The use of deception and emotions in bargaining
-
Upload
patrick-boyer -
Category
Documents
-
view
19 -
download
0
description
Transcript of 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
Angry Disappointed________________________________________________
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
Angry Disappointed________________________________________________
Individuals 54.58 58.20
Representatives 55.84 50.90________________________________________________
Table 6. Offers
________________________________________________
Emotion recipient
Angry Disappointed________________________________________________
Individuals 2.74 5.15
Representatives 2.63 3.00________________________________________________
Table 7. Guilt
________________________________________________
Emotion recipient
Angry Disappointed________________________________________________
Individuals 2.84 4.95
Representatives 3.26 4.80________________________________________________
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
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