Recent analyses of political
division often point to familiar culprits: deepening partisan loyalties,
ideological echo chambers, and the rampant spread of misinformation. While
these factors are significant, a growing body of research in psychology and political
science suggests they are symptoms of a deeper phenomenon.
Across dozens of countries,
scientists are uncovering the psychological mechanisms that drive political
behavior, from affective polarization to the appeal of authoritarianism. This
emerging field reveals how personality traits, emotional responses to threat,
and fundamental needs for social identity are shaping our political landscape.
By examining the psychological
roots of political hostility and democratic erosion, this new science offers a
more fundamental explanation for why persuasion feels increasingly impossible
and why societies are growing more divided. The following 13 summaries from
recent scientific literature offer a cross-section of this emerging research.
1. Politics
is Becoming the Core of American Social Identity
In today’s America, political
identity isn’t just about voting—it’s shaping who we want as friends,
neighbors, and even in-laws. A study published in Political
Psychology found that partisanship now overrides nearly all other
social identities—including race, religion, and education level—when people
evaluate others.
Using a national survey,
researchers showed participants profiles of hypothetical individuals and asked
them to judge how much they liked each one, or whether they’d want to live near
them or have them as family. Political affiliation was the strongest predictor
of these social preferences, with people consistently favoring those who shared
their party and expressing dislike for those who didn’t.
More strikingly, out-group
hostility often outweighed in-group warmth—people disliked the other side more
than they liked their own. Even when profiles defied party stereotypes, like a
Black Republican or an atheist Democrat, participants still judged them mainly
through their political lens. And while religion and race did influence
ratings, especially among Republicans, political party was still the most
powerful factor overall. This suggests that polarization in the U.S. has seeped
far beyond the ballot box into the very fabric of social life, shaping not just
political views but how people interact in their communities.
2. Democracy
May Be Good for Your Personality
A study published in Scientific
Reports found that people living in democratic societies tend to
score higher on benevolent personality traits like empathy, kindness, and
belief in human goodness. These so-called “light triad” traits were more common
in democracies, while authoritarian nations saw higher levels of manipulative,
narcissistic, and callous traits—known collectively as the “dark triad.” The
study, which included data from nearly 250,000 people in 75 countries, suggests
that political systems may be connected to the psychological makeup of
citizens, with democratic environments encouraging prosocial behavior and
emotional well-being.
What’s more, people with higher
light-triad traits also reported greater life satisfaction, hinting at a
feedback loop between democracy, personality, and happiness. Even after
controlling for income, education, and religious experience, the trend held strong:
the more democratic the country, the kinder and more trusting its people tended
to be. The researchers acknowledged that causality isn’t certain—benevolent
people may help build democratic societies, or democratic conditions might
shape people’s personalities. But the implications are unsettling in light of
global democratic backsliding: as democracies erode, people may become more
distrustful and antagonistic, paving the way for more authoritarian norms.
3. When
Voters Idolize Dark Leaders, Polarization Grows
Not all political leaders are
admired for their integrity or humility. In fact, when voters support leaders
with narcissistic, manipulative, or callous traits, their emotional hostility
toward the opposing side tends to deepen. A new study published in the European
Journal of Political Research found that voters who feel
ideologically close to “dark” political candidates—those scoring high in
Machiavellianism, psychopathy, or narcissism—were more likely to express
stronger affective polarization. The effect wasn’t caused by dislike of the
opposition, but rather by an emotional attachment to their own combative
leader.
The researchers found this
pattern across 34,000 voters in 40 national elections, covering leaders like
Trump, Bolsonaro, and Macron. Crucially, only in-party admiration
mattered—voters didn’t become more polarized simply because they disliked
dark-spirited opponents. This suggests that strong emotional bonds to dominant
or deceptive leaders may not just reflect existing polarization, but actually
amplify it. Whether voters are drawn to these traits or shaped by them is still
unclear, but the cycle is ominous: dark personalities at the top may be feeding
political radicalization from the bottom up.
4. Narcissists
Fuel Political Extremes—On Both Sides
Personality may shape more of our
politics than we think. A study in Political Behavior found
that narcissism—especially the antagonistic, entitled variety—is strongly
linked to affective polarization. People high in narcissistic traits weren’t
just more loyal to their political group; they were also more hostile toward
the opposing side. This pattern held across traditional party lines and newer
political identities like Brexit stances. Those with higher scores in “rivalry
narcissism” were especially likely to express emotional attachment to their
group and contempt for outsiders.
