An earlier version of this article was presented at the 1988 Eastern Psychological Association meeting in Buffalo, N.Y. The authors thank Jack Dovidio, Robert Eisenberger, James Jones, Roger Phillips, and an anonymous reviewer for their comments on earlier versions of this article.
Support for the Use of Force in War: The Effect of Procedural Rule Violations and Group Membership1
Article first published online: 31 JUL 2006
Journal of Applied Social Psychology
Volume 21, Issue 22, pages 1793–1809, November 1991
How to Cite
Mann, J. A. and Gaertner, S. L. (1991), Support for the Use of Force in War: The Effect of Procedural Rule Violations and Group Membership. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21: 1793–1809. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1991.tb00505.x
- Issue published online: 31 JUL 2006
- Article first published online: 31 JUL 2006
To examine whether support for force in war is influenced by the proportionality of combatants' force and subjects' group membership with combatants, 215 American college students were exposed to a news transcript that factorially varied an Invading Country (U.S., England, U.S.S.R.), Invader's Tactics (moderate violence, high violence) and Defender's Tactics (nonviolence, moderate violence). Results supported a proportionality hypothesis whereby invader's force was deemed inappropriate and deserving of a prison term to the extent that invader's force was disproportionately violent to defender's force. Also, group membership moderated this effect such that force by the Soviet Union was rated as more inappropriate than identical force by the U.S. or England. Discussion addresses the role of procedural rules of conflict in support for intergroup conflict, and evidence in the current study that the moderating effect of group membership was more consistent with Sherif & Sherif's (1969) Realistic Conflict Theory than Tajfel & Turner's (1979) Social Identity Theory.