LIST OF WORKSHOPS

There is a long tradition in social science of downplaying the role of emotions and, more specifically, viewing an emotional approach toward politics as extreme and unreasonable (Beichelt 2022: 13). However, recently, the role of emotions in defining or influencing behaviour has been acknowledged, as illustrated by concepts like “Homo sentimentalis” (Illouz 2015), “Homo sapiens emotionalis” (Ciompi and Endert 2011) or simply “Homo emotionalis” (Beichelt 2022). Some argue that values, identities and emotions have indeed become more important in today’s societies (Scharfbillig et al 2021) and in behavioural and cognitive sciences we can even talk about “the era of affectivism”, as it has become increasingly difficult to deny that “emotions, feelings, motivations, moods, and other affective processes (...) are not only linked to our well-being but also shape our behaviour and drive key cognitive mechanisms such as attention, learning, memory, and decision-making” (Dukes et al. 2021: 816). This era is marked by a fast growth in terms of emotions-related research and publications, especially in the field of behavioural and cognitive sciences. It seems that social sciences, including political science, are somewhat lagging behind this trend. While in the past decade the importance of studying emotions has been recognised in political science as well, it seems too early to talk about a well-established field of research or a coherent research programme (Beichelt, 2022: 5). We lack solid empirical evidence as well as widely accepted theoretical models on the role of emotions, and especially moral emotions, in almost all aspects of politics. Conceptual and methodological problems abound, e.g.: How to define, categorise and measure political emotions? What kind of emotions play the most important role in politics? What is the process leading from moral emotions to the construction of identities that create target populations or constituencies for policy change? How to analyse the interplay of emotions with other political variables, like values and beliefs? What is the analytical model that grasps the best the role of emotions in political action: should we consider them dependent, independent variables; or both? What type of methods and indicators are the most useful for studying the political role of emotions? (See Lynggaard 2019.)

What is true for political science as such holds even more for the field of policy studies. It has been recognized that emotions play a significant role in the public policy process, influencing agenda setting, decision-making, policy formulation, and implementation (Leong, 2016). Emotions can shape public opinion, mobilize support or opposition, interact with policy advise, affect the acceptance of implementation, in short, impact the overall policy landscape. However, while there is a growing scholarship in the field, the above listed conceptual as well as methodological dilemmas are still pressing. Emotions also play an under-researched role in evidence-based policy tools, such as consultation and more generally stakeholders’ engagement in rulemaking and policy formulation. Does the presence of emotions hinder consultation or can it foster the participation of otherwise silenced actors (see: https://www.hiljaisettoimijat.fi/?lang=en)? Does emotional reasoning help or disrupt the overall evidential reasoning in the practice of regulatory impact assessment (Rantala et al. 2023)?

Cairney and Weible (2017: 623) describe three primary ways that emotion is used in policy process research: attention to public problems; to persuade and influence judgements about target populations; and to mobilise coalitions of policy actors.

Attention to public problems is a key element in agenda setting and according to punctuated equilibrium theory (PET), emotional arousal can increase attention to public problems: “Emotion is the gateway to selective attention: when emotion is roused, attention follows” (Jones and Baumgartner, 2005: 16). Emotional framing can be used by policy entrepreneurs not only to illicit attention, but also to undermine the legitimacy of dominant policy images and create enthusiasm for new ideas and images. Emotions are present in the Multiple Streams Framework (MSF) as well: Zahariadis (2015) argues that changes in the national mood can open an agenda window in the politics stream; and national mood is conceptualized  as a collective emotion felt by the public. However, emotions can support stability instead of change: Zahariadis (2015) describes how a focusing event triggered fear among the public and how a fearful nation supported policy continuity rather than a policy change promoted by a policy entrepreneur. Under which conditions can emotions lead to either policy change or stability is one of the puzzles of the field.

