New study suggests entertainment is key to populist political success

A new study published in the British Journal of Psychology suggests that people are more likely to support populist politicians when they find them entertaining. Across four studies involving United States participants, researchers found that the extent to which people viewed a leader as exciting, engaging, or attention-grabbing predicted their support—more strongly for populist leaders like Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders than for non-populist figures like Joe Biden or Mitt Romney. The findings offer new insights into how emotional experiences and personal style shape political preferences.

The researchers aimed to better understand why populist leaders have gained substantial support across many countries. Previous research had largely focused on negative emotions, such as fear or anger, as drivers of populist support. However, the researchers proposed that positive feelings—particularly the enjoyment of an entertaining political style—might also play an important role. They suggested that populist leaders, by portraying society as a struggle between the “corrupt elites” and the “noble people,” create emotionally charged narratives that are more gripping and emotionally intense than conventional political messages.

“Common explanations of populist support mostly focus on factors that ‘push’ people away from mainstream politics, such as feelings of anger, anxiety, and insecurity,” said study author Jan-Willem van Prooijen, an associate professor at VU Amsterdam, senior researcher at the NSCR, and Endowed Professor of Radicalization, Extremism, and Conspiracy Thinking at Maastricht University.

“But I believe that is only part of the story. Often a vote for a populist candidate is more than just a protest vote: Many voters are genuinely excited about populist leaders. What makes populist leaders so appealing? This research sought to find out to what extent being considered entertaining matters in populist support.”

To investigate this idea, the researchers conducted four preregistered studies with 1,802 participants based in the United States. Study 1 compared Trump and Biden voters, asking participants to rate how entertaining they found the leader they supported and how much they continued to support that leader. Study 2a and Study 2b shifted the focus to comparisons within political parties. In Study 2a, Republican voters rated both Donald Trump and Mitt Romney, while in Study 2b, Democratic voters rated Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden. Finally, Study 3 used an experimental design where participants were randomly assigned to read either a populist or a non-populist speech written by an unknown fictional politician. This approach allowed the researchers to isolate the effect of a populist style without the influence of prior knowledge about real-world political figures.

Across all four studies, entertainment appraisals consistently predicted greater political support, and this effect was stronger for populist figures. In Study 1, participants who found Trump more entertaining were more likely to support him, compared to Biden voters, whose support was less dependent on entertainment appraisals. Study 2a found the same pattern among Republicans: Trump’s support was more closely tied to entertainment than Romney’s. In Study 2b, the pattern held for Sanders compared to Biden, although the difference was smaller.

Study 3 provided the most direct evidence. Participants who read the populist speech found it more entertaining and reported stronger support for the fictional politician. Those in the non-populist condition still showed a link between entertainment and support, but the relationship was weaker. Importantly, participants exposed to the populist speech also reported more intense emotions, suggesting that emotional intensity—not just positive or negative feelings—plays a role in the appeal of populist rhetoric.

“In the first few studies, we compared existing and well-known politicians, both between parties (Trump vs. Biden) but also within parties (e.g., Trump vs. Romney). These are all well-known figures that everyone has an opinion about,” van Prooijen told PsyPost.

“What surprised me, however, is that we found these effects even when participants were exposed to an AI-generated populist or non-populist speech. So even for an unknown political figure, people are more likely to base their support on how entertaining they found a single speech when the speech was populist (blaming societal problems on corrupt elites that try to oppress the people) than non-populist (emphasizing a need to work together to solve societal problems).”

Another key finding was that general populist attitudes—such as distrust of elites and strong identification with “ordinary people”—predicted support for populist leaders through the pathway of entertainment. In other words, people who already held populist views tended to find populist leaders more entertaining, which in turn made them more likely to support them. This mediation effect did not appear for non-populist leaders.

“All politicians benefit to some extent from being considered entertaining by the public, but populist politicians benefit more from this than non-populist politicians,” van Prooijen explained. “This suggests that populism is a form of ‘popcorn politics’: Supporters of populist candidates are more strongly inclined to base their choice on superficial traits that might be considered entertaining, and which might distract from the actual contents of the proposed policies.”

The research was preregistered, meaning the researchers publicly documented their study designs, hypotheses, and analysis plans before collecting data. Preregistration is important because it helps prevent selective reporting and increases the credibility of the findings by making it clear that the analyses were planned in advance rather than chosen after seeing the results.

But, as with all research, there are still some limitations. Most participants were based in the United States, and the politicians tested were primarily American. Populist movements vary across countries, sometimes blending left-wing and right-wing ideas in ways that do not fit neatly into a U.S. political framework. Future research could explore whether the same entertainment-driven effects are present in other political systems, such as in Europe, Latin America, or Asia.

“So far, we have only examined these effects in the United States, but populist movements differ enormously in various regions of the world,” van Prooijen noted. “Moreover, we have not extensively distinguished between left- versus right-wing populist leaders. One of our studies tentatively suggested that these effects may be more pronounced for right-wing populism, but more research is needed to examine that possibility.”

“This line of research fits in a broader research goal to better understand the emotional underpinnings of populism. Researchers have often stressed that emotions are important, but then only focus on negative emotions such as anger and fear. Positive emotions also matter; for instance, populist rhetoric may give citizens hope for a better future. And, our findings suggest that the intensity of emotional experiences may actually be more closely associated with populism than the positive or negative valence of emotions per se. All of these issues are important to examine further in future research.”

The researchers emphasized that their work highlights the importance of considering positive and emotionally intense experiences when studying political preferences. Populist leaders often present simple solutions to complex problems, attack establishment figures, and portray themselves as champions of the people—all ingredients that make their messages more compelling and emotionally resonant.

“One of the things that have struck me for years is that populist leaders around the world often tend to be somewhat eccentric, attention-grabbing individuals who stir up the established order by seeking conflict,” van Prooijen explained. “This research suggest that these features, that some citizens might find entertaining, have an electoral function.”

The study, “Popcorn politics: Entertainment appraisals predict support for populist leaders,” was authored by Jan-Willem van Prooijen, Julia Kipperman, Yuxuan Li, Yifan Mo, and Paul Nachtwey.