The psychology of state punishment and the case for a behavioral approach to authoritarianism

There are so many rules to follow–not just implicit social norms, but explicit, codified rules. Rules, and their enforcement by third parties, are theorized to facilitate and maintain complex human societies, helping humans to cooperate, and maintain positive social order. Yet, rules, especially those codified and enforced by institutions, make possible the use of official (e.g., state-sponsored) punishment to satisfy other aims, including domination. For example, using a mix of behavioral and survey (N= 1,833), and municipal data (21,400,433 311 calls to NYC’s 311 service), we find that people enforce official rules according to their own personal and group-based punishment motivations. Moreover, in a modified Dictator Game (N= 1,193), we find that 40% of people will pay a small sum to add rules to the game which they admit will not change other players’ behavior–a tendency correlated with trait levels of authoritarianism. Indeed, I will argue that the use of state rules and state punishment in certain ways–particularly to satisfy idiosyncratic punishment motives, to enforce societal homogeneity, and to consolidate power–are authoritarian behaviors. This behavioral definition of authoritarianism makes possible a larger behavioral approach to studying authoritarianism, agnostic to personality or ideology, in which particular mental states and situations interact to make this misuse of state rules and state punishment more or less likely. In sum, I will make the case for a behavioral approach to understanding authoritarianism.

Contributions to and/or sponsorship of any event does not constitute departmental or institutional endorsement of the specific program, speakers, or views presented.