Pro‐peace or anti‐war: The effect of emotions primed by protest songs on emotions toward in‐group and out‐group in conflict

Members of societies in conflict hold stable positive and negative views, and emotions of the in‐group and out‐group, respectively. Music is a potent tool to express and evoke emotions. It is a social product created within a social and political context, reflecting, and commenting it. Protest songs aim to change views and attitudes toward ongoing conflicts. Their message may be expressed positively (pro‐peace songs) or negatively (anti‐war songs). Previous research has shown that evoking emotions such as guilt toward the in‐group or empathy toward the out‐group may influence attitudes toward reconciliation. The present research, conducted in Israel, presents three studies investigating whether emotions evoked by positive or negative protest songs may influence in‐group members' guilt toward the in‐group (Israeli Jews) and empathy toward the out‐group (Palestinians). Studies 1 and 2 show that negative emotions evoked by negative protests songs predicted both empathy and guilt when the out‐group is considered as a whole (Study 1) or as a particular individual (Study 2). Study 2 in addition showed that empathy predicts an altruistic decision regarding an out‐group member. Emotions evoked by lyrics alone (Study 3) did not contribute to explained variance in either guilt or empathy, nor the altruistic decision. Results suggest that negative emotions expressed by negative protest songs, focused on the in‐group, are more effective in influencing attitudes toward out‐groups. Results are discussed in the context of group emotions in conflict and the role of protest songs in intergroup relations.     

Leniency for out‐group offenders

The present research investigates leniency for out‐group offenders and differentiates it from the black sheep effect. The authors assume that leniency for out‐group offenders can be used by in‐group members to protect their group's image by displaying that they are not prejudiced. Thus, leniency should disappear when in‐group members have otherwise shown that they are not prejudiced (i.e., moral credentials). In two experiments, offenders' group membership and participants' opportunity to establish moral credentials were manipulated. Results showed that out‐group offenders received the lowest punishment severity ratings (Studies 1 and 2). However, this leniency effect vanished when participants had established moral credentials by either endorsing the participation of out‐group members in lobby groups (Study 1) or writing about a positive experience with an out‐group member (Study 2). These findings suggest that lenient punishments for out‐group offenders may sometimes reflect a relatively easy strategy to display the in‐group as being unprejudiced. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The automaticity of infra‐humanization

This research tested the infra‐humanization hypothesis that uniquely human emotions (e.g., love, sorrow) are automatically more linked in memory with the in‐group than with the out‐group. No such difference is expected for non‐uniquely human emotions (e.g., joy, sadness) which pertain to everybody, including animals. Two studies using semantic primes followed by visual person categorization task (PCT) and lexical (lexical decision task, LDT) targets were conducted. Results supported infra‐humanization theory. Reaction times were faster for the in‐group/secondary emotions associations than for out‐group/secondary emotions ones. As predicted, no difference in latency times appeared for primary emotions as a function of the groups. These findings elucidate the ambiguity present in Paladino et al. ( 2002 ). Theoretical and practical implications are suggested. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Intergroup retaliation and intra‐group praise gain: The effect of expected cooperation from the in‐group on intergroup vicarious retribution

Intergroup vicarious retribution is the phenomenon whereby, after an out‐group member attacks an in‐group member, a member of the victim's group retaliates against a member of the perpetrator's group. This study examined the effect of expected cooperation from the in‐group on intergroup vicarious retribution through intra‐group reputation based on praise gain and exclusion avoidance. In the experiment, we conducted a one‐on‐one match in which, after participants learned that an out‐group member (as the winner) had imposed a fine on an in‐group member (as the loser) in a previous round, winning participants were allowed to impose an arbitrary fine on the other losing out‐group member. As a result, participants imposed a larger fine on their out‐group member opponent in retaliation when they were expected by in‐group members to cooperate than when such cooperation was not expected. Furthermore, participants regarded a fine as intra‐group cooperation. Since a path analysis revealed a mediating effect of praise gain, but no mediating effect of exclusion avoidance, expected cooperation from in‐group members facilitated vicarious retribution because those involved in retribution sought praise from other in‐group members. These findings suggest that the intra‐group reputation dynamics of expected cooperation and praise gain escalate intergroup conflict.     

