Advertisement

Flaws pp 39-62 | Cite as

Governing Emotion: How to Analyze Emotional Political Situations

  • Christopher L. Pepin-Neff
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter introduces a high emotion-low policy threshold (HELP) framework and reviews how emotions are seen to work together in the modern history of policy responses and can be applied to shark bites. It demonstrates how circumstances can present situations that distribute penalties to political actors when there is a high degree of emotion and salience based on the instinctual nature of the threat, intent-based causal story, and policy entrepreneurship. I suggest that political actors responded to these situations by addressing the political penalty, which usually involved redistributing public emotionality.

Keywords

Emotions Public policy Policy studies Salience Policy entrepreneurship 

References

  1. Achen, C. H., & Bartels, L. M. (2012). Blind retrospection: Why shark attacks are bad for democracy. Working paper. Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, Vanderbilt University.Google Scholar
  2. Bal, A. S., Archer-Brown, C., Robson, K., & Hall, D. E. (2013). Do good, goes bad, gets ugly: Kony 2012. Journal of Public Affairs, 13(2), 202–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baumgartner, F. R., & Jones, B. D. (2009). Agendas and instability in American politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  4. Baumgartner, F. R., & Leech, B. L. (2001). Interest niches and policy bandwagons: Patterns of interest group involvement in national politics. Journal of Politics, 63(4), 1191–1213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bergan, D. E. (2009). Does grassroots lobbying work? A field experiment measuring the effects of an e-mail lobbying campaign on legislative behavior. American Politics Research, 37(2), 327–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Birkland, T. A. (1998). Focusing events, mobilization, and agenda setting. Journal of Public Policy, 18(01), 53–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Botterill, L. C. (2013). Are policy entrepreneurs really decisive in achieving policy change? Drought policy in the USA and Australia. Australian Journal of Politics & History, 59(1), 97–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brader, T. (2005). Striking a responsive chord: How political ads motivate and persuade voters by appealing to emotions. American Journal of Political Science, 49(2), 388–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brändström, A., & Kuipers, S. (2003). From ‘normal incidents’ to political crises: Understanding the selective politicization of policy failures 1. Government and Opposition, 38(3), 279–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brändström, A., Bynander, F., & t’Hart, P. (2004). Governing by looking back: Historical analogies and crisis management. Public Administration, 82(1), 191–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brotheridge, C. M., & Grandey, A. A. (2002). Emotional labor and burnout: Comparing two perspectives of ‘people work’. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 60(1), 17–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Crawford, S., & Ostrom, E. (1995). A grammar of institutions. American Political Science Review, 89(3), 582–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Identity politics, intersectionality, and violence against women. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Damasio, A. R. (1994). Descartes’ error: Emotion, rationality and the human brain. New York: Putnam.Google Scholar
  16. De Martino, B., Kumaran, D., Seymour, B., & Dolan, R. J. (2006). Frames, biases, and rational decision-making in the human brain. Science, 313(5787), 684–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Decety, J., & Cacioppo, S. (2012). The speed of morality: A high-density electrical neuroimaging study. Journal of Neurophysiology, 108(11), 3068.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Douglas, M. (1985). Risk acceptability according to the social sciences (Vol. 11). New York: Russell Sage Foundation Publications.Google Scholar
  19. Downs, A. (1972). Up and down with ecology: The issue-attention cycle. The Public Interest, 28, 38–50.Google Scholar
  20. Drucker, P. F. (1985). Entrepreneurial strategies. California Management Review, 27(2), 9–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Druckman, J. N., & McDermott, R. (2008). Emotion and the framing of risky choice. Political Behaviour, 30(3), 297–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gettleman, J. (2012). In vast jungle, US troops aid in search for Kony. New York Times.Google Scholar
  23. Goode, E., & Ben-Yehuda, N. (1994). Moral panics: Culture, politics, and social construction. Annual Review of Sociology, 20(1), 149–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gould, D. B. (2009). Moving politics: Emotion and act up’s fight against AIDS. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hochschild, A. (1983). The managed heart. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  26. Jasper, J. M. (1998). The emotions of protest: Affective and reactive emotions in and around social movements. Sociological Forum, 13(3), 397–424. Kluwer Academic Publishers/Plenum Publishers.Google Scholar
  27. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). On the interpretation of intuitive probability: A reply to Jonathan Cohen. Cognition, 7(4), 409–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kingdon, J. W. (1984). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
  29. Lang, A. (2000). The limited capacity model of mediated message processing. Journal of Communication, 50(1), 46–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Langbein, L. I., & Lotwis, M. A. (1990). The political efficacy of lobbying and money: Gun control in the US House, 1986. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 15(3), 413–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lasswell, H. D. (1950). Politics: Who gets what, when, how. New York: P. Smith.Google Scholar
