In the realm of political psychology, understanding the emotional undercurrents that shape political attitudes is a complex yet crucial pursuit. Recent groundbreaking research from Washington University in St. Louis offers novel insights that challenge longstanding assumptions about the emotional drivers behind shifts in political opinions, particularly during periods marked by threat and uncertainty. This research rigorously interrogates the mechanisms through which emotions influence political orientation, revealing that anger—not fear—plays a central role in how individuals respond to perceived external dangers.
Historically, political scientists and psychologists have posited that fear is the primary emotional response steering political shifts toward conservatism, especially under conditions of threat. This idea traces back to classical authoritarianism theories, which claim that when individuals feel vulnerable or afraid, they prefer strong leadership and strict societal controls as a means of regaining security. While intuitively appealing, these theories lacked empirical validation regarding the specific emotional processes at play. The Washington University study fills this gap by employing precise experimental methods to measure emotional states and their effects on political choices.
In a series of meticulously designed experiments involving more than 2,000 participants, researchers exposed subjects to stimuli designed to evoke reactions to terrorism or neutral topics. Participants then evaluated political figures and policies with varying stances on military and diplomatic responses to terrorism. Intriguingly, the data revealed that anger—not fear—was the prominent emotion driving participants to favor conservative or aggressive policies in response to terrorism-related threats. This finding runs counter to the long-held assumption that fear compels individuals to seek security through conservative ideologies.
The neuropsychological basis for this phenomenon lies in the different motivational pathways associated with anger and fear. Fear triggers avoidance and withdrawal—an instinctive retreat from danger—whereas anger is linked to an approach motivation, engendering confrontation and action. Alan Lambert, Associate Professor of Psychological and Brain Sciences at Washington University and co-author of the study, explains that anger induces a desire for retribution. This emotional urge to “lash out” against perceived threats fuels political shifts that favor assertive, punitive policies rather than passive protectionism.
Further reinforcing the selective nature of these shifts, the research demonstrated that the influence of anger was narrow and context-dependent. Participants exhibited altered political preferences exclusively regarding issues connected to the specific threat domain they were exposed to. For instance, anger evoked by Islamist terrorism increased support for militaristic policies aimed at combating such threats, but notably did not influence attitudes on unrelated matters such as abortion rights, corporate regulation, or immigration policies. This domain specificity underscores the complexity of emotional influences on political cognition.
Complementary studies add nuance by showing that anger can also catalyze shifts toward liberal attitudes, depending on the type of threat and the associated issue arena. In scenarios where threats are linked to domains where liberalism is perceived as more effective—such as public health or environmental protection—anger drives greater support for progressive policies. Thus, anger’s capacity to influence political shifts is potent but not unidirectional; it acts within the context of issue-specific threat appraisals.
This refined understanding of how emotional responses shape political ideologies has broad implications for both the study of political behavior and practical governance. It challenges policymakers and communicators to reconsider how threats are framed and how public emotions are harnessed or mitigated. The findings caution against simplistic narratives that equate threat with fear-induced conservatism, advocating instead for a more nuanced appreciation of anger’s dual role in political mobilization.
The researchers employed advanced methodological rigor, including controlled experimental designs that isolated the emotional underpinning of political attitudes. By prompting subjects to either recall incidents or read material related to terrorism and then assessing their emotional and political responses, the study captured dynamic emotion-politics interactions. These methods provide compelling evidence that feelings of anger are intricately linked to the activation of approach-oriented policy preferences, particularly those endorsing retributive justice against perceived aggressors.
Psychological theory suggests that anger’s approach orientation motivates individuals to seek justice and punish wrongdoers actively, a drive that aligns naturally with support for military interventions or hardline security policies. This framework radically alters conventional perspectives on threat-induced political shifts by highlighting the proactive, rather than reactive, nature of the angry response. Such insights enrich our grasp of the emotional substrates of political polarization, especially in the face of terrorism and other salient external threats.
Importantly, the research warns that emotional responses to threats are neither uniform nor universally polarizing. Fade Eadeh, co-author and former doctoral student, stresses that political consequences can vary widely, with some threats reinforcing divisions, others having muted political impact, and still others potentially fostering cross-cutting ideological shifts. This variability suggests that emotional and cognitive responses to threat operate within a complex matrix of social, political, and contextual factors.
Looking forward, Lambert and colleagues aim to delve deeper into the boundary conditions of threat-induced political change. One promising avenue involves examining whether confronting threats entrench people’s existing ideological positions even further, pushing liberals toward more liberal views and conservatives toward more conservative ones, thereby exacerbating political polarization. Understanding these dynamics is vital as societies grapple with increasing political fragmentation amidst recurring crises.
This research marks a paradigm shift in political psychology by elucidating the dominant role anger plays in shaping political attitudes during threat exposure, thereby refining theoretical models and offering practical insights. It calls for a reassessment of how emotional experiences translate into political behavior and points toward the need for strategies that acknowledge the complexity of emotional motivations underpinning ideological change.
As political landscapes worldwide continue to oscillate and respond to a barrage of threats—from terrorism to climate change—the nuanced role of anger as revealed by this study provides a critical lens through which to interpret and potentially influence these shifts. The findings deepen our comprehension of the emotional mechanisms at work and highlight the importance of targeted, context-sensitive approaches to managing public sentiment and political discourse.
Subject of Research: The emotional mechanisms driving shifts in political attitudes in response to perceived threats, focusing on the roles of anger and fear.
Article Title: An anger-based framework for understanding terrorism-driven “shifts to the right”: How and why Islamist-focused threats produce narrow changes in political preferences.
News Publication Date: 2025
Web References:
– Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037/xge0001737
– Related research by Fade Eadeh, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1948550618815919
References:
Eadeh FR, Lambert AJ. An anger-based framework for understanding terrorism-driven “shifts to the right”: How and why Islamist-focused threats produce narrow changes in political preferences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. Epub 2025.
Keywords:
Political science, Psychological science, Behavioral psychology, Social psychology, Political attitudes, Emotional response, Anger, Fear, Terrorism, Political polarization, Threat perception, Ideological shifts.
