Are the Politically Ambitious Less Agreeable?

A video revealing the UK Prime Minister's then-press secretary Allegra Stratton joking about a Christmas party in No 10 Downing Street last year, when such gatherings were against Government Covid-19 regulations, has led to a scandal over apparent double-standards, which is engulfing Boris Johnson’s administration.

Allegra Stratton, Newsnight Political Editor, interviewing David Blunkett at Policy Exchange Date 4 February 2015, 18:59

Source: Policy Exchange Creative Commons License

The conclusion the British press has drawn is that those at the very heart of government remain convinced there is one rule for the governing class, and another for those not privileged to be part of the political elite; the general public.

In light-hearted exchanges, revealing an apparent lack of respect for the sacrifices expected from ordinary voters and their families, the press secretary jokes in the leaked video: "This fictional party was a business meeting and it was not socially distanced." The mock press conference, designed for the press secretary to practice fielding questions, has now resulted in the resignation of Allegra Stratton.

The simulated news conference shown in the video took place in Downing Street on Tuesday 22 December 2020, without journalists present. Ms Stratton responds in a happy-go-lucky tone to questions from colleagues simulating questions she might expect from the media.

An adviser to the prime minister in the audience asks her about reports of a party in Downing Street "on Friday night." In reply, Ms Stratton says: "I went home" and then pauses. There appears to be guilty laughs all around. As the existence of any such party violating Covid-19 rules had been officially denied to date by everyone, from the Prime Minister downwards, the electorate now wonders, what exactly did she go home from?

A follow-up question asks whether the prime minister would "condone" a Christmas party, to which Ms Stratton asks for help from her colleagues: "What's the answer?"

When another aide playfully suggests that "it wasn't a party, it was cheese and wine" she laughs and asks "is cheese and wine all right?"

Coming in the same week that Finland's Prime Minister, Sanna Marin apologised for going clubbing after coming into close contact with a Covid-19 case, why do political elites, again and again, scandal after scandal, all over the world, appear to believe there is one rule for them, and another for the governed? These are intelligent people who must realise they face career catastrophe if they are caught.

Perhaps a clue is revealed by Allegra Stratton’s response when challenged over the alleged party at the mock press conference; she said "What's the answer?" suggesting political elites might believe they are so much smarter than the rest of us, that they can always find a magic bullet answer to defeat any challenge to their indiscretions.

If you walk around believing you have a ‘get out of jail for free’ card in your pocket, because you are cleverer than your adversaries, you may be inclined to take more risks than you would do if you feel more vulnerable.

A recent survey of the US population conducted by academics at Brigham Young University and Florida State University found that those at the lowest education levels are 9% points less open to running for political office than those at the highest.

The other interesting psychological implication of the jokey atmosphere at the mock press conference, despite the deadly serious nature of the pretend questions, is how relaxed the political class appear in the face of conflict.

In the psychology study first mentioned above, entitled, ‘The Personality of the Politically Ambitious’, a survey of elected municipal officials from across the USA, were asked to indicate the level of higher office (besides their current one) they might be interested in seeking. They were given the choice of local (e.g., city, county, school board), state (e.g., legislature, Governor), or national (e.g., Congress, President) level.

The study found the higher the office that those already in politics were ambitious for, the lower they scored on the personality measure of agreeableness.

Agreeableness, as a personality characteristic, refers to being predominantly pro-social or other-oriented, as opposed to being anti-social or self-oriented, when dealing with others. Those who score high on agreeableness include the kind, warm, cooperative, unselfish, polite, trustful, generous and considerate.

Personality Essential Reads

14 Ways to Tell if Your Personality Is Working Against You

Why Do We Have Different Tastes in Music?

If you score low on agreeableness then you are more likely to come over as cold, unkind, uncooperative, selfish, rude, distrustful, and inconsiderate.

The authors of the study, Adam Dynes, Hans Hassell and Matthew Miles, argue that the combative, competitive, nature required to climb the greasy pole of politics, plus the attention and scrutiny that accompanies occupying higher office, may naturally put off the more agreeable person’s interest in running for higher office.

Maybe the acrimony seen in higher elective office deters the more agreeable from pursuing power.

The study concludes that elected officials who seek harmony, cooperation, and are willing to defer to others, are significantly less likely to seek higher elected office in the USA, and maybe this result applies to the rest of the world as well.

In marked contrast to the playful jokey demeanor of the mock press conference, the extremely distressed state Allegra Stratton displayed when she announced her resignation, outside her home, following the leaking of the video, has led some in the British press to suggest that women appear to bear the brunt of the blame in politics when things go wrong.

This study, published in the journal Political Behaviour, found that when surveying the general population, females are 10% points less open to running for political office, however, once women enter politics, the study found that female local politicians appear to be just as open to running for higher office as their male colleagues.

One possible interpretation of this result is that women in politics are much more different in personality profile compared to the average woman, versus male politicians and non-politicians.

The authors of the study argue that while women generally have higher levels of extraversion than do men, they also have higher levels of agreeableness and conscientiousness, which likely decrease interest in running for political office overall.

The study found that one of the strongest personality predictors of political ambition was lowered conscientiousness. Conscientiousness refers to being organized and dependable; self-disciplined. It can be assessed with personality test questions, such as “I pay attention to details,” “I am always prepared,” and “I follow a schedule”.

This finding means that the personality type drawn to political ambition is, on average, less committed to obeying instructions.

The deep psychological paradox at the heart of politics is that those drawn to drawing up rules for others also appear more likely, according to the latest psychological research, to break them.