Abstract
Before and after the 2016 US Presidential Election, this research examined Trump and Clinton supporters’ attributions about behavior of each leader, both of whose ethicality had been publicly questioned. American voters (N = 268) attributed significantly more dispositional factors to the outgroup leader than to the ingroup leader. Moreover, when the ingroup candidate won the election (i.e., among Trump supporters), unethical leadership subsequently became more acceptable and there was less desire to tighten the election process when dealing with unethical candidates. The opposite pattern was found among voters whose ingroup candidate lost the election (Clinton supporters). The results and implications are discussed.
Highlights
Individuals have a basic need to understand others to ensure efficient social interaction and exchange
Perceived Ethicality A Supported candidate × Judged candidate × Wave mixed ANOVA revealed non-significant main effects of Supported candidate, F(1,235) = 0.20, p = 0.655, and Judged candidate, F(1,235) = 1.09, p = 0.298. Both candidates were perceived as unethical (M = 3.45, SD = 0.76), as perceived ethicality of both candidates was tested against the scale midpoint (4): Donald Trump (M = 3.13, SD = 1.99) was perceived as unethical: t(259) = 12.87, p < 0.001, CI [−1.00, −0.74], whilst this perception was only marginal for Hillary Clinton (M = 3.77, SD = 1.99): t(259) = 1.86, p = 0.064, CI [−0.47, 0.01]
Trump supporters reported higher identification with being an American (M = 6.04, SD = 1.18) than Clinton supporters (M = 4.91, SD = 1.23); and, overall, participants were more identified with their country before the election (M = 5.49, SD = 1.31) than after (M = 5.28, SD = 1.49)
Summary
Individuals have a basic need to understand others to ensure efficient social interaction and exchange. This social understanding is achieved by knowing why people do what they do: causal knowledge. Individuals spontaneously infer the causal locus of individuals’ behaviors based on categorization, stereotypes and automatic processing, with causes and consequences of behavior grounded on quickly accessible schemas. A primary question is whether someone’s behavior is the result of their disposition to behave in that particular way or a response to situational constraints (e.g., Kelley and Michela, 1980). It is known that distinctive and consistent behaviors are likely to be attributed to dispositions more than to situations
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
