Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Politics
posted by janrinok on Thursday December 07, @01:05AM   Printer-friendly
from the and-a-polite-discussion-ensued... dept.

Recently published in Journal of Social and Political Psychology by Thomas F. Pettigrew seeks to understand the psychological profile of Trump supporters:

The Trump movement is not singular within the United States (the Know Nothing movement in the 1850s, the Wallace movement in the 1960s, and the more recent Tea Party Movement). Moreover, other democracies have seen similar movements (e.g., Austria's Freedom Party, Belgium's Vlaams Blok, France's National Front, Germany's Alternative for Germany Party (AfD), and Britain's U.K. Independence Party (UKIP).

In virtually all these cases, the tinder especially involved male nativists and populists who were less educated than the general population. But this core was joined by other types of voters as well. Five highly interrelated characteristics stand out that are central to a social psychological analysis – authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, outgroup prejudice, the absence of intergroup contact and relative deprivation.No one factor describes Trump's supporters. But an array of factors – many of them reflecting five major social psychological phenomena can help to account for this extraordinary political event: authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, prejudice, relative deprivation, and intergroup contact.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough

Mark All as Read

Mark All as Unread

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Sulla on Thursday December 07, @06:08AM (4 children)

    by Sulla (5173) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 07, @06:08AM (#606670) Journal

    The general opinion of the subsect of 18 million people who go to 4chan a month (claims google analytics) who go to /pol/ was that Trump was a fuck you to the republican party as well. Old people thought him better than hill out of no other choice and young folks loved how much he shit all over the primary process. I don't really consider him a rep due to his views going back being traditionally liberal in some respects (acceptance of gays) and non-republican due to his running as reform party in 2000. The amount of hatred that establishment republicans have for him is nice as well.

    I voted for johnson in 2012 but he annoyed me with his focus on "dude weed" in the 2016 run. Ended up voting for Daryl Perry instead in '16 but don't like him as much recently.

    Another unaccepted cause of youth support for Trump was that he was funner to meme than Hill. The more the left protested and called them evil the more they would meme harder for the lulz. Draft our Daughters, Hill having Kuru/Parkinsons, murder lists, email servers, "why am I not 50 points ahead" , etc. Had /pol/ known more about Jeb! Bush's autism early on, they likely would have fought harder for him to have four years of memes. The like of Trump would have died much faster if it wasnt for Drumpf, two scoops, made him eat the meatloaf, dumping the koi food, etc. If the media would stop pushing fake issues and latch onto fake things iit is likely places like /pol/ would find other things to do than support the president.

    --
    I post without karma bonus, you should too
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Thursday December 07, @09:20PM (3 children)

    by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Thursday December 07, @09:20PM (#606997)

    Trump ran a 2010s election based on memes and social media and awesome tweets

    Hillary ran a textbook perfect 1975 campaign complete with total endorsement and "should be illegal" collusion with every legacy newspaper and legacy TV network out there. Crazy, really. Everything that defined a perfect 1975 campaign. She did nothing post-disco era at all, but she knocked it out of the park for 1975.

    If it were 1970s we'd be talking about Prez Hillary instead of Prez Carter. But of course its 2010s so we got Trump.

    Also Trump hung out with all the big name D party folks in his youth, however, he doesn't molest women or children so the D party didn't want him. Al Franken could only have been a Democrat, ditto bill clinton and all the rest. I was totally confused about Moore, how could that guy not be a "D" party member? Thats what inspires me to think the accounts are fake.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @11:31PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 07, @11:31PM (#607045)

      VLM, in case you haven't been paying attention, there are just as many sexual harassment/molestation charges against Republicans at this point as against Democrats.

      Honestly the biggest detail I have seen left out on most of them is what the age of consent was in the particular states at the time the accused actions took place, but just like British Parliament, the US Senate/Legislation/State Governments are as rife with sexual harassers, hebephiles, and other creepers as Hollywood, Print media, and all the others. Hell, at least Hugh Hefner had the sense to start an adult magazine if he wanted to fuck around with and sexually harass women. The rest of those catered to a naive mostly relgious group of people and have a scorecard of most of the major sins.

      Glad I'm an atheist. It saves me from having to keep score :)

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08, @05:14PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 08, @05:14PM (#607271)

        They don't cover that stuff on Fox.

    • (Score: 1) by toddestan on Sunday December 10, @01:38AM

      by toddestan (4982) on Sunday December 10, @01:38AM (#607855)

      Hillary's big campaign screw-up is that she didn't actually campaign. Trump actually went out there and campaigned, and he we was campaigning everywhere. Deep in Democratic territory, deep in his own territory, out in the swing states, big cities, small towns, places that mattered, places that maybe mattered, and places that didn't matter at all. He was out there campaigning, getting his message out, and drumming up support. And he was successful, as people knew what Trump stood for (even if they thought it was stupid), but not so much for Clinton. She only made the bare minimum number of campaign stops and public appearances that her numbers people said she needed to make, and otherwise was too busy flying between the coasts to attend elite fundraising dinners and doing paid speeches. If Clinton had only put some effort into the middle of the country instead of taking their votes for granted she would be President today.

      A fun fact is that Clinton's side was actually worried that she'd win the electoral vote but lose the popular vote from Trump drumming up so many votes in places that "didn't matter".