  32. Linville, P. W., & Fischer, G. W. (1991). Preferences for separating or combining events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(1), 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lodge, M., & Hood, C. (2002). Pavlovian policy responses to media feeding frenzies? Dangerous dogs regulation in comparative perspective. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 10(1), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lodge, M., & Taber, C. S. (2005). The automaticity of affect for political leaders, groups, and issues: An experimental test of the hot cognition hypothesis. Political Psychology, 26(3), 455–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lupia, A., & Menning, J. O. (2009). When can politicians scare citizens into supporting bad policies? American Journal of Political Science, 53(1), 90–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Marcus, G. E. (2000). Emotions in politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 3(1), 221–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Marks, D. (1999). Dimensions of oppression: Theorising the embodied subject. Disability & Society, 14(5), 611–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. McConnell, A. (2003). Overview: Crisis management, influences, responses and evaluation. Parliamentary Affairs, 56(3), 363–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. McDermott, R., Fowler, J. H., & Smirnov, O. (2008). On the evolutionary origin of prospect theory preferences. Journal of Politics, 70(2), 335–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mintrom, M., & Norman, P. (2009). Policy entrepreneurship and policy change. Policy Studies Journal, 37(4), 649–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Moseley, A., & Stoker, G. (2013). Nudging citizens? Prospects and pitfalls confronting a new heuristic. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 79, 4–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Neff, C. (2016). Emotional taxation lecture. Retrieved from University of Sydney GOVT 6159 Emotions, Agendas and Public Policy Blackboard site.Google Scholar
  43. Obar, J. A., Zube, P., & Lampe, C. (2012). Advocacy 2.0: An analysis of how advocacy groups in the United States perceive and use social media as tools for facilitating civic engagement and collective action. Journal of Information Policy, 2, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Ostrom, E. (1998). A behavioral approach to the rational choice theory of collective action: Presidential address, American Political Science Association, 1997. American Political Science Review, 92(01), 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pepin-Neff, C. L., & Caporale, K. (2018). Funny evidence: Female comics are the new policy entrepreneurs. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 77, 554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H. C. (1993). The advocacy coalition framework: Assessment, revisions, and implications for scholars and practitioners. In Policy change and learning: An advocacy coalition approach (pp. 211–236). Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  47. Sabatier, P., Hunter, S., & McLaughlin, S. (1987). The devil shift: Perceptions and misperceptions of opponents. Western Political Quarterly, 40(3), 449–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. SBS. (2014, August 4). Israel, Hamas agree on new 72-hour truce. SBS News. Available at: https://www.sbs.com.au/news/israel-hamas-agree-on-new-72-hour-truce
  49. Schneider, A., & Ingram, H. (1993). Social construction of target populations: Implications for politics and policy. American Political Science Review, 87, 334–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Simon, A. (1996). Bounded rationality and organizational learning. Organizational Learning, 175, 188.Google Scholar
  51. Stone, D. (1989). Causal stories and the formation of policy agendas. Political Science Quarterly, 104, 281–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Stone, D. (2006). Reframing the racial disparities issue for state governments. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 31(1), 127–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Sunstein, C. R. (2005). Laws of fear: Beyond the precautionary principle (Vol. 6). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sunstein, C. R. (2006). The availability heuristic, intuitive cost-benefit analysis, and climate change. Climatic Change, 77(1–2), 195–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Thaler, R., & Sunstein, C. (2008). Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  56. Tiplady, C. M., Walsh, D. A. B., & Phillips, C. J. (2013). Public response to media coverage of animal cruelty. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 26(4), 869–885.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. True, J. L., Jones, B. D., & Baumgartner, F. R. (1999). Punctuated equilibrium theory. In Theories of the policy process (pp. 175–202). Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  58. Vromen, A. (2008). Political change and the internet in Australia: Introducing GetUp. In T. Häyhtiö & J. Rinne (Eds.), Net working/networking: Citizen initiated internet politics (pp. 103–126). Tampere: Tampere University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Waldorf, L. (2012). White noise: Hearing the disaster. Journal of Human Rights Practice, 4(3), 469–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Walker, J. L. (1991). Mobilizing interest groups in America: Patrons, professions, and social movements. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Weber, C. (2013). Emotions, campaigns, and political participation. Political Research Quarterly, 66(2), 414–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Weible, C. (2014). Introducing the scope and focus of policy process research and theory. In P. A. Sabatier & C. M. Weible (Eds.), Theories of the policy process. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  63. Wolfe, M. (2012). Putting on the brakes or pressing on the gas? Media attention and the speed of policymaking. Policy Studies Journal, 40(1), 109–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Zahariadis, N. (2007). The multiple streams framework: Structure, limitations, prospects. In P. A. Sabatier (Ed.), Theories of the policy process. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  65. Zajonc, R. B. (1984). On the primacy of affect. American Psychologist, 39(2), 117–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher L. Pepin-Neff
    • 1
  1. 1.University of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations