So many topics to discuss, but one that has been percolating in my mind for the past three months relates to why, despite multiple quips and actions daily that are offensive to nearly every human imaginable (well, maybe not petulant, spoiled, narcissistic rich men who aren't bankers or hedge fund directors), has Trump's standing in the polls improved or remained strong?
For Pete's sake, he has even attacked the Pope (of course, the Pope started it)!
Well, I had to reach back into the recesses of my long-past graduate studies, which included a large body of research on social cognition, to remember a likely explanation: inoculation theory.
Developed by William James McGuire (who taught for many years at Yale and passed away in 2007), inoculation theory borrows from medicine's use of vaccines to inoculate people against disease by injecting small amounts of the disease into us so that our body will develop the proper methods and resoruces for fighting a larger attack that might occur later on.
A tribute to McGuire in a 2008 volume of The American Psychologist explained how it works in the area of social cognition: "belief immunization—that is, by exposing an individual to a relatively weak attack on a belief and allowing him or her to engage in counterargumentation..."
So, how does inoculation explain support for Trump in the minds of so many people--Democrats, Independents and Republicans alike (I will hope to address the cross-ideological support Trump may have later when I have more data and thought time)--who seem to support Trump even as they disagree with him?
Well, the practice of inoculation in politics is to provide a little information before people know the information is relevant to them (in experimental or applied political science, we might call this "pre-priming."). Later, when there is information provided that is counter to that little information people had before, the mind kicks in to fight the dissonant information. Without realizing it, an individual has cognitive antibodies to fight off the contrary argument. But the key to inoculation theory in political communication is that the inoculating party provides counter arguments to the criticisms, which cues individuals to activate those cognitive antibodies.
For Trump, the "inoculation" is his lifelong obsession with his own success, encapsulated in what we now call his "branding." Just like the hepatitis booster my students at Providence College received over the past year, the inoculation took place over time. Everyone knows he's huuge! From his obsession with his name to his cheesy reality program, Trump has long been shooting cognitive inoculations into our brains, and we have received them with no idea what they might be used for...until now.
Then, once he starts his campaign, he simply has to be his created self (I say "created" because I still have hope there is a real human with some decency somewhere that could come up with the right psychiatric plan): the Howard Stern of American politics. These insults and brazen acts of arrogance are then countered by his opponents, yet Trump seems to have a ceramic coating and the attacks slide right off him. (no more "Teflon," although I do think Trump may be toxic).
So, people are able to find all kinds of reasons for why, even though they do not like what he is saying, they will still support Trump. "He tells it like it is" and "We need to throw all the bums out; he's an outsider" are the most common, but not the only rationalizations used with these cognitive antibodies.
Jeb Bush. The pre-chained Chris Christie. Now Marco Rubio and Mitt Romney. Maybe even John Oliver, Make Donald Drumpf Again campaign might actually be helping Trump.
There are other dynamics going on that explain this. But I do think so many of us have been inoculated through Trump's career that trying to fight the disease by attacking the disease will not work.
I also think inoculation theory also explains the unusually negative impressions many people, including Democrats, have of Hillary Clinton. We have been fed negative cognitive bits about her for so long (since 1991) that whatever she does to try and assuage concerns over her honesty are met with those now vigorous and numerous cognitive antibodies that remind us how untrustworthy she is, not matter what evidence may or may not exist.
For Pete's sake, he has even attacked the Pope (of course, the Pope started it)!
Well, I had to reach back into the recesses of my long-past graduate studies, which included a large body of research on social cognition, to remember a likely explanation: inoculation theory.
Developed by William James McGuire (who taught for many years at Yale and passed away in 2007), inoculation theory borrows from medicine's use of vaccines to inoculate people against disease by injecting small amounts of the disease into us so that our body will develop the proper methods and resoruces for fighting a larger attack that might occur later on.
A tribute to McGuire in a 2008 volume of The American Psychologist explained how it works in the area of social cognition: "belief immunization—that is, by exposing an individual to a relatively weak attack on a belief and allowing him or her to engage in counterargumentation..."
So, how does inoculation explain support for Trump in the minds of so many people--Democrats, Independents and Republicans alike (I will hope to address the cross-ideological support Trump may have later when I have more data and thought time)--who seem to support Trump even as they disagree with him?
Well, the practice of inoculation in politics is to provide a little information before people know the information is relevant to them (in experimental or applied political science, we might call this "pre-priming."). Later, when there is information provided that is counter to that little information people had before, the mind kicks in to fight the dissonant information. Without realizing it, an individual has cognitive antibodies to fight off the contrary argument. But the key to inoculation theory in political communication is that the inoculating party provides counter arguments to the criticisms, which cues individuals to activate those cognitive antibodies.
For Trump, the "inoculation" is his lifelong obsession with his own success, encapsulated in what we now call his "branding." Just like the hepatitis booster my students at Providence College received over the past year, the inoculation took place over time. Everyone knows he's huuge! From his obsession with his name to his cheesy reality program, Trump has long been shooting cognitive inoculations into our brains, and we have received them with no idea what they might be used for...until now.
Then, once he starts his campaign, he simply has to be his created self (I say "created" because I still have hope there is a real human with some decency somewhere that could come up with the right psychiatric plan): the Howard Stern of American politics. These insults and brazen acts of arrogance are then countered by his opponents, yet Trump seems to have a ceramic coating and the attacks slide right off him. (no more "Teflon," although I do think Trump may be toxic).
So, people are able to find all kinds of reasons for why, even though they do not like what he is saying, they will still support Trump. "He tells it like it is" and "We need to throw all the bums out; he's an outsider" are the most common, but not the only rationalizations used with these cognitive antibodies.
Jeb Bush. The pre-chained Chris Christie. Now Marco Rubio and Mitt Romney. Maybe even John Oliver, Make Donald Drumpf Again campaign might actually be helping Trump.
There are other dynamics going on that explain this. But I do think so many of us have been inoculated through Trump's career that trying to fight the disease by attacking the disease will not work.
I also think inoculation theory also explains the unusually negative impressions many people, including Democrats, have of Hillary Clinton. We have been fed negative cognitive bits about her for so long (since 1991) that whatever she does to try and assuage concerns over her honesty are met with those now vigorous and numerous cognitive antibodies that remind us how untrustworthy she is, not matter what evidence may or may not exist.
No comments:
Post a Comment