Partisan Social Identity in the 2024 Presidential Election: Motivated Elaboration on the Criminal Convictions of Donald Trump and Hunter Biden

Partisanship and Valenced Elaboration

Partisan identity can influence how supporters of different political parties perceive and accept the convictions. According to Social Identity Theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979), individuals tend to define themselves as group members as well as independent individuals. Once a group identity becomes important, members start categorizing themselves and others, highlighting their group’s distinct characteristics compared to other groups. Since social identities are central to an individual’s self-concept, people are motivated to uphold and enhance their group’s positive distinctiveness and defend its status (Huddy, 2001). As a result, individuals tend to view new issues, events, and individuals through a biased perspective that favors their group over others, in order to protect or boost their social self-esteem (Abrams & Hogg, 1988; Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Given these motivational aspects, partisan identity plays a key role in understanding, processing, and responding to new information in a way that ensures the interpretation is beneficial and favorable to one’s own group.

In addition to social identity theory, motivated reasoning theory documents how partisan identity influences information processing. Motivated reasoning theory posits that individuals are driven by two key objectives during the opinion formation process: the accuracy goal, which is the desire to arrive at the correct conclusion, and the directional goal, which is the intention to reach a conclusion that resonates with one’s personal preferences and offers a sense of validation (Kunda, 1990; Taber & Lodge, 2006). When individuals possess strong political party affiliations, they tend to prioritize the directional goal, focusing on reinforcing their pre-existing beliefs and supporting their party’s perspective. As a result, they often overlook or dismiss contradictory information, irrespective of its objective accuracy (Bolsen et al., 2014; Druckman et al., 2013). Consequently, information that aligns with their attitudes and supports their in-party perspective is perceived as more convincing and favorable.

Through this biased information processing influenced by party identity, partisan identity also plays a significant role in emotional information processing, giving rise to what is known as identity-motivated valenced elaboration (Jennings, 2019). Valenced elaboration refers to the inclination of individuals to engage in either positive or negative cognitive processing (O’Keefe, 2012). Building on this concept, identity-motivated valenced elaboration describes that individuals with strong partisan identities are inclined to participate in positively valenced elaboration when they encounter information that aligns with their party, as such information is perceived as more favorable and reinforces their pre-existing beliefs. Conversely, negatively valenced elaboration occurs when individuals are confronted with information that challenges their existing beliefs, often resulting in resistance to counter-attitudinal messages (Malone, 1998). Therefore, both cognitive and emotional elaboration regarding political messages can be shaped by an individual’s partisan identity. This, in turn, leads to more identity-congruent elaboration (Jennings, 2019; Petty & Cacioppo, 1986) and influences biased information processing by differentially affecting emotional perceptions of in-group and outgroup members.

Jennings and Warner (2025) found that the framing of an op-ed article on the movie, Vice, either as an attack on Dick Cheney and Republicans or on Democrats, changed the way partisans processed the argument; people elaborated on the information with an identity-congruent bias. In the context of the 2024 presidential election, Republicans may display greater positively valenced elaboration regarding Trump’s conviction. On the other hand, they are likely to engage in negatively valenced elaboration toward Hunter Biden’s conviction. In light of this, we anticipate the following:

Valenced Elaboration and Political Attitudes

Biased cognitions regarding specific political figures and issues can create further biases in perception and judgment. Positively valenced elaboration fosters positive sentiment towards specific information, enabling individuals to interpret it in a favorable light (Petty et al., 1993). This effect occurs because positively valenced elaboration originates from the reception of pro-attitudinal messages (O’Keefe, 2013). Specifically, when individuals encounter information that aligns with their pre-existing attitudes, it evokes positive emotions, thereby facilitating a more favorable interpretation of the presented information. This process not only enhances receptiveness to the information but also promotes active support for it, thereby reinforcing existing beliefs and positions. On the other hand, when individuals engage in elaboration driven by negative sentiments toward specific information, particularly when it is counter-attitudinal, they tend to develop consistently negative interpretations of that information. This form of elaboration restricts cognitive flexibility and reduces openness to new persuasive information, making individuals less receptive to alternative viewpoints and evidence that may contradict their pre-existing biases (Bless et al., 1996).

These dynamics imply that positively valenced elaboration about Donald Trump and Hunter Biden can heighten perceptions of politicalization surrounding a conviction, particularly when individuals are politically motivated and biased. For instance, when individuals view Donald Trump’s legal challenges favorably, positive elaboration may lead them to perceive these convictions as politically motivated while bolstering support for his position. In contrast, individuals who harbor negative sentiments toward Trump and Hunter Biden or the convictions itself may experience negatively valenced elaboration that diminishes perceptions of politicalization, as they become less likely to frame the situation within a political context and more likely to reduce bias against the judicial system. Given these dynamics, we hypothesize as follows:

Partisan identity plays a significant role in influencing how individuals interpret political events, with valenced elaboration serving as a critical mechanism that mediates this influence. When individuals identify with a politician along partisan lines, this connection facilitates a biased process of valenced elaboration (Jennings, 2019). These emotional biases can lead to skewed evaluations of the politician, as partisans tend to engage in increased positively valenced elaboration while exhibiting reduced negatively valenced elaboration regarding their preferred candidate (Jennings et al., 2020). Such cognitive strategies not only help partisan supporters mitigate cognitive dissonance but also serve to reinforce and polarize their political attitudes (Jennings, 2019).

