- Email: [email protected]
Psychopathic traits and politics: Examining affiliation, support of political issues, and the role of empathy
Personality and Individual Differences 131 (2018) 142–148
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Personality and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
Psychopathic traits and politics: Examining affiliation, support of political issues, and the role of empathy
T
⁎
Olivia C. Preston , Joye C. Anestis Department of Psychology, University of Southern Mississippi, United States
A R T I C LE I N FO
A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Psychopathic traits TriPM Politics Empathy
The relation of psychopathy to morality has been extensively examined, yet few studies have considered relations to political attitudes, which involve moral decision-making. We examined how psychopathic traits relate to political affiliation and opinions on political issues, using the triarchic conceptualization of psychopathy (Patrick, Fowles, & Krueger, 2009) and testing empathy components as mediators. Interpersonal-affective (Boldness and Meanness) traits were higher in Republicans compared to Democrats. Moreover, Boldness was associated with conservative opinions on economic issues, while Meanness evinced stronger relations to conservative opinions on social issues. Triarchic domains also evidenced unique associations to issues concerning minorities or discrimination. Further, empathy mediated relations between Meanness and decreased support for certain issues (e.g., affirmative action). Overall, psychopathy, particularly the interpersonal-affective traits, appear pertinent to political attitudes, while empathy deficits may statistically account for unique effects of Meanness.
1. Introduction The impact of personality traits on political attitudes has been generally accepted in social science for decades (Cooper, Golden, & Socha, 2013). Psychology has recently moved towards considering how established personality models inform political behavior (e.g., Mondak, Hibbing, Canache, Seligson, & Anderson, 2010). Among pathological personality traits, psychopathy has not been yet examined regarding affiliation with the United States' (US) predominant political parties (i.e., Democrat, Republican) or support for contemporary political issues along which these parties are sharply divided. Psychopathy appears relevant to political attitudes even beyond normative traits (Jonason, 2014), as certain aspects of the psychopathic personality (callousness) predict inclination towards a political career (Blais & Pruysers, 2017) and varying trait levels hold differential implications for political leadership (Lilienfeld, Latzman, Watts, Smith, & Dutton, 2014); thus, such an examination may assess the contribution of these traits to politicians' ideologies or opinions on a host of multinational issues (e.g., minority rights, military spending). This study aims to bridge the gap in the literature by examining the relationship between psychopathic traits, political affiliation, and attitudes towards contemporary political issues in a US community sample. Broadly, psychopathy is a constellation of affective (e.g., empathy deficits, egocentricity, fearlessness), interpersonal (e.g., glibness,
⁎
manipulativeness), and behavioral (e.g., impulsivity, sensation-seeking) features, commonly categorized onto interpersonal-affective and impulsive-antisocial factors (Benning, Patrick, Salekin, & Leistico, 2005; Hare & Neumann, 2008) and dimensionally distributed (Edens, Marcus, Lilienfeld, & Poythress, 2006). Nevertheless, debate exists on the scope of the construct (antisocial behavior, anxiety). To this end, the triarchic conceptualization of psychopathy was proposed by Patrick, Fowles, and Krueger (2009), with three overlapping but distinct phenotypical traits of boldness (social dominance, venturesomeness, emotional resiliency), meanness (callousness, self-interest, unempathic disposition), and disinhibition (impulsivity, mistrust, emotion dysregulation). With comprehensive coverage of psychopathy (e.g., aggression and antisociality are tapped by meanness and disinhibition) and lower trait interrelations than prior conceptualizations (Patrick et al., 2009), the triarchic conceptualization is particularly suited for examining divergent relations to external correlates. 1.1. Morality and empathy in psychopathic traits As political attitudes appear influenced by morality (Graham, Haidt, & Nosek, 2009), psychopathic traits' relations to moral dimensions may extend to political issues. Notably, psychopathic traits appear not associated with deficits in moral judgment - differentiating between right and wrong - per se (Marshall, Watts, Frankel, & Lilienfeld, 2017), but,
Corresponding author at: Department of Psychology, University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, MS 39401, United States. E-mail address: [email protected] (O.C. Preston).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.04.034 Received 9 June 2017; Received in revised form 21 December 2017; Accepted 21 April 2018 0191-8869/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Personality and Individual Differences 131 (2018) 142–148
O.C. Preston, J.C. Anestis
evidenced positive, but small, correlations with conservatism. However, differences between conservative stances (e.g., on economic or social issues) or political affiliations were not examined. Moreover, findings appear mixed, as Hodson, Hogg, and MacInnis (2009) found none of the Dark Triad traits to be significantly related to conservatism within a Canadian sample. In contrast to affiliations or ideology, substantial links between psychopathy and beliefs that may influence political attitudes are indicated. Psychopathy has been linked to racist attitudes towards minorities in Australia (Anderson & Cheers, 2017; Grigg & Manderson, 2015; Jonason, 2015) and towards African Americans in the US (Jones, 2013). Hodson et al. (2009) related the Dark Triad traits to prejudice against immigrants, finding overall significant contributions, but no incremental effects of psychopathy. Regarding other forms of discrimination, psychopathic traits may be associated with generally negative attitudes towards women. O'Connell and Marcus (2016) found psychopathic traits to predict acceptance of sexually predatory behaviors, with stronger relations for interpersonal-affective psychopathic traits within males. Additionally, Watts, Bowes, Latzman, and Lilienfeld (2017) found TriPM Meanness and Disinhibition traits to predict acceptance of rape myths (e.g., blaming the victim).
rather, the deficits in moral intuitions that inform moral decisionmaking (Gay, Vitacco, Hackney, Beussink, & Lilienfeld, 2017). Most consistently, psychopathic traits negatively relate to moral intuitions of Harm (concern, compassion about others' suffering) and Fairness (standards of equality, rights and justice) dimensions (Aharoni, Antonenko, & Kiehl, 2011), although interpersonal-affective traits (Glenn, Iyer, Graham, Koleva, & Haidt, 2009) or meanness (Almeida et al., 2015) purportedly drive these relations. Importantly, psychopathy's relations to morality are theorized to involve deficits in empathy (Blair, 2007; Seara-Cardoso, Neumann, Roiser, McCrory, & Viding, 2012). To add to this nuanced understanding, research on how psychopathic traits inform utilitarian decision-making has been unclear (e.g., Koenigs, Kruepke, Zeier, & Newman, 2012; Marshall et al., 2017). Utilitarianism, emphasizing procedural consideration of societal standards for individual rights and the relativism of one's personal values, is postulated as advanced or postconventional moral reasoning (Kohlberg & Hersh, 1977) and may be facilitated by affective deficits (e.g., empathy, guilt) in psychopathy (Blair, 2007). Regardless, utilitarian voting (i.e., rationally considering social utility) tends to be the exception rather than the rule (Kinder, 1998), as political attitudes tend to be based on various social and emotional factors (Westen, 2007). These findings raise the question of how the well-established empathy deficits in psychopathy influence politics. Lacking or deficient empathy is postulated as the core feature of psychopathy (Verschuere et al., 2017) and is included across different conceptualizations of psychopathy (e.g., Hare & Neumann, 2008; Patrick et al., 2009); the aforementioned research on morality suggests that this particular feature may be instrumental in decision-making of individuals with elevated psychopathic traits. Low emotional reactivity to the distress of others may account for deficits in moral intuitions (Blair, Jones, Clark, & Smith, 1997). Empathy involves cognitive (e.g., perspective-taking) and affective (e.g., subjective experience of another's emotion) components (Davis, 1983), which manifest differently across psychopathic traits. Some studies suggest stronger empathy deficits within interpersonal-affective traits (Glenn et al., 2009) and others within impulsive-antisocial traits (Mullins-Nelson, Salekin, & Leistico, 2006). Moreover, affective empathy appears more impaired than cognitive empathy in psychopathy (e.g., Blair et al., 1997; MullinsNelson et al., 2006). Within the triarchic conceptualization (Patrick et al., 2009), Almeida et al. (2015) found meanness to have strong negative relations to perspective-taking (PT) and empathic concern (EC) within a Portuguese sample. Alternatively, disinhibition had weaker and differential relations (negative with PT, positive with EC), while boldness had no significant relations. Notably in Glenn et al.'s (2009) study of the moral dimensions, EC statistically accounted for (i.e., mediated) the relationship of psychopathy to both Harm and Fairness dimensions. The differential associations of psychopathic traits with moral dimensions (Seara-Cardoso et al., 2012), and potentially with political attitudes, may be due to differences in empathy deficits.
1.3. The present study Overall, research has largely not examined how psychopathic traits relate to political attitudes in the US. Empathy deficits appear a strong influence on moral, and potentially political, decision-making. Given that empathy deficits are a core feature of psychopathy, they may account for psychopathy's relations to political attitudes. Using the triarchic conceptualization of psychopathy (Patrick et al., 2009), the present study addresses these gaps by examining the differences in psychopathic traits across US political affiliations, support for contemporary political issues, and mediating effects of empathy. First, we expected all triarchic constructs to be higher in Republicans relative to Democrats (Lilienfeld et al., 2014). The Democratic party reflects a liberal ideology focusing on issues such as workers' rights, inequality (e.g., economic, minority), clean energy, and protection of civil liberties like voting rights (see Democratic Platform Committee, 2016). Espousing a conservative ideology, the Republican Party prioritizes a free market, a return to Constitutional principles, utilization of natural resources, federal deregulation, and traditional family values (see Republican National Committee, 2016, for the full platform). Due to lacking extant research, analyses regarding the Independent/Libertarian affiliation are exploratory. Second, we expected conservative political opinions (e.g., support for religion in schools) to relate to all psychopathic traits. Further, we hypothesized lower support for issues concerning rights of minorities or anti-discrimination policies (e.g., gay rights, affirmative action) across psychopathic traits (O'Connell & Marcus, 2016; Watts et al., 2017). Finally, we expected empathy components to mediate meanness' relation to political issues (Almeida et al., 2015). Given low or negligible relations of boldness and disinhibition to empathy, these were not tested in mediation analyses.
1.2. The relation of psychopathic traits to politics Recent research has forayed into how psychopathic traits relate to politics. Jonason (2014) found psychopathy (assessed via the Short Dark Triad [SDT]; Jones & Paulhus, 2014) to predict conservative ideology in a community sample. Beyond ideology, Arvan (2013) found that conservative opinions on political issues are related to psychopathy, narcissism, and Machiavellianism (i.e., the Dark Triad), but psychopathy uniquely predicted stronger support for heterosexual-only marriage and less support for undocumented immigrants' rights and environmental protections. Nevertheless, the SDT measure used in both studies has been criticized for reducing trait variability (Furnham, Richards, Rangel, & Jones, 2014) and lacking construct independence (Persson, Kajonius, & Garcia, 2017). Using the shortened Psychopathic Personality Inventory-Revised (Lilienfeld & Widows, 2005) in a large sample, Lilienfeld et al. (2014) found that all psychopathic traits
2. Methods 2.1. Participants Participants included 304 individuals solicited through Amazon's Mechanical Turk. The mean age was 36.9 years (SD = 11.34). The sample was 51.6% (n = 157) female and 48.4% male (n = 147). Most participants 79.2% (n = 241) self-identified as White, while 8.3% (n = 25) were African-American, 5.6% (n = 17) Asian, 2.6% (n = 8) Native American/American Indian/Alaskan Native/Indigenous, 0.7% (n = 2) Pacific Islander/Native Hawaiian, 0.3% (n = 1) Middle Eastern/North African, 1% (n = 3) as Multiethnic, and 0.7% (n = 2), as other; note that these categories were not mutually exclusive. Further, 143
Personality and Individual Differences 131 (2018) 142–148
O.C. Preston, J.C. Anestis
Republican (n = 85), and Independent/Libertarian/Unaffiliated/None/ Neutral (n = 51) affiliations were created. Participants endorsing affiliation with the Green Party (n = 2) or those declined to state an affiliation (n = 2) were excluded from analyses.
