Recent analyses of political division often point to familiar culprits: deepening partisan loyalties, ideological echo chambers, and the rampant spread of misinformation. While these factors are significant, a growing body of research in psychology and political science suggests they are symptoms of a deeper phenomenon.
Across dozens of countries, scientists are uncovering the psychological mechanisms that drive political behavior, from affective polarization to the appeal of authoritarianism.
This emerging field reveals how personality traits, emotional responses to threat, and fundamental needs for social identity are shaping our political landscape. By examining the psychological roots of political hostility and democratic erosion, this new science offers a more fundamental explanation for why persuasion feels increasingly impossible and why societies are growing more divided.
The following 13 summaries from recent scientific literature offer a cross-section of this emerging research.
1. Politics is Becoming the Core of American Social Identity
In today’s America, political identity isn’t just about voting—it’s shaping who we want as friends, neighbors, and even in-laws. A study published in Political Psychology found that partisanship now overrides nearly all other social identities—including race, religion, and education level—when people evaluate others. Using a national survey, researchers showed participants profiles of hypothetical individuals and asked them to judge how much they liked each one, or whether they’d want to live near them or have them as family. Political affiliation was the strongest predictor of these social preferences, with people consistently favoring those who shared their party and expressing dislike for those who didn’t.
More strikingly, out-group hostility often outweighed in-group warmth—people disliked the other side more than they liked their own. Even when profiles defied party stereotypes, like a Black Republican or an atheist Democrat, participants still judged them mainly through their political lens. And while religion and race did influence ratings, especially among Republicans, political party was still the most powerful factor overall. This suggests that polarization in the U.S. has seeped far beyond the ballot box into the very fabric of social life, shaping not just political views but how people interact in their communities.
2. Democracy May Be Good for Your Personality
A study published in Scientific Reports found that people living in democratic societies tend to score higher on benevolent personality traits like empathy, kindness, and belief in human goodness. These so-called “light triad” traits were more common in democracies, while authoritarian nations saw higher levels of manipulative, narcissistic, and callous traits—known collectively as the “dark triad.” The study, which included data from nearly 250,000 people in 75 countries, suggests that political systems may be connected to the psychological makeup of citizens, with democratic environments encouraging prosocial behavior and emotional well-being.
What’s more, people with higher light-triad traits also reported greater life satisfaction, hinting at a feedback loop between democracy, personality, and happiness. Even after controlling for income, education, and religious experience, the trend held strong: the more democratic the country, the kinder and more trusting its people tended to be. The researchers acknowledged that causality isn’t certain—benevolent people may help build democratic societies, or democratic conditions might shape people’s personalities. But the implications are unsettling in light of global democratic backsliding: as democracies erode, people may become more distrustful and antagonistic, paving the way for more authoritarian norms.
3. When Voters Idolize Dark Leaders, Polarization Grows
Not all political leaders are admired for their integrity or humility. In fact, when voters support leaders with narcissistic, manipulative, or callous traits, their emotional hostility toward the opposing side tends to deepen. A new study published in the European Journal of Political Research found that voters who feel ideologically close to “dark” political candidates—those scoring high in Machiavellianism, psychopathy, or narcissism—were more likely to express stronger affective polarization. The effect wasn’t caused by dislike of the opposition, but rather by an emotional attachment to their own combative leader.
The researchers found this pattern across 34,000 voters in 40 national elections, covering leaders like Trump, Bolsonaro, and Macron. Crucially, only in-party admiration mattered—voters didn’t become more polarized simply because they disliked dark-spirited opponents. This suggests that strong emotional bonds to dominant or deceptive leaders may not just reflect existing polarization, but actually amplify it. Whether voters are drawn to these traits or shaped by them is still unclear, but the cycle is ominous: dark personalities at the top may be feeding political radicalization from the bottom up.
4. Narcissists Fuel Political Extremes—On Both Sides
Personality may shape more of our politics than we think. A study in Political Behavior found that narcissism—especially the antagonistic, entitled variety—is strongly linked to affective polarization. People high in narcissistic traits weren’t just more loyal to their political group; they were also more hostile toward the opposing side. This pattern held across traditional party lines and newer political identities like Brexit stances. Those with higher scores in “rivalry narcissism” were especially likely to express emotional attachment to their group and contempt for outsiders.
