IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/grdene/v17y2008i1d10.1007_s10726-007-9092-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Anger in social conflict: Cross-situational comparisons and suggestions for the future

Author

Listed:
  • Gerben A. Kleef

    (University of Amsterdam)

  • Eric Dijk

    (Leiden University)

  • Wolfgang Steinel

    (Leiden University)

  • Fieke Harinck

    (Leiden University)

  • Ilja Beest

    (Leiden University)

Abstract

This paper reviews research on the role of anger in conflict. We distinguish between intrapersonal and interpersonal effects of anger, the former referring to the impact of parties’ feelings of anger on their own behavior and the latter referring to the impact of one parties’ anger on the other’s behavior. We further compare the effects of anger across a variety of conflict settings, including negotiation, ultimatum bargaining, prisoner’s dilemma, resource dilemma, and coalition formation. At the intrapersonal level, anger is associated with competition in all conflict settings. In contrast, the interpersonal effects of anger differ across situations, with anger sometimes eliciting cooperation, sometimes eliciting competition, and sometimes having no effect. Based on the research reviewed, we conclude that the interpersonal effects of anger in conflict are determined by the level of interdependence of the parties, their information processing tendencies, and the justifiability of the anger expressions.

Suggested Citation

  • Gerben A. Kleef & Eric Dijk & Wolfgang Steinel & Fieke Harinck & Ilja Beest, 2008. "Anger in social conflict: Cross-situational comparisons and suggestions for the future," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 13-30, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:17:y:2008:i:1:d:10.1007_s10726-007-9092-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s10726-007-9092-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10726-007-9092-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10726-007-9092-8?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Boles, Terry L. & Croson, Rachel T. A. & Murnighan, J. Keith, 2000. "Deception and Retribution in Repeated Ultimatum Bargaining," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 83(2), pages 235-259, November.
    2. Thaler, Richard H, 1988. "The Ultimatum Game," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 2(4), pages 195-206, Fall.
    3. Jerome M. Chertkoff, 1971. "Coalition formation as a function of differences in resources," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 15(3), pages 371-383, September.
    4. Guth, Werner & Tietz, Reinhard, 1990. "Ultimatum bargaining behavior : A survey and comparison of experimental results," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 417-449, September.
    5. Allred, Keith G. & Mallozzi, John S. & Matsui, Fusako & Raia, Christopher P., 1997. "The Influence of Anger and Compassion on Negotiation Performance," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 70(3), pages 175-187, June.
    6. Suleiman, Ramzi, 1996. "Expectations and fairness in a modified Ultimatum game," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 17(5), pages 531-554, November.
    7. Guth, Werner & Schmittberger, Rolf & Schwarze, Bernd, 1982. "An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 367-388, December.
    8. Carnevale, Peter J. D. & Isen, Alice M., 1986. "The influence of positive affect and visual access on the discovery of integrative solutions in bilateral negotiation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 1-13, February.
    9. Gary E. Bolton & Kalyan Chatterjee & Kathleen L. McGinn, 2013. "How Communication Links Influence Coalition Bargaining: A Laboratory Investigation," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Bargaining in the Shadow of the Market Selected Papers on Bilateral and Multilateral Bargaining, chapter 6, pages 113-128, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    10. Pillutla, Madan M. & Murnighan, J. Keith, 1996. "Unfairness, Anger, and Spite: Emotional Rejections of Ultimatum Offers," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 208-224, December.
    11. Harinck, Fieke & De Dreu, Carsten K. W. & Van Vianen, Annelies E. M., 2000. "The Impact of Conflict Issues on Fixed-Pie Perceptions, Problem Solving, and Integrative Outcomes in Negotiation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 81(2), pages 329-358, March.
    12. Colin F. Camerer & Richard H. Thaler, 1995. "Anomalies: Ultimatums, Dictators and Manners," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 9(2), pages 209-219, Spring.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Van Beest, Ilja & Scheepers, Daan, 2013. "Challenge and threat responses to anger communication in coalition formation," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 50-57.
    2. Brett, Jeanne & Thompson, Leigh, 2016. "Negotiation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 68-79.
    3. Rothman, Naomi B., 2011. "Steering sheep: How expressed emotional ambivalence elicits dominance in interdependent decision making contexts," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 116(1), pages 66-82, September.
    4. Simon Bartke & Steven J. Bosworth & Dennis J. Snower & Gabriele Chierchia, 2019. "Motives and comprehension in a public goods game with induced emotions," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 86(2), pages 205-238, March.
