Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-10-30T13:41:08.258Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Anger and Political Conflict Dynamics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2024

KEITH E. SCHNAKENBERG*
Affiliation:
Washington University in St. Louis, United States
CARLY N. WAYNE*
Affiliation:
Washington University in St. Louis, United States
*
Keith E. Schnakenberg, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Washington University in St. Louis, United States, keith.schnakenberg@gmail.com.
Corresponding author: Carly N. Wayne, Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, Washington University in St. Louis, United States, carlywayne@gmail.com.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Emotions shape strategic conflict dynamics. However, the precise way in which strategic and emotional concerns interact to affect international cooperation and contention are not well understood. We propose a model of intergroup conflict under incomplete information in which agents are sensitive to psychological motivations in the form of anger. Agents become angry in response to worse-than-expected outcomes due to actions of other players. Aggression may be motivated by anger or by beliefs about preferences of members of the other group. Increasing one group’s sensitivity to anger makes that group more aggressive but reduces learning about preferences, which makes the other group less aggressive in response to bad outcomes. Thus, anger has competing effects on the likelihood of conflict. The results have important implications for understanding the complex role of anger in international relations and, more generally, the interplay between psychological and material aims in both fomenting and ameliorating conflict.

Type
Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided that no alterations are made and the original article is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained prior to any commercial use and/or adaptation of the article.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of American Political Science Association

INTRODUCTION

Political conflict arouses strong emotions that shape and are shaped by conflict (Bar-Tal, Halperin, and De Rivera Reference Bar-Tal, Halperin and De Rivera2007). Anger, in particular, is a powerful emotion in conflict settings (Petersen and Zukerman Reference Petersen, Zukerman, Potegal, Stemmler and Spielberger2010), influencing the conduct of state diplomacy and foreign policy (Hall Reference Hall2011; McDermott Reference McDermott2014a). For example, U.S. officials have noted how Putin’s “angry and frustrated” mood impacted his ruthless approach toward Ukraine following Russia’s surprisingly poor performance in its March 2022 invasion.Footnote 1 Similarly, Chinese officials expressed a “demonstrably angry response” involving aggressive military drills around Taiwan following the unanticipated visit of Taiwanese Vice President William Lai to the United States in August 2023, highlighting Taiwan’s status as a “deeply emotive issue” for China.Footnote 2 In September 2021, French policymakers described themselves as “angry and bitter” when Australia reneged on a $65 billion submarine contract favoring a U.S. deal, a move condemned as a “betrayal” by the French Foreign Minister and leading France to temporarily recall its U.S. ambassador.Footnote 3

These examples illustrate the role of emotions in shaping leaders’ foreign policy making, which can help us understand fundamental problems in international relations, such as the security dilemma (Bleiker and Hutchison Reference Bleiker and Hutchison2008; Crawford Reference Crawford2000). For instance, angry individuals tend to have more aggressive preferences (Berkowitz Reference Berkowitz1990; Scherer Reference Scherer, Dalgleish and Power1999), sacrifice material payoffs to punish offenders (Carlsmith, Darley, and Robinson Reference Carlsmith, Darley and Robinson2002), and process information in a more biased way (Valentino et al. Reference Valentino, Hutchings, Banks and Davis2008; Weeks Reference Weeks2015). Thus, anger could heighten security dilemmas and lead to conflict spirals (Hymans Reference Hymans2006; Jervis Reference Jervis and White1986; Jervis, Lebow, and Stein Reference Jervis, Lebow and Stein1989).

Analyzing exactly how emotions like anger shape conflict is complex, however, because emotional and strategic factors interact in these settings. Conflict is a strategic outcome but much of behavioral political science is individualistic (Kertzer et al. Reference Kertzer, Holmes, LeVeck and Wayne2022; Powell Reference Powell2017). Yet emotions have social effects (Parkinson Reference Parkinson1996), such as on communication (Morris and Keltner Reference Morris and Keltner2000) and intergroup interactions (Van Kleef et al. Reference Van Kleef, Van Dijk, Steinel, Harinck and Van Beest2008). In international relations, emotional dynamics help leaders signal intentions through international diplomacy (Wong Reference Wong2016), foster cooperation in peace talks (Holmes and Yarhi-Milo Reference Holmes and Yarhi-Milo2017), and drive patterns of ethnic violence in civil wars (Balcells Reference Balcells2010; Petersen Reference Petersen2002). We address this social aspect of emotions by incorporating them into a game theoretic model, a tool tailored to analyzing social interactions. In this way, we bridge the gap between game theoretic and behavioral work in order to build a theory that is both psychologically realistic and strategically rich. Van Kleef et al. (Reference Van Kleef, Van Dijk, Steinel, Harinck and Van Beest2008, 17) illustrate the need for combining these strengths, noting that, “In situations where people depend on each other for their outcomes, the question of how expressions of anger influence conflict development is of the utmost importance for a complete and thorough understanding of behavior in social conflict.”

In this paper, we develop a formal model of anger and political conflict, utilizing psychological game theory (Battigalli and Dufwenberg Reference Battigalli and Dufwenberg2009; Geanakoplos, Pearce, and Stacchetti Reference Geanakoplos, Pearce and Stacchetti1989). We enhance the “conflict cycles” model of Acemoglu and Wolitzky (Reference Acemoglu and Wolitzky2014) with insights from psychological research on anger, emphasizing a cognitive appraisal approach where agents become angered due to negative outcomes they attribute to others’ intentional actions (Frijda Reference Frijda1993; Lazarus Reference Lazarus1991; Reference Lazarus, Dalgleish and Power1999; Roseman Reference Roseman1996; Scherer Reference Scherer, Dalgleish and Power1999; Zajonc Reference Zajonc and Forgas2000). This complements existing work in international relations that incorporates the role of emotions (Acharya and Grillo Reference Acharya and Grillo2019; Renshon, Lee, and Tingley Reference Renshon, Lee and Tingley2017) or endogenous preferences more generally (Haynes and Yoder Reference Haynes and Yoder2022) in leader foreign policy-making.

Building on work by Scherer (Reference Scherer, Hamilton, Bower and Frijda1988) and Battigalli and Dufwenberg (Reference Battigalli and Dufwenberg2009), we posit that negative outcomes are those falling short of expectations, fostering stronger reactions when trust is breached, thus creating endogenous preferences. This approach situates our theory firmly within the psychological game theory field (Battigalli and Dufwenberg Reference Battigalli and Dufwenberg2009; Geanakoplos, Pearce, and Stacchetti Reference Geanakoplos, Pearce and Stacchetti1989). In our model, anger motivates actors to seek punitive actions, deriving psychological satisfaction not just from their gains but from the losses inflicted on others, a phenomenon backed by empirical studies (García-Ponce, Young, and Zeitzoff Reference García-Ponce, Young and Zeitzoff2023; Haidt Reference Haidt, Davidson, Scherer and Hill Goldsmith2003; Johnson Reference Johnson2009; Wayne Reference Wayne2023). This relative preference perspective also naturally integrates the concerns of the security dilemma where relative gains often obstruct cooperation (Grieco, Powell, and Snidal Reference Grieco, Powell and Snidal1993).

Our model illustrates that anger can influence conflict through both direct and indirect strategic pathways stemming from emotional and informational dynamics. While anger often incites more aggressive behavior, it can also reduce the informational impact of a group’s choices, potentially decreasing the opposing group’s aggression due to muted informational repercussions of adverse outcomes: another group’s negative actions may be indicative of their inherently hostile nature or simply due to temporarily induced anger. We also show that the effects of anger are self-regulating; anger cannot foster perpetual conflict, as individuals would adjust their expectations over time, thereby neutralizing the anger-triggering effect of bad outcomes.

Our approach augments the study of issues like security dilemmas (e.g., Kydd Reference Kydd2005) by examining the role emotions play in shaping preferences within this type of strategic environment. We complement existing behavioral research on the stimulating role of emotions in conflict (García-Ponce, Young, and Zeitzoff Reference García-Ponce, Young and Zeitzoff2023; Kertzer and Tingley Reference Kertzer and Tingley2018; McDermott Reference McDermott2017; Zeitzoff Reference Zeitzoff2014) by elucidating the indirect strategic implications of anger in conflict settings. Furthermore, this work contributes to the burgeoning literature on conflict dynamics using behavioral modeling approaches (Acharya and Grillo Reference Acharya and Grillo2019; Siegel Reference Siegel2011) and empirical studies in behavioral international relations (Hafner-Burton et al. Reference Hafner-Burton, Haggard, Lake and Victor2017; Kertzer and Rathbun Reference Kertzer and Rathbun2015; Masterson Reference Masterson2022; Renshon, Lee, and Tingley Reference Renshon, Lee and Tingley2017). It highlights the complementarity of political psychology and formal theory for understanding conflict dynamics.

EMOTIONS IN INTERNATIONAL CONFLICT

The importance of emotions is implicit in many theories of international relations (Crawford Reference Crawford2000; Kertzer Reference Kertzer2017). For example, fear underlies the security dilemma (Rathbun Reference Rathbun2007) and anxiety is central to state behavior under ontological (in)security (Kinnvall and Mitzen Reference Kinnvall and Mitzen2020). The construction of emotion as separate from reason in decision-making has also been challenged by IR scholars, who now more frequently understand emotions as a complementary and perhaps critically important part of decision-making, including in foreign policy (McDermott Reference McDermott2014b; Renshon and Lerner Reference Renshon, Lerner and Christie2012). For example, emotions can help convey intentions in international diplomacy (Holmes and Yarhi-Milo Reference Holmes and Yarhi-Milo2017; Wong Reference Wong2016), potentially obviating risks of conflict.

Anger, however, is an emotion primarily thought to fuel and exacerbate international conflict (Bar-Tal, Halperin, and De Rivera Reference Bar-Tal, Halperin and De Rivera2007; Petersen and Zukerman Reference Petersen, Zukerman, Potegal, Stemmler and Spielberger2010). For example, anger is linked to support for the use of military force (Cheung-Blunden and Blunden Reference Cheung-Blunden and Blunden2008; Fisk, Merolla, and Ramos Reference Fisk, Merolla and Ramos2018; Skitka et al. Reference Skitka, Bauman, Aramovich and Scott Morgan2006), retributive counterterror policies (Liberman Reference Liberman2013; Wayne Reference Wayne2023), preferences for punitive justice in criminal prosecution (García-Ponce, Young, and Zeitzoff Reference García-Ponce, Young and Zeitzoff2023), intergroup prejudice (DeSteno et al. Reference DeSteno, Dasgupta, Bartlett and Cajdric2004), and the perpetration of ethnic violence in civil conflicts (Balcells Reference Balcells2010; Claassen Reference Claassen2016; Petersen Reference Petersen2002). Anger can also heighten interstate conflict, stoking state rivalries and exacerbating territorial conflict by increasing citizens’ risk acceptance and loss aversion (Lim and Tanaka Reference Lim and Tanaka2022; Zhou, Goemans, and Weintraub Reference Zhou, Goemans and Weintraub2023).

Anger also shapes the behavior of political elites. States’ anger at past “national humiliations” may increase aggressive, status-seeking behaviors in the future (Corbetta Reference Corbetta2022) and state leaders’ construction of certain political issues as “anger-inducing” can threaten the precipitous escalation of diplomatic conflicts (Hall Reference Hall2011). Anger may also impact diplomatic behavior incidentally (Renshon and Lerner Reference Renshon, Lerner and Christie2012), with leaders’ moods influencing which lessons of history they draw on in foreign policy-making (McDermott Reference McDermott2004), and diplomats’ personal feelings shaping how they define and pursue the national interest (Keys and Yorke Reference Keys and Yorke2019). However, despite the centrality of anger in decision-making, decision-makers tend to be “very bad at predicting how they will feel and act in an alternate emotional state” (McDermott Reference McDermott2004, 698), making it difficult to anticipate future preferences once their emotions change (Loewenstein Reference Loewenstein1996).

