Summary: Citizens who consume news about angry politicians can pick up those emotions themselves. This emotional contagion can mobilize otherwise disengaged voters and influence short-term political behavior.
Source: University of Colorado
New research from political scientists suggests that angry rhetoric by politicians can spread to ordinary citizens—and that this spread of emotion can change people’s likelihood of participating in politics, at least in the short run.
Carey Stapleton of the University of Colorado Boulder and Ryan Dawkins of the U.S. Air Force Academy examined how political anger moves from elites to the public. In an online experiment with roughly 1,400 respondents across the political spectrum, they found evidence of emotional contagion: when voters read news stories showing an angry politician from their own party, they reported increased anger themselves and a higher willingness to engage in political activities, from attending rallies to voting.
“Politicians want to get reelected, and anger can be a powerful motivating tool,” said Stapleton, who recently completed his PhD in political science at CU Boulder. The study was published in Political Research Quarterly.
The researchers presented participants with a set of mock news articles about an imagined debate on immigration between two candidates competing for a congressional seat. Some articles quoted candidates using openly angry language—phrases expressing outrage about policy or opponents—while other articles used neutral language. The candidates and the debate were fictional, allowing the team to test how exposure to angry or calm rhetoric affected readers’ emotions and reported political intentions.
Results showed a clear pattern of affect linkage: partisans who encountered an angry statement from a politician of their own party reported feeling angrier, more disgusted, and more outraged than those who read neutral coverage. That rise in aversive emotions was tied to an increased intention to participate politically, indicating that anger can spur short-term engagement and voter turnout.
Importantly, the effect was asymmetric across audiences. Exposure to angry rhetoric from the opposing party had little impact on people’s emotions. In other words, anger appears to spread primarily within partisan groups rather than across them.
One surprising finding is who is most susceptible to this emotional contagion. The strongest shifts occurred not among the most extreme partisans, who are already highly emotive, but among weakly-aligned or moderate partisans. These less committed voters are typically less likely to vote, yet they showed the largest increases in anger and, correspondingly, in reported intentions to participate after reading about an in-party politician expressing anger.
“The far left and far right tend to be perpetually mobilized,” Stapleton explained. “But weaker partisans—those who are less likely to participate in elections—are more likely to shift when exposed to angry political messaging.” This pattern suggests that angry rhetoric can be an effective short-term mobilizer for campaigns seeking to bring otherwise disengaged supporters to the polls.
The authors caution that while anger can drive immediate political activity, it carries risks. Anger is a powerful but short-lived emotion, and sustained or escalating anger could lead to more negative outcomes, including polarizing behavior or violence. Stapleton and Dawkins note that anger is only one pathway to engagement. Their earlier work also shows that positive emotions, such as optimism, can increase political participation, indicating multiple ways to motivate citizens.
About this politics and psychology research news
Source: University of Colorado
Contact: Daniel Strain – University of Colorado
Image: The image is in the public domain
Original Research: Closed access. “Catching My Anger: How Political Elites Create Angrier Citizens” by Carey Stapleton and Ryan Dawkins. Published in Political Research Quarterly.
Abstract
Catching My Anger: How Political Elites Create Angrier Citizens
Anger is a prominent feature of contemporary American politics. The authors argue that one mechanism driving increasing public anger is affect linkage: citizens’ emotions shift to mirror emotional displays by political elites. Using an online experiment that randomly exposed subjects to either an angry or an unemotional debate between a Democrat and a Republican running for Congress, the study finds that exposure to an angry in-party politician significantly raises reported levels of anger, disgust, and outrage among co-partisans.
This rise in negative affect also correlates with a higher likelihood that citizens report intentions to vote. The effect is strongest among weak partisans—those least likely to vote in the absence of such cues—while angry rhetoric directed at out-partisans produces little or no spillover. These findings highlight how elite emotions can shape public sentiment and short-term political engagement.