Group‐based meta‐emotion and emotion responses to intergroup threat

Abstract

In a secularizing world, religious groups are increasingly threatened by anti‐religious groups. We present two studies investigating religious peoples’ responses to anti‐religious threats. We expected intergroup threats to shape group‐based emotions and behavioural intentions through a novel pathway whereby threat affects group‐based meta‐emotions: the ingroup’s perception of the outgroup’s emotions towards the ingroup. In Study 1, we experimentally manipulated threat and group salience with participants from two different cultures (British and Latinx/Hispanic). Study 1 demonstrated non‐interactive effects of threat increasing negative emotional responses and of group salience strengthening emotional responses. The results illustrated the role of group‐based meta‐emotions in predicting outgroup‐directed emotions and behavioural response intentions. Study 2 used a different manipulation of threat in an American sample and an identity‐based manipulation of salience to assess the impact of real‐world anti‐religious campaigns involving symbolic and realistic threats. Both threat types increased negative group‐based meta‐emotions, negative outgroup‐directed emotions, desire to respond, and opposition to the anti‐religious campaign compared to no threat. Overall, religious identity salience had little impact on outcomes. The indirect pathway through meta‐emotion replicated, suggesting the importance of considering this novel meta‐emotion pathway in intergroup relations.

Group-based emotion processes generalize across group exemplars and types

“…The consistency of results across group types also suggests both the feasibility and potential benefits of integrating research focused on close, task, and category-based groups. For instance, research on prejudice among category-based groups such as race and religion has found that positive and negative group-based emotions play a significant role in exacerbating or reducing prejudice (Islam & Hewstone, 1993; Pauketat et al, 2019; Seger et al, 2017). Given the similarities we found across exemplars, it may be that group-based emotions are also key to understanding positive and negative relations among close and task groups as well.…”

Prejudice model 1.0: A predictive model of prejudice.

“…Intergroup emotions researchers typically consider the discrete emotions of anger and disgust to be most important in predicting intergroup attitudes (Mackie et al, 2000, 2016). Modeling off this research, in a new sample, we measured each construct with two items on a 7-point Likert-type scale (Pauketat et al, 2020).…”

The Causal Effect of an Intergroup Contact Intervention on Affective Polarization around Brexit: A Randomized Controlled Trial

“…To assess meta-emotions participants were asked to answer the following questions on scales ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much): "Based on your experience and observations, to what extent do you think [outgroup members] feel the following emotions towards [ingroup members]: anger, disgust, contempt, respect (R)" 73 . The items were combined to form a reliable index of negative meta-emotions (α T1 = .84; α T2 = .90; α T3 = .85).…”

“…Interventions that correct meta-perceptions, either through information 69,70 or contact 71,72 , can, in turn, reduce intergroup con ict and increase willingness to engage with the outgroup. We assess both meta-stereotypes ('intelligent' and 'intolerant') and negative metaemotions 73 .…”