The current research examines joint collective action between advantaged and disadvantaged groups, from the perspective of the latter. We hypothesize that joint action poses a dilemma which lies in... Show moreThe current research examines joint collective action between advantaged and disadvantaged groups, from the perspective of the latter. We hypothesize that joint action poses a dilemma which lies in the tension between perceived instrumentality of joint action (i.e., ability to promote the disadvantaged’s goals) and perceived normalization (i.e., its tendency to blur power relations). We test this idea across three studies in the United States and Israel/Palestine. In Study 1 (n = 361) we manipulated perceptions of joint action from the perspective of a hypothetical character, and in Study 2 (n = 378) we presented participants with an article highlighting the risk and benefit of joint activism. Results showed that perceived instrumentality increases, whereas perceived normalization decreases joint action tendencies. In Study 3 (n = 240), we described a joint action event that taps into some of the themes that induce concerns about normalization. We found that normalization perceptions feed into perceptions of instrumentality, and this occurred mainly among high identifiers, for whom the dilemma is most salient. The implications of these findings for understanding the complexity of joint collective action from the perspective of the disadvantaged are discussed. Show less
Conflict plays a profound role in the lives of individuals, organizations, and entire societies – and has become an ever-expanding area of interdisciplinary research. This special issue brings... Show moreConflict plays a profound role in the lives of individuals, organizations, and entire societies – and has become an ever-expanding area of interdisciplinary research. This special issue brings together five new papers examining conflict antecedents and processes using the experimental method. In the following introduction, we consider the challenges inherent to studying conflict using experiments and the various approaches that researchers have developed to overcome some of those challenges. In doing so, we present a high-level taxonomy of successful experimental approaches to the study of conflict and highlight the manner in which the papers in the Special issue exemplify each of these approaches. We conclude with several pieces of specific advice to researchers seeking to make robust and impactful contributions to this area. Show less
Hasan-Aslih, S.; Shuman, E.; Goldenberg, A.; Pliskin, R.; Zomeren, M., van; Halperin, E. 2020
Within contexts of oppression and struggle for social change, in which hope is constantly challenged, do disadvantaged group members still want to feel hope? If so, does this desire translate into... Show moreWithin contexts of oppression and struggle for social change, in which hope is constantly challenged, do disadvantaged group members still want to feel hope? If so, does this desire translate into actual hope? And does motivation for hope relate to disadvantaged individuals’ collective action tendencies? We suggest that, especially when faced with setbacks in the struggle for social change, disadvantaged group members want to feel hope, but actualizing this motivation depends on their group efficacy beliefs. We address these questions in a two-wave sample of 429 Palestinians living under militarized occupation in the West Bank. Our results indicate that when faced with setbacks, Palestinians want to feel hope for social change, but only those who perceive high group efficacy are able to fulfill their desire. We discuss these findings’ implications for understanding motivated emotional processes and hope in contexts of oppression. Show less
Hasan‐Aslih, S.; Shuman, E.; Pliskin, R.; Zomeren, M.; Saguy, T.; Halperin, E. 2020
While we have a rich understanding of the motivations of disadvantaged group members to act collectively with their group, especially the important role played by identification, we know less about... Show moreWhile we have a rich understanding of the motivations of disadvantaged group members to act collectively with their group, especially the important role played by identification, we know less about the disadvantaged's motivations to engage in joint action with the advantaged. This research examines the role of identification in predicting joint and ingroup collective action in intergroup conflicts. Since joint action inherently diffuses the perception of “us versus them”, we propose that identification predicts ingroup action, but not joint action. We also examine conflict intensity as a moderator, and examine how changing identification is linked to change in support for joint action. We test these hypotheses in a three-wave longitudinal study in the Palestinian–Israeli conflict. Results support our hypotheses, demonstrating that identification positively predicts ingroup action but not necessarily joint action, and that when conflict intensifies, changes in identification are negatively related to joint action with outgroup members. Show less
