Kang Muslim
The landscape of modern governance is currently facing a period of significant transition as established democracies grapple with the rising appeal of illiberalism. A comprehensive new study published in the American Journal of Political Science provides a data-driven explanation for this phenomenon, suggesting that support for authoritarian leaders is not merely a product of individual conviction or economic hardship, but is a socially "contagious" sentiment that spreads through peer interaction. By examining how individuals adjust their political preferences based on the social climate around them, researchers have identified a powerful mechanism of social influence that can either erode or reinforce democratic stability.
For decades, political scientists have sought to understand why citizens in stable democracies would suddenly favor "strongman" rule—governance characterized by a leader’s willingness to bypass traditional checks and balances, such as parliamentary oversight and regular elections. Traditional theories have largely focused on macro-level structural conditions, such as rising economic inequality, the pressures of globalization, or deep-seated cultural anxieties. Other psychological frameworks have suggested that authoritarian leanings are rooted in fixed personality traits or early childhood socialization, implying that an individual’s political temperament is relatively static throughout their adult life.
However, the team of researchers—comprising Sirianne Dahlum, Torbjørn Hanson, Åshild Johnsen, Andreas Kotsadam, and Alexander Wuttke—proposed a different hypothesis. They suggested that political preferences regarding democratic norms are fluid and highly responsive to the immediate social environment. To test this theory, they utilized a combination of field experiments in the Norwegian military and large-scale surveys across 29 different countries, uncovering a consistent pattern of "social contagion" in political attitudes.
The Norwegian Military Field Experiment: A Controlled Social Environment
The centerpiece of the research was an eight-week field experiment conducted in collaboration with the Norwegian Armed Forces. This setting provided a rare "natural laboratory" for studying social influence because it allowed the researchers to bypass the "sorting" problem that usually plagues social science. In the real world, people tend to choose friends and communities who already share their views, making it impossible to tell if a group thinks alike because they influenced each other or because they were similar to begin with.
In the Norwegian military, however, recruits are randomly assigned to rooms. This randomization ensured that each recruit was exposed to a specific social micro-climate—some surrounded by peers who valued democratic norms, others by peers who favored strongman leadership—entirely by chance. The study involved more than 1,300 recruits who were surveyed on their first day of basic training to establish a baseline of their political views.
The recruits were asked to respond to a specific, high-stakes statement: "It is important to have a strong leader who gets things done, even if that means bypassing parliament and elections." This question is a standard metric used by political scientists to measure "anti-pluralist" or authoritarian leanings. After eight weeks of living, eating, and training in close quarters with their randomly assigned roommates, the recruits were surveyed again.
Data Analysis: The Convergence of Political Attitudes
The results of the military study were statistically significant and revealed a clear trend of convergence. Recruits who were randomly placed in rooms where their peers had higher-than-average support for authoritarian leadership showed a measurable increase in their own support for such rule by the end of the two-month period. Conversely, those placed in rooms with peers who strongly favored democratic processes became more anti-authoritarian.
This "symmetric effect" suggests that social influence is a two-way street. It can pull individuals toward illiberalism, but it can also pull them back toward democratic resilience depending on the prevailing winds of their social circle. The researchers found that the shift was not limited to those who were already "on the fence." Even participants who entered the camp with a strong commitment to democratic rules were influenced by the presence of authoritarian-leaning roommates.
Andreas Kotsadam, a senior researcher at the Ragnar Frisch Centre for Economic Research and a co-author of the study, noted that the intensity of the boot camp environment likely accelerated these shifts. However, the core finding remained: humans are social learners who look to those around them to calibrate what is considered "acceptable" or "desirable" in political leadership.
Information as a Catalyst: The Survey Experiments
To determine whether this effect required physical, face-to-face interaction or could be triggered by mere information, the researchers conducted a second set of experiments embedded within surveys. These experiments were designed to test how people react when they are told what "the majority" or "the minority" of their peers believe.
In one iteration, military recruits were given factually accurate but differently framed summaries of their peers’ views. One group was told that authoritarianism was somewhat popular among their cohort, while another was told it was unpopular. Upon hearing that authoritarian views were common, participants were more likely to report higher levels of support for such views themselves.
To ensure these findings were not unique to young military recruits—a demographic often considered more impressionable—the researchers replicated the experiment with a representative sample of 1,500 Norwegian citizens and a massive cross-national sample of 25,000 respondents from 29 countries. Across all demographics and cultural contexts, the results were consistent: when people believe that authoritarianism is gaining traction among their fellow citizens, their own personal resistance to it tends to weaken.
Historical Context and Theoretical Shifts
This study marks a departure from the "Authoritarian Personality" theory popularized by Theodor Adorno and others in the post-World War II era. Adorno’s work suggested that certain individuals possessed a psychological predisposition toward fascism and obedience to authority. While modern psychology still acknowledges the role of personality, the Kotsadam study suggests that "authoritarianism" might be better understood as a social behavior rather than a fixed character trait.
The findings also add a layer of complexity to the "Economic Grievance" narrative. While inflation, unemployment, and stagnant wages certainly create fertile ground for populism, the social contagion model suggests that these factors only lead to widespread authoritarian support when they are mediated through social networks. If a community collectively decides that a "strongman" is the solution to economic woes, the sentiment can cascade through that community regardless of whether every individual initially agreed with the premise.
Implications for Democratic Stability and Policy
The implications of this research for modern democracies are profound. In an era of social media algorithms that create digital echo chambers, the risk of "authoritarian cascades" is heightened. If individuals are predominantly exposed to peers who express disdain for democratic institutions, the "contagion" can spread rapidly across digital networks, creating a false sense of consensus that further pulls moderates toward the extremes.
However, the study also offers a roadmap for democratic resilience. If support for authoritarianism is socially driven, then the visible defense of democratic norms by peers, influencers, and community leaders can act as a "social vaccine."
Kotsadam emphasized that making support for democratic principles visible is essential. "The stability of democracy depends not only on what citizens privately believe, but also on what they think their fellow citizens believe," he stated. When democratic norms are treated as the standard and the "majority view," social influence serves to protect institutions rather than undermine them.
Future Research and Unanswered Questions
While the study provides robust evidence for the existence of social contagion, the researchers are careful to note that the exact psychological mechanisms remain a subject for future inquiry. It is not yet clear whether the shift in attitudes represents true "persuasion"—where an individual changes their mind because they have learned new facts—or "conformity," where an individual changes their stated view to fit in with the group.
Additionally, the longevity of these attitude shifts is unknown. The researchers are interested in determining whether the recruits’ views remained altered months or years after leaving the military environment, or if they reverted to their baseline once removed from the social pressure of the boot camp.
Future studies may also look at the role of "opinion leaders." Does the contagion spread more effectively when it comes from a high-status individual within a social group? Understanding these dynamics will be crucial for policymakers and civil society organizations aiming to combat the global trend of democratic backsliding.
Conclusion: The Social Fabric of Politics
The research by Dahlum, Kotsadam, and their colleagues suggests that the health of a democracy is inextricably linked to the social fabric of its citizenry. Rather than being a collection of isolated individuals with fixed beliefs, a democracy is a dynamic system where attitudes are constantly being negotiated and mirrored.
As authoritarian movements continue to gain ground in various parts of the world, this study highlights that the battle for the future of governance will not just be fought at the ballot box or in the halls of parliament, but in the everyday interactions of citizens. By recognizing the power of social influence, proponents of democracy can better understand how to foster environments where pluralism and the rule of law remain the prevailing social norm.
