Vilfredo Pareto's Sociology : a Framework for Political Psychology

Testing Pareto’s Theory
179
that Machiavellian personality is likely to be distributed more towards the centres 
of power than towards the peripheries of the mainstream political parties. These 
findings suggested it would be interesting to check more thoroughly for personality 
correlates of the seniority variable, to test Pareto’s belief that foxes thrive within 
higher elite strata. A series of three factor analyses inputted the seniority variable 
alongside the ten personality variables. The first of these was run for all cases. The 
second was run for Labour MPs, and the third was run for Conservative MPs.
Table 5.7 
Differences between MPs by parliamentary seniority
Variable name
∆ Labour mean scores
 (as MOSTSP increases).
Probability ratings are asterisked
∆ mean Conservative scores
(as MOSTSP increases).
Probability ratings are asterisked
Con-Lib
                down by .30 SDs**
up by .09 SDs
Conv-Rel
down by .07 SDS
up by .01 SDs
Caution-risk
up by .16 SDs
down by .14 SDs
Innovation
down by .07 SDs
down by .03 SDs
Indiv-Collect
                 down by .23 SDs*
up by .22 SDs
Dissociation
up by .15 SDs
down by .21 SDs
Aggression
up by .07 SDs
up by .28 SDs
Probability ratings calculated by two tailed T-test
Labour MPs:             ***  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 .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 .39 SDs are significant at the p<.02 level.
                                  *      Intervals greater than .32 SDs are significant at the p<.05 level. 
The matrix run for all MPs consisted of four factor domains with eigenvalues above 
one. The seniority variable failed to make any impact upon the first three domains, 
yet it dominated the fourth domain with a very strong loading (.84). The only 
other variable to appear with a significant loading was one of the Machiavellian 
variables, the political aloofness scale (.49). However, this fourth factor domain 
had a low eigenvalue (1.2) and was only able to explain around 11% of the total 
variance. Interestingly, the matrix run for the Labour subpopulation also revealed a 
link between seniority and the political aloofness scale. The second largest of five 
significant factor domains was the only one to include the political aloofness variable 
with a significant loading. This domain had an eigenvalue of 1.5 and accounted for 
13.8% of the variance, indicating that its contents were worth investigating. Here, 
political aloofness (.81) combined with caution-risk (.65), conviction-relativism (-
.49) and political seniority (.31) to suggest that Labour MPs who experience that 
kind of alienation tapped by the political aloofness scale are more likely to harbour 

---

Vilfredo Pareto’s Sociology
180
positive orientations towards risk, to hold firm convictions, and to have obtained 
more senior positions within the Parliamentary Labour Party. If only ideological 
relativism, and not firm ideological conviction, had combined with these other 
variables, it would have been very tempting to read this as a ‘Machiavellianism’ 
factor. However, findings for Labour MPs did at least flag up a slender, partial truth 
in Pareto’s link between Machiavellianism and level of political seniority obtained, 
by suggesting that Labour MPs who hold (or have held) senior positions will, just 
like Machiavellians, be more likely to experience mild feelings of distrust and 
disenchantment, and will tend to be more positively oriented towards risk.
It may be tempting to speculate that this finding simply reflected the mood of the 
Labour subpopulation at the time of the study. However, evidence suggesting it may 
correspond to an enduring structural link between personality and parliamentary 
seniority was provided by the fact that Conservative MPs displayed very similar 
tendencies. The factor matrix run for the Conservative subpopulation produced four 
domains with eigenvalues above one. The second of these had an eigenvalue of 2.2 
and explained 20% of the total variance. Echoing very closely the content of the 
second factor domain which appeared for the Labour subopulation, a three variable 
cluster involving an alignment of political aloofness (0.72), caution-risk (0.51) and 
the seniority variable (0.26) appeared within this domain. Certainly, the seniority 
variable appeared with a weak loading. Yet its clustering with political aloofness 
and caution-risk was itself significant. It could now be concluded, tentatively of 
course, that relatively aloof, distrustful individuals who harbour preferences for 
political risk, have tended to obtain more senior positions within both the Labour 
and Conservative parliamentary parties. 
However, this does not tell the whole story. Within this second factor domain 
which appeared for the Conservatives, a broader range of variables appeared 
with heavy weightings. These were conviction-relativism (.82) and conservatism-
liberalism (.73). External locus of control appeared with a more modest weighting 
(.38). The fact that both ideological relativism and external locus of control loaded 
onto this domain meant that this could well amount to a ‘Machiavellianism’ factor, 
perhaps highlighting a particular type of politician who, although certainly not the 
most prevalent type within the party hierarchy, is still well represented. More fully, 
it could be argued that all personality measures loading onto this domain suggested 
aspects of non-pathological Machiavellianism-psychopathy. It is worth taking stock 
of how this conclusion emerged from each of these loadings: 
(1)  the loading for political aloofness hints at the Machiavellian-psychopath’s 
anomic disenchantment and distrust in human nature, and perhaps also 
narcissistic anxiety in relation to power wielded by others; 
(2)  The conviction-relativism loading signals the Machiavellian-psychopath’s 
hallmark encounter blindness and lack of affect;
(3)  The conservatism-liberalism loading may be construed as reflecting this 
type’s low superego strength and corresponding detachment from traditional 
social and moral norms. Furthermore, this delivers us that psychological 
liberalism which make’s Pareto’s Machiavellian type so distinctive); 
(4)  The caution-risk loading reveals positive orientations towards risk which are 
known to distinguish Machiavellians and which could, more speculatively, 

---