A framework for the study of personality and political behaviour

British Journal of Political Science

Volumn 38, Issue 2, 2008, Pages 335-362

  Mondak, Jeffery J ^a   Halperin, Karen D ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

^b FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 48849101495     PISSN: 00071234     EISSN: 14692112     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0007123408000173     Document Type: Article

References (102)

1. Jerry S. Wiggins, ed., The Five-Factor Model of Personality: Theoretical Perspectives (New York: Guilford Press, 1996), p. vii.
2. Personality has long been subject to a great variety of definitions, and we have neither the need nor the means to specify a precise definition that will be satisfactory to all readers. Because, as we argue below, a level of consensus has emerged regarding models of personality, it is common among psychologists to employ broad, flexible definitions of personality, coupled with much more concrete operationalizations. We follow such a strategy here. That said, it should be clear that we are advocating a trait approach to the study of personality. Traits are individual differences that, within the individual, are highly stable across both time and situations. Our core thesis is that attention to traits via a comprehensive framework can bring substantial improvement to our understanding of the antecedents of political behaviour.
3. David G. Winter, 'Personality and Political Behavior', in David O. Sears, Leonie Huddy and Robert Jervis, eds, Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), pp. 110-45, at p. 110.
4. Most readers will recall some of this work, such as classic research on the presidency of Woodrow Wilson, and on presidential character more broadly. For a review of research on the personalities of political leaders, see David G. Winter, 'Assessing Leaders' Personalities: A Historical Survey of Academic Research Studies', in Jerrold M. Post, ed., The Psychological Assessment of Political Leaders (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2003), pp. 11-38.
5. Examples of this research tradition include Alexander L. George and Juliette L. George, Woodrow Wilson and Colonel House: A Personality Study (New York: Dover Publications, 1964);
6. James David Barber, The Presidential Character: Predicting Performance in the White House, 4th edn (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1992);
7. Stanley A. Renshon, ed., The Clinton Presidency: Campaigning, Governing and the Psychology of Leadership (Boulder, Colo.: Westview, 1995),
8. and Fred I. Greenstein, ed., The George W. Bush Presidency: An Early Assessment (Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003).
9. T. W. Adorno, Else Frankel-Brunswick, Daniel J. Levinson and R. Nevitt Sanford, The Authoritarian Personality (New York: Harper, 1950).
10. For a newer work in this area, see Karen Stenner, The Authoritarian Dynamic (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005).
11. Herbert McClosky, 'Conservatism and Personality', American Political Science Review, 52 (1958), 27-45;
12. Herbert McClosky, 'Consensus and Ideology in American Politics', American Political Science Review, 58 (1964), 361-82.
13. Paul M. Sniderman, Personality and Democratic Politics (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1975).
14. John L. Sullivan, James Piereson and George E. Marcus, Political Tolerance and American Democracy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982).
15. See, for example, P. H. Mussen and A. B. Wyszynski, 'Personality and Political Participation', Human Relations, 5 (1952), 65-82.
16. George E. Marcus, John L. Sullivan, Elizabeth Theiss-Morse and Sandra L. Wood, With Malice Toward Some: How People Make Civil Liberties Judgments (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995).
17. Recent examples include Patrick Van Kenhove, Iris Vermeir and Steven Verniers, 'An Empirical Investigation of the Relationships between Ethical Beliefs, Ethical Ideology, Political Preference and Need for Closure', Journal of Business Ethics, 32 (2001), 347-61;
18. Paul R. Nail, Katrina E. Bedell and Casey D. Little, 'Should President Clinton be Prosecuted for Perjury? The Effects of Preference for Consistency, Self-esteem, and Political Party Affiliation', Personality and Individual Differences, 35 (2003), 1821-31;
19. A. Van Hiel, I. Mervielde and F. De Fruyt, 'The Relationship between Maladaptive Personality and Right Wing Ideology', Personality and Individual Differences, 36 (2004), 405-17.
20. Greenstein notes that the field of personality and politics has seemingly had more detractors than practitioners, a situation Greenstein attributes in part to the challenges associated with systematic inquiry in this area. See Fred I. Greenstein, 'Can Personality and Politics Be Studied Systematically?' Political Psychology, 13 (1992), 105-28.
