The target article by Cehajic-Clancy, Goldenberg, Gross, and Halperin presents an innovative theoretical synthesis of the literature on intergroup emotions and on emotion regulation. Focusing on the appraisal phase of the modal model of emotion (Gross, 2015), Cehajic-Clancy et al. offer a comprehensive review of social-psychological interventions, the goal of which is to regulate group members’ emotions in the interest of intergroup reconciliation. We deeply sympathize with Cehajic-Clancy et al.’s goals and wish to formulate such a framework for interventions. Still, we suspect that the emotion regulation perspective, with its historical roots in individual-level psychology (ie, Freud’s psychoanalytic tradition, which attempted to help individuals regulate their anxiety; Gross, 1998) is incomplete, because it neglects the asymmetries and mutual dependencies between the emotions on both sides of the conflict. Our most general argument is that as an intergroup phenomenon, emotions associated with group conflict can be fully understood only by considering the relations between the groups involved. This includes important issues of power, trust, and need for positive collective identity, all of which are relational, grouplevel concepts that are easily overlooked by an individualistic approach.

In the target article, Cehajic-Clancy et al. define reconciliation as the “postconflict resolution process of removing psychological barriers such as negative emotions and beliefs about former/current enemy groups with the goal of creating or restoring positive and sustainable intergroup relations”(p. 73), a definition borrowed from work on interpersonal reconciliation (ie, Shnabel & Nadler, 2008). They go on to suggest that some emotions inherently further the process of reconciliation (ie, empathy, hope, and collective guilt), whereas others inherently impede it (ie, anger and hatred). However, reconciliation is not only a process but also an outcome, an outcome that in our opinion is best defined as “trustworthy positive relations between former adversaries who enjoy secure social identities and interact in an equality-based social environment”(Nadler & Shnabel, 2015, p. 95). This definition, which builds on the theorizing of previous peace and reconciliation researchers (ie, Christie, Tint, Wagner, & Winter, 2008; Galtung, 1969; Kelman, 2008; Rouhana, 2004; Staub, 2006), refers to three components—trust, equality, and positive social identities—that are missing from Cehajic-Clancy et al.’s definition yet reflect, as we argue, the essence of intergroup reconciliation.