So far in this book, we’ve been describing all six of the major dimensions of personality. In the remaining chapters, we’ll focus mostly on the H factor. The main reason for this special attention is that the H factor has such a powerful influence on so many aspects of people’s lives—on their choice of friends and romantic partners, on their sexual behaviour, on their approach toward money and power, on their political and religious views, and so on. But before we discuss these expressions of the H factor, we’ll describe the personalities of low-H people in more detail. We could just as well focus on high-H people, but in many ways it’s more interesting to consider people at the low pole of this dimension, given that it’s low-H people whose behaviour often has such dramatic—and harmful—consequences.
We described the core characteristics of low-H persons in the previous chapter. But low-H people can differ greatly from one another, depending on their levels of the five other personality factors. Here we’ll explore some of the main variations on the low-H personality by exploring the key characteristics of people who combine low H with high or low levels of each of the other personality factors. By taking low H in combination with each of the other factors in turn, we hope to show the main ways in which low-H people express their personalities.
When reading the profiles below, you should keep some important points in mind. First of all, a person who is very low in H could match several of these descriptions rather well. Also, the accuracy of any given description for any given person is not all-or-nothing—it’s a matter of degree, depending on just how high or how low the person’s levels of the factors happen to be. And finally, you should be prepared to find that some of these profiles will be at least slightly reminiscent of your own personality: you’ll probably see some hints of your own tendencies in at least one or two of these descriptions. But this will be true for nearly every-one—and that includes your authors.
It’s often said that risk taking is governed by greed and fear. Well, people who combine low Honesty-Humility with low Emotionality have a whole lot of greed and not much fear: they’re hungry for money and power, and their appetite isn’t spoiled by the risk of physical harm. Accordingly, it’s low-H, low-E people who take the biggest chances in pursuit of fame and fortune. They want to win it all or die trying.
We call this tendency “status-driven risk taking,” and it gets expressed in several ways.1 For example, people who are low in both H and E will be the ones most tempted by very high-paying but dangerous jobs. If you were to advertise for mercenary soldiers, offering huge rewards for fighting in some deadly conflict, you would probably get a lot of low-H, low-E applicants. If there were a modern-day gold rush in some remote and very hazardous corner of the world, the same kind of crowd would show up.
The combination of low H and low E is also relevant to status-driven risk taking in more common situations. People who like to compete in showing off their bravery tend to be low-H, low-E people. Think of the game of “chicken.” Think of barroom brawls. The competitors in these contests are almost always men—usually young men. This fact is probably due in large part to the differences between men and women in their levels of E and H. Compared with women, men tend to be considerably lower in E and somewhat lower in H, so the large majority of very low-H, very low-E people are men. And given that competition tends to be strongest between members of the same sex, it isn’t hard to see why almost all the people killed while competing for status have been men: rates of homicide and accidental deaths are consistently much higher for men than for women, especially during young adulthood, a stage of life when competition is particularly intense.2
This isn’t to say that personality—in particular the H and E factors—explains everything about status-driven risk taking, let alone homicides and fatal accidents. The cultural context also matters: when people live in a “winner-take-all” society marked by strong inequalities of income, the level of status-driven risk taking will be high. This is even more likely when a society is polygynous—that is, when some men have several wives and other men have no wives at all. Extreme inequalities encourage men to exhibit more low-H, low-E behaviours, which in turn elicits status-driven risk taking even from men who aren’t by nature especially low in H or low in E.
In pursuing wealth and status, people with low levels of H and E are willing to put themselves at risk; they also don’t care if they put other people at risk too. To put it bluntly, low-H, low-E people are cold and callous. They don’t feel much empathy or pity; they’re simply unmoved by the suffering of other people and aren’t interested in helping people who are in really desperate straits. Likewise, low-H, low-E people don’t see any reason to avoid harming others in pursuing their own ends. If they have to step on you to achieve their goals, that’s tough—you should just suck it up. As you can see, people low in H and E are not very nice. Those who are also low in A have pretty much the complete package for being an all-around nasty person.
Compared with people who are low in both Honesty-Humility and Emotionality, people who combine low H with high E are not nearly so dangerous. They are much more fearful, so they don’t do so much status-driven risk taking. They are also much less insensitive, so they usually don’t treat people in quite such a hard-hearted way.
But the combination of low H and high E can still cause problems. Low-H, high-E people will try to exploit others, but they will do so in subtle, sneaky ways in order to avoid any confrontation or other risk of harm. A low-H, low-E person would risk a real fight; a low-H, high-E person would prefer to sneak away. When watching a low-H, high-E person in action, the words “weasel” and “coward” come to mind. In some ways, the combination of low H and high E is exactly opposite to the popular image of a hero. In the typical action movie, the good guy—usually a police officer or a secret agent—is always tough and brave. This high-H, low-E character is not a particularly sensitive soul, but he—virtually always a “he”—is incorruptible, with a strong sense of justice.
People who combine low H with high E may use their own weakness—or at least the exaggeration of their weakness—as a means of getting more than their share of various benefits. Think of the university student who exaggerates illnesses or other problems to request extra exam time and extended essay deadlines. Think of the spouse who expects to be waited on or to be showered with gifts. The blend of low H and high E is not very scary, but with its weaseling and whining, it can certainly be annoying.
