![[Photo credit: Matt Johnson]](https://sp-ao.shortpixel.ai/client/to_webp,q_glossy,ret_img,w_750,h_375/https://www.psypost.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/bernie-sanders-750x375.jpg)
People are more likely to throw their support behind radical political leaders than moderate ones—not just because of their ideas, but because those ideas make followers feel like they matter. A new study published in the European Journal of Social Psychology finds that when people see a political figure as advocating bold or revolutionary goals, they are more motivated to campaign for them, make sacrifices, and stay engaged. This motivation comes from a psychological payoff: a stronger sense of personal significance.
The researchers behind the study wanted to understand why people are drawn to political leaders who push for major change, even when their ideas may seem extreme or unlikely to succeed. Past research has shown that people are motivated by a desire to feel meaningful and important, a concept known in psychology as the quest for personal significance. The authors proposed that radical leaders tap into this need by presenting a cause that feels more urgent and transformative, which in turn makes followers feel like their actions matter more. In contrast, moderate leaders, while often pragmatic, might not offer the same emotional reward.
To test this theory, the researchers conducted five studies involving more than 2,100 participants. Three of these were run in the United States across different phases of the 2016 presidential election, one focused on the Democratic primaries in 2020, and a final experiment took place during the 2023 Polish parliamentary election. Across all five studies, the researchers examined whether the perception of a leader as radical would increase the importance of the leader’s goals to the voter, heighten feelings of personal significance, and boost willingness to take action or make sacrifices.
In the first study, conducted in March 2016, 307 supporters of Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, or Donald Trump were surveyed. Participants rated how radical they believed their candidate to be, listed the values they thought their candidate stood for, and indicated how important those values were to them personally. They also rated how supporting the candidate made them feel—whether it made them feel proud or significant—and how likely they were to take activist steps like attending events or volunteering.
The results showed that the more radical a candidate was perceived to be, the more personally important their goals seemed to supporters. This, in turn, made people feel more significant and led to stronger activist intentions and greater willingness to make personal sacrifices.
Two more studies replicated this model. One was conducted in June 2016, after Bernie Sanders had exited the race, and another in the week following the general election in November. Despite Sanders’ defeat, his supporters still reported strong feelings of significance and were willing to make sacrifices for his goals. These results suggest that commitment to a leader’s ideas can persist even after political setbacks, particularly when those ideas feel personally meaningful.
The fourth study was conducted during the 2020 Democratic primaries and involved 551 participants who supported one of four candidates: Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, Elizabeth Warren, or Bernie Sanders. Unlike previous studies, this one asked participants to rate all four candidates, not just their preferred one. This design allowed the researchers to compare how voters perceived candidates who were considered more moderate (Biden and Buttigieg) versus those seen as more radical (Sanders and Warren).
Once again, perceiving a candidate as more radical predicted greater importance placed on their goals and more personal significance. These, in turn, predicted greater activist intentions. Interestingly, the pattern held even among moderate candidates—when they were seen as more radical by their supporters, they received a similar boost in engagement.
However, the researchers also found that the effect of perceived radicalism varied depending on who the voter was. Among voters with more radical political leanings, perceiving any candidate as radical led to increased support, regardless of whether the candidate was objectively radical. Among more moderate voters, this effect was weaker and only held for moderate candidates. In other words, for moderate voters, seeing a radical candidate did not boost motivation as much.
The final study took place in Poland and used an experimental design. Instead of measuring how radical participants perceived their chosen party to be, the researchers manipulated that perception. Over 500 Polish participants were randomly assigned to read a fictional news article that described their preferred political party as either radical or moderate. Those in the radical condition were told their party supported bold, revolutionary reforms, while the moderate group read that their party favored more gradual change. After reading the article, participants answered questions about how important their party’s goals were to them, how much personal significance they gained from supporting the party, and how willing they were to take activist steps or make sacrifices.
The results showed that portraying a political party as more radical increased perceived importance of its goals, increased personal significance, and boosted activist intentions and self-sacrifice. However, it did not significantly affect whether participants actually chose to engage in a behavioral task designed to help their party.
The researchers also noted that many participants in the moderate condition misremembered or misreported what they had read, claiming that their party was described as radical when it was not. This suggests that people may resist labeling their party as moderate if doing so undermines their personal investment in its cause. These misperceptions themselves supported the study’s main point: people feel more connected and willing to act when they believe their party or leader represents a bold and meaningful vision.
Taken together, the five studies support a consistent pattern. Political figures who are seen as advocating radical change inspire greater personal commitment from their followers, and that commitment is tied to a psychological sense of meaning and purpose. The perception of radicalism helps make the leader’s goals feel more important, and this in turn helps followers feel more significant, increasing their willingness to engage and even make personal sacrifices.
But the research has some important limitations. Most of the studies were correlational, meaning the researchers could not conclusively prove that perceived radicalism causes greater engagement. Only the final study used an experimental design, and even that was complicated by unexpected participant responses. The researchers acknowledge that the direction of influence could go both ways—people who already feel deeply invested in a party may be more likely to perceive it as radical, or may simply resist seeing it as moderate.
Another limitation is that the studies focused on specific elections in the United States and Poland, with most participants only rating their preferred candidates. Broader research is needed to see whether the same psychological dynamics apply in different countries or political systems, or in non-electoral contexts like activism or social movements.
Future studies could also compare this personal significance model with group-based explanations, such as social identity theory, which emphasizes shared group norms and belonging. It’s possible that radical leaders not only make followers feel individually meaningful but also heighten a sense of collective identity and purpose. Another promising line of inquiry could be identity fusion—the intense alignment between personal and group identity—which may be especially strong when followers see their values reflected in a radical leader’s message.
The study, “Motivational underpinnings of support for radical political leaders,” was authored by Joanna Grzymala-Moszczynska, Marta Maj, Marta Szastok, Arie Kruglanski, and Katarzyna Jasko.
