Cited by 78Social and Intergroup PsychologyExperimental Behavioral Economics StudiesSocial Power and Status Dynamics

Anger, Exposure to Violence, and Intragroup Conflict: A “Lab in the Field” Experiment in Southern I srael

Zeitzoff, Thomas·2014·Political Psychology

Abstract

I examine how anger stemming from violence in the Israel‐Palestine conflict influences intragroup retaliation. In July 2010 I conducted a series of experiments in two cities in the Southern District of Israel affected to varying degrees (high and low) by rocket fire from the Gaza Strip. For each experiment, subjects were partnered anonymously with a member of their community. They were then exposed to one of two emotional manipulations: one that induced anger or one that did not. Finally, each subject was given an opportunity to keep an endowment or allocate it towards destroying a portion, or all, of their partner's income (“pay to punish”) in retaliation for their partner having taken money from them previously. This decision to “pay to punish” was designed to closely mimic the costly nature of conflict. The findings suggest that anger has a conditional effect on decisions to pay to punish: in Sderot (most affected by rocket fire), anger decreases punishment, while in Ofakim (less affected), it increases punishment. Additionally, higher exposure to violence made subjects more likely to engage in negative reciprocity.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/pops.12065

Cites

63 of 63 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The decision whether to label a cyberattack as cyberterrorism has significant implications: applying a terrorism label activates far-reaching counter-terrorism powers and amplifies public fear and anger.

    “The decision about whether to label a cyberattack as cyberterrorism bears significant implications, with the application of a terrorism label activating far-reaching counter-terrorism powers, and amplifying public fear and anger (Canetti-Nisim et al. 2009; Zeitzoff 2014; Snider et al. 2021).”

    From Public Opinion and Cyberterrorism (2023) · cites this paper as Zeitzoff 2014

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zeitzoff, T.
Affiliations
New York University (US)
Corresponding author
Zeitzoff, Thomas
Venue
Political Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-09-06
Volume
35
Issue
3
Pages
309-335
ISSN
  • 0162-895X (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-9221
OpenAlex
W1923748701
Cited by
78
References
63
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 1
FWCI
12.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Political Psychology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social Power and Status Dynamics
Keywords
anger, violence exposure, intragroup conflict, retaliation, emotional manipulation, negative reciprocity, Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Gaza Strip

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review