Simplistic thinking and rejecting democracy: Scientists find “strikingly” strong link

People who want to uphold the current political system and people who want to tear it down may have more in common than it seems. A new study published in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences provides evidence that antidemocratic attitudes are not tied to one single ideology. Instead, a broad range of psychological tendencies, beliefs, and thinking styles — from authoritarianism and social dominance to distrust in elites and chaotic thinking — were linked to support for ideas that go against liberal democratic principles. These effects were especially strong when individuals viewed the political system as illegitimate.

Democracy is often taken for granted in established societies. Yet recent reports have highlighted a steady decline in support for democratic institutions across the world. Scholars have pointed to authoritarian leaders, political extremism, polarization, and misinformation as potential threats. Despite a growing body of research, findings have remained scattered across different theories and approaches.

The research team aimed to bring together these threads. Their goal was to identify whether a wide range of ideological worldviews — both those supporting the current system and those opposing it — were associated with antidemocratic attitudes. The researchers also explored how other factors, such as black-and-white thinking and misperceptions about political opponents, might help explain why some people support actions that weaken democracy.

“Despite growing concern about the erosion of democratic values worldwide, we do not have a solid understanding of the psychological underpinnings of antidemocratic attitudes,” said study author Artur Nilsson, a professor of psychology at the University of Bergen and Linköping University.

“Although many studies have examined specific psychological factors linked to antidemocratic attitudes—such as authoritarianism, political animosity, and societal discontent—this research remains fragmented. To address this gap, the present study set out to bring together and compare the most influential explanations, offering a more unified understanding of why people might turn against principles of liberal democracy (e.g., free elections, free speech, or political equality).”

Free daily newsletter

The researchers surveyed 824 adults in the United Kingdom. Participants answered questions covering a wide range of beliefs, attitudes, and psychological tendencies. These included their views on democracy, openness to new information, trust in political institutions, support for violence, and how they viewed people from different political and social groups.

The study drew from two key models of measuring antidemocratic views. One measured general support for democratic principles like free speech and universal suffrage. The other broke these attitudes into four more specific areas: support for free and fair elections, support for censorship, support for political violence, and willingness to deny rights to certain groups.

The researchers categorized participants’ worldviews into three broad types. The first was system-justifying, which included a preference for maintaining the status quo, such as authoritarianism and social dominance. The second was system-challenging, marked by beliefs that the system is corrupt or illegitimate and should be overthrown. This included a desire for chaos and hostility toward the wealthy and powerful. The third category involved ways of thinking that were not tied to either defending or attacking the system. These included simplistic, black-and-white reasoning, conspiratorial beliefs, and misperceptions about political opponents.

Overall, individuals with strong system-justifying or system-challenging worldviews tended to express more support for antidemocratic ideas. For instance, people with authoritarian leanings were more likely to support censorship, while those with a desire for chaos were more willing to endorse political violence.

These associations remained strong even when accounting for other psychological traits and demographic factors. Notably, people who lacked what the researchers called “actively open-minded thinking” — a tendency to consider opposing viewpoints and revise beliefs based on evidence — were more likely to oppose core democratic principles, especially free elections. This thinking style turned out to be one of the most consistent predictors of antidemocratic attitudes.

Misperceptions about political opponents also played a role. People who wrongly believed that their political rivals supported antidemocratic actions were themselves more likely to endorse such views. This effect was distinct from general hostility toward political outgroups and appeared to shape attitudes toward political violence in particular.

Interestingly, some predictors stood out more depending on the specific kind of antidemocratic belief being measured. For example, support for discrimination was most closely tied to beliefs about social dominance, while support for political violence was more strongly associated with a desire for chaos and hostility toward the elite. Support for censorship was linked to authoritarian views and submission to authority. Meanwhile, opposition to democratic elections was most strongly predicted by simplistic reasoning and a lack of open-mindedness.

“A concern with rationally updating beliefs in light of new information—so called ‘actively open- minded thinking’—is known to protect people from falling for misinformation,” Nilsson told PsyPost. “In our study, it also strongly predicted lower levels of antidemocratic attitudes, particularly regarding free elections.”

“Strikingly, it outperformed nearly all other predictors drawn from research on extremism, authoritarianism, and democratic values. These findings suggest that attitudes to knowledge and misinformation play an underappreciated role in shaping antidemocratic tendencies in today’s world. By contrast, some more established predictors, such as narcissism and apocalyptic beliefs, showed no unique association with antidemocratic attitudes after accounting for other predictors.

Another important finding was that people were more likely to support antidemocratic views if they believed the democratic system itself was illegitimate. For example, individuals who felt that democracy was a sham or that elites secretly controlled the country were more likely to endorse violence, censorship, or undermining elections. This sense of illegitimacy appeared to explain why both authoritarian and anti-elite individuals adopted similar antidemocratic views, despite having opposing ideological orientations.

“There is no single ideological worldview explaining antidemocratic attitudes,” Nilsson explained. “Both individuals who seek to defend existing authorities and social hierarchies and those who harbor hostility toward elites and a desire to disrupt established systems were more likely to oppose principles of liberal democracy. In addition, simplistic and irrational thinking styles, as well as misperceptions of antidemocratic attitudes among political opponents, were among the most robust predictors of antidemocratic attitudes.”

The authors caution that the study was cross-sectional. This means it cannot show whether particular beliefs or traits cause people to adopt antidemocratic views. It also cannot determine whether antidemocratic attitudes might shape people’s ideological outlooks in return.

“It is too early to draw conclusions about the causal impact of ideological worldviews on antidemocratic attitudes,” Nilsson noted. “Further research is needed to develop an understanding of the causal processes through which antidemocratic attitudes evolve over time.”

Another limitation is that the study focused on a single country. While the United Kingdom offers a valuable context, findings might look different in countries with weaker democratic institutions or more intense political conflict. The researchers suggest that future studies should compare different national contexts to understand how local political conditions might influence these psychological patterns.

The researchers plan to build on this work with a study that tracks participants over time. “The next step is to complete a recently launched longitudinal study that will follow participants over the course of 1.5 years,” Nilsson said. “This will allow us to examine the causal interplay between antidemocratic attitudes and ideological worldviews, susceptibility to misinformation, maladaptive personality traits, cognitive dispositions, and life events. Our goal is to better understand how and why people become drawn to antidemocratic ideas.”

The study, “The Dark Side of Ideology: Ideological Worldviews and Antidemocratic Attitudes,” was authored by Artur Nilsson and Ali Teymoori.