Communicated Emotion and Reciprocity Disappointment versus Anger Wubben, M.J.J., De Cremer, D., and Van Dijk, E. (2009). How emotion communication guides reciprocity: Establishing cooperation through disappointment and anger. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), Summary by Karina Muro, Whitney Justice and Elise Sisson Wubben, M.J.J., De Cremer, D., and Van Dijk, E. (2009). How emotion communication guides reciprocity: Establishing cooperation through disappointment and anger. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45(4), Summary by Karina Muro, Whitney Justice and Elise Sisson

Video  bRjnUqzseU&feature=related bRjnUqzseU&feature=related  bRjnUqzseU&feature=related bRjnUqzseU&feature=related

Introduction  Emotions are critical in establishing and maintaining cooperation.  Anger may force cooperation by announcing retaliation, but can also backfire, yielding mutual defection  Disappointment addresses defection without communicating retaliation  Hypothesis: Reciprocal actions will more successfully establish cooperation when one responds to defection with disappointment instead of anger.  Emotions are critical in establishing and maintaining cooperation.  Anger may force cooperation by announcing retaliation, but can also backfire, yielding mutual defection  Disappointment addresses defection without communicating retaliation  Hypothesis: Reciprocal actions will more successfully establish cooperation when one responds to defection with disappointment instead of anger.

 Participants  97 Undergrads (22% male)  Average age = 20 yrs  Participated for $5.00 or course credit  Randomly assigned to disappointment, anger, or no- emotion condition  Method  Participants started with 10 coins at beginning of every trial  Told that they and their “partner” had to simultaneously decide how many coins to donate to the other  Coins kept were worth less than coins donated  Told that they or their “partner” could send emotion messages every three rounds  Afterwards, completed a questionnaire about behavioral impression of their “partner”  Participants  97 Undergrads (22% male)  Average age = 20 yrs  Participated for $5.00 or course credit  Randomly assigned to disappointment, anger, or no- emotion condition  Method  Participants started with 10 coins at beginning of every trial  Told that they and their “partner” had to simultaneously decide how many coins to donate to the other  Coins kept were worth less than coins donated  Told that they or their “partner” could send emotion messages every three rounds  Afterwards, completed a questionnaire about behavioral impression of their “partner”

Results  Cooperation increased faster when disappointment as opposed to anger or no emotion was communicated.  People perceived their partner more positively when disappointment was communicated as opposed to anger  Disappointed partners were perceived as more forgiving than retaliatory  Angry partners were perceived as more retaliatory  Cooperation increased faster when disappointment as opposed to anger or no emotion was communicated.  People perceived their partner more positively when disappointment was communicated as opposed to anger  Disappointed partners were perceived as more forgiving than retaliatory  Angry partners were perceived as more retaliatory Fig. 1. Number of donated coins after each trial

Conclusion  Anger thus risks escalation, whereas disappointment emphasizes the possibility of obtaining better outcomes  Disappointment emphasizes potential forgiveness  More likely to establish mutually beneficial relationship  Anger evoked anger  Participants also had a more negative impression of partner  Anger thus risks escalation, whereas disappointment emphasizes the possibility of obtaining better outcomes  Disappointment emphasizes potential forgiveness  More likely to establish mutually beneficial relationship  Anger evoked anger  Participants also had a more negative impression of partner

Critical Review Main Points  Communicated disappointment elicited cooperation faster than anger or no emotion  Disappointment was perceived in a more positive light than anger or no emotion Main Points  Communicated disappointment elicited cooperation faster than anger or no emotion  Disappointment was perceived in a more positive light than anger or no emotion Objections 80 % Particpants = 20 year old Females Disappointment may not always elicit cooperation faster than anger

Test Questions  1. In the study by M.J.J. Wubben et al. (2009), angry partners were perceived as more _________. a. Positive b. Retaliatory c. Emotionless d. Cooperative  2. Disappointed partners were perceived as more ________. a. Forgiving b. Negative c. Angry d. Emotionless  3. _________ is likely a behavioral adaptation because it promotes cooperation by having cooperators retaliate against defectors. a. Emotion b. Mutual defection c. Reciprocity d. Antagonism  T/F: Disappointment is always more effective in inducing cooperation.  T/F: Communicated anger can evoke cooperation  T/F: Unconditional cooperators are vulnerable to exploitation by defectors.  1. In the study by M.J.J. Wubben et al. (2009), angry partners were perceived as more _________. a. Positive b. Retaliatory c. Emotionless d. Cooperative  2. Disappointed partners were perceived as more ________. a. Forgiving b. Negative c. Angry d. Emotionless  3. _________ is likely a behavioral adaptation because it promotes cooperation by having cooperators retaliate against defectors. a. Emotion b. Mutual defection c. Reciprocity d. Antagonism  T/F: Disappointment is always more effective in inducing cooperation.  T/F: Communicated anger can evoke cooperation  T/F: Unconditional cooperators are vulnerable to exploitation by defectors.