Access to this full-text is provided by Springer Nature.
Content available from Current Psychology
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
Current Psychology (2024) 43:2714–2730
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-04463-x
Proud Boys, elected ocials, everyday Americans […]”
But even though they stemmed from dierent traits of life,
did some of these individuals share a common personality
trait called authoritarianism?
In psychological and political research, authoritarianism
has been characterized as (1) a submissiveness to authority
gures and (2) a dominance towards subordinates (Adorno
et al., 1950). In the past, authoritarianism has been domi-
nantly investigated in individuals with right-wing political
ideologies which led to the term right-wing authoritarian-
ism (RWA; Altemeyer, 1996). Individuals with high levels
of RWA have been described as people striving for (1) the
strict endorsement of conservative social norms and values
(i.e., conventionalism), (2) the compliance with established
authorities (i.e., authoritarian submission), and (3) antago-
nistic behavior toward outgroup members (i.e., authoritarian
aggression). In line with this description, current research
found individuals with higher levels of RWA to be more
close-minded (e.g., Hodson et al., 2009), fundamentalistic
On 6 January 2021, the United States Capitol in Washing-
ton DC was attacked by a group of individuals who tried to
impede the validation of the presidential election. Due to
the violent attack, several people were killed and injured.
Many argued that the outgoing president Donald Trump had
incited the attack on the Capitol – he had lost the 2020 presi-
dential election to president-elect Joe Biden but refused to
concede claiming election fraud. But who were the people
following Donald Trump’s (alleged) call? According to the
New York Times (Barry et al., 2021, January 9), “they came
from around the country with dierent aliations – QAnon,
Ann Krispenz
ann.krispenz@unibe.ch
Alex Bertrams
alexander.bertrams@unibe.ch
1 University of Bern, Educational Psychology Lab,
Fabrikstrasse 8, Bern 3012, Switzerland
Abstract
In two pre-registered studies, we investigated the relationship of left-wing authoritarianism with the ego-focused trait of
narcissism. Based on existing research, we expected individuals with higher levels of left-wing authoritarianism to also
report higher levels of narcissism. Further, as individuals with leftist political attitudes can be assumed to be striving for
social equality, we expected left-wing authoritarianism to also be positively related to prosocial traits, but narcissism to
remain a signicant predictor of left-wing authoritarianism above and beyond those prosocial dispositions. We investigated
our hypotheses in two studies using cross-sectional correlational designs. Two nearly representative US samples (Study
1: N = 391; Study 2: N = 377) completed online measures of left-wing authoritarianism, the Dark Triad personality traits,
and two variables with a prosocial focus (i.e., altruism and social justice commitment). In addition, we assessed relevant
covariates (i.e., age, gender, socially desirable responding, and virtue signaling). The results of multiple regression analy-
ses showed that a strong ideological view, according to which a violent revolution against existing societal structures
is legitimate (i.e., anti-hierarchical aggression), was associated with antagonistic narcissism (Study 1) and psychopathy
(Study 2). However, neither dispositional altruism nor social justice commitment was related to left-wing anti-hierarchical
aggression. Considering these results, we assume that some leftist political activists do not actually strive for social justice
and equality but rather use political activism to endorse or exercise violence against others to satisfy their own ego-focused
needs. We discuss these results in relation to the dark-ego-vehicle principle.
Keywords Altruism · Dark triad · Left-wing authoritarianism · Social justice commitment
Accepted: 23 February 2023 / Published online: 20 March 2023
© The Author(s) 2023
Understanding left-wing authoritarianism: Relations to the dark
personality traits, altruism, and social justice commitment
AnnKrispenz1· AlexBertrams1
1 3
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Current Psychology (2024) 43:2714–2730
in their religious orientation, and prejudiced towards minor-
ity groups (Altemeyer & Hunsberger, 1992). However, in
later theoretical conceptualizations (Altemeyer, 1998), it
was postulated that RWA seems to be more reective of the
submissive aspect of authoritarianism while another con-
struct – social dominance orientation (SDO) – was assumed
to mirror the dominance aspect of authoritarianism. Indi-
viduals with high SDO have been characterized as people
opposing social equality in support of group-based hierar-
chies by striving to dominate weaker out-groups. Support-
ing this later postulate, empirical studies have shown that
SDO is associated with racism, homophobia, and attitudes
unsupportive of women’s rights whilst negatively correlated
with empathy, tolerance, and altruism (Pratto et al., 1994).
Further, it was found that SDO is related to narcissism (e.g.,
Cichocka et al., 2017; Zeigler-Hill et al., 2021) and dark
personality traits (e.g., Hodson et al., 2009).
While there is wide agreement that RWA and SDO are
valid psychological constructs (for a critical review of the
measures on RWA, see Harms et al., 2018), the notion of
left-wing authoritarianism (LWA) has been met with skepti-
cism by many researchers (e.g., Altemeyer, 1996; Jost et al.,
2003; Nilsson & Jost, 2020) even though some empirical
studies found evidence for the existence of authoritarian-
ism also on the left side of the political spectrum (e.g., Con-
way et al., 2018; Crawford & Brandt, 2020). Recently, the
discussion around LWA has gotten fresh attention: On 25
May 2020, George Floyd – an unarmed Black man –was
killed by Minneapolis police. This event induced massive
Black Lives Matter (BLM) protests all over the US and the
world. And while most (94%) of the racial justice protests
in the US were conducted peacefully, some of these protests
(6%) included “violence, clashes with the police, vandal-
ism, looting, or other destructive activity” (ACLED, May
2021, p. 1). Later reports found that much of the violence
had been directed at the pro-BLM demonstrators, for exam-
ple by the police (Chenoweth & Pressman, 2020, Oct 16).
But had some left-wing authoritarians also been involved in
the aggressive activities? This question was addressed by
a very recent empirical study (Costello et al., 2022, study
phase 6). Out of a nationally representative US sample of
N = 834 participants, the researchers found 67 individu-
als who endorsed the violence during the BLM protests.
Among those individuals, LWA (but not RWA) was found to
predict the expressed support and the extremity of the sup-
port. Also, 19 individuals reported to have actually engaged
in violence during the BLM protests. However, their aggres-
sive engagement was neither statistically signicantly asso-
ciated with LWA nor RWA. Further, 73 individuals reported
to having desired to use violence for a political cause during
the last ve years (i.e., aside from the pro-BLM protests).
Among those participants, the study found that both LWA
and RWA were positively correlated with the desired fre-
quency of violence but only the correlation with RWA to
reach statistical signicance. In concert, these results indi-
cate that authoritarianism cannot only be found on the right
side of the political spectrum but might also be prevalent on
the political left (see also Conway et al., 2018). This notion
is further supported by ndings of the Polarization Research
Lab (2022, December) which show that even though most
followers of both political sides reject violence, some left-
wingers are more likely than right-wingers to endorse harm-
ing or even murdering their political opponents.
Based on those previous empirical ndings, the goal of
the present paper is to further investigate ego-focus corre-
lates of LWA. Throughout this paper, based on the concep-
tualization by Costello et al. (2022), we assume LWA to be
a tripartite construct comprising of three correlated dimen-
sions: (1) anticonventionalism, (2) top-down censorship,
and (3) antihierarchical aggression. The anticonvention-
alism dimension of LWA is characterized by the absolute
endorsement of progressive moral values. For example,
individuals with high levels of anticonventionalism might
declare anyone to be homophobic who is opposing gay mar-
riage. The LWA dimension of anticonventionalism seems to
contrast the RWA dimension of conventionalism which is
mirrored by the strict endorsement of conservative social
norms and values. However, Costello et al. (2022) found
similiarities between the nomological nets of LWA and
RWA/SDO. For example, after controlling for political ide-
ology, LWA anticonventionalism was also associated with
lower openness and higher dogmatism.
LWA anticonventionalism is assumed to not only lead to
an intolerance towards conservative values but also to the
desire to impose those progressive moral values on others
(Costello et al., 2022). This desire goes along with top-
down censorship as well as antihierarchical aggression. The
top-down censorship dimension of LWA is described as the
preference for the use of authority (governmental and insti-
tutional) to deal with opposition and the strive to suppress
any speech that is considered as oensive and intolerant.
For example, individuals with high levels of top-down cen-
sorship may strive to suppress free speech to regulate the
expression of right-wing beliefs in educational institutions.
Similarly, individuals high in RWA support the limitation
of free speech, however, as a means to endorse right-wing
values.
The antihierarchical aggression dimension of LWA has
been dened as “the motivation to forcefully overthrow the
established hierarchy and punish those in power” (Costello
et al., 2022, p.162). For example, individuals might express
their antihierarchical aggression by the endorsement of
political violence to ght for social justice. Individuals with
high levels of LWA are thus assumed to be hostile towards
1 3
2715
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Current Psychology (2024) 43:2714–2730
the present social and moral authorities while feeling mor-
ally superior and endorsing the use of violence to reach
one’s own political goals. Thus, aggression is prevalent in
individuals high in LWA. However, aggression is not a phe-
nomenon reserved for the political left – aggression directed
at members of the opposite political party can also be found
in individuals high in SDO as conceptualized by Altemeyer
(1998).
Contemporary empirical studies on the ego-focused cor-
relates of LWA are comparatively rare. The existing research,
however, points to a relationship between LWA and ego-
focused traits such as narcissism (Zeigler-Hill et al., 2021)
as well as psychopathy (Costello et al., 2022, phase 4). In
the present research, we thus wanted to shed further light
on the relations of LWA with narcissism. Going beyond the
research of Zeigler-Hill et al. (2021), we investigated the
relationship between narcissism and the three subfacets of
LWA (i.e., anticonventionalism, top-down censorship, and
antihierarchical aggression). However, as left-wing political
attitudes also include prosocial concerns (i.e., the striving
for social equality), in the present research, we simultane-
ously controlled for the relationship of LWA and prosocial
focused dispositions (i.e., altruism and social justice com-
mitment). This approach allowed us to investigate if nar-
cissism is related to LWA above and beyond the predictive
power of those prosocial traits.
