Voter emotional responses and voting behaviour in the 2020 US presidential election.

IF 2.6 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL Cognition & Emotion Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2024-05-19 DOI:10.1080/02699931.2024.2355572
Heather C Lench, Leslie Fernandez, Noah Reed, Emily Raibley, Linda J Levine, Kiki Salsedo
{"title":"Voter emotional responses and voting behaviour in the 2020 US presidential election.","authors":"Heather C Lench, Leslie Fernandez, Noah Reed, Emily Raibley, Linda J Levine, Kiki Salsedo","doi":"10.1080/02699931.2024.2355572","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Political polarisation in the United States offers opportunities to explore how beliefs about candidates - that they could save or destroy American society - impact people's thoughts, feelings, and behaviour. Participants forecast their future emotional responses to the contentious 2020 U.S. presidential election, and reported their actual responses after the election outcome. Stronger beliefs about candidates were associated with forecasts of greater emotion in response to the election, but the strength of this relationship differed based on candidate preference. Trump supporters' forecast happiness more strongly related to beliefs that their candidate would save society than for Biden supporters. Biden supporters' forecast anger and fear were more strongly related to beliefs that Trump would destroy society than vice versa. These forecasts mattered: predictions of lower happiness and greater anger if the non-preferred candidate won predicted voting, with Biden supporters voting more than Trump supporters. Generally, participants forecast more emotion than they experienced, but beliefs altered this tendency. Stronger beliefs predicted experiencing more happiness or more anger and fear about the election outcome than had been forecast. These findings have implications for understanding the mechanisms through which political polarisation and rhetoric can influence voting behaviour.</p>","PeriodicalId":48412,"journal":{"name":"Cognition & Emotion","volume":" ","pages":"1196-1209"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cognition & Emotion","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2024.2355572","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Political polarisation in the United States offers opportunities to explore how beliefs about candidates - that they could save or destroy American society - impact people's thoughts, feelings, and behaviour. Participants forecast their future emotional responses to the contentious 2020 U.S. presidential election, and reported their actual responses after the election outcome. Stronger beliefs about candidates were associated with forecasts of greater emotion in response to the election, but the strength of this relationship differed based on candidate preference. Trump supporters' forecast happiness more strongly related to beliefs that their candidate would save society than for Biden supporters. Biden supporters' forecast anger and fear were more strongly related to beliefs that Trump would destroy society than vice versa. These forecasts mattered: predictions of lower happiness and greater anger if the non-preferred candidate won predicted voting, with Biden supporters voting more than Trump supporters. Generally, participants forecast more emotion than they experienced, but beliefs altered this tendency. Stronger beliefs predicted experiencing more happiness or more anger and fear about the election outcome than had been forecast. These findings have implications for understanding the mechanisms through which political polarisation and rhetoric can influence voting behaviour.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
2020 年美国总统大选中选民的情绪反应和投票行为。
美国的政治两极分化为我们提供了机会,可以探讨有关候选人的信念--他们可以拯救或毁灭美国社会--是如何影响人们的思想、情感和行为的。参与者预测了他们未来对有争议的 2020 年美国总统选举的情绪反应,并报告了他们在选举结果出来后的实际反应。对候选人更强烈的信念与预测对选举更强烈的情绪反应有关,但这种关系的强度因候选人的偏好而异。与拜登支持者相比,特朗普支持者预测的幸福感与他们认为候选人会拯救社会的信念关系更为密切。拜登支持者预测的愤怒和恐惧与特朗普将破坏社会的信念之间的关系比反之更密切。这些预测很重要:如果非首选候选人获胜,预测的幸福感会降低,愤怒感会增加,而拜登支持者的投票率要高于特朗普支持者。一般来说,参与者预测的情绪比他们经历的要多,但信念改变了这一趋势。较强的信念预示着对选举结果的幸福感或愤怒和恐惧感要比预测的多。这些发现对于理解政治两极化和言论影响投票行为的机制具有重要意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Cognition & Emotion
Cognition & Emotion PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
7.70%
发文量
90
期刊介绍: Cognition & Emotion is devoted to the study of emotion, especially to those aspects of emotion related to cognitive processes. The journal aims to bring together work on emotion undertaken by researchers in cognitive, social, clinical, and developmental psychology, neuropsychology, and cognitive science. Examples of topics appropriate for the journal include the role of cognitive processes in emotion elicitation, regulation, and expression; the impact of emotion on attention, memory, learning, motivation, judgements, and decisions.
期刊最新文献
Credibility of results in emotion science: a Z-curve analysis of results in the journals Cognition & Emotion and Emotion. Emotional inertia is independently associated with cognitive emotion regulation strategies and sleep quality. Left out and vilified: Do the effects of political metaphors on spatial orientation judgments indicate a taboo effect? Seeing fast and slow: the influence of music-induced affective states and individual sensory sensitivity on visual processing speed. Browse or broadcast? The influence of active and passive social media use on mood.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1