Vilfredo Pareto's Sociology : a Framework for Political Psychology

Testing Pareto’s Theory
191
Female Labour MPs outscore male Labour MPs on collectivism by .39 SDs. Hence 
these intervals may well correspond to real gender differences. If these findings are 
to be regarded as influencing the social personality of the Parliamentary Labour 
Party, then it is worth noting that the possibility of an intensified collectivism seems 
congruent with the theory that feminised cultural transformation can result from 
increased female representation. The possibility of an intensified collectivism in 
combination with lower innovativeness should perhaps however be considered for 
its consistency with the literature (e.g. Cowley and Childs 2001) which has described 
‘Blair’s babes’ as less rebellious than their male colleagues. 
Moving on, factor domain 3(b) shows conservatism-liberalism and several 
related variables loading together in the absence of any demographic variables 
which might have helped explain their clustering. The r matrix does however show 
that conservatism-liberalism is affected by demographics to at least some extent. Its 
moderate negative correlation (r=-.32, p=.000) between conservatism-liberalism and 
duration of parliamentary experience reflects the heavy weighting of experienced 
MPs within the Conservative subpopulation. However, no other personality correlate 
of conservatism-liberalism came close to making a significant correlation with this 
demographic variable. Furthermore, it is worth remembering that when Labour and 
Conservative subpopulations were split so that only cases from each subpopulation 
whose years of parliamentary experience fell within narrower ranges were compared, 
Labour elevations remained on conservatism-liberalism, conviction-relativism and 
caution-risk in both cases. Hence parliamentary diversity on these variables seemed 
to correspond to real psychological differences. 
5.9 Final 
Conclusion
The student study confirmed truths which have become embedded within the 
psychological literature over decades, appearing earlier not just within Pareto’s 
sociology but also within the intuitions of political commentators dating back 
centuries. Relatively speaking, conservatives tend to be risk-averse and poorly 
endowed with creative ability; liberals tend to have stronger appetites for risk and 
are more creative. Many people are unaware of these trends. Hence there is value 
in stressing them once more in this book. The student study also found solid links 
between liberal personality and postmaterialist value orientation. Such links are to 
some extent intuitively obvious, yet they have been largely neglected by sociologists 
and psychologists. The insight which they provide into how postmaterialist values 
connect with personality configurations is interesting for various reasons, not least 
because these connections might usefully be explored further within a Paretian 
sociological framework. The very idea that the postmaterialist literature can be read 
for its consistency with Pareto’s view of slow cultural change, between the two poles 
of conservative austerity and liberal humanitarianism, is a fascinating one with the 
potential to inspire much further hypothesis building.
The student study did however fail to find broad or deep links between liberal 
personality and traits which we might consider for their relatedness to the so-called 
‘dark triad’ of Machiavellianism-Psychopathy-Narcissism. It appeared at that point 

---

Vilfredo Pareto’s Sociology
192
that Pareto’s personality theory might best be confined within its original context, as 
something which helped him make sense of his personal experiences of business and 
politics as Italy modernised during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. 
It seemed, more fully, that Pareto was probably misguided, both to assume that 
Machiavelli’s lion-fox typology held timeless significance as encapsulating patterns 
of variation within enduring human nature, and to grant this typology its pivotal role 
within his ambitious general sociology.
The MP study did however reveal Pareto’s psychological model as having some 
validity within a real political elite. Not only did findings reaffirm core differences 
between liberals and conservatives set out in both the student study and the last 
chapter, they also highlighted ways in which aspects of Machiavellian personality 
integrate within these differences. Just as Pareto’s political sociology would have 
us believe, Machiavellian traits emerged most saliently when we looked at different 
levels of elitism within Westminster. 
Furthermore, the MP study highlighted statistically significant intervals 
between the parliamentary parties on a good range of measures. These findings 
become particularly interesting in view of chapter three’s argument that political 
collectivities are likely to possess distinct social personalities because these supply 
heuristic guidance for the consistent and predictable negotiation of the world’s 
widening sphere of uncertainty. The richness of these patterned differences is worthy 
of contemplation in itself. In particular, they suggest Pareto has served us well as a 
guide to the psychological bases of social personality. And so we may now speak with 
more confidence and precision about differences between the social personalities of 
the three main parliamentary parties, and between the social personalities of the 
two main parties in particular. We even have a clearer understanding of how these 
differences might be influenced by processes of political socialisation.
The insight into social personality provided by the MP study thus provides a 
useful springboard for further research using either quantitative or qualitative 
techniques to explore, or perhaps even monitor, the social personalities of these or 
indeed any other political institutions. More longitudinal studies seem particularly 
useful as a means to chart the cultural trajectories of competing political institutions, 
highlighting how they converge in some respects and diverge in others over time. 
Mention must also be made here of the various contrasts between conservative 
and liberal personality which the MP study brought to light. These findings might 
assist the writers of political psychobiographies, or help ordinary voters form better 
intuitive impressions of political candidates or leaders. They might even help 
political leaders understand how their personalities influence their decisions. It is 
noteworthy, although not entirely unexpected, that findings fell short of reflecting 
those strong general links between psychological liberalism and Machiavellianism 
which make Pareto’s psychological model so distinctive. Some correlations between 
psychological liberalism and indicators of Machiavellianism-psychopathy did 
however appear. The political aloofness variable, which was described in the last 
chapter as probably tapping the Machaivellian’s anomic disenchantment and distrust, 
was found to correlate significantly with psychological liberalism (r=.17, p=.041). 
The measure of dissociative experience, which was included as a marker for the 
Machiavellian’s lack of a firm identity, also correlated positively with psychological 

---