In tense situations, emotions emerge that influence conflicts, shaping decision making and behavior (Bar-Tal et al. Reference Bar-Tal, Halperin and De Rivera2007; Halperin Reference Halperin2016). We propose that the distinction between attackers and defenders in asymmetric conflicts, as addressed by De Dreu and Gross (D&G), may inspire a new line of research that will help broaden the understanding of emotional processes and their implications in intergroup conflicts. More specifically, this commentary focuses on the impact that the role of being an attacker or a defender has on emotional experiences, appraisals, action tendencies, emotional preferences, brain activities, and responses to emotion-based interventions.

Appraisal theory offers a useful framework to shed light on why the perception of being an attacker or defender could have a differential impact on emotional experiences and action tendencies: It proposes that distinct combinations of cognitive appraisals (i.e., evaluations of an event) influence the emotions that are experienced (Sander et al. Reference Sander, Grandjean and Scherer2018; Scherer & Moors Reference Scherer and Moors2019). According to D&G, superiority and overconfidence are more typical for attackers, which would suggest appraisals of high certainty and high control. These appraisals, in turn, are usually related to feelings of anger, pride, and contempt (Fontaine et al. Reference Fontaine, Scherer, Roesch and Ellsworth2007; Lerner & Keltner Reference Lerner and Keltner2000). For instance, anger predicts lower risk perception (Lerner & Keltner Reference Lerner and Keltner2000; Reference Lerner and Keltner2001), a bias that may facilitate competition in attackers. Conversely, defenders are described in the target article as vigilant. This could be associated with appraisals of low certainty and low control, which are typical of the emotion of fear (Lerner & Keltner Reference Lerner and Keltner2000). Fear has been shown to elicit the perception that events are riskier (Lerner & Keltner Reference Lerner and Keltner2000; Reference Lerner and Keltner2001), which may explain the behavioral avoidance in defenders described in the target article.

In addition to distinct appraisals and action tendencies, attackers and defenders probably also differ in their emotional preferences (i.e., what people are motivated to feel). These differences might be explained by the instrumental approach to emotion (Tamir Reference Tamir2009; Reference Tamir2016), as well as by the motivation to feel emotions congruent with the self-image of being an attacker or defender. First, in line with the instrumental approach to emotion (Tamir Reference Tamir2009; Reference Tamir2016), groups prefer to experience particular emotions in order to attain their goals in contexts such as conflicts (Porat et al. Reference Porat, Halperin and Tamir2016). In the target article, defenders and attackers are described as having distinct group-based goals: Whereas attackers aim to change the status quo, defenders aim at maintaining it. Thus, defenders may benefit from the motivation to feel fear because feeling threatened may reinforce in-group affiliation (Bar-Tal Reference Bar-Tal2013), inciting them to invest more resources in collectively protective behaviors. In contrast, attackers may be more motivated to feel anger, which is associated with overconfidence and hostile action tendencies, which, in turn, facilitate fight behaviors. Moreover, overconfidence may be dysfunctional for defenders, because it may reduce their vigilance, thereby giving rise to devasting attacks.

Pertaining to brain functions, D&G argue that attack should recruit prefrontal top-down control more than defense does. This may seem contradictory to previous research showing that prefrontal brain structures and activities, which are also important for emotion regulation (Davidson et al. Reference Davidson, Putnam and Larson2000), are related to less aggression and punishment (Giancola Reference Giancola1995; Klimecki et al. Reference Klimecki, Sander and Vuilleumier2018; Nelson & Trainor Reference Nelson and Trainor2007; Raine & Yang Reference Raine and Yang2006). Factors that may matter in this context are the party's engagement in aggressive versus conciliatory behavior, as well as the intensity and temporal dynamic of a given conflict. It may thus be that defenders also show pronounced prefrontal brain activations when engaging in forgiveness behavior. In terms of intensity, usually more stressful situations are associated with reduced prefrontal top-down control in the brain and more activation in limbic structures (Arnsten Reference Arnsten2009), which suggests reduced prefrontal activations in attackers and defenders during periods of intense and stressful conflicts. Whether conflict behavior and related brain activations in attackers and defenders can be influenced by interventions, and to what extent, remain to be tested.

Potential interventions that have been shown to provide beneficial effects in conflicts by changing emotions are reappraisal training (Halperin Reference Halperin2014; Halperin et al. Reference Halperin, Porat, Tamir and Gross2013), indirect emotion regulation strategies (Halperin et al. Reference Halperin, Russell, Trzesniewski, Gross and Dweck2011), and compassion training (Cernadas Curotto et al., Reference Cernadas Curotto, Sander, Halperin and Klimeckiin preparation). In light of the discussed differences between an attacker's and defender's emotions, certain emotion-based interventions might be more efficient, depending on whether the person identifies as an attacker or defender. Reappraisal is considered an emotion regulation strategy and consists of reinterpreting the situation, which triggers an emotion, to modulate its emotional impact (Gross Reference Gross1998; Reference Gross2001). For attackers, reappraisal training could therefore be used to reinforce the perception of the advantages of the status quo in order to reduce their anger and their motivation to attack. In defenders, however, reappraisal training might be less efficient, as experiences of fear may interfere with the efficient use of reappraisal strategies. Besides reappraisal training, indirect emotion regulation can have beneficial effects for both attackers and defenders, because it can be tailored to target the appraisals that are constitutive of the most dominant emotions for each group (Halperin Reference Halperin2016). In defenders, this intervention may increase beliefs of defensive capabilities, thereby reducing their fear. In attackers, indirect emotion regulation may reduce contempt by altering the feeling of superiority. Another candidate for promoting conflict resolution could be compassion training, because it has the potential to overcome intergroup biases by cultivating benevolence toward all beings (Klimecki, Reference Klimeckiin press). Compassion is defined as the feeling of concern for others’ suffering, which is accompanied by the motivation to help (Goetz et al. Reference Goetz, Keltner and Simon-Thomas2010). Research from our team shows that compassion training can improve interpersonal relations in conflicts (Cernadas Curotto et al., Reference Cernadas Curotto, Sander, Halperin and Klimeckiin preparation). Because the target article described attackers with stronger “other concern” as investing less in attacks than that shown by attackers with lower other concern, strengthening compassion – which is conceptually close to other concern – may be a beneficial strategy for reducing attacks. Future research is needed to investigate these assumptions.