6 Intergroup Emotions Theory:

Prejudice and Differentiated

Emotional Reactions toward
Outgroups
Angela T. Maitner, Eliot R. Smith, and Diane M. Mackie

As a man I pity you, but as an official I must show you no mercy; as a politician
I regard him as an ally, but as a moralist I loathe him.
William James (1890/1983, p. 43)

Emotions, William James tells us, are embedded in identity. How I feel about you
depends not only on who you are, but also on who I am. In an influential chapter
merging theories of social identity and emotion felt toward other groups, Smith
(1993) similarly argued that considering intergroup attitudes as a combination of
appraisals, emotions, and action tendencies based in the perceiver’s social identity
could better explain shifting intergroup evaluations across contexts and could
better predict differentiated intergroup outcomes than traditional models of
prejudice.
In the more than 20 years since the publication of that work, intergroup emotions
theory (Mackie, Devos, & Smith, 2000; Mackie, Maitner, & Smith, 2009; Mackie
& Smith, 2002, 2015; Smith & Mackie, 2006, 2008; Smith, Seger, & Mackie, 2007)
has grown and developed into a comprehensive theory of intergroup relations that
provides a complementary perspective to traditional attitude models of prejudice.
In this chapter, we rearticulate the central tenets of the theory and then focus on how
social categorization and group identification – who I am – interact with context to
influence individuals’ appraisals, emotions, and behavioral intentions. We then
focus on how three discrete emotional reactions elicit different and specific nega-
tive intergroup responses, before focusing on implications of intergroup emotions
theory for improving intergroup relations. We finish with a discussion of current
directions.

Intergroup Emotions Theory

Intergroup emotions theory (IET) suggests that when a particular social
identity is activated, individuals will interpret events in terms of their implications

111

Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University Libraries, on 07 Jun 2017 at 03:18:07, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316161579.006
 112 maitner, smith, and mackie

for that ingroup, rather than for the individual personally. The more individuals
identify with their currently activated social identity, the more extremely they will
appraise group-relevant events. Group-based appraisals then elicit specific emo-
tions and action tendencies. Because they are rooted in concerns for the group, we
refer to such emotions as group based (see Niedenthal & Brauer, 2012). Intergroup
relations are dynamic and ongoing, and thus individuals are expected to continu-
ously reappraise changing situations, and their emotions to wax and wane, or
amplify and change, along with changes in the intergroup context.
Research has been supportive of the proposed model (see Mackie & Smith, 2015,
for a review). In a comprehensive demonstration of antecedent conditions and
behavioral consequences of intergroup emotions, Gordijn, Yzerbyt, Wigboldus, and
Dumont (2006) randomly assigned Colorado resident students at the University of
Colorado to one of two conditions: to think of themselves as students or as Colorado
residents. Participants were then asked to read a proposal to raise tuition for out-of-
state students. Participants who were categorized as students appraised the proposal as
less fair to the extent that they identified with being a student, as students were
impacted negatively by the proposal (though these individuals themselves were
not). Participants who were categorized as Colorado residents, on the other hand,
appraised the proposal as more fair to the extent that they identified with their state, as
the state would benefit from the tuition revenue (though these individuals themselves
would not). The less fair participants appraised the proposal to be, the more anger they
felt, and the stronger their desire to take action against the proposal. Thus, this study
found that the way participants appraised the proposal was rooted in whether the
outcome was beneficial or problematic for the activated identity, with appraisals
amplified by group identification. Group-level appraisals influenced group-level
emotions, which motivated support for intergroup action.

Antecedents of Group-Based Emotion

IET provides an important framework for predicting whether and how
individuals will feel animosity toward other groups. According to the intergroup
emotions model, the interplay of social categorization and social identification
dictates whether and to what extent individuals will experience emotions toward
other groups, and resultant appraisal processes explain what emotion individuals
will feel. We consider each of these antecedents in turn.
Social categorization. In addition to being unique individuals, people can
simultaneously be categorized as members of various groups ranging from com-
mittees, teams, and families, to national, ethnic, or religious groups. External
circumstances or internal processes may lead an individual to self-categorize
with a particular group at a particular time, with self-categorization shifting
in response to anything from hearing one’s national anthem, to noticing one’s
minority status, or thinking about one’s personal beliefs.

Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University Libraries, on 07 Jun 2017 at 03:18:07, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316161579.006
 Intergroup Emotions Theory 113

Self-categorization theory (Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987)

contends that when individuals are categorized as members of a group, they
become depersonalized representatives of that group, taking on the goals and
characteristics of a prototypical group member. We have shown that when people
are categorized as members of a group, they consider information that is relevant to
the group (but not necessarily to themselves) to take on personal relevance,
indicating that their frame for perceiving the world is meaningfully changing
(Maitner, Mackie, Claypool, & Crisp, 2010).
When individuals consider information to be relevant to them (as individuals or
as group members), that information takes on emotional significance. A large body
of work, of course, shows that when individuals are simply categorized into groups,
they exhibit ingroup favoritism and, under the right circumstances, outgroup
derogation (see Tajfel & Billig, 1974; Tajfel, Billig, Bundy, & Flament, 1971;
Wenzel & Mummendey, 1996). Research on group-based emotion has more
specifically shown that when individuals are categorized as members of a group,
they experience emotion on behalf of those group memberships (Dumont, Yzerbyt,
Wigboldus, & Gordijn, 2003; Gordijn, Wigboldus, & Yzerbyt, 2001; Gordijn et al.,
2006; Mackie et al., 2000). In this work, participants learn about an event impacting
a group with which they are or are not currently categorized. In general, partici-
pants experience more emotion when categorized as members of the affected group
than when not so categorized.
Ray, Mackie, Rydell, and Smith (2008) showed that emotion directed toward
specific outgroups waxes and wanes depending on salient levels of self-
categorization. Participants tended to report more anger toward police when
categorized as students, a group that has an antagonistic relationship with police,
than when categorized as Americans, a group with a (historically) more positive
relationship with police. In contrast, participants report relatively less anger
toward Muslims when categorized as students (a group that generally values
tolerance) than when categorized as Americans (a group that places a stronger
value on security). Kuppens and Yzerbyt (2012) showed a similar effect, with
female social science students reporting more anger, fear, and disgust toward
Muslims when their identity as women had been made salient, relative to when
their identity as social science students, young adults, or their personal identity
had been made salient. They further showed that women’s more negative
emotional reactions were directed by different threat perceptions. Women felt
more fear, for example, as a result of perceptions of threat to physical safety.
They felt more anger as a result of increased perceptions of threats to safety
and trust. In sum, the way participants both perceived and emotionally
responded to a target outgroup was determined by social identity salience.
Such work shows quite compellingly how animosity toward other groups is
rooted in self-categorization.
Social identification. Individuals vary in the extent to which their identities are
based in particular group memberships (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). So although all
US citizens can be categorized as Americans, the extent to which that

Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University Libraries, on 07 Jun 2017 at 03:18:07, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316161579.006
 114 maitner, smith, and mackie

categorization impacts the individual varies. Tajfel (1981) defined social identity as
“that part of an individual’s self-concept which derives from his knowledge of
membership in a social group (or groups) together with the value and emotional
significance attached to that group membership” (p. 255). People who identify
strongly with a particular group integrate group goals and motives prominently into
their self-concept. High identifiers are then likely to make intergroup, rather than
interpersonal, comparisons in ambiguous situations (Gurin, 1985), showing heigh-
tened attention to group, rather than individual, outcomes (Brewer & Gardner,
1996; Turner et al., 1987; see also Smith & Spears, 1996).
Research also shows that group identification impacts the extent to which
individuals take group-level threats personally (e.g., McCoy & Major, 2003)
and the extent to which individuals’ behavior is affected by group-related
threats (e.g., Schmader, 2002). Likewise, research suggests that identification
moderates the extent to which individuals make appraisals and experience
emotion on behalf of the group (e.g., Gordijn et al., 2006; McCoy & Major,
2003; Smith et al., 2007; Verkuyten, Drabbles, & van den Nieuwenhuijzen,
1999; Yzerbyt, Dumont, Wigboldus, & Gordijn, 2003). Similarly to Gordijn
et al. (2006), Maitner (2007) showed that when individuals were categorized as
Americans, those who identified more strongly felt more satisfied and less
angry about a proposal that had positive consequences for Americans and
negative consequences for students. At the same time, participants categorized
as students who identified more strongly with that group felt more satisfied and
less angry about a proposal that had positive consequences for students and
negative consequences for Americans.
Identification also influences the extent to which individuals feel negative
emotions toward outgroups. Mackie et al. (2000), for instance, showed that
participants felt more anger toward a competitive outgroup, and reported
a stronger desire to attack that outgroup the more they identified with their
own group. Crisp, Heuston, Farr, and Turner (2007) showed that high identifiers
felt angry but not sad when their team lost a match, whereas low identifiers felt
sad but not angry. Research also shows that people feel more satisfied and less
guilty when their groups aggress against other groups, to the extent that they
identify with their own group (Doosje, Branscombe, Spears, & Manstead, 1998;
Maitner, Mackie, & Smith, 2007). Thus identification plays an important role in
dictating the extent to which individuals feel specific forms of animosity toward
outgroup members, with high identifiers more likely to feel emotions such as
anger toward the outgroup, and less likely to feel anger toward the ingroup or
guilt on behalf of its actions.
Group-based appraisals. When individuals are categorized as members of
a group, they tend to appraise and interpret the environment in line with group
goals and outcomes, rather than individual goals and outcomes (e.g., Crocker,
Voelkl, Testa, & Major, 1991; Dion & Earn, 1975; Gordijn et al., 2006; Hastorf
& Cantril, 1954; Kuppens, Yzerbyt, Dandache, Fischer, and van der Schalk, 2013;
Smith & Spears, 1996). Group-level appraisals assess the group’s goals and

Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University Libraries, on 07 Jun 2017 at 03:18:07, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316161579.006
 Intergroup Emotions Theory 115

resources in relation to the current social context. Thus, when an outgroup presents
some sort of threat to the ingroup, individuals evaluate the threat against the
ingroup’s coping resources to determine their emotional reaction. Appraisals
follow from shifting contexts and categorization, and they are then strengthened
or biased by the importance of a social category to one’s identity.
Specific patterns of group-based appraisals elicit specific patterns of group-
based emotions. Perceiving a threatening group to be weak produces more
outgroup-directed anger than perceiving the same group to be strong (Mackie
et al., 2000) – when the outgroup is perceived as strong, it may instead elicit
fear (Giner-Sorolla & Maitner, 2013). Perceiving harm to be unfair produces
more anger than perceiving harm to be justified (Giner-Sorolla & Maitner,
2013; Gordijn et al., 2006; Halperin & Gross, 2011b; Livingstone, Spears,
Manstead, & Bruder, 2009). Perceiving harm as ongoing produces more anger
than perceiving that harm has been rectified (Maitner, Mackie, & Smith, 2006).
Likewise, perceiving a group as competitive but weak or low in status elicits
contempt, whereas perceiving a group as competitive and strong elicits envy
(Cuddy, Fiske, & Glick, 2007). In other words, the specific assessment of group
outcomes in a given context determines exactly what form emotional preju-
dices take on.

Group-Based Emotions and Behaviors

Thus far we have shown that categorization and identification, along with
subsequent appraisal processes, elicit specific emotions directed toward specific
outgroups. Although all group-based emotions are important to consider when
investigating intergroup relations, three emotions – fear, anger, and contempt/
disgust – have been studied extensively as important contributors to intergroup
conflict.
Research has linked each of these emotions to specific target groups. Anger,
for example, has been linked to Arabs (in a US sample; Dasgupta, DeSteno,
Williams, & Hunsinger, 2009) and ethnic outgroups (at least for European men;
Kuppens et al., 2012), whereas disgust has been linked to overweight people
(Vartanian, Thomas, & Vanman, 2013) and gay men (Dasgupta et al., 2009;
Inbar, Pizarro, & Bloom, 2012) in US samples. Correspondingly, Tapias,
Glaser, Keltner, Vasquez, and Wickens (2007) showed that people who are
dispositionally high in anger versus disgust are more prejudiced toward ethnic
outgroups and gay men, respectively. In addition, incidental emotions
strengthen prejudice and implicit bias toward groups that are the targets of
corresponding emotions. That is, exposure to disgusting odors decreased
warmth participants reported toward gay men but not other target outgroups
(Inbar et al., 2012). Likewise, recalling a personal experience that had elicited
disgust increased implicit bias against gay men, whereas incidental anger had
no impact on bias toward that group. Recalling a personal experience that had

Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University Libraries, on 07 Jun 2017 at 03:18:07, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316161579.006
 116 maitner, smith, and mackie

elicited anger increased implicit bias against Arabs, but incidental disgust did
not (Dasgupta et al., 2009). Thus, certain emotions may be linked to specific
groups as a particular form of emotional prejudice; however, IET suggests that
the way a particular group or its behavior is viewed in a particular context may
also influence the emotions perceivers feel.
Outgroup-directed fear/anxiety. Anxiety results when individuals perceive
that they have low or uncertain coping resources for confronting a motivationally
relevant threat (Frijda, Kuipers, & ter Schure, 1989; Smith & Lazarus, 1993).
Pioneering work on intergroup anxiety defined it as anxiety experienced when
people anticipate or engage in intergroup contact (see Stephan, 2014). Building on
this work, researchers have also investigated intergroup fear, which occurs in
response to a broader range of group-relevant threats, including threats to group
values, resources, or safety.
Studies have shown that intergroup fear uniquely motivates desires to move
away from a fear-provoking, especially physically threatening, outgroup, seek
information about the situation, take precautionary measures, negotiate with
a threatening group, or help and support victims, but not to confront or attack the
offending outgroup (Dijker, 1987; Dumont et al., 2003; Giner-Sorolla & Maitner,
2013; Kamans, Otten, & Gordijn, 2011; Lerner, Gonzalez, Small, & Fischhoff,
2003). For example, Americans’ feelings of fear (but not anger) in response to
the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks predicted support for restrictions on civil
liberties measured several months later (Skitka, Bauman, & Mullen, 2004), as
well as support for deporting Arab Americans, Muslims, and first-generation
immigrants (Skitka, Bauman, Aramovich, & Morgan, 2006). Fear clearly leads to
a desire to avoid members of the offending group, although research shows that fear
can lead to desires to confront or negotiate with an offending group when a conflict
is intractable or ongoing (Giner-Sorolla & Maitner, 2013; Spanovik, Lickel,
Denson, & Petrovic, 2010).
Research has also investigated collective angst, which is the specific concern
for the future vitality of one’s group (see Wohl & Branscombe, 2009). When
ingroup members perceive threats to future longevity, they report desires
to strengthen the ingroup (Wohl, Branscombe, & Reysen, 2010), show more
forgiveness of past ingroup harm (Wohl & Branscombe, 2009), and show
stronger opposition or exclusion of immigrants (Jetten & Wohl, 2012).
However, collective angst is also associated with increased desires to compro-
mise with enemy outgroups when doing so would help reduce particular threats
(Halperin, Proat, & Wohl, 2013).
Outgroup-directed anger. Anger tends to result when individuals perceive that
they have adequate coping resources for confronting a motivationally relevant
threat (Frijda et al., 1989; Smith & Lazarus, 1993). Individuals experiencing
anger report a strong desire to approach or confront the anger-inducing situation
or outgroup (Frijda et al., 1989; Harmon-Jones, Sigelman, Bohlig, & Harmon-
Jones, 2003). Indeed, outgroup-directed anger has proven to be a particularly
potent predictor of the desire to take action against the offending group. Research

Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University Libraries, on 07 Jun 2017 at 03:18:07, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316161579.006
 Intergroup Emotions Theory 117

has shown that outgroup-directed anger predicts ingroup bias, outgroup confronta-
tion, active harm, radical responding, defense of ingroup positions to the outgroup,
and support for ingroup members criticizing the outgroup (Kamans et al., 2011;
Johnson & Glasford, 2014; Livingstone et al., 2009; Mackie et al., 2000; Smith
et al., 2007; van Zomeren, Spears, Fischer, & Leach, 2004). Similarly, outgroup-
directed anger predicts willingness to take action against harmful and unfair action
perpetrated by one group against another (Gordijn et al., 2006; Maitner, 2007), with
research investigating anger directed at terrorist actions or threats showing that
anger leads to a desire to attack the offending group (Giner-Sorolla & Maitner,
2013), including support for aggressive military responses (Cheung-Blunden &
Blunden, 2008; Sadler, Lineberger, Correll, & Park, 2005; Skitka et al., 2006).
Outgroup-directed anger also increases the desire to support and affiliate with the
ingroup (Smith et al., 2007), findings consistent with other research showing that
this group emotion tends to increase ingroup identification (Kessler & Hollbach,
2005).
Compelling evidence for the role of anger leading to attack and confrontation
behaviors also comes from research investigating the emotional consequences of
engaging in behaviors incompatible with that action tendency (Maitner et al.,
2006). We showed that when individuals felt anger about terrorist attacks shortly
after September 11, anger was purged and satisfaction induced when the ingroup
retaliated. We subsequently showed that outgroup-directed anger was purged only
when the ingroup’s response achieved a desired goal, which, in our work, meant
securing an apology and retraction of insults. Satisfaction was induced any time the
ingroup retaliated, whereas individuals got angry with ingroups that refused to
confront anger-inducing outgroups. These findings provide evidence that group-
based emotions functionally regulate intergroup behavior, shifting in response to
changes in the intergroup context.
Outgroup-directed contempt/disgust. Contempt and disgust both result
when people make downward comparisons within a domain that tends to be less
personally important than a domain eliciting anger or fear (Frijda et al., 1989).
Levin, Pratto, Matthews, Sidanius, and Kteily (2012) showed that intergroup
disgust was predicted by value threats, with Lebanese participants reporting more
disgust toward Americans the more they perceived Americans to hold values that
were oppositional to those of Arabs. Both emotions motivate active and passive
harm (Cuddy et al., 2007; Johnson & Glasford, 2014), and, in particular, elicit
a tendency to avoid or exclude the provoking agent (Frijda et al., 1989; Mackie
et al., 2000; Roseman, 1984; Roseman, Antoniou, & Jose, 1996).
Disgust is also uniquely related to a desire to forcefully expel or obliterate
a stimulus (Plutchik, as cited in Roseman et al., 1996), and the combination of
exclusion, active and passive harm, and desires to expel or obliterate may result in
dehumanization of targets of these negative emotions. Harris and Fiske (2006), for
instance, show that individuals processing information about members of groups
toward which they feel contempt and disgust show no activation of the medial
prefrontal cortex, a brain region implicated in social cognition. Individuals do,

Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University Libraries, on 07 Jun 2017 at 03:18:07, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316161579.006
 118 maitner, smith, and mackie

however, show activation in brain areas associated with disgust. In other words, it
appears as though contempt and disgust result in a view of target groups as some-
thing less than human. Buckels and Trapnell (2013) likewise showed that incidental
feelings of disgust promoted an implicit association between animals and arbitrary
outgroups, again supporting the idea that feelings of disgust promote dehumaniza-
tion of outgroups. Such strong emotion and accompanying dehumanization
processes open the door to radical actions such as extermination and genocide
(see Tausch et al., 2011). Intergroup hatred has been shown to elicit similarly
extreme responses (Halperin, 2008).
Taken together, research has shown consistent support for the foundational
claims of IET. First, findings show that intergroup emotions are embedded within
identity and shift along with changes in self-categorization. Second, emotional
tendencies may link to specific target groups, but emotions may also shift with
shifting self-categorization or intergroup appraisals that reflect the dynamic social
context. Finally, specific emotions predict differentiated action tendencies, allow-
ing for a more differentiated prediction of intergroup hostilities.

