View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

The Associations between Discrete Emotions and Political Learning: A Cross-Disciplinary Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: The Associations between Discrete Emotions and Political Learning: A Cross-Disciplinary Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Language: English
Authors: Elisabeth Graf (ORCID 0000-0002-9856-6189), Johanna L. Donath (ORCID 0000-0002-6692-5300), Elouise Botes (ORCID 0000-0003-4952-8386), Martin Voracek (ORCID 0000-0001-6109-6155), Thomas Goetz (ORCID 0000-0002-8908-2166)
Source: Educational Psychology Review. 2024 36(3).
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 34
Publication Date: 2024
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Psychological Patterns, Emotional Development, Political Influences, Political Socialization, Emotional Response, Anxiety, Positive Attitudes, Association (Psychology)
DOI: 10.1007/s10648-024-09893-y
ISSN: 1040-726X
1573-336X
Abstract: In recent decades, researchers' interest in the role of emotions in individual political learning has grown. However, it is still unclear whether and how discrete emotions are associated with political learning. Through a cross-disciplinary systematic review and multilevel meta-analysis, we reviewed which discrete emotions have been analyzed in the context of political learning so far and meta-analytically synthesized how these emotions relate to political learning. We addressed this question by synthesizing associations between discrete emotions and various aspects of learning about political matters, such as political attention, information seeking, discussions, knowledge, and knowledge gain. The final dataset included 66 publications with 486 effect sizes, involving more than 100,000 participants. Most of the effect sizes were based on negative-activating emotions (65%; mainly anxiety, 32%, and anger, 19%) and positive-activating emotions (32%; mainly enthusiasm, 15%), while studies on positive-deactivating emotions (e.g., contentment) and negative-deactivating emotions (e.g., sadness) are largely lacking. We uncovered small positive associations (r = 0.05 to 0.13) for activating emotions, of both negative (especially anger) and positive valence (e.g., enthusiasm, only in cross-sectional designs), but no associations for negative-deactivating emotions. We discuss theoretical implications and recommend future research to include previously unconsidered emotions in order to extend existing findings.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2024
Accession Number: EJ1430319
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHQkw2Z0L1FSHORYBl2TkzDAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDDrfcnrIZg5DzPEPbAIBEICBmmFv2kieKLsZPV6I-zWRA2dW1bplaZf3k6ULnA8ChIDjrq1XVJzPklBpgPOQlLsVS5pcw678ySEq-hgDZvH6RR7f84GlNfQtk8pl3ie9TKz0N7u6e08NX9Uses-t7pkuhXEs1oNkhLUlSF8C6cFVjlbtRXfQcr6uQS8LeGIqEcmZniQh_5XReNml8l5FEQDhcgHP0obaPRwNpZk=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0178365499;epv01sep.24;2024Sep16.13:04;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0178365499-1">The Associations Between Discrete Emotions and Political Learning: A Cross-Disciplinary Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis </title> <p>In recent decades, researchers' interest in the role of emotions in individual political learning has grown. However, it is still unclear whether and how discrete emotions are associated with political learning. Through a cross-disciplinary systematic review and multilevel meta-analysis, we reviewed which discrete emotions have been analyzed in the context of political learning so far and meta-analytically synthesized how these emotions relate to political learning. We addressed this question by synthesizing associations between discrete emotions and various aspects of learning about political matters, such as political attention, information seeking, discussions, knowledge, and knowledge gain. The final dataset included 66 publications with 486 effect sizes, involving more than 100,000 participants. Most of the effect sizes were based on negative-activating emotions (65%; mainly anxiety, 32%, and anger, 19%) and positive-activating emotions (32%; mainly enthusiasm, 15%), while studies on positive-deactivating emotions (e.g., contentment) and negative-deactivating emotions (e.g., sadness) are largely lacking. We uncovered small positive associations (r =.05 to.13) for activating emotions, of both negative (especially anger) and positive valence (e.g., enthusiasm, only in cross-sectional designs), but no associations for negative-deactivating emotions. We discuss theoretical implications and recommend future research to include previously unconsidered emotions in order to extend existing findings.</p> <p>This study was registered with Prospero (Registration ID: CRD42020211220) on November 5, 2020. Data, accompanying analysis scripts, and supporting information are available via OSF.</p> <hd id="AN0178365499-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Emotions undoubtedly play a role in political activism, political campaigns, and political learning (Brader & Marcus, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref1">16</reflink>]). It has been speculated that emotions may even trump rationality in politics, with Westen ([<reflink idref="bib142" id="ref2">142</reflink>]) remarking that "In politics, when emotion and reason collide, emotion invariably wins" (p. 35). This role of emotions in politics was long neglected in research, but interest in this field has rapidly increased since the 1980s (Brader & Marcus, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref3">16</reflink>]). The increased research attention may be due to the emotionally laden political events of recent years, with studies examining emotions regarding the Brexit referendum (Nadeau et al., [<reflink idref="bib95" id="ref4">95</reflink>]; Vasilopoulou & Wagner, [<reflink idref="bib137" id="ref5">137</reflink>]), the Trump election campaigns (Ford et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref6">39</reflink>]; Hoewe & Parrott, [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref7">55</reflink>]), and public threats caused by pandemics (Albertson & Gadarian, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref8">2</reflink>]; Wang & Ahern, [<reflink idref="bib140" id="ref9">140</reflink>]) and climate change (Chadwick, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref10">22</reflink>]; Furlong & Vignoles, [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref11">43</reflink>]).</p> <p>Particularly, there is a great number of studies addressing questions on whether and how emotions are related to different aspects of political learning, such as political attention, information seeking, or political knowledge. Building on different theoretical perspectives on emotions and mainly focusing on a few negative discrete emotions (Brader & Marcus, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref12">16</reflink>]; Crigler & Just, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref13">30</reflink>]), these studies emphasize that when looking at political learning, the role of emotions should not be overlooked. However, there are a wide variety of approaches, study designs, and even results. For example, while studies quite consistently show positive relations between anxiety and an increase of political knowledge (e.g., Marcus & MacKuen, [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref14">82</reflink>]; Valentino et al., [<reflink idref="bib131" id="ref15">131</reflink>]), results are less clear when it comes to attention to politics (e.g., Huddy et al., [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref16">57</reflink>]; Just et al., [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref17">62</reflink>] versus Marcus et al., [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref18">83</reflink>]) and information seeking (e.g., Park, [<reflink idref="bib99" id="ref19">99</reflink>]; Redlawsk et al., [<reflink idref="bib108" id="ref20">108</reflink>]; Valentino et al., [<reflink idref="bib131" id="ref21">131</reflink>]). This is quite surprising, as the relevance of emotions for learning and its pedagogical consequences has been emphasized among civic education researchers, while systematic empirical evidence is still missing (Keegan, [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref22">65</reflink>]; Sheppard & Levy, [<reflink idref="bib122" id="ref23">122</reflink>]).</p> <p>The wide variety of studies have rarely been considered in a common theoretical framework on learning, and to the best of our knowledge, no systematic review or meta-analysis of emotions and political learning has been conducted. Learning about politics takes place in various settings and frequently in informal contexts. It requires learners' attention to political matters, and further involvement, for example, via discussions or seeking for more information, in order to result in gaining political knowledge. A prominent theory on the role of emotions in learning contexts is the control-value theory of achievement emotions (Pekrun, [<reflink idref="bib101" id="ref24">101</reflink>]). This theory details what factors may contribute to the experience of emotions during learning, and how these emotions affect learning processes and corresponding outcomes. Though the control-value theory was initially developed to explain emotions in achievement settings, it has also been applied to epistemic emotions experienced during cognitive processing (Muis et al., [<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref25">92</reflink>]) and informal learning settings (Beymer et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref26">12</reflink>]). According to the universality assumption, structural associations between emotions and learning are similar across domains (Pekrun, [<reflink idref="bib106" id="ref27">106</reflink>]). As outlined in more detail below, the theory suggests that while some emotions foster learning due to increased attention and motivation, others can be detrimental for the learning process.</p> <p>The aims of this study were twofold: First, we reviewed which emotions have been analyzed in the context of political learning. Second, we aimed to analyze whether and how discrete emotions are related to political learning by using meta-analytic methods to synthesize reported associations between discrete emotions and learning. Specifically, we encompass a broad perspective on learning, including processes like attention to politics, discussions, information seeking, and outcomes like knowledge, and knowledge gain. Previous research has argued that emotions are central to politics (e.g., 'politics is inherently social and emotional' [Crigler & Just, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref28">30</reflink>], p. 211]; 'key feature of politics' [Lynggaard, [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref29">78</reflink>], p. 1201]) and that political learning is crucial in the making of informed political decisions and political participation (Schlozman et al., [<reflink idref="bib117" id="ref30">117</reflink>]). As such, a detailed overview on the functioning of emotions in this context is of great relevance for political communication, political educators, and in general, the functioning of democracy. For example, emotional political information can help to decrease preexisting knowledge-gaps on political matters (Bas & Grabe, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref31">10</reflink>]). Knowing which emotions can catch students' interest to engage with political matters is highly relevant for civic education teachers, who often make pedagogical decisions based on emotions perceived in classrooms (Sheppard & Levy, [<reflink idref="bib122" id="ref32">122</reflink>]). Additionally, by synthesizing existing studies into a thorough overview of the cross-disciplinary research, this meta-analysis reveals blind spots to be addressed in future research and builds a basis for further theory development in the field.</p> <hd id="AN0178365499-3">Emotions</hd> <p>Researchers have established various theories in order to define emotions and conceptualize their functioning. Emotions are frequently considered to be multi-component constructs with affective, cognitive, motivational, expressive-behavioral, and physiological components (e.g., Crigler & Just, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref33">30</reflink>]; Lange & Zickfeld, [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref34">70</reflink>]; Pekrun, [<reflink idref="bib101" id="ref35">101</reflink>]). In contrast to general moods or feelings, emotions are typically characterized by an object focus (Crigler & Just, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref36">30</reflink>]; Pekrun, [<reflink idref="bib101" id="ref37">101</reflink>]; Pekrun et al., [<reflink idref="bib104" id="ref38">104</reflink>]), thus related to an event, a situation, action, or physiological object (Pekrun et al., [<reflink idref="bib104" id="ref39">104</reflink>]). Emotions in politics are thus triggered or focused on political aspects, such as political leaders or current events (Capelos & Chrona, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref40">20</reflink>]). Political emotions, for example, might be experienced while watching a heated debate between candidates before election day, reading a newspaper article about a recent corruption scandal, or when running into a protest of climate activists on the street. They can be conceptualized as situational, short-term responses to stimuli (i.e., state emotions) or trait-like measures similar to personality traits (Crigler & Just, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref41">30</reflink>]).</p> <p>Generally, theories applied to emotions experienced in the context of politics differ in whether they see emotions on a single valence dimension (e.g., positive versus negative emotions) or as discrete emotions (e.g., anger and anxiety; Brader & Marcus, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref42">16</reflink>]). Which perspective fits best to explain emotional processes is often dependent on the specific research question at hand. Nevertheless, recent theoretical developments tried to combine both (i.e., a dimensional and discrete perspective on emotions; Dreisbach, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref43">35</reflink>]; Lange & Zickfeld, [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref44">70</reflink>]). While different (i.e., discrete) emotions can be distinguished in terms of semantic concepts of prototypical patterns of emotional experience (Russell & Barrett, [<reflink idref="bib114" id="ref45">114</reflink>]), some emotions are more similar to one another (e.g., distress and frustration) and therefore also more similar in their functioning. Two important dimensions used to distinguish the affective basis of emotions are valence and arousal, thereby placing emotions on a two-dimensional space between unpleasant and pleasant experience and with low to high arousal (Russell, [<reflink idref="bib113" id="ref46">113</reflink>]). To illustrate, enthusiasm is typically experienced positively (i.e., pleasant) and is activating (i.e., high arousal), anxiety is experienced negatively (i.e., unpleasant) and is activating (i.e., high arousal), and boredom is experienced negatively (i.e., unpleasant) and deactivating (i.e., low arousal).</p> <p>The intertwined nature of emotion and cognition (Dreisbach, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref47">35</reflink>]) suggests that emotions play a crucial role in learning. Emotions are an integral component of the learning process, as they can attract our attention towards the object to be learned (e.g., emotions like surprise; Muis et al., [<reflink idref="bib93" id="ref48">93</reflink>]). However, emotions can also act as a barrier for this attention (e.g., if experiencing boredom; Pekrun et al., [<reflink idref="bib102" id="ref49">102</reflink>]). One theory specifically developed to explain the role of emotions in learning is the control-value theory (Pekrun, [<reflink idref="bib101" id="ref50">101</reflink>]; Pekrun et al., [<reflink idref="bib104" id="ref51">104</reflink>]), which primarily focuses on achievement emotions in academic settings and aims to explain their antecedents and effects on learning. Similar to the aforementioned two-dimensional taxonomy of the circumplex-model (Russell, [<reflink idref="bib113" id="ref52">113</reflink>]; Russell & Barrett, [<reflink idref="bib114" id="ref53">114</reflink>]), control-value theory suggests that in order to explain learning, differentiating emotions along the dimensions of activation (activating versus deactivating) and valence (positive versus negative) can provide fruitful insights (Pekrun, [<reflink idref="bib101" id="ref54">101</reflink>]). Specifically, it proposes that positive-activating emotions are positively related, and negative-deactivating emotions negatively related to learning. For example, enjoyment, hope, and pride as positive-activating emotions typically relate positively to motivation, engagement, and achievement, while boredom and hopelessness as negative-deactivating emotions show directionally opposite associations (Graf et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref55">47</reflink>]; Pekrun et al., [<reflink idref="bib103" id="ref56">103</reflink>]).</p> <p>Observations about positive-deactivating and negative-activating emotions are more complex (Pekrun, [<reflink idref="bib101" id="ref57">101</reflink>]). Positive-deactivating emotions are generally understudied and might undermine, but also reinforce, learning effort and motivation (Pekrun et al., [<reflink idref="bib104" id="ref58">104</reflink>]). For negative-activating emotions, variable associations to learning have been reported. For example, while anxiety experienced in achievement situations relates negatively to intrinsic motivation, effort, and achievement, it relates positively to extrinsic motivation (Pekrun et al., [<reflink idref="bib103" id="ref59">103</reflink>]). Similarly, in the context of civic education at schools, anger experienced during political discussions at school shows negative associations with political knowledge, while revealing positive associations with students' extrinsic motivation and political engagement (e.g., talking with parents; Graf et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref60">47</reflink>]). Additionally, studies have observed diverging effects of anxiety and anger — both typically classified as negative-activating emotions — on news consumption (Huddy [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref61">57</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0178365499-4">Learning about Politics</hd> <p>Political learning is a complex and multi-faceted construct. Like politics itself (e.g., see Hay, [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref62">52</reflink>]), it can be conceptualized broadly (e.g., including a variety of political competencies and attitudes on societal topics) or more narrowly (e.g., focusing on specific competencies, core political themes). In our work, we define political learning as the process of acquiring political knowledge. We focus on political knowledge as it is highly relevant to other civic competencies, like participation (Schlozman et al., [<reflink idref="bib117" id="ref63">117</reflink>]). Political knowledge impacts not only whether one participates or not, but also "the quality of political decision making, and thus ... the quality of citizenship" (Delli Carpini, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref64">32</reflink>], p. 41). To conceptualize political learning as a process of knowledge acquisition, it is important to specify the contexts in which political learning occurs (i.e., where and when), describe the specific learning processes involved (i.e., how), and identify the content of political learning (i.e., what).