As the US election draws near, the world is watching on with fascination and personal interest, particularly given the US has such a dominant influence across the planet. People have formed strong opinions about both Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. In a recent poll reported by the BBC, in the US Harris has 48% support whereas Trump has 45%.  

Whilst Australia does not have a say in the US election, it is interesting to see that Harris would easily beat Trump by 48% to 27% according to recent polling conducted by Talbot Mills Research and report by the ABC on 26 August 2024. Australians have taken warmly to Kamala Harris; even coalition voters (i.e. the same side as Republicans in the US) prefer Harris to Trump by 43% to 37%.  

Given the significance of this election globally and the interest it has garnered, I have been thinking a great deal about why we all have such different views about politics and controversial individuals such as Donald Trump. In particular, I have wondered what psychological and societal factors are involved in our decision making. Furthermore, we seem to be becoming more polarised in our perspectives and we stick to our original views for a long time, often despite logical evidence to the contrary. Why is this?  

Our views of both Donald Trump and Kamala Harris are shaped by a complex interplay of psychological and societal factors. Here’s a breakdown of some key factors influencing individual views and more broadly, public opinion about each: 

1. Cognitive Biases: 

• Confirmation Bias: People tend to favour information that confirms their pre-existing beliefs. This can lead supporters of Trump or Harris to focus on news that aligns with their views and dismiss contrary information. This is often exacerbated by the media. Different media outlets often portray Trump and Harris in ways that align with their own biases. Conservative media might highlight Trump’s achievements and criticise Harris, while liberal media might do the opposite. This can shape public perceptions significantly and only increases our confirmation bias, ultimately leading to greater levels of polarised views. On a personal level, I also suffer from ‘confirmation bias’. I am human after all. We all have pre-existing beliefs and we can’t easily get rid of them. The key is to be aware of these biases as much as possible and proactively seek to minimise them and challenge yourself. I have been working hard on this as I watch the election battle between Trump and Harris and I consciously aim to see the other person’s perspective. I am not always successful, but I do try and in fact it is this quality that has driven me to write this article. 

• Ingroup Bias: Individuals often have positive feelings toward members of their own social or political group, which can impact their perceptions of Trump and Harris based on their political affiliations. Social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook can amplify extreme views and misinformation, influencing how people see both politicians. This further divides us all. It has been well documented that social media platforms use complex algorithms to understand what you like to see in your feed, and they continue to send you information that you appear to prefer. Once we like one side compared to the other, we will all receive more of the same information. I have personally aimed to proactively look for information that might contradict my opinions to ensure I am actively looking at all the evidence and data rather than relying on what I am being fed. 

2. Emotional Reactions: 

• Trust and Distrust: Emotional responses to Trump and Harris can be influenced by feelings of trust or distrust. For example, Trump’s unorthodox style and Harris’s focus on issues like social justice can evoke strong emotional reactions, which impact opinions. We form early views of people based on an emotional feeling and then we only look for data that supports this. Future views on policies and other political decisions are then seen through this emotional lens.  

• Socioeconomic factors and economic conditions can modify the levels of trust or distrust. For instance, Trump’s rhetoric on economic nationalism might resonate with those feeling left behind economically, while Harris’s focus on social equity might appeal to those concerned about economic disparity. When the key messages of the economy are perceived through an emotional lens relating to feelings of trust, this results in vastly different perceptions of who is better for the economy. 

3. Identity and Belonging: 

• Political Identity: People’s political identities can strongly influence their views. Those who identify with Trump’s populist and nationalist rhetoric might view him positively, while those who align with progressive values might support Harris. Many people in the US have historically been brought up either supporting the Republican or Democratic parties and often feel a strong sense of identity and belonging to this party. In addition, Trump’s presidency was marked by controversy, which continues to affect his legacy and how he’s viewed. Similarly, Harris’s background as a senator and vice president influences current perceptions, especially regarding her policies on criminal justice reform and healthcare. These historical factors continue to shape public opinion and individual perceptions of the current candidates. 

• Race and Gender: For Harris, as a Black woman in a high-profile political position, her race and gender can impact how she’s perceived, both positively and negatively. Trump’s persona and rhetoric also play into cultural narratives around populism. 

These factors combine to create a nuanced and often polarised landscape of public opinion about Donald Trump and Kamala Harris. Understanding these dynamics requires looking at both individual psychological tendencies and broader societal influences. 

Sadly, I have not seen many people in the media (traditional or social media) talk about these factors. Nor have I been involved in many conversations with friends or acquaintances, that attempt to delve deeply into these factors without a strong level of emotion and bias. My concern about this is that it leads to a lack of constructive discourse in our society. We all seem to struggle to be able to disagree respectfully. We often lack compassion, empathy and understanding of other people’s views. The more emotion that is involved, the more I see ‘black and white thinking’ and a lack of genuine curiosity about other’s views. Ultimately this drives poor social cohesion and negatively impacts the mental and emotional health and wellbeing of us all. My genuine desire is that we can find a way to move beyond this and learn to talk more openly about our differences with respect.  

Interested in how these insights could enhance your organisation’s culture or leadership?

Contact Steople today to explore how we can create a workplace grounded in understanding, empathy, and open dialogue. Let’s start the conversation!