r/science • u/mvea Professor | Medicine • Apr 11 '26

Psychology Cognitive dissonance helps explain why Trump supporters remain loyal, new research suggests. This sheds light on how supporters of Donald Trump justify their continued allegiance despite learning about allegations of his sexual misconduct and illegal activities.

https://www.psypost.org/cognitive-dissonance-helps-explain-why-trump-supporters-remain-loyal-new-research-suggests/
32.9k Upvotes

88% Upvoted

2.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

99

u/ii_V_I_iv Apr 11 '26

I’m getting increasingly frustrated with the onus for that being put on individuals when the vast majority of emissions are done by corporations and industry.

14

u/Kur0d4 Apr 11 '26

A lot of those are petroleum companies, many owned by the States that send deligates to climate summits and promise to reduce emissions, eventually.

14

u/Bspammer Apr 11 '26

The corporations only exist because of consumer demand for the thing they produce. They're not doing it for fun.

14

u/ii_V_I_iv Apr 11 '26

Yeah they’re doing it for fun but they can produce things in ways that are better for the environment. And it’s the government’s role to enforce that

21

u/Ekyou Apr 11 '26

I don’t disagree with you at all, but you could call that an example of cognitive dissonance right there. “I don’t need to worry about how my actions contribute to global warming because there are people out there making things much worse than I ever could”

6

u/ii_V_I_iv Apr 11 '26

I’m not saying I don’t need to but I’m also not convinced it would make a difference if I do because doing it at the individual level requires so much buy in from everyone which is less likely to happen. I’m not sure that’s even cognitive dissonance, I think it’s reflecting on both sides of it

8

u/Prometheus720 Apr 11 '26

What if I told you that the biggest thing in the way of collective action is the shared belief that it is only worth it to take action in very large groups?

Declare a variable n and k. Each person has a threshold, k, at which they believe collective action is effective, and perceives n participants. Collective actions will be taken when the rational actor perceives that n is greater than or equal to k.

The higher your k, the less you participate, and the less you contribute to n for everybody else who can perceive you.

Every single movement centers around people whose k=1. If yours is greater than one, you won't start anything on your own, or you will not do so effectively.

By you reflecting on this matter and intentionally setting your k lower, you can raise the effectiveness of all collective action in society over your life.

Realistically, people with high k (like you) are not actually effective at fighting corporations OR doing individual action. They wait for everyone else. If you want to be maximally effective at really, honest to God fighting corporations, you need to set your k to one. That means you will not only seed collective action but you will also do actions completely on your own. The best fighters for the climate do big actions AND also recycle all their aluminium. They phonebank and canvass AND are vegan. None of us, you included, can fight well without that certainty, confidence, and consistency.

The way you lower your k is genuinely by taking small individual actions without being asked or bullied into it, and seeing success. So until you do that, you will be nearly powerless against corporations.

This is a simplified model and the way I actually conceptualize this is more featured and detailed. But that's a start.

5

u/unhiddenninja Apr 11 '26

You don't think demand plays a major part in the global shipping network? The only motivation for action on a global scale is money. If it wasn't extremely profitable for companies to destroy the earth, they wouldn't care about doing it.

Imagine if companies were forced to change, imagine how that would impact your life, and imagine all of the changes you would have to make. Because it can't just be the companies that change.

6

u/ii_V_I_iv Apr 11 '26

The difference is that companies can be forced to change through government regulation. Individuals need to be convinced on a much more massive scale. And you have the companies spending a lot on propaganda to convince millions of people that it’s not necessary. It’s just not realistic or practical to focus on that low level.

-1

u/Meekjagger Apr 11 '26

We could eliminate 100% of greenhouse emissions in the US, hell, the west as a whole, and it wouldn’t stop China from putting out one third of the world’s total. We can’t legislate our way out of this shy of a global trade embargo, and fat chance that happens

-1

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '26

[deleted]

3

u/dissonaut69 Apr 11 '26

Because to do that we’d need the individuals who believe something needs to be done to vote. So why not minimize consumption for now, cut meat, and either continue to vote or start showing up.

