come out of this
process.” The next part of the message included the manipulation of cooperative intentions.
Participants in the cooperative intentions condition read: “(But) I suggest we cooperate so we
can achieve an outcome that works for us both. That’s my aim.” whereas participants in the
control condition (no explicit cooperative intentions) read: “I will meet you next week at the
restaurant to discuss what’s happened.” Next, we measured the mediating and dependent
variables.
Measures. The expected collaboration (α = .81) measure was the same as in the
previous studies. The cooperative intention variable was measured using the item: “Moving
forward in this process with the Chef, to what extent would you aim to maintain the
partnership.” Answers ranged from 0 (ending the partnership) to 100 (maintaining the
partnership) in increments of 10 (adjusted from -50 to 50 for ease of use). Finally, to ensure
the cooperation expression was indeed interpreted as a cooperative intention of the
counterpart, we included a cooperation expression manipulation check: “based on the
message you received, to what extent was this person cooperative?” with answers ranging
from 1 (Absolutely not) to 4 (Absolutely).
Results
Cooperative Intentions Manipulation Check. Findings established the effectiveness
of the cooperative intentions manipulation in increasing perceptions that the counterpart
intended to cooperate. As intended, participants who read an explicit message of cooperative
INDIFFERENCE EXPRESSIONS IN CONFLICT 48
intentions from the counterpart perceived the counterpart as more cooperative (M = 2.73, SD
= .85) compared to those in the control condition (M = 2.23, SD = .81), b = .49, t = 6.65, p <
.001, d = .60.
6
Expected Collaboration. We conducted a moderation model (PROCESS; Model 1)
as the first step towards our moderated mediation model. The effect of both the indifference
expression (b = -1.08, t = -10.81, p < .0001, 95% CI [-1.28, -.88]) and the cooperative
intention expression (b = .87, t = 4.37, p < .0001, 95% CI [.67, 1.07]) were significant. As
predicted, the interaction was also significant, b = .88, t = 4.37, p < .0001, 95% CI [.48, 1.27].
The interaction indicated that the effect of the indifference expression manipulation on
expected collaboration of the counterpart was stronger when cooperative intentions were not
stated (b = -1.52, t = -10.73, p < .0001, 95% CI [-1.80, -1.24] compared to when they were (b
= -.65, t = -4.57, p < .0001, 95% CI [-.92, -.37], although both simple effects were significant.
Cooperative intentions. We observed a significant main effect of the cooperative
intention expression manipulation on participants’ own cooperative intentions, such that
participants reported greater cooperative intentions when counterparts stated their cooperative
intentions than when counterparts did not (b = 6.82, t = 2.58, p = .01, 95% CI [1.74, 11.89]).
A significant main effect of the indifference expression was also found (b = -18.35, t = -7.10,
p < .0001, 95% CI [-23.43, -13.27]), indicating that participants held lower cooperative
intentions when indifference was expressed compared to no emotion. Furthermore, a
marginally significant interaction effect was found (b = 8.81, t = 1.71, p = .09, 95% CI [-1.34,
18.96]). Results showed that the effect of the indifference expression manipulation on
cooperative intentions was stronger when cooperative intentions were not stated (b = -22.76, t
6
We also observed a main effect of indifference expression, b = -.72, p < .001, as well as an interaction, b = .44, t = 2.94, p
= .003, 95% CI [.14, .73]. Although unanticipated, these effects are consistent with our central claim that indifference
expressions convey information about the expresser’s cooperative intentions.
INDIFFERENCE EXPRESSIONS IN CONFLICT 49
= -6.22, p < .0001, 95% CI [-29.95, -15.57] compared to when they were (b = -13.96, t = -
3.83, p < .001, 95% CI [-21.13, -6.78].
Based on our pre-registered model, we proceeded to test whether indifference
expressions predicted participants’ cooperative behavior via their expectations regarding the
counterpart’s collaboration, especially when no explicit cooperative intentions were stated
(i.e., a moderated mediation effect).
Moderated mediation analysis. We conducted a moderated mediation analysis using
PROCESS (Model 7; Hayes, 2013) to examine the effects of indifference expressions on
cooperative intentions via expected collaboration when direct information about the
counterpart’s cooperative intentions was or was not provided. The analysis yielded a
significant effect (a*b = 10.55, 95% CI [5.73, 15.63]). Further probing showed that
indifference expressions led to lower cooperative intentions through reduced expected
collaboration, and that this indirect effect was stronger when participants received no explicit
information about their counterpart’s cooperative intentions (a*b = -18.32, SE = 2.33, 95%
CI [-23.05, -13.94]) compared to when they did receive such information (a*b = -7.78, SE =
2.02, 95% CI [-11.91, -4.06 ]; Figure 6).
Figure 6. Moderated mediation model showing that the indirect effect of indifference on
cooperative intentions through expected collaboration was stronger in the absence (rather
than the presence) of explicit cooperation intentions expressed by the counterpart.
INDIFFERENCE EXPRESSIONS IN CONFLICT 50
Note: Reported coefficients are unstandardized. * represents p < .05; ** represents p < .01
Discussion
In line with our predictions, indifference expressions reduced expectations of
collaboration, which subsequently decreased cooperative intentions in a conflict. This indirect
effect was weakened when explicit information about the counterpart’s future cooperation
intention was provided compared to when no mention of cooperation was made.
Study 6
The goal of our final study was to further enhance confidence in the robustness of the
key finding evidenced in Study 5 by using a behavioral measure of cooperation. We aimed to
demonstrate that the effects of indifference expressions on expected collaboration of the
counterpart, and thereby on one’s own cooperation, would become weaker when more direct
INDIFFERENCE EXPRESSIONS IN CONFLICT 51
information about the counterpart’s cooperation is provided. Once again, we pre-registered
the methods and analysis for this study: https://aspredicted.org/blind.php?x=aj4ra5
7
.
Method
Participants and Design. Three hundred and ninety three participants (Mean age =
27.44, SD = 8.29; 52% Men) were recruited via Prolific Academic to take part in a 7-minute
study in return for £.88. We determined our sample size using G*Power [F-test ANOVA:
Fixed effects, special, main effects and interactions. effect size f = .20, α = .05, power = .80,
numerator df = 1, Number of groups = 4. Total sample size required N = 199]. Given that we
aimed to detect an interaction effect, we doubled this number as per advice regarding
G*Power and interactions (Giner-Sorolla, 2018). We recruited 416 participants to account for
our exclusion criteria. Of those, in line with our pre-registered exclusion criteria, 0
participants were removed for having a duplicate IP address, 18 were removed for failing the
attention check question regarding the emotional expression presented in the case (same as
the previous study), 5 were outliers (3 SD from the mean for the DV). In our pre-registration,
we also anticipated excluding participants who failed a reading comprehension check
(“According to the text, what do you think the problem is?” answers: the Chef is lazy; the
Chef ignores my business decisions; I don’t have a problem with the Chef), which 42
participants answered incorrectly. However, after running the study, we received a number of
messages from participants who indicated this question was too abstract and did not reflect
their performance on the study, which we verified using the data (by examining their open-
ended messages, answer patterns on opposite statements, and the amount of time they took to
fill in the study overall). We therefore retained participants who failed this check provided
that they met the other inclusion criteria of duplicate IP address, outlier analysis, and the
7
The pre-registered measure of expected collaboration is different from the one reported here due to the review process.
However, the results are similar when using both measures.
INDIFFERENCE EXPRESSIONS IN CONFLICT 52
attention check (and paid them for participating)
8
. The final analysis was run on 393
participants.
