Perceived ingroup strength converts threats from fear into anger

Evidence

Additional studies (Mackie et al., 2000) investigated the nature and impact of intergroup appraisals, as well as the distinctiveness of specific intergroup emotions and their action tendency consequences. Specifically, we examined the appraisal of the ingroup’s relative strength or weakness, which is hypothesized to determine whether perceived threats create anger or fear. Participants identified themselves as members of one of two opposing groups. Perception of ingroup or outgroup strength was manipulated by having participants read alleged newspaper headlines, which appeared to reflect popular and political support either for their own group or for the out-group. We then assessed emotions toward the out-group. Analyses of emotion responses revealed three distinct factors representing fear (fearful, anxious, worried, frightened), anger (annoyed, irritated, angry, mad), and contempt (disgusted, contemptuous, repulsed). Perceived ingroup strength increased anger toward the other group, whereas ingroup weakness led to less anger. Moreover, these emotions were associated with distinct action tendencies. Participants who reported feelings of anger were more likely to want to take action against the out-group (e.g., confront or argue with them), while anger had no impact on behavioral tendencies to avoid the out-group. — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 2270

For example, if someone who thinks of himself or herself as a group member perceives that the ingroup is threatened by an outgroup’s goals or actions and believes that the ingroup is strong, he or she may experience group-based anger (Mackie et al., 2000). Consequently the individual may desire to attack or confront the outgroup. Group-based emotions may be directed at the ingroup as well. For example, people may feel collective pride if they see their group as responsible for an important accomplishment, or collective guilt if they appraise their group as having violated important moral principles (Doosje, Branscombe, Spears, & Manstead, 1998). — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 2264

Perception of ingroup or outgroup strength was manipulated by having participants read alleged newspaper headlines, which appeared to reflect popular and political support either for their own group or for the out-group. We then assessed emotions toward the out-group. Analyses of emotion responses revealed three distinct factors representing fear (fearful, anxious, worried, frightened), anger (annoyed, irritated, angry, mad), and contempt (disgusted, contemptuous, repulsed). Perceived ingroup strength increased anger toward the other group, whereas ingroup weakness led to less anger. Moreover, these emotions were associated with distinct action tendencies. Participants who reported feelings of anger were more likely to want to take action against the out-group (e.g., confront or argue with them), while anger had no impact on behavioral tendencies to avoid the out-group. Importantly, the relation between appraisals and action tendency was significantly mediated by experienced emotion. — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 2270

Categorization

• XREF: Directly relevant to the reader’s interest in how group strength appraisals shape conflict emotions; extends classic frustration-aggression and relative deprivation frameworks. — connects to: Control motivation but not implicit death cognition drives threat-based ingroup defense. — Dmitrij Agroskin and Eva Jonas, Controlling death by defending…, 143; Different threat types trigger distinct emotions that shape reactions — Blake M. Riek, Eric W. Mania, and Samuel L. Gaertner, Intergroup Threat and Outgroup…, 66; Groups elicit more fear and appear more threatening than individuals. — Blake M. Riek, Eric W. Mania, and Samuel L. Gaertner, Intergroup Threat and Outgroup…, 171 (+1 more)
• SEED: An essay angle: strong groups respond to threat with confrontational anger, weak ones with retreat — an underappreciated asymmetry explaining why dominant nations escalate while minor ones avoid confrontation.
• corroborated: 4 independent passages support this claim — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice: Fifty Years…, 2270; John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice: Fifty Years…, 2264; , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 2270