It’s security, stupid! Voters’ perceptions of immigrants as a security risk predicted support for Donald Trump in the 2016 US presidential election

Abstract

We analyzed two datasets to determine the predictive validity of four explanations of support for Donald Trump during the 2016 US presidential election: (a) security concerns regarding immigrants, (b) economic concerns regarding immigrants, (c) cultural concerns regarding immigrants, and (d) social dominance orientation. Results of a two‐phase study (N = 354) suggested that perceiving immigrants as a security concern was predictive of increased support for and greater odds of voting for Donald Trump three weeks later. Perceiving immigrants as an economic threat predicted odds of voting for Donald Trump, but only among liberals and there was no evidence of cultural concern or social dominance orientation (SDO) predicting support for Donald Trump or odds of voting for Trump. A follow‐up analysis of the cross‐sectional ANES survey corroborated that security concerns were an important correlate of voting for Trump, but also that SDO was correlated with having previously voted for Donald Trump. While our two‐phase study has the benefit of prediction, the cross‐sectional ANES data does not—“predictors” in these data were collected up to two months post‐election.

Understanding the psychological appeal of populism

“…Considering the psychological impact of perceived loss brings to the fore the third set of processes we argue underlies populist appeal: the mobilisation of emotion related to one's social group. The appeal to emotions has been acknowledged in the literature on populism (1,10,53), with research showing how feelings of collective resentment (15), anger (7,53,54), threat (37,44,55), and fear (36,53) can mobilise voters to join a populist movement. But this literature also brings attention to the role of populist leaders in offering to a group optimistic alternatives to a status quo framed as problematic.…”

Using Social Media to Motivate Anti-migration Sentiments. Political Implications in the United States and Beyond

“…The third and final qualitative analysis deepens the assessment that the President makes in his messages, implicitly or explicitly, about immigrants. In this case, according to previous studies of Trump's speeches on immigration, they are based on the repetition of negative topics about it (Carrasco-González, 2017;Green, 2016;Wright and Esses, 2019). We established the following categorization: illegal, generating insecurity, criminals, dangerous, system abuser, rapists, and drug dealers.…”

Adaptive and maladaptive narcissism, charisma, and leadership performance: A study of perceptions about the presidential leadership of Donald Trump

“…In the context of a presidential election, it may be interesting to collect performance evaluations at the end of the first term if the candidate decides to seek reelection and study how it affects perceptions of narcissism and charisma and reelection prospects. As we observe upcoming challenges facing the U.S. (in terms of decisions on the budget, immigration, national security, international trade and alliances, and infrastructure improvements), understanding the role and effectiveness of the personal influence of leadership is critical for research on selection factors that predict leader success (Wright and Esses, 2019). For instance, recent surveys have revealed surprising differences among generations in preferences for authoritarian or democratic systems of government (Foa and Mounk, 2017).…”