Disagreeable narcissists, extroverted psychopaths, and elections: a new dataset to measure the personality of candidates worldwide

Abstract

Scholars pay increasing attention to the personality of candidates. However, systematic and comparative data across different countries and electoral systems are virtually inexistent. I introduce here a new dataset with information about the personality of 124 candidates having competed 57 elections worldwide. I describe the candidates’ personality in terms of two sets of traits which provide a comprehensive representation of adult personality: the “socially desirable” traits of extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, and openness (“Big Five”), and the “socially malevolent” traits of narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism (“Dark Triad”). Beyond introducing these measures, and testing their validity and reliability, I present three sets of analyses suggesting that these variables are also relevant. My findings suggest several trends: (1) concerning the profile of candidates, populists score significantly lower in agreeableness, conscientiousness, and emotional stability, but higher in perceived extraversion, narcissism, and psychopathy than “mainstream” candidates; (2) looking at the content of their campaigns, candidates high in agreeableness and openness tend to be associated with campaigns that are less negative and harsh, but more based on positively valenced appeals. At the same time, extroverted tend to be associated more with character attacks. Finally, (3) looking at electoral success, high conscientiousness and openness seem associated with better results during the election, whereas extraversion could be counterproductive.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Notes

  1. 1.

    https://www.alessandro-nai.com/negative-campaigning-comparative-data.

  2. 2.

    I replicated all analyses presented in this article with a more restrictive condition (minimum five independent experts per candidate); results, available upon request, are very similar.

  3. 3.

    α = 0.74 (extraversion), α = 0.66 (agreeableness), α = 0.78 (conscientiousness), α = 0.84 (emotional stability), α = 0.63 (openness), α = 0.86 (narcissism), α = 0.89 (psychopathy), α = 0.78 (Machiavellianism).

  4. 4.

    To identify populist candidates, I referred to existing comparative work (e.g., Mudde 2007), systematic collections of case studies (e.g., Albertazzi and McDonnell 2008), and single case studies. I provide more details in Nai (2018a). Table A2 in appendix marks the candidates identified as populists with ** in front of their name.

  5. 5.

    Percentage of votes won by candidates (or their party, if legislative election); all models control for the effective number of candidates to exclude spuriousness. I replicated the analyses for two alternative measures (relative success and difference with average score), with very similar results. I discuss more details about this issue in Nai (2018c). See full results in Appendix D.

  6. 6.

    In a study of Belgian elected officials, Joly et al. (2018) find that low agreeableness is consistently associated with electoral success, which echoes my trends found for psychopathic traits.

References

  1. Albertazzi, D., and D. McDonnell (eds.). 2008. Twenty-First Century Populism. The Spectre of Western European Democracy. Houndmills: Palgrave.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Anderson, C.J., and F. Brettschneider. 2003. The likable winner versus the competent loser: Candidate images and the German Election of 2002. German Politics and Society 21(1): 95–118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Arditi, B. 2007. Politics on the edges of liberalism: Difference, populism, revolution, agitation. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Babiak, P., and R.D. Hare. 2006. Snakes in suits: When psychopaths go to work. New York, NY: Regan Books.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Barrick, M.R., and M.K. Mount. 1991. The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology 44(1): 1–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bittner, A. 2011. Platform or personality? The role of party leaders in elections. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bittner, A. 2015. Leader evaluations and partisan stereotypes—A comparative analysis. In Personality politics. The role of leader evaluations in democratic politics, ed. M. Costa Lobo and J. Curtice, 17–37. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Bittner, A., and D.A. Peterson. 2018. Introduction: Personality, party leaders, and election campaigns. Electoral Studies 54: 237–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Boddy, C.R., R. Ladyshewsky, and P. Galvin. 2010. Leaders without ethics in global business: Corporate psychopaths. Journal of Public Affairs 10(3): 121–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Brader, T. 2006. Campaigning for hearts and minds: How emotional appeals in political ads work. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Bruk, D. 2013. The Best of Vladimir Zhirinovsky, the Clown Prince of Russian Politics. Vice, 11 August 2013. https://www.vice.com/en_au/article/the-best-of-vladimir-zhirinovsky-russias-craziest-politician. Accessed 3 Sept 2018.

