Negative Affective Language in Politics

• DOI: 10.1177/1532673X17693830
• Author: Stephen M. Utych
• Date: 01 January 2018
• Published date: 01 January 2018
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X17693830

American Politics Research

2018, Vol. 46(1) 77 –102

© The Author(s) 2017

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1532673X17693830

journals.sagepub.com/home/apr

Article

Negative Affective

Language in Politics

Stephen M. Utych1

Abstract

How do the words we use to talk about politics influence political attitudes and

evaluations? I focus specifically on negative affective language—words which

individuals have preexisting negative reactions toward. Considering the Affect

Infusion Model (AIM), processing style influences how individuals use affect when

making decisions. The impact of affective language depends upon the complexity

of the decision. In simpler processing tasks, individuals will use affect as a heuristic.

This causes a misattribution of generalized negative affect onto a political target,

leading to harsher evaluations. When a decision is complex, affective language

influences how new information is stored in memory, along with improving

information recall and abstract thinking. For those who are exposed to negative

affective language, negative evaluations of politicians persist more strongly in

memory, while these evaluations fade away when affect is used as a heuristic.

Keywords

political psychology, affect, language in politics

Lightweight choker Marco Rubio looks like a little boy on stage. Not

presidential material!

–Donald Trump1

The words used to describe politics are often strong and affect-laden, though

it is unclear how this language influences public opinion. This has perhaps

1Boise State University, Boise, ID, USA

Corresponding Author:

Stephen M. Utych, Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, Boise State

University, 1910 University Drive, MS 1935, Boise, ID 83725, USA.

Email: stephenutych@boisestate.edu

693830APRXXX10.1177/1532673X17693830American Politics ResearchUtych

research-article2017

78 American Politics Research 46(1)

never been so apparent than in the 2016 presidential campaign of Donald

Trump. Trump routinely calls his opponents lightweight chokers, losers, and

liars—all words that individuals have strong negative reactions toward. I

argue that these words, or negative affective language, will influence how the

public makes decisions about policies and political figures, above and beyond

the effects of pure negativity. When Trump characterizes Rubio as a choker,

or Ted Cruz as a liar, or Jeb Bush as a loser, he uses words that individuals

have preexisting negative reactions toward. These words should be more

powerful than simply criticizing an opponent’s policy or record, as they

should create connections between the politician and concepts individuals

have existing negative responses toward. For example, seeing a political fig-

ure described as a “cancer” will activate negative thoughts one has stored

about cancer, inducing a generalized negative mood. Such negative affective

words are words which individuals have negative reactions toward, regard-

less of the context (Bradley & Lang, 1999). The negative mood created by

these words should be misattributed to the political concepts that are described

using affective language.

The context of the decision matters as well. When a decision is simple,

affective language influences decision making in the short term; while the

negative mood persists, the political figures will be judged more harshly,

though this effect will not continue for very long. When a decision is more

difficult to make, affective language will influence how information is stored

in memory, which leads to longer lasting effects on political judgments.

Political language has been shown to frequently have an affective compo-

nent. From traditional media such as the New York Times (Young & Soroka,

2012) to newer media such as political blogs and Twitter (Tumasjan, Sprenger,

Sandner, & Welpe, 2010; Vatrapu, Robertson, & Dissanayake, 2008), politi-

cal information often takes on an affective tone, which is more often than not

negative. Negative information has been shown to have a considerably stron-

ger effect on attitudes than positive information (Baumeister, Bratslavsky,

Finkenauer, & Vohs, 2001; Pratto & John, 1991), especially negative political

information (Miller, 2010; Redlawsk, Civettini, & Emmerson, 2010).

However, negative information need not always be overt. Negative rhetoric

about a politician or policy should be impactful, but the words chosen to

describe political events should matter as well. I argue that using negative

affective language, for example, referring to a debate as “ugly” rather than

“contentious,” will induce a negative mood in individuals, making negative

information more powerful.

If political decision making is being influenced by affective language, this

brings to light important normative concerns for political scientists and any-

one interested in politics generally. Typically, the role of generalized affect in