Although it is virtually impossible to comment on any political event without polarizing your audience or being seen as ideologically biased, behavioral science and political psychology can offer context through research to understand the strategies used in leadership that aim to influence followers.

The degree to which candidates actually follow science-based learnings, or simply their gut feeling, is hard to assess and ultimately depends on not just the candidate, but the specific situation they find themselves in. Still, tactics and strategies to influence followers are rarely new and have been studied extensively in controlled experiments and large-scale observational studies.

Consider the Trump-Vance campaign’s recent statement reacting to Kamala Harris picking Minnesota governor Tim Walz as her running mate. They state Walz is a “dangerously liberal extremist” who has been trying to re-create San Francisco in Minnesota. Such statements illustrate how elements of behavioral science and political psychology serve three strategic goals to influence followers—and not always the ones that bring them together.

Reduce ambivalence or ambiguity 

Tim Walz does not have a high profile (yet) and his appointment surprised even analysts and political pollsters. Trump is saving his followers a great deal of time and energy by giving them a rapid and simple profile of Walz. 

Although such tactics are perhaps less common in corporate leaders, in any setting, team, and organization, leaders play an active role as “meaning makers,” shaping and influencing the beliefs of their followers, who choose to interpret reality through the lens of their leaders.

However, what followers gain in the short time in terms of reducing uncertainty and ambiguity, they lose in the long term in terms of failing to think for themselves and reducing their tolerance for the nuances and complexities that characterize modern life.

So, the paradox is that as the world becomes more complex, we get lazier and lazier and find ways to see it in an ever simpler, less realistic, and more exaggerated way, which is why across settings and sectors intellectual extremism, polarization, and tribalization are on the rise.

Allude to hidden intentions and malicious secret goals 

Telling us Walz is not authentic is generally a smart attack since it is impossible to know whether or not someone is authentic.  

There are few findings more consistent in psychology than the one pointing out that a person’s self-concept is mostly based on their aspirational or ideal self— which often doesn’t resemble how they are perceived by others. 

The authenticity people care about is mostly constructed by acting in consistent ways, carefully choreographed, and giving people what they want to see and hear.

This ends up being the very opposite of what we associate with the common version of authenticity as a virtue. Those who are most skilled at acting, and capable of curating a believable public image, mostly by harnessing their emotional intelligence, which means never giving away their actual thoughts or beliefs, are perceived as authentic by others. That is until they stop acting and stop caring about what others think of them.

By this time, regrettable leadership choices come at a high price. In a logical world, we would spend less time thinking about whether leaders are authentic and focus more on their actions, decisions, and behaviors.  

Loss aversion and fear

The third significant attack highlights the allegedly “dangerous liberal” side of Walz as a choice of VP. Psychological studies show that loss aversion (in this case, loss of freedom), and fear are generally stronger motivators than hope or the prospect of gaining something.

Such tactics are the hallmark of populist leaders who harness their support on the premise that there are powerful and dangerous enemies that they must unite against.

Leaving aside politics, all leaders may mobilize followers and supporters by persuading them that their well-being, ambitions, and success are at risk unless they destroy the “enemy.” This is, in a nutshell, not just the essence of leadership, but human existence. Groups have always needed to collaborate or cooperate effectively to beat rival groups. The need to get ahead of others forces us to get along with others, too. So, we must unite against enemies, whether real or not.

Although Trump’s tactics may seem divisive, they are actually there to unify—not everyone, but his supporters. And, while his claims about Walz may amuse or irritate critics, they are not intended to please them; again, they are aimed at his supporters. It throws the ancient concept of divide and conquer into new light.

Furthermore, since they will likely ignite a combative response from Democratic supporters, it is clear that volatile emotions, aggressive confrontation, and categorical polarization, rather than rational nuance, moderation, and evidence, will continue to dictate the tone of this presidential election—and the broader leadership landscape, potentially for years to come.