Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2020-12
Dominance-Driven Autocratic Political Orientations Predict Political Violence in Western,Educated,Industrialized,Rich,and Democratic (WEIRD) and Non-WEIRD Samples
Given the costs of political violence, scholars have long sought to identify its causes. We examined individual differences related to participation in political violence, emphasizing the central role of political orientations. We hypothesized that individuals with dominance-driven autocratic political orientations are prone to political violence. Multilevel analysis of survey data from 34 African countries (N = 51,587) indicated that autocracy-oriented individuals, compared with democracy-oriented individuals, are considerably more likely to participate in political violence. As a predictor of violence (indexed with attitudinal, intentional, and behavioral measures), autocratic orientation outperformed other variables highlighted in existing research, including socioeconomic status and group-based injustice. Additional analyses of original data from South Africa (N = 2,170), Denmark (N = 1,012), and the United States (N = 1,539) indicated that the link between autocratic orientations and political violence reflects individual differences in the use of dominance to achieve status and that the findings generalize to societies extensively socialized to democratic values.
AjzenI.FishbeinM. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 888–918.
3.
BeckerJ. C.TauschN. (2015). A dynamic model of engagement in normative and non-normative collective action: Psychological antecedents, consequences, and barriers. European Review of Social Psychology, 26, 43–92.
4.
BellinE. (2012). Reconsidering the robustness of authoritarianism in the Middle East: Lessons from the Arab Spring. Comparative Politics, 44, 127–149.
5.
BeyerleinK.BarwisP.CrubaughB.CarneseccaC. (2018). A new picture of protests: The National Study of Protest Events. Sociological Methods & Research, 47, 384–429.
6.
Canetti-NisimD. C. (2004). The effect of religiosity on endorsement of democratic values: The mediating influence of authoritarianism. Political Behavior, 26, 377–398.
7.
ChengJ. T.TracyJ. L.FoulshamT.KingstoneA.HenrichJ. (2013). Two ways to the top: Evidence that dominance and prestige are distinct yet viable avenues to social rank and influence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 103–125.
8.
CollierP.HoefflerA. (2004). Greed and grievance in civil war. Oxford Economic Papers, 56, 563–595.
DixonJ. (2009). What causes civil wars? Integrating quantitative research findings. International Studies Review, 11, 707–735.
11.
DuckittJ.BizumicB.KraussS. W.HeledE. (2010). A tripartite approach to right-wing authoritarianism: The authoritarianism–conservatism–traditionalism model. Political Psychology, 31, 685–715.
12.
Economist Intelligence Unit. (2017). The democracy index 2017. London, England: Author.
13.
FearonJ. D.LaitinD. D. (2003). Ethnicity, insurgency, and civil war. American Political Science Review, 97, 75–90.
14.
FiedlerK.HarrisC.SchottM. (2018). Unwarranted inferences from statistical mediation tests – An analysis of articles published in 2015. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 75, 95–102.
15.
GleditschN. P.WallensteenP.ErikssonM.SollenbergM.StrandH. (2002). Armed conflict: 1946-2001: A new dataset. Journal of Peace Research, 39, 615–637.
16.
GlynnA. N. (2013). What can we learn with statistical truth serum? Design and analysis of the list experiment. Public Opinion Quarterly, 77, 159–172.
17.
GómezA.López-RodríguezL.SheikhH.GingesJ.WilsonL.WaziriH.. . . AtranS. (2017). The devoted actor’s will to fight and the spiritual dimension of human conflict. Nature Human Behavior, 1, 673–679.
18.
Gøtzsche-AstrupO. (2018). The time for causal designs: Review and evaluation of empirical support for mechanisms of political radicalization. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 39, 90–99.
19.
HoA. K.SidaniusJ.KteilyN.Sheehy-SkeffingtonJ.PrattoF.HenkelK. E.. . . StewartA. L. (2015). The nature of social dominance orientation: Theorizing and measuring preferences for intergroup inequality using the new SDO7 scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109, 1003–1028.
20.
HoxJ. J.MoerbeekM.van de SchootR. (2018). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
21.
HsiangS. M.BurkeM.MiguelE. (2013). Quantifying the influence of climate on human conflict. Science, 341, Article 1235367. doi:10.1126/science.1235367
22.
JohnsonR. T.BurkJ. A.KirkpatrickL. A. (2007). Dominance and prestige as differential predictors of aggression and testosterone levels in men. Evolution and Human Behavior, 28, 345–351.
23.
KohlerU.KarlsonK. B.HolmA. (2011). Comparing coefficients of nested nonlinear probability models. The Stata Journal, 11, 420–438.
24.
KramonE.WeghorstK. (2019). (Mis)measuring sensitive attitudes with the list experiment: Solutions to list experiment breakdown in Kenya. Public Opinion Quarterly, 83, 236–263.
25.
KunstJ. R.FischerR.SidaniusJ.ThomsenL. (2017). Preferences for group dominance track and mediate the effects of macro-level social inequality and violence across societies. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 114, 5407–5412.
26.
MalkaA.LelkesY.SotoC. J. (2019). Are cultural and economic conservatism positively correlated? A large-scale cross-national test. British Journal of Political Science, 49, 1045–1069.
27.
ManerJ. K. (2017). Dominance and prestige: A tale of two hierarchies. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26, 526–531.
28.
MarshallM. G.GurrT. R.JaggersJ. (2018). Polity IV Project: Political regime characteristics and transitions, 1800-2017. Dataset users’ manual. Retrieved from http://www.systemicpeace.org/inscr/p4manualv2017.pdf
29.
McNeishD.KelleyL. (2019). Fixed effects models versus mixed effects models for clustered data: Reviewing the approaches, disentangling the differences, and making recommendations. Psychological Methods, 24, 20–35.
30.
MiklikowskaM. (2012). Psychological underpinnings of democracy: Empathy, authoritarianism, self-esteem, interpersonal trust, normative identity style, and openness to experience as predictors of support for democratic values. Personality and Individual Differences, 53, 603–608.
31.
MoskalenkoS.McCauleyC. (2009). Measuring political mobilization: The distinction between activism and radicalism. Terrorism and Political Violence, 21, 239–260.
32.
MundlakY. (1978). On the pooling of time series and cross section data. Econometrica, 46, 69–85.
33.
NorrisP. (Ed.) (1999). Critical citizens: Global support for democratic government. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
34.
PopperK. (2012). The open society and its enemies. London, England: Routledge. (Original work published 1945)
35.
PrattoF.SidaniusJ.LevinS. (2006). Social dominance theory and the dynamics of intergroup relations: Taking stock and looking forward. European Review of Social Psychology, 17, 271–320.
36.
RussellB. (2013). History of Western philosophy. London, England: Routledge. (Original work published 1945)
37.
SalehyanI.HendrixC. S.HamnerJ.CaseC.LinebargerC.StullE.WilliamsJ. (2012). Social conflict in Africa: A new database. International Interactions, 38, 503–511.
38.
TauschN.BeckerJ. C.SpearsR.ChristO.SaabR.SinghP.SiddiquiR. N. (2011). Explaining radical group behavior: Developing emotion and efficacy routes to normative and nonnormative collective action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 129–148.
39.
van ZomerenM.PostmesT.SpearsR. (2008). Toward an integrative social identity model of collective action: A quantitative research synthesis of three socio-psychological perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 504–535.
40.
WilkeA.ShermanA.CurdtB.MondalS.FitzgeraldC.KrugerD. J. (2014). An evolutionary Domain-Specific Risk Scale. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 8, 123–141.
ZakrissonI. (2005). Construction of a short version of the Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 863–872.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
