Emerging Trends in The Social and Behavioral Sciences

Emotion and Intergroup Relations

Item

Title

Emotion and Intergroup Relations

Author

Mackie, Diane M.

Maitner, Angela T.

Smith, Eliot R.

Research Area

Cognition and Emotions

Topic

Emotional Development

Abstract

When the social identities people develop as members of groups become salient, people perceive the world in terms of the costs and benefits to that salient group membership. This means that events that have no implications for the individual him or herself can be perceived as harmful, beneficial, offensive, complimentary, unfair, or just, for example, depending on the consequences those events have for the group. As a result, perceptions of intergroup events, anticipated intergroup interactions, or ongoing structural intergroup relations elicit group‐based emotions—emotions that individuals feel as members of their groups. These emotions influence individuals' perceptions, interpretations, and actions toward their ingroup, relevant outgroups, and any other objects and events that are relevant to group membership. Thus, emotions play a critical role in intergroup relations, energizing desires to cooperate or compete, to retaliate or make peace. Focusing on the role of such emotions has contributed to an understanding of the social nature of emotion, as well as to the antecedents of intergroup conflict and the necessary conditions for its resolution. That understanding will be promoted by further clarification of the nature of social identity, the process of identification, the anticipation of emotions in others, and the time course of emotions, both in general and in the context of group membership in particular.

Related Essays

Political Conflict and Youth: A Long‐Term View (Psychology), Brian K. Barber

Diversity in Groups (Sociology), Catarina R. Fernandes and Jeffrey T. Polzer

Micro‐Cultures (Sociology), Gary Alan Fine

State of the Art in Competition Research (Psychology), Márta Fülöp and Gábor Orosz

Ethnic Enclaves (Sociology), Steven J. Gold

Normal Negative Emotions and Mental Disorders (Sociology), Allan V. Horwitz

Group Identity and Political Cohesion (Political Science), Leonie Huddy

The Neurobiology and Physiology of Emotions: A Developmental Perspective (Psychology), Sarah S. Kahle and Paul D. Hastings

Cultural Conflict (Sociology), Ian Mullins

Curriculum as a Site of Political and Cultural Conflict (Sociology), Fabio Rojas

Emotion Regulation (Psychology), Paree Zarolia et al.

Assimilation and its Discontents (Sociology), Min Zhou

Identifier

etrds0111

extracted text

Emotion and Intergroup Relations
DIANE M. MACKIE, ANGELA T. MAITNER, and ELIOT R. SMITH

Abstract
When the social identities people develop as members of groups become salient,
people perceive the world in terms of the costs and benefits to that salient group
membership. This means that events that have no implications for the individual him
or herself can be perceived as harmful, beneficial, offensive, complimentary, unfair,
or just, for example, depending on the consequences those events have for the group.
As a result, perceptions of intergroup events, anticipated intergroup interactions,
or ongoing structural intergroup relations elicit group-based emotions—emotions
that individuals feel as members of their groups. These emotions influence individuals’ perceptions, interpretations, and actions toward their ingroup, relevant outgroups, and any other objects and events that are relevant to group membership.
Thus, emotions play a critical role in intergroup relations, energizing desires to cooperate or compete, to retaliate or make peace. Focusing on the role of such emotions
has contributed to an understanding of the social nature of emotion, as well as to
the antecedents of intergroup conflict and the necessary conditions for its resolution.
That understanding will be promoted by further clarification of the nature of social
identity, the process of identification, the anticipation of emotions in others, and the
time course of emotions, both in general and in the context of group membership in
particular.

INTRODUCTION
Group memberships, and the social identities people develop because of
them, have a profound influence on the way people experience the world.
When social identities become activated, people perceive the world in terms
of the costs and benefits to, or values and norms associated with, that salient
group membership. This means that events that have no implications for the
individual him or herself can be perceived as harmful, beneficial, offensive,
complimentary, unfair, or just, depending on the consequences those events
have for the group. As a result, perceptions of intergroup events, anticipated
intergroup interactions, or more continuous structural intergroup relations
elicit group-based emotions—emotions that individuals feel on behalf of
their groups (Mackie, Maitner, & Smith, 2009; Niedenthal & Brauer, 2011;
Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Edited by Robert Scott and Stephen Kosslyn.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.

1

2

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Smith, 1993). These emotions influence individuals’ perceptions, interpretations, and actions toward members of other groups. Thus, emotions play
a critical role in intergroup relations, energizing desires to cooperate or
compete, retaliate or make peace.
The way people perceive and interpret events that impact their groups
depends first on which social identity has been activated. Different circumstances impel people to consider themselves as members of a particular
group at a particular time. Seeing someone sport a rival team sweatshirt,
viewing a billboard for one’s own company, visiting a foreign country, or
walking into a church, synagogue, or Mosque can all subtly or not so subtly
activate social identities. However a social identity is activated, it changes
the group member’s frame for perceiving the world (Turner, Hogg, Oakes,
Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987).
Together with situation and context, a group member’s perception and
emotion also depends on how important or valued that group membership
is to his or her sense of identity. Events that threaten the group’s welfare,
for example, are perceived as harmful, whereas events that advance the
group’s goals are appraised as beneficial. However, the more individuals value their group membership, the more emotionally consequential
events that have positive or negative implications for their groups become.
The extent to which individuals identify with or value their groups
changes the extremity and direction of how they appraise group-relevant
outcomes, in line with the implications those outcomes have for their
groups.
Appraisals then elicit specific and distinct emotional reactions which, in
turn, elicit specific and distinct behavioral intentions. Perceptions of harm
and injustice, for example, elicit feelings of anger, which elicits support for
aggressive responses. Whether individuals support group behavior that is
aggressive or conciliatory, avoidant or apologetic, or whether they get personally involved in collective action depends on the specific emotional reaction they experience (Mackie, Smith, & Ray, 2008).
Thus, the study of emotion in intergroup relations has allowed for a
more nuanced understanding and an improved ability to predict specific
outcomes in intergroup interactions (Parkinson, Fischer, & Manstead, 2005).
Going beyond the study of prejudice—simple liking or disliking for another
group and its members—the study of emotion allows for differential prediction of the five aggressive manifestations first outlined by Gordon Allport in
1954 (from antilocution, to avoidance, discrimination, physical attack, and
finally to extermination), as well as predictions about positive intergroup
relationships shared by allies, or apology and forgiveness that may improve
intergroup relations.

Emotion and Intergroup Relations

3

FOUNDATIONAL RESEARCH
Early research on the role of emotion in intergroup relations investigated anxiety as a cause of prejudice and discrimination. Subsequent work on the role
of group-based emotion in intergroup relations focused on the impact that
social categorization (making a particular social identity salient) and group
identification (the extent to which that group membership is important to
an individual) had on group-based appraisals of intergroup interactions, as
well as how specific appraisals of an intergroup event elicited specific emotions and behavioral responses. Much of this work focused on emotion as a
mediating process between perception and action.
SOCIAL CATEGORIZATION AND IDENTIFICATION
Thinking about oneself in terms of a particular group membership
changes the way people respond to intergroup events. This process of
self-categorization makes group members feel like relatively interchangeable
representatives of the group and take on the goals and characteristics that
they think represent the group. As a result, activating a social identity
makes individuals view information relevant to that identity as personally
relevant, even when it has no direct implications for them as individuals.
This personalization of intergroup events translates into emotional reactions. For example, when European participants thought about themselves
as Westerners, rather than as Europeans, they reported more fear when
reflecting on the events of September 11, 2001, as Westerners could be seen
as a direct target of those events, whereas Europeans could not (Dumont,
Yzerbyt, Wigboldus, & Gordijn, 2003). Similarly, when local students at
the University of Colorado learned about a proposal to increase tuition for
residents of other states, they perceived more injustice and felt more anger
when categorized as students (who would be negatively affected by the
proposal) than when made to think about themselves as Colorado residents
(who might be benefited by the extra state income; Gordijn, Yzerbyt, Wigboldus, & Dumont, 2006). These studies, in line with many more, show that
identity activation influences the way events are perceived and emotionally
experienced.
Activating a particular social identity also changes general emotional
reactions toward other groups. Thinking about oneself as an American or
woman, for example, increases anger, fear, and disrespect reported toward
Muslims, compared to activating an identity such as “student,” an identity
that typically places a high value on diversity (Kuppens & Yzerbyt, 2012;
Ray, Mackie, & Smith, 2008). Such outcomes show how ongoing, structural
relations between groups and an individual’s currently activated social
identity influences emotional evaluations. However, importantly it also

4

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

shows how changing a social identity, and therefore shifting the perceived
relation between oneself (as a member of the group) and another group, also
changes emotional reactions to that group.
Such emotional responses also depend on the extent to which the perceiver identifies with that group. Thus, social identification influences
the general extremity of appraisals, but also biases the appraisal process
in group-enhancing or group-defensive ways, with consequences for
group-based emotions.
EMOTION PROCESSES
When individuals perceive the world through a group lens, they appraise
and interpret the environment in line with group goals and outcomes. A
group-based appraisal process assesses the goals, motives, and resources
of the group in relation to a given social context. Thus, when an outgroup
presents some sort of threat to the ingroup, categorized individuals balance
the valence of the threat (to the group) in the current context with the
ingroup’s coping resources in determining whether they feel anger, fear, or
contempt for an outgroup. Likewise, when an outgroup presents a more
positive interactive opportunity, categorized individuals balance costs
and benefits in determining whether they feel envy, respect, gratitude, or
satisfaction for the group.
More specifically, people are likely to feel angry on behalf of their groups
to the extent that they perceive an event as being harmful or threatening
to their group and as representing some sort of injustice. People feel guilt
on behalf of their groups when they perceive their own groups’ action as
harmful to another group and likewise unjust. In contrast, group members
feel satisfaction when they perceive that their group has performed an
action—either harmful or beneficial—that resulted from a just process and
successfully implemented a strategic goal. Group members feel fear when
they perceive a threat to their group being made by a particularly strong
or powerful entity. In contrast, group members feel envy for groups who
are high in status but unlikely to cooperate with the ingroup. Finally, group
members feel respect for other groups when they see those groups making
concessions to them, or when they believe those groups respect them as well
(Iyer & Leach, 2008; Smith, Seger, & Mackie, 2007).
The extremity of people’s emotional reactions is predicted by the extremity
of their appraisals, which means that highly identified group members tend
to feel the most anger and pride, but, because they justify harmful actions
taken by the group, they also feel the least guilt (Doosje, Branscombe, Spears,
& Manstead, 2006). As one’s identity interacts with situational features to
elicit more extreme, and possibly more biased appraisals, such appraisals

Emotion and Intergroup Relations

5

elicit more extreme emotions and therefore the most support for aggressive
behavior, and the least support for conciliatory behavior.
BEHAVIORAL OUTCOMES
One of the benefits of knowing a group’s distinct emotional reaction to
an event or object is an increase in predictive specificity about the likely
nature of intergroup interactions (Mackie et al., 2009). Anger felt for some
other group tends to increase support for violently aggressive, harmful,
and exclusionary behavior while reducing the likelihood of cooperation
or negotiation. Fear felt for some group increases avoidance of the target
group and support for the ingroup. Sadness likewise increases avoidance of a threatening group. Contempt or moral disgust motivates both
aggressive harm and avoidance, and is associated with dehumanization of
target group members, opening up the opportunity for that most extreme
form of discrimination—extermination. Thus, experiencing negative
outgroup-directed emotions, including anger, fear, and contempt, both
creates and maintains conflict (Otten, 2009; Tausch et al., 2011).
Other emotions, however, play a role in diffusing conflict. Moral emotions
such as guilt and shame, as well as anger directed toward one’s own group,
result in desires to make amends for past atrocities either through apology
or direct reparation. Although the contribution of each emotion to this
process is debated, the existence of any of the three is likely to reduce
support for continued aggression or discrimination. Feelings of respect for
another group also promotes more cooperative intergroup behavior, and
when respect is perceived as being conveyed by another group, it is often
reciprocated.
When guilt, shame, or ingroup-directed anger motivate apology, this apology may attenuate the outgroups’ desire to retaliate, opening the door to
forgiveness and reconciliation. However, the process is complicated: how an
apology is expressed (whether it is accompanied by a genuine expression of
shame or remorse, as opposed to whether it is motivated by fear), how it is
perceived, and whether it redresses the core insult or harm caused by the precipitating action, all influence an apology’s effectiveness. In other words, the
apology needs to be appraised by the target group, and this process follows
all of the details outlined above. Nevertheless, it is clear that emotions play
a critical mediating role in ameliorating intergroup conflict, transforming it
into reconciliation or cooperation (Blatz & Philpot, 2010; Leonard, Mackie, &
Smith, 2011).
Overall, research has established that individuals can and do feel emotion as members of groups. These emotions result from categorization
and identification processes. Social identities impact appraisal processes,