Procedure. We utilized a 2 (indifference vs. neutral expressions) X 2 (cooperative
intentions vs. control) design, examining the interaction between the counterpart’s
indifference expressions and cooperative intentions on participants’ own cooperation through
expected collaboration of the counterpart. Participants were told they would be interacting
with a fellow participant and asked to read their role materials, which were similar to the
previous studies. Participants were then told that an additional £10,000 were needed to keep
the business afloat, and that this negotiation was meant to decide who would pay which share
of that money, particularly because the Chef had ignored financial advice and most of the
initial contribution had come from the Entrepreneur (participant role).
Next, participants were told that they had been randomly assigned to make the first
offer, but that the counterpart was allowed to send them a message beforehand. This message
contained the manipulations of emotional expression and cooperative intentions. The first
part of the message contained the emotional expression (indifference vs. neutral). Participants
in the indifference expression condition read: “I feel indifferent because the situation doesn’t
affect me emotionally. I simply don’t care.” Participants in the neutral expression condition
read: “I think we should go ahead and start this negotiation.” The next part of the message
included the manipulation of cooperative intentions. Participants in the cooperative intentions
condition read: “(But) I’m a cooperative person, which I will show by pursuing an agreement
that works for us both,” whereas participants in the control condition (no explicit cooperative
intentions) read: “Let’s see how this turns out and what will come out of this process.” Next,
we measured the mediating and dependent measures.
8
When examining the data without these participants, the patterns remained similar, although results were weakened
(probably due to lower statistical power).
INDIFFERENCE EXPRESSIONS IN CONFLICT 53
Measures. The expected collaboration (α = .81) measure was the same as in the
previous studies. Once again we included the manipulation check for cooperative intentions
manipulation. The behavioral cooperation variable was measured using participants’ first
offer, which participants were asked to indicate from £0 to £10,000. This was based on
previous work (Aaldering et al., 2013) using first offers in negotiations. Higher offers
indicate a willingness to contribute a larger share of the money needed to keep the business
afloat, thus indicating greater cooperation.
Results
Cooperative Intentions Manipulation Check. Findings established the effectiveness
of the cooperative intentions manipulation. Results showed that participants who read an
explicit message of cooperative intentions from the counterpart indeed perceived the
counterpart as more cooperative (M = 2.85, SD = .85) compared to those in the control (no
cooperative intentions mentioned) condition (M = 2.18, SD = .96), b = .67, t = 8.43, p < .001,
d = .74.
9
Expected Collaboration. We conducted a moderation model (PROCESS; Model 1)
as the first step towards our mediated moderation model. The effect of both the indifference
expression (b = -1.07, t = -10.85, p < .0001, 95% CI [-1.26, -.88]) and the cooperative
intention (b = .79, t = 8.04, p < .0001, 95% CI [.59, .99]) were significant. As predicted, the
interaction was also significant, b = .64, t = 3.24, p = .001, 95% CI [.25, 1.03]. Results
showed that the effect of the indifference expression manipulation on expected collaboration
of the counterpart was stronger when cooperative intentions were not stated (b = -1.40, t = -
9.84, p < .0001, 95% CI [-1.68, -1.12] compared to when they were (b = -.76, t = -5.59, p <
.0001, 95% CI [-1.03,-.49], even though both simple effects were significant.
9
In addition, we observed a main effect of indifference expression, b = -.84, p < .001, as well as an interaction, b = .62, t =
3.87, p < .001, 95% CI [.30, .93]. Once again, this result supports our broader claim that indifference expressions convey
information about the expresser’s cooperative intentions.
INDIFFERENCE EXPRESSIONS IN CONFLICT 54
Cooperation. We observed a significant main effect of the cooperative intention
manipulation on participants’ own cooperative behavior, such that participants cooperated
more with counterparts who stated their cooperative intentions than with counterparts who
did not (b = .32, t = 2.14, p = .03, 95% CI [.03, .62]). There was no significant main effect of
indifference expression (b = -.005, t = -.03, p = .97, 95% CI [-.30, .29]), and no interaction (b
= .08, p = .79, 95% CI [-.51, .68]). However, based on our pre-registered model, we
proceeded to test whether indifference expressions predicted participants’ cooperative
behavior via their expectations regarding the counterpart’s collaboration, especially when no
explicit cooperative intentions were stated (i.e., a moderated mediation effect).
Moderated mediation analysis. We conducted a moderated mediation analysis using
PROCESS (Model 7; Hayes, 2013) to examine the effects of indifference expressions on
cooperation via expected collaboration when direct information about the counterpart’s
cooperative intentions was or was not provided. The analysis yielded a significant effect (a*b
= .24, 95% CI [.08, .43]). Further probing showed that indifference expressions led to lower
cooperation through reduced expected collaboration, and that this indirect effect was stronger
when participants received no explicit information about their counterpart’s cooperative
intentions (a*b = -.53, SE = .12, 95% CI [-.78, -.30]) compared to when they did receive such
information (a*b = -.29, SE = .08, 95% CI [-.46, -.15]; Figure 7).
Figure 7. Moderated mediation model showing that the indirect effect of indifference on
cooperation through expected collaboration was stronger in the absence (rather than the
presence) of explicit cooperative intentions expressed by the counterpart.
INDIFFERENCE EXPRESSIONS IN CONFLICT 55
Note: Reported coefficients are unstandardized. * represents p < .05; ** represents p < .01
Discussion
Once again, and in line with our predictions, indifference expressions reduced
expectations of collaboration, which subsequently decreased cooperation as captured by a
behavioral measure. This indirect effect was weakened when explicit information about the
counterpart’s future cooperation was provided compared to when no mention of cooperation
was made.
Internal Meta-Analysis
The results across studies are largely supportive of our predictions, but we observed
some variation in the effect sizes and the statistical significance of some of the effects.
Specifically, the effect of indifference expressions on expected collaboration of the
counterpart was significant across all studies in which this measure was included (Studies 2-
6). The direct effect of indifference expressions on participants’ cooperative intentions was
significant in all studies in which it could be tested (Studies 2, 3, and 5), whereas the effect
on participants’ behavioral cooperation was significant in Study 4, but non-significant in
INDIFFERENCE EXPRESSIONS IN CONFLICT 56
Study 6. The indirect effect of emotional indifference on cooperative intentions / behavioral
cooperation through expected collaboration of the counterpart was significant in all studies in
which this effect could be tested (Studies 2 – 4; Studies 5 and 6 within the no cooperative
intentions condition). Thus, we found consistent support for effects on expected collaboration
of the counterpart as well as for indirect effects on cooperation through expected
collaboration of the counterpart, but evidence for direct effects of indifference expressions on
cooperation (i.e., not through expected collaboration) was somewhat mixed. To obtain a more
reliable estimate of the magnitude of this effect, we performed an internal meta-analysis (Goh
et al., 2016).
We conducted an internal meta-analysis (Goh et al., 2016) to probe the size and
reliability of the main effect of indifference expressions on cooperation across our
experimental studies (Studies 2-6). For the sake of consistency (since different analyses were
used in different studies) we used correlation effect sizes (r statistic). Furthermore, to enable
comparisons with the (consistently significant) effect of indifference expressions on
expectations regarding the counterpart’s collaboration, we included this effect as well. In
support of our predictions (see Table 2), we found that overall, indifference expressions
significantly reduced participants’ expectations regarding the counterpart’s collaboration as
well as their own cooperation (assessed via cooperative intentions, behavioral cooperation, or
combined). We take this as support for the robustness of our key effects across studies
involving different samples, operationalizations, and methods.
