University of Groningen
Power and threat in intergroup conflict
Kamans, Elanor; Otten, Sabine; Gordijn, Ernestine H.
Published in:
Group Processes & Intergroup Relations
DOI:
10.1177/1368430210372525
IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from
it. Please check the document version below.
Document Version
Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record
Publication date:
2011
Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database
Citation for published version (APA):
Kamans, E., Otten, S., & Gordijn, E. H. (2011). Power and threat in intergroup conflict: How emotional and
behavioral responses depend on amount and content of threat.
Group Processes & Intergroup Relations
,
14
(3), 293-310. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430210372525
Copyright
Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the
author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).
The publication may also be distributed here under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the “Taverne” license.
More information can be found on the University of Groningen website: https://www.rug.nl/library/open-access/self-archiving-pure/taverne-
amendment.
Take-down policy
If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately
and investigate your claim.
Downloaded from the University of Groningen/UMCG research database (Pure): http://www.rug.nl/research/portal. For technical reasons the
number of authors shown on this cover page is limited to 10 maximum.
Download date: 10-08-2022
War, terrorism and demonstrations are all examples
in which groups are in conflict with each other.
Quite often the groups facing each other differ in
power. When in conflict, these power differences
might influence what kind of behavior groups
show. It has been argued that powerful groups
tend to react with offensive behavior while
powerless groups rather avoid conflicts (Mackie,
Devos, & Smith, 2000). However, events like the
riots in the banlieues of Paris or acts of terrorism
by Palestinians in Israel are examples of power-
less group members confronting powerful groups.
Quite often these forms of conflict behavior are a
reaction to perceived provocation by powerful
outgroups, and apparently, sometimes the weak
hit back. In the present research it is therefore not
Power and threat in intergroup
conflict: How emotional and
behavioral responses depend on
amount and content of threat
Elanor Kamans,
1
Sabine Otten
1
and
Ernestine H. Gordijn
1
Abstract
We propose that in intergroup conflict threat content is important in understanding the reactions of
those who experience threats the most: the powerless. Studies 1 and 2 show that powerless groups
experience more threat than powerful groups, resulting in the experience of both more anger and fear.
Threat content determines which emotions elicit behavior that adequately deals with the situation. When
confronted with a physically threatening outgroup, fear elicits an avoidance reaction in powerless groups
(Study 1). When valuable resources are threatened, anger makes powerless group members want to
confront the outgroup, at least when they strongly identify with their group (Study 2). Study 3 replicates
the finding that threat content determines which emotions are functional in directing behavior.
Keywords
intergroup conflict, intergroup emotions, power, threat
Paper received 29 September 2009; revised version accepted 13 April 2010.
1
University of Groningen
Corresponding author:
Elanor Kamans, Department of Social and Organizational
Psychology, University of Groningen, Grote Kruisstraat 2/1,
9712 TS Groningen, the Netherlands.
Email: E.kamans@rug.nl
Article
Group Processes & Intergroup Relations
14(3) 293–310
© The Author(s) 2010
Reprints and permission: sagepub.
co.uk/journalsPermission.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1368430210372525
gpir.sagepub.com
G
P
I
R
Group Processes &
Intergroup Relations
294 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 14(3)
the question whether they do this, but when and why
they do so. We propose that emotional and
behavioral responses to provocation depend on
amount and content of threat.
Some groups might experience conflict as
more threatening than others. A factor that might
influence this is group power. In the current
paper we propose that powerless groups tend to
experience intergroup conflict as more threaten-
ing, especially when a powerful outgroup is
behaving antagonistically. And that amount of
threat influences to what extent people experience
emotions like anger and fear. Moreover, as con-
flicts can take different forms, they can also pose
different threats. For example, sometimes physi-
cal safety is threatened, while at other times
economic resources are at stake. As such, in inter-
group conflict, threat content can clearly differ. This
does not mean that in conflict only one type of
threat can be present (indeed, in conflict situa-
tions different types of threat are often inter-
twined); however, the point of view we take here
is that one type of threat is likely to be perceived
as dominant at a certain point in time. In the cur-
rent paper we propose that this salience of threat
content is important in understanding the reactions
of those who generally experience these threats
the most: the powerless.
