What roles do political partisanship and moral beliefs play in people’s support for particular leaders? The current studies suggest that people with politically conservative views may support dominant leaders (those who use assertiveness, formal authority, and intimidation to influence others) because such leaders are viewed as likely to share conservatives’ moral priorities. Compared to liberals, conservatives reported higher prioritization of group-binding moral foundations. Those moral priorities, in turn, statistically mediated conservatives’ support for dominant leaders. Compared to conservatives, liberals reported higher prioritization of individualizing moral foundations, as well as deprioritization of group-binding moral foundations. Those moral priorities, in turn, statistically mediated liberals’ support for prestige-based leaders (those relying on knowledge, skill, and freely conferred deference to influence others). The current work provides new insight into how people’s moral priorities may underlie their preference for particular types of leaders.
AllenT. D. (2007). Mentoring relationships from the perspective of the mentor. In RaginsB. R.KramK. E. (Eds.), The handbook of mentoring at work: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 123–147). Sage.
2.
AmitA.VenzhikE. (2024). Morality, social inclusion, and in-group superiority: The differential role of individualizing and binding foundations in perceptions of the social identity of in-group and out-group members. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 0(0).
3.
BesleyT.Reynal-QuerolM. (2011). Do democracies select more educated leaders?American Political Science Review, 105(3), 552–566.
4.
BloemraadI.SilvaF.VossK. (2016). Rights, economics, or family? Frame resonance, political ideology, and the immigrant rights movement. Social Forces, 94(4), 1647–1674.
5.
BoehmC. (1999). Hierarchy in the forest: The evolution of egalitarian behavior. Harvard University Press.
6.
BoehmC. (2012). Ancestral hierarchy and conflict. Science, 336(6083), 844–847.
7.
BowlesS. (2009). Did warfare among ancestral hunter-gatherers affect the evolution of human social behaviors?Science, 324(5932), 1293–1298.
8.
CaseC. R.BaeK. K.LarsenK. T.ManerJ. K. (2021). The precautious nature of prestige: When leaders are hypervigilant to subtle signs of social disapproval. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 120(3), 694.
9.
CaseC. R.BaeK. K.ManerJ. K. (2018). To lead or to be liked: When prestige-oriented leaders prioritize popularity over performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 115(4), 657.
10.
CaseC. R.ManerJ. K. (2014). Divide and conquer: When and why leaders undermine the cohesive fabric of their group. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 107(6), 1033.
11.
ChagnonN. A. (1988). Life histories, blood revenge, and warfare in a tribal population. Science, 239(4843), 985–992.
12.
ChenF. X.ZhangX.LaustsenL.ChengJ. T. (2021). Harsh but expedient: Dominant leaders increase group cooperation via threat of punishment. Psychological Science, 32(12), 2005–2022.
13.
ChengJ. T. (2020). Dominance, prestige, and the role of leveling in human social hierarchy and equality. Current Opinion in Psychology, 33, 238–244.
14.
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(1), 103.
15.
ChengJ. T.TracyJ. L.HenrichJ. (2010). Pride, personality, and the evolutionary foundations of human social status. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31(5), 334–347.
16.
de Waal-AndrewsW.GreggA. P.LammersJ. (2015). When status is grabbed and when status is granted: Getting ahead in dominance and prestige hierarchies. British Journal of Social Psychology, 54(3), 445–464.
17.
de WaalF. B. (1982). Chimpanzee politics. Harper & Row.
18.
DuckittJ.SibleyC. G. (2010). Personality, ideology, prejudice, and politics: A dual-process motivational model. Journal of Personality, 78(6), 1861–1894.
19.
FeinbergM.WillerR. (2015). From gulf to bridge: When do moral arguments facilitate political influence?Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(12), 1665–1681.
20.
FranksA. S.ScherrK. C. (2015). Using moral foundations to predict voting behavior: Regression models from the 2012 US presidential election. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 15(1), 213–232.
21.
FranksA. S.ScherrK. C. (2019). Economic issues are moral issues: The moral underpinnings of the desire to reduce wealth inequality. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 10(4), 553–562.
22.
GardnerP. M. (1991). Foragers’ pursuit of individual autonomy. Current Anthropology, 32(5), 543–572.
23.
GoenkaS.ThomasM. (2020). The malleable morality of conspicuous consumption. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 118(3), 562.
24.
GrahamJ.HaidtJ.KolevaS.MotylM.IyerR.WojcikS. P.DittoP. H. (2013). Moral foundations theory: The pragmatic validity of moral pluralism. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 55–130.
25.
GrahamJ.HaidtJ.NosekB. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(5), 1029.
26.
GrahamJ.NosekB. A.HaidtJ.IyerR.KolevaS.DittoP. H. (2011). Mapping the moral domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), 366.
27.
GrayK.WaytzA.YoungL. (2012). The moral dyad: A fundamental template unifying moral judgment. Psychological Inquiry, 23(2), 206–215.
28.
HaidtJ. (2007). The new synthesis in moral psychology. Science, 316(5827), 998–1002.
29.
HaidtJ. (2012). The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. New York Pantheon.
