De-escalating Tensions between Great Powers: An Intergroup Discourse Solution

• In Event: Public Support for War, Peace, Violence, and Compromise

Abstract

China’s wolf-warrior discourses, an intergroup discourse emphasizing the division between ingroups and outgroups, have been identified as catalysts for an escalation in Chinese public support for aggressive foreign policies vis-à-vis the U.S. (Xu 2023). This prompts a crucial inquiry: Can national leaders strategically employ intergroup rhetoric to de-escalate interstate military tensions?

Two eminent social psychology theories, the Common In-Group Identity Model (Gaertner and Dovidio, 2000) (CIGI) and the Mutual Differentiation Model (Hewstone and Brown, 1986) (MDM), offer illuminating insights. CIGI proposes that outgroup prejudice and intergroup conflicts can be mitigated through factors that shift participants' perceptions of group memberships from two distinct entities to a more encompassing, inclusive group. By fostering a sense of common ingroup identity, the cognitive and motivational processes that once fueled ingroup favoritism are redirected to benefit the former outgroup members.

Conversely, MDM proposes a strategy to foster positive intergroup experiences by structuring the contact situation in a way that allows members of each group to assume distinct yet complementary roles in contributing toward shared objectives. This approach facilitates different nations in achieving superordinate goals by implementing a division of labor among collaborating groups, differentiating and coordinating their activities into separate but complementary work-roles.

To scrutinize the impact of these two models on de-escalating military conflicts between the U.S. and China, I propose parallel survey experiments in both China and the U.S. A pilot study involving 1,000 Chinese citizens provides evidence that both CIGI and MDM successfully reduce Chinese public support for more aggressive foreign policies towards the U.S. Furthermore, the results reveal that this de-escalation effect can be attributed to a decrease in outgroup prejudice towards the U.S.among the Chinese public.

This study makes two major contributions to the study of international diplomacy and U.S.-China relations. First, it contributes to a nuanced understanding of the constructive role of intergroup diplomatic rhetoric, challenging the conventional perception of such discourse as mere “cheap talk” in International Relations literature. While existing research underscores how emphasizing ingroup/outgroup divisions can fuel international conflicts (Sherif and Sherif, 1953; Sherif, 1966; Brewer, 2001), few studies explore the possibility of national leaders employing intergroup rhetoric as a means to de-escalate interstate conflicts. As a result, this research stands as the first experimental evidence shedding light on how intergroup rhetoric serves as psychological mechanisms to de-escalate conflicts between the U.S. and China. Second, this project introduces an innovative experimental design. While international diplomacy is often conceptualized in the context of interstate relations, there is a notable scarcity of experimental studies investigating the consequences of identical diplomatic rhetoric in two countries. To solve this problem, I adopt a parallel experimental approach in which I present an identical survey instrument to both Chinese and American citizens.

I am currently on the job market this year and am keenly interested in participating in the special forum offered by the Political Psychology Section which provides high-quality feedback within IR psychology or political psychology.

Author

• Weifang Xu, Florida State University