6.9% (n = 21) reported a Hispanic or Latino/a/x ethnicity. The modal annual household income was between $50,001 and $75,000. Out of 304 individuals, 79.9% (n = 243) reported voting in the 2016 U.S. election. Regarding political affiliation, 53.9% (n = 164) identified as Democrat, 28.2% (n = 85) as Republican, and 18.1% (n = 55) as “Other.” Among “Other” affiliations, 69.1%% (n = 38) of participants wrote in “Independent”, 18.1% (n = 10) “none” or “nonaffiliated”, 3.6% (n = 2) “Libertarian”, 3.6% (n = 2) “Green Party”, 1.8% (n = 1) “Libertarian or Independent”, while 3.6% (n = 2) participants declined to answer.
2.3. Procedure All procedures were approved by the corresponding author's Institutional Review Board. Participants completed the study measures as part of a larger online data collection and were paid $4 as compensation.
2.2. Measures 3. Results
2.2.1. Triarchic Psychopathy Measure (TriPM; Patrick, 2010) The TriPM is a 58-item, self-report measure of the triarchic psychopathy domains, with facets of Boldness (19 items), Meanness (19 items), and Disinhibition (20 items). Participant respond on a 4-point Likert scale of True, Somewhat True, Somewhat False, and False. Internal consistency coefficients were acceptable (Total, 0.91; Boldness, 0.87; Meanness, 0.91; Disinhibition, 0.91).
3.1. Data analysis plan A one-way, between-subjects multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) tested mean differences on TriPM domains across political affiliations with a follow-up discriminant function analysis (DFA). MANCOVA reduces the risk of Type 1 error associated with conducting multiple analyses of variance and treats the variables as a linear combination of an underlying latent variable (Warne, 2014). DFA is a powerful analysis facilitating interpretation of unique multivariate functions (i.e., linear combinations of variables) across groups (Warne, 2014). Based on correlations with TriPM total, age (r = −0.25, p < .001) and male sex (r = 0.34, p < .001) were covariates. Relations between TriPM domains and political opinions were examined using zero-order correlations among variables and regression analyses controlling for the shared variance among the TriPM domains and covariates (i.e., sex, age). Finally, parallel mediation analyses were conducted using PROCESS in SPSS 24.0 (Hayes, 2013) and bootstrapping with 5000 resamples to test the mediating effect of empathy components (PT and/or EC) on Meanness's relation to political issues. One participant was excluded from multivariate analyses based on Mahalanobis distance.
2.2.2. Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI; Davis, 1983) The IRI is a self-report, 28-item, measure of empathy. Subscales of perspective-taking (PT), which involves “adopting the psychological point of view of others”, and empathic concern (EC), which captures the ability of feel what another is feeling, were examined to delineate unique contributions of cognitive and affective empathy, respectively (Davis, 1983). Each subscale includes seven items scored on a 5-point, Likert scale from 0 (Does Not Describe Me Well) to 4 (Describes Me Very Well). Internal consistency coefficients were acceptable (PT, 0.86; EC; 0.91). 2.2.3. Political issue questions Participants provided their opinion regarding political issues using an internally developed measure. They were presented with individual questions regarding 32 political issues (e.g., “How would you describe your political beliefs about paid parental leave?”, “How would you describe your political beliefs about reducing mass incarceration?”) and rated their support for each issue using a 6-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (Extremely Opposed) to 6 (Extremely in Favor).
3.2. Descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations Table 1 presents descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations. Effect size (d) differences for sex were the following: TriPM Total: 0.72; Boldness: 0.42; Meanness: 0.69; Disinhibition: 0.35; PT: 0.29; EC: 0.50, with higher scores on psychopathic traits and lower scores on empathy for males. As expected, Meanness was strongly and negatively correlated with PT (r = −0.53, p < .001) and EC (r = −0.69, p < .001) and Boldness was uncorrelated to empathy (PT: r = 0.04, p = .524; EC: r = −0.02, p = .738). Disinhibition evinced moderate negative
2.2.4. Political affiliation Participants responded to a multiple-choice question on their political affiliation as a Democrat, Republican, or Other. If “Other” was selected, the participant was able to write-in their affiliation (see Section 2.1). Categories of participants endorsing Democrat (n = 164), Table 1 Descriptive statistics and correlations for study measures.
TriPM total Boldness Meanness Disinhibition Perspective-taking Empathic concern Full sample: mean (SD) Males Females Democrats Republicans Other affiliations
Total
Boldness
Meanness
Disinhibition
Perspective-taking
Empathic concern
– 0.46 0.86 0.72 −0.41 −0.47 56.20 (20.31) 63.33 (20.44) 49.49 (17.80) 54.37 (20.00) 59.47 (21.06) 55.98 (19.20)
– 0.12 −0.19 0.04 −0.02 29.05 (10.13) 31.19 (9.77) 27.03 (10.07) 28.41 (9.96) 31.09 (9.77) 27.62 (11.15)
– 0.65 −0.53 −0.69 12.29 (9.46) 15.48 (9.55) 9.31 (8.37) 11.37 (10.01) 13.01 (10.01) 14.00 (8.46)
– −0.37 −0.29 14.79 (10.44) 16.67 (11.42) 13.03 (9.13) 14.59 (9.65) 15.36 (11.89) 14.35 (10.34)
– 0.57 19.05 18.25 19.79 19.71 18.32 18.44
– 19.77 18.15 21.28 20.40 19.69 18.06
(5.40) (5.57) (5.15) (4.83) (6.22) (5.50)
(6.44) (6.37) (6.15) (6.18) (6.68) (6.71)
Notes. N = 304. Values significant at p < .05 are bolded. TriPM = Triarchic Psychopathy Measure. Total = TriPM total score. All TriPM and empathy variables are significantly different across the sexes, p < .05. Democrats (n = 164), Republicans (n = 85), Other Affiliations = Libertarians/Independents/Non-affiliated (n = 51). Individuals identifying their affiliation as “Green Party” or declining to identify their affiliation are included in full sample descriptive statistics and correlations. 144
Personality and Individual Differences 131 (2018) 142–148
O.C. Preston, J.C. Anestis
(β = −0.09, p = .163). Meanness most strongly (and negatively) related to support for social welfare programs (β = −0.43, p < .001). Similar to Boldness, Meanness reflected conservative opinions like less support for universal healthcare (β = −0.28, p = .001) and marijuana legalization (β = −0.20, p = .019). Partially consistent with expectations, Meanness was negatively associated with support for equal pay for women (β = −0.30, p < .001) and affirmative action (β = −0.23, p = .007); nevertheless, Meanness was not significantly related to gay rights (β = −0.07, p = .387) or to immigration restrictions (β = 0.16, p = .061). Disinhibition most strongly related to support for restricting media violence (β = 0.22, p = .007). Similar to the other triarchic domains, Disinhibition related to several conservative opinions, such as greater support for religion in school (β = 0.21, p = .009) and decreased support for legalizing prostitution (β = −0.19, p = .015). However, Disinhibition uniquely related to greater support for social welfare programs (β = 0.18, p = .025). Unexpectedly, Disinhibition only significantly related to less support of gay rights (β = −0.18, p = .025) and was not significantly related to equal pay for women (β = −0.05, p = .549), affirmative action (β = 0.06, p = .459), or immigration restrictions (β = −0.04, p = .652).
Table 2 Results of Discriminant analysis examining triarchic domains and covariates across political affiliations. Discriminant function Group or variable
1a
Group Democrat Republican Other affiliation Variable Age Male Boldness Meanness Disinhibition Variable Age Male Boldness Meanness Disinhibition
Group centroids −0.117 0.326 0.021 Coefficients 0.79 −0.12 0.49 0.67 −0.01 Discriminant structure matrix 0.60 0.12 0.54 0.42 0.14
2b
0.077 0.095 −0.405 −0.00 0.17 0.72 −1.24 1.11 0.15 −0.21 0.36 −0.47 0.11
Notes. N = 299. Democrats (n = 163), Republicans (n = 85), Other = Libertarians/Independents/Non-affiliated (n = 51). Coefficients = Standardized Canonical Coefficients. a Wilks' Lambda (Λ) = 0.92, χ2(df) = 23.58 (10), p = .009. b Wilks' Lambda (Λ) = 0.97, χ2(df) = 9.86 (4), p = .043.
3.5. The mediating role of empathy See Table 4 for mediation analyses results. The issues selected were significantly predicted by Meanness and evinced correlational effects > 0.20 with PT or EC. Significant mediation effects were interpreted from 95% confidence intervals (CIs) that did not include zero (see Hayes, 2009); nevertheless, 95% CIs were close to zero in several analyses, indicating small effects and suggesting caution in interpretation. Indirect effects of PT were significant for universal healthcare (b = −0.07, SE = 0.04, 95% CI = −0.15, −0.00) and marijuana legalization (b = −0.08, SE = 0.04, 95% CI = −0.15, −0.01). Conversely, EC had significant indirect effects on affirmative action (b = −0.11, SE = 0.06, 95% CI = −0.22, −0.01), social welfare (b = −0.13, SE = 0.06, 95% CI = −0.26, −0.01), and sending aid to other countries (b = −0.15, SE = 0.07, 95% CI = −0.29, −0.03).
correlations with PT (r = −0.37, p < .001) and EC (r = −0.29, p < .001). 3.3. Psychopathic traits and political affiliation Mean differences on TriPM scores were examined across political affiliations using a MANCOVA (see Table 1 for descriptive statistics). The homogeneity of covariance matrices assumption was met, Box's M = 11.21, F(12, 116,061) = 0.92, p = .529. Overall, political affiliation had a small effect on the TriPM subscales, λ = 0.949, F(6, 586) = 2.57, p = .018, partial-η2 = 0.03. The follow-up DFA revealed two statistically significant functions, explaining 21.4% and 18.2% of the variance, respectively (Table 2). The group centroid results indicate the first function differentiated more strongly between Democrats and Republicans, while the second differentiated more strongly between Independents/Libertarians/Non-affiliated and the other groups. As such, the structure matrix results of the first function indicated Republicans differed from Democrats in terms of higher levels of Boldness and Meanness and greater age. The second function's structure matrix results indicated that Democrats and Republicans differ from Independents/Libertarians/Non-affiliated individuals based on lower Boldness, higher Meanness, and higher rates of males among the Independents/Libertarians/Non-affiliated.
4. Discussion The present study examined how psychopathic traits relate to political attitudes within a US community sample. Our goal was to extend and clarify findings on the relation of psychopathic traits and conservatism to US political affiliation and opinions. We chose the triarchic conceptualization of psychopathy – previously unexamined in relation to political attitudes - for comprehensive trait coverage (Patrick et al., 2009). Considering the prevalent empathy deficits within psychopathy and morality, we tested empathy components as mediators on the relation of meanness to political opinions.
