In recent years, the intersection of politics and social media has become a defining frontier for political communication strategies. Politicians increasingly harness emotional language in their posts to spark engagement, aiming to connect more deeply with their constituents. A comprehensive new study published in the INFORMS journal Information Systems Research provides critical insights into the real impact of these emotionally charged communications, dissecting how such strategies influence both audience interactions and the growth of a politician’s follower base.
Conducted by researchers Beth L. Fossen of Indiana University and David A. Schweidel of Emory University, the study systematically examined more than 70,000 social media posts by U.S. senators during 2018 on the platform formerly known as Twitter, now rebranded as X. By analyzing engagement metrics such as retweets and likes alongside follower growth data, the authors sought to uncover the nuanced effects of emotional content in political messaging. Their findings challenge some widely held assumptions about social media tactics in politics.
The study confirms that emotional posts do indeed heighten engagement among existing followers. Politicians who infuse their social media messaging with emotionality—whether through language reflecting anger, outrage, or even enthusiasm—tend to see increased immediate reactions like shares and likes. This amplification, however, appears almost exclusively confined to audiences that are politically homogenous. When audiences comprise diverse political orientations, highly charged emotional content can backfire, curbing engagement and potentially alienating moderate or oppositional followers.
One of the most compelling revelations from this research is that emotionality in posts does not translate into an increase in followers. Unlike the spike in engagement, follower growth depends primarily on other substantive qualities of posts, particularly the topic itself. This divergence underlines that while emotional appeals may energize existing supporters to react and share, they are insufficient as a mechanism to expand a politician’s reach or influence a broader electorate. In other words, getting people to respond is not the same as motivating them to commit by following an account.
The moderating effect of audience diversity is a pivotal but previously underexplored factor that this study brings to light. When followers represent ideologically diverse groups, emotionally charged posts often generate polarization instead of unity. Schweidel emphasizes that moderate emotional content actually performs better in such cases, fostering wider engagement across a fragmented audience. This insight is critical for politicians who wish to maintain or build bridges across political divides rather than deepen them.
Furthermore, the tone of emotion in political social mediated posts proves significant. Posts expressing negative emotions like anger and outrage are more potent in eliciting immediate reactions on social media platforms. By contrast, emotions such as happiness or excitement, while positive, tend to generate less visible engagement. This phenomenon reinforces the idea that social media platforms inherently reward controversy and conflict more than optimism, a crucial consideration for any political communications strategy.
Fossen highlights the distinction between engagement and following as two separate psychological and behavioral endpoints in social media interaction. The choice to engage with a post—through retweets, shares, or likes—is often a quick, reactive decision driven by emotional state and current context. Conversely, deciding to follow a political account is a more deliberate commitment, influenced by the relevance and substance of the topics covered rather than the emotional tone alone. This subtle but important difference guides how political campaigns should frame their messaging to achieve specific outcomes.
These findings also underscore the strategic complexity politicians face when navigating social media landscapes. Deploying emotional content is a double-edged sword: it can galvanize fervent support among existing bases but risks alienating moderate or undecided voters needed for broader electoral success. As Schweidel poignantly states, “More emotion is not always better.” Political communicators must therefore carefully calibrate emotional tone depending on the targeted audience’s ideological composition and the overarching campaign goals.
Methodologically, this study is distinguished by its large-scale data analysis, combining text mining of post content with robust statistical models to correlate emotionality with key social media metrics. By controlling for senator characteristics and post topics, the research isolates the specific impact of emotional content itself. Such granular analytical rigor advances the academic understanding of political communication dynamics in the digital age, providing a model for future interdisciplinary research combining political science, data analytics, and behavioral psychology.
This research offers practical implications for political advisors, campaign strategists, and public relations professionals. An over-reliance on emotionally charged rhetoric constitutes a high-risk strategy that may energize the base but diminish chances of cross-group appeal and long-term follower growth. Instead, a balanced approach that pairs substantive content with measured emotional expression appears more likely to sustain engagement and nurture a diverse, expanding supporter base on social media platforms.
Beyond its immediate political context, the study opens avenues for broader exploration of emotional messaging in digital communication. How emotional content influences behavior across different stakeholder groups could shape the design of future algorithms, content moderation policies, and targeted messaging in a democratic society increasingly mediated through digital platforms. As social media continues to evolve, understanding these dynamics will be indispensable for both political actors and the platforms themselves.
In conclusion, the INFORMS-published research by Fossen and Schweidel decisively demonstrates that emotionality in political social media communications yields mixed outcomes. While it can boost immediate engagement among partisan audiences, it struggles to attract new followers or resonate with a politically diverse constituency. The strategic challenge for politicians lies in tailoring emotional content to audience composition, employing it as a tool for reinforcement rather than expansion. This nuanced understanding absent from popular discourse guides smarter social media practices in political communication for the digital era.
Subject of Research: People
Article Title: Emotionality in Political Social Media Communications: The Moderating Role of Audience Diversity
News Publication Date: October 15, 2025
Web References: https://pubsonline.informs.org/doi/10.1287/isre.2022.0064
References: Fossen, B. L., & Schweidel, D. A. (2025). Emotionality in Political Social Media Communications: The Moderating Role of Audience Diversity. Information Systems Research.
Keywords: Political science, social media, political communication, emotionality, audience diversity, follower growth, online engagement, political polarization, digital communication strategies
