I spend quite a bit of time thinking about emotions. As an assistant professor of management, my research examines when and why people verbally express emotions to others.
Of late, research on emotion has meant dealing with a lot of negativity. According to Gallup’s Global Emotions Report, negative emotional experiences have risen approximately 25% in the past decade. The world we live in can have a lot to do with that. External events (as opposed to biological or internal events) can amplify a person’s negative emotions. If left unregulated, these negative emotions can have adverse consequences across all areas of life from decision-making and productivity to mental and physical health.
One external event that is impacting a lot of people’s emotions right now is the upcoming U.S. presidential election in November. Election season—particularly in today’s climate—is generally characterized by an intense competition for votes, which is often achieved through the unrelenting use of negative, fear-based tactics, which can increase voter cynicism, skepticism, polarization, and further deepen divisions.
In fact, according to the Pew Research Center, the majority of Americans report feeling exhausted and angry when just thinking about politics these days. While this number is disconcerting, it makes me wonder if this exhaustion means American politics are actually prime for a change.
In my recently published research with Mandy O’Neill (George Mason University School of Business), we found that expressions of positive emotions, such as gratitude, can be effectively expressed to others during times of distress to help people regulate their negative emotions.
While negative campaign strategies may seem like a truism in the current political landscape, I wonder how positive emotions could impact exhausted voters—not just on their state of mind but also their beliefs? Could expressions of gratitude, hope, and joy be effective in inspiring and influencing voters?
In watching the four days of the Republican National Convention and the four days of the Democratic National Convention, I saw some glimmers of this possibility. I was struck by the use of expressions of positive emotions (e.g., love, hope, joy, gratitude) throughout. A few salient examples:
At the Republican convention, former President Donald Trump used the word “love” 26 times in his convention speech, and declared: “I stand before you this evening with a message of confidence, strength, and hope.” Republican Senate nominee from Nevada, Sam Brown, similarly shared: “Tonight I offer a message of hope, because I know the importance of hope in difficult times.” Republican Governor from Virginia, Glenn Youngkin, encouraged voters to continue the spread of hope: “The spirit of hope is spreading. Everyone can feel it. It will sweep across this nation when we elect Donald J. Trump the 47th President of the United States.”
Similarly, at the Democratic convention, former First Lady Michelle Obama referred to the “contagious power of hope” and declared: “America, hope is making a comeback.” Former President Bill Clinton referred to Vice President and Democratic nominee Kamala Harris as “The President of Joy.” Media mogul Oprah Winfrey encouraged U.S. voters to “choose joy!” by voting for Harris.
This ran in stark contrast to the tone President Joe Biden had used in his campaign, which largely focused on the threat of another Donald Trump presidency. While Biden’s numbers were in a free fall following his first debate with Trump, Harris has largely found her identity as a candidate through joy and positivity—turning a possible electoral blowout into a nail-biting horse race.
In contrast to the conventions, there was a different tone in the first debate between Trump and Harris. In a debate where Harris was largely deemed to be the winner, the two candidates varied greatly in their tone and even facial expressions. In a post-debate voter poll, Trump was critiqued for his defensiveness, focus on doom and gloom, including the debunked claim of immigrants eating pets, and similar to the past, his facial expressions and agitated temperament. On the other hand, voters perceived Harris as being composed, presidential, and attempting to engage the television audience (repeatedly looking directly into the camera and addressing voters).
It is true that animosity often drives content engagement—an important metric for a wide range of businesses—negativity spreads quickly and is more salient (“Bad is Stronger than Good”). However, given that people are easily emotionally contaged from the content they consume, and negativity can have a consequential negative impact, perhaps it’s time to reimagine a different political emotional landscape, one that rallies and inspires voters by evoking positive emotions.
Rather than feeding anger, political campaigns can seek to heal the wounds and reinvigorate the populace with positivity.
This shift could not only reduce negative emotions among voters but may also have the potential to influence subsequent behavior, including reducing political violence. Preliminary data from the UK suggests that voters may welcome a break from the typical negative campaigning and negative emotions that often prevail.
So, when thinking about a new approach to politics in the U.S., perhaps love has everything to do with it. Or at least it could.