6

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

eliciting specific emotions and specific behavioral intentions or patterns of
support for group action.
CUTTING EDGE RESEARCH
Building on this foundation, more recent work has investigated additional
implications of emotion experienced in the context of intergroup relations.
Some newer developments have focused on the similar consequences of
group-based and individually experienced emotion for a range of cognitive
functions. Other research has recently broadened the earlier focus on emotions toward outgroups with greater consideration of group-based emotions
toward ingroups as well. In addition, newer work has applied the concept of
group-based emotion to the study of ongoing seemingly intractable conflicts
and to reactions to terrorist attacks or threats. This cutting edge research
demonstrates the very practical benefits of the general theoretical approach.
INFORMATION PROCESSING
Group-based emotional reactions have implications not only for behavioral
outcomes but also for a wide range of cognitive functioning. Emotions
have been linked to information processing in general, and research on
group-based emotions confirms that these feelings also impact the extent
to which individuals engage in systematic processing (Rydell et al., 2008).
People feeling group-based anger, for example, engage in less systematic
processing of subsequently presented information, suggesting that group
members may not have the ability to systematically consider proposals to
reduce conflict unless or until anger has subsided.
Group-based emotions also impact both risk perception and risk-taking
behavior. In the case of intergroup conflict or insult, the more people are feeling fear, the more risk they tend to perceive in the environment and the less
risk they take overall. Anger, in contrast, increases risky decision-making and
risky action. Such findings shed light on the kinds of decisions countries or
leaders or teams may make in the face of threat or offense (Rydell et al., 2008).
Finally, emotions can also shape the explanations individuals make for
antagonistic intergroup interactions, including whether or not individuals
make causal attributions in the first place, and whether individuals perceive
responsibility in their own group, the outgroup, or the situation. The
more groups are encouraged to place blame elsewhere, the more likely
they may be to support aggressive responses to provocation, and thus a
link from anger to externalization of blame is particularly detrimental. In
contrast, feelings of sadness elicit less attributions of blame overall (Sadler,
Lineberger, Correll, & Park, 2005). Thus, one useful direction of current

Emotion and Intergroup Relations

7

research is understanding how the many consequences of group-based
emotion for cognitive functioning contribute to the nature of intergroup
conflict.
INGROUP-DIRECTED EMOTIONS
Thinking about group-based emotions had its roots in trying to understand
prejudice and discrimination and so it was natural that early research
focused on the emotions directed by one group toward another that
explained how the other group was treated and why. However, one of the
earliest emotions to be studied in this tradition was guilt, an emotion that is
more about the ingroup (we feel bad about us, about what we have done)
than about the specific outgroup to whom it was done. Thus, members of
groups who commit or who have committed either historical or contemporary transgressions feel guilt not only about the transgressions but also
about group characteristics that might have made the transgression more
likely. Although ingroup-directed anger seems necessary to actually get the
ingroup to actually act on behalf of a wronged outgroup, the inward focus
of guilt appears to motivate reparation or cessation of aggression (Iyer &
Leach, 2008). The flip side of group guilt, group pride, is associated with
increased affiliative behaviors such as spending time with other ingroup
members, as well as with increased display of group identifying symbols
and signs such as flags and emblems (Smith et al., 2007).
Thus, just like outwardly directed group-based emotions, emotions
directed toward the ingroup seem to play a regulatory and motivating
role. Anger, guilt, pride, and satisfaction might all be directed at the
ingroup as a means of motivating particular behaviors. For example, group
members who disagree with their group’s action feel increased anger, fear,
or guilt until the group performs the desired action, in which case those
emotions subside and satisfaction increases (Maitner, Mackie, & Smith,
2006, 2007). Ingroup-directed emotion might also explain different forms
of outward-directed behavior. Is ingroup pride more likely to encourage
extreme aggression against other groups than ingroup warmth, for example?
Recent group-based emotion research has thus made clear the benefits of
now focusing on the role of a wider range of inwardly directed emotions,
including collective nostalgia, hubris, and grief, and so forth, for more fully
understanding motivated intergroup behavior.
APPLICATION TO CONTEMPORARY INTERNATIONAL CONFLICTS
Although sprung from the study of ethnic and racial prejudice, the study
of emotion in intergroup relations is now being profitably turned to help

8

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

understand and perhaps even unravel international conflicts, including
intransigent clashes such as the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, and contemporary developments such as terrorist attacks. Such research has demonstrated
that both situation-specific, appraisal-based emotional reactions, and more
long standing emotional sentiments such as hatred—emotional evaluations
of the other group that have formed and stabilized over time—contribute
to protracted conflict (Halperin, 2008; Spanovic, Lickel, Denson, & Petrovic,
2010). Research in this vein has also started to delineate the intra-national as
well as the international consequences of terrorist acts. An angry response
to terrorism triggers support for aggressive military retaliation, whereas a
fearful response elicits expectations of future attack and support for avoidant
responses such as expelling or containing assumed terrorist group members
(Fischhoff, Gonzalez, Lerner, & Small, 2005). Both anger and fear elicit
widespread and relatively long term political intolerance (Skitka, Bauman,
& Mullen, 2004). Even in the absence of an actual attack, making a specific,
imminent, terror threat salient increases concern for homeland security
versus civil liberties, and escalation of terror threat levels increases support
for national leadership (Willer & Adams, 2008). Both acute incident-specific,
appraisal-based emotions and long-standing group-focused emotions also
play a role in how interactions are perceived and experienced, and how those
temporal experiences influence support for peace proposals or cooperative
efforts (Tam et al., 2007).
These recent efforts also throw into relief the practical payoffs that
attending to distinct emotional reactions can bring in terms of conflict
interventions. Focusing on emotions makes salient interventions targeting
antecedent process—categorization, identification, or appraisal—as well
as those targeting emotion itself—cognitive reappraisal, regulation, and
misattribution—that constitute viable options for reducing long-standing
prejudice and reinforcing positive intergroup relations.
KEY ISSUES FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
One of the key contributions of this approach to emotions has been to demonstrate that emotions are associated with a social psychological identity rather
than with a biological entity, that is, the emotions experienced at any given
time are a product of the meaning of events for the perceiver’s relationships
with others. The same biological individual could perceive events differently,
depending on whether he was thinking about the self as a devoted family
man, an American, a marketing executive, one of several people pumping
gas at a gas station, or a unique individual.
This makes the nature of social identities a key issue for future research.
Given that identities vary so broadly, are the emotions experienced as

Emotion and Intergroup Relations

9

a consequence of every different identity similar? Most of the research
described here focuses on emotions born of identification with a social
category like female, Muslim, Spanish, or elderly, and those identifying with
such groups have been members of independent, integrity-focused cultures.
However, what about emotion rooted in smaller, more intimate, and less
malleable groups such as family or close friends? Alternatively, emotions
shared only because many strangers experience the same wait for a bank
teller or for a rock concert to begin? Moreover, are these processes the same
for group members in more interdependent or honor-valuing cultures? To
begin answering this question, we recently asked people to imagine themselves as members of three different “types” of collectives—intimacy groups
(like close friends and family), task groups (like committees and sports
teams) and loose associations (like people watching a movie or waiting in
line) in addition to social categories (like gender and nationality) and to tell
us what they were feeling in that identity (Banerji et al., 2011). We found
that although the content of emotions associated with each identity changed
dramatically, the differentiation of individually based versus group-related
emotions, the convergence of emotions on a shared experience, and the
impact on emotions of the intensity of one’s ties to the group were similar for
intimacy, task, and social category groups. Importantly, one’s attachment to
a loose association did not predict the intensity of one’s emotions, marking
more meaningless collections of people as quite psychologically different
from the other types of groups. Extending this work to close relationships
and other attachment-based relations, as well as to other interpersonally
shared identities such as best friend, would profitably extend the benefits of
understanding group-based emotion from intergroup into intragroup and
interpersonal domains as well. Similarly, extending the study of group-based
emotion across cultures will shed further light on whether and how cultural
imperatives might modulate the nature and function of the emotional
consequences of identity as revealed by research so far.
A second key issue is the nature of identification itself. Identification is the
psychological tie between the individual and the group to which he or she
belongs. It is now clear that what was once regarded to be a fairly unidimensional construct of attachment to a group is in fact multi-dimensional
(Leach et al., 2008; Roccas, Sagiv, Schwartz, Halevy, & Eidelson, 2008),
and that the nature, not just the intensity, of that tie could have profound
effects for emotion. In addition to investigating the impact of centrality and
importance of the identity to the self, commitment to the group, the assumed
superiority of the group, and whether the individual is tied to the group by
over-arching symbolic ideals or by specific interpersonal attractions to other
members have all been suggested as changing the nature of an individual’s
embeddedness in his or her group. As the concept of ingroup-directed

10

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

emotion discussed earlier suggests, ingroup memberships might also over
time become characterized by particular “signature” emotions (Smith et al.,
2007), so that some individuals might be tied to some groups by admiration
and respect, some by warmth and affection, others by guilt, shame, or
pity, and so forth. Thus, identification could be usefully differentiated by
the nature of various emotions activated by ingroup membership, and the
different kinds of behaviors that members of such groups might perform.
A third key issue for furthering our understanding of group-based emotion is how perceptions and predictions of such emotions in others contribute to
the on-going choreography of intergroup interactions. Earlier we noted that
a group’s specific emotional reaction improved one’s ability to predict precisely how they would react in a given intergroup situation. This of course,
confers the advantage of knowing how to react in turn, or perhaps even to
manage, that reaction. This benefit accrues not just to researchers, of course,
but also to the group’s allies and rivals. How well can members of one group
predict how another group is feeling? Do men know how women feel as
women? How well can Democrats predict what Republicans feel as members
of that political party? Two factors limit accuracy when it comes to predicting
in general how other groups feel. First, group members, just like other individuals, tend to project the ingroup’s emotions onto the outgroup. Therefore,
if the ingroup is feeling guilty, group members assume that the outgroup is
feeling guilty too. Second, groups show some ingroup-favoring bias in their
predictions. People are sure that other groups feel more negative and less
positive emotions than their own group feels. These biases notwithstanding,
however, people are fairly accurate in knowing what other groups feel in
general (Seger, Smith, Kinias, & Mackie, 2009).
Much more could usefully be known about this process, however. Psychologists studying individuals’ abilities to forecast their own affective
reactions to specific events have shown that people over-estimate both the
intensity and duration of emotions they will experience. A similar proclivity
at the group level might well explain why intergroup encounters often seem
to escalate or spiral downward more quickly. Well-established emotional
stereotypes are likely to introduce further bias into this predictive process.
At the general level, ingroup members are attributed a wide range of subtle,
social, and complex “human” emotions (such as regret, compassion, and
anguish), whereas outgroup members are often assumed to be capable of
experiencing only primary emotions such as fear and anger (Leyens et al.,
2000). More specific stereotypes about groups—women do not feel anger;
Italians are volatile—can also affect predictions. Thus, both general and specific biases seem likely to introduce systematic errors in prediction of both
the ingroup and the outgroup’s group-based emotion, with concomitant
effects on behavior.

Emotion and Intergroup Relations

11

A final direction for investigation is the time-dependent nature of group-based
emotions (Smith & Mackie, 2006). Thinking about emotions as an important
contributor to intergroup relations makes it necessary to pay attention to
time, for emotions ebb and flow, and are experienced in specific episodes,
in contrast to more cognitive constructs such as stereotypes and prejudice,
which are traditionally seen as highly stable and difficult to change. As emotions are experienced in response to specific group-relevant events—whether
events in the real world or those that are recalled, imagined, or feared—how
long do they last? Might they motivate specific behaviors immediately (while
the perceiver is in an emotional state) and potentially different behaviors at
a later time once the acute emotional arousal has passed? Might the answers
to these questions change if there is a recurring pattern of similar emotional
episodes felt about a specific group (e.g., repeated instances of anger at
attacks by a threatening enemy outgroup)? Finally, of course, changes over
time in emotions may be caused by active emotion regulation processes,
not only by passive exposure to ongoing events. People may often seek to
regulate their emotions to make them more positive, but not always: When
an important ingroup is under attack, people may up-regulate negative
emotions such as anger to help motivate group-supportive actions. Studying
changes in emotions over time may help understand the group-related
processes that give rise to them, as well as potentially offering new insights
into ways that emotions can shape constructive rather than destructive
intergroup behavior.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Preparation of this essay was supported in part by National Science Foundation Collaborative Research Grants BCS-0711924 to Diane Mackie and
BCS-0719876 to Eliot Smith.
REFERENCES
Allport, G. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Banerji, I., Sun, Y., Zhang, J., Chen, Y. Wucherpfennig, A., Smith, E. R., & Mackie, D.
M. (2011). Similarities and differences in group emotions: The role of group type. Unpublished manuscript, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.
Blatz, C. W., & Philpot, C. (2010). On the outcomes of intergroup apologies: A review.
Social and Personality Compass, 11, 995–1007. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00318.x
Doosje, B., Branscombe, N. R., Spears, R., & Manstead, A. S. R. (2006). Antecedents
and consequences of group-based guilt: The effects of ingroup identification.
Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 9, 325–338. doi:10.1177/1368430206064637
Dumont, M., Yzerbyt, V., Wigboldus, D., & Gordijn, E. H. (2003). Social categorization
and fear reactions to the September 11th terrorist attacks. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1509–1520. doi:10.1177/0146167203256923

