This Article Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: 0146167206297402v1 33/4/572    most recent References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Iyer, A. Articles by Lickel, B. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Iyer, A. Articles by Lickel, B. Pubmed/NCBI databases Medline Plus Health Information Family Issues Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Why Individuals Protest the Perceived Transgressions of Their Country

The Role of Anger, Shame, and Guilt

School of Psychology ,University of Exeter, Exeter, a.iyer{at}exeter.ac.uk

Toni Schmader

University of Arizona,

Brian Lickel

University of Southern California

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.

Key Words: guilt • anger • shame • emotion • collective action; protest

This version was published on April 1, 2007

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 33, No. 4, 572-587 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/0146167206297402


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				E. F. Thomas, C. McGarty, and K. I. Mavor Transforming "Apathy Into Movement":The Role of Prosocial Emotions in Motivating Action for Social Change Personality and Social Psychology Review, November 1, 2009; 13(4): 310 - 333. [Abstract] [PDF]

				E. F. Thomas, C. McGarty, and K. I. Mavor Aligning Identities, Emotions, and Beliefs to Create Commitment to Sustainable Social and Political Action Personality and Social Psychology Review, August 1, 2009; 13(3): 194 - 218. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. Zebel, B. Doosje, and R. Spears How Perspective-Taking Helps and Hinders Group-Based Guilt as a Function of Group Identification Group Processes Intergroup Relations, January 1, 2009; 12(1): 61 - 78. [Abstract] [PDF]

				E. Subasic, K. J. Reynolds, and J. C. Turner The Political Solidarity Model of Social Change: Dynamics of Self-Categorization in Intergroup Power Relations Personality and Social Psychology Review, November 1, 2008; 12(4): 330 - 352. [Abstract] [PDF]

				R. K. Mallett, J. R. Huntsinger, S. Sinclair, and J. K. Swim Seeing Through Their Eyes: When Majority Group Members Take Collective Action on Behalf of an Outgroup Group Processes Intergroup Relations, October 1, 2008; 11(4): 451 - 470. [Abstract] [PDF]

				D. J. Packer On Being Both With Us and Against Us: A Normative Conflict Model of Dissent in Social Groups Personality and Social Psychology Review, February 1, 2008; 12(1): 50 - 72. [Abstract] [PDF]