BOX 4–1 Of Conquistadors and Sweetheart Swindlers
Many of the most famous—or most infamous—figures of history showed the combination of low H and low E. Some of the best examples are the Spanish conquistadors of the 16th century. Among these tough, greedy men were the Pizarro brothers—Francisco, Gonzalo, Juan, and Hernando. Under Francisco’s leadership, all four brothers took part in the conquest of the Inca Empire in 1532. The enterprise was motivated purely by greed: the brothers hoped to replicate the exploits of Hernán Cortés (a second cousin), who conquered the Aztec Empire and looted its wealth. The Pizarros’ operation was extremely risky, as their force of fewer than 200 men was invading an empire that could field tens of thousands of warriors. But as a result of several advantages—including horses, steel weapons, and a concurrent smallpox outbreak among the native population—the Spanish defeated the Incas, often by resorting to trickery and surprise. The Pizarro brothers and their comrades then set about plundering the Inca Empire, seizing vast stores of gold and silver. They ruled the conquered territories as brutal tyrants, raping and pillaging; their cruelty provoked a rebellion in which Juan was killed. Francisco betrayed his erstwhile partner, Diego de Almagro, and was later killed by Almagro’s son. Greedy for still more riches, Gonzalo undertook an extremely dangerous expedition into the Amazon in search of the legendary (and non-existent) city of gold, El Dorado; most of his men died or deserted, but Gonzalo survived. Later, when the Spanish king’s viceroy in Peru enforced some new laws aimed at preventing exploitation of the native inhabitants, Gonzalo rebelled and was subsequently executed. Only Hernando survived to old age, but even he was imprisoned in Spain for twenty years.
The conquistadors in general, and the Pizarros in particular, showed extremely low levels both of H (in their greed and deceit) and of E (in their fearlessness and toughness). The Pizarros and other conquistadors were excellent (albeit rather extreme) examples of the low-H, low-E combination; many other historical figures showed this same blend of traits. People who combine the exploitiveness of low H with the toughness of low E have the potential to create a great deal of mayhem if they survive long enough. In contrast, people who combine low H with high E are much more risk-averse and not nearly so callous; thus, in spite of their selfish motivations, they are much less likely to make themselves famous.
Still, one might wonder whether there are any spectacular exploits that would be especially well suited to low-H, high-E persons. One superficially plausible candidate is the so-called sweetheart swindler scam. The swindler, a woman, approaches an elderly man, befriends him, and eventually pretends to fall in love with him. The typical story she tells the victim is cliché: she is a single mother with a miserable life story and lots of debt, and therefore she needs financial help to support her children (who, for good measure, may be seriously ill). If everything goes right, she takes the victim’s money until there is nothing left. The pattern seems to suggest that this is a crime suited to a low-H woman who also has high-E traits of dependence and vulnerability.
We doubt, however, that sweetheart swindlers of this kind are high in the E factor. These con artists pretend to be weak and dependent to get what they want, but in reality they are very tough customers. Not only are they extremely callous, turning very cold toward their victims once the money is gone, but they are also rather fearless, willingly taking on the risk of going to prison for fraud. A person who combines low H with high E would likely be deterred by the fear of being caught and might even find it hard to remain emotionally detached from the victim. Such a person would be inclined to commit only lower-level, less risky antisocial acts—such as keeping the cash in a lost wallet, exaggerating medical symptoms for time off work, or secretly spreading rumours about persons they don’t like. It’s much less likely that the low-H, high-E person would carry out anything as bold and as cold as the sweetheart swindler scam.
People who combine low Honesty-Humility with high eXtraversion are the kind of people who get your attention. And as far as they’re concerned, this is exactly how it should be: low-H, high-X people are narcissists. They stand in awe of their own greatness, and they think you should too.
Low-H, high-X persons see themselves as born leaders, and in some sense they are quite right. Their high X means they’re comfortable when meeting new people and confident when speaking out in large-group settings. For these people, being the focus of attention is exhilarating, not exhausting. But their low H means that they passionately want to rule over others: they crave power, and they feel entitled to it as if by divine right. They manipulate others to achieve high status, and once they get it they use it for personal advantage—financial, sexual, or otherwise. The low-H, high-X person loves to dominate others: for them, being the alpha male or the alpha female is what it’s all about.
It’s easy to poke fun at these people, and in fact we recommend it highly. But you still have to take them seriously, because the low-H, high-X combination can be formidable. Low-H, high-X persons have a charm and charisma that attract a crowd of admiring followers. (And this magnetism can only be amplified by any other asset they might happen to have—good looks or athleticism or intelligence, or personality traits such as high O or high C.) Their boldness and energy in social interactions are blended with cunning and guile, making them skilled political operators who often succeed in navigating their way into positions of power.
But as you might guess, not everyone becomes (or stays) enthralled with the leadership of low-H, high-X persons. Leaders who are low in H and high in X are tirelessly self-aggrandizing and self-promoting, without intrinsic concern for the well-being of the people or the organization that is under their leadership. Some people see this, and resent it. When low-H, high-X leaders break too many rules and alienate too many people, all of their ruthless charm won’t be enough to prevent a hard fall.
The narcissism of the low-H, high-X person isn’t restricted to the realm of leadership. The combination of high X and low H is a perfect recipe for showing off: if they’ve got it, you can bet they’ll flaunt it. They like to regale you with stories that reveal their superior status and the remarkable talents and achievements that go with it. (If they’re good at this, it might not even be particularly obnoxious, and you might even be entertained by it.) They display the material evidence of their greatness, drawing attention with the trappings of whatever status and achievement they possess.
Low-H, high-X people are immodest, and not only in the general sense of boastfulness and ostentation. They’re equally immodest in the more specific sense of being sexually provocative and seductive.3 People who combine low H with high X are more likely than others to use sexual innuendo in their speech. They may strike suggestive body language and wear revealing clothes. These behaviours will become less common as the low-H, high-X person gets older, but probably not until the person is beyond the age when they really should have stopped.
