1. Emotions and Emotion Regulation in Intergroup Conflict – The Distinct Role of Anger and Hatred Eran Halperin Interdisciplinary Center, Herzliya, Israel Small Group Meeting of the European Association of Social Psychology Neve-Ilan, Israel (September 9, 2009)

2. Emotions in Conflicts A bloody phenomenon cannot be explained by a bloodless theory  “The sheer passion expended in pursuing ethnic conflict calls out for an explanation that does justice to the realm of feelings … A bloody phenomenon cannot be explained by a bloodless theory” (Horowitz, 1985, p. 140)

3. Main Goal of the Current Talk  To present a general framework for examining emotion and emotion regulation in intergroup conflict situations.  More specifically: 1. A general framework. 2. Some specific examples (mainly about hatred and anger).

4. Emotions in Conflicts  Emotions  Emotions are flexible response sequences that are called forth whenever an individual evaluates a situation as offering important challenges or opportunities (Tooby & Cosmides, 1990).  Emotional sentiments  Emotional sentiments, are enduring configurations of emotions (Arnold, 1960; Frijda, 1986), a temporally stable emotional disposition towards a person, group, or symbol (Halperin, 2008).

5. Discrete Emotions: e.g., Fear, hatred and anger Emotions in Conflict - Appraisal-Based Framework (Halperin, Sharvit & Gross, 2009) New Event (Framing): Peace proposal, Aggressive Action, New opportunity Long-Term Emotions Cognitive Appraisals Attitudes Towards Peace and War Long-Term Beliefs

6. Emotions in Conflict - Appraisal-Based Framework (Halperin, Sharvit & Gross, 2009) 1. Conflict Outbreak and Escalation (e.g., Anger, Hatred, Humiliation). 2. De-Escalation of the Conflict (e.g., Fear, Hope, Despair) 3. Reconciliation-Post-War (e.g., Empathy, Guilt, Shame).  This general framework can be applied to different stages of conflicts:

7. Discrete Emotions: e.g., Fear, hatred and anger Empirical Examination 1: Appraisal-Emotion Association (Halperin, 2008) New Event (Framing): Peace proposal, Aggressive Action, New opportunity Long-Term Emotions Cognitive Appraisals Attitudes Towards Peace and War Long-Term Beliefs

8. Emotional Stories in Intergroup Conflict The Appraisal Component of “ the Story ” (Halperin, 2008 study 2)  Background: The manner in which a person interprets a certain event is an inherent part of the felt emotion (Roseman, 1984; Smith & Ellsworth, 1985; Scherer, 2004).  Research goal: To reveal the unique cognitive appraisals that are associated with Fear, Anger and Hatred in the context of conflict. Halperin, E. (2008). Group-based hatred in intractable conflict in Israel. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 52, 713-736.

9. Emotional Stories in Intergroup Conflict The Appraisal Component of “ the Story ”  Participants: 241 Israeli students.  Instruments and Procedure: Four emotionally conflicting inter- group scenarios. Manipulation of the cognitive appraisals of the protagonist in the story (4 dimensions – 16 combinations/versions). Subjects were asked to rank the degree to which the story protagonist felt each emotion (Hatred, Anger and Fear).

10. The Appraisal Components of Anger

11. The Appraisal Components of Hatred

12. Discrete Emotions: e.g., Fear, hatred and anger Empirical Examination 2: Sentiment-Appraisal-Emotion Association (Halperin & Gross, in preparation) New Event (Framing): Peace proposal, Aggressive Action, New opportunity Long-Term Emotions Cognitive Appraisals Attitudes Towards Peace and War Long-Term Beliefs

13. The Evolution of Intergroup Anger in Times of War: The Shifting Tides of Long-Term Sentiments (Halperin & Gross)  Basic Assumptions: 1. Long term effect 2. Specificity of the effect (discrete emotions)  Concrete Hypothesis  Concrete Hypothesis: long term sentiment of anger will induce intergroup anger in response to specific events, mainly by making people more attuned to appraise out-group's behavior in line with the typical anger related appraisals (Rosenberg, 1998; Lerner & Keltner, 2000).

14. The Evolution of Intergroup Anger in Times of War: The Shifting Tides of Long-Term Sentiments  Research Method: Two-wave panel design (n=500) – nationwide representative sample: 1. Peaceful time (measured ideology and long term sentiments). 2. War in Gaza (13 months later – measured exposure, appraisals and emotions).

15. Results(1): Effects of anger sentiments (t1), anger appraisals (t2), exposure to attacks and control variables on anger reactions during the war

16. Results (2) From Anger Sentiment to Anger Reaction - SEM χ2 (23) =.95, p =.53; NFI =.98, CFI =.99, RMSEA =.00

17. Discrete Emotions: e.g., Fear, hatred and anger Empirical Examination 3: Emotions and Political Response Tendencies (Halperin, 2008 study 3) New Event (Framing): Peace proposal, Aggressive Action, New opportunity Long-Term Emotions Cognitive Appraisals Attitudes Towards Peace and War Long-Term Beliefs

18. Emotional Stories in Intergroup Conflict The Behavioral Component of “ the Story ” (Halperin, 2008)  Background :  Motivational and behavioral tendencies are an important features of emotions (Frijda et al., 1989).  Distinction between emotional goals and response tendencies (Roseman, 1984, 1994).  Research Goal: To identify emotional goals and response tendencies that are related exclusively to Fear, Anger or Hatred. Halperin, E. (2008). Group-based hatred in intractable conflict in Israel. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 52, 713-736.

