Is Political Conservatism Adaptive? Reinterpreting Right‐Wing Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation as Evolved, Sociofunctional Strategies

Abstract

The Dual Process Model (DPM) explains prejudice and political conservatism as functions of Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) and a Social Dominance Orientation (SDO;Duckitt, 2001). From an evolutionary perspective, such orientations may represent specific adaptations to coalitional competition in the ancestral environment (Sinn & Hayes, 2016). Supporting this view, recent research suggests the two orientations represent divergent strategies, with RWA pursuing an honest-cooperator strategy and SDO a deceptive, cooperation-mimicking strategy (Heylen & Pauwels, 2015). In two studies, we examine additional evidence for an adaptationist interpretation of DPM. Utilizing life history theory, Study 1 finds that RWA reflects the predicted "slow" strategy by endorsing planning and control, investment in family relationships, altruism, and religiosity. In contrast, SDO reflects a "fast" strategy by devaluing planning and control, secure relationships, and altruism. Utilizing rank management theory, Study 2 finds that RWA reflects a prosocial orientation, endorsing coalition building and social networking while rejecting deception and manipulation. In contrast, SDO reflects an exploitive orientation, rejecting coalition building and networking but endorsing ruthless selfadvancement and deceptive tactics. These findings support an adaptationist revision of RWA to recognize its prosocial, honest-cooperator dimension and of SDO to recognize proself, "dark" tactics seeking power within groups.

In Search of the Missing Links Between Economic Insecurity and Political Protest: Why Does Neoliberalism Evoke Identity Politics Instead of Class Interests?

“…However, in predicting hostility, RWAs and SDOs differ from each other (Sinn and Hayes, 2018 ). Theories of the all-encompassing negativity bias (Hibbing et al, 2014a ), of a group-binding morality (Graham et al, 2009 ) or of a general resistance to social changes (Jost et al, 2003 ) do not catch this.…”

“…Individualizing or universalizing motivation loads negatively against a social-dominance orientation. Liberals can sacrifice individual autonomy for the common good defined universally as environmental conservation, while the authoritarian emphasis on the common good, the social coherence of the ingroup, is connected with outgroup antagonism (including deviating groups within) (Sinn and Hayes, 2017 , 2018 ). Universal morals transcending ingroups and self-expression became conceivable only after the violence of pre-statist societies was eliminated, the need for close-knit ingroups as protectors lessened and affluence allowed individuals personal choices (Berggren and Trägårdh, 2006/2015 ; Newson and Richerson, 2009 ; Hruschka and Henrich, 2013 ; Siedentop, 2014 ; Sinn and Hayes, 2017 ).…”

“…The evolutionary default setting, the ingroup preference uniting SDOs and RWAs, makes system justification also a rational choice for RWA. By supporting exploitative leaders, cooperating moralists can enjoy the fruits of group-based dominance (Sinn and Hayes, 2018 , p. 1124–1126). SDOs can be imagined as alpha males, eager to achieve dominant positions in hierarchical ingroups (Liddle et al, 2012 ).…”

“…Males in general are ready to cooperate within their group when facing coalitional competition. A hierarchical coalition can prevent free-riding, which improves its competitiveness compared with egalitarian groups (Sinn and Hayes, 2017 , 2018 , p. 1124; Friesen et al, 2014 ). According to Sinn and Hayes, authoritarian morale evolved as an adaptation that reduced competition within ingroups struggling for resources against other coalitions.…”

“…According to Sinn and Hayes, authoritarian morale evolved as an adaptation that reduced competition within ingroups struggling for resources against other coalitions. It operates through kin-detection in dividing large non-kin groups, such as religion or ethnicity, as in us vs. them (Heylen and Pauwels, 2015 ; Sinn and Hayes, 2017 , 2018 ). Populist right-wingers recommend severe punishment for those who infringe on authority (Mudde, 2015 , p. 296).…”