Implications for Improving Intergroup Relations

Just as IET provides a framework for predicting and understanding how,
when, and why individuals will feel dislike toward outgroups, it also provides
a framework for understanding how, when, and why emotions felt toward other
groups can be improved. Taking as a starting point the idea that emotional reactions
are embedded in identity, the simplest implication is that shifting self-
categorization also changes emotions (at least temporarily) toward outgroups.
For example, when categorized as members of certain groups (e.g., Americans,
women), Western individuals show comparatively high anti-Muslim reactions.
However, Ray et al. (2008) and Kuppens and Yzerbyt (2012) showed that shifting
self-categories from Americans to students or from women to individuals reduced
negative emotions felt toward Muslims.
Prejudice reduction strategies that focus on recategorizing target outgroups may
function in a similar way. The common ingroup identity model (see Dovidio &
Gaertner, 1999; Gaertner, Mann, Murrell, & Dovidio, 1989), dual identity model (see
Gaertner, Rust, Dovidio, Bachman, & Anastasio, 1994), and crossed categorization
model (see Midgal, Hewstone, & Mullen, 1998) all take the same starting point.
Specifically, they assume that if individuals can shift the dynamic between ingroup
and target outgroup, reducing the threat perceived in the outgroup by bringing it into
the ingroup or perceiving some overlapping shared category, animosity will be
reduced. Elucidating the role of emotion in this process, Ray, Mackie, Smith, and
Terman (2012) showed that cross-categorization reduced prejudice via discrete
emotional responses. When individuals shared at least one group membership with
a target person, they reported more positive emotions and intergroup attitudes.

Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University Libraries, on 07 Jun 2017 at 03:18:07, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316161579.006
 Intergroup Emotions Theory 119

Further, because IET adopts emotion models to understand intergroup

relations, another implication is that emotion regulation strategies may be
effective in helping improve intergroup relations. Halperin (2014) suggests
that both indirect emotion regulation strategies, which attempt to change
people’s appraisals by providing specific and concrete messages to perceivers,
and direct emotion regulation strategies, such as cognitive reappraisal, may be
helpful in intractable conflicts. Indeed, research shows that if messages target
specific appraisals, they can elicit emotions such as group-based guilt or
decrease emotions such as intergroup anxiety, leading to positive intergroup
consequences (see Čahajić-Clancy, Effron, Halperin, Liberman, & Ross, 2011;
Halperin et al., 2012). Likewise, Halperin and Gross (2011a) showed that
Israelis who engaged in cognitive reappraisal processes during the war in
Gaza (in 2008) felt more hope and were more supportive of humanitarian aid
for Palestinians. Perhaps more compellingly, Halperin, Porat, Tamir, and Gross
(2013) trained Israeli participants in cognitive reappraisal one week before the
Palestinian United Nations bid, then followed participants for five months after
the event. They found that participants who received reappraisal training
remained more supportive of conciliatory policies toward Palestinians five
months later, because of reductions in intergroup anger. Thus it seems that
reducing negative intergroup emotions has important implications for inter-
group reconciliation.
A related area of work investigates intergroup apology and forgiveness,
examining how apologies from one group toward another may reduce anger
and desires for retaliation. Giner-Sorolla, Castano, Espinosa, and Brown
(2007), for example, showed that apologies accompanied by offers of reparations
(the director of a company offering to help clean up a chemical spill for which the
company was responsible) were perceived as less insulting when targets
expressed self-effacing shame (“he feels ashamed about the unfortunate inci-
dent,” p. 521). In contrast, Wohl, Hornsey, and Bennett (2012) showed that when
outgroups expressed secondary emotions such as shame and concern (relative to
primary emotions such as anger and sadness) for wrong perpetrated against the
ingroup, in this case, for the friendly fire death of soldiers, participants reported
less forgiveness. Note, however, that such effects may be limited to individuals
who dehumanize outgroup members. In a meta-analysis of intergroup forgive-
ness, van Tongeren, Burnette, O’Boyle, Worthington, and Forsyth (2014) showed
that expressions of empathy and guilt increased intergroup forgiveness, whereas
expressed negative emotions such as anger and fear reduced it. Thus emotional
expressions in intergroup apologies clearly play an important role in eliciting
intergroup forgiveness, likely through a dynamic reappraisal process, although
results remain somewhat mixed in terms of which emotional expressions are
most effective for eliciting reconciliation.
Exploring the role of experienced emotions in response to intergroup apology,
Leonard, Mackie, and Smith (2011) showed that apologies reduced desires for
retribution by reducing intergroup anger and increased forgiveness by increasing

Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University Libraries, on 07 Jun 2017 at 03:18:07, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316161579.006
 120 maitner, smith, and mackie

outgroup-directed respect. In the absence of intergroup apology, Tam et al.

(2007) showed that felt anger reduced intergroup forgiveness. Taken together,
this work suggests a critical role for intergroup emotions in the reconciliation
process.

Current Trends and Future Directions

Recent work has begun pushing beyond the well-studied Western contexts
to examine intergroup emotional processes in non-individualistic cultures, inves-
tigating implications for appraisals and behaviors. Other research has examined
how group-based emotions are shared or communicated both within and between
groups, and the implications of social sharing for intergroup attitudes.
Culture and intergroup emotion. Classic work from cultural psychology
shows that in defining the self, people with independent self-construals tend to
emphasize their unique characteristics, whereas people with interdependent self-
construals tend to adopt goals and motives from important ingroups (see Markus &
Kitayama, 1991). This simple definition suggests the untested hypothesis that
people with interdependent senses of self would experience group-based emotions
more strongly than people with independent senses of self.
More recent research has moved beyond this simple dichotomy. Leung and
Cohen (2011), for example, suggest that cultures differ in the way individuals
assess their self-worth. In dignity cultures such as the United States, self-worth
is considered inalienable and therefore individuals are relatively impervious to
personal feedback – positive or negative – from others. In honor and face
cultures, on the other hand, self-worth is at least partially socially conferred.
People in face cultures such as Japan earn their social worth by living up to the
standards of their social roles, whereas people in honor cultures such as Turkey
gain social worth from both internal and external sources. Because people from
honor cultures have to both claim and defend their worth, they are often highly
reactive to insults to their social image (see Rodriguez Mosquera, Manstead, &
Fischer, 2002).
We argue that the nature of self-worth can influence how people perceive,
interpret, and emotionally respond to events that have implications for individuals’
social identities, with people aiming to defend and protect the social self most
strongly when their identity is associated with honor norms. Recently, we have
shown that within honor cultures, honor norms are conferred to some social
identities (i.e., Arab) but not all (i.e., student; Maitner, Mackie, Pauketat, &
Smith, 2015). Arab students read insults to either their Arab or student identity
and reported emotional responses and behavioral intentions. When their honor-
oriented (Arab) identity was insulted, participants reported more anger and shame
than when their non-honor-oriented identity was insulted, or compared to members
of a dignity culture (British students) who received the same insult. When their
non-honor-oriented student identity was insulted, Arab participants reported no

Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University Libraries, on 07 Jun 2017 at 03:18:07, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316161579.006
 Intergroup Emotions Theory 121

more anger or shame than members of a dignity culture (American students) who
received the same insult. This work suggests that cultural processes may operate
differently depending on which identity has been activated, with different cultural
goals and values associated with different social identities. Activated cultural
norms influenced the extremity to which participants reported self-protective
emotional responses, but otherwise we found remarkable continuity of emotional
processes across cultures.
Social sharing of intergroup emotions. Other contemporary work explores the
relationship between emotional reactions experienced by group members and their
group as a whole. Previous research has shown that negative ingroup actions may
elicit negative emotions toward the ingroup (Maitner et al., 2007), and that negative
emotions toward the ingroup decrease group identification whereas positive emo-
tions felt toward the ingroup increase identification (Kessler & Hollbach, 2005).
Because identification influences appraisals and emotions, this work suggests
further that emotions are part of a dynamic feedback loop within the individual
(Smith & Mackie, 2015). Other work has shown that when people learn about the
emotional reactions of their fellow group members, their emotional reactions
converge with those of their groups, especially when they are highly identified
(Moons, Leonard, Mackie, & Smith, 2009; Smith et al., 2007). In this way, negative
feelings toward outgroups may be shared (i.e., intergroup emotions can converge at
the intragroup level).
More recent work has shown that a match between intergroup emotions felt
by the individual and collective emotions felt by the group as a whole elicits self-
categorization and support for collective action (Livingstone, Spears, Manstead,
Bruder, & Shepherd, 2011). Consistently, but in the opposite direction,
Goldenberg, Saguy, and Halperin (2014) showed that when individuals perceive
that their group feels a different emotional reaction than they do themselves (such
as when the group feels no anger in response to an offense), intergroup emotional
reactions are exacerbated as individuals emotionally distance themselves from the
collective (individuals report even more anger themselves). This is especially
the case when the collective response is perceived as inappropriate. Rather than
emotions always being shared within groups then, perceptions of the appropriate-
ness of emotional reactions on the part of the group may increase or decrease
individuals’ own emotional reactions.
Communication of intergroup emotions. Other work has investigated the
communication function of group-based emotion, both between ingroup and out-
group and to third-party observers. DeVos, van Zomeren, Gordijn, and Postmes
(2013) showed that the communication of anger from victim to perpetrator group
can elicit empathy, at least when maintaining a positive intergroup relationship is
important to the perpetrating group. As a result, the communication of anger can
actually reduce conflict between groups. Likewise, work investigating the experi-
ence of intergroup anger shows that feelings of intergroup anger can lead to an
increased willingness for political compromise when anger is experienced in the
absence of hatred in intractable conflicts (Halperin, Russell, Dweck, & Gross,

Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University Libraries, on 07 Jun 2017 at 03:18:07, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316161579.006
 122 maitner, smith, and mackie

2011). Taken together this work suggests functionality in the experience and
expression of anger for intergroup reconciliation.
Anger can also elicit empathy from third-party observers when communicated
by powerful groups. Kamans, van Zomeren, Gordijn, and Postmes (2014) showed
that third-party observers are more supportive of intergroup aggression when
groups communicate emotional reactions that reflect their level of power within
an intractable intergroup conflict. That is, observers were more likely to legitimize
intergroup violence from lower-power groups that communicate that their aggres-
sive behavior reflects both fear and their victim status. Observers also legitimized
violence from higher-power groups that communicated anger, reflecting that they
had been unfairly wronged, and therefore that their response was morally sound.
Taken together, new directions in the study of group-based emotion suggest first
that intergroup emotions are elicited and function similarly across cultural contexts,
although group goals and concerns may vary across cultures. Second, work on the
social sharing of emotions shows that individuals may either adopt or distance
themselves from collective emotions shared by the ingroup, depending on their
levels of group identification and appraisals of the appropriateness of the group’s
emotional response. Finally, research suggests that the communication of even
negative emotions between groups can have beneficial effects for intergroup rela-
tions, so long as it is experienced in the absence of hatred, or with some level of
concern for improving intergroup relations.
Future developments. Future research may continue to explore these new
directions, further developing the links among culture, social sharing, and com-
munication of emotions both within and between groups. Significantly more
research is needed to understand fully the extent to which emotional processes
are universal or culturally specific. Certainly research on the interpersonal level
suggests that emotions are differentially afforded in line with cultural values and
practices (see Boiger, Güngӧr, Karasawa, & Mesquita, 2014). Emotions that are
culturally afforded may be even more likely to be socially shared among group
members, increasing identification and support for collective action in line with
those afforded emotions, and reinforcing their frequent experience. Emotions that
are not afforded within a particular cultural context, on the other hand, may be
appraised as inappropriate and lead to social distancing.
Because different cultures experience and express emotions at different rates, the
communication of emotions cross-culturally may be challenging. How, for exam-
ple, is anger expressed by Turks, members of an honor culture for whom anger is
afforded, perceived, and evaluated by face-oriented Japanese or dignity-oriented
American targets? When such anger is expressed in response to an affront from
either perceiver group, does it elicit sympathy and compromise as previous
research suggests, or does it heighten conflict, as the situations and appraisals
that are perceived as appropriate elicitors of anger responses vary across the
three cultural groups? Such work could have important implications for global
conflict and cooperation and may further elaborate challenges in intractable con-
flicts while pointing to potential solutions.

Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University Libraries, on 07 Jun 2017 at 03:18:07, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316161579.006
 Intergroup Emotions Theory 123

Conclusions
Over that past 20 years, an accumulating body of evidence suggests that
knowing how individuals are categorized and what emotions they are feeling in
particular contexts helps provide a more nuanced and differentiated set of
predictions about intergroup relations, including understanding how negative
evaluations change across contexts and are manifested in discriminatory
behavior. Focusing on the role of emotion in intergroup relations has also led
to the study of different forms of intervention and has motivated new bodies of
work that investigate how processes are influenced by culture, as well as how the
sharing and communication of emotion influences intra- and intergroup
relations.

