Be Afraid,Be Very Afraid! Motivated Intergroup Emotion Regulation

Abstract

Group-based emotions can shape group members’ behaviors and intergroup relations. Therefore, we propose that people may try to regulate emotions of outgroup members to attain ingroup goals. We call this phenomenon “motivated intergroup emotion regulation.” In four studies, conducted in both hypothetical and real-world contexts, we show that deterrence and reconciliation goals influence how fearful or calm people want outgroup members to feel, respectively. We further show that such motivated intergroup emotion regulation can guide behavior toward the outgroup, influencing how outgroup members feel (Studies 1, 2, and 4) and behave (Study 4). We demonstrate how affiliation with the ingroup, which renders ingroup goals more salient, shapes what ingroup members want outgroup members to feel (Studies 3 and 4) and subsequently how outgroup members feel and behave (Study 4). Finally, we discuss how motivated intergroup emotion regulation might contribute to understanding motivation in emotion regulation, group-based emotions, and intergroup relations.

Keywords

emotion regulation motivation group-based emotions intergroup relations

Social media has become a vital arena for intergroup interactions. Such interactions often involve emotional messages designed to pursue ingroup goals. For example, in August 2014, the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) released a video depicting the beheading of the American journalist, James Foley. This video, and those that followed it, can be viewed as instruments to instill fear in ISIS opponents (e.g., Gude, 2015), to deter the west from interfering in the war in the Middle East. Others have used the web to facilitate reconciliation with outgroup members. For example, the Facebook campaign “Israel loves Iran” (https://thepeacefactory.org/israel-loves-iran) was created by Israelis to foster reconciliation with Iranians.

In this investigation, we tested whether the motivation to shape emotions in outgroup members is influenced by the pursuit of ingroup goals and whether such motivation shapes emotions and behavioral intentions of outgroup members. To understand how such motivation is informed by the intergroup context, we tested whether affiliation with the ingroup influences the motivation to engage in intergroup emotion regulation and its outcomes.

Motivated Intergroup Emotion Regulation

According to the instrumental approach to emotion regulation, people can be motivated to regulate emotions to promote goal attainment (Tamir, 2016). For example, people may want to feel fear to facilitate avoidance of danger (Tamir & Ford, 2009). Moreover, people can be motivated to regulate the emotions of others for instrumental reasons (i.e., interpersonal emotion regulation; Gross & Thompson, 2007). Studies in dyadic contexts show that personal goal pursuit, like expecting to gain from another person’s aggressive behavior, can motivate people to increase anger in another (Netzer et al., 2015). Such motivation can shape how others feel and might result in behaviors that help regulators achieve their goals (Gneezy & Imas, 2014). People might also be motivated to regulate emotions in others to achieve the goals of their social unit. For instance, some individuals might induce worry in their spouses to stress the seriousness of joint concerns (Parkinson et al., 2016). Such principles might extend beyond dyadic contexts to intergroup relations and shape motivation in regulating group-based emotions (Mackie & Smith, 2018), which are emotions that experienced on behalf of one’s group (Iyer & Leach, 2008; Mackie et al., 2000; Yzerbyt et al., 2003).

In this investigation, we tested whether and when people are motivated to regulate group-based emotions in outgroup members (see also Hasan-Aslih et al., 2019). We refer to this phenomenon as motivated intergroup emotion regulation. We propose that intergroup emotion regulation is distinct from other forms of intrapersonal and interpersonal emotion regulation, as it is likely shaped by the intergroup context. First, in the group context, regulation is likely dictated by group-based goals. Second, features of the group context are expected to shape the intensity of motivation to engage in intergroup emotion regulation. For example, whether people are motivated to regulate the emotions of others and how strongly they are motivated to do so should critically depend on how much they identify with the ingroup. In other words, if a steering wheel sets the direction of movement and the engine sets the speed, we propose that ingroup goals are the steering wheel that sets the direction of motivated intergroup emotion regulation, and ingroup identification is the engine that sets the intensity with which it is pursued.

With respect to the direction of motivation, we argue that group-based goals determine what people want outgroup members to feel. People strive to preserve the safety and prosperity of their group (Brewer, 2007). To achieve this, they might want to reconcile with outgroup members or to deter them from attacking the ingroup. Such group-based goals may or may not be compatible with the individual’s personal goals (that might propel other forms of emotion regulation; Ford et al., 2019). For example, to protect her group, a mother might send her son off to war, although this conflicts with her personal goal to protect her son.

Previous work suggests that people can be motivated to regulate their own group-based emotions in the interest of ingroup goals (Goldenberg et al., 2016; Sharvit et al., 2015; Smith & Mackie, 2016). Such goals may include preserving group morality (Goldenberg et al., 2014; Sharvit & Valetzky, 2019) or group cohesion (Porat, Halperin, Mannheim & Tamir, 2016), as well as goals pertaining to relations with the outgroup (e.g., aggressive or reconciliatory goals; Porat, Halperin & Tamir, 2016). Here, we tested whether people are also motivated to regulate the emotions of outgroup members to attain ingroup goals. We further tested whether this motivation shapes intergroup communication and whether it influences emotions and behavioral intentions in outgroup members.

With respect to the intensity of motivation to regulate, we argue that how motivated people are to regulate emotions of outgroup members depends on group-related factors, such as group identification. Identification with the ingroup reflects the bond that people share with their group and the incorporation of the group into their own identity (Brewer, 2007; Tajfel & Turner, 1979). We propose that the extent to which people are motivated to shape emotions of outgroup members should depend on how strongly they identify with the ingroup. First, group identification may shape appraisals of the situation, determining how people think about group-related events and how they react to them emotionally (Petrocelli & Smith, 2005). Second, group identification can determine the relative importance of ingroup goals and the motivation to pursue them (Ellemers, 2012). Therefore, we tested whether and how identification with the ingroup influences motivated intergroup emotion regulation.

The Current Investigation

Group members can promote group safety by either adopting aggressive group goals (e.g., deterrence) or by seeking reconciliation (Bar-Tal, 2000; Staub et al., 2005). Fear in outgroup members may facilitate deterrence, as group-based fear is linked to increased risk perception and more defensive behavior (Lerner et al., 2003). Similarly, some positive emotions in outgroup members may facilitate reconciliation (Bar-Tal et al., 2007). For instance, calmness may result in less hostility and more prosocial behavior (Whitaker & Bushman, 2012) and is linked to more harmonies social relations (Page-Gould et al., 2008; Tsai et al., 2007).

Accordingly, we hypothesized that people motivated to deter the outgroup would want outgroup members to feel more fear, but those motivated to reconcile would want outgroup members to feel more calmness. These motivations were expected to shape interactions with the outgroup and lead to reciprocal emotions in outgroup members. We further expected group identification to determine the intensity of motivated intergroup emotion regulation and, thus, moderate such effects. We tested our hypotheses in controlled contexts, where we manipulated goals and group identification in hypothetical intergroup conflicts. We then tested our hypotheses in the context of a real-life intractable conflict—namely, the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.

In Studies 1 and 2, we focused on the role of group-based goals in shaping intergroup emotion regulation. In Study 1, we used hypothetical scenarios, and in Study 2, we targeted real social groups. We examined whether and how deterrence and reconciliation goals motivated intergroup emotion regulation, whether this motivation shaped behavior toward outgroup members, and whether these behaviors influenced emotions in outgroup members. In Studies 3 and 4, we tested whether and how identification with the ingroup moderated these processes. In Study 3, we tested whether identification with the ingroup shapes what people want outgroup members to feel in a hypothetical context. In Study 4, we tested links between ingroup identification and motivated emotion regulation in real social groups and whether this shaped emotional reactions and behavioral intentions in outgroup members. We hypothesized that the more people identify with their ingroup, the more motivated they would be to regulate emotions of outgroup members to attain ingroup goals, shaping behavior toward outgroup members, and influencing their emotions and behavioral intentions.

