Emotional reactions in non-human animals and social-functional theories of emotion

The debate about animal emotions relies heavily on empirical evidence, which is often open to multiple interpretations. This ambiguity allows researchers at either end of the spectrum to perceive support for their positions in study results. Thus, evidence reported by Cook and colleagues (2018) – that dogs’ trait aggression is associated with their amygdala activation when watching their caregivers feed a fake dog – may be interpreted by some as neural evidence for jealousy in dogs and by others as an artefact of the study design. I argue that the discussion should be complemented with a greater consideration of theoretical arguments about the (social) functions of emotions. Theory and research on the intrapersonal and interpersonal effects of emotions are consistent with the hypothesis that various non-human social animals can experience and communicate emotions, although the labeling of these emotions is not self-evident

Animals may be more reliably emotional than humans

Despite considerable advances in the study of animal sentience, reluctance to credit non-human animals with emotional capacities persists. I argue that this reluctance is untenable in light of (evolutionary) theory and empirical evidence. Humans may differ from animals in their ability to reflect on, reason about, and deliberately regulate their emotions. If anything, however, this implies animals’ emotional displays provide a more valid and reliable window into their internal states than do humans’, whose displays may be strategically altered. Any signs of pleasure or distress thus constitute direct readouts of animal wellbeing. It is time we start treating animals accordingly

Get Angry, Get Out: The Interpersonal Effects of Anger Communication in Multiparty Negotiation

Research on multiparty negotiation has investigated how parties form coalitions to secure payoffs but has not addressed how emotions may affect such coalition decisions. Extending research on bilateral negotiations which has generally argued that it is beneficial to communicate anger, we argue that it constitutes a considerable risk when there are more than two people present at the negotiation table. Using a computer-mediated coalition game we show that communicating anger is a risky strategy in multiparty bargaining. The main findings of three studies were that participants: (1) form negative impressions of players who communicate anger and therefore (2) exclude such players from coalitions and from obtaining a payoff share, but (3) make considerable concessions on those rare occasions that they choose to form a coalition with an angry player, or (4) when they had to form a coalition with an angry player. We discuss the implications of these results for theorizing on emotions, negotiations, and coalition formation

When (not) to empathize:The differential effects of combined emotion recognition and empathic concern on client satisfaction across professions

Previous research found inconsistent associations between individuals’ emotion recognition ability and their work-related outcomes. This research project focuses on client satisfaction as a core work-related outcome. We argue that service settings differentially affect clients’ emotional goals, activating either socio-affective goals or goals targeting cognitive clarity. In service settings activating clients’ socio-affective goals, clients are expected to respond favorably if service providers combine emotion recognition with high empathic concern; in service settings activating clients’ cognitive clarity goals, clients are expected to respond more favorably if service providers combine emotion recognition with low empathic concern. Study 1 confirmed that service settings differentially affect clients’ emotional goals, with hairdressing settings activating socio-affective goals and psychotherapy settings triggering cognitive clarity goals. Accordingly, hairdressing clients were more satisfied if service providers combined emotion-recognition ability with high trait empathic concern (Study 2). Conversely, in the context of psychotherapy, clients were more satisfied if therapists’ combined emotion-recognition ability with low trait empathic concern (Study 3). Thus, service contexts moderate the effect of affective responses to clients’ emotional signals in a predictable manner

Emotional reactions to deviance in groups: the relation between number of angry reactions, felt rejection, and conformity

How many members of a group need to express their anger in order to influence a deviant group member's behavior? In two studies, we examine whether an increase in number of angry group members affects the extent to which a deviant individual feels rejected, and we investigate downstream effects on conformity. We show that each additional angry reaction linearly increases the extent to which a deviant individual feels rejected, and that this relation is independent of the total number of majority members (Study 1). This felt rejection is then shown to lead to anti-conformity unless two conditions are met: (1) the deviant is motivated to seek reacceptance in the group, and (2) conformity is instrumental in gaining reacceptance because it is observable by the majority (Study 2). These findings show that angry reactions are likely to trigger anti-conformity in a deviant, but they are also consistent with a motivational account of conformity, in which conformity is strategic behavior aimed at gaining reacceptance from the group

