A blind spot for dominance? Why liberals underestimate dominant leaders more than conservatives

Abstract

The success of dominance‐oriented leaders often evokes surprise and dismay. We offer a psychological explanation beyond partisan reasoning, positing a systematic tendency among liberals to underestimate the appeal and efficacy of such leaders compared with conservatives. Drawing on moral foundations theory, we propose that liberals' heightened emphasis on harm avoidance and fairness explains their reduced liking for dominance‐oriented leaders, and that this reduced likability helps explain why they underestimate these leaders' prospects of success more than conservatives do. We test our predictions across multiple studies, including both political and organizational contexts, demonstrating that political liberals consistently perceive dominance‐oriented leaders as less likely to succeed than conservatives do—even when the leader's political affiliation is irrelevant, unknown, or aligned with their own. We conclude our investigation by suggesting that these diminished expectations from liberals might paradoxically enhance the success trajectories of dominant leaders.