Study 1

In Study 1, we tested whether and how ingroup goals shape motivated intergroup emotion regulation and whether they subsequently shape emotional reactions in outgroup members. We used controlled hypothetical scenarios to minimize the potential impact of extraneous variables.

Participants in the first phase of the study were recruited to serve as ingroup members. They read a vignette about two hypothetical groups (their own group and an adversary outgroup). The vignette was designed to manipulate their motivation to deter or reconcile with the hypothetical outgroup. We then tested the effects of goals on how participants wanted outgroup members to feel and how they behaved toward outgroup members. Participants in the second phase of the study were recruited to serve as the outgroup members. We exposed them to the behaviors of participants from the first phase of the study and assessed their emotional reactions.

We predicted that ingroup participants who adopt deterrence (vs. reconciliation) goals would want outgroup members to experience more fear and behave in ways that induce more fear. We further predicted that outgroup members would experience more fear, following exposure to behaviors of participants in the deterrence (vs. reconciliation) condition. We expected a similar pattern for reconciliation goals and calmness.

Method

Participants

A power analysis using G*Power (Faul et al., 2009) for a repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA), targeting a medium effect size (f = 0.25) with power of .80, indicated a required sample size of N = 128. We oversampled by approximately 20% to account for potential exclusions. The final sample included 136 Jewish Israeli participants from the general population (50.7% female, M_age = 37.87), who completed the first phase of the study online for $1. The second phase included another 133 Jewish Israeli participants (53.4% female, M_age = 38.57), who completed the study online for $1. Data from 18 additional “first phase participants” were excluded from the analyses because they failed to pass comprehension and attention screeners (Oppenheimer et al., 2009; Thomas & Clifford, 2017). Data from one additional “second phase participant” was excluded because during debriefing, she reported feeling disengaged, and two other participants were excluded as there was no variation in their responses.

Procedure

In the first phase of the study, participants served as ingroup members. They read a vignette and imagined experiencing it. The vignette described a protagonist whose village might be attacked by a neighboring village. Participants were then randomly assigned to goal conditions. Participants in the deterrence condition were informed that their goal was to deter the other village from attacking. Participants in the reconciliation condition were informed that their goal was to reconcile with the other village. Participants selected messages to send to a member of the neighboring village and indicated how much they wanted them to experience various emotions. Participants completed a manipulation check by indicating support of deterrence (“To what extent is it important for you and your village to deter the other village?”) and reconciliation (“To what extent is it important for you and your village to reconcile with the other village?”). Finally, participants provided demographic information.

In the second phase of the study, new participants acted as the outgroup member. They imagined they were members of the neighboring village. Then, they read messages from a randomly selected, “first-phase participant.” They rated how it made them feel and provided demographic information (see Figure 1 for a schematic illustration of the study design in Studies 1–4).

Figure 1.

Schematic representation of the designs of Studies 1–4.

Materials

Preferences for emotions in outgroup members

Participants rated how much they wanted an outgroup member to feel various emotions (1 = very little, 7 = very much). We averaged across ratings of afraid and scared to index preferences for fear (α = .86) and across ratings of calm and serene (α = .89) to index preferences for calmness. Additional emotions served as fillers (i.e., hope, guilt, empathy, and anger).¹

Intergroup emotion regulatory behavior

Participants were presented with six messages to choose from: two were designed to elicit fear (e.g., “Those who risk attacking the ingroup will put themselves and their families in great danger”); two messages were designed to elicit calmness (e.g., “Your village can prevail and overcome its current hardships”); and two messages were designed to elicit anger and served as fillers (e.g., “You have no honor, you will get nothing from us”; all messages and pilot results appear in the Supplementary Materials). Participants chose two messages to present to an outgroup member. Fear regulation was coded as 0 if no fear-inducing message was chosen and 1 if at least one fear-inducing message was chosen. Calmness regulation was coded as 0 if no calmness-inducing message was chosen and 1 if at least one calmness-inducing message was chosen.

Emotional outcomes in outgroup members

To assess outgroup members’ fear responses to the messages, we averaged across ratings of fearful and scared (α = .90). To assess calmness, we averaged across ratings of calm and serene (α = .90). Additional emotions served as fillers (i.e., hope, guilt, empathy, and anger).

Results

Manipulation check

An independent samples t-test showed that participants in the deterrence (vs. reconciliation) condition supported deterrence more (Ms = 6.04, SE = .17 and 5.10, SE = .21, respectively), t(134) = 3.48, p = .001, whereas participants in the reconciliation condition supported reconciliation more (Ms = 5.99, SE = .14 and 5.35, SE = .23, respectively), t(134) = 2.32, p = .022. Participants in the deterrence condition supported deterrence more than reconciliation, t(68) = 2.32, p = .023, and vice versa for participants in the reconciliation condition, t(66) = 3.73, p < .001.

Preferences for emotions in outgroup members

We ran a repeated-measures ANOVA, predicting emotional preferences with condition (deterrence vs. reconciliation) as a between-participant variable and emotion (fear and calmness) as a within-participant variable. We found a significant Emotion × Condition interaction, F(1, 134) = 5.63, p = .019, $η_{p}^{2} = . 04$ , post hoc power = .85. As shown in Figure 2, compared with participants in the reconciliation condition, participants in the deterrence condition wanted an outgroup member to feel more fear, F(1, 134) = 4.43, p = .037, $η_{p}^{2} = . 03$ , but not more calmness, F(1, 134) = 2.65, p = .106, $η_{p}^{2} = . 02$ . This interaction qualified a main effect for emotion, F(1, 134) = 9.93, p = .002, $η_{p}^{2} = . 07$ , such that across conditions, participants wanted outgroup members to feel more calmness than fear (Ms = 4.65, SE = .16 and 3.86, SE = .16, respectively).

Figure 2.

Preferences for fear and calmness in outgroup members as a function of goal condition (deterrence vs. reconciliation).

Intergroup emotion regulatory behavior

As expected, fear regulation in the outgroup was significantly higher in the deterrence condition (53.6%) than in the reconciliation condition (31.3%), χ²(1, N = 136) = 6.90, p = .009, Cramer’s V = .225. Calmness regulation in the outgroup tended to be higher in the reconciliation condition (83.6%) than in the deterrence condition (71%), but this difference did not reach significance, χ²(1, N = 136) = 3.05, p = .081, Cramer’s V = .150.

Emotions in outgroup members as a function of ingroup goals

We predicted that group goals would shape motivation in intergroup emotion regulation and ultimately change how outgroup members feel (for a repeated-measures ANOVA showing differences in outgroup members’ emotions as a function of goal condition, see the Supplementary Materials). To examine this, we tested whether the effect of goals on outgroup emotions was mediated by emotional preferences. We conducted a mediation analysis using Hayes’s (2013) PROCESS bootstrapping command (Model 4: 5,000 iterations; for unstandardized coefficients, see Figure 3) with condition as the independent variable, preferences for fear as the mediator, and fear experienced by outgroup members as the outcome variable. The total effect of goals on fear in outgroup members, b = .30, SE = .15, t(131) = 1.95, p = .053, 95% CI = [–.004, .60], was reduced when emotional preferences were entered as a mediator, b = .15, SE = .14, t(130) = 1.07, p = .286, 95% CI = [–.13, .433]. The indirect effect was different from zero, b = .15, SE = .07, 95% CI = [.02, .31], post hoc power = .61.² When repeating this analysis for calmness, the direct and indirect effects were not significant, bs < –.07.

