IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/tse/iastwp/28909.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Predictably angry: Facial cues provide a credible signal of destructive behavior

Author

Listed:
  • Noussair, Charles N.
  • Offerman, Theo
  • Suetens, Sigrid
  • Van de Ven, Jeroen
  • Van Leeuwen, Boris
  • Van Veelen, Matthijs

Abstract

Evolutionary explanations of anger as a commitment device hinge on two key assumptions. The first is that it is observable ex-ante whether someone will get angry when feeling badly treated. The second is that anger is associated with destructive behavior. We test the validity of these assumptions by studying whether observers are able to detect who rejected a low offer in an ultimatum game. We collected photos and videos of responders in an ultimatum game before they were informed about the game that they would be playing. We showed pairs of photos or videos, consisting of one responder who rejected a low offer and one responder who accepted a low offer, to an independent group of observers. We find support for the two assumptions. Observers do better than chance at detecting who rejected the low offer, especially for rejecters who get angry at low offers.

Suggested Citation

  • Noussair, Charles N. & Offerman, Theo & Suetens, Sigrid & Van de Ven, Jeroen & Van Leeuwen, Boris & Van Veelen, Matthijs, 2014. "Predictably angry: Facial cues provide a credible signal of destructive behavior," IAST Working Papers 14-15, Institute for Advanced Study in Toulouse (IAST).
    • Handle: RePEc:tse:iastwp:28909
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://iast.fr/pub/28909
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: http://www.iast.fr/sites/default/files/wp/wp_iast_1415.pdf
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jordi Brandts & Gary Charness, 2011. "The strategy versus the direct-response method: a first survey of experimental comparisons," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 14(3), pages 375-398, September.
    2. Centorrino, Samuele & Djemaï, Elodie & Hopfensitz, Astrid & Milinski, Manfred & Seabright, Paul, 2011. "Smiling is a Costly Signal of Cooperation Opportunities: Experimental Evidence from a Trust Game," IDEI Working Papers 669, Institut d'Économie Industrielle (IDEI), Toulouse.
    3. Grimm, Veronika & Mengel, Friederike, 2011. "Let me sleep on it: Delay reduces rejection rates in ultimatum games," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 111(2), pages 113-115, May.
    4. Adriana Breaban & Charles N Noussair, 2018. "Emotional State and Market Behavior [Bubbling with excitement: en experiment]," Review of Finance, European Finance Association, vol. 22(1), pages 279-309.
    5. Jörg Oechssler & Andreas Roider & Patrick W. Schmitz, 2015. "Cooling Off in Negotiations: Does it Work?," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 171(4), pages 565-588, December.
    6. Santiago Sanchez-Pages, 2013. "Two Studies on the Interplay between Social Preferences and Individual Biological Features," Edinburgh School of Economics Discussion Paper Series 218, Edinburgh School of Economics, University of Edinburgh.
    7. Blanco, Mariana & Engelmann, Dirk & Normann, Hans Theo, 2011. "A within-subject analysis of other-regarding preferences," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 72(2), pages 321-338, June.
    8. repec:dau:papers:123456789/7309 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Frank, Robert H, 1987. "If Homo Economicus Could Choose His Own Utility Function, Would He Want One with a Conscience?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 77(4), pages 593-604, September.
    10. Solnick, Sara J. & Schweitzer, Maurice E., 1999. "The Influence of Physical Attractiveness and Gender on Ultimatum Game Decisions," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 79(3), pages 199-215, September.
    11. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
    12. Heij, Christiaan & de Boer, Paul & Franses, Philip Hans & Kloek, Teun & van Dijk, Herman K., 2004. "Econometric Methods with Applications in Business and Economics," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199268016.
    13. Nguyen, Y. & Noussair, C.N., 2013. "Risk Aversion and Emotions," Other publications TiSEM 301ffce6-a78a-47fe-a375-e, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    14. Michèle Belot & V. Bhaskar & Jeroen van de Ven, 2012. "Can Observers Predict Trustworthiness?," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 94(1), pages 246-259, February.
    15. Sutter, Matthias & Kocher, Martin & Strau[ss], Sabine, 2003. "Bargaining under time pressure in an experimental ultimatum game," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 81(3), pages 341-347, December.
    16. Santiago Sanchez-Pages & Enrique Turiegano, 2009. "Testosterone, Facial Symmetry and Cooperation in the Prisoners' Dilemma," Edinburgh School of Economics Discussion Paper Series 192, Edinburgh School of Economics, University of Edinburgh.
    17. Ockenfels, Axel & Selten, Reinhard, 2000. "An Experiment on the Hypothesis of Involuntary Truth-Signalling in Bargaining," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 33(1), pages 90-116, October.