12

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Fischhoff, B., Gonzalez, R. M., Lerner, J. S., & Small, D. A. (2005). Evolving judgments of terror Risks: Foresight, hindsight, and emotion. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Applied, 11, 124–139. doi:10.1037/1076-898X.11.2.124
Gordijn, E. H., Yzerbyt, V., Wigboldus, D., & Dumont, M. (2006). Emotional reactions
to harmful intergroup behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 15–30.
doi:10.1002/ejsp.296
Halperin, E. (2008). Group-based hatred in intractable conflict in Israel. Journal of
Conflict Resolution, 52, 713–736. doi:10.1177/0022002708314665
Iyer, A., & Leach, C. W. (2008). Emotion in intergroup relations. European Review of
Social Psychology, 19, 86–125. doi:10.1080/10463280802079738
Kuppens, T., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (2012). Group-based emotions: The impact of social
identity on appraisals, emotions, and behaviors. Basic and Applied Social Psychology,
34, 20–33. doi:10.1080/01973533.2011.637474
Leach, C. W., van Zomeren, M., Zebel, S., Vliek, M., Pennekamp, S. F., Doosje, B., …
Spears, R. (2008). Group-level self-definition and self-investment: A hierarchical
(multi-component) model of ingroup identification. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 95, 144–165. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.144
Leonard, D. J., Mackie, D. M., & Smith, E. R. (2011). Emotional responses to intergroup apology mediate intergroup forgiveness and retribution. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 1198–1206. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.05.002
Leyens, J.-P., Paladino, P. M., Rodriguez-Torres, R., Vaes, J., Demoulin, S., RodriguezPerez, A., & Gaunt, R. (2000). The emotional side of prejudice: The attribution of
secondary emotions to ingroups and outgroups. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 4, 186–197. doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0402_06
Mackie, D. M., Maitner, A. T., & Smith, E. R. (2009). Intergroup emotion theory. In T.
D. Nelson (Ed.), Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination (pp. 285–308).
New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Mackie, D. M., Smith, E. R., & Ray, D. G. (2008). Intergroup emotions and intergroup
relations. Personality and Social Psychology Compass, 2, 1866–1880. doi:10.1111/
j.1751-9004.2008.00130.x
Maitner, A. T., Mackie, D. M., & Smith, E. R. (2006). Evidence for the regulatory
function of intergroup emotion: Implementing and impeding intergroup behavioral intentions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 720–728. doi:10.1177/
1368430206071661
Maitner, A. T., Mackie, D. M., & Smith, E. R. (2007). Antecedents and consequences of
satisfaction and guilt following ingroup aggression. Group Processes & Intergroup
Relations, 10, 223–238. doi:10.1177/1368430207075154
Niedenthal, P. M., & Brauer, M. (2011). Social functionality of human emotion. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 259–85. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.121208.
131605
Otten, S. (2009). Social categorization, intergroup emotions, and aggressive intentions. In S. Otten, K. Sassenberg & T. Kessler (Eds.), Intergroup relations: The role of
motivation and emotion (pp. 162–181). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Parkinson, B., Fischer, A. H., & Manstead, A. S. R. (2005). Emotion in social relations:
Cultural, group, and interpersonal processes. New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Emotion and Intergroup Relations

13

Ray, D. G., Mackie, D. M., Rydell, R. J., & Smith, E. R. (2008). Changing categorization of self can change emotions about outgroups. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 44, 1210–1213. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2008.03.014
Roccas, S., Sagiv, L., Schwartz, S., Halevy, N., & Eidelson, R. (2008). Toward
a unifying model of identification with groups: Integrating theoretical perspectives. Personality and Social Psychological Review, 12, 280–306. doi:10.1177/
1088868308319225
Rydell, R. J., Mackie, D. M., Maitner, A. T., Claypool, H. M., Ryan, M. J., &
Smith, E. R. (2008). Arousal, processing, and risk taking: Consequences of intergroup anger. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1141–1152. doi:10.1177/
0146167208319694
Sadler, M. S., Lineberger, M., Correll, J., & Park, B. (2005). Emotions, attributions, and
policy endorsement in response to the September 11th terrorist attacks. Basic and
Applied Social Psychology, 27, 249–258. doi:10.1207/s15324834basp2703_6
Seger, C. R., Smith, E. R., Kinias, Z., & Mackie, D. M. (2009). Knowing how they feel:
Perceiving emotions felt by out-groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
45, 80–89. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2008.08.019
Skitka, L. J., Bauman, C. W., & Mullen, E. (2004). Political tolerance and coming to psychological closure following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks:
An integrative approach. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 743–756.
doi:10.1177/0146167204263968
Smith, E. R. (1993). Social identity and social emotions: Toward new conceptualizations of prejudice. In D. M. Mackie & D. L. Hamilton (Eds.), Affect, cognition, and
stereotyping: Interactive processes in group perception (pp. 297–315). San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
Smith, E. R., & Mackie, D. M. (2006). It’s about time: Intergroup emotions as
time-dependent phenomena. In R. Brown & D. Capozza (Eds.), Social identities:
Motivational, emotional, and cultural influences (pp. 173–187). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Spanovic, M., Lickel, B., Denson, T., & Petrovic, N. (2010). Fear and anger as
predictors of motivation for intergroup aggression: Evidence from Serbia and
Republika Srpska. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 13, 725–739. doi:10.1177/
1368430210374483
Tam, T., Hewstone, M., Cairns, E., Tausch, N., Maio, G., & Kenworthy, J. (2007). The
impact of intergroup emotions on forgiveness in Northern Ireland. Group Processes
& Intergroup Relations, 10, 119–136. doi:10.1177/1368430207071345
Tausch, N., Becker, J. C., Spears, R., Christ, O., Saab, R., Singh, P., & Siddiqui, R. N.
(2011). Explaining radical group behavior: Developing emotion and efficacy routes
to normative and nonnormative collective action. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 101, 129–148. doi:10.1037/a0022728
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
Willer, R., & Adams, N. (2008). The threat of terrorism and support for the
2008 presidential candidates: Results of a national field experiment. Current
Research in Social Psychology, 14, 1–22. Retrieved from http://www.uiowa.edu/∼
grpproc/crisp/crisp.html.

14

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

FURTHER READING
Mackie, D. M., Maitner, A. T., & Smith, E. R. (2009). Intergroup emotion theory. In T.
D. Nelson (Ed.), Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination (pp. 285–308).
New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Mackie, D. M., Smith, E. R., & Ray, D. G. (2008). Intergroup emotions and intergroup
relations. Personality and Social Psychology Compass, 2, 1866–1880. doi:10.1111/j.
1751-9004.2008.00130.x
Niedenthal, P. M., & Brauer, M. (2011). Social functionality of human emotion. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 259–85. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.121208.
131605
Parkinson, B., Fischer, A. H., & Manstead, A. S. R. (2005). Emotion in social relations:
Cultural, group, and interpersonal processes. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Smith, E. R., Seger, C. R., & Mackie, D. M. (2007). Can emotions be truly group level?
Evidence for four conceptual criteria. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
93, 431–446. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.3.431

DIANE M. MACKIE SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Diane M. Mackie is Professor of Psychological & Brain Sciences and Communication at the University of California, Santa Barbara. She received her
BA from the University of Auckland, New Zealand, and her PhD in Social
Psychology from Princeton University. She is particularly interested in the
interplay of affective and cognitive processes in all aspects of intergroup relations. A fellow of the Association for Psychological Science, the Society for
Personality and Social Psychology, and the Society for Experimental Social
Psychology, she also has research interests in evaluation, persuasion, and
social influence.
http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/people/faculty/mackie/index.php
http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/socialemotions/home.html
ANGELA T. MAITNER SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Angela T. Maitner is currently an Assistant Professor of Psychology at American University of Sharjah, the United Arab Emirates. She earned a BS in
Psychology from Eckerd College, St. Petersburg, FL, and a PhD in Psychology from the University of California, Santa Barbara. She also completed a
postdoctoral fellowship at the University of Kent, Canterbury, UK. Her work
investigates the role of identity and emotion in intergroup conflict, showing
how both positive and negative emotional reactions play a role in functionally regulating aggressive intergroup behavior. Currently, she is focusing on
cultural similarities/differences in intergroup emotional processes and the
relationship between the Middle East and the West.

Emotion and Intergroup Relations

15

http://www.aus.edu/info/200168/college_of_arts_and_sciences/284/
department_of_international_studies/4#.UUQKtDejx1E
http://aus.academia.edu/AngelaMaitner
ELIOT R. SMITH SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Eliot R. Smith is Chancellor’s Professor of Psychological and Brain Sciences
at Indiana University, Bloomington, where he is also affiliated with the Cognitive Science program. He received his PhD from Harvard University and is
a fellow of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, the Association
for Psychological Science, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. His work has been funded extensively by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Mental Health. Much of his
current research focuses on the role of emotion in intergroup relations. With
Diane Mackie, he has coedited a book (From Prejudice to Intergroup Emotions)
and published numerous articles on the role of emotion in prejudice and
intergroup conflict. Other research interests include situated/embodied cognition, especially the ways cognitive processes such as person perception are
shaped and altered by the individual’s social context, including people’s networks of interpersonal relationships and group memberships.
http://psych.indiana.edu/faculty/esmith4.php

RELATED ESSAYS
Political Conflict and Youth: A Long-Term View (Psychology), Brian K. Barber
Diversity in Groups (Sociology), Catarina R. Fernandes and Jeffrey T. Polzer
Micro-Cultures (Sociology), Gary Alan Fine
State of the Art in Competition Research (Psychology), Márta Fülöp and
Gábor Orosz
Ethnic Enclaves (Sociology), Steven J. Gold
Normal Negative Emotions and Mental Disorders (Sociology), Allan V.
Horwitz
Group Identity and Political Cohesion (Political Science), Leonie Huddy
The Neurobiology and Physiology of Emotions: A Developmental Perspective (Psychology), Sarah S. Kahle and Paul D. Hastings
Cultural Conflict (Sociology), Ian Mullins
Curriculum as a Site of Political and Cultural Conflict (Sociology), Fabio
Rojas
Emotion Regulation (Psychology), Paree Zarolia et al.
Assimilation and its Discontents (Sociology), Min Zhou



Emotion and Intergroup Relations
DIANE M. MACKIE, ANGELA T. MAITNER, and ELIOT R. SMITH

Abstract
When the social identities people develop as members of groups become salient,
people perceive the world in terms of the costs and benefits to that salient group
membership. This means that events that have no implications for the individual him
or herself can be perceived as harmful, beneficial, offensive, complimentary, unfair,
or just, for example, depending on the consequences those events have for the group.
As a result, perceptions of intergroup events, anticipated intergroup interactions,
or ongoing structural intergroup relations elicit group-based emotions—emotions
that individuals feel as members of their groups. These emotions influence individuals’ perceptions, interpretations, and actions toward their ingroup, relevant outgroups, and any other objects and events that are relevant to group membership.
Thus, emotions play a critical role in intergroup relations, energizing desires to cooperate or compete, to retaliate or make peace. Focusing on the role of such emotions
has contributed to an understanding of the social nature of emotion, as well as to
the antecedents of intergroup conflict and the necessary conditions for its resolution.
That understanding will be promoted by further clarification of the nature of social
identity, the process of identification, the anticipation of emotions in others, and the
time course of emotions, both in general and in the context of group membership in
particular.

INTRODUCTION
Group memberships, and the social identities people develop because of
them, have a profound influence on the way people experience the world.
When social identities become activated, people perceive the world in terms
of the costs and benefits to, or values and norms associated with, that salient
group membership. This means that events that have no implications for the
individual him or herself can be perceived as harmful, beneficial, offensive,
complimentary, unfair, or just, depending on the consequences those events
have for the group. As a result, perceptions of intergroup events, anticipated
intergroup interactions, or more continuous structural intergroup relations
elicit group-based emotions—emotions that individuals feel on behalf of
their groups (Mackie, Maitner, & Smith, 2009; Niedenthal & Brauer, 2011;
Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Edited by Robert Scott and Stephen Kosslyn.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.

