Undoing the Damage: The Quiet Art of Deprogramming the MAGA Mind

This article explores science-backed strategies to reverse MAGA’s grip on the mind without shame, but with precision, empathy, and psychological insight.

Introduction: Saving the Authoritarian Mindset from Itself

It’s easy to give up on authoritarian voters. They reject facts, embrace conspiracy, and double down when confronted with evidence. But what if they’re not unreachable? What if the very things that led them down the authoritarian path, fear, identity confusion, cognitive rigidity, could also light the way back?

This article begins with a bold premise: authoritarian minds are made, not born, and if they can be shaped by fear, they can also be reshaped by knowledge, trust, and psychological intervention. The science is clear: education, targeted information framing, and moral reframing can reduce authoritarian attitudes, not by force, but by loosening the mental and emotional scaffolding that holds those attitudes in place.

This isn’t about arguing harder. It’s about understanding what authoritarian psychology feeds on, and what can starve it. We now know that these voters are often driven by perceived threats to order, status, or group identity. As Karen Stenner famously put it, the authoritarian dynamic is “activated not by ideology, but by normative threat.” This explains why traditional political messaging fails, because it doesn’t treat the cause, only the symptom.

In fact, authoritarian-aligned individuals are not always rigid or dogmatic. Under the right circumstances, such as exposure to democratic norms in a context of safety or the moral reframing of political issues, they do shift their views. For instance, misperceptions about democracy and inequality have been shown to be powerful levers. A 2024 study published in Science found that correcting misperceptions about democratic norms and public support for authoritarianism can significantly increase support for pluralism and democracy, even among those living under or sympathetic to authoritarian systems (Dukalskis & Gerschewski, 2024).

We also know that education plays a vital long-term role. A comprehensive 2023 report found that civic education focused on empathy, trust-building, and historical literacy can inoculate individuals against the psychological appeal of authoritarianism by boosting critical thinking and reducing zero-sum worldviews .

In short, this article isn’t just a diagnosis. It’s a roadmap.

Each section that follows will break down one of the key science-backed strategies that can be used to bring authoritarian voters back from the brink, not through shame or ridicule, but through understanding, engagement, and the deliberate use of evidence-based interventions.

Because the fight against authoritarianism isn’t just political, it’s psychological

---

Part 1: Understanding the Psychological Trap

Understanding the Authoritarian Mindset and Its Triggers

The authoritarian mindset is not a static ideology, it’s a latent disposition that becomes activated under specific psychological and sociopolitical conditions. According to Karen Stenner in The Authoritarian Dynamic (2005), authoritarianism is best understood not as a stable political stance, but as a psychological reaction to perceived threats to normative order, unity, and sameness. Stenner emphasizes that authoritarians are not driven by a desire to dominate per se, but by an aversion to complexity, diversity, and uncertainty. Their core desire is for oneness and order, and they become politically intolerant when they sense that those ideals are under threat.

This explains why authoritarian attitudes lie dormant in many people and only emerge during moments of upheaval, such as cultural shifts, demographic changes, or moral pluralism. Stenner’s work reveals that individuals with a predisposition toward authoritarianism can appear quite tolerant when society is calm and unified, but quickly adopt hardline views when exposed to cues that activate feelings of threat or instability .

Bob Altemeyer’s The Authoritarian Specter (1996) further unpacks this mindset by examining “right-wing authoritarianism” (RWA), which he defines as a psychological cluster of submission to authority, aggression in defense of authority, and conventionalism. People high in RWA are more likely to conform to group norms, obey perceived legitimate authority without question, and support punitive measures against out-groups when told it's necessary for societal order. These individuals are not just blindly obedient, they're motivated by a fear of chaos, which makes them particularly vulnerable to demagogues who promise safety through control .

Both Stenner and Altemeyer agree that authoritarianism is not a fringe tendency, it exists across the population as a potential waiting to be awakened. Research shows that authoritarian inclinations spike in response to social threat: terror attacks, protests for racial justice, immigration surges, and public debates about gender or religion all function as “activating events” that heighten people’s desire for uniformity and control .

