Special Issue "Behavior Regulation and Conflicted Emotions: Theory and Experimental Evidence"

A special issue of Games (ISSN 2073-4336).

Deadline for manuscript submissions: closed (31 January 2017)

Special Issue Editors

Guest Editor
Dr. Roman Sheremeta

Weatherhead School of Management, Case Western Reserve University, 10900 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio 44106-7235, USA
Website | E-Mail
Interests: experimental economics; game theory; conflict resolution
Guest Editor
Dr. Eric Schniter

Argyros School of Business and Economics, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute, Chapman University, One University Drive, Orange, CA, 92866, USA
Website | E-Mail
Interests: emotions; relationship maintenance; communication; trust; cooperation

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

We invite contributions to a Special Issue in Games on “Behavior Regulation and Conflicted Emotions: Theory and Experimental Evidence”. The goal of this Special Issue is to bring together current research on emotions and regulation of behaviour (whether of self or others). We are interested in theoretical, experimental and empirical contributions that focus (but not exclusively) on emotions and behaviour regulation in games, emotions and decision making, emotions and self-control, conflicted (or mixed) emotions, and emotion regulation.

Interested authors are also invited to contact the Special Issue Guest Editors, Roman Sheremeta (rms246@case.edu) and Eric Schniter (schniter@chapman.edu), to discuss the fit of various topics to the Special Issue.

Dr. Roman Sheremeta
Dr. Eric Schniter
Guest Editors

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All papers will be peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Games is an international peer-reviewed open access quarterly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 550 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

  • emotions
  • behavior regulation
  • game theory
  • experiments

Published Papers (5 papers)

View options order results:
result details:
Displaying articles 1-5
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

Open AccessArticle Emotion at Stake—The Role of Stake Size and Emotions in a Power-to-Take Game Experiment in China with a Comparison to Europe
Games 2017, 8(1), 17; doi:10.3390/g8010017
Received: 14 January 2017 / Revised: 14 March 2017 / Accepted: 15 March 2017 / Published: 20 March 2017
PDF Full-text (896 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
This paper experimentally investigates how monetary incentives and emotions influence behavior in a two-player power-to-take game (PTTG). In this game, one player can claim any part of the other's endowment (take rate), and the second player can respond by destroying any part of
[...] Read more.
This paper experimentally investigates how monetary incentives and emotions influence behavior in a two-player power-to-take game (PTTG). In this game, one player can claim any part of the other's endowment (take rate), and the second player can respond by destroying any part of his or her own endowment. The experiment is run in China. We further compare our findings with the behavior of two European subject pools. Our results give new insights regarding emotion regulation. Even though stake size does not appear to matter for take rates and destruction rates, it does matter for the reaction function of the responder regarding the take rate. When stakes are high, there is less destruction for low and intermediate take rates, and more destruction for high take rates, compared to relatively low stakes. Under low incentives, ‘hot’ anger-type emotions are important for destruction, while ‘cool’ contempt becomes prominent under high monetary incentives. These results suggest emotion regulation in the high-stake condition. Moreover, emotions are found to fully mediate the impact of the take rate on destruction when stakes are low, whereas they only partially do so if stakes are high. Comparing the low-stakes data for China with existing European data, we find similarities in behavior, emotions and emotion intensities, as well as the full mediation of the take rate by emotions. We find some differences related to the type of emotions that are important for destruction. Whereas anger and joy are important in both, in addition, irritation and fear play a role in China, while this holds for contempt in the EU. Full article
Figures

Figure 1

Open AccessArticle Assessing Others’ Risk‐Taking Behavior from Their Affective States: Experimental Evidence Using a Stag Hunt Game
Games 2017, 8(1), 9; doi:10.3390/g8010009
Received: 15 November 2016 / Accepted: 19 January 2017 / Published: 1 February 2017
PDF Full-text (563 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
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
[...] Read more.
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. Full article
Figures

