| Sumario: | Research shows that emotions alter preferences, which are central to many models of political choice. However, how can theories that explain individual-level preference change explain policy outcomes, which usually take place at higher levels of analysis? I outline three competing approaches to this question, ultimately building on the third approach, which argues that emotions can spread through emotional contagion within identity groups. This implies emotions can broadly shift preferences towards or away from conflict during crises. It also explains how identities, which are relatively constant over the medium term, can suddenly become fault lines in a conflict. I find supporting evidence using a large (more than 1.6 billion posts) nationally representative data set of Chinese social media posts. Users' national humiliation posts lead their followers to become more likely to make posts about national humiliation, suggesting contagion, and about using military force and maintaining territorial disputes, suggesting preference change.
|
|---|