Characterizing allies and opponents in gender policy debates

Abstract Two perceptions can be found in any public debate: first, perceptions of the self and how a person describes their own beliefs and emotions; and second, perceptions of the other and how a person ascribes beliefs and emotions to their allies and opponents. These perceptions of allies and opponents have been topics of study in research on the Devil and Angel Shift, as found in the Advocacy Coalition Framework. The goal of this article is to build on and contribute theoretically and empirically to the study of the Devil and Angel Shift using textual data. This article compares coalition dynamics through the use of “other” emotion and belief statements compared with the traditional “self” narrated emotion and belief statements. This article analyzes the positive and negative emotions and associated beliefs of policy actors engaged in a debate on banning gender affirming care in Arkansas, USA. It finds that advocacy coalitions tend to ascribe more negative emotions or devilize their opponents but tend to use negative and positive emotions at about the same frequency toward their allies. This article offers a broader conceptualization of how to study the Devil and Angel shift, introduces new strategies of Unifying and Acknowledging both allies and opponents, and presents a new avenue of research for scholars interested in applications focusing on coalition dynamics.