Political psychologists studying ideology have been increasingly examining its relationship with emotion. Much of this work has focused on potential ideological differences in the intensity of... Show morePolitical psychologists studying ideology have been increasingly examining its relationship with emotion. Much of this work has focused on potential ideological differences in the intensity of emotional experiences, leading to conflicting findings. Some work has supported the perspective according to which fundamental psychological differences exist between ideological leftists and rightists, while other work has challenged this view, demonstrating ideological symmetry in emotion. The present review highlights recent advances that can shed further light on this debate, adopting a multi-dimensional, context-sensitive approach to the study of ideological differences in emotional processes. Accordingly, we propose that instead of asking whether or not ideological differences in emotion exist, researchers should ask when, in what ways, and under what circumstances they exist. Show less
Zipris, I.; Pliskin, R.; Canetti, D.; Halperin, E. 2019
How do wars shape emotions and attitudes in intractable conflicts? In two studies conducted in the aftermath of the 2014 Gaza War in the Middle East, we tested a new theoretical model wherein the... Show moreHow do wars shape emotions and attitudes in intractable conflicts? In two studies conducted in the aftermath of the 2014 Gaza War in the Middle East, we tested a new theoretical model wherein the ability to regulate emotions is central in determining the influence of war exposure on emotions (i.e., group-based humiliation) and support for militancy, through posttraumatic stress symptoms (PSS). Results supported our model: (a) higher exposure to the war predicted group-based humiliation in both studies and in Study 2 also greater support for militancy; in both studies, (b) higher exposure predicted more PSS only among participants high in emotion dysregulation, and, for them, (c) higher exposure predicted greater group-based humiliation, through increased levels of PSS. Results from Study 2 suggest that (d) group-based humiliation will ultimately lead to greater support for militancy. The findings’ contribution to the different literatures and their integration is discussed. Show less
Alkoby, A.; Pliskin, R.; Halperin, E.; Levit-Binnun, N. 2019
In down‐regulating intergroup fear, an intense emotion common to intractable intergroup conflicts, people may employ various fear‐reducing appraisals. Adopting a motivated reasoning perspective, we... Show moreIn down‐regulating intergroup fear, an intense emotion common to intractable intergroup conflicts, people may employ various fear‐reducing appraisals. Adopting a motivated reasoning perspective, we posited that the contents of individuals’ ideological beliefs influence the contents they employ to down‐regulate fear, with rightists preferring ingroup‐empowering content and leftists preferring outgroup‐weakening content. In Study 1, rightists (vs. leftists) reported greater use of ingroup‐empowering reappraisal to down‐regulate fear, but no differences emerged in the use of outgroup‐weakening reappraisal. Study 2 manipulated the contents’ perceived instrumentality in reducing fear, to examine this as an alternative mechanism. Perceived instrumentality influenced participants’ behavioral content preferences ahead of a fear induction, but the manipulation did not mitigate the right‐left differences in ingroup‐empowering reappraisal use once participants were confronted with the stimulus, replicating Study 1. Study 3 extended these findings, identifying ideological differences in two additional fear‐reappraisal themes and in the attitudinal outcomes of fear regulation. Show less
Hasan-Aslih, S.; Pliskin, R.; Van Zomeren, M.; Halperin, E.; Saguy, T. 2018
Do rightists and leftists experience information about suffering and harm with differing emotional intensities, depending on the identity of target depicted? Do they consequently choose differently... Show moreDo rightists and leftists experience information about suffering and harm with differing emotional intensities, depending on the identity of target depicted? Do they consequently choose differently how to regulate or cope with these emotions? Research has identified ideological differences in emotional processes, but it has yet to identify what types of content lead to ideological differences in emotional intensity or whether these content-dependent differences relate to differing preferences for engaging versus disengaging emotion-regulation strategies. We posited that right–left differences in experienced emotional intensity would be context-dependent, emerging mostly in response to depictions of harm to the outgroup, in accordance with the centrality of intergroup attitudes to ideological self-placement in conflict. Study 1 (N = 83) supported this hypothesis, with leftists (vs. rightists) experiencing outgroup harm (but not ingroup harm or conflict-irrelevant harm) with greater emotional intensity. Study 2 (N = 101), which replicated this finding, additionally examined whether behavioral differences in regulatory choice consequently emerge mostly regarding outgroup harm. We tested 2 competing hypotheses as to the nature of these differences: (a) the intensity hypothesis, positing that leftists (more than rightists) would regulate their intensified reactions to outgroup harm through disengagement–distraction (vs. engagement–reappraisal) due to a documented greater preference for disengaging coping strategies as intensity increases, and (b) the motivation hypothesis, positing that leftists (more than rightists) would prefer engagement–reappraisal (vs. disengagement–distraction), consistent with leftists’ documented greater preference for intergroup empathy. Results exclusively supported the intensity hypothesis, and the significance of both studies is discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved) Show less
