Does Anxiety Make Us “Informed” Citizens? The Mediating Role of Information-Seeking and Internal Political Efficacy in Forming Political Attitudes

Abstract

Emotions are inseparable from political decision-making. This idea has been especially strongly supported for negative emotions. The current study examines the role of anxiety in forming political attitudes using data from a nationally representative American National Election Studies survey (N = 5900). Our path analysis highlights a significant indirect relationship between anxiety and political participation through two mediators: information-seeking tendencies and internal political efficacy. By examining the unique role of anxiety in political decision-making, our study provides a more nuanced understanding of how negative emotions can impact democracy.

Keywords

emotions in politics anxiety political participation US presidential elections

Citizens’ participation in politics has been considered as one of the core elements of democratic processes. With the technological progress that allows multiple ways to engage with media and politics, questions about the role of an informed citizen in a democratic process arise. Extant research highlights that the system becomes less democratic as its citizens become less informed (Carpini and Keeter, 1996). A politically uninformed citizen is not excluded from participation in a democracy; however, an uninformed citizenry threatens the democratic process. At the same time, motivations that drive political information-seeking are traditionally limited by self-interest and civic duty (Carpini and Keeter, 1996). Therefore, looking at potential motivators to increase political information browsing and one’s confidence in political decision-making is beneficial for a democratic society.

Before a citizen can engage in political participation, they need to acquire knowledge about the issues, candidates, and parties and make a comparison based on a set of relevant attributes. Ideally, citizens should form their preferences by evaluating the information they encounter, and subsequently adjust their political choices based on that evaluation. This process of evaluating and adjusting preferences helps to ensure that citizens make informed decisions about their political choices (Downs, 1957; Ferejohn and Fiorina, 1974; Riker and Ordeshook, 1968). Yet, we are not always “cool calculators” as rational models presume (Redlawsk, 2002). Recent studies have provided strong evidence that emotions are a significant factor in decision-making processes (MacKuen et al., 2010; Marcus, 2002). Following this paradigm, “feelings become information” (Lodge and Taber, 2005: 456). Indeed, emotions influence every step from encoding and retrieving information to understanding and expressing it as a choice or decision.

In a political context, discrete emotions have the potential to activate different actions. For example, anger is traditionally perceived as an approach motivator, whereas anxiety is related to increased information-seeking tendencies (MacKuen et al., 2010). Moreover, research shows that emotions may be responsible for some contradictory findings in selective exposure and political campaigning since they result in different reactions when exposed to messages. For example, when facing counter-attitudinal messages, instead of taking the new information into account, individuals may ignore it and look for information reinforcing their views instead (MacKuen et al., 2010). Therefore, emotions in the political environment should be extensively studied since they contribute to such a strong motivational component.

The current study focuses on the role of anxiety in its relationship with political attitudes. Previous studies report that anxiety motivates citizens to engage with the political world (Albertson and Gadarian, 2015). It has also been associated with increased attention to potentially dangerous viral outbreaks (Clifford and Jerit, 2018) and nearby wars (Erişen, 2013), demonstrating that anxiety in the face of uncertainty can lead to information-seeking. The current global context is represented with a global pandemic that induces extremely high uncertainty. Indeed, some scholars have reported a high state of anxiety among their participants when collecting data during the global pandemic (Šrol et al., 2021). Therefore, scholars need to further examine the political consequences of anxiety in the ever-changing environment.

This study investigates the role of anxiety in forming political attitudes and influencing political decisions. Although prior research suggests that anxiety may influence media consumption and political attitudes, research has not yet examined through which path anxiety is related to political outcomes constituting an informed or dutiful citizen, (Bennett, 2007; Carpini and Keeter, 1996) who is not only well-informed about politics but also is highly engaged in it. To address this theoretical gap, the current study uses nationally representative survey results to investigate the relationships between anxiety, information-seeking, internal political efficacy, and political participation.

Negative Emotions in Politics: The Case of Anxiety

Democratic theories rely on the notion that informed citizenship highlights public “input” in the process of governing the country (Carpini, 2004) and thus the importance of increasing political participation has always been on the scholars’ agenda. Psychological research consistently shows that emotions shape our decision-making (Lerner et al., 2015). Studies on “hot cognition” argue that emotions and cognition are naturally linked (Abelson, 1963). For every piece of information, there is an associated emotion that is activated when the concept is evaluated (Lodge and Taber, 2005; Redlawsk et al., 2010). Emotions are strongly connected to decision-making processes by subconsciously regulating brain activities. Once emotions attach themselves to decision targets, it becomes extremely difficult to detach (Lerner et al., 2015). Zajonc (1984) presents a compelling case for the dominance of affect, suggesting that emotional reactions happen prior to conscious processing. The human brain is composed of both cognitive and affective systems that may operate in parallel and autonomously.

