PERSONAL SIGNIFICANCE AND THE 2016 US ELECTION
Making Americans Feel Great Again:
Personal Significance and Reactions to the Results of the 2016 US Election.
Katarzyna Jasko
University of Maryland, Jagiellonian University
Joanna Grzymala – Moszczynska, Marta Maj, Marta Szastok
Jagiellonian University
Arie W. Kruglanski
University of Maryland
Author Correspondence: Katarzyna Jasko, University of Maryland, Department of
Psychology, College Park, MD, 20742. E-mail: [email protected]
1
PERSONAL SIGNIFICANCE AND THE 2016 US ELECTION
2
Abstract
Reactions of losers and winners of political elections have important consequences for the
political system during the times of power transition. In two studies conducted immediately
before and after the 2016 US presidential elections we investigated how personal significance
induced by success or failure of one’s candidate is related to hostile vs. benevolent intentions
toward political adversaries. We found that the less significant supporters of Hillary Clinton and
supporters of Donald Trump felt after an imagined (Study 1A) or actual (Study 2) electoral
failure the more they were willing to engage in peaceful actions against the elected president and
the less they were willing to accept the results of the elections. However, while significance gain
due to an imagined (Study 1B) or actual (Study 2) electoral success was related to more
benevolent intentions among Clinton supporters, it was related to more hostile intentions among
Trump supporters.
Keywords: Personal significance, political aggression, collective action
PERSONAL SIGNIFICANCE AND THE 2016 US ELECTION
3
Making Americans feel great again:
Personal significance and reactions to the results of the 2016 US election.
"You people were vicious, violent, (…) screaming, 'Prison! Prison! Lock her up!' (...) But now,
you're mellow and you're cool and you're not nearly as vicious or violent, right? Because we
won, right?" President Donald Trump
Most research on the electoral process aims at understanding and predicting voters’
decisions. Much less attention is devoted to what happens after the election day and it is mostly
focused on the extent to which the losers remain satisfied with the political system and are
willing to comply despite obtaining a disappointing outcome (Anderson, Blais, Bowler, Donovan,
& Listhaug, 2005; Esaiasson, 2011; Singh, Karakoç, Blais, 2012). However, as the above quote
illustrates, understanding the reactions of not only the losers, but also those of the winners, is
crucial. Just like the losers can accept or reject the elected authorities, the winners can act in
hostile or benevolent ways toward political opponents. Moreover, while overall satisfaction is
important, it is equally important to understand what specific form discontent among the losers
takes and whether it leads to political alienation, engagement in peaceful opposition, or violent
actions targeting the government. Finally, losing or winning in the elections may lead to different
responses, depending on how much voters’ individual selves are affected by political outcomes.
In order to address these issues, we asked the following research question: how are personal
reactions to one’s candidate losing or winning the election related to hostile and benevolent
intentions toward political opponents?
To answer this question, we analyzed the reactions to the results of the 2016 US
presidential elections. We applied the quest for significance theory (Kruglanski et al., 2013,
PERSONAL SIGNIFICANCE AND THE 2016 US ELECTION
4
2015), according to which, people have a fundamental need to matter, feel important, and
respected (Fiske, 2009; Frankl, 1969; Maslow, 1943). When the need for significance is
frustrated, this constitutes a strong motivation that is capable of suppressing alternative concerns
and driving extreme social behavior (Kruglanski et al., 2014). By affirming the commitment to
important values, actions in service of an ideological cause offer a way to restore significance.
Past research demonstrated that quest for significance may indeed increase political extremism
(Webber et al., 2017) and motivate sacrifice for a cause (Dugas et al., 2016). In the present paper,
we aimed to extend that research and investigate the effects of the loss of personal significance
after a failure of one’s candidate, as well as the gain of significance after an electoral success, on
political intentions.
Among those whose candidate lost the election, we predicted that greater loss of
significance would be related to lower willingness to accept such results and stronger motivation
to regain significance through political action against the political adversaries. As to the exact
type of actions the losers would be willing to undertake, two options seemed plausible. Given that
society forbids the use of violence in general, under significance loss people may be simply more
willing to sacrifice for their political cause without necessarily resorting to violence (Dugas et al.,
2016). However, there is evidence showing that when people experience individual or collective
loss of significance (Golec de Zavala, Peker, Guerra, & Baran, 2016; Jasko, LaFree, &
Kruglanski, 2016; Leary, Kowalski, Smith, & Phillips, 2003) the probability of aggression
increases. Thus, a less optimistic view would suggest that the intensity of significance loss will be
related to more aggressive intentions.
