Motivational underpinnings of support for radical political leaders

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joanna Grzymala-Moszczynska ◽  
Katarzyna Jasko ◽  
Marta Maj ◽  
Marta Szastok ◽  
Arie W. Kruglanski
Keyword(s):  
Presidential Campaign ◽  
Hillary Clinton ◽  
Political Leaders ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Personal Significance ◽  
Political Candidate ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Willingness To Engage

In three studies conducted over the course of 2016 US presidential campaign we examined the relationship between radicalism of a political candidate and willingness to engage in actions for that candidate. Drawing on significance quest theory (Kruglanski et al., 2018), we predicted that people would be more willing to make large sacrifices for radical (vs. moderate) candidates because the cause of radical candidates would be more personally important and engagement on behalf it would be more psychologically rewarding. We tested these predictions among supporters of Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, and Bernie Sanders. Our findings were in line with these predictions, as the more followers perceived their candidates as radical, the more they viewed leaders’ ideas as personally important, gained more personal significance from those ideas, and intended to sacrifice more for the leader.

Making Americans Feel Great Again? Personal Significance Predicts Political Intentions of Losers and Winners of the 2016 US Election

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katarzyna Jasko ◽  
Joanna Grzymala-Moszczynska ◽  
Marta Maj ◽  
Marta Szastok ◽  
Arie W. Kruglanski
Keyword(s):  
Political System ◽  
Presidential Elections ◽  
The Political ◽  
Power Transition ◽  
Hillary Clinton ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Electoral Success ◽  
Personal Significance ◽  
Before And After ◽  
The Times

Reactions of losers and winners of political elections have important consequences for the political system during the times of power transition. In four studies conducted immediately before and after the 2016 US presidential elections we investigated how personal significance induced by success or failure of one’s candidate is related to hostile vs. benevolent intentions toward political adversaries. We found that the less significant supporters of Hillary Clinton and supporters of Donald Trump felt after an imagined (Study 1A) or actual (Study 2) electoral failure the more they were willing to engage in peaceful actions against the elected president and the less they were willing to accept the results of the elections. However, while significance gain due to an imagined or actual electoral success was related to more benevolent intentions among Clinton supporters (Study 1B), it was related to more hostile intentions among Trump supporters (Studies 1B, 2, and 3).

scholarly journals Micro-Expressions of Fear During the 2016 Presidential Campaign Trail: Their Influence on Trait Perceptions of Donald Trump

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick A. Stewart ◽  
Elena Svetieva
Keyword(s):  
Presidential Election ◽  
Presidential Campaign ◽  
Contrast Study ◽  
Leadership Traits ◽  
Hillary Clinton ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Policy Positions ◽  
Positive Effects ◽  
National Convention ◽  
Acceptance Speech

The 2016 United States presidential election was exceptional for many reasons; most notably the extreme division between supporters of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. In an election that turned more upon the character traits of the candidates than their policy positions, there is reason to believe that the non-verbal performances of the candidates influenced attitudes toward the candidates. Two studies, before Election Day, experimentally tested the influence of Trump’s micro-expressions of fear during his Republican National Convention nomination acceptance speech on how viewers evaluated his key leadership traits of competence and trustworthiness. Results from Study 1, conducted 3 weeks prior to the election, indicated generally positive effects of Trump’s fear micro-expressions on his trait evaluations, particularly when viewers were first exposed to his opponent, Clinton. In contrast, Study 2, conducted 4 days before Election Day, suggests participants had at that point largely established their trait perceptions and were unaffected by the micro-expressions.

WANTED: Hillary Clinton, Suspect Citizen

2018 ◽  
Vol 14 (01) ◽  
pp. 121-127
Author(s):  
Jocelyn M. Boryczka
Keyword(s):  
Presidential Campaign ◽  
Hillary Clinton ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Hillary Rodham Clinton ◽  
The Devil ◽  
Pure Evil

“Lock her up! Lock her up! Lock her up!” This battle cry erupted at one Donald Trump rally after another throughout the 2016 presidential campaign. Trump even threatened to jail Hillary Rodham Clinton (HRC) if he won the election. “Crooked Hillary” emerged as Trump's disparaging nickname for his Democratic opponent. Taking a further moralistic step, Trump equated HRC with pure evil, calling her the “devil” at an August 2016 campaign rally in Pennsylvania.

scholarly journals Morally Reframed Arguments Can Affect Support for Political Candidates

2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (8) ◽  
pp. 917-924 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan G. Voelkel ◽  
Matthew Feinberg
Keyword(s):  
Presidential Election ◽  
Moral Values ◽  
Political Campaigns ◽  
Hillary Clinton ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Political Candidates ◽  
Political Candidate ◽  
Persuasive Arguments

Moral reframing involves crafting persuasive arguments that appeal to the targets’ moral values but argue in favor of something they would typically oppose. Applying this technique to one of the most politically polarizing events—political campaigns—we hypothesized that messages criticizing one’s preferred political candidate that also appeal to that person’s moral values can decrease support for the candidate. We tested this claim in the context of the 2016 American presidential election. In Study 1, conservatives reading a message opposing Donald Trump grounded in a more conservative value (loyalty) supported him less than conservatives reading a message grounded in more liberal concerns (fairness). In Study 2, liberals reading a message opposing Hillary Clinton appealing to fairness values were less supportive of Clinton than liberals in a loyalty-argument condition. These results highlight how moral reframing can be used to overcome the rigid stances partisans often hold and help develop political acceptance.

scholarly journals Leadership legitimacy and the mobilization of capital(s): Disrupting politics and reproducing heteronormativity