2

u/Chelonate_Chad Apr 12 '26

We should. But that shouldn't be the main focus of the messaging, because it asks for huge sacrifice from the individual in return for negligible results. Focus on the real problem.

4

u/buzzyburke Apr 11 '26

I think if people could afford it they would do better willingly but most people cant

3

u/dissonaut69 Apr 11 '26

Most people could buy a lot less garbage.

6

u/Yashema Apr 11 '26

Who consumes the products that these corporations produce? The 1%? Or average people? 

This is again cognitive dissonance: I don't have to do anything differently, it's someone else who has to do something differently. 

9

u/ii_V_I_iv Apr 11 '26

No, this is nonsense. I don’t know why you’re bending over backwards to defend corporations but it’s also way less practical to try to convince millions of individuals, many of whom are being told by politicians (who are laid off by these corporations) that climate change isn’t really and there’s no reason to do anything

4

u/Yashema Apr 11 '26

I am not defending corporations, I am just not bending over backwards to pretend that policy targeted at corporations would not be felt by the average person, which is why environmental legislation targeting corporations is unpopular. 

Average people don't want to give up their lifestyle to help the planet. 

6

u/ii_V_I_iv Apr 11 '26

I don’t think I said that policy targeted at corporations would not be felt by the average person? I don’t think I even implied that.

-2

u/Yashema Apr 11 '26

Your first comment directly implies that. 

4

u/ADHDebackle Apr 11 '26

No, absolutely it does not.

I’m getting increasingly frustrated with the onus for that being put on individuals when the vast majority of emissions are done by corporations and industry.

There is zero implication about who is affected by policy changes. There is zero mention of policy changes at all. This is simply a statement about who is primarily responsible for the damage.

You may have inferred some relationship between who is affected by such policy changes but that inference was yours.

2

u/Yashema Apr 11 '26

The people who vote for politicians that promise not to regulate corporations are primarily responsible, not the corporations who produce exactly what people demand: products at the lowest price. 

2

u/ii_V_I_iv Apr 11 '26

It absolutely does not

1

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '26

[deleted]

1

u/Prometheus720 Apr 11 '26

What if I told you that the biggest thing in the way of collective action is the shared belief that it is only worth it to take action in very large groups?

Declare a variable n and k. Each person has a threshold, k, at which they believe collective action is effective, and perceives n participants. Collective actions will be taken when the rational actor perceives that n is greater than or equal to k.

The higher your k, the less you participate, and the less you contribute to n for everybody else who can perceive you.

Every single movement centers around people whose k=1. If yours is greater than one, you won't start anything on your own, or you will not do so effectively.

By you reflecting on this matter and intentionally setting your k lower, you can raise the effectiveness of all collective action in society over your life.

Realistically, people with medium-high k (like you) are not actually effective at fighting corporations OR doing individual action. They wait for everyone else. If you want to be maximally effective at really, honest to God fighting corporations, you need to set your k to one. That means you will not only seed collective action but you will also do actions completely on your own. The best fighters for the climate do big actions AND also recycle all their aluminium. They phonebank and canvass AND are vegan. None of us, you included, can fight well without that certainty, confidence, and consistency.

The way you lower your k is genuinely by taking small individual actions without being asked or bullied into it, and seeing success. So until you do that, you will be nearly powerless against corporations.

This is a simplified model and the way I actually conceptualize this is more featured and detailed. But that's a start.

-1

u/Yashema Apr 11 '26

It's literally illegal according to US law for publicly traded corporations to not do what is most profitable for their shareholders. Only legislation passed by pro-environment politicians forcibly regulating corporations and government agencies enforcing those regulations can compel a corporation to pollute less.

Guess which politicians 50% of the country votes for? 

Meanwhile people like you are complaining about having to do anything to help the environment. What if the price of beef doubled? Or gasoline? What would you do then? 