INDIFFERENCE EXPRESSIONS IN CONFLICT 57
Table 2
Meta-analysis of main effects of counterpart’s indifference (vs. neutral) expressions on participants’ expectations regarding the counterpart’s
collaboration and participants’ own cooperation across Studies 2 – 6. Cooperative intentions and cooperative behavior are presented separately,
as well as in a combined cooperation variable. For Studies 5 and 6 we included only participants in the condition in which the counterpart
expressed no explicit cooperative intentions for the sake of consistency and comparability with the preceding studies.
Study
Number
Expected Collaboration of
Counterpart
Cooperative Intentions
Cooperative Behavior
Cooperation Total
Effect of indifference expressions
on expected collaboration
Effect of indifference
expressions on cooperative
intentions
Effect of indifference
expressions on cooperation
behavior
Effect of indifference expressions
on cooperation total (intentions
and behavior)
n
Effect Size
Sig.
p / 95%
CI
n
Effect Size
Sig.
p / 95%
CI
n
Effect Size
Sig.
p / 95%
CI
n
Effect Size
Sig.
p / 95% CI
2a
159
r = .45
p < .001
159
r =.21
p = .01
-
-
-
159
r =.21
p = .01
2b
551
r = .21
p < .001
551
r = .11
p = .01
-
-
-
551
r = .11
p = .01
3
123
r = .38
p < .001
123
r =.21
p = .003
-
-
-
123
r =.21
p = .003
4
332
r = .33
p < .001
-
-
-
332
r =.17
p = .002
332
r =.17
p = .002
5
197
r = .63
p < .001
197
r =.41
p < .001
-
-
-
197
r =.41
p < .001
6
188
r = .55
p < .001
-
-
-
188
r =.01
p = .84
188
r =.01
p = .84
Total
1550
Z = 15.62
Mean r = .38
.34, .42
1030
Z = 6.59
Mean r = .20
.14, .26
520
Z = 2.57
Mean r = .11
.03, .19
1550
Z = 6.69
Mean r = .17
.12, .22
INDIFFERENCE EXPRESSIONS IN CONFLICT 58
General Discussion
We examined the effect of indifference expressions on cooperative intentions (Studies
2, 3, and 5) and behavioral cooperation (Studies 4 and 6) in social conflict. Study 1 indicated
that people view indifference expressions as conveying a neutral message in conflict. Study 2
showed, however, that a counterpart’s expressions of indifference diminished participants’
cooperative intentions compared to positive (hope; Study 2a), negative (anger, contempt;
Study 2a), and neutral (no emotion; Studies 2a and 2b) expressions by reducing expectations
regarding the counterpart’s collaboration and, to a lesser degree, causing negative affective
reactions. These affective reactions were captured via coding (Study 2a) and via self-report
(general affect and discrete negative emotions; Study 2b). Study 3 was conducted in a lab
setting where people prepared to engage in a face-to-face conflict with a counterpart. We
replicated the negative effect of indifference expressions on cooperative intentions and
expected collaboration, which again acted as a mediator. Additionally, we found that
indifference expressions were experienced as aversive as indicated by changes in heart rate
variability, but this physiological affective response did not serve as a mediator. Study 4
showed that negotiators were willing to bear a cost to avoid negotiating with a counterpart
who expressed indifference about the conflict. Once again, the effect was mediated by
diminished expected collaboration of the counterpart. In the final two studies we pre-
registered our expected results. In Study 5 we demonstrated that the indirect effect of
indifference expressions (vs. neutral expressions) on cooperative intentions through expected
collaboration was reduced when the counterpart explicitly expressed their intention to
cooperate. In Study 6 we replicated this moderated mediation model, showing that the
indirect effect of indifference expressions (vs. neutral expressions) on cooperative behavior
(operationalized as higher first offers; Aaldering et al., 2013) through expected collaboration
was reduced when the counterpart explicitly expressed their intention to cooperate.
INDIFFERENCE EXPRESSIONS IN CONFLICT 59
Overall, our research shows that although expressing indifference may be perceived as
conveying a neutral message in conflict, indifference expressions can harm conflict resolution
by fueling inferences in observers that the expresser is unlikely to collaborate, which in turn
reduces their own cooperative intentions and behaviors.
Theoretical and Applied Implications
Our research makes several theoretical contributions. First, it opens a new avenue of
inquiry into the social effects of indifference expressions, which have hitherto not received
systematic attention. In the current investigation, we examined these effects in the context of
interpersonal conflict within non-close relationships. Our work informs and corresponds with
existing work on conflict management, such as dual concern theory (De Dreu, 2010; De Dreu
et al., 2001; Pruitt & Rubin, 1986), which categorizes strategies for conflict resolution based
on dimensions of concern for self (high vs. low) and others (high vs. low). Based on our
definition of indifference as an explicit non-emotional response to an emotional stimulus,
experiencing indifference would likely serve as an antecedent of avoidant strategies, showing
low concern overall, both for the self and for others (Grant, 2007). Previous literature
indicates that such avoidance strategies are associated with behaviors that hinder
collaboration and conflict resolution in everyday or workplace conflicts (Behfar et al., 2008;
De Dreu & Van Vianen, 2001). Behaviors such as ignoring or suppressing the conflict and its
underlying causes, making unilateral decisions, and stalling processes in order to not address
the conflict, constitute a non-constructive strategy, because they do not benefit either side
(Rubin et al., 1994). Moreover, ignoring issues at the core of the conflict can, over time,
cement negative practices and preserve injustices on the one hand (Tjosvold, 2008), or build
resentment, and erupt through other avenues on the other (Chen & Tjosvold, 2002). Having
said that, we focused on indifference expressions specifically, which adds to the literature
because of their “emotional” component. We drew upon EASI theory (Van Kleef, 2009,
INDIFFERENCE EXPRESSIONS IN CONFLICT 60
2016) to develop the argument that an explicit expression of indifference can be interpreted
(inferential process) and/or affectively experienced (affective reaction) as a message of low
emotional investment, and therefore low motivation to collaborate. Importantly, the literature
on conflict resolution pertains to behavior in conflict situations, but has not considered the
potential gap between the intended message of indifference expressions and the interpretation
that subsequently guides observers' responses. Based on our findings, it is conceivable that
negotiators who intend to collaborate (at least to some extent) may in fact escalate the
conflict by expressing indifference. Thus, our results contribute to the understanding of
conflict resolution by demonstrating novel effects of indifference expressions on affective,
inferential, and behavioral responses in social conflict.
Moreover, our results attest to the importance of investigating the social effects of
expressions of indifference in social interactions more broadly. It seems plausible that
indifference expressions also influence social dynamics in non-conflict settings in which
emotional expressions are known to have effects, such as close relationships, group decision
making, leadership, or customer service. When examining the relative importance of
inferential and affective responses as possible mechanisms explaining attitudinal and
behavioral responses to indifference expressions, the type of relationship and context may
well play a critical role. For instance, in close relationships, in which perceptions of regard
and reciprocity of care are central to the relationship’s functionality (Cavallo & Holmes,
2013), negative affective reactions to expressions of indifference may take on a more potent
mediating role. In non-close relationships, in contrast, such affective reactions may be
comparatively less influential, and the importance of information regarding the collaborative
intentions of the counterpart may therefore better account for behavioral responses to
indifference expressions.
