Perceived social breakdown fuels desire for authoritarian leaders, new psychology study shows

When people perceive society as falling apart, they may become more receptive to authoritarian leaders—those who promise order, control, and certainty. That’s the conclusion of a new study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, which provides the first causal evidence linking the perception of societal breakdown, or “anomie,” to support for authoritarianism. According to the researchers, this link is explained by a sequential process: anomie leads people to feel politically powerless, which then creates political uncertainty—ultimately increasing the appeal of authoritarian rule.

The study aimed to address several unresolved questions in the existing literature on political psychology. While many prior studies had shown that people who perceive society as chaotic are more likely to support authoritarianism, the evidence had been correlational. It was unclear whether anomie truly caused increased support for authoritarianism or whether other psychological factors were responsible. It was also unclear how anomie exerted its influence—whether through feelings of powerlessness, uncertainty, or both.

Anomie is the perception that a society’s norms, values, and leadership are breaking down. People experiencing anomie often feel that social order is disintegrating, moral standards are unclear, and institutions are ineffective or illegitimate. This sense of societal instability can create feelings of alienation and disconnection.

To investigate these questions, the researchers began by reviewing prior theories and debates. Sociologists and psychologists have long suggested that anomie, defined as the perception that society’s moral fabric and leadership structures are disintegrating, can lead individuals to seek strong, controlling authorities. Some have argued that this happens because people feel politically ineffective; others have emphasized the role of confusion and unpredictability in politics. The new study sought to test whether both of these processes work together—and whether one leads to the other.

The researchers proposed a sequential model. According to their hypothesis, anomie leads to a perceived lack of political control. This repeated feeling of powerlessness then causes political uncertainty—a sense that politics no longer makes sense or is too chaotic to understand. People then turn to authoritarianism, which promises clarity, order, and strong leadership. To test this model, the researchers conducted a multi-part investigation combining large-scale survey data and controlled experiments.

In their first study, the researchers analyzed data from the 2006 German General Social Survey, which included responses from a representative sample of 1,504 adults. Participants answered questions measuring perceived anomie, feelings of political control, political uncertainty, and support for authoritarianism. The study included demographic controls for age, gender, education, income, and political orientation.

The survey data supported the researchers’ proposed model. People who perceived higher levels of anomie also reported lower levels of political control and greater political uncertainty. In turn, these feelings were associated with stronger support for authoritarian values. A statistical analysis confirmed a small but significant indirect pathway from anomie to authoritarianism that passed through political powerlessness and uncertainty. Notably, there was no significant direct link between anomie and authoritarianism once the mediators were taken into account—suggesting that these psychological states explain the relationship.

However, as the survey data were correlational, the researchers could not make definitive claims about causality. To address this, they conducted three preregistered experiments with a combined sample of 846 participants from the United States. Each experiment focused on testing a specific link in the proposed causal chain.

In the first experiment, participants were randomly assigned to read one of three vignettes describing a possible future United States. In the high-anomie condition, the text described a society with eroding moral values, ineffective leaders, and declining social cohesion. In the low-anomie condition, society was portrayed as cooperative, cohesive, and governed by competent leaders. A third group read a neutral vignette about architecture. Afterward, participants completed measures of political control and support for authoritarianism.

Participants exposed to the high-anomie condition reported significantly greater feelings of political powerlessness and stronger support for authoritarianism. These results provided causal evidence that perceptions of societal breakdown can trigger both outcomes.

The second experiment tested the next step in the sequence. Here, participants were randomly assigned to read vignettes designed to evoke either a high or low sense of political control. Those in the high-control condition imagined a society in which ordinary people had influence over government actions; those in the low-control condition were asked to imagine having no influence. Results showed that those in the low-control group experienced significantly more political uncertainty, lending support to the idea that lack of control leads to a confused, unstable view of the political landscape.

The third experiment focused on the final link—testing whether political uncertainty would increase support for authoritarianism. Participants read vignettes designed to induce high or low political uncertainty, then completed the authoritarianism scale. As expected, participants in the high-uncertainty group were more likely to express support for a “strong leader” who might bypass democratic principles.

Together, these three experiments supported the proposed sequential model: anomie causes people to feel politically powerless, which increases uncertainty, which then heightens the appeal of authoritarianism. Alternative models, including parallel mediation and reverse causality, were tested but did not fit the data as well.

The study has some limitations. All the data came from Western countries, raising questions about whether the findings apply globally. In addition, while the experiments show that one pathway from anomie to authoritarianism runs through political control and uncertainty, other routes may exist. People’s backgrounds, values, and exposure to political messaging likely play roles as well.

Future research could explore whether economic stress, media exposure, or group-based identity threats initiate similar pathways. Researchers might also investigate how democratic resilience can be cultivated in societies experiencing high levels of anomie. The findings also invite questions about how political leaders themselves might use uncertainty or perceived breakdowns to foster support.

The study, “When Lack of Control Leads to Uncertainty: Explaining the Effect of Anomie on Support for Authoritarianism,” was authored by Jasper Neerdaels, Ali Teymoori, Christian Tröster, and Niels Van Quaquebeke.