Emotions and Policy

We conduct an experimental survey, in which respondents are randomly assigned to one of two main treatment groups or a control group, designed to assess the impact of emotions on policy attitudes:

Positive emotion treatment branch: Respondents watch two one-minute relaxation videos (before the trade and wealth \& taxation blocks) designed to induce calm, and the open-ended policy questions in each policy block are framed in a positive way, prompting optimism. The first video features serene landscapes—green fields, a lake, an eagle in flight, a cyclist by the water, lavender fields, and snow-capped mountains—accompanied by peaceful music. The second video showcases tranquil mountain scenery, a blue sky, a flowing river, and a lush green forest from above, also with peaceful music.

Negative emotion treatment branch: Respondents watch two one-minute anger-inducing videos (before the trade and wealth \& taxation blocks) designed to evoke anger, and the open-ended policy questions in each policy block are framed negatively, further prompting anger. The first video is a one-minute video highlighting government corruption and corporate greed as causes of worsening disasters. It focuses on a wildfire ignited by PG\&E’s failure to replace aging electrical line hooks, which resulted in 84 corporate homicide charges, showing the victims and the destruction caused. The second video is a one-minute video highlighting government favoritism toward corporations and the lack of real accountability. It details how PG&E, despite making \$17 billion annually, faced only a \$3.5 million fine—the maximum penalty under California law—for the wildfire caused by its negligence. The video also exposes how the California Public Utility Commission refused to assist in prosecuting PG\&E, withholding evidence that could have strengthened the case against the company.

Control branch: The open-ended policy questions at the beginning of each policy block are framed in a neutral way.

To be able to disentangle the effect of the video from the effect of the framed question, we also added two secondary treatment groups:

Effect of the framed question only: The open-ended policy questions at the beginning of each policy block are framed in a negative way, prompting anger.

Effect of the video only: Respondents watch the same two relaxation videos and the open-ended policy questions are framed neutrally.

2024-11-01

2024-11-05

The key outcome variables of the experiment are policy views on five topics: trade, immigration, taxes and redistribution, democracy/governance and society issues.

We are also interested in the heterogeneity of treatment effects by political affiliation and hence ask respondents about their vote during the 2024 presidential elections. Moreover, we will investigate whether background characteristics of respondents play a role. We will thus look at outcomes by income, age, gender, and education levels.

We randomize respondents into one of the 4 treatment groups or control groups. We then compare the policy views of the respondents of the two main treatment groups (video + framed questions) to the policy views of the respondents of the control group. To be able to disentangle the effect of the video from the effect of the framed question, we also compare the policy views of the respondents of two secondary treatment groups to the policy views of the control group.

The randomization is done by the survey software (Qualtrics).

The unit of randomization is the individual respondent.

No

The planned number of clusters is around 4,000 individuals.

Approximately 4,000 individuals.

The sample is divided into 5 arms: 820 respondents receive the main negative treatment (video + negatively framed question), 720 respondents receive the main positive treatment (video + negatively framed question), 820 respondents constitue the control group, 820 respondents receive the secondary treatment (negative question only) and 820 respondents receive the other secondary treatment (video relax + neutrally framed question).