1

2

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Smith, 1993). These emotions influence individuals’ perceptions, interpretations, and actions toward members of other groups. Thus, emotions play
a critical role in intergroup relations, energizing desires to cooperate or
compete, retaliate or make peace.
The way people perceive and interpret events that impact their groups
depends first on which social identity has been activated. Different circumstances impel people to consider themselves as members of a particular
group at a particular time. Seeing someone sport a rival team sweatshirt,
viewing a billboard for one’s own company, visiting a foreign country, or
walking into a church, synagogue, or Mosque can all subtly or not so subtly
activate social identities. However a social identity is activated, it changes
the group member’s frame for perceiving the world (Turner, Hogg, Oakes,
Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987).
Together with situation and context, a group member’s perception and
emotion also depends on how important or valued that group membership
is to his or her sense of identity. Events that threaten the group’s welfare,
for example, are perceived as harmful, whereas events that advance the
group’s goals are appraised as beneficial. However, the more individuals value their group membership, the more emotionally consequential
events that have positive or negative implications for their groups become.
The extent to which individuals identify with or value their groups
changes the extremity and direction of how they appraise group-relevant
outcomes, in line with the implications those outcomes have for their
groups.
Appraisals then elicit specific and distinct emotional reactions which, in
turn, elicit specific and distinct behavioral intentions. Perceptions of harm
and injustice, for example, elicit feelings of anger, which elicits support for
aggressive responses. Whether individuals support group behavior that is
aggressive or conciliatory, avoidant or apologetic, or whether they get personally involved in collective action depends on the specific emotional reaction they experience (Mackie, Smith, & Ray, 2008).
Thus, the study of emotion in intergroup relations has allowed for a
more nuanced understanding and an improved ability to predict specific
outcomes in intergroup interactions (Parkinson, Fischer, & Manstead, 2005).
Going beyond the study of prejudice—simple liking or disliking for another
group and its members—the study of emotion allows for differential prediction of the five aggressive manifestations first outlined by Gordon Allport in
1954 (from antilocution, to avoidance, discrimination, physical attack, and
finally to extermination), as well as predictions about positive intergroup
relationships shared by allies, or apology and forgiveness that may improve
intergroup relations.

Emotion and Intergroup Relations

3

FOUNDATIONAL RESEARCH
Early research on the role of emotion in intergroup relations investigated anxiety as a cause of prejudice and discrimination. Subsequent work on the role
of group-based emotion in intergroup relations focused on the impact that
social categorization (making a particular social identity salient) and group
identification (the extent to which that group membership is important to
an individual) had on group-based appraisals of intergroup interactions, as
well as how specific appraisals of an intergroup event elicited specific emotions and behavioral responses. Much of this work focused on emotion as a
mediating process between perception and action.
SOCIAL CATEGORIZATION AND IDENTIFICATION
Thinking about oneself in terms of a particular group membership
changes the way people respond to intergroup events. This process of
self-categorization makes group members feel like relatively interchangeable
representatives of the group and take on the goals and characteristics that
they think represent the group. As a result, activating a social identity
makes individuals view information relevant to that identity as personally
relevant, even when it has no direct implications for them as individuals.
This personalization of intergroup events translates into emotional reactions. For example, when European participants thought about themselves
as Westerners, rather than as Europeans, they reported more fear when
reflecting on the events of September 11, 2001, as Westerners could be seen
as a direct target of those events, whereas Europeans could not (Dumont,
Yzerbyt, Wigboldus, & Gordijn, 2003). Similarly, when local students at
the University of Colorado learned about a proposal to increase tuition for
residents of other states, they perceived more injustice and felt more anger
when categorized as students (who would be negatively affected by the
proposal) than when made to think about themselves as Colorado residents
(who might be benefited by the extra state income; Gordijn, Yzerbyt, Wigboldus, & Dumont, 2006). These studies, in line with many more, show that
identity activation influences the way events are perceived and emotionally
experienced.
Activating a particular social identity also changes general emotional
reactions toward other groups. Thinking about oneself as an American or
woman, for example, increases anger, fear, and disrespect reported toward
Muslims, compared to activating an identity such as “student,” an identity
that typically places a high value on diversity (Kuppens & Yzerbyt, 2012;
Ray, Mackie, & Smith, 2008). Such outcomes show how ongoing, structural
relations between groups and an individual’s currently activated social
identity influences emotional evaluations. However, importantly it also

4

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

shows how changing a social identity, and therefore shifting the perceived
relation between oneself (as a member of the group) and another group, also
changes emotional reactions to that group.
Such emotional responses also depend on the extent to which the perceiver identifies with that group. Thus, social identification influences
the general extremity of appraisals, but also biases the appraisal process
in group-enhancing or group-defensive ways, with consequences for
group-based emotions.
EMOTION PROCESSES
When individuals perceive the world through a group lens, they appraise
and interpret the environment in line with group goals and outcomes. A
group-based appraisal process assesses the goals, motives, and resources
of the group in relation to a given social context. Thus, when an outgroup
presents some sort of threat to the ingroup, categorized individuals balance
the valence of the threat (to the group) in the current context with the
ingroup’s coping resources in determining whether they feel anger, fear, or
contempt for an outgroup. Likewise, when an outgroup presents a more
positive interactive opportunity, categorized individuals balance costs
and benefits in determining whether they feel envy, respect, gratitude, or
satisfaction for the group.
More specifically, people are likely to feel angry on behalf of their groups
to the extent that they perceive an event as being harmful or threatening
to their group and as representing some sort of injustice. People feel guilt
on behalf of their groups when they perceive their own groups’ action as
harmful to another group and likewise unjust. In contrast, group members
feel satisfaction when they perceive that their group has performed an
action—either harmful or beneficial—that resulted from a just process and
successfully implemented a strategic goal. Group members feel fear when
they perceive a threat to their group being made by a particularly strong
or powerful entity. In contrast, group members feel envy for groups who
are high in status but unlikely to cooperate with the ingroup. Finally, group
members feel respect for other groups when they see those groups making
concessions to them, or when they believe those groups respect them as well
(Iyer & Leach, 2008; Smith, Seger, & Mackie, 2007).
The extremity of people’s emotional reactions is predicted by the extremity
of their appraisals, which means that highly identified group members tend
to feel the most anger and pride, but, because they justify harmful actions
taken by the group, they also feel the least guilt (Doosje, Branscombe, Spears,
& Manstead, 2006). As one’s identity interacts with situational features to
elicit more extreme, and possibly more biased appraisals, such appraisals

Emotion and Intergroup Relations

5

elicit more extreme emotions and therefore the most support for aggressive
behavior, and the least support for conciliatory behavior.
BEHAVIORAL OUTCOMES
One of the benefits of knowing a group’s distinct emotional reaction to
an event or object is an increase in predictive specificity about the likely
nature of intergroup interactions (Mackie et al., 2009). Anger felt for some
other group tends to increase support for violently aggressive, harmful,
and exclusionary behavior while reducing the likelihood of cooperation
or negotiation. Fear felt for some group increases avoidance of the target
group and support for the ingroup. Sadness likewise increases avoidance of a threatening group. Contempt or moral disgust motivates both
aggressive harm and avoidance, and is associated with dehumanization of
target group members, opening up the opportunity for that most extreme
form of discrimination—extermination. Thus, experiencing negative
outgroup-directed emotions, including anger, fear, and contempt, both
creates and maintains conflict (Otten, 2009; Tausch et al., 2011).
Other emotions, however, play a role in diffusing conflict. Moral emotions
such as guilt and shame, as well as anger directed toward one’s own group,
result in desires to make amends for past atrocities either through apology
or direct reparation. Although the contribution of each emotion to this
process is debated, the existence of any of the three is likely to reduce
support for continued aggression or discrimination. Feelings of respect for
another group also promotes more cooperative intergroup behavior, and
when respect is perceived as being conveyed by another group, it is often
reciprocated.
When guilt, shame, or ingroup-directed anger motivate apology, this apology may attenuate the outgroups’ desire to retaliate, opening the door to
forgiveness and reconciliation. However, the process is complicated: how an
apology is expressed (whether it is accompanied by a genuine expression of
shame or remorse, as opposed to whether it is motivated by fear), how it is
perceived, and whether it redresses the core insult or harm caused by the precipitating action, all influence an apology’s effectiveness. In other words, the
apology needs to be appraised by the target group, and this process follows
all of the details outlined above. Nevertheless, it is clear that emotions play
a critical mediating role in ameliorating intergroup conflict, transforming it
into reconciliation or cooperation (Blatz & Philpot, 2010; Leonard, Mackie, &
Smith, 2011).
Overall, research has established that individuals can and do feel emotion as members of groups. These emotions result from categorization
and identification processes. Social identities impact appraisal processes,

6

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

eliciting specific emotions and specific behavioral intentions or patterns of
support for group action.
CUTTING EDGE RESEARCH
Building on this foundation, more recent work has investigated additional
implications of emotion experienced in the context of intergroup relations.
Some newer developments have focused on the similar consequences of
group-based and individually experienced emotion for a range of cognitive
functions. Other research has recently broadened the earlier focus on emotions toward outgroups with greater consideration of group-based emotions
toward ingroups as well. In addition, newer work has applied the concept of
group-based emotion to the study of ongoing seemingly intractable conflicts
and to reactions to terrorist attacks or threats. This cutting edge research
demonstrates the very practical benefits of the general theoretical approach.
INFORMATION PROCESSING
Group-based emotional reactions have implications not only for behavioral
outcomes but also for a wide range of cognitive functioning. Emotions
have been linked to information processing in general, and research on
group-based emotions confirms that these feelings also impact the extent
to which individuals engage in systematic processing (Rydell et al., 2008).
People feeling group-based anger, for example, engage in less systematic
processing of subsequently presented information, suggesting that group
members may not have the ability to systematically consider proposals to
reduce conflict unless or until anger has subsided.
Group-based emotions also impact both risk perception and risk-taking
behavior. In the case of intergroup conflict or insult, the more people are feeling fear, the more risk they tend to perceive in the environment and the less
risk they take overall. Anger, in contrast, increases risky decision-making and
risky action. Such findings shed light on the kinds of decisions countries or
leaders or teams may make in the face of threat or offense (Rydell et al., 2008).
Finally, emotions can also shape the explanations individuals make for
antagonistic intergroup interactions, including whether or not individuals
make causal attributions in the first place, and whether individuals perceive
responsibility in their own group, the outgroup, or the situation. The
more groups are encouraged to place blame elsewhere, the more likely
they may be to support aggressive responses to provocation, and thus a
link from anger to externalization of blame is particularly detrimental. In
contrast, feelings of sadness elicit less attributions of blame overall (Sadler,
Lineberger, Correll, & Park, 2005). Thus, one useful direction of current

Emotion and Intergroup Relations

7

research is understanding how the many consequences of group-based
emotion for cognitive functioning contribute to the nature of intergroup
conflict.
INGROUP-DIRECTED EMOTIONS
Thinking about group-based emotions had its roots in trying to understand
prejudice and discrimination and so it was natural that early research
focused on the emotions directed by one group toward another that
explained how the other group was treated and why. However, one of the
earliest emotions to be studied in this tradition was guilt, an emotion that is
more about the ingroup (we feel bad about us, about what we have done)
than about the specific outgroup to whom it was done. Thus, members of
groups who commit or who have committed either historical or contemporary transgressions feel guilt not only about the transgressions but also
about group characteristics that might have made the transgression more
likely. Although ingroup-directed anger seems necessary to actually get the
ingroup to actually act on behalf of a wronged outgroup, the inward focus
of guilt appears to motivate reparation or cessation of aggression (Iyer &
Leach, 2008). The flip side of group guilt, group pride, is associated with
increased affiliative behaviors such as spending time with other ingroup
members, as well as with increased display of group identifying symbols
and signs such as flags and emblems (Smith et al., 2007).
Thus, just like outwardly directed group-based emotions, emotions
directed toward the ingroup seem to play a regulatory and motivating
role. Anger, guilt, pride, and satisfaction might all be directed at the
ingroup as a means of motivating particular behaviors. For example, group
members who disagree with their group’s action feel increased anger, fear,
or guilt until the group performs the desired action, in which case those
emotions subside and satisfaction increases (Maitner, Mackie, & Smith,
2006, 2007). Ingroup-directed emotion might also explain different forms
of outward-directed behavior. Is ingroup pride more likely to encourage
extreme aggression against other groups than ingroup warmth, for example?
Recent group-based emotion research has thus made clear the benefits of
now focusing on the role of a wider range of inwardly directed emotions,
including collective nostalgia, hubris, and grief, and so forth, for more fully
understanding motivated intergroup behavior.
APPLICATION TO CONTEMPORARY INTERNATIONAL CONFLICTS
Although sprung from the study of ethnic and racial prejudice, the study
of emotion in intergroup relations is now being profitably turned to help

8

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

understand and perhaps even unravel international conflicts, including
intransigent clashes such as the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, and contemporary developments such as terrorist attacks. Such research has demonstrated
that both situation-specific, appraisal-based emotional reactions, and more
long standing emotional sentiments such as hatred—emotional evaluations
of the other group that have formed and stabilized over time—contribute
to protracted conflict (Halperin, 2008; Spanovic, Lickel, Denson, & Petrovic,
2010). Research in this vein has also started to delineate the intra-national as
well as the international consequences of terrorist acts. An angry response
to terrorism triggers support for aggressive military retaliation, whereas a
fearful response elicits expectations of future attack and support for avoidant
responses such as expelling or containing assumed terrorist group members
(Fischhoff, Gonzalez, Lerner, & Small, 2005). Both anger and fear elicit
widespread and relatively long term political intolerance (Skitka, Bauman,
& Mullen, 2004). Even in the absence of an actual attack, making a specific,
imminent, terror threat salient increases concern for homeland security
versus civil liberties, and escalation of terror threat levels increases support
for national leadership (Willer & Adams, 2008). Both acute incident-specific,
appraisal-based emotions and long-standing group-focused emotions also
play a role in how interactions are perceived and experienced, and how those
temporal experiences influence support for peace proposals or cooperative
efforts (Tam et al., 2007).
These recent efforts also throw into relief the practical payoffs that
attending to distinct emotional reactions can bring in terms of conflict
interventions. Focusing on emotions makes salient interventions targeting
antecedent process—categorization, identification, or appraisal—as well
as those targeting emotion itself—cognitive reappraisal, regulation, and
misattribution—that constitute viable options for reducing long-standing
prejudice and reinforcing positive intergroup relations.
KEY ISSUES FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
One of the key contributions of this approach to emotions has been to demonstrate that emotions are associated with a social psychological identity rather
than with a biological entity, that is, the emotions experienced at any given
time are a product of the meaning of events for the perceiver’s relationships
with others. The same biological individual could perceive events differently,
depending on whether he was thinking about the self as a devoted family
man, an American, a marketing executive, one of several people pumping
gas at a gas station, or a unique individual.
This makes the nature of social identities a key issue for future research.
Given that identities vary so broadly, are the emotions experienced as

