The use of deception and emotions in bargaining

The use of deception and emotions in bargaining

Eric van Dijk

Moscow, September 1-3, 2010

How to bargainSelf-interest vs. fairness

Deception Power

Emotions

Findings that inspired these studies

1. The use of emotions in bargaining

2. The use of deception in bargaining

1. emotions

Interpersonal effects of emotions in bargaining (Van Kleef et al., 2004)

Opponent’s emotions Own emotions

“Reciprocal emotions”

Interpersonal effects of emotions in bargaining

Opponent’s emotions Own behavior

low demands

Reason: High limits of the angry opponent

2. deception

Ultimatum bargaining (Güth’s game)

Rejects or Accepts

Makes an offerAllocator

Recipient

Both 0 As offered

Main findings after many many studies

• Willingness to make high offers

• Importance of fairness

• Equality

Why do they act fair?(Kagel, Kim, & Moser, 1996)

100 chips30 cts for allocator, 10 cts for recipient

Commonknowledge

Only the allocator knows

25-75 50-50

The Delta Game (Suleiman, 1996)

Rejects or Accepts

Makes an offerAllocator

Recipient

Offer * delta0 < delta < 1

As offered

Findings delta game

• Offers go down as delta increases

• (but see e.g. Handgraaf, van Dijk, Wilke, Vermunt, & De Dreu, JPSP, 2008)

So now on the use of emotions and deception...

Van Dijk, Van Kleef, Steinel, & Van Beest (2008, JPSP)

So you’re angry?Well, let me tell you something...

Experiment 1• Ultimatum game• Participants all allocator (N = 106)• 100 chips: 10 cents to allocator; 5 cents to recipient

Manipulations• Info: Symmetric vs asymmetric• Emotion recipient: Happy vs. Angry

(based on prior info)

• Main dependent measures- Exchange of info: 5 cts (lie) or 10 cts (honest)?- Offers

Table 1. Deception in the Asymmetric Info condition________________________________________________

Emotion recipient

Angry Happy________________________________________________

Deceive 17 9

Not Deceive 9 17________________________________________________

Table 2. Offers________________________________________________

Emotion recipient

Angry Happy________________________________________________

Symmetric 62.04 57.57

Asymmetric 49.96 56.50_______________________________________________

(= after info exchange)________________________________________________

Emotion recipient

Angry Happy________________________________________________

Symmetric 63.71 53.96

Asymmetric 49.73 53.08________________________________________________

Table 3. Perceived recipient’s limits(How many chips needed to accept?)

So when anger meets deception...

Deception

Lower limits

Less fear of rejection

Lower offers

Experiment 2: Power and the consequences of rejection (Van Dijk et al., 2008, JPSP)

So you’re angry, and you may reject?Big deal!

Experiment 2

• Delta game• Participants all allocator (N = 103)• 100 chips

Manipulations• Delta: 0 vs. 0.9• Emotion recipient: happy vs. angry

Table 4. Offers________________________________________________

Emotion recipient

Angry Happy________________________________________________

Delta = 0 47.52 47.67

Delta = 0.9 32.56 45.21________________________________________________

Table 5. How likely that recipient will accept?________________________________________________

Emotion recipient

Angry Happy________________________________________________

Delta = 0 5.26 5.81

Delta = 0.9 3.48 5.38________________________________________________

So when anger meets power...

Low consequences of rejection

Less fear for rejection(why care about limits)

Lower offers

Anger vs disappointment (I)

So you’re (not angry but) disappointed?Lelieveld, van Dijk, Van Beest, & Van Kleef (in prep.)

Anger versus disappointment

• Communicating anger is a risky strategy:

- Potential for high benefits; risk of backfiring

- What about disappointment?

Experiment 3

• Delta game• Participants all allocator (N = 101)• 100 chips

Manipulations• Delta: 0 vs. 0.9• Emotion recipient: angry vs. disappointed

Table 6. Offers________________________________________________

Emotion recipient

Angry Disappointed________________________________________________

Delta = 0 47.35 47.47

Delta = 0.9 33.33 44.38________________________________________________

Only main effect of emotion

Angry: M = 43.31

Disappointed: M = 36.42

Perceived limits recipient(How many chips needed to accept?)

Table 7. trying to help________________________________________________

Emotion recipient


Delta = 0 3.24 3.24

Delta = 0.9 2.44 4.63________________________________________________

Anger vs disappointment (II)

So you’re disappointed?Well, who do your represent?

Lelieveld, van Dijk, Van Beest, & Van Kleef (2010a)

Anger versus disappointment

• Disappointment may elicit guilt

- And to some extent weakness

• So what if we are group representatives?

Experiment 4

• Ultimatum game• Participants all allocator (N = 78)• 100 chips; 10 cents for allocator; 5 cents for recipient

Manipulations• Representative: Representatives vs

Individuals• Emotion recipient: Angry vs. Disappointed

________________________________________________

Emotion recipient


Individuals 54.58 58.20

Representatives 55.84 50.90________________________________________________

Table 6. Offers

________________________________________________

Emotion recipient




Table 7. Guilt

________________________________________________

Emotion recipient




Table 8. Perceived weakness

= only main effect Emotion recipient

Anger vs disappointment (III):lying about your emotions...

I am ehhh…

Van Dijk & Van Beest (2010, in prep.)

Experiment 5

• Ultimatum game

• Participants all recipient (N = 87)

• 100 chips

• All are offered a (tentative) 80-20 split

Dependent measures

• How angry/disappointed are you? (0-100)

_____________________________________

Experiment 5

Table 9. How angry/disappointed?___________________________________________________

“real” communicated____________________________________________________

Anger 39.72 37.61

Disappointment 59.62 74.00________________________________________________

Experiment 6:So what about power?

• Lambda game• Participants all recipient (N = 87)• 100 chips• All are offered a (tentative) 80-20 split

Manipulation• Lambda: 0.1 vs. 0.9

Table 10. How angry?___________________________________________________

“real anger” communicated anger____________________________________________________

Lambda = 0.9 45.10 39.08(weak position)

Lambda = 0.1 51.90 56.57(strong position)________________________________________________

Table 11. How disappointed?___________________________________________________

“real anger” communicated anger____________________________________________________

Lambda = 0.9 56.20 69.25(weak position)

Lambda = 0.1 59.65 68.40(strong position)________________________________________________

General conclusionsSelf-interest vs. fairness

Deception Power

Emotions

The use of deception and emotions in bargaining

Documents

Transcript of The use of deception and emotions in bargaining