Moshe Maor
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.