Research on emotions argues that emotional states could potentially lead to different outcomes (De Rivera, 1977; Frijda, 1986; Roseman et al., 1994). The view of emotions as discrete has been supported not only by psychological but also a physiological reaction; for instance, individuals experience hormonal changes in response to discrete emotional states (Henry, 1986). Moreover, it has been supported that discrete emotions lead to different adaptive responses to triggers. For example, fear corresponds with avoidance tendencies, anger corresponds with approach tendencies, and sadness corresponds with a cry for help (Plutchik, 1980).

When it comes to politics, political decisions are often formed under the influence of emotions. To explore the role of discrete emotional states in the political environment further, the theory of affective intelligence (AIT) was developed. In its essence, AIT is aimed to describe the effects of emotional states on cognitive processes (MacKuen et al., 2010; Marcus, 2002). Emotional responses are the product of a dual-system model: a behavioral inhibition system and a behavioral approach system (Marcus and MacKuen, 1993). The behavioral inhibition system evaluates new stimuli based on existing expectations, and when a stimulus is inconsistent with those expectations, attention is redirected toward it. This new stimulus is then perceived as a possible threat, generating negative emotion such as anxiety, which disrupts normal cognitive processing. This disruption leads to active processing, which includes an increase in attention to the new information and processing time (Marcus and MacKuen, 1993; Redlawsk et al., 2010). Consequently, anxiety motivates individuals to acquire more information about the stimulus and the environment in general. Following the AIT hypothesis, we expect that during political elections, anxious voters would be more attentive, informed, and make better choices (Lau and Redlawsk, 2001). Marcus and colleagues provide evidence that anxious voters exhibit more learning and attention to campaigns, whereas calm voters pay less attention (Marcus, 2002). Although not directly tested, the reasonable inference from AIT is that affectively intelligent voters should resemble rational and informed voters (Redlawsk et al., 2010).

Human beings possess both emotional and rational systems, and both are integral to our nature. While classical political thought often made a distinction between reason and emotion, more recent research has demonstrated that emotions play an important role in decision-making processes (Lau and Redlawsk, 2001; MacKuen et al., 2010; Marcus, 2002; Marcus and MacKuen, 1993; Redlawsk et al., 2010). Ultimately, emotions can aid in rational decision-making, rather than being opposed to it (Marcus and MacKuen, 1993). Thus, both emotional and rational systems are necessary components of human nature.

AIT states that key emotions of anger, enthusiasm, and anxiety are the results of a bio-behavioral regulatory system (Johnston et al., 2015; Marcus, 2002). Anger and anxiety are among the most studied negative emotions in a political context (Johnston et al., 2015). However, when comparing the two negative emotions, they may result in different appraisals depending on the circumstances. For example, anger signals that the current situation is threatening but familiar, and thus all prior knowledge is used to manage the situation. At the same time, anxiety signals that the situation is uncertain, and therefore one needs to pay more attention to what is happening around them (Albertson and Gadarian, 2015; Johnston et al., 2015; Wagner and Boczkowski, 2019). An individual then relies on the “surveilling” mechanism by trying to gather as much relevant information as possible.

The negative effect of motivated reasoning when individuals strive to maintain existing political beliefs and attitudes even in the face of countervailing information has been well established (Kunda, 1991). Upon encountering information that contradicts their beliefs, motivated reasoners often reinforce their pre-existing attitudes. For instance, when confronted with negative information about a favored political candidate, such individuals may develop an even stronger liking for the candidate (Redlawsk et al., 2010; Taber and Lodge, 2006). When investigating ways to counter motivated reasoning, researchers found that increased anxiety can lead to a stronger desire to seek information. As a result, individuals pay more attention to new information and spend more time processing it. This heightened focus and longer processing time may encourage individuals to carefully evaluate new information and potentially override their existing emotional biases or expectations (Redlawsk et al., 2010). By engaging in systematic processing instead of heuristic, anxious individuals may decrease their reliance on pre-existing beliefs (Wagner and Boczkowski, 2019). This is the result of a higher reliance on observation rather than evaluation when feeling anxious.

Drawing from the research discussed earlier, our goal is to see if our study can replicate the results found in previous studies. Therefore, we are proposing the following hypothesis:

H1: Anxiety will be positively related to information-seeking.

