Home The Role of Political Elites in Eliciting Mass-Level Political Anger
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

The Role of Political Elites in Eliciting Mass-Level Political Anger

  • Steven W. Webster

    Steven W. Webster is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science at Indiana University. His research focuses on the nature of political behavior and public opinion within the United States. More specifically, he studies the forces driving mass polarization; how voters form perceptions of political actors, such as candidates, parties, and related political entities; and how signals from party elites shape voters’ beliefs and attitudes.

     EMAIL logo
Published/Copyright: November 29, 2021
Become an author with De Gruyter Brill
Author Information Explore this Subject
The Forum
From the journal The Forum Volume 19 Issue 3

Abstract

Contemporary American politics is notable for its high levels of anger and partisan antipathy. While these developments are attributable in large part to societal-level sociopolitical trends, I argue that they are also the result of politicians’ deliberate and strategic attempts to elicit mass-level anger. In this paper, I analyze over one million tweets sent by members of the 116th Congress to demonstrate that political elites do appeal to anger and that the angriest of these appeals are most likely to come from the most ideologically extreme Members of Congress – that is, the most liberal Democrats and the most conservative Republicans. I further show that this relationship is stronger for Democratic politicians, and that authoring tweets with a greater amount of anger generates more engagement. The results suggest that as long as politicians have an incentive to appeal to mass-level anger, the divisions characterizing American politics are likely to persist.

Keywords: negative partisanship; party polarization; twitter and anger; politicians appealing to anger
Corresponding author: Steven W. Webster, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA, E-mail:

About the author

Steven W. Webster

Steven W. Webster is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science at Indiana University. His research focuses on the nature of political behavior and public opinion within the United States. More specifically, he studies the forces driving mass polarization; how voters form perceptions of political actors, such as candidates, parties, and related political entities; and how signals from party elites shape voters’ beliefs and attitudes.

Appendix

Table A.1:

This table replicates the results found in Table 1 in the manuscript. Observations greater than three standard deviations above the mean on the anger score have been dropped.

Pct. Angry Words
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Ideological extremity 0.323***

(0.008)		 0.340***

(0.008)		 0.340***

(0.008)		 0.313***

(0.008)		 0.309***

(0.009)
Democrat 0.198***

(0.003)		 0.200***

(0.003)		 0.200***

(0.003)		 0.188***

(0.003)		 0.180***

(0.003)
Female 0.029***

(0.003)		 0.030***

(0.003)		 0.027***

(0.003)		 0.030***

(0.003)
African American −0.046***

(0.004)		 −0.046***

(0.004)		 −0.030***

(0.004)		 −0.035***

(0.004)
Latino −0.010**

(0.004)		 −0.013***

(0.004)		 −0.001

(0.004)		 0.00004

(0.004)
Committee chair 0.019***

(0.004)		 0.026***

(0.004)		 0.002

(0.005)
State legislative experience 0.006***

(0.002)		 0.008***

(0.002)		 0.003

(0.002)
Majority leadership 0.045***

(0.006)		 0.023***

(0.007)
Minority leadership 0.145***

(0.005)		 0.136***

(0.005)
Seniority 0.003***

(0.0003)
Vote share (previous election) 0.001***

(0.0001)
Constant 0.171***

(0.005)		 0.159***

(0.005)		 0.155***

(0.005)		 0.162***

(0.005)		 0.124***

(0.007)
N 1,014,681 1,014,681 1,014,681 1,014,681 1,012,122
R2 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.007 0.007

  1. *p < 0.1; **p < 0.05; ***p < 0.01.

Table A.2:

This table replicates the results found in Table 2 in the manuscript. Observations greater than three standard deviations above the mean on the anger score have been dropped.