Emotion and Intergroup Relations

9

a consequence of every different identity similar? Most of the research
described here focuses on emotions born of identification with a social
category like female, Muslim, Spanish, or elderly, and those identifying with
such groups have been members of independent, integrity-focused cultures.
However, what about emotion rooted in smaller, more intimate, and less
malleable groups such as family or close friends? Alternatively, emotions
shared only because many strangers experience the same wait for a bank
teller or for a rock concert to begin? Moreover, are these processes the same
for group members in more interdependent or honor-valuing cultures? To
begin answering this question, we recently asked people to imagine themselves as members of three different “types” of collectives—intimacy groups
(like close friends and family), task groups (like committees and sports
teams) and loose associations (like people watching a movie or waiting in
line) in addition to social categories (like gender and nationality) and to tell
us what they were feeling in that identity (Banerji et al., 2011). We found
that although the content of emotions associated with each identity changed
dramatically, the differentiation of individually based versus group-related
emotions, the convergence of emotions on a shared experience, and the
impact on emotions of the intensity of one’s ties to the group were similar for
intimacy, task, and social category groups. Importantly, one’s attachment to
a loose association did not predict the intensity of one’s emotions, marking
more meaningless collections of people as quite psychologically different
from the other types of groups. Extending this work to close relationships
and other attachment-based relations, as well as to other interpersonally
shared identities such as best friend, would profitably extend the benefits of
understanding group-based emotion from intergroup into intragroup and
interpersonal domains as well. Similarly, extending the study of group-based
emotion across cultures will shed further light on whether and how cultural
imperatives might modulate the nature and function of the emotional
consequences of identity as revealed by research so far.
A second key issue is the nature of identification itself. Identification is the
psychological tie between the individual and the group to which he or she
belongs. It is now clear that what was once regarded to be a fairly unidimensional construct of attachment to a group is in fact multi-dimensional
(Leach et al., 2008; Roccas, Sagiv, Schwartz, Halevy, & Eidelson, 2008),
and that the nature, not just the intensity, of that tie could have profound
effects for emotion. In addition to investigating the impact of centrality and
importance of the identity to the self, commitment to the group, the assumed
superiority of the group, and whether the individual is tied to the group by
over-arching symbolic ideals or by specific interpersonal attractions to other
members have all been suggested as changing the nature of an individual’s
embeddedness in his or her group. As the concept of ingroup-directed

10

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

emotion discussed earlier suggests, ingroup memberships might also over
time become characterized by particular “signature” emotions (Smith et al.,
2007), so that some individuals might be tied to some groups by admiration
and respect, some by warmth and affection, others by guilt, shame, or
pity, and so forth. Thus, identification could be usefully differentiated by
the nature of various emotions activated by ingroup membership, and the
different kinds of behaviors that members of such groups might perform.
A third key issue for furthering our understanding of group-based emotion is how perceptions and predictions of such emotions in others contribute to
the on-going choreography of intergroup interactions. Earlier we noted that
a group’s specific emotional reaction improved one’s ability to predict precisely how they would react in a given intergroup situation. This of course,
confers the advantage of knowing how to react in turn, or perhaps even to
manage, that reaction. This benefit accrues not just to researchers, of course,
but also to the group’s allies and rivals. How well can members of one group
predict how another group is feeling? Do men know how women feel as
women? How well can Democrats predict what Republicans feel as members
of that political party? Two factors limit accuracy when it comes to predicting
in general how other groups feel. First, group members, just like other individuals, tend to project the ingroup’s emotions onto the outgroup. Therefore,
if the ingroup is feeling guilty, group members assume that the outgroup is
feeling guilty too. Second, groups show some ingroup-favoring bias in their
predictions. People are sure that other groups feel more negative and less
positive emotions than their own group feels. These biases notwithstanding,
however, people are fairly accurate in knowing what other groups feel in
general (Seger, Smith, Kinias, & Mackie, 2009).
Much more could usefully be known about this process, however. Psychologists studying individuals’ abilities to forecast their own affective
reactions to specific events have shown that people over-estimate both the
intensity and duration of emotions they will experience. A similar proclivity
at the group level might well explain why intergroup encounters often seem
to escalate or spiral downward more quickly. Well-established emotional
stereotypes are likely to introduce further bias into this predictive process.
At the general level, ingroup members are attributed a wide range of subtle,
social, and complex “human” emotions (such as regret, compassion, and
anguish), whereas outgroup members are often assumed to be capable of
experiencing only primary emotions such as fear and anger (Leyens et al.,
2000). More specific stereotypes about groups—women do not feel anger;
Italians are volatile—can also affect predictions. Thus, both general and specific biases seem likely to introduce systematic errors in prediction of both
the ingroup and the outgroup’s group-based emotion, with concomitant
effects on behavior.

Emotion and Intergroup Relations

11

A final direction for investigation is the time-dependent nature of group-based
emotions (Smith & Mackie, 2006). Thinking about emotions as an important
contributor to intergroup relations makes it necessary to pay attention to
time, for emotions ebb and flow, and are experienced in specific episodes,
in contrast to more cognitive constructs such as stereotypes and prejudice,
which are traditionally seen as highly stable and difficult to change. As emotions are experienced in response to specific group-relevant events—whether
events in the real world or those that are recalled, imagined, or feared—how
long do they last? Might they motivate specific behaviors immediately (while
the perceiver is in an emotional state) and potentially different behaviors at
a later time once the acute emotional arousal has passed? Might the answers
to these questions change if there is a recurring pattern of similar emotional
episodes felt about a specific group (e.g., repeated instances of anger at
attacks by a threatening enemy outgroup)? Finally, of course, changes over
time in emotions may be caused by active emotion regulation processes,
not only by passive exposure to ongoing events. People may often seek to
regulate their emotions to make them more positive, but not always: When
an important ingroup is under attack, people may up-regulate negative
emotions such as anger to help motivate group-supportive actions. Studying
changes in emotions over time may help understand the group-related
processes that give rise to them, as well as potentially offering new insights
into ways that emotions can shape constructive rather than destructive
intergroup behavior.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Preparation of this essay was supported in part by National Science Foundation Collaborative Research Grants BCS-0711924 to Diane Mackie and
BCS-0719876 to Eliot Smith.
REFERENCES
Allport, G. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Banerji, I., Sun, Y., Zhang, J., Chen, Y. Wucherpfennig, A., Smith, E. R., & Mackie, D.
M. (2011). Similarities and differences in group emotions: The role of group type. Unpublished manuscript, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.
Blatz, C. W., & Philpot, C. (2010). On the outcomes of intergroup apologies: A review.
Social and Personality Compass, 11, 995–1007. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00318.x
Doosje, B., Branscombe, N. R., Spears, R., & Manstead, A. S. R. (2006). Antecedents
and consequences of group-based guilt: The effects of ingroup identification.
Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 9, 325–338. doi:10.1177/1368430206064637
Dumont, M., Yzerbyt, V., Wigboldus, D., & Gordijn, E. H. (2003). Social categorization
and fear reactions to the September 11th terrorist attacks. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1509–1520. doi:10.1177/0146167203256923

12

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Fischhoff, B., Gonzalez, R. M., Lerner, J. S., & Small, D. A. (2005). Evolving judgments of terror Risks: Foresight, hindsight, and emotion. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Applied, 11, 124–139. doi:10.1037/1076-898X.11.2.124
Gordijn, E. H., Yzerbyt, V., Wigboldus, D., & Dumont, M. (2006). Emotional reactions
to harmful intergroup behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 15–30.
doi:10.1002/ejsp.296
Halperin, E. (2008). Group-based hatred in intractable conflict in Israel. Journal of
Conflict Resolution, 52, 713–736. doi:10.1177/0022002708314665
Iyer, A., & Leach, C. W. (2008). Emotion in intergroup relations. European Review of
Social Psychology, 19, 86–125. doi:10.1080/10463280802079738
Kuppens, T., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (2012). Group-based emotions: The impact of social
identity on appraisals, emotions, and behaviors. Basic and Applied Social Psychology,
34, 20–33. doi:10.1080/01973533.2011.637474
Leach, C. W., van Zomeren, M., Zebel, S., Vliek, M., Pennekamp, S. F., Doosje, B., …
Spears, R. (2008). Group-level self-definition and self-investment: A hierarchical
(multi-component) model of ingroup identification. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 95, 144–165. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.144
Leonard, D. J., Mackie, D. M., & Smith, E. R. (2011). Emotional responses to intergroup apology mediate intergroup forgiveness and retribution. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 1198–1206. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.05.002
Leyens, J.-P., Paladino, P. M., Rodriguez-Torres, R., Vaes, J., Demoulin, S., RodriguezPerez, A., & Gaunt, R. (2000). The emotional side of prejudice: The attribution of
secondary emotions to ingroups and outgroups. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 4, 186–197. doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0402_06
Mackie, D. M., Maitner, A. T., & Smith, E. R. (2009). Intergroup emotion theory. In T.
D. Nelson (Ed.), Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination (pp. 285–308).
New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Mackie, D. M., Smith, E. R., & Ray, D. G. (2008). Intergroup emotions and intergroup
relations. Personality and Social Psychology Compass, 2, 1866–1880. doi:10.1111/
j.1751-9004.2008.00130.x
Maitner, A. T., Mackie, D. M., & Smith, E. R. (2006). Evidence for the regulatory
function of intergroup emotion: Implementing and impeding intergroup behavioral intentions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 720–728. doi:10.1177/
1368430206071661
Maitner, A. T., Mackie, D. M., & Smith, E. R. (2007). Antecedents and consequences of
satisfaction and guilt following ingroup aggression. Group Processes & Intergroup
Relations, 10, 223–238. doi:10.1177/1368430207075154
Niedenthal, P. M., & Brauer, M. (2011). Social functionality of human emotion. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 259–85. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.121208.
131605
Otten, S. (2009). Social categorization, intergroup emotions, and aggressive intentions. In S. Otten, K. Sassenberg & T. Kessler (Eds.), Intergroup relations: The role of
motivation and emotion (pp. 162–181). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Parkinson, B., Fischer, A. H., & Manstead, A. S. R. (2005). Emotion in social relations:
Cultural, group, and interpersonal processes. New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Emotion and Intergroup Relations

13

Ray, D. G., Mackie, D. M., Rydell, R. J., & Smith, E. R. (2008). Changing categorization of self can change emotions about outgroups. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 44, 1210–1213. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2008.03.014
Roccas, S., Sagiv, L., Schwartz, S., Halevy, N., & Eidelson, R. (2008). Toward
a unifying model of identification with groups: Integrating theoretical perspectives. Personality and Social Psychological Review, 12, 280–306. doi:10.1177/
1088868308319225
Rydell, R. J., Mackie, D. M., Maitner, A. T., Claypool, H. M., Ryan, M. J., &
Smith, E. R. (2008). Arousal, processing, and risk taking: Consequences of intergroup anger. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1141–1152. doi:10.1177/
0146167208319694
Sadler, M. S., Lineberger, M., Correll, J., & Park, B. (2005). Emotions, attributions, and
policy endorsement in response to the September 11th terrorist attacks. Basic and
Applied Social Psychology, 27, 249–258. doi:10.1207/s15324834basp2703_6
Seger, C. R., Smith, E. R., Kinias, Z., & Mackie, D. M. (2009). Knowing how they feel:
Perceiving emotions felt by out-groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
45, 80–89. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2008.08.019
Skitka, L. J., Bauman, C. W., & Mullen, E. (2004). Political tolerance and coming to psychological closure following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks:
An integrative approach. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 743–756.
doi:10.1177/0146167204263968
Smith, E. R. (1993). Social identity and social emotions: Toward new conceptualizations of prejudice. In D. M. Mackie & D. L. Hamilton (Eds.), Affect, cognition, and
stereotyping: Interactive processes in group perception (pp. 297–315). San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
Smith, E. R., & Mackie, D. M. (2006). It’s about time: Intergroup emotions as
time-dependent phenomena. In R. Brown & D. Capozza (Eds.), Social identities:
Motivational, emotional, and cultural influences (pp. 173–187). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Spanovic, M., Lickel, B., Denson, T., & Petrovic, N. (2010). Fear and anger as
predictors of motivation for intergroup aggression: Evidence from Serbia and
Republika Srpska. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 13, 725–739. doi:10.1177/
1368430210374483
Tam, T., Hewstone, M., Cairns, E., Tausch, N., Maio, G., & Kenworthy, J. (2007). The
impact of intergroup emotions on forgiveness in Northern Ireland. Group Processes
& Intergroup Relations, 10, 119–136. doi:10.1177/1368430207071345
Tausch, N., Becker, J. C., Spears, R., Christ, O., Saab, R., Singh, P., & Siddiqui, R. N.
(2011). Explaining radical group behavior: Developing emotion and efficacy routes
to normative and nonnormative collective action. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 101, 129–148. doi:10.1037/a0022728
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
Willer, R., & Adams, N. (2008). The threat of terrorism and support for the
2008 presidential candidates: Results of a national field experiment. Current
Research in Social Psychology, 14, 1–22. Retrieved from http://www.uiowa.edu/∼
grpproc/crisp/crisp.html.