References
Boiger, M., Güngӧr, D., Karasawa, M., & Mesquita, B. (2014). Defending honour,
keeping face: Interpersonal affordances of anger and shame in Turkey
and Japan. Cognition and Emotion, 28, 1255–1269. doi: 10.1080/
02699931.2014.881324
Brewer, M. B., & Gardner, W. (1996). Who is this “we”? Levels of collective identity and
self representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 83–93. doi:
10.1037/0022-3514.71.1.83
Buckels, E. E., & Trapnell, P. D. (2013). Disgust facilitates outgroup dehumanization.
Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 16, 771–780. doi: 10.1177/
1368430212471738
Čahajić-Clancy, S., Effron, D., Halperin, E., Liberman, V., & Ross, L. (2011). Affirmation,
acknowledgment of ingroup responsibility, group-based guilt, and support for
reparative measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101,
256–270. doi: 10.1037/a0023936
Cheung-Blunden, V., & Blunden, B. (2008). The emotional construal of war: Anger, fear
and other negative emotions. Peace and Conflict, 14, 123–149. doi:10.1080/
10781910802017289
Crisp, R. J., Heuston, S., Farr, M. J., & Turner, R. (2007). Seeing red or feeling blue:
Differentiated intergroup emotions and in-group identification in soccer fans.
Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 10, 9–26. doi:10.1177/
1368430207071337
Crocker, J., Voelkl, K., Testa, M., & Major, B. (1991). Social stigma: The affective
consequences of attributional ambiguity. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 60, 218–228. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.60.2.218
Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2007). The BIAS map: Behaviors from intergroup
affect and stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92,
631–648. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.92.4.631
Dasgupta, N., DeSteno, D., Williams, L. A., & Hunsinger, M. (2009). Fanning the flames of
prejudice: The influence of specific incidental emotions on implicit prejudice.
Emotion, 9, 585–591. doi: 10.1037/a0015961

Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University Libraries, on 07 Jun 2017 at 03:18:07, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316161579.006
 124 maitner, smith, and mackie

deVos, B., van Zomeren, M., Gordijn, E. H., & Postmes, T. (2013). The communication of
“pure” group-based anger reduces tendencies toward intergroup conflict because it
increases out-group empathy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39,
1043–1052. doi: 10.1177/0146167213489140
Dijker, A. J. (1987). Emotional reactions to ethnic minorities. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 17, 305–325. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2420170306
Dion, K. L., & Earn, B. M. (1975). The phenomenology of being a target of prejudice.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 944–950. doi: 10.1037/0022-
3514.32.5.944
Doosje, B., Branscombe, N. R., Spears, R., & Manstead, A. S. R. (1998). Guilty by
association: When one’s group has a negative history. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 75, 872–886. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.75.4.872
Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (1999). Reducing prejudice: Combating intergroup biases.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8, 101–105. doi: 10.1111/1467-
8721.00024
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
Frijda, N. H., Kuipers, P., & ter Schure, E. (1989). Relations among emotion, appraisal, and
emotional action readiness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57,
212–228. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.57.2.212
Gaertner, S. L., Mann, J., Murrell, A., & Dovidio, J. F. (1989). Reducing intergroup bias:
The benefits of recategorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
57, 239–249. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.57.2.239
Gaertner, S. L. Rust, M. C., Dovidio, J. R., Bachman, B. A., & Anastasio, P. A. (1994).
The contact hypothesis: The role of a common ingroup identity on reducing
intergroup bias. Small Group Research, 25, 224–249. doi: 10.1177/
1046496494252005
Giner-Sorolla, R., Castano, E., Espinosa, P., & Brown, R. (2007). Shame expressions reduce
the recipient’s insult from outgroup reparations. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 44, 519–526. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2007.08.003
Giner-Sorolla, R., & Maitner, A. T. (2013) Angry at the unjust, scared of the powerful:
Emotional responses to terrorist threat. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 39, 1069–1082. doi: 10.1177/0146167213490803
Goldenberg, A., Saguy, T., & Halperin, E. (2014). How group-based emotions are shaped by
collective emotions: Evidence for emotional transfer and emotional burden.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107, 581–596. doi: 10.1037/
a0037462
Gordijn, E. H., Wigboldus, D., & Yzerbyt, V. (2001). Emotional consequences of
categorizing victims of negative outgroup behavior as ingroup or outgroup.
Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 4, 317–326. doi: 10.1177/
1368430201004004002
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
Gurin, P. (1985). Women’s gender consciousness. Public Opinion Quarterly, 49, 143–163.
doi: 10.1086/268911

Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University Libraries, on 07 Jun 2017 at 03:18:07, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316161579.006
 Intergroup Emotions Theory 125

Halperin, E. (2008). Group-based hatred in intractable conflict in Israel. The Journal of

