According to Bouchard and Loehlin, personality traits are major reflections of ‘causal agency’ embedded in humans by evolutionary processes.2 Humans, like all other higher organisms, have been shaped by two major determinants of evolution. These are natural selection and sexual selection. They have been designed to transact actively with their environments in order to survive and reproduce. According to this view, development of a particular personality trait in an individual is influenced, triggered and moderated by both proximal (e.g. genetics, family and peer group) and distal (e.g. sociopolitical environment and religious orientation) causes.
A significant amount of personality development research has shown that different dimensions and traits of personality are influenced by genotype and inheritance. Individual differences are inheritable. This means that genetic influences make a substantial contribution to individual differences in peoples’ observable characteristics (or ‘phenotypes’). In a meta-analysis of thirteen studies based on twins’ samples, Loehlin (1976) found that significant variance in twins’ behaviour was caused by genotypes. The studies were heterogeneous with respect to the type of personality measurements and background data for the subject groups. This significantly enhanced the validity of the study. This research identified several inheritable personality attributes such as inhibition, aggression, social extraversion, masculinity-femininity and maturity. The typical conclusion of such studies is that about 50 per cent of the observed variance in personality was due to genetic factors.3
Additionally, more recent theoretical and empirical work in personality research, behaviour genetics and evolutionary psychology has put considerable meat on the bare bones of this perceptive argument. Molecular genetics is poised to make its own contributions. This phenomenon is so universal that Turkheimer (2000)4 enshrined it as the first law of behavioural genetics. Turkheimer went on to propose second and third laws as well. The second law states that being raised in the same family has a smaller effect on individual differences than genetic effects. The third law states that a non-trivial portion of individual differences can be attributed to the unique nature of each individual. These go beyond genetic differences and being raised in the same family. These so-called laws indicate that the personality traits in an individual develop sequentially—first by genetics and subsequently by family and society.
Psychologists and behaviour scientists further explain that personality traits shape an individual’s experience of feelings. These are described in terms such as ‘elated’, ‘fearful’, or ‘sad’ (Watson, 2000).5 These experiences are popularly called trait affects. In this framework, affectivity exists along two separate unipolar dimensions (i.e. factors)—positive affect and negative affect. Higher positive affectivity is associated with experiencing a preponderance of positive feelings such as enthusiasm, alertness and joviality. And lower positive affectivity is related to feelings of lethargy and sluggishness. Higher levels of negative affectivity are associated with negative feelings such as guilt, fear, anxiety and nervousness. Meanwhile, lower negative affectivity is related to feelings such as serenity and calmness (Watson et al, 1988)6. Consistent with its definition of being enduring in nature, evidence indicates that a trait or dispositional affect is significantly inheritable. Genetic influences account for 40 per cent of the observed variance in positive effects and 55 per cent of variance in negative effects (Tellegen et al, 1988).7
Literature (e.g. Penny and Spector, 20058 and Skarlicki et al, 19999) suggests that traits associated with negative affectivity leads to behaviour such as anger, social damage for pleasure, unwarranted and extravagant retaliation, revengefulness, lower social commitment and incivility. In colloquial terms, the combination of the above behavioural characteristics can be called villain-some.
Well-established traits that represent negative affectivity in individuals include Machiavellianism, neuroticism, narcissism, psychopathy and everyday sadism. These traits lead to increased villainous behaviour that mostly has a negative impact on the surrounding environment. In the following sections, I will discuss these negative human dispositions.
1
MACHIAVELLIANISM
Niccolò Machiavelli (1469–1527) was a Florentine diplomat who visited the courts of Europe, and observed first-hand the rise and fall of leaders. His own fall came with the overthrow of the regime that he served. He wrote The Prince (Machiavelli, 1513/1966) to ingratiate himself with the contemporary ruler. The Prince is a book of advice on how to acquire and stay in power. It is based entirely on expediency and is devoid of the traditional virtues of trust, honour and decency. A line from the book reads, ‘Men are so simple and so much inclined to obey immediate needs that a deceiver will never lack victims for his deceptions’ (p. 63). The term Machiavellianism refers to the infamous Niccolò Machiavelli. This notorious book espoused his view that strong rulers should be harsh with their subjects and enemies. And that glory and survival justified any means, even ones considered to be immoral and brutal.
Machiavelli failed to gain favour with the new prince. His name, however, has come to represent a strategy of social conduct, which others regard as means towards personal ends. By the late sixteenth century, Machiavellianism was a popular word to describe the art of being deceptive to get ahead. But it wasn’t a psychological term until the 1970s when two social psychologists, Richard Christie and Florence L. Geis developed what they called the ‘Machiavellianism scale’. A personality test that is still used as the main assessment tool for Machiavellianism, this scale is now called ‘the Mach-IV test’. Christie and Geis (1968, 1970, and 1970) were the first psychologists to study Machiavellianism as an important axis of human behavioural variation. They developed a series of Mach tests that measured a participant’s agreement with statements such as ‘never tell anyone the real reason you did something unless it is useful to do so.’ High and low scorers on the test, often referred to as high-Machs and low-Machs, differ in many other aspects of their behaviour like vocational choices and success in team games.
