Article summary by Reduced intergroup conflict and increased outgroup empathy by De Vos a.o. - 2013

Studies on anger management suggest that anger is a potentially destructive emotion. Anger can harm relationships. Conflicts are best resolved when anger is kept under wraps. But there are also positive studies on anger. An important distinction is made between experienced anger that motivates behaviour and the communication of anger. The first form can motivate destructive behaviour in the angered person, but the latter can de-escalate conflicts by motivating constructive conflict behaviour in the recipient of the communicated anger. The writers of this article argue that the communication of group-based anger reduces tendencies tow3ard intergroup conflict because it stresses the value of maintaining a positive long-term relationship. This positive relational signal increases empathy in the recipients of the communicated anger for those who communicated it. The communication of group-based contempt should undermine any positive effect of group-based anger on intergroup conflict reduction through reducing empathy with the other group. The writers believe that negative effects of communicating group-based anger in intergroup conflict are likely to stem from communicating group-based contempt or a mixture of the emotions. They therefore conducted three experiments. In those experiments, they examined the idea that only communicating pure group-based anger has positive effects in terms of reducing tendencies toward intergroup conflict because of its relational function. They also predicted that this positive effect of communicating pure group-based anger is mediated by increased empathy for the out-group.

Relational function of communicating anger

Emotions have an important social function in everyday life, because they communicate how people feel about others and how they are likely to behave toward them. Group-based emotions are emotions expressed and felt on behalf of one’s group membership. Group-based anger is the most prototypical emotion in intergroup conflict. Anger is an emotion with a negative valence, necessary to signal injustice and it is also approach-oriented, important to engage in dialogue about the perceived injustice. This makes anger different than other negatively valenced emotions like fear and sadness, all of which communicate more avoidance-oriented motivation. Anger is usually associated with destructive responses, but its expression might be beneficial for maintaining and improving relationships. The writers therefore propose a positive relational function of group-based anger in intergroup conflict. This suggests that communicating group-based anger stresses the injustice of the situation while asking the other group to take steps toward reconciliation. The other group will see this communication of group-based anger as a signal that one cares about maintaining a positive intergroup relationship. The writers think that this in turn should encourage the recipient to take the other party’s perspective and feel empathy for them. Past studies have shown positive effects of empathy in reducing intergroup conflict. However, empathy has not been linked to communication of group-based anger. The writers think that anger should reduce conflict through increasing empathy. Prior research has not looked at the relational function of anger, but it focused more on the important but different strategic function of anger expressions. Studies that looked at interpersonal negotiations showed that communication of anger about the other’s behaviour increases this other’s approach behaviour. this enforces cooperation within a competitive setting. In these cases, the communication of anger serves a strategic function. The writers of this text look at the relational function of anger.

Pure anger versus contempt and mixed anger

If the relational function of communicating anger results in a reduction of conflict, then a comparable negative emotion with an opposite relational function should result in quite adverse effects. Contempt is a good candidate for this. This is because anger and contempt represent responses to violations of particular norms. Research shows that contempt communicates the desired exclusion of the other person, which should undermine empathy. People perceive communication of contempt as a signal that the other desires to end the relationship. Communicating anger should therefore have more positive consequences than communicating contempt. Anger and contempt do not necessarily exclude one another. Communication of anger is often combined with contempt in conflict situations. Some scientists have even argued than when anger persists over a longer period of time, it might start to co-exist or completely develop into contempt. The writers believe that if communication of contempt is mixed with anger, the interpretation of the communication is transformed. The relational function of communicating anger should only function effectively when it is communicated free of contempt. This means that the communication of pure group-based anger should have more positive effects than the communication of group-based contempt, or the combination of both group-based emotions. The writers predict that only the communication of pure group-based anger decreases destructive intergroup conflict intentions because it increases empathy for the outgroup.

Experiment 1

The aim of this study was to find support for the relational function of the communication of group-based anger in intergroup conflict. The writers investigated whether the communication of group-based anger would reduce destructive conflict intentions compared with a condition in which the communication of group-based anger was absent. They also tested whether this effect would be explained by increased empathy for the outgroup.