INDIFFERENCE EXPRESSIONS IN CONFLICT 61
Second, whereas EASI theory (Van Kleef, 2009) has been previously applied to a
plethora of positive, negative, and complex (e.g., ambivalent; Rothman & Northcraft, 2015)
emotional expressions in conflict (Van Kleef & Côté, 2018) and in social life more generally
(Van Kleef & Côté, in press), it has not yet been applied to expressions of indifference. Our
research thus extends the scope of EASI theory empirically by demonstrating that expressions
of indifference can be meaningfully analyzed and understood through the lens of EASI
theory. We applied a core principle of EASI theory (Van Kleef, 2009) and tested two
mechanisms underlying the effect of indifference expressions on observers, namely, expected
collaboration (an inferential process) and negative affective reactions (an affective process).
In Study 2, we found that whereas affect (coded by external coders in Study 2a; self-rated
negative affect and emotions in Study 2b) and expected collaboration mediated the effect of
indifference expressions on cooperative intentions, expected collaboration was a stronger
mediator. In Study 3, we found a significant reduction in HF-HRV as a physiological proxy
to negative affective responding. However, negative affect did not mediate the effect of
indifference expressions on cooperative intentions. Relatedly, our findings resonate with
previous findings on mind perception (Epley &Waytz, 2010; Wegner, 2002), which examines
inferences regarding various entities’ mental state (such as people Gray et al., 2007; groups
Cooley et al., 2017; and organizations Rai & Diermeuer, 2015) and associated responses to
behavior. Based on this framework, indifference would signal high agency and low
experience, and would therefore elicit negative reactions (Gray et al., 2012). Overall, we
conclude that in non-close relationship conflicts, such as the ones examined here, inferential
processes are important for understanding the interpersonal effects of indifference
expressions on cooperation, perhaps more so than affective reactions. This finding resonates
with EASI theory’s argument that people pay more attention to emotional expressions in
ambiguous situations, such as mixed-motive conflict (Van Kleef, 2016). To the degree that
INDIFFERENCE EXPRESSIONS IN CONFLICT 62
the effects of indifference expressions are driven by inferential processes, they would be
expected to diminish when inferential processing of the expressions is reduced by providing
explicit information about cooperative intentions, a prediction we tested and substantiated in
Studies 5 and 6.
Third, the current results contribute to emerging insights into the social effects of
emotions across different expressive modalities. The literature on non-verbal affective
communication focuses on varying emotional expressions, including facial expressions
(Ekman & Friesen, 1969), posture (Kleinsmith & Bianchi-Berthouze, 2007), and tone of
voice (Scherer, 1989). However, examinations of indifference expressions have thus far been
few and far between, particularly within the realm of social interactions and processes. We
partly relied on previous work on non-verbal manifestations of arousal and non-arousal states
(Dael et al., 2012; Riskind, 1984) to inform our operationalization of indifference
expressions. In Studies 2, 4-6 we used verbal, written messages (both as part of a fictional
scenario in Studies 2 and 5, and as a seemingly real message from another participant in
Study 6). Study 3 utilized both verbal and nonverbal (e.g., posture, eye contact)
communication to convey indifference. The consistent effects we observed across these
different operationalizations are in line with theoretical arguments (Van Kleef, 2017) and an
extensive review of the literature (Van Kleef & Côté, in press) indicating that the social
effects of emotions are “functionally equivalent” across expressive modalities in that the
effects of emotional expressions emitted through different expressive channels (e.g., face,
voice, body, words) are similar in direction (although not necessarily magnitude).
Finally, our findings have applied relevance. The current results demonstrate the stark
contrast between lay perceptions regarding the use of indifference expressions as strategically
functional (conveying a ‘poker face’; Thompson et al., 2001), further evidenced in Study 1,
and their influence on actual outcomes. In expressing indifference, individuals may wish to
INDIFFERENCE EXPRESSIONS IN CONFLICT 63
relay a calm, powerful, and controlled appearance in order to extract cooperation and gain
value, but our data indicate that expressing indifference has adverse consequences. Our
findings could potentially be used to inform practitioners, instructors, and consultants in
fields such as negotiation, conflict resolution, and mediation, to discuss the detriments of
indifference expressions and caution against providing such advice.
Limitations and Future Research
Our research is not without limitations, which can be used to inform future research
directions. First, a number of limitations are associated with the context of conflict we used.
Our findings evidence consistent effects across different work-related settings, suggesting the
findings may generalize to small-scale interpersonal conflicts in non-close relationships.
However, we did not consider close relationship conflicts here, and can therefore not know
whether our findings generalize to such settings. This should therefore be explored more
widely in future work. Furthermore, our studies were conducted online and in a controlled lab
setting, with indifference expressed by a stranger in the context of a new relationship.
Consequently, we did not not account for the richness of many real-life conflicts in terms of
content or history. Future work should expand the scope in various possible directions,
including high-stake intergroup conflicts and close relationships. Extreme conflict situations
are conducive to extreme and often unique attitudes, emotions, and behaviors (Bar-Tal, 2013;
Halperin & Reifen-Tagar, 2017), and they often involve parties with asymmetrical power
(Saguy et al., 2009). It is possible that in such extreme settings, indifference expressions elicit
different responses. Another future direction concerns the comparative strength of inferential
(vs. affective) responses as a function of the type of conflict. It stands to reason that in close
relationships, the importance of perceived regard and emotional investment (Butler &
Randall, 2012; Reis, 2014; Rusbult & Buunk, 1993) may increase the indirect effect of
indifference expressions through negative affective responses (vs. inferential responses), and
INDIFFERENCE EXPRESSIONS IN CONFLICT 64
particularly those related to low relational value and unreciprocated responsiveness and care,
such as hurt and disappointment.
Second, our samples were made up mostly of WEIRD participants (Western,
Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic; Henrich et al., 2010). Although Study 3
included a more diverse sample of participants in terms of cultural background, we did not
account for cultural differences, which was beyond the scope of this paper. It is possible that,
similarly to other emotions and emotional expressions, indifference too holds different
meanings in different cultures (Cordaro et al., 2018), which could potentially change the
effects. Relatedly, it is vital to probe further potential moderators of the adverse effects of
indifference expressions. We found an interaction effect of explicit cooperation expressions
(which substantiated our hypothesized mechanism of expected collaboration). However,
additional moderators such as personality traits (Bono et al., 2002) and conflict stage
(Kriesberg, 2003) may serve as important boundary conditions, which may lead to varying
effects of indifference expressions on cooperation. Our effects may also be limited to
situations where observers of the indifference expression see a way out of the conflict. Being
forced to reach an agreement might increase concessions in response to expressions of
indifference precisely because these suggest that the other will not make a concession. On the
other hand, there may be contexts in which indifference expressions may convey a lack of
preference that could be welcomed by observers, since it means that they are free to
implement their preferred solution with no regard for the counterparty’s preferences. One
possibility is that indifference expressions would be welcomed by observers in situations in
which no active cooperation from the expresser is required in order for the target to attain
their goals. On the other hand, a low-power party in an asymmetrical conflict (Coleman,
2014) may perceive the other side’s indifference as a resource (Nadler & Shnabel, 2015;
Noor et al., 2012) to gain more value and control undisturbed.
INDIFFERENCE EXPRESSIONS IN CONFLICT 65
Third, it would be interesting to connect the present findings with adjacent literatures
in future research. One possibility is to examine the association and effects of indifference
expressions with related constructs such as emotional suppression (Gross, 2008).
