Recent research published in Journal of Social and Political Psychology We reveal how Donald Trump’s supporters justify remaining loyal to him despite knowledge of his alleged sexual misconduct and misconduct. This research suggests that when people are faced with information that contradicts their deeply held beliefs, they tend to alleviate their psychological discomfort by denying the allegations, focusing on policy rather than personal behavior, or claiming that other politicians are doing the same thing.
Scientists began this study to understand specific political dynamics. They found that Donald Trump tends to maintain broad support even after facing harsh accusations of sexual misconduct, abuse of power, and efforts to overturn the 2020 election that culminated in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. To understand how voters mentally navigate this conflicting information, researchers investigated the situation using the psychological concept of cognitive dissonance.
“I was motivated by real-life experience. I was perplexed and perplexed by the support and admiration that Donald Trump’s supporters continue to have for him, despite numerous accusations that he is involved in sexual assault, corruption, and other immoral and illegal activities. I wanted to give those supporters the opportunity 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 understand their answers. Cognitive dissonance theory proposes that when people hold contradictory beliefs, meaning that both thoughts are not true at the same time, they feel discomfort. This discomfort motivates them to do cognitive work to reconcile their beliefs. I was interested in how people justify their support for Trump when they are reminded of accusations against him.”
In other words, believing that a leader is good, yet hearing that the leader has done something bad creates emotional friction. To get rid of this discomfort, people tend to change their thinking to make two contradictory ideas fit.
Past laboratory studies of cognitive dissonance have typically given participants limited options for resolving their discomfort. Scientists designed this study to find out how people naturally react when given the freedom to explain their reasoning. They wanted to capture a wide range of reactions to information that contradicts beliefs.
The first investigation took place in October 2019, just before the U.S. House of Representatives impeached Trump for abuse of power. Scientists recruited 128 American adults who expressed at least a slight favorable opinion of Trump from an online survey platform. Participants read either a neutral news article about space exploration or an article detailing allegations of sexual misconduct against the president.
The researchers then asked participants open-ended questions about why they supported the president. The most commonly cited reason for supporting Trump was “the economy.” Participants also frequently mentioned his communication style, perceived competence, and status as a political outsider.
The scientists then asked how participants justified their support in light of the published allegations of misconduct. Participants offered three main responses to resolve their psychological discomfort. The most common response from more than half of the group was to declare that they did not believe the accusations.
Almost a third of respondents explained that they care more about his political policies than his personal life. A further third justified their position by claiming that other politicians and wealthy people committed similar wrongdoings. Some participants cited more than one of these reasons.
“I was surprised to see that many of the participants were using very similar language. They were repeating President Trump’s phrases like ‘fake news’ and ‘drain the swamp,'” Harmon-Jones told SciPost.
Researchers conducted a second study two days after the House of Representatives voted to impeach President Trump in December 2019. They recruited a new group of 173 supporters and repeated the exact same steps. When asked why they support Trump, the most common reasons cited were economic issues and specific political policies.
His justification for the alleged cheating largely replicated the original study. Participants largely denied the accusations, pointing to his policies and pointing out that others were engaging in similar behavior. A new category of responses also emerged in this group, with approximately 15 percent of respondents declaring that they simply did not care about the alleged wrongdoing.
The third investigation took place in October 2022, shortly after President Trump was indicted for his involvement in the January 6 attack on the Capitol. Scientists recruited 187 participants who voted for Trump in the 2020 election. These people read an article summarizing the hearing on the events of January 6th.
After reading the summary, participants answered questions about how accurate they felt the information was and whether they found it bothersome or unpleasant. 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 of the third study mirrored those of the previous study, but participants relied even more heavily on distrust. More than 60% of respondents said the accusations of election interference and storming the Capitol were false. A minority of participants, about 13%, said they had supported Trump in the past but stopped supporting him after learning about his actions.
Researchers found a positive association between feeling uncomfortable with a news article and expressing disbelief over the allegations. Participants who experienced higher levels of psychological discomfort were more likely to claim that the accusations were fabricated. This suggests that rejection is not simply a calm rejection of information, but a direct response to psychological distress due to cognitive dissonance.
From a psychological perspective, these reactions represent new ways to reduce psychological friction. For example, claiming that politicians’ private lives are not important is a way of conceptually separating, or compartmentalizing, contradictory information. By making personal misconduct appear completely unrelated to political leadership, individuals are better able to relieve mental tension.
“Those who have trouble understanding why Trump supporters support Trump may be interested in how they explain this,” Harmon-Jones said. “The most common was to say they didn’t believe the accusations. Other common justifications we found were that they cared about policy, not his personal life, and that all politicians and wealthy people engage in illegal and immoral behavior. Some participants said they didn’t care about the accusations.”
“These findings may prompt people to think about how they react when faced with information that contradicts important beliefs. Do they approach new information out of curiosity, or do they reject it if it makes them uncomfortable?”
There are some caveats to consider. Researchers note that these studies relied on online samples and may not be fully representative of the entire U.S. population. The results of this survey can be misinterpreted by the assumption that supporters are simply ignoring the facts without any internal struggle. Data provide evidence to the contrary, showing that emotional discomfort actively triggers rejection of negative information.
“Some people might think that these findings were not due to dissonance, but that participants simply did not believe the information,” Harmon-Jones said. “However, in Study 3, participants were asked whether information about Mr. Trump’s misconduct accusations contradicted their beliefs, and if so, how much did the information bother them? The more they said they cared, the more likely they were to say they did not believe the accusations. We interpreted this to mean that participants not only did not dispassionately believe the information, but also experienced dissonance.”
Harmon-Jones also said that for now, “our findings only apply to supporters of Donald Trump. But we don’t know if this is true. Would supporters of Barack Obama or Bill Clinton react the same way if they learned of similar accusations against them? That remains to be tested.”
Future research should investigate whether similar cognitive defenses occur during active election cycles. Scientists also want to study ways to soften these mental barriers so that individuals are more receptive to information that challenges their worldview.
The study, “Responding to Belief-Conflicting Information: Justifying Support for Donald Trump,” was authored by Cindy Harmon-Jones, Robin R. Willard, Thomas F. Denson, and Eddie Harmon-Jones.