</p> <p>Where and when do we usually observe political learning? Learning about politics is a lifelong process and takes place in various contexts. Basic foundations are settled in early childhood via socialization through family and peers and civic education at schools (Schlozman et al., [<reflink idref="bib117" id="ref65">117</reflink>]). Thereby, schools play a major role in citizens' political development, on the one hand directly through civic education, but also indirectly through fostering knowledge and skills relevant to lifelong political learning (Ichilov, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref66">60</reflink>]; Niemi & Junn, [<reflink idref="bib96" id="ref67">96</reflink>]). Civic education can be conceptualized as an institutional form of political knowledge acquisition (Ichilov, [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref68">60</reflink>]) which includes both formal (i.e., lessons specifically aimed to teach about political matters) and informal political learning, such as learning by discussing politics in class (Deimel et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref69">31</reflink>]; Galston, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref70">45</reflink>]; Losito et al., [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref71">75</reflink>]). During adulthood, informal political learning continues to be highly relevant. Specifically, citizens learn across their lifespan through incidental and self-directed (i.e., intentional) exposure to political information (Schugurensky & Myers, [<reflink idref="bib119" id="ref72">119</reflink>]).</p> <p>Thus, political information processing is often used as an umbrella term to describe processes (the "how") of political learning (e.g., Funck et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref73">42</reflink>]). Political learning across all these contexts occurs when citizens pay attention to mass media (Barabas et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref74">7</reflink>]), actively seek political information (Redlawsk et al., [<reflink idref="bib108" id="ref75">108</reflink>]), or engage in political discussions with friends (Moeller & de Vreese, [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref76">90</reflink>]). Finally, the content of political learning can be defined based on dimensions of political knowledge. Essential aspects of political knowledge are what the government is (i.e., political structures) and does (i.e., policy issues on which public decisions are made), knowledge about political actors and their positions (e.g., political leaders and parties), as well as knowledge about related fields like political history (Delli Carpini & Keeter, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref77">33</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0178365499-5">Emotions Experienced in the Context of Politics and Learning</hd> <p>Studies on the role of emotions in learning about politics have primarily focused on enthusiasm, anxiety, and anger (Brader & Marcus, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref78">16</reflink>]). These three emotions are at the heart of the affective intelligence theory, which is widely used in studies on emotions in politics and seeks to explain how emotions influence political information processing, judgement, and behavior (Marcus, [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref79">83</reflink>]; Redlawsk & Mattes, [<reflink idref="bib109" id="ref80">109</reflink>]). It distinguishes between two fundamental emotional systems: disposition and surveillance. The surveillance system, which is activated by threat and causes anxiety, is assumed to facilitate learning by interrupting reliance on political habits (e.g., partisan heuristics during political decisions; Marcus, [<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref81">84</reflink>]; Marcus et al., [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref82">83</reflink>]). Though this theory makes assumptions about how anxiety, anger, and enthusiasm relate to political learning, it appears to be less useful for explaining relationships between emotions and learning across a broader range of discrete emotions (e.g., sadness or curiosity).</p> <p>Political learning is often investigated in the context of (mock) election campaigns or focused on specific policy issues. In line with the aforementioned attention as a function of emotions, both anxiety and enthusiasm have been shown to positively relate to interest in political campaigns and attention to political news (Marcus et al., [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref83">83</reflink>]). However, other studies could not replicate this relation (Huddy et al., [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref84">57</reflink>]), while further ones found a negative relation between anxiety and political attention (Otto et al., [<reflink idref="bib98" id="ref85">98</reflink>]). These discrepancies might be explained by the differing object focus of the emotions (e.g., election candidates versus specific policy issues) or focusing on trait emotions (Marcus et al., [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref86">83</reflink>]) versus state emotions (Otto et al., [<reflink idref="bib98" id="ref87">98</reflink>]). Anger has often been shown to relate negatively to information seeking (e.g., Redlawsk et al., [<reflink idref="bib108" id="ref88">108</reflink>]; Valentino et al., [<reflink idref="bib131" id="ref89">131</reflink>]), with enthusiasm and anxiety positively affecting information seeking (Redlawsk et al., [<reflink idref="bib108" id="ref90">108</reflink>]). Similarly, studies have shown positive relations of anxiety with the discussions of politics with friends, family, co-workers, and neighbors (Huddy et al., [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref91">57</reflink>]). The most consistent findings have been shown regarding emotions and political knowledge gains about politics, with mainly positive relations reported between anxiety and an increase of political knowledge (Marcus & MacKuen, [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref92">82</reflink>]; Marcus et al., [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref93">83</reflink>]; Nadeau et al., [<reflink idref="bib94" id="ref94">94</reflink>]; Park, [<reflink idref="bib99" id="ref95">99</reflink>]; Valentino et al., [<reflink idref="bib131" id="ref96">131</reflink>]).</p> <p>Given the at times contradicting results and increasing number of studies looking at the role of emotions in political learning, there is a need to thoroughly summarize the existing literature and investigate whether there is systematic variance in reported effect sizes. Prior reviews on the topic focused more generally on the antecedents and various functions of emotions in politics (e.g., also for political behavior like participation or decision taking; Brader & Marcus, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref97">16</reflink>]; Groenendyk, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref98">49</reflink>], Redlawsk & Mattes, [<reflink idref="bib109" id="ref99">109</reflink>]) or emotions in political communication in general (Crigler & Just, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref100">30</reflink>]). While the latter account is the only available review reporting a systematic literature search on emotions and politics, until now and to the best of our knowledge, no systematic quantitative synthesis of the effect sizes found in empirical studies on emotions and political learning has been published. While we know that emotions are experienced frequently in the context of politics (Crigler & Just, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref101">30</reflink>]), and that they can foster or even prevent us from learning related processes, there is no extensive overview on political emotions and their associations with political learning.</p> <hd id="AN0178365499-6">The Present Research: Aims of the Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis</hd> <p>With this study, we attempt to fulfill various objectives. First, we aimed to gather a sufficient overview of which emotions are included in existing studies on political learning. Second, we synthesize these studies using multilevel random-effects models in order to find out if, and indeed which, emotions are related to political learning. Thereby, we include both cross-sectional and experimental designs, as both investigate the main research question, but from different angles. While cross-sectional studies are able to catch possible recursive effects, experimental designs are able to identify causal mechanisms involved. We apply a theoretical framework novel for this context by analyzing results through the lens of the control-value theory of achievement emotions (Pekrun, [<reflink idref="bib101" id="ref102">101</reflink>]). More specifically, when categorizing emotions in (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref103">1</reflink>) positive-activating, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref104">2</reflink>) positive-deactivating, (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref105">3</reflink>) negative-activating, and (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref106">4</reflink>) negative-deactivating emotions, we expect that positive-activating emotions (e.g., enthusiasm) are related to increased political learning and learning outcomes, while negative-deactivating emotions (e.g., boredom) should be related to less political learning and weaker learning outcomes. Using this theory thus allows us to combine multiple discrete emotions to these categories with uniform expectations regarding their associations with learning. For positive-deactivating (e.g., relaxation) and negative-activating emotions (e.g., anxiety, anger), consequences for learning are not that clear, as it often depends on the specific emotion or learning aspect considered (e.g., Huddy et al., [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref107">57</reflink>]; Pekrun et al., [<reflink idref="bib103" id="ref108">103</reflink>]).</p> <p>Based on control-value theory, we hypothesised the following:</p> <hd id="AN0178365499-7">Hypothesis 1</hd> <p>Positive-activating emotions (e.g., enthusiasm) are positively associated with learning.</p> <hd id="AN0178365499-8">Hypothesis 2</hd> <p>Negative-deactivating emotions (e.g., boredom) are negatively associated with learning.</p> <p>Further, in exploratory analysis, we tested how negative-activating emotions (e.g., anger and anxiety) are related to learning. We added analyses for discrete emotions if sufficient empirical information for these emotions was available. Differentiating between discrete emotions is especially relevant for negative-activating emotions, where often varying effects have been found in prior studies (Graf et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref109">47</reflink>]). Though we did not know in advance for which emotions this would be possible, models for emotions that fall into one of the categories stated in Hypotheses 1 and 2 can be viewed as subtests of the hypotheses. Finally, we took an exploratory approach to test for possible moderators. According to Lipsey ([<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref110">74</reflink>]), study descriptors such as extrinsic matters, study methods and procedures, and substantive matters are typically considered as moderators in meta-analyses. First, in addition to publication status, we included country and discipline as extrinsic matters. Effect sizes might differ depending on the political systems and associated roles of citizens in a country. Disciplinary affiliation might indirectly affect effect sizes through applied theoretical frameworks and methods common within a discipline (Lipsey, [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref111">74</reflink>]), which is of special relevance for the current meta-analysis due to its cross-disciplinary approach. Regarding study methods and procedures, we included sample size, sampling method, type of measurement, and target population. Third, as substantive aspects, we included central emotion characteristics addressed in prior studies utilizing the control-value theory (state vs. trait emotions; Bieg et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref112">13</reflink>]; object focus; Muis et al., [<reflink idref="bib93" id="ref113">93</reflink>]; type of discrete emotion; Pekrun et al., [<reflink idref="bib104" id="ref114">104</reflink>]). Finally, as we subsumed multiple learning categories to one effect-size measure, the learning category itself was used as a moderator, as well as a dummy for whether the learning measure focuses specifically on attitude-(in)congruent information (see emotions and motivated reasoning, e.g., confirmation bias during information seeking; Wollebæk et al., [<reflink idref="bib147" id="ref115">147</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0178365499-9">Open Practices</hd> <p>We preregistered this study on PROSPERO on November 5, 2020. Data and accompanying analysis scripts are available via OSF. Data were processed and analyzed in R (R Core Team, [<reflink idref="bib107" id="ref116">107</reflink>]), utilizing the following packages: revtools (Westgate, [<reflink idref="bib143" id="ref117">143</reflink>]) for identifying and removing duplicates after the literature search, tidyverse (Wickham et al., [<reflink idref="bib144" id="ref118">144</reflink>]) for data wrangling; esc (Lüdecke, [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref119">76</reflink>]) and metafor (Viechtbauer, [<reflink idref="bib138" id="ref120">138</reflink>]) for effect-size calculation; metafor (Viechtbauer, [<reflink idref="bib138" id="ref121">138</reflink>]), dmetar (Harrer et al., [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref122">51</reflink>]), and pema (Van Lissa et al., [<reflink idref="bib135" id="ref123">135</reflink>]) for the analysis; and metaviz (Kossmeier et al., [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref124">67</reflink>]), meta (Balduzzi et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref125">6</reflink>]), and robvis (McGuinness, [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref126">87</reflink>]) for visualization.</p> <hd id="AN0178365499-10">Methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0178365499-11">Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria</hd> <p>The aim of this meta-analysis was to identify studies assessing the associations between emotions experienced in the context of politics and political learning. Therefore, the main inclusion criteria were that studies conducted an empirical analysis and reported at least one quantitative outcome on the relation between a discrete emotion and political learning. We included both experimental and observational studies, but separated them in the quantitative analysis. Only studies including emotions focusing specifically on politics (e.g., a political candidate, policy issue, or political process) were considered as relevant. Emotions were either analyzed as discrete emotions (e.g., enjoyment, anger, anxiety) or as a common emotion measure which could be categorized to be either positive-activating, positive-deactivating, negative-activating, or negative-deactivating. Emotions could be measured via self-report scales or, in the case of experimental studies, induced by an experimental manipulation. Concerning the outcomes, we focused on the learning process about politics throughout the lifespan and its most important concepts in the literature. Specifically, we included studies on political information seeking, attention to politics, political discussions, political knowledge, and a knowledge gain.</p> <p>Studies which could not be obtained in full text, or were duplicates based on the same data and measures, or which did not report a relation between emotions and learning, were excluded. For studies with the same data source and measures, the one with the more recent publication date was included. Additionally, for quantitative synthesis, studies that did not supply adequate measures (e.g., non-bivariate, partial effects; Aloe, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref127">3</reflink>]), or that did not measure emotion and learning at the same time point, were excluded. These studies seemed not to be comparable, as effect sizes highly depended on the other predictors included or the respective time spans between measures. A detailed description of the concepts and inclusion and exclusion criteria is available in the Supplementary Information, Section A.</p> <hd id="AN0178365499-12">Information Sources</hd> <p>The aim of the search strategy was to conduct a thorough search that allowed for the detection of published and unpublished work related to the topic. The systematic literature search was based on several databases (i.e., PsycINFO, IBSS, ERIC, ProQuest Dissertation and Thesis, ProQuest Education and Politics Collection), with a search string in English and German that included a large number of discrete emotions, combined with phrases used for the defined learning concepts and the word 'politics' (see Supplementary Information, Section A). Additionally, we consulted conference proceedings of the main conferences across disciplines (i.e., Annual Meetings of the International Society of Political Psychology (ISPP), American Political Science Association (APSA), International Communication Association (ICA), American Educational Research Association (AERA), Society for Empirical Educational Research (GEBF), and the Society for Civic Education Didactics and Civic Youth and Adult Education (GPJE), and the Biannual Meeting of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI)) and used pertinent articles and authors for citation search and author consultation. Finally, an additional search focused on core journals of the disciplines related to the topic (<emph>Political Psychology</emph>, <emph>Journal of Social and Political Psychology</emph>, <emph>Cognition and Emotion</emph>, <emph>Political Communication</emph>, and <emph>Journal of Affective Science</emph>). The full search strategy can be found in the Supplementary Information, Section A.</p> <hd id="AN0178365499-13">Deviation from the Preregistration</hd> <p>It should be noted that during the search process, the search string and strategy detailed in the first preregistration was revised (i.e., search within titles <emph>and</emph> abstract), in order to gain more accurate search results. Additionally, due to resource restrictions, only a subsample of search results was double screened. Finally, some variables were added in the coding (e.g., percentage of male and female participants, and discipline).</p> <hd id="AN0178365499-14">Study Selection</hd> <p>Search results (<emph>k</emph> = 358) were screened with regards to the inclusion and exclusion criteria by the first author, and two subsamples were double coded after training by the second author. If the decision could not be based on title and abstract, the full text was consulted. A first unsupervised double-coded sample (<emph>k</emph> = 35) revealed an intercoder agreement of 77% (<emph>κ</emph><subs><emph>w</emph></subs> = 0.74), which increased to 85% (<emph>κ</emph><subs><emph>w</emph></subs> = 0.63) in a second round (<emph>k</emph> = 20). Unclear cases were resolved by joint discussion and arriving at consensus.