Experiencing indifference would not involve an emotional response in the first place (or a
very limited response), and its expression is targeted at another person rather than changing
one’s own emotional experience. However, in light of previous work (Butler et al., 2003;
Gross, 2002; Uchino et al., 1996) showing the importance of emotional cues indicating social
support, it would be interesting to compare the effects of emotional suppression to explicit
expressions of indifference on attitudes and social responses in observers. Relatedly, our
dependent variables of cooperation leave room for future development. In this research we
examined conflict contexts in which parties could not walk away without costs to both sides
(leading to a negative BATNA, or a WATNA; Worst Alternative To A Negotiated
Agreement; Brett, 2014, 2017). However, none of our studies presented extremely
consequential outcomes to participants themselves. It will be important to study the influence
of potential negative consequences to establish the generalizability and possible boundary
conditions of our results. For instance, future work could tease apart different types of non-
cooperation outcomes, which could include disengagement, competing or forcing strategies,
and punishment (covert or overt retaliation). This would contribute to an understanding of the
underlying reason(s) for choosing to dissolve the relationship, which may be to simply not be
in contact with the other person anymore (pure avoidance), to punish them, or both.
Lastly, although we found indifference expressions to be detrimental to cooperation
and conflict resolution, we did not examine ways in which these negative effects can be
overcome. Future work should investigate ways to counter the effects of indifference
expressions, both in the lab and in the field. This is particularly important in light of our
finding that the use of indifference expressions, although harmful in social conflict, is not
INDIFFERENCE EXPRESSIONS IN CONFLICT 66
uncommon. One possible approach to counteracting the harmful effects of indifference
expressions is suggested by Studies 5 and 6, in which the negative effect of indifference
expressions was weakened when explicit cooperation intentions were relayed. A more direct
approach would be to instruct negotiators to refrain from expressing indifference in the first
place, or at least to make them aware of the possible disadvantages of indifference
expressions.
Conclusion
Although people may perceive expressing indifference as conveying a neutral
message in social conflict, our research indicates that indifference expressions jeopardize
conflict resolution by diminishing cooperation in targets. Indifference expressions fueled
inferential judgements (reduced expected collaboration; Studies 2-5) and affective reactions
(coded negative affect, self-reported negative emotion, and heart rate variability; Studies 2
and 3) in counterparts that may stand in the way of constructive conflict management.
Inferential processes, in particular, accounted for the observed detrimental effects of
indifference expressions on cooperation. Overall, our results demonstrate that, rather than
giving expressers an edge, expressions of indifference constitute a potential barrier to the
successful resolution of social conflict.
INDIFFERENCE EXPRESSIONS IN CONFLICT 67
References
Aaldering, H., Greer, L. L., Van Kleef, G. A., & De Dreu, C. K. (2013). Interest
(mis)alignments in representative negotiations: Do pro-social agents fuel or reduce
inter-group conflict?. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 120,
240-250.
Abbasi, I. S., & Alghamdi, N. G. (2017). Polarized couples in therapy: Recognizing
indifference as the opposite of love. Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 43, 40-48.
Acharya, U. R., Joseph, K. P., Kannathal, N., Lim, C. M., & Suri, J. S. (2006). Heart rate
variability: a review. Medical and Biological Engineering and Computing, 44, 1031-
1051.
Adam, H., & Brett, J. M. (2015). Context matters: The social effects of anger in cooperative,
balanced, and competitive negotiation situations. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 61, 44-58.
Ackerman, A., & Puglisi, B. (2012). The emotion thesaurus: A writer’s guide to character
expression. CreateSpace
Andreasen, N. C. (1989). The Scale for the Assessment of Negative Symptoms (SANS):
conceptual and theoretical foundations. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 155, 49-52.
Appelhans, B. M., & Luecken, L. J. (2006). Heart rate variability as an index of regulated
emotional responding. Review of General Psychology, 10, 229-240.
Barry, R. A., Lawrence, E., & Langer, A. (2008). Conceptualization and assessment of
disengagement in romantic relationships. Personal Relationships, 15, 297–315.
Barry, B. (1999). The tactical use of emotion in negotiation. Research on Negotiation in
Organizations, 7, 93-121.
Bar-Tal, D. (2013). Intractable conflicts: Socio-psychological foundations and dynamics.
Cambridge University Press.
INDIFFERENCE EXPRESSIONS IN CONFLICT 68
Behfar, K. J., Peterson, R. S., Mannix, E. A., & Trochim, W. M. (2008). The critical role of
conflict resolution in teams: A close look at the links between conflict type, conflict
management strategies, and team outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 170-
188.
Bono, J. E., Boles, T. L., Judge, T. A., & Lauver, K. J. (2002). The role of personality in task
and relationship conflict. Journal of Personality, 70, 311-344.
Brett, J. M. (2017). Culture and negotiation strategy. Journal of Business and Industrial
Marketing, 32, 587-590.
Brett, J. M. (2014). Negotiating Globally: How to Negotiate Deals, Resolve Disputes, and
Make Decisions Across Cultural Boundaries (3rd Edition). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Brett, J., & Thompson, L. (2016). Negotiation. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 136, 68-79.
Brett, J. M., & Gelfand, M. J. (2007). At your service. In J. M. Brett (Ed.), Negotiation,
teamwork, and decision making exercises (pg. 12). Evanston, IL: Northwestern
University, Kellogg School of Management, Dispute Resolution Research Center.
Burr, R. L., & Cowan, M. J. (1992). Autoregressive spectral models of heart rate variability:
Practical issues. Journal of Electrocardiology, 25, 224-233.
Butler, E. A., Egloff, B., Wlhelm, F. H., Smith, N. C., Erickson, E. A., & Gross, J. J. (2003).
The social consequences of expressive suppression. Emotion, 3, 48-67.
Cavallo, J. V., & Holmes, J. G. (2013). The importance of feeling valued: Perceived regard in
romantic relationships. In C. N. DeWall (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of social
exclusion (pp. 91–100). Oxford University Press.
Chen, G., & Tjosvold, D. (2002). Cooperative goals and constructive controversy for
promoting innovation in student groups in China. Journal of Education for
Business, 78, 46-50.
INDIFFERENCE EXPRESSIONS IN CONFLICT 69
Cohen-Chen, S., Pliskin, R., & Goldenberg, A. (2020). Feel Good or Do Good? A Valence–
Function Framework for Understanding Emotions. Current Directions in Psychological
Science, 29, 388-393.
Cohen-Chen, S., Van Kleef, G. A., Crisp, R. J., & Halperin, E. (2019). Dealing in hope: Does
observing hope expressions increase conciliatory attitudes in intergroup
conflict? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 83, 102-111.
Cohen-Chen, S., Crisp, R. J., & Halperin, E. (2017). Hope comes in many forms: Out-group
expressions of hope override low support and promote reconciliation in
conflicts. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8, 153-161.
Cohen-Chen, S., Brady, G. L., Massaro, S., & van Kleef, G. (2021, December 10). Meh,
Whatever: The Effects of Indifference Expressions on Cooperation in Social Conflict.
Retrieved from osf.io/jrxkw
Coleman, P. T. (2014). Power and conflict. In P. T. Coleman, M. Deutsch, & E. C. Marcus
(Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution: Theory and practice (pp. 137–167). Jossey-
Bass/Wiley.
Cook, R. D. (1977). Detection of influential observation in linear regression. Technometrics,
19, 15-18.
Cooley, E., Payne, B. K., Cipolli III, W., Cameron, C. D., Berger, A., & Gray, K. (2017). The
paradox of group mind:“People in a group” have more mind than “a group of
people”. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 146, 691-699.
Cordaro, D. T., Sun, R., Keltner, D., Kamble, S., Huddar, N., & McNeil, G. (2018).
Universals and cultural variations in 22 emotional expressions across five
cultures. Emotion, 18, 75-93.
