Novel Modes of Dissonance Reduction: Justification of Support for Donald Trump
Two studies take a dissonance theory perspective to understanding why individuals support Donald Trump as president of the United States despite accusations that he has engaged in sexual misconduct and illegal activity. Participants were randomly assigned to a dissonance condition in which they read an essay about Trump’s sexual misconduct or a neutral essay. They provided open-ended responses to 2 questions that asked why participants support Trump and how they justify their support given allegations against him. These responses were coded by a judge who was blind to condition. Study 1 was conducted 2 months before Trump was impeached. In this study, 7 categories of reasons for supporting Trump, and 3 categories of justification despite allegations, were identified. A comparison of conditions showed that participants in the dissonance condition were more likely to state that they disbelieved the accusations and less likely to state that Trump’s policies matter and not his personal life. Study 2 was conducted 2 days after the vote to impeach Trump, when high dissonance would be expected for all Trump supporters. Results replicated the categories of support and justification from Study 1, plus additional categories. A quasi-experimental comparison of Studies 1 and 2 showed that those in Study 2 (soon after impeachment) were more likely to state that they support Trump because he truly cares about America and because of his stance on specific policies and issues. The current results suggest that individuals in a naturalistic context may choose a number of different strategies for reducing dissonance, including denying the veracity of information, increasing the importance of consonant information, making cognitions irrelevant, and directing attention to the immoral acts of others. These results are unlike those of most laboratory research on dissonance theory, in which participants are given only one dissonance reduction opportunity.