Conflict Resolution, 52, 713–736. doi: 10.1177/0022002708314665
Halperin, E. (2014). Emotion, emotion regulation, and conflict resolution. Emotion Review,
6, 68–76. doi: 10.1177/1754073913491844
Halperin, E., Crisp, R. J., Husnu, S., Trzesniewski, K. H., Dweck, C., & Gross, J. J.
(2012). Promoting intergroup contact by changing beliefs: Group malleability,
intergroup anxiety, and contact motivation. Emotion, 12, 1192–1195. doi:
10.1037/a0028620
Halperin, E., & Gross, J. (2011a). Emotion regulation in violent conflict: Reappraisal, hope,
and support for humanitarian aid to the opponent in wartime. Cognition and
Emotion, 25, 1–9. doi: 10.1080/02699931.2010.536081
Halperin, E. & Gross, J. J. (2011b). Intergroup anger in intractable conflict:
Long-term sentiments predict anger responses during the Gaza War. Group
Processes and Intergroup Relations, 14, 477–488. doi: 10.1177/
1368430210377459
Halperin, E., Porat, R., Tamir, M., & Gross, J. J. (2013). Can emotion regulation change
political attitudes in intractable conflict? From the laboratory to the field.
Psychological Science, 24, 106–111. doi: 10.1177/0956797612452572
Halperin, E., Proat, R., & Wohl, M. J. A. (2013). Extinction threat and reciprocal threat
reduction: Collective angst predicts willingness to compromise in intractable
intergroup conflicts. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 16, 797–813.
doi: 10.1177/1368430213485994
Halperin, E., Russell, A. G., Dweck, C. S., & Gross, J. J. (2011). Anger, hatred, and the quest
for peace: Anger can be constructive in the absence of hatred. Journal of Conflict
Resolution, 55, 274–291. doi: 10.1177/0022002710383670
Harmon-Jones, E., Sigelman, J. D., Bohlig, A., & Harmon-Jones, C. (2003). Anger,
coping, and frontal cortical activity: The effect of coping potential on
anger-induced left frontal activity. Cognition and Emotion, 17, 1–24.
doi: 10.1080/02699930302278
Harris, L. T., & Fiske, S. T. (2006). Dehumanizing the lowest of the low: Neuroimaging
responses to extreme out-groups. Psychological Science, 17, 847–853. doi:
10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01793.x
Hastorf, A. H., & Cantril, H. (1954). They saw a game: a case study. Journal of Abnormal &
Social Psychology, 49, 129–134. doi: 10.1037/h0057880
Inbar, Y., Pizarro, D. A., & Bloom, P. (2012). Disgusting smells cause decreased liking of
gay men. Emotion, 12, 23–27. doi: 10.1037/a0023984
James, W. (1983). Principles of psychology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Original work published 1890.
Jetten, J., & Wohl, M. J. A. (2012). The past as a determinant of the present: Historical
continuity, collective angst, and opposition to immigration. European Journal of
Social Psychology, 42, 442–450. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.865
Johnson, B. M., & Glasford, D. E. (2014). A threat-emotion profile approach to explaining
active versus passive harm in intergroup relations. Social Psychology, 45,
399–407. doi: 10.1027/1864-9335/a000199
Kamans, E., Otten, S., & Gordijn, E. H. (2011). Power and threat in intergroup conflict.
Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14, 293. doi:10.1177/136843021
0372525

Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University Libraries, on 07 Jun 2017 at 03:18:07, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316161579.006
 126 maitner, smith, and mackie

Kamans, E., van Zomeren, M., Gordijn, E. H., & Postmes, T. (2014). Communicating the
right emotion makes violence seem less wrong: Power-congruent emotions lead
outsiders to legitimize violence of powerless and powerful groups in intractable
conflict. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 17, 286–305. doi: 10.1177/
1368430213502562
Kessler, T., & Hollbach, S. (2005). Group-based emotion as determinants of ingroup
identification. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 677–685. doi:
10.1016/j.jesp.2005.01.001
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
Kuppens, T., Yzerbyt, V. Y., Dandache, S., Fischer, A. H., & van der Schalk, J. (2013).
Social identity salience shapes group-based emotions through group-based
appraisals. Cognition and Emotion 27, 1359–1377. doi: 10.1080/
02699931.2013.785387
Kuppens, T., Pollet, T. V., Teixeira, C. P., Demoulin, S., Roberts, S. C., & Little, A. C.
(2012). Emotions in context: Anger causes ethnic bias but not gender bias in men
but not women. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 432–441. doi:
10.1002/ejsp.1848
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
Lerner, J. S., Gonzalez, R. M., Small, D. A., & Fischhoff, B. (2003). Effects of fear and anger
on perceived risks of terrorism: A national field experiment. Psychological
Science, 14, 144–150. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.01433
Leung, A. K.-Y., & Cohen, D. (2011). Within- and between-culture variation: Individual
differences and the cultural logics of honor, face, and dignity cultures. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 507–526. doi: 10.1037/a0022151
Levin, S., Pratto, F., Matthews, M., Sidanius, J., & Kteily, N. (2012). A dual process
approach to understanding prejudice toward Americans in Lebanon:
An extension to intergroup threat perceptions and emotions. Group Processes
and Intergroup Relations, 16, 139–158. doi: 10.1177/1368430212443866
Livingstone, A. G., Spears, R., Manstead, A. S. R., & Bruder, M. (2009). Illegitimacy and
identity threat in (inter)action: Predicting intergroup orientations among minority
group members. British Journal of Social Psychology, 48, 755–775. doi: 10.1348/
014466608X398591
Livingstone, A. G., Spears, R., Manstead, A. S. R., Bruder, M., & Shepherd, L. (2011).
We feel, therefore we are: Emotion as a basis for self-categorization and social
action. Emotion, 11, 754–767. doi: 10.1037/a0023223
Mackie, D. M., Devos, T., & Smith, E. R. (2000). Intergroup emotions: Explaining offensive
action tendencies in an intergroup context. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 79, 602–616. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.79.4.602
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. 285–307). New York: Psychology Press.
Mackie, D. M., & Smith, E. R. (2002). Intergroup emotions and the social self: Prejudice
reconceptualized as differentiated reactions to outgroups. In J. P. Forgas &

Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University Libraries, on 07 Jun 2017 at 03:18:07, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316161579.006
 Intergroup Emotions Theory 127

K. D. Williams (Eds.), The social self: Cognitive, interpersonal, and intergroup

perspectives (pp. 309–326). Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
Mackie, D. M., & Smith, E. R. (2015). Intergroup emotions. In M. Mikulincer & P. R. Shaver
(Editors-in-chief), APA handbook of personality and social psychology: Vol. 2.
Group Processes. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Maitner, A. T. (2007). Perceiving the world through group-colored glasses: Effects of
self-categorization and group identification on attention and information pro-
cessing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Santa
Barbara.
Maitner, A., Mackie, D. M., Claypool, H. M., & Crisp, R. J. (2010). Identity salience
moderates processing of group-relevant information. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 46, 441–444. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.11.010
Maitner, A. T., Mackie, D. M., Pauketat, J. V. T., & Smith, E. R. (2015). The impact
of culture and identity on emotional reactions to insults. Unpublished
manuscript.
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:10.1016/j.jesp.2005.08.001
Maitner, A. T., Mackie, D. M., & Smith, E. R. (2007). Antecedents and consequences of
satisfaction and guilt following in-group aggression. Group Processes and
Intergroup Relations, 10, 223–237. doi:10.1177/1368430207075154
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991) Culture and the self: Implications for cognition,
emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224–253. doi: 10.1037/0033-
295X.98.2.224
McCoy, S. K., & Major, B. (2003). Group identification moderates emotional responses to
perceived prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1005–1017.
doi: 10.1177/0146167203253466
Migdal, M. J., Hewstone, M., & Mullen, B. (1998). The effects of crossed categorization on
intergroup evaluations: A meta-analysis. British Journal of Social Psychology, 37,
303–324. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8309.1998.tb01174.x
Moons, W. G., Leonard, D. J., Mackie, D. M., & Smith, E. R. (2009). I feel our pain:
Antecedents and consequences of emotional self-stereotyping. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 760–769. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.04.016
Niedenthal, P. M., & Brauer, M. (2012). Social functionality of human emotion. Annual
Review of Psychology, 63, 259–285. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.121208.131605
Ray, D. G., Mackie, D. M., Rydell, R. J., & Smith, E. R. (2008). Changing categorization of
self can change emotions about out-groups. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 44, 1210–1213. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2008.03.014
Ray, D. G., Mackie, D. M., Smith, E. R., & Terman, A. W. (2012). Discrete emotions
elucidate the effects of cross-categorization on prejudice. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 48, 55–69. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2011.07.011
Rodriguez Mosquera, P. M., Manstead, A. S. R., & Fischer, A. H. (2002). The role of honour
concerns in emotional reactions to offences. Cognition & Emotion, 16, 143–163.
doi: 10.1080/02699930143000167
Roseman, I. J. (1984). Cognitive determinants of emotion: A structural theory. Review of
Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 11–36.

Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University Libraries, on 07 Jun 2017 at 03:18:07, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316161579.006
 128 maitner, smith, and mackie

Roseman, I. J., Antoniou, A. A., & Jose, P. E. (1996). Appraisal determinants of emotions:
Constructing a more accurate and comprehensive theory. Cognition & Emotion,
10, 241–277. doi: 10.1080/026999396380240
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
Schmader, T. (2002). Gender identification moderates stereotype threat effects on women’s
math performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 194–201. doi:
10.1006/jesp.2001.1500
Skitka, L. J., Bauman, C. W., Aramovich, N. P., & Morgan, G. C. (2006). Confrontational
and preventative policy responses to terrorism: Anger wants a fight and fear wants
“them” to go away. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 28, 375–384.
doi:10.1207/s15324834basp2804_11
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, C. A., & Lazarus, R. S. (1993). Appraisal components, core relational themes,
and the emotions. Cognition and Emotion, 7, 233–269. doi: 10.1080/
02699939308409189
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: Academic Press.
Smith, E. R., & Mackie, D. M. (2006). It’s about time: Intergroup emotions as time-
dependent phenomena. In D. Capozza & R. Brown (Eds.), Social identities:
Motivational, emotional, and cultural influences. New York: Psychology
Press.
Smith, E. R., & Mackie, D. M. (2008). Intergroup emotions. In M. Lewis, J. Haviland-Jones,
& L. Feldman Barrett (Eds.), Handbook of emotions (3rd ed., pp. 428–439).
New York: Guilford Press.
Smith, E. R., & Mackie, D. M. (2015). Dynamics of group-based emotions: Insights from
Intergroup Emotion Theory. Emotion Review, 7, 349–354. doi: 10.1177/
1754073915590614
Smith, E. R., Seger, C. R., & Mackie, D. M. (2007). Can emotions be truly group-level?
Evidence regarding four conceptual criteria. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 93, 431–446. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.93.3.431
Smith, H. J., & Spears, R. (1996). Ability and outcome evaluations as a function of
personal and collective (dis)advantage: A group escape from individual bias.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 690–704. doi: 10.1177/
0146167296227004
Spanovic, M., Lickel, B., Denson, T. F., & 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
Stephan, W. G. (2014). Intergroup anxiety: Theory, research, and practice. Personality and
Social Psychology Review, 18, 239–255. doi: 10.1177/1088868314530518

Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University Libraries, on 07 Jun 2017 at 03:18:07, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316161579.006
 Intergroup Emotions Theory 129

Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Tajfel, H., & Billig, M. (1974) Familiarity and categorization in intergroup behavior.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 159–170. doi: 10.1016/0022-
1031(74)90064-X
Tajfel, H., Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. P., & Flament, C. (1971). Social categorization and
intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 149–178.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior.
In W. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations
(pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson Hall.
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 and
Intergroup Relations, 10, 119–136. doi:10.1177/1368430207071345
Tapias, M. P., Glaser, J., Keltner, D., Vasquez, K., & Wickens, T. (2007). Emotion and
prejudice: Specific emotions toward outgroups. Group Processes and Intergroup
Relations, 10, 27–39. doi: 10.1177/1368430207071338
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, UK:
Blackwell.
Van Tongeren, D. R., Burnette, J. L., O’Boyle, E., Worthington, E. L., Jr., & Forsyth, D. R.
(2014). A meta-analysis of intergroup forgiveness. The Journal of Positive
Psychology, 9, 81–95. doi: 10.1080/17439760.2013.844268
van Zomeren, M., Spears, R., Fischer, A. H., & Leach, C. W. (2004). Put your money where
your mouth is! Explaining collective action tendencies through group-based anger
and group efficacy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 649–664.
doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.87.5.649
Vartanian, L. R., Thomas, M. A., & Vanman, E. J. (2013). Disgust, contempt, and anger and
the stereotypes of obese people. Eat Weight Discord, 18, 377–382. doi: 10.1007/
s40519-013-0067-2
Verkuyten, M., Drabbles, M., & van den Nieuwenhuijzen, K. (1999). Self-categorization
and emotional reactions to ethnic minorities. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 29, 605–619.
Wenzel, M., & Mummendey, A. (1996). Positive-negative asymmetry of social discrimina-
tion: A normative analysis of differential evaluations of in-group and out-group on
positive and negative attributes. British Journal of Social Psychology, 35,
493–507. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8309.1996.tb01110.x
Wohl, M. J. A., & Branscombe, N. R. (2009). Group threat, collective angst, and ingroup
forgiveness for the war in Iraq. Political Psychology, 30, 193–217. doi: 10.1111/
j.1467-9221.2008.00688.x
Wohl, M. J. A., Branscombe, N. R., & Reysen, S. (2010) Perceiving your group’s future to
be in jeopardy: Extinction threat induces collective angst and the desire to
strengthen the ingroup. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36,
898–910. doi: 10.1177/0146167210372505

Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University Libraries, on 07 Jun 2017 at 03:18:07, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316161579.006
 130 maitner, smith, and mackie

Wohl, M. J. A., Hornsey, M. J., & Bennett, S. H. (2012). Why group apologies succeed and
fail: Intergroup forgiveness and the role of primary and secondary emotions.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 306–322. doi:10.1037/
a0024838
Yzerbyt, V., Dumont, M., Wigboldus, D., & Gordijn, E. (2003). I feel for us: The impact of
categorization and identification on emotions and action tendencies. British
Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 533–549. doi: 10.1348/014466603322595266

Downloaded from https:/www.cambridge.org/core. Columbia University Libraries, on 07 Jun 2017 at 03:18:07, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use,
available at https:/www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316161579.006