When do parties use emotive rhetoric to appeal to voters? In this article, we argue that politicians are more likely to employ positive affect (valence) in their rhetoric to appeal to voters when parties are not ideologically distinct and when there is uncertainty about public preferences. To test these propositions, our article uses well-established psycholinguistic affect dictionaries to generate scores from three time series of political text: British party manifestos (1900-2015) and annual party leaders’ speeches (1977-2014) as well as U.S. Presidents’ State of the Union addresses (1880-2016). Our findings corroborate our expectations and have important implications for the study of party competition by illuminating the role of valence in the way politicians communicate their policies.
AbneyR.AdamsJ.ClarkM.EastonM.EzrowL.KosmidisS.NeundorfA. (2013). When does valence matter? Heightened valence effects for governing parties during election campaigns. Party Politics, 19, 61-82.
2.
AdamsJ.(1998). Partisan voting and multiparty spatial competition: The pressure for responsible parties. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 10, 5-31.
3.
AdamsJ. (1999). Policy divergence in multicandidate probabilistic spatial voting. Public Choice, 100(1-2), 103-122.
4.
AdamsJ.ClarkM.EzrowL.GlasgowG. (2004). Understanding change and stability in party ideologies: Do parties respond to public opinion or to past election results?British Journal of Political Science, 34, 589-610.
5.
AdamsJ.ClarkM.EzrowL.GlasgowG. (2006). Are niche parties fundamentally different from mainstream parties? The causes and the electoral consequences of Western European parties’ policy shifts, 1976-1998. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 513-529.
6.
AdamsJ.MerrillS.III. (2009). Policy-seeking parties in a parliamentary democracy with proportional representation: A valence-uncertainty model. British Journal of Political Science, 39, 539-558.
7.
AdamsJ.MerrillS.IIIGrofmanB. (2005). A unified theory of party competition: A cross-national analysis integrating spatial and behavioral factors. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
8.
AdamsJ.MerrillS.SimasE. N.StoneW. J. (2011). When candidates value good character: A spatial model with applications to congressional elections. Journal of Politics, 73, 17-30.
9.
AdamsJ.Somer-TopcuZ. (2009). Policy adjustment by parties in response to rival parties’ policy shifts: Spatial theory and the dynamics of party competition in twenty-five post-war democracies. British Journal of Political Science, 39, 825-846.
10.
AnsolabehereS.IyengarS. (1995). Going negative: How political advertisements shrink and polarize the electorate. New York, NY: The Free Press.
11.
Aristotle. (1991). On rhetoric (G. A.Kennedy, Trans.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
12.
AshworthS.de MesquitaE. B. (2009). Elections with platform and valence competition. Games and Economic Behavior, 67, 191-216.
13.
BaraJ.BudgeI. (1994). Party policy and ideology: Still new labour?Parliamentary Affairs, 54, 590-606.
14.
BartleJ.Dellepiane-AvellanedaS.StimsonJ. (2011). The moving centre: Preferences for government activity in Britain, 1950-2005. British Journal of Political Science, 41, 259-285.
15.
BecherM. (2016). Endogenous credible commitment and party competition over redistribution under alternative electoral institutions. American Journal of Political Science, 60, 768-782.
16.
BellezzaF. S.GreenwaldA. G.BanajiM. R. (1986). Words high and low in pleasantness as rated by male and female college-students. Behavior Research Methods Instruments & Computers, 18, 299-303.
17.
BlackD. (1958). The theory of committees and elections. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
18.
BlessH.MackieD. M.SchwarzN. (1992). Mood effects on attitude judgments: Independent effects of mood before and after message elaboration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 585-595.
19.
Box-SteffensmeierJ.DillardM.KimballD.MassengillW. (2015). The long and short of it: The unpredictability of late deciding voters. Electoral Studies, 39, 181-194.
20.
BraderT. (2006). Campaigning for hearts and minds: How emotional appeals in political ads work, studies in communication, media, and public opinion. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
21.
BradleyM. M.LangP. J. (1994). Measuring emotion: The self-assessment manikin and the semantic differential. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 25, 49-59.
22.
BradleyM. M.LangP. J. (1999). Affective Norms for English Words (ANEW): Instruction manual and affective ratings (Technical report C-1). Gainesville: The Center for Research in Psychophysiology, University of Florida.
BruterM.EriksonR. S.StraussA. B. (2010). Uncertain candidates, valence, and the dynamics of candidate position-taking. Public Choice, 144, 153-168.
25.
