Political anger fuels support for violence mainly when voters feel ignored by the system

A recent study published in Political Psychology suggests that how political anger influences a person’s support for violence depends heavily on whether they believe the political system actually listens to them. Researchers found that intense anger tends to fuel support for undemocratic practices only when people feel their voices do not matter to politicians. When people believe the government is responsive, this sense of political power acts as a buffer against endorsing political violence.

Political discussions in the United States frequently feature intense emotions. Anger is a high arousal emotion that often pushes people to take action to correct perceived wrongs. In political contexts, this emotion can motivate positive civic engagement, such as voting or protesting peacefully, but it can also lead to destructive outcomes.

Monique Mitchell Turner, a professor and chairperson in the Department of Communication at Michigan State University, wanted to investigate these dynamics. “I’ve been studying anger since the late 1990s because it is one of the most fascinating and misunderstood emotions,” Turner said. “What attracted me to anger early in my career was that it doesn’t operate in a simple way.”

“Unlike many emotions, anger can motivate people to stand up to injustice, become politically engaged, and work toward social change. In other words, anger can be productive and prosocial.”

To understand how anger translates into behavior, psychologists often look to the Anger Activism Model. This framework proposes that anger alone does not dictate how a person will act. Instead, a person’s belief in their ability to solve a problem shapes their reaction.

Free daily newsletter

A major part of this equation is a concept known as external political efficacy. External political efficacy refers to a person’s belief that political institutions and leaders will actually listen and respond to the public. When people have high external political efficacy, they believe 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 Activism Model focused mostly on positive behaviors, like community organizing. The authors of the current study wanted to test whether this framework could explain negative, antisocial political behaviors during a highly polarized time.

“What caught my attention in the months leading up to the 2024 U.S. presidential election was that anger seemed to be reaching unusually high levels while discussions of political violence, threats, and other antisocial behaviors were becoming more common,” Turner told PsyPost.

“That raised an important question: Under what conditions does anger motivate constructive democratic engagement, and when does it contribute to support for behaviors that undermine democratic norms? This study was an opportunity to examine that question during a particularly consequential political moment.”

Antisocial behaviors in a political context include actions that violate moral foundations like fairness and care. The researchers specifically aimed to see if external political efficacy changes how anger influences support for things like political violence or ignoring election results.

The researchers analyzed data from a national survey of 1,713 adult citizens in the United States. They collected this data in a rolling format over an eight week period, starting five weeks before the November 2024 presidential election and ending three weeks after.

The participants represented a nearly even split between individuals identifying as Democrats and Republicans, alongside a smaller percentage of Independents. The sample was balanced by gender and included a wide age range from 18 to 97 years old. The researchers also gathered a sample that reflected various racial and ethnic backgrounds in the United States.

To measure anger, the survey asked participants to rate how intensely they felt angry and mad when thinking about the 2024 election season. They rated these emotions on a scale from zero to one hundred.

To measure external political efficacy, participants rated their agreement with statements about whether people like them have any say in what the government does. They also rated whether they believed public officials care about their opinions.

The survey then measured support for antisocial political behaviors. This included tolerance for undemocratic practices, such as reducing polling stations in opposition areas, rejecting unfavorable court rulings, or refusing to accept election results.

It also included support for partisan violence, like harassing political opponents online or sending threatening messages to party leaders. Finally, the survey measured broader political violence, such as believing violence is an acceptable way to express disagreement with the government.

The data analysis revealed that external political efficacy significantly altered the relationship between anger and support for antisocial political behaviors. For individuals with low external political efficacy, the researchers found a direct, positive association. As anger increased among these individuals, their support for undemocratic practices, partisan violence, and general political violence steadily increased as well.

“What surprised me most was the consistency of the pattern across different antisocial outcomes,” Turner said. “Tolerance for violence is, thankfully, very low in the population we studied. Nonetheless, we repeatedly found that anger was most strongly associated with these outcomes among people who felt relatively low levels of efficacy.”

