English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

Researchers are increasingly exploring the role of emotions in interactive decision‐making.  Recent theories have focused on the interpersonal effects of emotions—the influence of the decisionmaker’s expressed emotions on observers’ decisions and judgments. In this paper, we examine  whether people assess others’ risk preferences on the basis of their emotional states, whether this  affects their own behavior, and how this assessment matches others’ actual behavior. To test these  ideas, we used an experimental Stag Hunt game (n = 98), and included non‐trivial financial  consequences. Participants were told (truthfully) that their counterparts’ previous task had left them  happy, fearful, or emotionally neutral. People who were told their counterparts were fearful  reported that they expected less risky decisions from these counterparts than people told their  counterparts were neutral or happy. As a result, given that the Stag Hunt is a coordination game,  these participants were themselves less risky. Interestingly, these participants’ expectations were  not accurate; thus, coordination failed, and payoffs were low. This raises the possibility of a “curse  of knowledge” whereby one player’s erroneous beliefs about the effects of the counterpart’s  emotional state leads the first player to make poor action choices

Assessing Others’ Risk‐Taking Behavior from Their Affective States: Experimental Evidence Using a Stag Hunt Game