At the same time, since anxiety increases risk aversion and motivates individuals to choose safer options for action, in the political context, this could mean that anxious individuals may be more hesitant to participate in politics (Wagner and Boczkowski, 2019). Indeed, even though information consumption is predicted to increase and be more careful and thoughtful, individuals focus their efforts exclusively on “surveilling” the environment, not acting in it. Therefore, anxiety would increase observation of the political processes; however, trying to resolve the uncertainty may prevent people from actively engaging in politics. In comparison, anger and enthusiasm may both lead to positive political outcomes by increasing political participation (MacKuen et al., 2010; Valentino and Neuner, 2017; Valentino et al., 2011). Based on prior findings associated with the motivational capacity of anxiety, we expect to replicate the established findings on anxiety:

H2: Anxiety will be negatively related to political participation.

From Anxiety to Political Efficacy Through Information-Seeking

In politics efficacy is traditionally defined as “the feeling that individual political action does have, or can have, an impact upon the political process” (Campbell et al., 1954: 187). Compared with other variables (i.e. education levels, psychological predispositions, demographic variables, etc.), political efficacy is among one of the most important constructs to predict political participation (Carpini, 2004; Kenski and Stroud, 2006). Political efficacy has been traditionally understood in two dimensions: internal political efficacy and external political efficacy. Internal political efficacy refers to self-confidence that one can understand and effectively participate in political life. External efficacy is related to the perception of the level of the political leaders’ responsiveness to citizens’ demands (Craig and Maggiotto, 1982; Jung et al., 2011). This study is particularly interested in internal political efficacy which refers to the sense of confidence in one’s political credibility in terms of political decisions due to its stable nature. Indeed, research shows that external political efficacy has been in a steady decline affected by decreasing levels of political trust, whereas internal political efficacy shows consistent levels (Lee, 2006).

When individuals seek out political information, they become better informed about the issues, which in turn increases their sense of knowledge and understanding. Furthermore, the act of seeking information can also lead to a sense of empowerment, as individuals may feel that they have the ability to influence political outcomes based on the information they have gathered. Indeed, extant research shows that higher exposure to information and information-seeking tendencies tend to improve one’s confidence and boost the sense of internal political efficacy (Shah et al., 2007; Zhou and Pinkleton, 2012). A laboratory study that looks at antecedents of news browsing behavior finds that information-seeking is highly predictive of increased internal political efficacy since individuals feel more informed about political affairs (Tewksbury et al., 2008). Moreover, individuals who report higher levels of information-seeking tendencies also report higher levels of internal political efficacy (Pinkleton et al., 1998). Even among a college students sample, information-seeking motivations predict significantly higher levels of internal political efficacy (Lee, 2006). More surprisingly, even incidental exposure to political information may have an effect on internal political efficacy (Ardèvol-Abreu et al., 2019). Based on prior research examining the relationship between information-seeking and political efficacy, we hypothesize:

H3: Information-seeking will be positively related to internal political efficacy.

Circling back to the emotional nature of politics, anxious individuals are expected to have higher information-seeking motivations and reach out to the media more often (Albertson and Gadarian, 2015). By doing so individuals become more confident in one’s information orientation abilities. The acquired information makes individuals more comfortable and reduces the uncertainty that has been induced by anxiety in the first place. Since internal efficacy reflects one’s subjective judgment on how qualified they are to participate in politics those who simply learned more political information would be more likely to improve their internal political efficacy. Therefore, we expect information-seeking to mediate the relationship between anxiety and internal political efficacy:

H4: Anxiety will be positively related to internal political efficacy through an increased information-seeking behavior.

Are Anxious Citizens “Ideal” Citizens?

Internal political efficacy is instrumental in triggering a positive impact of anxiety on political learning and participation (Albertson and Gadarian, 2015; Nadeau et al., 1995; Rudolph et al., 2000). Internal political efficacy has been traditionally closely related to different forms of political actions. For example, it has been supported that political efficacy increases voter turnout and contacting political actors (Pollock, 1983). Overall, more informed and more efficacious citizens are more likely to participate in politics (Carpini and Keeter, 1996; Delli Carpini, 2000; Verba et al., 1995).

The idea of how important political participation is for a healthy democracy has been prevailing in academic research. In theory, a good citizen is an informed or dutiful citizen (Bennett, 2007; Carpini and Keeter, 1996). The basic principle for both these models is that in order for a democracy to be beneficial for its citizens, they are required to be competent and engaged. Thus, in our study, increased internal political efficacy is expected to be positively related to political participation which is crucial for a dutiful citizen (Bennett, 2007; Carpini and Keeter, 1996). Therefore, the following hypothesis will be tested:

H5: Internal political efficacy will be positively related to political participation.