Pct. Angry Words
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Ideological extremity 0.119*** (0.012) 0.127*** (0.012) 0.128*** (0.012) 0.132*** (0.012) 0.150*** (0.012)
Democrat 0.025*** (0.008) 0.019** (0.008) 0.021** (0.008) 0.034*** (0.008) 0.045*** (0.008)
Ideological extremity X democrat 0.370*** (0.016) 0.403*** (0.017) 0.399*** (0.017) 0.346*** (0.017) 0.313*** (0.018)
Female 0.019*** (0.003) 0.020*** (0.003) 0.019*** (0.003) 0.022*** (0.003)
African American −0.062*** (0.004) −0.062*** (0.004) −0.046*** (0.004) −0.046*** (0.004)
Latino −0.021*** (0.004) −0.022*** (0.004) −0.010** (0.004) −0.008* (0.004)
Committee chair 0.004 (0.004) 0.012*** (0.004) −0.002 (0.005)
State legislative experience 0.003 (0.002) 0.005** (0.002) 0.002 (0.002)
Majority leadership 0.035*** (0.006) 0.021*** (0.007)
Minority leadership 0.133*** (0.005) 0.127*** (0.005)
Seniority 0.003*** (0.0003)
Vote share (previous election) 0.0001 (0.0001)
Constant 0.280*** (0.007) 0.275*** (0.007) 0.273*** (0.007) 0.263*** (0.007) 0.236*** (0.009)
N 1,014,681 1,014,681 1,014,681 1,014,681 1,012,122
R2 0.006 0.006 0.006 0.007 0.007

  1. *p < 0.1; **p < 0.05; ***p < 0.01.

References

Abramowitz, A. 2018. The Great Alignment: Race, Party Transformation, and the Rise of Donald Trump. Yale University Press.10.2307/j.ctvhrczh3Search in Google Scholar

Abramowitz, A. I., and K. L. Saunders. 1998. “Ideological Realignment in the U.S. Electorate.” The Journal of Politics 60 (3): 634–52.10.2307/2647642Search in Google Scholar

Abramowitz, A. I., and K. L. Saunders. 2008. “Is Polarization a Myth?” The Journal of Politics 70 (2): 542–55.10.1017/S0022381608080493Search in Google Scholar

Abramowitz, A. I., and S. W. Webster. 2016. “The Rise of Negative Partisanship and the Nationalization of U.S. Elections in the 21st Century.” Electoral Studies 41: 12–22.10.1016/j.electstud.2015.11.001Search in Google Scholar

Allred, K. G. 1999. “Anger and Retaliation: Toward an Understanding of Impassioned Conflict in Organization.” In Research on Negotiation in Organizations, edited by R. J. Bies, R.J. Lewicki, and B. H. Sheppard, 27–58. Stamford: JAI Press.Search in Google Scholar

Allred, K. G., J. S. Mallozzi, F. Matsui, and C. P. Raia. 1997. “The Influence of Anger and Compassion on Negotiation Performance.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 70 (3): 175–87.10.1006/obhd.1997.2705Search in Google Scholar

Bafumi, J., and R. Y. Shapiro. 2009. “A New Partisan Voter.” The Journal of Politics 71 (1): 1–24.10.1017/S0022381608090014Search in Google Scholar

Banks, A. J. 2016. Anger and Racial Politics: The Emotional Foundation of Racial Attitudes in America. Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Bartels, L. M. 2000. “Partisanship and Voting Behavior, 1952-1996.” American Journal of Political Science 44 (1): 35–50.10.2307/2669291Search in Google Scholar

Baumeister, R. F., E. Bratslavsky, C. Finkenauer, and K. D. Vohs. 2001. “Bad Is Stronger Than Good.” Review of General Psychology 5 (4): 323–70.10.1037/e413792005-154Search in Google Scholar

Bodenhausen, G. V., L. A. Sheppard, and G. P. Kramer. 1994. “Negative Affect and Social Judgment: The Differential Impact of Anger and Sadness.” European Journal of Social Psychology 24 (1): 45–62.10.1002/ejsp.2420240104Search in Google Scholar

Campbell, A., P. E. Converse, W. R. Miller, and D. E. Stokes. 1960. The American Voter. Wiley.Search in Google Scholar

Clayton, K., N. T. Davis, B. Nyhan, E. Porter, T. J. Ryan, and T. J. Wood. 2021. “Elite Rhetoric Can Undermine Democratic Norms.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 118 (23): e2024125118.10.1073/pnas.2024125118Search in Google Scholar

Das, S., B. Sinclair, S. W. Webster, and H. Yan. Forthcoming. “All (Mayoral) Politics Is Local?” The Journal of Politics, https://doi.org/10.1086/716945.Search in Google Scholar

DeSante, C. D., and C. Watts Smith. 2020. Racial Stasis: The Millennial Generation and the Stagnation of Racial Attitudes in American Politics. Cambridge University Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226643762.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Dijksterhuis, Ap., and H. Aarts. 2003. “On Wildebeests and Humans: The Preferential Detection of Negative Stimuli.” Psychological Science 14 (1): 14–8.10.1111/1467-9280.t01-1-01412Search in Google Scholar