    18. Bonnefon, Jean-François & De Neys, Wim & Hopfensitz, Astrid, 2013. "Low second-to-fourth digit ratio predicts indiscriminate social suspicion, not improved trustworthiness detection," TSE Working Papers 13-385, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    19. Hessel Oosterbeek & Randolph Sloof & Gijs van de Kuilen, 2004. "Cultural Differences in Ultimatum Game Experiments: Evidence from a Meta-Analysis," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 7(2), pages 171-188, June.
    20. Katarina Gospic & Erik Mohlin & Peter Fransson & Predrag Petrovic & Magnus Johannesson & Martin Ingvar, 2011. "Limbic Justice—Amygdala Involvement in Immediate Rejection in the Ultimatum Game," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(5), pages 1-8, May.
    21. Eddie Dekel & Jeffrey C. Ely & Okan Yilankaya, 2007. "Evolution of Preferences -super-1," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 74(3), pages 685-704.
    22. 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.
    23. Erte Xiao & Daniel Houser, 2005. "Emotion expression in human punishment behavior," Experimental 0504003, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 18 May 2005.
    24. Joseph Tao-yi Wang & Michael Spezio & Colin F. Camerer, 2010. "Pinocchio's Pupil: Using Eyetracking and Pupil Dilation to Understand Truth Telling and Deception in Sender-Receiver Games," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(3), pages 984-1007, June.
    25. Bonnefon, Jean-François & De Neys, Wim & Hopfensitz, Astrid, 2012. "The Modular Nature of Trustworthiness Detection," TSE Working Papers 12-311, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    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. Zakaria Babutsidze & Nobuyuki Hanaki & Adam Zylbersztejn, 2019. "Digital Communication and Swift Trust," Post-Print halshs-02409314, HAL.
    2. Breaban, Adriana & van de Kuilen, Gijs & Noussair, Charles, 2016. "Prudence, Personality, Cognitive Ability and Emotional State," Other publications TiSEM 9a01a5ab-e03d-49eb-9cd7-4, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    3. Lenka Fiala & Charles N. Noussair, 2017. "Charitable Giving, Emotions, And The Default Effect," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 55(4), pages 1792-1812, October.
    4. J. Hausfeld & K. von Hesler & S. Goldlücke, 2021. "Strategic gaze: an interactive eye-tracking study," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 24(1), pages 177-205, March.
    5. Zakaria Babutsidze & Nobuyuki Hanaki & Adam Zylbersztejn, 2021. "Nonverbal content and trust: An experiment on digital communication," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 59(4), pages 1517-1532, October.
    6. Matthijs van Veelen, 2020. "The evolution of morality," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 20-063/I, Tinbergen Institute.
    7. Simin He & Theo Offerman & Jeroen van de Ven, 2017. "The Sources of the Communication Gap," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 63(9), pages 2832-2846, September.
    8. Pierpaolo Battigalli & Martin Dufwenberg, 2022. "Belief-Dependent Motivations and Psychological Game Theory," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 60(3), pages 833-882, September.
    9. Breaban, Adriana & Van De Kuilen, Gijs & Noussair, Charles N., 2016. "Prudence, emotional state, personality, and cognitive ability," Other publications TiSEM 0ac205ac-aee3-4df2-82ee-6, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    10. Gagnon, Nickolas & Noussair, C., 2016. "Does Reciprocity Persist Over Time?," Research Memorandum 033, Maastricht University, Graduate School of Business and Economics (GSBE).
    11. 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.
    12. Chen, Daniel & Hopfensitz, Astrid & van Leeuwen, Boris & van de Ven, Jeroen, 2019. "The Strategic Display of Emotions," Other publications TiSEM ab45cbcc-1ea1-4762-b5c9-e, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    13. Pierpaolo Battigalli & Roberto Corrao & Martin Dufwenberg, 2019. "Incorporating Belief-Dependent Motivation in Games Abstract:Psychological game theory (PGT), introduced by Geanakoplos, Pearce & Stacchetti (1989) and significantly generalized by Battigalli & Dufwenb," Working Papers 642, IGIER (Innocenzo Gasparini Institute for Economic Research), Bocconi University.
    14. Leonard Doyle & David Schindler, 2019. "$$\mu$$ μ Cap: connecting FaceReader™ to z-Tree," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 5(1), pages 136-141, August.
    15. Ninghua Du & Fei Song & C. Bram Cadsby, 2020. "You Cannot Judge a Book by Its Cover: Evidence from a Laboratory Experiment on Recognizing Generosity from Facial Information," Working Papers 2007, University of Guelph, Department of Economics and Finance.
    16. Castagnetti, Alessandro & Proto, Eugenio, 2020. "Anger and Strategic Behavior: A Level-k Analysis," IZA Discussion Papers 13661, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    17. Nickolas Gagnon & Charles N. Noussair, 2020. "Reciprocity Under Brief And Long‐Time Delays," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 58(3), pages 1517-1530, July.