Why do low H and high X make for such an exhibitionistic style? Consider first the high-X part of the package: people high in X are socially confident in general, and they see themselves as physically attractive.4 (This view is at least somewhat justified, because as we note in Chapter 3, high-X people are considered by others to be more attractive, on average, than low-X people are.) Also, high-X people have a rather high sex drive on average, so an overtly sexual style of behaviour comes rather naturally to them.5 Now consider the low-H part: on average, people low in H don’t really have a higher sex drive, nor do other people consider them especially attractive. But low-H people do like to manipulate others, and they’re willing to use their physical and social charms to get what they want. And in the context of sexual relationships, what they want can mean two different things: for some low-H people (mainly men), the sex act itself is the ultimate end, and their overt sexuality is a form of hopeful advertising. For other low-H people (mainly women), overt sexuality—and the implied if perhaps insincere promise of sexual receptivity—is a means to other ends, such as the wealth and status they desire and (at least in their own minds) so clearly deserve.6
When low levels of Honesty-Humility are combined with low levels of eXtraversion, the results are less spectacular but still unpleasant. People who are low in both H and X feel entitled to high status and don’t mind exploiting others. Unlike low-H, high-X people, however, they lack the charisma to charm or bully their way into leadership positions. And in fact, although low-H, low-X people want status—in the sense of having the deference and admiration of others—they don’t really get much of a thrill from being a leader. Instead, their ideal would be a reclusive life of great wealth and luxury, enjoyed in private behind the high walls of their great estate.
Low-H, low-X people sound like snobs, and that’s because they are snobs. Sometimes people will mistakenly decide that a high-H, low-X person is stuck up, simply because that person is rather aloof, not being much interested in social interaction (see Box 4–2 for a classic fictional case). But when the low-X person is also low in H, the perception of haughtiness is accurate. For the low-H, low-X person, it’s not just that they prefer to be alone; it’s also that other people—apart from a few high-status VIPs—are beneath their concern.
Overall, the low-H, low-X person probably has a lot less capacity to cause problems than does the low-H, high-X person. But this doesn’t mean that a low level of X in itself is a good thing, or that a high level of X in itself is a bad thing. Instead, high X tends to amplify the effects of a person’s level of H, whether high or low. When a person is low in H, the social confidence and charisma of high X can make that person really dangerous. But when a person is high in H, those same features of high X appear in a much different light: genuine friendliness, modest sexiness, humble leadership. High X people who are low in H are the people you love to hate, but high X people who are high in H are the people you love to like.
BOX 4–2 Pride and Prejudice—and Personality
Among the all-time favourite novels in English literature is Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice, set in rural England of the early 19th century. The heroine of the story, Elizabeth Bennet, eventually falls in love with the rich and handsome Mr. Darcy, but not before her perception of his personality undergoes a profound change.
When Elizabeth first meets the aristocratic Mr. Darcy at a ball, he is aloof and unfriendly, seemingly disdainful of nearly everyone around him, including Elizabeth and her relatives. But after a few more meetings, Mr. Darcy becomes captivated by Elizabeth’s spirited and free-thinking personality (in terms of the HEXACO model, she is rather high in both X and O). He proposes marriage to her, and is shocked when she rejects him and bluntly explains her reasons for disliking him—basically, Elizabeth perceives Mr. Darcy to be a low-X, low-A, low-H kind of guy. (On the first two counts, Elizabeth is probably right; he is clearly not very outgoing or cheerful, and by his own admission he is resentful, critical, and unforgiving.) Mr. Darcy then embarks on some soul searching, as he realizes how he is perceived by others.
Elizabeth’s view of Mr. Darcy is also influenced by a certain Mr. Wickham, whose own easy charm gives the impression of a high-X, high-H person. Mr. Wickham had spread some rumours that cast doubt on Mr. Darcy’s integrity, and these had helped consolidate Elizabeth’s “prejudice” against the latter. But after rejecting Mr. Darcy’s proposal, Elizabeth learns that it is Mr. Wickham who lacks integrity—he is a devious manipulator, very low in H.
Meanwhile, Elizabeth also learns that Mr. Darcy’s personality is, in some respects, very different from what she had believed. For all of his apparent arrogance, Mr. Darcy is actually known for his generosity to the poor and his fairness toward his servants, who can see that he doesn’t really have an excess of “pride.” Mr. Darcy is high in H after all.
At this point, Elizabeth is horrified to discover that Mr. Wickham has run off with Elizabeth’s flirty younger sister, Lydia, whose actions could fatally damage the social standing of the entire family. Mr. Darcy intervenes to rescue the flighty and foolish Lydia—but not as a way of gaining Elizabeth’s favour; he tries to keep his actions secret from her. When she inadvertently finds out how Mr. Darcy had saved her sister, Elizabeth fully grasps the error of her earlier rejection of him.
Mr. Darcy had given up any hope of winning Elizabeth’s affections, but he later tells Elizabeth that his feelings for her are unchanged and that he still hopes to marry her. She tells him that she now feels the same way for him, and happily accepts his proposal.
In a later conversation, Elizabeth and Mr. Darcy discuss how he first fell in love with her. He had despised the flattery and deference that so many people had shown him on account of his high social status, and he was fascinated by Elizabeth’s “impertinence” and “liveliness of mind.” As for Elizabeth herself, her thoughts and actions throughout the story suggest a very high level of H. At one point she jokes to her older sister Jane that she first realized her affection for Mr. Darcy when she saw the grounds of his estate, yet in fact Elizabeth had known all along about his wealth and status. But Elizabeth’s readiness to criticize suggests that she was not so high in A. In this regard she differs from Jane, who sometimes exasperates Elizabeth through her extraordinary patience and forgivingness.
Elizabeth’s initial misperception of Mr. Darcy’s level of the H factor raises a more general question: How well do you have to know a person to be able to judge his or her personality? We’ll discuss this question in detail in Chapter 5.
