Dr. Marcus Arvan, University of Tampa professor of philosophy, published a study on Oct. 25, 2011 that claimed that those who identify themselves as conservatives are likely to exhibit components of the Dark Triad of personality traits. The Dark Triad is a group of three aversive personality traits; Machiavellianism (i.e. deception), narcissism and psychopathy. The study further claimed that because of the “dark and antisocial/socially destructive” personality traits more commonly attributed to conservatives, there is reason to worry about the origins of moral judgments of conservatives.
As a conservative myself, it is hard to hear these claims and take the study’s findings as fact. The most important thing to do is to analyze the validity and reliability of the claims established within the study and determine if they have any merit.
Arvan claimed that the study was performed in order to find an answer to the age old feud between Democrats and Republicans, where each party calls the other immoral, evil, liars, etc. Arvan then proceeded to choose the three most negative traits he could in order to evaluate this argument. Dr. Sean Maddan, a professor of criminology and one of the University of Tampa’s most prominent researchers, reviewed the study and found a few flaws in both the methodology and the results of the study ranging from the sampling procedures to the questions posed to the participants. Arvan, however, said the flaws weren’t large enough to have effected the outcome of the study. Maddan further identified that the method of choosing the participants was flawed from the start, when Arvan used the Yale Mechanical-Turk website to find participants. Even one of the questionnaires used by Arvan was untested, although Arvan responded by saying that, “Every questionnaire must begin somewhere.”
There is the possibility that the individuals who participated in the study are innately anti-social and thus would identify more closely with Dark Triad traits from the start. Arvan, however, felt that this possibility was negligible as evidenced by the numbers. He also emphasized the fact that the results of his study only found a real correlation between social conservatives and the Dark Triad, not necessarily economic conservatives.
The study claims to be non-biased; however, numerous biases occur. Arvan’s study doesn’t even contain the word “liberal” while examining individuals who adhere to utilitarianism and have both Machiavellian and psychopathic traits.
According to Dr. Scott Sumner, a professor of economics at Bentley University, liberal views are more likely to adhere to utilitarianism. This is much more realistic, as liberals have a greater sense of entitlement, such as the “right” to work or the “right” to health care, etc., than conservatives. Arvan conveniently fails to mention this fact.
Liberals therefore, because they are more likely to follow utilitarianism, exhibit both Machiavellian and psychopathic traits–either both liberals and conservatives exhibit these traits or neither groups do, not solely one group or the other.
Arvan published this study as empirical, meaning it is purely based on observation and experiment. And it’s just as easy to refute his findings with other empirical research.
The first claim made by the study is that “conservatives are more likely to exhibit aspects of Machiavellianism (i.e. deception)” than liberals. This is not true–in fact Arvan’s study is an exercise in deception. The study claims to be valid, but how can it be when its sample was pulled from random Internet users (who, by default, have been found to display at least antisocial tendencies, if not those of narcissism and psychopathy)? Further, the sample was taken from an indeterminable population. The only details given about the sample was the participants’ gender, which leaves much to the imagination. We don’t know ages, location or any other details.
Arvan also states his study is the only one of its kind to research this topic. This, again, is simply not true. Honesty has been addressed in numerous studies, including the World Values Survey and the National Cultural Values Survey and in studies by groups such as the Pew Research Center, and the American Tax Journal’s Journal of Legal Tax Research.
Each of these studies found that liberals are more likely to view illegal or deceptive actions such as tax evasion or academic dishonesty, as acceptable. These studies are much less biased in their methods and they fly directly in the face of Arvan’s results.
Another issue here is the statement that “conservatives are narcissistic.” While allegedly backed by empirical evidence, this too is not true.This is in direct contrast to other research done on political individuals.
For example, a study published in 2006, by Arthur Brooks (a self-proclaimed independent) found that conservatives are over 30 percent more likely to give to charity than their liberal counterparts. In addition, they are likely to give more money [or goods] per donation, in relation to their annual income, than liberals.
Google conducted a similar study and found that annual average contributions to charity by conservatives was twice that of liberals. If giving to charity is narcissistic (aka, selfish) then I must misunderstand the entire premise behind charitable donations as well as the definition of selfish. Giving to others is, in fact, the opposite of being narcissistic. Charitable giving also reveals traits contrary to another component of the Dark Triad, psychopathy, through showing empathy and compassion for those less fortunate.
It is a huge mistake to address an entire socio-political group with such labels. Even if one is merely trying to show tendencies, one may want to solidify their research a little better.
This is reinforced by the fact that Arvan has already performed a “part 2” of his work, finding more correlations between conservatives and negative traits but also finding more correlations between liberals and negative traits. This suggests either the results of his first study were flawed or the entire concept behind the research is one that simply cannot be evaluated empirically. Conservatives are, as numerous other studies show, not narcissistic, not psychopathic and not Machiavellian. There was obvious bias going on here. As such, the results are questionable.
With this in mind, however, it is the nature of politics to try and damage the reputation or thought process of the other side and Dr. Arvan seemingly attempted to do so with elections just around the corner.
Conservatives and liberals will keep on bickering about what is right and what is wrong for years to come, but claiming that one section of the political spectrum is essentially marred by the labels under the Dark Triad is a claim that I believe few will actually grant any merit.
Boston Ross can be reached at bross@spartans.ut.edu