Dael, N., Mortillaro, M., & Scherer, K. R. (2012). Emotion expression in body action and
posture. Emotion, 12, 1085-1101.
INDIFFERENCE EXPRESSIONS IN CONFLICT 70
De Dreu, C. K., Evers, A., Beersma, B., Kluwer, E. S., & Nauta, A. (2001). A theory‐based
measure of conflict management strategies in the workplace. Journal of Organizational
Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational
Psychology and Behavior, 22, 645-668.
De Dreu, C. K., & Van Vianen, A. E. (2001). Managing relationship conflict and the
effectiveness of organizational teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior: The
International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and Organizational Psychology and
Behavior, 22, 309-328.
De Rivera, J., & Paez, D. (Eds.). (2007). Emotional climate, human security, and culture of
peace. Journal of Social Issues, 63, 233-253.
Deutsch, M. (1949). A theory of cooperation and competition. Human Relations, 2, 199–231.
Deutsch, M. (1958). Trust and suspicion. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2, 265-279.
Drago, V., Foster, P. S., Chanei, L., Rembisz, J., Meador, K., Finney, G., & Heilman, K. M.
(2010). Emotional indifference in Alzheimer’s disease. The Journal of Neuropsychiatry
and Clinical Neurosciences, 22, 236-242.
Drolet, A. L., & Morris, M. W. (2000). Rapport in conflict resolution: Accounting for how
face-to-face contact fosters mutual cooperation in mixed-motive conflicts. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 26-50.
Ekman, P., & Friesen, W. V. (1969). Nonverbal leakage and clues to deception. Psychiatry,
32, 88-106.
Ellsworth, P. C. (2013). Appraisal theory: Old and new questions. Emotion Review, 5, 125-
131.
Ellsworth, P. C., & Scherer, K. R. (2003). Appraisal processes in emotion. Oxford University
Press.
INDIFFERENCE EXPRESSIONS IN CONFLICT 71
Emerson, R. M. (1962). Power-dependence relations. American Sociological Review, 31-41.
Epley, N., & Waytz, A. (2010). Mind perception. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey
(Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 498–541). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Falk, A., Kosse, F., Menrath, I., Verde, P. E., & Siegrist, J. (2018). Unfair pay and
health. Management Science, 64, 1477-1488.
Fischer, A., & Giner-Sorolla, R. (2016). Contempt: Derogating others while keeping
calm. Emotion Review, 8, 346-357.
Fischer, A. H., & Manstead, A. S. (2016). Social functions of emotion and emotion
regulation. Handbook of Emotions, 4, 424-439.
Fisher, R. J. (1990). The social psychology of intergroup and international conflict
resolution. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag Publishing.
Fredrickson, B. L., Mancuso, R. A., Branigan, C., & Tugade, M. M. (2000). The undoing
effect of positive emotions. Motivation and Emotion, 24, 237-258.
Fridlund, A. J. (1994). Human facial expression: An evolutionary view. San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
Frijda, N. H. (1986). The emotions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Frijda, N. H., & Mesquita, B. (1994). The social roles and functions of emotions. In S.
Kitayama & H. R. Markus (Eds.), Emotion and culture: Empirical studies of mutual
influence (p. 51–87). American Psychological Association.
Galinsky, A. D., Schaerer, M., & Magee, J. C. (2017). The four horsemen of power at the
bargaining table. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing, 32, 606-611.
Galinsky, A. D., Ku, G., & Mussweiler, T. (2009). To start low or to start high? The case of
auctions versus negotiations. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 357-361.
Gasper, K. (2018). Utilizing neutral affective states in research: theory, assessment, and
INDIFFERENCE EXPRESSIONS IN CONFLICT 72
recommendations. Emotion Review, 10, 255-266.
Gelfand, M. J., Brett, J., Gunia, B. C., Imai, L., Huang, T.-J., & Hsu, B.-F. (2013). Toward a
culture-by-context perspective on negotiation: Negotiating teams in the United States
and Taiwan. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98, 504–513.
Giner-Sorolla, R. (2018, January 24). Powering Your Interaction. Approaching Significance.
https://approachingblog.wordpress.com/2018/01/24/powering-your-interaction-2/
Goh, J. X., Hall, J. A., & Rosenthal, R. (2016). Mini meta‐analysis of your own studies:
Some arguments on why and a primer on how. Social and Personality Psychology
Compass, 10, 535-549.
Grant, A. M. (2007). Relational job design and the motivation to make a prosocial
difference. Academy of Management Review, 32, 393-417.
Grant, S. S., Magruder, K. P., & Friedman, B. H. (2018). Controlling for caffeine in
cardiovascular research: a critical review. International Journal of
Psychophysiology, 133, 193-201.
Gray, H. M., Gray, K., & Wegner, D. M. (2007). Dimensions of mind perception, Science,
315, 619-619.
Gray, K., Young, L., & Waytz, A. (2012). Mind perception is the essence of morality.
Psychological Inquiry, 23, 101-124.
Gross, J. J. (2008). Emotion regulation. Handbook of Emotions, 3, 497-513.
Gross, J. J. (2002). Emotion regulation: Affective, cognitive, and social consequences.
Psychophysiology, 39, 281-291.
Gustafsson, F., & Hjalmarsson, H. (1995). Twenty-one ML estimators for model selection.
Automatica, 31, 1377-1392.
Halperin, E. (2015). Emotions in conflict: Inhibitors and facilitators of peace making.
Routledge.
INDIFFERENCE EXPRESSIONS IN CONFLICT 73
Halperin, E., & Reifen-Tagar, M. R. (2017). Emotions in conflicts: Understanding emotional
processes sheds light on the nature and potential resolution of intractable
conflicts. Current Opinion inPpsychology, 17, 94-98.
Hareli, S., & Rafaeli, A. (2008). Emotion cycles: On the social influence of emotion in
organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 35-59.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). An introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process
analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press.
Heilman, K. M., Schwartz, H. D., & Watson, R. T. (1978). Hypoarousal in patients with the
neglect syndrome and emotional indifference. Neurology, 28, 229-229.
Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). Most people are not WEIRD. Nature,
466, 29-29.
Homan, A. C., Van Kleef, G. A., & Sanchez-Burks, J. (2016). Team members' emotional
displays as indicators of team functioning. Cognition and Emotion, 30, 134-149.
Howell, D. C., Rogier, M., Yzerbyt, V., & Bestgen, Y. (1998). Statistical methods in human
sciences. New York: Wadsworth.
Hymel, S., Rocke-Henderson, N., & Bonanno, R. A. (2005). Moral disengagement: A
framework for understanding bullying among adolescents. Journal of Social
Sciences, 8, 1-11.
Jarymowicz, M., & Bar-Tal, D. (2006).The dominance of fear over hope in the life of
individuals and collectives. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 367-392.
Jaywant, A., & Pell, M. D (2010). Listener impressions of speakers with Parkinson's
disease. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society 16, 49-57.
INDIFFERENCE EXPRESSIONS IN CONFLICT 74
Jensen, L. A., Arnett, J. J., Feldman, S. S., & Cauffman, E. (2002). It's wrong, but everybody
does it: Academic dishonesty among high school and college students. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 27, 209-228.
Kelman, H.C. (1997). Some determinants of the Oslo breakthrough. International
Negotiation, 2, 183–194.
Kelman, H. C. (2007). The Israeli-Palestinian peace process and its vicissitudes: Insights
from attitude theory. American Psychologist, 62, 287-303.