More recently, Machiavellianism has become a term of interest in evolutionary biology. Several authors have speculated that for higher primates, social interactions are by far the most challenging aspect of the environment. And that they were a major factor in the evolution of human intelligence as well (e.g. Byrne and Whiten, 1988; De Waal, 1982, 1986). The focus on social interactions contrasts with previous theories of intelligence and a long tradition in experimental psychology that studies intelligence in a non-social context. Evolutionary literature is full of interesting hypotheses on the adaptive value of manipulative behaviours. But it is short on experimental tests with humans and other species. On the other hand, psychological literature is full of empirical results on humans. However, it does not provide a conceptual framework that integrates the results and guides future research.
In psychology, Machiavellianism refers to a personality trait where a person is so focused on his/her own interests that they will manipulate others to achieve their personal goals. Machiavellianism is one of the traits in what is called the ‘dark triad’. The other two are narcissism and psychopathy. These will be discussed in the following chapters. Common tendencies associated with Machiavellianism include being focused only on your own ambitions, prioritizing money and power over relationships, coming across as charming and confident, exploiting others to get what you want, lying and deceiving whenever required, using flattery to achieve your ends, lacking principles and values, coming across as aloof, being cynical of goodness and morality, being capable of causing others harm to achieve your own means, showing low levels of empathy, often avoiding commitment and emotional attachments, rarely revealing your true intentions, being prone to casual sexual encounters, showing a lack of warmth in social interactions, not always being aware of the consequences of your actions and finding it difficult to identify your own emotions.
Machiavellianism in social interactional psychology is defined as ‘a strategy of social conduct that involve
s manipulating others for personal gain’ (Christie and Geis, 1970, 285; Wilson et al, 1996).1 ‘Machiavellianism is a tendency towards manipulation, often accompanied by (a) a lack of empathy, (b) lower levels of affect, (c) a focus on pursuing one’s own goals, and (d) an aberrant view of morality (i.e. one that offers a greater acceptance of behaviours that would normally be described as immoral or unethical, such as lying, manipulating and exploiting others’ (Christie and Geis, 1970; Dahling et al, 2009; Kessler et al, 2010; Paulhus and Williams, 2002; Rauthmann and Will, 2011; Spain et al, 2014; Wu and LeBreton, 2011).2 The construct of Machiavellianism is associated with diminished or absent affect in interpersonal relationships, amorality, psychological health and little commitment to an ideology.3 Machiavellianism is also defined as ‘social conduct that involves manipulating others for personal gain, often against the other’s self-interest.’4
Machiavellianism involves a particular worldview and an application of certain behavioural methods and tactics. Machiavellian people characteristically attribute negative intentions to others and do not expect cooperation from them. They start out with the assumption that others will exploit them if they themselves fail to do so. They are capable of distracting themselves from the emotional effects of certain situations. They remain ‘cool-blooded’ even in highly charged emotional situations, and do not get affected by the excitement around them. This emotional coldness, again, contributes to the successful manipulation of others.5
2
NARCISSISM
Narcissism in its modern usage began as a clinical construct. When most individuals think of narcissism today, they probably see it as related to clinical theory. One of the earliest known clinical references to narcissism came from British sexologist, Havelock Ellis (1880). He used the term to describe the paraphilia of kissing or being sexually attracted to oneself. Narcissism grew into a more complex and far-reaching psychological variable with Freud’s (1914/1957) On Narcissism: An Introduction. Freud spoke of narcissism in several ways. Most relevant to the current social psychological research, he described narcissism as a type of attachment to the self rather than to the other. He discussed narcissism in terms of regulating libido in such a way that all interpersonal relationships strengthen the positivity of the self, even at the expense of feelings of warmth and care for others. Most modern social psychologists would, for example, stray from Freud’s use of conceptually vague terms such as ‘libido’. However, Freud’s contribution to modern social psychological theories regarding narcissism should not be overlooked. His focus on the narcissistic drive to regulate the self, using interpersonal tactics is one that continues to manifest itself in the modern social psychological literature.
Narcissism has been studied as an individual differences variable for almost as long as it has been considered a clinical condition. This is often forgotten in its intellectual history. Freud, for example, included narcissism as a basic personality feature in ‘libidinal types’. Those of the narcissistic type were said to be confident, independent, energetic and aggressive. Wilhelm Reich (1949) also described a phallic-narcissistic character that was similar to Freud’s. Finally, Henry Murray (1938) developed what, to our knowledge, was the first personality measure of narcissism. He also published the first correlations of narcissism with different outcome measures. Importantly, and in contrast to the clinical history of narcissism as a personality variable, narcissism was generally considered to be a normal trait rather than a pathological condition.
According to more modern psychologists, it is useful to think of narcissism as having three basic ingredients. These include a positive self, a relative lack of interest in warm and caring interpersonal relationships and a reliance upon self-regulatory strategies. Narcissism is one of the three dark triadic personality traits, as mentioned in the previous chapter. Except in the sense of primary narcissism or healthy self-love, narcissism is usually considered a problem in a person or a group’s relationship with oneself and others.
