Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Subscribe now for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Why Individuals Protest the Perceived Transgressions of Their Country

Why Individuals Protest the Perceived Transgressions of Their Country The present research examined emotions as predictors of opposition to policies and actions of one's country that are perceived to be illegitimate. Two studies investigated the political implications of American (Study 1) and British (Study 2) citizens' anger, guilt, and shame responses to perceived harm caused by their countries' occupation of Iraq. In both studies, a manipulation of pervasive threat to the country's image increased participants' shame but not guilt. The emotions predicted political action intentions to advocate distinct opposition strategies. Shame predicted action intentions to advocate withdrawal from Iraq. Anger predicted action intentions to advocate compensation to Iraq, confrontation of agents responsible, and withdrawal from Iraq. Anger directed at different targets (ingroup, ingroup representative, and outgroup representative) predicted action intentions to support distinct strategies (Study 2). Guilt did not independently predict any political action intentions. Implications for the study of political action and emotions in intergroup contexts are discussed. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin SAGE

Why Individuals Protest the Perceived Transgressions of Their Country

Loading next page...
 
/lp/sage/why-individuals-protest-the-perceived-transgressions-of-their-country-5jdKuhfimt

References (49)

Publisher
SAGE
Copyright
Copyright © by SAGE Publications
ISSN
0146-1672
eISSN
1552-7433
DOI
10.1177/0146167206297402
pmid
17400836
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

The present research examined emotions as predictors of opposition to policies and actions of one's country that are perceived to be illegitimate. Two studies investigated the political implications of American (Study 1) and British (Study 2) citizens' anger, guilt, and shame responses to perceived harm caused by their countries' occupation of Iraq. In both studies, a manipulation of pervasive threat to the country's image increased participants' shame but not guilt. The emotions predicted political action intentions to advocate distinct opposition strategies. Shame predicted action intentions to advocate withdrawal from Iraq. Anger predicted action intentions to advocate compensation to Iraq, confrontation of agents responsible, and withdrawal from Iraq. Anger directed at different targets (ingroup, ingroup representative, and outgroup representative) predicted action intentions to support distinct strategies (Study 2). Guilt did not independently predict any political action intentions. Implications for the study of political action and emotions in intergroup contexts are discussed.

Journal

Personality and Social Psychology BulletinSAGE

Published: Apr 1, 2007

There are no references for this article.