To investigate our pre-registered research questions, we
conducted two cross-sectional correlational studies using
nationally nearly representative US samples. In particular,
Study 1 explored the associations of LWA with narcissism
beyond and above altruism, while Study 2 investigated the
relationships between LWA and narcissism (Paulhus & Wil-
liams, 2002) above and beyond social justice commitment.
All measures were assessed with self-report instruments.
To acknowledge the limitations of self-reports regarding
individuals’ tendency to answer in a socially desirable way
(Stöber et al., 2002), we additionally included established
measures to account for such tendencies in both studies. As
another covariate, we included participants’ age as narcis-
sistic traits are susceptible to change over one’s life course
(Cramer, 2011). Finally, we included gender as a covari-
ate as gender-specic dierences in narcissism have been
reported (Grijalva et al., 2015).
Study 1
Study 1 had two goals. Firstly, we wanted to investigate the
relationship between LWA (and its respective subfacets)
and narcissism. In the following, we use the terms “narcis-
sism” and “narcissist” when referring to subclinical narcis-
sism as a personality trait (i.e., to the continuous distribution
of narcissism in the broader community; Furnham et al.,
2013). Further, paralleling the research of Zeigler-Hill et al.
(2021), we relied on the three-dimensional conception of
narcissism provided by Miller et al. (2016) who characterize
individuals high in narcissistic traits as (1) demonstrating
manipulative and exploitative behaviors, indulging in self-
perceived entitlement, arrogance, reactive anger, distrust,
lack of empathy, and thrill-seeking (so called antagonistic
narcissism); (2) acclaim seeking, authoritative, indulging
in grandiose fantasies, and demonstrating exhibitionism (so
called extraverted narcissism); and (3) experiencing shame,
low indierence, and a need for admiration (so called neu-
rotic narcissism).
Previous studies regarding the relationship between nar-
cissism and global LWA (Zeigler-Hill et al., 2021) found
LWA to be positively correlated with antagonistic narcis-
sism (r = .61, p < .001), extraverted narcissism (r = .38,
p < .001), and neurotic narcissism (r = .23, p < .001). The
results of those studies also showed that LWA (global) was
most strongly predicted by antagonistic narcissism (b = 0.34,
p < .001) when neurotic narcissism (b = 0.17, p < .001) and
extraverted narcissism (b = 0.00, p > .05) were simultane-
ously included in the analysis.
Interestingly, the authors found similar patterns for
SDO, which was also most strongly predicted by antago-
nistic narcissism (b = 0.25, p < .05) when neurotic narcis-
sism (b = 0.12, p < .05) and extraverted narcissism (b = 0.10,
p > .05) were included in the analysis. From these results,
Zeigler-Hill and his colleagues concluded that individuals
with high levels of antagonistic narcissism may be ruthlessly
motivated to endorse either right- or left-wing ideological
attitudes depending on which of these attitudes seems to be
more advantageous to them in a specic situation.
Based on these nding on the association between LWA
and narcissism (Zeigler-Hill et al., 2021), in Study 1, we
expected LWA to be positively related to narcissism (pre-
registered Hypothesis 1). In particular, for the main analy-
ses, we assumed the global LWA score as well as each of the
three subfacets of LWA (i.e., anticonventionalism, top-down
censorship, and antihierarchical aggression) to be positively
related to the three subfacets of narcissism (i.e., antago-
nistic, extraverted, and neurotic narcissism). Thus, going
beyond existing research, we examined not only narcissism
but also LWA dierentially by considering its subfacets.
In a secondary analysis, we investigated the relationship
between global LWA and its subfacets on the one hand and
narcissism on the other hand applying an alternative con-
ceptualization of narcissism which dierentiates between
grandiose and vulnerable narcissism (Sherman et al., 2015).
Again, we expected positive relationships between each of
the LWA scores and these two subfacets of narcissism.
1 3
2716
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Current Psychology (2024) 43:2714–2730
Twenty-two of these participants were excluded from the
original sample because they did not complete the survey
(n = 11), failed the attention check (n = 8), or were suspected
of being duplicate respondents (n = 3). Hence, the nal sam-
ple consisted of N = 391 individuals (Mage = 46.230 years,
SD = 16.390, range = 18–93 years). For the full report of the
sample demographics for Study 1, see supplementary Table
S1.
Procedure
Study 1 was announced as an “Attitudes and Behaviors
Study” and lasted about 20 min. The study was conducted
online – all instructions and measures were provided via the
survey software Qualtrics. After giving written informed
consent, participants indicated their age and gender as well
as other demographic information (i.e., ethnicity, native lan-
guage, highest educational level, income, marital status, and
sexual orientation). Next, an attention check (Bertrams &
Schlegel, 2020) was administered to ensure that participants
had carefully read the instructions. In particular, participants
were presented with a question (i.e., “Who was the rst
president of the United States of America?”) and three pos-
sible answers (i.e., Abraham Lincoln, George Washington,
or Thomas Jeerson). Participants were explicitly instructed
not to answer this question to demonstrate that they had
given attention to this instruction. Next, participants were
randomly presented with the items measuring narcissism
and altruism (i.e., some participants rst answered the items
measuring narcissism while other participants rst answered
the altruism items). Afterwards, participants’ proneness
to socially desirable responding (i.e., self-deception and
impression management) was assessed with the respective
items of both scales presented in a mixed and random order.
Further, LWA was measured. In a nal step, participants
reported on their political orientation as well as their politi-
cal ideology, and the political party they identify with. After
that, participants provided their Prolic ID, were thanked
for their participation, and debriefed. After completing the
study, participants received a xed payment of £2.70 (about
$3.50).
Measures
Narcissism
Narcissism was measured with the Five-Factor Narcis-
sism Inventory (FFNI; Sherman et al., 2015). The FFNI
is a self-report measure with 60 items and allows for the
assessment of narcissism on three subdimensions (Miller
et al., 2016): antagonism (32 items; e.g., “I’m pretty good
at manipulating people”), agentic extraversion (16 items;
Secondly, as a novel aspect, we explored the relationship
between LWA and narcissism above and beyond disposi-
tional altruism. Altruistic individuals are people with proso-
cial tendencies who support others at the price of personal
cost (Dargan & Schermer, 2022). They have been described
as sympathetic, soft-hearted, and generous (Lee & Ashton,
2006). Trait altruism is observed in individuals who dem-
onstrate altruistic behaviors across dierent situations, for
example giving money to strangers, helping others to move
their household, or volunteering for a social cause (Rushton
et al., 1981). Studies show that altruism also predicts par-
ticipation in politics such as voting, volunteering, and pro-
testing (Fowler & Kam, 2007). Further, altruism has been
demonstrated to be positively related to left-wing political
attitudes (Zettler & Hilbig, 2010). Hence, we also expected
LWA (and its subfacets) to be positively related to altruism
(pre-registered Hypothesis 2).
Method
Open Science and ethical requirements
Study 1 was pre-registered before the data collection with
AsPredicted.org (https://aspredicted.org/qc4hy.pdf – iden-
tier #97,770) under the title “Understanding Left-Wing
Authoritarianism – Study 1”. The study was approved
(identier #2022-05-00006) by the human research ethics
committee of the University of Bern. Informed consent was
obtained according to the guidelines of the university. The
complete study materials including the raw data are avail-
able at https://researchbox.org/751.
Power analysis and participants
We calculated the sample size necessary to obtain sucient
power of 80% to detect an existing eect (Cohen, 1988)
using G*Power 3.1 (Faul et al., 2009). Assuming an eect
of each of the predicted sixteen bivariate Pearson product-
moment correlations of |ρ| = 0.21 (cf., Schönbrodt & Peru-
gini, 2013) and a respective Bonferroni corrected error
probability of α = 0.003125 (two-tailed), the results of the
power analysis revealed a minimum sample size of N = 320.
The sample was recruited using the Prolic recruitment plat-
form (https://www.prolic.co). Expecting some data loss
(e.g., due to failed attention checks), we aimed at recruit-
ing N = 400 participants nationally representative of the US
via this online-crowdsourcing system (detailed information
on representative samples recruited via Prolic is provided
by Costello et al., 2022). In particular, we applied Prolic’s
option for US nationally representative sampling. Ulti-
mately, 413 individuals started to participate in the survey.
1 3
2717
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Current Psychology (2024) 43:2714–2730
calculated a mean IM score high scores indicating a high
level of impression management. The IM scale also showed
good internal consistency (McDonald’s ω = 0.859).
Left-wing authoritarianism
LWA was measured with the Left-Wing Authoritarian Index
(LWAI; Costello et al., 2022). The LWAI is a self-report
measure with 39 items allowing for the assessment of LWA
and its three subdimensions: anticonventionalism (13 items;
e.g., “Anyone who opposes gay marriage must be homo-
phobic”), top-down censorship (13 items; e.g., “University
authorities are right to ban hateful speech from campus”),
and antihierarchical aggression (13 items; e.g., “The rich
should be stripped of their belongings and status”). Ratings
were made using 7-point scales from 1 (strongly disagree)
to 7 (strongly agree). After recoding the respective inverse
items, we calculated a total LWA mean score with high
scores indicating a high level of LWA. The scale showed
excellent internal consistency (McDonald’s ω = 0.953).
Further, we calculated a mean score for each of the three
respective LWA subdimensions with high scores indicating
a high level of anticonventionalism, top-down censorship,
or antihierarchical aggression. The subscales showed excel-
lent internal consistency (anticonventionalism: McDonald’s
ω = 0.938; top-down censorship: McDonald’s ω = 0.898;
antihierarchical aggression: McDonald’s ω = 0.916).