3.4. Psychopathic traits and political opinions
4.1. Psychopathic traits and political affiliation
Within-measure regression analyses examined how the TriPM domains predict support for political issues (Table 3). Boldness negatively related to support for euthanasia/doctor-assisted suicide (β = −0.23, p < .001). Partly consistent with expectations, Boldness related to conservative opinions with less support for economic issues like increased government spending (β = −0.15, p = .017) and increased taxes (β = −0.14, p = .019) and social issues like removing “Under God” from the pledge of allegiance (β = −0.17, p = .005). Regarding minority or anti-discrimination issues, Boldness was modestly and negatively associated with support for gay rights (β = −0.12, p = .042) and positively with support of immigration restrictions (β = 0.13, p = .039); however, Boldness did not significantly relate to support for equal pay for women (β = −0.05, p = 238) or affirmative action
Consistent with prior research on conservatism (Jonason, 2014; Lilienfeld et al., 2014), psychopathic traits (boldness and meanness) were higher in Republicans compared to Democrats. Although preliminary, individuals self-identifying as Independent, Libertarian, or Non-affiliated are suggested to have higher meanness and lower boldness compared to Democrats and Republicans. As Disinhibition did not appear to differentiate groups, interpersonal-affective traits may drive the relations of psychopathy to political attitudes, echoing findings that interpersonal-affective traits drive the relation of psychopathic traits to moral deficits (Almeida et al., 2015; Glenn et al., 2009). In any case, prior studies examining psychopathy and conservatism did not report such findings (e.g., Hodson et al., 2009; Lilienfeld et al., 2014); however, the SDT measure also precluded examining trait differences 145
Personality and Individual Differences 131 (2018) 142–148
O.C. Preston, J.C. Anestis
Table 3 Zero-order effects of study variables and regression beta weights of triarchic domains in relation to support for political issues. Triarchic psychopathy
Restrictions on free speech Using war as a tool for diplomacy Lower drinking age Iraq/Afghanistan conflict Religion in school Death penalty Immigration restrictions Government surveillance Legalizing prostitution Cloning research Increased taxes Legalized gambling Removing “Under God” from the pledge of allegiance Increased government spending The stimulus bailout Decreased military spending Stem cell research Reducing mass incarceration Restricting media violence Sending aid to other countries Abortion Marijuana legalization Gay rights Affirmative action Gun control Increased environmentalism Universal healthcare Euthanasia/doctor-assisted suicide Social welfare programs Paid parental leave Animal rights Equal pay for women
Empathy
Total
Boldness
Meanness
Disinhibition
PT
EC
r
r/β
r/β
r/β
r
r
0.26 0.24 0.16 0.14 0.13 0.10 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.04 −0.01 −0.03 −0.04 −0.05 −0.07 −0.09 −0.09 −0.11 −0.11 −0.12 −0.13 −0.16 −0.17 −0.19 −0.19 −0.20 −0.20 −0.21 −0.24 −0.27 −0.29 −0.33
0.07/0.12 0.17/a0.17 −0.05/−0.10 0.12/0.13 0.09/0.14 0.10/0.09 0.14/0.13 −0.04/0.01 −0.03/−0.13 −0.02/−0.08 −0.11/−0.14 0.01/−0.02 −0.13/−0.17 −0.13/−0.15 −0.12/−0.11 −0.12/−0.12 −0.05/−0.10 −0.14/−0.13 −0.08/0.02 −0.10/−0.06 −0.17/−0.17 −0.08/−0.08 −0.10/−0.12 −0.13/−0.09 −0.19/−0.16 −0.07/−0.02 −0.09/−0.05 −0.18/a−0.23 −0.18/−0.10 −0.13/−0.07 −0.10/−0.03 −0.12/−0.07
0.25/0.13 0.19/0.12 0.22/0.12 0.12/0.14 0.08/−0.01 0.11/0.18 0.05/0.16 0.07/0.08 0.14/0.16 0.08/−0.01 0.05/−0.02 −0.04/−0.09 0.03/0.03 −0.01/−0.05 −0.07/−0.11 −0.06/−0.13 −0.05/0.01 −0.08/−0.17 −0.15/−0.22 −0.15/−0.23 −0.09/−0.08 −0.16/−0.20 −0.13/−0.07 −0.20/−0.23 −0.18/−0.21 −0.24/−0.33 −0.23/−0.28 −0.13/0.02 −0.29/a−0.43 −0.30/−0.32 −0.33/−0.34 −0.35/−0.30
0.23/0.15 0.15/0.12 0.17/0.01 0.07/0.03 0.13/0.21 0.04/−0.02 −0.02/−0.04 0.12/0.14 0.01/−0.19 0.01/−0.11 0.06/−0.02 −0.04/−0.02 −0.01/−0.14 0.03/0.01 0.02/0.07 −0.03/−0.05 −0.10/−0.16 −0.02/0.00 0.02/a0.22 −0.03/0.10 −0.04/−0.05 −0.12/−0.05 −0.15/−0.18 −0.07/0.06 −0.06/0.05 −0.12/0.04 −0.12/0.03 −0.15/−0.21 −0.07/a0.18 −0.16/0.04 −0.18/−0.06 −0.24/−0.05
−0.19 −0.15 −0.06 0.14 −0.12 −0.16 −0.15 −0.11 0.01 −0.04 −0.01 0.05 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.05 0.10 0.12 0.06 0.21 0.12 0.20 0.16 0.24 0.12 0.26 0.23 0.02 0.22 0.18 0.16 0.22
−0.14 −0.11 −0.13 −0.08 0.06 −0.10 −0.12 0.06 −0.17 −0.16 −0.01 −0.02 −0.09 0.05 0.00 −0.03 −0.05 0.06 0.21 0.24 −0.01 0.07 0.03 0.25 0.13 0.22 0.15 −0.07 0.30 0.18 0.30 0.19
Note: N = 299. TriPM = Triarchic Psychopathy Measure. PT = Perspective-Taking. EC = Empathic Concern. Values significant at p < .05 are bolded. a Indicates the strongest significant beta weight for the TriPM factor. Total = TriPM total score.
meanness was related to less support of equal pay for women, partially reflecting findings of psychopathy's relations to negative attitudes towards women, such as sexually predatory behaviors and rape myth acceptance (O'Connell & Marcus, 2016; Watts et al., 2017). As Watts et al. (2017) found disinhibition to relate to rape myth acceptance, disinhibition could be uniquely relevant to antisocial or aggressive attitudes towards women; conversely, meanness may relate to negative attitudes towards women in a broader context of self-interest or exploitativeness in the workplace - a potential area for future research.
(Arvan, 2013; Jonason, 2014).
4.2. Psychopathic traits and political opinions As hypothesized, psychopathic traits generally were associated with conservative political opinions. Such relations appeared stronger for boldness and meanness, as disinhibition evidenced unexpected effects (e.g., support for social welfare programs) and generally fewer predictive relations. Moreover, triarchic constructs may diverge on various political issues. Arvan (2013) previously found psychopathy to relate to less support for environmental protections; however, our findings suggest that less support of environmentalism may hold true only for meanness. Boldness appeared uniquely related to conservative opinions on economic issues (e.g., less support for decreasing military spending). Although boldness also related to several conservative opinions on social issues (e.g., gun control), meanness appears more strongly related to conservative opinions on social issues (e.g., equal pay for women, universal healthcare). In addition to economic and social issues, divergent relations between the triarchic domains were found on minority rights or antidiscrimination issues. While Arvan (2013) suggested that psychopathy relates to supporting heterosexual-only marriage, we found that boldness and disinhibition traits may drive that relationship. Psychopathy has demonstrated a unique relationship to racism or racist attitudes (e.g., Grigg & Manderson, 2015; Jones, 2013) and decreased support of immigrant or refugee individuals (e.g., Anderson & Cheers, 2017). Partly consistent, boldness related to supporting immigration restrictions and meanness to decreased support of affirmative action. Only
4.3. The role of empathy We hypothesized that meanness' relations to political opinions would be mediated by empathy. Consistent with Almeida et al. (2015), meanness had negative relations to empathy components, while boldness was unrelated to either. However, we unexpectedly found both components to negatively relate to disinhibition. Given the negative relations of meanness and disinhibiton to perspective-taking, these results are not consistent with research finding greater impairments in affective empathy compared to cognitive empathy across psychopathic traits (e.g., Blair et al., 1997; Mullins-Nelson et al., 2006). The strongest relations of empathy deficits to meanness, specifically, are fundamentally consistent with theory (Patrick et al., 2009). Although Glenn et al. (2009) found mediating effects of only empathic concern in relation to moral dimensions, our results suggest that perspective-taking may explain meanness' relations to certain political issues like decreased support for universal healthcare. Nevertheless, empathic concern also appears a pertinent factor (e.g., for social welfare) and a combined effect 146
Personality and Individual Differences 131 (2018) 142–148
O.C. Preston, J.C. Anestis
4.4. Limitations
Table 4 Parallel mediation analyses of empathy on the relations of meanness to support for political issues.
The present study had several notable limitations. First, we relied upon self-report data, potentially subject to socially desirable responding. The IRI measure has been criticized for its susceptibility to impression management or social desirability (Robinson & Rogers, 2015). Nonetheless, a recent examination found that, even when present, a responding bias towards impression management largely does not decrease the effect of self-reported psychopathy on external criteria (Watts et al., 2016). Second, we relied on a single psychopathy measure; specificity of relations regarding normative personality traits or other pathological traits was not examined. Third, our sample may have been biased with respect to voting demographics. Although 80% of our sample reported voting in the 2016 US general election, the turnout of the voting-age population was 55% (United States Elections Project, 2016). Moreover, our sample featured a larger proportion of Democrats than Republicans (54% vs. 28%) compared with the larger US population (45% vs. 38%, respectively) in the month of data collection (Jones, 2017), potentially limiting the generalizability of findings. To incorporate prior research, we essentially equated conservatism to Republican affiliation and liberalism to Democrat affiliation, making assumptions about ideological opinions.