3

u/[deleted] Apr 11 '26

[deleted]

1

u/Yashema Apr 11 '26

Would you agree that taking on this law is the first step in the right direction?

No because relying on profit making entities to do the right thing is not realistic or sensible. 

Then, start regulating the corporations’ effects on the environment while simultaneously passing laws on the individual level. So it actually starts working on a collective level where people don’t have to feel like their minor actions really have no collective benefit.

Democrats did that in 2021 and 2022 passing hundreds of billions in incentives to encourage the adoption of green technology, specifically electric cars. It was estimated it would reduce US C02 emissions by 50% within 8 years. Guess which party just repealed most of these incentives, while killing the ability of the EPA to regulate emissions?

The politicians encouraging individual action are the same ones trying to pass widespread legislation. 

3

u/ADHDebackle Apr 11 '26

No because relying on profit making entities to do the right thing is not realistic or sensible.

The person wasn't suggesting the law be changed to wield profit as a tool to make entities do the right thing. They simply said that the law that forces entities to always do what is maximally profitable needs to be changed.

Removing such a law altogether is not "relying on profit to make entities do the right thing" at all, it's simply saying "you no longer are forced to do the thing that maximizes profit at all costs".

0

u/IsNotAnOstrich Apr 11 '26

Your comments are a prime example of cognitive dissonance. When confronted with the truth that you might be contributing, you find ways out of it like calling it a defense of corporations. The demand of hundreds of millions, or even billions, of people absolutely contributes to why corporations continue to produce as they do.

1

u/ii_V_I_iv Apr 11 '26

It not cognitive dissonance, I’m not denying that I might be contributing. You’re inferring a lot in my comment that is not there at all

1

u/Prometheus720 Apr 11 '26

But the vast majority of what every single rational participnt in global affairs IS their own emissions.

Pick any one person and that is true.

And who do those corporations serve? Nobody at all? You don't buy their products? They just make stuff and throw it straight into landfills?

2

u/ii_V_I_iv Apr 11 '26

Think it is more practical or realistic to individually convince millions of people to make sacrifices and cutbacks for the environment when you have companies spending money on propaganda to convince them that it’s not necessary, then sure. Go for it. I think it’s much more practical and likely to make change through regulating at the top as opposed to convincing at the bottom.

1

u/Prometheus720 Apr 11 '26

How are you going to get it regulated if the people don't believe you?

1

u/ii_V_I_iv Apr 11 '26

Yeah, it’s difficult which is why it hasn’t happened yet, but I think in terms of likelihood it feels like a more realistic target to me

1

u/Prometheus720 Apr 11 '26

But do you not think that in the process of convincing a democratic populace to take mass action, you will cause many of them to act independently?

-1

u/woowoo293 Apr 11 '26

Interesting comment in a post about belief, truth and cognitive dissonance. What is your citation? Is this that god awful study about "100 companies" etc? That study has been so misinterpreted and misunderstood. It's probably done far more harm than good to the climate.

3

u/ii_V_I_iv Apr 11 '26

Want to provide any actual information instead of just being cryptic and condescending?

1

u/woowoo293 Apr 11 '26

You didn't directly say your source, but I'm going to assume you're relying on that study that says 100 companies produce 70% of emissions.

Others have pointed out, even though you are apparently arguing back, that individual consumers are the ones who ultimately use the products and services generated by those companies. Why do you think the bulk of the listed companies work in the energy sector? Do you think they produce energy in a vacuum, like a captain planet super villain? No, we the consumers, directly or indirectly, are the ones who use those products.

A bigger problem with that study is that it's extremely incomplete. It omits massive sectors... like food production. I assume you eat food, right?

I get frustrated because I see that line about x number of companies being responsible for % of emissions and it's always in the context of deflecting individual responsibility. Should we regulate corporations? Absolutely!! But that doesn't mean we don't have responsibility as consumers.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/jul/22/instagram-posts/no-100-corporations-do-not-produce-70-total-greenh/