People who combine low Honesty-Humility and low Agreeableness are very difficult to get along with. On the one hand, they’re inclined to manipulate and exploit you. On the other, they’re always getting angry at your attempts (or at least, what they claim to see as your attempts) to exploit them.
Now, some traits belonging to the H factor are unrelated to the A factor, and vice versa. For example, knowing whether a person is sincere—in the sense of not using false ingratiation or flattery in order to get what one wants—tells you basically nothing about whether that person will be even-tempered or patient, stubborn or flexible.
Nevertheless, some traits that are related to H are also related to A, and vice versa. For example, modesty (in the sense of not having a strong sense of superiority or entitlement) is mainly related to H, but it’s also somewhat related to A. Conversely, gentleness (in the sense of being lenient rather than harsh in judging others) is mainly related to A, but it’s also somewhat related to H. As a result, modesty and gentleness are somewhat correlated with each other, even though they mainly represent different factors.
What this means is that the combination of low H and low A reveals itself in many familiar personality traits. One such trait is aggressiveness: low-H, low-A people are chronically involved in conflicts. Their readiness to offend is matched only by their readiness to take offence. To other people, they seem profoundly hypocritical, always exploiting others in ways that they themselves would never tolerate. In some ways, their litigiousness can work to their advantage: by being low H, they’re always ready to take the most advantage of others, and by being low A, they’re always ready to stop others from taking the least advantage of them. But the selfishness and argumentativeness of low-H, low-A people can quickly alienate others, and they can easily end up losing friends and allies. In this way the low-H, low-A person can miss out on opportunities for cooperation with others—cooperation that would ultimately have been more rewarding than perpetual conflict.
Beyond the litigious selfishness described above, the combination of low H and low A shows up in a couple of other unpleasant traits. One of these is vindictiveness or vengefulness: low-H, low-A people get mad, and they love to get even. Now, even low A in isolation (that is, without low H) is associated with a reluctance to forgive others. In fact, having a “forgive and forget” mentality is one of the core traits of high A, and low-A people are very slow to resume cordial relations with someone who has offended them. But when low A is combined with low H, the result is something more than merely an attitude of “once bitten, twice shy.” When low-H, low-A people are aggrieved, they want revenge, and they’ll take it if given the chance.7
One reason for the vindictiveness of low-H, low-A people is that low H can expand one’s opportunities for anger. Recall that low-H people think they’re entitled to special treatment and that low-A people are intolerant of being treated unfairly. Now, when low-H, low-A people really are treated badly, they’re outraged: the (genuine) unfairness of the treatment they’ve received is magnified by their own expectation of being treated with extra respect and consideration. And of course, a person who combines low H with low A will be quite willing to exaggerate their anger, or even to feign it outright, as a calculated tactic for gaining compensation from an (ostensibly) offending party.
In low-H, low-A people, the urge for revenge is unlikely to be kept in check by any ethical restraint. High-H people feel at least some discomfort with the idea of harming others, even when those others aren’t so innocent; in contrast, low-H people don’t feel the same pangs of moral conscience. This vengefulness will be even stronger when the low-H, low-A person is also low in E: a low level of E means that the person will have less fear of escalating the conflict, and also less empathy or pity for the offending party.
Another feature of the low-H, low-A personality is cynicism: people low in both H and A tend to see the world as a hostile place, full of people who are out to take advantage of them. For the low-H, low-A person, it’s better to beat them to the punch: screw them before they screw you. Both elements contribute to this cynicism. People low in A have a hair-trigger sensitivity to being insulted or exploited by others, so they tend to see people as malevolent. But also, people low in H are themselves looking to take advantage of others, and they tend to assume that other people are motivated by the same selfishness and greed. In fact, they tend to see apparently honest people either as closet hypocrites or as naive fools.
For the most part, the combination of low Honesty-Humility with high Agreeableness is a lot less toxic than the low-H, low-A combination. People who are low in H but high in A are still greedy, sneaky people who are looking out for number one. But because they’re much more even-tempered and easygoing, they’re a lot easier to get along with. Even though you’ll want to be alert to what the low-H, high-A person is up to, you won’t be the target of much overt hostility from such a person.
In their style of dealing with other people, persons who are low in H and high in A are different from their low-H, low-A counterparts. For one thing, the low-H, high-A people don’t take things so personally. When they’re mistreated, they don’t get so distracted by the desire for revenge; instead, they let bygones be bygones when this is to their advantage. This willingness to forgive and forget makes them smoother political operators; to paraphrase Lord Palmerston, they have no permanent enemies, just permanent interests. (Of course, they might have no permanent friends either, especially if they’re low in E and low in X, but that’s fine from their point of view.) Low-H, high-A persons are willing to take advantage of others, yet they’re not especially quick to react against those who take advantage of them. It’s as if they prefer to keep their options open for future opportunities to cooperate—and exploit.
Another feature of the low-H, high-A personality is the inclination to use ingratiation as a tactic for influencing people. Even though a low-H, low-A person can certainly also be ingratiating, it comes even more easily to a person whose low H is blended with high A: a high level of A allows one to tolerate people who are rather unlikeable, and even to be very polite to them—high-A people find it easy to hold their nose and their tongue. And of course, a low level of H allows one to deceive people for personal gain—low-H people don’t mind being false. So if you have something that the low-H, high-A person wants, you’ll be on the receiving end of a lot of flattery and fake friendliness.