Meanness Issue supported:
b
SE
p-Value
95% CI
Equal pay for women Total effect Direct effect Via PT Via EC
−0.04 −0.04 −0.03 0.06
0.01 0.01 0.03 0.07
< .001 .003
[−0.05, −0.02] [−0.06, −0.01] [−0.10, 0.03] [−0.08, 0.19]
Animal rights Total effect Direct effect Via PT Via EC
−0.04 −0.03 0.05 −0.12
0.01 0.01 0.04 0.06
< .001 .029
[−0.05, −0.02] [−0.05, −0.00] [−0.03, 0.11] [−0.24, 0.00]
Social welfare Total effect Direct effect Via PT Via EC
−0.06 −0.03 −0.00 −0.13
0.01 0.02 0.03 0.06
< .001 .036
[−0.09, −0.04] [−0.07, −0.00] [−0.06, 0.06] [−0.26, −0.01]
Universal healthcare Total effect Direct effect Via PT Via EC
−0.05 −0.04 −0.07 0.04
0.01 0.02 0.04 0.06
.001 .030
[−0.08, −0.02] [−0.08, −0.00] [−0.15, −0.00] [−0.07, 0.15]
Increased environmentalism Total effect −0.05 Direct effect −0.02 Via PT −0.06 Via EC −0.05
0.01 0.02 0.04 0.06
< .001 .128
[−0.07, −0.02] [−0.06, 0.01] [−0.15, 0.01] [−0.17, 0.07]
Affirmative action Total effect Direct effect Via PT Via EC
−0.04 0.01 −0.06 −0.11
0.01 0.02 0.04 0.06
.007 .785
[−0.06, −0.01] [−0.03, 0.04] [−0.14, 0.00] [−0.22, −0.01]
Gun control Total effect Direct effect Via PT Via EC
−0.04 −0.03 −0.01 −0.03
0.02 0.02 0.04 0.06
.012 .167
[−0.07, −0.01] [−0.07, 0.01] [−0.08, 0.06] [−0.14, 0.08]
Marijuana legalization Total effect Direct effect Via PT Via EC
−0.04 −0.03 −0.08 0.07
0.02 0.02 0.04 0.06
.019 .102
[−0.06, −0.01] [−0.07, 0.01] [−0.15, −0.01] [−0.04, 0.18]
Sending aid to other countries Total effect −0.03 Direct effect 0.01 Via PT −0.05 Via EC −0.15
0.01 0.02 0.04 0.07
.007 .574
[−0.06, −0.01] [−0.02, 0.04] [−0.12, 0.02] [−0.29, −0.03]
Reducing mass incarceration Total effect −0.03 Direct effect −0.02 Via PT −0.04 Via EC 0.00
0.01 0.02 0.03 0.06
.037 .300
[−0.05, −0.00] [−0.05, 0.02] [−0.11, 0.03] [−0.13, 0.11]
5. Conclusion This study built upon prior research on morality, empathy, and politics within psychopathy, finding that triarchic psychopathy traits differ across US political affiliations and diverge on political issues. Considering the political success of presidential candidates with higher levels of psychopathic traits (i.e., fearless dominance) in the US (Lilienfeld et al., 2012), it may be surmised that popular political candidates championing conservative opinions (e.g., restricting free speech and immigration, decreasing gun control and taxation) may possess elevated psychopathic traits. Although we examined US political affiliations, their underlying ideologies hold implications for international politics [e.g., the conservative United Kingdom (UK) Independence Party, the liberal Labour Party of the UK]. For example, older individuals with higher levels of interpersonal-affective psychopathic traits appear more likely to espouse conservative ideologies (e.g., with low support for anti-discrimination policies), such as those embraced by right-wing political parties that have recently gained prevalence in European politics (Shuster, 2016). We encourage future research to examine implications of psychopathy for political candidates and policies, as well as minority-directed aggression (e.g., hate crimes). In sum, psychopathic traits with their associated empathy deficits appear relevant to the discussion of political attitudes and political candidates. References Aharoni, E., Antonenko, O., & Kiehl, K. A. (2011). Disparities in the moral intuitions of criminal offenders: The role of psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 45(3), 322–327. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2011.02.005. Almeida, P. R., Seixas, M. J., Ferreira-Santos, F., Vieira, J. B., Paiva, T. O., Moreira, P. S., & Costa, P. (2015). Empathic, moral and antisocial outcomes associated with distinct components of psychopathy in healthy individuals: A Triarchic model approach. Personality and Individual Differences, 85, 205–211. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid. 2015.05.012. Anderson, J., & Cheers, C. (2017). Does the dark triad predict prejudice? The role of Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and narcissism in explaining negativity toward asylum seekers. Australian Psychologist. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ap.12283 (Advance online publication). Arvan, M. (2013). A lot more bad news for conservatives, and a little bit of bad news for liberals? Moral judgments and the dark triad personality traits: A follow-up study. Neuroethics, 6(1), 51–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12152-012-9155-7. Benning, S. D., Patrick, C. J., Salekin, R. T., & Leistico, A. R. (2005). Convergent and discriminant validity of psychopathy factors as assessed by self-report. Assessment, 12, 270–289. Blair, J. R. (2007). The amygdala and ventromedial prefrontal cortex in morality and psychopathy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 387–392.
Notes. N = 299. Effects significant at p < .05 are bolded. PT = Interpersonal Reactivity Index Perspective-Taking. EC = Interpersonal Reactivity Index Empathic Concern. Age, sex, and TriPM Boldness and Disinhibition were entered as covariates.
of both components may account for certain political opinions (e.g., increased environmentalism). Empathy deficits are a key feature of interpersonal-affective psychopathic traits (Verschuere et al., 2017); however, the mechanisms driving the relations of boldness and disinhibition to political attitudes are unclear and an area for future research.
147
Personality and Individual Differences 131 (2018) 142–148
O.C. Preston, J.C. Anestis
survey. Frontiers in Psychology, 5(740), 1–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014. 00740. Lilienfeld, S. O., Waldman, I. D., Landfield, K., Watts, A. L., Rubenzer, S., & Faschingbauer, T. R. (2012). Fearless dominance and the U.S. presidency: Implications of psychopathic personality traits for successful and unsuccessful political leadership. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(3), 489–505. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0029392. Lilienfeld, S. O., & Widows, M. R. (2005). Psychopathic personality inventory revised: Professional manual. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc. Marshall, J., Watts, A. L., Frankel, E. L., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2017). An examination of psychopathy's relationship with two indices of moral judgment. Personality and Individual Differences, 113(15), 240–245. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.03. 034. Mondak, J. J., Hibbing, M. V., Canache, D., Seligson, M. A., & Anderson, M. R. (2010). Personality and civic engagement: An integrative framework for the study of trait effects on political behavior. American Political Science Review, 104(01), 85–110. Mullins-Nelson, J. L., Salekin, R. T., & Leistico, A. M. (2006). Psychopathy, empathy, and perspective-taking ability in a community sample: Implications for the successful psychopathy concept. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 5(2), 133–149. O'Connell, D., & Marcus, D. K. (2016). Psychopathic personality traits predict positive attitudes toward sexually predatory behaviors in college mean and women. Personality and Individual Differences, 94, 372–376. http://doi.org.lynx.lib.usm.edu/ 10.1016/j.paid.2016.02.011. Patrick, C. J. (2010). Operationalizing the triarchic conceptualization of psychopathy: Preliminary description of brief scales for assessment of boldness, meanness, and disinhibition (Unpublished test manual)Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University. Patrick, C. J., Fowles, D. C., & Krueger, R. F. (2009). Triarchic conceptualization of psychopathy: Developmental origins of disinhibition, boldness, and meanness. Development and Psychopathology, 21(03), 913–938. Persson, B. N., Kajonius, P. J., & Garcia, D. (2017). Testing construct independence in the Short Dark Triad using Item Response Theory. Personality and Individual Differences, 117, 74–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.05.025. Republican National Committee (2016, July 17). Republican platform 2016. Retrieved from https://gop.com/platform/. Robinson, E. V., & Rogers, R. (2015). Empathy faking in psychopathic offenders: The vulnerability of empathy measures. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 37(4), 545–552. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10862-015-9479-9. Seara-Cardoso, A., Neumann, C., Roiser, J., McCrory, E., & Viding, E. (2012). Investigating associations between empathy, morality and psychopathic personality traits in the general population. Personality and Individual Differences, 52(1), 67–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.08.029. Shuster, S. (2016, September 22). European politics are swinging to the right. Time. Retrieved from http://time.com/4504010/europe-politics-swing-right/. United States Elections Project (2016 November). General election turnout rates. [Data file]. Retrieved from http://www.electproject.org/2016g. Verschuere, B., van Ghesel Grothe, S., Waldorp, L., Watts, A. L., Lilienfeld, S. O., Edens, J. F., ... Noordhof, A. (2017). What features of psychopathy are central? A network analysis of the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised in three large samples. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/abn0000315 (Advance online publication). Warne, R. (2014). A primer on multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) for behavioral scientists. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 19(17), Retrieved from http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=19&n=17. Watts, A. L., Bowes, S. M., Latzman, R. D., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2017). Psychopathic traits predict harsh attitudes toward rape victims among undergraduates. Personality and Individual Differences, 106, 1–5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.10.022. Watts, A. L., Lilienfeld, S. O., Edens, J. F., Douglas, K. S., Skeem, J. L., Verschuere, B., & LoPilato, A. C. (2016). Does response distortion statistically affect the relations between self-report psychopathy measures and external criteria? Psychological Assessment, 28(3), 294–306. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pas0000168. Westen, D. (2007). The political brain. New York: Public Affairs.
Blair, J. R., Jones, L., Clark, F., & Smith, M. (1997). The psychopathic individual: A lack of responsiveness to distress cues? Psychophysiology, 34(2), 192–198. Blais, J., & Pruysers, S. (2017). The power of the dark side: Personality, the dark triad, and political ambition. Personality and Individual Differences, 113, 167–172. Cooper, C. A., Golden, L., & Socha, A. (2013). The big five personality factors and mass politics. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(1), 68–82. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00982.x. Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 113–126. Democratic Platform Committee (2016, July 8). 2016 democratic party platform. Retrieved from https://www.democrats.org/party-platform. Edens, J. F., Marcus, D. K., Lilienfeld, S. O., & Poythress, N. G., Jr. (2006). Psychopathic, not psychopath: Taxometric evidence for the dimensional structure of psychopathy. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 115(1), 131. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X. 115.1.131. Furnham, A., Richards, S., Rangel, L., & Jones, D. N. (2014). Measuring malevolence: Quantitative issues surrounding the Dark Triad of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 67, 114–121. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.02.001. Gay, J., Vitacco, M., Hackney, A., Beussink, C., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2017). The relationship between psychopathy, moral intuitions, and moral judgment. Paper presented at the American Psychology-Law Society, Seattle, WA. Glenn, A. L., Iyer, R., Graham, J., Koleva, S., & Haidt, J. (2009). Are all types of morality compromised in psychopathy? Journal of Personality Disorders, 23(4), 384–398. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2009.23.4.384. 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. Grigg, K., & Manderson, L. (2015). Is there a relationship between psychopathic traits and racism? Current Psychology, 34(4), 702–712. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12144-0149283-9. Hare, R. D., & Neumann, C. S. (2008). Psychopathy as a clinical and empirical construct. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 4, 217–246. Hayes, A. F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Communication Monographs, 76(4), 408–420. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press. Hodson, G., Hogg, S. M., & MacInnis, C. C. (2009). The role of “dark personalities” (narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy), Big Five personality factors, and ideology in explaining prejudice. Journal of Research in Personality, 43(4), 686–690. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.02.005. Jonason, P. K. (2014). Personality and politics. Personality and Individual Differences, 71, 181–184. http://doi.org.proxy.lib.pdx.edu/10.1016/j.paid.2014.08.002. Jonason, P. K. (2015). How “dark” personality traits and perceptions come together to predict racism in Australia. Personality and Individual Differences, 72, 47–51. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.08.030. Jones, D. N. (2013). Psychopathy and Machiavellianism predict differences in racially motivated attitudes and their affiliations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(2), 367–378. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12035. Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2014). Introducing the Short Dark Triad (SD3): A brief measure of dark personality traits. Assessment, 21, 28–41. Jones, J. M. (2017, June 6). Democratic edge in party affiliation up to seven points. Gallup News. Retrieved from http://news.gallup.com/poll/211817/democraticedge-party-affiliation-seven-points.aspx. Kinder, D. E. (1998). Opinion and action in the realm of politics. In D. Gilbert, S. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Vol. Eds.), Handbook of social psychology(4th ed.). Vol. 2. Handbook of social psychology (pp. 778–867). Boston: McGraw-Hill. Koenigs, M., Kruepke, M., Zeier, J., & Newman, J. P. (2012). Utilitarian moral judgment in psychopathy. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 7(6), 708–714. Kohlberg, L., & Hersh, R. H. (1977). Moral development: A review of the theory. Theory Into Practice, 16(2), 53–59. Lilienfeld, S. O., Latzman, R. D., Watts, A. L., Smith, S. F., & Dutton, K. (2014). Correlates of psychopathic personality traits in everyday life: Results from a large community
148
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Personality and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid
Psychopathic traits and politics: Examining affiliation, support of political issues, and the role of empathy
T
⁎
Olivia C. Preston , Joye C. Anestis Department of Psychology, University of Southern Mississippi, United States
A R T I C LE I N FO
A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Psychopathic traits TriPM Politics Empathy
The relation of psychopathy to morality has been extensively examined, yet few studies have considered relations to political attitudes, which involve moral decision-making. We examined how psychopathic traits relate to political affiliation and opinions on political issues, using the triarchic conceptualization of psychopathy (Patrick, Fowles, & Krueger, 2009) and testing empathy components as mediators. Interpersonal-affective (Boldness and Meanness) traits were higher in Republicans compared to Democrats. Moreover, Boldness was associated with conservative opinions on economic issues, while Meanness evinced stronger relations to conservative opinions on social issues. Triarchic domains also evidenced unique associations to issues concerning minorities or discrimination. Further, empathy mediated relations between Meanness and decreased support for certain issues (e.g., affirmative action). Overall, psychopathy, particularly the interpersonal-affective traits, appear pertinent to political attitudes, while empathy deficits may statistically account for unique effects of Meanness.
