Predictably Angry—Facial Cues Provide a Credible Signal of Destructive Behavior

References

• Andrade EB, Ho TH (2009) Gaming emotions in social interactions. J. Consumer Res. 36(4):539–552.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Baron-Cohen S, Wheelwright S, Hill J, Raste Y, Plumb I (2001) The “reading the mind in the eyes” test revised version: A study with normal adults, and adults with Asperger syndrome or high-functioning autism. J. Child Psych. Psychiatry 42(2):241–251.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Belot M, Bhaskar V, van de Ven J (2012) Can observers predict trustworthiness? Rev. Econom. Statist. 94(1):246–259.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Benderlioglu Z, Sciulli PW, Nelson RJ (2004) Fluctuating asymmetry predicts human reactive aggression. Amer. J. Human Biol. 16(4):458–469.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bijlstra G, Dotsch R (2011) FaceReader 4 emotion classification performance on images from the Radboud Faces Database. Technical report, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
• Blanco M, Engelmann D, Normann HT (2011) A within-subject analysis of other-regarding preferences. Games Econom. Behav. 72(2):321–338.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bonnefon J-F, Hopfensitz A, De Neys W (2013) The modular nature of trustworthiness detection. J. Experiment. Psych. 142(1):143–150.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Brosig J (2002) Identifying cooperative behavior: Some experimental results in a prisoner’s dilemma game. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 47(3):275–290.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burnham TC (2007) High-testosterone men reject low ultimatum game offers. Proc. Biol. Sci. Roy. Soc. 274(1623):2327–2330.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Carré JM, McCormick CM (2008) In your face: Facial metrics predict aggressive behaviour in the laboratory and in varsity and professional hockey players. Proc. Biol. Sci. Roy. Soc. 275(1651):2651–2656.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Carré JM, McCormick CM, Mondloch CJ (2009) Facial structure is a reliable cue of aggressive behavior. Psych. Sci. 20(10):1194–1198.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Centorrino S, Djemai E, Hopfensitz A, Milinski M, Seabright P (2015) Honest signalling in trust interactions: Smiles rated as genuine induce trust and signal higher earnings opportunities. Evolution Human Behav. 36(1):8–16.Crossref, Google Scholar
• D’Arcey JT (2013) Assessing the validity of FaceReader using facial EMG. Thesis, California State University, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
• Dawes RM, McTavish J, Shaklee H (1977) Behavior, communication, and assumptions about other people’s behavior in a commons dilemma situation. J. Personality Soc. Psych. 35(1):1–11.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dekel E, Ely JC, Yilankaya O (2007) Evolution of preferences. Rev. Econom. Stud. 74(3):685–704.Google Scholar
• De Neys W, Hopfensitz A, Bonnefon J-F (2013) Low second-to-fourth digit ratio predicts indiscriminate social suspicion, not improved trustworthiness detection. Biol. Lett. 9(2):20130037.Crossref, Google Scholar
• den Uyl MJ, Van Kuilenburg H (2005) The FaceReader: Online facial expression recognition. Proc. Measuring Behav. 2005—5th Internat. Conf. Methods Techniques Behav. Res. (Noldus Information Technology, Wageningen, The Netherlands), 589–590.Google Scholar
• Eckel CC, Petrie R (2011) Face value. Amer. Econom. Rev. 101(4):1497–1513.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Efferson C, Vogt S (2013) Viewing men’s faces does not lead to accurate predictions of trustworthiness. Sci. Reports 3:1047.Google Scholar
• Fetchenhauer D, Groothuis T, Pradel J (2010) Not only states but traits—Humans can identify permanent altruistic dispositions in 20s. Evolution Human Behav. 31(2):80–86.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fischbacher U (2007) z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experiment. Econom. 10(2):171–178.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Forbes Insights (2009) Business meetings: The case for face-to-face. Report, Forbes, New York. https://i.forbesimg.com/forbesinsights/StudyPDFs/Business_Meetings_FaceToFace.pdf.Google Scholar
• Frank RH (1987) If Homo economicus could choose his own utility function, would he want one with a conscience? Amer. Econom. Rev. 77(4):593–604.Google Scholar
• Frank RH (1988) Passions Within Reason: The Strategic Role of the Emotions (W. W. Norton & Co., New York).Google Scholar
• Frank RH, Gilovich T, Regan DT (1993) The evolution of one-shot cooperation: An experiment. Ethol. Sociobiol. 14(4):247–256.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Furlow B, Gangestad SW, Armijo-Prewitt T (1998) Developmental stability and human violence. Proc. Biol. Sci. Roy. Soc. 265(1390):1–6.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Geniole SN, Denson TF, Dixson BJ, Carré JM, McCormick CM (2015) Evidence from meta-analyses of the facial width-to-height ratio as an evolved cue of threat. PLoS ONE 10(7):e0132726.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gneezy U, Imas A (2014) Materazzi effect and the strategic use of anger in competitive interactions. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 111(4):1334–1337.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gospic K, Mohlin E, Fransson P, Petrovic P, Johannesson M, Ingvar M (2011) Limbic justice—Amygdala involvement in immediate rejection in the ultimatum game. PLoS Biol. 9(5):e1001054.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Grimm V, Mengel F (2011) Let me sleep on it: Delay reduces rejection rates in ultimatum games. Econom. Lett. 111(2):113–115.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Güth W (1995) An evolutionary approach to explaining cooperative behavior by reciprocal incentives. Internat. J. Game Theory 24(4):323–344.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Güth W, Yaari M (1992) An evolutionary approach to explain reciprocal behavior in a simple strategic game. Witt U, ed. Explaining Process and Change: Approaches to Evolutionary Economics (University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor), 23–34.Google Scholar