Interestingly, the researchers found that the hostility wasn’t just about admiration for one’s side—it was mostly driven by negativity toward the outgroup. Narcissistic individuals were more prone to see criticism of their political group as a personal attack and were quick to devalue opponents. Even after accounting for the Big Five personality traits, narcissism stood out as a strong predictor of political animosity. These findings suggest that emotional needs for superiority and recognition may be fueling partisan identity in ways that go beyond ideology or party loyalty.
5. Support for Strong Leaders Isn’t Just a Right-Wing Thing
Support for authoritarian-style leaders is often seen as a right-wing trait, but new research in Psychological Science complicates that picture. Across six studies, researchers found that ethnic minorities—regardless of political ideology—were more likely than White left-leaning individuals to support strong, rule-breaking leaders. This wasn’t because of ideology, but because of generalized trust: groups with lower trust in others were more open to leaders who promised order and control, even at the expense of democratic norms.
This helps explain why some minority voters have gravitated toward dominant political figures like Donald Trump, despite his divisive rhetoric. It also suggests that feelings of vulnerability and social threat may shape leadership preferences more than traditional political labels. Experiments showed that when trust in others was experimentally increased, support for strong leaders declined—especially among minority participants. These findings challenge the idea that support for authoritarianism is driven purely by conservatism and highlight how lived experiences of trust and exclusion can influence political choices.
6. Feeling Politically Excluded Makes People Angrier—and More Hostile
New research published in the Journal of Applied Social Psychology suggests that political exclusion—being ignored or rejected because of your political beliefs—can fuel anger, emotional withdrawal, and even online hostility. In two studies using a virtual ball-tossing game called Cyberball, researchers simulated political rejection among young adults. When participants were excluded by others who disagreed with them politically, they reported feeling psychologically threatened, angry, and less willing to interact with people from the opposing side. In some cases, exclusion even increased intentions to insult or threaten opponents on social media.
Interestingly, exclusion from one’s own political group also triggered psychological discomfort, and sometimes even led participants to feel warmer toward the other side. But the dominant effect was clear: being shut out because of political identity increases emotional distress and polarizing behavior. The study suggests that affective polarization may not just stem from ideological conflict, but from social dynamics that mimic bullying or rejection. When political differences become grounds for exclusion, people may dig in deeper—not necessarily because of policy, but because of pain.
7. Traumatized Childhoods May Shape Narcissistic Leaders
A study published in Frontiers in Psychology offers a striking psychological comparison between Adolf Hitler, Vladimir Putin, and Donald Trump. By analyzing historical and biographical records, the author argues that all three leaders share a pattern of childhood trauma, authoritarian father figures, and emotionally indulgent mothers. These early dynamics may have laid the groundwork for the development of pathological narcissism—an inflated sense of self rooted in emotional insecurity. Rather than stemming from ideology alone, their leadership styles may reflect deep psychological compensation for childhood distress.
Each leader experienced different forms of psychological adversity: Hitler and Putin were “replacement children” born after the deaths of siblings and raised by harsh fathers, while Trump was sent to military school at a young age—an event he interpreted as rejection. The study cautions that while these patterns don’t explain every aspect of their political behavior, they may help account for the grandiosity, aggression, and lack of empathy seen in their public personas. While limited by its interpretive nature, the research adds a provocative layer to our understanding of authoritarian leadership—one rooted in early emotional wounds.
8. What You See in a Candidate May Depend on What You Believe About Authority
In polarized politics, voters often project personality traits onto candidates based on their own values—and that includes seeing opponents as mentally unfit. A study in Europe’s Journal of Psychology found that perceptions of psychopathy in political candidates—traits like callousness or deceit—are shaped by voters’ authoritarian beliefs. In two studies conducted after the 2016 U.S. election and again in 2020, participants consistently rated the opposing candidate (Trump or Clinton) as more psychopathic, especially if they scored high in authoritarianism.
This partisan mirror effect was surprisingly stable across time, and it wasn’t based on accurate psychological assessments—just belief and perception. Clinton voters tended to see Trump as far more psychopathic, while Trump voters viewed Clinton similarly. But those who held authoritarian values were more likely to believe their own candidate was psychologically sound and the opponent was dangerously unstable. These findings suggest that mental health perceptions in politics are filtered through ideology, not psychiatric knowledge. The result is a kind of psychological warfare, where traits like cruelty or instability become tools for political judgment.
