The Psychological Causes and Societal Consequences of Authoritarianism

Over the past two decades, citizens’ political rights and civil liberties have declined globally. Psychological science can play an instrumental role in both explaining and combating the authoritarian impulses that underlie these attacks on personal autonomy.

In this Review, we describe the psychological processes and situational factors that foster authoritarianism, as well as the societal consequences of its apparent resurgence within the general population.

First, we summarize the dual process motivational model of ideology and prejudice, which suggests that viewing the world as a dangerous, but not necessarily competitive, place plants the psychological seeds of authoritarianism.

Next, we discuss the evolutionary, genetic, personality and developmental antecedents to authoritarianism and explain how contextual threats to safety and security activate authoritarian predispositions.

After examining the harmful consequences of authoritarianism for intergroup relations and broader societal attitudes, we discuss the need to expand the ideological boundaries of authoritarianism and encourage future research to investigate both right-wing and left-wing variants of authoritarianism.

---

[Definition of authoritarianism: a political system characterised by the rejection of political plurality, the use of strong central power to preserve the political status quo, and reductions in democracy, separation of powers, civil liberities and the rule of law]

[The enforcement or advocacy of strict obedience to authority at the expense of personal freedom]

[Lack of concern for the wishes or opinions of others]

• Most people see authoritarianism involving “obeying high-status leaders from advantaged groups with the power to punish marginalised groups who threaten the unanimity of in-group values”
• Authoritarianism desires group conformity at the expense of personal autonomy, accompanied by a deference to in-group authority figures and a desire to punish those who violate cherished in-group norms
• Right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) - desire for conformity over personal autonomy, by submitting to authorities, aggressing against norm violators, supporting conventions.
• Social dominance orientation (SDO) indexes one’s preference for group-based hierarchy
• RWA originates from the belief that the social world is an inherently dangerous, unstable, unpredictable and threatening place. This worldview activates the motivational goal of ensuring collective security and stability through the coercive maintenance of the traditional social order.
• This worldview is acquired though early experience and socialisation, and influenced by personality traits which predispose someone to social conformity (low openness to experience, high conscientiousness)
• The predisposition towards social conformity leads people to identify with the existing social order and to focus on threats to the status quo.
• SDO stems from a worldview that the social world is a competitive jungle where the strong and able win, and the weak and feeble lose.
• This competitive worldview makes the motivational goals of power, dominance and superiority over others chronically salient. Critically, a competitive worldview originates from exposure to, and socialization in, environments perceived as high in inequality and in-group dominance, as these contexts foster competition over both resources and relative dominance within the broader social hierarchy.
• The dark triad (high narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy) also directly fosters a competitive worldview.
• RWA - Dangerous worldview. SDO - competitive worldview.
• These worldviews operate as ‘focal heuristics’ that shape how people perceive, interpret and respond to their environments.
• They are both relatively stable, but importantly malleable.
• They also respond to context e.g. perceived threats to the social order should activate RWA, whereas competitive threats should increase SDO.
• Historicially, prejudice against perceived out-groups has been considered confined to the political right, but nowadays this isn’t the case. Those who identify as liberal or conservative are able to dislike groups they perceive to threaten their respective values. However, it is important to consider the power and status differences that characterise prejudice by the right or left. Conservative prejudice tend to mirror social inequalities, whilst liberal prejudice tends to be against historically powerful or structurally advantaged groups.
• RWA predicts benevolent sexism (positive attitudes towards women who confirm to traditional gender roles that reinforce their disadvantaged status), whereas SDO predicts hostile sexism (overtly hostile and domineering attitudes towards women).
• RWA supports the idea of punishment to foster social conformity, so tends to predict more aggressive attitudes and behaviours e.g. capital punishment etc. It also predicts support for military intervention, use of torture, opposition to human rights, justifying political violence against groups perceived to threaten in-group values.
• Authoritarianism also fostering uncritical views of the in-group to maintain or enhance cohesion. Obedience and in-group loyalty become moral imperatives.
• RWA predicts nationalism (an uncritical belief in the superiority of one’s nation). This “suggest that the rise in nationalistic sentiment seen in movements such as Brexit and Make America Great Again are the outcomes of, rather than the precursors to, the global resurgence of authoritarianism.”
• RWA predicts opposition to same-sex marriage, anti-abortion sentiment, anti-democratic policies.
• RWA is intolerant to ambiguity, and so predicts tolerance or susceptibility to misinformation.
• RWA predicts anti-climate change beliefs, resistance to plant-based diets and science scepticism in general. It increases climate change denial and decreases environmentalism.