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

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

Group Member Prototypicality and Intergroup Negotiation: How One's Standing in the Group Affects Negotiation Behaviour

How does a representative's position in the group influence behaviour in intergroup negotiation? Applying insights from the social identity approach (specifically self-categorization theory), the effects of group member prototypicality, accountability, and group attractiveness on competitiveness in intergroup bargaining were examined. As representatives of their group, participants engaged in a computer-mediated negotiation with a simulated outgroup opponent. In Exp. 1 (N = 114), representatives with a peripheral status in the group sent more competitive and fewer cooperative messages to the opponent than did prototypical representatives, but only under accountability. Exp. 2 (N = 110) replicated this finding, and showed that, under accountability, peripherals also made higher demands than did prototypicals, but only when group membership was perceived as attractive. Results are discussed in relation to impression management and strategic behaviour

What other's disappointment may do to selfish people: Emotion and social value orientation in a negotiation context

The authors examined whether individual differences in social value orientation moderate responses to other’s expressions of disappointment in negotiation. The literature suggested competing hypotheses: First, prosocials are more responsive to other’s disappointment because they have a greater concern for other; second, proselfs are more responsive because they see other’s disappointment as a threat to their own outcomes. Results of a computer-mediated negotiation in which a simulated opponent expressed disappointment, no emotion, or anger supported the second prediction: Proselfs conceded more to a disappointed opponent than to a neutral or angry one, whereas prosocials were unaffected by the other’s emotion. This effect was mediated by participants’ motivation to satisfy the other’s needs, which disappointment triggered more strongly in proselfs than in prosocials. Implications for theorizing on emotion, social value orientation, and negotiation are discussed

On angry leaders and agreeable followers: How leaders' emotions and followers' personalities shape motivation and team performance.

Do followers perform better when their leader expresses anger or when their leader expresses happiness? We propose that this depends on the follower’s level of agreeableness. Anger is associated with hostility and conflict—states that are at odds with agreeable individuals’ goals. Happiness facilitates affiliation and positive relations—states that are in line with agreeable individuals’ goals. Accordingly, the two studies we conducted showed that agreeableness moderates the effects of a leader’s emotional displays. In a scenario study, participants with lower levels of agreeableness responded more favorably to an angry leader, whereas participants with higher levels of agreeableness responded more favorably to a neutral leader. In an experiment involving four-person teams, teams composed of participants with lower average levels of agreeableness performed better when their leader expressed anger, whereas teams composed of participants with higher average levels of agreeableness performed better when their leader expressed happiness. Team performance was mediated by experienced workload, which was highest among agreeable followers with an angry leader. Besides having important practical implications, the findings shed new light on the fundamental question of how emotional expressions regulate social behavior

Getting a Grip on the Grapevine: Extension and Factor Structure of the Motives to Gossip Questionnaire

Gossip is condemned but also ubiquitous and thought to be essential for groups. This triggers the question of which motives explain gossip behavior. Hitherto, negative influence, social enjoyment, group protection, and information gathering and validation are established as motives to gossip. However, venting emotions—discussed as a potentially important motive—has been overlooked empirically. Furthermore, a lack of consensus about a definition of gossip may have affected previous conclusions about gossip motives. This study (N = 460) expands the Motives to Gossip Questionnaire (MGQ; Beersma and Van Kleef, 2012) by including a subscale measuring emotion venting, the desire to share emotionally evocative experiences. To validate the five motives to gossip across definitions, we asked participants to report the most recent gossip event they experienced, randomly assigning them to one of three instructions containing different gossip definitions commonly used in the literature: (1) broad instructions (sharing information about third parties who have no knowledge of the exchanged information), (2) narrower instructions (adding that the shared information must be evaluative), and (3) instructions using the word gossip. After participants recalled and described a gossip event, they completed the 25-item measure of five motives to gossip: social enjoyment, information gathering and validation, negative influence, group protection, and emotion venting. Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed the five-factor structure. Multi-group confirmatory factor analysis supported full invariance across the three definition conditions. This indicates the Motives to Gossip Questionnaire successfully measures the five dimensions argued to motivate gossip and can be applied in research conceptualizing gossip both narrowly and broadly