The 2016 presidential campaign made some feel angry, while others felt anxious, embarrassed, or enthusiastic. We explore how these emotions relate to patterns of political talk within informal conversation networks. Using items from the 2016 Cooperative Congressional Election Study, we link emotional reactions to rates of conversation, interest in political talk, and exposure to disagreeable viewpoints. Rather than deterring people from contentious conversations, we find that the heightened emotions are associated with greater engagement in political talk. Those who feel angry do not confront their opponents. Instead, they avoid conversations with those who do not share their views, where anger is tied to partisan patterns of political discussion. Feelings of embarrassment have the opposite relationship, as those who felt embarrassed during the campaign were more likely to discuss politics with those with contrary views. These results inform when and how people engage in political talk.
AhnT. K.HuckfeldtR.John BarryR. (2014). Experts, activists, and democratic politics: Are electorates self-educating?Cambridge University Press.
2.
AlbertsonB.GadarianS. K. (2015). Anxious politics: Democratic citizenship in a threatening world. Cambridge University Press.
3.
ApslerR. (1975). Effects of embarrassment on behavior toward others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 145–153.
4.
ArgyleL. P. (2018). The paradox of persuasion: Interpersonal influence in everyday conversation [PhD dissertation]. University of California.
5.
AverillJ. R. (1982). Anger and aggression: An essay on emotion. Springer-Verlag.
6.
BanksA. J.2014. Anger and racial politics: The emotional foundation of racial attitudes in america. Cambridge University Press.
7.
BeckP. A.DaltonR. J.GreeneS.HuckfeldtR. (2002). The social calculus of voting: Interpersonal, media, and organizational influences on presidential choices. American Political Science Review, 96, 57–73.
8.
BelloJ.RolfeM. (2014). Is influence mightier than selection? Forging agreement in political discussion networks during a campaign. Social Networks, 36, 134–146.
9.
BerelsonB. R.LazarsfeldP. F.WilliamN. M. (1954). Voting. University of Chicago Press.
BraderT. (2006). Campaigning for hearts and minds: How emotional appeals in political ads work. University of Chicago Press.
12.
BraderT. (2011). The political relevance of emotions: ‘Reassessing’ revisited. Political Psychology, 32, 337–346.
13.
BraderT.MarcusG. E. (2013). Emotion and political psychology. In HuddyL.SearsD. O.LevyJ. S. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political psychology (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
14.
ClarkM. S.TarabanC. (1991). Reactions to and willingness to express emotion in communal and exchange relationships. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 27(4), 324–336.
ConoverP. J.FeldmanS. (1986). Emotional reactions to the economy: I’m Mad as Hell and I’m not going to take it anymore. American Journal of Political Science, 30(1), 50–78.
17.
ConoverP. J.MillerP. R. (2018). Taking everyday political talk seriously. In BächtigerA. E.DryzekJ. S.MansbridgeJ.WarrenM. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of deliberative democracy (pp. 378–391). Oxford University Press.
18.
DownsA. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. Harper and Row.
19.
EvelandW. P.MoreyA. C.HutchensM. J. (2011). Beyond deliberation: New directions for the study of informal political conversation from a communication perspective. Journal of Communication, 61, 1082–1103.
20.
FordB. Q.FeinbergM. (2020). Coping with politics: The benefits and costs of emotion regulation. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 34, 123–128.
21.
GoffmanE. (1956). The nature of deference and demeanor. American Anthropologist, 58(3), 473–502.
22.
HansenS. B. (1997). Talking about politics: Gender and contextual effects on political proselytizing. The Journal of Politics, 59(1), 73–103.
23.
HershE.GhitzaY. (2018). Mixed partisan households and electoral participation in the United States. PLoS One, 13(10), e0203997.
24.
HuckfeldtR. (2001). The social communication of political expertise. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 425–438.
25.
HuckfeldtR.MendezJ. M. (2008). Moths, flames, and political engagement: Managing disagreement within communication networks. The Journal of Politics, 70, 83–96.
26.
HuckfeldtR.MendezJ. M.OsbornT. (2004). Disagreement, ambivalence, and engagement: The political consequences of heterogeneous networks. Political Psychology, 25, 65–95.
27.
HuckfeldtR.SpragueJ. (1991). Discussant effects on vote choice: Intimacy, structure, and interdependence. The Journal of Politics, 53, 122–158.
28.
HuckfeldtR.SpragueJ. (1995). Citizens, politics, and social communication: Information and influence in an election campaign. Cambridge University Press.
29.
HuckfeldtR.SpragueJ.LevineJ. (2000). The dynamics of collective deliberation in the 1996 election: Campaign effects on accessibility, certainty, and accuracy. American Political Science Review, 94, 641–651.
30.
