Gerben A. Van Kleef

The Neuropeptide Oxytocin Regulates Parochial Altruism in Intergroup Conflict Among Humans

Oxytocin and Intergroup Conflict Human society is organized into groups, such as those based on nationality or religion, which can lead to intergroup conflicts, with sometimes devastating consequences. Intergroup conflict engages a human behavior termed parochial altruism: For example, a soldier who fights against the enemy at risk to themselves to protect their country is a parochial altruist. De Dreu et al. (p. 1408; see the cover; see the News story by Miller) have discovered a role for oxytocin, a neuropeptide produced in the hypothalamus, in regulating parochial altruism during human intergroup competition and conflict. Oxytocin is already known to play a role in trusting behavior, and naturally occurring genetic variants of the oxytocin receptor exist within the human population. Administration of oxytocin modulated defense-related aggression toward competing groups, but did not affect unprovoked, hateful behavior. Thus, there may be a neurobiological basis for intergroup conflict in humans. A hypothalamic hormone modulates bonding within a group and defense-related aggression between competing groups. Humans regulate intergroup conflict through parochial altruism; they self-sacrifice to contribute to in-group welfare and to aggress against competing out-groups. Parochial altruism has distinct survival functions, and the brain may have evolved to sustain and promote in-group cohesion and effectiveness and to ward off threatening out-groups. Here, we have linked oxytocin, a neuropeptide produced in the hypothalamus, to the regulation of intergroup conflict. In three experiments using double-blind placebo-controlled designs, male participants self-administered oxytocin or placebo and made decisions with financial consequences to themselves, their in-group, and a competing out-group. Results showed that oxytocin drives a “tend and defend” response in that it promoted in-group trust and cooperation, and defensive, but not offensive, aggression toward competing out-groups.

The Interpersonal Effects of Anger and Happiness in Negotiations

Three experiments investigated the interpersonal effects of anger and happiness in negotiations. In the course of a computer-mediated negotiation, participants received information about the emotional state (anger, happiness, or none) of their opponent. Consistent with a strategic-choice perspective, Experiment 1 showed that participants conceded more to an angry opponent than to a happy one. Experiment 2 showed that this effect was caused by tracking--participants used the emotion information to infer the others limit, and they adjusted their demands accordingly. However, this effect was absent when the other made large concessions. Experiment 3 examined the interplay between experienced and communicated emotion and showed that angry communications (unlike happy ones) induced fear and thereby mitigated the effect of the opponents experienced emotion. These results suggest that negotiators are especially influenced by their opponents emotions when they are motivated and able to consider them.

Oxytocin promotes human ethnocentrism

Human ethnocentrism—the tendency to view ones group as centrally important and superior to other groups—creates intergroup bias that fuels prejudice, xenophobia, and intergroup violence. Grounded in the idea that ethnocentrism also facilitates within-group trust, cooperation, and coordination, we conjecture that ethnocentrism may be modulated by brain oxytocin, a peptide shown to promote cooperation among in-group members. In double-blind, placebo-controlled designs, males self-administered oxytocin or placebo and privately performed computer-guided tasks to gauge different manifestations of ethnocentric in-group favoritism as well as out-group derogation. Experiments 1 and 2 used the Implicit Association Test to assess in-group favoritism and out-group derogation. Experiment 3 used the infrahumanization task to assess the extent to which humans ascribe secondary, uniquely human emotions to their in-group and to an out-group. Experiments 4 and 5 confronted participants with the option to save the life of a larger collective by sacrificing one individual, nominated as in-group or as out-group. Results show that oxytocin creates intergroup bias because oxytocin motivates in-group favoritism and, to a lesser extent, out-group derogation. These findings call into question the view of oxytocin as an indiscriminate “love drug” or “cuddle chemical” and suggest that oxytocin has a role in the emergence of intergroup conflict and violence.

Power, Distress, and Compassion Turning a Blind Eye to the Suffering of Others

Responses to individuals who suffer are a foundation of cooperative communities. On the basis of the approach/inhibition theory of power (Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, 2003), we hypothesized that elevated social power is associated with diminished reciprocal emotional responses to another persons suffering (feeling distress at another persons distress) and with diminished complementary emotion (e.g., compassion). In face-to-face conversations, participants disclosed experiences that had caused them suffering. As predicted, participants with a higher sense of power experienced less distress and less compassion and exhibited greater autonomic emotion regulation when confronted with another participants suffering. Additional analyses revealed that these findings could not be attributed to power-related differences in baseline emotion or decoding accuracy, but were likely shaped by power-related differences in the motivation to affiliate. Implications for theorizing about power and the social functions of emotions are discussed.

