As Donald Trump continues to defy expectations and potentially move closer to the Republican nomination, much has been written about him tapping into Americans’ anger.
As a professor who studies attitudes and emotions, I’ve been observing this phenomenon and pondering why Trump seems to be more effective at this than other candidates. Research on emotions, in particular destructive and constructive anger, offers some interesting clues.
While most of us tend to think about emotions as either positive or negative, psychologists, neuroscientists and other researchers suggest that a more useful frame is the “motivational direction” of the emotion.
In this view, emotions are linked to two basic motivational forces that are behind all behavior, the urge to avoid and the urge to approach. Anxiety and fear, for instance, tend to be associated with avoid behaviors like withdrawal and timidity, while emotions like happiness and delight tend to be associated with approach behaviors.
Anger, the research indicates, is usually associated with approach behaviors because when we get angry we think that we can remove obstacles or change the outcome. Anger, it turns out, often feels satisfying because we believe it moves us closer to our goals.
So what does this have to do with Trump and his supporters?
Research shows that anger can contribute to political attitude formation and can affect whether we approach destructively (by being aggressive and threatening) or constructively (by educating, guiding or compromising). Interestingly, we tend to approach destructively if we believe that obstacles are the result of innate characteristics of others and we tend to approach constructively if we believe that obstacles are the result of situational factors.
In short, anger has the potential to lead to both destructive and constructive action, depending on how we characterize a particular problem.
For example, any parent who has been angry at a teenager’s tardiness has probably considered that the behavior may have resulted from an innate (irresponsible) characteristic or a situational factor like traffic. Each possibility stimulates a different approach behavior.
For some Trump supporters, part of his appeal lies in his power to tap into the destructive anger they experience. While demagogic and offensive to many people, Trump’s rhetoric — that some of our problems are the fault of Mexicans, Muslims and other groups — aligns well with this innate characteristics view. They like Trump because he speaks directly to this anger in an uncompromising way. Indeed, in conflict situations, people who see obstacles resulting from the innate characteristics of others often believe that immediate action is needed and only “their side” has the capability to introduce such action.
Hence, the attractiveness to these supporters, for instance, of building a wall to limit illegal immigration.
Trump’s attempts to resonate with the destructive anger of some voters are well-chronicled. Overlooked, however, is Trump’s connection with a different set of anger-motivated voters — those who view many of the country’s problems as situational and, as a result, are inclined to direct their anger in a more constructive manner.
To these supporters, Trump’s status as a Washington outsider and businessman has the potential to alter the situational dynamics. Trump has made the case, they believe, that many of the country’s problems result from career politicians causing Washington gridlock and, therefore, a Trump presidency has the best chance of altering this situation and helping them come closer to accomplishing their goals.
Paradoxically, some may even be drawn to Trump’s destructive rhetoric because it stimulates a greater desire to channel that anger constructively. Studies have shown that increasing anger through the use of inflammatory language and other anger-inducing stimuli in conflict situations can actually increase some people’s support for constructive action.
Intentional or not, Trump has successfully tapped into both destructive and constructive voter anger. Whether that anger propels him to the nomination, remains to be seen.
Dan Moshavi, PhD, is a professor of management in the Barowsky School of Business at Dominican University of California in San Rafael. His recent TEDx talk focused on “The Upsides of Anger.”