BOX 4–3 Personalities of US Presidents of the 1960s and 1970s
In their book Character, Leadership, and Personality in the White House, Steven J. Rubenzer and Thomas R. Faschingbauer examined the personalities of US presidents from George Washington to George W. Bush.8 They contacted over 100 biographers, journalists, and scholars, each of whom was an expert on one or more presidents, and asked those experts to rate the presidents’ personalities. The questionnaire that was used for this project was designed to measure the Big Five factors (see Chapter 2), not the HEXACO factors. But this particular questionnaire contains some subscales that allow us to make some reasonable estimates about the presidents’ levels of the HEXACO personality dimensions.9
Many of the results obtained by Rubenzer and Faschingbauer in their expert survey are interesting. Some particularly sharp contrasts are evident among the presidents of the 1960s and 1970s. Collectively, these presidents showed several distinct combinations of the H and A factors, while also differing in several other dimensions. Below are some highlights that we have summarized based on the findings reported by Rubenzer and Faschingbauer.
John F. Kennedy was somewhat low in H but higher in A. He had little difficulty manipulating and deceiving others. A big spender during his days in the House of Representatives, he would often borrow money from his staff members without repaying them. As noted by historian Paul Johnson, Kennedy cultivated the reputation of a thinker by publishing several scholarly works, but these were actually ghostwritten for him by others.10 But despite being low in H, Kennedy was not low in A: experts indicated that he wasn’t defensive, fault finding, harsh, or unforgiving.
Lyndon Johnson was very low in both H and A. Of all the presidents, it was perhaps Johnson who had the lowest level of H. In his early years, he was obsequious toward those in authority, and in public office he continued to use flattery to influence people, along with outright lying. He saw himself as superior to others and was particularly vain about his personal appearance. A former high school teacher, Johnson hired some of his ex-students to work for him in Washington—and then kept for himself a large fraction of their salaries. In addition to these various indications of low H, Johnson exhibited the signs of low A. Crude and vulgar, he had an explosive temper and often yelled abusively at his subordinates. More generally, he was an extremely critical, fault-finding boss who was nonetheless highly defensive about his own shortcomings and unforgiving of those who offended him.
Richard Nixon rivals Johnson as an extremely low-H, low-A president. Nixon’s pattern of dishonest behaviour ran throughout his life in politics, most infamously during the Watergate Scandal, which erupted after he arranged for illegal wiretaps of his political opponents and then attempted to hide that he had done so. Eisenhower chose Nixon as his vice-presidential running mate in 1952, yet Eisenhower distrusted him, in part because of a questionable scheme whereby Nixon had received gifts from political supporters. Years before then, Nixon’s scheming and treachery had earned him the nickname Tricky Dick. And Nixon’s deceitfulness was matched by his hostility. As revealed by the White House tapes (he bugged his own Oval Office), he was deeply suspicious and unforgiving of others, full of bitterness and resentment. He was obsessed with real and perceived opponents, many of whom he included on his famous enemies list.
Gerald Ford was relatively high in both H and A. He was respected by political allies and opponents alike for his integrity and modesty. Martha Griffiths, one of his opponents in the House of Representatives, said that in all her years in the House, she never heard Ford make a statement that was even partly false. An unpretentious man, he was respectful toward his staff; on one occasion, when Ford’s dog had soiled a carpet, he insisted on cleaning up the mess himself rather than letting a staff member do so. Also high in A, Ford was known as an even-tempered man who felt little hostility or resentment.
Jimmy Carter was relatively high in H but somewhat lower in A. Like Ford, he was known as an ethical president. He had high moral standards, as expressed in an unwillingness to manipulate others or to stretch the truth, and was seen as modest and unassuming. With regard to the A factor, Carter was probably somewhat lower: one biographer made repeated references to Carter’s “famous temper,” highlighting several occasions when he reacted angrily.11
The results reported by Rubenzer and Faschingbauer suggest that these presidents also differed in several other dimensions. For example, Kennedy and Carter were both high in O, whereas Johnson, Nixon, and Ford were low. Nixon was very low in X, whereas Kennedy, Johnson, and Ford were very high, with Carter in between. Kennedy was lower in C than were the other presidents in this group. But the differences among them in the H and A factors are probably the most striking of all.
People who combine low Honesty-Humility with low Conscientiousness are the last people you’d want to hire. Surveys of employers indicate that the most desirable traits in employees are dependability, reliability, and responsibility. These traits combine high H and high C, so workers who are low in both these dimensions will be pretty much the opposite of what any boss would want. Imagine the kind of employee who not only has a natural tendency to be sloppy and lazy, but also has no work ethic—no sense of any moral obligation to give a fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay. It doesn’t bother their conscience to be late for work or even to skip work entirely. It doesn’t bother their conscience if they get little work done or if the work is shoddy. Even if they’re treated well by their employer and their co-workers, they won’t have much sense of responsibility or loyalty to them. And this extends beyond simply being an unreliable worker. The low-H, low-C employee is the one who is most likely to steal money or merchandise from the workplace.12
The delinquent tendencies of low-H, low-C persons aren’t confined to the workplace. People who have both the exploitiveness of low H and the impulsiveness of low C are doubly inclined toward criminal behaviour in general. On the one hand, they’re strongly tempted to take what they want from others, whether by force or by fraud; they’re looking out for number one. On the other, they lack the self-control to inhibit these urges even when they’d be better off—from their own selfish perspective—to keep their impulses in check.
