I feel for us: The impact of categorization and identification on emotions and action tendencies

Abstract

Building upon the social emotion model (Smith, 1999), we examined the combined impact of categorization context and social identification on emotional reactions and behavioural tendencies of people confronted with the victims of harmful behaviour. Depending on conditions, participants were led to categorize the victims and themselves in the same common group or in two distinct subgroups of the larger common group. We also measured participants' level of identification with the group that was made contextually salient. As predicted, emotional reactions of anger and their associated offensive action tendencies were more prevalent when participants were induced to see the victims and themselves as part of the same group and when they were highly identified with this common group. In line with appraisal theories of emotion, we also found that the emotional reaction fully mediated the impact of categorization context and identification on action tendencies. We discuss the data with respect to their implications for the role of emotion in improving intergroup relations.

Anger and shame elicited by discrimination: Moderating role of coping on action endorsements and salivary cortisol

“…As previously observed (Mackie et al, 2000;van Zomeren et al, 2004;Yzerbyt et al, 2003), anger was the prominent emotion reported following discrimination, and such self-reported feelings were associated with greater endorsements of confrontational actions. However, priming anger itself did not augment such a response.…”

“…Although both shame and anger were evident under conditions of discrimination, other emotions might also be elicited that influence subsequent responses. For example, in some situations of discrimination, fear was exhibited and was associated with a lower likelihood of confrontational action (Woodzicka & LaFrance, 2001;Yzerbyt et al, 2003;but cf. Mackie et al, 2000).…”

“…As anger represents an energizing emotion that elicits an active approach response to contend with a situation (Frijda et al, 1989;Lemerise & Dodge, 1993), it is not surprising that when individuals experienced anger in response to their group's treatment, it served as a catalyst for action (Mackie et al, 2000;van Zomeren et al, 2004;Yzerbyt et al, 2003). At the same time, however, among minority group members, pressures may exist to restrain the expression of anger (Brody, 2000;Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, 2003), thereby limiting collective or confrontational actions.…”

“…Most research examining the relation between anger and responses to discrimination has relied on post-event self-report measures (Mackie et al, 2000;Matheson & Cole, 2004;van Zomeren et al, 2004;Yzerbyt et al, 2003). This approach reflects the view that emotions represent outcome variables stemming from the subjective appraisals of an event (Frijda et al, 1989;Scherer, Schorr, & Johnstone, 2001).…”

“…Feelings of anger typically serve as a catalyst for action (Frijda, Kuipers, & TerSchure, 1989), including confrontational strategies on behalf of the group (Gill & Matheson, 2006;Mackie et al, 2000;van Zomeren, Spears, Fischer, & Leach, 2004;Yzerbyt, Dumont, Wigboldus, & Gordijn, 2003). Yet, actions to overcome the disadvantaged status of one's group are not, in fact, common (Louis & Taylor, 1999;Wright, Taylor, & Moghaddam, 1990).…”