Transgressive Leadership and Public Support: A Socio-Legal and Social Psychological Analysis of Norm Violations in Leadership
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61166/ld.v2i3.51Keywords:
pemimpin transgresif, penilaian moral, pelanggaran norma, dominasi, psikologi politikAbstract
This article aims to analyze the sociology of law and psychological mechanisms underlying the appeal of transgressive leaders, namely leaders who violate norms of fairness, honesty, and propriety but may nevertheless gain public support under certain conditions. It also identifies conceptual implications for addressing such appeal. This study employs a library research method using a descriptive qualitative approach, content analysis, and narrative synthesis of literature in social and political psychology. The primary conceptual source is Van Kleef’s (2025) framework, supplemented by empirical studies on moral judgment, norm violations, power perception, dominance, conflict, threat, and leadership. The findings indicate that the appeal of transgressive leaders can be understood through three interrelated mechanisms. First, moral judgment is contextual and influenced by group identity, interests, and the goals of observers. Second, norm violations can, under certain conditions, be perceived as signals of power and dominance, particularly when such violations are perceived to benefit a particular group. Third, perceptions of threat and conflict can increase preferences for dominant leaders. Based on these mechanisms, moral condemnation alone has limitations in addressing the appeal of transgressive leaders. Conceptually, relevant approaches include evaluating claims of benefits based on evidence, critically examining threat narratives, and distinguishing leadership firmness from norm violations. This study highlights the importance of understanding support for transgressive leaders as the result of an interaction between morality, interests, perceptions of power, and threat contexts, rather than simply as a reflection of low public moral awareness.
References
Adinugroho, I. (2016). Demokrasi, kepemimpinan, dan psikologi moral. Buletin Psikologi, 24(2), 76–86. https://doi.org/10.22146/buletinpsikologi.18067
Bøggild, T., & Laustsen, L. (2016). An intra-group perspective on leader preferences: Different risks of exploitation shape preferences for leader facial dominance. The Leadership Quarterly, 27(6), 820–837. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2016.09.003
Bocian, K., & Wojciszke, B. (2014). Self-interest bias in moral judgments of others’ actions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(7), 898–909. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167214529800
Graham, J., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(5), 1029–1046. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015141
Laustsen, L., & Petersen, M. B. (2017). Perceived conflict and leader dominance: Individual and contextual factors behind preferences for dominant leaders. Political Psychology, 38(6), 1083–1101. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12403
Laustsen, L., Sheng, X., Ahmad, M. G., Al-Shawaf, L., Banai, B., Banai, I. P., & van Vugt, M. (2025). Cross-cultural evidence that intergroup conflict heightens preferences for dominant leaders: A 25-country study. Evolution and Human Behavior, 46(3), Article 106674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2025.106674
Melnikoff, D. E., & Bailey, A. H. (2018). Preferences for moral vs. immoral traits in others are conditional. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(3), E592–E600. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1714945115
Petersen, M. B., & Laustsen, L. (2020). Dominant leaders and the political psychology of followership. Current Opinion in Psychology, 33, 136–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.07.005
Popa, M., Phillips, B. J., & Robertson, C. (2014). Positive outcomes of social norm transgressions. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 13(5), 351–363. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.1483
Stamkou, E., Homan, A. C., & Van Kleef, G. A. (2020). Climbing the ladder or falling from grace? A threat-opportunity framework of the effects of norm violations on social rank. Current Opinion in Psychology, 33, 74–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.07.012
Stamkou, E., Van Kleef, G. A., Homan, A. C., & Galinsky, A. D. (2016). How norm violations shape social hierarchies: Those who stand on top block norm violators from rising up. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 19(5), 608–629. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430216641305
Stamkou, E., Van Kleef, G. A., Homan, A. C., Gelfand, M. J., van de Vijver, F. J. R., van Egmond, M. C., Boer, D., Phiri, N., Ayub, N., Kinias, Z., Cantarero, K., Efrat-Treister, D., Figueiredo, A., Hashimoto, H., Hofmann, E. B., Lima, R. P., & Lee, I.-C. (2019). Cultural collectivism and tightness moderate responses to norm violators: Effects on power perception, moral emotions, and leader support. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 45(6), 947–964. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167218802832
Stenner, K. (2005). The authoritarian dynamic. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511614712
Travaglino, G. A., Abrams, D., Randsley de Moura, G., & Yetkili, O. (2016). Fewer but better: Proportionate size of the group affects evaluation of transgressive leaders. British Journal of Social Psychology, 55(2), 318–336. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12125
Van Kleef, G. A. (2025). Understanding (and counteracting) the appeal of transgressive leaders. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 29(6), 495–498. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2025.04.006
Van Kleef, G. A., Homan, A. C., Finkenauer, C., Blaker, N. M., & Heerdink, M. W. (2012). Prosocial norm violations fuel power affordance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(4), 937–942. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.02.022
Van Kleef, G. A., Homan, A. C., Finkenauer, C., Gündemir, S., & Stamkou, E. (2011). Breaking the rules to rise to power: How norm violators gain power in the eyes of others. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2(5), 500–507. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550611398416
Van Kleef, G. A., Homan, A. C., Stamkou, E., Karinen, A. K., & Gelfand, M. J. (2026). Social consequences of counternormative behavior: The violation appraisal response (VAR) model. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Advance online publication.
Van Kleef, G. A., Wanders, F., Stamkou, E., & Homan, A. C. (2015). The social dynamics of breaking the rules: Antecedents and consequences of norm-violating behavior. Current Opinion in Psychology, 6, 25–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.03.013
Van Kleef, G. A., Wanders, F., van Vianen, A. E. M., Dunham, R. L., Du, X., & Homan, A. C. (2023). Rebels with a cause? How norm violations shape dominance, prestige, and influence granting. PLOS ONE, 18(11), Article e0294019. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0294019
Zed, M. (2008). Metode penelitian kepustakaan (Cet. 1). Yayasan Pustaka Obor Indonesia.