Studies have shown that negative emotions, such as fear and disgust, can lead to a negative evaluation of policies and make them less attractive to stakeholders (Leong, 2016). Conversely, positive emotions can drive public support and engagement, leading to constructive feedback and policy improvement (Yang & Su, 2020). But in other instances negative emotions can trigger change: fear is one of the powerful emotions which are often exploited by policy entrepreneurs (see Jenneing et al, 2017). Renström and Bäck (2021) studying COVID-related policies argue that different emotions elicit support for different kinds of measures: fear and anger predict support for restrictive policies to limit the spread of the virus, while anxiety predicts support for economic policies. Therefore, addressing the issue of emotional valence of policies, how to measure it, and how it affects the support of governmental measures are relevant research questions.

Concerning the role of emotions in influencing judgements about target populations, according to both the narrative policy framework (NPF) (Shanahan et al, 2018) and the theory of social construction (Schneider and Ingram, 1997), policy actors frame characters and target populations using positive and negative emotions: those positively framed are either victims or heroes, and those negatively framed are villains. Emotions concerning target populations can affect the support of punitive measures in penal policy, of social benefits in social policy as well as of other proposals including gay marriage, and restrictions in immigration policy.

According to Cairney and Weible (2017: 623) emotions are also important in mobilising coalitions for policy change. Both the Advocacy Coalition Framework and the NPF hypothesize that in political conflicts policy actors will experience angel and devil shifts: in an angel shift, policy actors perceive their allies as benevolent and powerful, while in the devil shift, opponents are perceived as powerful but also malicious (Pierce, 2021).

However, apart from focusing attention, affecting judgements about target populations and mobilising policy coalitions, emotions are obviously present in every stage of the policy process. Emotions can impact the deliberation process, as public officials may find it challenging to handle emotions in the context of policy deliberation (Fink et al, 2023), and emotions influence policy formulation and policy design through their interactions with expert discourses (Durnová and Hejzlarová, 2017, 2022). The problem with the use of strong moral-emotional discourses in politics and policy is that they make more difficult, or even impossible, to have meaningful dialogue on these issues, and instead of solving social problems, which should be the ultimate goal of policy making, they make them worse and may even create new ones. While disregarding emotions in policy practice may lead to adverse policy outcomes (Borén et al, 2020) and public discontent concerning policy measures (see the example of COVID-19 related policies), ‘overemotionalisation’ may cause considerable difficulties in conducting policy deliberation and designing policies.

The above said apply to emotions in general. The study of moral emotions in policy making may raise further questions. Moral emotions are associated with a society’s norms and values and the interests or welfare of persons or groups, beyond the concerns of the actor (Haidt 2003). That is, moral emotions are the affective signals of prosocial behaviour and play a central role in influencing group-oriented thoughts and attitudes (Halperin and Schori-Eyal 2019). In other words, moral emotions embody an interaction between moral, pro-social attitudes and emotions; and they have a vast potential both to unite and divide people through forming political identities. With some exemptions (e.g., Rees et al. 2015, Roeser, 2012, Liang et al 2019) both policy studies as a disciplinary field and the practice of policy making have been neglecting the role of moral emotions in policy change, policy support and implementation. We assume that the interaction of moral considerations with emotions may amplify the above described effects of emotions on the policy process while, at the same time, raise specific challenges which are related to their identity-forming potential. The very general research question behind this workshop proposal refers exactly to this issue: Does the analysis of policy-related moral emotions need new analytical frameworks, and how can it build on the burgeoning scholarship of emotions and policy making?

In conclusion, emotions in general, and moral emotions in particular, have a significant impact on the public policy process. They shape public perception, influence decision-making, affect power dynamics, and can be mobilized to drive public engagement and support. Understanding the role of moral emotions in the policy process is crucial for policymakers and scholars alike, as it provides insights into how emotions can be harnessed or managed to achieve desired policy outcomes.

References

Beichelt, T. (2022). Homo Emotionalis. Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden.

Borén, T., Grzyś, P., & Young, C. (2020). Policy-making as an emotionally-charged arena: the emotional geographies of urban cultural policy-making. International Journal of Cultural Policy, 27(4), 449-462.

Cairney, P. and Weible, C.M. (2017). The new policy sciences: combining the cognitive science of choice, multiple theories of context, and basic and applied analysis, Policy Sciences, 50(4): 619–27.

