Vilfredo Pareto's Sociology : a Framework for Political Psychology

Testing Pareto’s Theory
185
From a humanist standpoint, it might count as a self-actualisation domain, and from 
a postmaterialist perspective, conceived with or without humanist assumptions, 
it might even make sense as a domain which distinguishes between people upon 
the basis of whether they have enjoyed formative security during their early years. 
The variables intercorrelated as follows. Innovativeness correlated convincingly 
(r=.30, p=.000) with individualism-collectivism, although barely (r=-.10, p=.227) 
with locus of control. There was, however, a substantial correlation (r=-.29, p=.001) 
between individualism-collectivism and locus of control. It could therefore be 
concluded that collectivists appear moderately inclined either towards internal locus 
of control or towards innovativeness, with both inclinations combining occasionally 
in collectivistic individuals.
5.8.4  Dissociation, Aggression and Aloofness
Factor domain 4(a) suggested that MPs who report higher levels of dissociative 
experience will also harbour stronger feelings of aggression. Of course, we have 
visited this binary cluster before, as it appears amplified within veteran Labour and 
Conservative MPs. However, it is particularly interesting that it should appear once 
more in factor analysis, this time accompanied by the political aloofness variable 
which taps distrust and detachment. A bold explanation would be that this factor 
domain stands for a Machiavellian-psychopathic type; perhaps a ‘hard-charging’ 
narcissistic or hypomanic MP who excels at role-playing, distrusts party colleagues 
and feels aloof from the cut and thrust of party politics. Given its low eigenvalue, it 
seemed reasonable to regard this personality configuration as relatively uncommon 
amongst MPs. Interestingly though, the correlation between dissociative experience 
and aggression in the r matrix was significant (r=.27, p=.001), as was that between 
aggression and political aloofness (r=.19, p=.020). Only dissociative experience 
and political aloofness failed to correlate, indicating that aggressiveness will tend to 
combine either with dissociative experience or with political aloofness.
5.8.5  Do these Clusters form Broader Personality Configurations?
A check was made for how variables forming the aggression-dissociation-aloofness 
cluster in factor domain 4(a) correlated with other variables. The results were very 
straightforward. The three variables each correlated in different ways with the 
remaining personality variables, thus suggesting no links to broader configurations.
As factor domain 2(a) clearly involved conservatism-liberalism and factor domain 
1(a) involved innovativeness and perhaps self-actualisation or freedom from the 
harsh superego, it was unsurprising that the r-matrix should now reveal links between 
variables loading onto these domains. Firstly, conservatism-liberalism correlated 
weakly with individualism-collectivism (r=.16, p=.055), locus of control (r=-.18, 
p=.034) and innovativeness (r=.17, p=.038). This highlighted a general contrast 
between (on the one hand) psychologically conservative individuals who incline 
towards external locus of control, individualism and low levels of innovativeness, 
and (on the other hand) psychologically liberal individuals who incline more towards 
internal locus of control, collectivism and higher levels of innovativeness. Weaker 

---

Vilfredo Pareto’s Sociology
186
findings appeared upon investigation of whether the correlates of individualism-
collectivism achieved correlations with the correlates of conservatism-liberalism. 
Firstly, individualism-collectivism was found to be unrelated to caution-risk and 
political aloofness. Innovativeness correlated weakly (r=.14, p=.082) with caution-
risk but not at all with political aloofness. Locus of control failed to correlate with 
caution-risk and only correlated very faintly (r=.13, p=.117) with political aloofness. 
In conclusion, therefore, the resonances between these two clusters were weaker 
than might have been anticipated, especially given the link between liberalism, 
innovation and postmaterialism revealed by the student study. In particular, it was 
surprising that the correlation between conservatism-liberalism and caution-risk was 
not stronger, given that the longer versions of these scales correlated at r=.37 in 
the student study. The correlation between political aloofness and external locus 
of control was also fainter than anticipated, given the earlier hypothesis that these 
variables are likely to be closely related. In the final analysis, however, findings 
still justified a general contrast between conservative and liberal individuals which 
pulls together variance in conservatism-liberalism, locus of control, individualism-
collectivism and innovativeness, to form a single multi-trait continuum. 
Next we can consider resonances between the individualism-collectivism cluster 
and the cluster which brings conservatism-liberalism together with conviction-
relativism and social anxiety. It has already been established above that individualism-
collectivism correlated weakly with conservatism-liberalism (r=.16, p=.055). It may 
now be added that individualism-collectivism correlated similarly (r=.15, p=.086) 
with conviction-relativism, but not at all with social anxiety. To complete the picture, 
locus of control correlated with conservatism-liberalism (r=-.18, p=.034), but not 
with conviction-relativism or social anxiety. The innovativeness variable also 
correlated weakly with conservatism-liberalism but not with conviction relativism 
or social anxiety. 
Hence the strongest finding was that collectivism and innovativeness cluster 
loosely with liberalism and relativism, thereby striking a contrast between the 
conservative who inclines towards individualism, firm ideological conviction and 
low levels of innovativeness, and the liberal who inclines towards collectivism, 
ideological relativism and high levels of innovativeness. This link between 
psychological conservatism and individualism should not be overstated, particularly 
in view of the fact that when we look back at the intervals between the parties on 
the individualism-collectivism measure, we see only statistically insignificant links 
between political conservatism and individualism. Nonetheless, the fact that such 
links should have appeared at all may seem both intriguing and counterintuitive. 
What’s more, this ‘conservative individualism’, which the earlier contrast between 
conservative and liberal forms of individualism has already addressed to some 
extent, has importance for the purposes of this book because it alerts us to senses in 
which Pareto was wrong to lump together conservatism (his class II ‘persistence of 
aggregates’ residues) with collectivism (his class IV residues of sociality). Pareto’s 
decision may seem surprising in view of Charles Powers’ observation that Pareto 
himself displayed that curious combination of being traditionally conservative and 
yet fiercely defensive of individual liberty (Powers 1987, 19). Hence we will now 
explore this combination further.

---