Partisans use emotions as social pressure: Feeling anger and gratitude at exiters and recruits in political groups

Abstract

Political collective action requires assembling and motivating supporters. Many theories view emotions as functional tools for managing relationships, including within groups. We study what leads citizens to use the emotions anger and gratitude as social pressure. Specifically, we test what determines the use of these emotions to prevent potential exiters from leaving a political group and to encourage potential recruits to join. Because parties are enduring social affiliations (compared to transient or issue-focused groups), we predicted that partisans would express stronger emotions. We tested this proposition in two separate studies—one an observational study featuring a representative sample of US adults and one an experimental study conducted in Denmark. As predicted, people with a partisan mindset, whether naturally occurring or experimentally manipulated, felt more anger and gratitude at potential exiters and recruits. Citizens strive to fortify and expand their ingroups and sometimes use emotions as social pressure to do so.

Keywords

emotions partisanship political psychology

Without enough supporters, political parties and interest groups cannot win elections, pass legislation, lobby politicians, or survive over the long-term. Elites in these groups use many tactics to increase and maintain support, such as providing special benefits to members (Hicken, 2011) and appealing to voters’ identities or emotions (Brader, 2006; Herrnson et al., 2003). Yet in large groups, such as national political parties, it is unlikely elites alone can build membership or limit abstention by rank-and-file members.

To fill this gap, group members themselves might step in, helping to build and maintain the group. But what tactics might they use? We test whether rank-and-file supporters use social pressure. Social pressure encompasses rewarding or punishing others, arguing with them, or appealing to emotions (for political examples, see Delton et al., 2018b; Gerber et al., 2016; Panagopoulos, 2010, 2011). Importantly, past work has mostly focused on the attitudes and behavior of those who receive social pressure (e.g., Gerber et al., 2008). Less studied—but our focus here—is to understand when citizens themselves are willing to exert social pressure on others. Not only is this important for understanding political mobilization but, as we return to in the discussion, our approach helps arbitrate between theories of partisanship.

We focus on emotions—specifically, voters’ willingness to use anger and gratitude (e.g., Groenendyk and Banks, 2014; Knack, 1992; Panagopoulos, 2011). In particular, we examine emotions felt toward potential exiters (who might leave a political group) or potential recruits (who might join). We predict that it is especially partisans who will feel anger and gratitude at exiters and recruits.

Emotional social pressure encompasses at least three stylized steps. First, a person feels an emotion. Second, they express that emotion toward others. Third, those others change in response. Past work has validated the final two steps, showing (a) that people who feel these emotions are likely to express them and (b) that others change their behavior in response (see above cites and review in Delton et al., 2018b). We focus on the first step. Thus, we study what determines whether people will feel these emotions toward exiters and recruits.

Our first study is observational; in a representative US sample, we compare partisans to independents. Our second study is an experiment; in a sample of Danish students, we recruit only party supporters and randomly manipulate whether they have a heightened or dampened partisan mindset. There are substantial differences between the studies, including design, nationality, and whether of partisanship was naturally occurring or experimentally manipulated. Finding similar results in both would be strong evidence that partisans are more inclined to use emotions as social pressure.

Using anger and gratitude to motivate exiters and recruits

Parties compete to elect candidates. Trade associations compete to pass favorable laws. Environmentalists and developers compete over construction projects. These groups provide benefits to their members when successful, but these groups are difficult to maintain (Olson, 1965). One challenge is preventing current members from exiting (Hirschman, 1970). A second challenge is recruiting new members (Cimino and Delton, 2010). Group members invest time, money, and energy. If members exit or never join, their contributions are lost.

Consider a recent elite example: Congressman Justin Amash made headlines in 2019 when he defected from the Republicans and joined the Libertarian Party, becoming the first Libertarian in the House. President Donald Trump responded by angrily tweeting, “Great news for the Republican Party as one of the dumbest & most disloyal men in Congress is ‘quitting’ the Party…A total loser!” But Libertarian Party Chair Nicholas Sarwark was delighted, writing to Amash and other potential recruits, “I’m happy to see that Representative Amash has come home…If more…joined him, we could see a caucus of legislators who are able to work for the American people instead of conflicting teams of special interests” (Welch, 2020).