What’s especially relevant for today’s political climate is how easily these triggers can be manufactured or exaggerated. Right-wing media ecosystems, for example, bombard viewers with cues of disorder and betrayal, portraying diversity as division and protest as lawlessness. This consistent threat-framing keeps latent authoritarians in a constant state of psychological arousal, ready to rally around strongman figures and suppress dissent.

Authoritarianism, in this way, is a coping mechanism. It offers psychological comfort by simplifying complexity: instead of negotiating differences, the authoritarian mindset seeks to eliminate them. This becomes dangerous when the democratic system itself is framed as too messy, too lenient, or too weak to protect the group.

Why Facts Alone Don’t Work

One of the most frustrating aspects of engaging with authoritarian voters is that facts, no matter how robust, peer-reviewed, or plainly presented, often seem to have no effect. This is not because such individuals are simply uninformed. It’s because their reasoning operates under a different set of rules: rules dictated not by truth, but by identity, threat perception, and emotional reward.

1. Motivated Reasoning: Facts Become Tools, Not Truths

Ziva Kunda’s seminal paper on motivated reasoning (1990) explains that people do not process information like neutral scientists, they filter evidence based on what supports their identity and prior beliefs. For authoritarian personalities, whose worldview is shaped by a need for order, clarity, and sameness, facts are not welcomed unless they reinforce that sense of order.

Rather than serving as a neutral arbiter, new information becomes a psychological battleground. Facts that align with the group are accepted without question; those that challenge the group are rejected, reinterpreted, or attributed to hostile bias. Thus, an authoritarian voter may reject verified statistics from the CDC or CBO simply because they come from “liberal” or “globalist” institutions, regardless of accuracy.

2. Identity-Protective Cognition: When Being Wrong Feels Like Death

Research by Dan Kahan and colleagues has shown that individuals will subconsciously reject facts that threaten their group identity, a process known as identity-protective cognition. When a MAGA voter encounters evidence that Donald Trump lied or broke the law, for instance, they are not just being asked to update a belief, they are being asked to betray their tribe.

This identity fusion leads to what Swann et al. (2024) call internalized misinformation. The lie becomes part of the self. Challenging the lie is not a rational disagreement; it's an existential assault. That’s why presenting facts can lead to backfire effects, where the correction actually strengthens the false belief. Nyhan & Reifler (2010) documented this effect in studies showing that factual corrections about WMDs in Iraq or Obama’s religion often made partisan respondents more confident in the falsehood.

3. Neurological Reward for Agreement, Discomfort from Dissonance

Neuroscience now backs this up. A 2024 brain imaging study (van Baar et al., 2024) revealed that exposure to opinion-confirming information activates reward pathways in the brain, similar to the kind triggered by food or social approval. Conversely, opinion-challenging information activates the anterior cingulate cortex, associated with emotional pain and cognitive dissonance.

In authoritarian minds, already predisposed to avoid ambiguity or discomfort (Stenner, 2005), this aversion to contradiction is even stronger. They will reflexively reject complex or nuanced facts in favor of emotionally satisfying simplicity. This is also why MAGA rhetoric often relies on easy-to-remember slogans and binaries (“Build the wall,” “Stop the steal”), they soothe cognitive strain.

4. The Echo Chamber Effect: Groupthink Over Truth

Authoritarian personalities are particularly susceptible to echo chambers. Once facts are filtered through a closed group, they are no longer tested for validity, they are measured by loyalty. As Altemeyer (1996) points out, high-RWA individuals tend to conform tightly to in-group norms and trust authority figures implicitly. This makes them far more likely to accept falsehoods from Trump or right-wing media than facts from a neutral source.

Even when confronted with undeniable evidence, such as court rulings or leaked documents, these individuals may respond with conspiracy theories to preserve their belief. It's not intellectual dishonesty. It’s psychological preservation.

Identity Fusion and the Cult of the Leader

In authoritarian movements, loyalty to the leader is not just ideological, it is deeply personal. What Swann et al. (2024) describe as identity fusion helps explain why MAGA supporters remain fiercely loyal to Donald Trump, even in the face of overwhelming legal, ethical, or factual evidence against him. This fusion is not just political, it becomes existential. Criticizing Trump is not perceived as a challenge to a policy or politician, but a direct attack on the self.

