Childhood experiences can predict leadership preferences in adulthood, according to new research published in the journal Personality and Individual Differences. The findings indicate that people who experience greater adversity in childhood are less likely to invest in social relationships, which in turn is associated with endorsing dominant leaders.
“The current topic is driven by a puzzle in our society: what drives popular political support for dominant, authoritarian leaders even in peaceful times in modern society?” said study author Nan Zhu, a postdoctoral fellow at the University of Macau
“We already know that the patterns of political support and voting behaviors varies systematically across demographics. This make me think that the popular support enjoyed by dominant rulers like Adolf Hitler or Vladimir Putin might reflect ‘adaptive’ responses within a socio-political reaction norm, which is sensitive to ecological and social conditions. Similar mechanisms might function within smaller entities such as corporations, organizations, and families. This research project, therefore, seeks to identify the ecological correlates and social pathways to individuals’ preference for dominant leaders.”
For their study, the researchers surveyed 898 Chinese adults regarding their current economic conditions and the economic conditions they experienced in childhood. The participants also completed the Arizona Life History Battery, an assessment of life history strategy.
The participants then read four different scenarios depicting a dominant candidate and a prestigious candidate competing for leadership roles and asked them to indicate who they preferred. The dominant candidates were described as aggressive, assertive, and intimidating, while the prestigious candidates were described as cooperative, knowledgeable, and agreeable.
The researchers found that participants who experienced worse economic conditions in childhood tended to also report receiving less support from friends and family as children, which in turn was associated with a preference for dominant leaders. This was true even after controlling for their current economic conditions and other factors.
To replicate and extend their findings, the researchers conducted a second study with 1,233 Chinese adults, which included another measure of childhood resource insecurity as well as a checklist of negative life events. They also collected data regarding political attitudes, along with intellectual and social investment.
Consistent with their previous results, Zhu and his colleagues found that childhood adversity was linked to a preference for dominant leaders through reduced social investment. That is, those who experienced greater childhood resource insecurity and negative life events were more likely to disagree with statements such as “I am emotionally attached to my family and my friends, such that their happiness is also my happiness.” Participants who disagreed with such statements, in turn, tended to prefer dominant leaders over prestigious leaders.
“We can regard leadership preference as an individual-difference trait, and that this trait is part of a developmentally plastic ‘strategy’ shaped by early experiences and individuals’ investment in social network,” Zhu told PsyPost. “Imagine two leadership styles co-existing in our society: dominant leaders are those that exert power through intimidation and coercion and achieve their status via the fear and conformity of the followers.”
“The benefits of dominant leaders are that they reduce in-group conflicts and protects followers from the exploits of deviants and defectors (and the followers do not need to do anything beyond conformity). Prestigious leaders are those that exert influence through information sharing or prosocial contributions and achieve their status via freely conferred deference among the followers. To benefit more from prestigious leaders, the followers must build up and engage in long-term relationships with them.”
“We found out that people who experienced resource insecurity or other adversity during childhood tend to be less willing to invest in social relationships, which renders them more reliant on the protection of dominant leaders but, at the same time, less likely to benefit from prestigious leaders,” Zhu said.
The findings are in line with a previous study, which found that greater early childhood harshness was associated with a preference for authoritarian leadership in adulthood. But it is still unclear whether childhood conditions cause lasting changes in leadership preferences.
“It is important to note that these findings are correlational,” Zhu explained. “We do not argue that childhood adversity or lack of relational investment are the ’causes’ behind preferences for dominant leaders. Moreover, because our measures of childhood adversity are retrospective in nature, longitudinal studies are needed to confirm these findings.”
“It is worth noting that the participants of these two studies are from China, which has both authoritarian and prestigious traditions with regard to leadership,” Zhu added. “Although the political system in the Chinese society is characterized by an authoritarian one-party system, the Confucian cultural norm about ideal leadership, which is still prevalent among the Chinese people, is very much in line with the prestige-based leadership style.”
“The highly diverse society of contemporary China (in terms of socioeconomic status and socio-political ideologies) also provides an incisive test of our hypotheses. Still, it would be interesting to try to replicate our findings in other societies, especially in equally diverse societies with a fully democratic political system.”
The study, “Life-history calibration of social hierarchies: Childhood adversity predicts leadership preference through relational social investment“, was authored by Nan Zhu, Bin Bin Chen, Hui Jing Lu, and Lei Chang.
