Meaning threat can promote peaceful, not only military‐based approaches to intergroup conflict: The moderating role of ingroup glorification

Abstract

Most research on threat documents its negative consequences. Similarly, most research on intergroup contexts has emphasized their negative behavioral effects. Drawing on the Meaning Maintenance Model and recent perspectives on the potential for positivity in intergroup conflict, we predicted that meaning threat can produce both antisocial and prosocial responses to intergroup conflict, depending on people's preexisting meaning frameworks. Studies 1 and 2 demonstrated that under meaning threat, low ingroup glorifiers strengthened their support for peaceful conflict resolution, whereas high ingroup glorifiers strengthened their support for military-based conflict resolution. In the context of the Israel-Palestinian conflict, Study 3 found that low glorification was associated with greater support for peace during "hot" (but not "cold") conflict, because hot conflict reduced their meaning in life. These findings are consistent with the notion that when meaning is threatened, people affirm their preexisting values-whether prosocial or antisocial-even in the context of intergroup conflict.

The Effects of Moral and Pragmatic Arguments Against Torture on Demands for Judicial Reform

“…Furthermore, MTurk data tends to be of the same quality and reliability as data from traditional samples (Buhrmester et al, ; Paolacci & Chandler, ) and replicates effects found in traditional samples, be it in survey designs (Goodman, Cryder, & Cheema, ), diary studies (Boynton & Richman, ), or bogus partner interactions (Summerville & Chartier, ). Importantly, online samples have been used in both correlational and experimental studies in clinical, personality, social, and political psychology (Andover, ; Campbell & Kay, ; Craemer, ; Leidner, ; Leidner, Castano, & Ginges, ), including research on attitudes (e.g., Adelman, Leidner, Ünal, Nahhas, & Shnabel, ; Rovenpor, Leidner, Kardos, & O'Brien, ).…”

Inglorious glorification and attachment: National and European identities as predictors of anti‐ and pro‐immigrant attitudes

“…Firstly, glorification intensifies in the context of intergroup conflicts (Golec de Zavala, ). Secondly, glorification itself becomes the source of conflicts through increased cognitive bias, stereotyping, moral disengagement (Dugas et al ., ; Leidner, Castano, Zaiser, & Giner‐Sorolla, ), sensitivity to threat (Leidner & Castano, ; Rovenpor, Leidner, Kardos, & O'Brien, ; Sahar, ), and provocation (Steele, Parker, & Lickel, ). In sum, higher ingroup glorification is associated with higher outgroup derogation.…”

Endorsing a Civic (vs. an Ethnic) Definition of Citizenship Predicts Higher Pro-minority and Lower Pro-majority Collective Action Intentions

“…Predictably, these two modes of identification with the nation have different consequences for attitudes toward integration of minorities and toward immigration in general (for an overview see Huddy, 2016 ). There is ample empirical evidence that blind/pseudo-patriotism or nationalism is associated with higher xenophobia ( Spry and Hornsey, 2007 ), and lead to the escalation of intergroup conflicts through increased cognitive bias, stereotyping, moral disengagement ( Leidner et al, 2010 ; Dugas et al, 2017 ), and sensitivity to threat and provocation ( Sahar, 2008 ; Leidner and Castano, 2012 ; Steele et al, 2015 ; Rovenpor et al, 2016 ). Research has also shown that nationalism is more systematically associated with outgroup derogation than national attachment or constructive patriotism (for a review see Golec de Zavala et al, 2017 ).…”