Although this example involves elites, we suspect that similar forms of social pressure will be used by members of the public. Party elites can motivate supporters through mass media like television, podcasts, and op-eds. Typical citizens do not have these tools. Instead, they are most likely to apply social pressure within smaller circles of friends and family, in person and through social media. Although each individual’s reach is small, collectively their actions can have large effects on party success.

Many tactics are effective as social pressure. For instance, people are more likely to vote if informed their friends voted (Bond et al., 2012). And in field studies, the possibility of being shamed or receiving gratitude causes people to vote (Gerber et al., 2008; Panagopoulos, 2011). In those studies, the researchers themselves manipulated social pressure and observed whether people became more active. Less research exists, however, on whether citizens use such pressure on each other. Early work using the American National Elections Studies showed that people voted more when they had friends or family who would be angry at abstention (Knack, 1992). More recent work finds that people will themselves use anger or gratitude as a pressure tactic to encourage turnout (Delton et al., 2018b). We build on this to test whether people use anger and gratitude to prevent exiters and gain recruits.

Indeed, emotions constitute a crucial tool for exerting social pressure. Specific emotions have evolved for specific functions, including to organize and maintain group cooperation (e.g., Clifford, 2019; Lopez, 2016; Marcus et al., 2000; Tooby et al., 2008). Many emotions are hypothesized to manage relationships, as we detail next.

The functions of emotions

Our research was motivated by functional theories of emotions that view emotions as a series of relatively discrete information processing mechanisms, each one tailored to solve different problems faced throughout human evolution (Cottrell and Neuberg, 2005; Delton and Sell, 2014; Ekman, 1992; Forster et al., 2017; Keltner and Haidt, 2001; Marcus et al., 2000; McCullough et al., 2013; Neuberg et al., 2011; Neuman et al., 2007; Sell, 2011; Sell et al., 2017, 2009; Smith et al., 2017; Sznycer, 2019; Sznycer et al., 2012; Sznycer and Cohen, 2021; Tooby et al., 2008).¹ Some research programs, such as the Theory of Affective Intelligence (e.g., Marcus et al., 2019, 2000; Neuman et al., 2018), have used this functional framework to make advances in how people search out information and understand their political environment.

Other programs have used this framework to study how emotions solve problems related to social valuation (Cosmides and Tooby, 2000; Tooby and Cosmides, 1990), including in politics (Del Ponte et al., 2021; Delton et al., 2018a, 2018b; Petersen et al., 2012). For instance, when you realize that you have been treating others more poorly than you would like, guilt is activated. When you become concerned that information is spreading that will cause others to value you less, shame is activated.

The emotions we studied here are gratitude and anger. For instance, people become angry when treated more poorly than they expect (Sell et al., 2017). Anger signals to the other person to change her or his behavior, so as to repair the relationship. Thus, exiters should elicit anger; the threat of anger potentially prevents exiting. Similarly, people become grateful when treated especially well (Smith et al., 2017). Gratitude signals recognition of good treatment and strengthens the relationship. Thus, if a potential exiter stays or a potential recruit joins, they may receive gratitude that reinforces their choice.

Strengthening the party with emotions

We suggest that partisans will be especially likely to use emotional social pressure. Importantly, partisanship is unique compared to other political activity. Many people do not like members of the outparty and refuse to compromise with them (Mason, 2018). People also commit to parties for the long-term (Green et al., 2002). This is because partisans want to win, not just for one-off policy gains, but to raise their party’s status (Huddy et al., 2015). Political partisanship appears to be a special form of group membership, representing an enduring attachment that provides long-term benefits and a source of conflict over reputation.

This identity component separates parties from transient or issue-focused groups. Psychologists have shown that the mind recognizes distinct types of groups (Lickel et al., 2000). Some are viewed as existing briefly for specific tasks, others as enduring groups that exist to enable continuing, diffuse projects (Tooby et al., 2006). When successful, these enduring groups can provide immense benefits to members. This dramatically raises the stakes of maintaining and building party strength, which implies that members of parties should use greater social pressure on behalf of their enduring partisan alliances.

