1932

Abstract

Contemporary politics is noteworthy for its emotional character. Emotions shape and, in turn, are elicited by partisan polarization, public opinion, and political attitudes. In this article, we outline recent work in the field of emotion and politics with an emphasis on the relationship between emotion and polarization, issue attitudes, information processing, and views on democratic governance. We also highlight a growing body of scholarship that examines the racial and gender differences in emotion's ability to affect political behavior. We conclude with a discussion of unaddressed questions and suggestions for future directions for scholars working in this area of growing importance.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051120-105353
2022-05-12
2024-06-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/polisci/25/1/annurev-polisci-051120-105353.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051120-105353&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Abramowitz AI, Webster SW. 2016. The rise of negative partisanship and the nationalization of U.S. elections in the 21st century. Electoral Stud 41:12–22
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Abramowitz AI, Webster SW. 2018. Negative partisanship: why Americans dislike parties but behave like rabid partisans. Political Psychol 39:119–35
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Albertson B, Gadarian SK. 2015. Anxious Politics: Democratic Citizenship in a Threatening World New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Albertson B, Gadarian SK. 2016. Did that scare you? Tips on creating emotion in experimental subjects. Political Anal 24:4485–91
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Albertson B, Guiler K. 2020. Conspiracy theories, election rigging, and support for democratic norms. Res. Politics 7:3 https://doi.org/10.1177/2053168020959859
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  6. Allamong MB, Peterson DAM. 2020. Screw those guys: polarization, empathy, and attitudes about out-partisans. Political Psychol 42:3349–69
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Allport GW. 1937. Personality: A Psychological Interpretation New York: Holt
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Allport GW, Odbert HS. 1936. Trait-names: a psycho-lexical study. Psychol. Monogr 47:101–171
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Am. Psychol. Assoc 2019. One-third of US adults say fear of mass shootings prevents them from going to certain places or events Press Release Aug. 15. https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2019/08/fear-mass-shooting
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Bakker BN, Gijs S, Rooduijn M 2021. Hot politics? Affective responses to political rhetoric. Am. Political Sci. Rev 115:1150–64
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Banks AJ. 2014. The public's anger: white racial attitudes and opinions toward health care reform. Political Behav. 36:3493–514
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Banks AJ, White IK, McKenzie BD. 2018. Black politics: how anger influences the political actions blacks pursue to reduce racial inequality. Political Behav. 41:917–43
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Bartels LM. 2002. Beyond the running tally: partisan bias in political perceptions. Political Behav. 24:117–50
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Béland D. 2020. Right-wing populism and the politics of insecurity: how President Trump frames migrants as collective threats. Political Stud. Rev 18:2162–77
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Bennett R. 1997. Anger, catharsis, and purchasing behavior following aggressive customer complaints. J. Consum. Mark 14:2156–72
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Berelson BR, Lazarsfeld PF, McPhee WN. 1954. Voting: A Study of Opinion Formation in a Presidential Campaign Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Bower GH. 1991. Mood congruity of social judgments. Emotions and Social Judgments JP Forgas 31–53 Oxford, UK: Pergamon
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Brader T, Valentino NA, Suhay E. 2008. What triggers public opposition to immigration? Anxiety, group cues, and immigration threat. Am. J. Political Sci 52:4959–78
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Brescoll VL, Uhlmann EL. 2008. Can an angry woman get ahead? Status conferral, gender, and expression of emotion in the workplace. Psychol. Sci 19:3268–75
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Brooks DJ. 2011. Testing the double standard for candidate emotionality: voter reactions to tears and anger of male and female politicians. J. Politics 73:2597–615
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Campbell A, Converse P, Miller W, Stokes DE. 1960. The American Voter New York: Wiley
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Carver CS, Harmon-Jones E. 2009. Anger is an approach-related affect: evidence and implications. Psychol. Bull 135:2183–204
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Cassesse EC. 2019. Partisan dehumanization in American politics. Political Behav 43:29–50
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Ciuk D, Troy A, Jones M. 2015. Measuring emotion: self-reports vs. physiological indicators. SSRN Work. Pap. 2595359 https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2595359