Figure 3.

The link between goal condition and emotional outcomes in outgroup members as a product of preferences for outgroup members’ fear (Study 1).

Discussion

The findings of Study 1 demonstrate that motivated intergroup emotion regulation can lead to congruent emotional changes in outgroup members. Participants who were led to pursue deterrence goals wanted outgroup members to experience more fear than did participants who were led to support reconciliation. They were more likely to expose outgroup members to a fear-inducing message. Reading these messages, in turn, led outgroup members to experience more fear. In contrast, participants who were led to pursue reconciliation goals tended to expose outgroup members to more calmness-inducing messages. However, contrary to our predictions, they did not report wanting outgroup members to experience more calmness than participants in the deterrence condition did. Perhaps, participants in the deterrence condition were aware of the outgroup members being part of their ingroup in real life and, therefore, might have been motivated to deter outgroup members while also maintaining their positive feelings. Accordingly, outgroup members did not differ in the experience of calmness upon reading these messages.

To ensure adherence to ingroup goals, Study 1 used a relatively explicit manipulation, which might raise concerns about demand. Therefore, in Study 2, rather than manipulate such goals in the laboratory, we assessed them outside the lab, where people endorse ingroup goals according to their own values and beliefs.

Study 2

In Study 2, we tested whether findings from Study 1 replicate in the context of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. We measured Jewish Israeli participants’ support of deterrence and reconciliation, and how they wanted Palestinians to feel. We predicted that greater support of deterrence among Jewish participants would be linked to stronger preferences for fear in Palestinians, and that greater support for reconciliation would be linked to stronger preferences for calmness in Palestinians.

We also tested how the motivation to regulate emotions in outgroup members shapes regulatory behavior. Although in Study 1 participants selected prewritten messages, in Study 2, participants wrote their own messages to an outgroup member. Subsequently, they rated the extent to which their message was designed to elicit various emotional reactions. To test how such communications influence emotions in outgroup members, in the second phase of the study, 10 Palestinian participants indicated how these messages made them feel. We expected the link between ingroup goals endorsed by Jewish participants and Palestinians’ emotional reactions to be mediated by Jewish participants’ preferences for emotions in Palestinians and their behaviors toward them.

Method

Participants

A multiple regression power analysis (Faul et al., 2009) targeted a small effect size (f² = 0.05), to account for the noise typically associated with studies in the real world. The required sample size was N = 159. The study involved writing a relatively long message to the outgroup member, which survey company participants are not used to, and so we were concerned about potential dropout. To account for high exclusion rates, we oversampled by almost 50%. The final sample included 245 Jewish Israeli citizens from the general population (51.0% female, M_age = 39.86, 59.2% endorsed rightist ideology), who participated online for ~$3. Data for 46 additional participants were excluded from the analyses because they failed to pass comprehension and attention screeners.

Procedure

In the first phase of the study, Jewish Israeli participants read a bogus newspaper article, describing an ongoing wave of violent protests by Palestinians demanding equal rights (such demonstrations were not uncommon). Participants rated their support for deterrence and reconciliation goals toward Palestinians in light of such protests. Next, participants read about a young Palestinian, who participated in a protest, and rated how they wanted him to feel when considering the volatile atmosphere at that time. Finally, participants wrote a short message to the young Palestinian (at least 50 words) and then indicated whether it was designed to induce various emotions in him. Finally, participants provided demographic information, including their political orientation (1 = extremely right, 7 = extremely left).³

In the next phase, 10 Palestinians (all male, M_age = 20) participated in five coding sessions each. The Palestinian coders were matched in age, ethnic and cultural background to the Palestinian protagonist described to the Jewish Israeli participants. Each participant read half of the messages written by the Jewish Israeli participants (about 24 texts in each session) and rated how each message made them feel. The texts were assigned in random, and no two participants read the exact same texts. We averaged across the five raters for each text (intraclass correlation coefficient, ICC_(1,5) = .665) for each emotion to get the mean emotional reaction for each message.

Materials

Ingroup goals

Participants rated their support of seven items (1 = very little, 7 = very much; α = .90), depicting deterrence of Palestinian citizens (e.g., “Israel should employ any means necessary to create deterrence among Palestinian citizens”). Participants also rated support of five items (α = .93), depicting reconciliation with Palestinian citizens (e.g., “Israelis should engage in negotiation and reconciliation between Palestinians and Jewish citizens”).⁴

Preferences for emotions in outgroup members

We averaged across the same items as in Study 1 to index preferences for fear (α = .91) and calmness (α = .87). Other emotions served as fillers (i.e., hope, guilt, empathy, and anger).

Intergroup emotion regulatory behavior

Participants indicated the extent to which their message to the protagonist was designed to influence emotions (1 = very little, 7 = very much), using the same items as in the emotional preference scale for fear (α = .83) and calmness (α = .88). Other emotions served as fillers (i.e., hope, guilt, and anger).

Emotional outcomes in outgroup members

Palestinian participants indicated their emotional reactions to each message, using the same items as in the emotional preferences scale for fear (α = .81) and calmness (α = .93). Other emotions served as fillers (e.g., hope, sympathy, and anger).

Results

Preferences for emotions in outgroup members

As can be seen in Table 1, support for deterrence was related to preferences for more fear (and less calmness) in Palestinians, whereas support for reconciliation was related to preferences for more calmness (and less fear) in Palestinians.⁵

Table 1.

Means and Correlations Between Key Variables (Study 2).

Variable	M (SD)	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1. Support for deterrence	4.28 (1.57)	1
2. Support for reconciliation	4.24 (1.74)	−.74*	1
3. Preferences for fear	2.82 (1.91)	.52*	−.54*	1
4. Preferences for calmness	5.20 (1.69)	−.15*	.30*	−.36*	1
5. Attempts to induce fear	2.32 (1.65)	.46*	−.47*	.52*	−.27*	1
6. Attempts to induce calmness	4.40 (1.82)	−.23*	.36*	−.39*	.48*	−.39*	1
7. Fear in outgroup members	1.96 (0.53)	.35*	−.38*	.24*	−.21*	.40*	−.37*	1
8. Calmness in outgroup members	3.79 (1.00)	−.49*	.53*	−.44*	.14*	−.46*	.42*	−.63*

p < .05.

Emotions in outgroup members

For each goal, we conducted a serial mediation analysis, employing Hayes’s (2013) PROCESS bootstrapping command (Model 6: 5,000 iterations; for unstandardized coefficients see Figure 4). Fear experienced by Palestinian participants was predicted from support for deterrence, with preferences for fear in the protagonist and fear induction through written communication as the first and second mediators. As expected, the total effect of goals on Palestinians’ experience of fear, b = .12, SE = .02, t(237) = 5.63, p < .001, 95% CI = [.08, .16], was reduced when emotional preferences and regulation were entered as serial mediators, b = .07, SE = .02, t(235) = 2.98, p = .003, 95% CI = [.02, .12]. The indirect effect was different from zero, b = .02, SE = .007; 95% CI = [.01, .04], post hoc power = .99.

Figure 4.

Preferences for fear in outgroup members and regulation attempts as serial mediators of the relations between deterrence and fear experienced by outgroup members (top panel). Preferences for calmness in outgroup members and regulation attempts as serial mediators of the relations between reconciliation goals and calmness experienced by outgroup members (bottom panel; Study 2).

