The interpersonal effects of emotions in money versus candy games

Abstract

Emotional expressions significantly influence perceivers' behavior in economic games and negotiations. The current research examined the interpersonal effects of emotions when such information cannot be used to guide behavior for increasing personal gain and when monetary rewards are made salient. For this, a one-shot Public Goods Game (Studies 1, 2, and 3) and Dictator Game (Studies 4 and 5) were employed, in which the dominant strategy to maximize personal payoff is independent from the counterplayers' intention signaled through their facial expressions (happiness, sadness, and anger). To elicit a monetary mindset, we used money (vs. candy) as the mode of exchange in the games with (Studies 1 and 2) or without (Studies 3, 4, and 5) additional contextual framing (i.e. Wall Street Game vs. Community Game). Across five studies (N = 1211), participants were found to be more generous towards happy and sad targets compared to angry ones. Such behavioral response based on emotional information was accounted for by the trait impressions (i.e. likability, trustworthiness) formed of the counterplayer. This effect was significantly reduced when money acted as the mode of exchange, thereby making participants focus more on their selfgain. Together, the findings extend previous work by highlighting the social functional role of emotions in human exchange and its moderation by money as a transaction medium.

Beyond the Emoticon: Are There Unintentional Cues of Emotion in Email?

“…For example, after United CEO Oscar Munoz’s written apology for a violent passenger reaccommodation was perceived as insufficiently emotional, United stock lost 4% of its value (Kottasova, 2017). Similarly, prior research finds that emotion (mis)perception influences cooperation, conflict, and even task performance (Wang et al, 2018; Wubben et al, 2009).…”

Feedback From Facial Expressions Contribute to Slow Learning Rate in an Iowa Gambling Task

“…One of the reasons for the current result is that IGT generally uses monetary feedback. Wang et al (2018) found that emotional expressions influence the behavior of the observer when candy is used as feedback in an economic game, but when money is targeted, those effects disappear. Monetary feedback and a similar framework may make participants more self-centered and less sensitive to social information, such as facial expressions.…”

The Promise and Peril of Automated Negotiators

“…Even an intuitive concept like fairness can be interpreted in multiple ways: for example, through the principle of equality (each gets an equal share), the principle of equity (benefits should be distributed in proportion to an individual’s investment), or the principle of need (benefits should go to those with greatest need). Personality and culture shape which principles a person will tend to adopt (Stouten, de Cremer, and van Dijk 2005), and the same person might evoke different principles in different situations (Wang, Krumhuber, and Gratch 2018). Moreover, the concept of fairness itself can be negotiated—individuals may change their principles in response to arguments or to knowledge about the norms of others (Fehr and Gächter 2000).…”