To be Angry: Are Black Political Candidates Emotionally Disadvantaged?

• In Event: Politics of Emotions and Race

Abstract

Anger has become the dominant emotional narrative of politics. However, are some politicians more privileged to express anger than others? In this paper, we examine whether a black political candidate (male) is penalized or rewarded for expressing anger about politics relative to a comparable white political candidate and non-angry black political candidate. To test this relationship, we conduct a two-wave survey experiment on an adult national sample of white Americans. Our findings demonstrate that racially prejudiced whites are less favorable of an angry black candidate while racially sympathetic whites are more supportive of such a candidate – compared to an angry white candidate and non-angry black candidate. These results have important implications in understanding among who an angry black political candidate will be electorally disadvantaged and advantaged.

Authors

• Antoine J. Banks, University of Maryland

• Ismail K. White, Duke University