Among those whose candidate won the election, we considered two possible patterns of
results. On one hand, gain of personal significance could be related to support for more moderate
and benevolent actions toward political opponents. Since the goal of self-enhancement has been
PERSONAL SIGNIFICANCE AND THE 2016 US ELECTION
5
temporarily fulfilled (Wojciszke & Struzynska-Kujalowicz, 2007) this could decrease motivation
to increase significance through other means (Tesser, 2001) and lead to more goodwill toward
adversaries. However, salient success could also signal an opportunity for further significance
gain and encourage winners to support hostile actions in order to secure their dominant position.
Indeed, when the other side is less powerful but not completely powerless, exploitation instead of
benevolence may be a more likely option for the powerful (Handgraaf, Van Dijk, Vermunt,
Wilke, & De Dreu, 2008). Moreover, in past research, a belief in one’s superiority was more
often linked to aggressive behavior than low self-esteem (Baumeister, Smart, & Boden, 1996).
Finally, we considered the possibility that change in significance may be a more
important factor than ultimately attained significance. Specifically, if the results of the elections
reverse power relations, and significance is gained after a period of low significance, or lost after
a period of high significance, this could be related to more hostile reactions toward the other side
than when significance is maintained at the same level.
We tested the above hypotheses in two studies. Study 1 was conducted in the week
preceding the US elections. We measured the personal significance that supporters of Hillary
Clinton and Donald Trump expected to experience after the election and their intentions towards
political opponents. We capitalized on the uncertainty surrounding the elections, which allowed
us to manipulate the possible outcome, and thus investigate the reactions of supporters of both
candidates in the hypothetical situation of their candidate winning or losing the election. The
follow-up study was conducted a week after the election, in which we investigated whether
individuals’ reactions to the actual outcome of elections – Donald Trump’s win – followed the
same pattern as the results of Study 1.
Study 1
Method
PERSONAL SIGNIFICANCE AND THE 2016 US ELECTION
6
Procedure. Study 1 was conducted between 11/5/2016 and 11/8/2016. It consisted of two
separate studies. Given the similarities in their design and materials, we describe them together.
At the beginning of both studies, we measured the personal significance participants currently
experienced in the American political system. Next, in study 1A, participants read an article
describing their candidate losing an election. In study 1B, participants read an article describing
their candidate winning an election. After reading the article, participants reported how
significant they expected to feel in reaction to this outcome. Then, in study 1A, we measured
participants’ willingness to engage in aggressive and peaceful actions against the elected
president, as well as willingness to accept the results of the election. In study 1B we measured
participants’ support for the hostile and benevolent actions of the elected president against
political opponents. Measures, datasets, and analyses are available as Online Supplemental
Materials at https://osf.io/skpcr/
Study 1A. Personal significance and reactions to one’s candidate’s loss
Participants. Participants living in the United States were recruited via Amazon
Mechanical Turk to complete an online study. The minimum sample size that provides adequate
power ( > .80) to detect a medium-sized effect (regression coefficient = .30) is 80 participants.
We recruited more participants than that because we also planned to test whether the main effect
of personal significance was moderated by participants' current significance levels or the
candidate participants supported. Responses of 241 participants who declared support for Donald
Trump (n = 95) or Hillary Clinton (n = 146) were included in the study. Each respondent was
paid $0.50. One participant did not respond to some of the variables, leaving the final sample at
240 individuals (97 males and 143 females, Mage = 38.15, SD = 13.13). As additional control
variables, we measured the highest education level obtained, subjective social class (Adler &
Ostrove, 1999), and racial / ethnic identity.
PERSONAL SIGNIFICANCE AND THE 2016 US ELECTION
7
Current personal significance. To capture their current level of personal significance,
participants answered a question ‘How does the current American political system make you
feel?’. Participants responded to nine items (e.g. insignificant, important, ashamed, proud, α =
.86) on a scale from 1 (definitely not) to 7 (definitely yes). Higher scores indicate higher levels of
personal significance.
Anticipated personal significance. After indicating which presidential candidate they
supported, participants read: ‘Imagine it's the morning after the election, November 9. On the
next page, you will read a short article describing an outcome of the election. Try to imagine how
you would feel if this was the reality.’ Then they were presented with one of two versions of a
fictitious article describing the success of either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, which was
created on the basis of the article by David Wasserman (2016). Participants read a version that
described the failure of their candidate and they answered to a question ‘How would this outcome
of the election make you feel?’. Participants responded to the same nine items (α = .82) that were
used to measure their current level of significance.
Willingness to engage in actions toward the elected president. Next, participants
indicated their willingness to engage in various actions against the elected president. Participants
responded to all items on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much).