Individuals with higher levels of narcissism are likely to (a) harbour feelings of superiority driven by an inflated sense of self, (b) have a dysfunctional need for excessive attention and admiration, (c) have a propensity to engage in exploitative acts and (d) lack empathy, tending toward callousness.1
Pincus et al (2009) referred to ‘narcissistic grandiosity’ as ‘interpersonally exploitive acts, a lack of empathy, intense envy, aggression and exhibitionism’. He also added that ‘narcissistic vulnerability’, ‘the conscious experience of helplessness, emptiness, low self-esteem and shame’, represented another important aspect of narcissism.2
Narcissism can be defined as a ‘relatively stable individual difference consisting of grandiosity, self-love and inflated self-views’ (Campbell et al, 2011, 269).3 In the eyes of narcissists, there is much about themselves that is enviable. Narcissists view themselves more positively than they view others, in terms of intelligence, competence and attractiveness. This tendency carries over to specific task performance related situations. Here, narcissists tend to self-enhance, and are more likely than others to derogate sources of negative performance feedback. These attributional biases are rooted in narcissists’ strong motives to maintain a positive self-image and uphold the positive effect they experience from downward comparisons with others.
Contemporary conceptualizations of narcissism include both narcissistic grandiosity and narcissistic vulnerability.4 Narcissistic vulnerability tendencies may be classified as a personality type characterized by a high and unstable self-esteem. Although the definition of narcissism overlaps with self-esteem, it has two distinctive characteristics that are not formally associated with the concept of self-esteem. These are competitiveness and the need for admiration. Thus, it involves maintaining high self-esteem by constant comparison with others. Narcissists are only satisfied when they outperform others or are given lavish praise by their admirers.
A great deal of speculation has gone into understanding the childhood roots of narcissism. There are three basic schools of thought (Horton et al, 2006). The first is that narcissists were psychologically wounded during childhood. They did not receive the attention that they needed (Kernberg, 1974, 1975; Kohut, 1977) and were controlled by their parents. A second position is that narcissists were overly attended to in childhood, in a fashion that led to psychological enmeshment. In essence, the child was used to act out the parents’ own narcissistic needs (Kohut, 1977). The third is that narcissists were somehow spoiled in childhood, receiving too much positive regard and treated with inordinate leniency (Millon and Davis, 1996). The best empirical data available (Horton et al, 2006) is most consistent with the ‘spoiled’ portrayal of the narcissists’ childhoods. In particular, parental leniency is seen as a significant predictor of narcissism. The Horton data was conceptually replicated in a similar study (Otway and Vignoles, 2006). Adults were asked about the nature of parenting they received in childhood. Narcissism was positively related to recollections of parental over-evaluation.
Narcissism is thus defined as a person’s ability to maintain a positive view of the self through self-enhancement experiences. For example, they can downplay the skills that they lack, or they can criticize others to seem better by comparison, and vice versa. This particular aspect will throw some light on to our current discourse when we analyse four characters from the Mahabharata.
3
PSYCHOPATHY
Although the literal meaning of psychopathic is psychologically damaged, the term has long since been transmogrified to mean socially damaging. It implies a specific category of people inherently committed to antisocial behaviour as a consequence of personal abnormalities or deficiencies.
The origins of recent notions of psychopathic personality are commonly traced to Prichard’s (1837) concept of moral insanity (Maughs, 1941). Prichard merely elaborated the proposals of the eighteenth-century physicians. His implication of the term ‘moral’ went beyond just ‘ethical’ (Walker and McCabe, 1973; Millon, 1981). His ill
ustrative cases included only a few, for whom antisocial conduct was the chief reason for inferring moral insanity. Nevertheless, he tried to explain socially objectionable behaviour. He talked of it as an inability to conduct oneself ‘with decency and propriety in the business of life’, referring to moral ‘perversion’. Moral insanity was thus a hypothetical cause of social deviance. And much of the subsequent debate in the nineteenth century centred on how a diseased ‘moral faculty’ could explain criminal behaviour.
Walker and McCabe (1973) detect three differing uses of the term psychopathy. Initially, it had the etymologically precise meaning of ‘psychologically damaged’, hence comprising all forms of psychopathology. However, in 1891 Koch described psychological abnormalities that did not amount to strict insanity as ‘constitutional psychopathic inferiority’. This was an explicit rejection of the notion of moral insanity as well as an attempt to specify a biological basis for non-psychotic disorders. The third use of the term was to mean ‘unethical’. This is attributed to Meyer’s influence in the USA and Henderson’s in Britain. However, this narrow application did not become widespread for several decades.
Walker and McCabe (1973) suggest that the original intention was for psychopathic disorder to be a generic label for non-psychotic psychiatric disorders, but the antisocial connotations had become too entrenched. In practice, those who fall in the category of psychopathic disorder tend to have committed socially abhorrent crimes. They are indiscriminately labelled as psychopaths.
Duryodhanization Page 3