Ciompi, L., & Endert, E. (2011). Gefühle machen Geschichte: Die Wirkung kollektiver Emotionen–von Hitler bis Obama. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

Dukes, D. et al. (2021). The rise of affectivism. Nature Human Behaviour, 5(7), 816–820

Durnová, A. and Hejzlarová, E. (2017). framing policy designs through contradictory emotions: the case of czech single mothers. public policy and Administration, 33(4), 409-427. https://doi.org/10.1177/0952076717709524

Durnová, A. and Hejzlarová, E. (2022). Navigating the role of emotions in expertise: public framing of expertise in the czech public controversy on birth care. policy Sciences, 56(3), 549-571. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-022-09471-5

Fink, S., Ruffing, E., Burst, T., & Chinnow, S. (2023). Emotional citizens, detached interest groups? The use of emotional language in public policy consultations. Policy Sciences, 56(3), 469-497.

Haidt, J. (2003). The moral emotions. In R. J. Davidson, K. R. Scherer, & H. H. Goldsmith (Eds.), Handbook of affective sciences (pp. 852–870). Oxford University Press.

Halperin, E., & Schori-Eyal, N. (2019). Moral emotions in political decision making. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics, 1395–1404.

Jennings, W., Farrall, S., Gray, E., & Hay, C. (2017). Moral panics and punctuated equilibrium in public policy: an analysis of the criminal justice policy agenda in Britain. Policy Studies Journal, 48(1), 207-234.

Jones, B.D. and Baumgartner, F.R. (2005). The Politics of Attention: How Government Prioritizes Problems, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Leong, C. (2016). The role of emotions in drinking recycled water. Water, 8(11), 548.

Liang, D., Hou, C., Jo, M. S., & Sarigöllü, E. (2019). Pollution avoidance and green purchase: The role of moral emotions. Journal of cleaner production, 210, 1301-1310.

Lynggaard, K. (2019). Methodological challenges in the study of emotions in politics and how to deal with them. Political Psychology, 40(6), 1201-1215.

Nabi, R., Gustafson, A., & Jensen, R. (2018). Framing climate change: exploring the role of emotion in generating advocacy behavior. Science Communication, 40(4), 442-468.

Pierce, J. (2021). Emotions and the policy process: enthusiasm, anger and fear. Policy & Politics, 49(4), 595-614.

Rantala, K., Alasuutari, N. and Kuorikoski, J. (2023), The logic of regulatory impact assessment: From evidence to evidential reasoning. Regulation & Governance.

Rees, J. H., Klug, S., & Bamberg, S. (2015). Guilty conscience: motivating pro-environmental behavior by inducing negative moral emotions. Climatic change, 130, 439-452.

Renström, E. A., & Bäck, H. (2021). Emotions during the Covid‐19 pandemic: Fear, anxiety, and anger as mediators between threats and policy support and political actions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 51(8), 861-877.

Rodríguez-Sánchez, C., Schuitema, G., Claudy, M., & Esper, F. (2018). How trust and emotions influence policy acceptance: the case of the Irish water charges. British Journal of Social Psychology, 57(3), 610-629.

Roeser, S. (2012). Moral Emotions as Guide to Acceptable Risk. In: Roeser, S., Hillerbrand, R., Sandin, P., Peterson, M. (eds) Handbook of Risk Theory. Springer, Dordrecht

Shanahan, E.A., Jones, M.D., McBeth, M.K. and Radaelli, C.M. (2018). The narrative policy framework, in C.M. Weible and P.A. Sabatier (eds) Theories of the Policy Process, 4th edition, Boulder, CO: Westview Press, pp 173–213.

Scharfbillig, M. et al. (2021). Values and Identities - a policymaker’s guide, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

Schneider, A.L. and Ingram, H.M. (1997). Policy Design for Democracy, Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.

Yang, Y., & Su, Y. (2020). Public voice via social media: Role in cooperative governance during public health emergency. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 17(18), 6840.

Zahariadis, N. (2015) The shield of Heracles: multiple streams and the emotional endowment effect, European Journal of Political Research, 54(3): 466–81.