Effects of information about group members on young children's attitudes towards the in‐group and out‐group

Research shows that being a member of a group is sufficient to instigate more positive attitudes towards the in‐group than an out‐group in young children. The present study assessed whether children's intergroup attitudes during the middle childhood years are moderated by additional information about in‐group and out‐group members, as proposed by Aboud's (1988) socio‐cognitive theory (ST). To a minimal group 6‐, 8‐, and 10‐year‐old children (N=159) were assigned, and received information, or no information, about the interests and activities of the in‐group and out‐group members. Results indicated that the in‐group was always rated more positively than the out‐group, and that the in‐group's ratings were unaffected by either the in‐group or out‐group information. In contrast, out‐group ratings were affected by out‐group information, but only when there was no information available about the in‐group. The implications of the findings for ST, and for social identity development theory, are discussed.     

Why group apologies succeed and fail: intergroup forgiveness and the role of primary and secondary emotions

It is widely assumed that official apologies for historical transgressions can lay the groundwork for intergroup forgiveness, but evidence for a causal relationship between intergroup apologies and forgiveness is limited. Drawing on the infrahumanization literature, we argue that a possible reason for the muted effectiveness of apologies is that people diminish the extent to which they see outgroup members as able to experience complex, uniquely human emotions (e.g., remorse). In Study 1, Canadians forgave Afghanis for a friendly-fire incident to the extent that they perceived Afghanis as capable of experiencing uniquely human emotions (i.e., secondary emotions such as anguish) but not nonuniquely human emotions (i.e., primary emotions such as fear). Intergroup forgiveness was reduced when transgressor groups expressed secondary emotions rather than primary emotions in their apology (Studies 2a and 2b), an effect that was mediated by trust in the genuineness of the apology (Study 2b). Indeed, an apology expressing secondary emotions aroused no more forgiveness than a no-apology control (Study 3) and less forgiveness than an apology with no emotion (Study 4). Consistent with an infrahumanization perspective, effects of primary versus secondary emotional expression did not emerge when the apology was offered for an ingroup transgression (Study 3) or when an outgroup apology was delivered through an ingroup proxy (Study 4). Also consistent with predictions, these effects were demonstrated only by those who tended to deny uniquely human qualities to the outgroup (Study 5). Implications for intergroup apologies and movement toward reconciliation are discussed.     

Motivation to support a desired conclusion versus motivation to avoid an undesirable conclusion: The case of infra‐humanization

Social motivation has been shown to influence various cognitive processes. In the present paper, it is verified that people are motivated to view out‐groups as possessing a lesser degree of humanity than the in‐group (Leyens et al., 2000 ) and that this motivation influences logical processing in the Wason selection task. So far, studies on infra‐humanization have been shown to influence attribution of uniquely human characteristics to groups. Most of these studies focused on the attribution of secondary emotions. Results have shown that secondary emotions are preferentially attributed to in‐group members (Leyens et al., 2001 ). Also, people tend to react differently to in‐group and out‐group members displaying secondary emotions (Gaunt, Leyens, & Sindic, 2004 ; Vaes, Paladino, Castelli, Leyens, & Giovanazzi, 2003 ). In the present paper, it is argued that infra‐humanization is a two‐direction bias and that it does influence logical processing among perceivers. Specifically, infra‐humanization motivation impacts logical processing in two different directions. First, most motivation is spent to reach the desirable conclusion that the in‐group is uniquely human. Second, least motivation occurs to support the undesirable conclusion that the out‐group is uniquely human. These hypotheses are tested in four cross‐cultural studies that varied the status and the conflicting relations between groups. Results were in line with the predictions and further confirmed that infra‐humanization biases can be obtained independently of status and conflict (but see Cortes, Demoulin, Leyens, & de Renesse, 2005 ). The discussion relates these findings with in‐group favouritism and out‐group derogation (Brewer, 1999 ) and underlines the importance of infra‐humanization in counteracting system justification biases (Jost & Banaji, 1994 ).     

