Anger as a catalyst for change? Incremental beliefs and anger’s constructive effects in conflict

Shuman, Eric; Halperin, Eran; Tagar, Michal Reifen

doi:10.1177/1368430217695442

Cited by 18 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This starkly opposes the predictions we would expect of the inefficacy claim, and suggests that anger communication has an important role to play in inter-group conflict resolution. Mounting evidence supports the main finding of this study, as anger communication has been observed to increase dominant group support for conciliatory policies in the context of the Israel-Palestine conflict, US race-relations (Shuman et al, 2018), and cases of xenophobia (de Vos et al, 2013). The Out-group Reason for holding the inefficacy claim is therefore challenged by evidence that the communication of anger from a disadvantaged group often actually increases dominant group support for conciliatory policies.…”

Section: The Out-group Reasonsupporting

confidence: 83%

The Efficacy of Anger: Recognition and Retribution

Silva

2021

The Politics of Emotional Shockwaves

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Anger is often an appropriate reaction to harms and injustices, but is it a beneficial one? Martha Nussbaum (2015;2016) has argued that, although useful in initially recruiting agents for action, anger is typically ineffective and often counterproductive to securing the political aims of the oppressed. Nussbaum argues that to be effective at enacting social change, groups and individuals alike, must move quickly out of states of anger. Feminist theorists, on the other hand, have for long highlighted the efficacy of anger, as well as its moral and epistemic value, in fighting against the oppressive status quo (Frye, 1983; Lorde, 1984;Narayan, 1988). It might be thought, therefore, that for political action to be effective, a continued state of anger is preferable. I present a novel, empirically informed, defense against Nussbaum's attack on anger's efficacy in political action. Nussbaum adheres to a traditional view on the nature of anger, which holds that anger constitutively involves a desire for retribution. The view that anger is ineffective falls out of this and is dominant in the literature, as well our everyday lives. Informed by work in social psychology, I argue that anger is far more effective than Nussbaum allows. This will give us cause to reconsider the traditional view of anger's nature that Nussbaum endorses. In doing so, I highlight anger's aim for recognition, rather than retribution, as key. I also uncover conditions that favour anger's political efficacy, as well as reasons for why the traditional view of anger has been so pervasive.

show abstract

Section: The Out-group Reasonsupporting

confidence: 83%

The Efficacy of Anger: Recognition and Retribution

Silva

2021

The Politics of Emotional Shockwaves

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This study suggests that anger communication, even when aggressive, can recruit support, as opposed to inspiring defensiveness and retaliation. Mounting evidence supports the main finding of this study, as anger communication has been observed to increase dominant group support for conciliatory policies in the context of the Israel–Palestine conflict, US race‐relations, and cases of xenophobia (de Vos, van Zomeren, Gordijn, & Postmes, 2013; Shuman, Halperin, & Reifen Tagar, 2018).…”

Section: The Orthodox View Challengedsupporting

confidence: 82%

Anger and its desires

Silva

2021

European J of Philosophy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The orthodox view of anger takes desires for revenge or retribution to be central to the emotion. In this paper, I develop an empirically informed challenge to the retributive view of anger. In so doing, I argue that a distinct desire is central to anger: a desire for recognition. Desires for recognition aim at the targets of anger acknowledging the wrong they have committed, as opposed to aiming for their suffering. In light of the centrality of this desire for recognition, I argue that the retributive view of anger should be abandoned. I consider and dismiss two types of moves that can be made on the part of a proponent of the orthodox view in response to my argument. I propose that a pluralist view, which allows for both retribution and recognition in anger, is to be preferred.

show abstract

“…beliefs in protracted conflicts (e.g., Shuman, Halperin, and Reifen Tagar 2018) including hope (Leshem 2019). Last, holding all else constant, it appears that Jewish Israelis and Palestinians have similar wishes for reciprocal peace but that Palestinians' expectations for reciprocal peace are still significantly higher.…”

Section: Predicting Hope For Peacementioning

confidence: 96%

“…However, Wald’s tests comparing effect sizes reveal that the effects of political ideology on citizens’ wishes and expectations for peace are always smaller than the effects of appraisals (effect on wish: AWA > EOC, F = 20.1, p < .001, AEA > EOC, F = 3.2, p = .07; effects on expectation: AWA > EOC, F = 28.4, p < .001, AEA > EOC, F = 41, p < .001). 4 This point should be highlighted because political ideology is frequently cited as one of the most robust predictors of conflict-related beliefs in protracted conflicts (e.g., Shuman, Halperin, and Reifen Tagar 2018) including hope (Leshem 2019). Last, holding all else constant, it appears that Jewish Israelis and Palestinians have similar wishes for reciprocal peace but that Palestinians’ expectations for reciprocal peace are still significantly higher.…”

Section: Predicting Hope For Peacementioning

confidence: 99%

Hoping for Peace during Protracted Conflict: Citizens’ Hope Is Based on Inaccurate Appraisals of Their Adversary’s Hope for Peace

Leshem

Halperin

2020

Journal of Conflict Resolution

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hope is an essential component in the pursuit of political change. In order to hope, citizens need to wish for the change and have some expectations that it could materialize. This article explores how the two components of hope (i.e., wishes and expectations) are constructed in the seemingly hopeless case of a protracted and violent conflict. Utilizing a large-scale survey administered in Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip, we show that citizens’ appraisals of their adversary’s wishes and expectations for peace affect their own wishes and expectations, which, in turn, influences their willingness to support peacebuilding efforts. Regrettably, citizens’ tendency to underestimate their rival’s wish for peace lessens their own hopes, which further abates the support for peacebuilding. The study is the first to illustrate a mechanism by which hope for peace is constructed and the pathways by which hope facilitates resolution. Theoretical and applied implications are discussed.

show abstract

Anger as a catalyst for change? Incremental beliefs and anger’s constructive effects in conflict

Cited by 18 publications

References 40 publications

The Efficacy of Anger: Recognition and Retribution

The Efficacy of Anger: Recognition and Retribution

Anger and its desires

Hoping for Peace during Protracted Conflict: Citizens’ Hope Is Based on Inaccurate Appraisals of Their Adversary’s Hope for Peace

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About