Interestingly, the researchers
found that the hostility wasn’t just about admiration for one’s side—it was
mostly driven by negativity toward the outgroup. Narcissistic individuals were
more prone to see criticism of their political group as a personal attack and
were quick to devalue opponents. Even after accounting for the Big Five
personality traits, narcissism stood out as a strong predictor of political
animosity. These findings suggest that emotional needs for superiority and
recognition may be fueling partisan identity in ways that go beyond ideology or
party loyalty.
5. Support
for Strong Leaders Isn’t Just a Right-Wing Thing
Support for authoritarian-style
leaders is often seen as a right-wing trait, but new research in Psychological
Science complicates that picture. Across six studies, researchers
found that ethnic minorities—regardless of political ideology—were more likely
than White left-leaning individuals to support strong, rule-breaking leaders.
This wasn’t because of ideology, but because of generalized trust: groups with
lower trust in others were more open to leaders who promised order and control,
even at the expense of democratic norms.
This helps explain why some
minority voters have gravitated toward dominant political figures like Donald
Trump, despite his divisive rhetoric. It also suggests that feelings of
vulnerability and social threat may shape leadership preferences more than traditional
political labels. Experiments showed that when trust in others was
experimentally increased, support for strong leaders declined—especially among
minority participants. These findings challenge the idea that support for
authoritarianism is driven purely by conservatism and highlight how lived
experiences of trust and exclusion can influence political choices.
6. Feeling
Politically Excluded Makes People Angrier—and More Hostile
New research published in
the Journal of Applied Social Psychology suggests that
political exclusion—being ignored or rejected because of your political
beliefs—can fuel anger, emotional withdrawal, and even online hostility. In two
studies using a virtual ball-tossing game called Cyberball, researchers
simulated political rejection among young adults. When participants were
excluded by others who disagreed with them politically, they reported feeling
psychologically threatened, angry, and less willing to interact with people
from the opposing side. In some cases, exclusion even increased intentions to
insult or threaten opponents on social media.
Interestingly, exclusion from
one’s own political group also triggered psychological discomfort, and
sometimes even led participants to feel warmer toward the other side. But the
dominant effect was clear: being shut out because of political identity increases
emotional distress and polarizing behavior. The study suggests that affective
polarization may not just stem from ideological conflict, but from social
dynamics that mimic bullying or rejection. When political differences become
grounds for exclusion, people may dig in deeper—not necessarily because of
policy, but because of pain.
7. Traumatized
Childhoods May Shape Narcissistic Leaders
A study published in Frontiers
in Psychology offers a striking psychological comparison between
Adolf Hitler, Vladimir Putin, and Donald Trump. By analyzing historical and
biographical records, the author argues that all three leaders share a pattern
of childhood trauma, authoritarian father figures, and emotionally indulgent
mothers. These early dynamics may have laid the groundwork for the development
of pathological narcissism—an inflated sense of self rooted in emotional
insecurity. Rather than stemming from ideology alone, their leadership styles
may reflect deep psychological compensation for childhood distress.
Each leader experienced different
forms of psychological adversity: Hitler and Putin were “replacement children”
born after the deaths of siblings and raised by harsh fathers, while Trump was
sent to military school at a young age—an event he interpreted as rejection.
The study cautions that while these patterns don’t explain every aspect of
their political behavior, they may help account for the grandiosity,
aggression, and lack of empathy seen in their public personas. While limited by
its interpretive nature, the research adds a provocative layer to our
understanding of authoritarian leadership—one rooted in early emotional wounds.
8. What
You See in a Candidate May Depend on What You Believe About Authority
In polarized politics, voters
often project personality traits onto candidates based on their own values—and
that includes seeing opponents as mentally unfit. A study in Europe’s
Journal of Psychology found that perceptions of psychopathy in
political candidates—traits like callousness or deceit—are shaped by voters’
authoritarian beliefs. In two studies conducted after the 2016 U.S. election
and again in 2020, participants consistently rated the opposing candidate
(Trump or Clinton) as more psychopathic, especially if they scored high in
authoritarianism.
This partisan mirror effect was
surprisingly stable across time, and it wasn’t based on accurate psychological
assessments—just belief and perception. Clinton voters tended to see Trump as
far more psychopathic, while Trump voters viewed Clinton similarly. But those
who held authoritarian values were more likely to believe their own candidate
was psychologically sound and the opponent was dangerously unstable. These
findings suggest that mental health perceptions in politics are filtered
through ideology, not psychiatric knowledge. The result is a kind of
psychological warfare, where traits like cruelty or instability become tools
for political judgment.
