Evolutionary Psychology Behind Supporting Trumps

It’s been a tumultuous political season, as is often the case in the thick of election years. But something that has really struck me, and I imagine I am not alone this time around, is how fervently some people continue to support their favored candidates and political figures, even after those leaders have done or said things that seem to violate the supporters’ own moral values. On both sides of the aisle, ardent voters make impassioned defenses and complex justifications for the controversial words and deeds of their political heroes. Standard bearers get away with ethical breaches and misdeeds that would be radioactive for most regular citizens. Why is this the case? The Evolutionary Psychology of Tribalism may offer some insight.

Throughout the ancestral environment in which our species evolved, humans lived in relatively small tribes or bands of around 100-200 individuals. Being part of a tightly cooperating in-group was essential for survival against hostile outsiders, predators, and the harsh environments our ancestors inhabited.

Those who were able to form stronger coalitions and display unshakable solidarity and loyalty within their bands had a major evolutionary advantage. Favoring one’s in-group – even when some members enacted transgressions – helped ensure the cohesion of the entire tribe against threatening out-groups.

This deeply ingrained psychology of forming insular, favored groups and showing biased loyalty toward them likely underpins much of our modern political behavior and affiliation. Politicians skillfully craft narratives to reinforce an “us vs them” mentality and portray themselves as the champion of a favored in-group.

Even once a politician has secured a loyal base of supporters, there are other evolved psychological biases that may help them maintain allegiance despite moral failings. The “halo effect” refers to how we tend to assume an array of positive traits in someone based on a few perceived positives. Similarly, the tendency for “moral credentialing” means we grant “moral passes” to those who have preemptively demonstrated their values alignment with us.

In other words, because a particular politician has established themselves as “one of us” and signaled shared values in some areas, we extend them inflated “halos” of character and implicitly excuse transgressions that we might crucify others over. As long as they hit enough of our moral credentialing checkboxes, we show a strong status quo bias toward favoring them.

Many evolutionary psychologists argue that humans developed domain-specific psychologies for evaluating and deferring to authority figures and dominant leaders. Those who were able to identify and fall in line behind skilled, decisive leaders had better chances of survival.

While these instincts may have been adaptive in our ancestral small-scale social groups, they can become overzealously applied to modern leadership roles like politicians. Once a political figure has been recognized as an authentic authority worthy of deference, the human tendency is to be strongly biased toward believing in them and justifying their actions – even unethical ones that should logically disqualify them.

We evolved to respect displays of competence, confidence, strength, and dominance. Skilled politicians have learned to broadcast precisely those signals. The evolved human psyche may then struggle to override our automatic deference response, no matter how immoral the leader’s actions become.

Finally, the human needs for identity fusion, belonging, and shared meaning are extremely powerful drivers of our thoughts and behaviors. We are a profoundly socially inspired species that depends on being part of Define groups and belief systems.

When someone like a political leader becomes a key part of an individual’s sense of identity and values, it creates a mode of psychological ownership. To turn against that leader would be to turn against a piece of oneself. Psychologically, resisting affiliation to that person creates deeply unpleasant cognitive dissonance and alienation.

Politicians know this and actively foster identity mergers and tribalism among their supporters. By convincing people that supporting them is tantamount to living out one’s core values and worldview, they make dissent incredibly difficult. Any scandal or immoral behavior must either be justified or ignored to protect one’s entire sense of identity.

While these psychological forces are potent, they don’t make us automatons. Humans also have remarkable capacities for self-awareness, ethical reasoning, and overriding more primitive biases. But doing so requires recognizing the deep evolutionary roots that incline us toward blind allegiance despite moral transgressions.

By better understanding these influences, we can strive to hold our leaders to consistent standards – judging them as individuals rather than extensions of our in-groups. We are the only political constituency to which we owe unwavering loyalty. All other allegiances must be rationally reassessed based on observed behavior, not the distorting lenses of our tribal psychologies.

The Evolutionary Approach to Political Psychology

Evolutionary Political Psychology – Aarhus Universitet

Evolutionary Political Psychology: On the Origin and Structure

Psychological barriers to evolutionary psychology: Ideological bias and coalitional adaptations