The dark-ego-vehicle principle, or DEVP, was proposed by Ann Krispenz and Alex Bertrams to explain a puzzling pattern observed in earlier research: individuals with dark personality traits appear disproportionately drawn to certain forms of activism and ideologies. According to the principle, such individuals may not be genuinely convinced by a political cause. Instead, they instrumentalize the ideology or movement as a vehicle for satisfying ego-focused needs, such as expressing aggression, seeking thrills, or legitimizing hostile behavior under the banner of a righteous cause. Prior studies had linked the principle to environmental, feminist, anti-sexual-assault, and LGBQ activism—domains typically associated with the political left—leaving open the question of whether the mechanism was truly ideologically neutral.

The abortion debate offered an ideal testing ground. Since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in its 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization ruling, abortion regulation has shifted to individual states, producing a patchwork in which the procedure remains legal in some states and banned in others. This change gave new momentum to protest activity and, in some cases, radicalization on both sides. Roughly 52 percent of U.S. adults hold pro-choice attitudes and 44 percent pro-life attitudes, meaning the issue divides the population almost evenly and provides two directly opposed activist communities with comparable social visibility.

For the preregistered study, the researchers recruited 872 U.S. participants through the platform Prolific, deliberately sampling people who self-identified as either pro-choice (57.5 percent) or pro-life (42.5 percent). Participants completed the Five-Factor Narcissism Inventory-Short Form, which distinguishes antagonistic narcissism from its grandiose and vulnerable components, along with the Activism and Radicalism Intention Scales. The latter separates activism—the readiness to engage in legal, nonviolent political action such as rallies and petitions—from radicalism, defined as the endorsement of illegal or violent means for political ends. The team also measured altruism, left-wing and right-wing authoritarianism, and social dominance orientation.

The results were striking in their symmetry. Higher antagonistic narcissism correlated with higher abortion-related radicalism intention in the total sample (a rank correlation of .41), in the pro-choice group (.37), and in the pro-life group (.46)—effects the authors characterize as large to very large by contemporary psychological standards. Crucially, the relationship survived statistical controls for age, gender, altruism, and the other narcissism facets, and it remained robust even when ordinary legal activism intention was included as an additional covariate. Contrary to the researchers’ preregistered expectation that the link would be stronger among pro-choice supporters, the correlation did not differ significantly between the two groups.

The shape of the relationship, however, differed in an intriguing way. In the pro-choice group, radicalism intention rose roughly linearly across the entire range of antagonistic narcissism. In the pro-life group, the relationship was u-shaped: relatively flat at low to moderate levels, then accelerating sharply at the highest levels of the trait. The authors interpret this asymmetry through the lens of ideology. Strong pro-life supporters in the United States typically adhere to a conservative worldview that emphasizes law and order, so law-violating radicalism may clash with the broader value system in which their activism is embedded. Only at extreme levels of antagonistic narcissism—where self-restriction is particularly low—does that internal brake appear to give way.

A floodlight analysis using the Johnson-Neyman technique added further nuance. Across most of the sample, spanning antagonistic narcissism scores from about one standard deviation below to one above the mean, pro-choice participants reported significantly higher radicalism intentions than pro-life participants. At the extremes, the two trajectories converged and crossed, with the pro-life curve steepening until it overtook the pro-choice curve. The researchers caution that statistical power was limited at the tails of the distribution, but the crossing pattern suggests that the most antagonistic individuals in both camps may ultimately be similarly willing to endorse violent tactics.

The auxiliary findings reinforced the picture of two ideologically distinct but psychologically parallel radicalisms. In the pro-choice group, radicalism intention was strongly associated with left-wing authoritarianism, particularly its dimension of antihierarchical aggression—the belief that existing authorities may be overthrown by any means necessary, including violence. In the pro-life group, radicalism intention was linked to social dominance orientation, the preference for group-based hierarchies and aggressive domination of out-groups, but not to right-wing authoritarianism, which emphasizes submission to authority. The authors note that this pattern underscores the aggressive nature of radicalized abortion activism on both sides: the ideological attitudes that predicted radicalism are precisely those whose theoretical definitions include a proneness to political violence.

The researchers are careful to stress what the study does not show. Abortion-related stances or activism are not inherently radical or narcissistic; altruism was indeed positively associated with ordinary activism intention, indicating that many participants engage in the movement for genuinely prosocial reasons, whether protecting women’s rights or the lives of the unborn. The concern is narrower: a minority of antagonistic individuals within each movement may exploit the cause for personal gratification, and their potential for illegal or violent behavior could inflict reputational damage that erodes public support and could even be wielded against the movement by its opponents. Peaceful activist groups, the authors suggest, should be aware of such narcissistic adversaries within their own ranks.

Like all studies in this literature, the work carries limitations. The cross-sectional design can establish only concurrent associations, not the causal or temporal dynamics the DEVP predicts, and the motivational mechanisms at the theory’s core—sensation seeking and aggression expression—were not directly measured. The U.S. sample and the self-selected pro-choice or pro-life identification may also constrain generalizability. Future research, the authors argue, should test the principle longitudinally and in other contested domains, such as gun control, where opposing camps hold strong contrary convictions. If the dark-ego-vehicle principle holds, antagonistic narcissists on the left and right should each endorse unlawful violence in defense of their own side—further evidence that for some individuals, the cause is less a conviction than a costume.

Subject of Research: The role of antagonistic narcissism in radicalized pro-choice and pro-life abortion activism and the ideological impartiality of the dark-ego-vehicle principle

Article Title: Ideological impartiality of the dark-ego-vehicle principle: antagonistic narcissism is associated with pro-choice as well as pro-life radicalism intention

Article References: Krispenz, A., & Bertrams, A. (2026). Ideological impartiality of the dark-ego-vehicle principle: antagonistic narcissism is associated with pro-choice as well as pro-life radicalism intention. Current Psychology, 45(18), Article 1537. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-026-10086-9

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1007/s12144-026-10086-9

Keywords: antagonistic narcissism, dark-ego-vehicle principle, abortion activism, radicalization, pro-choice, pro-life, political violence, left-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, dark personality traits, Dobbs v. Jackson, preregistered study