Blinded by Anger or Feeling the Love: How Emotions Influence Advice Taking

Across 2 experiments, the authors demonstrate that emotional states influence how receptive people are to advice. The focus of these experiments is on incidental emotions, emotions triggered by a prior experience that is irrelevant to the current situation. The authors demonstrate that people who feel incidental gratitude are more trusting and more receptive to advice than are people in a neutral emotional state, and people in a neutral state are more trusting and more receptive to advice than are people who feel incidental anger. In these experiments, greater receptivity to advice increased judgment accuracy. People who felt incidental gratitude were more accurate than were people in a neutral state, and people in a neutral state were more accurate than were people who felt incidental anger. The results offer insight into how people use advice, and the authors identify conditions under which leaders, policy makers, and advisors may be particularly influential

Prosocial Lies: When Deception Breeds Trust

Philosophers, psychologists, and economists have long asserted that deception harms trust. We challenge this claim. Across four studies, we demonstrate that deception can increase trust. Specifically, prosocial lies increase the willingness to pass money in the trust game, a behavioral measure of benevolence-based trust. In Studies 1a and 1b, we find that altruistic lies increase trust when deception is directly experienced and when it is merely observed. In Study 2, we demonstrate that mutually beneficial lies also increase trust. In Study 3, we disentangle the effects of intentions and deception; intentions are far more important than deception for building benevolence-based trust. In Study 4, we examine how prosocial lies influence integrity-based trust. We introduce a new economic game, the Rely-or-Verifygame, to measure integrity-based trust. Prosocial lies increase benevolence-based trust, but harm integrity-based trust. Our findings expand our understanding of deception and deepen our insight into the mechanics of trust

In the Moment: The Effect of Mindfulness on Ethical Decision Making

Many unethical decisions stem from a lack of awareness. In this article, we consider how mindfulness, an individual’s awareness of his or her present experience, impacts ethical decision making. In our first study, we demonstrate that compared to individuals low in mindfulness, individuals high in mindfulness report that they are more likely to act ethically, are more likely to value upholding ethical standards (self-importance of moral identity, SMI), and are more likely to use a principled approach to ethical decision making (formalism). In our second study, we test this relationship with a novel behavioral measure of unethical behavior: the carbonless anagram method (CAM). We find that of participants who cheated, compared to individuals low in mindfulness, individuals high in mindfulness cheated less. Taken together, our results demonstrate important connections between mindfulness and ethical decision making

What Makes Negotiators Happy? The Differential Effects of Internal and External Social Comparisons on Negotiator Satisfaction

This paper examines the role of internal and external social comparisons in negotiator satisfaction. Internal comparisons involve another party to the negotiation (e.g., buyer compared to seller), while external comparisons focus on someone outside of the negotiation (e.g., buyer compared to other buyers). Negotiator satisfaction can influence a range of post-negotiation behavior, but relatively little is known about what makes negotiators more or less satisfied. In many contexts negotiators receive little objective feedback and lack benchmarks against which to judge their outcome. Prior work has modeled negotiator satisfaction as a function of utility maximization, expectancy disconfirmation, and internal social comparisons (social utility). In this paper we identify another particularly important driver of negotiator satisfaction, external social comparisons. Across five studies we demonstrate that external social comparisons affect satisfaction and that the effects of external social comparisons are qualitatively different from those of internal social comparisons. In particular, we find that downward external social comparisons increase satisfaction, while downward internal social comparisons decrease satisfaction. These results inform important prescriptions, and we discuss implications of these results for managing negotiator satisfaction

Are Liars Ethical? On the Tension between Benevolence and Honesty

We demonstrate that some lies are perceived to be more ethical than honest statements. Across three studies, we find that individuals who tell prosocial lies, lies told with the intention of benefitting others, are perceived to be more moral than individuals who tell the truth. In Study 1, we compare altruistic lies to selfish truths. In Study 2, we introduce a stochastic deception game to disentangle the influence of deception, outcomes, and intentions on perceptions of moral character. In Study 3, we demonstrate that moral judgments of lies are sensitive to the consequences of lying for the deceived party, but insensitive to the consequences of lying for the liar. Both honesty and benevolence are essential components of moral character. We find that when these values conflict, benevolence may be more important than honesty. More broadly, our findings suggest that the moral foundation of care may be more important than the moral foundation of justice

