Today I Learned: Why Voters Stick to Their Choice—Even If They're Wrong

Sometime in 2024, Alice Guo, the mayor of Bamban, Tarlac, made the headlines for all the wrong reasons. She faced investigations over her alleged involvement in illegal gambling and other criminal activities, with further questions arising on her identity and the possibility that she might actually be a Chinese spy. Despite evidence linking her to all these, the residents of Bamban remained steadfast in their support for the mayor they voted for. Placards were found along the road in Bamban: "We love you, Mayora AG." "Laban para sa bayan." "Laban lang, kasangga mo kami, Mayora." Is it blind loyalty? Is it a refusal to accept inconvenient truths? Or do they genuinely believe in her innocence?

This case is hardly unique, especially in Philippine politics, where scandals, allegations of corruption, and failures in governance have unfortunately become the norm. No matter how obvious the red flags are, many voters continue to stand by their chosen leaders, dismissing criticism as mere political attacks or refusing to engage with the evidence altogether. Nabudol na nga, pinanindigan pa.

Why does this happen? The answer lies in cognitive dissonance, a psychological concept that explains why people struggle to accept information that contradicts their beliefs. In politics, this often means that when voters are faced with evidence that their candidate is flawed—or outright wrong—they resolve the tension not by changing their minds, but by justifying their decision in increasingly irrational ways. How many times have we heard non-sequitur arguments just in an effort to defend the politician they voted for? "All politicians lie anyway." "They may be corrupt, but they also help the poor." "Mabait naman siya." "The opposition is just trying to bring them down." "Gano'n lang talaga siya magsalita." "Their achievements outweigh their mistakes." "It's just propaganda." "Biased ang media." The initial inconsistencies cause stress in the psyche, and decades of research show that people are more prone to alter facts and/or ignore reality than change their beliefs.

ALSO READ:

Why Filipino Voters End Up Choosing the Wrong Leaders

Hate a Politician? Love a TV Network? You May Have Confirmation Bias, and That’s Dangerous

What Is Cognitive Dissonance?

In 1957, American social psychologist Leon Festinger published A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, which has been one of the most influential theories in the field of psychology and generated hundreds of studies and applications about the "determinants of attitudes and beliefs, the internalization of values, the consequences of decisions, the effects of disagreement among persons, and other important psychological processes."

Postulating pairs of cognitions (elements of knowledge), according to Festinger, can either be relevant or irrelevant to one another. If two cognitions are relevant to one another, they are either consonant or dissonant. Two cognitions are
consonant if one follows from the other, and they are dissonant if the obverse (opposite) of one cognition follows from the other. Dissonance happens when there is psychological discomfort, motivating the person to reduce the dissonance by avoiding that information that increases the dissonance. The greater the magnitude of the dissonance, the greater the pressure to reduce dissonance, explained Eddie Harmon-Jones and Judson Mills in the book Cognitive Dissonance: Reexamining a Pivotal Theory in Psychology (1999). The greater the budol, the greater the paninindigan, Taglish mine.

In his example, Festinger cited a habitual smoker who learns that smoking is bad for health and will experience dissonance. The pair of cognition in this case are: one, 'smoking is bad for his health'; and two, 'he continues to smoke'—and they are dissonant, causing discomfort. The smoker can reduce dissonance by changing his behavior so that 'smoking is bad for his health' would be consonant with 'he stops smoking.' But he can also reduce his dissonance by changing one of the cognitions, i.e. 'smoking is not bad for his health' (eliminating the dissonant cognition), or 'smoking has good effects' (adding consonant cognitions), or 'car accidents are more harmful than smoking (reducing the importance of dissonant cognition), or 'smoking is enjoyable' (increase the importance of the consonant cognition). This situation, which is explained by Festinger in general terms, can be extended to a wide variety of topics, as long as it involves behaviors, perceptions, attitudes, beliefs, and feelings. And, as in subsequent studies: in the field of politics.

In the context of voting, several common cognition pairs emerge. One common example is candidate integrity versus personal support, where the first cognition is 'Leaders should be honest and ethical' and the second cognition is 'My chosen candidate is accused of wrongdoing.' Cognitive dissonance is experienced as the two are incoherent, and so the voter would strive for coherence and try to reduce or eliminate dissonance by coming up with arguments that sometimes don't really make sense. The voter would justify it by saying things like "The accusations are just politically motivated" or "Everyone is corrupt, so it doesn’t matter."

