The role of political partisanship and moral beliefs in leadership selection

New research forthcoming in Social Psychological and Personality Science illuminates why liberals and conservatives often support different types of leaders. The study shows that these preferences stem from differences in moral priorities rather than mere partisan bias.

What the researchers say: "This research helps explain why people across the political spectrum often support such different types of leaders," explains the lead researcher. "Rather than simply attributing these differences to political bias, our findings suggest these preferences are rooted in fundamental moral values."

The research found that conservatives tend to favor dominant leaders who employ assertiveness and formal authority, while liberals prefer prestigious leaders who lead through knowledge and earned respect. These preferences closely align with each group's core moral beliefs.

"Conservatives tend to prioritize group loyalty and respect for authority, which aligns with dominant leadership styles. Liberals typically emphasize fairness and care for vulnerable populations, which aligns with prestige-based leadership styles," the researcher continued. "Understanding these underlying moral motivations can help reduce political polarization by showing how different leadership preferences emerge from sincere moral convictions rather than mere partisan bias."

Unsurprisingly, the findings provide new insight into recent global political trends.

"Recent years have seen the rise of more assertive, dominance-oriented political leaders globally," the researchers noted. "Our research helps explain why such leaders often receive strong support from politically conservative voters—not necessarily because these voters are inherently authoritarian, but because such leaders appear to embody moral values around group loyalty and traditional authority that conservatives prioritize."

The researchers emphasize that their findings should not be oversimplified. "This research should not be used to suggest that either leadership style or set of moral priorities is superior," they cautioned. "Both dominant and prestige-based leadership styles can be effective in different contexts. Additionally, while we found general patterns in moral preferences between liberals and conservatives, individual variation exists within both groups."

This work bridges previously separate theories about moral foundations and leadership styles, offering a new framework for understanding political behavior. "It's important to emphasize that our research reveals the complexity of leadership preferences rather than reducing them to simple political divisions," the lead author concluded. "Understanding the moral beliefs that may underly leadership support could help bridge political divides by fostering mutual understanding of different viewpoints."

My take: This is a fascinating piece of research, but one which will need further verification. I think that while a difference in moral values may underline much of our political dialogue and voting patterns, there are three other drivers which are probably much more dominant.

The first is historical/evolutionary. In 2014, a series of studies in the journal Science looked at hunter-gatherer “leadership.” The consensus among the researchers was that in normal times, hunter-gatherer societies eschewed “leadership” as we understand it. Leaders might arise in a crisis—a raging forest fire, attack by another band, or floods—because they had the knowledge or the experience necessary for the band to avoid the danger.

However, when the crisis passed, the leader was deprived of his or her position. This was true of all egalitarian societies. It was only when we began to acquire private property and land ownership (personal or communal) that the drive to leadership was allowed. This was only 10,000 years ago, a mere heartbeat in human history.

The second driver is genetics. There is a couplet from Gilbert & Sullivan’s comic opera Iolanthe which goes:

“…every boy and every girl, that’s born into this world alive,

Is either a little liberal, or else a little conservative….”

Recent research has shown that Gilbert’s lyrics are prescient. We are born either liberal or else conservative in our choices (including our voting patterns and our choice of leaders), our behavior and our beliefs. In all likelihood, our positions on ethical issues are baked in as well.

The third driver towards a more “conservative” leader is fear. When people are afraid, they turn to a strong leader (usually but not necessarily male) for protection. Such leaders remain in power by inventing or creating crises. This is true in corporate governance (“imperial” CEOs for instance) or in politics (DT and Orban are prime examples, who both use the same playbook).

At the moment, people have a lot of real things to be afraid of. AI will eventually eviscerate most occupations, the international situation has prompted scientists behind the doomsday clock to move the hands to 90 seconds to midnight (midnight signaling global Armageddon), the world seems to be moving into a Dark Age of authoritarian regimes, our attempts at halting climate change have manifestly failed, more rogue states may soon have the bomb.

On the other hand, maybe they won’t.