1. What Is Identity Fusion?

Identity fusion occurs when a person’s sense of self merges with a group or leader, creating a visceral bond that is both emotional and non-negotiable. Unlike simple identification with a cause, which is more cognitive and flexible, fused identity is rigid and deeply felt. Swann et al. (2024) found that individuals whose identity fused with Trump were far more likely to:

• Believe the 2020 election was stolen

• Justify political violence

• Reject factual corrections about Trump

• View criticism of Trump as a personal threat

This emotional merging explains why evidence, no matter how compelling, fails to persuade. The facts are not being evaluated objectively, they’re being filtered through a personal loyalty system.

2. Fusion Makes Facts Feel Like Betrayal

Once identity is fused with a leader, new information that casts them in a negative light is seen not just as inconvenient but as treasonous. The result is a psychological firewall against truth. This is why many MAGA supporters do not simply ignore Trump’s indictments, court losses, or shifting positions, they reinterpret them as proof of persecution. The more he is attacked, the more they rally to him.

This mirrors what de Zavala et al. (2009) describe as collective narcissism: the belief that the in-group is uniquely virtuous and unjustly under threat. The fusion amplifies the need to defend Trump at all costs, because defending him is defending the self.

3. Fusion Fuels Radicalization

The most dangerous effect of identity fusion is that it creates the conditions for extremism. When one’s leader is perceived as divinely good and perpetually under siege, any action, no matter how extreme, can be justified in his defense. This is how January 6th became possible. Fused followers believed they were defending democracy, even as they attacked it.

Swann’s team observed that individuals high in identity fusion were significantly more willing to endorse political violence if they believed it protected the leader or the group. This is not theoretical, it’s observable.

4. Emotional Logic Over Rational Thought

When identity and leader are fused, arguments stop functioning in logical terms. Emotional logic takes over. A MAGA voter will defend Trump’s lies not because they are convinced of the facts, but because accepting the truth would require an unbearable identity fracture. They would have to admit betrayal, weakness, and delusion, all at once. The mind avoids that at all costs.

---

Part 2: Cracks in the Armor - Where Change Can Begin

Misperceptions of Support: The Spiral of Silence

Authoritarian systems do not just depend on fear, propaganda, or identity fusion. They also depend on a widespread misperception: that more people support the regime, or its rhetoric, than actually do. This phenomenon is part of what political scientist Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann termed the spiral of silence: the idea that people are less likely to express dissenting views when they believe they’re in the minority. Over time, this leads to an illusion of consensus, even when large swaths of the population may harbor doubts or outright rejection of the dominant ideology.

Research by Dukalskis and Gerschewski (2024) shows how these spirals of perceived support take shape in authoritarian settings, even among voters who may privately oppose the regime. Their study found that when citizens believed support for authoritarian leadership was widespread, they were more likely to self-censor, comply with government expectations, and avoid engaging in democratic discourse .

This silence creates a false social norm: one in which people who doubt MAGA's authoritarian drift or its more conspiratorial claims stay quiet, assuming they’re alone in their views. In reality, many others feel the same way, but the shared misperception locks everyone into isolation. This reinforces authoritarianism without force, via social psychology.

Correcting these misperceptions can be a powerful lever for change. In environments where people learn that their views are not isolated, that others are disillusioned or resistant, it creates permission for more dissent, more questioning, and ultimately more rejection of harmful ideologies. Awareness of pluralistic ignorance, a state where people falsely believe their private beliefs are different from those of the majority, can lead to shifts in public discourse, especially when people begin to see that support for an authoritarian leader is neither universal nor inevitable.

In short: authoritarian loyalty often persists not because people fully believe in it, but because they falsely believe everyone else does.

The Role of Education and Civic Literacy

One of the most promising, yet long-term, solutions to authoritarian drift lies in the realm of education, not simply in the transmission of knowledge, but in the cultivation of psychological resilience to authoritarian appeals. Education, when designed thoughtfully, acts as a vaccine against the psychological traits that enable authoritarianism: dogmatism, blind obedience, outgroup hatred, and aversion to complexity.

