Understanding the positive and negative effects of emotional expressions in organizations: EASI does it

Emotions as Social Information (EASI) theory

EASI is a general theory of the interpersonal consequences of emotions in social and organizational life. Whereas appraisal theories (Scherer et al., 2001) and, to some extent, attribution theories (Martinko et al., 2006) speak to the antecedents of emotional experiences, EASI theory is uniquely focused on the social and organizational consequences of emotional expressions. One of the fundamental assumptions underlying the theory is that the basic processes that are involved in producing emotions’ interpersonal effects are similar across settings. As such, the theory can be (and has been) applied to a wide variety of social and organizational phenomena, including negotiation, leadership, persuasion and group decision making, among other things (for reviews, see Van Kleef et al., 2011, 2012). I limit the present discussion to a summary of the theory’s postulates that are most relevant to the problem at hand, which pertain to the mechanisms and contingencies surrounding the interpersonal effects of emotional expressions. With regard to mechanisms, EASI theory specifies two processes through which perceivers may be influenced by others’ emotional expressions: affective reactions and inferential processes.

An EASI analysis of asymmetrical effects of emotional expressions

The propositions of EASI theory that are most relevant to the current analysis are displayed in Table 1. The idea that perceivers’ behavioral responses to expressers’ emotions are driven by perceivers’ affective reactions and/or inferential processes (see Proposition 1) informs understanding of the (a)symmetrical effects of emotional expressions, because affective reactions and inferential processes often motivate opposite behaviors. Returning to the earlier negotiation example, an opponent’s expressions of anger may simultaneously trigger negative affective reactions in a focal negotiator (e.g. negative emotions, reduced liking) and elicit inferential processes (e.g. inferences regarding the opponent’s willingness to give in). The negative affective reactions are likely to motivate competitive behavior, whereas the inferences may drive strategic cooperation. Conversely, an opponent’s expressions of happiness may simultaneously trigger positive affective reactions (e.g. positive emotions, increased liking) and elicit inferential processes (e.g. inferences that the opponent is not very ambitious and may be willing to make additional concessions). In this case, the positive affective reactions are likely to promote cooperative behavior, whereas the strategic inferences may motivate a more demanding negotiation strategy.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Key propositions of EASI theory that inform an analysis of symmetrical versus asymmetrical interpersonal effects of emotional expressions in organizations.

Proposition 1	Emotional expressions shape the judgments, decisions and actions of those who perceive them by triggering affective reactions and/or inferential processes in the perceivers.
Proposition 2	Perceivers’ responses to others’ emotional expressions are more likely to be driven by inferential processes (relative to affective reactions) to the degree that perceivers engage in more thorough information processing.
Proposition 3	Perceivers’ responses to others’ emotional expressions are more likely to be driven by negative affective reactions (relative to inferential processes) to the degree that perceivers view the emotional expressions as inappropriate.

This example shows that both symmetrical and asymmetrical effects of emotional expressions are theoretically plausible. The critical question then is when one or the other type of effect occurs. EASI theory suggests that this depends on the perceiver’s information processing (Proposition 2) and on the perceived appropriateness of the emotional expression (Proposition 3). If the focal negotiator in our example does not engage in thorough information processing and/or perceives the anger of her or his opponent as inappropriate, then s/he should be more likely to respond negatively to the opponent’s anger (e.g. by retaliating; Van Kleef and Côté, 2007) – a symmetrical effect. However, if the focal negotiator engages in thorough information processing and deems the opponent’s anger relatively appropriate, then s/he should be more likely to respond positively to the opponent’s anger (e.g. by making concessions) – an asymmetrical effect. Conversely, the negotiator should be more likely to respond positively to the opponent’s happiness (e.g. by making concessions) when information processing is low and the happiness is perceived as appropriate (resulting in a symmetrical effect), whereas s/he should be more likely to respond negatively to the opponent’s happiness (e.g. by increasing his or her demands) when information processing is high and/or the opponent’s happiness is perceived as inappropriate (resulting in an asymmetrical effect).

Symmetrical and asymmetrical effects of emotional expressions in negotiations

Negotiation can be defined as a discussion between two or more parties aimed at solving a (perceived) divergence of interests (Pruitt and Carnevale, 1993). As a primary means of conflict resolution, negotiations are inherently emotional. As such they provide an interesting context within which to study the interpersonal effects of emotions in organizations. In a first study of the interpersonal effects of emotions in negotiations, Van Kleef et al. (2004a) investigated the effects of verbal expressions of anger and happiness using a computer-mediated negotiation task. In the course of the negotiation, participants received emotional messages from their (simulated) opponent (e.g. ‘This negotiation pisses me off’). Negotiators who received angry messages estimated the opponent’s limit to be high, and to avoid a costly impasse they made relatively large concessions. Conversely, negotiators who received happy messages judged the opponent’s limit to be low, felt no need to concede to avoid an impasse, and therefore made smaller concessions. Sinaceur and Tiedens (2006) found compatible effects using a face-to-face interaction paradigm. Participants perceived angry negotiation partners as tougher than emotionally neutral counterparts, and therefore they made larger concessions to angry counterparts. These findings speak to the role of inferential processes in shaping the interpersonal effects of anger and happiness.

