In the context of an increasingly divided populace, this article considered how the emotions (enthusiasm and anxiety) partisans feel toward U.S. presidential candidates may heighten or diminish affective polarization. In Study 1 (American National Election Studies [ANES] 2008–2009 panel data), we found that enthusiasm for the in-group candidate and anxiety about the out-group candidate were related to higher levels of affective polarization, whereas enthusiasm for the out-group candidate was related to lower levels of affective polarization. In Study 2 (2016 panel data), we found that in-group enthusiasm was related to higher levels of affective polarization and out-group enthusiasm was related to lower levels of affective polarization, but neither in-group nor out-group anxiety was significantly related to affective polarization. These findings highlight that enthusiasm about out-group candidates may have a unique ability to disrupt affective polarization and that it is important to consider the source of an emotion response, not just the type of emotion.
AlbertsonB.GadarianS. K. (2015). Anxious politics: Democratic citizenship in a threatening world. Cambridge University Press.
2.
BarthM.MassonT.FritscheI.ZiemerC.-T. (2017). Closing ranks: Ingroup norm conformity as a subtle response to threatening climate change. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 21(3), 497–512. https://doi.org/1368430217733119
3.
BraderT. (2006). Campaigning for hearts and minds: How emotional appeals in political ads work. University of Chicago Press.
4.
CalfanoB. R.KruseA. (2016). Beyond surveillance: The effects of issue ad vividness and anxiety on information use. American Politics Research, 44, 1098–1122. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X16631416
5.
DeBellM.KrosnickJ. A.LupiaA. (2010). Methodology report and user’s guide for the 2008–2009 ANES panel study. Stanford University; The University of Michigan.
FestingerL. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
8.
GarrettR. K.GvismanS. D.JohnsonB. K.TsfatiY.NeoR.DalA. (2014). Implications of pro- and coutnerattitudinal information exposure for affective polarization. Human Communication Research, 40, 309–322. https://doi.org/10.1111/hcre.12028
9.
GibsonJ.ClaassenC.BarceloJ. (2019). Deplorables: Emotions, political sophistication, and political intolerance. American Politics Research. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1532673X18820864
10.
GroenendykE. (2016). The anxious and ambivalent partisan: The effect of incidental anxiety on partisan motivated recall and ambivalence. Public Opinion Quarterly, 80, 460–479. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfv083
11.
GroenendykE.BanksA. (2014). Emotional rescue: How affect helps partisans overcome collective action problems. Political Psychology, 35, 359–378. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12045
12.
GrossmannM.ThalerD. (2018). Mass-elite divides in aversion to social change and support for Donald Trump. American Politics Research, 46, 753–783. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X18772280
13.
HaidtJ. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. New York, NY: Vintage Books.
IyengarS.SoodG.LelkesY. (2012). Affect, not ideology: A social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76, 405–431. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfs038
16.
IyengarS.WestwoodS. J. (2015). Fear and loathing across party lines: New evidence on group polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59, 690–707. https://doi.org/10.1111.ajps/12152
17.
JohnstonC. D.LavineH.WoodsonB. (2015). Emotion and political judgment: Expectancy violation and affective intelligence. Political Research Quarterly, 68, 474–492. https://doi.org/10.11/77/1065912915593644
18.
LavineJ.JohnsonC.StennbergenM. (2012). The ambivalent partisan: How critical loyalty promotes democracy. Oxford University Press.
19.
LevenduskyM. S. (2018). When efforts to depolarize the electorate fail. Public Opinion Quarterly, 82, 583–592. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfy036
20.
LoboM. C.CurticeJ. (Eds.). (2014). Personality politics? The role of leader evaluations in democratic elections. Oxford University Press.
21.
LupuN. (2013). Party brands and partisanship: Theory with evidence from a survey experiment in Argentina. American Journal of Political Science, 57, 49–64. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2012.00615.x
22.
MackuenM.WolakJ.KeeleK.MarcusG. E. (2010). Civic engagements: Resolute partisanship or reflective deliberation. American Journal of Political Science, 54, 440–458. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00440.x
23.
MarcusG. E.NeumanW. R.MacKuenM. (2000). Affective intelligence and political judgment. University of Chicago Press.
24.
MasonL. (2016). A cross-cutting calm: How social sorting drives affective polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 80, 351–377. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfw001
25.
MasonL. (2018). Uncivil agreement: How politics became our identity. University of Chicago Press.
26.
MaxwellS. E.ColeD. A.MitchellM. A. (2011). Bias in cross-sectional analyses of longitudinal mediation: Partial and complete mediation under an autoregressive model. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 46, 816–841. doi: 101080/00273171.2011.606716
27.
McLaughlinB.KrauseA. (2017). Burning down the (White) House: Partisan attempts to undermine American exceptionalism. International Journal of Communication, 11, 4672–4693.
28.
MillerP. R.ConoverP. J. (2015). Red and blue states of mind: Partisan hostility and voting in the United States. Political Research Quarterly, 68, 225–239. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912915577208
StricklerR. (2017). Deliberate with the enemy? Polarization, social identity, and attitudes toward disagreement. Political Research Quarterly, 71, 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/10695912917721371
31.
SuhayE. (2015). Explaining group influence: The role of identity and emotion in political conformity and polarization. Political Behavior, 37, 221–251. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-014-9269-1
32.
SuhayE.BlackwellA.RocheC.BruggemanL. (2015). Forging bonds and burning bridges: Polarization and incivility in blog discussions about Occupy Wall Street. American Politics Research, 43, 643–679. https://doi.org/10.1177/1432673X14553834
33.
TajfelH.TurnerJ. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In AustinW.G.WorchelS. (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Brooks/Cole.
34.
TurnerJ. C.OakesP. J. (1986). The significance of the social identity concept for social psychology with reference to individualism, interactionism and social influence. British Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 237–252. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1986.tb00732.x
35.
ValentinoN. A.BanksA. J.HutchingsV. L.DavisA. K. (2009). Selective exposure in the Internet age: The interaction between anxiety and information utility. Political Psychology, 30, 591–613. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2009.00716.x
36.
ValentinoN. A.BraderT.GroenendykE. W.GregorowiczK.HutchingsV. (2011). Election night’s alright for fighting: The role of emotions in political participation. Journal of Politics, 73, 156–170. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381610000939
37.
ValentinoN. A.HutchingsV. L.BanksA. J.DavisA. K. (2008). Is a worried citizen a good citizen? Emotions, political information seeking, and learning via the internet. Political Psychology, 29, 247–273.
38.
WagnerM. (2014). Fear and anger in Great Britain: Blame assignment and emotional reactions to the financial crisis. Political Behavior, 36, 683–703. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1110901392415
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.
