Fueling the fire
Anger, external political efficacy, and support for antisocial political behavior surrounding the 2024 U.S. presidential election
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 19217993 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Monique Mitchell Turner (0000-0002-9028-3029, Department of Communication Michigan State University East Lansing Michigan USA), Ellen C Reinhart (0000-0002-9007-1392, Michigan State University), Dustin Carnahan (0000-0002-4358-8081, Michigan State University), D M Markowitz (0000-0002-7159-7014, Michigan State University), Shawn Turner (Michigan State University) |
| Year | 2026 |
| Volume | 47 |
| Issue | 3 |
| Publication date | 2026-04-29 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Political Psychology (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0162-895X • E-ISSN: 1467-9221 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1111/pops.70144 |
| OpenAlex | W7159609909 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 62 |
The 2024 US presidential election unfolded in an environment of heightened polarization, widespread distrust, and unprecedented public anger. Drawing on the Anger Activism Model (AAM), we examined this period of history to assess how anger interacts with external political efficacy to shape opposition toward democratic behaviors and support for partisan and political violence. Using data from a rolling cross‐sectional national survey of US adults ( N = 1713) conducted 5 weeks before the election and 3 weeks after, we found anger predicted tolerance for undemocratic behavior and violence during weak external political efficacy. At low external efficacy, increases in anger were associated with greater support for undemocratic practices and partisan violence. At high external efficacy, only moderate levels of anger were associated with these destructive outcomes. These findings extend the AAM to antisocial political orientations and highlight efficacy as a critical buffer against democratic backsliding in periods of political volatility
Anger · Democracy · Hostility · Opposition (politics) · Politics · Presidential election · Presidential system · Survey data collection · Bullying, Victimization, and Aggression · Social and Intergroup Psychology · Terrorism, Counterterrorism, and Political Violence
Frustration and aggression.
American Rage
How to Interpret Statistical Models Using marginaleffects for R and Python
The Effects of Prosocial Video Games on Prosocial Behaviors
Using emotion in risk communication
Prevalence and characteristics of noncompliant behaviour and its risk factors in kidney transplant recipients
Dehumanization
Beyond valence
Cultural Backlash
Abundance
Partisan or Principled? Explaining Political Differences in Attitudes About Violations of Democratic Norms
On the Distinct Political Effects of Anxiety and Anger
Radical American Partisanship
American Conspiracy Theories
Predictors of Political Violence Outcomes among Young People
Best Practices for Estimating, Interpreting, and Presenting Nonlinear Interaction Effects
Partial, conditional, and moderated moderated mediation
Intuitive ethics
Election Night’s Alright for Fighting
It’s Not Just Trump
How Affective Polarization Undermines Support for Democratic Norms
The Role of Anger in the Biased Assimilation of Political Information
Rousing the Partisan Combatant
Anger and Declining Trust in Government in the American Electorate
Who Supports Political Violence
Field Experiments Invoking Gloating Villains to Increase Voter Participation
Moral Disengagement in the Perpetration of Inhumanities
Measuring Political Mobilization
Expressive Partisanship
Measuring Internal Political Efficacy in the 1988 National Election Study
| Highly cited | No |
|---|