Which side are you on? Analyzing Emotion-Belief Coalitions in Gender Identity Policies

Scholars interested in analyzing policy processes and change rely on the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) to understand the impact of policy beliefs and coalitions on expected outcomes (Nohrstedt et al., 2023). Past ACF studies often analyzed public discourse by theorizing and measuring pro or anti positions linked to belief system expressions to identify coalitions (e.g., Heikkila et al., 2019). However, there is little research that identifies how the combinations of emotions and beliefs lead to coalition formation. This study builds on and strengthens the ACF traditional approach by analyzing public discourse and measuring how specific emotions are attached to belief system expressions. Then, to identify coalitions and policy positions we create emotion-belief dyads. Besides capturing the same positionality as found in traditional ACF work (e.g., measures of emotions of affinity or dismay regarding a policy core belief), this approach takes a step further by integrating additional emotional expressions, such as fear, anger, content, and compassion tied to various belief system expressions. This study focuses on coalition formation using hand-coded emotional-belief statements from legislative testimony of Arkansas, one of the nation’s first gender affirming care bans. Additionally, we complement this research design with network analysis to identify the factors that lead to the formation of these coalitions. We use Exponential Random Graph Models to understand the effect that exogenous factors to the network like specific actor attributes, and endogenous structural configurations have on coalition formation.