Seeing Red: Anger Increases How Much Republican Identification Predicts Partisan Attitudes and Perceived Polarization

Abstract

We examined the effects of incidental anger on perceived and actual polarization between Democrats and Republicans in the context of two national tragedies, Hurricane Katrina (Study 1) and the mass shooting that targeted Representative Gabrielle Giffords in Arizona (Study 2). We hypothesized that because of its relevance to intergroup conflict, incidental anger exacerbates the political polarization effects of issue partisanship (the correlation between partisan identification and partisan attitudes), and, separately, the correlation between conservative partisan identification and perceived polarization between Democrats and Republicans. We further hypothesized that these effects would be strongest for Republican identification because Republican leaders were targets of public criticism in both tragedies and because conservative (Republican) ideology tends to be more sensitive to threat. In the studies, participants first completed an emotion induction procedure by recalling autobiographical events that made them angry (Studies 1 & 2), sad (Studies 1 & 2), or that involved recalling emotionally neutral events (Study 2). Participants later reported their attitudes regarding the two tragedies, their perceptions of the typical Democrat’s and Republican’s attitudes on those issues, and their identification with the Democratic and Republican parties. Compared with incidental sadness (Studies 1 and 2) and a neutral condition (Study 2), incidental anger exacerbated the associations between Republican identification and partisan attitudes, and, separately between Republican identification and perceived polarization between the attitudes of Democrats and Republicans. We discuss implications for anger’s influence on political attitude formation and perceptions of group differences in political attitudes.

Asymmetries abound: Ideological differences in emotion, partisanship, motivated reasoning, social network structure, and political trust

“…With respect to social conservatism, terrorist activity in France appears to have increased authoritarianism among right-wingers, and the effect was mediated by increased anger (Vasilopoulos et al, 2017). Finally, as noted by Krishna and Sokolova (2017), experiments conducted by Huber, Van Boven, Park, and Pizzi (2015) showed that inducing feelings of anger (vs. sadness) led Republicans-but not Democrats-to strengthen their perceptions of political conflict and polarization.…”

A focus on partisanship: How it impacts voting behaviors and political attitudes

“…In the previous section, we have elaborated upon the relationship between the use of partisan cues and systematic processing. We argue that when systematic processing is facilitated, the effect of partisan cues is reduced (Dickerson & Ondercin, 2017;Huber et al, 2015;Lupton et al, 2015;Mérola & Hitt, 2015;Mullinix, 2016;Prior et al, 2015;Sokolova & Krishna, 2017). Building on Jost's article, we now expand on the interplay between systematic processing, political ideology, and partisanship in political decision-making.…”

“…Second, partisanship leads people to evaluate the actions of a given administration differently (Anduiza, Gallego, & Muñoz, 2013;Bartels, 2002;Christenson & Kriner, 2017;Huber, Van Boven, Park, & Pizzi, 2015;Malhotra & Kuo, 2008). For instance, those identifying themselves more with Republicans evaluated Republican George W. Bush's administration's response to Hurricane Katrina more favorably than those identifying themselves more with Democrats (Huber et al, 2015;Malhotra & Kuo, 2008). Similarly, those identifying themselves more with Republicans (vs. Democrats) held more positive evaluations of the U.S. economy under Republican President George W. Bush (Bartels, 2002).…”

“…In contrast, when systematic processing is reduced, partisan cues are more likely to affect judgments. For instance, angry (vs. control) Republicans become more lenient in evaluating a Republican administration (Huber et al, 2015). This happens because anger, an emotion associated with certainty, reduces systematic processing and increases the impact of cognitive shortcuts in judgment (Bodenhausen, Sheppard, & Susser, 1994; Rydell et al, 2008).…”

When the tables are turned: The effects of the 2016 U.S. Presidential election on in-group favoritism and out-group hostility

“…Hence, we expect Republicans, as the partisan winners of the election, will show neither in-group favoritism nor out-group derogation, and allocate resources equally to others irrespective of whether those individuals are members of their in-group or out-group. Furthermore, given that Republicans were not threatened by the election results, we do not expect group identification to moderate these effects for them [ 32 ].…”