  12. Butler, K. 2013. Angela Merkel and the myth of charismatic leadership. The Independent, 12 September 2013. https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/angela-merkel-and-the-myth-of-charismaticleadership-8812441.html. Accessed 3 Sept 2018.

  13. Caprara, G.V., and P.G. Zimbardo. 2004. Personalizing politics: A congruency model of political preference. American Psychologist 59(7): 581.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Caprara, G.V., C. Barbaranelli, R.C. Fraley, and M. Vecchione. 2007. The simplicity of politicians’ personalities across political context: An anomalous replication. International Journal of Psychology 42(6): 393–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Clifford, S. 2018. Reassessing the structure of presidential character. Electoral Studies 54: 240–247.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Costa Lobo, M. 2018. Personality goes a long way. Government and Opposition 53(1): 159–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Curini, L. 2010. Experts’ political preferences and their impact on ideological bias: An unfolding analysis based on a Benoit-Laver expert survey. Party Politics 16(3): 299–321.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Curtice, J., and S. Holmberg. 2005. Party leaders and party choice. In The European Voter, ed. J. Thomassen, 235–253. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  19. De Hoogh, A.H., D.N. Den Hartog, and P.L. Koopman. 2005. Linking the Big Five-Factors of personality to charismatic and transactional leadership; perceived dynamic work environment as a moderator. Journal of Organizational Behavior 26(7): 839–865.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. De Landsheer, C., and L. Kalkhoven. 2014. The Imagery of Geert Wilders, Leader of the Dutch Freedom Party (PVV). Paper presented at the IPSA World Congress, Montreal, July 2014.

  21. de Vries, R.E., A. Bakker-Pieper, F.E. Konings, and B. Schouten. 2013. The communication styles inventory (CSI) a six-dimensional behavioral model of communication styles and its relation with personality. Communication Research 40(4): 506–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Dietrich, B.J., S. Lasley, J.J. Mondak, M.L. Remmel, and J. Turner. 2012. Personality and legislative politics: The Big Five trait dimensions among US state legislators. Political Psychology 33(2): 195–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Ehrhart, M.G., K.H. Ehrhart, S.C. Roesch, B.G. Chung-Herrera, K. Nadler, and K. Bradshaw. 2009. Testing the latent factor structure and construct validity of the Ten-Item Personality Inventory. Personality and Individual Differences 47(8): 900–905.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Gallagher, M.E., and B. Blackstone. 2015. Taking matters into their own hands: Presidents’ personality traits and the use of executive orders. Presidential Studies Quarterly 45(2): 221–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Gerber, A.S., G.A. Huber, D. Doherty, and C.M. Dowling. 2011. The big five personality traits in the political arena. Annual Review of Political Science 14: 265–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Göpffarth, J. 2017. ‘Straight outta Würselen’ and straight into the German Chancellery? Martin Schulz and the SPD’s resurgence. LSE Blog, 15 February 2017. http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2017/02/15/martinschulz-and-the-spd-resurgence/. Accessed 3 Sept 2018.

  27. Gosling, S.D., P.J. Rentfrow, and W.B. Swann. 2003. A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality 37(6): 504–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Heinisch, R. 2003. Success in opposition–failure in government: Explaining the performance of right-wing populist parties in public office. West European Politics 26(3): 91–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Hochwarter, W.A., L.A. Witt, and K.M. Kacmar. 2000. Perceptions of organizational politics as a moderator of the relationship between consciousness and job performance. Journal of Applied Psychology 85(3): 472–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Hoise, R. 2017. The deeper reason we should be worried Donald Trump hung up on Australia PM Malcolm Turnbull. Independent, 2 February 2017. https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-andfamilies/donald-trump-mental-health-why-worry-hung-up-australia-pm-malcolm-turnbull-psychologicalworld-a7559461.html. Accessed 3 Sept 2018.

  31. Hung, J. 2012. Why Germans love the enigmatic Angela Merkel. The Guardian, 15 August 2012. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/aug/15/why-germans-love-enigmatic-angela-merkel. Accessed 3 Sept 2018.