Although anxiety is related to withdrawal motivations (Marcus, 2002), depending on the source of anxiety and the nature of activities, anxiety may lead to increased political participation. More specifically, among individuals with a higher sense of internal political efficacy anxiety was related to increased political participation (Rudolph et al., 2000). Therefore we expect anxiety to be indirectly related to increased political participation through information-seeking and internal political efficacy:

H6: Anxiety will be positively related to political participation through information-seeking and internal political efficacy.

Method

To test our hypotheses, the study utilized data from two-wave pre- and post-election 2020 ANES Time Series studies (Appendix 1) (American National Election Studies, 2021). The data from ANES allowed us to examine our variables of interest on a nationally representative sample in the US. In addition, it enabled us to test our model, which is grounded in theoretical foundations, in a context of a salient political event, namely, the US presidential elections. Data collection for the pre-election wave began in August 2020 and continued until Election Day, Tuesday (3 November); the post-election wave began after the elections and continued through the end of December 2020. All summary statistics presented below are based on raw data from 5900 participants who had valid data for all items used for our analyses. The independent variable was measured during the pre-election wave, whereas all following variables were assessed during the post-election wave. All variables of interest have been normalized.

Measures

Anxiety

For measuring an emotional state of participants among other questions, they were asked how worried, nervous, and afraid they felt about the way things were going in the country on a 5-point “extremely” (4) to “not at all” (0) scale. The anxiety scale was created by averaging responses to the three items, (M = 0.635, SD = 0.275, α = 0.91).

Information-Seeking

Information-seeking behavior was assessed via a sing item by asking participants how closely they followed politics in media. The item was asked on a 4-point “very closely” (3) to “not at all” (0) scale (M = 0.607, SD = 0.277).

Internal Political Efficacy

Internal political efficacy was assessed via two items by asking participants: “How well do you understand the important political issues facing our country?” and “How often do politics and government seem so complicated that you can’t really understand what’s going on?” In political science, the following items are traditionally implemented in measuring internal political efficacy (Craig and Maggiotto, 1982). The “important political issues” item was asked on a 5-item “extremely well” (4) to “not well at all” (0) scale. The “politics seem too complicated to understand” item was asked on a 5-item “never” (4) to “always” (0) scale (reverse-coded). The internal political efficacy index was created by averaging the results for the two items (M = 0.587, SD = 0.206, r = 0.4).

Political Participation

Political participation was assessed by averaging the results for 13 items measuring if in the past 12 months participants took part in a protest or a rally, signed a petition, contacted a member of the US Senate or US House of Representatives, contacted a federal elected/non-elected official, contacted a state/local elected/non-elected official, voted in 2020, went to political meetings/speeches, wore a sticker/button/put a sign in a window/in front of a house, worked for a party/candidate, contributed money to a campaign/party. All items were measured through “yes” (1) and “no” (0) questions. Political participation scale was created (M = 0.188, SD = 0.167, α = 0.75).

Controls

Additional demographic and political variables were used on our statistical analyses as controls include age, education, income, ethnicity, gender, political ideology, and political interest. All the control variables were assessed during a pre-election phase. Age was measured with a single item, asking participants for their age in years (M = 51.59, SD = 17.21). Education was measured with a single item reflecting participants’ level of education ranging from “less than high school” (1) to “graduate degree” (5) (M = 3.39, SD = 1.11). Income was measured with a single item using a 22-point scale ranging from less than US$9999 (1) a year to US$250,000 and more a year (22) (M = 11.73, SD = 6.74). Gender was measured with one item asking participants their biological sex (54% female). Ethnicity was measured by asking participants about their race (72% White, 28% non-White). Political ideology was measured with a self-placement item ranging from “extremely liberal” (0) to “extremely conservative” (1) (M = 0.515, SD = 0.278). Political interest was measured with a single item, asking how often a participant pays attention to politics on a 5-point scale, ranging from “never” (0) to “always” (1) (M = 0.582, SD = 0.405).

Analysis Plan

The above hypotheses were tested via a simultaneous path analysis implementing the survey weighs provided by the ANES with the SVY command in Stata. A fully observed model is utilized as only single item measures are available for several of our concepts and controls in the ANES. We would like to be clear that while we are suggesting a potential path for the relationship between anxiety and participation, we do not assert that we are presenting a causal model due to the use of cross-sectional rather than overtime data. While the ANES does have a pre–post model, it is not enough to test our full model thus we present only a theoretical argument. There are likely several potential paths through which anxiety and participation are related, but we suggest this as one potential theoretical indirect relationship (Hayes, 2022).