19. Emotional Stories in Intergroup Conflict The Behavioral Component of “ the Story ”  Participants: Target design - National survey (N=847).  Procedure: After listening to a conflict-related text, respondents were asked to recall the thoughts and feelings they experienced immediately after hearing about the actions mentioned.  Measurements:  Hatred (hostility, hatred; α =.75), Anger (angry, irritated, and revolted; α =.92) and Fear (afraid, scared, and worried; α =.86).  Emotional goals and response tendencies towards Palestinians were assessed.

20. How would you define your ultimate goal in regard to the Palestinians? Hatred AngerFearMean (SD) Emotional Goals -.23*(-2.27).13 (1.51).23*(1.94) 4.93 (1.48) Live and let live – Create a safe environment.06 (.59).26*(2.17) -.13 (-1.10) 2.39 (1.81) Change attitudes and perceptions of the Palestinians (Corrections).52***(6.01).18 (1.81) -.07 (-.75) 2.77 (1.82) Removal or destruction.66*** (8.09) -.03 (-.36).08 (.18) 2.96 (1.82) To do evil to the Palestinians

21. What would you like to do in the immediate time frame? Hatred AngerFearMean (SD) Response Tendencies.11 (1.10) -.19 (-1.59).23*(2.00) 5.38 (1.20) Avoid any social relations with Palestinians.16 (1.63).32**(2.87) -.03 (-.27) 4.5 (1.59) Support of educational channels to create perceptual change.43*** (7.53).13* (1.94) -.06 (-.88) 2.2 (1.79) Physical and violent action.46***(5.09).17 (1.65) -.03 (-.31) 3.3 (1.9) Support for political and social exclusion of Palestinians

22. Discrete Emotions: e.g., Fear, hatred and anger Empirical Examination 4: Emotional sentiments, emotions (from different kinds) and political response tendencies New Event (Framing): Peace proposal, Aggressive Action, New opportunity Long-Term Emotions Cognitive Appraisals Attitudes Towards Peace and War Long-Term Beliefs Hatred Anger

23. Hatred-Anger Interaction and Political Response Tendencies in Conflict Situations  Anger can lead either to destructive or constructive response tendencies (Fischer & Roseman, 2007; Reifen, Federico & Halperin, 2009).  Research goal: To examine the role of long term hatred in determining the political response tendencies to anger.  Research Hypotheses: 1. High Long-term Hatred + Reactive Anger = Destructive. 2. Low Long-term Hatred + Reactive Anger = Constructive

24. Hatred-Anger Interaction and Political Response Tendencies in Conflict Situations  All individuals who feel anger have the same emotional goal –to correct the behavior of that group.  “Angry" people may differ in the way they translate that general goal into specific response tendencies.  Hatred involves the belief that an out-group is evil by nature and never will change (Halperin, 2008).  Hence, if an individual has high levels of hatred, when he experiences an anger-evoking action of the out-group, he perceives it as resulting from stable characteristics of the out-group ---  aggressive response is the only reasonable solution.

25. Anger-Hatred interaction and support for Compromises  Context: 3 weeks prior to the Annapolis summit.  Participants: 262 Israeli Jewish citizens (132 females and 130 males).  Pre-Manipulation Measures: Long-term hatred, despair (and other emotions).  Anger manipulation: Framing of the Palestinian behavior in pre-negotiation talks as unfair and unjust.  Dependent Variables: Support for compromise for peace. Pre-Manipulation: Long-term Hatred Random assignment - Anger manipulation Manipulation Check: Levels of Anger Political Attitudes

26. Results: Manipulation Check

27. Results – Hatred-Anger Interaction and levels of Support for Compromises

28. Anger-Hatred interaction and support for intergroup aggression  Main Goal: Direct examination of the anger-hatred interaction effect on support for aggressive actions.  A nationwide representative telephone survey conducted among Jews in Israel in March 2008.  The sample consisted of 781 Jewish-Israeli respondents (403 women, 378 men).

29. Anger-Hatred interaction and support for intergroup aggression  No main effect of anger (B= -.10 t= -1.52, p= n.s.) or hatred (B= -.17 t= -1.23, p= n.s) on aggressive action was found.

30. Some Thoughts about Emotion Regulation in Intergroup Conflict  Basic Assumption: Strategies of emotion regulation, that were used in the past on the individual level, can contribute to overcome emotional barriers to conflict resolution in the intergroup level.  Emotion Regulation: Processes that are engaged when individuals try to influence the type or amount of emotion they (or others) experience, when they (or others) have them, and how they (or others) experience and express these emotions (Gross, 1998).

31. Discrete Emotions: Fear, hatred and anger Emotion Regulation in Conflict - Appraisal-Based Framework (Halperin, Sharvit & Gross, in-Press) New Event (Framing): Peace proposal, Gesture, New opportunity Long-Term Emotions Cognitive Appraisals Attitudes Towards Peace and War Online Regulation Prospective Regulation

32. Emotion Regulation in Conflicts: Implicit Theories, Emotions and Support for Compromises (Halperin, Dweck & Gross, 2009)  Participants: 91 Israeli-Jewish undergraduate students (69.2% males, 48.7% Rightists/ ” Hawks ” ).  GIT manipulation: Entity Vs. Incremental theory about groups in general (not about Palestinians)  Manipulation Check: GIT 7-item scale (Alpha -.84)  Measurements: 1. Direct and indirect measures of hatred. 2. Anger in response to specific events. 3. Conciliatory political positions. Random assignment - GIT Manipulation Manipulation Check: GIT scale, Hatred Anger and Conciliatory attitudes Debriefing

33. Results

34. Acknowledgments  Daniel Bar-Tal  James Gross  Lee Ross  Carol Dweck  Daphna Canetti-Nisim  Keren Sharvit  Amiram Raviv  Michal Reifen  Nimrod Rosler  Varda Liberman  Daniel Effron  Christopher Bryan  Julia Minson