Beliefs about group malleability and out‐group attitudes: The mediating role of perceived threat in interactions with out‐group members

Recent research suggests that inducing fixed (rather than malleable) beliefs about groups leads to more negative attitudes toward out‐groups. The present paper identifies the underlying mechanism of this effect. We show that individuals with a fixed belief about groups tend to construe intergroup settings as threatening situations that might reveal shortcomings of their in‐group (perceived threat). In the present research, we measured (Study 1) and manipulated (Study 2) participants' lay theories about group malleability. We found that the extent to which individuals had an entity (versus an incremental) group theory influenced the level of threat they felt when interacting with out‐group members, and that perceived threat in turn affected their level of ethnocentrism and prejudice. These findings shed new light on the role of lay theories in intergroup attitudes and suggest new ways to reduce prejudice. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Trust and Acceptance in Response to References to Group Membership: Minority and Majority Perspectives on Cross‐Group Interactions1

This research examined anticipated feelings of trust and acceptance in cross‐group interactions among members of ethnic minority and majority groups, depending on whether an out‐group member referred to their group membership. In Study 1, Asian, Latino, and White participants read scenarios describing interactions between them and an in‐group member, an out‐group member, or an out‐group member who referred to their group membership. Participants from each group responded more negatively toward interactions with out‐group members when they referred to group membership. These findings were replicated in Study 2 with samples of Black and White participants, also showing that anticipated prejudice partially mediated the effects of out‐group members' references to group membership on feelings of trust and acceptance. Implications of these findings are discussed in terms of facilitating intergroup communication and conversations about group differences.     

Deviant but desirable: Group variability and evaluation of atypical group members

Two studies investigated how group variability affects reactions to atypical group members. In Study 1 (N = 65) we manipulated group variability and found that an atypical group member was evaluated more positively when the group was heterogeneous than when the group was homogeneous. In Study 2 (N = 276) we also manipulated group value and found a significant interaction whereby an atypical group member was evaluated more positively when the group was homogeneous and group members valued heterogeneity, but was evaluated more negatively when the group was heterogeneous and group members valued homogeneity. The results suggest that deviant or atypical members will not inevitably be rejected by the group, but rather that reactions to deviance are shaped and guided by the dynamic relationship between how the group is perceived by its members and their ideological beliefs about what is good for the group.     

Nie Wieder: Group‐Based Emotions for In‐Group Wrongdoing Affect Attitudes toward Unrelated Minorities

This article focuses on the effects of group‐based emotions for in‐group wrongdoing on attitudes towards seemingly unrelated groups. Two forms of shame are distinguished from one another and from guilt and linked to positive and negative attitudes towards an unrelated minority. In Study 1 (N = 203), Germans' feelings of moral shame—arising from the belief that the in‐group's Nazi past violates an important moral value—are associated with increased support for Turks living in Germany. Image shame—arising from a threatened social image—is associated with increased social distance. In Study 2 (N = 301), Britons' emotions regarding atrocities committed by in‐group members during the war in Iraq have similar links with attitudes towards Pakistani immigrants. We extend the findings of Study 1 by demonstrating that the effects are mediated by a sense of moral obligation and observed more strongly when the unrelated group is perceived as similar to the harmed group. Guilt was unrelated to any outcome variable across both studies. Theoretical and practical implications about the nature of group‐based emotions and their potential for affecting wider intergroup relations are discussed.     