Another example: Cognition one is 'I am struggling financially, and life has not improved under this administration,' and cognition two is 'I voted for this leader because I believed they would help people like me.' What would the voter tell himself? Maybe something along the lines of 'It takes time for change to happen' or 'Things would have been even worse under the other candidate.'

There's also the dissonance of democratic principles versus so-called strongman leadership. 'I value democracy and human rights' is the first cognition, then 'My candidate supports EJK and attacks press freedom.' To make sense of it, he tells himself, 'We need a strong leader to fix the country, even if it means sacrificing some freedoms.'

Sometimes, there are even voters who don't stop posting toxic comments or hurling disrespectful words against the losing candidate, the one they did not vote for. They tend to view their winning candidate even more favorably and the losing candidate more negatively, reinforcing their initial choice. This reaction aligns with choice-based dissonance, where individuals amplify their commitment to their decision to alleviate any internal conflict.

ALSO READ: ‘Mabait Naman Siya’: The Filipino Habit of Excusing the Powerful

Social Media and Echo Chambers: Reinforcing Cognitive Dissonance

Unfortunately, social media is reinforcing cognitive dissonance. We all know by now that algorithms play a big part in what we see and hear on social media. If we often read and approve posts saying that climate change is not real, it's likely that more posts—whether they're factual or not (often, not)—saying that climate change is not real would creep up on your feed. If you believe in certain conspiracy theories (ex. Tallano Gold, Yamashita Treasure, Flat Earth), it's likely that the influencers you're following also believe and post about those conspiracy theories.

This sophisticated algorithm is implemented by social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and TikTok to maximize user engagement. The system analyzes the posts you like, share, and comment on, then curates a personalized feed with the same or related content to make sure that you stay on the screen. If you like what you see, you'll likely won't leave. (It's the same idea as when you Google about the latest sneakers, and then your feed will show you more sneakers to buy, which is all part of consumer marketing, but that's another topic to discuss.)

In effect, these algorithms create echo chambers, or digital spaces where individuals are exposed primarily to information that aligns with their preexisting views. Over time, you develop confirmation bias, or the tendency to seek out, interpret, and remember information that supports one's existing beliefs while ignoring or dismissing information that contradicts them. We know from the cognitive dissonance that a person would likely do the latter to reduce psychological discomfort brought about by opposing cognitions.

This eventually leads to the proliferation of misinformation and disinformation. As more people try to make the dissonant coherent, more facts are bent. It becomes easier to believe content, even if they're false or misleading, as long as it supports your pre-existing narrative.

A Pulse Asia Survey conducted in September 2022 showed that around 90% of Filipinos have read and/or watched fake political news, while 86% believe false or fake news is a problem in the country. Also in 2022, the same year as the national elections in the Philippines, an individual revealed to British media outlet BBC that he was hired by governors, congressmen, and mayors to spread fake news in 2013. Experts identified possible signs of coordinated behavior among those who propagate disinformation, including repeated posts from multiple pages and across platforms within a time frame, an obvious effort to tip the algorithm in their favor.

Thus, political polarization (or the division into two sharply contrasting groups or sets) is more intense than ever. Thanks to the combined efforts of social media, misinformation and disinformation, and our own psyche.

Can Voters Overcome Cognitive Dissonance?

While cognitive dissonance is hardwired into human psychology, it is not impossible to overcome. As voters and taxpayers, we are not just passive spectators—we are the ones who put elected officials in office and fund their salaries, privileges, and government expenditures.

Think of it this way: In any workplace, employees are expected to track their tasks, meet performance goals, and answer to their superiors. The same principle should apply to public officials—we are their bosses, and it is our responsibility to hold them accountable for their actions and campaign promises.

Cognitive dissonance—the mental discomfort that arises when reality clashes with our beliefs—can be a powerful force. However, rather than justifying poor leadership to ease that discomfort, we can use it as a catalyst for change. After all, discomfort signals that something isn’t right.