We repeated the analysis to predict the experience of calmness in Palestinians. The total effect of support for reconciliation on Palestinians’ experience of calmness, b = .30, SE = .03, t(237) = 9.69, p < .001, 95% CI = [.24, .37], was reduced when emotional preferences and regulation were entered as serial mediators, b = .26, SE = .03, t(235) = 8.18, p < .001, 95% CI = [.20, .33]. The indirect effect was different from zero, b = .02, SE = .008, 95% CI = [.01, .04], post hoc power = 1.00.⁶

Discussion

In Study 2, Jewish Israeli participants who supported deterrence wanted Palestinian outgroup members to feel more fear (and less calmness), while those who supported reconciliation wanted Palestinian outgroup members to experience more calmness (and less fear). Preferences for intergroup emotion regulation shaped behavior toward outgroup members. Support for deterrence was associated with attempts to induce fear and, consequently, to more fear in Palestinians upon exposure to such attempts. In contrast, support for reconciliation was associated with attempts to induce calmness and to more calmness in Palestinians when exposed to such attempts. This demonstrates how in the real world, ingroup goals are linked to motivated intergroup emotion regulation and how such regulation could potentially shape the emotions of outgroup members.

Study 3

In Study 3, we moved to examine the moderating role of ingroup identification. We manipulated ingroup identification in a hypothetical context and tested how it shaped motivated intergroup emotion regulation. We expected participants in the deterrence condition to want an outgroup member to feel more fear in the high (vs. low) identification condition. We predicted that participants in the reconciliation condition would want outgroup members to feel more calmness in the high (vs. low) identification condition. We further expected such preferences for emotions in outgroup members to shape behaviors toward them.

Method

Participants

A repeated-measures ANOVA power analysis (Faul et al., 2009), targeting a medium effect size (f = 0.25), indicated a required sample size of N = 179. We oversampled by 15% to account for potential exclusions. Participants in the final sample were 177 Israeli undergraduate students (68.6% female, M_age = 24.00), who completed the study for $2.5 or course credit. Data for 23 additional participants were omitted from the analyses because they failed comprehension and attention check screeners. Four other participants were omitted from the analyses, because during debriefing, they stated feeling disengaged from the scenario.

Procedure

Participants read a hypothetical vignette and imagined being village members. They were randomly assigned to one of two ingroup identification conditions. Building on literature on group identification (Henry et al., 1999), participants in the high identification condition were asked to imagine that they were highly connected to the village community. Participants in the low identification condition were asked to imagine being new to the village. Participants were informed that their village might be attacked by a neighboring village. Next, participants were randomly assigned to ingroup goal conditions, as in Study 1. Participants rated their preferences for emotions in outgroup members, their endorsement of emotion regulatory behaviors toward the outgroup members, and completed a manipulation check. Finally, participants provided demographic information.

Materials

Manipulation check

To indicate identification with the ingroup, participants completed a modified version of the Inclusion of Other in the Self scale (Aron et al., 1992). The scale is comprised of seven figures of two circles, which represent the participant and the ingroup, moving closer together (1 = most distinct identities, 7 = most connected identities).

Preferences for emotions in outgroup members

Participants rated their preferences for fear (α = .91) and calmness (α = .93) in outgroup members, using the same items as in Study 1, and rated several other emotions as filler items (i.e., hope guilt, empathy, and anger).

Intergroup emotion regulatory behavior

To assess intention to behave in ways that could elicit fear in outgroup members, participants rated four items (e.g., “Participating in a military parade designed to demonstrate how powerful your village is”; α = .78). To assess intention to behave in ways that could elicit calmness in outgroup members, participants rated four items (e.g., “Sending gifts and tributes to the neighboring villagers to appease them”; α = .85; for detailed descriptions of the items and results of a pilot study examining expected emotional reactions to these behaviors, see Supplementary Materials). Four other items (focused on anger induction) were included as filler items.

Results

Manipulation checks

A univariate ANOVA confirmed that participants in the high identification condition identified more with the ingroup than participants in the low identification condition, F(1, 173) = 28.58, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2} = . 142$ (Ms = 4.29, SE = .16 and 3.07, SE = .16, respectively). This effect was not qualified by goal condition, F(1, 173) = 0.78, p = .380, $η_{p}^{2} = . 004$ .

Preferences for emotions in outgroup members as a function of ingroup identification

We ran a repeated-measures ANOVA, predicting preferences for emotions in the outgroup with identification condition (high vs. low) and goal condition (reconciliation vs. deterrence) as between-participant variables and emotions (fear vs. calmness) as a within-participant variable. We found a significant Emotion × Goal interaction, F(1, 173) = 11.61, p = .001, $η_{p}^{2} = . 063$ , such that participants in the deterrence (vs. reconciliation) condition wanted outgroup members to experience more fear (Ms = 3.57, SE = .16 and 2.74, SE = .16, respectively), F(1, 173) = 13.05, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2} = . 070$ , but not calmness (Ms = 4.19, SE = .20 and 4.64, SE = .20, respectively), F(1, 173) = 2.47, p = .118, $η_{p}^{2} = . 014$ .

We found a significant three-way interaction, F(1, 173) = 4.62, p = .033, $η_{p}^{2} = . 026$ , post hoc power = .69. As shown in Figure 5, in the deterrence condition, participants in the high (vs. low) identification condition wanted an outgroup member to feel more fear, F(1, 173) = 4.71, p = .031, $η_{p}^{2} = . 026$ , but not calmness, F(1, 173) = 0.42, p = .519, $η_{p}^{2} = . 002$ . In the reconciliation condition, participants in the high (vs. low) identification condition wanted an outgroup member to feel more calmness, F(1, 173) = 3.96, p = .048, $η_{p}^{2} = . 022$ , but not fear, F(1, 173) = 0.23, p = .629, $η_{p}^{2} = . 001$ . This interaction qualified significant main effects for emotion, F(1, 173) = 44.58, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2} = . 205$ , and a marginal trend for identification, F(1, 173) = 3.85, p = .051, $η_{p}^{2} = . 022$ . Other effects were not significant, ps > .292 (for more details, see Supplementary Materials).

Figure 5.

Preferences for emotions in outgroup members as a function of deterrence (top panel) and reconciliation (bottom panel) goals and as a function of ingroup identification conditions (high vs. low).

Intergroup emotion regulatory behavior

How people wanted outgroup members to feel was expected to mediate the relation between identification and intended behavior toward outgroup members (see Table 2 for correlations between variables; for a description of a repeated-measures ANOVA, examining differences in emotion regulatory behavior, see Supplementary Materials). Within each goal condition separately, we employed Hayes’s (2013) PROCESS bootstrapping command (Model 4: 5,000 iterations; see Figure 6 for unstandardized coefficients). In the deterrence condition, we found a significant effect of condition (low identification = −1; high identification = 1) on behaviors designed to elicit fear in outgroup members, b = .30, SE = .13, t(87) = 2.38, p = .019, 95% CI = [.05, .55]. This effect became insignificant when preferences for fear in outgroup members were entered, b = .22, SE = .12, t(86) = 1.74, p = .086, 95% CI = [–.03, .46]. The indirect effect was different from zero, b = .08, SE = .05, 95% CI = [.002, .20], post hoc power = .46.

Table 2.

Means and Correlations Between Key Variables Across Ingroup Identification Conditions (Study 3).

	Deterrence goal condition					Reconciliation goal condition
Variable	M (SD)	1	2	3	4	M (SD)	1	2	3	4
1. Preferences for fear	3.57 (1.52)	1				2.73 (1.58)	1
2. Preferences for calmness	4.19 (2.04)	−.13	1			4. 63 (1.81)	.03	1
3. Fear inducing behaviors	2.64 (1.22)	.34*	−.003	1		2.23 (1.18)	.55*	.16	1
4. Calmness inducing behaviors	4.09 (1.60)	.22*	.45*	.09	1	4.10 (1.64)	.10	.66*	.34*	1
5. Group identification	3.49 (1.60)	.14	.11	.22*	.37*	3.85 (1.68)	.02	.45*	.12	.49*

p < .05.

