The effect of reactive emotions on social perceptions of affiliation and 

social power

Abstract

Emotions are fundamental to social interactions, serving as signals that convey an individual’s internal state, intentions, and evaluations of the surrounding social context. This research explores how reactive emotions shape judgments of affiliation and social power, focusing on dyadic interactions in which expressions of happiness elicit various emotional responses. Building on appraisal theories of emotion and 

frameworks of social perception, the study examines how observers interpret these exchanges, emphasizing the mediating roles of appropriateness, perceived differences in emotional competence (PDEC), and the quality of the relationship. The research 

focuses on four key reactive emotions: happiness, anger, disgust, and neutrality, aiming to elucidate how these reactions influence perceptions of social power and affiliation.

The study addresses an important gap in the literature by extending the focus beyond anger, which has been widely studied for its dominance-related signaling. Happiness, often viewed as a dual signal of warmth and competence, provides an opportunity to examine how reactive emotions confirm or challenge these signals. Additionally, the research highlights the complex interplay of reactive emotions with norms, relational emotion intelligence evaluations, and emotional appropriateness in shaping judgments of social interactions.

Three experiments were conducted to investigate these dynamics. Study 1 explored whether reactive emotions confirm or disconfirm the affiliative and power-related claims conveyed by expressions of happiness. Although participants recognized the signaling functions of reactive emotions, these signals did not straightforwardly influence judgments of affiliation or power. The findings suggest a suppression effect, in which opposing direct and indirect pathways mask the observable impacts of reactive emotions. Specifically, the emotional responses of Person B may signal additional, conflicting meanings that complicate how observers interpret Person A’s affiliative and power-related claims. 

To build on these findings, Study 2 introduced measures of perceived closeness between expressers, and incorporated open-ended questions to capture nuanced interpersonal dynamics. The results of this study largely replicated the findings of Study 1, showing that participants recognized the signaling functions of reactive emotions. However, Study 2 did not find evidence of a suppression effect.

Study 3 expanded the scope of analysis by introducing three mediators: perceived relational quality, appropriateness, and PDEC. Appropriateness emerged as a critical lens through which observers evaluated Person B’s reactions. When reactive emotions 

were deemed inappropriate, participants were more likely to view Person A as affiliative, likely due to the contrast between Person A’s positive intent and Person B’s norm-violating response. For example, anger and disgust were often perceived as 

inappropriate reactions to happiness, amplifying the affiliative qualities of Person A. PDEC further clarified these dynamics. Inappropriate reactions reduced perceptions of Person B’s emotional competence, which in turn elevated Person A’s perceived affiliativeness. Together, appropriateness and PDEC demonstrated how compensatory mechanisms operate to influence social judgments when reactive emotions deviate from normative expectations.

This research makes several theoretical and practical contributions. First, it extends existing models of emotional signaling by highlighting the dual roles of reactive emotions in confirming or disconfirming affiliative and power-related claims. The findings underscore how norms and relational dynamics moderate these effects, offering insights into the complexities of emotional exchanges. Furthermore, this research sheds light on the role of emotional competence in shaping social perceptions. By introducing PDEC as a mediating factor, the study reveals how observers’ evaluations of emotional competence influence their judgments of both expressers in a dyadic interaction. Notably, when Person B’s reactions were deemed inappropriate, participants perceived Person B as less emotionally competent, which 

often enhanced perceptions of Person A’s affiliative intent and social standing. This finding underscores the importance of emotional competence as a key variable in the social perception of emotions.

Future research should also address the role of cultural and relational contexts. Cultural norms significantly shape perceptions of emotional appropriateness and competence, particularly in the case of anger. For example, expressions of anger may be viewed as inappropriate in cultures that prioritize group harmony, but as justified or even necessary in cultures that value personal autonomy. Investigating these variations across cultural and relational contexts would provide a more comprehensive understanding of how emotional exchanges operate within different social frameworks. Additionally, diversifying participant samples to include individuals from varied demographic and cultural backgrounds would enhance the generalizability of the findings.

By addressing these avenues, future studies can build on the theoretical and practical implications of this research. The findings emphasize the importance of emotional appropriateness and competence in shaping social perceptions, offering valuable insights into the role of emotions in interpersonal dynamics and social hierarchies. This work contributes to the broader understanding of how emotions function as social signals, highlighting their pivotal role in facilitating connection, reinforcing norms, and navigating the complexities of social interactions