Modeling collective choice: decision‐making on complex intellective tasks

Three studies examined group problem‐solving on complex intellective tasks. In Study 1, a decision model proposed by Laughlin and Hollingshead ( 1995 ) provided the best fit to actual group choices. This study also compared three‐person group versus individual performance with time constrained and number of problems unconstrained, with individuals solving non‐significantly more problems and groups obtaining significantly superior trials‐to‐solution scores. In Study 2, one member of each group was given additional information on how to perform the task and member extroversion was measured. Neither factor significantly impacted the decision‐making process. In Study 3, task expertise was assessed prior to the group interaction. Results indicate that group members were twice as likely to adopt an option proposed by an expert compared to other group members. Together these studies demonstrate that group problem solving is governed jointly by qualities of the task and qualities of the group members. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Effects of in‐group and out‐group ethnicity on children's attitudes towards members of the in‐group and out‐group

This study tested predictions drawn from social identity development theory (SIDT) (Nesdale, 1999a) concerning the development of young children's ethnic attitudes. 5‐7‐ and 9‐year‐old children (N = 159) participated in a minimal group study in which they were assigned to a team which had higher drawing ability than a competitor team. The team members were revealed to be of the same (Anglo‐Australian) vs. different (Pacific Islander) ethnicity (in‐group ethnicity). The ethnicity of the competitor team was varied in the same way. The children subsequently rated their liking for, and similarity to, the in‐group and the out‐group, and the extent to which they wished to change groups. Children liked in‐group members more than out‐group members. Liking for in‐group members was unaffected by the ethnic composition of the groups, but liking for outgroup members was reduced when the ethnic composition of the out‐group differed from that of the in‐group. Children felt most similar to same‐group, same‐ethnicity members and least similar to different ethnicity out‐group members. The desire to change teams increased with age but there was no intention to align with same ethnicity individuals. The extent to which the findings provide support for SIDT is discussed.     

Collective guilt,moral outrage,and support for helping the poor: A matter of system versus in‐group responsibility framing

We examined how the framing of responsibility for reducing socio‐economic inequality affects individuals' emotional reactions towards the poor and the willingness to engage in prosocial actions. Attribution of responsibility to either the system (government and institutions), the less deprived in‐group, or the disadvantaged out‐group (poor) was measured (Study 1) and manipulated (Study 2). Consistent with our hypotheses, moral outrage was higher than collective guilt when system responsibility for inequalities was put forth, but collective guilt arose to reach the level of moral outrage when in‐group responsibility was emphasized. Moreover, distinguishing between collective guilt for action and for inaction, we found guilt for inaction more difficult and thus less likely to arise, unless responsibility was put on the in‐group. Collective emotions were also found to be negatively linked to system justification motivation illustrating the palliative function of legitimization processes. Finally, moral outrage predicted the willingness to act upon socio‐economic inequalities both when the system's and in‐group's responsibility was emphasized, whereas collective guilt for action (but not for inaction) predicted support for prosocial actions only when the in‐group's responsibility was engaged. These findings suggest that the specific group‐based emotions in response to poverty depend on whether the system or the in‐group is held responsible and differentially predict individuals' commitment to act.     

Mortality salience and evaluations of in‐group versus out‐group critics: The role of criticism legitimacy and perceived threat

Significant terror management research has examined the impact of mortality salience on evaluations toward in‐group versus out‐group and attitudinally similar versus dissimilar others. However, relatively little research has examined evaluations when group membership is disentangled from attitude similarity. The current research examined the impact of mortality salience on evaluations toward in‐group and out‐group critics when people are less likely to rely on group membership as a heuristic. In Experiment 1, the results showed that in the control condition, participants rated an in‐group member who provided unjustified criticism more positively than an out‐group member who provided the same criticism. Under mortality salience, the reverse occurred: An in‐group member who provided unjustified criticism was rated more negatively than an out‐group member. Experiment 2 showed that under mortality salience, the derogation of an in‐group critic who provided unjustified criticism was mediated by perceptions of threat. Implications for reactions to group‐directed criticism as well as mortality salience effects are discussed. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Hide and seek: the effects of revealing one's personal interests in intra‐ and intergroup negotiations