This blend of low H and low C is in large part responsible for the characteristic that forensic psychologists call “psychopathy”—the tendency to commit immoral and antisocial acts without remorse. Researchers in this area have identified four related aspects of psychopathy: (1) a manipulative, “conning” style of interaction with others; (2) an erratic, uncontrolled, impulsive lifestyle; (3) a callous insensitivity to others’ concerns; and (4) a pattern of chronic and varied criminal activity.13 Each of these tendencies is related to low levels of H and of C, as well as to low levels of E: manipulation is mainly low H, “erratic” impulsivity is mainly low C, callousness is mainly low E, and antisocial behaviour (which is more a consequence of personality traits than a personality trait in its own right) is related to all three.14
Some sociologists have attempted to explain criminal tendencies with a “general theory of crime” that takes personality characteristics into account.15 But this theory captures only half the story, as it focuses on the traits that define low C, omitting any role for the traits that define low H. According to the theory, everyone is about equally tempted to exploit others; it’s just that some people lack the self-control to inhibit their selfish impulses. But make no mistake: people differ greatly in the inclination to exploit other people—the H factor does exist, and it’s crucial for understanding criminality.16
People with the blend of low H and low C can also hurt others without committing any crimes. Low-H, low-C people have a double inclination to cheat on their spouses: persons low in H won’t feel much moral obligation to be sexually faithful to their partner, and persons low in C won’t exert much control over their sexual impulses, even when common sense would recommend it. Once again, other personality factors would likely also come into play. A low level of E will make this combination even worse, through having a weaker sense of emotional attachment and empathy for one’s spouse.17
This same combination of selfishness and poor impulse control also means that low-H, low-C people are likely vectors for sexually transmitted diseases: they won’t be too fastidious about whom they have sex with18 or about having safe sex, and they’ll be far too interested in their own gratification to be concerned about the health of their partners.
In addition, low-H, low-C persons are prime candidates for problem gambling: the prospect of winning big money is very attractive to them, and they just don’t know when to quit (or maybe they do know, but they still don’t quit).19 Now, problem gambling is often viewed as an addiction, similar to alcoholism or to dependence on various drugs. And just as people who are low in both H and C are at risk for gambling problems, they’re also at risk for substance abuse problems. As we’ve noted, low C is associated with a lack of self-control, and when this is combined with low H, there is not much sense of moral wrongdoing associated with drug or alcohol abuse. (In contrast, a high-H, low-C person might be at least somewhat deterred from drug and alcohol addiction by the sense that they are letting down the people around them.)
In some ways, a high level of Conscientiousness can mitigate the effects of a low level of Honesty-Humility. People who combine low H with high C are still selfish at heart, but they can control their impulses. They can think in terms of their long-run interests, so they tend to behave responsibly. And because they like rules and order, they’re less inclined to break laws, even though they’re perfectly willing to exploit other people.
The challenge for low-H, high-C people is to satisfy their desire for wealth and status while maintaining an orderly, predictable style of life. These are the kinds of people who like to find legal technicalities they can exploit to their best advantage. (They would rather not cheat on their taxes, but if they can find a loophole to avoid paying, that’s great.) For the low-H, high-C person, the spirit of the law is unimportant if the letter of the law allows them a way to profit.
People who combine low H and high C are willing to work hard and strive for high goals. But their need for achievement is focused on personal gain and glory; they don’t really care whether their ambition is ultimately for the good or ill of other people. By contrast, people who are high in both C and H will focus their effort only on projects that are ethically sound, not just on whatever will bring them money and prestige.
Low-H, high-C people are generally much better workers than low-H, low-C people—the former will at least show up and do some real work. But it’s still important to keep a close eye on them. Low-H, high-C people will be ambitious climbers of the company ladder, but they’re ultimately concerned only about themselves. As long as their interests coincide with those of the organization and its people, there’s no problem. But if those interests should someday diverge, they won’t be constrained by any feelings of genuine loyalty. Their high level of C means they have a conscience in the sense of achieving goals and maintaining order, yet their low level of H means they lack a conscience in the sense of being fair and ethical.
As noted earlier, low-H, high-C people appreciate structure and order and generally stay within the rules. But for high-C people who have an extremely low level of H, the desire for wealth and power—along with their sense of entitlement and their taste for deception—can be strong enough to override any preference for abiding by the law. These people are prone to white-collar crimes such as embezzlement, tax evasion, investment fraud, insurance fraud, and bribery.20 If they can find a way to commit such crimes with low risk of getting caught, they may well take advantage of it. One especially attractive scenario would be to attain some high-ranking position—in business, in government, or elsewhere—that would provide the chance to commit fraud on a repeated, ongoing basis, operating under the radar of anyone who might detect them.
All of this raises an interesting question: Which kind of criminal is more harmful to society? Is it the low-H, low-C common criminal or the low-H, high-C white-collar criminal? It’s probable that overall, a lot more harm is done by low-H, low-C persons, insofar as they are so much more likely to commit crimes. But on a per-criminal basis, low-H, high-C people who commit crimes are probably more effective and more successful—and potentially more harmful—than their less disciplined and less careful counterparts who blend low H and low C.21
We should mention one other characteristic—unrelated to C—that can contribute to the possibility that low-H people will successfully exploit others. A low-H person who is very smart—in the classic sense of having good reasoning skills of the kind measured by IQ tests—is much more likely to rise to a position of high status, whether in business or finance or politics or the professions or academia. Having attained a lofty position, the low-H person has all the more opportunity to act on his or her sense of entitlement and on the urge to exploit others for personal gain. Think of the Wall Street “quants” whose financial innovations brought them huge riches but also helped bring the US economy to the brink of disaster in 2008.
BOX 4–4 Personality and the Stanford Prison Experiment
As we’ve explained, people who combine low H and low C are the classic common criminals. In contrast, people who combine low H with high C usually inhibit their inclination to exploit other people and are much less likely to commit crimes; in fact, a moderately low-H person who has anything more than a very low level of C will probably control any criminal impulses well enough. But what happens when such a person simply sees no need to restrain the urge to take advantage of others?