Results

To test the proposed conceptual model (Figure 1), a path analysis in Stata with weights has been executed. The results for the full model are presented in Figure 2 (Table 1). H1 proposes that anxiety is positively related with information-seeking behavior. Indeed, the results demonstrate that anxiety is indeed associated with a significant increase in information-seeking (b = 0.200, SE = 0.020, p < 0.001).

Figure 1.

Conceptual Model of the Role of Anxiety in Shaping Political Participation.

Figure 2.

Path Model.

Table 1.

Path Model of the Relationship Between Anxiety and Political Participation Through Information-Seeking and Internal Political Efficacy.

Dependent variable: anxiety
Political interest	−0.021 (0.011)
Ideology	−0.387 (0.017)***
Education	0.009 (0.004)*
Age	0.001 (0.000)***
Ethnicity (White)	0.003 (0.011)
Income	0.000 (0.001)
Sex (female)	0.055 (0.009)***
Constant	0.715 (0.027)***
Dependent variable: information-seeking
Anxiety	0.200 (0.020)***
Constant	0.474 (0.014)***
Dependent variable: internal efficacy
Information-seeking	0.348 (0.013)***
Constant	0.380 (0.009)***
Dependent variable: political participation
Anxiety	0.107 (0.011)***
Internal efficacy	0.225 (0.013)***
Constant	−0.016 (0.010)
N	5900

Values reported are unstandardized coefficients with standard errors in parentheses.

***

p < 0.001; *p < 0.05.

Furthermore, we hypothesized that anxiety would be negatively related to political participation (H2). However, a negative relationship between anxiety and political participation was not detected. On the contrary, anxiety is associated with a significant increase in political participation (b = 0.107, SE = 0.011, p < 0.001). Thus, H2 is not supported. The relationship between an emotional state and political participation in the opposite direction has been observed.

Next, it was hypothesized that an increase in information-seeking behavior would demonstrate a positive relationship with internal political efficacy (H3). Results show that indeed information-seeking tendencies are significantly associated with increased internal political efficacy (b = 0.348, SE = 0.013, p < 0.001). Thus, H3 is supported.

When analyzing our mediation hypothesis stated that anxiety was positively related to internal political efficacy through an increase in information-seeking, the analysis yielded a significant indirect relationship between anxiety and internal political efficacy (b = 0.070, SE = 0.008, p < 0.001). Thus, H4 hypothesis is supported.

Furthermore, we moved to analyzing the relationship between internal political efficacy and political participation. In H5, we predicted that internal political efficacy would be positively related to political participation. Our results show that increase in internal political efficacy is associated with increased political participation (b = 0.225, SE = 0.013, p < 0.001). Thus, H5 is also supported.

Finally, we proposed that anxiety would be indirectly related to political participation through information-seeking and internal political efficacy (H6). Since all subsequent paths yielded significant results, the Sobel test was performed to determine whether our mediators carried the influence of anxiety on political attitudes (Preacher and Leonardelli, 2001). As a result, anxiety demonstrates a significant indirect relationship with political participation through an increase in information-seeking and internal political efficacy (b = 0.016, SE = 0.002, p < 0.001). Thus, H6 is fully supported.

Discussion

In the context of political decision-making, “politics is about feeling” as much as it is about thinking (Redlawsk, 2002). While rational models suggest that citizens should form their preferences by evaluating the information they encounter and adjust their political choices accordingly, this assumption is often challenged by empirical evidence (Redlawsk, 2002). Studies on “hot cognition” propose that emotions and cognition are intertwined (Abelson, 1963). As individuals evaluate concepts, emotions are activated and become associated with the information (Lodge and Taber, 2005; Redlawsk et al., 2010). Emotions play a significant role in decision-making processes by subconsciously regulating our brain activities, and once they become attached to decision targets, they are challenging to detach (Lerner et al., 2015). Some studies even argue that emotional reactions happen prior to conscious processing (Zajonc, 1984). Indeed, the human brain is composed of both cognitive and affective systems that may operate in parallel and autonomously.

According to AIT, discrete emotions can motivate individuals to act in a specific way (MacKuen et al., 2010; Marcus et al., 2002). This finding has been widely supported for negative emotions. Whereas anger is associated with approach motivation and a higher reliance on motivated reasoning when processing political information, anxiety tends to evoke avoidance motivations (MacKuen et al., 2010) and thus in a situation of uncertainty, individuals might withdraw from important decisions. At the same time, anxiety may challenge motivated reasoning tendencies due to a higher motivation to seek our new information which can potentially override our existing emotional biases (Redlawsk et al., 2010).

