N SD 0.90 1.19 1.31 1.39 1.94 1.64 0.92 0.87 0.86 0.81 0.93 F 8.73 12.97 0.73 39.86 7.92 26.44 5.08 12.22 3.25 2.83 5.28 Omnibus test P <0.001 <0.001 0.53 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.002 <0.001 0.024 0.041 0.Means with different superscripts (a

N SD 0.90 1.19 1.31 1.39 1.94 1.64 0.92 0.87 0.86 0.81 0.93 F 8.73 12.97 0.73 39.86 7.92 26.44 5.08 12.22 3.25 2.83 5.28 DHA web 487-52-5 Omnibus test P <0.001 <0.001 0.53 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.002 <0.001 0.024 0.041 0.Means with different superscripts (a,b,c,d ) differ at p < 0.05. Different superscripts accompanied by denote a marginally significant difference (p < 0.10).General DiscussionIntegrating theorizing on attribution (Weiner, 1985), social appraisal (Manstead and Fischer, 2001), and the use of emotion as social information (Van Kleef, 2009), we conducted three scenario studies to examine how emotional expressions influence attributions of agency and responsibility in ambiguous contexts. We found that expressions of regret about a particular state of affairs led perceivers to attribute greater agency and responsibility for the situation to the expresser, whereas expressions of anger resulted in greater attributions of agency and responsibility to a third person. These studies replicate effects found in previous research in which the expressed emotions had clear contextual antecedents (e.g., Van Kleef et al., 2004, 2006; de Melo et al., 2014). We also found that expressions of anger were interpreted as a sign of injustice, and that expressions of disappointment increased tendencies to help the expresser. These results show that even when there is no clear antecedent to the expression of emotion by another person, people's inferences regarding the agency of the expresser and others correspond to the appraisal structures associated with the emotions. These results indicate that inferences that people make regarding the person expressing the emotion don't necessarily rely on a preceding outcome being known, and make an account of emotions as social information less sensitive to context and, therefore, stronger. Our results are novel in that under conditions of ambiguity, inferences of agency are a markedly more dynamic class of social inferences than inferences of stable personality traits (Knutson, 1996). Accordingly, one promising avenue for further research is to determine whether effects of emotional expressions on inferences about the situation in which the emotion is expressed, qualities of the expressing person, and qualities of the person to whom the expression is directed can be similarly decontextualized. People may use social appraisal (Manstead and Fischer, 2001), reverse appraisal (Hareli and Hess, 2012), or a combination thereof to make inferences based on others' emotions (de Melo et al., 2014). When inferences result from one, or both, ofthese processes is currently unclear. In the current studies, social appraisals regarding agency and responsibility could reliably be made, despite a lack of a contextual antecedent of (cause of) the emotion expression. Because no antecedent event was described as a trigger for the emotion that was being expressed, however, it seems less likely that our participants engaged in the reconstruction of the appraisals of the person expressing an emotion (i.e., reverse appraisal; de Melo et al., 2014). The information needed to do so was simply not available to them. A promising line for future research could be to investigate which information observers use in order to reliably reconstruct the appraisals underlying an expression of emotion which they observe. Interestingly, Study 3 revealed no evidence that the expression of disappointment influences attributions of agency and responsibility. It thus.N SD 0.90 1.19 1.31 1.39 1.94 1.64 0.92 0.87 0.86 0.81 0.93 F 8.73 12.97 0.73 39.86 7.92 26.44 5.08 12.22 3.25 2.83 5.28 Omnibus test P <0.001 <0.001 0.53 <0.001 <0.001 <0.001 0.002 <0.001 0.024 0.041 0.Means with different superscripts (a,b,c,d ) differ at p < 0.05. Different superscripts accompanied by denote a marginally significant difference (p < 0.10).General DiscussionIntegrating theorizing on attribution (Weiner, 1985), social appraisal (Manstead and Fischer, 2001), and the use of emotion as social information (Van Kleef, 2009), we conducted three scenario studies to examine how emotional expressions influence attributions of agency and responsibility in ambiguous contexts. We found that expressions of regret about a particular state of affairs led perceivers to attribute greater agency and responsibility for the situation to the expresser, whereas expressions of anger resulted in greater attributions of agency and responsibility to a third person. These studies replicate effects found in previous research in which the expressed emotions had clear contextual antecedents (e.g., Van Kleef et al., 2004, 2006; de Melo et al., 2014). We also found that expressions of anger were interpreted as a sign of injustice, and that expressions of disappointment increased tendencies to help the expresser. These results show that even when there is no clear antecedent to the expression of emotion by another person, people's inferences regarding the agency of the expresser and others correspond to the appraisal structures associated with the emotions. These results indicate that inferences that people make regarding the person expressing the emotion don't necessarily rely on a preceding outcome being known, and make an account of emotions as social information less sensitive to context and, therefore, stronger. Our results are novel in that under conditions of ambiguity, inferences of agency are a markedly more dynamic class of social inferences than inferences of stable personality traits (Knutson, 1996). Accordingly, one promising avenue for further research is to determine whether effects of emotional expressions on inferences about the situation in which the emotion is expressed, qualities of the expressing person, and qualities of the person to whom the expression is directed can be similarly decontextualized. People may use social appraisal (Manstead and Fischer, 2001), reverse appraisal (Hareli and Hess, 2012), or a combination thereof to make inferences based on others' emotions (de Melo et al., 2014). When inferences result from one, or both, ofthese processes is currently unclear. In the current studies, social appraisals regarding agency and responsibility could reliably be made, despite a lack of a contextual antecedent of (cause of) the emotion expression. Because no antecedent event was described as a trigger for the emotion that was being expressed, however, it seems less likely that our participants engaged in the reconstruction of the appraisals of the person expressing an emotion (i.e., reverse appraisal; de Melo et al., 2014). The information needed to do so was simply not available to them. A promising line for future research could be to investigate which information observers use in order to reliably reconstruct the appraisals underlying an expression of emotion which they observe. Interestingly, Study 3 revealed no evidence that the expression of disappointment influences attributions of agency and responsibility. It thus.