Formalizing Anger

Anger is thought to affect both preferences and information processing (Mintz, Valentino, and Wayne Reference Mintz, Valentino and Wayne2021). We focus here on the effect of anger on preferences, though we consider the effects of anger on information processing in section “Informational Effects of Anger.”

Anger’s role in shaping preferences is linked to the perceptions that trigger it. Cognitive appraisal theorists have found that individuals are most likely to experience anger when they deem an event to be negative (i.e., against their interests) and purposefully caused by another (Lazarus Reference Lazarus1991; Roseman Reference Roseman1996; Scherer Reference Scherer, Dalgleish and Power1999). Anger is also a moral emotion, elicited not simply when a negative event occurs, but when that event is seen as unfair (Haidt Reference Haidt, Davidson, Scherer and Hill Goldsmith2003). As such, anger is related to assessments of the other’s character or intentions: individuals are more likely to experience anger when they perceive the actions of another to be unjust or their motivations illegitimate.Footnote 4

A challenge in formally modeling anger-triggering perceptions is establishing the benchmark for negative events. We assume, consistent with previous work, that individuals gauge an event as negative if it falls short of the expected outcome (Scherer Reference Scherer, Hamilton, Bower and Frijda1988). The frustration-aggression hypothesis posits that barriers to achieving an expected gratification lead to aggression (Berkowitz and Harmon-Jones Reference Berkowitz and Harmon-Jones2004; Dollard et al. Reference Dollard, Miller, Doob, Mowrer and Sears1939). Battigalli and Dufwenberg (Reference Battigalli and Dufwenberg2009) concur, emphasizing the role of expectations in evaluating outcomes. Empirical data underpin this context-dependent perception of anger: greater discrepancy between expectations and reality boosts the likelihood of anger (Benistant and Suchon Reference Benistant and Suchon2021; Persson Reference Persson2018). This phenomenon is visible in the escalation of violence following unanticipated losses in various contexts (Barnhart Reference Barnhart2020; Card and Dahl Reference Card and Dahl2011) and explains the frequency of interpersonal anger toward liked and respected others, where unmet high expectations foster disappointment and anger (Averill Reference Averill1983).

Once triggered, anger fosters a desire to punish perceived wrongdoers, driven more by psychological satisfaction than material benefits (Carlsmith, Darley, and Robinson Reference Carlsmith, Darley and Robinson2002; Lerner and Keltner Reference Lerner and Keltner2001; McDermott, Lopez, and Hatemi Reference McDermott, Lopez and Hatemi2017). This is because anger promotes deontological thinking, where actions adhere to moral rules rather than consequences (García-Ponce, Young, and Zeitzoff Reference García-Ponce, Young and Zeitzoff2023). Angry individuals may prioritize “nonmaterial stakes” and be willing to forgo material gains to ensure wrongdoers face repercussions (Hall Reference Hall2021). This behavior is evident in ultimatum bargaining games where unfair yet materially beneficial offers are often rejected, a tendency that is reduced when anger is mitigated (Pillutla and Keith Murnighan Reference Pillutla and Keith Murnighan1996; Srivastava, Espinoza, and Fedorikhin Reference Srivastava, Espinoza and Fedorikhin2009). Fairness heuristics, which are central to anger, can also influence decisions to escalate diplomatic disputes to war (Gottfried and Trager Reference Gottfried and Trager2016). Broadly, anger alters actor preferences, leading to dissatisfaction with benefits received by the adversary and potentially engendering cycles of retaliatory political violence (Gollwitzer et al. Reference Gollwitzer, Skitka, Wisneski, Sjöström, Liberman, Nazir and Bushman2014; Liberman and Skitka Reference Liberman and Skitka2017; Pagano and Huo Reference Pagano and Huo2007).

However, to fully understand how anger shapes conflict decision-making, we should place anger in a strategic context: how does anger shape the dynamic interaction between strategic actors in conflict? This is the question we address in this paper.

MODELING INTERGROUP CONFLICT

The specific effect of anger on conflict dynamics depends on the strategic context, including the material payoffs and informational environment.

Here, we are particularly interested in understanding how agents’ anger—and the potential of others to become angry—affects strategic behavior in conditions of uncertainty, where agents can take either aggressive or conciliatory action, but these actions may be potentially misperceived by others. Below, we emphasize three applied contexts that fit this strategic setting, though the model is an abstract representation of a variety of important political contexts. Specifically, we focus on a setting with the following features:

  • Cooperation. Players can engage in either cooperative or aggressive behavior toward one another.

  • Coordination. There is potential for mutual gains from joint cooperation but players do not want to cooperate unilaterally.

  • Mistrust. There is uncertainty about players’ preferences with some players never wanting to cooperate.

  • Misperceptions. The other side’s actions are imperfectly observed.

Another feature of our model, which is also realistic but less essential to the results, is that interactions occur over a long time horizon but individual agents are short lived. This iterative interaction with agents that change across rounds parallels the real world context of interstate diplomacy where the same states interact multiple times with no clear end point in sight, but the specific state leaders, security officials, or diplomats experience turnover.

Our model most directly builds on the literature on security dilemmas in international relations (Acharya and Ramsay Reference Acharya and Ramsay2013; Jervis Reference Jervis1978; Kydd Reference Kydd1997; Reference Kydd2005). A security dilemma is a situation in which actions taken by side A to increase its own security leads side B to take adverse actions to increase its own security out of concern about the intentions of side A. Cooperation, coordination, and mistrust are canonical in models of the security dilemma. In particular, these models emphasize the role of mistrust. The conflict cycles model we adopt from Acemoglu and Wolitzky (Reference Acemoglu and Wolitzky2014) adds the component of misperceptions, long a concern of conflict scholars (Jervis Reference Jervis and White1986). A consequence of misperceptions when combined the first three features is that conflict might precipitate from misunderstandings: a negative misperception fuels mistrust since it is compatible with the belief that the other side is hostile.Footnote 5 This serves as a useful context in which to study the effect of anger both because it is widely applicable and because emotional responses may intensify the effects of misperceptions and, as we show, interact in unexpected ways with mistrust.

Arms races are one important application of security dilemmas and fit well here.Footnote 6 Players engage in cooperation (refraining from arming) or aggression (arming). There is also a coordination incentive since players benefit from mutually refraining from arming but prefer to be armed if their rivals are armed. Furthermore, there is mistrust since players do not know whether a rival arms with hostile intentions. Misperceptions are also common in armaments where secrecy can lead to misinterpretation of actions (Levy Reference Levy1983). Concrete examples from recent history illustrate how emotional responses of leaders can affect arms negotiations, such as in the exchange of heated personal attacks between then U.S. President Donald Trump and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un during nuclear negotiations between those two countries (Cha and Katz Reference Cha and Katz2018).

The long-run nature of interactions in our model also suggests applications to enduring interstate rivalries. Here, the cooperation incentive acknowledges that, even in enduring rivalries, conflict is costly relative to mutual restraint. There are also assumed to be coordination incentives in this setting. For instance, Kadera (Reference Kadera2001) assumes that “nation X is increasingly conflictual toward nation Y because nation Y is increasingly conflictual toward nation X” (60). Mistrust is also an essential feature of international rivalries (Maoz and San-Akca Reference Maoz and San-Akca2012). As Colaresi and Thompson (Reference Colaresi and Thompson2002) note, an important aspect of rivalries is that they “mistrust the intentions of their adversaries” (263). Our interest in anger in this setting is consistent with other theoretical accounts that rely on notions of “a sense of grievance” and “feelings of hostility” (Morey Reference Morey2011), for which we provide more microfoundations.

The model may also apply to domestic contexts such as ethnic conflict. The repeated and relatively anonymous nature of interactions in our model calls to mind models of interethnic cooperation in repeated games (Calvert Reference Calvert, Knight and Sened1995; Fearon and Laitin Reference Fearon and Laitin1996; Larson Reference Larson2017) or in one shot games with random interaction (Schnakenberg Reference Schnakenberg2014). In these settings, there are explicit benefits to cooperation. Furthermore, parts of this literature build on the idea of mistrust in the sense of private player types with some unlikely to cooperate with the other group (Schnakenberg Reference Schnakenberg2014) or on misperception in the sense of imperfect observations about the history of play (Fearon and Laitin Reference Fearon and Laitin1996; Larson Reference Larson2017). Furthermore, existing work emphasizes how emotions drive ethnic conflict (McDoom Reference McDoom2012) and intergroup conflict more generally (Mackie, Devos, and Smith Reference Mackie, Devos and Smith2000). Notably, the security dilemma framework has been applied to ethnic conflict, emphasizing especially the role of mistrust (Kydd Reference Kydd2000; Posen Reference Posen1993; Weingast Reference Weingast, Haufler, Soltan and Uslaner1998).

Behavioral Game Theory in Politics

Our work also contributes to the growing literature incorporating behavioral assumptions into formal models of political phenomena (e.g., Acharya, Blackwell, and Sen Reference Acharya, Blackwell and Sen2018; Bendor, Kumar, and Siegel Reference Bendor, Kumar and Siegel2010; Feddersen, Gailmard, and Sandroni Reference Feddersen, Gailmard and Sandroni2009; Little Reference Little2019; Minozzi Reference Minozzi2013; Penn Reference Penn2008; Siegel Reference Siegel2011) and research on context-dependent preferences (e.g., Agranov et al. Reference Agranov, Goeree, Romero and Yariv2017; Alesina and Passarelli Reference Alesina and Passarelli2019; Kahneman and Tversky Reference Kahneman and Tversky1979).

Methodologically, our paper is most related to those that endogenize preferences through some psychological mechanism. The main examples in international relations are Acharya and Grillo (Reference Acharya and Grillo2019) and Haynes and Yoder (Reference Haynes and Yoder2022). Acharya and Grillo (Reference Acharya and Grillo2019) considers endogenous “disappointment” as a foundation for audience costs, a phenomenon where politicians are punished for making a threat and then backing down. As with anger in this paper, disappointment is triggered when an outcome is not in line with an agent’s expectations. Though our paper is methodologically related to this work, we focus on a different application and on the agents actively engaged in conflict. Haynes and Yoder (Reference Haynes and Yoder2022) focus on a strategic setting very similar to ours but the modeling of endogenous preferences differs in two important ways. First, preferences in our model are endogenous in the sense of depending on strategies in a way that is incorporated into the solution concept using psychological game theory. In contrast, Haynes and Yoder (Reference Haynes and Yoder2022) let preferences change only as a function of past actions, in a manner much more similar to the alternative model we explain in section “Comparison to Naive Anger Preferences.” Second, the model in Haynes and Yoder (Reference Haynes and Yoder2022) allows for positive and negative preference adaptations which are not important for the purpose of our paper.Footnote 7

Finally, our work also relates to models of reciprocity using psychological games (Dufwenberg and Kirchsteiger Reference Dufwenberg and Kirchsteiger2004; Rabin Reference Rabin1993). Agents motivated by reciprocity prefer to be kind to agents who they perceive as kind and unkind to agents they perceive as unkind. To model anger, we focus on the negative side of reciprocity, that is, the desire to be unkind in response to perceived unkindness. Anger has been related to preferences for negative reciprocity, particularly across identity groups (Bicskei, Lankau, and Bizer Reference Bicskei, Lankau and Bizer2016), so our perspective is in line with this research.

THE MODEL

Sequence and Game Play

Consider a game between overlapping generations of agents from two groups, A and B, interacting over an infinite time horizon with time indexed by $ t\in \{0,1,\dots \hskip0.3em \}. $ In each period t, one player is active (“player t”) and, for $ t>0 $ , the active player chooses an action $ {x}_t\in \{c,a\} $ (“conciliatory” or “aggressive”) toward player $ t-1 $ and an intended action $ {y}_t\in \{c,a\} $ toward player $ t+1 $ . Player 0 only chooses an intended action $ {y}_0 $ toward player 1. In odd periods, the active player is from group A; and in even periods, the active player is from group B, so all actions are directed toward members of the opposite group.