Figure 6.

The link between fear-inducing behaviors (in the deterrence goal condition; top panel) or calmness-inducing behaviors (in the reconciliation goal condition; bottom panel) and identification with the ingroup as a product of preferences for outgroup members’ emotions (Study 3).

In the reconciliation condition, we found a significant effect of identification on calmness-inducing behaviors, b = .51, SE = .17, t(86) = 3.05, p = .003, 95% CI = [.18, .84]. This effect was reduced when preferences for calmness in outgroup members were entered into the model, b = .28, SE = .13, t(85) = 2.11, p = .038, 95% CI = [.02, .54]. The indirect effect was different from zero, b = .23, SE = .11, 95% CI = [.01, .47], post hoc power = .56.

Discussion

Study 3 demonstrates that identification with the ingroup intensifies the motivation to regulate emotions in outgroup members. More (vs. less) identified participants showed stronger preferences for outgroup members to experience emotions that may help attain ingroup goals. In the deterrence condition, high identifiers wanted outgroup members to experience more fear and were willing to engage in more intimidating behaviors. In the reconciliation condition, high identifiers wanted outgroup members to experience more calmness and were willing to engage in more calming behaviors. It should be noted, however, that post hoc power calculations indicated that the mediation analyses were underpowered and should, therefore, be interpreted cautiously.

Study 4

Study 4 was conducted in the context of a real-life intractable conflict, to test whether ingroup identification is associated with the motivation to regulate emotions in outgroup members and whether such motivation can shape emotions in outgroup members. In the first phase of the study, Jewish Israeli participants were informed of a violent demonstration by Palestinians. Participants were asked to choose a message for a Palestinian participant to read. Participants also rated their identification with Israel. Identification was measured rather than manipulated as it is a prominent attribute among Israelis, especially in the context of Israeli–Palestinian relations. Therefore, traditional identification manipulations (e.g., Yzerbyt et al., 2003) were expected to be less effective.

In the second phase of the study, we recruited Palestinian participants, who were randomly assigned to read messages from Jewish participants and rated how they felt while reading them. They also indicated how deterred they were and how willing to reconcile with Jewish Israelis.

We expected more (vs. less) identified Jewish Israelis, who support deterrence goals, to want Palestinians to experience more fear, leading them to act in a manner designed to induce fear. We expected such behaviors to lead their Palestinian counterparts to feel more fear and less calmness. Such emotions, in turn, could facilitate corresponding behavioral intentions, such that Palestinian participants who feel more fear may be more deterred, whereas Palestinian participants who feel more calm may be more willing to reconcile. We expected a similar pattern with support for reconciliation and calmness.

Method

Participants

A multiple regression power analysis (Faul et al., 2009) indicated a required sample size of N = 159. We oversampled by 50% to account for possible high exclusions given the sensitivity of the subject, the sensitive population, and the two-phase design. The final sample of the first phase of Study 4 included 189 Jewish Israelis from the general population (51.9% female, M_age = 31.23; 50.8% identified as right-wing), who completed the study online for ~$1. Data from additional 114 Jewish Israeli participants were excluded from the analyses because they failed to pass comprehension and attention screeners. In the second phase of the study, the final sample included 62 Palestinians (59.7% female, M_age = 32.10), who completed the study online and received compensation of ~$0.5. Data for additional 30 Palestinian participants were excluded for failing to pass attention screeners. Data for five additional Palestinians were excluded because there was no variance in their responses.

Procedure

In the first phase of the study, Jewish Israeli participants read about a coming wave of demonstrations by Palestinian citizens of Israel to protest against maltreatment by the Israeli government. Participants rated their support for deterrence of and reconciliation with Palestinians in light of these demonstrations. Participants selected a message to send to a Palestinian participant and reported their preferences for emotions in Palestinians and their identification with Israel. Finally, participants provided demographic information, including political ideology.⁷

Recruiting a large number of Palestinian participants was difficult as access to such participants was limited. To address these shortcomings, each of the 62 Palestinians read messages from two Jewish participants. The Palestinian participants read a passage about the Palestinian demonstration. They then read each message of the Jewish participants and rated their emotional reactions and behavioral intentions. Finally, participants provided demographic information, including their affiliation with the Palestinian group.

Materials

Ingroup goals

Participants indicated (1 = very little, 7 = very much) their support of four of the deterrence items used in Study 2 and another item (“To insure public safety, Israel should suppress any uprising by its Palestinian citizens”; α = .87). Participants also rated their support of three of the reconciliation items used in Study 2 and two additional items (e.g., “Israel should strive toward partnership and equality between Jewish and Palestinian citizens of Israel”; α = .91).

Intergroup emotion regulatory behavior

Participants were presented with six messages to choose from: two were designed to elicit fear (e.g., “think of the danger in the protest . . .”); two messages were designed to elicit calmness (e.g., “try to clear your head and think clearly”); and two other messages were designed to elicit anger and served as fillers (e.g., “think of the injustice caused to you . . . and you community . . .”; for full messages and pilot data, see Supplementary Materials). Participants chose one message to present to a Palestinian participant. Fear-regulating behavior was coded as 0 if participants did not choose a fear-inducing message and 1 if they did. Calmness-regulating behavior was coded as 0 if participants did not choose a calmness-inducing message and 1 if they did.

Preferences for emotions in outgroup members

Preferences for fear (α = .94) and calmness (α = .89) were measured using the items from Study 1. Other emotions were included as fillers (i.e., hope, guilt, empathy, and anger).

Identification with Israel

Participants completed the Attachment to Israel scale (Roccas et al., 2006; 1 = disagree completely, 7 = agree completely; α = .94).

Emotional outcomes in outgroup members

We used the items from Study 1 to assess Palestinians’ fear (α = .81) and calmness (α = .89). Other emotions were included as fillers (e.g., hope, empathy, and anger).

Behavioral intentions of outgroup members

Palestinian participants rated the extent to which they were deterred from participating in a violent demonstration (“I favor a quiet protest to avoid the harms of a more violent protest”) and their support of reconciliation with Jewish Israelis (“I am encouraged to strive for peace and harmony between Palestinian and Jewish citizens of Israel”). An item on aggression served as a filler.

Palestinian affiliation

Participants completed an 8-item scale modified from Roccas et al. (2006) (α = .91) to assess affiliation of Palestinian participants with the Palestinian group.

Results

Intergroup emotion regulation as a function of ingroup identification

First, as expected, self-reported preferences for fear in outgroup members were positively related to deterrence, r(189) = .45, p < .001, and preferences for calmness tended to be positively related to reconciliation, r(189) = .14, p = .051, although it did not reach statistical significance.⁸ Contrary to predictions, ingroup identification did not moderate these relations, ps > .385.

Second, we tested whether identification with Israel moderated the link between goal endorsement and emotion regulatory behavior toward outgroup members. We employed Hayes’s (2013) PROCESS command (Model 1: 5,000 iterations) to predict fear regulation. As predicted, we found a significant Deterrence × Identification interaction, b = .23, SE = .09, Z = 2.49, p = .013, post hoc power = .31. As shown in Figure 7, more (vs. less) identified participants were more likely to choose a fear-inducing message for the Palestinian participant, the more they supported deterrence, b = .91, SE = .18, Z = 5.15, p < .001. This effect was smaller for participants less identified with Israel, b = .45, SE = .15, Z = 3.04, p = .002. This interaction qualified a conditional effect for deterrence, b = .71, SE = .14, Z = 5.17, p < .001, but not identification, p = .657.

