Two systems
Drawing on neuroscience, the theory distinguishes two emotional systems. The disposition system guides and reinforces habitual behavior in familiar situations through emotions such as enthusiasm. The surveillance system detects novel or threatening situations and generates anxiety, interrupting habit and directing attention toward new information. Using US presidential election data, Marcus and MacKuen (1993) showed that enthusiasm for candidates increased campaign involvement, while anxiety increased learning and led to judgments less dependent on party identification.
Experimental evidence
Marcus et al. (2000) developed this into a general theory of political judgment, arguing that emotion helps people choose a judgment strategy suited to the situation rather than undermining rationality. In political ad experiments, Brader (2005) showed that enthusiasm-evoking music and imagery solidified existing support and increased participation, while fear-evoking ads led people to reconsider prior preferences and seek more information. Marcus (2000) placed the theory within the broader study of emotions in politics.
Extensions and critiques
MacKuen et al. (2010) incorporated anger, showing that among negative emotions anxiety fosters compromise and deliberation while anger fosters resolute partisanship. Valentino et al. (2008) reported that anxiety increases information seeking but that the search can be biased toward confirming the threat. Ladd and Lenz (2008) argued that the link between anxiety and vote choice may largely reflect prior evaluations. Together with research on motivated reasoning, the theory is used to understand when citizens make judgments open to information.
FAQ
- What is affective intelligence theory in simple terms?
- When things feel familiar you judge as usual, but when you become anxious you stop, look for more information and rethink.
- Doesn't emotion ruin judgment?
- The theory sees emotion as a signal telling you when to follow habit and when to think afresh.
Sources reviewed: 2026-10-26
References
- Marcus, G. E., & MacKuen, M. B. (1993). Anxiety, enthusiasm, and the vote: The emotional underpinnings of learning and involvement during presidential campaigns. American Political Science Review, 87(3), 672–685. The original study separating anxiety and enthusiasm.
- Marcus, G. E., Neuman, W. R., & MacKuen, M. (2000). Affective intelligence and political judgment. University of Chicago Press. The book that systematized the theory.
- Marcus, G. E. (2000). Emotions in politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 3, 221–250. Review of emotions in politics.
- Brader, T. (2005). Striking a responsive chord: How political ads motivate and persuade voters by appealing to emotions. American Journal of Political Science, 49(2), 388–405. Experiments with fear and enthusiasm ads.
- Valentino, N. A., Hutchings, V. L., Banks, A. J., & Davis, A. K. (2008). Is a worried citizen a good citizen? Emotions, political information seeking, and learning via the internet. Political Psychology, 29(2), 247–273. Anxiety, information seeking and its biases.
- Ladd, J. M., & Lenz, G. S. (2008). Reassessing the role of anxiety in vote choice. Political Psychology, 29(2), 275–296. Critique of anxiety effects on vote choice.
- MacKuen, M., Wolak, J., Keele, L., & Marcus, G. E. (2010). Civic engagements: Resolute partisanship or reflective deliberation. American Journal of Political Science, 54(2), 440–458. Anxiety fosters deliberation, anger partisanship.