Thus, our expectation is that partisans will feel more anger and gratitude at exiters and recruits. In the same vein, we expect partisans will be willing to show positive encouragement at potential exiters within their party (positive encouragement was designed as a forward-looking measure of gratitude, see below). In both an observational study and an experiment, we tested three predictions.
Prediction 1: Partisans will feel more anger at a potential exiter.

Prediction 2: Partisans will express more positive encouragement at a potential exiter.

Prediction 3: Partisans will feel more gratitude at a potential recruit.

As it seems less natural to express anger at a potential recruit who fails to join, we did not test such a prediction.

Overview of the present research

Study 1 used a nationally representative US sample and compared partisans to independents. All respondents imagined a hypothetical presidential election. Specifically, partisans imagined working with their political party to help their party’s candidate win, while independents imagined working with like-minded others to help their preferred candidate win. Importantly, although partisans and independents are both working with a group, the nature of the group differs in a crucial way: Partisan groups are an enduring attachment (Green et al., 2002), while groups of independents are likely to be viewed as more transient in nature (Lickel et al., 2000). As a potential drawback to our design, we recognize that many political independents do favor a party and may behave more like a partisan (Klar and Krupnikov, 2016). Nevertheless, per our instructions, and like their partisan counterparts, independents imagined working with a political group. Moreover, if independents do feel an enduring attachment to a particular party, it should reduce any differences between partisans and independents, ultimately rendering our test more conservative.

Study 2 was an experiment conducted with a student sample in Denmark. Only supporters of political parties participated. Everyone imagined a hypothetical upcoming parliamentary election; by taking control, they could install a preferred prime minister. Participants were randomly assigned to read the materials and answer the questions either while (1) explicitly thinking of themselves as a partisan or (2) as a neutral observer (Batson et al., 1991; Bolsen et al., 2014; Delton et al., 2018b). The manipulation was modeled after classic studies of perspective-taking (Batson et al. 1991). While there are drawbacks to our “think” manipulation (see the Discussion), it is important to emphasize that the instruction for participants to explicitly think of themselves in some particular way was held constant across condition. All that varied between conditions, in other words, was whether they should think of themselves as partisans or as neutral observers. Thus, any differences between conditions can only be attributed to this specific feature of the manipulation.

As our dependent variables, we asked participants to rate their “anger” and their “gratitude” at exiters and recruits. Importantly, this does not guarantee our measurement maps onto the underlying theory. The emotion theories we draw on are information processing theories about how the mind understands and reacts to important social situations, such as a group member attempting to exit; they are not theories of how laypeople use emotion words. Nonetheless, researchers have labeled putative emotion systems as anger and gratitude because the hypothesized systems seem to match typical uses of these words. Because we needed a brief way to measure emotions, we used the words “anger” and “gratitude” as our measures. Importantly, research shows that the words “anger/angry” and “gratitude/grateful” are correlated with the functional outcomes predicted by the theories we draw from (Lim, 2012; Smith et al., 2017; Sznycer et al., 2021). Recent work in a political context also demonstrated this (Delton et al., 2018b, S5): In the context of imagining friends who did or did not vote, people who rated themselves as feeling more anger or gratitude also reported they would express these emotions at their friend and would take actions predicted by the functional theories. For instance, angry people would try to change their friend’s bad behavior and grateful people would use “positive encouragement” to reinforce their friend’s good behavior. In sum, based on the totality of the evidence, we think it is appropriate to use the words “anger” and “gratitude” to measure the underlying emotional systems we are interested in.

Overall, our two studies complement each other. Study 1 was nationally representative and used naturally existing partisanship. Study 2 used an experiment to directly manipulate partisanship, thus permitting causal inferences. Importantly, in Study 2, all participants were party supporters. This makes for a challenging test because party attachment likely resists manipulation.

Methods

Study 1

A nationally representative sample of 923 US adults completed our survey over the Internet in 2005 (through Time-Sharing Experiments in the Social Sciences (TESS) via the polling company Knowledge Networks). 70% were partisans and 30% independents (see Supplemental material). Although we focus in the main paper on the difference between partisans and independents, this study (and Study 2) also included experimental manipulations of features of the exiters and recruits. The effects of these manipulations were generally weak; see the Supplemental material.