In any period $ t>0 $ , player t learns a result $ {\tilde{y}}_{t-1}. $ The observed result is stochastic but depends on the intended action in that $ \Pr [{\tilde{y}}_{t-1}=a|{y}_{t-1}=a]=1 $ and $ \Pr [{\tilde{y}}_{t-1}=a|{y}_{t-1}=c]=\pi $ . In short, aggressive intentions will lead to aggressive results, but conciliatory intentions may, with some probability ( $ \pi $ ), mistakenly also lead to aggressive results. Player 0 gets no signal and simply chooses an intended action.

Player t learns her own type and the result $ {\tilde{y}}_{t-1} $ but nothing else about the history of the game. Agents do not learn about any interactions that came before and also do not know how much time passed before she became active (i.e., agents do not know the value of t).Footnote 8 This assumption incorporates the poor information and high degree of uncertainty about adversaries’ present and past actions that often exists in conflict contexts (Ramsay Reference Ramsay2017), but this assumption is relaxed in section “More Information about History.” Following Acemoglu and Wolitzky (Reference Acemoglu and Wolitzky2014), we formalize ignorance of calendar time by assuming that each player at $ t>0 $ has an improper uniform prior over time periods, which implies that the prior probability of observing a particular value of $ {\tilde{y}}_{t-1} $ is equal to the long-run probability of that outcome.

Types, Material Payoffs, and Strategies

Player t has a type $ {\theta}_t\in \{H,F\} $ (“Hostile” or “Friendly”). Hostile types have a dominant strategy of aggression. In terms of material payoffs, Friendly types prefer to match the action of the other player. The proportion of Hostile types in group $ j\in \{A,B\} $ is $ {\rho}_j $ . Players’ types are private information. Additionally, players are uncertain about the proportion of Hostile types in each group, denoted $ {\rho}_A $ and $ {\rho}_B $ . We assume for each $ j\in \{A,B\} $ that $ {\rho}_j $ takes a value of either $ \underset{\_}{\rho } $ or $ \overline{\rho}>\underset{\_}{\rho }. $ For both groups, the prior probability that $ {\rho}_j=\overline{\rho} $ is $ {\mu}_0. $ We typically assume that $ \overline{\rho}=1 $ and $ \underset{\_}{\rho }=0 $ , so that any group is made of either all Hostile types or all Friendly types. This is in line with Acemoglu and Wolitzky (Reference Acemoglu and Wolitzky2014) and leads to the clearest exposition of results, though the proofs of Propositions 1 and 2 are for general values of $ \overline{\rho} $ and $ \underset{\_}{\rho } $ .Footnote 9

Each player $ t>0 $ gets a material payoff of $ {v}_t=u({x}_t,{\tilde{y}}_{t-1},{\theta}_t)+u({y}_t,{x}_{t+1},{\theta}_t), $ where u describes the payoff from each of the two interactions in which that player participates. We set $ u(a,a)=0 $ and $ u(c,c)=1 $ , representing the idea that all players, including Hostile types, would materially prefer the situation in which both players are conciliatory to the situation in which both players are aggressive. Friendly players prefer coordination. If the other player is aggressive, the payoff to acting conciliatory is $ -s, $ where $ s>0 $ represents a cost of unilaterally taking a conciliatory action. Finally, the payoff to acting aggressive when the other player is conciliatory is $ r({\theta}_t) $ , where $ r(F)<1<r(H). $ Thus, Friendly types prefer to reciprocate conciliatory behavior but Hostile types always prefer aggression. Players’ payoffs depend on their own chosen actions and the result of the actions (but not the intended action) of the other players. That is, player t’s payoffs are a function of $ {\tilde{y}}_{t-1} $ rather than $ {y}_{t-1} $ : players are materially affected by aggressive outcomes even if they were the result of mistakes. Figure 1 summarizes the material payoffs to a given player.

Figure 1. Material Payoffs of Player t from Interactions with Players $ t-1 $ and $ t+1 $

Note: Parameter values are $ s>0 $ and $ r(F)<1<r(H). $

We analyze equilibria in which all members of the same group use the same type-dependent strategy. A strategy $ {\sigma}_j $ for group j maps types $ {\theta}_t $ and results $ {\tilde{y}}_{t-1} $ into probabilities of playing $ {x}_t=a $ and $ {y}_t=a. $ Each strategy is an element of the set $ \Sigma ={[0,1]}^8 $ since it prescribes probabilities of two different actions each across four different information sets. The strategy for group A is denoted $ {\sigma}_A $ , the strategy for group B is denoted $ {\sigma}_B $ , and a strategy profile is simply $ \sigma =({\sigma}_A,{\sigma}_B)\in {\Sigma}^2. $

Psychological Motivations

We augment the model described above with psychological motivations to understand how anger affects the onset and continuation of conflict. As we have discussed, empirical research in political psychology has found that anger is most likely when agents observe a negative difference between expected and actual outcomes that they attribute to the actions of another person (Lazarus Reference Lazarus1991; Roseman Reference Roseman1996; Scherer Reference Scherer, Dalgleish and Power1999). Anger also shapes agents’ preferences by increasing their psychological payoff when the adversary’s material payoff decreases (Carlsmith, Darley, and Robinson Reference Carlsmith, Darley and Robinson2002). Anger therefore links preferences with conjectures about players’ strategies, which leads us toward psychological game theory. Our approach follows Battigalli, Dufwenberg, and Smith (Reference Battigalli, Dufwenberg and Smith2019) with modifications to account for incomplete information.

We define a psychological game by directly modeling players’ conjectures about others’ strategies.Footnote 10 Let $ {b}_t^j\in \Sigma $ be player t’s conjecture about group j’s strategy. That is, for some pair of strategies $ {\sigma}_A^{\prime}\in \Sigma $ and $ {\sigma}_B^{\prime}\in \Sigma $ , $ {b}_t^A={\sigma}_A^{\prime } $ and $ {b}_t^B={\sigma}_B^{\prime } $ means that player’ t thinks that members of group A use the strategy $ {\sigma}_A^{\prime } $ and members of group B use the strategy $ {\sigma}_B^{\prime }. $

In our psychological game, a player may become angry when $ {\tilde{y}}_{t-1}=a $ . The extent of that anger depends on the payoff she expected to receive and how much she blames player $ t-1 $ for this undesirable outcome (Battigalli, Dufwenberg, and Smith Reference Battigalli, Dufwenberg and Smith2019). Since player t’s best possible material payoff from the interaction with $ t-1 $ is $ 0 $ when $ {\tilde{y}}_{t-1}=a, $ anger is proportional to the ex ante expected payoff from the interaction with $ t-1 $ multiplied by the probability that player $ t-1 $ chose $ {y}_{t-1}=a. $ We therefore define the anger level $ \beta $ of player t from group j as shown in Equation 1.

(1) $$ \begin{array}{rl}{\beta}_t({\tilde{y}}_{t-1},{y}_{t-1};{b}_t^j,{b}_t^{-j}):=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}\Pr [{\tilde{y}}_{t-1}=c|{b}_t^j,{b}_t^{-j}]\Pr [{y}_{t-1}=a|{\tilde{y}}_{t-1}=a,{b}_t^j,{b}_t^{-j}],\hskip1em \qquad & \hskip0.3em \mathrm{if}\hskip0.3em {\tilde{y}}_{t-1}=a,\qquad \\ {}0,\hskip1em \qquad & \hskip0.3em \mathrm{if}\hskip0.3em {\tilde{y}}_{t-1}=c,\qquad \end{array}\right.& \end{array} $$

That is, a player’s anger is zero if they see a good outcome ( $ {\tilde{y}}_{t-1}=c $ ). If they see a bad outcome ( $ {\tilde{y}}_{t-1}=a $ ), two factors determine their anger level. The first factor is the deviation between the agent’s expected outcome and the observed outcome. Since the best payoff when $ {\tilde{y}}_{t-1}=c $ is 1 and the best payoff when $ {\tilde{y}}_{t-1}=a $ is zero, the deviation from expectations after getting a bad signal is equal to the prior probability that $ {\tilde{y}}_{t-1}=c $ given players’ conjectured strategies. The second factor is whether the negative outcome was caused by the actions of the other player. However, since player t never observes $ {y}_{t-1} $ , our actual evaluation of player t’s anger level in the solution involves calculating $ \Pr [{y}_{t-1}=a|{\tilde{y}}_{t-1}=a,{b}_t^j,{b}_t^{-j}] $ , as in Equation 1.Footnote 11

Endogenous Preferences and Solution Concept

Each player’s decision utility incorporates material payoffs and psychological motivations. The decision utility for player t is

(2) $$ \begin{array}{r}{u}_t({x}_t,{y}_t,{\tilde{y}}_{t-1};{b}_t^j,{b}_t^{-j})={\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{Expected}\ \mathrm{material}\ \mathrm{payoff}}{\underbrace{\unicode{x1D53C}[{v}_t|{x}_t,{y}_t,{\tilde{y}}_{t-1},{b}_t^j,{b}_t^{-j}]}}}\\ {}-{\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{Expected}\ \mathrm{psychological}\ \mathrm{payoff}}{\underbrace{\alpha_j\unicode{x1D53C}[{\beta}_t({\tilde{y}}_{t-1},{y}_{t-1};{b}_t^j,{b}_t^{-j})({v}_{t-1}+{v}_{t+1})]}}}& \end{array} $$

for $ j\in \{A,B\}. $ That is, each player maximizes her own expected material payoff minus a psychological payoff that depends on her anger level and the material payoffs of the players with whom she interacts. The parameter $ {\alpha}_j\ge 0 $ measures the weight placed on psychological motives. The players’ preferences are endogenous in the sense that they depend (through $ {\beta}_t $ ) on the players’ conjectures about the strategies being employed in the game.Footnote 12

Beliefs $ {\mu}_t $ for each player map realizations of $ {\theta}_t $ and $ {\tilde{y}}_{t-1} $ to beliefs about $ {\rho}_A $ and $ {\rho}_B $ . An equilibrium is a profile of strategies $ \sigma *=({\sigma}_A^{*},{\sigma}_B^{*}) $ , conjectures $ {b}_t^A $ and $ {b}_t^B $ for each player, and beliefs $ {\mu}_t $ for each player which satisfy the following:

  1. 1. Both groups’ strategies maximize each player’s expected decision utility given conjectures $ {b}_t^A $ and $ {b}_t^B $ and beliefs $ {\mu}_t $ : $ {\sigma}_j^{*}({\theta}_t,{\tilde{y}}_{t-1})\in {\displaystyle \underset{\sigma \in \Sigma}{\mathrm{arg}\ \mathrm{max}}}{\unicode{x1D53C}}_{\mu_t}[{u}_t({x}_t,{y}_t,{\tilde{y}}_{t-1};{b}_t^j,{b}_t^{-j})] $ for all $ j\in \{A,B\} $ and all t.

  2. 2. For every t, $ {\mu}_t $ is consistent with Bayes rule given conjectures $ {b}_t^A $ and $ {b}_t^B $ at any information set on the path of play.

  3. 3. Conjectures and strategies are consistent: $ {b}_t^A={\sigma}_A^{*} $ and $ {b}_t^B={\sigma}_B^{*} $ for all $ t. $

If $ {\alpha}_A={\alpha}_B=0, $ then psychological preferences are irrelevant and this definition corresponds to perfect Bayesian equilibrium. Otherwise, the equilibrium concept follows psychological sequential equilibrium which is developed in Battigalli and Dufwenberg (Reference Battigalli and Dufwenberg2009) and Battigalli, Corrao, and Dufwenberg (Reference Battigalli, Corrao and Dufwenberg2019). Table 1 summarizes the mathematical notation and interpretation for each quantity in the model.Footnote 13

Table 1. Notation from the Model

Note: For functions, “values taken” gives the range of the function.

