Members of right-leaning parties prefer leaders with ‘dark triad’ personality traits

How does someone’s personality relate to their choice of political party? It’s a fascinating question, and one that has interesting implications in the changing landscape of British politics right now. Would someone joining a party, for example, want to see their own personality traits reflected back at them via the party’s leader?

The question of personality becomes even more intriguing when it comes to traits that are generally seen as malign rather than benign – the so-called “dark triad”, for example. This group is made up of narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy. While all three are distinct, these dark traits share features such as egotism and a willingness to lie and cheat to achieve a goal.

In our previous research we’ve covered the demography, sociology and ideology of British political party membership. But we noticed that there was little or no research on its psychology. Our most recent research aimed to fill that gap.

We wanted to uncover any links between personality and membership of the main British parties (Labour, the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, Greens and Reform UK). We used surveys of 4,266 members of these parties to learn more about their personalities – including those traits associated with the dark triad. Then we looked at what these characteristics meant in terms of the party leaders they were most attracted to.

Of course, in psychiatry it’s considered unethical to diagnose someone with a personality disorder without meeting them – and we are most definitely not psychiatrists. So when it came to these dark traits, we borrowed the definitions from the psychologist John Rauthmann.

Narcissism is the “tendency to harbour grandiose and inflated self-views while devaluing others”. Narcissists have been shown to be extremely vain, and to seek attention and admiration. They can also exhibit feelings of superiority, authority and entitlement, as well as exhibitionism, bragging and manipulation.

Machiavellianism is described as a “tendency to cynical, misanthropic, cold, pragmatic and immoral beliefs”. It’s also characterised by the pursuit of things like power and money – as well as manipulative tactics.

Psychopathy, on the other hand, is characterised by “impulsive thrill-seeking, manipulation and antisocial behaviours”. Someone meeting the criteria for psychopathy would also be likely to demonstrate shallowness and a lack of empathy and remorse, while being superficially charming. Like those with Machiavellian traits, they can also be manipulative.

‘People who mess with me will regret it’

Our study looked at the extent to which members of each of the parties exhibited those three traits by asking them to agree or disagree with statements that tapped into them. These were things like “group activities tend to be dull without me”, “avoid direct conflict with others because they may be useful in the future”, or “people who mess with me always regret it”.

Then we looked at whether party members who exhibit dark triad traits prefer – at least in the abstract – leaders who seem to show them too. But rather than name real leaders, we asked them about the kind of leadership characteristics that they admired or disparaged. Each of these was linked to a dark triad trait – so whether, for example, they liked a leader who saw themselves as exceptional, or was happy to manipulate people to get their way, or was unconcerned if they hurt someone’s feelings.

We found that the higher members scored on the dark triad themselves, the more likely they were to favour “dark” leaders. We then went on to examine whether those leaders were more likely to find favour with members of particular political parties.

And it turns out that they do. Reform UK members and Conservative members scored higher on dark triad measures than those from Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens. And party members with stronger dark triad traits are indeed more likely to favour leaders displaying them too.

It is no surprise, perhaps, that Tory and Reform members gravitate towards populist leaders such as Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage. In many ways they are the personification of the kind of leader they say they like − supremely self-confident and charismatic “alpha”-types who mix charm with something of a take-no-prisoners attitude.

Our research also supports the notion that there is something of a convergence – in our case a psychological and not merely ideological convergence – between, on the one hand, members of the centre-right Conservative party and the populist radical right Reform UK, and on the other, those who belong to the Greens, Labour and the Lib Dems.

This is yet another piece of evidence supporting the emerging consensus among political scientists that the UK is now characterised by two-bloc, rather than two-party, politics. This has huge implications for tactical voting at the next general election.

If there is little voter traffic between the two sides then what we should see is voters supporting whichever party in their bloc is best placed to beat the candidate put up by the other bloc. This is something that we’ve seen in several recent byelections, including the one that saw Andy Burnham triumph in Makerfield. Helped by tactical voting from those who might otherwise have voted Green or Lib Dem, the prime minister won a seat which, on paper at least, initially looked like a good prospect for Reform.

Should that bloc/anti-Reform voting be repeated at the general election, then Farage may find it difficult to convert what might turn out to be an impressive vote-share into the the kind of seat-share that would propel him into the premiership. He will hope to offset that problem by persuading Conservative voters to vote Reform in order to stop a Green, Labour or Lib Dem candidate making it to Westminster.

If we’re right, then Britain’s party members may tacitly facilitate such tactical voting. This could be by making little effort to campaign against a supposed rival from their bloc, for example, if it looks better-placed to beat the favourite on on the other side of the divide.