![]() ![]() demonstrated that when participants are made to experience a lack of control, they tended to ascribe greater power to their government. At Duke University, Aaron Kay and colleagues articulated the theory of compensatory control: When people experience or perceive disorder, chaos and randomness in their lives, they feel more motivated to embrace ideologies that emphasize personal, societal or religious control as a compensatory strategy to allay the anxieties of lacking control. Drawing on evolutionary theory of leadership emergence, we provide the first empirically based situational and psychological account for both when and why dominant leaders are preferred over other respected and admired candidates, globally.Ī well-established finding within psychology is people’s deep rooted desire to have control over their daily lives. In line with our belief, we find economic uncertainty to significantly predict voter’s preference for dominant forceful leaders, in both local and national elections.įurthermore, to demonstrate the ubiquity of this basic psychological phenomenon, we went beyond the US, and drew on 20 years of world economic data, maintained by the World Bank, coupled with historic data on social and political beliefs of citizens of these countries, to replicate these findings among citizens of 69 countries – a replication that represents 90% of the world’s population. ![]() ![]() We employed objective macroeconomic indicators of economic prosperity across 25,000+ zip codes in the US, to predict voter’s preference for dominant versus prestige leaders. In our recent paper, we show that when citizens experience economic uncertainty and its accompanying loss of personal control, they look to dominant leaders - those perceived as more agentic, forceful and decisive - over their prestige counterparts, to restore their feelings of control. A dominance strategy employs fear via intimidation and coercion, while a prestige strategy relies on sharing skills and knowledge with others in exchange of their respect and deference. We invoked findings from evolutionary, social and political psychology to understand when and why such leaders are voted into power.ĭrawing on work in ethological and behavioral ecology, Joseph Henrich and colleagues have articulated and provided empirical support for two distinct and viable routes of attaining social rank within society: dominance and prestige. Intrigued by this global phenomenon, we set out to study this phenomenon empirically. But narratives like these fall short of explaining the rise of authoritarian leaders globally. The suggestions tendered have ranged from a backlash against the first African American president, the rejection of insider fat cats, or a rebuff of Washington policies. Much of the writing has concentrated on the west, and specifically the election of Donald Trump as the 45th president. ![]() The common question batted around continues to be how leaders such as Donald Trump, Viktor Orban, Rodrigo Duterte, Nicolás Maduro, Recep Erdogan could become the standard-bearers of democracy for countries like the US, Hungary, Philippines, Venenzuela and Turkey. Political pundits, commentators and average citizens continue to have trouble accounting for the rise of populist authoritarian leaders across the globe. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |