Recent research published in political psychology Our findings suggest that how political anger affects individuals’ support for violence depends largely on whether they believe the political system actually listens to them. Researchers found that outrage tends to fuel support for undemocratic practices only when people feel their voices don’t matter to politicians. When people believe that their government is responsive, this sense of political power acts as a buffer against support for political violence.
Political discussions in the United States often feature intense emotions. Anger is a highly arousing emotion that often prompts people to take action to right a perceived wrong. In a political context, this emotion can encourage active citizen participation, such as voting and peaceful protest, but it can also have destructive consequences.
Monique Mitchell Turner, professor and chair of the School of Communication at Michigan State University, wanted to explore these dynamics. “I’ve been researching anger since the late 1990s because it’s one of the most fascinating and misunderstood emotions,” Turner said. “What attracted me to anger early in my career was that it doesn’t work in a simple way.”
“Unlike many emotions, anger can motivate people to confront injustice, participate in politics, and work towards social change. In other words, anger can be productive and prosocial.”
To understand how anger is translated into behavior, psychologists often focus on behavioral models of anger. This framework suggests that anger alone does not determine a person’s behavior. Rather, a person’s belief in their ability to solve the problem determines their response.
A key part of this equation is a concept known as external political effectiveness. External political efficacy refers to an individual’s belief that political institutions and leaders will actually listen to and respond to public opinion. When people have high external political efficacy, they believe that their participation can create real change.
When this belief is low, people tend to feel powerless and ignored by the system. Previous research using the anger activity model has primarily focused on positive behaviors such as community organizing. The authors of the current study wanted to test whether this framework could explain negative and antisocial political behavior in a highly polarized era.
“What caught my attention in the months leading up to the 2024 US presidential election was that anger seemed to be reaching unusually high levels, while discussions of political violence, intimidation, and other anti-social behavior became more common,” Turner told SciPost.
“It raised an important question: under what circumstances does anger motivate constructive democratic engagement, and when does it contribute to support for actions that undermine democratic norms? This study was an opportunity to consider that question, especially at a critical political moment.”
Antisocial behavior in a political context includes behavior that violates moral foundations such as fairness and consideration. Specifically, the researchers aimed to see how external political efficacy affects support for things like political violence and ignoring election results caused by anger.
Researchers analyzed data from a national survey of 1,713 U.S. adults. They collected this data in a rolling format over eight weeks, starting five weeks before and ending three weeks after the November 2024 presidential election.
Participants were almost evenly split between individuals who identified as Democrats and Republicans, as well as a small number of independents. The sample was balanced by gender and included a wide age range from 18 to 97 years. The researchers also collected a sample that reflected the variety of racial and ethnic backgrounds in the United States.
To measure anger, the survey asked participants to rate how intensely angry or angry they felt when thinking about the 2024 election season. They rated these emotions on a scale of 0 to 100.
To measure external political efficacy, participants rated their agreement with statements about whether people like them have a say in government actions. They also rated whether they thought public officials valued their opinions.
The survey then measured support for antisocial political behavior. This included tolerance of undemocratic practices such as the reduction of voting stations in opposition areas, refusal to accept adverse court rulings, and refusal to accept election results.
This included supporting sectarian violence, such as harassing political opponents online and sending threatening messages to party leaders. Finally, the survey measured broader political violence, including the belief that violence is an acceptable means of expressing disagreement with the government.
Data analysis reveals that external political efficacy significantly modifies the relationship between anger and support for antisocial political behavior. For individuals with low external political efficacy, researchers found a direct positive association. As anger grew among these people, support for undemocratic practices, sectarian violence, and general political violence also steadily increased.
“What struck me most was the consistency of the pattern across the different antisocial outcomes,” Turner said. “Thankfully, we found that tolerance for violence was very low in the populations we studied. Yet, we repeatedly found that anger was most strongly associated with these outcomes among those who felt relatively low levels of efficacy.”
When people feel that the system is not responding at all, they tend to get angry and support aggressive behavior. In such situations, individuals may view antisocial behavior as the only means left to force change or seek revenge. Without belief in the system, anger serves as direct fuel for destructive political attitudes.