HuddyL.FeldmanS.CasseseE. (2007). On the distinct political effects of anxiety and anger. In NeumanW. R.MarcusG. E.CriglerA.MacKuenM. (Eds.), The affect effect: Dynamics of emotion in political thinking and behavior (pp. 202–230). University of Chicago Press.
31.
KeltnerD.BuswellB. N. (1997). Embarrassment: Its distinct form and appeasement functions. Psychological Bulletin, 122, 250–270.
32.
KlofstadC. A. (2011). Civic talk: Peers, politics, and the future of democracy. Temple University Press.
33.
KlofstadC. A.McClurgS. D.RolfeM. (2009). Measurement of political discussion networks: A comparison of two “Name Generator” procedures. Public Opinion Quarterly, 73(3), 462–483.
34.
KuppensP.Van MechelenI.MeuldersM. (2004). Every cloud has a silver lining: Interpersonal and individual differences determinants of anger-related behaviors. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1550–1564.
35.
LazarusR. S. (1991). Emotion and adaptation. Oxford University Press.
36.
LernerJ. S.KeltnerD. (2001). Fear, Anger, and Risk. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(1), 146–159.
37.
LyonsJ.SokheyA. (2014). Emotion, motivation, and social information seeking about politics. Political Communication, 31, 237–258.
38.
MacKuenM.WolakJ.KeeleL.MarcusG. E. (2010). Civic engagements: Resolute partisanship or reflective deliberation. American Journal of Political Science, 54(2), 440–458.
39.
MansbridgeJ. (1999). Everyday talk in the deliberative system. In MacedoS. (Ed.), Deliberative politics: Essays on democracy and disagreement (pp. 211–239). Oxford University Press.
40.
MarcusG. E.MacKuenM. B.WolakJ.KeeleL. (2006). The measure and mismeasure of emotion. In RedlawskD. (Ed.), Feeling politics: Emotion in political information processing (pp. 31–45). Palgrave Macmillan.
41.
MarcusG. E.NeumanW. R.MacKuenM. (2000). Affective intelligence and political judgment. University of Chicago Press.
42.
MarsdenP. V. (1987). Core discussion networks of Americans. American Sociological Review, 52(1), 122–131.
43.
MasonL. (2015). “I disrespectfully agree”: The differential effects of partisan sorting on social and issue polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59, 128–145.
44.
MillerR. S. (1992). The nature and severity of self-reported embarrassing circumstances. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 190–198.
45.
MillerR. S. (2006). Is embarrassment a blessing or a curse? In TraceyJ. L.RobinsR. W.TangneyJ. P. (Eds.), The self-conscious emotions: Theory and research (pp. 245–262). Guilford Press.
46.
MinozziW.SongH.LazerD. M. J.NebloM. A.OgnyanovaK. (2020). The incidental pundit: Who talks politics with whom, and why?American Journal of Political Science, 64, 135–151.
47.
MutzD. C. (2006). Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus participatory democracy. Cambridge University Press.
48.
NebloM. A. (2020). Impassioned democracy: The roles of emotion in deliberative theory. American Political Science Review, 114(3), 923–927.
SettleJ. E. (2018). Frenemies: How social media polarizes America. Cambridge University Press.
54.
ShapiroI.RichardsonS.McClurgS.SokheyA. E. (2020). Discussion networks in political decision making. In RedlawskD. (Ed.), The Oxford Encyclopedia of political decision making. Oxford University Press.
55.
SmallM. L. (2013). Weak ties and the core discussion network: Why people regularly discuss important matters with unimportant alters. Social Networks, 35(3), 470–483.
56.
SokheyA. E.BakerA.DjupeP. A. (2015). The dynamics of socially supplied information: Examining discussion network stability over time. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 27(2), 565–587.
57.
SokheyA. E.DjupeP. A. (2014). Name generation in interpersonal political network data: Results from a series of experiments. Social Networks, 36, 147–161.
58.
SokheyA. E.McClurgS. D. (2012). Social networks and correct voting. The Journal of Politics, 74(3), 751–764.
59.
SuhayE.ErisenC. (2018). The role of anger in the biased assimilation of political information. Political Psychology, 39(4), 793–810.
60.
ValentinoN. A.BraderT.GroenendykE. W.GregorowiczK.HutchingsV. L. (2011). Election night’s alright for fighting: The role of emotions in political participation. The Journal of Politics, 73, 156–170.
61.
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.
62.
ValenzuelaS.BachmannI. (2015). Pride, anger, and cross-cutting talk: A three-country study of emotions and disagreement in informal political discussions. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 27(4), 544–564.
63.
van KleefG. A. (2016). The interpersonal dynamics of emotion: Toward an integrative theory of emotions as social information. Cambridge University Press.
64.
WeberC. (2013). Emotions, campaigns, and political participation. Political Research Quarterly, 66, 414–428.
65.
WebsterS. W. (2020). American rage: How anger shapes our politics. Cambridge University Press.
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.
