In the years since Donald Trump emerged as the face of American conservatism, psychologists have grappled with a vexing question: why do so many Americans remain loyal to a morally questionable leader? Donald Trump has made tens of thousands of false or misleading claims, he had an affair with an adult star, and consistently misused donations, and that’s just the tip of the iceberg; yet, he maintains a cult-like loyal following.

A new study, published this month in the Journal of Research in Personality, suggests part of the answer may lie deep within the personalities of his supporters.

The research, led by psychologist Craig Neumann of the University of North Texas, examined whether certain personality traits—those associated with callousness, manipulation, and even enjoyment of others’ suffering—correlate with conservative ideology and support for Trump. The findings are striking: people who view Trump favorably are more likely to score higher on measures of malevolent traits and lower on empathy and compassion.

“People who view malevolent political figures favorably also report less empathy for others and enjoy the suffering of others,” Neumann told PsyPost.

Malevolence and the Modern Right

The study analyzed responses from over 9,000 U.S. adults in two large surveys conducted before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants completed questionnaires that assessed their political beliefs, empathy levels, and personality traits. The results consistently showed a pattern: the more favorably someone rated Trump, the more likely they were to display traits like narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy—traits grouped under what researchers call a malevolent disposition.

The reverse also held true. Participants who scored higher on benevolent traits like humanism, faith in humanity, and respect for others tended to oppose Trump and lean politically liberal.

These patterns held across gender and racial groups, though there were key differences. White men who scored higher on psychopathic traits also showed stronger support for Trump and conservative ideology. Among men of minority status, however, psychopathy did not predict political ideology. This variation, researchers propose, could stem from differing lived experiences with social power, privilege, and marginalization.

The study also looked at empathy, and the findings were disturbing once again. Trump supporters reported significantly lower levels of affective empathy (emotional concern for others) and higher levels of dissonant empathy (enjoyment of others’ pain). Interestingly, their ability to understand how others feel (cognitive empathy) remained intact.

In other words, they know what others are feeling, they simply appear to care less, on average. They enjoy others’ pain more as well. This adds a chilling nuance to the political landscape. It’s not that supporters of Trump can’t understand suffering—it’s that they may find it unimportant, or even gratifying.

The researchers conducted robust statistical analyses to rule out explanations such as income, education, age, or minority status. Their results held even after accounting for these demographic factors.

The Psychological Foundations of Conservatism

Psychologists have long linked conservative ideology with traits like authoritarianism and the belief that some groups should dominate others. That’s not new, nor is it Trump-specific. However, the new study builds on that foundation by incorporating more extreme personality traits like callousness and lack of empathy into the mix.

Trump’s political brand, however, seems to turbocharge things. From mocking disabled reporters to separating children from their families, his behavior is a textbook depiction of aggression and disregard for other people. The fact that so many people view these actions positively, they say, reflects something deeper than policy preference. It says that many people agree with such dark acts.

“This paper was several years in the making, starting as a result of the 2016 election,” Neumann said. “[It] was designed to address why some people might view favorably a political figure with a history of business failures, bankruptcies, misogynistic statements caught on video, use of charity money for a self-portrait, etc.”

The answer may lie in the concept of “motivated social cognition”—a theory that political beliefs are shaped by facts and values, but also psychological needs. These include a desire for certainty, fear of threats, and a preference for rigid hierarchies.

“Political ideology… is not necessarily a good or bad thing, if it involves ideas about how to productively arrange our world,” Neumann added. “However, if a given ideology is fundamentally about one group’s malevolent domination of other individuals, then we should ask ourselves if this is the type of (uncivil) society we want to live in.”

The Politics of Kindness

But what about the benevolent traits? These traits were strongly linked with liberal political beliefs and a rejection of Trump.

Participants who scored higher on benevolent scales tended to report more compassion, greater belief in the goodness of others, and less attraction to dominance and aggression. These individuals exhibited a distinct psychological orientation rooted in affiliation, care, and prosocial behavior.

In contrast, Trump supporters showed the opposite pattern: higher scores on malevolent traits and lower on benevolent ones, shaping their political identity.

The gender divide was also telling. Men in the sample were more likely to display malevolent traits, and among men, these traits more strongly predicted support for Trump. Women, by contrast, scored higher on benevolence and showed weaker links between personality and politics.

The authors are careful to stress that their findings reflect group averages, not individual labels. Not every Trump supporter is callous, just as not every liberal is overflowing with compassion. Personality traits exist along a continuum, and individuals vary widely within each group.

Still, the patterns are meaningful. In a democracy, political choices are often viewed as reflections of policy preference or economic interest. This study suggests they may also express something deeper—something rooted in the structure of personality itself.

The implications of the research extend beyond Trump or even American politics. If deep-seated personality traits—especially those that incline people toward kindness or cruelty—shape political ideology, then policy debates reflect, at least in part, clashes over human nature itself.

And in such battles, understanding the psychological terrain may be just as important as winning the argument.