Political orientation
In accordance with the approach of Costello et al. (2022),
participants’ political orientation was assessed with one
item asking participants to place themselves on a 7-point
scale with regard to their political views ranging from 1
(extremely left-wing/far-left) to 7 (extremely right-wing/
far-right).
Results
Common method bias test
In the present research, we relied on self-report question-
naires. The adoption of self-report questionnaires can lead to
common method variance when the examined variables are
assessed at the same point in time (Chang et al., 2010). To
examine, if a common method bias occurred, we used Har-
man’s single-factor test as described by Zhang et al. (2022).
For this purpose, we included all measured items in an unro-
tated principal component analysis to test if only one com-
ponent emerges from this analysis or if the rst component
explains the vast majority of the variation (> 40%) as both
e.g., “Leadership comes easy for me”), and neuroticism (12
items; e.g., “When I realize I have failed at something, I
feel humiliated”). Ratings were made using 5-point scales
from 1 (disagree strongly) to 5 (agree strongly). After
recoding the respective inverse items, we calculated a total
FFNI mean score with high scores indicating a high level
of narcissism. The scale showed good internal consistency
(McDonald’s ω = 0.893). Next, we calculated a mean score
for each of the three respective FFNI dimensions with
high scores indicating a high level of antagonism, agentic
extraversion, or neuroticism. The subscales showed good
to excellent internal consistency (antagonism: McDonald’s
ω = 0.910; agentic extraversion: McDonald’s ω = 0.875; neu-
roticism: McDonald’s ω = 0.911). Finally, for analyses with
an alternative conception of narcissistic traits (Sherman et
al., 2015), we calculated a mean score assessing grandiose
narcissism1 (McDonald’s ω = 0.910) and vulnerable narcis-
sism (McDonald’s ω = 0.859).
Altruism
Altruism was assessed with the Self-Report Altruism Scale
(SRA; Rushton et al., 1981). The SRA measures altruism
with twenty items representative of altruistic behaviors
(e.g., “I have given money to a charity”). Participants were
instructed to rate how often they had engaged in such behav-
iors in the past using 5-point scales from 1 (never) to 5 (very
often). For the data analyses, we calculated a mean score
including all twenty SRA items, with high scores indicat-
ing a high level of altruism. The scale showed good internal
consistency (McDonald’s ω = 0.874).
Socially desirable responding
Proneness to socially desirable responding was assessed
with the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding
(BIDR; Paulhus, 1984; 1988). With its 40 items, the BIDR
measures two constructs: self-deceptive enhancement
(SDE; 20 items; e.g., “My rst impressions of people usu-
ally turn out to be right”) and impression management (IM;
20 items; e.g., “I never cover up my mistakes”). Ratings
were made using 7-point scales from 1 (not true) to 7 (very
true). First, we recoded the respective inverse items. Sec-
ond, in line with the ndings of Stöber et al. (2002), we
used continuous scoring (i.e., all answers on the continu-
ous answer scale are counted). This way, we calculated a
mean SDE score with high scores indicating a high level of
self-deceptive enhancement. The SDE scale showed good
internal consistency (McDonald’s ω = 0.798). Further, we
1 In calculating the mean score for grandiose narcissism, we did
include the items measuring Indierence (items 9, 24, 39, 54) in the
original form (i.e., without recoding).
1 3
2718
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Current Psychology (2024) 43:2714–2730
exception from this pattern was found when we predicted
LWA antihierarchical aggression: The respective LWA score
was only statistically signicantly predicted by the FFNI
score for antagonism (b = 0.380, SE b = 0.121, β = 0.181,
p = .002) when we controlled for age, gender, self-deceptive
enhancement, and impression management (see Model 4b,
Table 2).
Preregistered secondary analyses
In a nal step, we repeated the data analyses to examine the
relationships between LWA and the alternative narcissism
subfacets of grandiose and vulnerable narcissism (Sherman
et al., 2015). Again, we calculated four hierarchical mul-
tiple linear regressions predicting LWA (i.e., the total LWA
score and each of the three LWA subscales respectively), but
this time by altruism and these two subfacets of narcissism
(i.e., FFNI grandiose narcissism, FFNI vulnerable narcis-
sism). All VIF values were again < 2.56 and results of the
respective Durbin-Watson tests showed that there was no
autocorrelation.
In all these regression analyses, the respective LWA score
was statistically signicantly predicted by the FFNI score
for vulnerable narcissism (see Models 6a to 9a, supplemen-
tary Tables S5 to S8). However, this FFNI score was no lon-
ger predictive for any of the respective LWA scores, when
we controlled for age, gender, self-deceptive enhancement
and impression management (see Models 6b to 9b, supple-
mentary Tables S5 to S8).
Discussion
In Study 1, we investigated the relationship between LWA
and the ego-focused trait of narcissism above and beyond
the inuence of altruism. In a rst step, the results of the
data analyses showed that LWA (and all its subfacets) were
predicted by neurotic narcissism. Interestingly, and contrary
to our predictions, we did not nd any relationship between
LWA (and its subfacets) and altruism. These results seem
to imply that individuals high in LWA are also individuals
with high levels of neurotic narcissism (i.e., individuals who
strongly care about what others might think about them,
who experience high levels of shame, and have a strong
need for admiration).
However, when we controlled for other relevant vari-
ables such as age, gender, and the tendency for socially-
desirable responding, the relationship between LWA (and
its subfacets) and neurotic narcissism was no longer detect-
able. Then, a robust relationship between the LWA subfacet
of antihierarchical aggression and antagonistic narcissism
was unveiled. Antihierarchical aggression represents the
cases would be indicative of the existence of severe com-
mon method bias. In the analysis, 35 components emerged
explaining 69.67% of the variance in Study 1. Further, the
rst component explained only 13% of the variation, which
is below the critical value. Thus, we assume that common
method variance did not severely bias the results of Study 1.
Preregistered main analyses
Descriptive statistics for all variables can be found in sup-
plementary Table S1. Bivariate correlations for all analyzed
variables are depicted in Table 1. In line with our predic-
tions, inter-correlations revealed a positive association
between LWA and narcissism: Overall, we found a positive
correlation between the global LWA score and the FFNI
total score (r = .178, p < .001). With regard to the three nar-
cissism subscales, we found the total LWA score to be sta-
tistically signicantly related only to the FFNI neuroticism
score (r = .268, p < .001). With respect to the LWA subscale
scores, we found antihierarchical aggression to be posi-
tively related to the FFNI scores for antagonism (r = .249,
p < .001) and neuroticism (r = .222, p < .001). The other LWA
subscales were positively related only to the FFNI neuroti-
cism score (LWA anticonventionalism: r = .255, p < .001;
LWA top-down censorship: r = .205, p < .001). Surprisingly,
we did not nd the expected positive associations between
LWA and altruism. On the contrary, altruism was negatively
correlated to the total LWA score (r = –.153, p = .002) as
well as to antihierarchical aggression (r = –.180, p < .001).
To further test our assumptions, in a next step we calcu-
lated four hierarchical multiple linear regressions predict-
ing LWA (i.e., the total LWA score and each of the three
LWA subscales respectively) by altruism and the three
FFNI subfacets of narcissism. As general assumptions for
the regression analyses (Field, 2018), we rst checked
the variance ination factor (VIF) to test for extreme col-
linearity. VIF values for all variables were lower than the
threshold of 10.00 (all VIFs < 2.56). Therefore, extreme col-
linearity did not occur in the data. Second, the results of the
respective Durbin-Watson tests showed that there was no
autocorrelation.