Keltner, D., & Haidt, J. (1999). Social functions of emotions at four levels of analysis.
Cognition & Emotion, 13, 505-521.
Kim, P. H., Pinkley, R. L., & Fragale, A. R. (2005). Power dynamics in negotiation. Academy
of Management Review, 30, 799-822.
Kleinsmith, A., & Bianchi-Berthouze, N. (2007, September). Recognizing affective
dimensions from body posture. In International conference on affective computing and
intelligent interaction (pp. 48-58). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
Kopelman, S., Rosette, A. S., & Thompson, L. (2006). The three faces of Eve: Strategic
displays of positive, negative, and neutral emotions in negotiations. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99, 81-101.
Kriesberg, L. (2003). Constructive conflicts: From escalation to resolution (2nd ed.).
Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Laborde, S., Mosley, E., & Thayer, J. F. (2017). Heart rate variability and cardiac vagal tone
in psychophysiological research–recommendations for experiment planning, data
analysis, and data reporting. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 213.
INDIFFERENCE EXPRESSIONS IN CONFLICT 75
Lazarus, R. S. (1999). Hope: An emotion and a vital coping resource against despair. Social
Research, 66, 653-678.
Lelieveld, G. J., Van Dijk, E., Van Beest, I., & Van Kleef, G. A. (2013). Does
communicating disappointment in negotiations help or hurt? Solving an apparent
inconsistency in the social-functional approach to emotions. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 105, 605-620.
Leys, C., Ley, C., Klein, O., Bernard, P., & Licata, L. (2013). Detecting outliers: Do not use
standard deviation around the mean, use absolute deviation around the median. Journal
of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 764-766.
Lindner, E. G. (2006). Emotion and conflict: Why it is important to understand how emotions
affect conflict and how conflict affects emotions. In M. Deutch, P.T. Coleman & E.C.
Marcus (Eds.), The handbook of conflict resolution (2nd ed., pp. 268-293). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Malhotra, D., & Bazerman, M. (2007). Negotiation genius: How to overcome obstacles and
achieve brilliant results at the bargaining table and beyond. Bantam.
Massaro, S., & Pecchia, L. (2019). Heart rate variability (HRV) analysis: A methodology for
organizational neuroscience. Organizational Research Methods, 22, 354-393.
Melwani, S., & Barsade, S. G. (2011). Held in contempt: The psychological, interpersonal,
and performance consequences of contempt in a work context. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 101, 503-520.
Methot, J. R., Melwani, S., & Rothman, N. B. (2017). The space between us: A social-
functional emotions view of ambivalent and indifferent workplace
relationships. Journal of Management, 43, 1789-1819.
Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2005). Attachment security, compassion, and
altruism. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 34-38.
INDIFFERENCE EXPRESSIONS IN CONFLICT 76
Mills, R. S. L., & Piotrowski, C. C. (2009). Haven in a heartless world? Hurt feelings in the
family. In A. L. Vangelisti (Ed.), Feeling hurt in close relationships (pp. 260–287).
New York, NY: Cambridge University Press
Nadler, A., & Shnabel, N. (2015). Intergroup reconciliation: Instrumental and socio-
emotional processes and the needs-based model. European Review of Social
Psychology, 26, 93-125.
Nash, J. (1950). The bargaining problem. Econometrica, 18, 155–162.
Nesse, R. M. (1999). The evolution of hope and despair. Journal of Social Research, 66, 429-
469.
Nierenberg, G. I. (1968). The art of negotiating. New York: Barnes & Noble Books.
Noor, M., Shnabel, N., Halabi, S., & Nadler, A. (2012). When suffering begets suffering: The
psychology of competitive victimhood between adversarial groups in violent
conflicts. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16, 351-374.
Opbroek, A., Delgado, P. L., Laukes, C., McGahuey, C., Katsanis, J., Moreno, F. A., &
Manber, R. (2002). Emotional blunting associated with SSRI-induced sexual
dysfunction. Do SSRIs inhibit emotional responses?. International Journal of
Neuropsychopharmacology, 5, 147-151.
Overall, N. C., Fletcher, G. J. O., & Simpson, J. A. (2006). Regulation processes in intimate
relationships: The role of ideal standards. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 91, 662–685.
Overall, N. C., Fletcher, G. J. O., Simpson, J. A., & Sibley, C. G. (2009). Regulating partners
in intimate relationships: The costs and benefits of different communication
strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 620–639.
Parkinson, B. (1996). Emotions are social. British Journal of Psychology, 87, 663-683.
Pichon, A., Roulaud, M., Antoine-Jonville, S., de Bisschop, C., & Denjean, A. (2006).
Spectral analysis of heart rate variability: interchangeability between autoregressive
INDIFFERENCE EXPRESSIONS IN CONFLICT 77
analysis and fast Fourier transform. Journal of Electrocardiology, 39, 31-37.
Price, J., Cole, V., & Goodwin, G. M. (2009). Emotional side-effects of selective serotonin
reuptake inhibitors: qualitative study. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 195, 211-217.
Pruitt, D. G., & Carnevale, P. J. (1993). Negotiation in social conflict. Buckingham, England:
Open University Press.
Pruitt, D. G., & Rubin, J. Z. (1986). Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate, settlement. New
York: Random House
Quintana, D. S. (2017). Statistical considerations for reporting and planning heart rate
variability case‐control studies. Psychophysiology, 54, 344-349.
Quintana, D. S., Guastella, A. J., McGregor, I. S., Hickie, I. B., & Kemp, A. H. (2013).
Moderate alcohol intake is related to increased heart rate variability in young adults:
Implications for health and well‐being. Psychophysiology, 50(12), 1202-1208.
Rai, T. S., & Diermeier, D. (2015). Corporations are cyborgs: Organizations elicit anger but
not sympathy when they can think but cannot feel. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 126, 18-26.
Raiffa, H. (1982). The art and science of negotiation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Reis, H. T. (2014). Responsiveness: Affective interdependence in close relationships. In M.
Mikulincer & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Mechanisms of social connection: From brain to
group (pp. 255–271). American Psychological Association.
Riskind, J. H. (1984). They stoop to conquer: guiding and self-regulatory functions of
physical posture after success and failure. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 47, 479-493.
Rothman, N. B., & Northcraft, G. B. (2015). Unlocking integrative potential: Expressed
emotional ambivalence and negotiation outcomes. Organizational Behavior and
INDIFFERENCE EXPRESSIONS IN CONFLICT 78
Human Decision Processes, 126, 65-76.
Rubin, J. Z., Pruitt, D. G., & Kim, S. H. (1994). Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate, and
settlement (2nd ed.). Mcgraw-Hill Book Company.
Rusbult, C. E., & Buunk, B. P. (1993). Commitment processes in close relationships: An
interdependence analysis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 175-204.
Saguy, T., Tausch, N., Dovidio, J. F., & Pratto, F. (2009). The irony of harmony intergroup
contact can produce false expectations for equality. Psychological Science, 20, 114-
121.
Salem, J. E., & Kring, A. M. (1999). Flat affect and social skills in schizophrenia: evidence
for their independence. Psychiatry Research, 87, 159-167.
Sallfors, C., Fasth, A., & Hallberg, M. (2002).Oscillating between hope and despair: A
qualitative study. Child Care, Health and Development, 28, 495-505.
Sansone, R. A., & Sansone, L. A. (2010). SSRI-induced indifference. Psychiatry
(Edgmont), 7, 14-18.
Schneider, K. G., Hempel, R. J., & Lynch, T. R. (2013). That “poker face” just might lose
you the game! The impact of expressive suppression and mimicry on sensitivity to
facial expressions of emotion. Emotion, 13, 852-866.