This information processing may be amplified when individuals encounter salient issues, resulting in a greater allocation of cognitive effort toward comprehending these topics. During the 2024 presidential campaign, the convictions of Donald Trump and Hunter Biden emerged as particularly salient issues that significantly influenced voters’ responses to presidential candidates and their voting behavior. These matters attracted substantial media coverage and sparked extensive public discussion. Such high-profile cases engage the interest of many individuals, particularly those who are politically active. Partisans, in particular, are motivated to understand the implications of these events for their party’s success.

This salience prompts deep cognitive elaboration as individuals strive to navigate the complexities inherent in these issues (Petty et al., 1981). The likelihood of partisans engaging more heavily in the central route to information processing increases, which is further associated with heightened cognitive elaboration (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). Additionally, personal involvement with an issue typically results in greater elaboration (Chaiken, 1980).

As a result, exposure to this salient issue likely fosters high levels of cognitive elaboration among partisans. This elaboration allows individuals to interpret the information surrounding the convictions through either a positive or negative lens, subsequently forming their attitudes and opinions. That is, this process of valenced elaboration enables partisans to navigate their perspectives on the convictions. Consequently, a congruent partisan identity is expected to positively predict perceived politicalization of the convictions indirectly, as partisans engage in both positively and negatively valenced elaboration when interpreting information about the issue. Taken together, we propose the following hypothesis:

Partisan-Motivated Reasoning and Politicalization of the Convictions

While issue salience encourages cognitive elaboration and central route processing, partisanship can act as a peripheral cue, influencing political decision-making through mental shortcuts (Bullock, 2011). According to partisan-motivated reasoning, individuals tend to accept information that confirms their existing beliefs with minimal scrutiny to protect their partisan identity (Bolsen et al., 2014; Kunda, 1990; Taber & Lodge, 2006). This reliance on cognitive heuristics can hinder critical analysis and reduce elaboration on political arguments (Jennings, 2019; Lau & Redlawsk, 2001). As individuals prioritize alignment with their party’s views, those with stronger congruent partisan identities are more likely to directly perceive politicalization in convictions that support their party’s interests. Therefore, we hypothesize that congruent partisan identity strength will have a direct effect on the perceived politicalization of the conviction.

Participants and Procedure

To test the hypotheses an online study was conducted on 231 students in communication and political science courses at a large Southern university. The sample (M^age = 21.86; SD = 2.95) consisted of 117 women (50.6%) and 112 men (48.5%), with two (.9%) participants identifying as gender non-binary. When asked to indicate all races/ethnicities in which they identify, 36 (15.6%) identified as African American/Black, 7 (3.0%) as Asian, 24 (10.4%) as Hispanic, 24 (10.4%) as Native American/Alaskan Native, 4 (1.7%) as Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, and 171 (74.0%) as White/Caucasian. Politically, 6.9% (n = 16) were strong Democrats, 18.6% (n = 43) were moderate Democrats, 13.0% (n = 30) leaned Democrat, 9.1% (n = 21) did not express a preference for either party, 19.0% (n = 44) leaned Republican, 25.5% (n = 59) were moderate Republicans, and 7.8% (n = 18) were strong Republicans.

After completing a demographic pretest, participants were shown either a brief article about Trump’s falsifying business records convictions or Hunter Biden’s illegal purchase of a firearm convictions. Though one stimulus is about the candidate (Trump) and the other is about a family member (H. Biden) that only has an indirect effect on the candidate’s reputation, there is great value in having one article from each partisan social group. Following exposure to the article, participants completed a post-test regarding their thoughts on the issue. Each article was three paragraphs and 219 words long; the tone of the article was informative and as objective as possible (see Appendix A). Following, they were presented with the article on Trump or H. Biden that they had not yet read. In the end, each participant read both articles and completed a second post-test. Order was randomized, so that half received the Trump article first and half received the H. Biden article first.

Measures

Partisanship as a Social Identity

Public discourse, including that from major news outlets (Davies, 2024; Viser & Abutaleb, 2024), expressed the possibility that the two set of criminal convictions could alter the election. The high turnout and Trump’s victory in the 2024 election are consistent with polls (Yoon-Hendricks & Brunner, 2024) that suggest that few Trump supporters were turned away by the convictions. Though Biden dropped out of the presidential race, there is no indication to suggest that his son’s convictions were related (Lange, 2024). In the present study, this identity-motivated elaboration manifested as partisans found few reasons why their in-party member should be convicted and a great number of reasons why the member of the opposing party should be punished for his crimes, which influence perceptions of the judicial system. Republicans were more likely to say that Trump’s trial was politically motivated, and Democrats were more likely to perceive politicalization of Biden’s convictions. The present study focused on a more salient political issue, examining reactions to criminal convictions during an active presidential campaign, which represented a substantially stronger identity threat. The study extends the boundary conditions of the theory of identity-motivated elaboration (Jennings, 2019), and the findings provide insight into the cognitive process through which partisans maintained their support for their party’s presidential candidate.

