Emotions in Politics
Abstract
The study of emotion in politics has been active, especially as it relates to the personality of political leaders and as an explanation for how people evaluate significant features around them. Researchers have been divided into two groups—those who study leaders and those who study publics. The research programs have also been divided between those who use emotion to explain reliance on early experience that dominates contemporary judgment and those who use emotion to explain why people respond to the immediate contemporary circumstances around them. More recently, theory and research have attempted to reconcile these two seemingly contradictory roles by integrating them. Emotion's role in politics is pervasive both because emotion enables past experience to be encoded with its evaluative history and because emotion enables contemporary circumstances to be quickly evaluated. More recently still, theoretical models and supporting evidence suggest that there are multiple channels of emotional evaluations.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Political affect is in large part rooted in one's long-standing political predispositions, such as ideology.
“That is, political affectas”
From Do Search Algorithms Endanger Democracy? An Experimental Investigation of Algorithm Effects on Political Polarization (2020) · cites this paper as Marcus, 2000
Cites
Russell, J. A. (1980) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0077714 · Cited by 16,334 · see citing works
An Introduction to the Five‐Factor Model and Its Applications
McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992) · Journal of Personality · doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1992.tb00970.x · Cited by 6,835 · see citing works
The unbearable automaticity of being
Bargh, J. A., & Chartrand, T. L. (1999) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.54.7.462 · Cited by 3,699 · see citing works
Mood and judgment: The affect infusion model (AIM).
Forgas, J. P. (1995) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.1.39 · Cited by 3,470 · see citing works
Emotion, attention, and the startle reflex
Lang, P. J., Bradley, M. M., & Cuthbert, B. N. (1990) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.97.3.377 · Cited by 2,205 · see citing works
Mehrabian, A. (1996) · Current Psychology · doi:10.1007/bf02686918 · Cited by 1,493 · see citing works
On the bipolarity of positive and negative affect.
Russell, J. A., & Carroll, J. M. (1999) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.1.3 · Cited by 1,481 · see citing works
Brain Systems that Mediate both Emotion and Cognition
Gray, J. A. (1990) · Cognition & Emotion · doi:10.1080/02699939008410799 · Cited by 1,400 · see citing works
Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Rapson, R. L. (1993) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139174138 · Cited by 642 · see citing works
With Malice toward Some: How People Make Civil Liberties Judgments
Marcus, G. E., Sullivan, J. L., Theiss-Morse, E., & Wood, S. L. (1995) · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139174046 · Cited by 387 · see citing works
Self-citationEffects of stress and anxiety on the processing of threat stimuli
Mogg, K., Mathews, A., Bird, C., & Macgregor-Morris, R. (1990) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.59.6.1230 · Cited by 289 · see citing works
Does affect induce self-focused attention?
Wood, J. V., Saltzberg, J. A., & Goldsamt, L. A. (1990) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.58.5.899 · Cited by 285 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
MOTIVATED SKEPTICISM IN THE EVALUATION OF POLITICAL BELIEFS (2006)
Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2012) · Critical Review · doi:10.1080/08913811.2012.711019 · Cited by 760 · see citing works
The sociology of emotions: Four decades of progress
Bericat, E. (2016) · Current Sociology · doi:10.1177/0011392115588355 · Cited by 492 · see citing works
Cho, J., Ahmed, S., Hilbert, M., Liu, B., & Luu, J. (2020) · Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media · doi:10.1080/08838151.2020.1757365 · Cited by 164 · see citing works
Hilbert, M., Ahmed, S., Cho, J., Liu, B., & Luu, J. (2018) · Communication Methods and Measures · doi:10.1080/19312458.2018.1479843 · Cited by 49 · see citing works
Collision with China: Conceptual Metaphor Analysis, Somatic Marking, and the EP-3 Incident
SLINGERLAND, E., BLANCHARD, E. M., & BOYD-JUDSON, L. (2007) · International studies quarterly · doi:10.1111/j.1468-2478.2007.00439.x · Cited by 29 · see citing works
- Authors
- Marcus, G. E.
- Affiliations
- Williams College (US)
- Corresponding author
- Marcus, G. E.
- Venue
- Annual Review of Political Science
- Publisher
- Annual Reviews
- Published
- 2000-06
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 221-250
- ISSN
- 1094-2939 (ISSN-L)
- 1545-1577
- OpenAlex
- W2168364449
- Cited by
- 468
- References
- 12
- Citations by year
- 2026: 40 · 2025: 46 · 2024: 53 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 26 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 25 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 16
- FWCI
- 3.69
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Annual Review of Political Science (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History › History of Emotions Research
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Emotions and Moral Behavior
- Keywords
- emotions in politics, political leaders, leader personality, public opinion, affective evaluation, early life experience, political judgment
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