21. Sniderman, Personality and Democratic Politics, p. 16.
22. Sniderman, Personality and Democratic Politics, p. 11.
23. John M. Digman, 'Personality Structure: Emergence of the Five-Factor Model', Annual Review of Psychology, 41 (1990), 417-40.
24. For further discussion of historical developments in trait psychology, see Lewis R. Goldberg, 'The Structure of Phenotypic Personality Traits', American Psychologist, 48 (1993), 26-34;
25. and Oliver P. John and Sanjay Srivastava, 'The Big Five Trait Taxonomy: History, Measurement, and Theoretical Perspectives', in Lawrence A. Pervin and Oliver P. John, eds, Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research, 2nd edn (New York: Guilford Press, 1999), pp. 102-38.
26. Winter, 'Personality and Political Behavior', p. 131.
27. For example, Sullivan, Piereson and Marcus, Political Tolerance and American Democracy.
28. Walter Mischel and Yuichi Shoda, 'A Cognitive-Affective System Theory of Personality: Reconceptualizing Situations, Dispositions, Dynamics, and Invariance in Personality Structure', Psychological Review, 102 (1995), 246-68.
29. For example, Stanley Feldman, 'Enforcing Social Conformity: A Theory of Authoritarianism', Political Psychology, 24 (2003), 41-74;
30. Howard Lavine, Milton Lodge and Kate Freitas, 'Threat, Authoritarianism, and Selective Exposure to Information', Political Psychology, 26 (2005), 219-44.
31. John and Srivastava, 'The Big Five Trait Taxonomy', p. 102.
32. For the most part, our references will be to the Big Five model rather than to the highly similar five-factor model. The models are consistent both in the number of factors they include and in the essential content of each dimension. Although the leading advocates of these approaches see important distinctions between them, we share the opinion of other observers that the differences are relatively slight. On this point, see John M. Digman, 'The Curious History of the Five-Factor Model', in Jerry S. Wiggins, ed., The Five-Factor Model of Personality: Theoretical Perspectives (New York: Guilford Press, 1996), pp. 1-20.
33. In our view, the difference between the two models is more a matter of practice than theory in that the key distinction between the two approaches is in how the data are gathered. The Big Five is a lexical model, with focus on adjectives, whereas data for the five-factor model are gathered using instruments in which respondents report on behaviours. The data we examine below are lexical, and thus our empirical strategy is most consistent with work on the Big Five. However, we see no necessary theoretical or substantive discrepancies between our analyses and those transpiring under the moniker of the five-factor model. An enormous wealth of research has been produced in these areas by a large field of scholars, but the central practitioners of the Big Five and five-factor approaches, respectively, are Goldberg, and Costa and McCrae. See Goldberg, 'The Structure of Phenotypic Personality Traits';
34. Lewis R. Goldberg, 'The Development of Markers for the Big-Five Factor Structure', Psychological Assessment, 4 (1992), 26-42;
35. Lewis R. Goldberg, 'An Alternative "Description of Personality": The Big-Five Factor Structure', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59 (1990), 1216-29;
36. Gerald Saucier and Lewis R. Goldberg, 'Assessing the Big Five: Applications of 10 Psychometric Criteria to the Development of Marker Scales', in Boele De Raad and Marco Perugini, eds, Big Five Assessment (Seattle: Hogrefe and Huber, 2002), pp. 29-58;
37. Gerald Saucier and Lewis R. Goldberg, 'The Language of Personality: Lexical Perspectives on the Five-Factor Model', in Wiggins, ed., The Five-Factor Model of Personality, pp. 21-50;
38. Paul T. Costa Jr and Robert R. McRae, 'Normal Personality Assessment in Clinical Practice: The NEO Personality Inventory', Psychological Assessment, 4 (1992), 5-13;
39. Robert R. McCrae, 'Why I Advocate the Five-Factor Model: Joint Analyses of the NEO-PI with other Instruments', in David M. Buss and Nancy Cantor, eds, Personality Psychology: Recent Trends and Emerging Directions (New York: Springer-Verlag, 1989), pp. 237-45;
40. Robert R. McCrae and Paul T. Costa Jr, 'Toward a New Generation of Personality Theories: Theoretical Contexts for the Five-Factor Model', in Wiggins, ed., The Five-Factor Model of Personality, pp. 51-87;