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  25. Clifford S. 2018. How emotional frames moralize and polarize political attitudes. Political Psychol 40:175–91
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Dann C. 2019.. “ A deep and boiling anger”: NBC/WSJ poll finds a pessimistic America despite current economic satisfaction. Meet the Press, NBC News Aug. 25. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/deep-boiling-anger-nbc-wsj-poll-finds-pessimistic-america-despite-n1045916
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Davis S. 2017. Why Gorsuch's nomination is likely to play out as an angry, partisan battle. NPR Feb. 1. https://www.npr.org/2017/02/01/512751609/why-gorsuchs-nomination-is-likely-to-play-out-as-an-angry-partisan-battle
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Downs A. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy New York: Harper
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Druckman JN, Klar S, Krupnikov Y, Levendusky M, Ryan JB 2021. Affective polarization, local context and public opinion in America. Nat. Hum. Behav 5:28–38
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Economist 2016. The politics of anger. Economist Jul. 2 https://www.economist.com/leaders/2016/07/02/the-politics-of-anger
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Elster J. 1999. Alchemies of the Mind: Rationality and the Emotions Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Erisen C, Suhay E. 2018. The role of anger in the biased assimilation of political information. Political Psychol 39:4793–810
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Eysenck MW. 1992. Anxiety: The Cognitive Perspective Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Federico CM, Williams AL, Vitriol JA. 2018. The role of system identity threat in conspiracy theory endorsement. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol 48:7927–38
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Finkel EJ, Bail CA, Cikara M, Ditto PH, Iyengar S et al. 2020. Political sectarianism in America. Science 370:6516533–36
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Forgas JP, Moylan S. 1987. After the movies: transient mood and social judgments. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull 13:4467–77
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Frijda NH. 1986. The Emotions Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Gadarian SK, Albertson B. 2014. Anxiety, immigration, and the search for information. Political Psychol 35:2133–64
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Gerstlé J, Nai A. 2019. Negativity, emotionality and populist rhetoric in election campaigns worldwide, and their effects on media attention and electoral success. Eur. J. Commun 34:4410–44
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Getmansky A, Zeitzoff T. 2014. Terrorism and voting: the effect of rocket threat on voting in Israeli elections. Am. Political Sci. Rev 108:3588–604
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Gino F, Schweitzer ME 2008. Blinded by anger or feeling the love: how emotions influence advice taking. J. Appl. Psychol 93:51165–73
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Greenstein FI. 1960. The benevolent leader: children's images of political authority. Am. Political Sci. Rev 54:4934–43
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Grzesiak-Feldman M. 2013. The effect of high-anxiety situations on conspiratorial thinking. Curr. Psychol 32:100–18
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Halperin E, Canetti-Nisim D, Hirsch-Hoefler S. 2009. The central role of group-based hatred as an emotional antecedent of political intolerance: evidence from Israel. Political Psychol 30:193–123
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Hirsch-Hoefler S, Canetti C, Rapaport C, Hobfoll SE 2016. Conflict will harden your heart: exposure to violence, psychological distress, and peace barriers in Israel and Palestine. Br. J. Political Sci 46:4845–59
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Hurlburt H. 2020. The only thing we have to fear is fear-based politics Rep. New America Washington, DC: https://www.newamerica.org/political-reform/reports/politics-policymaking/the-only-thing-we-have-to-fear-is-fear-based-politics/
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Iyengar S, Lelkes Y, Levendusky M, Malhotra N, Westwood SJ. 2019. The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States. Annu. Rev. Political Sci 22:129–46
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Iyengar S, Sood G, Lelkes Y. 2012. Affect, not ideology: a social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opin. Q 76:3405–31
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Jolley D, Douglas KM, Sutton RM 2018. Blaming a few bad apples to save a threatened barrel: the system-justifying function of conspiracy theories. Political Psychol 39:2465–78
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Jost JT, Napier JL, Thorisdottir H, Gosling SD, Palfai TP, Ostafin B 2007. Are needs to manage uncertainty and threat associated with political conservatism or ideological extremity?. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull 33:7989–1007