Peaceful actions. Participants indicated to what extent they would be willing to engage in
peaceful actions against the president (e.g. donating large sums of money to organizations that
would advocate policies that differ from those of the elected president). The scale consisted of
eight items (α = .92).
Aggressive actions. Participants indicated the extent to which they would be willing to
engage in aggressive actions against the president (e.g. participating in a civic militia to defend
the country against the elected president). The scale consisted of four items (α = .87).
PERSONAL SIGNIFICANCE AND THE 2016 US ELECTION
8
Acceptance of the outcome of the election. The final four items (α = .82) measured the
extent to which participants were willing to accept and support the elected president.
Study 1B. Personal significance and reactions to one’s candidate’s success
Participants. 253 participants living in the United States were recruited in the same way
as participants in Study 1A. Only participants who declared support for Donald Trump (n = 94)
or Hillary Clinton (n = 159) were included in the analyses. One participant did not respond to
some of the variables, leaving the final sample at 252 individuals (109 males and 143 females,
Mage = 39.94, SD = 14.31). Control variables were the same as in Study 1A.
Personal significance. Current personal significance (α = .89) and anticipated personal
significance (α = .86) were measured with the same scales as in Study 1A. Participants read one
of the same articles used in Study 1A. However, in this sample they were presented with a
version that described the success of their candidate.
Support for actions of the elected president. After reading the article, participants were
asked about their support for hypothetical actions performed by the president they supported
toward his or her political opponents. Participants responded to all items on a scale from 1 (not at
all) to 7 (very much).
Hostile actions. Participants indicated to what extent they would support the elected
president if he/she performed hostile actions against their political opponents (e.g. __ if she (he)
sent political opponents to prison). The scale consisted of seven items (α = .93).
Benevolent actions. Participants indicated to what extent they would support the president
if he/she performed benevolent actions toward his/her political opponents (e.g.__ if she (he)
proposed policies that addressed the needs of her/his opponent's voters). Participants responded
to seven items (α = .87).1
Results
9
PERSONAL SIGNIFICANCE AND THE 2016 US ELECTION
Study 1A: Failure of one’s candidate. Descriptive statistics and correlations between
variables are presented in Table 1. Each model was controlled for demographic variables (age,
gender, education level, social class, and racial/ethnic minority status), and below we describe
results of those analyses. Because those variables did not change the significance of the main
variables nor their effect sizes, we do not discuss them here. Analyses with and without control
variables are available in supplemental online materials.
Table 1.
Descriptive statistics and correlations (Study 1A)
Current
Anticipated
Peaceful Aggressive Acceptance MClinton MTrump
significance significance actions
actions
of the
(SD)
(SD)
3.62
3.46
(1.19)
(1.26)
2.40
2.71
(1.13)
(1.15)
3.46
2.55
(1.74)
(1.70)
1.85
1.76
(1.41)
(1.45)
2.85
2.73
(1.49)
(1.47)
outcome
Current
-
.34***
-.07
.08
.16*
significance
Anticipated
.51***
-
-.33***
.08
.28**
significance
Peaceful
-.11
-.31**
-
.50***
-.03
actions
Aggressive
.03
-.11
.74***
-
.02
actions
Acceptance of
.23*
43***
-.16
.01
-
the outcome
Note: Correlations for Hillary Clinton supporters (n = 146) are presented above the diagonal, and
correlations for Donald Trump supporters (n = 94) are presented below the diagonal.
PERSONAL SIGNIFICANCE AND THE 2016 US ELECTION
*
10
p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001
A comparison between Trump and Clinton supporters. There were no significant
differences between Trump supporters and Clinton supporters in their current (p = .079) or
anticipated significance (p = .087).
Willingness to engage in actions toward the elected president. In the first step, we
regressed each variable on the supported candidate (Clinton vs. Trump), current significance,
anticipated significance, and a set of demographic variables. In the second step, we added an
interaction between anticipated personal significance and the supported candidate to verify
whether the effects of anticipated significance were different for Clinton and Trump supporters.
In the final step, we added an interaction between anticipated significance and current
significance to control for the role of a change in personal significance.
Peaceful actions. On average, Trump supporters were less willing to engage in such
actions than Clinton supporters (b = -0.38, SE = 0.12,  = -.21, p = .001). Anticipated
significance was a significant predictor (b = -0.53, SE = 0.10,  = -.34, p < .001). The less
significant participants expected to feel after the failure of their candidate, the more they were
willing to engage in peaceful actions against the elected president. This effect was not moderated
by the candidate (p = .932) or by participants’ current level of significance (p = .526).