Leadership ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 174271502110183
Author(s):  
Valerie Stead ◽  
Carole Elliott ◽  
Rita A Gardiner
Keyword(s):  
Presidential Election ◽  
The Political ◽  
Hillary Clinton ◽  
Political Leaders ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Implicit Leadership ◽  
Political Field ◽  
Multimodal Analysis ◽  
Leadership Values ◽  
Insight Into

The rise of populist leaders in the political sphere mounts a challenge to normative understandings of leadership. To better understand this challenge, we examine how political leaders mobilize different forms of social capital in pursuit of leadership legitimacy, providing insight into the dynamics of how leadership norms are maintained. While research has tended to focus on specific forms of capital, this article considers capital as multidimensional and strategically mobilized. The article applies a multimodal analysis to examine interactions between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton during peak ‘Twitter Moments’ of the three 2016 presidential election debates. We theorize the paradoxical dynamics of the mobilization of multiple capitals and their intersection as a simultaneously disruptive and reproductive resource. While the mobilization of multiple capitals operates to disrupt traditional notions of who can claim legitimacy as a leader in the political field, their disruptive mobilization serves to reproduce implicit heteronormative leadership values. Hence, our theorization illuminates the resilience of implicit leadership values, and their intimate connection with heteronormativity, calling for the need to interrogate leadership legitimacy claims that promise ‘new’ approaches.

scholarly journals EFFECT OF 2008 AND 2016 U.S. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IN THE INDONESIAN STOCK MARKET

2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Evelyn Evelyn ◽  
Sautma Ronni Basana
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Stock Market ◽  
Presidential Election ◽  
Presidential Campaign ◽  
The Other ◽  
Hillary Clinton ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
2016 Election ◽  
Black President ◽  
The U.S

The U.S. Presidential election was an event that received widespread attention across the globe. In the 2008 presidential campaign, Barrack Obama nominated to be the first black President. In 2016, Hillary Clinton poten­tially becomes the first woman President in American history, while the other can­di­da­te, Donald Trump, ma­de some unpopular and controversial proposals. The purpose of this paper is to ana­­­lyse whether the 2008 and 2016 election were considered as the rele­vant information in the Indonesian Stock Market (IDX). The daily closing prices of all all share listed in IDX wo­uld be examined used event stu­­­dy method. The results provide insight about the res­pon­si­­­veness of IDX parti­ci­pants to the U.S. Pre­si­den­­tial election event that could be used in decision making.

“I’m (Not) with Her”

2020 ◽  
pp. 209-240
Author(s):  
Melissa Ames
Keyword(s):  
Homeland Security ◽  
21St Century ◽  
Presidential Election ◽  
Presidential Campaign ◽  
Hillary Clinton ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Presidential Debates ◽  
Final Study ◽  
Live Broadcast ◽  
Ongoing Dialogue

The final study presented in this book focuses on one of the most impactful events of the 21st century: the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election, which likely ended as it did in part due to a combination of the cultural fears discussed throughout the previous chapters. For example, the presidential campaign run by Donald Trump played on post-9/11 insecurities about homeland security and employed fear-based, divisive rhetoric about race, gender, class, and sexuality. The acceptance of this rhetoric -- and his ultimate victory -- may be explained by the process of phobic construction highlighted in this text. Chapter 10 analyzes the final months of the election cycle, in particular the televised presidential debates between Trump and Hillary Clinton and the ways in which they stimulated conversation among viewers during the live broadcast and ongoing dialogue and activism beyond it.

Gender Attitudes and Candidate Preferences in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Primary and General Elections

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-28
Author(s):  
Meri T. Long ◽  
Ryan Dawe ◽  
Elizabeth Suhay
Keyword(s):  
Hostile Sexism ◽  
Gender Attitudes ◽  
Hillary Clinton ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Traditional Gender Roles ◽  
Presidential Primary ◽  
Electoral Choice ◽  
General Elections ◽  
Original Survey ◽  
The Relationship

Abstract Scholars increasingly recognize that voters’ attitudes about gender shape their electoral preferences. Yet previous research has not captured important nuances of the relationship between gender attitudes and electoral choice. We argue that the effects of gender attitudes are not unidirectional and interact in complex ways with voters’ perceptions of candidates, depending not only on candidates’ sex but also on their gender-relevant characteristics and values. We draw on an original survey of Americans during the 2016 elections that measured three gender attitudes—hostile sexism, modern sexism, and traditional gender roles—and evaluations of primary and general election candidates. Our study design increases analytical leverage by examining actual and hypothetical candidate matchups. We find that among Democrats, hostile sexists were drawn to Bernie Sanders, but gender traditionalists preferred Hillary Clinton. Our results also suggest that if Sanders had been the Democratic nominee, gender egalitarians would have strongly supported him over Donald Trump, as they did Clinton.

US vice-presidential picks illustrate party tensions

2016 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Vice President ◽  
Presidential Campaign ◽  
The Political ◽  
Hillary Clinton ◽  
Fault Line ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Content Type ◽  
White House ◽  
Presidential Candidates ◽  
Political Clout

Subject US presidential candidates' vice-presidential picks. Significance Although the political power of the vice-president (VP) has varied significantly in each administration, presidential candidates select running mates whom they believe will enhance the appeal of their tickets to undecided voters in the electorate or to shore up support from party constituencies after the primaries. To this end, Republican candidate Donald Trump chose Indiana Governor Mike Pence as a running mate and Democrat Hillary Clinton chose Virginia Senator Tim Kaine. Impacts Republicans' postures towards Trump's 2016 presidential campaign are likely to form a divisive party fault line in future election cycles. Clinton and Kaine's pro-trade tendencies will face significant public and congressional restrictions on advancing new agreements. Progressive Democrats are likely to have greater political clout as part of a Senate majority than in the Clinton White House.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document