Freeman, J. B. 2018. The Field of Blood: Violence in Congress and the Road to Civil War. Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.Search in Google Scholar

Hansen, C. H., and R. D. Hansen. 1988. “Finding the Face in the Crowd: An Anger Superiority Effect.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54 (6): 917–24.10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.917Search in Google Scholar

Iyengar, S., G. Sood, and Y. Lelkes. 2012. “Affect, Not Ideology: A Social Identity Perspective on Polarization.” Public Opinion Quarterly 76 (3): 405–31.10.1093/poq/nfs038Search in Google Scholar

Kalmoe, N. P. 2020. With Ballots and Bullets: Partisanship and Violence in the American Civil War. Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108870504Search in Google Scholar

Kam, C. D., and E. J. Zechmeister. 2013. “Name Recognition and Candidate Support.” American Journal of Political Science 75 (4): 971–86.10.1111/ajps.12034Search in Google Scholar

Kim, J. W., A. Guess, B. Nyhan, and J. Reifler. Forthcoming. “The Distorting Prism of Social Media: How Self-Selection and Exposure to Incivility Fuel Online Comment Toxicity.” Journal of Communication, https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqab034.Search in Google Scholar

Lawrence, R. G., L. Molyneux, M. Coddington, and H. Avery. 2014. “Tweeting Conventions: Political Journalists’ Use of Twitter to Cover the 2012 Presidential Campaign.” Journalism Studies 15 (6): 789–806.10.1080/1461670X.2013.836378Search in Google Scholar

Lerner, J. S., and L. Z. Tiedens. 2006. “Portrait of the Angry Decision Maker: How Appraisal Tendencies Shape Anger’s Influence on Cognition.” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 19: 115–37.10.1002/bdm.515Search in Google Scholar

Levendusky, M. S. 2009. The Partisan Sort: How Liberals Became Democrats and Conservatives Became Republicans. University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226473673.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Lewis, J. B., K. Poole, H. Rosenthal, A. Rudkin, and S. Luke. 2021. Voteview: Congressional Roll-Call Votes Database. http://www.voteview.com/ (accessed July 18, 2021).Search in Google Scholar

Lijphart, A. 1977. Democracy in Plural Societies: A Comparative Exploration. New Haven: Yale University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Martin, G. J., and J. McCrain. 2019. “Local News and National Politics.” American Political Science Review 113 (2): 372–84.10.1017/S0003055418000965Search in Google Scholar

Mason, L. 2015. “‘I Disrespectfully Agree’: The Differential Effects of Partisan Sorting on Social and Issue Polarization.” American Journal of Political Science 59 (1): 128–45.10.1111/ajps.12089Search in Google Scholar

Mason, L. 2018. Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity. University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226524689.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Mayhew, D. R. 1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. Yale University Press.Search in Google Scholar

McGregor, S. C., and L. Molyneux. 2018. “Twitter’s Influence on News Judgment: An Experiment Among Journalists.” Journalism 21 (5): 597–613.10.1177/1464884918802975Search in Google Scholar

Munger, K. 2020. “Don’t @ Me: Experimentally Reducing Partisan Incivility on Twitter.” Journal of Experimental Political Science 8 (2): 102–16.10.1017/XPS.2020.14Search in Google Scholar

Muraoka, T., J. Montgomery, C. Lucas, and M. Tavits. 2021. “Love and Anger in Global Party Politics.” Journal of Quantitative Description: Digital Media 1. https://doi.org/10.51685/jqd.2021.005.Search in Google Scholar

Öhman, A., D. Lundqvist, and F. Esteves. 2001. “The Face in the Crowd Revisited: A Threat Advantage with Schematic Stimuli.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 80 (3): 381–96.10.1037/0022-3514.80.3.381Search in Google Scholar

Prior, M. 2007. Post-broadcast Democracy: How Media Choice Increases Inequality in Political Involvement and Polarizes Elections. Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139878425Search in Google Scholar

Soroka, S. N. 2006. “Good News and Bad News: Asymmetric Responses to Economic Information.” The Journal of Politics 68 (2): 372–85.10.1111/j.1468-2508.2006.00413.xSearch in Google Scholar

Stapleton, C. E., and R. Dawkins. 2021. “Catching My Anger: How Political Elites Create Angrier Citizens.” Political Research Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1177/10659129211026972.Search in Google Scholar