ANALYSIS

As in Acemoglu and Wolitzky (Reference Acemoglu and Wolitzky2014), we assume prior beliefs are favorable enough that Friendly types would choose conciliation when their beliefs are equal to the prior, for instance, at time 0.

Assumption 1. $ {\mu}_0\le \frac{1-(1+s)(\pi +(1-\pi )\underset{\_}{\rho })}{(1+s)(1-\pi )(\overline{\rho}-\underset{\_}{\rho })}. $

Assumption 1 is an upper bound on agents’ beliefs. The effect of this assumption is that Friendly types choose conciliatory actions in the absence of negative information about the other group. Otherwise, aggression would be the default action for all players. Assumption 1, therefore, focuses our analysis on cases in which conciliatory actions are possible and anger may affect actors’ behavior.

Foundational Results

Our first result lays out the structure of equilibria and mirrors results in Acemoglu and Wolitzky (Reference Acemoglu and Wolitzky2014).Footnote 14 First, Hostile agents are always aggressive. Friendly types prefer to reciprocate conciliatory and aggressive actions so Friendly types match $ {x}_t $ to the result of the previous action. To choose an action $ {y}_t $ toward player $ t+1 $ , Friendly agents t update their beliefs about the probability player $ t+1 $ is Hostile. If player $ t+1 $ is likely to be Hostile, then conciliatory actions are unlikely to be reciprocated and the agent should choose aggression. If player $ t+1 $ is likely to be Friendly, then the agent should try a conciliatory action in hopes of reciprocation. Therefore, Friendly types are conciliatory when the result of the previous action was conciliatory since they believe Friendly types in the other group are more likely. When the result of the previous action was aggressive, Friendly types may be aggressive. Proposition 1 states the result.

Proposition 1. Under Assumption 1, the following are true of any equilibria:

  • Hostile types play $ {x}_t=a $ and $ {y}_t=a $ at any information set.

  • Friendly types at any time $ t>0 $ play $ {x}_t={\tilde{y}}_{t-1}. $

  • Friendly types play $ {y}_t=c $ when $ {\tilde{y}}_{t-1}=c $ or when $ t=0 $ .

  • Friendly types from group j choose $ {y}_t=a $ with some probability $ {p}_j\in [0,1] $ when $ {\tilde{y}}_{t-1}=a. $

Proposition 1 makes no reference to anger and these results can be explained solely using expectations of material payoffs. This is because anger nudges agents in the same direction as their beliefs: agents are only angry when $ {\tilde{y}}_{t-1}=a $ , so anger strengthens the tendency to respond to aggression with more aggression but does not affect actions taken when $ {\tilde{y}}_{t-1}=c. $

Proposition 1 leaves open the question of whether certain conflict can occur. Suppose Friendly types from both groups are always aggressive when $ {\tilde{y}}_{t-1}=a $ (i.e., $ {p}_A={p}_B=1 $ ). Then the long-run probability of an aggressive outcome in a particular time period is one: we must eventually observe $ {\tilde{y}}_{t-1}=a $ even if by mistake, after which all players choose $ {y}_t=a $ in every period. Proposition 2, however, shows that this cannot happen in equilibrium.

Proposition 2. Under Assumption 1 there cannot be certain conflict in equilibrium: some Friendly types must play $ {y}_t=c $ following $ {\tilde{y}}_{t-1}=a $ with positive probability.

To explain Proposition 2, recall that two mechanisms cause Friendly types to be aggressive toward the next player following $ {\tilde{y}}_{t-1}=a. $ First, an informational mechanism might lead to aggression because Friendly agents update their beliefs that members of the opposite group are Hostile. Second, an emotional mechanism might lead to aggression because an aggressive result causes a Friendly type to prefer punishing the other group. A situation of certain conflict would eliminate both of these mechanisms. The informational mechanism is eliminated because, since players have limited knowledge about the past and the probability of conflict is one regardless of players’ types, observing $ {\tilde{y}}_{t-1}=a $ reveals nothing about whether the opposite group is Hostile. Therefore, since this is the only event the player observes, the player’s beliefs are equal to her prior which, by Assumption 1, implies she chooses conciliation. The emotional mechanism is eliminated because anger requires a gap between observed and expected outcomes. In a situation of certain conflict, $ {\tilde{y}}_{t-1}=a $ is the expected outcome so it does not generate an angry response.

Proposition 2 demonstrates how our approach to modeling anger constrains agents’ behavior. Though anger has the straightforward consequence of making agents more aggressive, the model cannot simply predict any level of conflict in a trivial manner by increasing the influence of anger. This is methodologically useful because it gives the model falsifiable empirical content that also reflects the real-world tendency of conflicts to ebb and flow, pause and recur (Goertz, Jones, and Diehl Reference Goertz, Jones and Diehl2005; Mason et al. Reference Mason, Gurses, Brandt and Quinn2011). As we will later show in Proposition 4, a simpler alternative approach to modeling anger would not have this key feature.

Effects of Sensitivity to Anger

The next results concern the effects of anger. We show that both groups change their behavior when one group is made more sensitive to anger (i.e., when $ {\alpha}_j $ increases for some group j). In applications, we can think of changing $ {\alpha}_j $ in different ways. If trait-based anger varies across individuals (Kassinove et al. Reference Kassinove, Roth, Owens and Ryan Fuller2002; Keys and Yorke Reference Keys and Yorke2019) or social groups (Gault and Sabini Reference Gault and Sabini2000; Matsumoto, Yoo, and Chung Reference Matsumoto, Yoo, Chung, Potegal, Stemmler and Spielberger2010; McDermott Reference McDermott2015; Phoenix Reference Phoenix2019), then we can interpret comparative statics on $ {\alpha}_j $ as a way to compare predictions across settings where decision-makers vary according to these traits. In experiments, changes in $ {\alpha}_j $ may be generated by priming treatments designed to induce subjects to think more about anger (Banks and Valentino Reference Banks and Valentino2012; Wayne Reference Wayne2023; Zeitzoff Reference Zeitzoff2014). In policy-making settings, variation in $ {\alpha}_j $ may be generated by differences in personality of various leaders (George and George Reference George and George2019; Horowitz, Stam, and Ellis Reference Horowitz, Stam and Ellis2015; Saunders Reference Saunders2011) or of institutional structures that emphasize more centralized decision-making by a single leader versus slow deliberation across a bureaucracy (Greenstein Reference Greenstein1967; Hafner-Burton et al. Reference Hafner-Burton, Haggard, Lake and Victor2017; Powell Reference Powell2017) which, if the effects of anger depend on quick unitary action, may generate differences in practice in sensitivity to anger. Thus, a flexible interpretation of the model can lend itself to a variety of applications.

Changing a group’s sensitivity to anger has two effects on the behavior of the players. First, changing one group’s sensitivity to anger directly makes members of that group more aggressive by giving them more punitive preferences when they experience an aggressive outcome. Second, changing one group’s sensitivity to anger has an indirect effect on members of the other group. This effect runs in the opposite direction: increasing one group’s sensitivity to anger makes Friendly members of the other group less aggressive. Proposition 3 states the result.

Proposition 3. Increasing $ {\alpha}_j $ for group j increases the probability that Friendly members of that group choose $ {y}_t=a $ after observing $ {\tilde{y}}_{t-1}=a $ and decreases the probability that Friendly members of the other group choose $ {y}_t=a $ after observing $ {\tilde{y}}_{t-1}=a $ .

Why does increasing one group’s sensitivity to anger make the other group less aggressive? It is not because anger necessarily has a deterrent effect (Sell, Tooby, and Cosmides Reference Sell, Tooby and Cosmides2009). Rather, our model highlights a different core mechanism for how one side’s anger can affect the other’s behavior: the information conveyed by aggression from Friendly types. When a player observes an aggressive outcome, they update in favor of the other group being Hostile, and therefore become more aggressive. Now consider an increase in $ {\alpha}_A, $ which makes Friendly group A members more aggressive. This reduces the informational effect of an aggressive outcome so Friendly group B members are then less likely to be swayed into aggression through changing beliefs. The other side could have acted aggressively because they were Hostile; but they also could have acted aggressively because they were simply temporarily angry. Furthermore, since increasing $ {\alpha}_A $ increases the likelihood that a group B member experiences an aggressive outcome, aggressive outcomes induce a less severe anger response, as the gap between expectations and outcomes is smaller. Agents expect that the other side may be more likely to choose aggression. Both mechanisms lead in the direction of less aggression from one group when the other is known to be sensitive to anger.

We offer four additional remarks on the interpretation of Proposition 3. First, the results track the distinction between intrapersonal effects of anger, which refer to the influence of an emotion on the person experiencing it, and interpersonal, which refer to the effects on individuals with whom the person interacts (Morris and Keltner Reference Morris and Keltner2000; Van Kleef et al. Reference Van Kleef, Van Dijk, Steinel, Harinck and Van Beest2008). The result also demonstrates a countervailing effect of anger in strategic interactions. When a group is known to be more sensitive to anger, their aggressive actions are more likely to be forgiven rather than retaliated against. One way to think about the direct and indirect effects of anger in our model is that the direct effects are the effects of anger and the indirect effects are the effects of others’ beliefs about anger. In this sense, it would be unambiguously good for group j if others believed that they are more sensitive to anger. This fits observed deliberate attempts by states to construct certain issues as anger-inducing to preempt confrontation (Hall Reference Hall2011). Since the results demonstrate that an agent has some benefit from being believed by other players to be susceptible to anger, one may ask whether a Friendly group has an ex ante incentive to increase its susceptibility to anger. The answer is no, as Corollary 1 shows.

Corollary 1. Increasing $ {\alpha}_j $ for a Friendly group j increases the long-run probability that a random member of group j observes an aggressive outcome in the period in which they are active.

Corollary 1 follows from the proof of Proposition 3 but we provide a separate proof in the appendix for completeness. The reasoning for why increased susceptibility to anger increases the total probability of conflict despite decreasing the likelihood of retaliation by the other group lies in the relationship between the probability of conflict and the likelihood of retaliation. If a player from group A becomes less likely to observe an aggressive outcome then she becomes more likely to retaliate, both because the aggressive outcome is more informative that the other group may be Hostile and because the aggressive outcome makes her more angry. The same is true for players from group B. What happens then if the value of $ {\alpha}_A $ is increased? Since group A members are more angry, they are now indifferent between conciliatory and aggressive actions at higher values of this probability, which means increasing $ {\alpha}_A $ must increase the likelihood that group A members observe an aggressive outcome. This finding also complements extant empirical research on the consequences of either being too quick to anger (e.g., angry more often) or faking anger in negotiations, which can increase adversary intransigence (Côté, Hideg, and Van Kleef Reference Côté, Hideg and Van Kleef2013; Wong Reference Wong2019), though through different mechanisms than we show here.

The reason for the countervailing effects of anger in our model are also distinct from the existing deterrence logic of anger (Sell, Tooby, and Cosmides Reference Sell, Tooby and Cosmides2009). In our model, it is not just that being susceptible to anger makes one appear “tougher” (Sinaceur and Tiedens Reference Sinaceur and Tiedens2006), unpredictable (McManus Reference McManus2019), less open to compromise (Van Kleef, De Dreu, and Manstead Reference Van Kleef, De Dreu and Manstead2004), or prone to aggression (Fessler Reference Fessler, Potegal, Stemmler and Spielberger2010), but rather, that susceptibility to anger makes it difficult to interpret aggressive actions as indicative of one’s type. If a player is certain that another’s actions are evidence that they are inherently Hostile, they should expect future aggression regardless of their own actions, and so would likely choose aggression. If, however, the player knows that the other is susceptible to anger, choosing a conciliatory response may induce their opponent’s future cooperation.

Another effect of anger in our model is that choices may depend on factors that are irrelevant to material payoffs. For example, Friendly types are more aggressive when $ r(H) $ is larger because increasing $ r(H) $ increases the benefit that a Hostile player receives from a conciliatory action, which reduces the psychological component of that agent’s utility: they do not like to see those who acted aggressively receive a benefit. This cannot happen with no sensitivity to anger: once an agent has the right prediction about how Hostile types will behave, the value of $ r(H) $ is irrelevant to the decision.