</p> <hd id="AN0178365499-15">Data Collection</hd> <p>The studies included were coded on three levels: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref128">1</reflink>) publication level, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref129">2</reflink>) study level, and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref130">3</reflink>) effect-size level. We coded the type, aim of the publication (e.g., journal article, book, dissertation, etc.), and main theoretical approach at the publication level. Whereas publication type and discipline were coded in predefined categories (see Supplementary Information, Section B), the aim and theoretical approach was openly coded and only used for the qualitative synthesis. On the study level (relevant if one publication reports several studies), data source (if not using primary data), study design (e.g., experimental), sampling (e.g., random, convenience), and sample characteristics (e.g., number of participants, country, age and percentage of male and female participants) were coded. Additionally, we assessed characteristics of study quality, for example, whether response rate and missing data handling were reported.</p> <p>Finally, regarding effect size, details about the emotion and learning measurements (type of measurement, e.g., behavioral or self-report; number of items used, reliability, mean and standard deviation if applicable) and their association were coded. If no standardized bivariate relation was reported, the public data (if available) were used, and authors consulted to add effect sizes. Ten percent of the studies (<emph>N</emph> = 8) were double-coded by the first and third authors. The agreement rate for most of the variables was satisfying (Krippendorf's <emph>α</emph> > <emph>0.7</emph>0 for 71% of the variables, <emph>M</emph> = 0.73, <emph>SD</emph> = 0.45). Disagreement was discussed to clarify underlying reasons for the remaining variables and if necessary, coding revised. Emotions were categorized to positive-activating (e.g., curiosity), positive-deactivating (e.g., contentment), negative-activating (e.g., anxiety), and negative-deactivating (e.g., sadness) based on the literature (see Appendix B in the Supplementary Information, Sect. 6.1.). The full codebook with a detailed description of each variable can be found in the Supplementary Information (Section B), and the corresponding agreement rates for double coding are displayed in Table C1 in the Supplementary Information (Section C).</p> <hd id="AN0178365499-16">Methods for Assessing Risk of Bias</hd> <p>For quality assessment, study design, sampling strategy, reported response rates, missing values, and reliability measures were assessed. For experimental studies, allocation of participants was additionally included in the quality assessment. Based on common thresholds used in the literature (e.g., Graham, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref131">48</reflink>]; Moosbrugger & Kelava, [<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref132">91</reflink>]; Reed et al., [<reflink idref="bib110" id="ref133">110</reflink>]), we categorized studies into low risk of bias, unclear (if information was missing), and high risk (see Section D of the Supplementary Information for details of categorization).</p> <hd id="AN0178365499-17">Summary Measures</hd> <p>In order to calculate effect sizes, all statistics were converted to correlation coefficients. We standardized effect sizes into Pearson correlation coefficients and, for analysis, applied Fisher's <emph>z</emph> conversion to these. The R script used for effect-size calculation is available via OSF.</p> <hd id="AN0178365499-18">Methods for Synthesis</hd> <p>Effect sizes were synthesized separately for cross-sectional and experimental designs for each emotion(group)-learning relation. We separated our analysis by research designs as underlying research questions usually differ fundamentally (effect versus relationship; Borenstein & Hedges, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref134">15</reflink>]). We categorized studies as experimental if either the emotions themselves were induced, or if the study included an experimental condition and emotions were measured after the manipulation, thus if reported emotions depend on the experimental condition (e.g., threat manipulation). Furthermore, we conducted separate analyses focusing on the discrete emotions enthusiasm, anger, and anxiety, as these are studied more frequently in the context of politics (Brader & Marcus, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref135">16</reflink>]) and a sufficient number of effect sizes was available to be synthesized. We used multilevel random-effects models, which allowed us to account for dependency in the data (i.e., if more than one effect size stemmed from the same sample). Specifically, we added random effects for effect size-ID and data-ID, the latter corresponds to the study level (with the exception of one study pair,[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref136">1</reflink>] where the same data, but different measures, were used and therefore assigned the same data-ID). This allows us to differentiate three levels of effect-size variances in our models: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref137">1</reflink>) sampling variance, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref138">2</reflink>) variance within studies, and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref139">3</reflink>) variance between studies (Assink & Wibbelink, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref140">5</reflink>]). Additionally, we used the Knapp-Hartung adjustment to account for non-normal distribution of coefficients (Assink & Wibbelink, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref141">5</reflink>]). In line with suggestions by Assink and Wibbelink ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref142">5</reflink>]), we performed tests for heterogeneity for within-study variance and between-study variance separately, using log-likelihood ratio tests in which we compared models where the variance on a respective level is fixed to zero with the model where it is freely estimated. A significant amount of heterogeneity implies a moderator analysis is needed in order to identify possible explanations for the observed variance.</p> <p>As no a priori hypotheses concerning moderators were formulated in our preregistration, we took an exploratory approach to identify possible moderators. With a high number of coded variables (i.e., possible moderators) accompanied by only a small number of studies and effect sizes included in the models, Bayesian regularized meta-analysis (BRMA) is a suitable method to identify relevant moderators while avoiding overfitting. It allows to select relevant moderators by shrinking small regression coefficients towards zero using regularization priors (Van Lissa et al., [<reflink idref="bib135" id="ref143">135</reflink>]). We use the R package pema (Van Lissa et al., [<reflink idref="bib135" id="ref144">135</reflink>]) to estimate three-level mixed effects models with a minimum of 4000 iterations and a horseshoe prior for each emotion group and design. We slightly increased regularization to avoid high numbers of divergent transitions (Van Lissa et al., [<reflink idref="bib135" id="ref145">135</reflink>]). We included the variables' sample size, publication status (0 if coded as conference paper, dissertation, or thesis, 1 if coded as journal article, book, or book chapter), discipline, target population, country, sampling, type of emotion measure, state vs. trait emotion measure, object focus of emotion measure, type of discrete emotion, learning category, a dummy for whether the learning measure focuses on attitude-(in)congruent information, and type of learning measure in the model (for coding details, see Supplementary Information, Appendix B). Models were checked for convergence according to their Rhat, effective sample size, and using parameter trace plots (Van Lissa et al., [<reflink idref="bib135" id="ref146">135</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0178365499-19">Publication Bias and Selective Reporting</hd> <p>In order to assess the possibility of publication bias, we (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref147">1</reflink>) tested whether publication status moderates the effect size in the multilevel random-effects model, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref148">2</reflink>) visually inspected funnel plots, and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref149">3</reflink>) used an adaption of Egger's regression test suitable for meta-analyses with dependencies in effect sizes (Rodgers & Pustejovsky, [<reflink idref="bib112" id="ref150">112</reflink>]). For the funnel plots, we calculated the mean values in order to show only one effect size per study. For Egger's regression test, we excluded studies from unpublished sources (dissertations, theses, and conference papers). We used the inverse sample size as a moderator in the multilevel random-effects model, which is a more suitable measure of precision when using correlations as effect size (Viechtbauer, [<reflink idref="bib139" id="ref151">139</reflink>]). Due to the low number of studies available for models on negative-deactivating emotions, analyses of publication bias were not applied to this emotion group.</p> <hd id="AN0178365499-20">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0178365499-21">Study Selection</hd> <p>From the systematic literature search, 358 publications were screened for inclusion and exclusion criteria, of which 80 were coded and 66 included in the final dataset. Thus, this study included 66 publications reporting 78 studies and 486 effect sizes, of which 36 publications (42 studies, 259 effect sizes) could be used for the quantitative synthesis and calculation of overall effects (for details, see Fig. 1, PRISMA flow chart).</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 1PRISMA flow chart of the number of studies resulting from the literature search</p> <hd id="AN0178365499-22">Study Characteristics</hd> <p>The systematic search with various sources utilized revealed mainly journal articles (68%), almost all from peer-reviewed journals. Additionally, we managed to find and access eight conference papers and six unpublished dissertations or theses. Four studies came from book chapters and three monographs on the topic were included. Publications were predominantly produced within the last 20 years (see Fig. 2) and, based on the first authors' affiliations, within departments of political science (55%) and communication science (35%). Additionally, a majority of the studies was conducted in the USA (71%) and mainly focused on adults (53%) or university and college students (32%). Table E1 in the Supplementary Information (Section E) provides a summary of the aims and measures of included studies.</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 2Number of publications per year and discipline</p> <p>The studies included in the meta-analysis are characterized by a considerable heterogeneity in methodological approaches and reporting standards. The majority of the studies utilized experimental designs (54%), followed by cross-sectional studies (27%), and longitudinal studies (17%), which included specific designs like dynamic process tracing environments (e.g., Ditonto et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref152">34</reflink>]). Regarding reporting standards, from 486 coded effect sizes, 170 were only available in an unstandardized format. For 13 studies (10 publications), we could use published data to calculate bivariate standardized statistics, and additionally received bivariate standardized statistics for 12 studies (10 publications) from contacted authors.</p> <p>We identified 19 discrete emotions in the studies (see Fig. 3). However, the vast majority of the effect sizes focused on anxiety (32%), anger (19%), and enthusiasm (15%). Emotions were mainly analyzed in the context of elections, with a focus either on the campaign (33%) or on candidates (16%). Specific policy issues, for example immigration, health issues, or terrorism, were addressed by 30% of the effect sizes. A small number of emotions were assessed with a focus on a political event (5%) or the general political situation (4%). These emotions were largely assessed with self-report measures (78% of effect sizes). In experimental designs, authors either used self-report emotion measures after the experimental manipulation (62%), the assignment to the experimental groups (35%), or a combination of both to calculate the effect sizes. To manipulate emotions, researchers utilized texts in combination with images (e.g., Clifford & Jerit, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref153">28</reflink>]; Lamprianou & Ellinas, [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref154">68</reflink>]; Ryan, [<reflink idref="bib115" id="ref155">115</reflink>]) and videos (e.g., Kim, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref156">66</reflink>]) or videos alone (e.g., Brader, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref157">18</reflink>]; Sirin et al., [<reflink idref="bib123" id="ref158">123</reflink>]). Brader ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref159">18</reflink>]), for example, created professional political ads including images and music to induce enthusiasm or fear, which additionally varied in how evocative they were. Others utilized prompts with a task to recall and describe in detail an emotional situation or list thoughts, for example describing something during a campaign that made one feel angry or enthusiastic (Ditonto et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref160">34</reflink>]; Valentino et al., [<reflink idref="bib131" id="ref161">131</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib132" id="ref162">132</reflink>]), or a prompt to list worries about a specific policy issue (e.g., immigration; Albertson & Gadarian, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref163">2</reflink>]; Gadarian & Albertson, [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref164">44</reflink>]).</p> <p>Graph: Fig. 3Number of effect sizes per emotion</p> <p>In terms of learning processes, 40% of the effect sizes investigated the relations between emotions and information seeking, 24% focused on attention to politics, 15% on discussions, and 11% each on knowledge and knowledge gain.[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref165">2</reflink>] Studies utilized various methods to assess learning, ranging from self-report questions (63%), behavioral measures (17%; especially with information seeking), to knowledge tests (21%) either based on general political knowledge or specific information provided during the studies.</p> <hd id="AN0178365499-23">Results of Individual Studies</hd> <p>The results of individual studies are summarized in Table E1.</p> <hd id="AN0178365499-24">Synthesis of Results</hd> <p>For synthesizing effect sizes, we first conducted multilevel random-effects models for each group of emotions (positive-activating, negative-deactivating, negative-activating), and for the discrete emotions enthusiasm, anger, and anxiety. Both analyses were conducted for studies with cross-sectional and experimental designs separately.</p> <hd id="AN0178365499-25">Associations Between Emotions and Learning from Cross-Sectional Studies</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0178365499-26">Positive-Activating Emotions</hd> <p>Details about the estimated models are displayed in Table 1. In line with Hypothesis 1, the model based on positive-activating emotions (e.g., enthusiasm, hope, curiosity) revealed an overall positive association between emotions and learning (<emph>r</emph> = 0.13, 95% <emph>CI</emph> [0.06, 0.19]). Enthusiasm showed a small positive association with learning in cross-sectional designs (<emph>r</emph> = 0.10, 95% <emph>CI</emph> [0.01, 0.19]; see Figure F1 in Section F of the Supplementary Information).</p> <p>Table 1 ML-random-effects model results</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left" /><th align="left" /><th align="left" /><th align="left" /><th align="left" /><th align="left" /><th align="left" colspan="3"><p>% Variance (<italic>I</italic><sup>2</sup>)</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p>Model</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>k</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>N</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>r</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p>CI</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>t (df)</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>p</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p>Level 1</p></th><th align="left"><p>Level 2</p></th><th align="left"><p>Level 3</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" colspan="10"><p><italic>Cross-sectional designs</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Pos.-Act. Emotions</p></td><td align="left"><p>12</p></td><td align="left"><p>42</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.128</p></td><td align="left"><p>[0.061, 0.194]</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.846 (41)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.000</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5.768</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>38.251</bold></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>55.981</bold></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Enthusiasm</p></td><td align="left"><p>6</p></td><td align="left"><p>19</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.101</p></td><td align="left"><p>[0.008, 0.191]</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.288 (18)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.034</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>4.918</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>60.576</bold></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>34.506</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Neg.-Act. Emotions</p></td><td align="left"><p>22</p></td><td align="left"><p>83</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.049</p></td><td align="left"><p>[0.009, 0.089]</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.407 (82)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.018</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>7.279</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>32.795</bold></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>59.926</bold></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Anxiety</p></td><td align="left"><p>19</p></td><td align="left"><p>45</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.027</p></td><td align="left"><p>[− 0.019, 0.072]</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.188 (44)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.241</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>7.692</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>27.607</bold></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>64.702</bold></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Anger</p></td><td align="left"><p>12</p></td><td align="left"><p>32</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.061</p></td><td align="left"><p>[0.006, 0.116]</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.257 (31)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.031</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>8.370</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>49.334</bold></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>42.296</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Neg.-Deact. Emotions</p></td><td align="left"><p>2</p></td><td align="left"><p>3</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.032</p></td><td align="left"><p>[− 0.160, 0.222]</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.721 (2)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.546</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>28.143</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.000</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>71.857</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="10"><p><italic>Experimental designs</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Pos.