The results revealed that the total LWA score (Model
1a, supplementary Table S2) was only predicted by the
FFNI neuroticism score (b = 0.279, SE b = 0.060, β = 0.233,
p < .001). However, the FFNI neuroticism score was no lon-
ger a signicant predictor of LWA when we controlled for
age, gender, self-deceptive enhancement, and impression
management in a second block (see Model 1b, supplemen-
tary Table S2). Similar results were found when we pre-
dicted the LWA score for anticonventionalism (see Models
2a & 2b, supplementary Table S3) and top-down censorship
(see Models 3a & 3b, supplementary Table S4). The only
1 3
2719
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Current Psychology (2024) 43:2714–2730
Table 1 Intercorrelations and (p Values) for Study 1 Variables
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15
01 Age –
02 Gender
(1 = male,
2 = female)
0.011
(0.825)
–
03 Altruism 0.246
(< 0.001)
–0.006
(0.911)
–
04 FFNI: Total
Score
–0.412
(< 0.001)
–0.153
(0.003)
–0.070
(0.169)
–
05 FFNI:
Antagonism
–0.281
(< 0.001)
–0.249
(< 0.001)
–0.117
(0.021)
0.841
(< 0.001)
–
06 FFNI: Agentic
Extraversion
–0.250
(< 0.001)
–0.083
(0.101)
0.169
(< 0.001)
0.718
(< 0.001)
0.435
(< 0.001)
–
07 FFNI:
Neuroticism
–0.342
(< 0.001)
0.106
(0.037)
–0.181
(< 0.001)
0.442
(< 0.001)
0.071
(0.158)
0.052
(0.301)
–
08 FFNI: Grandi-
ose Narcissism
–0.235
(< 0.001)
–0.236
(< 0.001)
0.080
(0.113)
0.797
(< 0.001)
0.821
(< 0.001)
0.801
(< 0.001)
–0.159
(0.002)
–
09 FFNI: Vulner-
able Narcissism
–0.426
(< 0.001)
0.010
(.838)
–0.224
(< 0.001)
0.682
(< 0.001)
0.532
(< 0.001)
0.141
(0.005)
0.766
(< 0.001)
0.181
(< 0.001)
–
10 Self-Deceptive
Enhancement
0.268
(< 0.001)
–0.099
(0.051)
0.125
(0.014)
–0.239
(< 0.001)
–0.091
(0.072)
0.131
(0.010)
–0.635
(< 0.001)
0.175
(< 0.001)
–0.605
(< 0.001)
–
11 Impression
Management
0.206
(< 0.001)
0.097
(0.057)
0.039
(0.443)
–0.361
(< 0.001)
–0.371
(< 0.001)
–0.037
(0.461)
–0.301
(< 0.001)
–0.180
(< 0.001)
–0.437
(< 0.001)
0.579
(< 0.001)
–
12 LWA –0.370
(< 0.001)
0.103
(0.042)
–0.153
(0.002)
0.178
(< 0.001)
0.109
(0.031)
0.021
(0.674)
0.268
(< 0.001)
0.021
(0.685)
0.328
(< 0.001)
–0.302
(< 0.001)
–0.164
(0.001)
–
13 LWA: AHA –0.387
(< 0.001)
0.029
(0.565)
–0.180
(< 0.001)
0.254
(< 0.001)
0.249
(< 0.001)
0.034
(0.507)
0.222
(< 0.001)
0.118
(0.019)
0.382
(< 0.001)
–0.346
(< 0.001)
–0.273
(< 0.001)
0.863
(< 0.001)
–
14 LWA: AC –0.337
(< 0.001)
0.064
(0.212)
–0.126
(0.013)
0.107
(0.034)
0.047
(0.351)
–0.043
(0.397)
0.255
(< 0.001)
–0.038
(0.459)
0.268
(< 0.001)
–0.286
(< 0.001)
–0.148
(0.003)
0.899
(< 0.001)
0.712
(< 0.001)
–
15 LWA: TDC –0.220
(< 0.001)
0.175
(< 0.001)
–0.085
(0.093)
0.101
(0.046)
–0.011
(0.825)
0.074
(0.145)
0.205
(< 0.001)
–0.020
(0.693)
0.190
(< 0.001)
–0.138
(0.007)
0.003
(0.960)
0.793
(< 0.001)
0.499
(< 0.001)
0.554
(< 0.001)
–
16 Political
Orientation
0.176
(< 0.001)
–0.090
(0.076)
0.061
(0.226)
0.020
(0.699)
0.095
(0.060)
0.085
(0.092)
–0.204
(< 0.001)
0.139
(0.006)
–0.126
(0.013)
0.204
(< 0.001)
0.080
(0.116)
–0.619
(< 0.001)
–0.454
(< 0.001)
–0.741
(< 0.001)
–0.356
(< 0.001)
Note. FFNI = Five-Factor Narcissism I nventory (Miller et al., 2016 ); LWA = Left-wing Authoritarianism; AHA = Antihierarchical Aggression; AC = Anticonventionalism; TDC = To p- Do w n
Censorship. All reported p values are two-tailed. For the correlations bet ween the FFNI subscales and LWA (including its subscales) as well as altr uism and LWA (including its subscales), we
considered Bonferroni adjusted p values < 0.003125 (two-tailed) as statistically signicant; for all other correlations, we applied the conventional 0.05 signicance level.
1 3
2720
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Current Psychology (2024) 43:2714–2730
aspect, the results of Study 1 of the present research sug-
gest that such an individual may particularly be motivated to
endorse violent attacks against the established social institu-
tions demonstrating LWA antihierarchical aggression.
Study 2
In Study 2, we further investigated the relationship between
narcissism and LWA. However, we now focused on LWA
antihierarchical aggression as it was the only LWA sub-
facet robustly related to narcissism in Study 1. Based on
the results of Study 1, we expected the LWA dimension of
antihierarchical aggression to be positively related to narcis-
sism (pre-registered Hypothesis 3). As a novel aspect, we
used another measure for narcissism (i.e., the Short Dark
Triad; Jones & Paulhus, 2014) that incorporates antagonism
in a narcissism subscale besides two other dark traits (i.e.,
Machiavellianism and psychopathy).
Secondly – parallel to the design of Study 1 – we
explored the relationship between narcissism and LWA
antihierarchical aggression above and beyond individuals’
prosocial motives. However, for Study 2, we did not include
altruism but social justice commitment as an expression of
participants’ prosocial attitudes. Social justice focuses on
the positive outcome of “changing or transforming inequal-
ity among underprivileged subgroups within society to be
more equitable” (Fietzer & Ponterotto, 2015) and tackles
issues like the ght against poverty, racism, and discrimi-
nation (e.g., due to sexual orientation, ethnicity, religion,
drive to use force to overthrow those in power and who
endorse conservative values. The results of Study 1 suggest
that this motivation can be more likely found in individu-
als who exploit others for their own interests, lack empathy,
have a sense of entitlement, are arrogant and manipulative,
demonstrate reactive anger and distrust others while at the
same time seeking thrill.
The results of Study 1 are also in line with previous
research (Zeigler-Hill et al., 2021) that found LWA (global)
to be most strongly predicted by antagonistic narcissism
(b = 0.34, p < .001) when controlled for neurotic narcissism
(b = 0.17, p < .001) and extraverted narcissism (b = 0.00,
p > .05). In their study, Zeigler-Hill and his colleagues fur-
ther found the relationship between antagonistic narcissism
and global LWA to be mediated by a competitive social
worldview. From this, the authors concluded that individ-
uals with high levels of antagonistic narcissism may per-
ceive the world as a highly competitive place which needs
to be dominated, for example via the strong endorsement
of left-wing ideological attitudes. Interestingly, Zeigler-Hill
and his colleagues found a similar pattern for the relation-
ship between antagonistic narcissism and SDO. From these
results, the authors concluded that individuals with high lev-
els of antagonistic narcissism may be ruthlessly motivated
to endorse either right- or left-wing ideological attitudes
depending on which of these attitudes seems to be more
advantageous to them in a specic situation. For example, an
individual with a high level of antagonistic narcissism may
engage in social justice (i.e., left-wing) protesting as long as
they are not in a privileged position themselves. As a novel
Table 2 Regression Coecients, Standard Errors (SE), and Condence Intervals (CI) for Left-Wing Authoritarianism (LWA): Antihierarchical
Aggression
B SE 95% CI β p R2df1, df2 F p
LL UL
Model 4a 0.119 4, 382 12.888 < 0.001
Constant 1.957 0.437 1.099 2.816 – < 0.001
Altruism –0.241 0.112 –0.462 –0.021 –0.109 0.032
FFNI: Antagonism 0.534 0.115 0.308 0.760 0.254 < 0.001
FFNI: Agentic Extraversion –0.113 0.086 –0.283 0.056 –0.073 0.189
FFNI: Neuroticism 0.238 0.066 0.110 0.367 0.178 < 0.001
Model 4b 0.239 8, 378 14.847 < 0.001
Constant 5.571 0.753 4.091 7.051 – < 0.001
Age –0.021 0.004 –0.029 –0.014 –0.282 < 0.001
Gender (1 = male, 2 = female) 0.143 0.115 –0.083 0.370 0.058 0.215
Self-Deceptive Enhancement –0.402 0.108 –0.615 –0.189 –0.266 < 0.001
Impression Management –0.017 0.072 –0.160 0.125 –0.015 0.810
Altruism –0.137 0.108 –0.350 0.076 –0.062 0.208
FFNI: Antagonism 0.380 0.121 0.142 0.617 0.181 0.002
FFNI: Agentic Extraversion –0.104 0.086 –0.273 0.066 –0.067 0.230
FFNI: Neuroticism –0.105 0.082 –0.265 0.055 –0.079 0.199
Note. N = 387. FFNI = Five-Factor Narcissism Inventory (Miller et al., 2016 ). All reported p values are two-tailed. For the relations be tween the
FFNI subscales and LWA (includi ng its subscales) as well as altruism and LWA (including its subscales), we considered Bonfer roni adjusted p
values < 0.003125 (t wo-tailed) as statistically signicant; for all other relations, we applied the conventional 0.05 signicance level.
1 3
2721
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Current Psychology (2024) 43:2714–2730
aggression and social justice commitment) and a respec-
tive Bonferroni corrected error probability of α = 0.025
(two-tailed), the results of the power analysis revealed a
minimum sample size of N = 212. The sample was recruited
using the Prolic recruitment platform (https://www.pro-
lic.co). Again, we aimed at recruiting N = 400 participants
nationally representative of the US via this online-crowd-
sourcing. Applying Prolic’s respective option, we a priori
excluded those individuals who had already participated in
Study 1. Ultimately, four hundred and twenty-eight indi-
viduals started to participate in the survey. Fifty-one of
these participants were excluded from the original sample
because they did not complete the survey (n = 19), failed the
attention check (n = 19), or were suspected of being dupli-
cate respondents (n = 13). Thus, the nal sample consisted
of N = 377 individuals (Mage = 46.040 years, SD = 15.973,
range = 18–79 years). For the full report of the sample
demographics for Study 2, see supplementary Table S1.
Procedure
The second survey was announced as an “Attitudes and
Behaviors Study” and lasted about 15 min. The survey was
conducted online via the survey software Qualtrics. After
giving written informed consent, participants reported their
demographic information. Next, the same attention check
(Bertrams & Schlegel, 2020) as in Study 1 was adminis-
tered. Then, participants were randomly presented with the
items measuring the dark triad and social justice commit-
ment (i.e., some participants rst answered the items mea-
suring the dark triad while other participants rst answered
the items assessing social justice commitment). Afterwards,
participants’ proneness to conduct virtue signaling was
assessed. Finally, LWA was measured. In a nal step, partic-
ipants reported on their political orientation as well as their
ideology and which political party they identify with. After
that, participants provided their Prolic ID, were thanked
for their participation in the survey and debriefed. After
completing the survey, participants received a xed pay-
ment of £2.00 (about $2.46).
