the micro-motives of intergroup aggression: a case study in israel

128 Pages·2011·0.69 MB·English

THE MICRO-MOTIVES OF INTERGROUP
AGGRESSION: A CASE STUDY IN ISRAEL
by
Joshua R. Gubler
A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
(Political Science)
in The University of Michigan
2011
Doctoral Committee:
Professor Mark A. Tessler, Co-Chair
Professor Ashutosh Varshney, Brown University, Co-Chair
Professor Robert Axelrod
Professor John E. Jackson
Professor Nicholas A. Valentino
(cid:13)c Joshua R. Gubler 2011
Dedicated to:
Wendy,
for making life a wonderful adventure...
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I thank the following organizations for funding this project: the Political Sci-
ence Department and Rackham Graduate School at the University of Michigan, the
US/ED Fulbright Foundation (grant number P022A090001), and the National Sci-
ence Foundation (grant number 0921391). This research was approved for the use of
human subjects by the University of Michigan IRB: HUM00029073. Sincere thanks
also to the following individuals for help with and/or detailed comments and sugges-
tions on this project: Ariel Ayalon, Robert Axelrod, Donna Baillie, Reuven Barneis,
Brad Bushman, Hillel Cohen, James Ferrell, Michael Findley, Abe Gong, Wendy
Gubler, Eran Halperin, Gilad Hirschberger, Eitan Ingall, John Jackson, Nathan
Kalmoe, Dan Magleby, Ifat Maoz, Quin Monson, Brian Perrin, Brian Polkinghorn,
Jonson Porteux, Hofit Sabi, Scott Saults, Joel Selway, Derek Stafford, Mark Tessler,
Nicholas Valentino, Ashutosh Varshney, David Wood, Haim Yacobi, Thomas Zeit-
zoff, as well as participants in Brigham Young University’s Department of Political
Science Thursday Group.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
DEDICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii
ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
CHAPTER
I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2 Generalizability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.3 Dissertation Organization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
II. Fueling the fire: The role of group justification in sustaining seemingly
intractable group conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.1 Seemingly Intractable Conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.2 Fueling Seemingly Intractable Conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.3 The Group Justification Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.4 High GJI → Increased support for aggressivepolicies against the outgroup . 16
2.4.1 Methods and Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.4.2 Results and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.5 High GJI → Increased physical aggressionagainst the outgroup . . . . . . . 23
2.5.1 Methods and Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
2.5.2 Results and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
2.6 Possible Mechanisms linking GJI and Outgroup Aggression . . . . . . . . . . 30
2.6.1 Individuals with GJI beliefs are much more ready to justify violence 30
2.6.2 Individuals with GJI beliefs see interactions with the outgroup as
zero-sum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
2.6.3 Individuals with GJI beliefs see ambiguous behavior by the out-
group as aggressive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
2.7 Limitations and Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
III. When contact doesn’t work: The role of dissonance in seemingly in-
tractable group conflict . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
3.2 The Contact Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
3.3 When contact doesn’t work: The Dissonance-Justification Hypothesis . . . . 47
iv
3.4 Testing competing hypotheses: A National Survey Experiment in Israel . . . 50
3.5 Results: Humanization → Dissonance for subjects with high GJI. . . . . . . 58
3.6 Results: Dissonance from the Humanization → Increased GJI beliefs . . . . 62
3.7 Limitations and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
IV. Positive contact with the outgroup: who will react positively, who won’t 71
4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
4.2 Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
4.3 Testing the theory: A National Survey Experiment in Israel . . . . . . . . . 80
4.3.1 Methods and Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
4.4 Results and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
4.4.1 The marginal effect of need for closure on dissonance . . . . . . . . 85
4.4.2 The marginal effect of religious ideology on dissonance . . . . . . . 88
4.4.3 The marginal effect of negative past experiences on dissonance . . 90
4.4.4 The marginal effect of strength of ingroup attachment on dissonance 91
4.4.5 The marginal effect of gender on dissonance . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
4.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
V. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
v
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
2.1 National Survey: Predicted Levels of Support for Aggressive Policies . . . . . . . . 24
2.2 Lab Experiment: Predicted Levels of Physical Outgroup Aggression . . . . . . . . 29
3.1 InteractiveEffects: Effectofthe ManipulationandOriginalGJI levelsonDissonance 62