    5. Bartke, Simon & Bosworth, Steven J. & Snower, Dennis & Chierchia, Gabriele, 2016. "The influence of induced care and anger motives on behavior, beliefs and perceptions in a public goods game," Kiel Working Papers 2054, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    6. Patrick Ring & Christoph A. Schütt & Dennis J. Snower, 2023. "Care and anger motives in social dilemmas," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 95(2), pages 273-308, August.
    7. Hans-Rüdiger Pfister & Gisela Böhm, 2012. "Responder Feelings in a Three-Player Three-Option Ultimatum Game: Affective Determinants of Rejection Behavior," Games, MDPI, vol. 3(1), pages 1-29, February.
    8. Wubben, Maarten J.J. & Cremer, David De & Dijk, Eric van, 2011. "The communication of anger and disappointment helps to establish cooperation through indirect reciprocity," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 489-501, June.
    9. Kausel, Edgar E. & Connolly, Terry, 2014. "Do people have accurate beliefs about the behavioral consequences of incidental emotions? Evidence from trust games," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 96-111.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Christian Korth, 2009. "Reciprocity—An Indirect Evolutionary Analysis," Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, in: Fairness in Bargaining and Markets, chapter 0, pages 35-55, Springer.
    2. Hyunji Kim & Simone Schnall & Do-Joon Yi & Mathew P. White, 2013. "Social distance decreases responders' sensitivity to fairness in the ultimatum game," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 8(5), pages 632-638, September.
    3. Güth, Werner & Kocher, Martin G., 2014. "More than thirty years of ultimatum bargaining experiments: Motives, variations, and a survey of the recent literature," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 396-409.
    4. Werner G³th, 2001. "How Ultimatum Offers Emerge: A Study in Bounded Rationality," Homo Oeconomicus, Institute of SocioEconomics, vol. 18, pages 91-110.
    5. Aina, Chiara & Battigalli, Pierpaolo & Gamba, Astrid, 2020. "Frustration and anger in the Ultimatum Game: An experiment," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 150-167.
    6. Rabin, Matthew, 1997. "Bargaining Structure, Fairness and Efficiency," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt35g8s3dd, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    7. Andrade, Eduardo B. & Ariely, Dan, 2009. "The enduring impact of transient emotions on decision making," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 109(1), pages 1-8, May.
    8. Davide Pietroni & Gerben Kleef & Enrico Rubaltelli & Rino Rumiati, 2009. "When happiness pays in negotiation," Mind & Society: Cognitive Studies in Economics and Social Sciences, Springer;Fondazione Rosselli, vol. 8(1), pages 77-92, June.
    9. repec:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:5:p:632-638 is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Caginalp, Gunduz & Ho, Shirley J., 2018. "Does competition inhibit fairness and altruism?," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 54-64.
    11. Rabin, Matthew, 2000. "Bargaining Structure, Fairness and Efficiency," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt8723s6r2, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    12. Marc T. P. Adam & Timm Teubner & Henner Gimpel, 2018. "No Rage Against the Machine: How Computer Agents Mitigate Human Emotional Processes in Electronic Negotiations," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 27(4), pages 543-571, August.
    13. Murnighan, J. Keith & Wang, Long, 2016. "The social world as an experimental game," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 80-94.
    14. Carpenter, Jeffrey P., 2007. "The demand for punishment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 62(4), pages 522-542, April.
    15. Rabin, Matthew, 1997. "Bargaining Structure, Fairness and Efficiency," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt35g8s3dd, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    16. Eckel, Catherine C., 2004. "Vernon Smith: economics as a laboratory science," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 15-28, March.
    17. Gulyás, Attila, 2007. "A méltányosságelmélet alapjai. Modellek és nézőpontok [The foundations of quity theory. Models and viewpoints]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(2), pages 167-183.
    18. Emma C Fabiansson & Thomas F Denson, 2012. "The Effects of Intrapersonal Anger and Its Regulation in Economic Bargaining," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(12), pages 1-10, December.
    19. Miguel Costa-Gomes & Klaus G Zauner, 2001. "A Social Utility Explanation of Results in Experimental Ultimatum Bargaining Games," Levine's Working Paper Archive 563824000000000069, David K. Levine.
    20. Koning, Lukas & Steinel, Wolfgang & Beest, Ilja van & Dijk, Eric van, 2011. "Power and deception in ultimatum bargaining," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 115(1), pages 35-42, May.
    21. Gale, John & Binmore, Kenneth G. & Samuelson, Larry, 1995. "Learning to be imperfect: The ultimatum game," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 56-90.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:grdene:v:17:y:2008:i:1:d:10.1007_s10726-007-9092-8. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.