Perceived Conflict and Leader Dominance: Individual and Contextual Factors Behind Preferences for Dominant Leaders

Abstract

Recent research finds that political candidates and leaders with dominant, masculine physical features are more preferred under conditions of conflict than of cooperation. Importantly, however, methodological limitations of past research have hindered the identification of whether this effect reflects that voters intuitively view (1) dominant leaders as more competent in solving problems of conflict, (2) nondominant leaders as more competent in solving problems of cooperation, or (3) both. In this article, we utilize recent advances in evolutionary psychology to form precise predictions on the nature of the underlying psychology and employ an unprecedented array of data types-including highly controlled experiments, natural experiments, and behavioral measures-to investigate the validity of these predictions. Using large approximately nationally representative surveys of 2,009 Poles and Ukrainians fielded during the Crimea crisis in 2014, we find that preferences for leader dominance are exclusively driven by the intuition that dominant leaders are better able to facilitate aggressive responses during social conflict and that these preferences are regulated by contextual conditions and individual predispositions related to such responses.

Online Tallies and the Context of Politics: How Online Tallies Make Dominant Candidates Appear Competent in Contexts of Conflict

“…These open questions notwithstanding, we believe that the present findings shed important light on recent political developments regarding the emergence of dominant leaders, such as Trump in the United States, Erdogan in Turkey, and Putin in Russia. In line with numerous other studies (e.g., Laustsen and Petersen ; Merolla and Zeichmeister ), the present finding suggests that the key to understanding the emergence of dominant leaders is perceived or real conflict, such as aggressive actions from neighboring societies, terrorist attacks, or because politicians and news media depict the world as “a dangerous place.” The present findings also invite a novel explanation for a puzzling observation: How negative media stories about dominant leaders co‐occur with widespread popular support for them. In light of the present findings, stories about misogyny, aggression, and other forms of negative behavior could likely buttress impressions of a leader as being dominant.…”

“…). Numerous studies have therefore found that individuals tend to attribute competence to dominant leaders in conflict contexts specifically but not in situations involving other types of threats (e.g., natural disasters; Laustsen and Petersen , ).…”

“…; Van Vugt and Spisak ). Studies on candidate evaluations within political science have also shown that strong leaders rise in perceived competence after terrorist attacks and aggression from other states (Laustsen and Petersen ; Merolla and Zeichmeister ).…”

“…When times turn more peaceful, however, warm leaders are rated as more competent than dominant ones (Laustsen and Petersen 2015;Little et al 2007;Spisak et al 2012; Van Vugt and Spisak 2008). Studies on candidate evaluations within political science have also shown that strong leaders rise in perceived competence after terrorist attacks and aggression from other states (Laustsen and Petersen 2017;Merolla and Zeichmeister 2009).…”

The Appeal of the Primal Leader: Human Evolution and Donald J. Trump

“…To protect the good in-group members from their dehumanized enemies, he promised to build a wall on the Mexican border (and force Mexicans to pay for it) and to deny Muslims (for at least a short term) entry into the United States. Research in social psychology has shown that when human beings are stimulated to think about conflict with out-groups, they tend to increase their preference for highly dominant, authoritarian leaders (Lausten and Petersen 2017).…”