People with strong left-wing authoritarian beliefs are less likely to support physically strong men as leaders, while conservatives are more likely to prefer them—especially conservative men. These findings, published in Personality and Individual Differences, suggest that our political values shape how we judge others’ leadership potential based on physical appearance.
Throughout history, physical strength has served as a signal of dominance and leadership ability, particularly among men. Stronger men may have been more successful in acquiring resources or enforcing group norms. These traits, while less directly relevant in modern society, still appear to shape how people think about leadership. This study aimed to explore whether people’s political beliefs influence their preferences for leaders based on their physical formidability, especially upper body strength.
Previous research shows that conservatives are more likely to prefer dominant-looking leaders. One reason for this may be an evolutionary tendency to favor strong group members who can enforce hierarchies or defend against threats. In contrast, people with more liberal views—especially those who value equality and oppose rigid hierarchies—may prefer leaders who signal cooperation rather than dominance. This idea is especially relevant to the emerging concept of left-wing authoritarianism, which, like its right-wing counterpart, favors strong social control but in pursuit of progressive goals.
“I have been broadly interested in understanding the interplay between politics and physical strength for years based on discussions of how men’s relative bargaining power may shape their interest in social policies that may or may not favor their preferred resource acquisition strategies,” explained study author Mitch Brown, an instructor of psychological science at University of Arkansas and director of the Social Perception and Human Evolution Research Lab.
“Namely, physical strength is associated with an interest in conservative politics ostensibly based on strong men’s ability to win in competitions that could lead them to favor social rules that emphasize such strategies. I managed to start considering this association from the perspective how politics interplay with social perception and how evolved processes may shape how people perceive evolutionarily relevant features; perceivers stereotype strong men as more conservative.”
“With a growing interest in understanding authoritarianism across the political spectrum, I was interested in understanding whether left-wing authoritarianism may lead to an opposition to strong men whom they view as having interests in social policies that do not align with a socially rigid equalitarian orientation.”
For their study, the researchers recruited 310 undergraduate students from a university in the southeastern United States. The majority were White women, with an average age of about 19. Participants were asked to rate a series of images depicting men with either strong or weak upper body builds. These images came from a standardized set in which the same male faces were paired with either a strong or weak body to isolate the effect of muscularity.
Participants rated each image on how physically strong the person appeared, how politically conservative they seemed, and how likely they would be to vote for that person if he were running for president. They also completed a questionnaire measuring their own political orientation and their endorsement of left-wing authoritarianism. This included agreement with statements supporting aggressive anti-hierarchy actions, rejection of traditional social norms, and support for censorship of opposing views. (For example, “The rich should be stripped of their belongings and status,” “The ‘old-fashioned ways’ and ‘old-fashioned values’ need to be abolished,” and “I should have the right not to be exposed to offensive views.”)
As expected, participants perceived stronger men as more conservative and were more likely to support them as leaders than weaker men. However, political ideology shaped these preferences. Participants who scored high in left-wing authoritarianism were less likely to prefer strong men as leaders. In contrast, more conservative participants were more likely to support strong men—especially if they themselves were men.
The study found no significant sex difference in the relationship between left-wing authoritarianism and leadership preferences. Both men and women with higher left-wing authoritarian beliefs tended to reject physically strong men as potential leaders. This supports the idea that people with strong anti-hierarchy views may view physically dominant individuals as symbolic of the social structures they want to dismantle.
In contrast, sex did play a role in how conservatism influenced preferences. Conservative men were especially likely to prefer strong men as leaders, compared to conservative women. This finding may reflect men’s stronger identification with traditionally masculine traits like physical strength or their perception of strong men as reliable allies in competitive environments. While conservative women also preferred strong leaders, the effect was less pronounced—possibly because women may be more aware of the risks posed by physical dominance, particularly in mixed-gender settings.
“Left-wing authoritarians report disinterest in physically strong men as leaders, an aversion that happens across both sexes,” Brown told PsyPost. “Conversely, conservatism is associated with an interest in strong men as leaders; this preference is stronger for men than it is for women. These preferences could be based on inferences of strong men’s political orientation and through expectations of how they would navigate resource acquisition and status hierarchies, which would not align with the preferred strategies of left-wing authoritarians who are themselves opposed to traditional status hierarchies in favor of their own rigid social structures.”
These findings suggest that judgments about leadership reflect deeper assumptions about what physical traits signal about a person’s values and likely behavior. People may infer, often unconsciously, that strong men favor competition, hierarchy, and dominance—traits associated with political conservatism. For those who support these values, physical strength may be a positive signal. For those who reject them, it may be a warning sign.
The study also raises questions about how perceptions of physical formidability intersect with broader political dynamics. If people consistently associate physical dominance with certain ideologies, this could influence real-world voting behavior or how leaders choose to present themselves. For instance, politicians might emphasize or downplay physical traits depending on their audience’s ideological leanings.
Despite the strengths of the study, there are some limitations to keep in mind. The sample consisted mostly of young White college students in the United States, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. Political beliefs and physical appearance cues may be interpreted differently in other cultural contexts or age groups.
“These preferences are likely based in stereotypes,” Brown noted. “We have no information about the actual political orientation of the men they viewed, limiting our ability to understand whether these inferences are based on accurate assessments. It is also important to remember that these effects are based in the U.S. context. Left-wing authoritarianism may manifest differently in other countries.”
Future research could explore whether these patterns hold up in more ecologically valid settings, such as political debates or social media profiles, where people have access to additional cues beyond physical appearance. Researchers could also investigate whether similar patterns exist for female leaders or for other traits, such as vocal tone or facial expressions, that may signal dominance.
“My long-terms goals are to understand a literal body politic,” Brown explained. “I intend to identify the morphological and physical underpinnings of authoritarian personalities on the left and right and whether perceivers can accurately assess one’s authoritarianism through thin slices of information.”
“This research is not designed to disparage one political party or another. In fact, I am using this moment to demonstrate that politics are largely self-interested for the perceiver, and that preferences are oftentimes rooted in what could best serve a person in the moment.”
The study, “Heightened left-wing authoritarianism is associated with greater aversion to physical strength in male status allocation,” was authored by Mitch Brown and Donald F. Sacco.