MODEL EXTENSIONS

Our model makes a number of simplifying and substantive assumptions. Next, we consider how these various analytic choices may affect our results by pursuing several model extensions. Though many extensions of the model are potentially productive for future work, we prioritize analyses that either clarify the consequences of our psychological games framework or respond to key parts of the political psychology literature on anger that are not already addressed by the baseline model.

Comparison to Naive Anger Preferences

A feature of anger in our model is that cognitive appraisals are anchored to expectations. This assumption is rooted in behavioral research findings but also complicates the analysis. In order to show why modeling anger using psychological game theory produces insights that differ from what could be gained by a simpler approach in which preferences are fully exogenous as in a standard model, we compare our model to one that is identical except for this feature.

Thus, consider the following modification to our basic model. The decision utility for player t is

(3) $$ \begin{array}{rl}{u}_t({x}_t,{\tilde{y}}_{t-1})=\unicode{x1D53C}[{v}_t|{x}_t,{y}_t,{\tilde{y}}_{t-1}]-{\alpha}_j\widehat{\beta}({\tilde{y}}_{t-1})\unicode{x1D53C}[{v}_{t-1}+{v}_{t+1}]& \end{array} $$

where $ \widehat{\beta}(a)=1 $ and $ \widehat{\beta}(c)=0. $ This model, which we refer to as naive anger, requires no deviation from standard game theoretic tools since preferences over outcomes do not depend on conjectures. Rather, players simply get angry whenever they see aggression. However, we highlight one important way in which naive anger cannot capture the same behavior as the more empirically grounded conceptualization of context-dependent anger in our model.

Proposition 4. There exists $ {\alpha}^{*}>0 $ such that, if $ {\alpha}_A>{\alpha}^{*} $ and $ {\alpha}_B>{\alpha}^{*} $ then the long-run probability of conflict is one in the naive anger model.

Proposition 4 shows that certain conflict can occur with naive anger for high enough values of $ {\alpha}_A $ and $ {\alpha}_B. $ As Proposition 2 showed, this is not possible in our main model. Thus, the model of context-dependent anger reaches a different conclusion than the naive anger model on the question of whether anger can cause permanent intractable conflict. Our model is thus more realistic on this point: as Acemoglu and Wolitzky (Reference Acemoglu and Wolitzky2014) discuss, even most long and ongoing conflicts are better described by periods of aggression and non-aggression than by constant aggression. This is supported by empirical work on long term rivalries and civil wars. For instance, Goertz, Jones, and Diehl (Reference Goertz, Jones and Diehl2005) emphasize a “punctuated equilibrium” pattern to conflicts with significant wait times in between conflicts which depend on the history of the relationship. It is also common to use hazard models to predict the duration of peaceful spells between episodes of conflict recurrence in civil war settings (Mason et al. Reference Mason, Gurses, Brandt and Quinn2011).

More Information about History

In our main model, we assumed agents have relatively poor information: agents receive a signal of the action taken at time $ t-1 $ and nothing else. This parallels much of the uncertainty that occurs in real-world conflict. However, in some conflicts—such as in longstanding rivalries or recurrent bouts of ethnic conflict—groups may have more information about the past behavior of their adversaries which could shape behavior. For example, research on collective memories in conflict has showcased the importance of long-distant past actions on present conflict attitudes and behavior (Rozenas and Zhukov Reference Rozenas and Zhukov2019; Wayne, Damann, and Fachter Reference Wayne, Damann and Fachter2023).

In Appendix G of the Supplementary Material, we pursue an extension of the model in which agents have more information about the history of play. A key result is that agents’ propensity toward aggression may depend on the history of the game in ways that are not rationalized purely by informational effects. For instance, agents who observe no aggressive actions in the past raise their expectations, which strengthens their anger response when a bad outcome is observed. This may happen even if they are fully convinced that the other group is Friendly. For example, after the Wikileaks scandal that publicized U.S. efforts to spy on its allies, German officials reacted with outrage, asserting “There is a palpable sense of betrayal in Germany over this, across the political spectrum, with calls for retaliatory action […] To many, it feels as if post-war German democracy’s nurturing elder brother, the United States, turned out to be Big Brother” (Busch Reference Busch2014). One interpretation of these events is that knowledge that a group is Friendly (or an ally) does not preclude actors from pursuing an aggressive response out of anger, and may in fact make this action more likely.

Concern for Others’ Beliefs

In our model, anger is based on beliefs about actions: agents are angry when outcomes are worse than expected for reasons attributed to the actions of other players. Another notion of anger may also have agents consider the intentions of other players as part of their cognitive appraisals (Petersen Reference Petersen2010). This means individuals should be particularly angry when they assess the negative actions against them to be unjust or undeserved (Pillutla and Keith Murnighan Reference Pillutla and Keith Murnighan1996) or as violating key values (Hall Reference Hall2017). For instance, in a security dilemma context, leaders may forgive Friendly types’ aggression when they believe it to be defensively motivated due to beliefs the adversary holds about her own actions or preferences, but not if aggression is seen as evidence of an adversary’s inherently Hostile, territorial-aggrandizing preferences (Jervis Reference Jervis1978).

Along these lines, Battigalli, Dufwenberg, and Smith (Reference Battigalli, Dufwenberg and Smith2019) provide a model of “anger blaming intentions” in which agents rely on second-order beliefs. In the anger blaming intentions model, an agent’s anger depends on how much she expects that other players believed that they were reducing her payoff when choosing their action. In our model, we can think about the difference as follows: if I perceive the aggressive actions of the other player to be due to their poor character (e.g., they are a Hostile type), this should make agents angrier than if those same actions are attributed to Friendly types who are simply responding to past aggression. Aggressive action by the other side may be seen as more morally justifiable and therefore less anger-inducing when it is attributed to the other side’s beliefs. Formally, agent t will be less angry when they believe that player $ t-1 $ took an aggressive action believing her to be a Hostile type than if player $ t-1 $ took the same action believing her to be a Friendly type. In Appendix H of the Supplementary Material, we consider this model allowing players’ anger to be reduced to the extent that the action could have been justified by the belief that player t was a Hostile type. The results establish that the main insights from the baseline model also hold for a model in which agents have concern for others’ beliefs, but that the effect of anger are lessened, since players will be potentially more forgiving of aggression.

Informational Effects of Anger

Our models considered the effects of anger on preferences, but the behavioral literature has demonstrated that anger also affects information processing. Angry individuals may become less receptive to new information (Valentino et al. Reference Valentino, Hutchings, Banks and Davis2008), more likely to rely on superficial cues (Bodenhausen, Sheppard, and Kramer Reference Bodenhausen, Sheppard and Kramer1994; Tiedens and Linton Reference Tiedens and Linton2001), and more susceptible to motivated reasoning (Weeks Reference Weeks2015).Footnote 15 Hence, beliefs are tied to emotions, “where emotion constitutes and strengthens a belief and makes possible a generalization about an actor that involves certainty beyond evidence” (Mercer Reference Mercer2010, 2). Angry individuals are more likely to attribute harmful intent to the actions of others and therefore recommend harsher punishment (Goldberg, Lerner, and Tetlock Reference Goldberg, Lerner and Tetlock1999). Attributing negative outcomes to the actions of others can then induce more anger (Allred Reference Allred, Deutsch and Peter2000). Therefore, anger can become self-reinforcing as angry individuals seek out or process more anger-inducing content (Huddy et al. Reference Huddy, Smirnov, Snider and Perliger2021).

In Appendix I of the Supplementary Material, we incorporate the effects of anger on information processing using the modeling framework of motivated reasoning (Little Reference Little2019; Little, Schnakenberg and Turner, Reference Little, Schnakenberg and Turner2022; Little Reference Little2021), but incorporating a psychological dynamic in which anger-based motivated reasoning is only triggered by a deviation from expected payoffs. We show that the main results apply to this case, indicating that context-dependence and increased aggression are the main features that drive the results, rather than whether anger is more likely to affect preferences or information search.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

We analyzed a dynamic psychological game of intergroup conflict, illustrating how emotions can play a systematic role in shaping diplomacy and political conflict. Our approach, which combines game theoretic tools with insights from political psychology, helps bridge the gap between behavioral studies, which are largely individual, and theoretical modeling, which until recently has relied largely on assumptions that discount a systematic role for emotions in strategic environments. This approach enabled us to explore the strategic implications of becoming angry or facing an angry decision-maker in a conflict context.

We explain various effects of anger on conflict dynamics. In Proposition 1, we demonstrate that increasing anger can increase individuals’ incentive to take aggressive action but this effect has limits: anger cannot on its own lead to perpetual conflict since its effect is limited by the expectations of the players. In repeated interactions, once players recognize their opponents are Hostile, they expect aggression and do not feel betrayed by it. This suggests that anger on its own is not a sufficient explanation for persistent conflict, bolstering research on, for example, the origins of ethnic conflict that argue that “ancient hatreds” and “ethnic passions” in fact have limited power to explain ethnic violence (Lake and Rothchild Reference Lake and Rothchild1996). Rather, other strategic aspects of the environment such as uncertainty over type, mistrust and the potential for misperception due to noisy signals act in concert with anger to foment or ameliorate conflict.

In Proposition 2, we show how the indirect effect of anger may be to decrease the aggressiveness of another group by reducing the extent to which negative outcomes lead to negative inferences about players’ preferences. These results highlight the complex interplay between emotional and strategic considerations in conflict settings. Anger increases the individual desire to punish others and so can engender conflict, but, at the interpersonal level, knowing about others’ propensity to feel anger may actually trigger more conciliatory behavior that reduces the likelihood of conflict. This parallels other findings regarding potential effects for leaders negotiating foreign policy when they are perceived of as being somewhat “mad” in their preferences (McManus Reference McManus2019), quick to anger (Wong Reference Wong2019), or as potentially beholden to angry, domestic constituents (Brandt, Colaresi, and Freeman Reference Brandt, Colaresi and Freeman2008). However, this strategy is not without risk, as empirical research also suggests that “faking anger” in negotiations is quite difficult to do in practice and may increase the intransigence of the other side (Côté, Hideg, and Van Kleef Reference Côté, Hideg and Van Kleef2013), perhaps due to their own “psychological reactance” to angry demands (Powers and Altman Reference Powers and Altman2023). In short, anger can foment conflict, but it can also ameliorate it. This work thus highlights an alternative, informational mechanism for the potential reparative effects of anger on interpersonal and intergroup relationships (Averill Reference Averill1983; Halperin et al. Reference Halperin, Russell, Dweck and Gross2011).

Another innovation of our work is to incorporate behavioral research suggesting that emotional responses are driven by contextual factors that shape expectations. That is, anger is driven by a gap between expectations and observed outcomes. This suggests that, in situations where anger is suspected to drive conflict spirals, the potential remedies may be different from what we may otherwise expect. For instance, in a different context, Lindstädt and Staton (Reference Lindstädt and Staton2012) emphasize the role of managing expectations to avoid backlash. This may be a feature of communication strategies during crises, where over-promising may be punished. Similarly, as in Grillo and Prato (Reference Grillo and Prato2023), actors may be rewarded when they overstate their potential threat and then hold back. Though we do not explicitly model communication prior to action, these strategies may apply here. Furthermore, this way of modeling anger provides a potentially different role for compensation of harms in ameliorating conflict. In our model, compensating harms (say, through side payments) would not necessarily change an agent’s beliefs about the motivations of the other group, but could ameliorate conflict by bringing outcomes more in line with expectations. These remedies are potentially fruitful avenues for future work.