Figure 1

Open AccessArticle Anger Management: Aggression and Punishment in the Provision of Public Goods
Games 2017, 8(1), 5; doi:10.3390/g8010005
Received: 2 November 2016 / Revised: 4 January 2017 / Accepted: 4 January 2017 / Published: 22 January 2017
PDF Full-text (4830 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text | Supplementary Files
Abstract
The ability to punish free-riders can increase the provision of public goods. However, sometimes, the benefit of increased public good provision is outweighed by the costs of punishments. One reason a group may punish to the point that net welfare is reduced is
[...] Read more.
The ability to punish free-riders can increase the provision of public goods. However, sometimes, the benefit of increased public good provision is outweighed by the costs of punishments. One reason a group may punish to the point that net welfare is reduced is that punishment can express anger about free-riding. If this is the case, then tools that regulate emotions could decrease the use of punishments while keeping welfare high, possibly depending on pre-existing levels of aggression. In this lab experiment, we find that adopting an objective attitude (objective), through a form of emotion regulation called cognitive reappraisal, decreases the use of punishments and makes a statistically insignificant improvement to both net earnings and self-reported emotions compared to a control condition (natural). Although the interaction between the emotion regulation treatment and level of aggression is not significant, only low aggression types reduce their punishments; the results are of the same direction, but statistically insignificant for high aggression types. Overall, our findings suggest that pairing emotion regulation with punishments can decrease the use of punishments without harming monetary and mental welfare. Full article
Figures

Figure 1

Open AccessArticle Evolution of Mindsight and Psychological Commitment among Strategically Interacting Agents
Games 2016, 7(3), 27; doi:10.3390/g7030027
Received: 27 May 2016 / Revised: 3 September 2016 / Accepted: 9 September 2016 / Published: 21 September 2016
PDF Full-text (288 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
We study the evolution of strategic psychological capabilities in a population of interacting agents. Specifically, we consider agents which are either blind or with mindsight, and either transparent or opaque. An agent with mindsight can observe the psychological makeup of a transparent agent,
[...] Read more.
We study the evolution of strategic psychological capabilities in a population of interacting agents. Specifically, we consider agents which are either blind or with mindsight, and either transparent or opaque. An agent with mindsight can observe the psychological makeup of a transparent agent, i.e., its logic, emotions, commitments and other elements that determine how it chooses actions. A blind agent cannot observe and opaque agents cannot be observed. Our assumption that mindsight and transparency are costly and optional exposes a middle ground between standard game theory without mindsight and evolution of preferences theory with obligatory and costless mindsight. We show that the only evolutionarily stable monomorphic population is one in which all agents are blind, opaque, and act-rational. We find that mindsight, transparency, and rule-rational commitments may evolve, albeit only in a portion of the population that fluctuates in size over generations. We reexamine the Ultimatum and Trust games in light of our findings and demonstrate that an evolved population of agents can differ significantly from a population of simplistic payoff-maximizers in terms of psychological traits and economic outcomes. Full article
Open AccessArticle Trait Emotional Intelligence Is Related to Risk Taking when Adolescents Make Deliberative Decisions
Games 2016, 7(3), 23; doi:10.3390/g7030023
Received: 29 June 2016 / Revised: 25 August 2016 / Accepted: 26 August 2016 / Published: 31 August 2016
PDF Full-text (316 KB) | HTML Full-text | XML Full-text
Abstract
Most forms of risky behavior reach their peak during adolescence. A prominent line of research is exploring the relationship between people’s emotional self-efficacy and risk taking, but little is known about this relationship in the cognitive-deliberative domain among adolescents. The main aim of
[...] Read more.
Most forms of risky behavior reach their peak during adolescence. A prominent line of research is exploring the relationship between people’s emotional self-efficacy and risk taking, but little is known about this relationship in the cognitive-deliberative domain among adolescents. The main aim of the present study consists in investigating whether trait EI (Emotional Intelligence) is positively related to risk taking under predominantly cognitive-deliberative conditions among adolescents. Ninety-four adolescents played the cold version of the Columbia Card Task one month following an assessment of their trait EI. Results showed that trait EI is associated with risk taking under cognitive-deliberative conditions among adolescents. Moreover, the present research showed that trait EI is related to risk taking through the decision makers’ self-motivation. These results provide novel insights into research investigating the connections between emotional intelligence, decision science and adolescence research. Full article
Figures

Figure 1

Journal Contact

MDPI AG
Games Editorial Office
St. Alban-Anlage 66, 4052 Basel, Switzerland
E-Mail: 
Tel. +41 61 683 77 34
Fax: +41 61 302 89 18
Editorial Board
Contact Details Submit to Games Edit a special issue Review for Games
Back to Top