9. Around
the World, Conflict Sparks Support for Strongmen
In one of the largest
cross-cultural studies of its kind, researchers from 25 countries found that
people are more likely to support dominant, authoritarian leaders when they
perceive intergroup conflict or national threat. Published in Evolution
and Human Behavior, the study included over 5,000 participants and
tested whether scenarios involving war or peace affected leadership
preferences. In conflict situations, people were more likely to prefer leaders
who appeared physically dominant, aggressive, or forceful. This preference
showed up across cultures—from the United States and China to Kenya and Russia.
The findings support the idea
that humans have an evolved tendency to turn toward strong leadership during
times of danger. It’s a psychological reflex that may have helped early humans
survive tribal warfare—but in modern democracies, it can lead to a cycle of
escalating authoritarianism. Once dominant leaders are elected in response to
perceived threats, they may amplify those threats to maintain power. The study
suggests this cycle is not unique to any one country—it’s a global pattern,
deeply embedded in human psychology.
10. Feeling
Like Society Is Falling Apart Makes Authoritarianism More Appealing
A study in the Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology offers new evidence that
perceptions of social breakdown can directly increase support for authoritarian
rule. When people feel that moral norms are eroding, institutions are
ineffective, and society is falling into chaos—a condition known as anomie—they
begin to feel politically powerless. This lack of control then leads to
political uncertainty, creating fertile ground for authoritarianism. The
researchers tested this pathway using both large-scale survey data and a series
of controlled experiments.
The results show that the link
between societal disorder and authoritarianism isn’t random—it’s a
psychological chain reaction. When people feel they no longer understand or
influence politics, they become more likely to favor a “strong leader” who
promises clarity and control, even if it means bypassing democratic principles.
The study adds a layer of psychological depth to political instability:
authoritarianism may rise not just because of fear or ideology, but because
people crave order in the face of perceived collapse. In times of uncertainty,
control can start to look more attractive than freedom.
11. Across
59 Nations, Threat Sparks Authoritarian Support—Especially on the Right
A global study published in
the Journal of Personality found that people in 59
countries are more likely to support authoritarian forms of government when
they feel threatened by crime, poverty, or political unrest. Drawing on data
from nearly 85,000 participants, the study confirmed that this psychological
response is consistent across cultures: threat increases the appeal of strong,
controlling leadership. Although the effect was seen on both the political left
and right, it was significantly stronger among conservatives.
The researchers argue that while
left-leaning individuals may also turn toward authoritarian attitudes under
threat, conservatives tend to do so more predictably. This aligns with previous
studies showing that right-leaning individuals are more sensitive to threat
cues. Yet the global consistency of the trend is what stands out: whether in
Sweden or South Africa, perceived danger pushes people to favor authoritarian
rule. It’s a reminder that the desire for security—even at the cost of civil
liberties—may be a universal feature of human psychology.
12. Certain
Narcissistic Traits Predict Anti-Immigrant Views
Not all narcissists think the
same. A study published in Behavioral Sciences found
that people high in antagonistic narcissism—those who are hostile, entitled,
and competitive—are more likely to hold negative attitudes toward immigrants.
This connection is driven in part by how they view the world: as a ruthless
competition where others are threats rather than allies. These individuals also
tend to endorse authoritarian and dominance-based ideologies, which reinforce
exclusionary beliefs.
Interestingly, not all forms of
narcissism showed this pattern. Neurotic narcissists—those who are insecure and
anxious—were actually less likely to endorse anti-immigrant views. Extraverted
narcissists, who crave attention but are not necessarily hostile, showed a more
indirect relationship. Across three studies in the U.S. and Israel, the
researchers found that narcissism intersects with worldview: those who see
society as a competitive jungle are more likely to favor policies that punish
or exclude outsiders. Personality, in this case, becomes a lens through which
people interpret politics and identity.
13. Democrats
Show More Partisan Dislike—But for Moral Reasons
A multi-method study published
in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology found
that Democrats in the United States tend to express more dislike toward
Republicans than vice versa. Across seven studies—including Twitter
experiments, hiring scenarios, and controlled surveys—researchers found that
Democrats were more likely to reject or block Republican users, rate them lower
in hypothetical workplace evaluations, and express stronger moral condemnation.
The driving force wasn’t just disagreement, but the belief that Republicans
pose harm to disadvantaged groups.
This perception of moral
threat—particularly on issues like race and immigration—appears to fuel
Democrats’ emotional intensity. When a Republican individual supported
diversity or anti-racism causes, Democratic participants showed less animosity.
But when they didn’t, the moral condemnation returned. The findings challenge
the idea that partisan dislike is symmetric. At least in this moment in
history, Democrats’ stronger aversion is rooted in moral concerns. Still, the
researchers caution that moralization can cut both ways—and may fuel cycles of
dehumanization across party lines.
Read
more at PsyPost
