A recent study published in the Journal of Social and Political Psychology sheds light on how supporters of Donald Trump justify their continued allegiance despite learning about allegations of his sexual misconduct and illegal activities. The research suggests that when people face information that conflicts with their deeply held beliefs, they tend to reduce their mental discomfort by denying the allegations, focusing on policies over personal behavior, or claiming that other politicians commit similar acts.
The scientists initiated this research to understand a specific political dynamic. They noticed that Donald Trump tends to retain widespread support even after facing severe accusations, including accounts of sexual misconduct, abuse of power, and efforts to overturn the 2020 election that culminated in the January 6 Capitol attack. To make sense of how voters mentally navigate this conflicting information, the researchers examined the situation using the psychological concept of cognitive dissonance.
“I was motivated by real-life experiences. I’ve been puzzled and confused by the continuing support and admiration that Donald Trump’s supporters hold for him, despite the many accusations that he has engaged in sexual assault, corruption, and other immoral and illegal activities. I wanted to give those supporters a chance to explain in their own words why they support him,” said study author Cindy Harmon-Jones, a senior lecturer in the School of Psychology at Western Sydney University.
“I also wanted to take a cognitive dissonance perspective to understanding their answers. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that when people hold beliefs that are in conflict, meaning that both ideas cannot be true at once, they feel uncomfortable. This discomfort motivates them to do cognitive work to bring their beliefs closer in alignment. I was interested in how people justify their support for Trump when reminded of the accusations against him.”
In other words, believing that a leader is good while also hearing that the leader did something bad creates mental friction. To get rid of this discomfort, people tend to change their thinking to make the two conflicting ideas fit together.
Past laboratory studies on cognitive dissonance usually gave participants only one limited option to resolve their discomfort. The scientists designed this research to see how people naturally respond when given the freedom to explain their reasoning. They wanted to capture a broader range of reactions to belief-disconfirming information.
The first study took place in October 2019, shortly before the US House of Representatives impeached Trump for abuse of power. The scientists recruited 128 American adults from an online survey platform who indicated at least slight favorability toward Trump. Participants read either a neutral news article about space exploration or an article detailing allegations of sexual misconduct against the president.
Afterward, the researchers asked participants open-ended questions about why they supported the president. The most frequent reason given for supporting Trump was the economy. Participants also frequently mentioned his communication style, his perceived competence, and his status as a political outsider.
The scientists then asked how participants justified their support given the publicized allegations of misconduct. Participants offered three primary responses to resolve their psychological discomfort. The most common reaction, provided by over half the group, was explicitly stating that they did not believe the accusations.
Almost a third of the respondents explained that they cared about his political policies rather than his personal life. Another third justified their stance by claiming that other politicians and wealthy individuals commit similar misdeeds. Some participants provided more than one of these justifications.
“I was surprised to see that many of the participants used very similar language. They repeated Trump’s phrases like ‘fake news’ and ‘drain the swamp,'” Harmon-Jones told PsyPost.
Two days after the House voted to impeach Trump in December 2019, the researchers conducted a second study. They recruited a new group of 173 supporters and repeated the exact same procedure. When asked why they supported Trump, economic issues and specific political policies were the most common answers.
The justifications for his alleged misconduct heavily replicated the first study. Participants largely denied the accusations, pointed to his policies, or noted that others behave similarly. A new response category also emerged in this group, with about 15 percent of respondents explicitly stating that they simply did not care about the alleged misdeeds.
A third study took place in October 2022, just after Trump was arraigned for his involvement in the January 6 Capitol attack. The scientists recruited 187 participants who had voted for Trump in the 2020 election. These individuals read an article summarizing the public hearings regarding the events of January 6.
After reading the summary, participants answered questions about how accurate they felt the information was and whether it made them feel bothered or uncomfortable. This step allowed the researchers to measure the actual emotional discomfort associated with cognitive dissonance. Participants then wrote open-ended responses explaining how they reconciled their support with reports of illegal election interference.
The results from the third study echoed the earlier findings, though participants relied even more heavily on disbelief. Over 60 percent of the respondents claimed the accusations regarding election interference and the Capitol attack were false. A small minority of participants, about 13 percent, noted that they had supported Trump in the past but no longer did so after learning about his actions.
The researchers found a positive association between feeling bothered by the news article and expressing disbelief in the allegations. Participants who experienced higher levels of mental discomfort were more likely to claim the accusations were fabricated. This suggests that the denial is not just a calm rejection of information, but rather a direct response to the psychological distress of cognitive dissonance.
From a psychological perspective, these responses represent novel ways to reduce mental friction. For instance, arguing that a politician’s personal life does not matter is a way of conceptually separating, or compartmentalizing, conflicting pieces of information. By making the personal misconduct seem completely irrelevant to political leadership, individuals can successfully eliminate their mental tension.
“Other people who struggle to understand why Trump’s followers support him might be interested in how they explain this,” Harmon-Jones said. “The most common way was that they said they do not believe the accusations. Other common justifications we found were that they care about his policies not his personal life, and that all politician and wealthy men commit illegal and immoral acts. Some participants said they just did not care about the accusations. ”
“The findings might also lead people to think about how they themselves react when confronted by information that contradicts an important belief. Do they approach the new information with curiosity or do they reject it if it makes them uncomfortable? ”
There are some caveats to consider. The researchers note that these studies rely on online samples, which might not perfectly represent the entire U.S. population. A potential misinterpretation of the findings is the assumption that supporters are simply ignoring facts without any internal struggle. The data provides evidence to the contrary, indicating that emotional discomfort actively drives the rejection of negative information.
“Some people might think that these findings aren’t due to dissonance and that the participants simply did not believe the information,” Harmon-Jones said. “However, in Study 3 was asked people whether the information about the accusations of Trump’s misconduct conflicted with their beliefs and if so, how bothered were they by the information. The more bothered they said they were, the more likely they were to say they didn’t believe the accusations. We interpreted this to mean that those participants were experiencing dissonance and not just coolly disbelieving the information.”
Harmon-Jones also noted that, currently, “our findings only apply to supporters of Donald Trump. However, we don’t know whether this is the case. Would supporters of Barack Obama or Bill Clinton react similarly if they learned of similar accusations against them? That remains to be tested.”
Future research should explore whether similar cognitive defenses occur during the heat of an active election cycle. The scientists also hope to investigate ways to soften these mental barriers so that individuals can become more receptive to information that challenges their worldview.
The study, “Responses to Belief-Conflicting Information: Justification of Support for Donald Trump,” was authored by Cindy Harmon-Jones, Robin R. Willardt, Thomas F. Denson, and Eddie Harmon-Jones.
