The Intergroup Value Protection Model: A Theoretically Integrative and Dynamic Approach to Intergroup Conflict Escalation in Democratic Societies

SCIENTIFIC ABSTRACT

We review social-psychological evidence for a theoretically integrative and dynamic model of intergroup conflict escalation within democratic societies. Viewing individuals as social regulators who protect their social embeddedness (e.g., in their group or in society), the intergroup value protection model (IVPM) integrates key insights and concepts from moral and group psychology (e.g., group identification, outrage, moralization, protest) into a functional intergroup value protection process. The model assumes that social regulators are continuously looking for information diagnostic of the outgroup's intentions to terminate the relationship with the ingroup, and that their specific cognitive interpretations of an outgroup's action (i.e., as a violation of ingroup or shared values) trigger this process. The visible value-protective responses of one group can trigger the other group's value-protective responses, thus dynamically increasing chances of conflict escalation. We discuss scientific implications of integrating moral and group psychology and practical challenges for managing intergroup conflict within democratic societies.

PUBLIC ABSTRACT

The 2021 Capitol Hill attack exemplifies a major "trigger event" for different groups to protect their values within a democratic society. Which specific perceptions generate such a triggering event, which value-protective responses does it trigger, and do such responses escalate intergroup conflict? We offer the intergroup value protection model to analyze the moral and group psychology of intergroup conflict escalation in democratic societies. It predicts that when group members cognitively interpret another group's actions as violating ingroup or shared values, this triggers the intergroup value protection process (e.g., increased ingroup identification, outrage, moralization, social protest). When such value-protective responses are visible to the outgroup, this can in turn constitute a trigger event for them to protect their values, thus increasing chances of intergroup conflict escalation. We discuss scientific implications and practical challenges for managing intergroup value conflict in democratic societies, including fears of societal breakdown and scope for social change.

Predicting collective action tendencies among Filipina domestic workers in Lebanon: Integrating the Social Identity Model of Collective Action and the role of fear

This study examined factors underlying collective action tendencies in a context of severe disadvantage and high repression. Drawing on the Social Identity Model of Collective Action (SIMCA; van Zomeren, Postmes, & Spears, 2008), we tested the roles of group-based anger, participative efficacy, group identity—SIMCA variables—but also fear. Although SIMCA has been widely used in various social contexts, little is known about how well it applies to severely disadvantaged groups in highly repressive situations. In the study of female Filipina domestic workers ( N = 123) in Beirut, Lebanon, results provided partial support for SIMCA, such that identity indirectly and positively predicted collective action intentions via efficacy, but not anger. Importantly, fear modulated the paths from anger and efficacy to collective action intentions. Efficacy and anger positively predicted collective action tendencies among individuals low, but not high, in fear. These findings attest to the importance of studying political actions among underrepresented populations.

Toward a cultural psychology of collective action: Just how “core” are the core motivations for collective action?

I review the interesting contributions to this special thematic section in light of what has been referred to as the four core motivations for collective action (i.e. moral conviction, and group identification, anger and efficacy beliefs). Specifically, I relate the key findings and insights from these articles — based on intriguing data from participant samples in the Philippines, Japan, Indonesia and China — to these core motivations for collective action, after which I raise the question of just how “core” these motivations are, with an eye to an abundance of cultural variance. I answer this question by suggesting a number of conceptual bridges to move the field forward toward a proper cultural psychology of collective action. Such a cultural psychology, in my view, does justice not only to the notion of core motivations for collective action but also to the abundance of cultural variance. Specifically, I suggest to think about culture in terms of guiding when collective action is more or less likely to occur, within which the core motivations reflect the psychological processes that facilitate it.

Protesting to protect “us” and/or “them”? Explaining why members of third groups are willing to engage in collective action

In three studies we test whether three key predictors of collective action (i.e., group identification, anger, and efficacy) also predict whether and how members of third groups are willing to undertake collective action. Little is known about this, particularly about whether and how third-group members may engage in collective action to protect their own group and/or to protect an outgroup in need. In three studies that employed different three-group contexts, we found that the three predictors contributed to third-group members’ collective action intentions aimed at protecting the ingroup as well as those aimed at protecting the outgroup. Study 1 found this among Latvians ( N = 89) in response to the Russian annexation of Ukrainian territory; Study 2 found this among residents of a Dutch village ( N = 98) located nearby a gas-extraction-related earthquake region, in response to authorities’ inadequate protection of the residents of that region; and Study 3 found this among Latino Americans ( N = 278) in response to police brutality against Black Americans. Moving beyond replication and application of previous work, our set of studies show first evidence for ingroup and outgroup protection as motives of third-group members’ collective action. We discuss the implications of our findings for the broader social psychology of collective action literature.

When the Heat Is On: The Effect of Temperature on Voter Behavior in Presidential Elections

Hot temperatures lead to heightened arousal. According to excitation transfer theory, arousal can increase both antisocial and prosocial behavior, depending on the context. Although many studies have shown that hot temperatures can increase antisocial behavior, very few studies have investigated the relationship between temperature and prosocial behavior. One important prosocial behavior is voting. We analyzed state-level data from the United States presidential elections (N = 761). Consistent with excitation transfer theory, which proposes that heat-induced arousal can transfer to other activities and strengthen those activities, changes in temperature and voter turnout were positively related. Moreover, a positive change in temperature was related to a positive change in votes for the incumbent party. These findings add to the literature on the importance of non-ideological and non-rational factors that influence voting behavior.