Authoritarianism and Perceived Threat: Old Question, New Data

Autocratic regimes have recently been gaining power around the world, often via democratic elections and the mobilization of popular support. Autocracy, it appears, appeals to many people. The psychology of this appeal—explaining what drives those people who support such regimes around the world—is thus of urgent interest to social scientists.

One such psychological explanation resides in the concept of authoritarianism, described initially in the 1950s by German philosopher Theodor Adorno and his colleagues, psychologists Else Frenkel-Brunswik, Daniel Levinson, and Nevitt Sanford, in an effort to explain the popular appeal of fascism.

Authoritarianism is defined as a personality disposition marked by unquestioning obedience and respect for authority at the expense of personal autonomy, a preference for order and tradition, hostility toward out-groups, and a desire to punish those who violate cherished in-group norms and values.

Authoritarianism carries heavy implications in the life of individuals and nations. Research has linked authoritarianism to heightened nationalistic, religious, militaristic, and conservative attitudes. Authoritarian individuals are less likely to support democratic rule. Psychologists have therefore been interested in the factors that may undergird this disposition, as well as other questions such as whether its origins reside in childhood experiences, and whether it is inherently maladaptive.

One agreement that has emerged early is that authoritarian tendencies are linked in some way to fear and the perception of threat. Yet questions remain about what kind of threat predicts authoritarianism—real or symbolic? Moreover, much of the research on the concept has been carried out in WEIRD cultures (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic). Do these findings generalize? In addition, authoritarianism has thus far been studied primarily as a right-wing phenomenon, yet recent evidence has raised the possibility that authoritarian tendencies may at times characterize politically left-leaning individuals as well.

A new study (2025) by Lucian Conway III of Grove City College in Pennsylvania sought to address some of these questions. The study—the largest cross-cultural project ever undertaken to examine this issue— analyzed survey data from 84,677 participants across 59 nations, comparing scales related to authoritarianism and the perception of threat. Specifically, researchers were interested in five categories of threat:

• Personal/Family Threat was gleaned from items asking participants about actual threats they experienced within the last 12 months (e.g., “In the last 12 months, how often have you or your family: Gone without enough food to eat?”).
• Neighborhood Threat was measured with items that asked about the actual frequencies of real threats in their neighborhood (“How frequently do the following things occur in your neighborhood: Robberies?”).
• Political Threat was assessed by asking participants questions about their country's elections (“How often in [your] country's elections: Opposition candidates are prevented from running?”).
• Threat Concern was measured by asking participants how much they personally were worried about various threatening outcomes in their lives, such as losing their job or not finding a job.
• Cumulative Threat examined all the above combined.

In addition, participants completed a measure of their endorsement of autocratic vs. democratic governance, as well as measures of political ideology (left or right wing; moderate or extreme), and general demographics (age, sex, etc.).

Results revealed that all the above threat variables predicted support for autocracy. Such support was “largely unaffected by political ideology and ideological extremity.” Further analysis revealed some nuance in the data. For example, the threat–autocracy support link was larger on average in WEIRD countries. Moreover, while threat consistently predicted autocracy support for both right- and left-leaning participants, the effects were somewhat stronger on the right side of the political spectrum.

The literature on the link between authoritarianism and threat has long distinguished between realistic threats (to a group’s power, resources, or well-being) and symbolic threats (to the group’s values, identity, or way of life). While the study did not include an evaluation of symbolic threats, results showed that worry over direct, realistic threats was indeed a powerful predictor of authoritarianism.

The study is not without limitations. For one, in the absence of longitudinal data and experimental design controls, the study is unable to establish that the link between threat and authoritarianism is causal. Yet several insights can be drawn from the results. First, a (realistic) threat-authoritarianism link is found across many different cultures, political ideologies, and demographic factors. Second, the link is stronger for right-leaning persons and in WEIRD countries, such as the U.S.

Leadership Essential Reads

The Meaning Deficit at Work

Are You Playful?

"If you see the camel's nose under the tent, the hump is not far behind," goes the old Bedouin saying. If people on the political right are feeling threatened (say by demographic, technological, and societal changes), the growing appeal of autocracy is not far behind.