Cigdem V. Sirin

Group Empathy Theory: The Effect of Group Empathy on US Intergroup Attitudes and Behavior in the Context of Immigration Threats

Group Empathy Theory posits empathy felt by members of one group can boost support for another even when the groups are in direct competition for rights, security, and resources. We employ our theory to explain divergent reactions of majority versus minority groups to immigration threats. We conduct a two-wave national survey experiment with 1,799 participants consisting of a randomized sample of Anglos and randomized, stratified oversamples of African Americans and Latinos. The experiment manipulates racial/ethnic cues in a vignette depicting an ambiguous yet potentially threatening incident at an immigrant detention center. African Americans and Latinos are significantly more likely to side with minority detainees and support pro–civil rights policies and actions. The theory’s presumed causal mechanism—group empathy—is substantially stronger among African Americans and Latinos and has a significant mediating effect on such distinct reactions.

Group Empathy in Response to Nonverbal Racial/Ethnic Cues: A National Experiment on Immigration Policy Attitudes

In this study, we argue that nonverbal racial/ethnic cues can activate one’s empathy toward disadvantaged out-groups, particularly when such cues resonate with one’s own in-group cultural experiences with discrimination. To explain this phenomenon, we propose Group Empathy Theory and test our expectations via a national survey experiment on undocumented immigration. We find trait-level group empathy is strongly linked with empathic reactions to vignettes depicting immigrant detainees in distress, which in turn affect immigration policy attitudes. We also find African Americans and Latinos are considerably more likely than Anglos to exhibit empathy for disadvantaged groups other than their own and oppose deportation policies aimed at undocumented immigrants.

Examining the role of identity in negotiation decision making:the case of Cyprus

Purpose – This study aims to examine the effects of ethnic and social identities on negotiation decision making in the context of the Cyprus conflict.Design/methodology/approach – The author conducts a theory‐driven case study of the 1959 Zurich‐London agreements on Cyprus, analyzing the positions of Turkey, Greece, Britain, and the Turkish and Greek Cypriot communities during the negotiation process. The analytical method is the applied decision analysis procedure.Findings – The analysis of the Zurich‐London negotiations over Cyprus suggests that even in the presence of adversarial ethnic ties, decision makers who have a shared (and salient) social identity are more likely to employ collective‐serving decision strategies and seek even‐handed solutions that will not jeopardize their mutual interests. Here, Turkey and Greece – both NATO members – decided to settle on a commonly agreed negotiation outcome despite their ethnicity‐driven, clashing interests over Cyprus. In contrast, decision makers with sever...

Examining the Distinct Effects of Emotive Triggers on Public Reactions to International Terrorism

In recent years, a growing body of research has set out to examine the role that emotions play in shaping political attitudes and behaviors regarding terrorism. However, one major issue that is generally overlooked is whether the thematic relevance of emotive triggers leads to differential effects on peoples reactions to international terrorism. Specifically, does anger—regardless of its source—tend to drive people towards supporting an aggressive foreign policy option to counter terrorism, or do the thematic underpinnings of anger (i.e., the specific contents that trigger this particular emotion, such as watching a news story about a recent terrorist attack) matter vis-à-vis the policy choice? To address this gap, this study experimentally examines the impact of anger—induced by thematically relevant versus irrelevant emotive triggers—on peoples cognitive processing and foreign policy preferences regarding international terrorism. Overall, we find that the induction of anger via thematically relevant emotive triggers leads to a higher tendency for selecting a military option, a lower amount of information acquisition, and a shorter processing time in response to terror-related incidents.

Public support for military interventions across levels of political information and stages of intervention: The case of the Iraq war

This study examines the effect of political information levels and intervention stages on the formation and continuity of public support for military interventions by analyzing survey data pertaining to the 2003 military intervention in Iraq. The results show that before and immediately after the launch of the intervention, politically uninformed individuals expressed higher support for the war compared to politically informed ones. However, as the intervention proceeded and casualties were incurred, higher rates of decrease in support were observed among the politically uninformed. Politically informed individuals, on the other hand, demonstrated more stable levels of support throughout the course of the intervention.

Political information and emotions in ethnic conflict interventions

Purpose – This study aims to explore the effects of political information and anger on the publics cognitive processing and foreign policy preferences concerning third‐party interventions in ethnic conflict.Design/methodology/approach – The study employs an experimental design, wherein the authors manipulate policy‐specific information by generating ad hoc political information related to ethnic conflict. The statistical methods of analysis are logistic regression and analysis of covariance.Findings – The results demonstrate that both political information and anger have a significant impact on an individuals cognitive processing and policy preferences regarding ethnic conflict interventions. Specifically, political information increases ones proclivity to choose non‐military policy options, whereas anger instigates support for aggressive policies. Both factors result in faster decision making with lower amounts of information accessed. However, the interaction of political information and anger is not...