![[Adobe Stock]](https://sp-ao.shortpixel.ai/client/to_webp,q_glossy,ret_img,w_750,h_375/https://www.psypost.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/military-dictator-750x375.jpg)
A new study published in the journal Politics and the Life Sciences sheds light on how the way people come to trust or mistrust information can influence their political views and the kinds of leaders they find appealing. Although a person’s general trust in communicated knowledge—what psychologists call “epistemic trust”—does not directly predict whom they would vote for, it is linked to political ideology and dogmatic thinking, which are themselves related to preferences for authoritarian-looking leaders.
“In recent years, we’ve seen a troubling decline in trust toward major institutions like political leaders, the media, and science. This loss of trust has serious consequences, as shown during the COVID-19 pandemic, when people’s political beliefs often influenced whether they followed scientific advice,” said study author Mariana von Mohr, a researcher at Royal Holloway, University of London, and at the Centre for the Politics of Feelings.
“We were interested in how people’s ability to trust information from others—something called epistemic trust, which develops early in life—might shape the kind of political leaders they prefer. Specifically, we wanted to understand whether lower epistemic trust makes people more resistant to different viewpoints and more drawn to strong, dominant leaders who offer certainty and clear-cut answers.”
To investigate this, the researchers recruited 1,096 participants, with roughly equal numbers from the United Kingdom and the United States. The participants were selected to be representative of their national populations in terms of age, sex, and ethnicity. They completed several online tasks and questionnaires.
One of the primary tools in the study was the Epistemic Trust, Mistrust, and Credulity Questionnaire. This measure captures three different ways people relate to communicated information: epistemic trust (the belief that others provide useful, relevant, and reliable knowledge), epistemic mistrust (a default suspicion toward information from others), and epistemic credulity (an overly accepting stance, regardless of source reliability). These traits are thought to stem from early social experiences, such as attachment relationships with caregivers.
The questionnaire includes statements that reflect these three stances toward information. For example, a person with high epistemic trust might agree with the statement, “I usually ask people for advice when I have a personal problem,” showing a willingness to rely on others for guidance. Someone with high epistemic mistrust might relate more to, “I’d prefer to find things out for myself on the internet rather than asking people for information,” reflecting a tendency to avoid relying on others. Meanwhile, a person high in epistemic credulity might endorse, “I am often considered naïve because I believe almost anything that people tell me,” suggesting a lack of discrimination in evaluating information sources.
To assess political preferences in a more behavior-based way, participants completed a leader choice task. On each trial, they saw a pair of computer-generated, gender-neutral faces that varied in perceived dominance and trustworthiness. These facial traits were chosen because they are thought to trigger deep-rooted social evaluations. Participants were asked which person they would prefer to vote for, allowing the researchers to measure each individual’s likelihood of choosing leaders with more authoritarian features (dominant and less trustworthy faces).
The researchers then analyzed the data using two statistical approaches. The first was a structural equation model, which allowed them to test a theory about how different psychological traits might be linked. The second was a network analysis, which explored the relationships between all the measured variables without imposing any assumed structure.
The results of both analyses showed that epistemic trust did not directly predict preferences for authoritarian-looking leaders. However, people who scored higher on epistemic trust tended to be more politically liberal and less dogmatic in their thinking. In contrast, people who were more epistemically mistrustful or credulous tended to be more dogmatic. Dogmatism, in turn, was associated with more conservative ideology and a greater preference for authoritarian-looking leaders.
In other words, epistemic trust influenced political choices indirectly, through its connection to political ideology and dogmatic thinking. The findings support the idea that our willingness or unwillingness to accept communicated knowledge—shaped early in life—can influence the cognitive styles and belief systems we carry into adulthood, including how rigid or flexible we are in our thinking and how we relate to political leaders.
One of the most striking findings from the network analysis was that epistemic trust, political ideology, and leader choice were not directly connected to one another except through their shared relationship with dogmatism. Dogmatism appeared as a central node in the network, acting as a bridge between trust-related traits and political behavior. This suggests that rigid or closed-minded thinking may be a key mechanism linking developmental dispositions, such as epistemic mistrust, to political preferences.
“Our research shows that when people struggle to trust the knowledge and intentions of others, they tend to become more dogmatic, holding tightly to their beliefs even when faced with evidence that challenges them,” von Mohr told PsyPost. “This kind of thinking can make strong, uncompromising political leaders more appealing.”
“It’s important for people to realize that their ability to trust others affects how open they are to different perspectives, which in turn shapes their political choices. Creating early social environments that encourage trust and openness to new information may help people stay more flexible in their thinking and make more thoughtful political decisions.”
The researchers also found some differences between the U.K. and U.S. samples. In the U.S., epistemic mistrust and credulity were linked more strongly to political trust, and political trust was positively associated with political ideology—meaning that liberals were more likely to trust politicians. In the U.K., by contrast, political trust was lower among liberals, likely reflecting dissatisfaction with the conservative government in power at the time. These differences underscore how national political context can shape the expression of more general psychological traits.
But the study, like all research, includes some caveats.
“One important limitation is that our study is based on correlations, meaning we can’t say for sure that one thing causes another,” von Mohr noted. “We found links between low trust, dogmatic thinking, and support for certain political leaders, but we can’t prove the direction of these relationships. That said, we looked at them in an order that makes sense based on what we know from psychology: epistemic trust tends to form early in life, while dogmatism and political beliefs usually develop later. So although we can’t make strong claims about cause and effect, our interpretation fits with how these traits are generally understood to unfold over time.”
Despite these limitations, the study offers valuable insights into the psychological roots of political behavior. It suggests that developmental factors that shape our general trust in communicated knowledge are related to the way we think about politics, how dogmatic or open we are in our beliefs, and even the kinds of leaders we are drawn to. In particular, it highlights dogmatism as a potential pathway through which early dispositions may lead to political preferences, including a tendency to support authoritarian leaders.
“One important takeaway is that epistemic trust, while shaped early in life, isn’t set in stone,” von Mohr added. “People can become more open to others’ perspectives over time, especially if they’re in environments that support respectful dialogue and critical thinking. This is especially relevant today, when mistrust and political polarisation seem to be growing. We hope our study encourages further work on how to rebuild trust in ways that support more open-minded and engaged communities.”
The study, “A leader I can(not) trust: Understanding the path from epistemic trust to political leader choices via dogmatism,” was authored by Mariana von Mohr, Kobi Hackenburg, Michal Tanzer, Aikaterini Fotopoulou, Chloe Campbell, and Manos Tsakiris.