3.2 Interactive Effects: Effect of the Humanization Manipulation and Dissonance on
GJI levels; For subjects with original GJI <= 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
3.3 Interactive Effects: Effect of the Humanization Manipulation and Dissonance on
GJI levels; For subjects with original GJI > 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
4.1 InteractiveEffects: Effectofthe ManipulationandOriginalGJI levelsonDissonance 75
4.2 Dissonance Levels for high GJI subjects in response to the humanizing treatment . 76
4.3 Marginal effect of the humanization manipulation on dissonance. Dotted lines are
90% confidence intervals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
4.4 Marginal effect of the humanization manipulation on dissonance. Dotted lines are
90% confidence intervals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
4.5 Marginal effect of the humanization manipulation on dissonance. Dotted lines are
90% confidence intervals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
4.6 Marginal effect of the humanization manipulation on dissonance. Dotted lines are
90% confidence intervals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
4.7 Marginal effect of the humanization manipulation on dissonance. Dotted lines are
90% confidence intervals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
4.8 Marginal effect of the humanization manipulation on dissonance. Dotted lines are
90% confidence intervals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
4.9 Marginal effect of the humanization manipulation on dissonance. Stars represent
statistical significance with 95% confidence intervals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
4.10 Marginal effect of the humanization manipulation on dissonance. Stars represent
statistical significance with 95% confidence intervals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
4.11 Marginal effect of the humanization manipulation on dissonance. Stars represent
statistical significance with 95% confidence intervals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
vi
4.12 Marginal effect of the humanization manipulation on dissonance. Stars represent
statistical significance with 95% confidence intervals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
4.13 Marginal effect of the humanization manipulation on dissonance. Stars represent
statistical significance with 95% confidence intervals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
4.14 Marginal effect of the humanization manipulation on dissonance. Stars represent
statistical significance with 95% confidence intervals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table
2.1 Effect of GJI attitudes on support for policies that harm the outgroup . . . . . . . 21
2.2 Effect of GJI attitudes on aggressivebehavior against the outgroup . . . . . . . . . 28
2.3 Effect of GJI attitudes on justification of violence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
2.4 Effect of GJI attitudes on zero-sum thinking towards outgroup . . . . . . . . . . . 33
2.5 Effect of GJI attitudes on perception of outgroup behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
3.1 Effect of the Manipulation on Outgroup Empathy and Humanization . . . . . . . . 59
3.2 Effect of the Humanization Manipulation on Dissonance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
3.3 Effect of the Manipulation and Dissonance on GJI levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
4.1 Effect of Humanization and Need for Closure on Dissonance levels . . . . . . . . . 86
4.2 Effect of Humanization and Religious ID on Dissonance levels . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
4.3 Effect of Humanization and Negative Outgroup Experiences on Dissonance levels . 91
4.4 Effect of Humanization and Ingroup Attachment on Dissonance levels . . . . . . . 93
4.5 Effect of Humanization and Gender on Dissonance levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
viii
ABSTRACT
THE MICRO-MOTIVES OF INTERGROUP AGGRESSION: A CASE STUDY IN ISRAEL
by
Joshua R. Gubler
Co-Chairs: Mark A. Tessler and Ashutosh Varshney
This dissertation has two main goals. First, it seeks to identify the micro-motives
behind individual support for and engagement in aggression against members of an
outgroup. It provides evidence that these motives stem from a particular set of
beliefs individuals hold regarding their ingroup and the outgroup. It shows that
in Israel, individuals who have “group justifying beliefs” are much more prone to
support or engage in aggression against an outgroup, even when controlling for the
effect of other, more traditional explanators of intergroup violence. After defining
thesebeliefs andpresenting anindex tomeasure them(theGroup Justification Index,
or GJI), the first part of the dissertation provides evidence that these beliefs predict
support for or engagement in aggression against an outgroup. It also highlights three
mechanisms behind the relationship between these beliefs and aggression, showing
that individuals with group justifying beliefs are more prone to 1) see ambiguous
behavior by the outgroup as purposeful aggression directed towards their ingroup,
2) engage in higher levels of zero-sum thinking, and 3) justify aggression against the
outgroup than are those who do not hold these beliefs.
ix