HenrichJ.ChudekM.BoydR. (2015). The Big Man Mechanism: How prestige fosters cooperation and creates prosocial leaders. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 370(1683), 20150013.
32.
HenrichJ.Gil-WhiteF. J. (2001). The evolution of prestige: Freely conferred deference as a mechanism for enhancing the benefits of cultural transmission. Evolution and Human Behavior, 22(3), 165–196.
33.
HoggM. A. (2001). A social identity theory of leadership. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(3), 184–200.
34.
HooperP. L.KaplanH. S.BooneJ. L. (2010). A theory of leadership in human cooperative groups. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 265(4), 633–646.
35.
JacquartP.AntonakisJ. (2015). When does charisma matter for top-level leaders? Effect of attributional ambiguity. Academy of Management Journal, 58(4), 1051–1074.
36.
JiménezÁ. V.MesoudiA. (2021). The cultural transmission of prestige and dominance social rank cues: An experimental simulation. Evolutionary Psychological Science, 7(2), 189–199.
37.
JostJ. T.GlaserJ.KruglanskiA. W.SullowayF. J. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 339–375.
38.
KakkarH.SivanathanN. (2017). When the appeal of a dominant leader is greater than a prestige leader. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(26), 6734–6739.
39.
KettermanA. B.ManerJ. K. (2021). Complaisant or coercive? The role of dominance and prestige in social influence. Personality and Individual Differences, 177, 110814.
40.
KiddW.VitriolJ. A. (2022). Moral leadership in the 2016 US presidential election. Political Psychology, 43(3), 583–604.
41.
KivikangasJ. M.Fernández-CastillaB.JärveläS.RavajaN.LönnqvistJ. E. (2021). Moral foundations and political orientation: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 147(1), 55.
42.
KolevaS. P.GrahamJ.IyerR.DittoP. H.HaidtJ. (2012). Tracing the threads: How five moral concerns (especially Purity) help explain culture war attitudes. Journal of Research in Personality, 46(2), 184–194.
43.
KumruC. S.VesterlundL. (2010). The effect of status on charitable giving. Journal of Public Economic Theory, 12(4), 709–735.
44.
ManerJ. K.CaseC. R. (2016). Dominance and prestige: Dual strategies for navigating social hierarchies. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 54, 129–180.
45.
McClanahanK. J.ManerJ. K.ChengJ. T. (2022). Two ways to stay at the top: Prestige and dominance are both viable strategies for gaining and maintaining social rank over time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 48(10), 1516–1528.
46.
MooijmanM.MeindlP.OysermanD.MonterossoJ.DehghaniM.DorisJ. M.GrahamJ. (2018). Resisting temptation for the good of the group: Binding moral values and the moralization of self-control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 115(3), 585.
47.
O’GormanR.HenrichJ.Van VugtM. (2009). Constraining free riding in public goods games: Designated solitary punishers can sustain human cooperation. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 276(1655), 323–329.
48.
RedlawskD. P.CivettiniA. J.EmmersonK. M. (2010). The affective tipping point: Do motivated reasoners ever “get it”?Political Psychology, 31(4), 563–593.
49.
RonayR.MadduxW. W.Von HippelW. (2020). Inequality rules: Resource distribution and the evolution of dominance-and prestige-based leadership. The Leadership Quarterly, 31(2), 101246.
50.
SapolskyR. M. (2005). The influence of social hierarchy on primate health. Science, 308(5722), 648–652.
51.
SchallerM.ParkJ. H. (2011). The behavioral immune system (and why it matters). Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(2), 99–103.
52.
ScheinC.GrayK. (2018). The theory of dyadic morality: Reinventing moral judgment by redefining harm. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 22(1), 32–70.
53.
SmithK. B.AlfordJ. R.HibbingJ. R.MartinN. G.HatemiP. K. (2017). Intuitive ethics and political orientations: Testing moral foundations as a theory of political ideology. American Journal of Political Science, 61(2), 424–437.
54.
SpencerS. J.ZannaM. P.FongG. T. (2005). Establishing a causal chain: Why experiments are often more effective than mediational analyses in examining psychological processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(6), 845.
55.
Van KleefG. A.HeerdinkM. W.CheshinA.StamkouE.WandersF.KoningL. F.FangX.GeorgeacO. A. (2021). No guts, no glory? How risk-taking shapes dominance, prestige, and leadership endorsement. Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(11), 1673.
56.
Van VugtM.SmithJ. E. (2019). A dual model of leadership and hierarchy: Evolutionary synthesis. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 23(11), 952–967.
57.
von RuedenC.GurvenM.KaplanH. (2011). Why do men seek status? Fitness payoffs to dominance and prestige. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 278(1715), 2223–2232.
58.
WaytzA.DunganJ.YoungL. (2013). The whistleblower’s dilemma and the fairness–loyalty tradeoff. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(6), 1027–1033.
59.
WeidmanA. C.ChengJ. T.TracyJ. L. (2018). The psychological structure of humility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 114(1), 153.
60.
WeisbergH. F. (2005). The structure and effects of moral predispositions in contemporary American politics. The Journal of Politics, 67(3), 646–668.
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.