-Act. Emotions</p></td><td align="left"><p>6</p></td><td align="left"><p>16</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.057</p></td><td align="left"><p>[− 0.120, 0.231]</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.685 (15)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.504</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5.810</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>10.982</bold></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>83.207</bold></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Enthusiasm</p></td><td align="left"><p>5</p></td><td align="left"><p>10</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.002</p></td><td align="left"><p>[− 0.064, 0.068]</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.054 (9)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.958</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>60.333</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>39.667</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.000</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Neg.-Act. Emotions</p></td><td align="left"><p>19</p></td><td align="left"><p>107</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.060</p></td><td align="left"><p>[0.013, 0.107]</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.536 (106)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.013</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>12.270</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>51.528</bold></p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>36.202</bold></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Anxiety</p></td><td align="left"><p>16</p></td><td align="left"><p>45</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.055</p></td><td align="left"><p>[− 0.036, 0.146]</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.219 (44)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.230</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>7.017</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.787</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>92.196</bold></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Anger</p></td><td align="left"><p>13</p></td><td align="left"><p>25</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.109</p></td><td align="left"><p>[0.029, 0.188]</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.797 (24)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.010</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>20.060</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.000</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>79.940</bold></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Neg.-Deact. Emotions</p></td><td align="left"><p>3</p></td><td align="left"><p>7</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.008</p></td><td align="left"><p>[− 0.244, 0.259]</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.076 (6)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.942</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>16.910</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.000</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p><bold>83.093</bold></p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>Note. k =</emph> number of studies with unique datasets; <emph>N =</emph> number of effect sizes; Variance on level 1 refers to the sampling variance, level 2 to the variance within studies (using the same sample), and level 3 to the variance between studies (using different samples). Significant variability in the variance between effect sizes and studies is displayed in bolt</p> <hd id="AN0178365499-27">Negative-Deactivation Emotions</hd> <p>Our second hypothesis, which assumed negative associations between negative-deactivating emotions and learning, was not supported (<emph>r</emph> = 0.03, 95% <emph>CI</emph> [− 0.16, 0.22]), but results should be interpreted with caution as the model is based on only three effect sizes.</p> <hd id="AN0178365499-28">Negative-Activating Emotions</hd> <p>The overall correlation between negative-activating emotions and learning was small and positive (<emph>r</emph> = 0.05, 95% <emph>CI</emph> [0.01, 0.09]). However, as shown in Figure F2, there was a great variation of effect sizes. The model on anxiety did not reveal a significant overall association between anxiety and learning (<emph>r</emph> = 0.03, 95% <emph>CI</emph> [− 0.02, 0.07]). In contrast, anger revealed a small positive overall correlation with learning (<emph>r</emph> = 0.06, 95% <emph>CI</emph> [0.01, 0.12]).</p> <hd id="AN0178365499-29">Associations Between Emotions and Learning from Experimental Studies</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0178365499-30">Positive-Activating Emotions</hd> <p>Our model, including effect sizes from positive-activating emotions and experimental designs, did not reveal a significant overall correlation (<emph>r</emph> = 0.06, 95% <emph>CI</emph> [− 0.12, 0.23]. The same finding holds for the model on enthusiasm (<emph>r</emph> = 0.00, 95% <emph>CI</emph> [− 0.06, 0.07]). For this model, only five publications including ten effect sizes about enthusiasm were included (see Figure F3 in the Supplementary Information, Section F).</p> <hd id="AN0178365499-31">Negative-Deactivating Emotions</hd> <p>Again, we could use only few effect sizes to test Hypothesis 2 on negative-deactivating emotions, which was not supported (<emph>r</emph> = 0.01, 95% <emph>CI</emph> [− 0.24, 0.26]).</p> <hd id="AN0178365499-32">Negative-Activating Emotions</hd> <p>Similar to the model on cross-sectional designs, we found a small, positive overall correlation between negative-activating emotions and learning in experimental designs (<emph>r</emph> = 0.06, 95% <emph>CI</emph> [0.01, 0.11]). Regarding discrete emotions, no significant association could be found for anxiety (<emph>r</emph> = 0.06, 95% <emph>CI</emph> [− 0.04, 0.15]), but a small positive effect for anger (<emph>r</emph> = 0.11, 95% <emph>CI</emph> [0.03, 0.19]).</p> <hd id="AN0178365499-33">Moderator Analysis</hd> <p>Heterogeneity tests revealed significant variance within and between studies for the models on positive-activating and negative-activating emotions (see Table 1: significant variance components are displayed in bolt; detailed model results can be found in the Supplementary Information, Section G [Table G1 and G2]). We therefore proceeded to moderation analysis with these models. All estimated BRMA models indicated convergence, with Rhat close to 1, sufficient effective sample sizes and well-mixed parameter trace plots for all moderators. As shown in Table H1, we could not identify any relevant moderator from the included variables. In order to verify whether results differ depending on the type of learning outcome (cognitive versus behavioral), we conducted an additional moderator analysis. Here, the included dummy variable differentiating between cognitive (knowledge, knowledge gain) and behavioral learning categories (information seeking, attention to politics, discussions) did not reveal any significant effects (see Supplementary Information, Section H, Table H2).</p> <hd id="AN0178365499-34">Assessment of Internal Validity of Individual Studies</hd> <p>A visual summary of the quality assessment of included studies is displayed in FigureD1 (see Section D in the Supplementary Information). While almost half of the studies (41%) used random sampling (or comparable techniques, e.g., online sampling service aiming a representative sample), a similar amount is based on convenience sampling (44%). Studies using experimental designs mainly relied on random allocation to experimental and control groups. Regarding response rate, missing values and measurement error, the risk of bias remains broadly unclear (62–92%) due to poor reporting standards.</p> <hd id="AN0178365499-35">Publication and Reporting Bias</hd> <p>We used publication status as a moderator in order to test whether reported effect sizes were dependent on the status of the manuscript. The test was not supported for any of the models (see Table 2). Results of the adapted Egger's regression test are shown in Table 3. The inverse of the sample size was included as a moderator in the multilevel models as a measure of precision. We found significant, negative effects in the model of negative-activating emotions of cross-sectional designs, indicating funnel-plot asymmetry (see Figure I1 in section I of the Supplementary Information). Thus, studies with lower precision (i.e., smaller sample size) had smaller effect sizes. For experimental designs, the same occurred in models of positive-activating emotions and anxiety (see Figure I2).</p> <p>Table 2 Moderator analysis of publication status</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Model</p></th><th align="left"><p>Predictor</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>k</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>N</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p>Estimate</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>SE</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>t</italic> (df)</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>p</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p>95% <italic>CI</italic></p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" colspan="9"><p><italic>Cross-sectional designs</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Pos.-Act. Emotions</p></td><td align="left"><p>Intercept</p></td><td align="left"><p>12</p></td><td align="left"><p>42</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.134</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.071</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.882 (40)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.067</p></td><td align="left"><p>[− 0.01, 0.277]</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Status</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char"><p> − 0.005</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.082</p></td><td align="left"><p> − 0.064 (40)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.950</p></td><td align="left"><p>[− 0.171, 0.161]</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Enthusiasm</p></td><td align="left"><p>Intercept</p></td><td align="left"><p>6</p></td><td align="left"><p>19</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.115</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.141</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.82 (17)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.423</p></td><td align="left"><p>[− 0.182, 0.413]</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Status</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char"><p> − 0.015</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.150</p></td><td align="left"><p> − 0.102 (17)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.920</p></td><td align="left"><p>[− 0.331, 0.301]</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Neg.-Act. Emotions</p></td><td align="left"><p>Intercept</p></td><td align="left"><p>22</p></td><td align="left"><p>83</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.072</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.040</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.782 (81)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.079</p></td><td align="left"><p>[− 0.008, 0.152]</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Status</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char"><p> − 0.031</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.047</p></td><td align="left"><p> − 0.658 (81)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.513</p></td><td align="left"><p>[− 0.124, 0.062]</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Anxiety</p></td><td align="left"><p>Intercept</p></td><td align="left"><p>19</p></td><td align="left"><p>45</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.012</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.052</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.237 (43)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.814</p></td><td align="left"><p>[− 0.092, 0.117]</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Status</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char"><p>0.018</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.058</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.309 (43)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.759</p></td><td align="left"><p>[− 0.099, 0.134]</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Anger</p></td><td align="left"><p>Intercept</p></td><td align="left"><p>12</p></td><td align="left"><p>32</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.090</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.110</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.819 (30)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.419</p></td><td align="left"><p>[− 0.135, 0.315]</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Status</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char"><p> − 0.031</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.114</p></td><td align="left"><p> − 0.273 (30)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.787</p></td><td align="left"><p>[− 0.264, 0.202]</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="9"><p><italic>Experimental designs</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Pos.-Act. Emotions</p></td><td align="left"><p>Intercept</p></td><td align="left"><p>6</p></td><td align="left"><p>16</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p> − 0.125</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.205</p></td><td align="left"><p> − 0.61 (14)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.552</p></td><td align="left"><p>[− 0.566, 0.315]</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Status</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char"><p>0.218</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.225</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.972 (14)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.348</p></td><td align="left"><p>[− 0.264, 0.7]</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Enthusiasm</p></td><td align="left"><p>Intercept</p></td><td align="left"><p>5</p></td><td align="left"><p>10</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p> − 0.130</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.109</p></td><td align="left"><p> − 1.189 (8)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.269</p></td><td align="left"><p>[− 0.381, 0.122]</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Status</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char"><p>0.141</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.113</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.251 (8)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.246</p></td><td align="left"><p>[− 0.119, 0.402]</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Neg.-Act. Emotions</p></td><td align="left"><p>Intercept</p></td><td align="left"><p>19</p></td><td align="left"><p>107</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p> − 0.024</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.088</p></td><td align="left"><p> − 0.274 (105)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.785</p></td><td align="left"><p>[− 0.199, 0.150]</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Status</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char"><p>0.091</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.091</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.996 (105)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.321</p></td><td align="left"><p>[− 0.090, 0.275]</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Anxiety</p></td><td align="left"><p>Intercept</p></td><td align="left"><p>16</p></td><td align="left"><p>45</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p> − 0.005</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.137</p></td><td align="left"><p> − 0.034 (43)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.973</p></td><td align="left"><p>[− 0.28, 0.271]</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Status</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char"><p>0.067</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.145</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.462 (43)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.646</p></td><td align="left"><p>[− 0.226, 0.36]</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Anger</p></td><td align="left"><p>Intercept</p></td><td align="left"><p>13</p></td><td align="left"><p>25</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p> − 0.079</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.153</p></td><td align="left"><p> − 0.516 (23)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.611</p></td><td align="left"><p>[− 0.395, 0.237]</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Status</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char"><p>0.201</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.158</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.271 (23)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.216</p></td><td align="left"><p>[− 0.126, 0.527]</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>Note. k =</emph> Number of studies with unique datasets; <emph>N</emph> = Number of effect sizes; Status indicated the publication status, with 1 = published and 0 = unpublished</p> <p>Table 3 Results of Egger's regression test</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Model</p></th><th align="left"><p>Predictor</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>k</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>N</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p>estimate</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>SE</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>t</italic> (df)</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>p</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p>95% <italic>CI</italic></p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" colspan="9"><p><italic>Cross-sectional designs</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Pos.-Act</p></td><td align="left"><p>Intercept</p></td><td align="left"><p>9</p></td><td align="left"><p>36</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.067</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.076</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.886 (34)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.382</p></td><td align="left"><p>[− 0.087, 0.222]</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Emotions</p></td><td align="left"><p>Inverse of N</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char"><p>32.458</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>31.403</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.034 (34)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.309</p></td><td align="left"><p>[− 31.361, 96.277]</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Enthusiasm</p></td><td align="left"><p>Intercept</p></td><td align="left"><p>5</p></td><td align="left"><p>18</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.130</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.099</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.32 (16)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.205</p></td><td align="left"><p>[− 0.079, 0.339]</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Inverse of N</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char"><p> − 14.209</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>40.905</p></td><td align="left"><p> − 0.347 (16)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.733</p></td><td align="left"><p>[− 100.923, 72.505]</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Neg.