When people feel the system is entirely unresponsive, their anger tends to push them toward endorsing aggressive behaviors. In these situations, individuals might view antisocial actions as the only remaining tools to force change or seek revenge. Without a belief in the system, anger acts as a direct fuel for destructive political attitudes.

The pattern looked completely different for individuals with high external political efficacy. For those who strongly believed the government listens to its citizens, extremely high levels of anger did not lead to increased support for political violence or undemocratic practices. Instead, only moderate levels of anger were associated with a slight increase in support for these destructive behaviors.

When highly efficacious people experience intense political anger, they do not seem to abandon democratic norms. The researchers propose that for these individuals, high anger signals that the stakes are elevated. Because they believe legitimate channels of change will work, they likely redirect their intense frustration into acceptable democratic processes rather than violence.

“Our findings suggest that when people are angry but also believe they can make a difference, through voting, civic engagement, community action, or other democratic means, anger is less likely to be associated with support for harmful or undemocratic behaviors,” Turner said. “When people are angry and feel powerless, however, that combination may create conditions where support for more extreme responses becomes more likely.”

There are a few limitations to keep in mind. The study relied on self reported survey data collected at a single point in time for each participant. This format means the data can show associations between feelings and beliefs, but it cannot definitively prove that anger causes a specific change in behavior over time.

“No single emotion determines behavior, and we should be cautious about assuming that anger alone causes people to support violence or undemocratic actions,” Turner said. “Political attitudes are influenced by many factors, including identity, ideology, social networks, media exposure, and life experiences.”

Even so, the results provide important insights. “That said, the effects we observed were meaningful because they emerged in a large national sample during a real election and involved outcomes that are important for democratic stability,” Turner said. “Even modest shifts in support for political violence or democratic norm violations can have important consequences when they occur across large populations.”

Additionally, the survey measured a person’s tolerance or support for undemocratic acts and violence, which is not the same as actually committing those acts. A person might express agreement with a survey statement about political violence without ever intending to participate in physical aggression. Future studies tracking actual behavior could provide a fuller 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 engage in violence and never support undemocratic behavior.”

“Another important point is that anger is often a rational response to real concerns and grievances,” Turner added. “The goal of this research is not to discourage anger but to better understand the conditions under which anger leads to different outcomes. In many cases, anger is what motivates people to vote, organize, volunteer, and advocate for change.”

Future research might track the same individuals over several years to see how shifts in their political efficacy affect their attitudes. Scientists could also explore how the media environment shapes a person’s belief that the government is responsive.

“This study is part of a much larger research program examining how emotions shape political behavior,” Turner said. “One of my long-term goals is to better understand why anger sometimes promotes constructive engagement and other times contributes to destructive outcomes.”

“We’re particularly interested in the role of different types of efficacy, how these processes operate across different groups and contexts, and whether interventions can strengthen efficacy and reduce the likelihood that anger is expressed in harmful ways,” Turner said. “Ultimately, I hope this work contributes to a better understanding of how democracies can channel strong emotions into productive forms of civic participation.”

“The biggest takeaway is that anger itself is not necessarily dangerous,” Turner said. “In fact, anger can be a constructive response to perceived injustice. What matters is whether people feel that they have meaningful ways to address the problem.”

Finding ways to increase a population’s external political efficacy might serve as a protective measure against democratic decline. “The lesson is not that people should avoid anger,” Turner said. “Rather, it is that healthy democracies need to provide people with meaningful avenues for participation and a sense that their voices matter.”

“One thing I find encouraging is that the results do not suggest that anger inevitably leads to bad outcomes,” Turner said. “If anything, the findings reinforce the idea that context matters. Anger can be a powerful force for democratic participation, social movements, and positive change. The challenge is ensuring that people feel they have effective, legitimate ways to respond to the things that make them angry.”

“That is an important lesson not only for researchers, but also for policymakers, community leaders, and anyone interested in strengthening democratic institutions.”

The study, “Fueling the fire: Anger, external political efficacy, and support for antisocial political behavior surrounding the 2024 U.S. presidential election,” was authored by Monique M. Turner, Ellen C. Reinhart, Dustin Carnahan, David M. Markowitz, and Shawn Turner.