More generally, this work demonstrates the value of incorporating empirically grounded assumptions about the emotions motivating preferences into game theoretic models to better understand the interplay between individuals and their strategic environment. While we focus on the security dilemma and other similar applications here, our modeling approach may be productively used for various other applications, such as in the study of protest. Emotions, including anger, are often theorized to motivate collective action in this setting (Pearlman Reference Pearlman2013). Existing formal models of protest contrast material versus psychological payoffs primarily with respect to whether or not rewards are rivalrous (Bueno de Mesquita and Shadmehr Reference Bueno de Mesquita and Shadmehr2023). For emotions like anger, our work suggests value in a psychological game theory approach to modeling the antecedents of emotional states.

Similarly, though in this paper we explored how one emotion—anger—can affect strategic conflict behavior, other emotions may have distinct effects on conflict dynamics. Fear, for example, is also crucial in conflict contexts. Though fear is also a negatively valenced emotion, it is engendered by different appraisals regarding relative strength and intentionality (Roseman Reference Roseman1996) and, as such, leads to distinct motivations (Wayne Reference Wayne2023), attitudes (Skitka et al. Reference Skitka, Bauman, Aramovich and Scott Morgan2006), and information-processing tendencies (Parker and Isbell Reference Parker and Isbell2010). Positive emotions like hope (Cohen-Chen et al. Reference Cohen-Chen, Halperin, Porat and Bar-Tal2014) and empathy (Baker Reference Baker2019) have also been shown to play an important role in conflict settings, but their impact on the strategic choices of actors is not well understood. Exploring the distinct implications of these other core conflict emotions to strategic behavior is thus an important task for future research.

SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL

To view supplementary material for this article, please visit https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055424000078.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors thank Avidit Acharya, Pierpaulo Battagli, Taylor Carlson, Martin Dufwenberg, Ted Enamorado, Dana Foarta, Todd Hall, Andrew Kydd, Andrew Little, Christopher Lucas, William Nomikos, Michael Olson, Carlo Prato, Emily Ritter, David Siegel, Dustin Tingley, Steven Webster, Shuren Zheng, and participants in the University of Illinois Political Science Department Seminar, the Stanford University Graduate School of Business Political Economy Seminar, and the Online Peace Science Colloquium.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The authors declare no ethical issues or conflicts of interest in this research.

ETHICAL STANDARDS

The authors affirm this research did not involve human subjects.

Footnotes

4 Moreover, anger promotes rumination, making it persist longer (Verduyn and Lavrijsen Reference Verduyn and Lavrijsen2015), increasing its potential influence on political decision-making. Even when the physiological response to anger fades, the feeling of anger can persist (Damasio Reference Damasio, Manstead, Frijda and Fischer2004), such as in the case of state anger over “national humiliations,” which can last for decades (Barnhart Reference Barnhart2020).

5 The way we use the terms “mistrust” and “misperception” is consistent with a survey by Acemoglu and Wolitzky (Reference Acemoglu and Wolitzky2023) and with the usage of mistrust in Kydd (Reference Kydd2005).

6 See especially the spiral model in Kydd (Reference Kydd2000).

7 Some applied work outside of international relations also uses the sort of context-dependent preferences used in this paper (Grillo Reference Grillo2016; Grillo and Prato Reference Grillo and Prato2023; Leontiou, Manalis, and Xefteris Reference Leontiou, Manalis and Xefteris2021).

8 Player $ 0 $ knows that $ t=0 $ because she does not see any result $ {\tilde{y}}_{t-1} $ but all other agents are uncertain about how many periods have passed.

9 We do not provide a separate proof for Proposition 3 in this more general case, though continuity implies that the result holds as long as $ \overline{\rho}-\underset{\_}{\rho } $ is large enough.

10 Most of the psychological games literature uses the term “beliefs” to describe players’ conjectures about strategies of other players. We avoid this terminology to avoid confusion with beliefs about player types.

11 Appendix B of the Supplementary Material gives illustrative examples computing anger for three different conjectures about player strategies.

12 Appendix A of the Supplementary Material provides an illustration of the solution concept in a simpler game.

13 The requirement that conjectures and strategies are consistent is implicit in Nash equilibrium and all of its refinements, though it is not typically stated in this way. For instance, the sense in which Nash equilibrium strengthens dominance as a solution concept is the leap from requiring that players best respond to some conjecture about other players’ strategies to requiring the players’ best respond to correct conjectures about other players’ strategies. Thus, this requirement imposes correct beliefs in exactly the same way as Nash equilibrium.

14 The proofs for all propositions are in Appendices C–F of the Supplementary Material.

15 Anger has also been shown to increase risk-taking (Lerner and Keltner Reference Lerner and Keltner2001), which, in turn can shape policy-making (McDermott Reference McDermott2017), a phenomenon we do not explore in depth here.

