Emotions and Affective Polarization: How Enthusiasm and Anxiety About Presidential Candidates Affect Interparty Attitudes
Abstract
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.
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?
Existe una relación directa entre la polarización y las emociones expresadas hacia los candidatos: cuanto mayor es el nivel de polarización, más ansiedad se aprecia hacia el candidato ajeno y más entusiasmo se siente por el propio.
“Se ha demostrado una relación directa entre la polarización y las emociones expresadas hacia los candidatos: cuanto mayor es el nivel de polarización, más ansiedad se aprecia hacia el candidato ajeno y más entusiasmo se siente por el propio (McLaughlin et al., 2020)”
From Emociones y polarización de las comunidades digitales en América Latina: elecciones presidenciales 2018-2019 (2023) · cites this paper as McLaughlin et al., 2020
Cites
Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity
Mason, L. (2018) · doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226524689.001.0001 · Cited by 1,985 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Affective polarization is largely thought to result from social identity commitments rather than ideology (Iyengar et al., 2012; Mason, 2018; Strickler, 2017; Suhay, 2015).”
Background
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Lagares Díez, N., López-López, P. C., Oñate, P., & Blasco-Blasco, O. (2023) · Análisis Político · doi:10.15446/anpol.v36n106.111074 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
El estudio de la polarización afectiva: una mirada metodológica
Freidin, E., Moro, R., & Silenzi, M. I. (2022) · REVISTA SAAP · doi:10.46468/rsaap.16.1.a2 · Cited by 5 · see citing works
- Authors
- McLaughlin, B., Holland, D., Thompson, B. A., & Koenig, A.
- Affiliations
- Texas Tech University (US)
- University of Tennessee at Knoxville (US)
- Stephen F. Austin State University (US)
- University of Louisville (US)
- Corresponding author
- McLaughlin, Bryan
- Venue
- American Politics Research
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2019-12-16
- Volume
- 48
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 308-316
- ISSN
- 0044-7803 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-673X
- 1552-3373
- OpenAlex
- W2996280272
- Cited by
- 31
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 16.92
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- American Politics Research (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Media Influence and Politics
- Keywords
- affective polarization, enthusiasm, anxiety, presidential candidates, partisanship, 2016 US presidential election, 2008 presidential election
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