Aversive societal conditions explain differences in “dark” personality across countries and US states

Ethically and socially aversive behavior (e.g., exploitation, fraud, violence) occurs daily, posing severe threats to individuals and societies at large. As with virtually all human behaviors, individuals differ in their tendency to engage in aversive behavior. Within psychology, a particularly prominent approach to study such differences is to consider aversive (“dark”) personality traits such as Machiavellianism or sadism (1). Defined as “relatively enduring patterns of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that reflect the tendency to respond in certain ways under certain circumstances” (2), personality traits explicitly represent individuals’ tendencies to show conceptually related behaviors, such as various kinds of aversive behavior, across situations.

Recent advances in personality research have provided strong evidence for the existence of a single disposition underlying all aversive traits (3, 4). The Dark Factor of Personality (D) offers a clear conceptualization of this disposition, defined as “the general tendency to maximize one’s individual utility—disregarding, accepting, or malevolently provoking disutility for others—accompanied by beliefs that serve as justifications” (3). Much like the g factor of intelligence, D represents the “aversive essence of personality,” from which all aversive traits arise as specific manifestations. The latter, in turn, accentuate certain aversive characteristics and/or blend aversive and nonaversive characteristics (e.g., disinhibition in the case of psychopathy). Put simply, D is the underlying trait that predisposes individuals to engage in all kinds of aversive behaviors, as dictated by the idea of a reflective construct. This conceptualization has been supported by several findings, including D predicting behavioral outcomes such as dishonesty, selfishness, or outgroup harm, with specific aversive traits typically not yielding any incremental validity beyond D for self-serving behavior at the cost of others (5). Given that D is the personality disposition underlying aversive behavior, it is crucial to understand what shapes it.

It is well-documented that both genetic and socioecological factors shape individuals’ levels in personality traits (6) and that societies vary in the proliferation of traits. Several, not mutually exclusive, theories provide an explanation for the latter. From a broad behavioral ecology perspective, societal variation in traits might be seen as a result from adaptive phenotypic plasticity (7). This suggests that there are, on average, different trait levels across societies because individuals’ trait levels develop in response to societal environments so to enhance success and survival. More specifically, theories suggest that personality traits are coshaped by i) social learning processes (e.g., customs, daily practices, norms), ii) situational affordances and demands, and iii) state-behavior feedback loops that reinforce or discourage certain behaviors (7–9). Based on these theories, it can be predicted that aversive societal conditions (ASC) contribute to the proliferation of D across societies. Two lines of reasoning support this proposition.

First, in societies characterized by aversive conditions, there is a greater risk of being exploited by others. Following tenets from social dilemma research (10), selfish or noncooperative tendencies can become adaptive means to protect oneself from exploitation. Consequently, higher levels of D can be seen as an adaptive response to situational demands, helping individuals avoid being exploited by others.

Second, in societies characterized by aversive conditions, individuals are more likely to perceive aversive behavior as common, functional, and justifiable. Following tenets from social norms research (11) and the need to justify immoral and unethical behavior (12), ASC should foster the adoption of more competitive, distrusting, and normless beliefs, which are essential to D (3). Consequently, higher levels of D can be seen as a result of learning what is widespread and tolerated by society.

To test the proposition, we construct an ASC index using four variables: corruption, inequality, poverty, and violence, jointly reflecting societal conditions in which self-serving behavior at the cost of others can be perceived as adaptive, justifiable, the norm, and/or nonsanctioned. For instance, higher levels of corruption imply a (de facto) tolerance of, and widespread engagement in, behavior aimed at gaining personal benefits at the cost of others, especially society at large. For the main analyses, we constructed the ASC index with data assessed about 20 y before the assessment of D, because this time lag arguably provides a period allowing ASC to have coshaped our participants’ levels of D, while it virtually excludes the possibility of reversed causality (our participants affecting the ASC index; for a similar reasoning, see ref. 13).