Power, amount of threat and levels
of emotion
One aspect that is likely to determine whether
groups perceive a conflict as threatening is group
power (Cottrell & Neuberg, 2005). Power is
often defined as the ability to control or influence
(e.g., Anderson & Berdahl, 2002; Fiske & Depret,
1996; Raven & French, 1958). When defined as
such, this implies that even in conflict situations
the powerful should be able to exert their power
in order to secure victory for their group. As the
powerful have the certainty that they can deter-
mine conflict outcomes in the long run, they can
rise above threats and provocations made by the
powerless, and thus are less likely to be affected
by it. This is not so say that there are no instances
in which powerful groups also feel threatened;
rather the powerful are likely to be threatened by
different things, for example, when their power
position is under pressure (Hornsey, Spears,
Cremers, & Hogg, 2003) or when the possible
consequences of an attack are severe ( e.g., threat
of terrorist attacks). Nevertheless, we believe that
in general the experience of high levels of threat
resulting from the intergroup conflict is more
common among the powerless. Because conflicts
are more threatening and self-relevant for low-
power groups, they are likely to react more emo-
tionally (Iyer & Leach, 2008; Schaller & Abeysinghe,
2006). What we argue here is that the experience
of threat, due to low group power, results in
higher levels of negative emotions, such as anger
and fear.
Being powerless, content of threat
and experience of discrete emotions
Up to now we haven’t discussed which emotions
the powerless are likely to experience to a greater
extent. As conflicts can take different forms, they
are also likely to induce different threats. An
analysis of these threats as well as the group’s
power position might give insight into the type of
emotions that members of powerless groups are
likely to experience. When a group’s physical
safety is in danger, fear is likely to be elicited
(Cottrell & Neuberg, 2005), especially when
groups are powerless. Further, due to appraisals
of illegitimacy that are frequent in conflict situa-
tions (i.e., behavior of the opponent is seen as
provocative and illegitimate; Otten, Mummendey,
& Wenzel, 1995), powerless groups are also likely
to experience anger (van Zomeren, Spears,
Fischer, & Leach, 2004). When conflicts take
another form and the outgroup forms an obsta-
cle to one’s group by, for example, threatening
economic resources or property, anger is likely to
be elicited; anger is an emotion that people tend
to experience when goals are obstructed or when
events are inconsistent with one’s motives
(Roseman, 2001; Smith & Lazarus, 1993).
However, powerless groups are also likely to
experience fear due to absence of control over
the situation (e.g., Frijda, Kuipers, & Ter Schure,
Kamans et al. 295
1989; Mackie et al., 2000). Moreover, threats to
economic resources or property might signal
threats to future well-being (Cottrell & Neuberg,
2005), which is likely to instigate fear as well.
Taking both types of conflict as well as the
group’s power position into account, we there-
fore predict that in physically threatening con-
flicts as well as in conflicts in which valuable
resources are threatened, group members that
experience high amounts of threat due to low
group power, will respond with both more anger
and more fear than members of groups that feel
less threatened, that is, the powerful.
Content of threat and functional
behavioral responses
Because anger is related to offensive action and
fear is related to avoidance (Frijda et al., 1989;
Mackie et al., 2000; Smith, 1993), one can wonder
how low-power groups behave when they experi-
ence both the “avoidance emotion” fear and the
“approach emotion” anger as a consequence of
being provoked. What we argue here is that behav-
ioral responses depend on threat content. Based on
the threat model by Cottrell and Neuberg (2005),
we argue that after the experience of different
types of threat, some emotions are more likely to
elicit certain types of behavior than others. Which
emotion that is depends on whether an emotion
elicits behavior meant to deal with the problem
and threat at hand. Without implying that there is
a difference in intensity between the different
emotions, one emotion is functional, because it
elicits behavior that is functional in that situation.
In the current article we distinguish between
physical threats and threats directed at valuable
resources (obstacle threats). When physically
threatened, the most functional reaction is getting
into safety. Therefore, fear (and not anger) should
result in an avoidance reaction. In the case of an
obstacle threat, it is functional to remove the
obstacle. As such, anger (and not fear) should be
the functional emotion, as this will instigate a
behavior directed at removing the obstacle
(Cottrell & Neuberg, 2005). In conflict situations
this often means acting in a confronting way,
since it is clear that the outgroup is hostile and
not likely to give in.
A probable reason why it is functional to hit
back when an outgroup poses an obstacle threat
and not when an outgroup poses a physical threat,
is that different types of threats cause people to
value different things (Cottrell & Neuberg, 2005).
When groups are physically threatened it is likely
that they value safety. When valuable resources are
at stake, however, these resources become the
object of value. The reason why groups avoid in
the case of a physical threat and confront in the
case of an obstacle threat is because these types
of actions are likely to fulfill these different (safety
vs. resources) goals (Tedeschi & Felson, 1994).