Participants first reported whether they were partisans or independents. Partisans imagined working with their political party; independents imagined working merely with like-minded others. All independents, whether leaners or true independents, received the like-minded others version of the survey; thus, we analyzed all independents together.

Partisans read, “There’s going to be a presidential race in the United States…You, your friends, and other members of your political party are very worried and angry…You and your party want to win back control of the White House.”

Next, they rated their anger at a potential exiter, rating “how angry would you feel towards [voter name] for considering this [i.e., exiting]?” from 0 (not at all) to 100 (very). (Each question was about a unique voter with a unique name).

Then, participants rated how much positive encouragement they would use to prevent a different exiter from leaving. We designed this as a forward-looking index of gratitude; the English word “gratitude” usually applies to completed acts. They rated “how much positive encouragement would you want to give [voter name] to keep [him/her] from doing this [i.e., exiting]?” from 0 (no encouragement) to 100 (a lot of encouragement).

Finally, participants rated how grateful they would feel if a potential recruit joined their party: “how grateful would you feel towards [voter name] if [he/she] decided to do this [i.e., join]?” from 0 (not at all) to 100 (very).

For independents, the materials were similar except that, instead of references to “your political party,” they read “you, your friends, and other people who share your political values” (emphasis added), with similar changes throughout.

Thus, both partisans and independents imagined working with a group. However, partisans imagined working with their party—an enduring group—whereas independents imagined working in a transitory, task-oriented group.

In our analyses, we controlled for demographic variables and for the psychological variables of group identification, past contributions to the group, and expected benefits from the group (see Supplemental material). All quantitative variables were recoded to range between 0 and 1. Partisans were dummy-coded as 1 and independents as 0. All p-values are two-tailed.

Study 2

A sample of 172 undergraduates at Aarhus University completed our survey over the Internet in 2014. Only students who supported a party participated. The survey was translated into Danish and, because Denmark has a parliamentary system, the survey was modified for that context. For example, the vignette read (in Danish), “You and your party want to win as many seats as possible in parliament so that you can achieve your political goals and advance your agenda” (emphasis added). Denmark is a multi-party system and participants supported many parties. Nonetheless, parties can be arrayed along a right–left continuum. Left-wing participants imagined competing against Venstre and right-wing participants against the Social Democrats; these are the most prominent right- and left-wing parties, respectively.

The most important change in Study 2 is that we used an experimental manipulation with two conditions to either heighten or dampen partisanship. In the Partisan Mindset condition, the instructions asked participants to respond “while thinking of yourself as a member of your preferred political party” and, while responding, to “think about yourself in explicitly partisan terms.” In the Neutral condition, the instructions asked them to respond “as if you were an objective, neutral observer” and, while responding, to “think about yourself as neutral and unbiased.” Participants read the mindset manipulation before any other instructions in the study. They then received a reminder of the mindset right before rating their emotions.

Results

Do partisans use more anger and gratitude? The results are consistent with our three predictions; see Figure 1. In Study 1, compared to independents, partisans were angrier at exiters, would use more positive encouragement with exiters, and were more grateful with recruits. In Study 2, compared to the Neutral condition, participants in the Partisan Mindset condition were also angrier at exiters, used more positive encouragement with exiters, and were more grateful with recruits. The figure also shows that participants rated the positive sentiments higher than anger, which is perhaps unsurprising given that a brief, hypothetical survey is unlikely to elicit high levels of anger.

Figure 1.
Graph of raw means and standard errors of the mean. US = United States nationally representative sample. Denmark = Danish student sample.

As a formal test of our predictions, in Study 1 we conducted three regressions. In each, we specified one emotion as the outcome variable, with the primary predictor being a dummy variable measuring partisans versus independents. As shown in Table S1 and despite a variety of controls, compared to independents, partisans were angrier and more grateful with exiters and recruits (all ps < .05). For both exiter questions, there was a 6 percentage-point increase in anger and encouragement; for the recruit question, there was a 4 percentage-point increase in gratitude.

