Emotion and the Advocacy Coalition Framework: An Affective Dynamics Perspective

ABSTRACT Despite extensive evidence that emotion and cognition are deeply intertwined, the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) lacks an analytically independent emotional mechanism in its causal architecture—an omission that may be particularly consequential in policy subsystems structured around morally charged, identity‐laden policy disputes. To bridge this gap, this conceptual article focuses on patterns of coalition membership and examines how policymakers navigate their roles across policy subsystems. At times, they act as emotionally anchored members of advocacy coalitions; at other times, they promote coalition aims without such anchoring; and in yet other contexts, they operate through technocratic discourse guided by expertise, evidence, or institutional duty—outside coalition dynamics, though never entirely impartial. The article proposes novel theoretical extensions, including emotional anchoring of policymakers , affective policy subsystems , and affective brokerage , to better capture the mechanisms through which emotions shape coalition membership, often independently of or prior to belief alignment. To the extent that emotional anchoring is durable, its effect can persist over time, shaping coalition stability, strategic behavior, policy‐oriented learning, and policy change. To operationalize these extensions, the article explores methods for measuring externally expressed and internally felt emotions.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Policy Studies Journal
Published
2026-02-05
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.70104
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Policy Transfer and Learning
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
64.82

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Emotion and the Advocacy Coalition Framework: An Affective Dynamics Perspective

Moshe Maor
1 citations
Policy Studies Journal
Policy Transfer and Learning
64.82
article

Emotion and the Advocacy Coalition Framework: An Affective Dynamics Perspective

Moshe Maor
article en
1 citations

Abstract

ABSTRACT Despite extensive evidence that emotion and cognition are deeply intertwined, the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) lacks an analytically independent emotional mechanism in its causal architecture—an omission that may be particularly consequential in policy subsystems structured around morally charged, identity‐laden policy disputes. To bridge this gap, this conceptual article focuses on patterns of coalition membership and examines how policymakers navigate their roles across policy subsystems. At times, they act as emotionally anchored members of advocacy coalitions; at other times, they promote coalition aims without such anchoring; and in yet other contexts, they operate through technocratic discourse guided by expertise, evidence, or institutional duty—outside coalition dynamics, though never entirely impartial. The article proposes novel theoretical extensions, including emotional anchoring of policymakers , affective policy subsystems , and affective brokerage , to better capture the mechanisms through which emotions shape coalition membership, often independently of or prior to belief alignment. To the extent that emotional anchoring is durable, its effect can persist over time, shaping coalition stability, strategic behavior, policy‐oriented learning, and policy change. To operationalize these extensions, the article explores methods for measuring externally expressed and internally felt emotions.

Policy Studies Journal
Reichman University (IL)
European Commission, HORIZON EUROPE Framework Programme
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 0%
Policy Transfer and Learning
64.82
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.