"The incidence of anger," they write, is positively related with the vote share of populist candidates, but it ceases to predict the populist vote share once we consider other dimensions of well-being and negative emotions. Hence, low subjective well-being and negative emotions in general drive populism, rather than anger in particular. This comes as a surprise in light of the growing discourse linking "American Rage" and populism. While levels of anger, gloom and pessimism correlate with receptivity to populist appeals and to authoritarian candidates, another key factor is what scholars describe as the "social identity" of both leaders and followers. In a provocative recent paper, "Examining the Role of Donald Trump and his Supporters in the 2021 Assault on the U.S. Capitol: a Dual-agency Model of Identity Leadership and Engaged Followership," S. Alexander Haslam — a professor of social and organizational psychology at the University of Queensland, and 11 colleagues from the United States, Australia and England, analyze the Jan. 6, 2001 mob assault on the U.S. Capitol and dispute the argument that "Leaders are akin to puppet-masters who either influence their followers directly or not at all. Equally, followers are seen either as passive and entirely dependent on leaders or as entirely independent of them." Instead, the 12 authors contend, a more nuanced analysis "recognizes the agency of both leaders and followers and stresses their mutual influence." They call this approach "a…