IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0139193.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Michaela Huber
  • Leaf Van Boven
  • Bernadette Park
  • William T Pizzi

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Michaela Huber & Leaf Van Boven & Bernadette Park & William T Pizzi, 2015. "Seeing Red: Anger Increases How Much Republican Identification Predicts Partisan Attitudes and Perceived Polarization," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(9), pages 1-18, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0139193
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0139193
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0139193
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0139193&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0139193?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tiedens, Larissa Z. & Linton, Susan, 2001. "Judgment under Emotional Uncertainty: The Effects of Specific Emotions and Their Associated Certainty Appraisals on Information Processing," Research Papers 1629, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yip, Jeremy A. & Schweitzer, Maurice E., 2019. "Losing your temper and your perspective: Anger reduces perspective-taking," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 28-45.
    2. Julia A. Minson & Frances S. Chen & Catherine H. Tinsley, 2020. "Why Won’t You Listen to Me? Measuring Receptiveness to Opposing Views," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(7), pages 3069-3094, July.
    3. Minson, Julia & Chen, Frances S. & Tinsley, Catherine H., 2018. "Why Won’t You Listen to Me? Measuring Receptiveness to Opposing Views," Working Paper Series rwp18-028, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Grichnik, Dietmar & Smeja, Alexander & Welpe, Isabell, 2010. "The importance of being emotional: How do emotions affect entrepreneurial opportunity evaluation and exploitation?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 76(1), pages 15-29, October.
    2. Aaron L. Wichman, 2012. "Uncertainty Threat Can Cause Stereotyping," SAGE Open, , vol. 2(2), pages 21582440124, April.
    3. Steven J. Stanton & Crystal Reeck & Scott A. Huettel & Kevin S. LaBar, 2014. "Effects of induced moods on economic choices," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 9(2), pages 167-175, March.
    4. Chan, Chien Sheng Richard & Park, Haemin Dennis, 2013. "The influence of dispositional affect and cognition on venture investment portfolio concentration," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 397-412.
    5. Maarten Vendrik & Christiane Schwieren, 2010. "Identification, screening and stereotyping in labour market discrimination," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 99(2), pages 141-171, March.
    6. Elfenbein, Hillary Anger, 2007. "Emotion in Organizations: A Review in Stages," Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, Working Paper Series qt2bn0n9mv, Institute of Industrial Relations, UC Berkeley.
    7. Mannberg, Andréa, 2012. "Risk and rationalization—The role of affect and cognitive dissonance for sexual risk taking," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 56(6), pages 1325-1337.
    8. Coget, Jean-Francois & Haag, Christophe & Gibson, Donald E., 2011. "Anger and fear in decision-making: The case of film directors on set," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 29(6), pages 476-490.
    9. Yochi Cohen-Charash & Charles A Scherbaum & John D Kammeyer-Mueller & Barry M Staw, 2013. "Mood and the Market: Can Press Reports of Investors' Mood Predict Stock Prices?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(8), pages 1-15, August.
    10. Fan, Lu & Chatterjee, Swarn, 2018. "Application of situational stimuli for examining the effectiveness of financial education: A behavioral finance perspective," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 68-75.
    11. Kovacheva, Aleksandra & Nikolova, Hristina & Lamberton, Cait, 2022. "Will he buy a surprise? Gender differences in the purchase of surprise offerings," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 98(4), pages 667-684.
    12. Kuvaas, Bard & Selart, Marcus, 2004. "Effects of attribute framing on cognitive processing and evaluation," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 95(2), pages 198-207, November.
    13. Pei-Tha Gan, 2019. "Economic uncertainty, precautionary motive and the augmented form of money demand function," Evolutionary and Institutional Economics Review, Springer, vol. 16(2), pages 397-423, December.
    14. Carine Peeters & Patricia Garcia-Prieto Sol & Sébastien Point, 2009. "Building the business case for diversity in offshoring," Working Papers CEB 09-007.RS, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    15. Scott J. Vitell & Robert Allen King & Jatinder Jit Singh, 2013. "A special emphasis and look at the emotional side of ethical decision-making," AMS Review, Springer;Academy of Marketing Science, vol. 3(2), pages 74-85, June.
    16. Chase Thiel & Zhanna Bagdasarov & Lauren Harkrider & James Johnson & Michael Mumford, 2012. "Leader Ethical Decision-Making in Organizations: Strategies for Sensemaking," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 107(1), pages 49-64, April.
    17. Karen Winterich & Andrea Morales & Vikas Mittal, 2015. "Disgusted or Happy, It is not so Bad: Emotional Mini-Max in Unethical Judgments," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 130(2), pages 343-360, August.
    18. Zhiyong Yang & Ritesh Saini & Traci Freling, 2015. "How Anxiety Leads to Suboptimal Decisions Under Risky Choice Situations," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(10), pages 1789-1800, October.
    19. Yip, Jeremy A. & Schweitzer, Maurice E., 2016. "Mad and misleading: Incidental anger promotes deception," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 137(C), pages 207-217.
    20. Sixiao Liu & Janet Z. Yang, 2020. "Incorporating Message Framing into Narrative Persuasion to Curb E‐Cigarette Use Among College Students," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(8), pages 1677-1690, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0139193. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.