Measures
Dark triad
The dark triad was measured with the Short Dark Triad
(SD3; Jones & Paulhus, 2014). With its 27 items, the SD3
assesses the three socially aversive traits of Machiavel-
lianism (e.g., “Most people can be manipulated”), narcis-
sism (e.g., “I insist on getting the respect I deserve”), and
psychopathy (e.g., “I’ll say anything to get what I want”).
Ratings were made using 5-point scales from 1 (disagree
or gender) (Miller et al., 2009). Social justice commitment
refers to an individual’s intention to pursue social justice
related (i.e., prosocial) activities in the future. Research
shows that social justice commitment is related to political
activism (e.g., participating in a pro-BLM demonstration;
Hope et al., 2016). Further, social justice was shown to be
positively related to political liberalism and negatively asso-
ciated with SDO (Jano-Bulman et al., 2008). Hence, we
assume the LWA dimension of antihierarchical aggression
to be positively associated with social justice commitment
(preregistered Hypothesis 4).
Given the overlap between narcissism and Machiavel-
lianism as well as psychopathy found in previous research
(Jones & Paulhus, 2014), we also considered these two dark
personality traits as covariates. Further, LWA anticonven-
tionalism and LWA top-down censorship were treated as
covariates. To acknowledge the limitations of self-reports
regarding individuals’ tendency to answer in a socially
desirable way (Stöber et al., 2002), we included virtue sig-
naling as another measure of socially desirable responding
in Study 2. According to Ok et al. (2021), virtue signaling
refers to an individual’s (i.e., the sender’s) demonstration of
symbolic behaviors so that any observing person (i.e., the
receiver) makes favorable inferences about the signaler’s
moral character. Lastly, we again included participants’ age
and gender as covariates in the analyzes because narcissistic
traits are depending on changes over one’s life course (Cra-
mer, 2011) and gender-dierences (Grijalva et al., 2015).
Method
Open science and ethical requirements
The second survey was also pre-registered before the
data collection with AsPredicted.org (https://aspredicted.
org/2sy8f.pdf – identier #99,079) under the title “Under-
standing Left-Wing Authoritarianism – Study 2”. The sec-
ond survey was also approved (identier #2022-05-00006)
by the human research ethics committee of the University
of Bern . Informed consent was obtained the same way as
it was obtained for the rst survey. The complete materials
and the raw data for the second study are available at https://
researchbox.org/752.
Power analysis and participants
For study 2, we again used G*Power 3.1 (Faul et al., 2009)
to calculate the necessary sample size. Assuming a bivari-
ate eect of |ρ| = 0.21 (cf., Schönbrodt & Perugini, 2013)
for the two relationships of central interest (LWA: antihier-
archical aggression and narcissism; LWA: antihierarchical
1 3
2722
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Current Psychology (2024) 43:2714–2730
to publicly express their moral identity with the ve items of
the symbolization dimension (e.g., “I am actively involved
in activities that communicate to others that I have these
characteristics”). Again, ratings of these ve items were
made using 5-point scales from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5
(strongly agree). Next, we calculated a mean symbolization
score with high scores indicating a high level of symbol-
ization of moral identity. The symbolization subscale also
showed good internal consistency (McDonald’s ω = 0.858).
In a fourth and nal step, in line with the recommendations
of Ok et al. (2021), we used a linear regression analysis to
control for participants’ baseline virtue levels by predicting
their mean symbolization scores by their respective mean
internalization scores and saving the unstandardized residu-
als as participants’ virtue signaling scores.2 Thus, the virtue
signaling score represents the degree of how strongly some-
one tends to publicly demonstrate morality independent of
their internalized moral values.
Left-wing authoritarianism
LWA was again measured with the LWAI (Costello et al.,
2022). In Study 2, the LWAI showed excellent internal
consistency regarding the items included in the total mean
LWA score (McDonald’s ω = 0.954), assessing antihierar-
chical aggression (McDonald’s ω = 0.916), anticonvention-
alism (McDonald’s ω = 0.938), and top-down censorship
(McDonald’s ω = 0.903).
Political orientation
As in Study 1, political orientation was again assessed
with one item asking participants to place themselves on
a 7-point scale with regard to their political views rang-
ing from 1 (extremely left-wing/far-left) to 7 (extremely
right-wing/far-right).
Results
Common method bias test
For Study 2, we again tested for severe common method
variance using Harman’s single-factor test as described by
Zhang et al. (2022). In the principal components analysis,
15 components emerged explaining 65.18% of the variance
2 R for the regression model was statistically signicantly dier-
ent from zero, F(1, 375) = 28.335, p < .001. Altogether, 7.0% (6.8%
adjusted) of the variability of participants’ mean symbolization scores
was explained by participants’ mean internalization scores. Results
showed that participants’ mean symbolization scores were statistically
signicantly predicted by their mean internalization scores, b = 0.439
(SE = 0.082), p < .001.
strongly) to 5 (agree strongly). After recoding the respec-
tive inverse items, we calculated a dark triad score using
the mean score of all 27 items. The SD3 items showed good
internal consistency (McDonald’s ω = 0.878). Next, we cal-
culated a mean score for each of the three respective SD3
dimensions with high scores indicating a high level of the
respective socially aversive trait. Together, the nine items
assessing narcissism (McDonald’s ω = 0.794) showed good
internal consistency. The same was true for the nine items
assessing Machiavellianism (McDonald’s ω = 0.831) and the
nine items measuring psychopathy (McDonald’s ω = 0.775).
Social justice commitment
Social justice commitment was assessed with the Social
Issues Questionnaire (SIQ; Miller et al., 2009). The SIQ is
a 52-item scale measuring interest in social justice with six
separate scales. For the present study, we only used those
four items of the SIQ that measure social justice commit-
ment (e.g., “In the future, I intent to engage in social justice
activities.”). Participants rated their agreement with the four
items using 10-point scales from 0 (strongly disagree) to 9
(strongly agree). For the data analyses, we calculated a mean
score including all four SIQ items measuring social justice
commitment with high scores indicating a high level of
self-reported social justice commitment. The scale showed
excellent internal consistency (McDonald’s ω = 0.965).
Virtue-signaling
Virtue-signaling was assessed with the Moral Identity
Scale (MIS; Aquino & Reed, 2002) in four steps. With
its ten items, the MIS measures two subdimensions of
moral identity: internalization (i.e., the extent to which
nine morality-related traits are central to one’s own self-
concept) and symbolization (i.e., the tendency to publicly
express one’s own moral identity). In a rst step, partici-
pants were presented with a list of nine dierent positive
and morality-related traits (i.e., caring, compassionate, fair,
friendly, generous, hardworking, helpful, honest, and kind)
and asked to visualize how individuals having these traits
would think, feel, and act. In a second step, participants’
internalization of the nine morality-related traits was mea-
sured with the ve items of the internalization dimension
(e.g., “I strongly desire to have these traits”). Agreement
with these ve items was rated using 5-point scales from 1
(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). After recoding two
inverse items, we calculated a mean internalization score
with high scores indicating a high level of internalization
of moral identity. The internalization subscale showed good
internal consistency (McDonald’s ω = 0.801). In a third step,
we assessed participants’ tendency to use symbolic actions
1 3
2723
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Current Psychology (2024) 43:2714–2730
social justice commitment). In a rst step, the results of the
data analyses revealed that antihierarchical aggression was
only predicted by social justice commitment but not by nar-
cissism. These results seem to imply that individuals high
in antihierarchical aggression (i.e., individuals who endorse
the use of violence to reach their own political goals) are
also more likely to strive for social justice (i.e., for more
equality for the underprivileged subgroups within society).
However, when we controlled for the other traits of the dark
triad (i.e., Machiavellianism and psychopathy), the other
LWA subfacets (i.e., anticonventionalism and top-down
censorship) as well as for age, gender, and virtue signaling,
a dierent pattern emerged: In this analysis, the association
between antihierarchical aggression and social justice com-
mitment vanished and a relationship between antihierarchi-
cal aggression and psychopathy was unveiled.
On the one hand, this result ts the theoretical argument
that psychopathy is a strong predictor for extremists’ vio-
lence (Gill & Corner, 2017). It is further in line with pre-
vious empirical research that found a correlation between
LWA and psychopathy (Costello et al., 2022). On the other
hand, this result seems to somewhat contradict our pre-reg-
istered hypothesis that narcissism would be predictive for
antihierarchical aggression. However, it is worth noting that
psychopathy is – besides narcissism and Machiavellianism
– also one of the three personality traits of the dark triad
(Jones & Paulhus, 2014). Individuals with dark triad traits
share several attributes – they are self-promoting, emotion-
ally callous, and have a tendency to manipulate others to
take advantage of them (Paulhus & Williams, 2002). Hence,
all three dark triad traits are overlapping personality traits
(Furnham et al., 2013). Nevertheless, each of these traits
also has unique aspects: For psychopaths, the callousness
is accompanied by a general disregard for social norms
and the element of impulsivity (Jones & Paulhus, 2014). In
contrast, Machiavellians are rather obsessed with gaining
power, while narcissists display self-grandiosity and self-
enhancement (Ok et al., 2021; Paulhus & Williams, 2002).
Accordingly, the results of Study 2 showed not only sig-
nicant correlations between the dark triad traits, but also
revealed that each of these traits have unique aspects as only
psychopathy was signicantly predicting antihierarchical
aggression.
It is further worth remembering that in Study 1, we used
a dierent measure for narcissism – the Five-Factor Nar-
cissism Inventory (FFNI; Sherman et al., 2015). The FFNI
measures narcissism on three subdimensions (Miller et al.,
2016): antagonism, agentic extraversion, and neuroticism.
The results of Study 1 revealed that the LWA subfacet of
antihierarchical aggression was signicantly predicted
only by antagonistic narcissism. Antagonistic narcissists
are individuals exploiting others for their own interests,
in Study 2. The rst component explained only 21.01%
of the variation, which is again below the critical value of
40%. Thus, we assume that common method variance did
also not severely bias the results of Study 2.
