The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Social Movements, Second Edition. Edited by David A. Snow, Sarah A. Soule, Hanspeter Kriesi, and Holly J. McCammon. © 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published 2019 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Emotions in Social Movements Justin Van Ness and Erika Summers‐Effler 23 Introduction Social movement scholars who emphasize emotions in analyses routinely argue that earlier scholars have ignored or short‐changed the role of emotions in the literature (e.g. Goodwin 1997; Goodwin, Jasper, and Polletta 2001; Gould 2009; Jasper 1998), thus attending to them was a needed contribution. At this point, social movement scholars attend to emotions fairly regularly and the literature has developed in important ways. In this chapter, we review the development of the field, particularly the last 20 years of contributions to the study of emotions and social movements, and argue for a fresh way forward for the study of emotions in social movements. Specifically, we suggest turning to the interdisciplinary field of Cognitive Social Science to extend the field’s understanding of both cognitive and emotive processes. We conclude the chapter with suggestions for future development. We can find the history of the social movement field in a variety of places (see Goodwin and Jasper 2006; Jasper 2011; Moss and Snow 2016). Early collective behavior theorists focused on the emotional dynamics of crowd situations and social change. Many were interested in what they perceived as processes of unconscious manipulation, hysteria, panic, and tended to interpret emotionality as a sign of irra- tionality (for a review, see Van Ness and Summers‐Effler 2016). Those interested in more structural explanations of collective behavior also argued that various forms of tension and emotional distress could motivate action (e.g. Gurr 1970; Smelser 1962). In the 1960s, activists who had become academics turned to existing literature and found difficulty in explaining personal experiences with existing theoretical frame- works. In light of these deficits, these scholars ushered in the emergence of the social movement field and all but did away with discussions of emotionality to privilege imagery of the rational actor, while also shifting away from theoretical explanations of why and toward the analytical questions of how (Morris and Herring 1987). As a