  32. Joly, J., S. Soroka, and P. Loewen. 2018. Nice guys finish last: Personality and political success. Acta Politica. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41269-018-0095-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Jonason, P.K. 2014. Personality and politics. Personality and Individual Differences 71: 181–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Jonason, P.K., and V.X. Luévano. 2013. Walking the thin line between efficiency and accuracy: Validity and structural properties of the Dirty Dozen. Personality and Individual Differences 55(1): 76–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Jonason, P.K., and G.D. Webster. 2010. The dirty dozen: A concise measure of the dark triad. Psychological Assessment 22(2): 420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Judge, T.A., C.A. Higgins, C.J. Thoresen, and M.R. Barrick. 1999. The big five personality traits, general mental ability, and career success across the life span. Personnel Psychology 52(3): 621–652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. King, A. 2002. Leaders’ personalities and the outcomes of democratic elections. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Kurd, K. 2017. Theresa May, you need personality to play personality politics. iNews, 5 June 2017. https://inews.co.uk/opinion/comment/theresa-may-personality-politics-election-kae-kurd/. Accessed 3 Sept 2018.

  39. Lau, R.R., and G.M. Pomper. 2004. Negative campaigning: An analysis of U.S. Senate Elections. Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Lilienfeld, S.O., I.D. Waldman, K. Landfield, A.L. Watts, S. Rubenzer, and T.R. Faschingbauer. 2012. Fearless dominance and the US presidency: Implications of psychopathic personality traits for successful and unsuccessful political leadership. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 103(3): 489–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. MacKinnon, M. 2017. Is Austria’s Norbert Hofer the Trump of Europe’s far right? Not quite—He’s learned how to play nice. The Globe and Mail, 5 January 2017. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/isaustrias-norbert-hofer-the-trump-of-europes-far-right-no-hes-learned-how-to-benice/article31792343/. Accessed 3 Sept 2018.

  42. Martínez i Coma, F., and C. Van Ham. 2015. Can experts judge elections? Testing the validity of expert judgments for measuring election integrity. European Journal of Political Research 54(2): 305–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. McAdams, D. P. 2016. The mind of Donald Trump. The Atlantic, June 2016. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/06/the-mind-of-donald-trump/480771/. Accessed 3 Sept 2018.

  44. McBride, J. 2017. Dutch elections and the future of the EU. Council on Foreign Relations, 10 March 2017. https://www.cfr.org/interview/dutch-elections-and-future-eu. Accessed 3 Sept 2018.

  45. McCrae, R.R. 1994. The counterpoint of personality assessment: Self reports and observer ratings. Assessment 1(2): 159–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Mcleod, M. 2017. Jeremy Corbyn has one thing Theresa May lacks: A personality. The Guardian, 3 May 2017. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/03/jeremy-corbyn-theresa-may-personalitytories-labour. Accessed 3 Sept 2018.

  47. Moffitt, B. 2016. The global rise of populism: Performance, political style, and representation. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Mondak, J.J. 2010. Personality and the foundations of political behavior. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Mount, M.K., M.R. Barrick, and J.P. Strauss. 1994. Validity of observer ratings of the big five personality factors. Journal of Applied Psychology 79(2): 272–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Mudde, C. 2007. Populist radical right parties in Europe. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Nai, A. 2018a. Fear and loathing in populist campaigns? Comparing the communication style of populists and non-populists in elections worldwide. Journal of Political Marketing (forthcoming).

  52. Nai, A. 2018b. Going negative, worldwide. Towards a general understanding of determinants and targets of negative campaigning. Government & Opposition (forthcoming).

  53. Nai, A. 2018c. The electoral success of angels and demons. Personality traits and candidates’ performance at the ballot box. Manuscript under review.

  54. Nai, A., and J. Maier. 2018. Perceived personality and campaign style of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Personality and Individual Differences 121: 80–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Nai, A., and A. Walter (eds.). 2015. New perspective on negative campaigning. Why attack politics matters. Colchester: ECPR Press.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Nemtsova, A. 2016. ‘Russia’s Trump, Vladimir Zhirinovsky, Wants to Build a Wall, Ban Muslims, and Nuke the White House’, Daily Beast, 7 September 2016. https://www.thedailybeast.com/russias-trump-vladimirzhirinovsky-wants-to-build-a-wall-ban-muslims-and-nuke-the-white-house. Accessed 3 Sept 2018.

