A recent study published in American Politics Research suggests that members of the United States Congress increasingly rely on angry rhetoric on social media to build their political brands. The research provides evidence that this rise in outrage is not evenly distributed across political parties, with Democratic lawmakers disproportionately driving the trend. These findings help explain how elected officials use high-emotion language to communicate with the public and shape political narratives.
Modern political communication tends to rely heavily on digital platforms. Lawmakers use websites like Twitter, now known as X, to share their policy preferences and craft a public image. This process of creating a specific public persona is often called reputation-building. Through social media, politicians can speak directly to voters without relying on traditional news outlets or press conferences.
The research was conducted by Annelise Russell, an associate professor at the University of Kentucky’s Martin School of Public Policy and author of the book Tweeting Scared: Congress’s Crisis of Communication, alongside University of Kentucky assistant professor Maggie Macdonald and Whitney Hua of the Center for Election Science.
Russell explained that elected officials are highly intentional about their public messages. “We know that members of Congress are strategic communicators and while they may not be explicitly thinking about the emotions they convey in their messaging, they do carefully consider the words used as they have become official statements,” Russell said.
The authors wanted to examine the reality of congressional communication on a platform famous for its hostility. “And because people often describe Twitter as ‘The Bad Place’ we wanted to see if that was really the case when it came to the way they use this platform, because how they speak online has implications for how we understand the institution,” Russell noted.
High-arousal emotions, which are feelings that trigger a strong physical or psychological response, tend to capture user attention quickly. Because angry messages spread rapidly through digital networks, lawmakers have a built-in incentive to use this type of language.
To measure how often politicians use angry language, the researchers analyzed an enormous dataset of social media posts. The sample included over 2.2 million official tweets sent by members of Congress. Because reading millions of posts by hand is impossible, the authors used computational textual analysis. This method relies on computer software to scan large bodies of text and identify specific words, phrases, or emotional tones.
By applying these computer-assisted tools, the researchers categorized the emotional content of the congressional tweets. They looked for language that indicated anger, outrage, or indignation. The scientists then compared the frequency of these angry messages across different political parties. They also mapped the timeline of these posts to see how the use of anger changed over several years of congressional sessions.
The analysis revealed distinct differences in how Democrats and Republicans express emotion on social media. The data provides evidence that Democratic members of Congress are disproportionately driving the increase in angry rhetoric. While both parties utilize outrage to some extent, the overall escalation in angry messaging is largely fueled by the Democratic side of the aisle.
Russell explained that this trend reflects the broader political climate over the past several years. “Over the last decade, there are plenty of things happening in the political world for Democrats to be mad about,” she told PsyPost. “Democrats are not known for their message discipline but they seem to agree that Twitter is the place to take out their frustration with politics.”
This strategy aligns with how digital platforms reward extreme viewpoints with higher visibility. Politicians who take stronger stances often receive more engagement from users. “And those who are more ideologically extreme are turning to platforms like Twitter to lean into outrage politics where the loud and dissatisfied takes reign supreme,” Russell added. “A tweet about what’s working with government isn’t going to land you on Joe Rogan’s podcast.”
Despite this partisan difference, the overall effect size highlights a broader reality about digital communication. Politicians across the spectrum use anger to gain attention, even if one party currently does it more frequently.
“In practicality, Democrats are more likely to lean into the anger but the magnitude isn’t huge because anger and its ability to thrive online is a function of how politicians broadly use a platform like Twitter to grow their personal brand and maintain relevance,” Russell stated.
Interestingly, the researchers noted that the rising trend of angry congressional tweets predates the presidency of Donald Trump. The escalation of partisan outrage in congressional communication was already underway before his time in office.
When asked if any of the study’s findings were unexpected, Russell kept it brief. “Not really, if you study Congress enough, you’re bound to get angry,” she said.
While these findings provide a detailed look at online political rhetoric, there are potential ways to misinterpret the data. It is easy to assume that because lawmakers use angry language on one website, they behave the same way in all professional settings. The study specifically measures public-facing communication strategies on a single platform, not an overarching legislative style.
Russell emphasized that different platforms encourage different types of behavior. “Our findings suggest one way in which members of Congress communicate with digital publics, but it is by no means the only way,” she cautioned. “If you look across the different communications tools they use, you are going to find different trends and I would be careful to assume this is how Congress communicates without acknowledging the affordances of each platform.”
The term affordances refers to the specific features, rules, and cultural norms of a given website. Twitter relies on an algorithm that favors fast-paced, emotionally charged content. Lawmakers might use completely different communication styles on websites like Facebook or Instagram, or during official committee hearings.
Future research will likely expand on this work by examining the individuals behind these accounts and the broader media landscape. Scientists might explore whether lawmakers who post the most angry tweets face different financial incentives during election seasons.
“We’ve always got something cooking up but I think next steps is better understanding the norms behind those individuals producing this content, a better understanding of the media ecosystem around Congress, and how this behavior connects to campaigns and the money required to run those campaigns,” Russell said.
The study, “Rage on the Record: Angry Emotional Appeals in Congress,” was authored by Maggie Macdonald, Whitney Hua, and Annelise Russell.