-Act</p></td><td align="left"><p>Intercept</p></td><td align="left"><p>16</p></td><td align="left"><p>69</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.082</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.030</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.709 (67)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.009</p></td><td align="left"><p>[0.022, 0.143]</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Emotions</p></td><td align="left"><p>Inverse of N</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char"><p> − 26.206</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>12.438</p></td><td align="left"><p> − 2.107 (67)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.039</p></td><td align="left"><p>[− 51.032, − 1.38]</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Anxiety</p></td><td align="left"><p>Intercept</p></td><td align="left"><p>15</p></td><td align="left"><p>38</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.073</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.034</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.147 (36)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.039</p></td><td align="left"><p>[0.004, 0.142]</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Inverse of N</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char"><p> − 27.111</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>13.826</p></td><td align="left"><p> − 1.961 (36)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.058</p></td><td align="left"><p>[− 55.152, 0.93]</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Anger</p></td><td align="left"><p>Intercept</p></td><td align="left"><p>11</p></td><td align="left"><p>31</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.105</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.041</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.553 (29)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.016</p></td><td align="left"><p>[0.021, 0.19]</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Inverse of N</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char"><p> − 25.044</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>16.229</p></td><td align="left"><p> − 1.543 (29)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.134</p></td><td align="left"><p>[− 58.236, 8.148]</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="9"><p><italic>Experimental designs</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Pos.-Act</p></td><td align="left"><p>Intercept</p></td><td align="left"><p>5</p></td><td align="left"><p>13</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.371</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.114</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.269 (11)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.007</p></td><td align="left"><p>[0.121, 0.621]</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Emotions</p></td><td align="left"><p>Inverse of N</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char"><p> − 64.448</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>23.702</p></td><td align="left"><p> − 2.719 (11)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.020</p></td><td align="left"><p>[− 116.615, − 12.28]</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Enthusiasm</p></td><td align="left"><p>Intercept</p></td><td align="left"><p>4</p></td><td align="left"><p>9</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.111</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.091</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.216 (7)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.264</p></td><td align="left"><p>[− 0.105, 0.326]</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Inverse of N</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char"><p> − 20.476</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>17.836</p></td><td align="left"><p> − 1.148 (7)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.289</p></td><td align="left"><p>[− 62.652, 21.7]</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Neg.-Act</p></td><td align="left"><p>Intercept</p></td><td align="left"><p>17</p></td><td align="left"><p>103</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.090</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.036</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.546 (101)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.012</p></td><td align="left"><p>[0.020, 0.161]</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Emotions</p></td><td align="left"><p>Inverse of N</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char"><p> − 4.871</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>5.292</p></td><td align="left"><p> − 0.920 (101)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.360</p></td><td align="left"><p>[− 15.368, 5.626]</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Anxiety</p></td><td align="left"><p>Intercept</p></td><td align="left"><p>14</p></td><td align="left"><p>43</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.182</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.061</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.980 (41)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.005</p></td><td align="left"><p>[0.059, 0.306]</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Inverse of N</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char"><p> − 22.494</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>8.430</p></td><td align="left"><p> − 2.645 (41)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.012</p></td><td align="left"><p>[− 39.319, − 5.269]</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Anger</p></td><td align="left"><p>Intercept</p></td><td align="left"><p>12</p></td><td align="left"><p>24</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.087</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.069</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.265 (22)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.219</p></td><td align="left"><p>[− 0.056, 0.23]</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>Inverse of N</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td char="." align="char"><p>5.673</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>8.510</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.667 (22)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.512</p></td><td align="left"><p>[− 11.976, 23.323]</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>Note. k</emph> = Number of studies with unique datasets; <emph>N</emph> = Number of effect sizes</p> <hd id="AN0178365499-36">Discussion</hd> <p>We present the first cross-disciplinary systematic review and meta-analysis specifically focusing on the role of emotions in political learning. Prior general reviews on emotions in politics (Brader & Marcus, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref166">16</reflink>]; Crigler & Just, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref167">30</reflink>]; Groenendyk, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref168">49</reflink>]) published a decade ago already noted an increase in interest in the topic. This trend appears to have continued since then, particularly in the age of emotionally laden political events such as public health crisis (e.g., the H1N1 swine flu epidemic, the Covid-19 pandemic) or the Trump election. Thus, it has been high time to systematically search and analyze which emotions are currently investigated, and how they relate to political learning.</p> <hd id="AN0178365499-37">Positive Associations Between Emotions and Learning</hd> <p>The aim of this study was to analyze which emotions have been investigated in the literature on political learning (systematic review) and analyze how they are associated with learning in the context of politics (meta-analysis). Our hypotheses based on control-value theory (Pekrun, [<reflink idref="bib101" id="ref169">101</reflink>]) were partially supported, and informative results regarding negative-activating emotions in our exploratory analysis were observed. The first hypothesis, that positive-activating emotions were positively related to learning, was partly supported by cross-sectionally designed studies. Only few experimental studies focusing on positive emotions were available (<emph>k</emph> = 6; <emph>N</emph> = 16), with correlations mainly representing null-effects. The great attention to negative emotions (e.g., anger or anxiety) compared to positive emotions has also been noticed in prior reviews (Crigler & Just, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref170">30</reflink>]). Given the predominance of deficit-view studies in psychology research, where the focus has mainly been on the negative and symptomatic (Fredrickson, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref171">40</reflink>]), it is not surprising that very few studies centering positive emotions have been conducted. A positive psychology research approach placing the focus on positive emotions in political learning (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, [<reflink idref="bib121" id="ref172">121</reflink>]) may be a fruitful avenue for future research.</p> <p>For negative-activating emotions we had no predefined hypotheses, as relations often have varied depending on the specific emotion and specific facet of learning (Pekrun et al., [<reflink idref="bib103" id="ref173">103</reflink>]). Interestingly, negative-activating emotions (e.g., anger) were positively related to learning in both experimental and cross-sectional study designs. In contrast to studies in the field of political psychology which usually highlight the benefits of anxiety rather than anger for political learning (for example, see affective intelligence theory, Marcus et al., [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref174">83</reflink>]), we found positive, though small, associations between anger and learning. Ryan ([<reflink idref="bib115" id="ref175">115</reflink>]) and Kim ([<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref176">66</reflink>]), for example, found positive effects of anger on information seeking and knowledge, and consequently discuss the "the democratic value of anger" (Kim, [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref177">66</reflink>], p. 18). Kim ([<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref178">66</reflink>]) thereby refers to the feeling-as-information model. Emotions like anger might signal that an action is needed and increase citizens' cognitive alertness. Though in the academic context anger is often found to increase task-irrelevant thinking, it can also increase motivation if success is expected (Pekrun & Stephens, [<reflink idref="bib105" id="ref179">105</reflink>]). The positive association is consistent with the classification of anger as an approach emotion (e.g., Goetz et al., [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref180">46</reflink>]) and its mobilizing effect for political participation (Elliot et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref181">36</reflink>]; Redlawsk & Mattes, [<reflink idref="bib109" id="ref182">109</reflink>]).</p> <p>On the other hand, anger during the learning process might lead to focus on information and arguments with respect to defending one's own political attitudes (Redlawsk & Mattes, [<reflink idref="bib109" id="ref183">109</reflink>]). Some in our meta-analysis included studies reported positive associations between anger and learning particularly when considering information congruent to their opinion (e.g., for information seeking: Wollebaek et al., [<reflink idref="bib147" id="ref184">147</reflink>], for attention to politics: Song, [<reflink idref="bib127" id="ref185">127</reflink>]). Given that the majority of our effect sizes are based on outcomes like information seeking and attention to politics, less is known about breadth and depth of knowledge actually acquired. Thus, results of negative-activating emotions might only relate to shallow, in contrast to more detailed, information processing (Muis et al., [<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref186">92</reflink>]).</p> <p>The hypothesis on negative-deactivating emotions was not supported, but models were based on just a few effect sizes and studies. This reveals one of the blind spots of the current research, since there is only a limited number of studies with focus on deactivating emotions. Though, for example, boredom is a recurring theme in qualitative studies on civic education and civic engagement among youth (e.g., Kahne & Middaugh, [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref187">64</reflink>]; Zukin et al., [<reflink idref="bib148" id="ref188">148</reflink>]), we could not find any study including boredom when looking at political learning. A recent study has already revealed negative associations between boredom, hopelessness, or confusion experienced during discussions of political and social issues in class with student's engagement, motivation, and knowledge (Graf et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref189">47</reflink>]). Therefore, investigating and further tackling these deactivating emotions specifically related to political objects seems of great relevance in order to foster informed and active citizenship.</p> <hd id="AN0178365499-38">Blind Spots in the Literature Landscape on Emotions and Political Learning</hd> <p>Our systematic literature search revealed a number of blind spots in the landscape of existing evidence. First, the majority of the studies is based on the US (70%), only 12% of the studies are including non-western countries. Predominance of western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic samples in psychological research has often been criticized (i.e., WEIRD samples: Henrich et al., [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref190">53</reflink>]), which seems to apply to the current meta-analysis, too. As political context might be of great relevance to citizens' experienced emotions and their learning motivation, diversifying targeted samples is a major task for future research.</p> <p>Most studies identified were based on adults. Studies on adolescents and school students, who are in a critical period of their political socialization (Sears & Brown, [<reflink idref="bib120" id="ref191">120</reflink>]), are few and far between. The limited number of studies focusing on political emotions among youth has already been noticed by Barrett and Pachi ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref192">9</reflink>]). This limits the generalizability of the current findings, as emotions in the context of politics might play a specific role for adolescents during the impressionable years of political learning. Moreover, a great amount of political learning takes place in formal settings of civic education at school (Schlozman et al., [<reflink idref="bib117" id="ref193">117</reflink>]), a context where the role of emotions with a few exceptions (e.g., Bayram Özdemir et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref194">11</reflink>]; Graf et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref195">47</reflink>]) has been overlooked entirely. We therefore implore researchers who conduct studies on civic education to include emotions as an important aspect of the learning process. Relatedly, future studies are encouraged to analyze whether the role of emotions differs between formal civic education at schools and informal learning settings.</p> <hd id="AN0178365499-39">Implications for Theory, Practice, and Future Studies</hd> <p>Overall, results are partly in line with control-value theory (Pekrun, [<reflink idref="bib101" id="ref196">101</reflink>]), and at first sight contradict assumptions of the affective intelligence theory (Marcus et al., [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref197">83</reflink>]), one of the main theories applied to emotions in politics. Of all 66 studies included in this systematic review, 42 refer to the theory of affective intelligence in their literature review. While one of the core assumptions of the theory is that anxiety in contrast to anger is the main driver of political learning by interrupting habits and increasing alertness to new information (Marcus et al., [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref198">83</reflink>]), we did not find overall associations for anxiety, but slight positive associations for anger. One explanation might be that we were interested in bivariate relations in the current study, therefore not controlling for shared variance and mutual effects of anger and anxiety. Additionally, for experimental designs, Egger's regression test suggested that models of anxiety are affected by publication asymmetry. Surprisingly, it seems that in this meta-analysis, specifically small (imprecise) studies with positive relations between anxiety and learning are missing. We can only speculate about the reason for this pattern. It could be due to excluding studies that did not report standardized effect sizes. If correcting for missing studies in the estimated overall effect size, it seems that anxiety could reveal similar associations as anger. Linking back to the theory, this would mean that all types of activating emotions seem to relate to learning. The high number of experimental designed studies conducted even imply causal paths from negative-activating emotions to learning processes.</p> <p>What do these small, positive effects of negative-activating emotions mean for the control-value theory and the affective intelligence theory? Similar results, meaning positive effects for both anxiety and anger, were found in a recent review on emotions and information seeking (Funck & Lau, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref199">42</reflink>]). The authors argue that given the contradictions to affective intelligence theory, there is a need for a new theory about emotions for the context of politics. In control-value theory, positive effects of negative-activating emotions are possible, but far from common (e.g., Pekrun et al., [<reflink idref="bib103" id="ref200">103</reflink>]). One explanation might be the object focus of the emotions. In contrast to typical achievement emotions, which for example, focus on taking a test, emotions in our current study were mainly focused on political topics or activities during which political information was processed. It might be that activating topic emotions mainly increases the focus and attention, and, if the context allows, learning. However, learning could still depend on the intensity of experienced emotions and the difficulty of the learning task, but also type and the quality of learning. Additionally, characteristics of the learning context might be important, especially in the complex situations where political learning usually takes place. Future studies are encouraged to further develop the control-value theory with respect to its assumptions related to negative-activating emotions. For example, it should be analyzed whether there are systematic differences between discrete emotions of this category, learning contexts, and the quality of learning.