Empathising with the enemy: emotion regulation and support for humanitarian aid in violent conflicts

Abstract

Considering that negative intergroup emotions can hinder conflict resolution, we proposed integrative emotion regulation (IER) as possibly predicting conciliatory policies towards outgroups in violent conflict. Two studies examined Jewish Israelis' self-reported IER, empathy, liberal attitudes, and support for humanitarian aid to Palestinians in Gaza. Study 1 (N = 298) found that unlike reappraisal Jewish Israelis' ability to explore emotions (e.g. IER) promoted concern for others' emotions (empathy), which in turn predicted support for humanitarian aid (while controlling for education level, and religiosity). Study 2 (N = 291) replicated this mediation model, additionally confirming that liberal attitudes (upholding equal, fair treatment for minorities) moderated the relation between IER and support for humanitarian aid. Thus, IER linked more strongly with humanitarian support when the commitment for liberal egalitarian beliefs was high. Preliminary results hold important theoretical and practical implications regarding the potential to empathise with outgroup members in intractable conflicts.

Benefits of emotional integration and costs of emotional distancing

“…Therefore, in terms of adaptive functioning, emotion regulation should not be simplified dichotomously, as two poles characterized by downregulation of emotion (e.g., ED) or of its expressive behaviors (suppression) on the one hand versus upregulation (flooding and paralysis) on the other hand. IER reflects a distinctive emotional capacity in which the tolerant, accepting, and interested stance toward negative emotions does not impair adaptive functioning due to flooding, but on the contrary, predicts nondefensive emotional processing (Roth et al, 2014), better intimacy capacity (Roth & Assor, 2012), and better social relations (Benita et al, 2017;Roth et al, 2017). Future research should provide more support for these distinctions.…”

“…When attempts to suppress or avoid the emotional stimulus are enacted consistently as a defense mechanism (e.g., in some cultures where expression of anger is considered unacceptable or improper), they may result in consistent avoidance of emotional experience. Such avoidance has been linked with adverse psychological and behavioral costs for well-being (G amez et al, 2014;Kelly & Forsyth, 2009), capacity for intimacy (Roth & Assor, 2012), empathy, and pro-social behavior (Benita, Levkovitz, & Roth, 2017;Roth et al, 2017).…”

Freedom to feel: A self‐determination theory account of emotion regulation

“…Integrative emotion regulation is expected to increase empathy, because people using it generalize the interest‐based stance they adopt to their own emotions, making them better attuned to what is emotionally salient for others. Roth, Shane, and Kanat‐Maymon (2017) found adults with high integrative emotion regulation displayed greater empathy for the adversity of outgroup members, and this predicted support for conciliatory policies. Similarly, Benita, Levkovitz, and Roth (2017) found young adolescents high in integrative emotion regulation reported greater empathic ability, and this predicted greater self‐reported prosocial behavior and higher teacher ratings of the student's concern for his/her classmates.…”

Is the negative always that bad? Or how emotion regulation and integration of negative memories can positively affect well‐being

“…Emotion regulation of negative emotions was assessed with the scale developed by Roth and colleagues (2009, 2014). This scale has been used in previous studies and demonstrated adequate evidence of validity and reliability in various samples (Eilot, Assor, & Roth, 2006; Roth, Assor, Niemiec, Ryan, & Deci, 2009, Roth & Assor, 2012; Roth et al, 2014; Roth, Shane, & Kanat‐Maymon, 2017). Participants indicated their degree of agreement with 20 items, regarding the way they generally perceive and experience negative emotions.…”