1. Introduction The impact of personality traits on political attitudes has been generally accepted in social science for decades (Cooper, Golden, & Socha, 2013). Psychology has recently moved towards considering how established personality models inform political behavior (e.g., Mondak, Hibbing, Canache, Seligson, & Anderson, 2010). Among pathological personality traits, psychopathy has not been yet examined regarding affiliation with the United States' (US) predominant political parties (i.e., Democrat, Republican) or support for contemporary political issues along which these parties are sharply divided. Psychopathy appears relevant to political attitudes even beyond normative traits (Jonason, 2014), as certain aspects of the psychopathic personality (callousness) predict inclination towards a political career (Blais & Pruysers, 2017) and varying trait levels hold differential implications for political leadership (Lilienfeld, Latzman, Watts, Smith, & Dutton, 2014); thus, such an examination may assess the contribution of these traits to politicians' ideologies or opinions on a host of multinational issues (e.g., minority rights, military spending). This study aims to bridge the gap in the literature by examining the relationship between psychopathic traits, political affiliation, and attitudes towards contemporary political issues in a US community sample. Broadly, psychopathy is a constellation of affective (e.g., empathy deficits, egocentricity, fearlessness), interpersonal (e.g., glibness,
⁎
manipulativeness), and behavioral (e.g., impulsivity, sensation-seeking) features, commonly categorized onto interpersonal-affective and impulsive-antisocial factors (Benning, Patrick, Salekin, & Leistico, 2005; Hare & Neumann, 2008) and dimensionally distributed (Edens, Marcus, Lilienfeld, & Poythress, 2006). Nevertheless, debate exists on the scope of the construct (antisocial behavior, anxiety). To this end, the triarchic conceptualization of psychopathy was proposed by Patrick, Fowles, and Krueger (2009), with three overlapping but distinct phenotypical traits of boldness (social dominance, venturesomeness, emotional resiliency), meanness (callousness, self-interest, unempathic disposition), and disinhibition (impulsivity, mistrust, emotion dysregulation). With comprehensive coverage of psychopathy (e.g., aggression and antisociality are tapped by meanness and disinhibition) and lower trait interrelations than prior conceptualizations (Patrick et al., 2009), the triarchic conceptualization is particularly suited for examining divergent relations to external correlates. 1.1. Morality and empathy in psychopathic traits As political attitudes appear influenced by morality (Graham, Haidt, & Nosek, 2009), psychopathic traits' relations to moral dimensions may extend to political issues. Notably, psychopathic traits appear not associated with deficits in moral judgment - differentiating between right and wrong - per se (Marshall, Watts, Frankel, & Lilienfeld, 2017), but,
Corresponding author at: Department of Psychology, University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, MS 39401, United States. E-mail address: [email protected] (O.C. Preston).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2018.04.034 Received 9 June 2017; Received in revised form 21 December 2017; Accepted 21 April 2018 0191-8869/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Personality and Individual Differences 131 (2018) 142–148
O.C. Preston, J.C. Anestis
evidenced positive, but small, correlations with conservatism. However, differences between conservative stances (e.g., on economic or social issues) or political affiliations were not examined. Moreover, findings appear mixed, as Hodson, Hogg, and MacInnis (2009) found none of the Dark Triad traits to be significantly related to conservatism within a Canadian sample. In contrast to affiliations or ideology, substantial links between psychopathy and beliefs that may influence political attitudes are indicated. Psychopathy has been linked to racist attitudes towards minorities in Australia (Anderson & Cheers, 2017; Grigg & Manderson, 2015; Jonason, 2015) and towards African Americans in the US (Jones, 2013). Hodson et al. (2009) related the Dark Triad traits to prejudice against immigrants, finding overall significant contributions, but no incremental effects of psychopathy. Regarding other forms of discrimination, psychopathic traits may be associated with generally negative attitudes towards women. O'Connell and Marcus (2016) found psychopathic traits to predict acceptance of sexually predatory behaviors, with stronger relations for interpersonal-affective psychopathic traits within males. Additionally, Watts, Bowes, Latzman, and Lilienfeld (2017) found TriPM Meanness and Disinhibition traits to predict acceptance of rape myths (e.g., blaming the victim).
rather, the deficits in moral intuitions that inform moral decisionmaking (Gay, Vitacco, Hackney, Beussink, & Lilienfeld, 2017). Most consistently, psychopathic traits negatively relate to moral intuitions of Harm (concern, compassion about others' suffering) and Fairness (standards of equality, rights and justice) dimensions (Aharoni, Antonenko, & Kiehl, 2011), although interpersonal-affective traits (Glenn, Iyer, Graham, Koleva, & Haidt, 2009) or meanness (Almeida et al., 2015) purportedly drive these relations. Importantly, psychopathy's relations to morality are theorized to involve deficits in empathy (Blair, 2007; Seara-Cardoso, Neumann, Roiser, McCrory, & Viding, 2012). To add to this nuanced understanding, research on how psychopathic traits inform utilitarian decision-making has been unclear (e.g., Koenigs, Kruepke, Zeier, & Newman, 2012; Marshall et al., 2017). Utilitarianism, emphasizing procedural consideration of societal standards for individual rights and the relativism of one's personal values, is postulated as advanced or postconventional moral reasoning (Kohlberg & Hersh, 1977) and may be facilitated by affective deficits (e.g., empathy, guilt) in psychopathy (Blair, 2007). Regardless, utilitarian voting (i.e., rationally considering social utility) tends to be the exception rather than the rule (Kinder, 1998), as political attitudes tend to be based on various social and emotional factors (Westen, 2007). These findings raise the question of how the well-established empathy deficits in psychopathy influence politics. Lacking or deficient empathy is postulated as the core feature of psychopathy (Verschuere et al., 2017) and is included across different conceptualizations of psychopathy (e.g., Hare & Neumann, 2008; Patrick et al., 2009); the aforementioned research on morality suggests that this particular feature may be instrumental in decision-making of individuals with elevated psychopathic traits. Low emotional reactivity to the distress of others may account for deficits in moral intuitions (Blair, Jones, Clark, & Smith, 1997). Empathy involves cognitive (e.g., perspective-taking) and affective (e.g., subjective experience of another's emotion) components (Davis, 1983), which manifest differently across psychopathic traits. Some studies suggest stronger empathy deficits within interpersonal-affective traits (Glenn et al., 2009) and others within impulsive-antisocial traits (Mullins-Nelson, Salekin, & Leistico, 2006). Moreover, affective empathy appears more impaired than cognitive empathy in psychopathy (e.g., Blair et al., 1997; MullinsNelson et al., 2006). Within the triarchic conceptualization (Patrick et al., 2009), Almeida et al. (2015) found meanness to have strong negative relations to perspective-taking (PT) and empathic concern (EC) within a Portuguese sample. Alternatively, disinhibition had weaker and differential relations (negative with PT, positive with EC), while boldness had no significant relations. Notably in Glenn et al.'s (2009) study of the moral dimensions, EC statistically accounted for (i.e., mediated) the relationship of psychopathy to both Harm and Fairness dimensions. The differential associations of psychopathic traits with moral dimensions (Seara-Cardoso et al., 2012), and potentially with political attitudes, may be due to differences in empathy deficits.
1.3. The present study Overall, research has largely not examined how psychopathic traits relate to political attitudes in the US. Empathy deficits appear a strong influence on moral, and potentially political, decision-making. Given that empathy deficits are a core feature of psychopathy, they may account for psychopathy's relations to political attitudes. Using the triarchic conceptualization of psychopathy (Patrick et al., 2009), the present study addresses these gaps by examining the differences in psychopathic traits across US political affiliations, support for contemporary political issues, and mediating effects of empathy. First, we expected all triarchic constructs to be higher in Republicans relative to Democrats (Lilienfeld et al., 2014). The Democratic party reflects a liberal ideology focusing on issues such as workers' rights, inequality (e.g., economic, minority), clean energy, and protection of civil liberties like voting rights (see Democratic Platform Committee, 2016). Espousing a conservative ideology, the Republican Party prioritizes a free market, a return to Constitutional principles, utilization of natural resources, federal deregulation, and traditional family values (see Republican National Committee, 2016, for the full platform). Due to lacking extant research, analyses regarding the Independent/Libertarian affiliation are exploratory. Second, we expected conservative political opinions (e.g., support for religion in schools) to relate to all psychopathic traits. Further, we hypothesized lower support for issues concerning rights of minorities or anti-discrimination policies (e.g., gay rights, affirmative action) across psychopathic traits (O'Connell & Marcus, 2016; Watts et al., 2017). Finally, we expected empathy components to mediate meanness' relation to political issues (Almeida et al., 2015). Given low or negligible relations of boldness and disinhibition to empathy, these were not tested in mediation analyses.
1.2. The relation of psychopathic traits to politics Recent research has forayed into how psychopathic traits relate to politics. Jonason (2014) found psychopathy (assessed via the Short Dark Triad [SDT]; Jones & Paulhus, 2014) to predict conservative ideology in a community sample. Beyond ideology, Arvan (2013) found that conservative opinions on political issues are related to psychopathy, narcissism, and Machiavellianism (i.e., the Dark Triad), but psychopathy uniquely predicted stronger support for heterosexual-only marriage and less support for undocumented immigrants' rights and environmental protections. Nevertheless, the SDT measure used in both studies has been criticized for reducing trait variability (Furnham, Richards, Rangel, & Jones, 2014) and lacking construct independence (Persson, Kajonius, & Garcia, 2017). Using the shortened Psychopathic Personality Inventory-Revised (Lilienfeld & Widows, 2005) in a large sample, Lilienfeld et al. (2014) found that all psychopathic traits
2. Methods 2.1. Participants Participants included 304 individuals solicited through Amazon's Mechanical Turk. The mean age was 36.9 years (SD = 11.34). The sample was 51.6% (n = 157) female and 48.4% male (n = 147). Most participants 79.2% (n = 241) self-identified as White, while 8.3% (n = 25) were African-American, 5.6% (n = 17) Asian, 2.6% (n = 8) Native American/American Indian/Alaskan Native/Indigenous, 0.7% (n = 2) Pacific Islander/Native Hawaiian, 0.3% (n = 1) Middle Eastern/North African, 1% (n = 3) as Multiethnic, and 0.7% (n = 2), as other; note that these categories were not mutually exclusive. Further, 143
Personality and Individual Differences 131 (2018) 142–148
O.C. Preston, J.C. Anestis
Republican (n = 85), and Independent/Libertarian/Unaffiliated/None/ Neutral (n = 51) affiliations were created. Participants endorsing affiliation with the Green Party (n = 2) or those declined to state an affiliation (n = 2) were excluded from analyses.
