{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.035631889259164315, 'fraction_numerical': 0.010253781081773904, 'mean_word_length': 5.334415584415584, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Rocky Road to Reconciliation: Regulating Emotions in an Intergroup Context

Emotion regulation—the shaping of when, how, or whether a particular emotion is experienced—has been a focus of many fields of study in psychology (see Gross, 2014). As noted by Cehaji c-Clancy, Goldenberg, Gross, and Halperin (this issue), however, researchers who study conflict resolution have been slow to the party. Most of the extant emotional regulation research has focused on individuals or dyads. For example, people who regulate their emotions have better interpersonal functioning and well-being (Gross & John, 2003). Yet many of the insights from this literature can (and should) be directed toward conflict resolution. This is because emotions lay at the heart of intergroup conflict (see Bar-Tal, 2007) and, as such, are more conducive to predicting and adjusting intergroup behaviors than general out-group evaluations (Halperin, 2015). Indeed, the passion with which group members engage in conflict is highly suggestive of an emotional root. If those roots are trimmed (or regulated as the case may be) the trajectory of intergroup relations may be shifted in a prosocial direction. According to intergroup emotion theory (Smith, 1993, 1999), when social identity is salient (as is the case during intergroup conflict and its resolution), group members appraise social events in terms of their implications for the in-group. These appraisals produce emotions felt on behalf of their ingroup and targeted at out-groups. The consequence is collective action tendencies. For example, Mackie, Devos, and Smith (2000) found that group-based anger resulted in a tendency to act against an adversarial out-group, whereas in-group members who experienced group-based fear had an inclination to move away from the out-group. In this light, group-based emotions play a functional role in intergroup relations—they are the process through which appraisals lead to intergroup behavior. The important contribution offered by Cehaji c-Clancy and colleagues (this issue) is that the resolution of intergroup conflict is not necessarily at the mercy of this group-based emotional process. Instead, they argue that with proper attention, group-based emotions can be regulated (or manipulated) to facilitate prosocial intergroup relations. To this end, Cehaji c-Clancy and colleagues (this issue) reviewed research that is suggestive of their proposition that downregulating emotions known to impede conflict resolution (anger, hate) and upregulating emotions necessary for the resolution of intergroup conflict (guilt, hope) help promote positive intergroup relations following intergroup harmdoing. In doing so, they broaden the theoretical vibrancy of the study of conflict resolution and provide practical means to bring (former) adversary groups toward a common ground. Unfortunately, we believe an overly rosy picture may have been painted. Herein, we argue that the road to reconciliation is a rocky one. Although strategies can be applied to regulate emotions (e.g., reappraisal) that allow a broader or balanced appreciation of events at the interpersonal level (Gross, 2002; Ray, Wilhelm, & Gross, 2008), these effects may be rather transient at the intergroup level. In-group members have a tendency to make sinister attributions about the out-group’s intentions during negotiation (Kramer, 1994). Any progress toward the down regulation of reconciliation-hindering emotions and upregulation of reconciliation-facilitating emotions may thus be met by eventual regression to the group-based emotional baseline. In this light, and in response to Cehaji cClancy and colleagues (this issue), we discuss theory and research that suggests group-based, reconciliation enhancing emotions are rather fickle and group-based, reconciliation hindering emotions easily come to the fore even when a path to peace is salient.