Given the central role of anger in shaping adversarial policy preferences in the context of intergroup conflict, its reduction may promote conflict resolution. In the current work, we drew on psycholinguistic research on the role of language in generating emotions to explore a novel, extremely subtle means of intervention. Specifically, we hypothesized that phrasing conflict-relevant policies in noun form (vs. verb form) would reduce anger and impact policy support correspondingly. Results across three experimental studies in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict supported these expectations for both support for concessions (Studies 1–3) and retaliatory policies (Study 3), with reduction in anger mediating the salutary impact of noun form (vs. verb form) on policy support. These results expand our understanding of the influence of language on emotions and policies in the context of conflict and have applied relevance for conflict-resolution efforts.
ArianA.ShamirM. (2011). Introduction. In ArianA.ShamirM. (Eds.), The elections in Israel 2009 (pp. 1–18). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
2.
AverillJ. R. (1982). Anger and aggression: An essay on emotion. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
3.
Aziz-ZadehL. S.WilsonS. M.RizzolattiG.IacoboniM. (2006). Congruent embodied representations for visually presented actions and linguistic phrases describing actions. Current Biology, 16, 1818–1823.
4.
BarrettL. F.LindquistK. A.GendronM. (2007). Language as a context for emotion perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 327–332.
5.
Bar-TalD. (2013). Intractable conflicts: Socio-psychological foundations and dynamics. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
6.
CichockaA.BilewiczM.JostJ. T.MarrouchN.WitkowskaM. (2016). On the grammar of politics—or why conservatives prefer nouns. Political Psychology, 37, 799–815.
7.
CimpianA.ArceH. C.MarkmanE. M.DweckC. S. (2007). Subtle linguistic cues affect children’s motivation. Psychological Science, 18, 314–316.
8.
Cohen-ChenS.CrispR. J.HalperinE. (2015). Perceptions of a changing world induce hope and promote peace in intractable conflicts. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41, 498–512.
9.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA.-G.BuchnerA. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191.
10.
FauseyC. M.BoroditskyL. (2010). Subtle linguistic cues influence perceived blame and financial liability. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 17, 644–650.
11.
FiedlerK. (2008). Language: A toolbox for sharing and influencing social reality. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 38–47.
12.
FormanowiczM.RoesselJ.SuitnerC.MaassA. (2017). Verbs as linguistic markers of agency: The social side of grammar. European Journal of Social Psychology, 47, 566–579.
13.
FrijdaN. H.KuipersP.ter ShureE. (1989). Relations among emotion, appraisal, and emotional action readiness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 212–228.
14.
GlenbergA. M.RobertsonD. A. (1999). Indexical understanding of instructions. Discourse Process, 28, 1–26.
15.
GohJ. X.HallJ. A.RosenthalR. (2016). Mini meta-analysis of your own studies: Some arguments on why and a primer on how. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10, 535–549.
16.
GrafS.BilewiczM.FinellE.GeschkeD. (2013). Nouns cut slices: Effects of linguistic forms on intergroup bias. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 43, 62–83.
17.
HalperinE. (2011). Emotional barriers to peace: Emotions and public opinion of Jewish Israelis about the peace process in the Middle East. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 17, 22–45.
18.
HalperinE. (2016). Emotions in conflict: Inhibitors and facilitators of peace making. New York, NY: Routledge.
19.
HalperinE.GrossJ. J. (2011). Intergroup anger in intractable conflict: Long-term sentiments predict anger responses during the Gaza War. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14, 477–488.
20.
HalperinE.Reifen TagarM. (2017). Emotions in conflicts: Understanding emotional processes sheds light on the nature and potential resolution of intractable conflicts. Current Opinion in Psychology, 17, 94–98.
21.
HalperinE.PoratR.TamirM.GrossE. (2013). Can emotion regulation change political attitudes in intractable conflict? From the laboratory to the field. Psychological Science, 24, 106–111.
22.
HayesA. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
23.
JostJ. T.GlaserJ.KruglanskiA. W.SullowayF. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 339–375.
24.
LernerJ. S.GonzalezR. M.SmallD. A.FischhoffB. (2003). Effects of fear and danger on perceived risks of terrorism: A national field experiment. Psychological Science, 14, 144–150.
25.
LindquistK. A.GendronM. (2013). What’s in a word? Language constructs emotion perception. Emotion Review, 5, 66–71.
26.
LynamD. R.HoyleR. H.NewmanJ. P. (2006). The perils of partialling: Cautionary tales from aggression and psychopathy. Assessment, 13, 328–341.
27.
MackieD. M.DevosT.SmithE. R. (2000). Intergroup emotions: Explaining offensive action tendencies in an intergroup context. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 602–616.
28.
MaitnerA. T.MackieD. M.SmithE. R. (2007). Antecedents and consequences of satisfaction and guilt following ingroup aggression. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 10, 223–237.
29.
MaozI.McCauleyC. (2005). Psychological correlates of support for compromise: A polling study of Jewish-Israeli attitudes toward solutions to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Political Psychology, 26, 791–807.
30.
McAlisterA. L.BanduraA.OwenS. V. (2006). Mechanisms of moral disengagement in support of military force: The impact of Sept. 11. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 25, 141–164.
31.
Reifen TagarM.FedericoC.HalperinE. (2011). The positive effect of negative emotions in protracted conflict: The case of anger. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 157–163.
32.
RosemanI. J.WiestC.SwartzT. S. (1994). Phenomenology, behaviors, and goals differentiate discrete emotions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 206–221.
33.
SabucedoJ. M.DuranM.AlzateM.RodríguezM. S. (2011). Emotional responses and attitudes to the peace talks with ETA. Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología, 43, 289–296.
34.
SchererK. R.SchorrA.JohnstoneT. (2001). Appraisal processes in emotion: Theory, methods, research. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
35.
Schori-EyalN.Reifen TagarM.SaguyT.HalperinE. (2015). The benefits of group-based pride: Pride can motivate guilt in intergroup conflicts among high glorifiers. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 61, 79–83.
36.
SeminG. R.GortsC. A.NandramS.Semin-GoossensA. (2002). Cultural perspectives on the linguistic representation of emotion and emotion events. Cognition & Emotion, 16, 11–28.
37.
ShumanD.HalperinE.Reifen TagarM. (2017). Anger as a catalyst for change? Incremental beliefs and anger’s constructive effects in conflict. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1368430217695442
38.
TamirM. (2009). What do people want to feel and why? Pleasure and utility in emotion regulation. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 101–105.
39.
TropeY.LibermanN. (2010). Construal-level theory of psychological distance. Psychological Review, 117, 440–463.
40.
WakslakC. J.SmithP. K.HanA. (2014). Using abstract language signals power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107, 41–55.
41.
WaltonG. M.BanajiM. R. (2004). Being what you say: The effect of essentialist linguistic labels on preferences. Social Cognition, 22, 193–213.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