14

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

FURTHER READING
Mackie, D. M., Maitner, A. T., & Smith, E. R. (2009). Intergroup emotion theory. In T.
D. Nelson (Ed.), Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination (pp. 285–308).
New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Mackie, D. M., Smith, E. R., & Ray, D. G. (2008). Intergroup emotions and intergroup
relations. Personality and Social Psychology Compass, 2, 1866–1880. doi:10.1111/j.
1751-9004.2008.00130.x
Niedenthal, P. M., & Brauer, M. (2011). Social functionality of human emotion. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 259–85. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.121208.
131605
Parkinson, B., Fischer, A. H., & Manstead, A. S. R. (2005). Emotion in social relations:
Cultural, group, and interpersonal processes. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Smith, E. R., Seger, C. R., & Mackie, D. M. (2007). Can emotions be truly group level?
Evidence for four conceptual criteria. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
93, 431–446. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.3.431

DIANE M. MACKIE SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Diane M. Mackie is Professor of Psychological & Brain Sciences and Communication at the University of California, Santa Barbara. She received her
BA from the University of Auckland, New Zealand, and her PhD in Social
Psychology from Princeton University. She is particularly interested in the
interplay of affective and cognitive processes in all aspects of intergroup relations. A fellow of the Association for Psychological Science, the Society for
Personality and Social Psychology, and the Society for Experimental Social
Psychology, she also has research interests in evaluation, persuasion, and
social influence.
http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/people/faculty/mackie/index.php
http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/socialemotions/home.html
ANGELA T. MAITNER SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Angela T. Maitner is currently an Assistant Professor of Psychology at American University of Sharjah, the United Arab Emirates. She earned a BS in
Psychology from Eckerd College, St. Petersburg, FL, and a PhD in Psychology from the University of California, Santa Barbara. She also completed a
postdoctoral fellowship at the University of Kent, Canterbury, UK. Her work
investigates the role of identity and emotion in intergroup conflict, showing
how both positive and negative emotional reactions play a role in functionally regulating aggressive intergroup behavior. Currently, she is focusing on
cultural similarities/differences in intergroup emotional processes and the
relationship between the Middle East and the West.

Emotion and Intergroup Relations

15

http://www.aus.edu/info/200168/college_of_arts_and_sciences/284/
department_of_international_studies/4#.UUQKtDejx1E
http://aus.academia.edu/AngelaMaitner
ELIOT R. SMITH SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Eliot R. Smith is Chancellor’s Professor of Psychological and Brain Sciences
at Indiana University, Bloomington, where he is also affiliated with the Cognitive Science program. He received his PhD from Harvard University and is
a fellow of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, the Association
for Psychological Science, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. His work has been funded extensively by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Mental Health. Much of his
current research focuses on the role of emotion in intergroup relations. With
Diane Mackie, he has coedited a book (From Prejudice to Intergroup Emotions)
and published numerous articles on the role of emotion in prejudice and
intergroup conflict. Other research interests include situated/embodied cognition, especially the ways cognitive processes such as person perception are
shaped and altered by the individual’s social context, including people’s networks of interpersonal relationships and group memberships.
http://psych.indiana.edu/faculty/esmith4.php

RELATED ESSAYS
Political Conflict and Youth: A Long-Term View (Psychology), Brian K. Barber
Diversity in Groups (Sociology), Catarina R. Fernandes and Jeffrey T. Polzer
Micro-Cultures (Sociology), Gary Alan Fine
State of the Art in Competition Research (Psychology), Márta Fülöp and
Gábor Orosz
Ethnic Enclaves (Sociology), Steven J. Gold
Normal Negative Emotions and Mental Disorders (Sociology), Allan V.
Horwitz
Group Identity and Political Cohesion (Political Science), Leonie Huddy
The Neurobiology and Physiology of Emotions: A Developmental Perspective (Psychology), Sarah S. Kahle and Paul D. Hastings
Cultural Conflict (Sociology), Ian Mullins
Curriculum as a Site of Political and Cultural Conflict (Sociology), Fabio
Rojas
Emotion Regulation (Psychology), Paree Zarolia et al.
Assimilation and its Discontents (Sociology), Min Zhou


Emotion and Intergroup Relations
DIANE M. MACKIE, ANGELA T. MAITNER, and ELIOT R. SMITH

Abstract
When the social identities people develop as members of groups become salient,
people perceive the world in terms of the costs and benefits to that salient group
membership. This means that events that have no implications for the individual him
or herself can be perceived as harmful, beneficial, offensive, complimentary, unfair,
or just, for example, depending on the consequences those events have for the group.
As a result, perceptions of intergroup events, anticipated intergroup interactions,
or ongoing structural intergroup relations elicit group-based emotions—emotions
that individuals feel as members of their groups. These emotions influence individuals’ perceptions, interpretations, and actions toward their ingroup, relevant outgroups, and any other objects and events that are relevant to group membership.
Thus, emotions play a critical role in intergroup relations, energizing desires to cooperate or compete, to retaliate or make peace. Focusing on the role of such emotions
has contributed to an understanding of the social nature of emotion, as well as to
the antecedents of intergroup conflict and the necessary conditions for its resolution.
That understanding will be promoted by further clarification of the nature of social
identity, the process of identification, the anticipation of emotions in others, and the
time course of emotions, both in general and in the context of group membership in
particular.

INTRODUCTION
Group memberships, and the social identities people develop because of
them, have a profound influence on the way people experience the world.
When social identities become activated, people perceive the world in terms
of the costs and benefits to, or values and norms associated with, that salient
group membership. This means that events that have no implications for the
individual him or herself can be perceived as harmful, beneficial, offensive,
complimentary, unfair, or just, depending on the consequences those events
have for the group. As a result, perceptions of intergroup events, anticipated
intergroup interactions, or more continuous structural intergroup relations
elicit group-based emotions—emotions that individuals feel on behalf of
their groups (Mackie, Maitner, & Smith, 2009; Niedenthal & Brauer, 2011;
Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Edited by Robert Scott and Stephen Kosslyn.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.

1

2

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Smith, 1993). These emotions influence individuals’ perceptions, interpretations, and actions toward members of other groups. Thus, emotions play
a critical role in intergroup relations, energizing desires to cooperate or
compete, retaliate or make peace.
The way people perceive and interpret events that impact their groups
depends first on which social identity has been activated. Different circumstances impel people to consider themselves as members of a particular
group at a particular time. Seeing someone sport a rival team sweatshirt,
viewing a billboard for one’s own company, visiting a foreign country, or
walking into a church, synagogue, or Mosque can all subtly or not so subtly
activate social identities. However a social identity is activated, it changes
the group member’s frame for perceiving the world (Turner, Hogg, Oakes,
Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987).
Together with situation and context, a group member’s perception and
emotion also depends on how important or valued that group membership
is to his or her sense of identity. Events that threaten the group’s welfare,
for example, are perceived as harmful, whereas events that advance the
group’s goals are appraised as beneficial. However, the more individuals value their group membership, the more emotionally consequential
events that have positive or negative implications for their groups become.
The extent to which individuals identify with or value their groups
changes the extremity and direction of how they appraise group-relevant
outcomes, in line with the implications those outcomes have for their
groups.
Appraisals then elicit specific and distinct emotional reactions which, in
turn, elicit specific and distinct behavioral intentions. Perceptions of harm
and injustice, for example, elicit feelings of anger, which elicits support for
aggressive responses. Whether individuals support group behavior that is
aggressive or conciliatory, avoidant or apologetic, or whether they get personally involved in collective action depends on the specific emotional reaction they experience (Mackie, Smith, & Ray, 2008).
Thus, the study of emotion in intergroup relations has allowed for a
more nuanced understanding and an improved ability to predict specific
outcomes in intergroup interactions (Parkinson, Fischer, & Manstead, 2005).
Going beyond the study of prejudice—simple liking or disliking for another
group and its members—the study of emotion allows for differential prediction of the five aggressive manifestations first outlined by Gordon Allport in
1954 (from antilocution, to avoidance, discrimination, physical attack, and
finally to extermination), as well as predictions about positive intergroup
relationships shared by allies, or apology and forgiveness that may improve
intergroup relations.

Emotion and Intergroup Relations

3

FOUNDATIONAL RESEARCH
Early research on the role of emotion in intergroup relations investigated anxiety as a cause of prejudice and discrimination. Subsequent work on the role
of group-based emotion in intergroup relations focused on the impact that
social categorization (making a particular social identity salient) and group
identification (the extent to which that group membership is important to
an individual) had on group-based appraisals of intergroup interactions, as
well as how specific appraisals of an intergroup event elicited specific emotions and behavioral responses. Much of this work focused on emotion as a
mediating process between perception and action.
SOCIAL CATEGORIZATION AND IDENTIFICATION
Thinking about oneself in terms of a particular group membership
changes the way people respond to intergroup events. This process of
self-categorization makes group members feel like relatively interchangeable
representatives of the group and take on the goals and characteristics that
they think represent the group. As a result, activating a social identity
makes individuals view information relevant to that identity as personally
relevant, even when it has no direct implications for them as individuals.
This personalization of intergroup events translates into emotional reactions. For example, when European participants thought about themselves
as Westerners, rather than as Europeans, they reported more fear when
reflecting on the events of September 11, 2001, as Westerners could be seen
as a direct target of those events, whereas Europeans could not (Dumont,
Yzerbyt, Wigboldus, & Gordijn, 2003). Similarly, when local students at
the University of Colorado learned about a proposal to increase tuition for
residents of other states, they perceived more injustice and felt more anger
when categorized as students (who would be negatively affected by the
proposal) than when made to think about themselves as Colorado residents
(who might be benefited by the extra state income; Gordijn, Yzerbyt, Wigboldus, & Dumont, 2006). These studies, in line with many more, show that
identity activation influences the way events are perceived and emotionally
experienced.
Activating a particular social identity also changes general emotional
reactions toward other groups. Thinking about oneself as an American or
woman, for example, increases anger, fear, and disrespect reported toward
Muslims, compared to activating an identity such as “student,” an identity
that typically places a high value on diversity (Kuppens & Yzerbyt, 2012;
Ray, Mackie, & Smith, 2008). Such outcomes show how ongoing, structural
relations between groups and an individual’s currently activated social
identity influences emotional evaluations. However, importantly it also

4

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

shows how changing a social identity, and therefore shifting the perceived
relation between oneself (as a member of the group) and another group, also
changes emotional reactions to that group.
Such emotional responses also depend on the extent to which the perceiver identifies with that group. Thus, social identification influences
the general extremity of appraisals, but also biases the appraisal process
in group-enhancing or group-defensive ways, with consequences for
group-based emotions.
EMOTION PROCESSES
When individuals perceive the world through a group lens, they appraise
and interpret the environment in line with group goals and outcomes. A
group-based appraisal process assesses the goals, motives, and resources
of the group in relation to a given social context. Thus, when an outgroup
presents some sort of threat to the ingroup, categorized individuals balance
the valence of the threat (to the group) in the current context with the
ingroup’s coping resources in determining whether they feel anger, fear, or
contempt for an outgroup. Likewise, when an outgroup presents a more
positive interactive opportunity, categorized individuals balance costs
and benefits in determining whether they feel envy, respect, gratitude, or
satisfaction for the group.
More specifically, people are likely to feel angry on behalf of their groups
to the extent that they perceive an event as being harmful or threatening
to their group and as representing some sort of injustice. People feel guilt
on behalf of their groups when they perceive their own groups’ action as
harmful to another group and likewise unjust. In contrast, group members
feel satisfaction when they perceive that their group has performed an
action—either harmful or beneficial—that resulted from a just process and
successfully implemented a strategic goal. Group members feel fear when
they perceive a threat to their group being made by a particularly strong
or powerful entity. In contrast, group members feel envy for groups who
are high in status but unlikely to cooperate with the ingroup. Finally, group
members feel respect for other groups when they see those groups making
concessions to them, or when they believe those groups respect them as well
(Iyer & Leach, 2008; Smith, Seger, & Mackie, 2007).
The extremity of people’s emotional reactions is predicted by the extremity
of their appraisals, which means that highly identified group members tend
to feel the most anger and pride, but, because they justify harmful actions
taken by the group, they also feel the least guilt (Doosje, Branscombe, Spears,
& Manstead, 2006). As one’s identity interacts with situational features to
elicit more extreme, and possibly more biased appraisals, such appraisals