There is also evidence for EASI theory’s proposition that responses to emotional expressions are shaped more by inferential processes to the degree that perceivers are motivated to engage in thorough information processing. In a series of studies, negotiators with a low need for cognitive closure, those who were under low time pressure, and those who depended strongly on their counterpart were more likely to infer from their counterpart’s expressions of anger versus happiness that the counterpart was tough or lenient, respectively, and to adjust their behavior accordingly by making larger or smaller concessions. In contrast, negotiators with a high need for closure, those who were under high time pressure, and those who did not depend on their counterpart did not draw such inferences and were therefore uninfluenced by the counterpart’s emotional expressions (Van Kleef et al., 2004b). Later studies showed that the effects of anger and happiness are similarly moderated by power, with low-power negotiators being more strongly affected by their counterpart’s emotions than high-power negotiators (e.g. Sinaceur and Tiedens, 2006; Van Kleef and Côté, 2007).

Other studies speak to the role of affective reactions in shaping behavioral responses to a counterpart’s emotional expressions. In 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 again (Kopelman et al., 2006; Van Kleef et al., 2004b). In some cases these negative affective reactions also fueled competitive behavior. For instance, two studies reported evidence that expressions of anger elicited competitive behavior and reduced the likelihood of settlement of a dispute (Friedman et al., 2004; Kopelman et al., 2006). Another study revealed that angry negotiators stand a greater risk of being excluded from a profitable coalition due to the unfavorable impressions that they make (Van Beest et al., 2008). Finally, a recent study showed that even if negotiators give in to an angry opponent during the negotiation, they may still get back at their opponent after the negotiation, for instance by assigning him or her unattractive tasks (Wang et al., 2012).

These seemingly inconsistent effects of anger expressions (sometimes they elicit cooperation, sometimes they trigger competition) can be reconciled by considering EASI’s proposition that the relative predictive power of inferential processes and affective reactions depends on the perceived appropriateness of the emotional expression. Several studies support this idea. Steinel et al. (2008) differentiated between emotions that are directed toward a negotiator’s offer and emotions that are directed toward the negotiator as a person. When emotional statements were directed at the participant’s offer, participants used the opponent’s emotion to assess his or her limits, and consequently they conceded more to an angry opponent than to a happy one. In other words, participants’ behavior in this condition was mediated by inferential processes. However, when the emotions were directed at the negotiator as a person (and anger was therefore presumably perceived as less appropriate), negotiators conceded less to an angry opponent than to a happy one. In this case, participants did not find useful information in their opponent’s emotions, but instead felt affronted by the opponent’s inappropriate angry remarks.

Research by Van Kleef and Côté (2007) provides further support for the role of perceived appropriateness. They examined the effects of anger in the presence or absence of an explicit display rule that prohibited expressions of anger. When there was an explicit norm prohibiting expressions of anger, high-power negotiators made smaller concessions to an angry counterpart than to a neutral one. Low-power negotiators, in contrast, always conceded to an angry opponent regardless of appropriateness, because they did not experience the behavioral leeway to retaliate. Participants in the display rule condition developed strong negative affective reactions (i.e. feelings of revenge) in response to the opponent’s anger because they perceived the anger as inappropriate, and this in turn fueled competitive behavior among participants who felt sufficiently powerful to act on their retaliatory desire.

Compatible evidence comes from a study by Adam et al. (2010), who examined the effects of verbal expressions of anger across cultures. They found that European American participants conceded more to angry than to neutral opponents, whereas Asian American participants conceded less to angry than to neutral opponents. Asian American participants deemed expressions of anger inappropriate and this explained why they responded negatively to such expressions. Similarly, Kopelman and Rosette (2008) found that East Asian negotiators, who generally value humility and deference, were more likely to accept an offer from a counterpart who displayed positive emotions and less likely to accept an offer from a counterpart who expressed negative emotions, compared with Israeli negotiators who do not hold humility and deference in such high regard.

Other work indicates that expressions of anger that are perceived as overly intense and therefore inappropriate trigger negative affective reactions and undermine negotiation success (Gibson et al., 2009). In a field study, these authors examined anger episodes across different organizations. They found that organizational norms regarding anger expression played a significant role in determining the perceived appropriateness of anger expressions and their subsequent outcomes. Anger could have either positive or negative consequences depending on the intensity with which it was displayed and the appropriateness of such a display in light of organizational norms.