In this study, our primary goal was to examine the notion that negative emotions are not invariably harmful but can be advantageous for a democracy. In the case of anxiety, we found that it was significantly related to an increase in information-seeking tendencies and, eventually, inspired citizens to act on the basis of the acquired information (Albertson and Gadarian, 2015; Johnston et al., 2015), which is a necessary asset on the way to becoming a “dutiful citizen” (Bennett, 2007; Carpini and Keeter, 1996).

Using a nationally representative sample of US citizens, we demonstrate that anxiety is strongly associated with increased internal political efficacy through elevated information-seeking tendencies. Furthermore, our model establishes a connection between an emotional state and a political outcome that is essential for the success of a democratic process—political participation. Indeed, in our study, anxiety demonstrates a significant indirect relationship with political participation through increased information-seeking tendencies and increased internal political efficacy.

This study contributes to the literature on political communication in several ways. First, it provides important evidence that anxiety can lead to positive political outcomes. Although the relationships are indirect, anxiety was shown to contribute to citizens’ political participation, which is a promising finding for a democracy.

Second, the study outlines an important link between emotions and political outcomes that were missing in previous research on the role of emotions in political communication. In earlier research, it was highlighted that anxiety increased political participation and information recall (Merolla and Zechmeister, 2009); however, the path from emotions to political outcomes had not been identified before. Although we cannot argue about the causal effects of anxiety in our model, the fact that anxiety was measured during the pre-election wave and the outcome variables were assessed in the post-election wave made it possible to see the precedential nature of anxiety in the political context. There are no repeated measures of anxiety, nor are there time lags between reported information-seeking and efficacy, thus we cannot make causal claims. However, we present this as a fruitful first step and suggest that future studies should explore our theoretical arguments further.

Finally, we found unexpected results for political participation. Earlier research states that anxiety is related to a decrease in political participation (Wagner and Boczkowski, 2019). However, our findings contradict the earlier view on anxiety. The statistical analysis shows that anxiety demonstrates a direct positive relationship with political participation. Previous research found evidence that, in some situations, anxiety was able to increase political participation instead of decreasing it. More specifically, this was evident for individuals with high levels of internal political efficacy (Rudolph et al., 2000). Those who feel more confident about their political potential are more likely to act on their political opinions. Therefore, we can suggest that our sample, on average, demonstrated increased internal political efficacy.

As with all studies, ours is not without limitations. The data were collected during the global pandemic, which could potentially affect how participants reported their responses. Especially since the study looks at the role of emotions in forming political attitudes, the current context of increased uncertainty is important to account for. Regarding that, in the ANES sample, anxiety was assessed in relation to the overall situation in the country, not politics specifically. However, earlier research found that anxiety could influence situations that were not directly related to the cause of anxiety (Wagner and Boczkowski, 2019). For example, if someone cut in line in front of you, this can impact your affective state once you reach the counter (Banks, 2014). Thus, we argue that the general level of anxiety can still be related to political outcomes. Furthermore, given that both waves of data were collected during the 2020 US presidential election season, it is reasonable to assume that the measures of emotions were highly reflective of the participants’ reactions to the political climate at that time. This is particularly relevant given the contentious nature of the election, which included allegations of election fraud and the subsequent insurrection on 6 January 2021. Thus, it is plausible to argue that anxiety levels would remain high post-election, given the ongoing political turmoil.

In addition, since the study used survey data for analyzing the relationship between variables, we cannot claim the causal nature of this relationship. Therefore, future research should consider using experimental designs and longitudinal survey designs to test the proposed model. Another important direction for future studies is that research should further explore the effects of anxiety when other emotions are present. For example, anxiety often co-occurs with anger or disgust (Brader et al., 2008; Weeks, 2015). Considering that, other emotions can have a counter-effect on the information-seeking tendency of anxiety or reduce the effect of anxiety.

In conclusion, emotions are inseparable from political decision-making. And even negative emotions (i.e. anxiety) can be linked to positive outcomes. The results of the study are democratically optimistic since we found one more key to making citizens more engaged in political processes.

Footnotes

Appendix 1

ANES 2020 – This is a continuation of the series of election studies held since 1948, to grasp information on public opinion and voting behavior during the US presidential elections. The 2020 ANES survey used a contactless, mixed-mode design that was implemented in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. As a result, a sequential mixed-mode design was implemented that included self-administered online surveys, live video interviews conducted online, and telephone interviews (ANES, 2021). The provided dataset is considered nationally representative through the ANES sample matching procedure. The sampling procedure targeted US citizens aged 18 or older living in the 50 US states or the District of Columbia.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Ekaterina Romanova

Author biographies

Ekaterina Romanova (MA, Ball State University) is a PhD candidate in the College of Journalism and Communications at the University of Florida. Her research interests include political communication and media effects. katerina.m.romanova@gmail.com

Myiah J Hutchens (PhD, The Ohio State University) is a Chair Interim Chair and Associate Professor in the Department of Public Relations within the College of Journalism and Communications at the University of Florida. Her research interests include political communication and political discussion. myiah.hutchens@gmail.com

References

Abelson

(1963) Computer Simulation of “Hot Cognition.” In: Tomkins

Messick

(eds) Computer Simulation of Personality. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, pp.277–298.

Albertson

Gadarian

(2015) Anxious Politics: Democratic Citizenship in a Threatening World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

American National Election Studies (2021) ANES 2020 Time Series Study Full Release [Dataset and Documentation], 19 July 2021 Version. Available at: www.electionstudies.org (accessed 25 October 2021).

Ardèvol-Abreu

Diehl

Gil de Zúñiga

(2019) Antecedents of Internal Political Efficacy Incidental News Exposure Online and the Mediating Role of Political Discussion. Politics 39 (1): 82–100.

Banks

(2014) The Public’s Anger: White Racial Attitudes and Opinions Toward Health Care Reform. Political Behavior 36 (3): 493–514.

Bennett

(ed.) (2007) Civic Life Online: Learning How Digital Media Can Engage Youth. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Available at: https://library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/26089 (accessed 24 October 2021).

Brader

Valentino

Suhay

(2008) What Triggers Public Opposition to Immigration? Anxiety, Group Cues, and Immigration Threat. American Journal of Political Science 52 (4): 959–978.

Campbell

Gurin

Miller

(1954) The Voter Decides. Oxford: Row, Peterson and Company.

Carpini

MXD

(2004) Mediating Democratic Engagement: The Impact of Communications on Citizens’ Involvement in Political and Civic Life. In: Kaid

(ed.) Handbook of Political Communication Research (LEA’s Communication Series). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, pp.395–434.

10.

Carpini

MXD

Keeter

(1996) What Americans Know about Politics and Why It Matters. London: Yale University Press.

11.

Clifford

Jerit

(2018) Disgust, Anxiety, and Political Learning in the Face of Threat. American Journal of Political Science 62 (2): 266–279.

12.

Craig

Maggiotto

(1982) Measuring Political Efficacy. Political Methodology 8 (3): 85–109.

13.

De Rivera

(1977) A Structural Theory of the Emotions. Psychological Issues 10 (4, Mono40): 178.

14.

Delli Carpini

(2000) In Search of the Informed Citizen: What Americans Know about Politics and Why It Matters. The Communication Review 4 (1): 129–164.

15.

Downs

(1957) An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy. Journal of Political Economy 65 (2): 135–150.

16.

Erişen

(2013) Emotions as a Determinant in Turkish Political Behavior. Turkish Studies 14 (1): 115–135.

17.

Ferejohn

Fiorina

(1974) The Paradox of Not Voting: A Decision Theoretic Analysis. American Political Science Review 68 (2): 525–536.

18.

Frijda

(1986) The Emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

19.

Hayes

(2022) Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach. Guilford Publications. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ufl/detail.action?docID=6809031

20.

Henry

(1986) Chapter 2—Neuroendocrine Patterns of Emotional Response. In: Plutchik

Kellerman

(eds) Biological Foundations of Emotion. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press, pp.37–60.

21.

Johnston

Lavine

Woodson

(2015) Emotion and Political Judgment: Expectancy Violation and Affective Intelligence. Political Research Quarterly 68 (3): 474–492.

22.

Jung

Kim

Zúñiga

, et al. (2011) The Mediating Role of Knowledge and Efficacy in the Effects of Communication on Political Participation. Mass Communication and Society 14 (4): 407–430.

23.

Kenski

Stroud

(2006) Connections Between Internet Use and Political Efficacy, Knowledge, and Participation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 50 (2): 173–192.

24.

Kunda

(1991) The Case for Motivated Reasoning. Psychological Bulletin 1990; 108 (3): 480–498.

25.

Lau

Redlawsk

(2001) Advantages and Disadvantages of Cognitive Heuristics in Political Decision Making. American Journal of Political Science 45 (4): 951–971.

26.

Lee

(2006) Effects of Internet Use on College Students’ Political Efficacy. Cyberpsychology & Behavior 9 (4): 415–422.

27.

Lerner

Valdesolo

, et al. (2015) Emotion and Decision Making. Annual Review of Psychology 66 (1): 799–823.

28.

Lodge

Taber

(2005) The Automaticity of Affect for Political Leaders, Groups, and Issues: An Experimental Test of the Hot Cognition Hypothesis. Political Psychology 26 (3): 455–482.

29.

MacKuen

Wolak

Keele

, et al. (2010) Civic Engagements: Resolute Partisanship or Reflective Deliberation. American Journal of Political Science 54 (2): 440–458.

30.

Marcus

(2002) The Sentimental Citizen: Emotion in Democratic Politics. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.

31.

Marcus

MacKuen

(1993) Anxiety, Enthusiasm, and the Vote: The Emotional Underpinnings of Learning and Involvement During Presidential Campaigns. American Political Science Review 87 (3): 672–685.

32.

Merolla

Zechmeister

(2009) Democracy at Risk: How Terrorist Threats Affect the Public. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

33.

Nadeau

Niemi

Amato

(1995) Emotions, Issue Importance, and Political Learning. American Journal of Political Science 39 (3): 558–574.

34.

Pinkleton

Austin

Fortman

KKJ

(1998) Relationships of Media Use and Political Disaffection to Political Efficacy and Voting Behavior. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 42 (1): 34–49.

35.

Plutchik

(1980) Chapter 1—A General Psychoevolutionary Theory of Emotion. In: Plutchik

Robert

Kellerman

(eds) Theories of Emotion. Cambridge, MA: Academic Press, pp.3–33.

36.

Pollock

(1983) The Participatory Consequences of Internal and External Political Efficacy: A Research Note. Western Political Quarterly 36 (3): 400–409.

37.

Preacher

Leonardelli

(2001) Calculation for the Sobel Test: An Interactive Calculation Tool for Mediation Tests. Available at: http://quantpsy.org/sobel/sobel.htm (accessed 13 September 2022).

38.

Redlawsk

(2002) Hot Cognition or Cool Consideration? Testing the Effects of Motivated Reasoning on Political Decision Making. Journal of Politics 64 (4): 1021–1044.

39.

Redlawsk

Civettini

AJW

Emmerson

(2010) The Affective Tipping Point: Do Motivated Reasoners Ever “Get It”? Political Psychology 31 (4): 563–593.

40.

Riker

Ordeshook

(1968) A Theory of the Calculus of Voting. The American Political Science Review 62 (1): 25–42.

41.

Roseman

Wiest

Swartz

(1994) Phenomenology, Behaviors, and Goals Differentiate Discrete Emotions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67 (2): 206.

42.

Rudolph

Gangl

Stevens

(2000) The Effects of Efficacy and Emotions on Campaign Involvement. The Journal of Politics 62 (4): 1189–1197.

43.

Shah

Cho

Nah

, et al. (2007) Campaign Ads, Online Messaging, and Participation: Extending the Communication Mediation Model. Journal of Communication 57 (4): 676–703.

44.

Šrol

Ballová Mikušková

Čavojová

(2021) When We Are Worried, What Are We Thinking? Anxiety, Lack of Control, and Conspiracy Beliefs Amidst the COVID-19 Pandemic. Applied Cognitive Psychology 35 (3): 720–729.

45.

Taber

Lodge

(2006) Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs. American Journal of Political Science 50 (3): 755–769.

46.

Tewksbury

Hals

Bibart

(2008) The Efficacy of News Browsing: The Relationship of News Consumption Style to Social and Political Efficacy. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 85 (2): 257–272.

47.

Valentino

Neuner

(2017) Why the Sky Didn’t Fall: Mobilizing Anger in Reaction to Voter ID Laws. Political Psychology 38 (2): 331–350.

48.

Valentino

Brader

Groenendyk

, et al. (2011) Election Night’s Alright for Fighting: The Role of Emotions in Political Participation. The Journal of Politics 73 (1): 156–170.

49.

Verba

Schlozman

Brady

(1995) Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

50.

Wagner

Boczkowski

(2019) The Reception of Fake News: The Interpretations and Practices That Shape the Consumption of Perceived Misinformation. Digital Journalism 7 (7): 870–885.

51.

Weeks

(2015) Emotions, Partisanship, and Misperceptions: How Anger and Anxiety Moderate the Effect of Partisan Bias on Susceptibility to Political Misinformation. Journal of Communication 65 (4): 699–719.

52.

Zajonc

(1984) On the Primacy of Affect. American Psychologist 39: 117–123.

53.

Zhou

Pinkleton

(2012) Modeling the Effects of Political Information Source Use and Online Expression on Young Adults’ Political Efficacy. Mass Communication and Society 15 (6): 813–830.