Emotions Speak: The Impact of the Emotional Experiences of Politicians on Their Communication

Emotion is a powerful rhetorical tool. Politicians’ emotional appeals influence whether citizens are persuaded by the message, whether they participate politically, what information they consult, who they vote for, and so on (Gadarian & Brader 2023). As researchers accumulated knowledge about the pervasive effects of emotional communication, they started to take an interest in the supply side of emotive communication by politicians: Who communicates more emotionally, and when (e.g. Osnabrügge 2021)? Which politicians engage in negative communication, and which ones communicate more positively (e.g. Nai & Maier 2021)? Who appeals to what kind of specific emotions, such as anger or fear (e.g. Widmann 2021)? Who resorts to uncivil attacks, and under which circumstances (e.g. Poljak 2022)? Our paper contributes to this field by addressing a remarkable paradox: while the political communication literature recognizes emotions as an extremely powerful force driving human behavior, it has hardly considered how the very same emotions may be influencing the behavior of politicians. Extant literature is focused on politicians’ cognitive or strategic reasons to communicate so-or-so. Politicians and parties are portrayed as “strategic agents” who “based on rational considerations … balance expected benefits and potential costs” when deciding to engage in attack politics (Maier and Nai 2023, 197), who are able to anticipate “backlash effects” thereof (Dolezal et al., 2017, p. 666), for whom “emotive language is a tool used strategically to appeal to voters” (Osnabrügge et al., 2021, p. 885), and who use incivility because they think “it will help them politically” (Frimer et al., 2023, p. 266). The assumption is that politicians, being “professional” practitioners of politics, are much more purposive and cool-headed than ordinary citizens. But can strategic calculations fully explain politicians’ communicative behavior? Politicians are human, too; and not all emotions they experience elicit strategic thinking. So, when politicians throw insults at each other, is that always a thought-out strategy, or are they sometimes simply frustrated with the arguments of the opponent? When they shed tears after a tragic event, is that a well-performed piece of theater, or may they just be genuinely touched? In the paper, we argue that cognitive reasons alone cannot explain politicians’ communicative behavior (see also Maier et al. 2023) and theorize about politicians’ emotional experiences as a driver of how they communicate. We substantiate our arguments with data from interviews with Belgian and Swiss politicians (n = 220) conducted in 2025. We probed the politicians to recall the last time they felt genuinely angry / anxious / enthusiastic in the work context. We then asked them to tell us in detail about what made them feel this way, and how they reacted. This process-tracing approach allows us to explore the diverse factors that elicit different types of emotions in politicians (the causes) and the effects this has on how they communicate (the consequences)—from the perspective of the politicians themselves. Doing so, we aim to set a research agenda for the study of politicians’ emotions as drivers of their political communication, moving beyond purely strategic explanations.