The present research examined the effects of information sharing about self‐interest and group membership of the negotiation partner on negotiation cognitions, behaviors and outcomes. Study 1 (n = 77) showed that in anticipation of the negotiation, participants placed more trust in an in‐group member, and were more willing to exchange information with a negotiation partner who revealed his/her self‐interest. Study 2 (n = 80) examined how these effects influenced the development of attitudes and behavior during and after the negotiation. Results showed that negotiations with in‐group members were more cooperative when they shared, rather than not shared, information about underlying self‐interest. By contrast, negotiations with out‐group members were more cooperative when they did not share, rather than shared, information about their underlying self‐interest. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Self‐Concept Clarity and the Management of Social Conflict

ABSTRACT: In 4 studies we examined the relationship between self‐concept clarity and conflict management. Individuals with higher self‐concept clarity were overall more active and showed more cooperative problem‐solving behavior than people with low self‐concept clarity. There were no relationships with contending or yielding. The positive relationship with cooperative behavior was mediated by less rumination (Study 2) and moderated by conflict intensity (Study 3). Specifically, it applied to relatively mild conflicts (Study 3). Finally, Study 4 extended these findings to the group level: Dyad members with higher self‐concept clarity engaged in problem solving, whereas dyad members with lower self‐concept clarity did not. We conclude that higher self‐concept clarity associates with proactive problem solving in social conflict.     

Morality and political orientations: An analysis of their relationship

Groups are social constructions with differences. People spontaneously attempt to explain differences between groups. Stereotypes often play this explanatory role. Specifically, group members tend to attribute different essences to social categories. Given widespread ethnocentrism, it is not surprising that individuals reserve “the human essence” for their ingroup, while other groups are attributed a lesser humanity. This phenomenon is called infra‐humanisation and happens outside people's awareness. Secondary emotions (e.g., love, hope, contempt, resentment) are considered uniquely human emotions in contrast to primary emotions (e.g., joy, surprise, fear, anger) that are shared with animals. The research programme summarised in this chapter demonstrates through various paradigms that members of groups not only attribute more secondary emotions to their ingroup than to outgroups, but are also reluctant to associate these emotions with outgroups. Moreover, people behave less cooperatively with an outgroup member who expresses himself with secondary emotions than with an ingroup member who uses the same terms. Interestingly, infra‐humanisation occurs for both high‐ and low‐status groups, even in the absence of conflict between groups.     

Reducing an in‐group bias in preschool children: the impact of moral behavior

How impressionable are in‐group biases in early childhood? Previous research shows that young children display robust preferences for members of their own social group, but also condemn those who harm others. The current study investigates children's evaluations of agents when their group membership and moral behavior conflict. After being assigned to a minimal group, 4‐ to 5‐year‐old children either saw their in‐group member behave antisocially, an out‐group member act prosocially, or control agents, for whom moral information was removed. Children's explicit preference for and willingness to share with their in‐group member was significantly attenuated in the presence of an antisocial in‐group member, but not a prosocial out‐group member. Interestingly, children's learning decisions were unmoved by a person's moral behavior, instead being consistently guided by group membership. This demonstrates that children's in‐group bias is remarkably flexible: while moral information curbs children's in‐group bias on social evaluations, social learning is still driven by group information.     

Motivated to confront: How experiencing anger affects anchoring bias

Prior research has asserted that emotions affect anchoring bias in decision making through the emotion's certainty appraisal or through the emotion's action tendencies, but these prior studies investigate the role of each component—appraisal or action tendency—without accounting for potential effects of the other one. The current research investigates whether anger exerts a significant effect on anchoring bias by activating a desire to confront a potential anchor. Importantly, the studies compare the effect of anger versus disgust, emotions that differ in their action tendency but are similar in their certainty appraisal. In Study 1, participants completed an emotion induction task and then a negotiation task where the first offer from the negotiation partner served as a potential anchor. Anger led to more deviation from the anchor compared with disgust or neutral feelings. Subsequent studies provide evidence that the angry participants are less anchored when the anchor value comes from a more confrontable source (someone else vs. themselves in Study 2 and an out‐group member vs. an in‐group member in Study 3).