Some people just want to watch the world burn: The prevalence, psychology and politics of the “Need for Chaos.” Kevin Arceneaux, Timothy B. Gravelle, Matthias Osmundsen, Michael Bang Petersen, Jason Reifler and Thomas J. Scotto. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, Feb 21 2021. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2020.0147
Abstract: People form political attitudes to serve psychological needs. Recent research shows that some individuals have a strong desire to incite chaos when they perceive themselves to be marginalized by society. These individuals tend to see chaos as a way to invert the power structure and gain social status in the process. Analyzing data drawn from large-scale representative surveys conducted in Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States, we identify the prevalence of Need for Chaos across Anglo-Saxon societies. Using Latent Profile Analysis, we explore whether different subtypes underlie the uni-dimensional construct and find evidence that some people may be motivated to seek out chaos because they want to rebuild society, while others enjoy destruction for its own sake. We demonstrate that chaos-seekers are not a unified political group but a divergent set of malcontents. Multiple pathways can lead individuals to “want to watch the world burn.”
4. What do people high in Need for Chaos want?
The previous analysis suggests that education explains some of the variation between LC individuals and the rest and that Right-wing ideology explains some of the variance in HC categorization. Nonetheless, we do not find a clear pattern that distinguishes HC and RB with respect to demographics, which raises this question about whether these categories map onto differences in political preferences and behaviour. We now turn to this question.
These analyses focus on the USA and UK in this section, because the Australian and Canadian surveys contained a more limited (and non-comparable) set of variables. Beginning with political preferences, table 5 shows regression coefficients for each of the latent profile categories (with LC being the excluded category). The items in the rows are the dependent variables that measure policy preferences for each of the regression models. The dependent variables were measured using five-point Likert agree/disagree scales. The regression models include controls for demographic characteristics (age, gender, race, education and interaction between education and age), personality traits and political ideology.
[Table 5. The association between Need for Chaos latent profile categories and policy preferences. Each row represents a separate regression model. The models include a full slate of appropriate control variables, with full results available in the electronic supplementary material. In these two panels, we report the un-standardized coefficients for the ‘Rebuilders’, ‘Medium Chaos’, and ‘High chaos’ groups versus the excluded category of those in the ‘Low Chaos’ profile. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.005.]
We do not observe a consistent pattern in political preferences across the latent profile categories in the USA and UK. In both countries, individuals in the LC category are less likely to agree that immigration should be halted relative to the other categories. There are also no major differences between RB and HC categories with respect to immigration—individuals in both of these categories would prefer that immigration be stopped. In both countries, it also appears that those who fall in the RB category are more bothered by ‘new lifestyles’ than are individuals in the HC category. In the USA, individuals in the RB category are also more likely to question capitalism, while those in the UK are more supportive of the death penalty. Our interpretation of these findings is that those who fall in the RB category exhibit enough idealism or principles that are distinct from the full embrace of nihilism apparent in the ‘High Chaos’ profile.
Next, we consider the relationship between NFCChaos latent profile categories and political participation. Table 6 shows regression coefficients for each of the latent profile categories (with LC being the excluded category). The items in the rows are the dependent variables that measure political participation for each of the regression models. The dependent variables reflect survey items that asked respondents on a 0–10 scale how likely they are to take part in a variety of political activities in the ‘next few years’. The regression models include controls for demographic characteristics (age, gender, race, education and interaction between education and age), personality traits and political ideology. Consistent with Petersen et al. [8], we find that individuals who fall in the HC category are much more likely to say that they would take part in an ‘illegal protest,’ even relative to those in the RB category.
[Table 6 The association between Need for Chaos latent profile categories and political participation. Each row represents a separate regression model. The models include a full slate of appropriate control variables, with full results available in the electronic supplementary material. In these two panels, we report the un-standardized coefficients for the ‘Rebuilders’, ‘Medium Chaos’, and ‘High chaos’ groups versus the excluded category of those in the ‘Low Chaos’ profile. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.005.]
5. Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to explore whether different motivations underlie the characteristic adaptation Need for Chaos [8]. We replicated previous research in four Anglo-Saxon countries. The NFCChaos scale forms a uni-dimensional scale that captures a continuous characteristic adaptation in the Australia, Canada, the UK and the USA. We then turned to Latent Profile Analysis to investigate whether different subtypes of individuals explained variance in the NFCChaos scale. We found evidence that this may indeed be the case, with individuals falling into four different latent categories: Low Chaos, Medium Chaos, Rebuild and High Chaos. The key difference between those in the Rebuild and High Chaos categories is that Rebuilders were less likely to agree with statements supporting destruction for the sake of destruction relative to those who were in the High Chaos category (e.g. ‘I get a kick when natural disasters strike in foreign countries’).
Across all four countries, most people fell in the Low Chaos category and few people fell in the High Chaos category, but combining the Rebuild and High Chaos categories showed that there is support for some degree of chaos-seeking at around 20% in the four Anglo-Saxon countries. Is this something that should be worrying from a normative standpoint? We believe that the Latent Profile Analysis helps answer this question. If 20% of a country yearned for a violent overthrow of the current system, it would be worrying, but it seems that a considerable fraction of this 20% does not want destruction for the sake of destruction, but rather they imagine rebuilding society’s institutions in a way that does not involve violence. We leave aside whether their particular vision is a ‘good’ one, and simply note that most Utopian visions begin with the notion that society must be remade in some fundamental way.
We then turned our attention to exploring whether demographic and political characteristics help differentiate who falls in the different latent profile categories. Echoing previous research, we found evidence that chaos-seeking tends to be higher among the young, men and those with less than a college degree. Interestingly, we did not find consistent differences in terms of demographics between the Rebuilder and High Chaos subtypes. This would suggest that chaos-seekers, whether they like destruction for the sake of destruction or not, may be motivated by a sense of marginalization and grievance that exists at high levels in Western society today [7].
We also found that individuals who identify as Right wing were also more likely to fall in the High Chaos category, yet when we turned our attention to the political preferences of these individuals, the only consistent pattern that emerged was a dislike of immigration. Consistent with [8], we do not find much evidence that individuals in the High Chaos category are idealistic visionaries who want to dismantle social and political institutions to build a better world. Our evidence was much more consistent with the results of previous research that paint individuals high on the NFCChaos scale as nihilists who are only looking out for themselves. In contrast, individuals who fell in the Rebuild category did seem to have something approaching a social outlook. They do not like new lifestyles and, in the USA, they are not fans of capitalism. Perhaps these individuals want to replace established political institutions to make the world a better place (at least their view of what constitutes ‘better’.).
The empirical result of two substantive ‘chaos-seeking’ profiles warrants further comment and speculation given the current political environment and the challenges that populists politicians and causes (such as Donald Trump and Brexit) pose to the established order. Populists potentially knock on an ‘open door’ because western political systems under-supply political parties with socially conservative and economically Left-leaning manifestos [21,22]. A close look at table 5 suggests a picture of the RB and the HC members having some characteristics of politically alienated social conservatives, with the larger Rebuilder profile displaying more of these characteristics—e.g. opposition to free market capitalism and immigration or ‘new lifestyles’. The ‘supply’ of candidates and opportunities matters; results from table 6 suggest that Rebuilders and (in the UK) High Chaos respondents have little interest in traditional political activity. Will Brexit as a ‘rebuilding’ opportunity change the propensity of Rebuilders to eschew the act of voting and differentiate the two profiles further? These are areas ripe for additional research given the empirical establishment and cross-national validation of the two chaos profiles presented in this paper.
Summing up, it is important to recognize that the quest for status and recognition is deeply ingrained in human nature [23]. The finding that thwarted status-desires drive a Need for Chaos, which then activates support for political protest and violence, suggests that a Need for Chaos may be a key driver of societal change, both currently and historically. In this regard, the present analyses emphasize that while some simply want to ‘watch the world burn’, others want to the see a new world rebuilt from the ashes. Thus, we observe both nihilists (captured by the High Chaos group) and those who who have a purpose (captured by the Rebuilders group). Nonetheless, owing to the destructive force of a high Need for Chaos, one of the key challenges of contemporary societies is indeed to meet, recognize and, to the extent possible, alleviate the frustrations of these individuals. The alternative is a trail of nihilistic destruction.
Posts
