In the name of love: The asymmetric effects of love rhetoric on political support

This study examines how different expressions of love in political rhetoric influence individual emotional responses and support for leaders. Using a survey experiment with a representative sample of 525 Jewish adults, we tested the effects of compassionate universal love ( agape ), protective particularistic love ( eros ), and neutral rhetoric (control) in a simulated official communication about Israel’s policy toward Ukrainian refugees fleeing the Ukraine–Russia conflict. Participants evaluated the same speaker announcing the acceptance of refugees from Ukraine under one of these three conditions. Our findings indicate that only protective particularistic love elicited positive emotional responses and political support for the leader, while compassionate universal love and neutral rhetoric had no comparable effect. By situating love within the broader moral-emotional dynamics of immigration politics, these results contribute to understanding the emotional power of eros in political communication and its implications for leadership appeal and public persuasion.