41. Robert R. McCrae and Paul T. Costa Jr, Personality in Adulthood (New York: Guilford Press, 1990).
42. For discussion of the history of the five-factor approaches and their development, see Digman, 'The Curious History of the Five-Factor Model';
43. Digman, 'Personality Structure: Emergence of the Five-Factor Model;' Goldberg, 'An Alternative "Description of Personality" ';
44. John and Srivastava, 'The Big Five Trait Taxonomy'.
45. Our focus is on application of frameworks regarding traits to the study of political behaviour. Although a level of consensus has emerged among students of traits as to the value of five-factor approaches, we do not mean to imply either that full consensus has emerged or that other areas of dispute do not exist among students of personality. On this latter point, see John D. Mayer, 'A Tale of Two Visions: Can a New View of Personality Help Integrate Psychology?' American Psychologist, 60 (2005), 294-307.
46. The dimensions and their respective content will be described in greater detail below. As we will point out, the most appropriate labels for some of the dimensions remains in dispute. It should be noted that evidence of the existence of these various dimensions precedes, in some cases by many decades, the emergence of five-factor depictions. That is, what is novel about these frameworks is their holistic representation of personality in terms of these five dimensions, not the sheer existence of any or all of the five individual factors.
47. Saucier and Goldberg, 'The Language of Personality';
48. Gerald Saucier and Lewis R. Goldberg. 'What is Beyond the Big Five?' Journal of Personality, 66 (1998), 495-524.
49. Daniel J. Ozer and Steven P. Reise, 'Personality Assessment', Annual Review of Psychology, 45 (1994), 357-88.
50. Jennifer M. George and Jing Zhou, 'When Openness to Experience and Conscientiousness Are Related to Creative Behavior: An Interactional Approach', Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 (2001), 513-24.
51. Robert R. McCrae and Paul T. Costa Jr, 'Openness to Experience', in Robert Hogan and Warren H. Jones, eds, Perspectives in Personality (Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press, 1985), pp. 145-72.
52. Anita Mak and Catherine Tran, 'Big Five Personality and Cultural Relocation Factors in Vietnamese Australian Students' Intercultural Social Self-efficacy', International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 25 (2001), 181-201.
53. Stephanie Booth-Kewley and Ross R. Vickers, 'Associations between Major Domains of Personality and Health Behavior', Journal of Personality, 62 (1994), 281-98.
54. Raymond B. Catell, Personality and Motivation Structure and Measurement (Yonkers-on-Hudson, NY: World Books Co., 1957).
55. Joyce C. Hogan, Robert Hogan and Scott Gregory, 'Validation of a Sales Representative Selection Inventory', Journal of Business and Psychology, 7 (1992), 161-71.
56. Auke Tellegen, 'Personality Traits: Issues of Definition, Evidence, and Assessment', in William M. Grove and Dante Cicchetti, eds, Thinking Clearly about Psychology: Essays in Honor of Paul Everett Meehl: Vol. 2 (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1991), pp. 10-35.
57. John T. Smith Jr, Maxine Ruter and Frank Lackner, 'Academic, Sociometric and Personality Variables in the Prediction of Elementary School Achievement', Proceedings of the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, 2 (1967), 339-40.
58. Sarah E. Hampson and Andrew M. Colman, Individual Differences and Personality (London: Longman, 1995).
59. Marc D. Schwartz, Kathryn L. Taylor, Kristen S. Williard, Jamie E. Siegel, Ruth M. Lamdan and Karen Moran, 'Distress, Personality, and Mammography Utilization among Women with a Family History of Breast Cancer', Health Psychology, 18 (1999), 327-32.
60. Joyce C. Hogan, 'Personality Correlates of Physical Fitness', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56 (1989), 284-8.