Aggressive actions. None of the main effects of our variables were significant. Trump and
Clinton supporters did not differ in their willingness to engage in aggressive actions against the
president (p = .949). Neither current level of significance (p = .376) nor anticipated significance
(p = .877) were predictors of the willingness to engage in aggressive actions. An interaction
between anticipated significance and candidate was significant (b = -0.16, SE = 0.08, p = .040; R
2
change = .016). A closer inspection of the simple slopes (Hayes, 2013) showed that the effect of
PERSONAL SIGNIFICANCE AND THE 2016 US ELECTION
11
personal significance was not significant among Clinton supporters (b = 0.11, SE = 0.10,  = .09,
p = .286) and only marginally significant among Trump supporters (b = -0.22, SE = 0.13,  = .17, p = .097). The interaction between current significance and anticipated significance was not
significant (p = .288).
Acceptance of the outcome of the election. The groups of Trump and Clinton supporters
were not significantly different in their willingness to accept the outcomes of the election (b = 0.17, SE = 0.10,  = -.11, p = .092). At the same time, the less significant supporters of both
candidates expected they would feel after the failure of their candidate, the less they were willing
to accept that outcome (b = 0.41, SE = 0.09,  = .31, p < .001). While this effect was not
moderated by the candidate (p = .275) it was moderated by the current significance (b = 0.17, SE
= 0.07, p = .010; R change = .024). A simple slope analysis revealed that that the effect of
2
anticipated significance was stronger among those who felt more significant before the elections
(Clinton supporters: b = 0.51, SE = 0.13,  = .39, p < .001; Trump supporters: b = 0.70, SE =
0.15,  = .54, p < .001). However, this effect was not significant among those who already felt
insignificant before the elections (Clinton supporters: b = 0.09, SE = 0.14,  = .07, p = .517;
Trump supporters: b = 0.28, SE = 0.16,  = .22, p = .079). This interaction is illustrated in Figure
1.
12
PERSONAL SIGNIFICANCE AND THE 2016 US ELECTION
Figure 1. Acceptance of the outcome of election as a function of current and anticipated personal
significance (Study 1A).
Study 1B: Success of one’s candidate. Descriptive statistics and correlations between
variables are presented in Table 2.
Table 2.
Descriptive statistics and correlations (Study 1B)
Current
Current
Anticipated
Hostile
Benevolent MClinton
MTrump
significance significance
actions
actions
(SD)
(SD)
.15
-.09
3.80
3.46
(1.20)
(1.34)
5.83
5.84
(0.94)
(0.99)
2.36
3.95
(1.46)
(1.68)
5.32
4.99
-
.20**
significance
Anticipated
.02
-
-.09
.23**
significance
Hostile actions
Benevolent actions
-.01
-.23*
.46***
-.06
-
.03
-.19*
-
13
PERSONAL SIGNIFICANCE AND THE 2016 US ELECTION
(1.04)
(1.37)
Note: Correlations for Hillary Clinton supporters (n = 159) are presented above the diagonal and
correlations for Donald Trump supporters (n = 93) are presented below the diagonal.
*
p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001
A comparison between Trump and Clinton supporters. Trump supporters felt less
significant due to the functioning of American political system (M = 3.46, 95%CI[3.20, 3.72])
than Clinton supporters (M = 3.80, 95%CI[3.61, 4.00]), F(1,245) = 4.20, p = .042, 2 = .02).
However, there were no differences in the anticipated significance between both groups (p =
.781).
Support for actions of the elected president. The results in Study 1B were analyzed in the
same way as in Study 1A.
Hostile actions. Trump supporters would accept his hostile actions more than Clinton
supporters would accept her hostile actions (b = 0.82, SE = 0.10,  = .46, p < .001). A positive
main effect of anticipated significance (b = 0.22, SE = 0.10,  = .12, p = .034) was qualified by a
significant interaction with the candidate (b = 0.49, SE = 0.10, p < .001; R change = .07). While
2
anticipated significance did not predict support for hostile actions among Clinton supporters (b =
-0.18, SE = 0.12,  = -.10, p = .158), the more significant Trump supporters expected to feel after
the victory, the more they would support his hostile actions (b = 0.80, SE = 0.15,  = .44, p <
.001). This interaction is presented in Figure 2. The interaction between anticipated and current
significance was not significant (p = .075).
14
PERSONAL SIGNIFICANCE AND THE 2016 US ELECTION
Figure 2. Support for hostile actions against political opponents as a function of anticipated
personal significance (Study 1B).
