Some people consider the tactic of faking anger to be an effective negotiating tool.

In 2010, after the British Petroleum oil spill, President Obama was criticized first for his initial calm response and then again for his display of anger on a television program because it was deemed disingenuous.

Past experimental studies have demonsrated how displays of outrage during negotiations led to the parties believing the angry person was tough, had ambitious goals, and unlikely to make concessions. Later studies, however, have shown this only applies if the anger is real—not faked.

Even more recent studies conclude anger that isn’t truly believed can have quite different outcomes. When the faked anger leads to a reduction in trust and the party becoming intransigent leads to increased demands from the counterpart. Faking anger erodes confidence and thus is detrimental to conflict resolution.

So, how should a negotiator respond the faked anger? Don’t respond in kind or take it seriously. After all, the other party is just acting. Instead, call for a recess and restate the negotiations later.

Reference--Stéphane Côté, Ivona Hideg, and Gerben A. van Kleef, The Consequences of Faking Anger in Negotiations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 2013, 49, 453-463.

The 11th edition of my book, “An Introduction to Intercultural Communication,” has just been published.

In support of this latest version, I recently did an interview and was asked what are the most important factors to consider while negotiating and mediating across cultures.

I provided two examples:

First, remember we negotiate with individuals, not with cultures. A national cultural stereotype doesn’t necessarily apply to any one individual.

Second, is to appreciate the concept of “saving face.” Some make the mistake in assuming this concern is only important in Asian countries. However, most languages can be translated into the English word “face” to refer to a person’s sense of worth, dignity, and identity and is associated with image, respect, honor, status, reputation, and competence. People in all cultures try to avoid embarrassment by maintaining face in all communication.

But how “saving face” is managed varies by culture. For example, in the U.S., it is expected that if you have a problem with someone, you should confront them directly, which can be viewed as a challenge. By contrast, in China there is more concern for mutual respect and honor. in an instance where a subordinate is in conflict with a superior, the subordinate must protect the superior’s face and maintain interpersonal harmony by suppressing direct confrontation. The subordinate may communicate indirectly by relying on a third party in their social network to communicate their greivance with the superior.

Decades ago, Dale Carnegie wrote in “How to Win Friends and Influence People,” that winning an argument by proving another wrong, makes others feel inferior and results in them striking back. Instead, Carnegie propased letting the other party save face in order to achieve a shared desire to resolve any issue with reverance.

For a broader understanding of such cultural similarities and differences in how we communicate, please consider “An Introduction to Intercultural Communicationt, 11th Edition,” available wherever books are sold, as well as directly from the publisher.