6.9% (n = 21) reported a Hispanic or Latino/a/x ethnicity. The modal annual household income was between $50,001 and $75,000. Out of 304 individuals, 79.9% (n = 243) reported voting in the 2016 U.S. election. Regarding political affiliation, 53.9% (n = 164) identified as Democrat, 28.2% (n = 85) as Republican, and 18.1% (n = 55) as “Other.” Among “Other” affiliations, 69.1%% (n = 38) of participants wrote in “Independent”, 18.1% (n = 10) “none” or “nonaffiliated”, 3.6% (n = 2) “Libertarian”, 3.6% (n = 2) “Green Party”, 1.8% (n = 1) “Libertarian or Independent”, while 3.6% (n = 2) participants declined to answer.
2.3. Procedure All procedures were approved by the corresponding author's Institutional Review Board. Participants completed the study measures as part of a larger online data collection and were paid $4 as compensation.
2.2. Measures 3. Results
2.2.1. Triarchic Psychopathy Measure (TriPM; Patrick, 2010) The TriPM is a 58-item, self-report measure of the triarchic psychopathy domains, with facets of Boldness (19 items), Meanness (19 items), and Disinhibition (20 items). Participant respond on a 4-point Likert scale of True, Somewhat True, Somewhat False, and False. Internal consistency coefficients were acceptable (Total, 0.91; Boldness, 0.87; Meanness, 0.91; Disinhibition, 0.91).
3.1. Data analysis plan A one-way, between-subjects multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) tested mean differences on TriPM domains across political affiliations with a follow-up discriminant function analysis (DFA). MANCOVA reduces the risk of Type 1 error associated with conducting multiple analyses of variance and treats the variables as a linear combination of an underlying latent variable (Warne, 2014). DFA is a powerful analysis facilitating interpretation of unique multivariate functions (i.e., linear combinations of variables) across groups (Warne, 2014). Based on correlations with TriPM total, age (r = −0.25, p < .001) and male sex (r = 0.34, p < .001) were covariates. Relations between TriPM domains and political opinions were examined using zero-order correlations among variables and regression analyses controlling for the shared variance among the TriPM domains and covariates (i.e., sex, age). Finally, parallel mediation analyses were conducted using PROCESS in SPSS 24.0 (Hayes, 2013) and bootstrapping with 5000 resamples to test the mediating effect of empathy components (PT and/or EC) on Meanness's relation to political issues. One participant was excluded from multivariate analyses based on Mahalanobis distance.
2.2.2. Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI; Davis, 1983) The IRI is a self-report, 28-item, measure of empathy. Subscales of perspective-taking (PT), which involves “adopting the psychological point of view of others”, and empathic concern (EC), which captures the ability of feel what another is feeling, were examined to delineate unique contributions of cognitive and affective empathy, respectively (Davis, 1983). Each subscale includes seven items scored on a 5-point, Likert scale from 0 (Does Not Describe Me Well) to 4 (Describes Me Very Well). Internal consistency coefficients were acceptable (PT, 0.86; EC; 0.91). 2.2.3. Political issue questions Participants provided their opinion regarding political issues using an internally developed measure. They were presented with individual questions regarding 32 political issues (e.g., “How would you describe your political beliefs about paid parental leave?”, “How would you describe your political beliefs about reducing mass incarceration?”) and rated their support for each issue using a 6-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (Extremely Opposed) to 6 (Extremely in Favor).
3.2. Descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations Table 1 presents descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations. Effect size (d) differences for sex were the following: TriPM Total: 0.72; Boldness: 0.42; Meanness: 0.69; Disinhibition: 0.35; PT: 0.29; EC: 0.50, with higher scores on psychopathic traits and lower scores on empathy for males. As expected, Meanness was strongly and negatively correlated with PT (r = −0.53, p < .001) and EC (r = −0.69, p < .001) and Boldness was uncorrelated to empathy (PT: r = 0.04, p = .524; EC: r = −0.02, p = .738). Disinhibition evinced moderate negative
2.2.4. Political affiliation Participants responded to a multiple-choice question on their political affiliation as a Democrat, Republican, or Other. If “Other” was selected, the participant was able to write-in their affiliation (see Section 2.1). Categories of participants endorsing Democrat (n = 164), Table 1 Descriptive statistics and correlations for study measures.
TriPM total Boldness Meanness Disinhibition Perspective-taking Empathic concern Full sample: mean (SD) Males Females Democrats Republicans Other affiliations
Total
Boldness
Meanness
Disinhibition
Perspective-taking
Empathic concern
– 0.46 0.86 0.72 −0.41 −0.47 56.20 (20.31) 63.33 (20.44) 49.49 (17.80) 54.37 (20.00) 59.47 (21.06) 55.98 (19.20)
– 0.12 −0.19 0.04 −0.02 29.05 (10.13) 31.19 (9.77) 27.03 (10.07) 28.41 (9.96) 31.09 (9.77) 27.62 (11.15)
– 0.65 −0.53 −0.69 12.29 (9.46) 15.48 (9.55) 9.31 (8.37) 11.37 (10.01) 13.01 (10.01) 14.00 (8.46)
– −0.37 −0.29 14.79 (10.44) 16.67 (11.42) 13.03 (9.13) 14.59 (9.65) 15.36 (11.89) 14.35 (10.34)
– 0.57 19.05 18.25 19.79 19.71 18.32 18.44
– 19.77 18.15 21.28 20.40 19.69 18.06
(5.40) (5.57) (5.15) (4.83) (6.22) (5.50)
(6.44) (6.37) (6.15) (6.18) (6.68) (6.71)
Notes. N = 304. Values significant at p < .05 are bolded. TriPM = Triarchic Psychopathy Measure. Total = TriPM total score. All TriPM and empathy variables are significantly different across the sexes, p < .05. Democrats (n = 164), Republicans (n = 85), Other Affiliations = Libertarians/Independents/Non-affiliated (n = 51). Individuals identifying their affiliation as “Green Party” or declining to identify their affiliation are included in full sample descriptive statistics and correlations. 144
Personality and Individual Differences 131 (2018) 142–148
O.C. Preston, J.C. Anestis
(β = −0.09, p = .163). Meanness most strongly (and negatively) related to support for social welfare programs (β = −0.43, p < .001). Similar to Boldness, Meanness reflected conservative opinions like less support for universal healthcare (β = −0.28, p = .001) and marijuana legalization (β = −0.20, p = .019). Partially consistent with expectations, Meanness was negatively associated with support for equal pay for women (β = −0.30, p < .001) and affirmative action (β = −0.23, p = .007); nevertheless, Meanness was not significantly related to gay rights (β = −0.07, p = .387) or to immigration restrictions (β = 0.16, p = .061). Disinhibition most strongly related to support for restricting media violence (β = 0.22, p = .007). Similar to the other triarchic domains, Disinhibition related to several conservative opinions, such as greater support for religion in school (β = 0.21, p = .009) and decreased support for legalizing prostitution (β = −0.19, p = .015). However, Disinhibition uniquely related to greater support for social welfare programs (β = 0.18, p = .025). Unexpectedly, Disinhibition only significantly related to less support of gay rights (β = −0.18, p = .025) and was not significantly related to equal pay for women (β = −0.05, p = .549), affirmative action (β = 0.06, p = .459), or immigration restrictions (β = −0.04, p = .652).
Table 2 Results of Discriminant analysis examining triarchic domains and covariates across political affiliations. Discriminant function Group or variable
1a
Group Democrat Republican Other affiliation Variable Age Male Boldness Meanness Disinhibition Variable Age Male Boldness Meanness Disinhibition
Group centroids −0.117 0.326 0.021 Coefficients 0.79 −0.12 0.49 0.67 −0.01 Discriminant structure matrix 0.60 0.12 0.54 0.42 0.14
2b
0.077 0.095 −0.405 −0.00 0.17 0.72 −1.24 1.11 0.15 −0.21 0.36 −0.47 0.11
Notes. N = 299. Democrats (n = 163), Republicans (n = 85), Other = Libertarians/Independents/Non-affiliated (n = 51). Coefficients = Standardized Canonical Coefficients. a Wilks' Lambda (Λ) = 0.92, χ2(df) = 23.58 (10), p = .009. b Wilks' Lambda (Λ) = 0.97, χ2(df) = 9.86 (4), p = .043.
3.5. The mediating role of empathy See Table 4 for mediation analyses results. The issues selected were significantly predicted by Meanness and evinced correlational effects > 0.20 with PT or EC. Significant mediation effects were interpreted from 95% confidence intervals (CIs) that did not include zero (see Hayes, 2009); nevertheless, 95% CIs were close to zero in several analyses, indicating small effects and suggesting caution in interpretation. Indirect effects of PT were significant for universal healthcare (b = −0.07, SE = 0.04, 95% CI = −0.15, −0.00) and marijuana legalization (b = −0.08, SE = 0.04, 95% CI = −0.15, −0.01). Conversely, EC had significant indirect effects on affirmative action (b = −0.11, SE = 0.06, 95% CI = −0.22, −0.01), social welfare (b = −0.13, SE = 0.06, 95% CI = −0.26, −0.01), and sending aid to other countries (b = −0.15, SE = 0.07, 95% CI = −0.29, −0.03).
correlations with PT (r = −0.37, p < .001) and EC (r = −0.29, p < .001). 3.3. Psychopathic traits and political affiliation Mean differences on TriPM scores were examined across political affiliations using a MANCOVA (see Table 1 for descriptive statistics). The homogeneity of covariance matrices assumption was met, Box's M = 11.21, F(12, 116,061) = 0.92, p = .529. Overall, political affiliation had a small effect on the TriPM subscales, λ = 0.949, F(6, 586) = 2.57, p = .018, partial-η2 = 0.03. The follow-up DFA revealed two statistically significant functions, explaining 21.4% and 18.2% of the variance, respectively (Table 2). The group centroid results indicate the first function differentiated more strongly between Democrats and Republicans, while the second differentiated more strongly between Independents/Libertarians/Non-affiliated and the other groups. As such, the structure matrix results of the first function indicated Republicans differed from Democrats in terms of higher levels of Boldness and Meanness and greater age. The second function's structure matrix results indicated that Democrats and Republicans differ from Independents/Libertarians/Non-affiliated individuals based on lower Boldness, higher Meanness, and higher rates of males among the Independents/Libertarians/Non-affiliated.
4. Discussion The present study examined how psychopathic traits relate to political attitudes within a US community sample. Our goal was to extend and clarify findings on the relation of psychopathic traits and conservatism to US political affiliation and opinions. We chose the triarchic conceptualization of psychopathy – previously unexamined in relation to political attitudes - for comprehensive trait coverage (Patrick et al., 2009). Considering the prevalent empathy deficits within psychopathy and morality, we tested empathy components as mediators on the relation of meanness to political opinions.