Some evidence on this point comes from the famous Stanford prison experiment of Philip Zimbardo.22 The 24 men who participated in the experiment in 1971 were all college students recruited through advertisements that requested volunteers for “a psychological study of prison life.” All participants selected for the experiment were screened for any history of antisocial behaviour. Each was randomly assigned to one of two roles—prison guard or prisoner—and placed in a simulated prison in the basement of a Stanford University psychology building. The “prison guards” were given a whistle and a police nightstick and dressed in a khaki-coloured uniform; the “prisoners” were chained around the ankles and dressed in a plain smock with no underwear. The prison guards were told they had power over the prisoners and that they could use it to maintain order within the prison as long as no physical harm was done to the prisoners.
What happened next was remarkable. The prison guards almost immediately began to abuse their power, punishing the prisoners harshly and arbitrarily. They confiscated mattresses and did not empty sanitary buckets, leaving the jail cells extremely unpleasant. To punish a rebellion by some of the prisoners, the guards stripped some prisoners naked and locked others in an extremely small and completely dark closet. The mistreatment of the prisoners continued for six days, when Zimbardo finally suspended the experiment in order to avoid traumatizing the participants. He concluded that “good” people (here, seemingly ordinary college students) can do unthinkably “bad” things when placed in situation where they are led to believe they have legitimate power to do so. Zimbardo suggested that it’s as if each of us contains both a Dr. Jekyll and a Mr. Hyde, with the situation determining which identity will come out.23
Although situational pressures do have a strong influence on behaviour, the results of a recent study suggest some role for personality in explaining what happened during the Stanford prison experiment.24 According to the findings of Thomas Carnahan and Samuel McFarland, the particularly nasty behaviours shown by the students might not have been due entirely to the prison guard role that was assigned to them. Instead, the students who responded to the prison study ad might have had some characteristics that predisposed them to mistreat other people when placed in a context that facilitated rather than discouraged such behaviour.
To examine this possibility, Carnahan and McFarland recruited some research participants using two advertisements. One of these was essentially identical to the one that Zimbardo had used, introducing the study as “a psychological study of prison life.” The other introduced it simply as “a psychological study.” The researchers then compared the volunteers who were recruited via the two different ads, measuring them on several personality variables. The results indicated that participants who responded to the “prison” advertisement showed much higher scores on personality scales related to low H and low A than did participants who responded to the generic ad. These results suggest that the participants of the Stanford prison experiment might have been below average in their levels of H and A and that the shocking results of that experiment might have been less extreme had most of the participants been average or higher in these personality traits.
But if the students of the Stanford prison experiment were low in H and A, why did they only begin acting like tyrants when placed in the prison simulation? How is it that they were otherwise normal college students without any history of antisocial behaviour? We think the likely reason involves the C factor: presumably, these college students without any history of serious antisocial behaviour were (at a minimum) not particularly low in C-related traits such as self-control and self-discipline. Under normal circumstances—when the “rules” forbid the abuse of others and when the consequences for breaking rules are predictable and unpleasant—these traits inhibit such behaviour. But in a situation where the rules have changed or no longer apply, the “braking” effect of C on criminal behaviour is removed, and a person who is low in H (or worse still, low in H and A and E) is much more likely to mistreat other people.
The Stanford prison experiment involved a situation that “liberated” bad intentions from the restraint of self-control, but it isn’t hard to imagine others. Think of wartime atrocities committed by soldiers who had been law-abiding citizens in their home countries. Think of the abuses inflicted by officials of authoritarian regimes against dissenting citizens. Think of the outbreaks of looting seen in the wake of some natural disasters (or even some sporting events). Without the rule of law, the C factor won’t necessarily counteract the effects of low H.
The word that best describes people who blend low Honesty-Humility with low Openness to Experience is “shallow.” Or perhaps it’s “superficial.” Low-H, low-O people are interested in money and status and not much else. For these people, science is worthwhile only as a source of marketable technology, nature is appreciated only for raw materials and real estate, and art is interesting only as an investment or a trophy. For these people, to contemplate the meaning of life or the human condition is to waste time that could be spent acquiring new toys and showing them off.
Low-H, low-O people who strike it rich can be almost breathtakingly tacky in flaunting their wealth. Their urge to make ostentatious displays is unconstrained by any aesthetic taste or sense of harmony with nature. These people would want to have the biggest mansion in the neighbourhood, regardless of how many old trees must be cut down or how much it destroys the balance of the surroundings.25
Low-H, low-O people judge others mainly on the basis of their wealth and prestige. Such people have particularly little respect for those whose accomplishments are of the kind associated with high O. Their attitude toward (say) an accomplished scientist or learned scholar is simply, “If you’re so smart, why aren’t you rich?” Likewise, people who blend low H and low O are baffled by those who, having the opposite combination of traits, simply don’t care about keeping up with the Joneses. The idea of deliberately choosing a smaller car or a smaller house—of living a minimalist lifestyle more generally—strikes them as utter folly.
The blend of low H and low O also comes with a particular set of attitudes about how others are to be treated. Low-H people are inclined to exploit others, and low-O people find it hard to relate to those whose backgrounds are different from their own. When low H and low O are combined, the result is a person who is especially ready to take advantage of those who seem different or strange or alien. Now, low-H, low-O people might feel some discomfort about being too ruthless in taking advantage of people who look and talk and think like they do. After all, the community has certain standards about how things are done, and one doesn’t want to look bad. But when it comes to those far away, or those too different to identify with, or those not protected by community norms, there is no holding back. Moral considerations don’t apply to outsiders.
This attitude is evident in the kinds of business or investment decisions favoured by low-H, low-O people. For them, the bottom line is the bottom line, and “ethical investing” is for suckers and weirdos: if there’s money to be made, there’s no point in worrying about anything so abstract as the environment or human rights.26
You might guess that the low-H, low-O blend has certain implications for political attitudes. And you’d be right. We’ll discuss these implications in depth in Chapter 7.
The combination of low Honesty-Humility and high Openness to Experience has some very unpleasant features, but these are much different from those of the low-H, low-O combination.
