Violent Rhetoric in Protracted Group Conflicts

• Author: Joshua R. Gubler,Nathan P. Kalmoe
• DOI: 10.1177/1065912915608947
• Published date: 01 December 2015
• Date: 01 December 2015
• Subject Matter: Articles

Political Research Quarterly

2015, Vol. 68(4) 651 –664

© 2015 University of Utah

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1065912915608947

prq.sagepub.com

Article

How do messages from political leaders interact with

individual traits of citizens to spur intergroup aggression?

Recent violence in the United States, Europe, and else-

where has renewed questions about the impact of violent

rhetoric on “real world” aggression. Does violent rhetoric

provoke aggression against its targets? Under what con-

ditions? And who aggresses? These questions have gen-

erated enduring attention in research on intergroup

conflict, including classic works by Horowitz (1985) and

Brass (2003) detailing effects of ethnic extremist

rhetoric.

This article addresses these questions with experi-

ments assessing the divergent effects of mild violent rhet-

oric on individual group members in protracted conflict

in two distinct contexts: Israel and India. Drawing from

social psychological research on intergroup animus and

interpersonal aggression, we show how the impact of vio-

lent metaphors on policy aggression depends on the traits

of individual citizens embedded in contexts of intense

conflict.

We argue that in such contexts, violent language tar-

geting an outgroup reminds individuals of the threat

posed by the outgroup, which increases the accessibility

of aggressive cognitive and emotional structures toward

that group, particularly for individuals for whom these

structures are not already accessible: those low in ethno-

centrism and trait aggression. Thus, counter-intuitively,

we predict that citizens who are normally less inclined to

support policies that hurt outgroups will respond most

aggressively to violent rhetoric, rather than those high in

ethnocentrism and aggression who routinely support out-

group harm, as some previous research might suggest

(e.g., Bushman 1995). The context of conflict intensifies

the strength of aggressive language that would otherwise

be weak in calmer contexts.1

We find support for our predictions in cross-national

data from two original, nationally diverse survey experi-

ments in Israel and India: the first exploring policy sup-

port that would help/harm Palestinian citizens of Israel

(PCIs), and the second for policies that would help/harm

Muslim citizens of India. We show that the use of violent

608947PRQXXX10.1177/1065912915608947Political Research QuarterlyGubler and Kalmoe

research-article2015

1Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, USA

2Monmouth College, IL, USA

Corresponding Author:

Joshua R. Gubler, Department of Political Science, Brigham Young

University, 764 Kimball Tower, Provo, UT 84602, USA.

Email: jgub@byu.edu

Violent Rhetoric in Protracted Group

Conflicts: Experimental Evidence from

Israel and India

Joshua R. Gubler1 and Nathan P. Kalmoe2

Abstract

How do messages from political elites interact with individual traits of citizens to spur intergroup aggression? Building

on research in social psychology, we expect that in places of protracted conflict, violent rhetoric from elites will be

enough to mobilize antagonism toward an outgroup, especially among those who are generally less apt to be hostile

toward the outgroup. We present results from two large survey experiments, the first conducted with young Jewish-

Israeli adults across Israel and the second with a nationally diverse sample of adults in India. The results show that

mild “fighting” words (e.g. “battle,” “fight”), combined with a reference to the outgroup, provoke significantly greater

support for policies that harm the outgroup among some citizens. This effect is largest among individuals low in

outgroup prejudice and low in aggressive personality traits, people who are usually less inclined to support policies

that hurt the outgroup. Effects of violent rhetoric persist even with policies and rhetoric to help the outgroup. This

work highlights the importance of considering both individual traits and contextual factors together to understand

their full impact in the study of intergroup conflict.

Keywords

political communication, social psychology, Israeli–Palestinian conflict, Hindu–Muslim conflict, religion and politics,

ethnic hostility