FAKING ANGER DURING NEGOTIATIONS

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.