Figure 7.

Attempts to induce fear in the outgroup member as a function of support for deterrence goals and identification with the ingroup (top panel). Attempts to induce calmness in the outgroup member as a function of support for reconciliation goals and identification with the ingroup (bottom panel; ±1 SD from the mean; Study 4).

We repeated this analysis to predict calmness induction. As predicted, we found a significant Reconciliation × Identification interaction, b = .24, SE = .09, Z = 2.50, p = .012, post hoc power = .33. Participants who identified more with Israel were more likely to choose a calmness-inducing message for the Palestinian participant, the more they supported reconciliation, b = .65, SE = .14, Z = 4.61, p < .001, but those less identified with Israel did not differ in attempts to induce calmness, b = .17, SE = .15, Z = 1.13, p = .260. This interaction qualified a conditional effect for reconciliation, b = .44, SE = .11, Z = 3.95, p < .001, but not for identification, p = .957.⁹

Emotion outcomes in outgroup members as a function of ingroup goals and identification

We employed Hayes’s (2013) PROCESS command (Model 1: 5,000 iterations) to predict Palestinians’ emotional experiences from goals and identification of Jewish Israeli participants (for means and correlations, see Table 3). Affiliation of Palestinians was entered as a covariate as it was a strong predictor of emotional experiences. Contrary to predictions, the Deterrence × Identification interaction was not significant when predicting experienced fear, p = .506, or calmness, p = .428.

Table 3.

Means and Correlations Between Key Variables Across Identification Scores (Study 4).

Variable	M (SD)	1	2	3	4	5	6	7
1. Support for deterrence	4.51 (1.47)	1
2. Support for reconciliation	5.00 (1.59)	−.66*	1
3. Identification with Israel	6.11 (1.13)	.26*	−.17*	1
4. Fear in outgroup members	1.72 (1.07)	.06	.14	−.02	1
5. Calmness in outgroup members	2.85 (1.78)	−.17^†	.07	−.09	−.14	1
6. Outgroup members’ extent of deterrence	4.25 (2.11)	−.17^†	.12	−.18*	.16^†	.41*	1
7. Outgroup members’ willingness to reconcile	4.17 (2.21)	−.23*	.05	−.10	.01	.52*	.65*	1
8. Affiliation of outgroup members	3.21 (1.34)	.06	.06	−.03	.11	−.35*	−.12	−.27*

p < .05 ^†p < .1.

However, group identification moderated the link between Israeli participants’ support for deterrence and calmness in Palestinians, b = −.16, SE = .08, t(118) = −2.17, p = .032, post hoc power = .67. As shown in Figure 8, participants who were exposed to messages from highly identified Jewish participants experienced less calmness, the more the Jewish participants supported deterrence, b = −.32, SE = .13, t(118) = −2.51, p = .013. Calmness did not differ in counterparts of less identified Jewish Israelis, b = .015, SE = .13, t(118) = 0.11, p = .909. This interaction qualified a significant effect of political affiliation of Palestinians, b = −.46, SE = .11, t(118) = −4.15, p < .001, and a trend for support for deterrence, b = −.18, SE = .10, t(118) = −1.73, p = .086. Other effects were not significant, p = .248.¹⁰

Figure 8.

Calmness experienced by the outgroup member as a function of support for deterrence goals and identification with the ingroup (±1 SD from the mean; Study 4).

Outgroup members’ behavioral intentions as a function of their emotional experiences, ingroup goals, and ingroup identification

We expected support for deterrence to be related to less calmness in the Palestinian counterparts of more identified Jewish Israelis. We expected such effects, in turn, to decrease their willingness to reconcile (but perhaps be more deterred). We employed Hayes’s (2013) PROCESS bootstrapping command (Model 7: 5,000 iterations). Deterred behavior among Palestinians was predicted from support of Jewish participants for deterrence, their identification with Israel as a moderator, and Palestinians’ experience of calmness as a mediator. The total effect of support for deterrence among Israelis on deterred behavior among Palestinians was negative, but did not reach significance, b = −.22, SE = .13, t(120) = −1.77, p = .080, 95% CI = [–.19, .01]. However, the indirect effect through calmness of Palestinians was different from zero, b = −.08, SE = .04, 95% CI = [–.16, –.003], post hoc power = .45, indicating that greater support of Jewish participants for deterrence led Palestinian participants to experience less calmness, which decreased their deterrence. This was the case only in partners of highly identified Jewish participants, b = −.16, SE = .06, 95% CI = [–.29, –.04], and not in less identified participants, b = .007, SE = .07, 95% CI = [–.12, .14].

We repeated this analysis to predict willingness of Pales-tinians to reconcile with Jewish Israelis. The total effect of support for deterrence among Jewish Israelis on Palestinians’ endorsement of reconciliation, b = −.31, SE = .13, t(120) = −2.49, p = .014, 95% CI = [–.56, –.06], became insignificant in the moderated mediation model, b = −.21, SE = .11, t(119) = −1.87, p = .065, 95% CI = [–.44, .01]. The indirect effect through calmness of Palestinians was different from zero, b = −.09, SE = .05, 95% CI = [–.20, –.01], post hoc power = .45. This was only significant for partners of highly identified Jewish participants, b = −.19, SE = .07, 95% CI = [–.34, –.05], but not in partners of less identified participants, b = .01, SE = .08, 95% CI = [–.14, .17].¹¹

Discussion

The more Jewish Israelis supported reconciliation with Palestinians, the more they tried to calm them. In contrast, the more they supported deterrence, the more they tried to scare them. These behaviors were more pronounced among highly identified Jewish Israelis. Highly identified Jewish Israelis who supported deterrence sent messages that lead Palestinian participants to feel less calm. Contrary to the intention of the Jewish Israelis, however, such decreased calmness led the Palestinians to be less willing to reconcile and less (rather than more) likely to deter. These results demonstrate that, sometimes, intergroup emotion regulation may not lead to the intended outcomes in outgroup members.

Contrary to our prediction, support for deterrence goals and group identification were unrelated to experiences of fear in outgroup members. The Palestinian participants experienced little to no fear. This floor effect might have resulted from the fact that they read messages online in the safety of their homes. Also contrary to our prediction, although ingroup goals and group identification were associated with emotion regulatory behavior, they were not associated with explicit ratings of emotional preferences in outgroup members. This might suggest that participants were reluctant to explicitly report their preferences. Finally, Study 4 included high exclusion rates. One possibility is that the volatile atmosphere between Jewish and Palestinian citizens when the study took place might have contributed to participants’ disengagement and inattention. In addition, some of the analyses of Study 4 had low observed power and should be interpreted cautiously.

General Discussion

When engaging in motivated intergroup emotion regulation, individuals try to change emotions in outgroup members to attain ingroup goals. We believe such processes play an important role in daily intergroup interactions, but it could also contribute to extreme behaviors. In our studies, deterrence goals motivated people to induce fear in outgroup members, whereas reconciliation goals motivated people to induce calmness. Motivated intergroup emotion regulation propelled behaviors to induce desired emotions in outgroup members. Such behaviors sometimes led to congruent emotions in outgroup members but not always. Our findings point to the important role that motivated emotion regulation can play in intergroup relations.