The 2022 report The Role of Education in Taming Authoritarian Attitudes demonstrated that higher levels of civic knowledge, critical thinking, and exposure to diverse political viewpoints reduce authoritarian predispositions across multiple populations. Education equips individuals with the cognitive tools to question simplistic narratives, tolerate ambiguity, and resist ideological manipulation. These are precisely the psychological skills that authoritarian rhetoric tries to suppress.

Authoritarian personalities, as defined by Stenner (2005), are less tolerant of complexity and ambiguity. This makes them more vulnerable to binary, us-versus-them political frames and emotionally charged propaganda. But education, especially when it fosters critical engagement rather than rote memorization, can interrupt this dynamic. It teaches individuals to sit with complexity, evaluate competing claims, and understand nuance, rather than reaching for black-and-white conclusions that feel emotionally safe but are intellectually false.

Furthermore, the 2022 study emphasized that civic literacy, knowing how democratic systems work, what rights citizens have, and how to participate effectively, predicts lower susceptibility to authoritarian ideologies. When people understand the fragility and function of democracy, they are less likely to cheer policies that erode checks and balances, attack minority rights, or undermine judicial independence.

This is not just theoretical. Real-world interventions show that civic education can shift attitudes in measurable ways. Students exposed to civics curricula that emphasize discussion, debate, and political participation demonstrate more tolerance, stronger democratic values, and greater resistance to authoritarian policies later in life.

Education is a slow solution, but it is a durable one. As the authors of the 2022 report note, “Democracy must be taught and learned anew with every generation.” In the fight against authoritarianism, classrooms are not peripheral, they are the front lines.

Media Literacy and Disinformation Resilience

In an age where authoritarianism flourishes not through brute force but through manipulation of perception, media literacy becomes not just an educational asset but a civic defense mechanism. While facts may struggle to change minds on their own, the ability to recognize how information is constructed, and why it’s being presented a certain way, can prevent disinformation from ever taking root.

Psychological and communication research over the past two decades has shown that media literacy significantly reduces susceptibility to manipulative messaging, particularly the kind used in authoritarian movements. A 2023 meta-analysis by Jeong, Cho, and Hwang reviewed dozens of experimental studies and found that media literacy interventions consistently led to increased recognition of bias, reduced belief in false claims, and greater resistance to emotional manipulation. Crucially, these interventions worked even when the disinformation aligned with the viewer’s ideology.

Authoritarian rhetoric relies heavily on fear-based framing, scapegoating, emotional contagion, and reductive binaries. Media literacy doesn’t merely combat misinformation by correcting it, it undermines the mechanisms that make propaganda effective in the first place. As Roozenbeek and van der Linden (2020) explain, teaching people how misinformation works (“prebunking”) is more effective than trying to debunk it after the fact. This “inoculation theory” is a vital tool in the disinformation age.

In authoritarian environments, control over narrative is control over reality. Social media algorithms, partisan echo chambers, and AI-generated misinformation create a battlefield where facts are constantly distorted to serve power. Media literacy restores agency by training voters to ask the critical questions: Who is saying this? Why are they saying it? What are they leaving out? When these skills become habitual, they erode the psychological grip of authoritarian appeals.

Perhaps most promisingly, research shows that even short-term, scalable interventions can have lasting effects. Studies conducted in Hungary, the Philippines, and the U.S. found that as little as 15 minutes of structured exposure to media literacy tools, like lateral reading, source vetting, and emotional labeling, significantly reduced belief in false or polarizing headlines. In environments where truth is increasingly weaponized, teaching people to recognize manipulation becomes just as important as teaching them to know the truth.

---

Part III: Tactics That Work - Strategies for Reaching Authoritarian Voters

The Power of Questions Over Facts

When confronting authoritarian beliefs, data often fails where dialogue succeeds. Repeated studies in psychology and communication show that direct factual correction, especially when it challenges core identity, can provoke backlash, not reconsideration. But there is a quieter, more effective strategy: asking the right questions.

