Emotions are pervasive to human life and interactions. They are particularly important to economics as they influence choices at several levels, impact well-being, and shape communication in many markets. While economists have started to realize the importance of emotions, it is not clear yet why and how much individuals value expressing them and what kind of expression they favor. Neither do we know the costs or benefits associated with allowing people to express their emotions. In this proposal the PI will conduct a sequence of laboratory experiments that modify bargaining environments in which a disadvantaged party potentially has the option to express their emotions, either verbally or through an action that has monetary consequences to the party responsible for the disadvantage.
Negotiations are commonplace in politics, business and interpersonal relations. Findings from this research may provide us with additional insights into the negotiation process to the extent that the setting involves opportunities for expression beyond those involving purely informational exchange.
The research project set out to investigate whether people value the ability to verbally express their emotions. Through the use of laboratory experiments (students making decisions in front of computers for which they are being paid) we were able to establish that indeed, people value such expression opportunities. In our experimental setup, many pairs of two people first individually generate income. Then one randomly determined participant of each pair can appropriate any income (noen, some or all of it) of the other member of the pair. The negatively affected side is willing to expand significant existing monetary resources in order to communicate with the source of the stimulus, i.e., the source of the decrease in earnings. Our experimental treatments vary whether the verbal message can be directly sent to the other member in the pair (the one that took the money) or to some independent (and anonymous) third party. We find that while people are willing to pay to send verbal messages even to unaffected and independent third parties, this willingness to pay is lower than for messages that are aimed and read by the other partner in the pair, i.e. the one that took the money. Through these differential treatment effects we can establish that extrinsic as well as intrinsic motivations form the basis of the valuation for expression. Furthermore, participants who were able to express report a smaller decrease in their subjective well-being. Our findings are useful for the design of institutions. In fact, a recent change in the way court rulings are conducted in England and Wales seems to acknowledge the value of expressions. Victims of crime will get a chance to speak in court. The new Victim’s Code will entitle victims to personally address offenders to explain how a crime has impacted them by reading a statement in court. This new code is seen to give victims the choice to explain to a court and the offender(s) in their own words the personal and emotional impacts a crime has had on them and their families, a process that is known to help victims cope and recover from crime. This ruling acknowledges the intrinsic motivation behind the noninstrumental effect of emotion expression as currently, judges read such statements in private with only parts being read aloud by the prosecutors. This new ruling is not meant to change verdicts but is predicted to increase the subjective well–being of the disadvantaged side. Whether this change also has instrumental effects remains to be seen as a decrease in crime rates might take time to manifest itself. Participatory democraties clearly go a step further in asking for expressions before decisions are made. Interestingly enough, citizens report to be happier in such circumstances. Human beings seem to value the ability to express themselves, whether it being ex–ante or ex–post of any outcome allocation.
