Social-Psychological Interventions for Intergroup Reconciliation: An Emotion Regulation Perspective

Čehajić‐Clancy, Sabina; Goldenberg, Amit; Gross, James J.; Halperin, Eran

doi:10.1080/1047840x.2016.1153945

Cited by 145 publications

(94 citation statements)

References 63 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It should be noted that in the current research we have highlighted the constructive consequences of guilt as it frequently appears in previous studies (Čehajić‐Clancy et al, , ; Lickel et al, ), but this should be treated with caution in light of this emotion’s complexity, which involves a potential downside. This potential disadvantage is that, in many cases, the emotional reaction of guilt does not help to improve relationships between groups (e.g., Imhoff et al, ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 70%

Group‐based guilt and shame in the context of intergroup conflict: The role of beliefs and meta‐beliefs about group malleability

Weiss‐Klayman

Hameiri

Halperin

2020

J Applied Social Pyschol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Group‐based guilt and shame are part of a wide range of moral emotions in intergroup conflicts. These emotions can potentially motivate group members to make compromises in order to promote conflict resolution, and increase support for reparations and apologies following moral transgressions committed by the in‐group. Thus, it is important to understand how to induce these emotions and the mechanisms for their effects. In the present paper, we examined the mechanisms underlying group‐based guilt and shame in four studies. Across the first three studies, conducted in the context of the Israeli‐Palestinian conflict, we found that group‐based guilt was mostly predicted by individuals’ implicit theories about groups (ITG). Specifically, we found that the more participants believed that groups are malleable, the more they experienced group‐based guilt. Group‐based shame, however, was found to be dependent upon individuals’ perception of other people’s perceptions about the malleability of groups (i.e., meta‐ITG), as the perceived damage to one’s in‐group image is a major component in experiencing shame. In Study 4, conducted in the context of gender relations, we differentiated between the two components of shame, that is, moral and image shame. As predicted, while group‐based guilt and moral shame showed similar patterns of results, meta‐ITG had a moderating effect on the association between ITG and group‐based image shame. The theoretical and practical implications of the findings are discussed in relation to promoting intergroup conflict resolution and reconciliation.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 70%

Group‐based guilt and shame in the context of intergroup conflict: The role of beliefs and meta‐beliefs about group malleability

Weiss‐Klayman

Hameiri

Halperin

2020

J Applied Social Pyschol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A fourth important direction for future research is better understanding the malleability of ER goals. Thus far, most interventions target the strategies people typically use (e.g., Čehajić‐Clancy, Goldenberg, Gross, & Halperin, ; Gratz, Weiss, & Tull, ). However, recent studies suggest that interventions could also be useful for targeting ER goals.…”

Section: An Individual Difference Approach To Er Goalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Emotion regulation goals: An individual difference perspective

Eldesouky

Gross

2019

Social & Personality Psych

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Goals are widely understood to be central to the initiation, maintenance, and cessation of emotion regulation (ER). Recent studies have shown that there are profound individual differences in the types of ER goals people pursue and the extent to which they pursue them. Here, we highlight the importance of taking an individual difference approach to studying ER goals. First, we use the extended process model of ER to provide conceptual clarity on what ER goals are and describe the crucial role of goals in each stage of ER. We then identify five promising directions for future research using an individual difference approach to ER goals.

show abstract

“…These biased representations serve different psychological mechanisms that not only help to deal with groups’ threatening past but also fuel intergroup animosities. The key to fostering intergroup reconciliation by means of contact is, therefore, to remove emotional barriers resulting from the history of intergroup conflict (Čehajić‐Clancy, Goldenberg, Gross, & Halperin, ).…”

Section: The Barriers To Contact In Postconflict Settingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fostering Contact After Historical Atrocities: The Potential of Moral Exemplars

Witkowska

Beneda

Čehajić‐Clancy

et al. 2018

Political Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Intergroup contact is a known remedy for complicated intergroup relations. At the same time, contact is rare in postconflict settings. In the present article, we examine whether exposure to narratives about moral exemplars (i.e., members of a perpetrator group who acted morally and in opposition to the passivity or aggression displayed by majority) could increase openness to contact among historical adversaries. In Study 1 (N = 73), presenting members of a historical perpetrator group with information about ingroup moral exemplars led to a decrease of prejudice towards individuals from a historical victim group, which, in turn, resulted in higher openness to contact with them. In Study 2 (N = 100) and 3 (N = 92), exposure to narratives about outgroup moral exemplars in a historically victimized group increased openness to contact with members of a perpetrator group. These effects were mediated by a decrease in prejudice (Studies 2 and 3) and by an increase in trust towards historical perpetrators (Study 2).

show abstract

Social-Psychological Interventions for Intergroup Reconciliation: An Emotion Regulation Perspective

Cited by 145 publications

References 63 publications

Group‐based guilt and shame in the context of intergroup conflict: The role of beliefs and meta‐beliefs about group malleability

Group‐based guilt and shame in the context of intergroup conflict: The role of beliefs and meta‐beliefs about group malleability

Emotion regulation goals: An individual difference perspective

Fostering Contact After Historical Atrocities: The Potential of Moral Exemplars

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About