Schweinsberg, M., Ku, G., Wang, C. S., & Pillutla, M. M. (2012). Starting high and ending
with nothing: The role of anchors and power in negotiations. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 48, 226-231.
Scherer, K. R. (1999). Appraisal theory. In T. Dalgleish & M. J. Power (Eds.), Handbook of
cognition and emotion (p. 637–663). John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
INDIFFERENCE EXPRESSIONS IN CONFLICT 79
Scherer, K. R. (1989). Vocal correlates of emotional arousal and affective disturbance. In H.
Wagner & A. Manstead (Eds.), Wiley handbooks of psychophysiology. Handbook of
Social Psychophysiology (p. 165–197). John Wiley & Sons.
Schroeder, J., Risen, J. L., Gino, F., & Norton, M. I. (2019). Handshaking promotes deal-
making by signaling cooperative intent. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 116, 743-768.
Seidl, U., Lueken, U., Thomann, P. A., Kruse, A., & Schröder, J. (2012). Facial expression in
Alzheimer’s disease: impact of cognitive deficits and neuropsychiatric
symptoms. American Journal of Alzheimer's Disease & Other Dementias, 27, 100-106.
Shaffer, F., & Ginsberg, J. P. (2017). An overview of heart rate variability metrics and
norms. Frontiers in Public Health, 5, 258.
Sherif, M., & Sherif, C.W. (1953). Groups in harmony and tension. New York, NY: Harper
and Brothers.
Sherif, M., White, B. J. & Harvey, O. J. (1955). Status in experimentally produced
groups, American Journal of Sociology, 60, 370-379.
Shaver, P. R., Mikulincer, M., Lavy, S., & Cassidy, J. (2009). Understanding and altering
hurt feelings: An attachment-theoretical perspective on the generation and regulation of
emotions. In A. L. Vangelisti (Ed), Feeling hurt in close relationships (pp. 92-119),
Cambridge University Press.
Sinaceur, M., Kopelman, S., Vasiljevic, D., & Haag, C. (2015). Weep and get more: When
and why sadness expression is effective in negotiations. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 100, 1847-1871.
Sinaceur, M., & Tiedens, L. Z. (2006). Get mad and get more than even: When and why
anger expression is effective in negotiations. Journal of Experimental Social
INDIFFERENCE EXPRESSIONS IN CONFLICT 80
Psychology, 42, 314-322.
Sinaceur, M., Van Kleef, G. A., Neale, M. A., Adam, H., & Haag, C. (2011). Hot or cold: Is
communicating anger or threats more effective in negotiation? Journal of Applied
Psychology, 96, 1018-1032.
Sjoberg, N. & Saint, D. A. (2011). A single 4 mg dose of nicotine decreases heart rate
variability in healthy nonsmokers: implications for smoking cessation
programs. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 13, 369-372.
Skitka, L. J., Bauman, C. W., Aramovich, N. P., & Morgan, G. S. (2006). Confrontational
and preventative policy responses to terrorism: Anger wants a fight and fear wants"
them" to go away. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 28, 375-384.
Smith, C. A., & Lazarus, R. S. (1993). Appraisal components, core relational themes, and the
emotions. Cognition & Emotion, 7, 233-269.
Smith, T. W., Cribbet, M. R., Nealey-Moore, J. B., Uchino, B. N., Williams, P. G.,
MacKenzie, J., & Thayer, J. F. (2011). Matters of the variable heart: Respiratory sinus
arrhythmia response to marital interaction and associations with marital
quality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 103-119.
Susskind, L., & Cruikshank, J. (1987). Breaking the impasse: Consensual approaches to
resolving public disputes. New York: Basic Books.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G.
Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-48).
Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Tarvainen, M. P., Ranta-Aho, P. O., & Karjalainen, P. A. (2002). An advanced detrending
method with application to HRV analysis. IEEE Transactions on Biomedical
Engineering, 49, 172-175.
INDIFFERENCE EXPRESSIONS IN CONFLICT 81
Thayer, J. F., & Lane, R. D. (2000). A model of neurovisceral integration in emotion
regulation and dysregulation. Journal of Affective Disorders, 61, 201-216.
Thompson, L., Medvec, V. H., Seiden, V., & Kopelman, S. (2001). Poker face, smiley face,
and rant ’n’ rave: Myths and realities about emotion in negotiation. In M. Hogg & S.
Tindal (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Group processes (pp. 139–
163). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Tjosvold, D. (2008). The conflict‐positive organization: It depends upon us. Journal of
Organizational Behavior: The International Journal of Industrial, Occupational and
Organizational Psychology and Behavior, 29, 19-28.
Truesdale, D. M., & Pell, M. D. (2018). The sound of passion and indifference. Speech
Communication, 99, 124-134.
Tuncel, E., Mislin, A., Kesebir, S., & Pinkley, R. L. (2016). Agreement attraction and
impasse aversion: Reasons for selecting a poor deal over no deal at all. Psychological
Science, 27, 312-321.
Uchino, B. N., Cacioppo, J. T., & Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K. (1996). The relationship between
social support and physiological processes: a review with emphasis on underlying
mechanisms and implications for health. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 488-531.
Vangelisti, A. L., Maguire, K. D., Alexander, A. L., & Clark, G. (2007). Hurtful family
environments: Links with individual, relationship, and perceptual variables.
Communication Monographs, 74, 357–385.
Van Kleef, G. A. (2009). How emotions regulate social life the emotions as social
information (EASI) model. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 184-188.
Van Kleef, G. A. (2016). The interpersonal dynamics of emotion: Toward an integrative
theory of emotions as social information. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Van Kleef, G. A. (2017). The social effects of emotions are functionally equivalent across
INDIFFERENCE EXPRESSIONS IN CONFLICT 82
expressive modalities. Psychological Inquiry, 28, 211-216.
Van Kleef, G. A., & Côté, S. (2007). Expressing anger in conflict: When it helps and when it
hurts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1557-1569.
Van Kleef, G. A., & Côté, S. (2018). Emotional dynamics in conflict and negotiation:
Individual, dyadic, and group processes. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology
and Organizational Behavior, 5, 437-464.
Van Kleef, G. A., & Côté, S. (in press). The social effects of emotions. Annual Review of
Psychology, 73.
Van Kleef, G. A., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Manstead, A. S. R. (2004). The interpersonal effects
of anger and happiness in negotiations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
86, 57-76.
Van Kleef, G. A., De Dreu, C. K., & Manstead, A. S. (2006). Supplication and appeasement
in conflict and negotiation: The interpersonal effects of disappointment, worry, guilt,
and regret. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 124-142.
Wagner, H. L. (2000). The accessibility of the term “contempt” and the meaning of the
unilateral lip curl. Cognition & Emotion, 14, 689-710.
Wang, L., Northcraft, G. B., & Van Kleef, G. A. (2012). Beyond negotiated outcomes: The
hidden costs of anger expression in dyadic negotiation. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 119, 54-63.
Wegner, D. M. (2002). The illusion of conscious will. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Zelenski, J. M., & Larsen, R. J. (2000). The distribution of basic emotions in everyday life: A
state and trait perspective from experience sampling data. Journal of Research in
Personality, 34, 178-197.
INDIFFERENCE EXPRESSIONS IN CONFLICT 83
Funding statement: This research was supported by the Negotiation and Team Resources
Institute in an NTR-Peterson Grant 2018 awarded to the first author.
A preview of this full-text is provided by American Psychological Association.
Content available from Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.