3.4. Psychopathic traits and political opinions
4.1. Psychopathic traits and political affiliation
Within-measure regression analyses examined how the TriPM domains predict support for political issues (Table 3). Boldness negatively related to support for euthanasia/doctor-assisted suicide (β = −0.23, p < .001). Partly consistent with expectations, Boldness related to conservative opinions with less support for economic issues like increased government spending (β = −0.15, p = .017) and increased taxes (β = −0.14, p = .019) and social issues like removing “Under God” from the pledge of allegiance (β = −0.17, p = .005). Regarding minority or anti-discrimination issues, Boldness was modestly and negatively associated with support for gay rights (β = −0.12, p = .042) and positively with support of immigration restrictions (β = 0.13, p = .039); however, Boldness did not significantly relate to support for equal pay for women (β = −0.05, p = 238) or affirmative action
Consistent with prior research on conservatism (Jonason, 2014; Lilienfeld et al., 2014), psychopathic traits (boldness and meanness) were higher in Republicans compared to Democrats. Although preliminary, individuals self-identifying as Independent, Libertarian, or Non-affiliated are suggested to have higher meanness and lower boldness compared to Democrats and Republicans. As Disinhibition did not appear to differentiate groups, interpersonal-affective traits may drive the relations of psychopathy to political attitudes, echoing findings that interpersonal-affective traits drive the relation of psychopathic traits to moral deficits (Almeida et al., 2015; Glenn et al., 2009). In any case, prior studies examining psychopathy and conservatism did not report such findings (e.g., Hodson et al., 2009; Lilienfeld et al., 2014); however, the SDT measure also precluded examining trait differences 145
Personality and Individual Differences 131 (2018) 142–148
O.C. Preston, J.C. Anestis
Table 3 Zero-order effects of study variables and regression beta weights of triarchic domains in relation to support for political issues. Triarchic psychopathy
Restrictions on free speech Using war as a tool for diplomacy Lower drinking age Iraq/Afghanistan conflict Religion in school Death penalty Immigration restrictions Government surveillance Legalizing prostitution Cloning research Increased taxes Legalized gambling Removing “Under God” from the pledge of allegiance Increased government spending The stimulus bailout Decreased military spending Stem cell research Reducing mass incarceration Restricting media violence Sending aid to other countries Abortion Marijuana legalization Gay rights Affirmative action Gun control Increased environmentalism Universal healthcare Euthanasia/doctor-assisted suicide Social welfare programs Paid parental leave Animal rights Equal pay for women
Empathy
Total
Boldness
Meanness
Disinhibition
PT
EC
r
r/β
r/β
r/β
r
r
0.26 0.24 0.16 0.14 0.13 0.10 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.04 −0.01 −0.03 −0.04 −0.05 −0.07 −0.09 −0.09 −0.11 −0.11 −0.12 −0.13 −0.16 −0.17 −0.19 −0.19 −0.20 −0.20 −0.21 −0.24 −0.27 −0.29 −0.33
0.07/0.12 0.17/a0.17 −0.05/−0.10 0.12/0.13 0.09/0.14 0.10/0.09 0.14/0.13 −0.04/0.01 −0.03/−0.13 −0.02/−0.08 −0.11/−0.14 0.01/−0.02 −0.13/−0.17 −0.13/−0.15 −0.12/−0.11 −0.12/−0.12 −0.05/−0.10 −0.14/−0.13 −0.08/0.02 −0.10/−0.06 −0.17/−0.17 −0.08/−0.08 −0.10/−0.12 −0.13/−0.09 −0.19/−0.16 −0.07/−0.02 −0.09/−0.05 −0.18/a−0.23 −0.18/−0.10 −0.13/−0.07 −0.10/−0.03 −0.12/−0.07
0.25/0.13 0.19/0.12 0.22/0.12 0.12/0.14 0.08/−0.01 0.11/0.18 0.05/0.16 0.07/0.08 0.14/0.16 0.08/−0.01 0.05/−0.02 −0.04/−0.09 0.03/0.03 −0.01/−0.05 −0.07/−0.11 −0.06/−0.13 −0.05/0.01 −0.08/−0.17 −0.15/−0.22 −0.15/−0.23 −0.09/−0.08 −0.16/−0.20 −0.13/−0.07 −0.20/−0.23 −0.18/−0.21 −0.24/−0.33 −0.23/−0.28 −0.13/0.02 −0.29/a−0.43 −0.30/−0.32 −0.33/−0.34 −0.35/−0.30
0.23/0.15 0.15/0.12 0.17/0.01 0.07/0.03 0.13/0.21 0.04/−0.02 −0.02/−0.04 0.12/0.14 0.01/−0.19 0.01/−0.11 0.06/−0.02 −0.04/−0.02 −0.01/−0.14 0.03/0.01 0.02/0.07 −0.03/−0.05 −0.10/−0.16 −0.02/0.00 0.02/a0.22 −0.03/0.10 −0.04/−0.05 −0.12/−0.05 −0.15/−0.18 −0.07/0.06 −0.06/0.05 −0.12/0.04 −0.12/0.03 −0.15/−0.21 −0.07/a0.18 −0.16/0.04 −0.18/−0.06 −0.24/−0.05
−0.19 −0.15 −0.06 0.14 −0.12 −0.16 −0.15 −0.11 0.01 −0.04 −0.01 0.05 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.05 0.10 0.12 0.06 0.21 0.12 0.20 0.16 0.24 0.12 0.26 0.23 0.02 0.22 0.18 0.16 0.22
−0.14 −0.11 −0.13 −0.08 0.06 −0.10 −0.12 0.06 −0.17 −0.16 −0.01 −0.02 −0.09 0.05 0.00 −0.03 −0.05 0.06 0.21 0.24 −0.01 0.07 0.03 0.25 0.13 0.22 0.15 −0.07 0.30 0.18 0.30 0.19
Note: N = 299. TriPM = Triarchic Psychopathy Measure. PT = Perspective-Taking. EC = Empathic Concern. Values significant at p < .05 are bolded. a Indicates the strongest significant beta weight for the TriPM factor. Total = TriPM total score.
meanness was related to less support of equal pay for women, partially reflecting findings of psychopathy's relations to negative attitudes towards women, such as sexually predatory behaviors and rape myth acceptance (O'Connell & Marcus, 2016; Watts et al., 2017). As Watts et al. (2017) found disinhibition to relate to rape myth acceptance, disinhibition could be uniquely relevant to antisocial or aggressive attitudes towards women; conversely, meanness may relate to negative attitudes towards women in a broader context of self-interest or exploitativeness in the workplace - a potential area for future research.
(Arvan, 2013; Jonason, 2014).
4.2. Psychopathic traits and political opinions As hypothesized, psychopathic traits generally were associated with conservative political opinions. Such relations appeared stronger for boldness and meanness, as disinhibition evidenced unexpected effects (e.g., support for social welfare programs) and generally fewer predictive relations. Moreover, triarchic constructs may diverge on various political issues. Arvan (2013) previously found psychopathy to relate to less support for environmental protections; however, our findings suggest that less support of environmentalism may hold true only for meanness. Boldness appeared uniquely related to conservative opinions on economic issues (e.g., less support for decreasing military spending). Although boldness also related to several conservative opinions on social issues (e.g., gun control), meanness appears more strongly related to conservative opinions on social issues (e.g., equal pay for women, universal healthcare). In addition to economic and social issues, divergent relations between the triarchic domains were found on minority rights or antidiscrimination issues. While Arvan (2013) suggested that psychopathy relates to supporting heterosexual-only marriage, we found that boldness and disinhibition traits may drive that relationship. Psychopathy has demonstrated a unique relationship to racism or racist attitudes (e.g., Grigg & Manderson, 2015; Jones, 2013) and decreased support of immigrant or refugee individuals (e.g., Anderson & Cheers, 2017). Partly consistent, boldness related to supporting immigration restrictions and meanness to decreased support of affirmative action. Only
4.3. The role of empathy We hypothesized that meanness' relations to political opinions would be mediated by empathy. Consistent with Almeida et al. (2015), meanness had negative relations to empathy components, while boldness was unrelated to either. However, we unexpectedly found both components to negatively relate to disinhibition. Given the negative relations of meanness and disinhibiton to perspective-taking, these results are not consistent with research finding greater impairments in affective empathy compared to cognitive empathy across psychopathic traits (e.g., Blair et al., 1997; Mullins-Nelson et al., 2006). The strongest relations of empathy deficits to meanness, specifically, are fundamentally consistent with theory (Patrick et al., 2009). Although Glenn et al. (2009) found mediating effects of only empathic concern in relation to moral dimensions, our results suggest that perspective-taking may explain meanness' relations to certain political issues like decreased support for universal healthcare. Nevertheless, empathic concern also appears a pertinent factor (e.g., for social welfare) and a combined effect 146
Personality and Individual Differences 131 (2018) 142–148
O.C. Preston, J.C. Anestis
4.4. Limitations
Table 4 Parallel mediation analyses of empathy on the relations of meanness to support for political issues.
The present study had several notable limitations. First, we relied upon self-report data, potentially subject to socially desirable responding. The IRI measure has been criticized for its susceptibility to impression management or social desirability (Robinson & Rogers, 2015). Nonetheless, a recent examination found that, even when present, a responding bias towards impression management largely does not decrease the effect of self-reported psychopathy on external criteria (Watts et al., 2016). Second, we relied on a single psychopathy measure; specificity of relations regarding normative personality traits or other pathological traits was not examined. Third, our sample may have been biased with respect to voting demographics. Although 80% of our sample reported voting in the 2016 US general election, the turnout of the voting-age population was 55% (United States Elections Project, 2016). Moreover, our sample featured a larger proportion of Democrats than Republicans (54% vs. 28%) compared with the larger US population (45% vs. 38%, respectively) in the month of data collection (Jones, 2017), potentially limiting the generalizability of findings. To incorporate prior research, we essentially equated conservatism to Republican affiliation and liberalism to Democrat affiliation, making assumptions about ideological opinions.
