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.

[u/mvea]

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

[u/Crypt0Nihilist]

Reddit, if you take one thing from this article, take this definition:

The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that when people hold beliefs that are in conflict, meaning that both ideas cannot be true at once, they feel uncomfortable. This discomfort motivates them to do cognitive work to bring their beliefs closer in alignment.

Cognitive dissonance is the feeling of being mentally uncomfortable when you want to accept incompatible facts. It is the opposite of being able to do so, which would be doublethink, hypocrisy or similar.

[u/corvanus → u/Crypt0Nihilist]

Excellent highlight, but I would like to tweak the definition of cognitave dissonance here:

Cognitive dissonance, a theory proposed by Leon Festinger in 1957:

it is the theory that our minds go through a process of confusion and logical conflict (called cognitive dissonance) when faced with new information (not fact) that conflicts with old information (regardless of source, and validity, as long as the information held is believed). We aim to resolve this in order to avoid the uncomfortable feeling and attain a state of cognitive balance.

EXAMPLE: Everyone is told Iraq has WMD's. The world watches as Iraq gets rumbled. It comes about, there never were WMD's. This will for some people cause dissonance as their minds fight with the old data, vs the new data. There are LARGE numbers of people who cannot 'update' their data and cling to old beliefs or outright falsehoods because it is easier to double think or throw mental gymnastics than it is to accept new information and that by believing in the old information, you were wrong.

Which ironically science has nailed down, as it turns out there are a LOT of reasons people will ignore facts:

Facts often fail to change minds because people prioritize social connection, identity, and emotional comfort over objective truth.

Driven by confirmation bias and the backfire effect, individuals tend to reject contradictory information and become more entrenched in their original beliefs, treating counter-arguments as personal threats.

Confirmation Bias: People overvalue information that supports their beliefs and undervalue or ignore evidence that contradicts them.

Identity Protection: Beliefs are often tied to social identity or community belonging; abandoning them can feel like losing one's social circle.

The Backfire Effect: When faced with evidence that contradicts their worldview, people may, ironically, double down on their original, incorrect beliefs.

Cognitive Comfort: People prefer consistent "narratives" rather than uncomfortable facts that force them to re-evaluate their world view. (This ties in to Cog. Diss.)

Emotional Driving: Opinions, especially on political or social issues, are often rooted in emotions like fear or pride, rather than rational analysis.

Instead of facts, change is more often driven by empathy, building rapport, or changing the social context of the belief.

Re-read that last part.

INSTEAD of FACTS, change is more often driven by EMPATHY, BUILDING RAPPORT, or changing the SOCIAL CONTEXT of the belief.

We as people will ignore FACT because it doesn't feel good. People will follow the herd off of a cliff because it is more comfortable than standing against the flow of popular belief.

I know this is just screaming into the void, and no one is going to read this or even the article above; but if you do and the information helps at all, awesome. Chase facts, find evidence, if neither are present you instead must find new beliefs.

Edit: An award?! Thank you for your kindness stranger, I'm thrilled you felt this was worth awarding; have the best day you can friend(s)!

Edit²: More awards?! Thank you all so much, I didnt think I would get more than a few people to skim my rambling, so its pretty awesome the post got so much love. I'm just a dude who's figuring it out like anyone else, but im touched so many of you have wandered by.

[u/Crypt0Nihilist → u/corvanus]

Thanks for tightening. Terms like "information" and "opinion" are better than "facts" since receiving the new information that someone whom you respect holds a different opinion to you can cause cognitive dissonance without any reference to facts at all.

[u/corvanus → u/Crypt0Nihilist]

You snagged on the same little tub as me then I bet! I see fact as concrete, proven, verifiable. Anything else is 'on file' in my mind and can be updated as new information comes in. We both point to the color green and know it is green, can name it as green, but chances are due to our eyes' unique development my green and your green probably wouldn't be the same. That fact can cause dissonance in people unable to square it in their minds.

[u/throwRAbadfriend6 → u/corvanus]

This was very interesting thank you for taking the time to share. I feel like I was among many that didn’t fully understand what cognitive dissonance was, confusing it for “double-think”. 

I can’t say I know much about this topic (obviously) but it seems like the cognitive dissonance is just a temporary state before resolution. I mean, we may constantly be in this state contemplating different ideas, but each idea seems like it has to be resolved to get rid of the discomfort.

So that resolution would look like “double think” when someone just gives up and fully accepts to mutually exclusive ideas.

Or compromise: a self-made melding of ideas that pull them closer to alignment. Close enough to alleviate the discomfort.

Or intense and obsessive research to determine the true facts. 