</p> <p>Our classification and analysis of emotions is built on Pekrun's ([<reflink idref="bib100" id="ref201">100</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib106" id="ref202">106</reflink>]) cognitive motivational model as part of his control-value theory. In this model, emotions are categorized along the dimensions of valence and arousal, consequently resulting in four emotion groups (positive-activating, positive-deactivating, negative-activating, and negative-deactivating). These two dimensions are broadly supported by studies using judgments of faces, words, and self-report ratings of experiences (Barrett & Bliss-Moreau, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref203">8</reflink>]). Categorization, however, always comes along with a reduction of complexity and information, which would be available with more fine-grained metrics. Additionally, there is still a lack of cumulative evidence on the associations of emotions and physiological arousal (Horvers et al., [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref204">56</reflink>]). While in this meta-analysis, the categorization allowed us to include as much information as possible while still differentiating between core dimensions relevant for learning, there is a need for future studies to validate the classification of discrete emotions.</p> <p>Similarly, we did not find moderating effects of the learning category. However, this might be explained by the relatively low number of effect sizes per category in each estimated model. When more studies will exist in the future, it would be of great interest to further inspect whether associations between emotions and learning differ depending on the learning category or the quality of learning. Further, the learning categories could be combined into a path model (e.g., with paths from emotions to knowledge gain mediated by attention, information seeking, and discussion) and tested with a meta-analytic structural equation model (Jack & Cheung, [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref205">61</reflink>]).</p> <p>According to Lupia ([<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref206">77</reflink>]), civic educators[<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref207">3</reflink>] need to attract voters' attention in order to facilitate political learning, which can be achieved through addressing voters' fears and aspirations. This already addresses the motivational role of emotions for learning, which is supported by our results on associations of negative-activating emotions (particularly anger) and positive-activating emotions with learning. For example, Otto et al. ([<reflink idref="bib98" id="ref208">98</reflink>]) found in their experience sampling studies that anger correlated positively with attention towards political news, while contentment even had negative lagged effects on attention. Therefore, civic educators may specifically address citizens' activating emotions in order to capture their attention and stimulate further engagement with new information. Still, researchers and civic educators need to be cautious of possible unintended side-effects when trying to enhance learning through emotions. For example, anger has been shown to negatively relate to institutional trust (e.g., Erhardt et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref209">37</reflink>]) and positively to populist attitudes (e.g., Rico et al., [<reflink idref="bib111" id="ref210">111</reflink>]). Further, anxiety was identified as a driver of believing in misinformation (Freiling et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref211">41</reflink>]). Given that the effects we observed were relatively small, there is a need to carefully weigh the positive impacts of emotions against any potentially unfavorable side effects.</p> <p>Though we could not identify moderators to the overall effects in this meta-analysis, we found considerable variation in the effects. This might still be explained by the relatively low number of effect sizes and variation in moderators per model. We encourage future studies to look further into possible moderators and identify under which circumstances, and for which populations these effects occur. For example, in the study of Bas and Grabe ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref212">10</reflink>]) the inclusion of emotions in political texts showed promising results to decrease knowledge gaps between higher and lower educated groups. Though politically sophisticated individuals are more likely to experience emotions in politics (Miller, [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref213">89</reflink>]), it might be that less sophisticated individuals learn more once the emotions are experienced and their attention focuses on politics. Additionally, characteristics of the learning outcomes, such as the quality of discussions, type of knowledge, or the breadth of information searched for might be possible moderators to consider in future when investigating the association between emotions and learning.</p> <p>Finally, a great challenge for the cross-disciplinary synthesis were diverging reporting standards. Many effect sizes had to be excluded, as only unstandardized regression coefficients from multiple regression models were reported. We recommend future studies to include descriptive and bivariate measures, no matter whether published or unpublished, and to make their data openly accessible. These measures are essential for research synthesis and allow a less biased assessment of an overall effect size. Additionally, basic sample characteristics and quality measures such as missing data handling and reliability of included measures were missing in a considerable amount of the studies included. This limited our possibilities for moderator analysis and the assessment of the risk of bias of the current meta-analysis. In line with the APA journal reporting standards for quantitative studies (American Psychological Association, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref214">4</reflink>]), we recommend future studies to:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Report basic demographic characteristics of the sample(s), at least including age and gender.</item> <p></p> <item> Report the sampling method, response rate, number of missing values, and if applicable, any exclusions and discuss how this might affect results of the study.</item> <p></p> <item> Describe in detail the measures used, ideally with at least one sample item to illustrate the measurement. We additionally recommend providing the full study material, for example via an online appendix.</item> <p></p> <item> Assess and report reliability measures of included variables of interest.</item> <p></p> <item> Provide descriptive characteristics of variables of interest, including mean and standard deviation and bivariate correlations between these variables.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0178365499-40">Conclusion</hd> <p>The aim of this cross-disciplinary systematic review and meta-analysis was to synthesize current research on the associations between emotions and political learning. Small positive associations for positive-activating emotions (e.g., enthusiasm) and negative-activating emotions (e.g., anger) imply that these emotions might help to raise attention and keep citizens informed about current political matters. Still, more research is needed to investigate systematic heterogeneity in the effect sizes, particularly focusing on the contexts and the quality of political learning.</p> <hd id="AN0178365499-41">Author Contribution</hd> <p>Conceptualization: Elisabeth Graf; Data curation: Elisabeth Graf, Johanna Lowis Donath, Elouise Botes; Formal Analysis: Elisabeth Graf; Methodology: Elisabeth Graf, Martin Voracek; Johanna Lowis Donath; Supervision: Thomas Goetz; Visualization: Elisabeth Graf; Writing—original draft: Elisabeth Graf; Writing—review & editing: Elisabeth Graf; Johanna Lowis Donath, Elouise Botes, Martin Voracek, Thomas Goetz.</p> <hd id="AN0178365499-42">Funding</hd> <p>Open access funding provided by University of Vienna.</p> <hd id="AN0178365499-43">Data Availability</hd> <p>Data and accompanying analysis scripts are available via https://osf.io/8k9dx/?view_only=c7d70445bf564afb8eaae2f2c0f0babb.</p> <hd id="AN0178365499-44">Declarations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0178365499-45">Conflict of Interest</hd> <p>The authors declare no competing interests.</p> <hd id="AN0178365499-46">Supplementary Information</hd> <p>Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.</p> <p>Graph: Supplementary file1 (DOCX 571 KB)</p> <hd id="AN0178365499-47">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0178365499-48"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref103" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> *Albertson, B., & Gadarian, S. K. (2010). Anxiety in a public health crisis: The effects of anxiety on trust and learning [Paper presentation]. Annual Scientific Meeting of the International Society of Political Psychology (ISPP), Istanbul, Turkey.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref8" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> *Albertson, B., & Gadarian, S. K. (2015). Anxious politics: Democratic citizenship in a threatening world. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139963107</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref105" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Aloe AM. An empirical investigation of partial effect sizes in meta-analysis of correlational data. The Journal of General Psychology. 2014; 141; 1: 47-64. 10.1080/00221309.2013.853021</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref106" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> American Psychological Association. (2019). Publication manual of the American psychological association. American Psychological Association.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref140" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Assink M, Wibbelink CJ. Fitting three-level meta-analytic models in r: A step-by-step tutorial. The Quantitative Methods for Psychology. 2016; 12; 3: 154-174. 10.20982/tqmp.12.3.p154</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref125" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Balduzzi S, Rücker G, Schwarzer G. How to perform a meta-analysis with R: A practical tutorial. Evidence-Based Mental Health. 2019; 22; 4: 153-160. 10.1136/ebmental-2019-300117</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref74" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Barabas J, Jerit J, Pollock W, Rainey C. The question(s) of political knowledge. American Political Science Review. 2014; 108; 4: 840-855. 10.1017/S0003055414000392</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref203" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Barrett LF, Bliss-Moreau E. Affect as a psychological primitive. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. 2009; 41: 167-218. 10.1016/S0065-2601(08)00404-8</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref192" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Barrett M, Pachi D. Youth civic and political engagement. Routledge. 2019. 10.4324/9780429025570</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bas O, Grabe ME. Emotion-provoking personalization of news: Informing citizens and closing the knowledge gap?. Communication Research. 2015; 42; 2: 159-185. 10.1177/0093650213514602</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bayram Özdemir S, Stattin H, Özdemir M. Youth's initiations of civic and political discussions in class: Do youth's perceptions of teachers' behaviors matter and why?. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 2016; 45; 11: 2233-2245. 10.1007/s10964-016-0525-z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Beymer PN, Robinson KA, Naftzger N, Schmidt JA. Program quality, control, value, and emotions in summer STEM programs: An examination of control-value theory in an informal learning context. Learning Environments Research. 2022; 26: 595-615. 10.1007/s10984-022-09439-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bieg M, Goetz T, Lipnevich AA. What students think they feel differs from what they really feel – Academic self-concept moderates the discrepancy between students' trait and state emotional self-reports. PLoS ONE. 2014; 9; 3: e92563. 10.1371/journal.pone.0092563</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Boehnke K, Macpherson MJ, Meador M, Petri H. How west German adolescents experience the nuclear threat. Political Psychology. 1989; 10; 3: 419. 10.2307/3791357</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Borenstein, M. & Hedges, L. V. (2019). Effect sizes for meta-analysis. In H. Cooper, L. V. Hedges, & J. C. Valentine (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (3rd edition, pp. 207–243). Russel Sage Foundation.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brader T, Marcus GE Huddy L, Sears DO, Levy JS. Emotions and political psychology. Oxford handbook of political psychology. 2013; Oxford University Press: 165-204</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brader T, Valentino NA, Suhay E. What triggers public opposition to immigration? Anxiety, group cues, and immigration threat. American Journal of Political Science. 2008; 52; 4: 959-978. 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2008.00353.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Brader, T. (2006). Campaigning for hearts and minds: How emotional appeals in political ads work. The University of Chicago Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Calfano BR, Kruse A. Beyond surveillance: The effects of issue ad vividness and anxiety on information use. American Politics Research. 2016; 44; 6: 1098-1122. 10.1177/1532673X16631416</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Capelos T, Chrona S. The map to the heart: An analysis of political affectivity in Turkey. Politics and Governance. 2018; 6; 4: 144-158. 10.17645/pag.v6i4.1576</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Capelos, T., Rijkhoff, S. A. M., & Leeuwenburg, R. (2007). Anxiety, party identification, and the vote: Understanding the dynamics of citizen preferences in Dutch politics [Conference Paper]. Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association. Chicago, Illinois, USA.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chadwick AE. Toward a theory of persuasive hope: Effects of cognitive appraisals, hope appeals, and hope in the context of climate change. Health Communication. 2015; 30; 6: 598-611. 10.1080/10410236.2014.916777</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chaffee SH, Saphir MN, Graf J, Sandvig C, Hahn KS. Attention to counter-attitudinal messages in a state election campaign. Political Communication. 2001; 18; 3: 247-272. 10.1080/10584600152400338</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cheung-Blunden V, Ju J. Anxiety as a barrier to information processing in the event of a cyberattack. Political Psychology. 2016; 37; 3: 387-400. 10.1111/pops.12264</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Choi, S. (2018). Anatomy of emotions in politics: The role of discrete emotions in political information search and participation [Doctoral dissertation]. The University of Texas at Austin.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Chung, H.-f., & Tang, G. (2020). The mediating role of political emotion between media use and political efficacy: Evidence from Hong Kong youths in the post-umbrella movement period [Conference presentation]. 70th Annual ICA Conference, online.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Civettini AJW, Redlawsk DP. Voters, emotions, and memory. Political Psychology. 2009; 30; 1: 125-151. 10.1111/j.1467-9221.2008.00683.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Clifford S, Jerit J. Disgust, anxiety, and political learning in the face of threat. American Journal of Political Science. 2018; 62; 6: 266-279. 10.1111/ajps.12350</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cohen-Chen S, Halperin E, Porat R, Bar-Tal D. The differential effects of hope and fear on information processing in intractable conflict. Journal of Social and Political Psychology. 2014; 2; 1: 11-30. 10.5964/jspp.v2i1.230</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Crigler AN, Just MR Semetko HA, Scammell M. Measuring affect, emotion and mood in political communication. The Sage handbook of political communication. 2012; Sage Publishing Ltd: 211-224. 10.4135/9781446201015.n18</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Deimel D, Hoskins B, Abs HJ. How do schools affect inequalities in political participation: Compensation of social disadvantage or provision of differential access?. Educational Psychology. 2020; 40; 2: 146-166. 10.1080/01443410.2019.1645305</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Delli Carpini M. X. Borgida E, Federico CM, Sullivan JL. The psychology of civic learning. The political psychology of democratic citizenship. 2009; Oxford University Press: 23-52. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195335453.003.0002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Delli Carpini, M. X., & Keeter, S. (1993). Measuring political knowledge: Putting first things first. American Journal of Political Science, 37(4), 1179–1206. JSTOR. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111549</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Ditonto, T. M., Lau, R. R., & Love, J. (2017). Showdown at the OK corral: Competing theories of political judgment [Conference paper]. APSA Annual Meeting. San Francisco, CA, United States.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dreisbach G. Using the theory of constructed emotion to inform the study of cognition-emotion interactions. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. 2022; 30: 489-497. 10.3758/s13423-022-02176-z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Elliot AJ, Eder AB, Harmon-Jones E. Approach–avoidance motivation and emotion: Convergence and divergence. Emotion Review. 2013; 5; 3: 308-311. 10.1177/1754073913477517</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Erhardt J, Freitag M, Filsinger M, Wamsler S. The emotional foundations of political support: How fear and anger affect trust in the government in times of the covid-19 pandemic. Swiss Political Science Review. 2021; 27; 2: 339-352. 10.1111/spsr.12462</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Erisen C. Political behavior and the emotional citizen. Palgrave Macmillan UK. 2018. 10.1057/978-1-137-58705-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ford BQ, Feinberg M, Lam P, Mauss IB, John OP. Using reappraisal to regulate negative emotion after the 2016 US Presidential election: Does emotion regulation trump political action?. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2019; 117; 5: 998-1015. 10.1037/pspp0000200</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fredrickson BL. The broaden–and–build theory of positive emotions. Philosophical transactions of the royal society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences. 2004; 359; 1449: 1367-1377. 10.1098/rstb.2004.1512</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Freiling I, Krause NM, Scheufele DA, Brossard D. Believing and sharing misinformation, fact-checks, and accurate information on social media: The role of anxiety during COVID-19. New Media & Society. 2023; 25; 1: 141-162. 10.1177/1461444821101145</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Funck, A. S., & Lau, R. R. (2023). A meta-analytic assessment of the effects of emotions on political information search and decision-making. American Journal of Political Sciencehttps://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12819</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Furlong C, Vignoles VL. Social identification in collective climate activism: Predicting participation in the environmental movement, extinction rebellion. Identity. 2021; 21; 1: 20-35. 10.1080/15283488.2020.1856664</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Gadarian, S. K., & Albertson, B. (2007, August 30-September 2). Fear and learning in the illegal immigration debate: Where do anxious citizens get their news? [Conference paper]. APSA Annual Meeting, Chicaco, IL, United States.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Galston WA. Political knowledge, political engagement, and civic education. Annual Review of Political Science. 