اثر مثبت احساسات منفی در جنگ طولانی: مورد خشم

Extant research has demonstrated the destructive role that anger plays in the context of intergroup conflict. Among other findings, it has been established that anger elevates public support for aggressive and violent actions towards the outgroup. This finding has been explained by the unique cognitive appraisals, emotional goal, and response tendencies associated with anger, typified by appraised relative strength and high control, motivation to correct perceived wrongdoings, and willingness to engage in risky behavior. In the current work we examine an innovative assumption, according to which the apparent destructive implications of anger are a result of situational range restriction—namely, that anger as a group emotion has been examined almost solely at the escalation stage of conflict. Instead, we propose that the same unique characteristics of anger can bring about constructive political attitudes and support for non-violent policies in the context of systematic efforts to de-escalate a protracted conflict.To test this hypothesis we conducted two studies in which we examined the relationship between anger and the willingness to engage in positive risk-taking and support non-violent policies in the context of political negotiations between adversaries. Results indicate a significant positive relationship, supporting the hypothesis that anger is not an exclusively militant emotion, and its effects are situationally dependent.

Over the last three decades, a growing body of literature has highlighted the importance of emotions in intergroup relations (Iyer and Leach, 2008, Mackie and Smith, 2002 and Mackie et al., 2008). At the same time, the central role of emotions in the dynamics of intergroup conflict is increasingly recognized by scholars in the fields of international relations and conflict resolution (Bar-Tal et al., 2007, Horowitz, 1985, Mayer, 2000 and Petersen, 2002). Among other things, emotions influence support for specific policy preferences regarding an adversary (Halperin, in press and Halperin et al., in press). For example, emotions contribute to decision making about reactions to terror attacks (Cheung-Blunden and Blunden, 2008, Huddy et al., 2007, Lerner et al., 2003 and Skitka et al., 2006) and influence positions on negotiation, peace agreements, and reconciliation (Halperin, in press, Maoz and McCauley, 2009 and Tam et al., 2007). Anger is a central and prevalent emotion in the context of intergroup conflict (Bar-Tal, 2007 and Halperin and Gross, in press). It is characterized by cognitive appraisals of strength and control and a willingness to engage in risky behavior, and it is linked to the emotional goal of “correcting perceived wrongdoing” (Halperin, 2008). In past literature, this goal has been found to be consistently pursued through increased support for aggression against an adversary (Cheung-Blunden and Blunden, 2008, Huddy et al., 2007, Lerner et al., 2003 and Skitka et al., 2006). However, we suggest that anger can also bring about constructive political attitudes, in the service of the same goal of correcting wrongdoing. In the current work, we argue that anger can promote support for positive, non-violent policies in the context of efforts to de-escalate protracted conflict, such as peace negotiations. Specifically, we suggest that the same characteristics (i.e., appraisals of relative strength and a willingness to engage in risky behavior) that make anger such a powerful aggression motivator when intergroup relations are belligerent can turn it into a powerful driving force towards resolution of the conflict in the context of attempts to de-escalate the conflict. Group-based emotions and intergroup conflict: basic conceptualizations Traditionally, affect has been conceptualized as an individual-level phenomenon (Arnold, 1960) in which specific emotions are linked up with specific goals, cognitive appraisals of costs, benefits, and risks, and action tendencies aimed at achieving said goals (Lerner and Keltner, 2000 and Lerner and Keltner, 2001; see also James, 1884, Scherer, 1984 and Zajonc, 1998). However, human behavior is not limited to the interpersonal context, and is greatly influenced by dynamics at the group level (Hogg & Abrams, 1999). In recent years, there has been growing interest in group-based emotions—emotions that individuals experience as a result of their identification with a group or social category ( Mackie et al., 2000, Smith, 1993, Smith, 1999, Smith and Mackie, 2008 and Yzerbyt et al., 2003). Intergroup emotion theory extends this concept to group-based emotions targeted at other social groups ( Smith, 1993, Smith, 1999 and Smith et al., 2007). The theory posits that individuals for whom a social identity is salient and meaningful will experience emotions based on appraisals of the costs and benefits of a stimulus to the ingroup, even in the absence of direct relevance to the individual ( Mackie and Smith, 1998 and Mackie et al., 2000). Moreover, parallel with what is found at the individual level, group-focused appraisals associated with group emotions result in action tendencies towards outgroups ( Smith et al., 2007). The concept of group emotions is particularly pertinent when trying to understand the influence of emotions on public policy preferences in the context of intractable intergroup conflict. In such conflicts, members of the public are often influenced by events vicariously. Usually a few group members suffer or take part in an event directly, and this experience is transmitted to other group members through the mediation of leaders, the mass media, and interaction with other individuals (Halperin et al., in press and Halperin et al., in press). As such, group emotions evoked by these experiences become central to a group's broader reaction to conflict-related events. Intergroup anger in intergroup conflict Of all group emotions associated with intractable conflict, anger is one of the most significant. Anger has been