War & Personality: How Childhood & Traits Predict Pro-War Views
As conflict in the Middle East escalates, much of the public discourse centers on the legal and moral justifications for military action, or the potential for achieving stated objectives. However, emerging research suggests that deeper psychological factors may be at play in shaping attitudes toward war, potentially offering a new lens through which to understand public and political responses to conflict.
The Personality Traits Linked to Pro-War Stances
A recent study, “Authoritarianism and the Psychology of War: Exploring Personality Traits in the Legitimation of Military Conflict,” investigated the connection between personality traits and support for war among a sample of over one thousand people in the United Kingdom. The findings, echoing previous research, revealed predictable demographic trends: men were more likely than women to support military conflict, as were older individuals compared to younger ones, and those with right-leaning political views. But the study delved deeper, uncovering links between early life experiences and core personality factors.
One significant finding centered on the impact of childhood experiences. Childhood maltreatment – encompassing both emotional and physical abuse – emerged as a predictor of pro-war attitudes. Participants who reported experiencing hurtful or insulting comments, or physical harm during childhood, were more inclined to support military intervention, suggesting that early-life adversity can contribute to later war support. This aligns with broader psychological understanding of how trauma can shape worldview and responses to perceived threats.
Social Dominance and Hierarchical Thinking
The study likewise highlighted the role of “social dominance orientation” (SDO), a personality trait reflecting an individual’s preference for hierarchical social structures. Those with a high SDO score tend to believe in inequality and endorse statements suggesting that some groups are inherently superior to others. This orientation was strongly linked to support for warfare, suggesting that a desire to maintain or reinforce social hierarchies can fuel militaristic attitudes. Conversely, individuals with low SDO scores, who prioritize egalitarianism and universal rights, were less likely to back military action.
As the researchers explain, individuals scoring high on SDO often agree with statements like “Winning is more essential than how the game is played” or “Sometimes war is necessary to put other countries in their place,” revealing a willingness to prioritize dominance and control, even through aggressive means.
The Role of Authority and Conformity
Another key personality factor identified in the study was “authoritarian submission,” characterized by a high degree of deference to authority and a tendency to suppress dissent. Individuals exhibiting this trait were found to be strongly associated with pro-war attitudes. This suggests that a willingness to submit to established powers can translate into support for aggressive state policies, including warfare. The underlying psychological theory posits that authoritarian leaders, like Adolf Hitler, require a degree of authoritarian submission within their followers to achieve and maintain power.
This submission manifests as a valuing of social conformity and a hostility toward those who deviate from norms endorsed by authority figures. Individuals high in authoritarian submission are more likely to agree with statements such as “Our country would be great if we did what the authorities tell us to do,” while those low in this trait would champion greater freedom of protest against the government.
Unexpected Links: Conspiracy Theories and War Opposition
Interestingly, the study uncovered an unexpected correlation: individuals more likely to endorse conspiracy theories were less likely to be pro-war. The researchers suggest that this may be due to a general skepticism toward state and military narratives among conspiracy theorists, leading them to question the justifications for conflict. This finding may have particular relevance in the current context, given the potential for narratives surrounding the recent escalation to be viewed with suspicion by certain segments of the population, such as supporters of President Donald Trump. Some have suggested the timing of recent events may be linked to attempts to distract from other ongoing issues, like the release of Jeffrey Epstein files, and this skepticism could influence attitudes toward military intervention.
The ‘Dark Triad’ and Sadism’s Unique Role
The study also examined the relationship between the “dark triad” of personality traits – psychopathy, narcissism, and Machiavellianism – and support for war. While psychopathy, characterized by callousness and emotional detachment, showed a significant link to pro-war attitudes, narcissism and Machiavellianism did not. However, it was sadism – the enjoyment of cruelty and harm – that emerged as the strongest psychological predictor of war support. The authors argue that sadism provides a unique insight into why some individuals view fighting as a legitimate means of conflict resolution.
This suggests that support for war isn’t necessarily driven by self-importance or strategic manipulation, but rather by a deeper inclination toward aggression and a potential enjoyment of inflicting harm on others.
Implications for Persuasion and Understanding Conflict
The findings of this study raise intriguing questions about the potential for “reverse engineering” these results. Could it be possible to deduce certain aspects of an individual’s personality, and even their childhood experiences, based on their stance on war? the research suggests that traditional methods of persuasion may be ineffective when attempting to change the minds of those with deeply ingrained psychological predispositions toward or against conflict.
For example, the anti-war lobby might find greater success by employing a spokesperson with a military background – a retired general, perhaps – to appeal to those with high levels of authoritarian submission. However, the researchers acknowledge that this could be challenging, given the tendency for military personnel to rally around their own during times of conflict.
Beyond Politics: The Psychological Roots of War
this research suggests that we may go to war for more profound psychological reasons than are typically acknowledged in public debate. Those who successfully persuade the public to support or oppose hostilities may be deploying psychological tactics as much as, if not more than, political rhetoric. Understanding these underlying psychological factors is crucial for fostering a more informed and nuanced discussion about the causes and consequences of war. European allies have expressed caution about escalating the conflict, highlighting the complex geopolitical considerations at play.
As the situation in the Middle East continues to evolve, it’s important to remember that attitudes toward war are shaped by a complex interplay of political, moral, and psychological factors. Recognizing these underlying drivers is essential for navigating the challenges ahead and promoting a more peaceful future. The UK is considering its options for further participation in strikes, demonstrating the ongoing deliberation among international actors.