2001; 4; 1: 217-234. 10.1146/annurev.polisci.4.1.217</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goetz T, Sticca F, Pekrun R, Murayama K, Elliot AJ. Intraindividual relations between achievement goals and discrete achievement emotions: An experience sampling approach. Learning and Instruction. 2016; 41: 115-125. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.10.007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Graf, E., Goetz, T., Bieleke, M., & Murano, D. (2024). Feeling politics at school: Antecedents and effects of emotions in civic education. Political Psychology, 45(1), 23-42.https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12907</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Graham JW. Missing data analysis: Making it work in the real world. Annual Review of Psychology. 2008; 60; 1: 549-576. 10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085530</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Groenendyk E. Current emotion research in political science: How emotions help democracy overcome its collective action problem. Emotion Review. 2011; 3; 4: 455-463. 10.1177/1754073911410746</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Han, Y.-H. P. (2014). Might blaming the news media be beneficial to democracy? The effects of bias-induced anger, anxiety, and issue novelty on subsequent news selection [Doctoral dissertation]. The Florida State University.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harrer, M., Cuijpers, P., Furukawa, T., & Ebert, D. D. (2019). Dmetar: Companion r package for the guide 'doing meta-analysis in r' [R package version 0.0.9000]. <ulink href="http://dmetar.protectlab.org/">http://dmetar.protectlab.org/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hay C. Political Analysis. 2002; Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1007/978-0-230-62911-0</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Henrich J, Heine SJ, Norenzayan A. The weirdest people in the world?. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 2010; 33; 2–3: 61-83. 10.1017/S0140525X0999152X</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hmielowski JD, Donaway R, Wang MY. Environmental risk information seeking: The differential roles of anxiety and hopelessness. Environmental Communication - A Journal of Nature and Culture. 2019; 13; 7: 894-908. 10.1080/17524032.2018.1500926</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hoewe J, Parrott S. The power of anger: How emotions predict information seeking and sharing after a presidential election. Atlantic Journal of Communication. 2019; 27; 4: 272-283. 10.1080/15456870.2019.1614925</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Horvers A, Tombeng N, Bosse T, Lazonder AW, Molenaar I. Detecting emotions through electrodermal activity in learning contexts: A systematic review. Sensors. 2021; 21; 23: 7869. 10.3390/s21237869</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Huddy L, Feldman S, Cassese E Neuman WR. On the distinct political effects of anxiety and anger. The affect effect: Dynamics of emotion in political thinking and behavior. 2007; University of Chicago Press: 202-230. 10.7208/chicago/9780226574431.003.0009</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hullett CR, Louden AD, Mitra A. Emotion and political cognition: A test of bipolar, two-dimensional, and discrete models of emotion in predicting involvement and learning. Communication Monographs. 2003; 70; 3: 250-263. 10.1080/0363775032000167424</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Hutchings, V. L., Valentino, N. A., Philpot, T. S., & White, I. K. (2006). Racial cues in campaign news: The effects of candidate strategies on group activation and political attentiveness among African Americans. In D. P. Redlawsk (Ed.), Feeling Politics. Emotion in political information processing (pp. 165–186). Palgrave Macmillan US. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781403983114_9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ichilov O Sears DO, Huddy L, Jervis R. Education and democratic citizenship in a changing world. Oxford handbook of political psychology. 2003; Oxford University Press: 637-669</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jack S, Cheung MW-L. Meta-analytic structural equation modeling with moderating effects on SEM parameters. Psychological Methods. 2020; 25; 4: 430-455. 10.1037/met0000245</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Just MR, Crigler AN, Belt TL Neuman WR. Don't give up hope: Emotions, candidate appraisals, and votes. The affect effect: Dynamics of emotion in political thinking and behavior. 2007; University of Chicago Press: 231-259. 10.7208/chicago/9780226574431.003.0010</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kahlor LA, Yang ZJ, Liang M-C. Risky politics: Applying the planned risk information seeking model to the 2016 US presidential election. Mass Communication & Society. 2018; 21; 6: 697-719. 10.1080/15205436.2018.1498900</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kahne J, Middaugh E. High quality civic education: What is it and who gets it?. Social Education. 2008; 72; 1: 34-39</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Keegan P. Critical affective civic literacy: A framework for attending to political emotion in the social studies classroom. The Journal of Social Studies Research. 2021; 45; 1: 15-24. 10.1016/j.jssr.2020.06.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Kim, N. (2016). Beyond rationality: The role of anger and information in deliberation. Communication Research, 43(1), 3–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650213510943.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kossmeier, M., Tran, U. S., & Voracek, M. (2020). Metaviz: Forest plots, funnel plots, and visual funnel plot inference for meta-analysis [R package version 0.3.1]. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=metaviz.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lamprianou I, Ellinas AA. Emotion, sophistication and political behavior: Evidence from a laboratory experiment. Political Psychology. 2019; 40; 4: 859-876. 10.1111/pops.12536</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Landreville KD, LaMarre HL. Working through political entertainment: How negative emotion and narrative engagement encourage political discussion intent. Communication Quarterly. 2011; 59; 2: 200-220. 10.1080/01463373.2011.563441</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lange J, Zickfeld JH. Emotions as overlapping causal networks of emotion components: Implications and methodological approaches. Emotion Review. 2021; 13; 2: 157-167. 10.1177/1754073920988787</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee J, Choi Y. Expanding affective intelligence theory through social viewing: Focusing on the south Korea's 2017 presidential election. Computers in Human Behavior. 2018; 83: 119-128. 10.1016/j.chb.2018.01.026</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lee J, Boeckelman K, Hardy RJ, Davis K. Positive messages as a motivator for seeking information about candidates. Politics & Policy. 2019; 47; 5: 877-901. 10.1111/polp.12326</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Lee, G. (2000). Information environment, cognitive appraisal, and discrete emotions in citizens' political evaluation and behavior: The 1966 United States presidential campaigns [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Pennsylvania.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lipsey, M. W. (2009). Identifying potentially interesting variables and analysis opportunities. In H. M. Cooper, L. V. Hedges, & J. C. Valentine (Hrsg.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed, S. 142–151). Russell Sage Foundation.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Losito, B., Agrusti, G., & Damiani, V. (2021). Understanding school and classroom contexts for civic and citizenship education: The importance of teacher data in the IEA studies. In B. Malak-Minkiewicz & J. Torney-Purta (Hrsg.), Influences of the IEA civic and citizenship education studies: Practice, policy, and research across countries and regions (S. 247–259). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-71102-3_21</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lüdecke, D. (2019). Esc: Effect size computation for meta analysis (version 0.5.1). 10.5281/zenodo.1249218.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lupia, A. (2016). Uninformed: Why people know so little about politics and what we can do about it. Oxford University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lynggaard K. Methodological challenges in the study of emotions in politics and how to deal with them. Political Psychology. 2019; 40; 6: 1201-1215. 10.1111/pops.12636</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *MacKuen, M. B., Marcus, G. E., Neuman, W. R., & Miller, P. R. (2010a). Affective intelligence or personality? State vs. trait influences on citizens' use of political information [Conference paper]. APSA Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C., United States. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1643468</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> MacKuen MB, Wolak J, Keele L, Marcus GE. Civic engagements: Resolute partisanship or reflective deliberation. American Journal of Political Science. 2010; 54; 2: 440-458. 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00440.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *MacKuen, M. B., Miller, P. R., Marcus, G. E., & Neuman, W. R. (2011). The attentive citizen: The dynamic impact of emotions on attention to political news over time. [Conference paper]. APSA Annual Meeting. Washington, D.C., United States. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1901796</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marcus GE, MacKuen MB. Anxiety, enthusiasm, and the vote: The emotional underpinnings of learning and involvement during presidential campaigns. American Political Science Review. 1993; 87; 3: 672-685. 10.2307/2938743</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marcus GE, Neuman WR, MacKuen MB. Affective intelligence and political judgment. 2000; University of Chicago Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marcus, G. E. (2013). The theory of affective intelligence and liberal politics. In N. Demertzis (Edt.), Emotions in politics the affect dimension in political tension (pp. 17–38). Palgrave Macmillan.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Martin JA, Myrick JG, Walker KK. How young, uninsured Americans respond to news coverage of Obamacare: An experimental test of an affective mediation model. Mass Communication and Society. 2017; 20; 5: 614-636. 10.1080/15205436.2017.1333621</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *McClain, C. (2009). Debating restrictions on embryonic stem cell research: An experimental study of online deliberation and political emotion. Politics and the Life Sciences, 28(2), 48–68. https://doi.org/10.2990/28_2_48</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McGuinness, L. A. (2019). Robvis: An r package and web application for visualising risk-of-bias assessments. https://github.com/mcguinlu/robvis</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Miles, M. R., & Mullinix, K. J. (2021). (Un)informed voting? A test of compulsory voting feedback effects. Policy Studies Journal, 49(1), 219–241. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12366</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Miller PR. The emotional citizen: Emotion as a function of political sophistication. Political Psychology. 2011; 32; 4: 575-600. 10.1111/j.1467-9221.2011.00824.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moeller J, de Vreese C. Spiral of political learning: The reciprocal relationship of news media use and political knowledge among adolescents. Communication Research. 2019; 46; 8: 1078-1094. 10.1177/0093650215605148</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moosbrugger, H., & Kelava, A. (2012). Testtheorie und Fragebogenkonstruktion (Vol. 2). Springer.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Muis KR, Psaradellis C, Lajoie SP, Di Leo I, Chevrier M. The role of epistemic emotions in mathematics problem solving. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 2015; 42: 172-185. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.06.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Muis KR, Sinatra GM, Pekrun R, Winne PH, Trevors G, Losenno KM, Munzar B. Main and moderator effects of refutation on task value, epistemic emotions, and learning strategies during conceptual change. Contemporary Educational Psychology. 2018; 55: 155-165. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2018.10.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nadeau R, Niemi RG, Amato T. Emotions, issue importance, and political learning. American Journal of Political Science. 1995; 39; 3: 558-574. 10.2307/2111644</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nadeau R, Bélanger É, Atikcan EÖ. Emotions, cognitions and moderation: Understanding losers' consent in the 2016 Brexit referendum. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties. 2021; 31; 1: 77-96. 10.1080/17457289.2019.1604528</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Niemi, R. G., & Junn, J. (1998). Civic education: What makes students learn. Yale University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Obermaier M, Haim M, Reinemann C. Emotionen bewegen? Ein Experiment zur Wirkung von Medienbeiträgen mit Emotionalisierungspotenzial [Inducing emotions? An experiment on the effects of political news on emotions, intentions for political participation, and subsequent information seeking]. Medien Und Kommunikationswissenschaft. 2014; 62; 2: 216-235. 10.5771/1615-634x-2014-2-216</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Otto LP, Thomas F, Maier M, Ottenstein C. Only one moment in time? Investigating the dynamic relationship of emotions and attention toward political information with mobile experience sampling. Communication Research. 2020; 47; 8: 1131-1154. 10.1177/0093650219872392</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Park CS. Applying 'negativity bias' to twitter: Negative news on twitter, emotions, and political learning. Journal of Information Technology & Politics. 2015; 12; 4: 342-359. 10.1080/19331681.2015.1100225</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Titz, W., & Perry, R. P. (2002). Academic emotions in students' self-regulated learning and achievement: A program of qualitative and quantitative research. Educational Psychologist, 37(2), 91–105. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3702_4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pekrun R. The control-value theory of achievement emotions: Assumptions, corollaries, and implications for educational research and practice. Educational Psychology Review. 2006; 18; 4: 315-341. 10.1007/s10648-006-9029-9</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pekrun R, Goetz T, Daniels LM, Stupnisky RH, Perry RP. Boredom in achievement settings: Exploring control–value antecedents and performance outcomes of a neglected emotion. Journal of Educational Psychology. 2010; 102; 3: 531. 10.1037/a0019243</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pekrun R, Goetz T, Frenzel AC, Barchfeld P, Perry RP. Measuring emotions in students' learning and performance: The achievement emotions questionnaire (AEQ). Contemporary Educational Psychology. 2011; 36; 1: 36-48. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.10.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pekrun R, Marsh HW, Elliot AJ, Stockinger K, Perry RP, Vogl E, Goetz T, van Tilburg WAP, Lüdtke O, Vispoel WP. A three-dimensional taxonomy of achievement emotions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2023; 124; 1: 145-178. 10.1037/pspp0000448</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pekrun, R., & Stephens, E. J. (2012). Academic emotions. In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, & T. C. Urdan (Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook, Vol 2: Individual differences and cultural and contextual factors (pp. 3–31). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13274-001.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pekrun, R. (2018). Control-value theory. A social-cognitive approach to achievement emotions. In Gregory Arief D. Liem & D. M. McInerney (Hrsg.), Big Theories Revisited 2 (S. 165–190). Information Age Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> R Core Team. (2022). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria. https://<ulink href="http://www.R-project.org/">www.R-project.org/</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Redlawsk DP, Civettini AJW, Lau RR Marcus GE, Neuman WR, MacKuen MB, Crigler AN. Affective intelligence and voting: Information processing and learning in a campaign. The affect effect: Dynamics of emotion in political thinking and behavior. 2007; University of Chicago Press: 152-179. 10.7208/chicago/9780226574431.003.0007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Redlawsk, D. P., & Mattes, K. (2022). Emotions and politics. In C. G. Sibley & D. Osborne (Edt.), The Cambridge handbook of political psychology (pp. 139–158). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108779104.010.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reed DA, Beckman TJ, Wright SM, Levine RB, Kern DE, Cook DA. Predictive validity evidence for medical education research study quality instrument scores: Quality of submissions to JGIM's medical education special issue. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2008; 23; 7: 903-907. 10.1007/s11606-008-0664-3</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rico G, Guinjoan M, Anduiza E. The emotional underpinnings of populism: How anger and fear affect populist attitudes. Swiss Political Science Review. 2017; 23; 4: 444-461. 10.1111/spsr.12261</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rodgers MA, Pustejovsky JE. Evaluating meta-analytic methods to detect selective reporting in the presence of dependent effect sizes. Psychological Methods. 2021; 26; 2: 141-160. 10.1037/met0000300</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Russell JA. A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1980; 39; 6: 1161. 10.1037/h0077714</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Russell JA, Barrett LF. Core affect, prototypical emotional episodes, and other things called emotion: Dissecting the elephant. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1999; 76; 5: 805. 10.1037/0022-3514.76.5.805</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Ryan, T. J. (2012). What makes us click? Demonstrating incentives for angry discourse with digital-age field experiments. The Journal of Politics, 74(4), 1138–1152. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381612000540</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schemer C. Reinforcing spirals of negative affects and selective attention to advertising in a political campaign. Communication Research. 2012; 39; 3: 413-434. 10.1177/0093650211427141</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schlozman, K., Brady, H., & Verba, S. (2018). The roots of citizen participation: The civic voluntarism model. In Unequal and unrepresented (pp. 50–80). Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.23943/9781400890361-005.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Schoen, H. (2010). Die Wirtschaftskrise, Angst und politische Urteilsbildung. Eine Analyse zum Affective-Intelligence-Modell am Beispiel der Bundestagswahl 2009 [Economic crisis, anxiety, and the affective intelligence model. Evidence from the 2009 German federal election]. Österreichische Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft, 39(2), 205–222. https://doi.org/10.15203/ozp.613.vol39iss2.