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Kim HJ, Cameron GT. 2011. Emotions matter in crisis: the role of anger and sadness in the publics’ response to crisis news framing and corporate crisis response. Commun. Res 38:6826–55
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Kunda Z. 1990. The case for motivated reasoning. Psychol. Bull 108:3480–98
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Larsen JT. 2017. Holes in the case for mixed emotions. Emot. Rev 9:218–23
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Larsen JT, McGraw AP, Cacioppo JT. 2001. Can people feel both happy and sad at the same time?. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol 81:4684–96
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Lau RR, Redlawsk DP. 2001. Advantages and disadvantages of cognitive heuristics in political decision making. Am. J. Political Sci 45:5951–71
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Lerner JS, Gonzalez RM, Small DA, Fischoff B. 2003. Effects of fear and anger on perceived risks of terrorism: a national field experiment. Psychol. Sci 14:2144–50
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Lodge M, Taber CS. 2013. The Rationalizing Voter New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Loughnan S, Haslam N, Kashima Y. 2009. Understanding the relationship between attribute-based and metaphor-based dehumanization. Group Process. Intergroup Relat 12:6747–62
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Magni G. 2017. It's the emotions, stupid! Anger about the economic crisis, low political efficacy, and support for populist parties. Electoral Stud 50:91–102
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Marcus GE, Neuman WR, MacKuen M. 2000. Affective Intelligence and Political Judgment Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Martherus JL, Martinez AG, Piff PK, Theodoridis AG. 2021. Party animals? Extreme partisan polarization and dehumanization. Political Behav 43:517–40
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Masch L. 2020. Politicians Expressions of Anger and Leadership Evaluations: Empirical Evidence from Germany Baden-Baden, Ger.: Nomos
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Masch L, Gabriel OW. 2020. How emotional displays of political leaders shape citizen attitudes: the case of German chancellor Angela Merkel. Ger. Politics 29:2158–79
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Mason L. 2018. Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Mason L, Kalmoe NP 2021. What you need to know about how many Americans condone political violence—and why. Washington Post Jan. 11. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/01/11/what-you-need-know-about-how-many-americans-condone-political-violence-why/
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Mechkova V, Wilson SL. 2021. Norms and rage: gender and social media in the 2018 U.S. mid-term elections. Electoral Studies 69:102269
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Mondak JJ. 2010. Personality and the Foundations of Political Behavior New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Mudde C. 2004. The populist zeitgeist. Gov. Opposition 39:4542–63
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Muraoka T, Montgomery J, Lucas C, Tavits M 2021. Love and anger in global party politics: Facebook reactions to political party posts in 79 democracies. J. Quant. Descr. Digit. Media 1:1–38
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Mutz DC. 2015. In Your Face Politics: The Consequences of Uncivil Media Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Nai A. 2018. Fear and loathing in populist campaigns? Comparing the communication style of populists and non-populists in elections worldwide. J. Political Mark 20:2219–50
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Newhagen JE. 1998. TV news images that induce anger, fear, and disgust: effects on approach-avoidance and memory. J. Broadcast. Electron. Media 42:2265–76
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Oliver JE, Wood TJ. 2018. Enchanted America: How Intuition and Reason Divide Our Politics Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Oxley ZM, Holman MR, Greenlee JS, Bo AL, Lay JC 2020. Children's views of the American presidency. Public Opin. Q 84:1141–57
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Pantoja AD, Segura GM. 2003. Fear and loathing in California: contextual threat and political sophistication among Latino voters. Political Behav. 25:3265–86
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Parker CS, Barreto MA. 2014. Change They Can't Believe In: The Tea Party and Reactionary Politics in America Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Peters JW. 2018. In a divided era, one thing seems to unite: political anger. N. Y. Times Aug. 17. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/17/us/politics/political-fights.html
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Phoenix D. 2019. The Anger Gap: How Race Shapes Emotion in Politics Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Piazza JA. 2020. Politician hate speech and domestic terrorism. Int. Interact 46:3431–53
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Prior M. 2007. Post-Broadcast Democracy: How Media Choice Increases Inequality in Political Involvement and Polarizes Elections New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Renner A-M, Masch L. 2019. Emotional woman—rational man? Gender stereotypical emotional expressivity of German politicians in news broadcasts. Communications 44:181–103