Emotion and Intergroup Relations

5

elicit more extreme emotions and therefore the most support for aggressive
behavior, and the least support for conciliatory behavior.
BEHAVIORAL OUTCOMES
One of the benefits of knowing a group’s distinct emotional reaction to
an event or object is an increase in predictive specificity about the likely
nature of intergroup interactions (Mackie et al., 2009). Anger felt for some
other group tends to increase support for violently aggressive, harmful,
and exclusionary behavior while reducing the likelihood of cooperation
or negotiation. Fear felt for some group increases avoidance of the target
group and support for the ingroup. Sadness likewise increases avoidance of a threatening group. Contempt or moral disgust motivates both
aggressive harm and avoidance, and is associated with dehumanization of
target group members, opening up the opportunity for that most extreme
form of discrimination—extermination. Thus, experiencing negative
outgroup-directed emotions, including anger, fear, and contempt, both
creates and maintains conflict (Otten, 2009; Tausch et al., 2011).
Other emotions, however, play a role in diffusing conflict. Moral emotions
such as guilt and shame, as well as anger directed toward one’s own group,
result in desires to make amends for past atrocities either through apology
or direct reparation. Although the contribution of each emotion to this
process is debated, the existence of any of the three is likely to reduce
support for continued aggression or discrimination. Feelings of respect for
another group also promotes more cooperative intergroup behavior, and
when respect is perceived as being conveyed by another group, it is often
reciprocated.
When guilt, shame, or ingroup-directed anger motivate apology, this apology may attenuate the outgroups’ desire to retaliate, opening the door to
forgiveness and reconciliation. However, the process is complicated: how an
apology is expressed (whether it is accompanied by a genuine expression of
shame or remorse, as opposed to whether it is motivated by fear), how it is
perceived, and whether it redresses the core insult or harm caused by the precipitating action, all influence an apology’s effectiveness. In other words, the
apology needs to be appraised by the target group, and this process follows
all of the details outlined above. Nevertheless, it is clear that emotions play
a critical mediating role in ameliorating intergroup conflict, transforming it
into reconciliation or cooperation (Blatz & Philpot, 2010; Leonard, Mackie, &
Smith, 2011).
Overall, research has established that individuals can and do feel emotion as members of groups. These emotions result from categorization
and identification processes. Social identities impact appraisal processes,

6

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

eliciting specific emotions and specific behavioral intentions or patterns of
support for group action.
CUTTING EDGE RESEARCH
Building on this foundation, more recent work has investigated additional
implications of emotion experienced in the context of intergroup relations.
Some newer developments have focused on the similar consequences of
group-based and individually experienced emotion for a range of cognitive
functions. Other research has recently broadened the earlier focus on emotions toward outgroups with greater consideration of group-based emotions
toward ingroups as well. In addition, newer work has applied the concept of
group-based emotion to the study of ongoing seemingly intractable conflicts
and to reactions to terrorist attacks or threats. This cutting edge research
demonstrates the very practical benefits of the general theoretical approach.
INFORMATION PROCESSING
Group-based emotional reactions have implications not only for behavioral
outcomes but also for a wide range of cognitive functioning. Emotions
have been linked to information processing in general, and research on
group-based emotions confirms that these feelings also impact the extent
to which individuals engage in systematic processing (Rydell et al., 2008).
People feeling group-based anger, for example, engage in less systematic
processing of subsequently presented information, suggesting that group
members may not have the ability to systematically consider proposals to
reduce conflict unless or until anger has subsided.
Group-based emotions also impact both risk perception and risk-taking
behavior. In the case of intergroup conflict or insult, the more people are feeling fear, the more risk they tend to perceive in the environment and the less
risk they take overall. Anger, in contrast, increases risky decision-making and
risky action. Such findings shed light on the kinds of decisions countries or
leaders or teams may make in the face of threat or offense (Rydell et al., 2008).
Finally, emotions can also shape the explanations individuals make for
antagonistic intergroup interactions, including whether or not individuals
make causal attributions in the first place, and whether individuals perceive
responsibility in their own group, the outgroup, or the situation. The
more groups are encouraged to place blame elsewhere, the more likely
they may be to support aggressive responses to provocation, and thus a
link from anger to externalization of blame is particularly detrimental. In
contrast, feelings of sadness elicit less attributions of blame overall (Sadler,
Lineberger, Correll, & Park, 2005). Thus, one useful direction of current

Emotion and Intergroup Relations

7

research is understanding how the many consequences of group-based
emotion for cognitive functioning contribute to the nature of intergroup
conflict.
INGROUP-DIRECTED EMOTIONS
Thinking about group-based emotions had its roots in trying to understand
prejudice and discrimination and so it was natural that early research
focused on the emotions directed by one group toward another that
explained how the other group was treated and why. However, one of the
earliest emotions to be studied in this tradition was guilt, an emotion that is
more about the ingroup (we feel bad about us, about what we have done)
than about the specific outgroup to whom it was done. Thus, members of
groups who commit or who have committed either historical or contemporary transgressions feel guilt not only about the transgressions but also
about group characteristics that might have made the transgression more
likely. Although ingroup-directed anger seems necessary to actually get the
ingroup to actually act on behalf of a wronged outgroup, the inward focus
of guilt appears to motivate reparation or cessation of aggression (Iyer &
Leach, 2008). The flip side of group guilt, group pride, is associated with
increased affiliative behaviors such as spending time with other ingroup
members, as well as with increased display of group identifying symbols
and signs such as flags and emblems (Smith et al., 2007).
Thus, just like outwardly directed group-based emotions, emotions
directed toward the ingroup seem to play a regulatory and motivating
role. Anger, guilt, pride, and satisfaction might all be directed at the
ingroup as a means of motivating particular behaviors. For example, group
members who disagree with their group’s action feel increased anger, fear,
or guilt until the group performs the desired action, in which case those
emotions subside and satisfaction increases (Maitner, Mackie, & Smith,
2006, 2007). Ingroup-directed emotion might also explain different forms
of outward-directed behavior. Is ingroup pride more likely to encourage
extreme aggression against other groups than ingroup warmth, for example?
Recent group-based emotion research has thus made clear the benefits of
now focusing on the role of a wider range of inwardly directed emotions,
including collective nostalgia, hubris, and grief, and so forth, for more fully
understanding motivated intergroup behavior.
APPLICATION TO CONTEMPORARY INTERNATIONAL CONFLICTS
Although sprung from the study of ethnic and racial prejudice, the study
of emotion in intergroup relations is now being profitably turned to help

8

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

understand and perhaps even unravel international conflicts, including
intransigent clashes such as the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, and contemporary developments such as terrorist attacks. Such research has demonstrated
that both situation-specific, appraisal-based emotional reactions, and more
long standing emotional sentiments such as hatred—emotional evaluations
of the other group that have formed and stabilized over time—contribute
to protracted conflict (Halperin, 2008; Spanovic, Lickel, Denson, & Petrovic,
2010). Research in this vein has also started to delineate the intra-national as
well as the international consequences of terrorist acts. An angry response
to terrorism triggers support for aggressive military retaliation, whereas a
fearful response elicits expectations of future attack and support for avoidant
responses such as expelling or containing assumed terrorist group members
(Fischhoff, Gonzalez, Lerner, & Small, 2005). Both anger and fear elicit
widespread and relatively long term political intolerance (Skitka, Bauman,
& Mullen, 2004). Even in the absence of an actual attack, making a specific,
imminent, terror threat salient increases concern for homeland security
versus civil liberties, and escalation of terror threat levels increases support
for national leadership (Willer & Adams, 2008). Both acute incident-specific,
appraisal-based emotions and long-standing group-focused emotions also
play a role in how interactions are perceived and experienced, and how those
temporal experiences influence support for peace proposals or cooperative
efforts (Tam et al., 2007).
These recent efforts also throw into relief the practical payoffs that
attending to distinct emotional reactions can bring in terms of conflict
interventions. Focusing on emotions makes salient interventions targeting
antecedent process—categorization, identification, or appraisal—as well
as those targeting emotion itself—cognitive reappraisal, regulation, and
misattribution—that constitute viable options for reducing long-standing
prejudice and reinforcing positive intergroup relations.
KEY ISSUES FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
One of the key contributions of this approach to emotions has been to demonstrate that emotions are associated with a social psychological identity rather
than with a biological entity, that is, the emotions experienced at any given
time are a product of the meaning of events for the perceiver’s relationships
with others. The same biological individual could perceive events differently,
depending on whether he was thinking about the self as a devoted family
man, an American, a marketing executive, one of several people pumping
gas at a gas station, or a unique individual.
This makes the nature of social identities a key issue for future research.
Given that identities vary so broadly, are the emotions experienced as

Emotion and Intergroup Relations

9

a consequence of every different identity similar? Most of the research
described here focuses on emotions born of identification with a social
category like female, Muslim, Spanish, or elderly, and those identifying with
such groups have been members of independent, integrity-focused cultures.
However, what about emotion rooted in smaller, more intimate, and less
malleable groups such as family or close friends? Alternatively, emotions
shared only because many strangers experience the same wait for a bank
teller or for a rock concert to begin? Moreover, are these processes the same
for group members in more interdependent or honor-valuing cultures? To
begin answering this question, we recently asked people to imagine themselves as members of three different “types” of collectives—intimacy groups
(like close friends and family), task groups (like committees and sports
teams) and loose associations (like people watching a movie or waiting in
line) in addition to social categories (like gender and nationality) and to tell
us what they were feeling in that identity (Banerji et al., 2011). We found
that although the content of emotions associated with each identity changed
dramatically, the differentiation of individually based versus group-related
emotions, the convergence of emotions on a shared experience, and the
impact on emotions of the intensity of one’s ties to the group were similar for
intimacy, task, and social category groups. Importantly, one’s attachment to
a loose association did not predict the intensity of one’s emotions, marking
more meaningless collections of people as quite psychologically different
from the other types of groups. Extending this work to close relationships
and other attachment-based relations, as well as to other interpersonally
shared identities such as best friend, would profitably extend the benefits of
understanding group-based emotion from intergroup into intragroup and
interpersonal domains as well. Similarly, extending the study of group-based
emotion across cultures will shed further light on whether and how cultural
imperatives might modulate the nature and function of the emotional
consequences of identity as revealed by research so far.
A second key issue is the nature of identification itself. Identification is the
psychological tie between the individual and the group to which he or she
belongs. It is now clear that what was once regarded to be a fairly unidimensional construct of attachment to a group is in fact multi-dimensional
(Leach et al., 2008; Roccas, Sagiv, Schwartz, Halevy, & Eidelson, 2008),
and that the nature, not just the intensity, of that tie could have profound
effects for emotion. In addition to investigating the impact of centrality and
importance of the identity to the self, commitment to the group, the assumed
superiority of the group, and whether the individual is tied to the group by
over-arching symbolic ideals or by specific interpersonal attractions to other
members have all been suggested as changing the nature of an individual’s
embeddedness in his or her group. As the concept of ingroup-directed

10

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

emotion discussed earlier suggests, ingroup memberships might also over
time become characterized by particular “signature” emotions (Smith et al.,
2007), so that some individuals might be tied to some groups by admiration
and respect, some by warmth and affection, others by guilt, shame, or
pity, and so forth. Thus, identification could be usefully differentiated by
the nature of various emotions activated by ingroup membership, and the
different kinds of behaviors that members of such groups might perform.
A third key issue for furthering our understanding of group-based emotion is how perceptions and predictions of such emotions in others contribute to
the on-going choreography of intergroup interactions. Earlier we noted that
a group’s specific emotional reaction improved one’s ability to predict precisely how they would react in a given intergroup situation. This of course,
confers the advantage of knowing how to react in turn, or perhaps even to
manage, that reaction. This benefit accrues not just to researchers, of course,
but also to the group’s allies and rivals. How well can members of one group
predict how another group is feeling? Do men know how women feel as
women? How well can Democrats predict what Republicans feel as members
of that political party? Two factors limit accuracy when it comes to predicting
in general how other groups feel. First, group members, just like other individuals, tend to project the ingroup’s emotions onto the outgroup. Therefore,
if the ingroup is feeling guilty, group members assume that the outgroup is
feeling guilty too. Second, groups show some ingroup-favoring bias in their
predictions. People are sure that other groups feel more negative and less
positive emotions than their own group feels. These biases notwithstanding,
however, people are fairly accurate in knowing what other groups feel in
general (Seger, Smith, Kinias, & Mackie, 2009).
Much more could usefully be known about this process, however. Psychologists studying individuals’ abilities to forecast their own affective
reactions to specific events have shown that people over-estimate both the
intensity and duration of emotions they will experience. A similar proclivity
at the group level might well explain why intergroup encounters often seem
to escalate or spiral downward more quickly. Well-established emotional
stereotypes are likely to introduce further bias into this predictive process.
At the general level, ingroup members are attributed a wide range of subtle,
social, and complex “human” emotions (such as regret, compassion, and
anguish), whereas outgroup members are often assumed to be capable of
experiencing only primary emotions such as fear and anger (Leyens et al.,
2000). More specific stereotypes about groups—women do not feel anger;
Italians are volatile—can also affect predictions. Thus, both general and specific biases seem likely to introduce systematic errors in prediction of both
the ingroup and the outgroup’s group-based emotion, with concomitant
effects on behavior.

