The Psychology of Legitimacy - Why Some People Accept Hierarchy and Others Resist It

Legitimacy is not just a political or economic construct - it is deeply psychological. The way people perceive power, authority, and fairness is shaped by cognitive biases, moral intuitions, and social conditioning. Some people instinctively accept hierarchy-based legitimacy as natural and necessary, while others are drawn to fairness-based legitimacy as a moral imperative.

Understanding the psychology behind these differences helps explain why legitimacy battles are so intractable - and why persuasion alone is often ineffective at shifting people’s deeply held beliefs.

Moral Foundations Theory: Why Liberals and Conservatives See Legitimacy Differently

Jonathan Haidt’s Moral Foundations Theory¹ suggests that people’s political and legitimacy beliefs are rooted in different moral intuitions.

Liberals prioritize fairness and harm avoidance: They believe legitimacy should be earned through justice, accountability, and consent.
Conservatives prioritize loyalty, authority, and purity: They believe legitimacy should be based on tradition, hierarchy, and stability.

This explains why:

Progressives see wealth inequality as illegitimate, while conservatives see wealth as a reward for hard work.
Progressives see gender as socially constructed, while conservatives see gender roles as a moral order.
Progressives see government as a tool for fairness, while conservatives see government as a potential threat to natural hierarchies.

People’s moral foundations shape their legitimacy preferences, often in ways that are deeply emotional and resistant to logic-based persuasion.

Jim Sidanius and Felicia Pratto’s Social Dominance Theory² explains why some people naturally gravitate toward hierarchy-based legitimacy.

People with high Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) believe that society should have strong hierarchies, with dominant groups controlling power.
People with low SDO believe in egalitarianism, fairness, and shared power.

Studies show that people with high SDO tend to:

Support authoritarian leaders who enforce hierarchies.
Oppose progressive movements that threaten traditional power structures.
Believe that inequality is natural, inevitable, and even desirable.

This explains why Trump’s rhetoric about “strong leaders,” “law and order,” and “making America great again” resonates with those who see legitimacy as hierarchical.

System Justification Theory: Why People Defend Unjust Systems

John Jost’s System Justification Theory³ shows that people do not just accept hierarchy-based legitimacy - they actively defend it, even when it harms them.

People prefer stability over change → Even those harmed by an unjust system may defend it because change feels risky and uncertain.
People rationalize inequality → If fairness-based legitimacy challenges the existing system, people will distort reality to justify the status quo.
People conform to dominant narratives → When power structures define what is legitimate, many people internalize those beliefs without question.

This is why:

Low-income conservatives vote against social programs that could help them - because they have been conditioned to see those programs as illegitimate.
Women sometimes defend patriarchal structures - because they have been socialized to believe in gender hierarchy-based legitimacy.
Marginalized groups may oppose fairness-based policies - because they have been taught that those policies are “special treatment” rather than justice.

The psychological need for stability can make fairness-based legitimacy feel threatening, even to those who would benefit from it.

How These Psychological Forces Shape the Legitimacy War

These psychological tendencies help explain why the legitimacy war is so deeply entrenched:

Hierarchy-based legitimacy is psychologically appealing: It provides a sense of order, stability, and meaning.
Fairness-based legitimacy requires people to challenge the status quo: This is cognitively and emotionally difficult for many people.
Legitimacy is reinforced through socialization: People raised in hierarchy-based legitimacy cultures will often defend those hierarchies instinctively.

This is why rational arguments alone rarely shift legitimacy beliefs - because people’s attachment to legitimacy frameworks is emotional, not just logical.

Breaking the Legitimacy Cycle: How Fairness-Based Legitimacy Can Win

Reframe Fairness as Strength, Not Weakness
- Many people associate hierarchy with strength and fairness with fragility.
- Fairness-based legitimacy must be framed as a powerful, necessary force for stability and justice.
Make Hierarchy-Based Legitimacy’s Failures Visible
- People justify hierarchies because they seem natural and effective.
- Showing how hierarchical systems breed corruption, exploitation, and instability can weaken their appeal.
Use Identity & Community to Shift Legitimacy Perceptions
- People do not change their legitimacy beliefs through facts alone.
- Social belonging - being part of a fairness-based legitimacy movement - is often the most powerful force for change.

The Future of the Legitimacy War

The psychology of legitimacy explains why:

Trumpism and authoritarianism thrive on hierarchy-based legitimacy.
Progressive movements struggle to persuade those who instinctively reject fairness-based legitimacy.
Legitimacy battles are deeply emotional and identity-based, not just political.

Winning the legitimacy war will require more than facts - it will require shifting how people emotionally and psychologically perceive power, fairness, and justice.

The Legitimacy War