Preregistered analyses
Descriptive statistics for all variables can be found in sup-
plementary Table S1. Bivariate correlations for all analyzed
variables are depicted in Table 3. The results revealed a
positive relationship between narcissism and LWA anti-
hierarchical aggression. However, contrary to our predic-
tion, this correlation did not reach statistical signicance
(r = .097, p = .059). Surprisingly, we found a signicant
association between Machiavellianism and antihierarchical
aggression (r = .217, p < .001) and an even stronger relation-
ship between psychopathy and antihierarchical aggression
(r = .335, p < .001). With regard to social justice commit-
ment, in line with our expectation, we found a signicant
positive relationship with LWA antihierarchical aggression
(r = .357, p < .001).
To further test our expectations, we calculated a hierar-
chical multiple linear regression predicting LWA anti-hierar-
chical aggression. All VIF values were < 1.94 and the results
of the two respective Durbin-Watson tests showed that there
was no autocorrelation. In a rst block, we included only
narcissism and social justice commitment as predictors. The
results of these analyses can be found in Table 4 (Model
5a). We had expected narcissism to predict LWA antihier-
archical aggression above and beyond social justice com-
mitment. However, in this rst regression model, LWA
anti-hierarchical aggression was only predicted by social
justice commitment (b = 0.150, SE b = 0.021, β = 0.350,
p < .001). However, when we controlled for the other dark
triad traits (i.e., Machiavellianism and psychopathy), the
other LWA subfacets (i.e., anticonventionalism and top-
down censorship) as well as for age, gender, and virtue sig-
naling (see Model 5b, Table 4), a dierent pattern emerged:
In this analysis, only psychopathy (b = 0.470, SE b = 0.094,
β = 0.655, p < .001) was predictive for LWA antihierarchi-
cal aggression but neither were narcissism (b = − 0.039, SE
b = 0.078, β = –0.022, p = .613) nor social justice commit-
ment (b = 0.025, SE b = 0.019, β = 0.058, p = .170).
Discussion
In Study 2, we further investigated the relationship between
narcissism and the LWA subfacet of antihierarchical aggres-
sion. Based on the results of Study 1, we had antihierarchical
aggression expected to be positively related to narcissism
above and beyond individuals’ prosocial attitudes (i.e., their
1 3
2724
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Current Psychology (2024) 43:2714–2730
Table 3 Intercorrelations and (p Values) for Study 2 Variables
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12
01 Age –
02 Gender (1 = male,
2 = female)
0.043
(0.406)
–
03 Social Justice
Commitment
–0.083
(0.108)
0.112
(0.030)
–
04 Dark Triad –0.359
(< 0.001)
–0.210
(< 0.001)
0.019
(0.712)
–
05 Machiavellianism –0.369
(< 0.001)
–0.145
(0.005)
–0.076
(0.141)
0.817
(< 0.001)
–
06 Narcissism –0.147
(0.004)
–0.125
(0.016)
0.119
(0.020)
0.757
(< 0.001)
0.373
(< 0.001)
–
07 Psychopathy –0.348
(< 0.001)
–0.241
(< 0.001)
0.002
(0.971)
0.824
(< 0.001)
0.575
(< 0.001)
0.428
(< 0.001)
–
08 Virtue-Signaling –0.082
(0.112)
0.079
(0.128)
0.299
(< 0.001)
0.255
(< 0.001)
0.168
(0.001)
0.340
(< 0.001)
0.093
(0.071)
–
09 LWA –0.393
(< 0.001)
0.157
(0.002)
0.477
(< 0.001)
0.135
(0.009)
0.129
(0.012)
0.018
(0.734)
0.182
(< 0.001)
0.148
(0.004)
–
10 LWA: AHA –0.413
(< 0.001)
0.058
(0.259)
0.357
(< 0.001)
0.267
(< 0.001)
0.217
(< 0.001)
0.097
(0.059)
0.335
(< 0.001)
0.138
(0.007)
0.843
(< 0.001)
–
11 LWA: AC –0.316
(< 0.001)
0.119
(0.021)
0.462
(< 0.001)
0.061
(0.239)
0.069
(0.179)
–0.050
(0.331)
0.133
(0.010)
0.031
(0.543)
0.889
(< 0.001)
0.655
(< 0.001)
–
12 LWA: TDC –0.280
(< 0.001)
0.223
(< 0.001)
0.390
(< 0.001)
0.029
(0.570)
0.053
(0.305)
0.009
(0.860)
0.007
(0.897)
0.221
(< 0.001)
0.819
(< 0.001)
0.517
(< 0.001)
0.583
(< 0.001)
–
13 Political Orientation 0.138
(0.007)
–0.045
(0.309)
–0.456
(< 0.001)
0.101
(0.051)
0.086
(0.094)
0.114
(0.027)
0.038
(0.465)
0.053
(0.305)
–0.565
(< 0.001)
–0.374
(< 0.001)
–0.728
(< 0.001)
–0.308
(< 0.001)
Note. LWA = Left-wing Authoritarianism; AHA = Antihierarchical Aggression; AC = Anticonventionalism; TDC = Top-Down Censorship. All reported p valu es ar e two -tai le d. For the co r rela-
tions between narcissism and the LWA dimension of antihierarchical aggression as well as social justice commitment and the LWA dimension of antihierarchical aggression, we considered
Bonferroni adjusted p values < 0.025 (two-tailed) as statistically signicant; for all other cor relations, we applied the conventional 0.05 signicance level.
1 3
2725
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Current Psychology (2024) 43:2714–2730
conservative values, antagonistic narcissism is character-
ized by exploitation of others, lack of empathy, a sense of
entitlement, arrogance and manipulative behavior. Accord-
ingly, the results of Study 1 show that a strong ideologi-
cal view, according to which a violent revolution against
existing societal structures is legitimate is rather endorsed
by individuals with ego-focused motives. This interpreta-
tion is further supported by the results of Study 2 which
showed that LWA antihierarchical aggression was predicted
by psychopathy again above and beyond individuals’ pro-
social dispositions (i.e., social justice commitment). Unex-
pectedly, neither dispositional altruism (Study 1) nor social
justice commitment (Study 2) was found to be related to
antihierarchical aggression. Considering these results, we
assume that some political activists on the left side of the
political spectrum do not actually strive for social justice
and the support of underprivileged groups or persons, but
rather endorse or express violence for the satisfaction of
their own ego-focused, sometimes even antisocial, needs.
As a new contribution to the literature on dark per-
sonality traits, we interpret the results of both studies as
expressions of a phenomenon we term the dark-ego-vehi-
cle principle. According to this principle, individuals with
dark personalities – such as high narcissistic and psycho-
pathic traits – are attracted to certain ideologies and forms
of political activism. We assume that such individuals use
ideologies and political activism as a vehicle to satisfy their
own ego-focused needs instead of actually aiming at social
justice and equality. For example, a highly narcissistic/
psychopathic person may participate in a pro-BLM protest
pretending to ght against racism while actually using such
lacking empathy, and having a sense of entitlement. Also,
they are arrogant and manipulative, demonstrating reactive
anger and distrust in others while seeking conict and thrill.
In contrast, the FFNI dimension of agentic extraversion is
more representative of narcissistic behaviors like acclaim
seeking, authoritativeness, grandiose fantasies, and exhibi-
tionism. Thus, antagonistic narcissism (as measured with
the FFNI) seems to represent a blend of narcissistic and
psychopathic attributes, while agentic extraversion (mea-
sured with the FFNI) seems to be rather representative of
the narcissism trait measured with the Short Dark Triad
(SD3; Jones & Paulhus, 2014). Taking all this into account,
the results of Study 2 replicate the results of Study 1, show-
ing that individuals who strongly endorse antihierarchical
aggression to overthrow those in power are narcissistic indi-
viduals with psychopathic attributes and thus driven by ego-
focused motives.
General discussion
In two pre-registered studies, we investigated the relation-
ship of LWA with the ego-focused trait of narcissism. Based
on existing research (Zeigler-Hill et al., 2021), we expected
individuals with higher levels of LWA to report higher lev-
els of narcissism. The results of both studies are in line with
this prediction: In particular, the results of Study 1 showed
that the LWA subfacet of anti-hierarchical aggression was
signicantly predicted by antagonistic narcissism above
and beyond individuals’ prosocial dispositions (i.e., altru-
ism). While antihierarchical aggression represents the drive
to use force to overthrow those in power and who endorse
Table 4 Regression Coecients, Standard Errors (SE), and Condence Intervals (CI) for Left-Wing Authoritarianism (LWA): Antihierarchical
Aggression
B SE 95% CI β p R2df1, df2 F p
LL UL
Model 5a 0.130 4, 370 27.812 < 0.001
Constant 1.986 0.234 1.526 2.466 – < 0.001
Social Justice Commitment 0.150 0.021 0.109 0.192 0.350 < 0.001
Narcissism 0.100 0.089 –0.074 0.274 0.055 0.261
Model 5b 0.545 8, 366 48.625 < 0.001
Constant 0.293 0.407 –0.507 1.093 – 0.472
Age –0.011 0.003 –0.017 –0.004 –0.137 < 0.001
Gender (1 = male, 2 = female) 0.036 0.092 –0.145 0.216 0.015 0.696
Virtue-Signaling 0.056 0.056 –0.054 0.167 0.041 0.317
Social Justice Commitment 0.025 0.019 –0.012 0.062 0.058 0.170
Narcissism –0.039 0.078 –0.192 0.113 –0.022 0.613
Machiavellianism –0.007 0.083 –0.170 0.155 –0.004 0.929
Psychopathy 0.470 0.094 0.286 0.655 0.237 < 0.001
LWA: Anticonventionalism 0.378 0.042 0.296 0.461 0.441 < 0.001
LWA: Top-Down Censorship 0.179 0.045 0.001 0.091 0.267 < 0.001
Note. N = 375. All reported p values are two-tailed. For the relations between narcissism and LWA antihierarchical aggression as well as social
justice commitment and LWA antihierarchical aggression, we considered Bonferroni adjusted p values < 0.025 (two-tailed) as statistically sig-
nicant; for all other relations, we applied the conventional 0.05 signicance level.
1 3
2726
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Current Psychology (2024) 43:2714–2730
participants had to be excluded from the analyses (e.g., for
failing the attention checks). By this, representativeness
might have been slightly reduced.
Second, there may potential issues resulting from the fact
that we collected our data using an online panel (e.g., Smith
et al., 2016; Wood et al., 2017). In particular, our samples
may also include “professional survey takers” who were
primarily interested in completing our surveys to receive the
monetary incentive. Thus, our samples may include some
specic demographic groups (e.g., unemployed or under-
employed individuals with higher than average education
levels). Further, some of the participating individuals may
have not given the required attention to the survey questions
because they were speeding through the survey. To deal
with the second issue of careless responding, we included
respective attention checks in both surveys and excluded
individuals who failed those checks from the data analyses.
However, in future studies, further removals of participants’
data based on participants’ response speed and consistency
should be considered as suggested by Wood et al. (2017).
Third, the present ndings are based on self-report mea-
sures. The usefulness of self-report measures has been criti-
cized in the past (Baumeister et al., 2007). However, very
recent empirical ndings (Saunders et al., 2022) indicate
self-report data can be very useful. Still, we acknowledge
that self-reports are distal measures of actual behaviors
and might be biased by participants’ tendencies to answer
in a socially desirable way (Stöber et al., 2002). To tackle
the later restriction, in the present research we included
well-established measures of socially desirable responding
(Study 1) and virtue signaling (Study 2).
Fourth, the self-reports used in the present research may
also be problematic as correlations could be articially
inated due to common method variance which may arise
particularly when the examined variables are assessed
cross-sectionally (Chang et al., 2010) and/or due to seman-
tic similarities of the items (Wood et al., 2022). However,
the results of Harman single-factor tests as described in
Zhang et al. (2022) suggested that common method bias did
neither seriously aect the results of Study 1 or Study 2.
Fifth, future research should seek more empirical evi-
dence for the dark-ego-vehicle principle. One particular
area of interest, we plan to tackle in the near future is the
relationship between the dark triad traits and political
activism (e.g., in the context of contemporary prevalent
feminist activism). Also, we argue that the dark-ego-
vehicle principle holds independently of any political ori-
entation. To test this assumption, future research should
investigate the validity of the principle including indi-
viduals on both sides of political spectrum and involving
social topics to which both sides have strong opinions
(for example abortion rights or gun control laws). If the
protesting activities to meet their own aggressive motives
and thrills (e.g., via violent escalations during pro-BLM
protests). Further, such individuals might be attracted to
pro-BLM activism, because this form of activism can pro-
vide them with opportunities for positive self-presentation
(e.g., virtue signaling).
Three ancillary points are worth mentioning. Firstly, the
dark-ego-vehicle principle does not mean that activism per
se was narcissistic/psychopathic. It rather says that some
forms of political activism can be attractive for narcissist/
psychopaths; however, people also get involved in politi-
cal activism due to their altruistic motives (Fowler & Kam,
2007). Secondly, the dark-ego-vehicle principle means that
involvement in (violent) political activism is not solely
attributable to political orientation but rather to personal-
ity traits manifesting in individuals on the (radical) left and
right of the political spectrum. In particular, we argue that
the dark personality correlates of authoritarianism per se
might be the driving forces behind the aggression and vio-
lence expressed during protests like the attack on the United
States Capitol in Washington DC and the pro-BLM protests
mentioned in the introduction of this paper. This argument
is in line with previous research (Zeigler-Hill et al., 2021)
which showed that antagonistic narcissism is not only a
strong predictor of LWA but simultaneously predicts SDO
– a trait that is clearly related to RWA (Altemeyer, 1998).
These results also show that some individuals with high lev-
els of antagonistic narcissism may be motivated to endorse
either right- or left-wing ideological attitudes depending on
which of these attitudes seems to be more opportune to them
given a specic situation. Thus, it is necessary to argue very
carefully in each case for what reason a specic dark per-
sonality should be attracted to particular ideologies/political
activism.
Finally, the present research is not based on an elabo-
rated explanatory theory (cf., Sandberg & Alvesson, 2021)
as there is a lack of such a theory. Thus, we refer to a prin-
ciple and not to a theory. However, we consider the present
research as a rst step within the complex process of Theory
Construction Methodology sensu Borsboom et al. (2021) as
our research aimed at the identication of an empirical phe-
nomenon to develop a prototheory.
Limitations and future research
The presents research has some limitations which need to be
addressed. First, while the samples of both present studies
are much more diverse (see supplementary Table S1) than
typical psychological research samples (Sears, 1986), it was
not perfectly representative. We applied Prolic’s option to
recruit a US national representative sample. However, some
1 3
2727
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Current Psychology (2024) 43:2714–2730
2).
Declarations
Conict of Interest The authors declare that they have no nancial
conict of interest. AB declares that during the conducting and the
publication process of the current studies, he was a member of the
party FDP.The Liberals (FDP.Die Liberalen) Switzerland and the Net-
work for Academic Freedom (Netzwerk Wissenschaftsfreiheit). No
funds, grants, or other support was received.
Ethics Approval The current studies were approved by the local ethics
commission of the University of Bern (no. 2022-05-00006). All par-
ticipants provided informed consent prior to participating.
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format,
as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the
source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate
if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this
article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless
indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended
use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted
use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright
holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.
org/licenses/by/4.0/.
References
Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R.
N. (1950). The authoritarian personality. Harper.
Altemeyer, B. (1996). The authoritarian specter. Harvard University
Press.
Altemeyer, B. (1998). The other ‘authoritarian personality.’. In M.
Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (30
vol., pp. 47–92). Academic Press.
Altemeyer, B., & Hunsberger (1992). Authoritarianism, religious
fundamentalism, quest, and prejudice. International Journal for
the Psychology of Religion, 2, 113–133. https://doi.org/10.1207/
s15327582ijpr0202_5
Aquino, K., & Reed, I. I., A (2002). The self-importance of moral
identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6),
1423–1440. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.6.1423
Armed Conict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED) (May
2021). A year of racial justice protests: Key trends in dem-
onstrations supporting the BLM movement. https://acleddata.
com/2021/05/25/a-year-of-racial-justice-protests-key-trends-in-
demonstrations-supporting-the-blm-movement/
Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Funder, D. C. (2007). Psychology as
the science of self-reports and nger movements: whatever hap-
pened to actual behavior? Perspectives on Psychological Science,
2(4), 396–403. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2007.00051.x
Barry, D., McIntire, M., & Rosenberg, M. (2021, Jan 9). ‘Our presi-
dent wants us here’: The mob that stormed the Capitol. New York
Times, A1.
Bertrams, A., & Schlegel, K. (2020). Speeded reasoning moder-
ates the inverse relationship between autistic traits and emo-
tion recognition. Autism, 24(8), 2304–2309. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1362361320937090
Borsboom, D., van der Maas, H. L. J., Dalege, J., Kievit, R. A.,
& Haig, B. D. (2021). Theory construction methodology: a
dark-ego-vehicle principle is valid, such research should
nd evidence for narcissistic individuals making of such
topics to satisfy their own ego-focused needs indepen-
dently of their (alleged) political views (i.e., some liberal
narcissistic individuals should be found to be ghting for
abortion rights or gun control laws while some conserva-
tive narcissistic individuals should be found to be ghting
against abortion rights or gun control laws).
Lastly, future empirical research on the nomological
network of dark triad personalities with regard to their
“vehicles” (i.e., ideologies and activism) is needed. Fur-
ther, we think that a number of moderating variables are
likely to play a crucial role as well, for example the overall
prestige of the ideology/activism in a society, the distribu-
tion of supporters and opponents of this ideology/activism
in the culture under study, and the likelihood of individu-
ally sucient rewards for advocating pro and contra for
this ideology/activism.
Conclusion
The results of our research signicantly contribute to the
research on LWA as empirical evidence regarding the cor-
relates of LWA are still rare and controversial. With the
present two studies, we provide empirical evidence for the
relationship between LWA and dark personality traits as
well as prosocial variables (i.e., altruism and social justice
commitment). Also, with the dark-ego-vehicle principle,
our research provides a possible explanation for the psy-
chological mechanisms driving some individuals to partic-
ipate in political activism independently of their political
orientation.
Supplementary Information The online version contains
supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-
023-04463-x.
Authors Contributions All authors contributed to the paper. All au-
thors developed the study concept and design. The data was analyzed
and interpreted by all authors. AK prepared the draft manuscript. AB
provided critical revisions. All authors approve the nal version to be
published and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in
ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part
of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
Funding Open access funding provided by University of Bern
Data Availability Prior to the data collection, the hypothesis and anal-
ysis plan for the current studies were pre-registered at https://aspre-
dicted.org (Study 1: https://aspredicted.org/qc4hy.pdf; Study 2: https://
aspredicted.org/2sy8f.pdf).
Materials availability The materials of the current studies and the
full datasets generated for the current studies are available at https://
researchbox.org/751 (Study 1) and https://researchbox.org/752 (Study
1 3
2728
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Current Psychology (2024) 43:2714–2730
ve personality factors, and ideology in explaining prejudice.
Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 686–690. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.02.005
Hope, E. C., Keels, M., & Durkee, M. I. (2016). Participation in black
lives matter and deferred action for childhood arrivals: mod-
ern activism among black and latino college students. Journal
of Diversity in Higher Education, 9(3), 203–215. https://doi.
org/10.1037/dhe0000032
Jano-Bulman, R., Sheikh, S., & Baldacci, K. G. (2008). Mapping
moral motives: Approach, avoidance, and political orientation.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1091–1099.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2007.11.003
Jones, D. N., & Paulhus, D. L. (2014). Introducing the short Dark Triad
(SD3): a brief measure of dark personality traits. Assessment,
21(1), 28–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191113514105
Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. J.