Meanness Issue supported:
b
SE
p-Value
95% CI
Equal pay for women Total effect Direct effect Via PT Via EC
−0.04 −0.04 −0.03 0.06
0.01 0.01 0.03 0.07
< .001 .003
[−0.05, −0.02] [−0.06, −0.01] [−0.10, 0.03] [−0.08, 0.19]
Animal rights Total effect Direct effect Via PT Via EC
−0.04 −0.03 0.05 −0.12
0.01 0.01 0.04 0.06
< .001 .029
[−0.05, −0.02] [−0.05, −0.00] [−0.03, 0.11] [−0.24, 0.00]
Social welfare Total effect Direct effect Via PT Via EC
−0.06 −0.03 −0.00 −0.13
0.01 0.02 0.03 0.06
< .001 .036
[−0.09, −0.04] [−0.07, −0.00] [−0.06, 0.06] [−0.26, −0.01]
Universal healthcare Total effect Direct effect Via PT Via EC
−0.05 −0.04 −0.07 0.04
0.01 0.02 0.04 0.06
.001 .030
[−0.08, −0.02] [−0.08, −0.00] [−0.15, −0.00] [−0.07, 0.15]
Increased environmentalism Total effect −0.05 Direct effect −0.02 Via PT −0.06 Via EC −0.05
0.01 0.02 0.04 0.06
< .001 .128
[−0.07, −0.02] [−0.06, 0.01] [−0.15, 0.01] [−0.17, 0.07]
Affirmative action Total effect Direct effect Via PT Via EC
−0.04 0.01 −0.06 −0.11
0.01 0.02 0.04 0.06
.007 .785
[−0.06, −0.01] [−0.03, 0.04] [−0.14, 0.00] [−0.22, −0.01]
Gun control Total effect Direct effect Via PT Via EC
−0.04 −0.03 −0.01 −0.03
0.02 0.02 0.04 0.06
.012 .167
[−0.07, −0.01] [−0.07, 0.01] [−0.08, 0.06] [−0.14, 0.08]
Marijuana legalization Total effect Direct effect Via PT Via EC
−0.04 −0.03 −0.08 0.07
0.02 0.02 0.04 0.06
.019 .102
[−0.06, −0.01] [−0.07, 0.01] [−0.15, −0.01] [−0.04, 0.18]
Sending aid to other countries Total effect −0.03 Direct effect 0.01 Via PT −0.05 Via EC −0.15
0.01 0.02 0.04 0.07
.007 .574
[−0.06, −0.01] [−0.02, 0.04] [−0.12, 0.02] [−0.29, −0.03]
Reducing mass incarceration Total effect −0.03 Direct effect −0.02 Via PT −0.04 Via EC 0.00
0.01 0.02 0.03 0.06
.037 .300
[−0.05, −0.00] [−0.05, 0.02] [−0.11, 0.03] [−0.13, 0.11]
5. Conclusion This study built upon prior research on morality, empathy, and politics within psychopathy, finding that triarchic psychopathy traits differ across US political affiliations and diverge on political issues. Considering the political success of presidential candidates with higher levels of psychopathic traits (i.e., fearless dominance) in the US (Lilienfeld et al., 2012), it may be surmised that popular political candidates championing conservative opinions (e.g., restricting free speech and immigration, decreasing gun control and taxation) may possess elevated psychopathic traits. Although we examined US political affiliations, their underlying ideologies hold implications for international politics [e.g., the conservative United Kingdom (UK) Independence Party, the liberal Labour Party of the UK]. For example, older individuals with higher levels of interpersonal-affective psychopathic traits appear more likely to espouse conservative ideologies (e.g., with low support for anti-discrimination policies), such as those embraced by right-wing political parties that have recently gained prevalence in European politics (Shuster, 2016). We encourage future research to examine implications of psychopathy for political candidates and policies, as well as minority-directed aggression (e.g., hate crimes). In sum, psychopathic traits with their associated empathy deficits appear relevant to the discussion of political attitudes and political candidates. References Aharoni, E., Antonenko, O., & Kiehl, K. A. (2011). Disparities in the moral intuitions of criminal offenders: The role of psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality, 45(3), 322–327. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2011.02.005. Almeida, P. R., Seixas, M. J., Ferreira-Santos, F., Vieira, J. B., Paiva, T. O., Moreira, P. S., & Costa, P. (2015). Empathic, moral and antisocial outcomes associated with distinct components of psychopathy in healthy individuals: A Triarchic model approach. Personality and Individual Differences, 85, 205–211. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid. 2015.05.012. Anderson, J., & Cheers, C. (2017). Does the dark triad predict prejudice? The role of Machiavellianism, psychopathy, and narcissism in explaining negativity toward asylum seekers. Australian Psychologist. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ap.12283 (Advance online publication). Arvan, M. (2013). A lot more bad news for conservatives, and a little bit of bad news for liberals? Moral judgments and the dark triad personality traits: A follow-up study. Neuroethics, 6(1), 51–64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12152-012-9155-7. Benning, S. D., Patrick, C. J., Salekin, R. T., & Leistico, A. R. (2005). Convergent and discriminant validity of psychopathy factors as assessed by self-report. Assessment, 12, 270–289. Blair, J. R. (2007). The amygdala and ventromedial prefrontal cortex in morality and psychopathy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 387–392.
Notes. N = 299. Effects significant at p < .05 are bolded. PT = Interpersonal Reactivity Index Perspective-Taking. EC = Interpersonal Reactivity Index Empathic Concern. Age, sex, and TriPM Boldness and Disinhibition were entered as covariates.
of both components may account for certain political opinions (e.g., increased environmentalism). Empathy deficits are a key feature of interpersonal-affective psychopathic traits (Verschuere et al., 2017); however, the mechanisms driving the relations of boldness and disinhibition to political attitudes are unclear and an area for future research.
147
Personality and Individual Differences 131 (2018) 142–148
O.C. Preston, J.C. Anestis
survey. Frontiers in Psychology, 5(740), 1–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014. 00740. Lilienfeld, S. O., Waldman, I. D., Landfield, K., Watts, A. L., Rubenzer, S., & Faschingbauer, T. R. (2012). Fearless dominance and the U.S. presidency: Implications of psychopathic personality traits for successful and unsuccessful political leadership. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(3), 489–505. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0029392. Lilienfeld, S. O., & Widows, M. R. (2005). Psychopathic personality inventory revised: Professional manual. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc. Marshall, J., Watts, A. L., Frankel, E. L., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2017). An examination of psychopathy's relationship with two indices of moral judgment. Personality and Individual Differences, 113(15), 240–245. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.03. 034. Mondak, J. J., Hibbing, M. V., Canache, D., Seligson, M. A., & Anderson, M. R. (2010). Personality and civic engagement: An integrative framework for the study of trait effects on political behavior. American Political Science Review, 104(01), 85–110. Mullins-Nelson, J. L., Salekin, R. T., & Leistico, A. M. (2006). Psychopathy, empathy, and perspective-taking ability in a community sample: Implications for the successful psychopathy concept. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 5(2), 133–149. O'Connell, D., & Marcus, D. K. (2016). Psychopathic personality traits predict positive attitudes toward sexually predatory behaviors in college mean and women. Personality and Individual Differences, 94, 372–376. http://doi.org.lynx.lib.usm.edu/ 10.1016/j.paid.2016.02.011. Patrick, C. J. (2010). Operationalizing the triarchic conceptualization of psychopathy: Preliminary description of brief scales for assessment of boldness, meanness, and disinhibition (Unpublished test manual)Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University. Patrick, C. J., Fowles, D. C., & Krueger, R. F. (2009). Triarchic conceptualization of psychopathy: Developmental origins of disinhibition, boldness, and meanness. Development and Psychopathology, 21(03), 913–938. Persson, B. N., Kajonius, P. J., & Garcia, D. (2017). Testing construct independence in the Short Dark Triad using Item Response Theory. Personality and Individual Differences, 117, 74–80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.05.025. Republican National Committee (2016, July 17). Republican platform 2016. Retrieved from https://gop.com/platform/. Robinson, E. V., & Rogers, R. (2015). Empathy faking in psychopathic offenders: The vulnerability of empathy measures. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 37(4), 545–552. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10862-015-9479-9. Seara-Cardoso, A., Neumann, C., Roiser, J., McCrory, E., & Viding, E. (2012). Investigating associations between empathy, morality and psychopathic personality traits in the general population. Personality and Individual Differences, 52(1), 67–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.08.029. Shuster, S. (2016, September 22). European politics are swinging to the right. Time. Retrieved from http://time.com/4504010/europe-politics-swing-right/. United States Elections Project (2016 November). General election turnout rates. [Data file]. Retrieved from http://www.electproject.org/2016g. Verschuere, B., van Ghesel Grothe, S., Waldorp, L., Watts, A. L., Lilienfeld, S. O., Edens, J. F., ... Noordhof, A. (2017). What features of psychopathy are central? A network analysis of the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised in three large samples. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/abn0000315 (Advance online publication). Warne, R. (2014). A primer on multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) for behavioral scientists. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 19(17), Retrieved from http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=19&n=17. Watts, A. L., Bowes, S. M., Latzman, R. D., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2017). Psychopathic traits predict harsh attitudes toward rape victims among undergraduates. Personality and Individual Differences, 106, 1–5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.10.022. Watts, A. L., Lilienfeld, S. O., Edens, J. F., Douglas, K. S., Skeem, J. L., Verschuere, B., & LoPilato, A. C. (2016). Does response distortion statistically affect the relations between self-report psychopathy measures and external criteria? Psychological Assessment, 28(3), 294–306. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pas0000168. Westen, D. (2007). The political brain. New York: Public Affairs.
Blair, J. R., Jones, L., Clark, F., & Smith, M. (1997). The psychopathic individual: A lack of responsiveness to distress cues? Psychophysiology, 34(2), 192–198. Blais, J., & Pruysers, S. (2017). The power of the dark side: Personality, the dark triad, and political ambition. Personality and Individual Differences, 113, 167–172. Cooper, C. A., Golden, L., & Socha, A. (2013). The big five personality factors and mass politics. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(1), 68–82. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00982.x. Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 113–126. Democratic Platform Committee (2016, July 8). 2016 democratic party platform. Retrieved from https://www.democrats.org/party-platform. Edens, J. F., Marcus, D. K., Lilienfeld, S. O., & Poythress, N. G., Jr. (2006). Psychopathic, not psychopath: Taxometric evidence for the dimensional structure of psychopathy. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 115(1), 131. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X. 115.1.131. Furnham, A., Richards, S., Rangel, L., & Jones, D. N. (2014). Measuring malevolence: Quantitative issues surrounding the Dark Triad of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 67, 114–121. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.02.001. Gay, J., Vitacco, M., Hackney, A., Beussink, C., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2017). The relationship between psychopathy, moral intuitions, and moral judgment. Paper presented at the American Psychology-Law Society, Seattle, WA. Glenn, A. L., Iyer, R., Graham, J., Koleva, S., & Haidt, J. (2009). Are all types of morality compromised in psychopathy? Journal of Personality Disorders, 23(4), 384–398. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2009.23.4.384. 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. Grigg, K., & Manderson, L. (2015). Is there a relationship between psychopathic traits and racism? Current Psychology, 34(4), 702–712. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12144-0149283-9. Hare, R. D., & Neumann, C. S. (2008). Psychopathy as a clinical and empirical construct. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 4, 217–246. Hayes, A. F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Communication Monographs, 76(4), 408–420. Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York: Guilford Press. Hodson, G., Hogg, S. M., & MacInnis, C. C. (2009). The role of “dark personalities” (narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy), Big Five personality factors, and ideology in explaining prejudice. Journal of Research in Personality, 43(4), 686–690. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.02.005. Jonason, P. K. (2014). Personality and politics. Personality and Individual Differences, 71, 181–184. http://doi.org.proxy.lib.pdx.edu/10.1016/j.paid.2014.08.002. Jonason, P. K. (2015). How “dark” personality traits and perceptions come together to predict racism in Australia. Personality and Individual Differences, 72, 47–51. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.08.030. Jones, D. N. (2013). Psychopathy and Machiavellianism predict differences in racially motivated attitudes and their affiliations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43(2), 367–378. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12035. Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2014). Introducing the Short Dark Triad (SD3): A brief measure of dark personality traits. Assessment, 21, 28–41. Jones, J. M. (2017, June 6). Democratic edge in party affiliation up to seven points. Gallup News. Retrieved from http://news.gallup.com/poll/211817/democraticedge-party-affiliation-seven-points.aspx. Kinder, D. E. (1998). Opinion and action in the realm of politics. In D. Gilbert, S. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Vol. Eds.), Handbook of social psychology(4th ed.). Vol. 2. Handbook of social psychology (pp. 778–867). Boston: McGraw-Hill. Koenigs, M., Kruepke, M., Zeier, J., & Newman, J. P. (2012). Utilitarian moral judgment in psychopathy. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 7(6), 708–714. Kohlberg, L., & Hersh, R. H. (1977). Moral development: A review of the theory. Theory Into Practice, 16(2), 53–59. Lilienfeld, S. O., Latzman, R. D., Watts, A. L., Smith, S. F., & Dutton, K. (2014). Correlates of psychopathic personality traits in everyday life: Results from a large community
148