The Relevance of Emotions in Presidential Public Appeals: Anger's Conditional Effect on Perceived Risk and Support for Military Interventions

Research on political discourse and communication has shown that emotioninducing appeals are selectively deployed by political leaders in attempting to boost their approval ratings, garner support for their policy goals, and/or divert the public's attention during times of domestic turmoil (De Castella, McGarty, and Musgrove 2009). Within the U.S. context, presidents often resort to emotive appeals in wielding the bully pulpit with the expectation that it may help rally public support for their political and policy agendas, including the use of military force. (1) For example, in his remarks on March 18, 2011, President Barack Obama sought empathy from Americans as he conveyed key events unfolding in Libya, particularly in describing how civilians were suffering at the hands of Muammar Qadhafi's oppressive, violent regime (Obama 2011): Over the last several weeks, the world has watched events unfold in Libya with hope and alarm. Last month, protesters took to the streets across the country to demand their universal rights and a government that is accountable to them and responsive to their aspirations. But they were met with an iron fist ... Instead of respecting the rights of his own people, Qadhafi chose the path of brutal suppression. Innocent civilians were beaten, imprisoned, and in some cases killed. Peaceful protests were forcefully put down. Hospitals were attacked and patients disappeared. A campaign of intimidation and repression began. President Obama then noted further threats of violence facing the people of Libya and offered a justification for possible U.S. intervention (Obama 2011): And just yesterday, speaking of the city of Benghazi, a city of roughly 700,000 people, he [Qadhafi] threatened, and I quote: "We will have no mercy and no pity"--no mercy on his own citizens ... Now, here's why this matters to us. Left unchecked, we have every reason to believe that Qadhafi would commit atrocities against his people. Many thousands could die. A humanitarian crisis would ensue. To what extent might these types of emotion-inducing presidential appeals influence the public mood and lend credence to a president's policy objectives, both with respect to a particular policy option (here, military intervention in civil conflict) as well as to the president's broader policy agenda (i.e., attempting to take advantage of such emotion-driven public rallies to seek out other foreign and domestic policy objectives)? Presumably, such presidential appeals could lead to emotional arousal and in turn increase public support for specific policies. However, past works are split on whether and how emotive stimuli matter and it is not known if emotional arousal may lead to a spillover effect that influences public support for other policies connected to a president's broader policy agenda. Furthermore, prior studies on emotions have generally focused on military interventions where a direct national security threat exists, failing to consider other instances where there is no direct or immediate threat to the United States (e.g., military action taken for humanitarian purposes). Further still, one must consider the extent to which such potential opinion shifts might actually help facilitate an intervention, particularly with regard to a president's strategic positioning at home and abroad (see Edwards 2009; 2012). In this study, we employ an experimental design situated in the context of a best test "least likely" case (2) to investigate whether the thematic relevance of emotive stimuli (i.e., when emotional responses are appraised as being policy relevant versus policy irrelevant) embedded in presidential speeches influences people's risk perceptions and support regarding military interventions in civil conflict. For instance, does anger tend to lower people's perceptions of risk and increase support for an aggressive foreign policy option regardless of its source? …