(2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cogni-
tion. Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 339–375. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.339
Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2006). Further assessment of the HEXACO
personality inventory: two new facet scales and an observer
report form. Psychological Assessment, 18(2), 182–191. https://
doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.18.2.182
Miller, J. D., Lynam, D. R., McCain, J. L., Few, L. R., Crego, C., Widi-
ger, T. A., & Campbell, W. K. (2016). Thinking structurally about
narcissism: an examination of the ve-factor narcissism inven-
tory and its components. Journal of Personality Disorders, 30(1),
1–18. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2015_29_177
Miller, M. J., Sendrowitz, K., Connacher, C., Blanco, S., de la Peña,
C. M., Bernardi, S., & Morere, L. (2009). College students’ social
justice interest and commitment: a social-cognitive perspective.
Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56(4), 495–507. https://doi.
org/10.1037/a0017220
Nilsson, A., & Jost, J. T. (2020). The authoritarian-conservatism
nexus. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 34, 148–154.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2020.03.003
Ok, E., Qian, Y., Strejcek, B., & Aquino, K. (2021). Signaling virtuous
victimhood as indicators of dark triad personalities. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 120(6), 1634–1661. https://
doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000329
Paulhus, D. L. (1984). Two-component models of socially desirable
responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(3),
598–609. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.46.3.598
Paulhus, D. L. (1988). Assessing self-deception and impression man-
agement in self-reports: the Balanced Inventory of Desirable
Responding. (Manual available from the author).
Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The Dark Triad of personal-
ity: Narcissism, Machiavellianism and psychopathy. Journal of
Research in Personality, 36(6), 556–563. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0092-6566(02)00505-6
Polarization Research Lab (2022, December). Low support for politi-
cal violence. https://polarizationresearchlab.org/2022/11/03/
low-support-for-political-violence/
Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social
dominance orientation: a personality variable predicting social
and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 67, 741–763. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.4.741
Rushton, J. P., Chrisjohn, R. D., & Fekken, G. C. (1981). The
altruistic personality and the self-report altruism scale. Per-
sonality and Individual Dierences, 2, 293–302. https://doi.
org/10.1016/0191-8869(81)90084-2
Sandberg, J., & Alvesson, M. (2021). Meanings of theory: Clarify-
ing theory through typication. Journal of Management Studies,
58(2), 487–516. https://doi.org/10.1111/joms.12587
Saunders, B., Milyavskaya, M., & Inzlicht, M. (2022). Longitudinal
evidence that event related potential measures of self-regulation
practical framework for building theories in psychology. Per-
spectives on Psychological Science, 16(4), 756–766. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1745691620969647
Chang, S. J., van Witteloostuijn, A., & Eden, L. (2010). From the edi-
tors: common method variance in international business research.
Journal of International Business Studies, 41(2), 178–184.
https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2009.88
Chenoweth, E., & Pressman, J. (2020, Oct 16). This summer’s Black
Lives Matter protestors were overwhelmingly peaceful, our
research nds. The Washington Post. https://www.radclie.har-
vard.edu/news-and-ideas/black-lives-matter-protesters-were-
overwhelmingly-peaceful-our-research-nds
Cichocka, A., Dhont, K., & Makwana, A. P. (2017). On self-love and
outgroup hate: opposite eects of narcissism on prejudice via
social dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism.
European Journal of Personality, 31(4), 366–384. https://doi.
org/10.1002/per.2114
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sci-
ences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Conway, L. G., Houck, I. I. I., Gornick, S. C., L. J., & Repke, M. A.
(2018). Finding the Loch Ness monster: left-wing authoritarian-
ism in the United States. Political Psychology, 39(5), 1049–1067.
https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12470
Costello, T. H., Bowes, S. M., Stevens, S. T., Waldman, I. W., Tasimi,
A., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2022). Clarifying the structure and
nature of left-wing authoritarianism. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 122(1), 135–170. https://doi.org/10.1037/
pspp0000341
Cramer, P. (2011). Narcissism through the ages: what happens when
narcissists grow older? Journal of Research in Personality, 45(5),
479–492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2011.06.003
Crawford, J. T., & Brandt, M. J. (2020). Ideological (a) symmetries in
prejudice and intergroup bias. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sci-
ences, 34, 40–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2019.11.007
Dargan, S., & Schermer, J. A. (2022). Predicting altruism with person-
ality „beyond” the Big ve. Personality and Individual Dier-
ences, 185, 111258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.111258
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A. G. (2009). Statisti-
cal power analyses using G*Power 3.1: tests for correlation and
regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160.
https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149
Field, A. (2018). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (5th
ed.). Sage Publications.
Fietzer, A. W., & Ponterotto, J. (2015). A psychometric review of
instruments for social justice and advocacy attitudes. Journal for
Social Action in Counseling and Psychology, 7(1), 19–40. https://
doi.org/10.33043/JSACP.7.1.19-40
Fowler, J. H., & Kam, C. D. (2007). Beyond the self: social identity,
altruism, and political participation. The Journal of Politics, 69(3),
813–827. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2007.00577.x
Furnham, A., Richards, S. C., & Paulhus, D. L. (2013). The Dark Triad
of personality: a 10 year review. Social and Personality Psychol-
ogy Compass, 7(3), 199–216. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12018
Gill, P., & Corner, E. (2017). There and back again: the study of mental
disorder and terrorist involvement. American Psychologist, 72(3),
231–241. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000090
Grijalva, E., Newman, D. A., Tay, L., Donnellan, M. B., Harms, P.
D., Robins, R. W., & Yan, T. (2015). Gender dierences in nar-
cissism: a meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 141(2),
261–310. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038231
Harms, P. D., Wood, D., Landay, K., Lester, P. B., & Lester, V., G
(2018). Autocratic leaders and authoritarian followers revisited:
a review and agenda for the future. The Leadership Quarterly,
29(1), 105–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.12.007
Hodson, G., Hogg, S. M., & MacInnis, C. C. (2009). The role of “dark
personalities” (narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy), big
1 3
2729
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Current Psychology (2024) 43:2714–2730
Wood, D., Lowman, G. H., Armstrong, B. F. III, & Harms, P. D.
(2022). Using retest-adjusted correlations as indicators of the
semantic similarity of items. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/
pspp0000441
Zhang, Y., Hou, Z., Wu, S., Li, X., Hao, M., & Wu, X. (2022). The
relationship between internet addiction and aggressive behav-
ior among adolescents during the COVID-19 pandemic: anxi-
ety as a mediator. Acta Psychologica, 227, 103612. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2022.103612
Zeigler-Hill, V., Sauls, D., & Malay, P. (2021). Through the eyes of
narcissus: competitive social worldviews mediate the associa-
tions that narcissism has with ideological attitudes. Self and Iden-
tity, 20(6), 811–840. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2020.177
9118
Zettler, I., & Hilbig, B. E. (2010). Attitudes of the seless: explaining
political orientation with altruism. Personality and Individual Dif-
ferences, 48, 338–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2009.11.002
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to juris-
dictional claims in published maps and institutional aliations.
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds
exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the
author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted
manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of
such publishing agreement and applicable law.
do not predict everyday goal pursuit. Nature Communications,
13, 3201. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-30786-7
Schönbrodt, F. D., & Perugini, M. (2013). At what sample size do cor-
relations stabilize? Journal of Research in Personality, 47(5),
609–612. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2013.05.009
Sears, D. O. (1986). College sophomores in the laboratory: inuences
of a narrow data base on social psychology’s view of human
nature. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(3),
515–530. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.3.515
Sherman, E. D., Miller, J. D., Few, L. R., Campbell, W. K., Widi-
ger, T. A., Crego, C., & Lynam, D. R. (2015). Development of
a short form of the ve-factor narcissism inventory: the FFNI-
SF. Psychological Assessment, 27(3), 1110–1116. https://doi.
org/10.1037/pas0000100
Smith, S. M., Roster, C. A., Golden, L. L., & Albaum, G. S. (2016).
A multi-group analysis of online survey respondent data qual-
ity: comparing a regular USA consumer panel to MTurk sam-
ples. Journal of Business Research, 69, 3139–3148. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.busres.2015.12.002
Stöber, J., Dette, D. E., & Musch, J. (2002). Comparing continuous
and dichotomous scoring of the Balanced Inventory of Desirable
responding. Journal of Personality Assessment, 78(2), 370–389.
https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327752JPA7802_10
Wood, D., Harms, P. D., Lowman, G. H., & DeSimone, J. A. (2017).
Response speed and response consistency as mutually vali-
dating indicators of data quality in online sample. Social Psy-
chology and Personality Science, 8(4), 454–464. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1948550617703168
1 3
2730
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers and authorised users (“Users”), for small-
scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By
accessing, sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of use (“Terms”). For these
purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal
subscription. These Terms will prevail over any conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription
(to the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of the Creative Commons license used will
apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may also use these personal data internally within
ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not
otherwise disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies unless we have your permission as
detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial use, it is important to note that Users may
not:
use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale basis or as a means to circumvent access
control;
use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is
otherwise unlawful;
falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in
writing;
use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a systematic database of Springer Nature journal
content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a product or service that creates revenue,
royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal
content cannot be used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large scale into their, or any
other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not obligated to publish any information or
content on this website and may remove it or features or functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature
may revoke this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or guarantees to Users, either express or implied
with respect to the Springer nature journal content and all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law,
including merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published by Springer Nature that may be licensed
from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a regular basis or in any other manner not
expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer Nature at
onlineservice@springernature.com
