A new psychological study reveals that people with a favorable opinion of Donald Trump also tend to score higher on callousness, manipulativeness, and other malevolent traits, and lower on empathy and compassion. These findings, based on two large surveys of American adults, shed light on the link between personality traits and political beliefs, including support for Trump and conservative ideology. This research was recently published in the Journal of Personality Research.
Malicious personality traits—sometimes referred to as “dark” traits—include tendencies such as manipulativeness, callousness, narcissism, and a lack of empathy. These traits often embody concepts such as psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and narcissism, which together reflect a general tendency to exploit or neglect others for personal gain.
People with stronger malevolent traits may be more comfortable with aggression, dominance, or cruelty, and less likely to appreciate fairness or kindness. These tendencies are associated with lower levels of affective empathy (concern for the suffering of others) and, in some cases, higher levels of dissonant empathy (pleasure in the pain of others). Conversely, benevolent traits reflect the opposite: behaviors characterized by compassion, humanity, and a belief in treating others with dignity and respect.
The researchers conducted this study to better understand the psychological traits underlying political ideology, particularly support for Donald Trump and conservative beliefs. Previous studies have already linked conservative ideology and right-wing authoritarianism to social dominance, but the researchers hypothesized that malevolent personality traits might also play a role, particularly given Trump’s rhetoric and behavior, which are often characterized by dominance, cruelty, and disregard for social norms.
In particular, they were interested in whether support for Trump was associated with higher levels of malevolent traits and lower levels of empathy, and whether benevolent traits could predict a more liberal or non-authoritarian outlook. The study aimed to clarify how these personality tendencies relate to political beliefs and what this might reveal about the deeper psychological dimensions of ideology.
“This paper was several years in the making, starting as a result of the 2016 election, and was designed to address why some people might view favorably a political figure with a history of business failures, bankruptcies, misogynistic statements caught on video, use of charity money for a self-portrait, etc,” explained study author Craig Neumann, a Regents Professor of Psychology at the University of North Texas.
“Also, there is a large literature on personality and ideology (e.g., low honesty-humility associated with conservative ideology), but only recently have there been studies on malevolent personality (e.g., callousness, narcissism, Machiavellianism) and ideology. More critically, few studies have examined the associations between benevolent (affiliative) personality and political ideology. Finally, many studies in this area tend to statistically control demographic factors, but we sought to examine how the associations between personality and ideology might be moderated by gender or minority status.”
To investigate these relationships, the researchers conducted two large surveys with over 9,000 participants in the United States. The first sample consisted of 1,000 men recruited online, about a third of whom were racial or ethnic minorities. The second sample included 8,047 men and women who completed personality questionnaires on a general psychology website.
Participants in both samples completed a battery of validated questionnaires measuring their political attitudes, personality traits, and empathy. Political ideology was assessed using questions on general political orientation, preferences for military versus social spending, support for gun control, and evaluation of Trump’s first term. The researchers used structural equation modeling, a statistical technique that allows for simultaneous testing of relationships between multiple variables while accounting for measurement error.
In the first sample, the researchers measured social dominance orientation (the belief that certain groups should dominate others), right-wing authoritarianism (support for conformity, obedience, and traditional norms), and psychopathic traits. In the second sample, measures of broader malevolent traits (psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and narcissism) and benevolent traits (humanism, belief in humanity, and Kantian respect for others) were added. Empathy was also assessed in the first sample, distinguishing between its affective, cognitive, and dissonant forms.
Results consistently showed that people who identified as politically conservative, particularly those who positively evaluated Trump’s presidency, were more likely to score higher on measures of authoritarianism, social dominance, and malevolent personality traits.
In the first sample of men, all three factors—social dominance, authoritarianism, and psychopathic tendencies—predicted conservative ideology and a favorable opinion of Trump, but only among White participants. Among minority men, psychopathic traits were not significantly related to political ideology. This suggests that the psychological trajectories of conservatism may differ by racial or ethnic identity, perhaps due to differences in experiences of social power and marginalization.
Support for Trump was also associated with distinct patterns of empathy. Compared with those who did not support Trump, Trump supporters reported lower affective empathy (less emotional concern for others) and higher dissonant empathy (more pleasure in the suffering of others). These differences persisted even after controlling for age, education, and ethnicity.
In the second, larger sample, including both men and women, the researchers focused on the link between general personality tendencies—benevolent or malevolent—and political beliefs. They found that people with stronger benevolent traits, such as a focus on the dignity and worth of others, were more likely to hold progressive views and reject Trump. In contrast, people with more malevolent traits—such as manipulation, selfishness, and emotional coldness—were more likely to support Trump and identify with his conservatives.
While this pattern was observed in both men and women, the associations were stronger in men. In other words, malevolent traits were more predictive of conservative ideology in men than in women. Women in the sample tended to score higher on benevolent traits in general and lower on malevolent traits.
People with a favorable opinion of Trump exhibited higher levels of malevolent traits and lower levels of benevolent traits. In other words, Trump supporters scored higher on traits such as Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy—which reflect manipulation, a sense of entitlement, callousness, impulsiveness, and antisocial behavior—while they scored lower on traits such as humanism (belief in humanity) and Kantianism, which reflect empathy, a belief in the fundamental goodness of others, and a commitment to treating others as ends rather than means.
These differences were not explained by other factors such as age, income, education level, or minority status. The researchers concluded that personality traits associated with callousness and selfishness may influence how people engage with politics—and, in particular, their relationship to Trumpian conservatism.
A notable finding of the study is the consistent link between empathy and political orientation. While people of all political persuasions are capable of empathy, the findings suggest that right-wingers—particularly Trump supporters—may demonstrate and express their empathy differently.
Trump supporters were less likely to care about the suffering of others (lower affective empathy) and more likely to appreciate or be indifferent to their suffering (higher dissonant empathy). Importantly, these differences were not observed in cognitive empathy. Trump supporters were just as able to recognize the emotions of others as non-Trump supporters, and they appeared, on average, less concerned.
These new findings are consistent with previous research showing that Donald Trump’s political appeal was particularly strong among those who favored authoritarian aggression and collectivist dominance. In the 2016 Republican primaries, Trump supporters distinguished themselves from supporters of other Republican candidates not by their greater subservience to authority or resistance to social change, but by their greater propensity to support aggressive tactics and hierarchical worldviews that place some groups above others.
The current study builds on this view, suggesting that these ideological patterns are not simply a matter of political opinions, but are rooted in deeper psychological tendencies, including a lack of empathy and more pronounced malignant character traits such as callousness, narcissism, and enjoyment of the suffering of others.
“Consistent with recent research, our findings suggest a link between a malevolent (aversive) personality and conservative political ideology, which, in our study, included a favorable opinion of Trump, and that people with malevolent personality tendencies perceive more favorably political figures exhibiting malevolent traits,” Newman told PsyPost. “Moreover, people who perceive malevolent political figures favorably also report less empathy for others and less enjoyment of their suffering.”
We also found that benevolent (affiliative) tendencies were associated with a liberal political ideology. All of these findings were reinforced by a consistent measurement approach, suggesting that measurement error or bias could not explain the results. Finally, we found the same pattern of results in two samples from two different historical periods, during which opinions about Trump may have changed (before and during the COVID-19 pandemic).