Running head : VIRTUES , VICES , AND POLITICAL INFLUENCE 1

What qualities make a political leader more or less influential? Philosophers, political scientists, and psychologists have puzzled over this question, and have posited two opposing routes to political power—one driven by human virtues such as courage and wisdom, and the other by vices such as Machiavellianism and psychopathy. From the nonverbal coding of political speeches, we assessed the virtues and vices of 151 U.S. senators. We find that virtuous senators became more influential when in leadership roles, whereas senators displaying behaviors consistent with vices—particularly, psychopathy—became less influential as leaders. Results inform a long-standing debate about the role of morality and ethics in leadership, and have important implications for electing effective government officials. Citizens would be wise to consider a candidate’s virtue in casting their vote, to increase the likelihood that elected officials will have genuine concern for their constituents, while simultaneously promoting cooperation and progress in government. Running head: VIRTUES, VICES, AND POLITICAL INFLUENCE 3 Virtues, Vices, and Political Influence in the U.S. Senate What is the nature of political influence? This is one of the oldest questions to be considered by social theorists, and can be reduced to two competing hypotheses. A first we call the virtue hypothesis, which traces back to Aristotle, who reasoned that of all the various claims to power, including, nobility, wealth, and strength of numbers, the claim of virtue is the most just and desirable (Aristotle, trans. 1962). The virtuous politician, he believed, would bear in mind the interests of the entire state, rather than a privileged few. Political influence was to be found in virtuous practices such as temperance, courage, kindness, and humility, allowing the virtuous politician to lead a harmonious and productive society. Although he was prescribing advice for a different time period and distinct political system, Machiavelli offered a much different approach in his book The Prince—a framework developed in ensuing scholarship. In what we call the vice hypothesis, Machiavelli suggested that political leadership requires force, fraud, manipulation, and strategic violence (Machiavelli, trans. 1961). He advised rulers to “crush” those who stood in their way, declaring that it is better to be feared than loved. And while he conceded that it might be useful to appear virtuous, he believed that to actually be kind would be unwise. Psychological science has recently made advances in conceptualizing and measuring virtues and vices. The Virtues in Action (VIA; Park, Peterson, & Seligman, 2004) scale measures the extent to which individuals are wise, courageous, just, humane, transcendent, and temperate. Another scientific literature has yielded measures of the “Dark Triad,” which capture Machiavellianism, narcissism and psychopathy (Paulhus & Williams, 2002)—constructs that have traditionally been studied in criminal populations, but which are increasingly becoming a focus in organizational settings (Babiak, Neumann, & Hare, 2010). Virtues predict increased Running head: VIRTUES, VICES, AND POLITICAL INFLUENCE 4 interpersonal trust and prosocial behaviors (Bartlett & DeSteno, 2006; Dunn & Schweitzer, 2005; McCullough, Emmons, & Tsang, 2002). For example, having a grateful disposition or experiencing momentary gratitude increases efforts to assist others, even when it comes at a cost to the self (Bartlett & DeSteno, 2006; McCullough, Emmons, & Tsang, 2002). Further, experiencing transcendent emotions (awe) predicts generosity and ethical decision-making by making the self feel small and increasing the salience of collective concerns and the greater good (Piff et al., 2015). In contrast, vices predict competitive and antisocial actions, including lying, cheating, and aggression—both in prison samples and in the general population (Hare, 2006). In economic games, Machiavellian egocentricity—the tendency to pursue one’s own interests before others’—is negatively correlated with initiating or reciprocating cooperation with a partner (Curry, Chesters, & Viding, 2011). And, in negotiations, psychopathic personalities consistently seek to maximize personal gain, while being seemingly unable to compromise to achieve mutually beneficial outcomes (ten Brinke, Black, Porter, & Carney, 2015). These self-report measures of virtues and vices represent abstract summaries of the individual’s tendency to act in specific ways, and the intentions underlying those actions. Within face-to-face interactions, where so much political influence transpires, virtues and vices will be manifest in specific patterns of nonverbal behavior, which will in part dictate the social outcomes of the interaction (Caspi & Bem, 1990; Keltner & Kring, 1998; Scarr & McCartney, 1983). This claim is founded upon two distinct theoretical traditions. A first is known as the Brunskwikian lens model of individual differences (Brunswik, 1952), which holds that meaningful individual differences in personality traits (or virtues and vices) can be reliably judged by naïve observers because of the behavioral (verbal and nonverbal) cues associated with the underlying trait. For example, people can quickly detect how extraverted a person is through that individual’s pattern Running head: VIRTUES, VICES, AND POLITICAL INFLUENCE 5 of smiling, speed of speaking, and dynamism of gesture (Asendorpf, 1987; Funder & Sneed, 1993). And second, the social functional approach suggests that behaviors themselves—for example, facial muscle movements, tones of voice, patterns of gaze, and touch—are strategic manifestations of intentions to have systematic effects upon others in the social environment (Keltner & Kring, 1998; Fridlund, 1992). Domineering individuals, for example, tend to show a pattern of anger in the face, voice, and posture, which furthers their agenda to coerce and control others (Van Kleef, De Dreu, Pietroni, & Manstead, 2006). Together, these two theoretical traditions suggest that virtues and vices will manifest in systematic behaviors, and that those actions may reflect the social strategies through which individuals seek to gain influence (see Table 1 for a brief summary of coded behaviors; complete coding scheme in Table S1). Particularly in organizations where leaders are required to motivate others and coordinate the collaborative pursuit of collective goals (Anderson & Brown, 2010; Van Vugt, Hogan, & Kaiser, 2008), these divergent social strategies—virtuous and vicious—can have major consequences. Recent research suggests that the upper-ranks of business include a disproportionate number of individuals who are self-serving, smooth-talking, and manipulative ladder-climbers; however, findings also warn of the social harm they cause (Mathieu, Neumann, Hare, & Babiak, 2014). Employees who work for supervisors with psychopathic personality traits report decreased job satisfaction and psychological well-being (Mathieu, Neumann, Hare, & Babiak, 2014). In contrast, virtuous individuals with a strong sense of responsibility to others are reluctant to take on leadership roles but make honest, ethical, and capable leaders and are well liked by others (Cohen, Panter, & Turan, 2012; Schaumberg & Flynn, 2012). Running head: VIRTUES, VICES, AND POLITICAL INFLUENCE 6 Guided by Aristotle’s and Machiavelli’s competing prescriptions and the scientific study of the functions of verbal and nonverbal displays, we analyze behaviors reliably associated with vices and virtues to assess the social strategies of a large sample of US senators (Fowler, 2006). We tested these two competing models of influence—the virtue-leads-to-influence hypothesis, best exemplified by Aristotle, and the vice hypothesis, most clearly associated with Machiavelli. In particular, we were interested in how these divergent social strategies yielded political influence on peers upon gaining power (Chen, Lee-Chair, & Bargh, 2001). Specifically, we examined how vices and virtues affected a senator’s ability to enlist colleagues as collaborative co-sponsors on bills he or she originated after being elevated to a leadership role: Senate Committee Chair (Chown & Liu, 2015).