Symmetrical and asymmetrical effects of emotional expressions in leadership

Leadership refers to the process of influencing others to accomplish a goal (Yukl, 2010). As influential agents in organizations, leaders play a central role in promoting, managing, supporting and developing individual and team effectiveness. Emotions are an inherent part of this process (George, 2000). For instance, Côté et al. (2010) found that people who are capable of accurately perceiving, using, understanding and managing their own and others’ emotions (i.e. who score high on emotional intelligence; Mayer and Salovey, 1997) are more likely to attain a leadership position in small groups. Moreover, Newcombe and Ashkanasy (2002) demonstrated that leaders’ emotions may have a bigger impact on followers than the content of their communications.

In line with EASI theory, leader emotional displays have been found to trigger affective reactions in followers, which in turn influence responses to the leader. For instance, studies have shown that positive emotional expressions of leaders result in higher follower ratings of leadership quality (Glomb and Hulin, 1997; Lewis, 2000) and charisma (Bono and Ilies, 2006). Furthermore, George and Bettenhausen (1990) found that service workers were more likely to engage in customer helping, sold more products and were less likely to leave the organization when their leader scored higher on state positive affectivity. They proposed that these effects might be due to emotional contagion between leader and followers, such that subordinates take over the positive mood of the leader and therefore perform better.

Other studies compared the effects of leaders’ positive and negative affective displays on follower affect, perceptions and behavior. For instance, Gaddis et al. (2004) showed that leaders who delivered failure feedback in a positive tone were perceived as more effective and instigated better team performance than leaders who displayed negative affect. In a study by Sy et al. (2005), teams that were exposed to a leader in a positive mood developed a positive mood themselves and as a result exhibited better coordination than teams with a leader in a negative mood. However, teams with a leader in a negative mood expended more effort, presumably because they inferred from the leader’s negative mood that their performance was unsatisfactory. Accordingly, a qualitative study by Lindebaum and Fielden (2011) revealed that leaders in the construction business use expressions of anger deliberately to ensure that projects are finished on time.

Building on EASI theory, Van Kleef and colleagues (2009) examined how the effects of leader emotional displays on team performance are shaped by followers’ information processing. Four-person teams collaborated on a task, during which they received standardized feedback from their leader. The feedback was either delivered in an angry tone or in a happy tone, by means of facial expressions, vocal intonation and bodily postures. Teams consisting of members with low information processing motivation performed better when the leader expressed happiness rather than anger, whereas teams consisting of members with high information processing motivation performed better when the leader expressed anger rather than happiness. In line with EASI theory, inferential processes (i.e. inferences about performance quality) mediated behavioral responses to the leader’s emotional expressions among followers with high information processing motivation. Affective reactions (i.e. positive versus negative emotions and liking of the leader) mediated responses to the leader’s emotions among followers with low information processing motivation.

Other work speaks to the role of appropriateness of leaders’ emotional displays. Emotional displays may be perceived as inappropriate when they do not match stereotypical gender roles. Accordingly, Lewis (2000) found that leaders are rated more positively when their emotional displays are congruent with gender stereotypes. Female leaders who expressed anger were evaluated more negatively than male leaders who expressed anger, which underlines the importance of the perceived appropriateness of emotional expressions. Another study addressed the effects of (in)congruence between leader emotional expressions and follower trait affectivity on follower performance and extra-role compliance (Damen et al., 2008). In this study, low positive affectivity followers functioned better under an angry leader, whereas high positive affectivity followers functioned better under an enthusiastic leader. Although not examined in this study, it is conceivable that these effects were driven by differences in the perceived appropriateness of the leader’s emotional expressions, as shaped by the follower’s affective tendencies.

Support for this interpretation comes from a study that examined how followers’ reactions to a leader’s emotional displays are shaped by individual differences in agreeableness (Van Kleef et al., 2010). The authors argued that agreeable individuals are more likely to perceive expressions of anger as inappropriate, because anger threatens the social harmony that they value. In one study, participants read a scenario about a leader who expressed anger or no emotion about their performance, with emotion being manipulated via pictures of facial expressions. Participants high on agreeableness reported lower motivation in the anger condition compared with the neutral condition, while those low on agreeableness reported higher motivation in the anger condition. In a second study, four-person teams received angry or happy feedback from their leader. Teams consisting of high-agreeable followers performed better when the leader expressed happiness, whereas teams of low-agreeable followers performed better when the leader expressed anger. These findings support EASI theory’s proposition that affective reactions to emotional expressions become more predictive of behavioral responses than inferential processes when emotional expressions are perceived as less appropriate.