For individuals high in external political efficacy, the pattern looked quite different. For those who strongly believe that the government is listening to the people, very high levels of anger did not lead to increased support for political violence or undemocratic behavior. Instead, only moderate levels of anger were associated with small increases in support for these destructive behaviors.
Highly effective people do not seem to abandon democratic norms even when experiencing intense political outrage. Researchers suggest that for these people, high levels of anger indicate increased risk. They may channel their intense grievances into acceptable democratic processes rather than violence because they believe that legitimate channels of change will work.
“Our findings suggest that when people are angry but believe they can bring about change through voting, civic engagement, community action, and other democratic means, anger is less likely to be associated with support for harmful or undemocratic actions,” Turner said. “But when people are angry and feeling helpless, that combination can create a situation where they’re more likely to support more extreme reactions.”
There are some limitations to be aware of. This study is based on self-reported survey data collected by each participant at a single point in time. This format means that the data can show associations between emotions and beliefs, but cannot conclusively prove that anger causes specific changes in behavior over time.
“No single emotion determines behavior, and we should be wary of thinking that anger alone will lead people to support violence or undemocratic action,” Turner said. “Political attitudes are influenced by many factors, including identity, ideology, social networks, media exposure, and life experiences.”
Still, the results provide important insights. “That said, the effects we observed were meaningful because they emerged in a large national sample during actual elections and have important consequences for democratic stability,” Turner said. “Even modest changes in support for political violence and violations of democratic norms can have significant consequences when they occur across large populations.”
Additionally, this survey measures a person’s tolerance or support for undemocratic acts and violence, which is not the same as actually committing these acts. A person may express consent to a political violence research statement without intending to participate in a physical attack. Future studies that track actual behavior may provide a more complete picture.
The authors caution against misinterpreting the results. “The most important caveat is that our findings should not be interpreted as saying that anger causes political violence or that angry people are inherently dangerous,” Turner said. “Most angry people never commit violence or support undemocratic behavior.”
“Another important point is that anger is often a rational response to genuine concerns and frustrations,” Turner added. “The goal of this research is not to suppress anger, but to better understand the conditions under which anger produces different outcomes. Anger is often what motivates people to vote, organize, volunteer, and advocate for change.”
Future research could follow the same individuals over several years to see how changes in political efficacy affect their attitudes. Scientists could also investigate how the media environment shapes people’s beliefs that the government is responsive.
“This study is part of a larger research program examining how emotions shape political behavior,” Turner said. “One of my long-term goals is to better understand why anger sometimes fosters constructive engagement and sometimes has destructive consequences.”
“We are particularly interested in the role of different types of efficacy, how these processes work across different groups and contexts, and whether interventions can enhance efficacy and reduce the likelihood that anger is expressed in harmful ways,” Turner said. “Ultimately, we hope this research will contribute to a better understanding of how democracy can channel strong emotions into forms of productive citizen participation.”
“The biggest lesson is that anger itself is not necessarily dangerous,” Turner says. “In fact, anger can be a constructive response to perceived injustice. What matters is whether people feel there is a meaningful way to address the problem.”
Finding ways to increase the external political efficacy of citizens may serve as a safeguard against democratic decline. “The lesson is not that people should avoid anger,” Turner said. “Rather, a healthy democracy needs to provide people with meaningful means of participation and a sense that their voices matter.”
“One of the things that I find encouraging is that the results don’t suggest that anger necessarily leads to bad outcomes,” Turner said. “If anything, this finding supports the idea that context matters. Anger can be a powerful force for democratic participation, social movements, and positive change. The challenge is to ensure that people feel they have an effective and legitimate way to respond to what makes them angry.”
“This is an important lesson not only for researchers, but also for policy makers, community leaders, and anyone interested in strengthening democratic institutions.”
The study, “Adding Fuel to the Fire: Anger, External Political Efficacy, and Support for Antisocial Political Behavior over the 2024 U.S. Presidential Election,” was authored by Monique M. Turner, Ellen C. Reinhart, Dustin Carnahan, David M. Markowitz, and Sean Turner.