understood as a reaction to events in which the actions of others are perceived to be unjust, unfair, or contrary to acceptable societal norms (Averill, 1982). Furthermore, anger is evoked in response to a negative event that frustrates a desired goal and is intensified when the event is caused by a specific agent and viewed as unjust or illegitimate (Lazarus, 1991). Accordingly, the emotional goal of anger has been defined as a desire to correct perceived wrongdoing, injustice, or unfairness (Fischer and Roseman, 2007 and Halperin, 2008). Anger has also been shown to be an approach-related emotion, making people eager to act (Carver and Harmon-Jones, 2009, Davidson et al., 2000, Harmon-Jones and Sigelman, 2001 and Mackie et al., 2000). As such, it involves appraisals of relative strength and high coping ability (Mackie et al., 2000). Moreover, anger is linked to indiscriminate optimism about success (Fischhoff, Gonzalez, Lerner, & Small, 2005) and an increased willingness to engage in risky behavior (Lerner and Keltner, 2001 and Rydell et al., 2008). Together, these characteristics usually lead to a tendency to confront (Berkowitz, 1993 and Mackie et al., 2000) or attack the anger-evoking target (Frijda, 1986 and Roseman et al., 1994). In line with these characteristics, previous studies in the context of real-world conflicts have consistently found clear and direct association between anger and attribution of blame to the outgroup (Halperin, in press and Small et al., 2006). Other studies find that individuals who feel angry appraise future military attack as less risky (Lerner & Keltner, 2001) and forecast more positive consequences of such attack (Huddy et al., 2007). Accordingly, studies conducted in the U.S following the 9/11 attacks found that angry individuals were highly supportive of an American military response in Iraq and elsewhere (Cheung-Blunden and Blunden, 2008, Huddy et al., 2007 and Lerner et al., 2003). Anger-related action tendencies The connection between anger and belligerence may thus seem intuitive. Nevertheless, we argue that this pattern is not the only action tendency associated with anger and that the emotional goal of correcting a perceived wrong may be served by constructive as well as destructive means. Specifically, a context in which one meets with the adversary and engages in negotiations aimed at de-escalation may present non-violent options for the pursuit of group goals. Such engagement entails a willingness to be pro-active and take risks. Intergroup anger facilitates both of these things: the appraisal tendencies related to anger promote a sense of power and optimism about the ingroup's ability to handle the situation, coupled with a stronger approach orientation and openness to risk. As such, we argue that the usual psychological consequences of intergroup anger may stimulate a seemingly unusual outcome in the context of activities specifically aimed at de-escalating an ongoing conflict: namely, non-violent behavior towards the outgroup. Three previous studies suggest that anger may not exclusively be an aggressive emotion. In an early study (Averill, 1982), when subjects were asked to report their action tendencies towards sources of anger in interpersonal contexts, non-aggressive responses were more frequent than aggressive responses. Following this study, Averill (1983) warned of interpreting anger as necessarily resulting in increased aggression. A second study of interpersonal relationships (Fischer & Roseman, 2007, Study 3) found that anger can be conducive to reconciliation and relationship improvement after some time passes from the original offense. While both of these examples are interpersonal rather than intergroup in nature, the notion that the manner in which the emotional goal of anger is pursued may differ across contexts within a broader conflict supports the idea that this may be true at the intergroup level as well.1 In a third study that examined the difference between anger and hate in the context of attitudes of Israelis towards Palestinians (Halperin, 2008, Study 3), anger was associated with two seemingly contradictory response tendencies—support for violent action towards the Palestinians and support for educational channels to create perceptual change among Palestinians. This seeming contradiction suggests the plausibility of the hypothesis that anger can result in both aggressive and non-aggressive response tendencies (see also Halperin, in press). To explore this hypothesis, the two studies reported here set out to explore the impact of intergroup anger on positive risk-taking when political negotiations are in view. In our usage, the term “positive risk-taking” refers to non-violent, diplomatic steps taken in the context of intractable conflict to promote one's own interests. This includes investment in non-violent persuasion attempts, demonstrations of good faith, and a willingness to reciprocate positive, cooperative acts from the outgroup. 2 The current studies We conducted two studies in two very different contexts. The first study examined the correlational relationship between anger and willingness to take non-aggressive policy risks in the context of political negotiations. This study, based on data from a representative survey of Israelis, was conducted in the context of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict on the eve of an important peace summit. The second study was a lab-based experiment which enabled us to examine causality in a conflict context that is relatively free of historic and ideological constraints. We constructed a conflict between the United States and Syria—borrowing from real components of U.S.–Syrian relations—with a sample of college students who had very little familiarity with this issue and were led to believe that de-escalatory negotiations were approaching, reconstructing the natural conditions of Study 1. Using an emotion manipulation, we set out to isolate the impact of anger on positive risk-taking in policy preferences.