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schugurensky D, Myers J. A framework to explore lifelong learning: The case of the civic education of civics teachers. International Journal of Lifelong Education. 2003; 22; 4: 325-352. 10.1080/02601370304835</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sears DO, Brown C Huddy L, Sears DO, Levy JS. Childhood and adult political development. The Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology. 2013; Oxford University Press: 59-95</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2014). Positive psychology: An introduction. In M. Csikszentmihalyi (Ed.), Flow and the foundations of positive psychology (pp. 279–298). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-9088-8_18.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sheppard M, Levy SA. Emotions and teacher decision-making: An analysis of social studies teachers' perspectives. Teaching and Teacher Education. 2019; 77: 193-203. 10.1016/j.tate.2018.09.010</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sirin CV, Villalobos JD, Geva N. Political information and emotions in ethnic conflict interventions. International Journal of Conflict Management. 2011; 22; 1: 35-59. 10.1108/10444061111103616</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> So J, Kuang K, Cho H. Information seeking upon exposure to risk messages: Predictors, outcomes, and mediating roles of health information seeking. Communication Research. 2019; 46; 5: 663-687. 10.1177/0093650216679536</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Söderström J. Fear of electoral violence and its impact on political knowledge in Sub-Saharan Africa. Political Studies. 2018; 66; 4: 869-886. 10.1177/0032321717742835</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Sokhey, A. E., & Wolak, J. (2017). Reasons for discussion? Emotion and network engagement during a campaign [Conference Paper]. Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association. San Francisco, California, USA.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Song H. Why do people (sometimes) become selective about news? The role of emotions and partisan differences in selective approach and avoidance. Mass Communication and Society. 2017; 20; 1: 47-67. 10.1080/15205436.2016.1187755</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Surawski, M. K. (2007). Searching under stress: Anxiety and selective information exposure [Doctoral dissertation]. University of New Hampshire. https://scholars.unh.edu/dissertation.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taylor JB. The educative effects of extreme television media. American Politics Research. 2017; 45; 1: 3-32. 10.1177/1532673X15600516</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Tian, Y., Zhang, X., Yamamoto, M., & Morey, A. C. (2020). Cynicism, insults, and emotions in the 2016 U.S. presidential election: An affective intelligence framework. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 17(4), 321–336. https://doi.org/10.1080/19331681.2020.1715908.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Valentino NA, Hutchings VL, Banks AJ, Davis AK. Is a worried citizen a good citizen? Emotions, political information seeking, and learning via the Internet. Political Psychology. 2008; 29; 2: 247-273. 10.1111/j.1467-9221.2008.00625.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Valentino NA, Banks AJ, Hutchings VL, Davis AK. Selective exposure in the internet age: The interaction between anxiety and information utility. Political Psychology. 2009; 30; 4: 591-613. 10.1111/j.1467-9221.2009.00716.x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Valenzuela S, Bachmann I. Pride, anger, and cross-cutting talk: A three-country study of emotions and disagreement in informal political discussions. International Journal of Public Opinion Research. 2015; 27; 4: 544-564. 10.1093/ijpor/edv040</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Valenzuela, S. (2011). The affective citizen communication model: How emotions engage citizens with politics through media and discussion (Publication No. 3484396) [Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Van Lissa CJ, van Erp S, Clapper E. Selecting relevant moderators with Bayesian regularized meta-regression. Research Synthesis Methods. 2023; 14; 2: 301-322. 10.1002/jrsm.1628</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Vasilopoulos, P. (2018). Terrorist events, emotional reactions, and political participation: The 2015 Paris attacks. West European Politics, 41(1), 102–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2017.1346901.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vasilopoulou S, Wagner M. Emotions and domestic vote choice. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties. 2022; 32; 3: 635-654. 10.1080/17457289.2020.1857388</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Viechtbauer, W. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36(3), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v036.i03.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Viechtbauer, W. (2020). [r-meta] Choice of moderator for Egger's regression test in rma.mv [Online forum post]. R Special Interest Group for Meta-Analysis https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-sig-meta-analysis/2020-May/002086.html.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang W, Ahern L. Acting on surprise: Emotional response, multiple-channel information seeking and vaccination in the H1N1 flu epidemic. Social Influence. 2015; 10; 3: 137-148. 10.1080/15534510.2015.1011227</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weber C. Emotions, campaigns, and political participation. Political Research Quarterly. 2013; 66; 2: 414-428. 10.1177/1065912912449697</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Westen, D. (2007). The political brain: The role of emotion in deciding the fate of the nation. PublicAffairs.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Westgate MJ. revtools: An R package to support article screening for evidence synthesis. Research Synthesis Methods. 2019; 10; 4: 606-614. 10.1002/jrsm.1374</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wickham, H., Averick, M., Bryan, J., Chang, W., McGowan, L. D., François, R., Grolemund, G., Hayes, A., Henry, L., Hester, J., Kuhn, M., Pedersen, T. L., Miller, E., Bache, S. M., Müller, K., Ooms, J., Robinson, D., Seidel, D. P., Spinu, V.,... Yutani, H. (2019). Welcome to the tidyverse. Journal of Open Source Software, 4 (43), 1686. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01686</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Williams, C. J. (2008). Reassessing the role of anxiety in information seeking [Master Thesis]. University of North Texas.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Wolak, J., Mackuen, M. B., Keele, L., Marcus, G. E., & Neuman, W. R. (2003, August 28–31). How the emotions of public policy affect citizen engagement, public deliberation, and the quality of electoral choice [Conference Presentation]. APSA Annual Meeting. Philadelphia, PA, United States.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> *Wollebæk, D., Karlsen, R., Steen-Johnsen, K., & Enjolras, B. (2019). Anger, fear, and echo chambers: The emotional basis for online behavior. Social Media + Society, 5(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305119829859.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zukin C, Keeter S, Andolina M, Jenkins K, DelliCarpini MX. A new engagement? Political participation, civic life, and the changing American citizen. 2006; Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195183177.001.0001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zweigenhaft RL, Jennings P, Rubinstein SC, Hoorn JV. Nuclear knowledge and nuclear anxiety: A cross-cultural investigation. The Journal of Social Psychology. 1986; 126; 4: 473-484. 10.1080/00224545.1986.9713615</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0178365499-49"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibtext> Valenzuela & Bachmann, [133] and Valenzuela, [134]; Valentino et al., [132] and Valentino et al., [131] also used the same data but were excluded from the quantitative synthesis due to missing bivariate effect sizes measures.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> In the preregistration and initial codebook, we differentiated between knowledge gain and information acquisition. However, as both address an increase in knowledge and we had difficulties to clearly differentiate between them, we collapsed both into one group.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> While Lupia ([77]) refers to various stakeholders who can serve as civic educators (e.g., teachers, issue advocates, journalists), we primarily define civic educators as teachers in educational settings (e.g., schools, universities, adult education).</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib142" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib95" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib137" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib140" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib131" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib83" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib99" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib108" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib122" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib101" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib92" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib106" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib117" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib104" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib114" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib113" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib93" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib102" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib103" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib96" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref69"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib119" firstref="ref72"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib90" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib109" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib84" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib98" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib94" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref98"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref110"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref112"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib147" firstref="ref115"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib107" firstref="ref116"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib143" firstref="ref117"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib144" firstref="ref118"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref119"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib138" firstref="ref120"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref122"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib135" firstref="ref123"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref124"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib87" firstref="ref126"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref131"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib91" firstref="ref132"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib110" firstref="ref133"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref134"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib112" firstref="ref150"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib139" firstref="ref151"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref152"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref153"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref154"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl74" bibid="bib115" firstref="ref155"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl75" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref156"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl76" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref157"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl77" bibid="bib123" firstref="ref158"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl78" bibid="bib132" firstref="ref162"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl79" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref164"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl80" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref171"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl81" bibid="bib121" firstref="ref172"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl82" bibid="bib105" firstref="ref179"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl83" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref180"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl84" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref181"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl85" bibid="bib127" firstref="ref185"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl86" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref187"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl87" bibid="bib148" firstref="ref188"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl88" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref190"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl89" bibid="bib120" firstref="ref191"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl90" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref194"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl91" bibid="bib100" firstref="ref201"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl92" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref204"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl93" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref205"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl94" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref206"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl95" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref209"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl96" bibid="bib111" firstref="ref210"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl97" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref211"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl98" bibid="bib89" firstref="ref213"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1430319
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: The Associations between Discrete Emotions and Political Learning: A Cross-Disciplinary Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Elisabeth+Graf%22">Elisabeth Graf</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9856-6189">0000-0002-9856-6189</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Johanna+L%2E+Donath%22">Johanna L. Donath</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6692-5300">0000-0002-6692-5300</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Elouise+Botes%22">Elouise Botes</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4952-8386">0000-0003-4952-8386</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Martin+Voracek%22">Martin Voracek</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6109-6155">0000-0001-6109-6155</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Thomas+Goetz%22">Thomas Goetz</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8908-2166">0000-0002-8908-2166</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Educational+Psychology+Review%22"><i>Educational Psychology Review</i></searchLink>. 2024 36(3).
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 34
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Psychological+Patterns%22">Psychological Patterns</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Emotional+Development%22">Emotional Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Political+Influences%22">Political Influences</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Political+Socialization%22">Political Socialization</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Emotional+Response%22">Emotional Response</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Anxiety%22">Anxiety</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Positive+Attitudes%22">Positive Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Association+%28Psychology%29%22">Association (Psychology)</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s10648-024-09893-y
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1040-726X<br />1573-336X
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: In recent decades, researchers' interest in the role of emotions in individual political learning has grown. However, it is still unclear whether and how discrete emotions are associated with political learning. Through a cross-disciplinary systematic review and multilevel meta-analysis, we reviewed which discrete emotions have been analyzed in the context of political learning so far and meta-analytically synthesized how these emotions relate to political learning. We addressed this question by synthesizing associations between discrete emotions and various aspects of learning about political matters, such as political attention, information seeking, discussions, knowledge, and knowledge gain. The final dataset included 66 publications with 486 effect sizes, involving more than 100,000 participants. Most of the effect sizes were based on negative-activating emotions (65%; mainly anxiety, 32%, and anger, 19%) and positive-activating emotions (32%; mainly enthusiasm, 15%), while studies on positive-deactivating emotions (e.g., contentment) and negative-deactivating emotions (e.g., sadness) are largely lacking. We uncovered small positive associations (r = 0.05 to 0.13) for activating emotions, of both negative (especially anger) and positive valence (e.g., enthusiasm, only in cross-sectional designs), but no associations for negative-deactivating emotions. We discuss theoretical implications and recommend future research to include previously unconsidered emotions in order to extend existing findings.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1430319
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1430319
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s10648-024-09893-y
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 34
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Psychological Patterns
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Emotional Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Political Influences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Political Socialization
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Emotional Response
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Anxiety
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Positive Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Association (Psychology)
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: The Associations between Discrete Emotions and Political Learning: A Cross-Disciplinary Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Elisabeth Graf
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Johanna L. Donath
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Elouise Botes
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Martin Voracek
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Thomas Goetz
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 09
              Type: published
              Y: 2024
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1040-726X
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1573-336X
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 36
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Educational Psychology Review
              Type: main
ResultId 1