Emotion and Intergroup Relations

11

A final direction for investigation is the time-dependent nature of group-based
emotions (Smith & Mackie, 2006). Thinking about emotions as an important
contributor to intergroup relations makes it necessary to pay attention to
time, for emotions ebb and flow, and are experienced in specific episodes,
in contrast to more cognitive constructs such as stereotypes and prejudice,
which are traditionally seen as highly stable and difficult to change. As emotions are experienced in response to specific group-relevant events—whether
events in the real world or those that are recalled, imagined, or feared—how
long do they last? Might they motivate specific behaviors immediately (while
the perceiver is in an emotional state) and potentially different behaviors at
a later time once the acute emotional arousal has passed? Might the answers
to these questions change if there is a recurring pattern of similar emotional
episodes felt about a specific group (e.g., repeated instances of anger at
attacks by a threatening enemy outgroup)? Finally, of course, changes over
time in emotions may be caused by active emotion regulation processes,
not only by passive exposure to ongoing events. People may often seek to
regulate their emotions to make them more positive, but not always: When
an important ingroup is under attack, people may up-regulate negative
emotions such as anger to help motivate group-supportive actions. Studying
changes in emotions over time may help understand the group-related
processes that give rise to them, as well as potentially offering new insights
into ways that emotions can shape constructive rather than destructive
intergroup behavior.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Preparation of this essay was supported in part by National Science Foundation Collaborative Research Grants BCS-0711924 to Diane Mackie and
BCS-0719876 to Eliot Smith.
REFERENCES
Allport, G. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Banerji, I., Sun, Y., Zhang, J., Chen, Y. Wucherpfennig, A., Smith, E. R., & Mackie, D.
M. (2011). Similarities and differences in group emotions: The role of group type. Unpublished manuscript, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN.
Blatz, C. W., & Philpot, C. (2010). On the outcomes of intergroup apologies: A review.
Social and Personality Compass, 11, 995–1007. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00318.x
Doosje, B., Branscombe, N. R., Spears, R., & Manstead, A. S. R. (2006). Antecedents
and consequences of group-based guilt: The effects of ingroup identification.
Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 9, 325–338. doi:10.1177/1368430206064637
Dumont, M., Yzerbyt, V., Wigboldus, D., & Gordijn, E. H. (2003). Social categorization
and fear reactions to the September 11th terrorist attacks. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1509–1520. doi:10.1177/0146167203256923

12

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Fischhoff, B., Gonzalez, R. M., Lerner, J. S., & Small, D. A. (2005). Evolving judgments of terror Risks: Foresight, hindsight, and emotion. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Applied, 11, 124–139. doi:10.1037/1076-898X.11.2.124
Gordijn, E. H., Yzerbyt, V., Wigboldus, D., & Dumont, M. (2006). Emotional reactions
to harmful intergroup behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 15–30.
doi:10.1002/ejsp.296
Halperin, E. (2008). Group-based hatred in intractable conflict in Israel. Journal of
Conflict Resolution, 52, 713–736. doi:10.1177/0022002708314665
Iyer, A., & Leach, C. W. (2008). Emotion in intergroup relations. European Review of
Social Psychology, 19, 86–125. doi:10.1080/10463280802079738
Kuppens, T., & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (2012). Group-based emotions: The impact of social
identity on appraisals, emotions, and behaviors. Basic and Applied Social Psychology,
34, 20–33. doi:10.1080/01973533.2011.637474
Leach, C. W., van Zomeren, M., Zebel, S., Vliek, M., Pennekamp, S. F., Doosje, B., …
Spears, R. (2008). Group-level self-definition and self-investment: A hierarchical
(multi-component) model of ingroup identification. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 95, 144–165. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.144
Leonard, D. J., Mackie, D. M., & Smith, E. R. (2011). Emotional responses to intergroup apology mediate intergroup forgiveness and retribution. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 1198–1206. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.05.002
Leyens, J.-P., Paladino, P. M., Rodriguez-Torres, R., Vaes, J., Demoulin, S., RodriguezPerez, A., & Gaunt, R. (2000). The emotional side of prejudice: The attribution of
secondary emotions to ingroups and outgroups. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 4, 186–197. doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0402_06
Mackie, D. M., Maitner, A. T., & Smith, E. R. (2009). Intergroup emotion theory. In T.
D. Nelson (Ed.), Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination (pp. 285–308).
New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Mackie, D. M., Smith, E. R., & Ray, D. G. (2008). Intergroup emotions and intergroup
relations. Personality and Social Psychology Compass, 2, 1866–1880. doi:10.1111/
j.1751-9004.2008.00130.x
Maitner, A. T., Mackie, D. M., & Smith, E. R. (2006). Evidence for the regulatory
function of intergroup emotion: Implementing and impeding intergroup behavioral intentions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 720–728. doi:10.1177/
1368430206071661
Maitner, A. T., Mackie, D. M., & Smith, E. R. (2007). Antecedents and consequences of
satisfaction and guilt following ingroup aggression. Group Processes & Intergroup
Relations, 10, 223–238. doi:10.1177/1368430207075154
Niedenthal, P. M., & Brauer, M. (2011). Social functionality of human emotion. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 259–85. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.121208.
131605
Otten, S. (2009). Social categorization, intergroup emotions, and aggressive intentions. In S. Otten, K. Sassenberg & T. Kessler (Eds.), Intergroup relations: The role of
motivation and emotion (pp. 162–181). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Parkinson, B., Fischer, A. H., & Manstead, A. S. R. (2005). Emotion in social relations:
Cultural, group, and interpersonal processes. New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Emotion and Intergroup Relations

13

Ray, D. G., Mackie, D. M., Rydell, R. J., & Smith, E. R. (2008). Changing categorization of self can change emotions about outgroups. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 44, 1210–1213. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2008.03.014
Roccas, S., Sagiv, L., Schwartz, S., Halevy, N., & Eidelson, R. (2008). Toward
a unifying model of identification with groups: Integrating theoretical perspectives. Personality and Social Psychological Review, 12, 280–306. doi:10.1177/
1088868308319225
Rydell, R. J., Mackie, D. M., Maitner, A. T., Claypool, H. M., Ryan, M. J., &
Smith, E. R. (2008). Arousal, processing, and risk taking: Consequences of intergroup anger. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1141–1152. doi:10.1177/
0146167208319694
Sadler, M. S., Lineberger, M., Correll, J., & Park, B. (2005). Emotions, attributions, and
policy endorsement in response to the September 11th terrorist attacks. Basic and
Applied Social Psychology, 27, 249–258. doi:10.1207/s15324834basp2703_6
Seger, C. R., Smith, E. R., Kinias, Z., & Mackie, D. M. (2009). Knowing how they feel:
Perceiving emotions felt by out-groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
45, 80–89. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2008.08.019
Skitka, L. J., Bauman, C. W., & Mullen, E. (2004). Political tolerance and coming to psychological closure following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks:
An integrative approach. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 743–756.
doi:10.1177/0146167204263968
Smith, E. R. (1993). Social identity and social emotions: Toward new conceptualizations of prejudice. In D. M. Mackie & D. L. Hamilton (Eds.), Affect, cognition, and
stereotyping: Interactive processes in group perception (pp. 297–315). San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
Smith, E. R., & Mackie, D. M. (2006). It’s about time: Intergroup emotions as
time-dependent phenomena. In R. Brown & D. Capozza (Eds.), Social identities:
Motivational, emotional, and cultural influences (pp. 173–187). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Spanovic, M., Lickel, B., Denson, T., & Petrovic, N. (2010). Fear and anger as
predictors of motivation for intergroup aggression: Evidence from Serbia and
Republika Srpska. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 13, 725–739. doi:10.1177/
1368430210374483
Tam, T., Hewstone, M., Cairns, E., Tausch, N., Maio, G., & Kenworthy, J. (2007). The
impact of intergroup emotions on forgiveness in Northern Ireland. Group Processes
& Intergroup Relations, 10, 119–136. doi:10.1177/1368430207071345
Tausch, N., Becker, J. C., Spears, R., Christ, O., Saab, R., Singh, P., & Siddiqui, R. N.
(2011). Explaining radical group behavior: Developing emotion and efficacy routes
to normative and nonnormative collective action. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 101, 129–148. doi:10.1037/a0022728
Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
Willer, R., & Adams, N. (2008). The threat of terrorism and support for the
2008 presidential candidates: Results of a national field experiment. Current
Research in Social Psychology, 14, 1–22. Retrieved from http://www.uiowa.edu/∼
grpproc/crisp/crisp.html.

14

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

FURTHER READING
Mackie, D. M., Maitner, A. T., & Smith, E. R. (2009). Intergroup emotion theory. In T.
D. Nelson (Ed.), Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination (pp. 285–308).
New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Mackie, D. M., Smith, E. R., & Ray, D. G. (2008). Intergroup emotions and intergroup
relations. Personality and Social Psychology Compass, 2, 1866–1880. doi:10.1111/j.
1751-9004.2008.00130.x
Niedenthal, P. M., & Brauer, M. (2011). Social functionality of human emotion. Annual Review of Psychology, 63, 259–85. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.121208.
131605
Parkinson, B., Fischer, A. H., & Manstead, A. S. R. (2005). Emotion in social relations:
Cultural, group, and interpersonal processes. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Smith, E. R., Seger, C. R., & Mackie, D. M. (2007). Can emotions be truly group level?
Evidence for four conceptual criteria. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
93, 431–446. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.3.431

DIANE M. MACKIE SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Diane M. Mackie is Professor of Psychological & Brain Sciences and Communication at the University of California, Santa Barbara. She received her
BA from the University of Auckland, New Zealand, and her PhD in Social
Psychology from Princeton University. She is particularly interested in the
interplay of affective and cognitive processes in all aspects of intergroup relations. A fellow of the Association for Psychological Science, the Society for
Personality and Social Psychology, and the Society for Experimental Social
Psychology, she also has research interests in evaluation, persuasion, and
social influence.
http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/people/faculty/mackie/index.php
http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/socialemotions/home.html
ANGELA T. MAITNER SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Angela T. Maitner is currently an Assistant Professor of Psychology at American University of Sharjah, the United Arab Emirates. She earned a BS in
Psychology from Eckerd College, St. Petersburg, FL, and a PhD in Psychology from the University of California, Santa Barbara. She also completed a
postdoctoral fellowship at the University of Kent, Canterbury, UK. Her work
investigates the role of identity and emotion in intergroup conflict, showing
how both positive and negative emotional reactions play a role in functionally regulating aggressive intergroup behavior. Currently, she is focusing on
cultural similarities/differences in intergroup emotional processes and the
relationship between the Middle East and the West.

Emotion and Intergroup Relations

15

http://www.aus.edu/info/200168/college_of_arts_and_sciences/284/
department_of_international_studies/4#.UUQKtDejx1E
http://aus.academia.edu/AngelaMaitner
ELIOT R. SMITH SHORT BIOGRAPHY
Eliot R. Smith is Chancellor’s Professor of Psychological and Brain Sciences
at Indiana University, Bloomington, where he is also affiliated with the Cognitive Science program. He received his PhD from Harvard University and is
a fellow of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, the Association
for Psychological Science, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. His work has been funded extensively by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Mental Health. Much of his
current research focuses on the role of emotion in intergroup relations. With
Diane Mackie, he has coedited a book (From Prejudice to Intergroup Emotions)
and published numerous articles on the role of emotion in prejudice and
intergroup conflict. Other research interests include situated/embodied cognition, especially the ways cognitive processes such as person perception are
shaped and altered by the individual’s social context, including people’s networks of interpersonal relationships and group memberships.
http://psych.indiana.edu/faculty/esmith4.php

RELATED ESSAYS
Political Conflict and Youth: A Long-Term View (Psychology), Brian K. Barber
Diversity in Groups (Sociology), Catarina R. Fernandes and Jeffrey T. Polzer
Micro-Cultures (Sociology), Gary Alan Fine
State of the Art in Competition Research (Psychology), Márta Fülöp and
Gábor Orosz
Ethnic Enclaves (Sociology), Steven J. Gold
Normal Negative Emotions and Mental Disorders (Sociology), Allan V.
Horwitz
Group Identity and Political Cohesion (Political Science), Leonie Huddy
The Neurobiology and Physiology of Emotions: A Developmental Perspective (Psychology), Sarah S. Kahle and Paul D. Hastings
Cultural Conflict (Sociology), Ian Mullins
Curriculum as a Site of Political and Cultural Conflict (Sociology), Fabio
Rojas
Emotion Regulation (Psychology), Paree Zarolia et al.
Assimilation and its Discontents (Sociology), Min Zhou



Media

Emotion and Intergroup Relations