  57. Nørgaard, A.S., and R. Klemmensen. 2018. The personalities of Danish MPs: Trait-and aspect-level differences. Journal of Personality. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Norris, P., and R. Inglehart. 2019. Cultural backlash: Trump, Brexit and authoritarian-populism. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Olbermann, K. 2016. Could Donald Trump pass a sanity test? Vanity Fair, 21 July 2016. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/07/donald-trump-keith-olbermann-sanity-test. Accessed 3 Sept 2018.

  60. Paulhus, D.L., and K.M. Williams. 2002. The dark triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality 36(6): 556–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Poguntke, T., and P. Webb. 2005. The presidentialization of politics. A comparative study of modern democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Ridout, T.N., and K. Searles. 2011. It’s my campaign I’ll cry if I want to: How and when campaigns use emotional appeals. Political Psychology 32(3): 439–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Rubenzer, S.J., and T.R. Faschingbauer. 2004. Personality, character, and leadership in the White House: Psychologists assess the presidents. Washington, DC: Brassey’s.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Rubenzer, S.J., T.R. Faschingbauer, and D.S. Ones. 2000. Assessing the US presidents using the revised NEO Personality Inventory. Assessment 7(4): 403–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Salgado, J.F. 1997. The Five Factor Model of personality and job performance in the European Community. Journal of Applied Psychology 82(1): 30–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Seibert, S.E., and M.L. Kraimer. 2001. The five-factor model of personality and career success. Journal of Vocational Behavior 58(1): 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Simonton, D.K. 2006. Presidential IQ, openness, intellectual brilliance, and leadership: Estimates and correlations for 42 US chief executives. Political Psychology 27(4): 511–526.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Simpson, J. 2012. Putin power. The Spectator, 2 March 2012. https://www.spectator.co.uk/2012/03/putinpower/#. Accessed 3 Sept 2018.

  69. Steenbergen, M.R., and G. Marks. 2007. Evaluating expert judgments. European Journal of Political Research 46(3): 347–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Traub, J. 2017. The Geert Wilders Effect. Foreign Policy, 13 March 2017. https://foreignpolicy.com/2017/03/13/the-geert-wilders-effect/. Accessed 3 Sept 2018.

  71. Van der Brug, W., and A. Mughan. 2007. Charisma, leader effects and support for right-wing populist parties. Party Politics 13(1): 29–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Van Zoonen, L., and C. Holtz-Bacha. 2000. Personalisation in Dutch and German politics: The case of talk show. Javnost-the Public 7(2): 45–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Visser, B.A., A.S. Book, and A.A. Volk. 2017. Is Hillary dishonest and Donald narcissistic? A HEXACO analysis of the presidential candidates’ public personas. Personality and Individual Differences 106: 281–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Vitriol, J.A., A. Ksiazkiewicz, and C.E. Farhart. 2018. Implicit candidate traits in the 2016 US Presidential Election: Replicating a dual-process model of candidate evaluations. Electoral Studies 54: 261–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Vulliamy, E. 2001. In the lions’ den again. The Guardian, 2 September 2001. https://www.theguardian.com/observer/comment/story/0,6903,545572,00.html. Accessed 3 Sept 2018.

  76. Watts, A.L., S.O. Lilienfeld, S.F. Smith, J.D. Miller, W.K. Campbell, I.D. Waldman, S.J. Rubenzer, and T.J. Faschingbauer. 2013. The double-edged sword of grandiose narcissism implications for successful and unsuccessful leadership among US Presidents. Psychological Science 24(12): 2379–2389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Winter, D.G. 1987. Leader appeal, leader performance, and the motive profiles of leaders and followers: A study of American presidents and elections. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52(1): 196–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I am very grateful to the anonymous reviewers and the journal editors for their constructive comments and suggestions; any remaining mistakes are my responsibility alone. I acknowledge financial support from the Swiss National Science Foundation (Grant ref P300P1_161163) and the material support provided by the Electoral Integrity Project (Harvard and University of Sydney), with special thanks to Pippa Norris for her input.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alessandro Nai.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 403 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nai, A. Disagreeable narcissists, extroverted psychopaths, and elections: a new dataset to measure the personality of candidates worldwide. Eur Polit Sci 18, 309–334 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41304-018-0187-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Big Five
  • Candidates
  • Dark Triad
  • Dataset
  • Elections
  • Expert survey
  • Personality