Why We Keep Choosing Strongmen as Leaders: A Global Experiment Reveals an Evolutionary Secret

– by Lasse Laustsen & Mark van Vugt

Across the globe and throughout history, people have repeatedly turned to dominant, authoritarian leaders—figures like Julius Caesar, Vladimir Putin, and Donald Trump. While democracy advocates may scratch their heads, evolutionary psychology offers a compelling explanation: during times of intergroup conflict—war, terrorism, or intense rivalry—our ancestral instincts kick in, prompting us to prefer tough, dominant personalities to lead us.

In our recent study, published in Evolution and Human Behavior, we put this theory to a rigorous global test. Partnering with a diverse group of researchers from 25 countries, we gathered data from over 5,000 individuals to explore whether the preference for dominant leaders spikes when intergroup conflict is perceived.

Our Study

Participants from a wide range of cultures and political contexts were presented with hypothetical scenarios involving war, peace, or neutral conditions. Afterward, they selected preferred leaders from pairs of faces subtly manipulated to appear more or less dominant. The results were clear and consistent across cultures: participants exposed to war scenarios significantly preferred more dominant-looking leaders. Importantly, we didn’t stop there. We also assessed participants’ explicit preferences for leader traits, revealing that during conflicts, dominance traits—like toughness, strength, and assertiveness—were prioritized over warmth and even competence.

Why Does Conflict Favor Dominance?

This finding aligns closely with an evolutionary perspective of leadership. Human survival historically depended heavily on group cohesion and effective defense against rival groups. A dominant leader would have likely been more effective in rallying a rapid, coordinated response against external threats, thus increasing a group’s chances of survival. Our ancestors, therefore, evolved psychological mechanisms attuned to selecting dominance when facing danger. In the modern world, however, such instincts may misfire—an evolutionary mismatch. While dominant leaders appear advantageous in ancestral intertribal conflicts, they often bring problematic governance and strained international relations today.

Dominance: A Universal Preference?

One might wonder whether these preferences were culturally determined or universally innate. Our comprehensive dataset—encompassing affluent democracies, developing nations, Western and non-Western societies—supports universality. Even with educational and economic diversity between the sampled countries, the conflict-driven preference for dominance was remarkably consistent. This suggests an innate basis for our leadership psychology that transcends cultural boundaries.

Individual Differences Also Matter

Beyond situational contexts, individual psychological traits also play a role. People predisposed to seeing the world as dangerous or hierarchical—those higher in authoritarianism or social dominance orientation—consistently showed stronger preferences for dominant leadership. This indicates how deeply ingrained psychological worldviews reinforce these leadership preferences, suggesting that dominant leaders may actively exploit or amplify threats to maintain power.

Implications for Modern Politics

Our findings have some implications for contemporary politics and international relations. Recognizing the evolutionary underpinnings of leader preferences can explain why, during crises, voters often choose leaders who exude strength and dominance—even if those leaders might not be optimal for democratic governance or long-term peace. Moreover, politicians themselves might strategically use this psychology by heightening public awareness of threats—real or perceived—to solidify their power base. Recent examples abound: Putin’s rhetoric around Western hostility or Trump’s campaign messages emphasizing global dangers illustrate how leaders can exploit evolutionary preferences.

Takeaway

Understanding our evolutionary psychology provides powerful insights into political behavior. Our study emphasizes the need for awareness: when conflict looms, our ancestral brains may push us towards dominant leaders, sometimes against our better democratic judgment. By recognizing this bias, societies can better guard against manipulative leadership tactics and consciously strive for balanced, cooperative and compassionate leadership—even amidst challenges and uncertainties.

Read the original article (here): Laustsen, L., Sheng, X., Ahmad, M. G., Al-Shawaf, L., Banai, B., Banai, I. P., … & Van Vugt, M. (2025). Cross-cultural evidence that intergroup conflict heightens preferences for dominant leaders: A 25-country study. Evolution and human behavior, 46(3), 106674.