Authors

Discussion

The study seeks to explore the rationality behind supporting or resisting a political regime, focusing on the interplay between rational interests and value-based beliefs in shaping attitudes toward authoritarian regimes. The central research question is: How does the interaction between rational interests and core beliefs influence the likelihood of supporting, resisting, or remaining neutral toward an authoritarian regime?

Drawing on neoinstitutionalism and rational choice theory, we propose that core beliefs—deeply ingrained and shaped by social networks, education, and socio-economic background—play a central role in determining an individual’s rational preferences. These preferences, in turn, guide attitudes toward political regimes. However, this relationship is dynamic rather than static, as beliefs and preferences are influenced by available resources, personal experiences, and external circumstances.

We hypothesize that individuals whose beliefs and rational preferences align are more likely to exhibit consistent support or resistance to the regime. Conversely, when beliefs and preferences diverge, individuals face a cognitive tension that may result in three potential outcomes: adjusting preferences to align with beliefs, modifying beliefs to align with preferences, or prioritizing one over the other. This divergence is particularly significant in authoritarian contexts, where incentives for regime alignment—such as access to resources, safety, and status—often clash with personal or societal values.

The study further investigates how the diversity of respondents’ lived experiences—such as exposure to regime repression, economic hardship, or access to alternative information sources—shapes the balance between rationality and beliefs. We explore whether shifts in this balance contribute to changes in attitudes toward the regime over time. To measure these dynamics, we operationalize regime support using three conceptual categories: resistance, neutrality, and support.

This research seeks to make several contributions. First, it refines the understanding of political behavior under authoritarianism by integrating perspectives of rationality and beliefs. Second, it sheds light on the mechanisms through which individual experiences and resource availability influence attitudes toward regime support. Finally, by focusing on the interplay of beliefs and rationality, this study bridges the gap between structural constraints and individual agency in authoritarian contexts.