Tausczik, Y. R., and J. W. Pennebaker. 2010. “The Psychological Meaning of Words: LIWC and Computerized Text Analysis Methods.” Journal of Language and Social Psychology 29 (1): 24–54.10.1177/0261927X09351676Search in Google Scholar

Tesler, M., and D. O. Sears. 2010. Obama’s Race: The 2008 Election and the Dream of a Post-Racial America. Univeristy of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226793849.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Thomsen, D. M. 2014. “Ideological Moderates Won’t Run: How Party Fit Matters for Partisan Polarization in Congress.” The Journal of Politics 76 (3): 786–97.10.1017/S0022381614000243Search in Google Scholar

Valentino, N. A., T. Brader, E. W. Groenendyk, K. Gregorowicz, and V. L. Hutchings. 2011. “Election Night’s Alright for Fighting: The Role of Emotions in Political Participation.” The Journal of Politics 73 (1): 156–70.10.1017/S0022381610000939Search in Google Scholar

Volden, C., and A. Wiseman. 2021. Legislative Effectiveness Data from 116th Congress. https://thelawmakers.org/data-download (accessed July 18, 2021).Search in Google Scholar

Webster, S. W. 2020. American Rage: How Anger Shapes Our Politics. Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108868303Search in Google Scholar

Winston, D. 2021. Aner has been the Drug of Choice for Our Political System for Too Long. https://www.rollcall.com/2021/02/10/anger-has-been-the-drug-of-choice-for-our-political-system-for-too-long/ (accessed June 18, 2021).Search in Google Scholar

Wrubel, L., and D. Kerchner. 2020. 116th U.S. Congress Tweet Ids. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/MBOJNS (accessed July 17, 2021).Search in Google Scholar

Zeitzoff, T. N.d. Nasty Politics: The Logic of Insults, Threats, and Incitement. https://www.zeitzoff.com/uploads/2/2/4/1/22413724/zeitzoff_nasty_politics_book_proposal.pdf (Book manuscript in progress. Proposal accessed August 12, 2021).Search in Google Scholar
Published Online: 2021-11-29

© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Introduction
  3. Introduction Fall 2021
  4. Articles
  5. It’s Only You and Me and We Just Disagree: The Ideological Foundations of Affective Polarization
  6. When Rural and Urban Become “Us” versus “Them”: How a Growing Divide is Reshaping American Politics
  7. Tribes and Proto-Tribes: The Deep Roots of Political Differences
  8. The Role of Political Elites in Eliciting Mass-Level Political Anger
  9. The Legacy of Rush Limbaugh Will Always Be Tied to Donald Trump
  10. Reflections on the Past and Present of Research on Partisan Identity
  11. What Do We Mean by Negative Partisanship?
  12. Religion as Political Tribalism
  13. The Tribal Economy: Economic Perceptions, Economic Anxiety and the Prospects for Political Accountability
  14. Book Review
  15. Andrea Benjamin: Racial Coalition Building in Local Elections: Elite Cues and Cross-Ethnic Voting
https://doi.org/10.1515/for-2021-0023
Keywords for this article
negative partisanship; party polarization; twitter and anger; politicians appealing to anger

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Introduction
  3. Introduction Fall 2021
  4. Articles
  5. It’s Only You and Me and We Just Disagree: The Ideological Foundations of Affective Polarization
  6. When Rural and Urban Become “Us” versus “Them”: How a Growing Divide is Reshaping American Politics
  7. Tribes and Proto-Tribes: The Deep Roots of Political Differences
  8. The Role of Political Elites in Eliciting Mass-Level Political Anger
  9. The Legacy of Rush Limbaugh Will Always Be Tied to Donald Trump
  10. Reflections on the Past and Present of Research on Partisan Identity
  11. What Do We Mean by Negative Partisanship?
  12. Religion as Political Tribalism
  13. The Tribal Economy: Economic Perceptions, Economic Anxiety and the Prospects for Political Accountability
  14. Book Review
  15. Andrea Benjamin: Racial Coalition Building in Local Elections: Elite Cues and Cross-Ethnic Voting
Sign up now to receive a 20% welcome discount
Institutional Access
How does access work?
Have an idea on how to improve our website?
Please write us.
© 2025 De Gruyter Brill
Downloaded on 13.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/for-2021-0023/html
Scroll to top button