by Zeynep Çakır Tatar
In 1987, Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman demonstrated one of the most stunning and influential effects of emotional reasoning in human decision-making: the framing effect. They showed that people often reject or accept policy proposals not based on objective outcomes, but depending on how the options are framed — as gains or as losses. For example, people reject a policy program when told that it will result in 5% unemployment but prefer it when told that it will result in 95% employment. This irrational vulnerability to presentation makes political communication extraordinarily fragile. How to build trust in such an irrational world is a strategic question, though strategy alone is not trustful.
We can start with a campaign by Barack Obama, ObamaCare, as an example of emotional consistency and attitude in a polarized atmosphere. The campaign shows how emotional resonance, message discipline, and strategic tone can build support for a complex policy.
From the beginning, Obama presented his message around deeply personal and emotionally resonant stories. In 2009, he publicly shared how his mother, while dying of cancer, spent her final months fighting insurance companies rather than focusing on her treatment: “The thing she was most worried about was not getting well, but how to pay the bills.”
Throughout his 2008 campaign and the legislative battles that followed, Obama remained consistent: healthcare access was a right, not a privilege. His tone was calm, reasoned, and inclusive, emphasizing unity over division. Physical performance and aura seemed to be the main components of trust. He sincerely said: “We rise or fall as one nation, one people.” He faced crises — such as the technical failures of healthcare.gov and the controversy around his earlier remarks, "If you like your plan, you can keep it" — yet chose accountability.
He publicly apologized, talked about the problems, and mobilized teams to fix the issues, explaining each step transparently to rebuild trust. Rather than becoming defensive or aggressive, he remained constructive, focusing on the broader mission: saving lives and expanding healthcare access.
Another case from Jeremy Corbyn’s political career offers a compelling example of how a consistent attitude and principled messaging can generate loyalty even in worse environments.
For over 40 years, Corbyn defended core left-wing values: public ownership, anti-war activism, workers' rights, and social justice.
As known, in 2003, he opposed the Iraq War — an attitude that was deeply unpopular even within his own Labour Party at the time. When Corbyn became the Labour Party leader in 2015, he stayed true to these principles, refusing to reposition himself for political convenience. He formally apologized for Labour's role in the Iraq War: "We were wrong to go to war in Iraq." Corbyn’s consistent attitude, especially in an era of shifting political winds, created a deep sense of loyalty among young voters and anti-establishment supporters. Despite constant media attacks, Corbyn overreached traditional gatekeepers by using direct public meetings and social media. His slogan — "For the many, not the few" — and his straightforward, simple, and sincere style resonated strongly with voters who were tired of persistent political theatrics. The surprising surge in Labour’s 2017 general election performance demonstrated that consistent values and emotional authenticity could overcome even overwhelming media negativity.
What happens when words are not matched by the actions? The case of Liz Truss serves as a cautionary lesson for this case. While consistent attitude and demonstrable performance can secure trust, their absence can rapidly erode it — as the case of former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss vividly illustrates. In 2022, Truss campaigned on promises of economic growth, market confidence, and steady leadership. However, upon assuming office, her government introduced a controversial "mini-budget" filled with unfunded tax cuts that triggered financial chaos, skyrocketed mortgage rates, and collapsed investor confidence. The stark gap between her campaign assurances and her reckless economic policies destroyed public and institutional trust almost overnight. Despite attempts to regain trust, the damage was irreversible. Within just 49 days, Truss was forced to resign — the shortest-serving Prime Minister in British history. The Truss episode highlights a fundamental truth: When attitude and communication are not matched by credible, consistent performance, trust collapses far faster than it is built.
When we turn to Turkish politics, similar dynamics of emotional resonance, attitude and consistency are at play, trust is primarily built through perceived performance. Yet we have to study segments of voters separately and their resistances to the phenomenas in this highly dynamic political arena. While leadership performance is very important for some groups, logical reasoning may be for some others.
Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s early political success vividly illustrates this pattern. His 2002 campaign emphasized justice, development, and standing up against an out-of-touch elite. However, it was the tangible results — economic stabilization, infrastructure projects, healthcare and education expansions — that cemented public trust.
Erdoğan’s achievements aligned with his political promises, building a resilient emotional and rational bond with the electorate. KONDA’s 2014 "Türkiye’nin Toplumsal Yapısı" survey found that most AK Parti supporters cited "delivered services" as their primary reason for loyalty, with religious or ideological reasons following distantly. However, this same performance-centered trust mechanism has also contributed to Erdoğan’s more recent erosion of support. As economic conditions worsened — with rising inflation, declining purchasing power, and growing perceptions of mismanagement — the once-solid foundation of trust began to crack. Voters who had justified their loyalty through tangible improvements in their lives were now directly experiencing deteriorating conditions. The emotional and ideological defenses that once buffered Erdoğan’s support proved insufficient when everyday performance visibly faltered.
This shift reflects a broader structural truth about Turkish political behavior: emotional loyalty cannot compensate for perceived performance failures. As service delivery declined, trust weakened — even among previously loyal segments. There is a debate about how much economical conditions are effecting decisions of the voters in Türkiye. Though there is not a clear answer for general; we have some clues. Among lower-middle groups, as economic grievances increase, defection also rises. However, in the very bottom segment, even though economic complaints are extremely high, voting preferences may remain unchanged. Emotional reasoning might be at play there. Economic voting mechanisms fail to operate. When individuals become extremely vulnerable, feelings of dependency and risk-averse behavior tend to increase. For example, even the fear of losing very minimal social assistance can strongly influence behavior. For a deeper learning, you can check the article following by Seda Demiralp.
https://yetkinreport.com/2022/01/18/sadece-ekonomik-kriz-iktidara-secim-kaybettirir-mi/
However, beyond economic grievances and emotional attachments, leadership perception plays a crucial role in shaping political trust and voter behavior.
It is important to remember that, to trust anybody else, people are looking for a leader with vision and the ability to create a competent team to manage the country. Though citizens are choosing CHP as the first party on these days, they cannot exactly say that CHP can govern the country well. Ekrem İmamoğlu’s 2019 Istanbul mayoral campaign further illustrates these general dynamics. His emotionally inclusive and hopeful message — "Everything will be fine" — was powerful, but it was his detailed, service-oriented promises that ultimately secured voter trust. Just after his initial victory, İmamoğlu maintained a calm, constructive tone, emphasizing practical improvements rather than political grievances. His message discipline, emotional resilience, and commitment to visible performance helped him achieve a historic landslide victory in the re-run election. Now he is the leader fighting for the people, standing up for their rights. We will see how his tone, performance, and overall attitude will sustain the frame well with increasing support from the voters in the ongoing process who are also looking for a vision from the leader. The way leaders and parties present options — in other words, how they design the choice architecture — directly influences voter behavior.
For a better understanding of why charisma or initial charm is not enough for continued public support, we can check a bad example of a lesson. Political figures who fail to demonstrate consistent performance and clarity — as seen with Muharrem İnce after the 2018 presidential election — lose public trust quickly, regardless of the emotional enthusiasm they initially generate.
As a conclusion, in a world where human decision-making is deeply influenced by emotional perceptions — where framing can shape political realities more than facts — a leader’s consistent attitude and principled tone are indispensable for building trust. However, as the Turkish case demonstrates, in some political cultures, performance — the visible ability to deliver — forms the essential foundation upon which emotional resonance and consistency must rest. From Obama’s emotional storytelling to Corbyn’s principled simplicity, to Erdoğan’s early service-driven success and subsequent challenges, to İmamoğlu’s performance-backed hope narrative, and to the collapse of Liz Truss’s credibility, the lesson is clear: Attitude, consistency, and demonstrable capability are the three pillars of lasting political trust and success.
© 2025 Scrolli. All Rights Reserved. Scrolli Media Inc