Cross-cultural evidence that intergroup conflict heightens preferences for dominant leaders: A 25-country study

Across societies and across history, seemingly dominant, authoritarian leaders have emerged frequently, often rising to power based on widespread popular support. One prominent theory holds that evolved psychological mechanisms of followership regulate citizens' leadership preferences such that dominant individuals are intuitively attributed leadership qualities when followers face intergroup conflicts like war. A key hypothesis based on this theory is that followers across the world should upregulate their preferences for dominant leaders the more they perceive the present situation as conflict-ridden. From this conflict hypothesis, we generate and test four concrete predictions using a novel dataset including 5008 participants residing in 25 countries from different world regions (consisting of a mix of convenience and approximately representative country-specific samples). Specifically, we combine experimental techniques, validated psychological scales, and macro-level indicators of intergroup conflict to gauge people's preferences for dominant leadership. Across four independent tests, results broadly support the notion that the presence of intergroup conflict increases follower preferences for dominant leaders. Thus, our results provide robust cross-cultural support for the existence of an adaptive, tribal followership psychology, a finding that has various implications for understanding contemporary politics and international relations.