This study examines cultural variations in negotiators’ attribution and emotion as a viable means to understand culture’s multiplex influence on goal pursuit when it interacts with situational factors. 277 US Americans and 239 mainland Chinese responded to a hypothetical employment negotiation scenario in two experimental conditions. Findings indicate that given the same set of persuasive messages by a counterpart, American participants judged the counterpart as more personally responsible for perceived negative behavior, felt more anger and less compassion toward the counterpart, and placed greater importance on competitive goals than Chinese participants. Although the paths whereby emotions arise and influence interaction goals are largely similar across cultures, mainland Chinese demonstrated a stronger tendency to compete when they felt angry, whereas US Americans were more likely to pursue cooperative goals across both conditions. Theoretical and practical implications of these seemingly contradictory findings are discussed in this article.

Anger motivates people to engage in political action, fuelling collective struggles for justice and recognition. However, because of its close association with irrationality and aggression, the public expression of anger has historically been discouraged. This article focuses on expressions of anger in British disaster coverage between 1952 and 1999. In particular, we look at the relationship between anger, journalistic practices and opportunities for ordinary people to express themselves politically. Our article concludes that anger opens up a space for ordinary people to critique power holders, allowing victims and those affected by disasters to raise questions of systemic failure and blame. And such questions, it appears, are increasingly part of the emotional management style of disaster journalism.