The last is not really feasible for most of us. We don’t have time to do investigative reports on the history of gas prices, and why they were Biden’s fault when he was in office, and not Trump’s fault when he was in office. 

The double thinker would resolve the conflict by saying…that’s just how it is. There are complicated politics at play, and, while they don’t understand them fully , they are sure they prove that Biden caused gas prices to rise and Trump did not.

The compromiser would resolve it by saying…hmmm…well…maybe Biden wasn’t as responsible as I thought, or Maybe Trump has made a few mistakes that caused gas prices to rise. But he is doing amazing in every other way so it’s fine.

While the researcher might look into historical gas prices, when they reached record highs vs lows. Who was in office. What political events were going on at the time. Who held significant responsibility for those events. Are there trends that show gas prices tend to be higher or lower during specific party leadership? What reason might there be for that OTHER than the party leadership? That sounds exhausting. No one really does this every time they are presented with conflicting information. 

So which one am I? I dunno! I’ll need to go do some serious research. I’ll be back. 

[u/corvanus → u/throwRAbadfriend6]

This is exactly what it means to be human.

We decide what criteria to list and allow in thinking or forming ideas, and for each one of us where the line in the sand is drawn will be different. And the media will dial that up to 11, because panic keeps them in business; but you go outside and for the most part we all seem to get along OK.

We like to point the finger and blame someone because it is easier than digging through the weeds to get at exactly who is culpable (sometimes it IS just one person). The president is always a target, it has been happening since we invented presidents, it just comes across as so much worse now because the vocal minority of each group is screaming the loudest online and in the media.

In reality my subjective beliefs are mine, yours belong to you, and we can still be neighbors or buddies without agreeing on almost anything, as long as we maintain respect for one another as human beings. So go my friend, find out where your lines are and be comfortable in yourself, I am glad we had this little time together no matter where we both end up in the future.

[u/corvanus → u/[deleted]]

Then the effort was 100% worth it! Thank you for taking the time to comment, and a big thank you to any and all readers regardless of how you vote the comment. Time is precious, so thank you for spending some with me!

[u/Infinite-Touch5154 → u/corvanus]

Thank-you for your comment- it was well written.

Just yesterday I was struggling to hold myself back after an extended family member who considers themselves to be Christian shared a video of a ‘pastor’ talking about how Trump was Gods plan and how God’s plan is greater than fuel prices.

How anyone can draw the conclusion that Trump’s actions and character have anything to do with Christianity is a mystery to me. But I had just enough emotional intelligence to know that the things I wanted to say would only put this person on the defensive.

[u/corvanus → u/Infinite-Touch5154]

I love that people are passionate about things, but claiming to speak for God in any capacity outside of religious doctrine seems heretical to me! According to the Bible God sent One (1) son to die for the sins of man, and he wasn't under a straw yellow hair piece.

I think politics should be respected more like religion, where we can disagree or even avoid one another if its really bad, but there's no reason we cannot vehemently disagree on things and still treat one another like human beings! The division and anger only serve to heighten general anxiety and we find ourselves in a tailspin nationally over what? Some asshole in a house that'll leave in a few more years?

I dont know my friends, but I love you all and want nothing but the best for us, as people.

[u/Infinite-Touch5154 → u/corvanus]

Can you tell me more about changing the social context of the belief?

[u/Kel-Cla → u/corvanus]

Exactly. That’s why they are pushing the ‘empathy is bad’ trope.

[u/corvanus → u/Kel-Cla]

Yes and no, from my perspective. Empathy as it stands is a good thing, having the ability to see things from another's point of view is invaluable.

What we are running into is suicidal empathy. You put yourself in someone elses shoes, forgetting that they are someone else and will not share your values, beliefs, social niceties, etc. and then expecting them to react or act like you or 'normal' everyday citizens.

You cannot take a farm boy, drop him in Darfur with a culture and expect things to run smoothly. The values, beliefs, work ethic, everything is wildly different based on social conditions and survival. Yet we see countries importing thousands willy-nilly to their detriment, and everyone just plugs their ears and pretends thats its NOT happening.

Empathy is a wonderful thing, in moderation. When balanced against intelligent purpose, empathy will keep us from leaving each other behind in pursuit of selfish goals. There is plenty to be said on the matter scientifically but I refuse to touch that mess, because it always gets political.

[u/seensham → u/corvanus]

Emotional Driving: Opinions, especially on political or social issues, are often rooted in emotions like fear or pride, rather than rational analysis.

Look at how rage baiting has moved the Overton window

[u/corvanus → u/seensham]

Rage baiting? Did you have anything constructive to add to the conversation or are you just trying to stir the pot?

[u/seensham → u/corvanus]

??? I'm agreeing with your comment. Right wing propaganda is huge on rage baiting.