Vilfredo Pareto's Sociology : a Framework for Political Psychology

Vilfredo Pareto’s Sociology
172
or ‘non-altruism’. A fuller discussion of conservative individualism in the light of 
further evidence follows shortly.  
The differences between the parties on the personality measures deserved further 
investigation to see if they remained after controlling for demographics. Notably, table 
5.6(a) showed duration of parliamentary experience, rather than age, conforming to 
the patterned ordering of the parties. This was surprising. Grounds for anticipating 
a closer relationship with age than with the parliamentary experience are that liberal 
views, tolerance of risk, innovativeness, aggression and dissociative experience are 
all known to decline throughout the individual life cycle. Hence it seemed possible 
that the seven variable personality configuration might be explained to some extent 
with reference to the accumulation of parliamentary experience. 
Table 5.6(b) will now show how younger Labour and Conservative MPs 
compare on the personality variables. Table 5.6(c) will then compare older Labour 
and Conservative MPs. Table 5.6(d) will thereafter show how scores alter, moving 
from younger to older MPs. This exercise will then be repeated using the duration 
of parliamentary experience variable. These tables, it was felt, might invite some 
fascinating inferences. It was anticipated that comparisons between younger and 
older MPs might be read in either of two ways. Firstly, statistically significant 
intervals might be read as highlighting ‘life-cycle effects’ whereby MPs of one or 
more party tend to change in certain ways as they age. Secondly, significant intervals 
might also highlight ‘generational effects’ whereby younger MPs bring new ways 
of thinking to Parliament, which may impact in time upon the ‘social personalities’ 
of the parties. Given the inevitable correlation between age and duration of 
parliamentary experience, it was anticipated that the tables showing different levels 
of parliamentary experiences may also reflect such trends. However, it was felt 
that comparisons between MPs with different levels of parliamentary experience 
would be more likely to represent processes of political socialisation or acculturation 
which take place within Parliament, influencing MPs of different parties to diverge 
or converge on personality measures. 
Investigating Age Differences
Each subpopulation was first of all split into three groups: MPs under the ages of 35, 
between the ages of 35 and 55, and over the age of 55. Resulting Ns were around 5, 
52 and 19 for the Labour subpopulation, so it was decided that only the latter two 
groups could be compared with some hope of finding statistically significant trends. 
Conservative Ns were around 1, 23 and 17. Again, it was decided that only the 
latter two groups could be compared. Liberal Democrat Ns were around 6, 14 and 2 
(and were insufficient to permit any kind of comparison). Hence, only Labour and 
Conservative subpopulations could be investigated. In each of the following three 
tables, differences between mean scores are expressed once more as fractions of 
mean standard deviations. Significant differences are asterisked.
Tables 5.6(b) and 5.6(c) reaffirm only three differences between the parties 
which appeared in table 5.6(a). It appears from comparing both older and younger 
groups of MPs that Labour MPs are inclined to be more liberal, tolerant of risk and 

---

Testing Pareto’s Theory
173
innovative than Conservative MPs. However, differences in levels of ideological 
relativism, which are particularly salient among younger MPs (a Labour elevation of 
.86 SDs which is significant at the p<.01 level appears), fall away into insignificance 
when older MPs of both parties are compared. As the three tables also show, older 
Conservative MPs appear significantly more relativistic than younger Conservative 
Table 5.6(b)  Differences between Labour and Conservative MPs aged 35–55
Variable name.
Probability ratings
Are also asterisked.
Lower mean 
score
on measure
Interval (SD units)
between mean scores
Higher mean score
on measure.
Con-Lib ***
Con (-2.67)
1.21
Lab (1.69)
Conv-Rel ***
Con (-8.90)
.86
Lab (-6.83)
Caution-risk ***
Con (2.25)
.43
Lab (3.21)
Innovation *
Con (-.87)
.26
Lab (-.25)
Indiv-Collect *
Con (-.17)
.25
Lab (.38)
Dissociation
Lab (12.44)
.12
Con (12.75)
Aggression
Con (1.12)
.03
Lab (1.19)
Probability ratings calculated by two tailed T-test
*** Intervals greater than .30 SDs are significant at the p<.01 level.
**   Intervals greater than .28 SDs are significant at the p<.02 level.
*     Intervals greater than .24 SDs are significant at the p<.05 level. 
Table 5.6(c)  Differences between Labour and Conservative MPs aged 55+
Variable name.
Probability ratings
are also asterisked
Lower mean score
on measure
Interval (SD units)
between mean scores
Higher mean score
on measure
Con-Lib ***
Con (-2.41)
.88
Lab (.75)
Conv-Rel
Con (-7.94)
.15
Lab (-7.58)
Caution-risk ***
Con (1.71)
.52
Lab (2.86)
Innovation
Con (-1.00)
.27
Lab (-.35)
Indiv-Collect
Lab (-.21)
.10
Con (.00)
Dissociation
Con (11.18)
.21
Lab (11.71)
Aggression
Lab (9.06)
.21
Con (9.56)
Probability ratings calculated by two tailed T-test
*** Intervals greater than .44 SDs are significant at the p<.01 level.
**   Intervals greater than .40 SDs are significant at the p<.02 level.
*     Intervals greater than .33 SDs are significant at the p<.05 level.

---