Jennifer Jackson
Staff Writer
Professor of Political Science Richard Gelm explored trends in political views and behavior during his lecture “Making American Politics Work: Coping with Fear and Anger, AKA: A Political Self-Help Guide.”
Thirty-five students and faculty members joined Gelm Monday in the President’s Dining Room as part of the faculty lecture series.
“My current research attempts to analyze the emerging scholarship on genetics, biology and socialization that helps to provide insight into individual’s emotional political tendencies,” Gelm said.
He said understanding how emotional responses like fear and anger hinder the ability to achieve civil rational discourse may help in making adjustments to make the American political process work better.
His studies covered a variety of trends that can be seen in how Americans vote and respond to negative and positive stimuli.
Gelm found that many people vote based on a candidate’s appearance and their positive or negative emotional connection to them based on whether that candidate is a member of the voter’s party.
The example he used is that a member of the Republican Party would most likely be suspicious of a Democratic candidate upon immediate introduction because of their differing views.
He also observed that media tends to focus more on crises than achievement.
Psychological studies have shown that people are more likely to respond to something that ignites fear in the individual – this makes fear the best attention grabber.
“(Political scientists) look for general trends and tendencies,” Gelm said.
His research showed people have a tendency to respond to negative stimuli more often than to positive stimuli.
For this reason negative political campaign advertisements are successful.
One trend that Gelm noted is that environmental setting affects people’s political judgments.
“In a clean, sanitary environment we feel more comfortable, more relaxed and we make less harsh political judgments,” Gelm said.
Gelm said social liberals generally make moral judgments based on concerns for equality and harm avoidance, whereas social conservatives make moral judgments on concerns for purity and authority.
Additionally, liberals tend to be more accepting of ambiguity, while conservatives desire cognitive closure, a fixed and certain answer.
Some students felt they could relate with the findings of Gelm’s research.
“I really enjoyed the lecture, and I felt it aligned with my political views,” said Cassie Holloway, senior communications major.
“I’ve noticed recently that emotions tend to get the best of people when they vote and they don’t look at the issue at hand,” Holloway said. “I am independent because I want to vote on the issues and I will always choose a candidate who I think will solve those issues more efficiently.”
Gelm’s lecture encouraged students to think about how emotion affects politics.
“I don’t feel I personally fall into the trends, but I do understand and agree with some of the research,” said Amanda Madrigal, junior psychology and marketing major, said.
“At times we tend to go with an emotion we feel and appearances that seem positive to us when voting. I think we are more likely to respond to negative stimuli than positive stimuli because I believe we view positivity as expected and negativity as needing immediate change and therefore act upon it and are quicker to recognize it,” she said.
Jennifer Jackson can be reached at jennifer.jackson2@laverne.edu.
