Is It Anger or Malaise?
The mostly or even lightly satisfied lot is not where one’s likely to find the fuel for any movement, much less a populist one.
Populism is on the rise with varying flavors of left- and right-wing promotion of the “people” against the “elite”. The very nature of populism blaming others for negative situations screams anger as the rallying emotion. But is it?
It may be convenient to label Trump or Sanders voters as angry or “rage voters” but is it accurate?
A working paper from National Bureau of Economic Research analyzed unique, voter survey data from 2008 to 2017 examining the relationship between anger and the populist vote share across U.S. counties during 2016 primaries and the general.
The surface data finds a clear link between more angry counties more strongly preferring the populist candidates during the primaries and general.
But, that correlation goes away when giving other negative emotions and life satisfaction a chance to compete in the model explaining candidate choice.
Their conclusion? Malaise and gloom, not anger, drives the rise in populism.
More generally, the correlation between anger and other negative emotions is not that high. Anger is unique. For example, many people who feel worried do not feel angry, and vice versa.
In contrast to fear, shame or sadness, anger tends to be directed at a particular individual or group, and hence acts as a call to action against that specific target.
Emotions matter. And remember, nobody is voting for the populist candidate because they feel gloomy or angry. They are voting for that candidate because they want to feel not angry or not gloomy. Emotion is the goal, not the cause.
Kevin
One response to “Is It Anger or Malaise?”
Behavioral Science Q & A
Integrating an individual giving appeal with other communications from a charity can have both positive and negative effects, and the outcome largely depends on how it’s executed. Advantages of Integration Brand Consistency: Maintaining a consistent appearance and messaging across all communications can reinforce the org’s brand identity and strengthen brand recognition and trust among your […]
Read Full Answer
I’m not aware of any in-market tests specifically comparing recurring vs. gift frequency language. I suspect the answer might not be the same with all gift frequencies, nor with all people. It sounds like a great opportunity for you to test and find out what works for your audience. Based on the literature, here’s a couple […]
Read Full Answer
Based on what we know from existing data, those renewal notices can actually be pretty effective in getting people to donate. They tap into our psychology – creating a sense of urgency, reminding us of past support, and using personalization to make the message hit home. They’re playing on our natural tendencies to feel obligated […]
Read Full Answer
Interesting question. I had a quick look at the testing done on this topic. On the positive side, in all cases, over half of donors decide to cover the fee. In some cases, it goes as high as 65%. Not a negligible percentage at all. Here’s another test from iRaiser showing consistent results (see point […]
Read Full Answer
There’s just one thing to consider when designing a supporter journey: the supporter. More specifically, you need to take into account: Who the supporter is i.e. their identity, which is the reason they support this cause, and their personality, which describes the way they “see” and process the world. These will determine the kind of […]
Read Full Answer
I’m not an expert in this but a quick search surfaced this article on the effect of tax reforms on 2019’s charitable giving. The researchers didn’t find a reduction. Actually, they observed an “increase in charitable contributions in 2019, even with the lower tax rates and the dramatically smaller number of taxpayers who itemize their […]
Read Full Answer
“Malaise and gloom, not anger, drives the rise in populism.” Taking that to the bank. Thank you, Agitators.