Benevolent actions. Trump supporters were slightly less accepting of benevolent actions
of their president than were Clinton supporters (b = -0.14, SE = 0.08,  = -.12, p = .070). A nonsignificant effect of anticipated significance (b = 0.12, SE = 0.08,  = .10, p = .124) was qualified
by a significant interaction with the candidate (b = -0.17, SE = 0.08, p = .033, R change = .02).
2
The more significant Clinton supporters expected to feel after success in the elections, the more
they supported her benevolent actions (b = 0.25, SE = 0.10,  = .20, p = .011). However,
anticipated significance did not predict support for Donald Trump’s benevolent actions among
his supporters (b = -0.08, SE = 0.12,  = -.06, p = .511) . This interaction is presented in Figure 3.
Current significance was a negative predictor (b = -0.13, SE = 0.06,  = -.14, p = .028) but an
interaction between current and anticipated significance was not significant (p = .730).
PERSONAL SIGNIFICANCE AND THE 2016 US ELECTION
15
Figure 3. Support for benevolent actions toward political opponents as a function of anticipated
personal significance (Study 1B).
Discussion
In Study 1, we found that the less significant Clinton and Trump supporters expected to
feel after the lost election, the more they anticipated engaging in peaceful actions against the
elected president and the less they anticipated to accept the results of the elections. Regarding
violent actions, although we obtained a significant interaction with the candidate, the effect of
significance loss was weak and only marginally significant even among Trump supporters.
Importantly though, the overall support for violence in both groups was very low, with most
participants rejecting such actions completely. Among those who experienced significance gain
due to an imagined success in the election, we obtained a difference between Clinton and Trump
PERSONAL SIGNIFICANCE AND THE 2016 US ELECTION
16
supporters. Clinton supporters approved her benevolent actions more than Trump supporters, and
that approval was stronger the more significant they felt. On the other hand, Trump supporters
were more likely to support his hostile actions, and the more significant they felt after winning,
the more they were willing to do so.
The goal of Study 2 was to replicate these results in a larger sample after the actual
outcome of the elections was known. Given that current significance did not explain the
differences between both groups of supporters, in Study 2 we included two additional variables,
economic security and ideology. We wanted to check whether these variables, which supporters
of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton might differ on, were relevant to the effects of significance.
Finally, we added a measure of the perceived legitimacy of the elections, which we expected to
be highly correlated with the acceptance of results, measured among the losers. By including a
more general measure, we aimed to compare both groups of voters in their attitudes toward
electoral system without explicitly confounding it with support for the elected president.
Study 2
Method
Participants. A sample of 519 American voters was recruited via a Qualtrics panel to
participate in an online study. The sample was representative for the US population with respect
to age, gender, race/ethnicity, and US region. The responses were gathered between 11/16/2016
and 11/21/2016. The sample included 261 (50.3%) voters for Hillary Clinton and 217 (41.8%)
voters for Donald Trump, and only these groups were used in subsequent analyses. Nine
participants did not respond to some of the variables, leaving the final sample at 469 individuals
(232 males and 237 females; Mage = 46.76, SD = 15.62). As additional control variables, we
measured the highest education level obtained and subjective social class (Adler & Ostrove,
1999).
PERSONAL SIGNIFICANCE AND THE 2016 US ELECTION
17
Measures
Personal significance. Participants indicated how the outcome of the election made them
feel using the same ten items that were used in Study 1 (α = .94). We added one positively
worded item to balance the number of positively and negatively worded items.
Voters for Hillary Clinton: Willingness to engage in actions against Donald Trump.
Willingness to engage in aggressive (α = .87) and peaceful (α = .91) actions against Donald
Trump, as well as acceptance of the outcome of elections (α = .82) were measured with the same
items as in Study 1. Only voters for Hillary Clinton answered these questions.
Voters for Donald Trump: Support for the actions of Donald Trump. Support for both
hostile (α = .91) and benevolent (α = .90) actions of the president was measured with the same
items as in the Study 1. Only voters for Donald Trump answered these questions.
Legitimacy of the elections. Additionally, all participants answered the same four
questions concerning perceived legitimacy of the elections (e.g. “The 2016 presidential election
was rigged,” α = .81). Participants answered using a scale from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 7
(Strongly agree).
Economic security. Using a scale from 1 (Not at all) to 7 (Completely) participants
answered two questions: “Does your household income satisfy your basic needs?” and “Do you
feel financially secure?” (r = .78, p < .001).
Ideology. Participants indicated their political ideology on a scale from 1 (Extremely
liberal) to 7 (Extremely conservative).
Results
Descriptive statistics and correlations between variables are presented in Tables 3-4.
Table 3.
Descriptive statistics and correlations in the group of Clinton’s voters (n = 254; Study 2).
18
PERSONAL SIGNIFICANCE AND THE 2016 US ELECTION
Peaceful Aggressive Acceptance Legitimacy Economic
actions
actions
of the
Ideology
M (SD)
.23***
2.81
security
outcome
Personal
-.32***
-.04
.42***
.40***
.09
(1.18)
significance
Peaceful
.54***
-.28***
-.38***
-.02
-.08
(1.68)
actions
Aggressive
-.08
-.22**
.05
.08
1.85
(1.36)
actions
Acceptance
3.32
.53***
.06
.32***
3.09
(1.48)
of the
outcome
Legitimacy
.14*
.11
3.36
(1.55)
Economic
.05
4.32
security
(1.76)
Ideology
3.62
(1.18)
*
p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001
Table 4.
Descriptive statistics and correlations in the group of Trump voters (n = 215; Study 2).
19
PERSONAL SIGNIFICANCE AND THE 2016 US ELECTION
Personal significance
Hostile
Benevolent Legitimacy Economic Ideology
M
actions
actions
(SD)
.38***
.17*
security
.42***
.03
.40***
5.77
(1.12)
Hostile actions
.06
.05
-.02
.21**
3.93
(1.71)
Benevolent actions
.04
.09
.08
5.33
(1.31)
Legitimacy
.01
.18**
5.55
(1.20)
Economic security
-.03
4.44
(1.90)
Ideology
5.29
(1.18)
*
p < .05. ** p < .01. *** p < .001
A comparison between Trump and Clinton voters. Voters for Donald Trump were
more conservative (F(1,467) = 191.16, p < .001, 2= .29) than voters for Hillary Clinton.
However, there were no significant differences with respect to economic security (p = .491).
Personal significance. Not surprisingly, voters for Hillary Clinton felt much less
significant (M = 3.03, SE = 0.08) than voters for Donald Trump (M = 5.51, SE = 0.09), F(1,460)
= 386.45, p < .001, 2= .46.
PERSONAL SIGNIFICANCE AND THE 2016 US ELECTION
20
Legitimacy of elections. Donald Trump’s voters perceived elections as more fair and
legitimate than voters for Hillary Clinton (b = 0.31, SE = 0.10,  = .18, p = .002). A significant
main effect of personal significance appeared as well (b = 0.49, SE = 0.06,  = .51, p < .001).
The more significant voters of both candidates felt, the more they perceived the elections and the
electoral system as legitimate. Importantly, the effect of personal significance was not moderated
by candidate (p = .472).
Next we present the results of regression analyses separately for voters for Hillary Clinton
and voters for Donald Trump. In the first step, we entered personal significance and in the second
step we added a set of demographic variables, economic security and ideology. Below we report
the coefficients from the final model. However, there were no differences in effect sizes or
significance levels between the two steps and complete analyses are available in supplemental
online materials.
Voters for Hillary Clinton: Willingness to engage in actions against Donald Trump.
Replicating the effects of Study 1, loss of personal significance did not predict willingness to
engage in aggressive actions against Donald Trump (p = .561), but it was related to greater
willingness to get involved in peaceful actions against him (b = -0.45, SE = 0.09,  = -.31, p <
.001) and to lower overall acceptance of the outcome of the election (b = 0.50, SE = 0.07,  = .40,
p < .001). While more conservative ideology was positively related to acceptance of the outcome
of the elections (b = 0.25, SE = 0.06,  = .23, p < .001), it did not change the effect of personal
significance.
Voters for Donald Trump: Support for the actions of Donald Trump. Replicating the
effects obtained in Study 1, the more significant voters for Donald Trump felt after the election,
the more they would support his hostile actions against political opponents (b = 0.54, SE =
PERSONAL SIGNIFICANCE AND THE 2016 US ELECTION
21
0.10,  = .35, p < .001). Unlike the results of Study 1, personal significance was also positively
related to support for his benevolent actions toward political opponents (b = 0.20, SE = 0.09,  =
.17, p = .026). However, the comparison of correlation coefficients (Lee & Preacher, 2013)
showed that the latter effect was weaker than the effect of significance on support for hostile
actions (p = .016). Neither economic security nor ideology changed the effects of personal
significance on support for actions of Donald Trump.
General Discussion
At one of the rallies organized after the elections Donald Trump suggested that his victory
prompted more peaceful intentions among his supporters (Rucker, 2016). In two studies we
directly tested the relation between a success and failure in the elections and hostile vs.
benevolent intentions toward political opponents. We investigated one psychological factor that
may help to predict those intentions: personal significance (Kruglanski et al., 2014).
