Evidence for the regulatory function of intergroup emotion: Emotional consequences of implemented or impeded intergroup action tendencies

Maitner, Angela T.; Mackie, Diane M.; Smith, Eliot R.

doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2005.08.001

Cited by 109 publications

(112 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

108

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Importantly, group-level emotions function to regulate group-relevant or collective behavior (Maitner, Mackie, & Smith, 2006;van Zomeren, Leach, & Spears, 2012), rather than individual behavior (Carver, 2015). In the case of collective angst, behavior is directed towards attempts to secure the future vitality of the in-group.…”

Section: The Psychology Of Collective Angstmentioning

confidence: 99%

Will we be harmed, will it be severe, can we protect ourselves? Threat appraisals predict collective angst (and its consequences)

Tabri

Wohl

Caouette

2017

Euro J Social Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Across four studies, we applied the cognitive model of anxiety to explicate the appraisals that elicit collective angst (i.e., concern for the in-group's future vitality). In Study 1a, consistent with the model, Québécois experienced collective angst when they appraised the following: (1) a threat as likely to harm their group, (2) a threat as severely harming their group, and (3) Québécois as not having efficacy to protect their group. In Study 1b, results were replicated in the context of the realistic threat that Islamic extremists pose to Christian-Lebanese. In Studies 2a and 2b, we manipulated the three appraisals and found a similar pattern of results in the context of a potential terrorist attack on American soil by Islamic extremists. Importantly, collective angst mediated the threat appraisal effect on (non-Muslim) Americans' prejudice towards Muslims. The utility of the appraisal model for regulating collective angst (and thus its consequences) is discussed.Group members find comfort in the belief that there exists continuity in their group's past, present, and future (Jetten & Hutchison, 2011;Jetten & Wohl, 2012;Sani et al., 2007). This is because a sense of continuity provides existential security (Durkheim, 1951). Yet, social groups are not static; they change-a reality that, when salient, is often perceived as a threat to one's social identity (Riek, Mania, & Gaertner, 2006) and thus produces distress among group members (Chandler & Lalonde, 1998;Lampinen, Odegard, & Leding, 2004). This distress may manifest in collective angst-a group-based emotion that reflects concern for the future vitality of the in-group (Jetten & Wohl, 2012;Wohl, Branscombe, & Reysen, 2010).Importantly, collective angst originates from perceived extinction threats to one's in-group. These threats may take the form of realistic extinction threats posed by adversarial out-groups (Halperin, Porat, & Wohl, 2013;Wohl et al., 2010) but may also take the form of symbolic threats to the group's social identity (e.g., loss of cultural vitality; Wohl, Giguère, Branscombe, & McVicar, 2011). Halperin et al. (2013), for example, found that Israeli Jews experienced collective angst when they were informed that Israel did not have the capability to prevent a nuclear attack from Iran. Likewise, Canadians experienced collective angst when they perceived Canadian distinctiveness from the United States was under threat (Wohl et al., 2011). Whether the threat perceived is realistic or symbolic, the consequence of collective angst is the same-an upswing in support for efforts to strengthen the ingroup (e.g., support for policies that are perceived to be in-group protective; for a review, see Lucas, Rudolph, Zhdanova, Barkho, & Weidner, 2014;Wohl, Squires, & Caouette, 2012). To date, however, little is known about the appraisals of intergroup events that are necessary to elicit collective angst. The present research addressed this gap in knowledge by applying the cognitive model of anxiety (Beck, Emery, & Greenberg, 1985;Clark & Beck, 201...

show abstract

Section: The Psychology Of Collective Angstmentioning

confidence: 99%

Will we be harmed, will it be severe, can we protect ourselves? Threat appraisals predict collective angst (and its consequences)

Tabri

Wohl

Caouette

2017

Euro J Social Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, emotions accomplish an important regulatory function for intergroup relations (e.g. Mackie & Smith, 1998;Maitner, Mackie, & Smith, 2006;Shah et al, 2004), and are particularly relevant for the study of intergroup attitudes. Finally, research has shown that promotion versus prevention focus are linked to specific emotions (as mentioned above; e.g.…”

Section: Overview and Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Motivations underlying attitudes: regulatory focus and majority versus minority support

Falomir‐Pichastor

Mugny

Quiamzade

et al. 2008

Euro J Social Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Drawing on regulatory focus theory, the present work examined the motivations underlying intergroup attitudes expressed under conditions of majority versus minority support. In two studies, participants expressed their attitudes towards equality and non-discrimination of foreigners and were informed that the equality and non-discrimination principle was supported by either a majority or a minority. Regulatory focus was assessed as the extent to which participants felt promotion-related and prevention-related emotions when acting either inconsistently or consistently with the egalitarian principle. Results provided evidence supporting the hypothesis that attitudes are related to prevention emotions when supported by a majority, but to promotion emotions when supported by a minority.

show abstract

“…For example, the experience of intergroup anger predicts a desire to harm the offending group (Mackie et al, 2000;Yzerbyt et al, 2003) and motivates actions to right perceived wrongs (Maitner et al, 2006). Reported intergroup fear leads to a desire to avoid the outgroup, help victims, or seek relevant information .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Arousal, Processing, and Risk Taking: Consequences of Intergroup Anger

Rydell

Mackie

Maitner

et al. 2008

Pers Soc Psychol Bull

Self Cite

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Intergroup emotions theory (IET) posits that when social categorization is salient, individuals feel the same emotions as others who share their group membership. Extensive research supporting this proposition has relied heavily on self-reports of group-based emotions. In three experiments, the authors provide converging evidence that group-based anger has subtle and less explicitly controlled consequences for information processing, using measures that do not rely on self-reported emotional experience. Specifically, the authors show that intergroup anger involves arousal (Experiment 1), reduces systematic processing of persuasive messages (Experiment 2), is moderated by group identification (Experiment 2, posttest), and compared to intergroup fear, increases risk taking (Experiment 3). These findings provide converging evidence that consistent with IET, emotions triggered by social categorization have psychologically consequential effects and are not evident solely in self-reports.

show abstract

Evidence for the regulatory function of intergroup emotion: Emotional consequences of implemented or impeded intergroup action tendencies

Cited by 109 publications

References 25 publications

Will we be harmed, will it be severe, can we protect ourselves? Threat appraisals predict collective angst (and its consequences)

Will we be harmed, will it be severe, can we protect ourselves? Threat appraisals predict collective angst (and its consequences)

Motivations underlying attitudes: regulatory focus and majority versus minority support

Arousal, Processing, and Risk Taking: Consequences of Intergroup Anger

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About