280 HEERDINK.VAN KLEEF.HOMAN.AND FISCHER Specifically.van Kleef et al.(201)drew a distinction among bring about behavioral change?We doo (such as happi supplication emotic the ma onal expres the situation may hav ted n l options e effects of disti cady bre aking the group norm.Thu y 1)Als trong con n th differen ative emotions may actua y.through its and deviance.Furtherm the in f ha (Studies 4 an ithin ndine the idea that emotions bed in families ne's self-esteer p of the Vohs.2003).Given that people nt to mai ain a s Fischer Rosemar 200 cople ways of expr ng their ial exelu motions may be that anger does not co that the on is inferior and ent roles and responsibilities in groups(Hornsey Fiske 2010 but rather e.Even u Limitations.and Directions for eptance if the the changes his or he Future Research nd it e dhean interesting venue forf the nterpersonal effects of social exclusion emotions much On the surface. findings bear ne n prio Parkinson mar 1993)instead of actual rea ding By using a crit niation partner who expresse .the teh this hat to som the interpers nal effect uld be at thi able to establish cau ality in the mediating with clear c petitive incentive s our ing a follow-up posttest,we could determine that the effects of 3) clicit y moderators that are s and stre ongly supported I (Figure 1).showing the robustness o ilarities no ful of blindly generalizing effec from one level to another,and ne important issue that might neec additional inquiry is to fore being ac participant vet we found no behavioral effects of happiness when c affiliate (Cialdini Golds ein.2004).and therefore that we ondition in Study 4 ence (De change on the deviant individu I after a h uled out.For the fact hat we ed c 3 weeks after the influence Specifically, van Kleef et al. (2010) drew a distinction among aggressive emotions (such as anger and irritation), affiliative emo￾tions (such as happiness and contentment), supplication emotions (such as disappointment and sadness), and appeasement emotions (such as guilt and interpersonal regret). Congruent with this dis￾tinction, the effects of happiness and anger were clearly distin￾guishable from each other across all studies, and both differed from the effect of disappointment (Study 1). Also, we indeed found strong correlations between the different affiliative emotions that we measured, and the same was true for the aggression emotions irritation and anger (Studies 3 and 4). Furthermore, enthusiasm (Studies 1 and 2) and happiness (Studies 4 and 5) produced highly similar effects on felt acceptance. Thus, these findings support the idea that emotions may be grouped in families based on their interpersonal effects and that different emotions that are part of the same family produce comparable interpersonal effects. In the present studies, we did not include emotions from still another emotion family, namely, social exclusion, such as con￾tempt, disgust, or scorn (see Fischer & Roseman, 2007; Rose￾man et al., 1994). A crucial difference between anger and these social exclusion emotions may be that anger does not commu￾nicate that the other person is inferior and thus not even worthy of attention, as scorn and contempt do (cf. Fischer & Roseman, 2007; Fiske, 2010), but rather the opposite. Even though emo￾tions in the aggression family, such as anger, may be interpreted as signals of rejection, anger may specifically hold the promise of re-acceptance if the other changes his or her behavior. Social exclusion emotions on the other hand do not hold this promise, and it could be an interesting venue for future research to examine the interpersonal effects of social exclusion emotions on group processes. On the surface, our findings bear some resemblance to prior findings regarding the interpersonal effects of happiness and anger on the dyadic level. For instance, individuals concede more to a negotiation partner who expresses anger about an offer in a mixed￾motive negotiation (e.g., Sinaceur & Tiedens, 2006; van Kleef, De Dreu, & Manstead, 2004a, 2004b). Although this similarity may suggest that to some extent, the interpersonal effects of a given emotion family on one level may have similar effects on different levels of analysis, differences between the situations and findings abound. For instance, it should be noted that this increased com￾pliance after an angry reaction was found in mixed-motive situa￾tions with clear competitive incentives, whereas our results sug￾gests that the majority’s anger elicits conformity mainly in cooperative settings (Study 3). Furthermore, generalizing from one level to another is complicated by moderators that are relevant only on one level of analysis, such as prototypicality (Study 5). Thus, similarities notwithstanding, we believe one should be care￾ful of blindly generalizing effects from one level to another, and any generalization should be empirically tested before being ac￾cepted as valid. Throughout this article, we consistently found that the ma￾jority’s happiness leads a deviant individual to feel accepted, yet we found no behavioral effects of happiness when compared witjh a neutral reference condition in Study 4. Indeed, as we stated in the Introduction, we anticipated little behavioral change on the part of the deviant individual after a happy reaction. Does this mean that expressions of happiness within groups can never bring about behavioral change? We do not think so. As we were interested in how deviants are affected by the majority’s emotional expressions, the situation may have restricted the behavioral options for the deviant. That is, there is little room to move away from the group norm when one is already breaking the group norm. Thus, we believe that in a different situation, where opinions deviating from the group’s consensus are likely to be suppressed (e.g., decision making under time pressure), happiness may actually, through its re￾ducing effects on conformity pressure (Study 3), stimulate deviance. Furthermore, the interpersonal effects of happiness within groups are possibly more delayed than the effects of anger. For instance, through its acceptance signaling function, happy reactions may over time help to build one’s self-esteem (Leary, Tambor, Terdal, & Downs, 1995), building the confi￾dence to speak up more often (Baumeister, Campbell, Krueger, & Vohs, 2003). Given that people want to maintain a sense of uniqueness while feeling part of the group (Brewer, 1991; Hornsey & Jetten, 2004), expressions of happiness may guide people in finding acceptable ways of expressing their unique￾ness (i.e., deviance), which helps them find such an optimally distinctive position in groups (Brewer, 1991), for instance, by taking on different roles and responsibilities in groups (Hornsey & Jetten, 2004). Strengths, Limitations, and Directions for Future Research A strength of the current research is that the effects were found across four different paradigms. Studies 1 and 2 afforded much experimental control through the use of vignettes but may be criticized for tapping into naïve theories about emotion (Parkinson & Manstead, 1993), instead of actual reactions to emotional expressions. By using a critical incidents approach in Study 3, we tapped into actual experiences of being deviant in a group, thereby offering great ecological validity and avoiding shortcomings of the vignette approach in Studies 1 and 2. Study 4 then replicated these findings in a cooperative group study involving a behavioral measure of conformity. Finally, by bringing participants in a situation in which the majority’s emotions were strictly contingent on their behavior in Study 5, we were able to establish causality in the mediating chain involving feelings of acceptance/rejection. Furthermore, by do￾ing a follow-up posttest, we could determine that the effects of feeling rejected after an angry reaction are so profound that they lasted for weeks. Thus, across situations and paradigms, all results were in line with our hypotheses and strongly supported our motivational model (Figure 1), showing the robustness of the studied phenomena. One important issue that might need additional inquiry is to further tease apart the different social influence processes that underlie the behavioral conformity effects we observed. As our participants adjusted their behavior because they felt rejected, it is tempting to conclude that our participants were driven by a desire to affiliate (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004), and therefore that we studied a type of normative influence (Deutsch & Gerard, 1955). Yet, we do not think that other types of social influence should be ruled out. For instance, the fact that we observed conformity even 3 weeks after the influence situation (Study 5) indicates that This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. 280 HEERDINK, VAN KLEEF, HOMAN, AND FISCHER