Whereas Study 1 had a large sample and used existing attachments, Study 2 had a smaller sample size and involved only partisans who received a brief manipulation of partisan mindset. To maximize statistical power, we used a mixed-model ANOVA. This allowed us to test whether, in general, the mindset manipulation caused a change in emotions and whether the effect varies by emotion. All three emotion measures are included as simultaneous dependent variables and the predictor is the experimental manipulation of partisan versus neutral mindset.

As predicted, compared to the neutral mindset, participants with a partisan mindset had significantly stronger emotional reactions (main effect of mindset manipulation: F(1, 170) = 4.5, p = .036, η² = .03). Importantly, and despite the descriptive differences seen in Figure 1, the size of the effect did not vary by emotion (for the interaction of mindset manipulation and emotion: F(2, 169) = 2.1, p = .12, η² = .03). Although not a formal prediction, we also found that participants expressed gratitude most and anger least (main effect of emotion: F(2, 169) = 159, p < .001, η² = .65). Echoing the observational results, being randomly assigned to a partisan mindset resulted in more anger and gratitude at exiters and recruits.

In different samples, in different countries, with different politics, and with different methods, partisans felt angrier at exiters, used more encouragement with exiters, and felt more gratitude toward recruits.

Discussion

In two studies we found that partisans—whether compared to independents or manipulated to have a heightened partisan identity—expressed more anger and gratitude at exiters and recruits. We suggest this is because partisanship is special compared to many other group affiliations. Thus, to maintain and enhance the membership of their group, partisans in the mass public may use a variety of emotional appeals. Our findings also add to a debate about the nature of partisanship—in particular, whether partisanship functions as an enduring social affiliation or whether parties are simply vehicles to enact specific policies (Huddy et al., 2015). From the latter perspective, it is unclear why a partisan mindset manipulation should cause a strong emotional reaction. Our findings, therefore, are more consistent with the enduring attachment perspective.

Our findings also show how experiments can complement observational studies of partisanship. It is not possible to create enduring party attachments in the lab. But without experiments it is difficult to know what causes what: Does being a partisan cause people to be emotional or are emotional people more likely to become partisans? We provided a partial answer with our experiment, though, of course, we do not claim our manipulation captures the totality of partisanship.

Figure 1 shows larger effects in the US sample than the Danish sample. There are many differences between the two studies, so we cannot be certain what accounts for this difference. One possibility is that the Danish participants were already party supporters and that our mindset manipulation is necessarily weak compared to their enduring attachments. Another possibility is that Denmark has a multi-party system, which might weaken people’s attachment to any particular party.

Our survey only asked about a few emotions that were most relevant to our goals. However, a growing body of research suggests that people often experience multiple emotions at the same time; this includes fear as a concomitant of anger (Brader, 2006; Lambert et al., 2010; Lerner and Keltner, 2000; MacKuen et al., 2007, 2010; Marcus et al., 2019; Neuman et al., 2018; Vasilopoulos, 2018; Vasilopoulou and Wagner, 2017; Vasilopoulos et al., 2018, 2019). We did not measure fear, so we cannot address this issue with our data. Nonetheless, our goal was not to characterize the entire emotional experience of people reading our scenarios, but to address certain limited questions about social pressure. Based on the emotions framework we draw from, only anger has the function of regulating the direct relationship between the participant and the (hypothetical) targets; fear is not hypothesized to function to change how others value the self, though it may cause other changes related to attention and concern with danger. Thus, anger is most appropriate to our question of regulating relationships. Nevertheless, future work could attempt to better isolate anger from other negative emotions that may be influenced by a partisan-mindset manipulation.

A related question is whether participants’ ratings of “anger” and “gratitude” were influenced by other emotion systems besides anger and gratitude. For instance, a person who experienced fear while reading our stories, but with no way to express it, may have rated their “anger” as high. We acknowledge that this is a possibility. However, based on the data reviewed above, ratings of the words “anger” and “gratitude” do seem to capture important aspects of the functional output of the hypothesized emotions systems.