Drawing from the Socratic method, cognitive behavioral therapy, and motivational interviewing, researchers have found that open-ended, non-judgmental questions reduce defensiveness, promote internal reflection, and create space for attitude change. Rather than attacking a belief, questions gently excavate the assumptions underneath it. Instead of saying, “You’re wrong about immigration,” a Socratic approach might ask, “What led you to believe immigration is the biggest threat to our country right now?” or “What would convince you that immigrants aren’t the cause of economic decline?”

This method is rooted in what Miller and Rollnick (2013) call motivational interviewing, a counseling technique that aims to resolve ambivalence and elicit intrinsic motivation for change. Though originally designed for addiction therapy, its principles have been adapted by political psychologists and polarization experts to foster attitudinal shifts in politically rigid individuals. It works not by proving someone wrong, but by helping them uncover contradictions in their own thinking.

Research on depolarization also confirms the power of asking over telling. A 2020 study by Broockman and Kalla showed that structured “deep canvassing” conversations, where volunteers asked empathetic questions instead of making arguments, led to durable reductions in prejudice and political hostility. This technique was especially effective when engaging people with authoritarian tendencies, who often respond better to relational cues than intellectual persuasion.

Asking questions activates system 2 thinking (deliberate, analytical reasoning), disrupting the fast, intuitive judgments that dominate political gut reactions. It slows down automatic responses and invites people to reconsider without feeling like they’re losing face. In authoritarian psychology, where identity defense is paramount, this subtlety is essential.

Ultimately, the shift from confrontation to conversation is not a concession, it’s a strategy. Authoritarianism thrives in echo chambers and moral absolutism. Breaking through that requires not just facts, but frameworks for reflection. Questions open doors that facts often slam shut.

Personal Stories and Humanization

When logic fails and data is dismissed, stories remain. Across countless studies in psychology, political science, and communications, narrative persuasion consistently outperforms statistical argument, particularly among those holding authoritarian attitudes. In these circles, distrust of institutions and expertise runs high, but a story, especially one from someone within the perceived “ingroup,” can bypass ideological defenses.

This is not merely anecdotal. Research by Paul Slovic (2007) has demonstrated the "identifiable victim effect,” people are more emotionally compelled by the story of one individual than by data about thousands. When voters hear a human story, particularly from someone they relate to culturally, racially, or politically, they are more likely to empathize, even if the story conflicts with their existing beliefs.

This emotional resonance is key when engaging authoritarian-leaning voters, who tend to respond more strongly to perceived group loyalty and threat. As noted in work by Oliver and Rahn (2016), populist and authoritarian attitudes often center on preserving the purity and cohesion of the ingroup. Thus, ingroup storytelling, where the speaker is seen as "one of us,” is far more effective at shifting perceptions than messages from outsiders.

A 2021 experiment by the group More in Common found that stories from veterans, ex-police officers, or religious conservatives, when carefully framed, could reduce hostility toward immigrants, LGBTQ individuals, and marginalized communities among right-leaning voters. These stories worked because they weren’t perceived as lecturing from elites, but as reflections from trusted insiders.

This approach also aligns with narrative transportation theory (Green & Brock, 2000), which suggests that when people are absorbed in a story, they become less likely to counter-argue. Stories create a temporary suspension of disbelief, allowing new ideas to sneak past cognitive defenses.

In practice, this means that stories told by former MAGA supporters, conservative parents of trans kids, or Christian immigrants often land better than op-eds or fact sheets. These narratives plant seeds of doubt not by shouting from the outside, but by whispering from within.

Framing Messages in Authoritarian-Friendly Terms

If facts are ignored and stories penetrate, how the message is framed determines whether it reaches authoritarian-leaning voters at all. Research consistently shows that framing matters more than content. It’s not what you say, but how you say it, that dictates whether the door opens or slams shut.

This strategy draws heavily on Moral Foundations Theory (Haidt, 2012), which identifies six core moral dimensions: care/harm, fairness/cheating, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, sanctity/degradation, and liberty/oppression. While liberals tend to emphasize care and fairness, conservatives and authoritarian-leaning individuals are more sensitive to loyalty, authority, and purity.