Emotions play a significant role in the public policy process, influencing agenda setting, decision-making, policy formulation, and implementation. Emotions often shape public opinion, mobilize support or opposition, interact with policy advise, affect the acceptance of implementation, in short, impact the overall policy landscape. This is especially true for policies on abortion, end-of-life decisions, LGBTQ+ issues, immigration, genetic engineering, climate change, just to name a few, which raise serious moral questions and may trigger strong emotions. The link with moral questions makes some issues controversial because of moral emotions. By this we mean emotions that one feels about the other or about a decision because that position or decision is morally correct or wrong. These emotions contribute to identity formation, thus creating constituencies for or against policies.

The workshop invites empirical papers with both quantitative and qualitative methods that investigate the nexus between moral emotions and the different stages of the public policy process. Listed below are some questions to illustrate possible topics for papers. These questions are not exhaustive or comprehensive, and we welcome any other lines of investigations that address emotional aspects of public policies.

-       How do moral emotions affect public support for policies? What kind of policies are supported by specific emotions?

-       How to measure the moral emotional valence of certain policies?

-       What is the role of policy entrepreneurs in (moral) emotional framing of policies? What makes emotional framing successful?

-       What is the role of populist and radical politics in the emotionalization of policy issues?

-       How are emotions integrated into policy discourses and policy narratives?

-       What is the role of moral emotions in public consultations? How to deal with emotions in these settings?

-       How to reconcile value laden and emotionally loaded discourses with expert knowledge?

-       How do technocratic discourses that mute emotions affect policy design?

-       What is the role of moral emotions in public acceptance of policies and the success of implementation?

Emotions play a significant role in the public policy process, influencing agenda setting, decision-making, policy formulation, and implementation. Emotions often shape public opinion, mobilize support or opposition, interact with policy advise, affect the acceptance of implementation, in short, impact the overall policy landscape. This is especially true for policies on abortion, end-of-life decisions, LGBTQ+ issues, immigration, genetic engineering, climate change, just to name a few, which raise serious moral questions and may trigger strong emotions. The link with moral questions makes some issues controversial because of moral emotions. By this we mean emotions that one feels about the other or about a decision because that position or decision is morally correct or wrong. These emotions contribute to identity formation, thus creating constituencies for or against policies.

It is a real challenge for democratic governance to pursue deliberation on these issues and elaborate evidence-informed policy solutions while dealing with the clash of values, identities and (moral) emotions. Also, some political actors may capitalise on these issues and use them to whip up emotions and reinforce political identities. The policy practice of populist politicians and illiberal governments provide abundant examples, but the role and political use of emotions has been recognized in liberal democracies as well. At the same time, technocratic discourse point to muting emotions, burying them under the surface of “rational” decision-making.

The workshop addresses the topic under a wide angle and invite both conceptual and empirical papers, with preference for empirical project. We wish to discuss both quantitative and qualitative work, that deals with the effect of emotions on the different stages of the policy process addressing questions like: How do emotional frames affect the public support of policies? What is the role of emotions in public consultations? How to reconcile emotionally loaded discourses with expert knowledge? How emotions affect policy design? Can technocratic discourse mute emotions? What is the role of emotions in public acceptance of policies and the success of implementation? A planned outcome of the workshop is a special issue proposal or an edited volume.

Zsolt BODA (MA in Economic, PhD and DSc in Political science) is Research Professor and Director General of the HUN-REN Centre for Social Sciences as well as part-time professor of political science at the ELTE University of Budapest. His academic work focuses on the problems of governance, public policy, as well as institutional trust, its social roots and its consequences for policy effectiveness. He is the co-leader of the Hungarian Comparative Agendas Project, which is part of the international CAP network. His co-edited volume Policy Agendas in Autocracy, and Hybrid Regimes – The Case of Hungary was published by Palgrave in 2021. He is the principal investigator of MORES – Moral emotions in politics: how they unite, how they divide, a consortial Horizon project.

Claudio RADAELLI (BA in Economics and Social Sciences, PhD in political science) is Professor of Comparative Public Policy at the School of Transnational Governance, European University Institute, and Professor of Public Policy at University College London. Claudio is Editor of the International Review of Public Policy, and sits on the Boards of several academic journals.  In the MORES consortium he works on moral emotions and public policy.