People who blend low H with high O are still inclined to show off, but they generally do so with some artistic flair. At the extremes—when they have enough money to spend—the result is likely to be aesthetically impressive but morally offensive. Think of the palace at Versailles, or the Taj Mahal. (We mean the original Taj Mahal, not the Atlantic City hotel casino; the latter is probably a better example of low H and low O.)
A more common expression of low H and high O is snobbery of an artistic or intellectual kind. People low in H and high in O love to show how cultured and learned they are. They enjoy putting big words together, especially when those big words are currently becoming stylish; it doesn’t matter so much whether the long string of big words actually makes much sense. You could say that their hermeneutic discourse is informed by the extant paradigms of pedagogy and governance, or something like that. We suspect that intellectual movements such as postmodernism hold a special attraction for low-H, high-O people.27
For low-H, high-O people, the arts are partly an expression of the human condition, but partly just a vehicle for showing off their originality. They wear their artistic talent like a badge, often flaunting it as a way of establishing their superiority. And particularly where male artists are concerned, that talent is deployed as a tool for seducing impressionable women (or, depending on their tastes, for seducing impressionable men).
People who are low in H and high in O are aggressively nonconformist. Their high O results in a natural inclination to be unconventional; their low H in a lack of consideration for other people. The result is a person who takes a special joy in offending community standards and who defies conventional morality partly in order to gain a reputation for being radical. Especially when low C is also involved, such people like to live as very public libertines, openly indulging their tastes for sex and drugs. And when they direct a movie or write a book or create a piece of art, those works are often calculated to be as offensive and obscene as possible. Low-H, high-O people are rebellious, but they are rebels without a conscience, motivated mainly by self-gratification and by the status that their provocativeness gains them in the eyes of at least some people.
BOX 4–5 A Tale of Two Art Collectors
Hermann Wilhelm Göring was a powerful figure in Nazi Germany; indeed, he was Adolf Hitler’s handpicked successor. In 1946 he was convicted at the Nuremberg trials of waging aggressive war, of war crimes, and of crimes against humanity. Sentenced to death, he committed suicide the day before his scheduled execution.
Göring was most notorious for the crimes for which he was convicted at Nuremberg, but he also displayed a variety of common low-H characteristics. He was thoroughly corrupt, using his power as Hitler’s deputy to accumulate personal wealth. He did so by seizing the property of Jews and by taking bribes from others who wanted Jewish property for themselves.
Like many other low-H people, Göring enjoyed an extravagant lifestyle. He drove a Mercedes 540Ks, one of only 32 ever made, and he lived in a sprawling hunting lodge he built on a vast forest estate outside Berlin. When he married a famous opera star (his second wife), the wedding was no less grandiose than a royal wedding, and featured Hitler as the best man. Göring wore garish jewellery and extravagant uniforms and suits, which he changed several times a day.
Some of Göring’s characteristics suggest that he combined a low level of H with a high level of O. First, his choice of clothing was eccentric and flamboyant: many people would remember him wearing costumes that resembled medieval hunting garb or Roman togas. According to the Italian foreign minister of the time, one of Göring’s fur coats looked like “what a high-end prostitute wears to the opera.” His fashion sense was not always received well by others, but it clearly stood out. Second, he had a wide range of interests, something that he was rather boastful of; he once described himself as “the last Renaissance man.” He enjoyed opera, and even before his Nazi days he was an avid collector of art. During the Second World War, he amassed the greatest private art collection of the time by systematically looting museums all over occupied Europe as well as Jewish collections. He also created a private gallery on his estate, filling it with 2,000 priceless paintings he had stolen. Göring’s predation of Europe’s art treasures reveals his low-H personality, but his considerable efforts in creating his own private gallery suggest that he had some genuine intrinsic interests in fine art—even though his artistic taste seems to have been weak at best.
Dennis Kozlowski, former CEO of Tyco International, was born one month after Göring’s suicide. Kozlowski became a rising star in the U.S. business world, building Tyco into a giant global conglomerate. His luck began to fail, however, with a charge of sales tax evasion relating to a $13.1 million purchase of art (see below), which led to a prosecution involving much larger felony charges. Kozlowski was later convicted of misappropriating millions of dollars of Tyco funds.
Unlike Göring, Kozlowski was no war criminal. But like Göring, he enjoyed a lavish lifestyle and collected some very expensive works of art. He lived in an $18 million apartment in New York City, which he filled with luxury items that showed his expensive but (one might say) rather unrefined tastes. In this residence, the prosecutors found such extravagances as a $6,000 shower curtain and a $15,000 dog-shaped umbrella stand. Kozlowski famously threw a $2 million party for his wife’s 40th birthday. The guests at the party could admire an ice sculpture of Michelangelo’s David, which “urinated” vodka into their glasses.
Besides the tacky items mentioned above, the apartment also displayed some famous works of art, including paintings by Renoir and Monet. But the way that Kozlowski bought these paintings suggests that he may not have been motivated by a high-O appreciation of art. According to the testimony of the art dealer who arranged the purchase of the paintings, Kozlowski wanted to buy works painted by “high-end names”; on one occasion, he bought four such paintings, including a Renoir for $8.8 million, within an hour. One may wonder whether these paintings were purchased solely as trophies, functionally not much different from the shower curtain, the dog-shaped umbrella stand, and the vodka-dispensing statue of David. The method of purchasing these items suggests to us a low rather than a high level of O.
By the way, don’t misunderstand these examples as suggesting that all art collectors are low in H. Many people who collect art are very ethical persons who have no interest in ostentatious display.
This completes our short field guide to the many varieties of low-H people. In the next chapter, we’ll turn to the question of how accurately people can judge one another’s personalities—especially the H factor.