The microfundations of parliamentarian consensus: Understanding MP’s personality traits towards cooperation and conflict

Political conflict encompasses diverse dimensions, from polarization to electoral processes. This paper specifically explores parliamentary conflict, an increasingly important topic in the literature on parliamentary interactions (De Giorgi, Moury, & Ruivo, 2015; Palau, Márquez, & Chaqués-Bonafont, 2015). Characterized by adversarial tones rather than cooperation (Ilie, 2003), conflictuality in parliamentary debates is a concept in political communication research linked to topics such as incivility, conflict framing, and populist styles. Parliamentary conflict is also illustrated by the consensus in promoting and passing laws. Researchers have observed its correlation with the nature of discussed topics, with valence issues promoting consensus (Mújica & Sánchez-Cuenca, 2005). It is also associated with broader political conflict levels, often exacerbated by economic crises (Palau, Márquez, & Chaqués-Bonafont, 2015). Moreover, it is influenced by party roles and electoral cycles, with single-party governments adopting more positive tones and cooperation as elections approach (Schwalbach, 2022).However, our understanding of individual-level predictors of conflictuality remains limited, except for the observation that women engage less in parliamentary conflict. Building upon studies on Counterproductive Work Behaviors (CWBs), political ambition, out-group approach tendencies, and conflict communication in personal relationships, we propose that MPs' predisposition to parliamentary conflict is linked to certain personality traits. Specifically, we suggest that the Dark Triad—namely, Machiavellianism, sub-clinical psychopathy, and narcissism—can elucidate and predict pro-conflict attitudes among MPs. To empirically test this expectation, our investigation relies on a representative survey of Spanish national and subnational MPs conducted in 2021.