Implications for Intergroup Relations

Previous studies examined why and how people regulate their own group-based emotions (Goldenberg et al., 2014, 2016; Levy et al., 2016; Porat, Halperin & Tamir, 2016; Sharvit et al., 2015). This investigation focused on the regulation of group-based emotions in outgroup members. Our findings demonstrate that ingroup members are willing to interact with outgroup members to induce preferred emotions. People who wanted outgroup members to feel more fear engaged in intimidating behaviors, and people who wanted outgroup members to experience calmness engaged in reassuring behaviors. Similarly, Hasan-Aslih and colleagues (2019) found that wanting outgroup members to experience negative emotions (e.g., fear) was related to the type of collective action people were willing to engage in.

We further demonstrated how motivated intergroup emotion regulation shapes emotions of outgroup members (Studies 1, 2, and 4). Such emotions were not always consistent with regulators’ intentions (see Studies 1 and 4). In Study 4, we also showed that trying to regulate emotions of outgroup members had downstream implications for emotions and behavioral intentions of outgroup members. Ingroup members who were motivated to promote deterrence tried to induce fear in outgroup members, which resulted in less calmness (rather than more fear) in outgroup members and less (rather than more) deterrence. Accordingly, motivated intergroup emotion regulation could have unforeseeable outcomes. Such outcomes may depend on the relationship between the groups. In adversarial relations, for example, trying to regulate emotions of outgroup members could ultimately lead to greater animosity and resistance.

Implications for Motivated Intergroup Emotion Regulation

The current investigation extends prior theorizing on motivated emotion regulation (see Tamir, 2016), by demonstrating how the intergroup context shapes motivated intergroup emotion regulation. We demonstrated that motivation to shape emotions of outgroup members depends on ingroup goals (which set the direction of regulation) and on identification with the ingroup (which sets the intensity of motivation). Building on theories of group identity (Ellemers, 2012; Tajfel & Turner, 1979), we hypothesized that identification with the ingroup leads to greater adherence to ingroup goals which results in greater motivation to regulate emotions of outgroups. The more people identified with their ingroup, the more motivated they were to induce fear when endorsing deterrence or to induce calmness when endorsing reconciliation (Studies 3 and 4).

Group identification could also shape how people appraise intergroup situations (Kuppens et al., 2013). Accordingly, the link between group identification and the endorsement of ingroup goals could be driven by different appraisals of the intergroup situation. For instance, more identified people may perceive the outgroup as more dangerous (or friendly) and these assessments might increase the salience of certain ingroup goals over others. The mechanism underlying the link between group identification and motivated intergroup emotion regulation could be examined in future research.

Our findings demonstrate that intergroup emotion regulation is shaped by features of the intergroup context. Other features, such as intergroup perceptions, power relations, and other group roles, may also shape this process. For example, people in leadership positions (Hogg, 2001; Kaiser et al., 2008; Van Knippenberg & Van Kleef, 2016) may be more motivated to partake in intergroup emotion regulation, as they are more committed to ingroup goals and can reach a wider outgroup audience. The size of the outgroup audience people may reach may also influence motivation in opposite ways. It may increase motivation as the prospective impact of reaching others is higher, but it may also decrease motivation as it may seem less feasible. Future studies could test the role of specific intergroup features in shaping intergroup emotion regulation.

Our findings raise additional questions. First, to attain ingroup goals, people may choose to regulate emotions of outgroup members, but they may also choose to regulate emotions of ingroup members (Maor & Gross, 2015; Matsumoto et al., 2015). Inducing group-based emotions in ingroup members may change emotions and action tendencies in goal-consistent ways (Mackie et al., 2000). Second, if group-based goals conflict with personal goals, pursuing group-based goals might require downplaying the importance of personal goals. Future studies could examine whose emotions people choose to regulate and why.

Intergroup emotion regulation may also be hedonically-driven. For example, people might enjoy seeing members of a rival (but not a friendly) outgroup suffer (Cikara et al., 2014). Examples for hedonic motivation in intergroup regulation might include internet trolls trying to induce pain in their victims (outgroup members) to satisfy their own emotional needs (March, 2019). This type of motivated emotion regulation may also contribute to the maintenance of intergroup relations, as the induction of pain reinforces hostile relations, whereas the induction of pleasure strengthens friendships (Niven et al., 2012).

Limitations and Future Directions

Creating hypothetical groups allowed us to manipulate and control for extraneous variables but lacked external validity. Studying real groups was externally valid but afforded us limited flexibility, forcing us to measure rather than manipulate key variables, and leaving open questions about causality in the real-world studies. In addition, the studies employed explicit measures and behavioral indices of motivated emotion regulation (see Porat, Halperin & Tamir, 2016). Although these measures typically converged, sometimes regulation preceded the explicit measures, and reports of the latter were weaker (i.e., Studies 1 and 4). It is possible that behaving in goal-consistent ways diminished the motivation to pursue the goal (e.g., Fishbach & Dhar, 2005; Maitner et al., 2006). Also, links between reconciliation and preferences for calmness were mostly consistent, but weaker than links between deterrence and preferences for fear. It is possible that in intergroup emotion regulation, hedonic motivation plays a bigger role in regulating positive emotions. Future research might test these predictions regarding hedonic motives in intergroup emotion regulation.

There are some limitations on the generality of our findings. First, we focused on motivation to induce fear and calmness as exemplars. Ingroup goals should motivate regulation of other emotions in outgroup members. For example, reduction of anger may foster reconciliation (Tam et al., 2007), but induction of hate might do the opposite. Future studies could examine motivated intergroup regulation of emotions such as anger, hate, guilt, or hope. Second, emotion regulatory behavior was examined using one type of interpersonal interaction (i.e., sending messages). Future studies could examine motivated intergroup emotion regulation as it occurs naturally in the real world. In addition, we focused on intergroup rivalry. Future studies might generalize our findings to other intergroup relations (Brewer, 2007).

Motivation in intergroup emotion regulation is significant if it shapes emotions and behaviors in outgroup members. Effects of motivated intergroup emotion regulation on outgroup members’ emotions may or may not be consistent with regulators’ intentions. Future studies could examine potential mismatches between intentions and consequences of intergroup emotion regulation.

Supplemental Material

Netzer_Online_Appendix – Supplemental material for Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid! Motivated Intergroup Emotion Regulation

Supplemental material, Netzer_Online_Appendix for Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid! Motivated Intergroup Emotion Regulation by Liat Netzer, Eran Halperin and Maya Tamir in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

Supplemental Material

Supplementary_materials__Be_Afraid – Supplemental material for Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid! Motivated Intergroup Emotion Regulation

Supplemental material, Supplementary_materials__Be_Afraid for Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid! Motivated Intergroup Emotion Regulation by Liat Netzer, Eran Halperin and Maya Tamir in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Liat Netzer

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material is available online with this article.

Notes

References

Aron

E. N.

Smollan

(1992). Inclusion of Other in the Self Scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 596–612.

Bar-Tal

(2000). From intractable conflict through conflict resolution to reconciliation: Psychological analysis. Political Psychology, 21, 351–365.

Bar-Tal

Halperin

de Rivera

(2007). Collective emotions in conflict situations: Societal implications. Journal of Social Issues, 63, 441–460.

Brewer

M. B.

(2007). The social psychology of intergroup relations: Social categorization, ingroup bias, and outgroup prejudice. In Kruglanski

A. W.

Higgins

E. T.

(Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (2nd ed., pp. 695–715). Guilford Press.

Cikara

Bruneau

Van Bavel

J. J.

Saxe

(2014). Their pain gives us pleasure: How intergroup dynamics shape empathic failures and counter-empathic responses. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 55, 110–125.

Ellemers

(2012). The group self. Science, 336, 848–852.

Faul

Erdfelder

Buchner

Lang

A. G.

(2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160.

Fishbach

Dhar

(2005). Goals as excuses or guides: The liberating effect of perceived goal progress on choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 32, 370–377.