Expressing anger in conflict: When it helps and when it hurts

Do expressions of anger in conflict elicit competition or cooperation? To reconcile inconsistent results obtained in previous research, the authors developed and tested a dual-process model that proposes that power and the appropriateness of the expressions of anger jointly determine whether an individual facing an angry antagonist competes by demanding value or cooperates by conceding value. In a scenario study and a computer-mediated negotiation simulation, (a) participants with lower power claimed less value from an angry adversary than from a nonemotional one, regardless of the appropriateness of the expressions of anger, and (b) participants with higher power demanded more value when the adversarys expressions of anger were inappropriate than when they were appropriate or when the adversary was nonemotional. The theoretical and practical implications of the model and findings are discussed.

The Jekyll and Hyde of Emotional Intelligence Emotion-Regulation Knowledge Facilitates Both Prosocial and Interpersonally Deviant Behavior

Does emotional intelligence promote behavior that strictly benefits the greater good, or can it also advance interpersonal deviance? In the investigation reported here, we tested the possibility that a core facet of emotional intelligence—emotion-regulation knowledge—can promote both prosocial and interpersonally deviant behavior. Drawing from research on how the effective regulation of emotion promotes goal achievement, we predicted that emotion-regulation knowledge would strengthen the effects of other-oriented and self-oriented personality traits on prosocial behavior and interpersonal deviance, respectively. Two studies supported our predictions. Among individuals with higher emotion-regulation knowledge, moral identity exhibited a stronger positive association with prosocial behavior in a social dilemma (Study 1), and Machiavellianism exhibited a stronger positive association with interpersonal deviance in the workplace (Study 2). Thus, emotion-regulation knowledge has a positive side and a dark side.

Where Have All the People Gone? A Plea for Including Social Interaction in Emotion Research

In the present article we argue that emotional interactions are not appropriately captured in present emotion research and theorizing. Emotional stimuli or antecedents are dynamic and change over time because they often interact and have a specific relationship with the subject. Earlier emotional interactions may, for example, intensify later emotional reactions to a specific person, or our anger reactions towards powerful or powerless others may differ considerably. Thus, we suggest that such social factors not only affect the intensity, but also the nature of emotional experiences and expressions, and specifically the nature of the social movement (e.g., moving towards, away, or against). We discuss different processes that are implicated in the relation between the social environment and our emotions, describe how emotional expressions shape social behavior, and provide suggestions for incorporating the social dimension of emotion in future research.

Interacting dimensions of diversity: Cross-categorization and the functioning of diverse work groups.

We conducted an experiment to show how the interplay between informational diversity and other dimensions of diversity can account for some of the inconsistent effects of informational diversity in previous research. 70 four-person groups involved in a decision-making task received homogeneous or heterogeneous information. By manipulating gender composition and bogus personality feedback we created groups that either had a potential faultline (a basis for subgroup categorization) or were homogeneous on these dimensions. In potential faultline groups, heterogeneity of information either converged with or cross-cut the other dimensions of diversity. Results showed that informational diversity enhanced group functioning when it was crossed rather than converged with the potential faultline.

Emotion is for influence

Functional approaches to emotion are rapidly gaining in popularity. Thus far the functions of emotions have been conceptualised and studied mainly at the intrapersonal level of analysis, the key question being how individuals are influenced by the emotions they experience. Relatively little is known about the interpersonal effects of emotions; that is, how one persons emotions influence other peoples cognitions, attitudes, and behaviours. We propose that a primary function of emotion at this interpersonal level of analysis is to engender social influence. Our analysis is informed by emotion as social information theory (EASI; Van Kleef, 2009). This theory posits that emotional expressions produce interpersonal effects by triggering affective reactions and/or inferential processes in targets, depending on the targets information processing and the perceived appropriateness of the emotional expression. We review supportive evidence from various domains of social influence, including negotiation, leadership, attitude change, compliance, and conformity in groups. We consider the viability of emotional expressions as tools of social influence, discuss the functional equivalence of various forms of emotional expression, and address implications for theorising about emotion regulation and the functionality and evolution of emotion.

On Angry Leaders and Agreeable Followers How Leaders’ Emotions and Followers’ Personalities Shape Motivation and Team Performance

Do followers perform better when their leader expresses anger or when their leader expresses happiness? We propose that this depends on the follower’s level of agreeableness. Anger is associated with hostility and conflict—states that are at odds with agreeable individuals’ goals. Happiness facilitates affiliation and positive relations—states that are in line with agreeable individuals’ goals. Accordingly, the two studies we conducted showed that agreeableness moderates the effects of a leader’s emotional displays. In a scenario study, participants with lower levels of agreeableness responded more favorably to an angry leader, whereas participants with higher levels of agreeableness responded more favorably to a neutral leader. In an experiment involving four-person teams, teams composed of participants with lower average levels of agreeableness performed better when their leader expressed anger, whereas teams composed of participants with higher average levels of agreeableness performed better when their leader expressed happiness. Team performance was mediated by experienced workload, which was highest among agreeable followers with an angry leader. Besides having important practical implications, the findings shed new light on the fundamental question of how emotional expressions regulate social behavior.