CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 482Emotions and Moral BehaviorExperimental Behavioral Economics StudiesDeception detection and forensic psychology

The effects of feelings of guilt on the behaviour of uncooperative individuals in repeated social bargaining games: An affect-as-information interpretation of the role of emotion in social interaction

Ketelaar, Timothy, Tung Au, Wing·2003·Cognition and Emotion
DOI 10.1080/02699930143000662
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

In two studies we found that feelings of guilt provoke individuals to cooperate in repeated social bargaining games (a prisoner's dilemma in Study 1 and an ultimatum game in Study 2). Feelings of guilt were either experimentally manipulated (Study 1) or assessed via self-report (Study 2) after participants had played one round of a social bargaining game. As predicted, individuals who experienced feelings of guilt (compared to individuals who felt no guilt) after pursuing a non-cooperative strategy in the first round of play, displayed higher levels of cooperation in the subsequent round of play (even one week later). Results are discussed in terms of an "affect-as-information" model, which suggests that non-cooperating individuals who experience the negative affective state associated with guilt in a social bargaining game may be using this feeling state as "information" about the future costs of pursuing an uncooperative strategy. Because in guilt the focus is on the specific, individuals are capable of ridding themselves of this emotional state through action (Lewis, 1993, p. 570).

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/02699930143000662

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • In interpersonal contexts, guilt can motivate engagement by making individuals feel responsible for another's well-being.

    “In interpersonal contexts, guilt can motivate engagement by making individuals feel responsible for another's well-being (Baumeister, Stillwell, and Heatherton 1994; Ketelaar and Tung Au 2003).”

    From Emotional Manipulation by AI Companions (2025) · cites this paper as Ketelaar and Tung Au 2003

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ketelaar, T., & Tung Au, W.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
  • b The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China
Venue
Cognition and Emotion
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2003-01
Volume
17
Issue
3
Pages
429-453
ISSN
  • 0269-9931 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-0600
DOI
10.1080/02699930143000662
OpenAlex
W2007393367
Cited by
482
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 38 · 2020: 23 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 28 · 2016: 33 · 2015: 28 · 2014: 30 · 2013: 36 · 2012: 24
FWCI
8.32
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Cognition & Emotion (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Emotions and Moral Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Deception detection and forensic psychology
Keywords
guilt, cooperation, repeated games, prisoner's dilemma, ultimatum game, affect-as-information, emotion regulation

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