Political violence has increasingly become a troubling feature in democracies worldwide, from the storming of the U.S. Capitol to assassination attempts against political figures in Brazil and Argentina. This rising tide of violence underscores the importance of understanding its root causes, particularly the role of individual personality traits.
A new study, one of the first to systematically explore this topic across multiple countries, has found that individuals with darker personality traits are more likely to support political violence. These findings, published in Personality and Individual Differences, could have significant implications for addressing the underpinnings of radicalization and politically motivated violence in various socio-political contexts.
The study was driven by a key question: Are certain personality traits linked to a person’s willingness to support political violence? Previous research has connected personality traits like sensation seeking, uncertainty, and aggressiveness to radical political attitudes. However, most studies have been limited to single countries, raising questions about whether these findings are universal or context-specific.
Furthermore, much of this research focused on the “Big Five” personality traits (openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism) neglecting other significant personality dimensions, particularly the so-called “dark triad” traits of narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism. This study aimed to fill these gaps by examining the role of both standard and dark personality traits in supporting political violence across multiple countries.
“We have been investigating the intersection of dark personality and politics for a few years (see for example, our recent book on the dark personality traits of politicians worldwide, and the consequences for democracy),” said study author Alessandro Nai, an associate professor of political communication at the University of Amsterdam.
“One of the main symptoms of the increased radicalization of politics worldwide is the deepening divide between ideological camps – which can result in expressions of politically motivated violence. Yet, the deep roots of such negative radical partisanship have not been sufficiently investigated. Is support for politically-motivated violence linked to who we are deep down, that is, beyond politics and ideology? This is what we aim at investigating in our paper.”
The researchers conducted two studies. The first was a large-scale survey across five countries—Argentina, Australia, Germany, Italy, and the United States—with a total sample of over 10,000 participants. The second study focused specifically on U.S. respondents and explored the dark personality traits in more depth.
In the first study, participants completed a personality assessment based on the HEXACO model, which measures six major dimensions of personality: honesty-humility, emotionality, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness to experience. To measure support for political violence, participants read a fictional news article describing a politically motivated violent act—ranging in severity from a punch to a shooting—and were asked how much they agreed with statements supporting the violent act.
The second study replicated the approach with a sample of U.S. respondents, but with an increased focus on the dark personality traits. Participants were assessed using the “Dirty Dozen” inventory, which measures the dark triad of personality: narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism. They then read a vignette about a violent act committed by someone who supported their political party and were asked to express their level of support for this act.
Across both studies, the researchers found that individuals with darker personality traits were more likely to support political violence. In the multi-country study, low honesty-humility was the most consistent predictor of support for political violence, especially in Australia and the United States. This trait involves a lack of sincerity, fairness, and modesty, all of which were linked to a greater acceptance of violence against political opponents.
“We did find some interesting differences across countries – for instance, the role of low honesty-humility to drive support for political violence upwards is much stronger in Australia and the USA, and weaker in Germany and Italy,” Nai told PsyPost. “We do not really know (not have investigated) why this might be the case, but such cross-country differences are certainly worth keeping in mind for future research. Such differences suggest, furthermore, that caution ought to be used when reporting results from single country studies.”
In the U.S.-focused study, psychopathy emerged as a particularly strong predictor. Individuals with higher levels of psychopathy — a personality trait characterized by impulsivity, lack of remorse, and antisocial behavior — showed significantly higher support for politically motivated violence. Machiavellianism, marked by manipulativeness and a cynical view of human nature, also played a significant role.
“Politically-motivated violence is a political expression – that is, it reflects underlying partisan animosity, such a profound dislike for the political opponents, but that does not imply that its roots are exclusively political,” Nai told PsyPost. “Indeed, what we show is that some individuals are, deep down, particularly predisposed to support political violence. This is the case for individual scoring high on dark personality traits, psychopathy in particular. Given the impulsive and callous component of psychopathy, this makes sense.”
Interestingly, while the study confirmed that these dark traits are linked to higher support for political violence, the overall level of support for such acts was low across the board. This suggests that while dark traits may increase the likelihood of supporting political violence, this support is still relatively uncommon.
While the study offers important insights, it also has limitations that must be considered. First, the research focuses on attitudes and opinions rather than actual behavior. Supporting a violent act in theory and committing one in reality are very different, and this study does not explore the factors that might lead someone to move from support to action.
“A major caveat is that our research does not inform about engaging in political violence – only, at this stage, about supporting politically motivated violent act,” Nai said. “That is, our research is about opinions and attitudes, not about behaviors. And while the former are an important driver of the latter, they are by far not the same. Supporting a violent act and committing one are very different things – and further research will have to strive to uncover the deep roots of violent behaviors.”
“In the long term, we aim at uncovering the interplay between deep predispositions towards political violence (like here, the role of dark personality traits) and the contextual conditions in which political violence might unfold, with an eye specifically to the driving role of elite rhetoric to activate such deep dispositions,” Nai explained. “In other words, what we would like to uncover is the role of political rhetoric (e.g., when candidates use nasty political attacks or political incivility) to activate individual predispositions towards political violence in the public.”
“We know already that nasty campaigns can increase affective polarization in the public (e.g, this piece): do we find a similar effect for politically motivated violence as well? And what are the underlying mechanisms of this effect, if any?”
The study, “They choose violence. Dark personality traits drive support for politically motivated violence in five democracies,” was authored by Alessandro Nai and Elizabeth L. Young.