The study positions identification with a political party at the center of the attitudinal formation process. Partisanship did indeed function as a social identity (Greene, 1999), resulting in ingroup favoritism and outgroup denigration (Tajfel & Turner, 1986), which influences the way that people think about and issue and form their political attitudes. Consistent with the partisan social identity perspective (Greene, 1999), partisans were more likely to view the convictions of their partisan group member as politicized and the member of the opposing party as justly convicted. Beyond opinions of the politicalization of the judicial system, intergroup bias manifested as motivated elaboration and was employed in the defense of the prototypical leader of a partisan group (Trump) and to a partisan group member (H. Biden) that was associated with the leader. For people to engage in identity-motivated elaboration, Jennings and Warner (2025) argued that one’s partisan social identity must first be activated. For Trump, a partisan divide was observed for perceptions of politicization, positively valenced elaboration, and negatively valenced elaboration, but for Hunter Biden, it was not observed for negatively valenced elaboration. Interestingly, while Democrats (ingroup members) cognitively defended Hunter Biden, Republicans (outgroup) did not express more reasons why his convictions should influence the election.

Partisanship’s Elaborative Role in Attitude Formation

The elaboration likelihood model posits that people form attitudes through the central and the peripheral route (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). Lau and Redlawsk (2001) found that partisanship operates more peripherally through partisan heuristics, while Jennings (2019) argued for a more central route, cognitively heavy influence of partisanship. The findings suggest that partisans defended their political social identities through both routes, engaging in partisan-motivated reasoning and partisan heuristics. When processing information through the peripheral route, people engage in less elaboration than when processing through the central route (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). Republicans (Democrats) believed that Trump’s (Biden’s) convictions were politically motivated simply because the figures shared a partisan social identity. Defending one’s social group provides a directional goal that partisans may pursue by dismissing counter attitudinal information (Kunda, 1990). In other words, people demonstrated an unwillingness to accept the convictions of a partisan social group member as legitimate, and resultingly explained the convictions as being politically motivated. This direct effect of shared identity on attitude was observed even after considering the impact of elaboration on potential reasons that the convictions may (or may not) be legitimate.

This elaboration on reasons the convictions may be legitimate represents attitude formation through the central route. As people learned about the convictions of the two partisan figures, ingroup favoritism manifested as identity-defensive cognition. Partisans employed valenced elaboration as they processed the news that Donald Trump and Hunter Biden were convicted on felony charges. This identity-motivated elaboration (Jennings, 2019) explicates how two people (one Republican and one Democrat) can come to differing conclusions based on the same information. Similarly, Petty and Cacioppo (1986) found that an emotional attachment to a message can bias elaboration. Compared to people of the opposing party, people engaged in greater positively valenced elaboration to support their partisan member and increased negatively valenced elaboration when considering the convictions of the outparty member. Specifically, Democrats exerted greater cognitive resources considering reasons that Trump’s convictions should be disqualifying from holding the office of President of the United States, while, conversely, developing reasons that Biden’s convictions held little meaning; similarly, Republicans engaged in greater elaboration against Biden and supporting Trump. Support of the partisan group member (ingroup favoritism) and opposition to the competing partisan group (outgroup denigration) provided a directional goal (See Kunda, 1990) that motivated biased elaboration on the convictions. This valenced elaboration mediates the effect of a shared partisan identity on political attitudes. As the valenced direction of the elaboration had an impact on the attitude formation, news coverage of the convictions further divided the electorate.

Limitations and Future Studies

The limitations of the present study should be considered when evaluating the findings and addressed in future research on partisan-motivated reasoning. The sample consisted of a single university sample, which limits the generalizability of the findings. Only two related issues (the convictions of Donald Trump and Hunter Biden) were analyzed. There was an important distinction between the convictions and subsequent article that were used as stimuli: One candidate was convicted (Trump) while it was the family member of the other candidate (Biden) that was convicted. However, both articles represent attacks on a partisan social in-group or out-group member, which prior research suggests will be processed in a biased manner (Jennings & Warner, 2025; Kunda, 1990). Because the convictions were real events beyond research control, a decision between examining perceptions of only the Trump convictions or including the Biden convictions was necessary. The researchers deemed the benefit of partisan balance of including the Biden convictions to outweigh the limitation. The context of the experiment was a political issue in the United States, while other countries (especially those with a multi-party system) may process information and form attitudes differently. Future studies should examine different issues (with varying degrees of salience and ideological relevance) with different outcome variables on more representative samples.