We examined neuro- and social-cognitive determinants of Trump support in a cross-sectional survey study encompassing the 2016, 2020, and 2024 elections. Using handedness as a window into neurofunction, we found that highly consistent use of one hand, versus relatively inconsistent handedness, was associated with multiple measures of Trump support. The direction of the association (positive or negative) depended on the social factor of race. We obtained multiple handedness X race interactions whereby consistently handed White individuals supported Trump more, but consistently handed non-White individuals supported him less. Regardless of race, consistent handedness was associated with greater authoritarian submission. These findings suggest a neurosociocognitive model of Trump support. Asymmetries of neurofunction, which co-occur with consistent handedness, predispose individuals to authoritarianism, and authoritarianism either increases or decreases Trump support depending on social (racial) identity. Neurobiology, cognition, and social factors may likewise influence Americans’ response to authoritarian messaging in the post-Trump political environment.

What are the psychological mechanisms of racial “dog whistles” in American politics? Literature on race priming in American politics argues when race is primed implicitly, racial biases influence political evaluations, but when race is made salient, individuals can use controlled processing to inhibit automatic biases and abide by egalitarian norms. However, the neural mechanisms underlying these processes have yet to be examined directly. In a 2 × 2 within-groups experiment using functional magnetic resonance imaging, we examine these neural mechanisms. We find brain areas associated with conflict detection, evaluative processing, and controlled processing are more active when race is primed explicitly rather than implicitly, as expected, although we do not find substantial brain activation associated with automatic responses to be more active during implicit than explicit primes. Results are discussed in terms of understanding how racial cues influence political evaluations while considering America’s ever-changing racial norms.

Ideological behavior has traditionally been viewed as a product of social forces. Nonetheless, an emerging science suggests that ideological worldviews can also be understood in terms of neural and cognitive principles. The article proposes a neurocognitive model of ideological thinking, arguing that ideological worldviews may be manifestations of individuals’ perceptual and cognitive systems. This model makes two claims. First, there are neurocognitive antecedents to ideological thinking: the brain’s low-level neurocognitive dispositions influence its receptivity to ideological doctrines. Second, there are neurocognitive consequences to ideological engagement: strong exposure and adherence to ideological doctrines can shape perceptual and cognitive systems. This article details the neurocognitive model of ideological thinking and synthesizes the empirical evidence in support of its claims. The model postulates that there are bidirectional processes between the brain and the ideological environment, and so it can address the roles of situational and motivational factors in ideologically motivated action. This endeavor highlights that an interdisciplinary neurocognitive approach to ideologies can facilitate biologically informed accounts of the ideological brain and thus reveal who is most susceptible to extreme and authoritarian ideologies. By investigating the relationships between low-level perceptual processes and high-level ideological attitudes, we can develop a better grasp of our collective history as well as the mechanisms that may structure our political futures.