Thus, framing issues in these terms, without compromising the moral core of the message, can bypass ideological resistance and begin a real conversation. For instance:

• Immigration framed as a betrayal of legal order instead of a humanitarian crisis.

• Environmental conservation framed as preserving the purity of the homeland.

• Voting rights framed as protecting the integrity of the system.

This technique is known as moral reframing, strategically expressing a viewpoint using the moral language of your audience. Feinberg and Willer (2015) found that reframing liberal policies in conservative moral terms significantly improved support among conservatives. For example, environmental protection efforts framed as “keeping our country clean and pure” resonated better than “saving the planet.”

Similarly, Finkel et al. (2020) noted that value-congruent messaging reduces reactance, the psychological pushback that occurs when individuals feel their beliefs are being challenged. In authoritarian contexts, where group loyalty is paramount and dissent is punished, this can be the difference between a door being shut or slightly opened.

Moral reframing isn't deception, it’s translation. The goal isn't to dilute truth but to meet people in the moral universe they inhabit. Framing messages to emphasize group cohesion, respect for order, and purity of tradition can soften resistance and initiate internal reflection.

Community-Based Dialogues and Local Interventions

One of the most promising, yet often overlooked, strategies for reaching authoritarian-leaning voters doesn’t come from national campaigns or viral videos. It begins at the local level, through peer-based, community-driven dialogue initiatives that emphasize trust over confrontation and relationship over rhetoric.

Authoritarian attitudes often thrive in perceived isolation, when individuals feel their views are under siege or that their communities are being transformed without their consent. National media only worsens this perception, often framing rural or conservative spaces as ideological battlegrounds rather than as human ecosystems. But when local, face-to-face conversations take place across differences, this isolation begins to dissolve, and so does the psychological armor.

Studies show that peer influence is significantly more persuasive than outsider confrontation (Broockman & Kalla, 2016). When voters encounter ideological “others” in the context of mutual goals, shared community space, or empathetic storytelling, they are more likely to shift their attitudes or open themselves to alternative viewpoints. In contrast, top-down “educational” approaches often trigger psychological reactance, the defensive response that shuts the door before dialogue begins.

Examples of successful interventions include:

• Braver Angels, a nonprofit working to reduce political polarization through structured, in-person workshops where “reds” and “blues” work together to understand rather than defeat each other.

• Living Room Conversations, which pair small groups from across the political spectrum to share views on controversial topics in a non-combative, moderated setting.

• One America Movement, a faith-based initiative that brings together religious communities across ideological divides for service projects and dialogue.

These programs do more than change minds, they build trust across divisions. As Druckman and Levendusky (2019) found, exposure to cross-partisan dialogue in community contexts reduced affective polarization and increased willingness to work cooperatively across political lines.

Moreover, interventions rooted in shared identity, such as neighbors, veterans, church members, or sports fans, create powerful openings. According to the 2022 Science paper by Druckman et al., voters are more likely to update beliefs when challenged by ingroup members than by outsiders, especially on topics related to authoritarian politics or democratic norms.

Community-based dialogue does not promise instant conversion. But it offers something deeper: the slow erosion of polarization through relationship, one that cannot be replicated by fact-checkers or viral posts.

Conclusion: Authoritarianism Is a Response, Not a Fate

Authoritarianism is not a genetic destiny. It’s a psychological response to fear, uncertainty, and social threat, a reflex born from the very human desire for order, cohesion, and identity when the world feels unmoored. People don’t wake up yearning to silence others, tear down institutions, or cheer for strongmen. They gravitate toward authoritarianism when they feel the social contract has failed them, and when the tools of democratic deliberation feel powerless to protect what they value.

This means the rise of authoritarian attitudes, among Trump voters or any group, is not inevitable. As decades of research show, authoritarianism is situational and contextual, not immutable. Karen Stenner (2005) called it “latent” in many people, activated only when they perceive moral disorder or social breakdown. In other words, if the conditions change, so can the response.

When we recognize this, the question shifts from “How do we defeat authoritarianism?” to “How do we prevent the need for it?” The answer is not to shame, belittle, or crush those who lean toward authoritarian leaders. That only deepens the grievance cycle. Instead, we must rebuild the conditions that make authoritarianism unnecessary.