    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. Boris van Leeuwen & Charles N. Noussair & Theo Offerman & Sigrid Suetens & Matthijs van Veelen & Jeroen van de Ven, 2018. "Predictably Angry—Facial Cues Provide a Credible Signal of Destructive Behavior," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(7), pages 3352-3364, July.
    2. 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.
    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. Gagnon, Nickolas & Noussair, C., 2016. "Does Reciprocity Persist Over Time?," Research Memorandum 033, Maastricht University, Graduate School of Business and Economics (GSBE).
    5. Cappelletti, Dominique & Güth, Werner & Ploner, Matteo, 2011. "Being of two minds: Ultimatum offers under cognitive constraints," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 32(6), pages 940-950.
    6. Volker Benndorf & Claudia Moellers & Hans-Theo Normann, 2017. "Experienced vs. inexperienced participants in the lab: do they behave differently?," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 3(1), pages 12-25, July.
    7. Samahita, Margaret, 2017. "Venting and gossiping in conflicts: Verbal expression in ultimatum games," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 111-121.
    8. Christian Korth & J. Philipp Reiß, 2014. "Vacuous Information Affects Bargaining," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 23(4), pages 921-936, July.
    9. Björn Frank, 2014. "Laboratory Evidence on Face-to-Face," International Regional Science Review, , vol. 37(4), pages 411-435, October.
    10. Jürgen Fleiß, 2015. "Merit norms in the ultimatum game: an experimental study of the effect of merit on individual behavior and aggregate outcomes," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 23(2), pages 389-406, June.
    11. Nosenzo, Daniele & Tufano, Fabio, 2017. "The effect of voluntary participation on cooperation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 307-319.
    12. Carlos Alós-Ferrer & Jaume García-Segarra & Alexander Ritschel, 2018. "The Big Robber Game," ECON - Working Papers 291, Department of Economics - University of Zurich.
    13. Simon Gächter & Daniele Nosenzo & Martin Sefton, 2013. "Peer Effects In Pro-Social Behavior: Social Norms Or Social Preferences?," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 11(3), pages 548-573, June.
    14. Thorsten Chmura & Christoph Engel & Markus Englerth, 2013. "Selfishness As a Potential Cause of Crime. A Prison Experiment," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2013_05, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    15. Claudia Keser & Stephan Müller & Emmanuel Peterlé & Holger A. Rau, 2018. "Bargaining and the Role of Negotiators’ Competitiveness," CIRANO Working Papers 2018s-08, CIRANO.
    16. Nikos Nikiforakis & Helen Mitchell, 2014. "Mixing the carrots with the sticks: third party punishment and reward," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 17(1), pages 1-23, March.
    17. Oren Bar-Gill & Christoph Engel, 2016. "Bargaining in the Absence of Property Rights: An Experiment," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 59(2), pages 477-495.
    18. Chiara Nardi, 2018. "Play Versus Strategy Method: Behavior and the Role of Emotions in the Ultimatum Game," Italian Economic Journal: A Continuation of Rivista Italiana degli Economisti and Giornale degli Economisti, Springer;Società Italiana degli Economisti (Italian Economic Association), vol. 4(1), pages 91-106, March.
    19. Feicht, Robert & Grimm, Veronika & Rau, Holger A. & Stephan, Gesine, 2017. "On the impact of quotas and decision rules in collective bargaining," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 175-192.
    20. Thomas Buser, 2011. "Hormones and Social Preferences," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 11-046/3, Tinbergen Institute.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    anger; commitment; ultimatum game; laboratory experiment;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:tse:iastwp:28909. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iasttfr.html .

    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.