Another limitation is the experimental manipulation used in Study 2. We asked participants to “think” of themselves as partisans or as objective observers. Some research has suggested that instructions of “thinking” versus “feeling” produce different results (Mayer and Tormala, 2010; Millar and Millar, 1990; Wilson and Dunn, 1986). This work has typically focused on attitudes within participants and how those attitudes may or may not change. Our focus, however, is on strategic uses of emotions to regulate relationships between people. Thus, we modeled our measures on research that has investigated perspective-taking on social interactions. For instance, our neutral observer condition was closely modeled on classic work by Batson and colleagues (1991) who asked participants to “take an objective perspective, [to be] as objective as possible” (p. 416). To keep the instructions as similar as possible in our two conditions, we used the “think” language in both; otherwise, our manipulation would have confounded think versus feel and partisan versus non-partisan. Another reason for not using “feel” language is that our dependent measures were emotions. Had we asked participants to “feel” what a typical partisan or independent observer would have felt, we might have created demand effects where they tried to guess what emotions we wanted them to report. Using a perspective-taking manipulation that does not mention feelings likely reduces this possibility. Our materials are also similar to recent work on partisan motivated reasoning by Bolsen and colleagues (2014). In a motivated reasoning condition, they asked people to evaluate policies while thinking about their party and why they are a member; in an accuracy condition, they asked people to evaluate policies in an even-handed manner. Still, it’s an open question whether the same results would have obtained had we used “feel” language in both conditions.

In sum, in modern democracies, parties represent a particularly potent relationship, with victory or defeat ultimately hinging on the strength of the party. In finding that partisans are particularly likely to use emotions for this end, our results are consistent with a research tradition that views emotions as psychological tools for managing and maintaining relationships.

Supplemental material

Supplemental Material, sj-pdf-1-ppq-10.1177_13540688211018796 - Partisans use emotions as social pressure: Feeling anger and gratitude at exiters and recruits in political groups

Supplemental Material, sj-pdf-1-ppq-10.1177_13540688211018796 for Partisans use emotions as social pressure: Feeling anger and gratitude at exiters and recruits in political groups by Andrew W Delton, John V Kane, Michael Bang Petersen, Theresa E Robertson and Leda Cosmides in Party Politics

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Andrew W Delton

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Note

References

Batson

Slingsby

, et al. (1991) Empathic joy and the empathy-altruism hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 61(3): 413–426.

Bolsen

Druckman

Cook

(2014) The influence of partisan motivated reasoning on public opinion. Political Behavior 36(2): 235–262.

Bond

Fariss

Jones

, et al. (2012) A 61-million-person experiment in social influence and political mobilization. Nature 489(7415): 295–298.

Brader

(2006) Campaigning for Hearts and Minds: How Emotional Appeals in Political Ads Work. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Cimino

Delton

(2010) On the perception of newcomers: toward an evolved psychology of intergenerational coalitions. Human Nature 21(2): 186–202.

Clifford

(2019) How emotional frames moralize and polarize political attitudes. Political Psychology 40(1): 75–91.

Cosmides

Tooby

(2000) Evolutionary psychology and the emotions. In: Lewis

Haviland-Jones

(eds) Handbook of Emotions. New York, NY: Guilford, pp. 91–115.

Cottrell

Neuberg

(2005) Different emotional reactions to different groups: a sociofunctional threat-based approach to ‘prejudice’. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 88(5): 770–789.

Del Ponte

Delton

DeScioli

(2021) Altruism and spite in politics: how the mind makes welfare tradeoffs about political parties. Political Behavior. Epub ahead of print 1 January. DOI: 10.1007/s11109-020-09660-z

10.

Delton

Sell

(2014) The co-evolution of concepts and motivation. Current Directions in Psychological Science 23(2): 115–120.

11.

Delton

Petersen

DeScioli

, et al. (2018a) Need, compassion, and support for social welfare. Political Psychology 39: 907–924.

12.

Delton

Petersen

Robertson

(2018b) Partisan goals, emotions, and political mobilization: the role of motivated reasoning in pressuring others to vote. Journal of Politics 80(3): 890–902.

13.

Ekman

(1992) An argument for basic emotions. Cognition and Emotion 6(3–4): 169–200.

14.

Forster

Pedersen

Smith

, et al. (2017) Benefit valuation predicts gratitude. Evolution and Human Behavior 38(1): 18–26.

