Concept and theory
Smith (1993) proposed that when social identity is activated, people appraise events from the group's standpoint and consequently feel emotions on behalf of the group. This was the starting point of intergroup emotions theory. Mackie, Devos and Smith (2000) showed that when the ingroup is appraised as strong in a conflict with an outgroup, group-based anger increases, and this anger mediates intentions to confront or attack the outgroup. When the ingroup was appraised as weak, by contrast, fear rather than anger grew and avoidance tendencies appeared.
Characteristics as a group-level emotion
Smith, Seger and Mackie (2007) tested against four criteria whether group emotions are distinct from individual emotions. Anger felt as a group member differed in level from anger felt as an individual, was stronger among high identifiers, converged among members of the same group, and independently predicted actions supporting the ingroup and confronting the outgroup. This shows that group-based anger is not merely the sum of individual anger but a distinct emotion rooted in social identity.
Collective action and political outcomes
Van Zomeren and colleagues (2004) showed that group-based anger, together with group efficacy, is an emotional pathway to collective action. Leach, Iyer and Pedersen (2006) showed that non-Indigenous Australians angry about their group's privilege were more willing to take political action for Indigenous Australians, an effect stronger than that of collective guilt. Iyer, Schmader and Lickel (2007) likewise reported that anger about the Iraq war predicted protest better than shame or guilt. Halperin and colleagues (2011) found in Israeli data that anger in the absence of hatred can even lead to support for peace negotiations, concluding that anger is not always destructive.
FAQ
- What is group-based anger in simple terms?
- Anger you feel when "your group" is treated unfairly, even if it didn't happen to you personally.
- Is group-based anger always bad?
- It can escalate conflict, but it also drives protest and political participation against injustice, and without hatred it can even support peace negotiations.
Sources reviewed: 2026-10-26
References
- Smith, E. R. (1993). Social identity and social emotions: Toward new conceptualizations of prejudice. In D. M. Mackie & D. L. Hamilton (Eds.), Affect, cognition, and stereotyping (pp. 297–315). Academic Press. The chapter that introduced group-based emotions.
- Mackie, D. M., Devos, T., & Smith, E. R. (2000). Intergroup emotions: Explaining offensive action tendencies in an intergroup context. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(4), 602–616. Ingroup strength appraisals produce anger and offensive action.
- van Zomeren, M., Spears, R., Fischer, A. H., & Leach, C. W. (2004). Put your money where your mouth is! Explaining collective action tendencies through group-based anger and group efficacy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(5), 649–664. Anger as a pathway to collective action.
- Leach, C. W., Iyer, A., & Pedersen, A. (2006). Anger and guilt about ingroup advantage explain the willingness for political action. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(9), 1232–1245. Advantaged-group anger drives political action.
- Iyer, A., Schmader, T., & Lickel, B. (2007). Why individuals protest the perceived transgressions of their country: The role of anger, shame, and guilt. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(4), 572–587. Anger vs. shame and guilt in protest.
- Smith, E. R., Seger, C. R., & Mackie, D. M. (2007). Can emotions be truly group level? Evidence regarding four conceptual criteria. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(3), 431–446. Tests whether group emotions are distinct.
- Halperin, E., Russell, A. G., Dweck, C. S., & Gross, J. J. (2011). Anger, hatred, and the quest for peace: Anger can be constructive in the absence of hatred. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 55(2), 274–291. Anger can be constructive without hatred.