Authoritarianism

Abstract

It has been demonstrated empirically and theoretically that threat is a primary contributor to the increased manifestations of the authoritarian personality. However, most conceptualizations of authoritarianism have failed to explore how these manifestations may have an adaptive value in the face of threat. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to employ the theories of evolutionary psychology in an attempt to provide a comprehensive explanation of authoritarianism. Attention is given to specific psychological mechanisms, such as coalition formation and social exchange, that when utilized by the authoritarian individual under conditions of threat, demonstrate adaptive value. Furthermore, a comprehensive explanation of authoritarianism is offered that encompasses variables related to authoritarianism, its association with a fundamental need to belong, and its larger philosophical relationship to Nietzsche's `will to power.'

1. Introduction

“…Fog (1997), Navarrete, Kurzban, Fessler and Kirkpatrick (2004), van Vugt (2006), Hastings and Shaffer (2008), Kessler and Cohrs (2008), Glowacki and von Rueden (2015) 6 Bowles and Gintis (2011), Nowak (2006) 7 Thayer (2004) 8 Crofoot and Wrangham (2010), Lehmann and Feldman (2008), Thayer (2004) 9 Tooby andCosmides (1988, 2010) 10 Boyd, Gintis, Bowles and Richerson (2003) 11 Glowacki and Wrangham (2013) 10 Warlike and Peaceful Societies spoils and to mate with captured women from the losing group, 13 and cultural group selection. 14 It is a common characteristic of these proposed mechanisms that the effects are relatively weak, and perhaps too weak to compensate for the extremely high fitness costs of fighting.…”

8. Statistical Testing of Regality Theory

“…Several mechanisms have been proposed to explain the phenomenon called parochial altruism-the fact that people are willing to fight for their social group despite the fitness costs. 6 The most important evolutionary explanations that have previously been proposed include kin selection, 7 group selection, 8 reciprocal selection, 9 altruistic punishment, 10 prestige, 11 sexual selection (women are attracted to brave warriors), 12 the opportunity of successful warriors to profit from the 4 Hastings and Shaffer (2008), Jugert and Duckitt (2009), Ladd (2007) 5 Fog (1997, Navarrete, Kurzban, Fessler and Kirkpatrick (2004), van Vugt (2006), Hastings and Shaffer (2008), Kessler and Cohrs (2008), Glowacki and von Rueden (2015) 6 Bowles and Gintis (2011), Nowak (2006) 7 Thayer (2004) 8 Crofoot and Wrangham (2010), Lehmann and Feldman (2008), Thayer (2004) 9 Tooby and Cosmides (1988, 2010) 10 Boyd, Gintis, Bowles and Richerson (2003) 11 Glowacki and Wrangham (2013) 10 Warlike and Peaceful Societies spoils and to mate with captured women from the losing group, 13 and cultural group selection. 14 It is a common characteristic of these proposed mechanisms that the effects are relatively weak, and perhaps too weak to compensate for the extremely high fitness costs of fighting.…”

Empirical problems with the notion of “Big Gods” and of prosociality in large societies

“…One scenario for achieving the levels of cooperation and prosociality needed to stabilize larger populations (or growing ones) suggests the emergence of an authority figure. Heightened environmental threat, such as that encountered among pastoralists, has been shown empirically to be a primary contributor to the manifestation of the authoritarian personality and the social psychology that engenders coalitions, cooperation, and religiosity (Hastings & Shaffer, 2008). Even among fiercely independent horticulturalists or complex foragers, one individual often stands out as more influential than the others and will assume leadership.…”