9. Around the World, Conflict Sparks Support for Strongmen
In one of the largest cross-cultural studies of its kind, researchers from 25 countries found that people are more likely to support dominant, authoritarian leaders when they perceive intergroup conflict or national threat. Published in Evolution and Human Behavior, the study included over 5,000 participants and tested whether scenarios involving war or peace affected leadership preferences. In conflict situations, people were more likely to prefer leaders who appeared physically dominant, aggressive, or forceful. This preference showed up across cultures—from the United States and China to Kenya and Russia.
The findings support the idea that humans have an evolved tendency to turn toward strong leadership during times of danger. It’s a psychological reflex that may have helped early humans survive tribal warfare—but in modern democracies, it can lead to a cycle of escalating authoritarianism. Once dominant leaders are elected in response to perceived threats, they may amplify those threats to maintain power. The study suggests this cycle is not unique to any one country—it’s a global pattern, deeply embedded in human psychology.
10. Feeling Like Society Is Falling Apart Makes Authoritarianism More Appealing
A study in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology offers new evidence that perceptions of social breakdown can directly increase support for authoritarian rule. When people feel that moral norms are eroding, institutions are ineffective, and society is falling into chaos—a condition known as anomie—they begin to feel politically powerless. This lack of control then leads to political uncertainty, creating fertile ground for authoritarianism. The researchers tested this pathway using both large-scale survey data and a series of controlled experiments.
The results show that the link between societal disorder and authoritarianism isn’t random—it’s a psychological chain reaction. When people feel they no longer understand or influence politics, they become more likely to favor a “strong leader” who promises clarity and control, even if it means bypassing democratic principles. The study adds a layer of psychological depth to political instability: authoritarianism may rise not just because of fear or ideology, but because people crave order in the face of perceived collapse. In times of uncertainty, control can start to look more attractive than freedom.
11. Across 59 Nations, Threat Sparks Authoritarian Support—Especially on the Right
A global study published in the Journal of Personality found that people in 59 countries are more likely to support authoritarian forms of government when they feel threatened by crime, poverty, or political unrest. Drawing on data from nearly 85,000 participants, the study confirmed that this psychological response is consistent across cultures: threat increases the appeal of strong, controlling leadership. Although the effect was seen on both the political left and right, it was significantly stronger among conservatives.
The researchers argue that while left-leaning individuals may also turn toward authoritarian attitudes under threat, conservatives tend to do so more predictably. This aligns with previous studies showing that right-leaning individuals are more sensitive to threat cues. Yet the global consistency of the trend is what stands out: whether in Sweden or South Africa, perceived danger pushes people to favor authoritarian rule. It’s a reminder that the desire for security—even at the cost of civil liberties—may be a universal feature of human psychology.
12. Certain Narcissistic Traits Predict Anti-Immigrant Views
Not all narcissists think the same. A study published in Behavioral Sciences found that people high in antagonistic narcissism—those who are hostile, entitled, and competitive—are more likely to hold negative attitudes toward immigrants. This connection is driven in part by how they view the world: as a ruthless competition where others are threats rather than allies. These individuals also tend to endorse authoritarian and dominance-based ideologies, which reinforce exclusionary beliefs.
Interestingly, not all forms of narcissism showed this pattern. Neurotic narcissists—those who are insecure and anxious—were actually less likely to endorse anti-immigrant views. Extraverted narcissists, who crave attention but are not necessarily hostile, showed a more indirect relationship. Across three studies in the U.S. and Israel, the researchers found that narcissism intersects with worldview: those who see society as a competitive jungle are more likely to favor policies that punish or exclude outsiders. Personality, in this case, becomes a lens through which people interpret politics and identity.
13. Democrats Show More Partisan Dislike—But for Moral Reasons
A multi-method study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology found that Democrats in the United States tend to express more dislike toward Republicans than vice versa. Across seven studies—including Twitter experiments, hiring scenarios, and controlled surveys—researchers found that Democrats were more likely to reject or block Republican users, rate them lower in hypothetical workplace evaluations, and express stronger moral condemnation. The driving force wasn’t just disagreement, but the belief that Republicans pose harm to disadvantaged groups.
This perception of moral threat—particularly on issues like race and immigration—appears to fuel Democrats’ emotional intensity. When a Republican individual supported diversity or anti-racism causes, Democratic participants showed less animosity. But when they didn’t, the moral condemnation returned. The findings challenge the idea that partisan dislike is symmetric. At least in this moment in history, Democrats’ stronger aversion is rooted in moral concerns. Still, the researchers caution that moralization can cut both ways—and may fuel cycles of dehumanization across party lines.
