Vilfredo Pareto's Sociology : a Framework for Political Psychology

Vilfredo Pareto’s Sociology
174
MPs (p<.02), and older Labour MPs appear significantly less relativistic than younger 
Labour MPs (p<.01). This statistically significant finding raised the possibility that 
the passing of time might somehow draw MPs of the two main parties towards 
convergent positions on the ideological conviction-relativism continuum. It was 
hypothesised that if this trend also appeared – or better still, was amplified – when 
similar controls were placed on the variable for duration of parliamentary experience, 
then perhaps the culture of Parliament has slowly produced this convergence. Table 
5.6(d) also shows that both Labour and Conservative MPs over the age of 55 appear 
less aggressive, less likely to report dissociative experiences and less ready to accept 
political risk than their respective colleagues between the ages of 35 and 55. As these 
are all changes which are known to accompany increasing age, this finding attests to 
the validity of these three measures.
Investigating Duration of Parliamentary Experience
Labour and Conservative subpopulations were now subdivided between those who 
had accumulated up to 9 years parliamentary experience and those who have served 
in Parliament for longer durations. This split point of 9 years allowed Ns to remain 
at viable levels. Labour Ns were around 56 and 21; Conservative Ns were around 16 
and 25. Table 5.6(e) highlights differences between Labour and Conservative MPs 
who have been in Parliament for nine or less years. Table 5.6(f) will then compare 
Labour and Conservative MPs who have served for longer than nine years. Finally, 
table 5.6(g) distinguishes between lesser and more experienced MPs.
Table 5.6(d)  Differences between younger and older MPs of both Parties
Variable name
∆ Labour mean scores
(from younger to older MPs).
Probability ratings are asterisked
∆ Conservative mean scores
(from younger to older MPs).
Probability ratings are asterisked
Con-Lib
down by .26 SDs*
up by .07 SDs
Conv-Rel
down by .31 SDs***
up by .40 SDs**
Caution-risk
down by .16 SDs
down by .24 SDs
Innovation
down by .02 SDs
down by .05 SDs
Indiv-Collect
down by .27 SDs*
up by .08 SDs
Dissociation
down by .29 SDs**
down by .63 SDs***
Aggression
down by .47 SDs***
down by .23 SDs
Probability ratings calculated by two tailed T-test
Labour MPs:              ***  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.
Conservative MPs:     *** Intervals greater than .42 SDs are significant at the p<.01 level.
                                    **   Intervals greater than .38 SDS are significant at the p<.02 level.
                                    *     Intervals greater than .31 SDs are significant at the p<.05 level.

---

Testing Pareto’s Theory
175
Table 5.6(g) shows that more experienced Labour MPs are more ‘conservative’ than 
their less experienced colleagues. The interval, which is significant at the p<.01 
level, is considerably larger than that which divides older from younger Labour 
MPs. Perhaps, therefore, the accumulation of parliamentary experience is a more 
Table 5.6(e)  Differences between Labour and Conservative MPs who have 
spent nine or less years in Parliament
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 (-3.00)
1.3
Lab (1.70)
Conv-Rel ***
Con (-9.00)
.83
Lab (-6.98)
Caution-risk
Con (2.38)
.20
Lab (2.82)
Innovation **
Lab (-.58)
.30
Con (.13)
Indiv-Collect
Con (.19)
.01
Lab (.21)
Dissociation
Lab (12.34)
.14
Con (12.69)
Aggression ***
Con (9.13)
.42
Lab (9.50)
Probability ratings calculated by two tailed T-test
*** Intervals greater than .31 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(f)   Differences between Labour and Conservative MPs who have 
spent more than nine years in Parliament
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 (-2.31)
.73
Lab (.33)
Conv-Rel **
Con (-8.13)
.37
Lab (-7.24)
Caution-risk ***
Con (1.88)
.67
Lab (3.36)
Innovation ***
Con (-1.48)
.67
Lab (.10)
Indiv-Collect
Con (-.28)
.13
Lab (.00)
Dissociation
Con (11.77)
.22
Lab (12.32)
Aggression *
Lab (9.50)
.34
Con (1.32)
Probability ratings calculated by two tailed T-test
*** Intervals greater than .39 SDs are significant at the p<.01 level.
  ** Intervals greater than .36 SDs are significant at the p<.02 level.
    * Intervals greater than .29 SDs are significant at the p<.05 level.

---

Vilfredo Pareto’s Sociology
176
significant factor than increasing age in influencing Labour MPs to become more 
conservative. This certainly provides food for thought. However, Conservative 
MPs do not exhibit this pattern. Table 5.6(d) has shown that age does not seem to 
influence their level of conservatism. And it may now be inferred very tentatively 
from table 5.6(g) that the accumulation of parliamentary experience could even have 
some marginal significance in influencing them to become more liberal, or at least to 
resist the general tendency for conservatism to intensify over the life cycle.  
This finding begins to hint at a process of political socialisation or acculturation 
whereby Labour and Conservative MPs converge on the conservatism-liberalism 
continuum as they accumulate parliamentary experience. However, conservatism-
liberalism is certainly not the only personality variable which invites such 
speculation. Table 5.6(g) suggests that Labour MPs may become less liberal (p<.01) 
and less relativistic (to a statistically insignificant extent) and less aggressive (p<.05) 
as they accumulate parliamentary experience. Conservative MPs display exactly the 
opposite tendencies, maybe becoming more liberal (to a statistically insignificant 
extent) and more relativistic (p<.05) and more aggressive (p<.01) as they 
accumulate parliamentary experience. However, to qualify this slightly, Labour and 
Conservative scores do not actually ‘converge’ on the aggression scale as they do on 
the conservatism-liberalism and conviction-relativism scales. Rather, conservative 
mean scores rise as Labour mean scores fall to create a Conservative elevation which 
is significant at p<.05. 
The contents of the above tables also support the possibility that MPs of the 
two parties diverge on certain traits as they accumulate experience. Labour MPs 
Table 5.6(g)  Differences between less and more politically experienced MPs
Variable name
∆ Labour mean scores 
(as experience increases). 
Probability ratings are asterisked
∆ Conservative mean scores 
(as experience increases). 
Probability ratings are asterisked
Con-Lib
down by .38 SDs***
up by .19 SDs
Conv-Rel
down by .11 SDs
up by .36 SDs*
Caution-risk
up by .24 SDs*
down by .23 SDs
Innovation
up by .29 SDs**
down by .68 SDs***
Indiv-Collect
down by .10 SDs
down by .22 SDs
Dissociation
down by .01 SDs
down by .37 SDs*
Aggression
down by .26 SDs*
up by .49 SDs***
Probability ratings calculated by two tailed T-test
Labour MPs:            ***  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 .23 SDs are significant at the p<.05 level.
Conservative MPs:   ***  Intervals greater than .42 SDs are significant at the p<.01 level.
                                  **    Intervals greater than .38 SDs are significant at the p<.02 level.
                                  *      Intervals greater than .31 SDs are significant at the p<.05 level.

---