The interpersonal effects of anger and happiness in negotiations.

By Gerben A. van Kleef, C. D. De Dreu, A. S. R. Manstead. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2004

825 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Social Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/fc27d95c7875813f23e3150bfcd512bbd069a00b

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Social Psychology

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Beat them or ban them: the characteristics and social functions of anger and contempt. (2007, background): “In other words, in line with the proposed social function of anger, the effects of anger need not be negative, especially not in the long-term and especially not from the perspective of the angry person (see also Averill, 1982; Demoulin et al., 2004; Green & Murray, 1975; Mallick & McCandless, 1966;”
I feel, therefore you act: Intrapersonal and interpersonal effects of emotion on negotiation as a function of social power (2010, background): “That is, a happy negotiator does not seem tough, but rather satisfied (Van Kleef et al., 2004a; Wall, 1991); thus, the counterpart need not work so hard (in the form of additional concessions) to please him or her.”
Understanding the positive and negative effects of emotional expressions in organizations: EASI does it (2014, methodology): “…several studies, negotiators who were confronted with an angry opponent developed a negative impression of the opponent (Van Beest et al., 2008; Van Kleef et al., 2004a), became angry themselves (Friedman et al., 2004; Van Kleef et al., 2004a), and were unwilling to interact with the opponent…”
Gaming Emotions in Social Interactions (2009, background): “Finally, van Kleef et al. (2006) show that people concede more to an opponent who displays disappointment or worry and less to an opponent who displays guilt.”
Anger in Organizations: Review and Integration (2010, background): “The computer-mediated “partner” expresses anger during the negotiation, and the reaction of the respondent to that anger is then measured (see, e.g., Van Kleef et al., 2004; Van Kleef & Côté, 2007).”
The Interpersonal Dynamics of Emotion: Toward an Integrative Theory of Emotions as Social Information (2018, neutral): “This process has been variously referred to as “tracking” (Van Kleef et al., 2004a), “backtracking” (Elfenbein, 2007), “reverse engineering appraisals” (Hareli & Hess, 2010), “reverse appraisal” (de Melo, Carnevale, & Gratch, 2011), and “situation-oriented social appraisal” (Bruder, Fischer,…”
Emotional Labor at a Crossroads: Where Do We Go from Here? (2015, background): “Another approach to studying emotional performance is tomanipulate the discrete emotions communicated (e.g., anger and happiness; VanKleef et al. 2004) or the authenticity of the emotional performance in videos or with confederates (Grandey et al. 2005a, Sy et al. 2005).”
Emotion in sport: considering interpersonal regulation strategies (2013, methodology): “For example, Van Kleef et al. (2004b) demonstrated that the effects of affective reactions such as emotional contagion are more prominent in cooperative situations than in competitive ones, in which it was more common to see inferential processing between opponents (see also Bourgeois & Hess, 2008;…”
The interpersonal effects of emotions in negotiations: a motivated information processing approach. (2004, methodology): “…effects of emotions has resulted in a number of articles on different aspects of the interpersonal effects of emotions in negotiation (see, e.g., Barry, 1999; Barry & Oliver, 1996; Kopelman, Rosette, & Thompson, 2001; Sinaceur & Tiedens, 2004; Thompson et al., 2001; Van Kleef et al., 2004).”
Emotion is for influence (2011, background): “Although these “non-primitive” forms of emotional contagion have received less research attention, there is accumulating evidence that emotional contagion can indeed occur even in the absence of face-to-face interaction and mimicry, for instance through computer-mediated interaction (eg, Cheshin, Ra”
Towards a multi‐foci approach to workplace aggression: A meta‐analytic review of outcomes from different perpetrators (2010, background): “Power is broadly defined as the ability to exert influence over others (Bacharach & Lawler, 1981) and occurs due to mutual dependence ( Van Kleef, De Dreu, & Manstead, 2004 ).”
How Emotions Regulate Social Life (2009, background): “In keeping with this hypothesis, the strategic information conveyed by emotions expressed in negotiation is a better predictor of behavior when information-processing motivation is high rather than low (Van Kleef et al., 2004b).”