The current research
Compared to other threat models like the inte-
grated threat theory (Stephan & Stephan, 1996,
2000), the advantage of the model by Cottrell and
Neuberg (2005) is its focus on behavioral out-
comes (Riek, Mania, & Gaertner, 2006). However,
so far the available evidence supporting this
model is correlational. Moreover, to our knowl-
edge, no experimental evidence has been reported
for the influence of different kinds of threats on
behavior or behavioral tendencies. In the current
paper we induce and manipulate different kinds of
threat and show that this can result in different
kinds of behavior, thereby demonstrating causal
relations between these components.
To sum up, we argue that when two groups dif-
fering in power are involved in a conflict, power-
less group members generally will experience
more threat, and therefore both more fear and
anger. Moreover, depending on threat content,
one of the two emotions is more functional, and
will elicit behavior. When powerless groups feel
physically threatened we expect fear to be the func-
tional emotion that elicits an avoidance reaction,
ensuring safety. However, when facing an obstacle
threat, anger is the functional emotion eliciting a
reaction that is directed at removing the obstacles.
We test our ideas in a set of three studies. In
Study 1 and Study 2 we vary the amount of threat
by manipulating group power, while keeping
296 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 14(3)
threat content constant. In Study 1, we create a
situation in which an outgroup poses a physical
threat, while in Study 2 the outgroup poses an
obstacle threat. In Study 3 we keep amount of
threat constant, while we manipulate both kinds of
threat in one design. In addition, in Studies 2 and
3 we explore the role of group identification.
Study 1: Physical threat
Method
Participants and design Seventy-eight Dutch
students were approached in a park close to uni-
versity grounds, and were asked to participate in
the study. They were randomly assigned to one of
two conditions (low/high power). Five participants
were identified as statistical outliers,
1
and were
deleted from the dataset (see Chatterjee, Hadi, &
Price, 2000). On average, the remaining participants
were 22.94 years old (SD = 2.26). About half of
them (52%) were male.
2
Participants did not receive
a reward for participating.
Procedure and independent variables The
study took place in the context of the 2006 world
soccer championship in Germany. The study was
conducted two days before the match between the
Netherlands and Portugal. In order to control for
effects of identification/interest in the domain,
participants first answered seven questions
3
related
to the world championship and their interest in
soccer (e.g., “How strongly do you see yourself as
a fan of the Dutch soccer team?,” a = .88; Wann
& Branscombe, 1993). After this, participants read
a vignette in which they were asked to imagine they
were in a bar in Germany on the evening of the
match between the Netherlands and Portugal,
together with two friends. During this evening they
were harassed by three aggressive Portuguese soc-
cer fans. By describing that the outgroup behaved
in an aggressive way, we created a situation in
which the outgroup posed a physical threat.
In the high-power condition, participants had to
imagine that the bar was filled with Dutch soccer
fans. In the low-power condition they had to imagine
that all other customers were fans of the
Portuguese team. In a physical fight the power to
determine a positive outcome depends on physi-
cal strength, and all things being equal, strength in
numbers is a strong indicator of this power (see
Devos, Silver, Mackie, & Smith, 2002, for a simi-
lar manipulation of power via group size).
Dependent measures After reading the sce-
nario, people answered questions on 7-point
scales (1 = absolutely not, 7 = very much). We
used the question “How intimidating do you
think this situation is?” to measure experienced
threat. After that, participants indicated to what
extent they experienced fear (afraid and anxious,
r(73) = .78, p < .001) and anger (angry and furious,
r(73) = .80, p < .001) due to the actions of the
three Portuguese supporters. Subsequently, we
asked to what extent they wanted to avoid a con-
flict (“I would move to another spot in the bar”
and “I would walk away,” r(73) = .65, p < .001).
Further we used two items to ask to what extent
participants would confront the outgroup (“I
would yell at the Portuguese supporters” and “I
would hit or kick the Portuguese supporters,”
r(73) = .38, p < .001). Finally, participants
answered three questions to measure whether we
manipulated power effectively (e.g., “We would feel
more powerful than the Portuguese,” a = .79).
Results
Power An ANOVA with manipulated power
(low vs. high) as factor and the power manipula-
tion check as dependent variable showed that
participants in the high-power condition (M =
4.40, SD = 1.30) felt more powerful than partici-
pants in the low-power condition (M = 3.46, SD
= 1.30), F(1, 71) = 9.61, p = .003, h
2
p
= .12.
Threat An ANOVA with manipulated power
as independent variable and experienced threat as
dependent variable revealed that people in the
low-power condition perceived the situation as
more threatening (M = 5.52, SD = .83) than peo-
ple in the high-power condition (M = 4.54, SD =
1.30), F(1, 70) = 13.89, p < .001, h
2
p
= .17.
