Photograph by Nathaniel St. Clair

Note: The authors and contributors to this statement had initially envisioned that it would be published as an official statement from the Society for the Study of Peace, Conflict, and Violence — Division 48 of the American Psychological Association (APA). However, APA’s policies and concerns over IRS regulations prohibited its publication in that form, and it does not represent the official positions or policies of Division 48 or the APA. We thank CounterPunch for providing us with the opportunity to share our analysis and call to action here.

Contributors to this statement include Rehman Adbulrehman, Elliot Benjamin, Alaina Brenick, Sara Buckingham, Sarah Constantine, Donna Demanarig, Judy Iwens Eidelson, Judith Gulko, Ian Hansen, Monica Indart, Emily Lutringer, Sodah Minty, Tiffany O’Shaughnessy, Michele Ribeiro, Stephen Soldz, Karen Suyemoto, and several others who prefer to remain anonymous.

Psychology as a discipline, and the American Psychological Association as the world’s largest organization of psychologists, has a core commitment to advancing human welfare through scientific rigor and ethical practice. APA’s mission is to promote “psychological science and knowledge to benefit society and improve lives.”[1] Similarly, APA’s ethics code states:

Psychologists are committed to increasing scientific and professional knowledge of behavior and people’s understanding of themselves and others and to the use of such knowledge to improve the condition of individuals, organizations, and society. Psychologists respect and protect civil and human rights and the central importance of freedom of inquiry and expression in research, teaching, and publication. They strive to help the public in developing informed judgments and choices concerning human behavior.[2]

While acknowledging the profession’s past shortcomings in achieving these goals, today we bring this sense of responsibility and resolve to a moment of profound political and moral consequence here in the United States. We write to share our professional knowledge, so that our colleagues and the public gain a better understanding of the deeply disturbing psychological dimensions of authoritarianism. Its dangerous and destructive repercussions are now unfolding daily throughout this country, threatening the well-being — and the very survival — of individuals, communities, and the foundations of our democratic form of governance.

We are not writing in support of any political party or candidate. Indeed, we recognize that both major political parties have fallen woefully short in establishing and nurturing a society where prosperity, justice, and equal opportunity prevail for all. At the same time, it is clear to us that anti-democratic pressures have now escalated significantly under the Trump administration, and we worry that the gravity of the current situation is not receiving the attention it deserves — from the public or from our profession.

Guided by our ethical and scientific commitments and by our duty to oppose forces that dehumanize, divide, and destroy, we believe that we must not be silent at this time. Authoritarianism thrives on fear, disinformation, and the suppression of truth. Peace psychology compels us to name these threats and to work toward systems grounded in justice, empathy, and democratic participation.

What follows is an overview of what we know about authoritarianism, its psychological underpinnings, its current manifestations, and the urgent need to confront the harm that has already been done and to curtail the suffering that still lies ahead.[3] We are not claiming that the psychological phenomena we describe are unique to authoritarianism, nor are we suggesting that authoritarianism is distinguished only by its psychology. We are well aware that a full understanding of authoritarianism requires contributions from many disciplines, including political science, sociology, economics, and history, among others.

What Is Authoritarianism?

Authoritarianism describes a form of government where executive power is supreme; where independent civil society organizations are constrained and surveilled so as to reduce their willingness to challenge the state; where dissent is suppressed; where vulnerable communities are scapegoated; where elections, if held, are corrupted; where misinformation and disinformation are promoted; and where violence is often incited against opponents and “undesirable” communities.[4]

Beginning with the rise of fascism in Nazi Germany almost a century ago, psychologists have made crucial contributions to the study of authoritarianism.[5] They have found that authoritarian leaders often gain their power and influence by stoking and preying upon the public’s fears and insecurities, even devising newly-imagined threats and then confidently offering “solutions” that are promised to restore safety and order. Research by psychologists has also increased our understanding of authoritarian followers. They tend to see the world as a dangerous place and, as a result, they are strongly inclined to support and obey authority figures, to act aggressively against anyone who violates their group’s norms, and to deeply value what they see as tradition and convention. These dynamics stifle openness to difference and discourage the freedom of thought and expression that allow people and communities to thrive. Of greatest concern, psychologists have found that authoritarian leaders and followers tend to endorse anti-democratic policies; to support violence for achieving political aims; to hold prejudiced views toward minority groups and immigrants; and to support violations of human rights.[6]

We believe there is a range of psychological phenomena that become a source of significantly greater concern when authoritarian conditions prevail — as they increasingly do today.[7] Here, we briefly describe six of them, along with a partial list of current distressing examples. It is our hope that readers will appreciate the insights gained from psychological research and will take meaningful action to prevent and mitigate the risks that authoritarianism poses to us all.

Propaganda

Through decades of research, psychologists have learned that persuasion efforts often follow either of two paths.[8]One route encourages us to carefully look at the facts and think through the arguments presented before deciding what makes sense. But it is the other route that is most frequently used by authoritarian leaders. They intentionally tap into our strong emotions, aiming to make us fearful, angry, or optimistic. By arousing our emotions, they lead us to ignore the actual quality of the arguments or “evidence” they are presenting. Under these circumstances, we become more susceptible to believing false or inaccurate information, which may be designed to mislead us.[9] This is especially so when we are repeatedly exposed to that “information.” The use of propaganda has long been widespread, and it is certainly not new. However, it becomes potentially more dangerous when authoritarian leaders simultaneously suppress alternative sources of information.

In the current context, President Trump and members of his administration have routinely spread misinformation — on issues ranging from immigration to vaccines to climate change to election fraud and far beyond — triggering fear and outrage among ardent supporters and other members of the public.[10] Often, these statements have vilified political adversaries. For example, Trump himself has described opposition leaders as “crazed,” “cheatin’ dogs,” “the enemy from within,” and “kamikaze pilots,” and he has claimed “they hate our country.”[11] His press secretary has said that the Democratic Party is made up of “Hamas terrorists, illegal aliens, and violent criminals.”[12] And a deputy chief of staff has described the opposition party as a “domestic extremist organization” that is “devoted exclusively to the defense of hardened criminals, gangbangers, and illegal alien killers and terrorists.”[13] These instances illustrate the purpose that often lies behind the use of propaganda by authoritarian leaders: to inflame emotion, distort reality, and erode the shared trust on which democracy depends. In short, they are not the type of pronouncements one sees from political leaders who are committed to principles of democratic governance.

Conformity and Obedience

Psychologists have intensively studied conformity and obedience since shortly after World War II and the horrors committed by Nazi Germany.[14] Their research findings have shown that we are often motivated to conform so as not to lose a sense of belonging to a group, and to avoid the insecurity that might follow. At the same time, we often choose to obey so as not to be disrespectful to those in positions of power and due to concerns about possible retribution. These everyday inclinations, driven in part by fear or the need for security, transcend specific political environments. But they are likely to carry heightened influence and consequence when the stakes of non-compliance and disobedience intensify and widen, as is the case under authoritarian regimes.

Consider several contemporary examples. With support from adherents to his “Make America Great Again” agenda, President Trump has regularly taken steps to instill fear in both his allies and his adversaries, warning followers not to step out of line and demonstrating to rivals that there is a heavy price to pay for defying him. For example, politicians in his party who fail to conform face the prospect of primary challengers more aligned with the president and the heightened risk of losing their seats in the next election cycle.

© CounterPunch