That means:

• Rebuilding civic education so that people know the value of liberal democracy.

• Expanding media literacy so that they can spot manipulative appeals.

• Offering spaces for cross-partisan dialogue so that they are no longer isolated in epistemic silos.

• Affirming identity through truth, not myth, so they no longer need to cling to falsehoods for a sense of purpose.

• Meeting their desire for safety, stability, and recognition through community, justice, and empathy, rather than coercion.

As Hannah Arendt warned, totalitarianism thrives when people lose trust in facts, institutions, and one another. But as history and research now show us, that trust can be rebuilt, if we are willing to meet people not only with information, but with understanding, and not only with argument, but with strategy.

Authoritarianism is not the end of the story. It’s a symptom. And when we treat it as such, not as a fixed identity but as a momentary response, we give ourselves the tools to write a better ending.

References

• Altemeyer, B. (1996). The authoritarian specter. Harvard University Press.

• Arendt, H. (1951). The origins of totalitarianism. Harcourt, Brace.

• van Baar, J. M., Woo, C. W., & FeldmanHall, O. (2024). Neurocognitive resistance to dissonant political facts. NeuroImage, 293, 120131.

• Broockman, D., & Kalla, J. (2016). Durably reducing transphobia: A field experiment on door-to-door canvassing. Science, 352(6282), 220–224.

• Broockman, D., & Kalla, J. (2020). Reducing exclusionary attitudes through interpersonal conversation: Evidence from three field experiments. American Political Science Review, 114(2), 410–425.

• de Zavala, A. G., Cichocka, A., Eidelson, R., & Jayawickreme, N. (2009). Collective narcissism predicts intergroup hostility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(6), 1074–1096.

• Druckman, J. N., Klar, S., Krupnikov, Y., Levendusky, M., & Ryan, J. B. (2021). Affective polarization, local contexts and public opinion in America. Nature Human Behaviour, 5(1), 28–38.

• Dukalskis, A., & Gerschewski, J. (2018). Justifying dictatorship: Studies in autocratic legitimation. Routledge.

• Feinberg, M., & Willer, R. (2015). From gulf to bridge: When do moral arguments facilitate political influence? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(12), 1665–1681.

• Finkel, E. J., Bail, C. A., Cikara, M., Ditto, P. H., Iyengar, S., Klar, S., ... & Skitka, L. J. (2020). Political sectarianism in America. Science, 370(6516), 533–536.

• Green, M. C., & Brock, T. C. (2000). The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(5), 701–721.

• Haidt, J. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. Pantheon Books.

• Jeong, S. H., Cho, H., & Hwang, Y. (2023). Media literacy interventions: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Communication.

• Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

• Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480–498.

• Miller, W. R., & Rollnick, S. (2013). Motivational interviewing: Helping people change (3rd ed.). Guilford Press.

• More in Common. (2021). American fabric: Identity, belonging, and polarization.

  https://www.moreincommon.com

• Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2010). When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior, 32(2), 303–330.

• Oliver, J. E., & Rahn, W. M. (2016). Rise of the Trumpenvolk: Populism in the 2016 election. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 667(1), 189–206.

• Osborne, D., Satherley, N., & Sibley, C. G. (2023). The psychological causes and societal consequences of authoritarianism. Current Opinion in Psychology, 48, 101514.

• Roozenbeek, J., & van der Linden, S. (2020). The fake news game: Actively inoculating against the risk of misinformation. Journal of Risk Research, 23(5), 570–580.

• Slovic, P. (2007). “If I look at the mass I will never act”: Psychic numbing and genocide. Judgment and Decision Making, 2(2), 79–95.

• Stenner, K. (2005). The authoritarian dynamic. Cambridge University Press.

• Moniz, P., & Swann, W. B. (2025). The power of Trump's big lie: Identity fusion, internalizing misinformation, and support for Trump. PS: Political Science & Politics.

• Democracy Reporting International. (2022). The role of education in taming authoritarian attitudes. https://democracy-reporting.org/en/publications/the-role-of-education-in-taming-authoritarian-attitudes