BudgeI. (1994). A new spatial theory of party competition: Uncertainty, ideology and policy equilibria viewed comparatively and temporally. British Journal of Political Science, 24, 443-467.
26.
BudgeI.KlingemannH. D.VolkensA.BaraJ.TanenbaumE. (2001). Mapping policy preferences: Estimates for parties, governments and electors 1945-1998. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
27.
CalvertR. L. (1985). Robustness of the multidimensional voting model: Candidate motivations, uncertainty, and convergence. American Journal of Political Science, 29, 69-95.
28.
ChaikenS. (1987). The heuristic model of persuasion. In ZannaM. P.OlsonJ. M.HermanC. P. (Eds.), Social influence: The Ontario symposium (pp. 3-39),Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
29.
ClarkM. (2009). Valence and electoral outcomes in Western Europe, 1976-1998. Electoral Studies, 28, 111-122.
30.
ClarkM. (2014a). Does public opinion respond to shifts in party valence? A cross-national analysis of Western Europe, 1976-2002. West European Politics, 37, 91-112.
31.
ClarkM. (2014b). Understanding parties’ policy shifts in Western Europe: The role of valence, 1976-2003. British Journal of Political Science, 44, 261-286.
32.
ClarkM.LeiterD. (2014). Does the ideological dispersion of parties mediate the electoral impact of valence? A cross-national study of party support in nine Western European democracies. Comparative Political Studies, 47, 171-202.
33.
ClarkeH. D.SandersD.StewartM.WhiteleyP. (2004). Political choice in Britain. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
34.
ClarkeH. D.SandersD.StewartM.WhiteleyP. (2009). Performance politics and the British voter. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
35.
CuriniL.MartelliP. (2015). A case of valence competition in elections: Parties’ emphasis on corruption in electroal manifestos. Party Politics, 21, 686-698.
36.
DamasioA. R. (1994). Descartes error and the future of human life. Scientific American, 271(4), 144.
37.
DoddsP. S.DanforthC. M. (2010). Measuring the happiness of large-scale written expression: Songs, blogs, and presidents. Journal of Happiness Studies, 11, 441-456.
38.
DownsA. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York, NY: Harper and Row.
39.
EzrowL. (2007). The variance matters: How party systems represent the preferences of voters. Journal of Politics, 69, 182-192.
40.
EzrowL.XezonakisG. (2011). Citizen satisfaction with democracy and parties’ policy offerings. Comparative Political Studies, 44, 1152-1178.
41.
FeldmanL. A. (1995). Valence-focus and arousal-focus: Individual differences in the structure of affective experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 153-166.
42.
Fernandez-VazquezP. (forthcoming). Signaling policy positions in election campaigns. Journal of Politics.
43.
FrankR. H. (1988). Passions within reason: The strategic role of the emotions. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.
44.
Gonzalez-BailonS.BanchsR. E.KaltenbrunnerA. (2012). Emotions, public opinion, and U.S. presidential approval rates: A 5-year analysis of online political discussions. Human Communication Research, 38, 121-143
45.
GreenJ.HoboltS. B. (2008). Owning the issue agenda: Party strategies and vote choices in British elections. Electoral Studies, 27, 460-476.
46.
GriskeviciusV.ShiotaM. N.NeufeldS. L. (2010). Influence of different positive emotions on persuasion processing: A functional evolutionary approach. Emotion, 10, 190-206.
47.
GrosecloseT. (2001). A model of candidate location when one candidate has a valence advantage. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 862-886.
48.
HofferbertR. I.BudgeI. (1992). The party mandate and the Westminster model: Election programmes and government spending in Britain, 1948-1985. British Journal of Political Science, 22, 151-182.
49.
KlingemannH.-D.VolkensA.BaraJ.BudgeI.McDonaldM. D. (2006). Mapping policy preferences II: Estimates for parties, electors and governments in central and eastern Europe, European Union and OECD 1990–2003. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
50.
KopelmanS.RosetteA. S.ThompsonL. (2006). The three faces of Eve: Strategic displays of positive, negative, and neutral emotions in negotiations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99, 81-101.
51.
KosmidisS. (2014). Heterogeneity and the calculus of turnout: Undecided respondents and the campaign dynamics of civic duty. Electoral Studies, 33, 123-136.
52.
KosmidisS.XezonakisG. (2010). The undecided voters and the economy: Campaign heterogeneity in the 2005 British general election. Electoral Studies, 29, 604-616.
53.
LangP. J. (1994). The varieties of emotional experience: A meditation of James-Lange theory. Psychological Review, 101, 211-221.
