New study: Belief in change matters more than political anger 

With the 2026 midterm elections around the corner, voters may be feeling everything from excitement to fear. But how might anger motivate political activism and, ultimately, influence who turns out to vote?

New research from Michigan State University’s Department of Communication examined nonviolent mobilizing outcomes of anger, including its association to political action and voting intentions. The study, published in the journal Public Library of Science, or PLOS ONE, found that anger does not automatically translate to voting; instead, it depends on efficacy, or the belief people can influence a political outcome.

“Anger does not always equate to aggression or violence. When people are empowered to change angering situations, they are more likely to engage in prosocial behaviors,” said Monique Turner, the study’s lead investigator and a professor and chair of the Department of Communication at MSU’s College of Communication Arts and Sciences.

Methodology

While existing research has examined the role of fear and politics, less information is known about the role of anger and politics.

Turner developed the Anger Activism Model, or AAM, to help explain how anger does not act alone. Rather, it interacts with perceived efficacy. In this study, they examined a specific type of internal political efficacy: The belief in one’s own ability to participate in politics effectively.

They surveyed almost 2,000 U.S. adults five weeks before the 2024 presidential election to examine how anger and different forms of political efficacy relate to participants’ commitment to nonviolent political activism and casting their vote.

Findings

Political anger can make someone politically active, but the researchers found participation depends on whether people believe they can do something about what is making them angry — and on whether the goal is activism or voting.

Among people doubtful they could change what angers them, stronger anger increased willingness to be politically active, such as volunteering for a campaign. However, despite higher anger being a catalyst for action, people feeling extreme anger had lower interest in voting.

Implications

The findings suggest that anger alone does not exclusively mobilize; rather, it must exist with a credible pathway to action being offered.

Communication professionals and political campaigns must offer concrete ways for people to act and may also need added efforts to get them to vote, as those who were angriest were least likely to vote. In other words, relying on extreme anger to encourage voting could backfire among people who already feel powerless.

While anger can be an important vehicle, this research adds values for practitioners when it comes to understanding the role of anger in politics today.

“It is important to understand anger is a mobilizer, but our study calls attention to the fact that the kind of action people take depends on whether they feel change is possible,” Turner said.

Turner was joined by the following researchers in the department: Ellen Reinhart, postdoctoral scholar; Dusitn Carnahan, associate professor; and David Markowitz, Red Cedar Distinguished Professor.