• Güth W, Schmittberger R, Schwarze B (1982) An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 3(4):367–388.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Haselhuhn MP, Ormiston ME, Wong EM (2015) Men’s facial width-to-height ratio predicts aggression: A meta-analysis. PLoS ONE 10(4):e0122637.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Heij C, De Boer P, Franses PH, Kloek T, Van Dijk HK (2004) Econometric Methods with Applications in Business and Economics (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK).Google Scholar
• Holtzman NS, Augustine AA, Senne AL (2011) Are pro-social or socially aversive people more physically symmetrical? Symmetry in relation to over 200 personality variables. J. Res. Personality 45(6):687–691.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Jaschke J, Primes G, Koppensteiner M (2013) What you see is what you get? How facial dominance and trustworthiness affect expectation formation and decision-making in ultimatum bargaining. Working paper, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
• Kovács-Bálint Z, Bereczkei T, Hernádi I (2013) The telltale face: Possible mechanisms behind defector and cooperator recognition revealed by emotional facial expression metrics. British J. Psych. 104(4):563–576.Google Scholar
• Lalumière ML, Harris GT, Rice ME (2001) Psychopathy and developmental instability. Evolution Human Behav. 22(2):75–92.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lefevre CE, Lewis GJ, Perrett DI, Penke L (2013) Telling facial metrics: Facial width is associated with testosterone levels in men. Evolution Human Behav. 34(4):273–279.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Manning J, Wood D (1998) Fluctuating asymmetry and aggression in boys. Human Nature 9(1):53–65.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Nesse RM, ed. (2001) Evolution and the Capacity for Commitment (Russell Sage Foundation, New York).Google Scholar
• Nowak M, Page K, Sigmund K (2000) Fairness versus reason in the ultimatum game. Science 289(5485):1773–1775.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ockenfels A, Selten R (2000) An experiment on the hypothesis of involuntary truth-signalling in bargaining. Games Econom. Behav. 33(1):90–116.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Oechssler J, Roider A, Schmitz PW (2015) Cooling-off in negotiations—Does it work? J. Institutional Theoret. Econom. JITE 171(4):565–588.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Penton-Voak IS, Chen JY (2004) High salivary testosterone is linked to masculine male facial appearance in humans. Evolution Human Behav. 25(4):229–241.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Reed LI, DeScioli P, Pinker SA (2014) The commitment function of angry facial expressions. Psych. Sci. 25(8)::1511–1517.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Samuelson L (2001) Introduction to the evolution of preferences. J. Econom. Theory 97(2):225–230.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sanchez-Pages S, Turiegano E (2010) Testosterone, facial symmetry and cooperation in the prisoners’ dilemma. Physiol. Behav. 99(3):355–361.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sanfey AG, Rilling JK, Aronson JA, Nystrom LE, Cohen JD (2003) The neural basis of economic decision-making in the ultimatum game. Science 300(5626):1755–1758.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Solnick S, Schweitzer M (1999) The influence of physical attractiveness and gender on ultimatum game decisions. Organ. Behav. Human Decision Processes 79(3):199–215.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stirrat M, Perrett DI (2010) Valid facial cues to cooperation and trust: Male facial width and trustworthiness. Psych. Sci. 21(3):349–354.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sutter M, Kocher M, Strauß S (2003) Bargaining under time pressure in an experimental ultimatum game. Econom. Lett. 81(3):341–347.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Terzis V, Moridis CN, Economides AA (2010) Measuring instant emotions during a self-assessment test. Proc. 7th Internat. Conf. Methods Techniques Behavioral Research—MB ’10 (ACM Press, New York), 1–4.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Todorov A, Mandisodza AN, Goren A, Hall CC (2005) Inferences of competence from faces predict election outcomes. Science 308(5728):1623–1626.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tognetti A, Berticat C, Raymond M, Faurie C (2013) Is cooperativeness readable in static facial features? An inter-cultural approach. Evolution Human Behav. 34(6):427–432.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Van Dongen S, Gangestad SW (2011) Human fluctuating asymmetry in relation to health and quality: A meta-analysis. Evolution Human Behav. 32(6):380–398.Crossref, Google Scholar
• van ’t Wout M, Kahn RS, Sanfey AG, Aleman A (2006) Affective state and decision-making in the ultimatum game. Experiment. Brain Res. 169(4):564–568.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Verplaetse J, Vanneste S, Braeckman J (2007) You can judge a book by its cover: The sequel. A kernel of truth in predictive cheating detection. Evolution Human Behav. 28(4):260–271.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Vogt S, Efferson C, Fehr E (2013) Can we see inside? Predicting strategic behavior given limited information. Evolution Human Behav. 34(4):258–264.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Wilson V, Lefevre CE, Morton FB, Brosnan SF, Paukner A, Bates TC (2014) Personality and facial morphology: Links to assertiveness and neuroticism in capuchins. Personality Individual Differences 58(February):89–94.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Xiao E, Houser D (2005) Emotion expression in human punishment behavior. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 102(20):7398–7401.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yamagishi T (2003) You can judge a book by its cover: Evidence that cheaters may look different from cooperators. Evolution Human Behav. 24(4):290–301.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yamagishi T, Horita Y (2012) Rejection of unfair offers in the ultimatum game is no evidence of strong reciprocity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 109(50):20364–20368.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Yamagishi T, Horita Y, Takagishi H, Shinada M, Tanida S, Cook KS (2009) The private rejection of unfair offers. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 106(28):11520–11523.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Zaatari D, Trivers R (2007) Fluctuating asymmetry and behavior in the ultimatum game in Jamaica. Evolution Human Behav. 28(4): 223–227.Crossref, Google Scholar