![Donald Trump speaking with attendees at The Believers Summit. [Gage Skidmore]](https://sp-ao.shortpixel.ai/client/to_webp,q_glossy,ret_img,w_750,h_375/https://www.psypost.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/donald-trump-750x375.jpg)
Recent research provides evidence that voters spend greater mental energy defending politicians from their own party and finding faults in politicians from the opposing party when faced with news of criminal convictions. The findings suggest that political party loyalty directly influences whether people view legal proceedings as legitimate or as politically motivated weapons. The study was published in the American Behavioral Scientist.
The 2024 United States presidential election presented an unusual situation in American political history. Both major political factions faced significant legal controversies involving high-profile figures. Former President Donald Trump was convicted of falsifying business records related to hush money payments. Around the same time, Hunter Biden, the son of sitting President Joe Biden, was convicted of illegally purchasing a firearm.
Despite the serious nature of these legal issues, public reactions were highly divided along political lines. News outlets noted that many partisans dismissed the charges against their preferred candidate or their candidate’s family member as politically motivated. The research team, a group of communication and language scholars from the University of Arkansas and The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, aimed to map out how these mental processes unfold.
To explain this divide, the authors looked to social identity theory. This concept proposes that individuals define themselves partly through their group memberships, such as their political party. Because people want to protect their group’s status, they tend to view new information through a biased lens that favors their own group and dismisses competing groups.
This group loyalty leads to an effect known as motivated reasoning. When processing political news, voters often prioritize reaching a conclusion that matches their existing beliefs rather than finding the most accurate objective truth. This mental habit helps people avoid the psychological discomfort of admitting their chosen political party might be flawed.
The researchers also explored a concept called identity-motivated elaboration. Elaboration refers to the cognitive effort a person uses to think about a specific issue. Valenced elaboration means that this mental effort takes on a positive or negative emotional direction.
When people encounter information about their own party, they tend to engage in positively valenced elaboration. They brainstorm reasons to support the information if it is good, or excuse it if it is bad. When evaluating the opposing party, they engage in negatively valenced elaboration, actively searching for reasons to criticize the rival group.
The authors designed the study to test how these mental pathways operated during the specific context of the 2024 election. They wanted to understand if persuasion and attitude formation happened through a central route or a peripheral route. The central route involves deep, effortful thinking, whereas the peripheral route relies on simple mental shortcuts.
To test their predictions, the researchers recruited 231 university students enrolled in communication and political science courses at a large Southern university. The sample had an average age of roughly 22 years old. The group included 117 women, 112 men, and two participants who identified as gender non-binary.
Regarding political affiliation, the sample leaned slightly conservative. There were 132 participants who identified as Republicans or leaned Republican. Another 99 participants identified as Democrats or leaned toward the Democratic party.
During the experiment, each participant read two brief, informative articles written to be as objective as possible. Each article was exactly three paragraphs and 219 words long. One article detailed the background and legal context of Donald Trump’s business records conviction. The other article described the details of Hunter Biden’s illegal firearm purchase.
The researchers randomized the order of the articles so that half the participants read about Trump first and the other half read about Biden first. After reading each text, participants completed a thought-listing exercise designed to measure their valenced elaboration.
For the Trump article, participants were asked to write down reasons why someone might refuse to vote for him due to the convictions, representing negative elaboration. They were also asked to list reasons why the convictions should not affect a person’s vote, representing positive elaboration.
A similar prompt followed the Biden article. Participants wrote down reasons why Hunter Biden’s conviction might reflect poorly on his father, as well as reasons why it should not affect public perception of the president. Finally, participants completed a six-item survey measuring whether they believed each conviction was politically motivated.
The data provides evidence that partisan identity heavily dictated how participants spent their cognitive energy. Republican participants generated significantly more positively valenced elaboration to defend Donald Trump than Democrats did. In contrast, Democrats dedicated more mental effort to negatively valenced elaboration, listing reasons why Trump’s convictions were disqualifying.
A similar pattern emerged regarding Hunter Biden’s conviction, though with a slight variation. Democrats engaged in much higher levels of positively valenced elaboration to defend the president’s son compared to Republicans. Republicans generated more negatively valenced elaboration against Biden than Democrats, though unaffiliated voters also generated a high amount of negative thoughts.
The strength of a person’s political identity also played a major role in their responses. Participants who identified strongly with their party displayed greater identity-congruent elaboration. This means strong Republicans were even more likely to defend Trump and criticize Biden, and strong Democrats were even more likely to defend Biden and criticize Trump.
This biased thinking process directly influenced how participants viewed the justice system. The more a person engaged in positively valenced elaboration defending a candidate, the more likely they were to believe that the legal charges were a political weapon. Higher levels of negatively valenced elaboration led participants to view the convictions as legitimate and fair.
The authors noted that this attitude formation process happened simultaneously through two distinct mental routes. The central route was visible in the way participants brainstormed specific reasons to excuse or condemn the political figures. Their active mental elaboration served to build up and reinforce their eventual conclusion about the fairness of the trials.
At the same time, the peripheral route was also highly active. Participants used their political party as a mental shortcut, dismissing the charges against their own group simply because of shared identity. This direct effect of party loyalty predicted the belief that a conviction was politically motivated, even without factoring in the effortful elaboration process.
Several limitations exist within the research design that require consideration. The reliance on a single university student sample restricts how broadly these findings can be applied to the general American public. University students often possess different political engagement levels and demographic backgrounds than the wider electorate.
The study also focused on two specific, distinct events. Donald Trump was the actual presidential candidate convicted of a crime, whereas Hunter Biden was only a family member of the incumbent candidate. The researchers acknowledge that these two situations carry different types of political weight.
Future research could expand on these findings by examining a broader range of political issues with varying levels of importance. Testing different types of scandals or policy disagreements might reveal the limits of identity-motivated elaboration. Studies could also recruit more diverse, nationally representative samples to capture a wider array of political backgrounds.
The current findings are exclusively focused on the two-party system found within the United States. Voters in countries with multi-party systems might process political information and form attitudes in entirely different ways. Exploring these mechanisms in international contexts would help clarify how universal these cognitive biases truly are.
The study, “Partisan Social Identity in the 2024 Presidential Election: Motivated Elaboration on the Criminal Convictions of Donald Trump and Hunter Biden,” was authored by Jihye Park, Freddie J. Jennings, Farzana Fahmee, Nicholas Purintun, and Cindy Sing Bik Ngai.