In a time of unprecedented global crisis, leaders’ responses can shape public perception and emotional reactions. A recent study published in Politics and the Life Sciences investigated how then-President Donald Trump’s televised address on the COVID-19 pandemic influenced the emotions of his followers and non-followers. The findings reveal significant differences in emotional responses based on political allegiance.
The COVID-19 pandemic brought not only health challenges but also political tension. Trump’s approach to handling the crisis, particularly his use of terms like “China flu,” has been a point of contention. The researchers aimed to understand whether Trump’s speech could unite Americans or if it would deepen the existing political divide. Specifically, they were interested in how Trump’s subtle facial expressions (micro-expressions) influenced viewers’ emotions.
Micro-expressions are brief, involuntary facial expressions that occur in response to emotions and typically last less than half a second. They are often too quick to be consciously noticed but can reveal genuine feelings. To detect and measure micro-expressions, researchers use the Facial Action Coding System, which involves analyzing frame-by-frame video footage to identify specific facial muscle movements, known as action units, that correspond to particular emotions.
“I’ve long been personally interested in how people emotionally and behaviorally respond to crises (growing up on the Florida coast with multiple hurricanes and later, during grad school, losing nearly all I owned to a flood),” explained study author Patrick A. Stewart, a professor at the University of Arkansas in Fayetteville and author of The Audience Decides: Applause-Cheering, Laughter, and Booing during Debates in the Trump Era.
“We almost automatically look to and focus on our leaders during times of crisis; as a result, even subtle nonverbal behavior such as micro-expressions can have a major influence on the general public. Because I had published on both how people responded to the September 11, 2001 attacks and President George W. Bush’s ‘rally-round-the-flag’ speeches, as well as the influence of his father’s (President George H.W. Bush’s) micro-expressions when he announced the U.S. intervention in Iraq in 1991, seeing how the public responded to President Donald J. Trump’s COVID speech – and his micro-expressions – just made sense for understanding the country’s ability to respond to the pandemic.”
To examine this, the researchers conducted an experiment using a sample of 252 participants from various age groups and backgrounds. Participants were recruited through snowball sampling, beginning with students from a political science course. The study was conducted between April 14 and May 5, 2020, a period when the pandemic’s impact was still unfolding.
Participants watched a 51-second clip from Trump’s March 11, 2020, address. This segment was chosen because it contained a critical micro-expression—a brief, involuntary facial expression—that indicated fear. Participants were divided into two groups: one viewed the original clip with the micro-expression intact, and the other saw a version with the micro-expression removed.
Before and after watching the clip, participants completed questionnaires assessing their emotional states, voting intentions, and demographic information. Emotions were measured using items from the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule, which included questions about feelings of pride, interest, reassurance, comfort, discouragement, depression, fear, worry, irritation, and anger.
The study revealed significant differences in emotional responses based on political alignment, underscoring the polarized nature of the U.S. political climate during the pandemic. Overall, participants showed reduced positive emotions — specifically affinity and reassurance — after watching the speech, with no significant change in negative emotions.
For Trump’s followers, the speech resulted in reduced negative emotions, including anger, distress, and sadness. However, there were no significant changes in their positive emotions. This suggests that Trump’s speech may have succeeded in alleviating some negative feelings among his supporters without necessarily boosting their positive emotions.
In contrast, Biden’s followers experienced increased negative emotions, particularly anger and distress, and decreased positive emotions of affinity and reassurance. This indicates that the speech may have heightened feelings of discomfort and dissatisfaction among those who opposed Trump.
Followers of other candidates showed more variability in their emotional responses but generally reported reduced positive emotions, particularly affinity. This group’s diverse political preferences likely contributed to the varied emotional reactions observed.
The presence of Trump’s micro-expression of fear had a nuanced impact. While the removal of the micro-expression was generally associated with increased sadness, this effect was more pronounced among Biden supporters. This suggests that Trump’s followers might have perceived the micro-expression as an authentic expression of fear, enhancing their emotional connection to the speech, while the lack of this subtle emotional cue might have increased feelings of sadness among those less aligned with Trump.
The researchers also conducted an exploratory textual analysis to further investigate the emotional responses of participants by analyzing the open-ended text responses collected after they watched the video clip. Participants were asked to list their thoughts while watching the video, and these responses were processed using the Linguistic Inventory and Word Count (LIWC) software.
The textual analysis revealed several key findings that complemented the main study results. For instance, anger expressed in the text was higher among Biden supporters, aligning with the increased anger reported in their surveys. Interestingly, expressions of sadness in the text correlated with changes in affinity, implying an empathetic response where participants who felt greater affinity for Trump also shared his conveyed sadness about the pandemic.
Stewart highlighted three key points: “First, that micro-expressions aren’t necessarily unintentional ’emotional leakage’ but can be seen as nonverbal punctuation – emphasizing what a person says immediately before or immediately after they say it.”
“Second, pandemics – like other forms of natural disasters – don’t necessarily lend themselves to the public rallying behind a leader – especially a leader as divisive as President Trump. While individuals will be affected by even subtle behavior, ultimately pre-held opinions will tend to hold sway. This is especially the case when the context does not match the argument being made during a rally speech.”
“Third, while talk can be cheap, the nonverbal behavior between the words can be quite revealing about a person and their intent,” Stewart explained. “This is extremely important for understanding leaders.”
The study provides evidence of the significant role of political allegiance in shaping emotional responses to leadership during a crisis. But, as with any study, there are some caveats to consider. The reliance on self-reported emotional states introduces the potential for bias, as participants’ subjective perceptions may not accurately reflect their actual emotional experiences. Additionally, the study was conducted during a highly polarized election year, which could have intensified partisan responses.
“Self-reports, such as used in this study, as well as even the linguistic analysis we carried out here, reveal only part of the story,” Stewart noted.T”o best understand how people respond, it is important to measure their physiology in one way or another.”
“Likewise, while the sample proved to be a good representation of middle-America, the threat posed by COVID was still abstract for many of those responding. Having participants from the coastal areas hit harder by the pandemic at that time might have changed the intensity of the response to the micro-expression, and might have even changed response to President Trump’s speech (although that is unlikely given the survey evidence).”
Stewart added that this line of research highlights the fact that “the followers and their response matters most of all.”
“Without followers, there are no leaders. For this specific strand of research – which considers nonverbal behavior by political figures – we need to pay close attention to what our leaders say and do and hold them to a higher level of scrutiny as they are ultimately only representatives of the people.”
The study, “The influence of President Trump’s micro-expressions during his COVID-19 national address on viewers’ emotional response,” was authored by Patrick A. Stewart, Elena Svetieva, and Jeffrey K. Mullins.
