Abstract
How do emotions shape public support for conflict-related policies, and when do they matter most? This working paper examines six intergroup emotions—hope, fear, anger, guilt, hate, and empathy—in predicting policy support for peacebuilding, security, reparation, exclusion, and aggression across 12 active and post-conflict societies. The analysis uses survey data from 14,440 respondents in the Emotions and Norms in Conflicts project and multilevel regression models. Fear is the clearest predictor of support for security, and hate for exclusion and aggression. On the conciliatory side the picture is less specific: hope is the strongest predictor not only of compromise and future-oriented policies but also of reconciliation, humanitarian aid and equality, while empathy’s largest effect falls on reparation. The results also point to two broader emotional orientations. Hope, guilt, and empathy cluster on the conciliatory side, while hate, anger, and fear cluster on the hostile side. Yet, these clusters are not rigid: emotional effects spill across policy categories, especially for hate, hope, and empathy. Context matters, too. Conflict stage is the strongest moderator: fear and guilt are more strongly associated with policy preferences in post-conflict settings, while hope matters more in active conflicts. Intergroup norms and perceived outgroup emotions usually weaken the effect of personal emotions, suggesting that an individual’s own feelings are filtered through social expectations and group context. Overall, the paper shows that emotions are not just responses to conflict. They are political forces that shape support for peace, justice, security, and exclusion, and their influence changes with the conflict’s own life cycle.
Keywords
Intergroup Emotions Theory, Emotion-Policy, Specificity, Conflict-Related Policy Preferences, Emotional, Norm, Conflict Stage, Cross-National Survey
Newsletter
Get the latest research findings on emotions, politics, and democracy from MORES in your inbox, quarterly. Sign up.