Participants (all Dutch) were assigned to one of two conditions: outgroup communicating anger or a control condition. They read a fictitious newspaper article and answered questions about it. The article outlined a realistic situation in which German students were discriminated against by Dutch students. The majority of the people in the paper indicated having negative attitudes toward German students and some justified their opinion by referring to common stereotypes of Germans as being badly integrated and loners. In the article, the German students reacted to what they considered to be unjust discrimination. The writers manipulated whether they communicated anger or not. The communicated emotion was manipulated in the title of the article, the introductory paragraph and in the final paragraph in which a German student responded on behalf of her group. The writers only manipulated the presence or absence of the anger label in the communication by the outgroup. An anger manipulation check measured to what extent the participants perceived the German students to be angry on a Likert-scale. Destructive conflict intentions were also measured on a Likert-scale. The writers also measured empathy with a scale. Finally, communicated relationship importance was also measured with a Likert-scale.

The results showed that participants reported less destructive conflict intentions when anger had been communicated than in the control condition. Also, participants reported to feel more outgroup empathy after anger had been communicated than in the control condition. The communication of anger reduced destructive conflict intentions and increased empathy. Empathy also predicted destructive conflict intentions beyond the effect of manipulation. Empathy fully mediated the positive effect of pure group-based anger on destructive conflict intentions. The writers also found that participants with a decreased destructive conflict intention communicated increased relationship importance.

Experiment 2

In this experiment, participants (all Dutch) were randomly assigned to one of four conditions within a 2 (group-based anger: absent or present) x 2 (group-based contempt: absent/present) between-subjects design. Like in the first study, participants read a (fictitious) newspaper article and answered questions about it. The article described the current shortage on the Groningen student dorm market. Almost 75% of Dutch students indicated rather having a Dutch than a German roommate, which was justified by referring to typical stereotypes of Germans as being badly integrated and loners. The article continued with the reaction of the German students. In the reaction, the writers manipulated whether they communicated pure anger, pure contempt, mixed anger and contempt or no emotion. This communicated emotion was manipulated in the title of the article, the introductory paragraph and in the final paragraph in which a German student responded on behalf of her group. The empathy was measured, as well as the destructive conflict intentions.

The results of this study replicate those of the first study. They show that the communication of pure group-based anger results in less destructive conflict intentions than its absence. The results also replicated the mediational role of empathy in this effect. No positive effects for the communication of group-based contempt and of mixed anger/contempt was shown. This adds to the reliability of the proposed relational function of communicating group-based anger in the context of intergroup conflict. However, the writers were not yet in the position to make claims about causality with respect to the mediations role of empathy. For this reason, the third experiment was conducted.

Experiment 3

In this experiment, participants (all Dutch) were randomly assigned to one of six conditions within a 2 (communicated emotion: pure anger vs. mixed anger) x 3 (Perspective taking, PT: Dutch students vs. German students vs. control) between-subjects design. In this experiment, participants also read a fictitious newspaper article about Dutch students discriminating German students. The context was that of a future increase in college tuition fees. The article read that the majority of Dutch students expressed the opinion that tuition fees should increase more for German students than for Dutch students. They justified this opinion by referring to common German stereotypes. The manipulation of PT took place prior to reading the article. In the control condition, participants just read that they were going to read an article about a conflict situation between German and Dutch students in Groningen. The participants in the other conditions read that they had to put themselves in the shoes of either the Dutch student or German student and that they had to identify as best as they could with the feelings and reactions to the situation. After reading the article, participants had to answer some questions. They had to indicate their destruction-intentions on a Likert-scale.

The results showed that participants reported weaker destructive conflict intentions when German students had communicated pure group-based anger compared with when they had communicated mixed group-based anger/contempt. In the German students’ perspective taking condition it was also found that communication of pure group-based anger led to less destructive conflict intentions than communication of mixed group-based anger/contempt. In the Dutch students’ perspective conditions, no significant differences in reported destructive conflict intentions were found between communicated pure group-based anger and mixed group-based anger/contempt. Taking the perspective of Dutch students undermined the positive effect of communicating pure group-based anger versus mixed group-based anger/contempt.

Anger is often perceived as an unpleasant and negative subjective state, but these three experiments show that its communication has remarkably positive consequences in the context of intergroup conflict. The expression of group-based anger may have positive consequences for intergroup relations. It seems that anger should not always be kept under wraps. However, more research is needed and boundary conditions need to be found.