Eric van Dijk’s research while affiliated with Leiden University and other places

The term enthusiasm is used frequently in both day-to-day language and professional settings. Scientifically, however, enthusiasm is not clearly defined. It is conceptualized and measured in different ways. In the present research, we examined the internal structure of enthusiasm. First, 28 features of enthusiasm were identified (Study 1.1) and rated on their centrality (Study 1.2). Results showed that features indicating joy and motivation were rated as central to the concept of enthusiasm, whereas features indicating restlessness and impatience were rated as less central. The validity of the central features was supported in three follow-up studies. More specifically, we found that the more central features were recalled better (Study 2.1), recognized faster (Study 2.2), and more often mentioned in autobiographical recalls of enthusiasm (Study 2.3). Taken together, the findings indicate that enthusiasm is prototypically structured, and that prototypical enthusiasm is a positive, energetic feeling that is associated with goal orientation and often involves interpersonal contact.

Enthusiasm is a relatively under-explored emotion. The current research explores the unique characteristics of enthusiasm by examining its cognitive appraisals (Study 1, N = 300) and response types (Study 2, N = 298) and comparing it with joy and hope. Participants in both studies recalled and rated events where they felt enthusiasm, joy, or hope. Study 1 revealed that enthusiasm occurs in pleasurable, intense situations linked to desired goals. More than joy, it is driven by goal-achievement anticipation. Compared to hope, enthusiasm is associated with more control, less uncertainty, and immediate relevance. Study 2 defines enthusiasm as a positive, energetic state marked by smiling, presence, fulfilment, and thoughts of positive outcomes. Compared to joy, it incites more eagerness, risk willingness, and inclination to join a movement. More than hope, it triggers immediate action without contemplation of negative outcomes. We conclude that enthusiasm is a positive, energetic condition often triggered by pleasurable, intense situations aligning with desired goals. It differs from joy and hope. Enthusiasm drives action when goals are attainable, and risks will likely pay off. Hope emerges when a goal is uncertain and distant. Joy typically follows goal accomplishment and is associated with feelings of connection and a desire to savour the moment.

Research has shown that negotiators sometimes misrepresent their emotions, and communicate a different emotion to opponents than they actually experience. Less is known about how people evaluate such negotiation tactics. Building on person perception literature, we investigated in three preregistered studies (N = 853) how participants evaluate negotiators who deceptively (vs. genuinely) communicate anger or happiness, on the dimensions of morality, sociability, and competence. Study 1 employed a buyer/seller setting, Studies 2 and 3 employed an Ultimatum Bargaining Game (UBG). In all studies, participants learned a negotiator’s (the target’s) experienced and communicated emotions (anger or happiness), before evaluating the target. Across studies, targets were evaluated lower on morality if they deceptively (vs. genuinely) communicated anger or happiness. Notably, negotiators deceptively communicating anger were evaluated lower on morality and sociability but higher on competence than those deceptively communicating happiness. Studies 2 and 3 investigated behavioral consequences by examining whether in a future negotiation participants chose the target to be their opponent or representative. Results showed that for opponents, participants preferred targets who genuinely communicated happiness (vs. anger), which was associated with their perceived morality or sociability. For representatives, participants not only preferred targets who had genuinely communicated happiness (vs. anger), but also targets who had deceptively communicated anger (vs. happiness), which was associated with their perceived competence. These findings show that when evaluating deceptive (vs. genuine) communication strategies, people distinguish between morality, sociability, and competence. The importance they attach to these dimensions is also contingent on the behavioral decisions they face.

In this article we investigate how being socially excluded (vs. included) affects people’s distributive fairness judgments and their willingness to cooperate with others in subsequent interactions. For this purpose, we conducted three experiments in which we assessed individual differences in having experienced being socially excluded (Experiment 1, N = 164), and manipulated social exclusion (Experiment 2, N = 120; Experiment 3, N = 492). We studied how this impacted fairness judgments of three different outcome distributions (disadvantageous inequality, advantageous inequality, and equality) both within-participants (Experiments 1 and 2) and between-participants (Experiment 3). To assess behavioural consequences, we then also assessed participants’ cooperation in a social dilemma game. Across the three experiments, we consistently found that social exclusion impacted fairness judgments. Compared to inclusion, excluded participants judged disadvantageous inequality as more unfair and advantageous inequality as less unfair. Moreover, compared to socially included participants, socially excluded participants were more willing to cooperate after experiencing advantageous rather than disadvantageous inequality, and feelings of acceptance served as a mediator in these associations.

Our field is witnessing a surging interest in understanding lived experiences of ostracism instead of experiences induced in experiments. How do researchers draw valid causal conclusions about naturally occurring experiences of ostracism without relying on experimental designs? In this article, we put forth that a critical first step is to clearly state the causal quantity researchers aim to estimate (known as the causal estimand). This step should precede any data analysis. Using an intuitive example, we illustrate why the default causal estimand (average treatment effect) does not necessarily align with the causal effect of substantive interest pertaining to lived ostracism. We further review a selection of causal estimands which are more suited to answer causal queries of lived ostracism. We believe that selecting a causal estimand carefully tailored to the research question enhances the rigor and precision of research studying ostracism as a naturally occurring phenomenon.