References

REFERENCES

Acemoglu, Daron, and Wolitzky, Alexander. 2014. “Cycles of Conflict: An Economic Model.” American Economic Review 104 (4): 1350–67.Google Scholar
Acemoglu, Daron, and Wolitzky, Alexander. 2023. “Mistrust, Misperception, and Misunderstanding: Imperfect Information and Conflict Dynamics.” Working Paper.Google Scholar
Acharya, Avidit, Blackwell, Matthew, and Sen, Maya. 2018. “Explaining Preferences from Behavior: A Cognitive Dissonance Approach.” Journal of Politics 80 (2): 400–11.Google Scholar
Acharya, Avidit, and Grillo, Edoardo. 2019. “A Behavioral Foundation for Audience Costs.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 14 (2): 159–90.Google Scholar
Acharya, Avidit, and Ramsay, Kristopher W.. 2013. “The Calculus of the Security Dilemma.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 8 (2): 183203.Google Scholar
Agranov, Marina, Goeree, Jacob K., Romero, Julian, and Yariv, Leeat. 2017. “What Makes Voters Turn Out: The Effects of Polls and Beliefs.” Journal of the European Economic Association 16 (3): 825–56.Google Scholar
Alesina, Alberto, and Passarelli, Francesco. 2019. “Loss Aversion in Politics.” American Journal of Political Science 63 (4): 936–47.Google Scholar
Allred, Keith G. 2000. “Anger and Retaliation in Conflict: The Role of Attribution.” In The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice, eds. Deutsch, Morton and Peter, T. Coleman, 236–55. New York: Jossey-Bass/Wiley.Google Scholar
Averill, James R. 1983. “Studies on Anger and Aggression: Implications for Theories of Emotion.” American Psychologist 38 (11): 1145–60.Google ScholarPubMed
Baker, Joshua. 2019. “The Empathic Foundations of Security Dilemma De-escalation.” Political Psychology 40 (6): 1251–66.Google Scholar
Balcells, Laia. 2010. “Rivalry and Revenge: Violence against Civilians in Conventional Civil Wars.” International Studies Quarterly 54 (2): 291313.Google Scholar
Banks, Antoine J., and Valentino, Nicholas A.. 2012. “Emotional Substrates of White Racial Attitudes.” American Journal of Political Science 56 (2): 286–97.Google Scholar
Barnhart, Joslyn. 2020. The Consequences of Humiliation: Anger and Status in World Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Bar-Tal, Daniel, Halperin, Eran, and De Rivera, Joseph. 2007. “Collective Emotions in Conflict Situations: Societal Implications.” Journal of Social Issues 63 (2): 441–60.Google Scholar
Battigalli, Pierpaolo, Corrao, Roberto, and Dufwenberg, Martin. 2019. “Incorporating Belief-Dependent Motivation in Games.” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 167: 185218.Google Scholar
Battigalli, Pierpaolo, and Dufwenberg, Martin. 2009. “Dynamic Psychological Games.” Journal of Economic Theory 144 (1): 135.Google Scholar
Battigalli, Pierpaolo, Dufwenberg, Martin, and Smith, Alec. 2019. “Frustration, Aggression, and Anger in Leader-follower Games.” Games and Economic Behavior 117: 1539.Google Scholar
Bendor, Jonathan, Kumar, Sunil, and Siegel, David A.. 2010. “Adaptively Rational Retrospective Voting.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 22 (1): 2663.Google Scholar
Benistant, Julien, and Suchon, Rémi. 2021. “It Does (Not) Get Better: Reference Income Violation and Altruism.” Journal of Economic Psychology 85: 102380.Google Scholar
Berkowitz, Leonard. 1990. “On the Formation and Regulation of Anger and Aggression: A Cognitive-Neoassociationistic Analysis.” American Psychologist 45 (4): 494503.Google ScholarPubMed
Berkowitz, Leonard, and Harmon-Jones, Eddie. 2004. “Toward an Understanding of the Determinants of Anger.” Emotion 4 (2): 107–30.Google ScholarPubMed
Bicskei, Marianna, Lankau, Matthias, and Bizer, Kilian. 2016. “Negative Reciprocity and its Relation to Anger-Like Emotions in Identity-Homogeneous and -Heterogeneous Groups.” Journal of Economic Psychology 54: 1734.Google Scholar
Bleiker, Roland, and Hutchison, Emma. 2008. “Fear No More: Emotions and World Politics.” Review of International Studies 34 (S1): 115–35.Google Scholar
Bodenhausen, Galen V., Sheppard, Lori A., and Kramer, Geoffrey P.. 1994. “Negative Affect and Social Judgment: The Differential Impact of Anger and Sadness.” European Journal of Social Psychology 24 (1): 4562.Google Scholar
Brandt, Patrick T., Colaresi, Michael, and Freeman, John R.. 2008. “The Dynamics of Reciprocity, Accountability, and Credibility.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 52 (3): 343–74.Google Scholar
Bueno de Mesquita, Ethan, and Shadmehr, Mehdi. 2023. “Rebel Motivations and Repression.” American Political Science Review 117 (2): 734–50.Google Scholar
Busch, Andreas. 2014. “Why Germans Are Angry about U.S. Spying.” The Monkey Cage [blog], July 23. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/07/23/why-germans-are-angry-about-u-s-spying/.Google Scholar
Calvert, Randall L. 1995. “ Rational Actors, Equilibrium, and Social Institutions .” In Explaining Social Institutions, eds. Knight, Jack and Sened, Itai, 5793. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Card, David, and Dahl, Gordon B.. 2011. “Family Violence and Football: The Effect of Unexpected Emotional Cues on Violent Behavior.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 126 (1): 103–43.Google ScholarPubMed
Carlsmith, Kevin M., Darley, John M., and Robinson, Paul H.. 2002. “Why Do We Punish? Deterrence and Just Deserts as Motives for Punishment.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 83 (2): 284.Google ScholarPubMed
Cha, Victor, and Katz, Katrin Fraser. 2018. “The Right Way to Coerce North Korea: Ending the Threat without Going to War.” Foreign Affairs 97 (3): 87100.Google Scholar
Cheung-Blunden, Violet, and Blunden, Bill. 2008. “The Emotional Construal of War: Anger, Fear, and Other Negative Emotions.” Peace and Conflict 14 (2): 123–50.Google Scholar
Claassen, Christopher. 2016. “Group Entitlement, Anger and Participation in Intergroup Violence.” British Journal of Political Science 46 (1): 127–48.Google Scholar
Cohen-Chen, Smadar, Halperin, Eran, Porat, Roni, and Bar-Tal, Daniel. 2014. “The Differential Effects of Hope and Fear on Information Processing in Intractable Conflict.” Journal of Social and Political Psychology 2 (1): 1130.Google Scholar
Colaresi, Michael, and Thompson, William R.. 2002. “Strategic Rivalries, Protracted Conflict, and Crisis Escalation.” Journal of Peace Research 39 (3): 263–87.Google Scholar
Corbetta, Renato. 2022. The Consequences of Humiliation: Anger and Status in World Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Côté, Stéphane, Hideg, Ivona, and Van Kleef, Gerben A.. 2013. “The Consequences of Faking Anger in Negotiations.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 49 (3): 453–63.Google Scholar
Crawford, Neta C. 2000. “The Passion of World Politics: Propositions on Emotion and Emotional Relationships.” International Security 24 (4): 116–56.Google Scholar
Damasio, Antonio R. 2004. “Emotions and Feelings.” In Feelings and Emotions: The Amsterdam Symposium, eds. Manstead, Antony S. R., Frijda, Nico, and Fischer, Agneta, 4957. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
DeSteno, David, Dasgupta, Nilanjana, Bartlett, Monica Y., and Cajdric, Aida. 2004. “Prejudice from Thin Air: The Effect of Emotion on Automatic Intergroup Attitudes.” Psychological Science 15 (5): 319–24.Google ScholarPubMed
Dollard, John, Miller, Neal E., Doob, Leonard W., Mowrer, O. H., and Sears, Robert R.. 1939. Frustration and Aggression. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Dufwenberg, Martin, and Kirchsteiger, Georg. 2004. “A Theory of Sequential Reciprocity.” Games and Economic Behavior 47 (2): 268–98.Google Scholar
Fearon, James D., and Laitin, David D.. 1996. “Explaining Interethnic Cooperation.” American Political Science Review 90 (4): 715–35.Google Scholar
Feddersen, Timothy, Gailmard, Sean, and Sandroni, Alvaro. 2009. “Moral Bias in Large Elections: Theory and Experimental Evidence.” American Political Science Review 103 (2): 175–92.Google Scholar
Fessler, Daniel M. T. 2010. “Madmen: An Evolutionary Perspective on Anger and Men’s Violent Responses to Transgression.” In International Handbook of Anger, eds. Potegal, Michael, Stemmler, Gerhard, and Spielberger, Charles, 361–81. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Fisk, Kerstin, Merolla, Jennifer L., and Ramos, Jennifer M.. 2018. “Emotions, Terrorist Threat, and Drones: Anger Drives Support for Drone Strikes.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 63 (4): 9761000.Google Scholar
Frijda, Nico H. 1993. “The Place of Appraisal in Emotion.” Cognition & Emotion 7 (3–4): 357–87.Google Scholar
García-Ponce, Omar, Young, Lauren E., and Zeitzoff, Thomas. 2023. “Anger and Support for Retribution in Mexico’s Drug War.” Journal of Peace Research 60 (2): 274–90.Google Scholar
Gault, Barbara A., and Sabini, John. 2000. “The Roles of Empathy, Anger, and Gender in Predicting Attitudes toward Punitive, Reparative, and Preventative Public Policies.” Cognition & Emotion 14 (4): 495520.Google Scholar
Geanakoplos, John, Pearce, David, and Stacchetti, Ennio. 1989. “Psychological Games and Sequential Rationality.” Games and Economic Behavior 1 (1): 6079.Google Scholar
George, Alexander L., and George, Juliette L.. 2019. Presidential Personality and Performance. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Goertz, Gary, Jones, Bradford, and Diehl, Paul F.. 2005. “Maintenance Processes in International Rivalries.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 49 (5): 742–69.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Julie H., Lerner, Jennifer S., and Tetlock, Philip E.. 1999. “Rage and Reason: The Psychology of the Intuitive Prosecutor.” European Journal of Social Psychology 29 (5–6): 781–95.Google Scholar
Gollwitzer, Mario, Skitka, Linda J., Wisneski, Daniel, Sjöström, Arne, Liberman, Peter, Nazir, Syed Javed, and Bushman, Brad J.. 2014. “Vicarious Revenge and the Death of Osama bin Laden.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 40 (5): 604–16.Google ScholarPubMed
Gottfried, Matthew S., and Trager, Robert F.. 2016. “A Preference for War: How Fairness and Rhetoric Influence Leadership Incentives in Crises.” International Studies Quarterly 60 (2): 243–57.Google Scholar
Greenstein, Fred I. 1967. “The Impact of Personality on Politics: An Attempt to Clear Away Underbrush.” American Political Science Review 61 (3): 629–41.Google Scholar
Grieco, Joseph, Powell, Robert, and Snidal, Duncan. 1993. “The Relative-Gains Problem for International Cooperation.” American Political Science Review 87 (3): 729–43.Google Scholar
Grillo, Edoardo. 2016. “The Hidden Cost of Raising Voters’ Expectations: Reference Dependence and Politicians’ Credibility.” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 130: 126–43.Google Scholar
Grillo, Edoardo, and Prato, Carlo. 2023. “Reference Points and Democratic Backsliding.” American Journal of Political Science 67 (1): 7188.Google Scholar
Hafner-Burton, Emilie M., Haggard, Stephan, Lake, David A., and Victor, David G.. 2017. “The Behavioral Revolution and International Relations.” International Organization 71 (S1): S1–31.Google Scholar
Haidt, Jonathan. 2003. “The Moral Emotions.” In Handbook of Affective Sciences, eds. Davidson, Richard J., Scherer, Klaus, and Hill Goldsmith, H., 852–70. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hall, Todd H. 2011. “We Will Not Swallow this Bitter Fruit: Theorizing a Diplomacy of Anger.” Security Studies 20 (4): 521–55.Google Scholar
Hall, Todd H. 2017. “On Provocation: Outrage, International Relations, and the Franco–Prussian War.Security Studies 26 (1): 129.Google Scholar
Hall, Todd H. 2021. “Dispute Inflation.” European Journal of International Relations 27 (4): 1136–61.Google Scholar
Halperin, Eran, Russell, Alexandra G., Dweck, Carol S., and Gross, James J.. 2011. “Anger, Hatred, and the Quest for Peace: Anger Can Be Constructive in the Absence of Hatred.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 55 (2): 274–91.Google Scholar
Haynes, Kyle, and Yoder, Brandon. 2022. “Interstate Reassurance with Endogenous Preferences.” Working Paper.Google Scholar
Holmes, Marcus, and Yarhi-Milo, Keren. 2017. “The Psychological Logic of Peace Summits: How Empathy Shapes Outcomes of Diplomatic Negotiations.” International Studies Quarterly 61 (1): 107–22.Google Scholar
Horowitz, Michael C., Stam, Allan C., and Ellis, Cali M.. 2015. Why Leaders Fight. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Huddy, Leonie, Smirnov, Oleg, Snider, Keren L. G., and Perliger, Arie. 2021. “Anger, Anxiety, and Selective Exposure to Terrorist Violence.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 65 (10): 1764–90.Google Scholar
Hymans, Jacques E. C. 2006. The Psychology of Nuclear Proliferation: Identity, Emotions and Foreign Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jervis, Robert. 1978. “Cooperation under the Security Dilemma.” World Politics 30 (2): 167214.Google Scholar
Jervis, Robert. 1986. “Deterrence, the Spiral Model, and Intentions of the Adversary.” In Psychology and the Prevention of Nuclear War, ed. White, Ralph K., 107–30. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Jervis, Robert, Lebow, Richard Ned, and Stein, Janice Gross. 1989. Psychology and Deterrence. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, Devon. 2009. “Anger about Crime and Support for Punitive Criminal Justice Policies.” Punishment & Society 11 (1): 5166.Google Scholar
Kadera, Kelly. 2001. The Power-Conflict Story: A Dynamic Model of Interstate Rivalry. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Kahneman, Daniel, and Tversky, Amos. 1979. “Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk.” Econometrica 47 (2): 263–91.Google Scholar
Kassinove, Howard, Roth, David, Owens, Shane Gregory, and Ryan Fuller, J.. 2002. “Effects of Trait Anger and Anger Expression Style on Competitive Attack Responses in a Wartime Prisoner’s Dilemma Game.” Aggressive Behavior: Official Journal of the International Society for Research on Aggression 28 (2): 117–25.Google Scholar
Kertzer, Joshua D. 2017. “Microfoundations in International Relations.” Conflict Management and Peace Science 34 (1): 8197.Google Scholar
Kertzer, Joshua D., Holmes, Marcus, LeVeck, Brad L., and Wayne, Carly. 2022. “Hawkish Biases and Group Decision Making.” International Organization 76 (3): 513–48.Google Scholar
Kertzer, Joshua D., and Rathbun, Brian C.. 2015. “Fair is Fair: Social Preferences and Reciprocity in International Politics.” World Politics 67 (4): 613–55.Google Scholar
Kertzer, Joshua D., and Tingley, Dustin. 2018. “Political Psychology in International Relations: Beyond the Paradigms.” Annual Review of Political Science 21: 319–39.Google Scholar
Keys, Barbara, and Yorke, Claire. 2019. “Personal and Political Emotions in the Mind of the Diplomat.” Political Psychology 40 (6): 1235–49.Google Scholar