15.

Gerber

Green

Larimer

(2008) Social pressure and voter turnout: evidence from a large-scale field experiment. American Political Science Review 102(01): 33–48.

16.

Gerber

Huber

Doherty

, et al. (2016) Why people vote: estimating the social returns to voting. British Journal of Political Science 46(02): 241–264.

17.

Green

Palmquist

Schickler

(2002) Partisan Hearts and Minds: Political Parties and the Social Identities of Voters. London: Yale University Press.

18.

Groenendyk

Banks

(2014) Emotional rescue: how affect helps partisans overcome collective action problems. Political Psychology 35(3): 359–378.

19.

Herrnson

Lay

Stokes

(2003) Women running ‘as women’: candidate gender, campaign issues, and voter-targeting strategies. The Journal of Politics 65(1): 244–255.

20.

Hicken

(2011) Clientelism. Annual Review of Political Science 14(1): 289–310.

21.

Hirschman

(1970) Exit, Voice, and Loyalty. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

22.

Huddy

Mason

Aarøe

(2015) Expressive partisanship: campaign involvement, political emotion, and partisan identity. American Political Science Review 109(1): 1–17.

23.

Keltner

Haidt

(2001) Social functions of emotions. In: Mayne

Bonanno

(eds) Emotions: Current Issues and Future Directions, Emotions and Social Behavior. New York, NY: Guilford Press, pp. 192–213.

24.

Klar

Krupnikov

(2016) Independent Politics: How American Disdain for Parties Leads to Political Inaction. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

25.

Knack

(1992) Civic norms, social sanctions, and voter turnout. Rationality and Society 4(2): 133–156.

26.

Lambert

Scherer

Schott

, et al. (2010) Rally effects, threat, and attitude change: an integrative approach to understanding the role of emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 98(6): 886–903.

27.

Lerner

Keltner

(2000) Beyond valence: toward a model of emotion-specific influences on judgement and choice. Cognition and Emotion 14(4): 473–493.

28.

Lickel

Hamilton

Wieczorkowska

, et al. (2000) Varieties of groups and the perception of group entitativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 78(2): 223–246.

29.

Lim

(2012) Welfare Tradeoff Ratios and Emotions: Psychological Foundations of Human Reciprocity. Doctoral dissertation. Santa Barbara, CA: University of California.

30.

Lopez

(2016) The evolution of war: theory and controversy. International Theory 8(1): 97–139.

31.

MacKuen

Marcus

Neuman

, et al. (2007) The third way: the theory of affective intelligence and American democracy. In: Crigler

(ed), The Affect Effect: The Dynamics of Emotion in Political Thinking and Behavior. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, pp. 124–151.

32.

MacKuen

Wolak

Keele

, et al. (2010) Civic engagements: resolute partisanship or reflective deliberation. American Journal of Political Science 54(2): 440–458.

33.

McCullough

Kurzban

Tabak

(2013) Cognitive systems for revenge and forgiveness. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 36(1): 1–58.

34.

Marcus

Neuman

MacKuen

(2000) Affective Intelligence and Political Judgment. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

35.

Marcus

Valentino

Vasilopoulos

, et al. (2019) Applying the theory of affective intelligence to support for authoritarian policies and parties. Political Psychology 40(S1): 109–139.

36.

Mason

(2018) Uncivil Agreement: How Politics became Our Identity. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

37.

Mayer

Tormala

(2010) ‘Think’ versus ‘feel’ framing effects in persuasion. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 36(4): 443–454.

38.

Millar

(1990) Attitude change as a function of attitude type and argument type. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59(2): 217–228.

39.

Neuberg

Kenrick

Schaller

(2011) Human threat management systems: self-protection and disease avoidance. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 35(4): 1042–1051.

40.

Neuman

Marcus

Crigler

, et al. (eds) (2007) The Affect Effect: Dynamics of Emotion in Political Thinking and Behavior. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

41.

Neuman

Marcus

MacKuen

(2018) Hardwired for news: affective intelligence and political attention. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 62(4): 614–635.

42.

Olson

(1965) The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

43.