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Rhodes-Purdy M, Navarre R, Utych SM. 2021.. Populist psychology: economics, culture, and emotions. J. Politics 83:41559–72
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Rico G, Guinjoan M, Anduiza E. 2017. The emotional underpinnings of populism: how anger and fear affect populist attitudes. Swiss Political Sci. Rev 23:4444–61
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Rohlinger DA, Klein J. 2014. From fervor to fear: ICT and emotions in the Tea Party movement. Understanding the Tea Party Movement N Van Dyke, DS Meyer 125–47. Burlington, VT: Ashgate
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Schüller S. 2015. The 9/11 conservative shift. Econ. Lett 135:80–84
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Serhan Y. 2020. Populism is morphing in insidious ways. Atlantic Jan. 5. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2020/01/future-populism-2020s/604393/
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Silvia PJ. 2009. Looking past pleasure: anger, confusion, disgust, pride, surprise, and other unusual aesthetic emotions. Psychol. Aesthet. Creativity Arts 3:148–51
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Simas EN, Clifford S, Kirkland JH 2019. How empathic concern fuels affective polarization. Am. Political Sci. Rev 114:1258–69
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Skocpol T, Williamson V. 2012. The Tea Party and the Remaking of American Conservatism New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Stephan WG, Ybarra O, Martínez CM, Schwarzwald J, Tur-Kaspa M. 1998. Prejudice toward immigrants to Spain and Israel: an integrated threat theory analysis. J. Cross-Cultural Psychol 29:4559–76
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Tharoor I. 2018. How two angry protests sum up Europe's politics. Washington Post Dec. 18. https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2018/12/18/how-two-angry-protests-sum-up-europes-politics/
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Thórisdóttir H, Jost JT. 2011. Motivated closed-mindedness mediates the effect of threat on political conservatism. Political Psychol 32:5785–11
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Traister R. 2018. Good and Mad: The Revolutionary Power of Women's Anger New York: Simon & Schuster
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Valentino NA, Brader T, Groenendyk EW, Gregorowicz K, Hutchings VL 2011. Election night's alright for fighting: the role of emotions in political participation. J. Politics 73:1156–70
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Valentino NA, Neuner FG. 2016. Why the sky didn't fall: mobilizing anger in reaction to voter ID laws. Political Psychol 38:2331–50
    [Google Scholar]
  96. van Prooijen J-W, Douglas KM. 2018. Belief in conspiracy theories: basic principles of an emerging research domain. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol 48:7897–908
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Vasilopoulos P, Marcus GE, Valentino NA, Foucault M. 2019. Fear, anger, and voting for the far right: evidence from the November 12, 2015 Paris terror attacks. Political Psychol 40:4679–704
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Voci A, Hewstone M. 2003. Intergroup contact and prejudice toward immigrants in Italy: the mediational role of anxiety and the moderational role of group salience. Group Process. Intergroup Relat 6:137–54
    [Google Scholar]
  99. von Hohenberg BC, Bauer PC. 2021. Horseshoe patterns: visualizing partisan media trust in Germany. Socius Sociol. Res. Dyn. World 7:1–3
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Vorländer H, Herold M, Schäller S 2018. PEGIDA and New Right-Wing Populism in Germany. New Perspectives in German Political Studies Cham, Switz: Palgrave Macmillan
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Wagner MW, Gruszczynski M. 2018. Who gets covered? Ideological extremity and news coverage of members of the U.S. Congress, 1993 to 2013. Journ. Mass Commun. Q 95:3670–90
    [Google Scholar]
  102. Webster SW. 2020. American Rage: How Anger Shapes Our Politics Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  103. Widmann T. 2021. How emotional are populists really? Factors explaining emotional appeals in the communication of political parties. Political Psychol 42:1163–81
    [Google Scholar]
  104. Williamson V, Skocpol T, Coggin J. 2011. The Tea Party and the remaking of American conservatism. Perspect. Politics 9:125–43
    [Google Scholar]
  105. Young D. 2020. Irony and Outrage: The Polarized Landscape of Rage, Fear, and Laughter in the United States New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  106. Young LE. 2018. The psychology of state repression: fear and dissent decisions in Zimbabwe. Am. Political Sci. Rev 113:1140–55
    [Google Scholar]
  107. Zeitzoff T. 2014. Anger, exposure to violence, and intragroup conflict: a ‘lab in the field’ experiment in southern Israel. Political Psychol 35:3309–35
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051120-105353
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error