54.
LauR. R.PomperG. M. (2002). Effectiveness of negative campaigning in U.S. Senate elections. American Journal of Political Science, 46, 47-66.
55.
LaverM.BenoitK.GarryJ. (2003). Extracting policy positions from political texts using words as data. American Political Science Review, 97, 311-331.
56.
LazarusR. S. (1991). Progress on a cognitive-motivational-relational theory of emotion. American Psychologist, 46, 819-834.
57.
LoweW. (2008). Understanding wordscores. Political Analysis, 16, 356-371.
58.
MarcusG. E.NeumanW. R.MacKuenM. (2000). Affective intelligence and political judgment. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
59.
McCartyN.PooleK. T.RosenthalH. (2006). Polarized America: The dance of ideology and unequal riches. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
60.
MehrabianA.RussellJ. A. (1974). An approach to environmental psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
61.
MeirowitzA. (2008). Electoral contests, incumbency advantages, and campaign finance. Journal of Politics, 70, 681-699.
62.
MilazzoC. (2016). On the attack: The role of negative campaigning. In CowleyP.FordR. (Eds.), More sex, lies and the ballot box: Another fifty things you need to know about British elections (Chap. 11). London, England: Biteback.
63.
MilazzoC.HammondJ. (2018). The face of the party? Leader personalization in British campaigns. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 28, 263-282.
64.
MondakJ. J. (1995). Competence, integrity, and the electoral success of congressional incumbents. Journal of Politics, 57, 1043-1069.
65.
MondakJ. J.HuckfeldtR. (2006). The accessibility and utility of candidate character in electoral decision making. Electoral Studies, 25, 20-34.
66.
MutzD. C. (2015). In-your-face politics: The consequences of uncivil media. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
67.
OrriolsL.MartínezÁ. (2014). The role of the political context in voting indecision. Electoral Studies, 35, 12-23.
68.
PettyR. E.BriñolP. (2015). Emotion and persuasion: Cognitive and meta-cognitive processes impact attitudes. Cognition and Emotion, 29, 1-26.
69.
PettyR. E.CacioppoJ. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123-205.
70.
RedondoJ.FragaI.PadronI.ComesnaM. (2007). The Spanish adaptation of ANEW (Affective Norms for English Words). Behavior Research Methods, 39, 600-605.
71.
RobertsonD. (1976). A theory of party competition. London, England: Wiley.
72.
RussellJ. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 1161-1178.
73.
RussellJ. A. (1989). Measures of emotion. In PlutchikR.KellermanH. (Eds.), Emotion: Theory, research, and experience (Vol. 4, pp. 83-111). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Academic.
74.
RussellJ. A. (1991). Culture and the categorization of emotions. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 426-450.
75.
SchofieldN. (2003). Valence competition in the spatial stochastic model. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 15, 371-383.
76.
SerraG. (2010). Polarization of what? A model of elections with endogenous valence. Journal of Politics, 72, 426-437.
77.
SinclairR. C.MarkM. M.CloreG. L. (1994). Mood-related persuasion depends on (mis)attributions. Social Cognition, 12, 309-326.
78.
SoaresA. P.ComesanaM.PinheiroA. P.SimoesA.FradeC. S. (2012). The adaptation of the Affective Norms for English Words (ANEW) for European Portuguese. Behavior Research Methods, 44, 256-269.
79.
Somer-TopcuZ. (2009). Timely decisions: The effects of past national elections on party policy change. The Journal of Politics, 71, 238-248.
80.
StokesD. E. (1963). Spatial models of party competition. American Political Science Review, 57, 368-377.
81.
StoneW. J.SimasE. N. (2010). Candidate valence and ideological positions in U.S. House elections. American Journal of Political Science, 54, 371-388.
82.
StraussG. P.AllenD. N. (2006). The experience of positive emotion is associated with the automatic processing of positive emotional words. Journal of Positive Psychology, 1, 150-159.
83.
StraussG. P.AllenD. N. (2008). Emotional intensity and categorization ratings for emotional and nonemotional words. Cognition and Emotion, 22, 114-133.
84.
WittmanD. (1977). Candidates with policy preferences: A dynamic model. Journal of Economic Theory, 14, 180-189.
85.
YoungL. S.SorokaS. (2012). Affective news: The automated coding of sentiment in political texts. Political Communication, 29, 205-231.
86.
ZakharovA. V. (2009). A model of candidate location with endogenous valence. Public Choice, 138, 347-366.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