Ford

B. Q.

Feinberg

Lam

Mauss

I. B.

John

(2019). Using reappraisal to regulate negative emotion after the 2016 U.S. presidential election: Does emotion regulation trump political action? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 117, 998–1015.

10.

Fraley

R. C.

Vazire

(2014). The N-pact factor: Evaluating the quality of empirical journals with respect to sample size and statistical power. PLoS ONE, 9, Article e109019.

11.

Gneezy

Imas

(2014). Materazzi effect and the strategic use of anger in competitive interactions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111, 1334–1337.

12.

Goldenberg

Halperin

van Zomeren

Gross

J. J.

(2016). The process model of group-based emotion: Integrating inter-group emotion and emotion regulation perspectives. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 20, 118–141.

13.

Goldenberg

Saguy

Halperin

(2014). How group-based emotions are shaped by collective emotions: Evidence for emotional transfer and emotional burden. Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology, 107, 581–596.

14.

Gross

J. J.

Thompson

R. A.

(2007). Emotion regulation: Conceptual foundations. In Gross

J. J.

(Ed.), Handbook of emotion regulation (pp. 3–24). Guilford Press.

15.

Gude

(2015). Anti-Muslim sentiment is a serious threat to American security. Center for American Progress. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/security/report/2015/11/25/126350/anti-muslim-sentiment-is-a-serious-threat-to-american-security/

16.

Hasan-Aslih

Netzer

Tamir

Saguy

Van Zomeren

Halperin

(2019). When we want them to fear us: The motivation to influence outgroup emotions in collective action. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 22, 724–745.

17.

Hayes

(2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.

18.

Henry

K. B.

Arrow

Carini

(1999). A tripartite model of group identification: Theory and measurement. Small Group Research, 30, 558–581.

19.

Hogg

M. A.

(2001). A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 184–200.

20.

Iyer

Leach

C. W.

(2008). Emotion in inter-group relations. European Review of Social Psychology, 19, 86–125.

21.

Kaiser

R. B.

Hogan

Craig

S. B.

(2008). Leadership and the fate of organizations. American Psychologist, 63, 96–110.

22.

Kuppens

Yzerbyt

V. Y.

Dandache

Fischer

A. H.

van der Schalk

(2013). Social identity salience shapes group-based emotions through group-based appraisals. Cognition and Emotion, 27(8), 1359–1377.

23.

Lerner

J. S.

Gonzalez

R. M.

Small

D. A.

Fischhoff

(2003). Effects of fear and anger on perceived risks of terrorism a national field experiment. Psychological Science, 14, 144–150.

24.

Levy

Goldstein

Influs

Masalha

Zagoory-Sharon

Feldman

(2016). Adolescents growing up amidst intractable conflict attenuate brain response to pain of outgroup. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113, 13696–13701.

25.

Mackie

D. M.

Devos

Smith

E. R.

(2000). Intergroup emotions: Explaining offensive action tendencies in an intergroup context. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 602–616.

26.

Mackie

D. M.

Smith

E. R.

(2018). Intergroup emotions theory: Production, regulation, and modification of group-based emotions. In Olson

J. M.

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 58, pp. 1–69). Academic Press.

27.

Maitner

A. T.

Mackie

D. M.

Smith

E. R.

(2006). Evidence for the regulatory function of intergroup emotion: Emotional consequences of implemented or impeded intergroup action tendencies. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 720–728.

28.

Maor

Gross

(2015, April 16–19). Emotion regulation by emotional entrepreneurs: Implications for political science and international relations [Paper presentation]. 73rd Annual Conference of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL, United States.

29.

March

(2019). Psychopathy, sadism, empathy, and the motivation to cause harm: New evidence confirms malevolent nature of the Internet troll. Personality and Individual Differences, 141, 133–137.

30.

Matsumoto

Frank

M. G.

Hwang

H. C.

(2015). The role of intergroup emotions in political violence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24, 369–373.

31.

Netzer

Van Kleef

G. A.

Tamir

(2015). Interpersonal instrumental emotion regulation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 58, 124–135.

32.

Niven

Holman

Totterdell

(2012). How to win friendship and trust by influencing people’s feelings: An investigation of interpersonal affect regulation and the quality of relationships. Human Relations, 65, 777–805.

33.

Oppenheimer

D. M.

Meyvis

Davidenko

(2009). Instructional manipulation checks: Detecting satisficing to increase statistical power. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 867–872.

34.

Page-Gould

Mendoza-Denton

Tropp

L. R.

(2008). With a little help from my cross-group friend: Reducing anxiety in intergroup contexts through cross-group friendship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1080–1094.

35.

Parkinson

Simons

Niven

(2016). Sharing concerns: Interpersonal worry regulation in romantic couples. Emotion, 16, 449–458.

36.

Petrocelli

J. V.

Smith

E. R.

(2005). Who I am, who we are, and why: Links between emotions and causal attributions for self-and group discrepancies. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1628–1642.

37.

Porat

Halperin

Mannheim

Tamir

(2016). Together we cry: Social motives and preferences for group-based sadness. Cognition and Emotion, 30, 66–79.

38.

Porat

Halperin

Tamir

(2016). What we want is what we get: Group-based emotional preferences and conflict resolution. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110, 167–190.

39.

Roccas

Klar

Liviatan

(2006). The paradox of group-based guilt: Modes of national identification, conflict vehemence, and reactions to the in-group’s moral violations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 698–711.

40.

Sharvit

Brambilla

Babush

Colucci

F. P.

(2015). To feel or not to feel when my group harms others? The regulation of collective guilt as motivated reasoning. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41, 1223–1235.

41.

Sharvit

Valetzky

(2019). Who wants to be collectively guilty? A causal role for motivation in the regulation of collective guilt. Motivation and Emotion, 43, 103–111.

42.

Smith

E. R.

Mackie

D. M.

(2016). Group-level emotions. Current Opinion in Psychology, 11, 15–19.

43.

Staub

Pearlman

L. A.

Gubin

Hagengimana

(2005). Healing, reconciliation, forgiving and the prevention of violence after genocide or mass killing: An intervention and its experimental evaluation in Rwanda. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 24, 297–334.

44.

Tajfel

Turner

J. C.

(1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In Austin

W. G.

Worchel

(Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–48). Nelson-Hall.

45.

Tam

Hewstone

Cairns

Tausch

Maio

Kenworthy

(2007). The impact of intergroup emotions on forgiveness in Northern Ireland. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 10, 119–136.

46.

Tamir

(2016). Why do people regulate their emotions? A taxonomy of motives in emotion regulation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 20, 199–222.

47.

Tamir

Ford

B. Q.

(2009). Choosing to be afraid: Preferences for fear as a function of goal pursuit. Emotion, 9, 488–497.

48.

Thomas

K. A.

Clifford

(2017). Validity and Mechanical Turk: An assessment of exclusion methods and interactive experiments. Computers in Human Behavior, 77, 184–197.

49.

Tsai

J. L.

Miao

F. F.

Seppala

Fung

H. H.

Yeung

D. Y.

(2007). Influence and adjustment goals: Sources of cultural differences in ideal affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 1102–1117.

50.

Van Knippenberg

Van Kleef

G. A

. (2016). Leadership and affect: Moving the hearts and minds of followers. The Academy of Management Annals, 10, 799–840.

51.

Whitaker

J. L.

Bushman

B. J.

(2012). “Remain calm. Be kind.” Effects of relaxing video games on aggressive and prosocial behavior. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3, 88–92.

52.

Yzerbyt

Dumont

Wigboldus

Gordijn

(2003). I feel for us: The impact of categorization and identification on emotions and action tendencies. British Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 533–549.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.26 MB

0.12 MB