Nathan P. Kalmoe

Fueling the Fire: Violent Metaphors, Trait Aggression, and Support for Political Violence

The recent concurrence of violent political rhetoric and violence against political targets in the U.S. and abroad has raised public concern about the effects of language on citizens. Building from theoretical foundations in aggression research, I fielded two nationally representative survey experiments and a third local experiment preceding the 2010 midterm elections to investigate support for violence against political authority. Subjects were randomly assigned to view one of two forms of the same political advertisements. Across all three experiments, mild violent metaphors multiply support for political violence among aggressive citizens, especially among young adults. Aggressive personality traits also predict support for political violence in both national studies. This work identifies dynamic roots of violent political orientations and reveals for the first time surprising interactions between this elite discourse and personality traits in citizens.

Trait aggression in two representative U.S. surveys: Testing the generalizability of college samples

Aggression research often relies upon convenient samples with unknown generalizability to populations of interest, potentially threatening external validity. This article details the measurement properties of the Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire Short Form (BPAQ-SF) and its subscales in two nationally representative U.S. samples (N = 924) and a concurrent study with U.S. college students (N = 384). The results provide useful benchmarks for generalizing BPAQ-SF results from convenient samples to U.S. adults, including distributions, reliability, and factor structure. The results also confirm basic relationships between trait aggression and key social and demographic variables such as sex, age, and socioeconomic status while establishing convergent validity with violent political attitudes. Results from the national studies closely align with those from the student sample, providing reasonable support for generalizing trait aggression elements to U.S. adults. Aggr. Behav. Aggr. Behav. 42:171-188, 2015.

Toward Conflict or Compromise? How Violent Metaphors Polarize Partisan Issue Attitudes

We know much about how opinion leaders drive mass partisan polarization with position-taking cues but little on how different message types polarize citizens, and who responds most to those messages attributes. This article contributes new insights by investigating how exposure to common violent metaphors interacts with audience personality traits to polarize partisans on issues. Building from research on conflict orientations, we theorize that aggressive rhetoric primes aggression in aggressive partisans, motivating greater intransigence on party positions. As a consequence, aggressive partisans are pulled further apart on issues, thereby reducing prospects for compromise. We find support for our predictions in two large nationally diverse survey experiments conducted in very different political contexts. Our results demonstrate the subtle power of aggression in public opinion and highlight the important moderating role of individual differences in the communication of partisan conflict.