Panagopoulos

(2010) Affect, social pressure and prosocial motivation: field experimental evidence of the mobilizing effects of pride, shame and publicizing voting behavior. Political Behavior 32(3): 369–386.

44.

Panagopoulos

(2011) Thank you for voting: gratitude expression and voter mobilization. The Journal of Politics 73(03): 707–717.

45.

Petersen

Sell

Tooby

, et al. (2012) To punish or repair? Evolutionary psychology and lay intuitions about modern criminal justice. Evolution and Human Behavior 33(6): 682–695.

46.

Robertson

Sznycer

Delton

, et al. (2018) The true trigger of shame: social devaluation is sufficient, wrongdoing is unnecessary. Evolution and Human Behavior 39(5): 566–573.

47.

Sell

(2011) The recalibrational theory and violent anger. Aggression and Violent Behavior 16(5): 381–389.

48.

Sell

Sznycer

Al-Shawaf

, et al. (2017) The grammar of anger: mapping the computational architecture of a recalibrational emotion. Cognition 168: 110–128.

49.

Sell

Tooby

Cosmides

(2009) Formidability and the logic of human anger. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 106(35): 15073–15078.

50.

Smith

Pedersen

Forster

, et al. (2017) Cooperation: the roles of interpersonal value and gratitude. Evolution and Human Behavior 38(6): 695–703.

51.

Sznycer

(2019) Forms and functions of the self-conscious emotions. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 23(2): 143–157.

52.

Sznycer

Cohen

(2021) How pride works. Evolutionary Human Sciences 3. Available at: http://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/evolutionary-human-sciences/article/how-pride-works/DB1071FE3C51D9FABD5791B81C6B3AF1 (accessed 26 March 2021).

53.

Sznycer

Al-Shawaf

Bereby-Meyer

, et al. (2017) Cross-cultural regularities in the cognitive architecture of pride. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114(8): 1874–1879.

54.

Sznycer

Sell

Dumont

(2021) How anger works. Unpublished Manuscript, University of Montreal, Canada.

55.

Sznycer

Takemura

Delton

, et al. (2012) Cross-cultural differences and similarities in proneness to shame: an adaptationist and ecological approach. Evolutionary Psychology 10(2): 352–370.

56.

Sznycer

Tooby

Cosmides

, et al. (2016) Shame closely tracks the threat of devaluation by others, even across cultures. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113(10): 2625–2630.

57.

Tooby

Cosmides

(1990) The past explains the present: emotional adaptations and the structure of ancestral environments. Ethology and Sociobiology 11(4–5): 375–424.

58.

Tooby

Cosmides

Price

(2006) Cognitive adaptations for n-person exchange: the evolutionary roots of organizational behavior. Managerial and Decision Economics 27(2–3): 103–129.

59.

Tooby

Cosmides

Sell

, et al. (2008) Internal regulatory variables and the design of human motivation: a computational and evolutionary approach. In: Elliot

(ed), Handbook of Approach and Avoidance Motivation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 251–271.

60.

Vasilopoulos

(2018) Terrorist events, emotional reactions, and political participation: the 2015 Paris attacks. West European Politics 41(1): 102–127.

61.

Vasilopoulos

Marcus

Foucault

(2018) Emotional responses to the Charlie Hebdo attacks: addressing the authoritarianism puzzle. Political Psychology 39(3): 557–575.

62.

Vasilopoulos

Marcus

Valentino

, et al. (2019) Fear, anger, and voting for the far right: evidence from the November 13, 2015 Paris terror attacks. Political Psychology 40(4): 679–704.

63.

Vasilopoulou

Wagner

(2017) Fear, anger and enthusiasm about the European Union: effects of emotional reactions on public preferences towards European integration. European Union Politics 18(3): 382–405.

64.

Welch

(2020) Justin Amash becomes the first libertarian member of congress. Reason.com. Available at: https://reason.com/2020/04/29/justin-amash-becomes-the-first-libertarian-member-of-congress/ (accessed 5 October 2020).

65.

Wilson

Dunn

(1986) Effects of introspection on attitude-behavior consistency: analyzing reasons versus focusing on feelings. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 22(3): 249–263.

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.

0.00 MB

0.14 MB