CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 227Conflict Management and NegotiationEmotions and Moral BehaviorSocial Power and Status Dynamics

Supplication and appeasement in conflict and negotiation: The interpersonal effects of disappointment, worry, guilt, and regret.

Open access
Van Kleef, Gerben A., De Dreu, Carsten K. W., Manstead, Antony S. R.·2006·Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
DOI 10.1037/0022-3514.91.1.124
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This study examined the social effects of emotions related to supplication and appeasement in conflict and negotiation. In a computer-simulated negotiation, participants in Experiment 1 were confronted with a disappointed or worried opponent (supplication), with a guilty or regretful opponent (appeasement), or with a nonemotional opponent (control). Compared with controls, participants conceded more when the other experienced supplication emotions and conceded less when the other experienced appeasement emotions (especially guilt). Experiment 2 replicated the effects of disappointment and guilt and showed that they are moderated by the perceiver's dispositional trust: Negotiators high in trust conceded more to a disappointed counterpart than to a happy one, but those with low trust were unaffected. In Experiment 3, trust was manipulated through information about the other's personality (cooperative vs. competitive), and a similar moderation was obtained.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0022-3514.91.1.124

Cites

144 of 144 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Verbal and nonverbal expressions of disappointment and worry can elicit concessions from counterparts in negotiations.

    “Furthermore, negotiation studies indicate that verbal as well as nonverbal expressions of disappointment and worry can elicit concessions from counterparts (Lelieveld et al. 2012(Lelieveld et al. , 2013;;Van Kleef et al. 2006).”

    From The Social Effects of Emotions (2022) · cites this paper as Van Kleef et al. 2006

  • Participants interpreted verbal expressions of guilt and regret by a counterpart as a sign that the other had claimed too much in a previous round and, in turn, made smaller concessions to them.

    “In a series of negotiation studies, participants interpreted verbal expressions of guilt and regret by a counterpart as a sign that the other had claimed too much in a previous round and, in turn, made smaller concessions to them (even though they rated them more favorably than counterparts who did not express such emotions) (Van Kleef et al. 2006).”

    From The Social Effects of Emotions (2022) · cites this paper as Van Kleef et al. 2006

  • In negotiations, people inferred from expressions of disappointment that the counterpart had hoped for a better outcome.

    “and from expressions of disappointment that the counterpart had hoped for a better outcome (Van Kleef et al. 2006).”

    From The Social Effects of Emotions (2022) · cites this paper as Van Kleef et al. 2006

  • Individuals interpreted a counterpart's written expressions of guilt in the context of a competitive negotiation as a sign of interpersonal sensitivity.

    “In another study, individuals interpreted a counterpart’s written expressions of guilt in the context of a competitive negotiation as a sign of interpersonal sensitivity (Van Kleef et al. 2006).”

    From The Social Effects of Emotions (2022) · cites this paper as Van Kleef et al. 2006

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

4 of the 148 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Van Kleef, G. A., De Dreu, C. K. W., & Manstead, A. S. R.
Affiliations
Cardiff University (GB)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2006-07
Volume
91
Issue
1
Pages
124-142
ISSN
  • 0022-3514 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1315
DOI
10.1037/0022-3514.91.1.124
OpenAlex
W2026443152
Cited by
227
References
148
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 21 · 2013: 23 · 2012: 15
FWCI
32.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Conflict Management and Negotiation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Emotions and Moral Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social Power and Status Dynamics
Keywords
dua, appeasement, negotiation, conflict, disappointment, worry, guilt, regret, concessions, trust, interpersonal emotions, dispositional trust
MeSH terms
Anxiety, Computer Simulation, Conflict, Psychological, Dominance-Subordination, Emotions, Female, Guilt, Humans, Internal-External Control, Interpersonal Relations, Male, Social Behavior, Students, Negotiating, Personal Construct Theory, Trust

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review