Kinnvall, Catarina, and Mitzen, Jennifer. 2020. “Anxiety, Fear, and Ontological Security in World Politics: Thinking with and beyond Giddens.” International Theory 12 (2): 240–56.Google Scholar
Kydd, Andrew. 1997. “Game Theory and the Spiral Model.” World Politics 49 (3): 371400.Google Scholar
Kydd, Andrew. 2000. “Trust, Reassurance, and Cooperation.” International Organization 54 (2): 325–57.Google Scholar
Kydd, Andrew H. 2005. Trust and Mistrust in International Relations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Lake, David A., and Rothchild, Donald. 1996. “Containing Fear: The Origins and Management of Ethnic Conflict.” International Security 21 (2): 4175.Google Scholar
Larson, Jennifer M. 2017. “Networks and Interethnic Cooperation.” Journal of Politics 79 (2): 546–59.Google Scholar
Lazarus, Richard S. 1991. “Progress on a Cognitive-Motivational-Relational Theory of Emotion.” American Psychologist 46 (8): 819–34.Google ScholarPubMed
Lazarus, Richard S. 1999. “The Cognition-Emotion Debate: A Bit of History.” Handbook of Cognition and Emotion, eds. Dalgleish, Tim and Power, Mick J., 119. New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Leontiou, Anastasia, Manalis, Georgios, and Xefteris, Dimitrios. 2021. “Bandwagons in Costly Elections: The Role of Loss Aversion.” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 209: 471–90.Google Scholar
Lerner, Jennifer S., and Keltner, Dacher. 2001. “Fear, Anger, and Risk.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 81 (1): 146–59.Google ScholarPubMed
Levy, Jack S. 1983. “Misperception and the Causes of War: Theoretical Linkages and Analytical Problems.” World Politics 36 (1): 7699.Google Scholar
Liberman, Peter. 2013. “Retributive Support for International Punishment and Torture.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 57 (2): 285306.Google Scholar
Liberman, Peter, and Skitka, Linda J.. 2017. “Revenge in US Public Support for War against Iraq.” Public Opinion Quarterly 81 (3): 636–60.Google Scholar
Lim, Sijeong, and Tanaka, Seiki. 2022. “Why Costly Rivalry Disputes Persist: A Paired Conjoint Experiment in Japan and South Korea.” International Studies Quarterly 66 (4): sqac063.Google Scholar
Lindstädt, René, and Staton, Jeffrey K.. 2012. “Managing Expectations.” Journal of Theoretical Politics 24 (2): 274302.Google Scholar
Little, Andrew T. 2019. “The Distortion of Related Beliefs.” American Journal of Political Science 63 (3): 675–89.Google Scholar
Little, Andrew T. 2021. “Detecting Motivated Reasoning.” Working Paper.Google Scholar
Little, Andrew T., Schnakenberg, Keith E., and Turner, Ian R.. 2022. “Motivated Reasoning and Democratic Accountability.” American Political Science Review 116 (2): 751–67.Google Scholar
Loewenstein, George. 1996. “Out of Control: Visceral Influences on Behavior.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 65 (3): 272–92.Google Scholar
Mackie, Diane M., Devos, Thierry, and Smith, Eliot R.. 2000. “Intergroup Emotions: Explaining Offensive Action Tendencies in an Intergroup Context.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 79 (4): 602–16.Google Scholar
Maoz, Zeev, and San-Akca, Belgin. 2012. “Rivalry and State Support of Non-State Armed Groups (NAGs), 1946–2001.” International Studies Quarterly 56 (4): 720–34.Google Scholar
Mason, David T., Gurses, Mehmet, Brandt, Patrick T., and Quinn, Jason Michael. 2011. “When Civil Wars Recur: Conditions for Durable Peace after Civil Wars.” International Studies Perspectives 12 (2): 171–89.Google Scholar
Masterson, Michael. 2022. “Humiliation and International Conflict Preferences.” Journal of Politics 84 (2): 874–88.Google Scholar
Matsumoto, David, Yoo, Seung Hee, and Chung, Joanne. 2010. “The Expression of Anger across Cultures.” In International Handbook of Anger, eds. Potegal, Michael, Stemmler, Gerhard, and Spielberger, Charles, 125–37. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
McDermott, Rose. 2004. “The Feeling of Rationality: The Meaning of Neuroscientific Advances for Political Science.” Perspectives on Politics 2 (4): 691706.Google Scholar
McDermott, Rose. 2014a. “The Biological Bases for Aggressiveness and Nonaggressiveness in Presidents.” Foreign Policy Analysis 10 (4): 313–27.Google Scholar
McDermott, Rose. 2014b. “The Body Doesn’t Lie: A Somatic Approach to the Study of Emotions in World Politics.” International Theory 6 (3): 557–62.Google Scholar
McDermott, Rose. 2015. “Sex and Death: Gender Differences in Aggression and Motivations for Violence.” International Organization 69 (3): 753–75.Google Scholar
McDermott, Rose. 2017. “Emotions in Foreign Policy Decision Making.” Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.418.Google Scholar
McDermott, Rose, Lopez, Anthony C., and Hatemi, Peter K.. 2017. ““Blunt Not the Heart, Enrage It”: The Psychology of Revenge and Deterrence.” Texas National Security Review 1 (1): 68–88.Google Scholar
McDoom, Omar Shahabudin. 2012. “The Psychology of Threat in Intergroup Conflict: Emotions, Rationality, and Opportunity in the Rwandan Genocide.” International Security 37 (2): 119–55.Google Scholar
McManus, Roseanne W. 2019. “Revisiting the Madman Theory: Evaluating the Impact of Different Forms of Perceived Madness in Coercive Bargaining.” Security Studies 28 (5): 9761009.Google Scholar
Mercer, Jonathan. 2010. “Emotional Beliefs.” International Organization 64 (1): 131.Google Scholar
Minozzi, William. 2013. “Endogenous Beliefs in Models of Politics.” American Journal of Political Science 57 (3): 566–81.Google Scholar
Mintz, Alex, Valentino, Nicholas A., and Wayne, Carly. 2021. Beyond Rationality: Behavioral Political Science in the 21st Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Morey, Daniel S. 2011. “When War Brings Peace: A Dynamic Model of the Rivalry Process.” American Journal of Political Science 55 (2): 263–75.Google Scholar
Morris, Michael W., and Keltner, Dacher. 2000. “How Emotions Work: The Social Functions of Emotional Expression in Negotiations.” Research in Organizational Behavior 22: 150.Google Scholar
Pagano, Sabrina J., and Huo, Yuen J.. 2007. “The Role of Moral Emotions in Predicting Support for Political Actions in Post-War Iraq.” Political Psychology 28 (2): 227–55.Google Scholar
Parker, Michael T., and Isbell, Linda M.. 2010. “How I Vote Depends on How I Feel: The Differential Impact of Anger and Fear on Political Information Processing.” Psychological Science 21 (4): 548–50.Google Scholar
Parkinson, Brian. 1996. “Emotions are Social.” British Journal of Psychology 87 (4): 663–83.Google ScholarPubMed
Pearlman, Wendy. 2013. “Emotions and the Microfoundations of the Arab Uprisings.” Perspectives on Politics 11 (2): 387409.Google Scholar
Penn, Elizabeth Maggie. 2008. “Citizenship versus Ethnicity: The Role of Institutions in Shaping Identity Choice.” Journal of Politics 70 (4): 956–73.Google Scholar
Persson, Emil. 2018. “Testing the Impact of Frustration and Anger when Responsibility is Low.” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 145: 435–48.Google Scholar
Petersen, Michael Bang. 2010. “Distinct Emotions, Distinct Domains: Anger, Anxiety and Perceptions of Intentionality.” Journal of Politics 72 (2): 357–65.Google Scholar
Petersen, Roger Dale. 2002. Understanding Ethnic Violence: Fear, Hatred, and Resentment in Twentieth-Century Eastern Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Petersen, Roger, and Zukerman, Sarah. 2010. “Anger, Violence, and Political Science.” In International Handbook of Anger, eds. Potegal, Michael, Stemmler, Gerhard, and Spielberger, Charles, 561–81. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Phoenix, Davin L. 2019. The Anger Gap: How Race Shapes Emotion in Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pillutla, Madan M., and Keith Murnighan, J.. 1996. “Unfairness, Anger, and Spite: Emotional Rejections of Ultimatum Offers.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 68 (3): 208–24.Google Scholar
Posen, Barry R. 1993. “The Security Dilemma and Ethnic Conflict.” Survival 35 (1): 2747.Google Scholar
Powell, Robert. 2017. “Research Bets and Behavioral IR.” International Organization 71 (S1): S265–77.Google Scholar
Powers, Kathleen E., and Altman, Dan. 2023. “The Psychology of Coercion Failure: How Reactance Explains Resistance to Threats.” American Journal of Political Science 67 (1): 221–38.Google Scholar
Rabin, Matthew. 1993. “Incorporating Fairness into Game Theory and Economics.” American Economic Review 83 (5): 1281–302.Google Scholar
Ramsay, Kristopher W. 2017. “Information, Uncertainty, and War.” Annual Review of Political Science 20: 505–27.Google Scholar
Rathbun, Brian C. 2007. “Uncertain about Uncertainty: Understanding the Multiple Meanings of a Crucial Concept in International Relations Theory.” International Studies Quarterly 51 (3): 533–57.Google Scholar
Renshon, Jonathan, Lee, Julia J., and Tingley, Dustin. 2017. “Emotions and the Micro-Foundations of Commitment Problems.” International Organization 71 (S1): S189S218.Google Scholar
Renshon, Jonathan, and Lerner, Jennifer S.. 2012. “The Role of Emotions in Foreign Policy Decision Making.” In Encyclopedia of Peace Psychology, ed. Christie, Daniel J., 313–17. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell Press.Google Scholar
Roseman, Ira J. 1996. “Appraisal Determinants of Emotions: Constructing a More Accurate and Comprehensive Theory.” Cognition & Emotion 10 (3): 241–78.Google Scholar
Rozenas, Arturas, and Zhukov, Yuri M.. 2019. “Mass Repression and Political Loyalty: Evidence from Stalin’s ‘Terror by Hunger’.” American Political Science Review 113 (2): 569–83.Google Scholar
Saunders, Elizabeth N. 2011. Leaders at War: How Presidents Shape Military Interventions. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Scherer, Klaus R. 1988. “Criteria for Emotion-Antecedent Appraisal: A Review.” In Cognitive Perspectives on Emotion and Motivation, eds. Hamilton, Vernon, Bower, Gordon H., and Frijda, Nico H., 89126. Dordrecht, NL: Springer.Google Scholar
Scherer, Klaus R. 1999. “Appraisal Theory.” In Handbook of Cognition and Emotion, eds. Dalgleish, Tim and Power, Mick J., 637–63. New York: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.Google Scholar
Schnakenberg, Keith E. 2014. “Group Identity and Symbolic Political Behavior.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 9 (2): 137–67.Google Scholar
Sell, Aaron, Tooby, John, and Cosmides, Leda. 2009. “Formidability and the Logic of Human Anger.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106 (35): 15073–8.Google ScholarPubMed
Siegel, David A. 2011. “When Does Repression Work? Collective Action in Social Networks.” Journal of Politics 73 (4): 9931010.Google Scholar
Sinaceur, Marwan, and Tiedens, Larissa Z.. 2006. “Get Mad and Get More than Even: When and Why Anger Expression is Effective in Negotiations.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 42 (3): 314–22.Google Scholar
Skitka, Linda J., Bauman, Christopher W., Aramovich, Nicholas P., and Scott Morgan, G.. 2006. “Confrontational and Preventative Policy Responses to Terrorism: Anger Wants a Fight and Fear Wants “Them” to Go Away.” Basic and Applied Social Psychology 28 (4): 375–84.Google Scholar
Srivastava, Joydeep, Espinoza, Francine, and Fedorikhin, Alexander. 2009. “Coupling and Decoupling of Unfairness and Anger in Ultimatum Bargaining.” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 22 (5): 475–89.Google Scholar
Tiedens, Larissa Z., and Linton, Susan. 2001. “Judgment under Emotional Certainty and Uncertainty: The Effects of Specific Emotions on Information Processing.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 81 (6): 973.Google ScholarPubMed
Valentino, Nicholas A., Hutchings, Vincent L., Banks, Antoine J., and Davis, Anne K.. 2008. “Is a Worried Citizen a Good Citizen? Emotions, Political Information Seeking, and Learning via the Internet.” Political Psychology 29 (2): 247–73.Google Scholar
Van Kleef, Gerben A., De Dreu, Carsten K. W., and Manstead, Antony S. R.. 2004. “The Interpersonal Effects of Anger and Happiness in Negotiations.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 86 (1): 57.Google ScholarPubMed
Van Kleef, Gerben A., Van Dijk, Eric, Steinel, Wolfgang, Harinck, Fieke, and Van Beest, Ilja. 2008. “Anger in Social Conflict: Cross-Situational Comparisons and Suggestions for the Future.” Group Decision and Negotiation 17 (1): 1330.Google Scholar
Verduyn, Philippe, and Lavrijsen, Saskia. 2015. “Which Emotions Last Longest and Why: The Role of Event Importance and Rumination.” Motivation and Emotion 39 (1): 119–27.Google Scholar
Wayne, Carly. 2023. “Terrified or Enraged? Emotional Micro-Foundations of Public Counterterror Attitudes.” International Organization 77 (4): 824–47.Google Scholar
Wayne, Carly, Damann, Taylor J., and Fachter, Shani. 2023. “The Holocaust, the Socialization of Victimhood and Outgroup Political Attitudes in Israel.” Comparative Political Studies. https://doi.org/10.1177/00104140231194068.Google Scholar
Weeks, Brian E. 2015. “Emotions, Partisanship, and Misperceptions: How Anger and Anxiety Moderate the Effect of Partisan Bias on Susceptibility to Political Misinformation.” Journal of Communication 65 (4): 699719.Google Scholar
Weingast, Barry R. 1998. “Constructing Trust: The Political and Economic Roots of Ethnic and Regional Conflict.” In Institutions and Social Order, eds. Haufler, Virginia, Soltan, Karol, and Uslaner, Eric, 163200. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Wong, Seanon S. 2016. “Emotions and the Communication of Intentions in Face-to-Face Diplomacy.” European Journal of International Relations 22 (1): 144–67.Google Scholar
Wong, Seanon S. 2019. “Stoics and Hotheads: Leaders’ Temperament, Anger, and the Expression of Resolve in Face-to-Face Diplomacy.” Journal of Global Security Studies 4 (2): 190208.Google Scholar
Zajonc, Robert B. 2000. “Feeling and Thinking: Closing the Debate over the Independence of Affect.” In Feeling and Thinking: The Role of Affect in Social Cognition, ed. Forgas, Joseph P., 3158. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zeitzoff, Thomas. 2014. “Anger, Exposure to Violence, and Intragroup Conflict: A “Lab in the Field” Experiment in Southern Israel.” Political Psychology 35 (3): 309–35.Google Scholar
Zhou, Andi, Goemans, Hein E., and Weintraub, Michael. 2023. “Sources of Risk Acceptance in Territorial Disputes.” Working Paper.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Figure 1. Material Payoffs of Player t from Interactions with Players $ t-1 $ and $ t+1 $Note: Parameter values are $ s>0 $ and $ r(F)<1

Figure 1

Table 1. Notation from the Model

Supplementary material: File

Schnakenberg and Wayne supplementary material

Schnakenberg and Wayne supplementary material
Download Schnakenberg and Wayne supplementary material(File)
File 194.5 KB
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.