We found that the less significant the losers expected to feel (Study 1A) or the less
significant they actually felt in reaction to the lost elections (Study 2), the more willing they were
to engage in peaceful actions against the elected president. Our measure of peaceful actions
included some high-cost behaviors, which confirms that significance loss can motivate nonviolent sacrifices for an ideological cause (Dugas et al., 2016). Although in the past, loss of
significance was associated with political aggression (Golec et al., 2016; Jasko et al., 2016), our
findings indicate that this does not always have to be the case. The overall support for violence
among the losers was very low, meaning that even relatively strong frustration was not enough to
make political aggression an attractive option. We do not suggest that loss of significance always
will always lead to peaceful engagement. Additional factors such as the presence of a violencejustifying ideology or lack of other means may create conditions facilitating the use of violence
PERSONAL SIGNIFICANCE AND THE 2016 US ELECTION
22
(Kruglanski et al., 2017). Our findings also have implications for research on the legitimacy of
political systems as they suggest that the extent to which people’s significance needs are satisfied
contributes to their willingness to accept a system even when they do not identify with it.
Among those who experienced significance gain due to an imagined (Study 1B) or actual
(Study 2) success in the election, we obtained different patterns of results for Clinton and Trump
supporters. While significance gain was positively related to support for hostile actions against
political opponents among supporters of Donald Trump, it was related to greater support for
benevolent actions among Clinton supporters. These results show that the degree to which
success makes voters feel personally significant matters for the behavior of the winners, too.
However, the differences between the two groups suggest that additional factors determine
whether subsequent actions take a benevolent or hostile direction.
One factor that could be potentially relevant is salient norms and values. Several preelection analyses demonstrated that Donald Trump supporters were more authoritarian (Choma &
Hanoch, 2016) than Clinton supporters. This difference was confirmed in Study 1, as on average
they supported hostile actions more than Clinton supporters. Thus, the victory could serve as a
confirmation that the preferred means to significance are appropriate and their use should be
continued (Guinote, 2007; Kraus, Chen, & Keltner, 2011). Secondly, even though personal
significance experienced before the elections did not explain differences between Trump and
Clinton supporters, it is possible that the level of significance that individuals aspire to matters
more for subsequent actions. If Trump supporters had a stronger desire to feel recognized and
significant (Golec de Zavala, 2017), a success could have increased the expectancy of fulfilling
those aspirations and encouraged them to take advantage of the new situation. Finally, it could be
that the win was associated with a greater sense of uncertainty for Trump supporters, which could
have driven more hostile reactions in this group as they attempted to secure a fragile sense of
PERSONAL SIGNIFICANCE AND THE 2016 US ELECTION
23
power (Fast & Chen 2009) and force others to recognize their significance. In Study 2, when the
success presumably felt more real than in Study 1, significance was also related to support for
benevolent actions among Trump supporters, which could indicate that the more assured power
becomes, the more benevolent the actions toward adversaries may become.
The events following the 2017 US presidential inauguration show that the election day
does not have to mark a transition to politics as usual. On the surface, massive protests against
Donald Trump’s presidency and support for aggressive policies proposed by the president seem
to have nothing in common. Results of the current study suggest that a common psychological
factor – a desire to matter and feel significant - may help to explain those distinct phenomena.
PERSONAL SIGNIFICANCE AND THE 2016 US ELECTION
24
References
Adler, N. E., & Ostrove, J. M. (1999). Socioeconomic status and health: What we know and what
we don’t. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 896, 3–15.
Anderson, C., Blais, A., Bowler, S., Donovan, T., & Listhaug, O. (2005). Losers' consent:
Elections and democratic legitimacy. New York: Oxford University Press.
Baumeister, R.F., Smart, L., & Boden, J.M. (1996). Relation of threatened egotism to violence
and aggression: The dark side of high self-esteem. Psychological Review, 103, 5–33.
Choma, B.L., & Hanoch, Y. (2017). Cognitive ability and authoritarianism: Understanding
support for Trump and Clinton. Personality and Individual Differences, 106, 287-291.
Dugas, M., Bélanger, J.J., Moyano, M., Schumpe, B.M., Kruglanski, A.R., Gelfand, M.J.,
Touchton-Leonard, K., & Niciti, N. (2016). The quest for significance motivates selfsacrifice. Motivation Science, 2(1), 15-32.
Esaiasson, P. (2011). Electoral losers revisited–How citizens react to defeat at the ballot box.
Electoral Studies, 30(1), 102-113.
Fast, N. J., & Chen, S. (2009). When the boss feels inadequate. Power, incompetence, and
aggression. Psychological Science, 20(11), 1406-1413.