When Better Is Worse: Envy and the Use of Deception

In this article, we describe how envy motivates deception. We find that individuals who envy a counterpart are more likely to deceive them than are individuals who do not envy their counterpart. Across both a scenario and a laboratory study, we explore the influence of envy in a negotiation setting. Negotiations represent a domain in which social comparisons are prevalent and deception poses a particularly important concern. In our studies, we induce envy by providing participants with upward social comparison information. We find that upward social comparisons predictably trigger envy, and that envy promotes deception by increasing psychological benefits and decreasing psychological costs of engaging in deceptive behavior. We discuss implications of our results with respect to negotiations and the role of emotions in ethical decision making

The Affective and Interpersonal Consequences of Obesity

The incidence of obesity in the United States has tripled over the past fifty years, posing significant challenges for organizations. We build on stereotype content research and offer an overarching framework to understand individuals’ affective, cognitive, and behavioral responses to obesity. Across five studies, we demonstrate that individuals associate obesity with perceptions of low competence. Perceptions of low competence predict affective (disgust, sympathy) and behavioral (low help, high harm) responses to obesity. Consistent with the BIAS Map (Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, 2007), these discriminatory responses are moderated by perceptions of warmth. We demonstrate that, in some cases, shifting perceptions of warmth is just as effective as losing weight for curtailing discrimination towards the obese. Our findings demonstrate that social categorization is labile and we offer prescriptive advice for individuals seeking to change the way others perceive them

Can Nervous Nelly Negotiate? How Anxiety Causes Negotiators to Make Low First Offers, Exit Early, and Earn Less Profit

Negotiations trigger anxiety. Across four studies, we demonstrate that anxiety is harmful to negotiator performance. In our experiments, we induced either anxiety or neutral feelings and studied behavior in negotiation and continuous shrinking-pie tasks. Compared to negotiators experiencing neutral feelings, negotiators who feel anxious expect lower outcomes, make lower first offers, respond more quickly to offers, exit bargaining situations earlier, and ultimately obtain worse outcomes. The relationship between anxiety and negotiator behavior is moderated by negotiator self-efficacy; high self-efficacy mitigates the harmful effects of anxiety

Mad and Misleading: Incidental Anger Promotes Deception

Emotions influence ethical behavior. Across four studies, we demonstrate that incidental anger, anger triggered by an unrelated situation, promotes the use of deception. In Study 1, participants who felt incidental anger were more likely to deceive their counterpart than those who felt neutral emotion. In Study 2, we demonstrate that empathy mediates the relationship between anger and deception. In Study 3, we contrast anger with another negative-valence emotion, sadness. We find that participants who felt incidental anger were more likely to use deception than were participants who felt incidental sadness or neutral emotion. In Study 4, we show that incentives moderate the relationship between anger and deception. Collectively, our work reveals that incidental anger promotes unethical behavior because angry people become less empathetic when pursuing their self-interest

Is Tiger Woods Loss Averse? Persistent Bias in the Face of Experience, Competition, and High Stakes

Although experimental studies have documented systematic decision errors, many leading scholars believe that experience, competition, and large stakes will reliably extinguish biases. We test for the presence of a fundamental bias, loss aversion, in a high-stakes context: professional golfers\u27 performance on the PGA Tour. Golf provides a natural setting to test for loss aversion because golfers are rewarded for the total number of strokes they take during a tournament, yet each individual hole has a salient reference point, par. We analyze over 2.5 million putts using precise laser measurements and find evidence that even the best golfers—including Tiger Woods—show evidence of loss aversion