The use of deception and emotions in
bargaining
Eric van Dijk
Moscow, September 1-3, 2010
How to bargain
Self-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

“Reciprocal emotions”
Own 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)
Allocator
Makes an offer
Recipient
Rejects or Accepts
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 chips
30 cts for allocator,
10 cts for recipient
Common
knowledge
25-75
Only the allocator
knows
50-50
The Delta Game (Suleiman, 1996)
Allocator
Makes an offer
Recipient
Rejects or Accepts
Offer * delta
0 < 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:
• Emotion recipient:
Symmetric vs asymmetric
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
_______________________________________________
Table 3. Perceived recipient’s limits
(How many chips needed to accept?)
(= after info exchange)
________________________________________________
Emotion recipient
Angry
Happy
________________________________________________
Symmetric
63.71
53.96
Asymmetric
49.73
53.08
________________________________________________
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:
• Emotion recipient:
0 vs. 0.9
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:
• Emotion recipient:
0 vs. 0.9
angry vs. disappointed
Table 6. Offers
________________________________________________
Emotion recipient
Angry
Disappointed
________________________________________________
Delta = 0
47.35
47.47
Delta = 0.9
33.33
44.38
________________________________________________
Perceived limits recipient
(How many chips needed to accept?)
Only main effect of emotion
Angry:
M = 43.31
Disappointed:
M = 36.42
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:
• Emotion recipient:
Representatives vs Individuals
Angry vs. Disappointed
Table 6. Offers
________________________________________________
Emotion recipient
Angry
Disappointed
________________________________________________
Individuals
54.58
58.20
Representatives
55.84
50.90
________________________________________________
Table 7. Guilt
________________________________________________
Emotion recipient
Angry
Disappointed
________________________________________________
Individuals
2.74
5.15
Representatives
2.63
3.00
________________________________________________
Table 8. Perceived weakness
________________________________________________
Emotion recipient
Angry
Disappointed
________________________________________________
Individuals
2.84
4.95
Representatives
3.26
4.80
________________________________________________
= 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
Experiment 5
Dependent measures
• How angry/disappointed are you? (0-100)
_____________________________________
Experiment 5
Dependent measures
• How angry/disappointed are you? (0-100)
_____________________________________
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
51.90
56.57
(weak position)
Lambda = 0.1
(strong position)
________________________________________________
Table 11. How disappointed?
___________________________________________________
“real anger”
communicated anger
____________________________________________________
Lambda = 0.9
56.20
69.25
59.65
68.40
(weak position)
Lambda = 0.1
(strong position)
________________________________________________
General conclusions
Self-interest vs. fairness
Deception
Power
Emotions