Fiske, S. T. (2009). Social beings: Core motives in social psychology. New York, NY: Wiley.
Frankl, V. E. (1969). The will to meaning: Foundations and applications of logotherapy. New
York, NY: Random House.
Golec de Zavala, A. (2017). What to expect when collective narcissists get political power.
Retrieved from: https://goldsmithspsychologyblog.wordpress.com/2017/01/23/what-toexpect-when-collective-narcissists-get-political-power/
PERSONAL SIGNIFICANCE AND THE 2016 US ELECTION
25
Golec de Zavala, A., Peker, M., Guerra, R., & Baran, T. (2016). Collective narcissism predicts
hypersensitivity to in‐group insult and direct and indirect retaliatory intergroup hostility.
European Journal of Personality, 30(6), 532-551.
Guinote, A. (2007). Power and goal pursuit. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33,
1076 –1087.
Handgraaf, M. J., Van Dijk, E., Vermunt, R. C., Wilke, H. A., & De Dreu, C. K. (2008). Less
power or powerless? Egocentric empathy gaps and the irony of having little versus no
power in social decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(5),
1136-1149.
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. A
regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Publications.
Jasko, K., LaFree, G., & Kruglanski, A. (2016). Quest for significance and violent extremism:
The case of domestic radicalization. Political Psychology. doi:10.1111/pops.12376
Kraus, M. W., Chen, S., & Keltner, D. (2011). The power to be me: Power elevates self-concept
consistency and authenticity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(5), 974-980.
Kraus, M. W., Piff, P. K., & Keltner, D. (2009). Social class, sense of control, and social
explanation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(6), 992-1004.
Kruglanski, A. W., Bélanger, J. J., Gelfand, M., Gunaratna, R., Hettiarachchi, M., Reinares, F., ...
& Sharvit, K. (2013). Terrorism—A (self) love story: Redirecting the significance quest
can end violence. American Psychologist, 68(7), 559-575.
Kruglanski, A. W., Gelfand, M. J., Bélanger, J. J., Sheveland, A., Hetiarachchi, M., & Gunaratna,
R. (2014). The psychology of radicalization and deradicalization: How significance quest
impacts violent extremism. Political Psychology, 35(1), 69-93.
PERSONAL SIGNIFICANCE AND THE 2016 US ELECTION
26
Kruglanski, A.W., Jasko, K., Chernikova, M., Dugas, M., & Webber, D. (in press). To the fringe
and back: Violent extremism and the psychology of deviance. American Psychologist.
Leary, M. R., Kowalski, R. M., Smith, L., & Phillips, S. (2003). Teasing, rejection, and violence:
Case studies of the school shootings. Aggressive Behavior, 29, 202–214.
Lee, I. A., & Preacher, K. J. (2013, September). Calculation for the test of the difference between
two dependent correlations with one variable in common [Computer software]. Available
from http://quantpsy.org.
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370-396.
Rucker, P. (2016). Trump tries to calm his ‘vicious, violent, screaming’ supporters. Retrieved
from: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/12/16/trump-tries-tocalm-his-vicious-violent-screaming-supporters/?utm_term=.80e22bfb1434
Singh, S., Karakoç, E., & Blais, A. (2012). Differentiating winners: How elections affect
satisfaction with democracy. Electoral Studies, 31(1), 201-211.
Strelan, P., Weick, M., & Vasiljevic, M. (2014). Power and revenge. British Journal of Social
Psychology, 53(3), 521-540.
Tesser, A. (2001). On the plasticity of self-defense. Current Directions in Psychological Science,
10(2), 66-69.
Wasserman, D. (2016). You’ll likely be reading one of these 5 articles the day after the election.
Retrieved from: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/youll-likely-be-reading-one-of-these-5articles-the-day-after-the-election/
Webber, D., Babush, M., Schori-Eyal, N., Kruglanski, A. W., Moyano, M., Hetiarachchi, M.,…
Gunaratna, R. (2015). The road to extremism: How significance-loss based uncertainty
fosters extremism. Unpublished manuscript. University of Maryland, College Park.
PERSONAL SIGNIFICANCE AND THE 2016 US ELECTION
Wojciszke, B., & Struzynska–Kujalowicz, A. (2007). Power influences self–esteem. Social
Cognition, 25(4), 472-494.
27
PERSONAL SIGNIFICANCE AND THE 2016 US ELECTION
28
Footnotes
1
In addition to the measures described above, in Studies 1 and 2 we included a separate
section on the goals of one’s candidate. Those variables were included for the purpose of another
ongoing project and they were not included in the analyses described below.