61. De Raad and Perugini, eds, Big Five Assessment.
62. Robert Hogan, 'A Socioanalytic Theory of Personality', in Monte M. Page, ed., 1982 Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1983), pp. 55-89.
63. Carl Jung, Psychological Types, or, The Psychology of Individuation (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1933).
64. H. J. Eysenck, The Structure of Human Personality (New York: Wiley, 1953).
65. Jeffery Gray, 'Perspectives on Anxiety and Impulsivity: A Commentary', Journal of Research in Personality, 21 (1987), 493-509.
66. Matthew D. Lieberman and Robert Rosenthal, 'Why Introverts Can't Always Tell Who Likes Them: Multitasking and Nonverbal Decoding', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80 (2001), 294-310.
67. Timothy A. Judge, Joseph J. Martocchio and Carl J. Thoresen, 'Five-factor Model of Personality and Employee Absence', Journal of Applied Psychology, 82 (1997), 745-55.
68. Boele De Raad and Henri C. Schouwenburg, 'Personality in Learning and Education: A Review', European Journal of Personality, 10 (1996), 303-36.
69. Michael Scheier and Charles Carver, 'Dispositional Optimism and Physical Well-being: The Influence of Generalized Outcome Expectancies on Health', Journal of Personality, 55 (1987), 169-210.
70. Hayden Bosworth, John Faeganes, Peter Vitaliano, Daniel Mark and Ilene Siegler, 'Personality and Coping with a Common Stressor: Cardiac Catheterization', Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 24 (2001), 17-31.
71. Mak and Tran, 'Big Five Personality and Cultural Relocation Factors in Vietnamese Australian Students' Intercultural Social Self-efficacy.'
72. Jerry Suls, 'Affect, Stress and Personality', in Joseph Forgas, ed., Handbook of Affect and Social Cognition (Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2001), pp. 392-409.
73. Stephen Soldz and George E. Vaillant, 'The Big Five Personality Traits and the Life Course: A 45-year Longitudinal Study', Journal of Research in Personality, 33 (1999), 208-32.
74. Jo Ann A. Abe and Carroll E. Izard, 'A Longitudinal Study of Emotion Expression and Personality Relations in Early Development', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77 (1999), 566-77.
75. Robert S. Woodworth, 'Examination of Emotional Fitness for Warfare', Psychological Bulletin, 16 (1919), 59-60.
76. Johan Ormel, Johan and Tamar Wohlfarth, 'How Neuroticism, Long-term Difficulties, and Life Situation Change Influence Psychological Distress: A Longitudinal Model', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60 (1991), 744-55.
77. Karen Van der Zee, Frans Oldersma, Bram Buunk and Dianne Bos, 'Social Comparison Preferences among Cancer Patients as Related to Neuroticism and Social Comparison Orientation', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75 (1998), 801-10.
78. James P. David, Peter J. Green, Rene Martin and Jerry Suls, 'Differential Roles of Neuroticism, Extraversion, and Event Desirability for Mood in Daily Life: An Integrative Model of Top-down and Bottom-up Influences', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73 (1997), 149-59.
79. Timothy A. Judge and Joyce E. Bono, 'Relationship of Core Self-evaluation Traits - Self-esteem, Generalized Self-efficacy, Locus of Control, and Emotional Stability - With Job Satisfaction and Job Performance: A Meta-analysis', Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 (2001), 80-92.
80. Cameron Anderson, Oliver P. John, Dachner Keltner and Ann M. Kring, 'Who Attains Social Status? Effects of Personality and Physical Attractiveness in Social Groups', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81 (2001), 116-32.
81. David M. Buss, 'Social Adaptation and Five Major Factors of Personality', in Wiggins, ed., The Five-Factor Model of Personality, pp. 180-207.
82. McCrae and Costa, 'Toward a New Generation of Personality Theories.' 60 Lauri A. Jensen-Campbell and William G. Graziano, 'Beyond the School Yard: Relationships as Moderators of Daily Interpersonal Conflict', Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26 (2000), 923-35.
83. Margarette Vollrath, Daria Knoch and Loredana Cassano, 'Personality, Risky Health Behaviour, and Perceived Susceptibility to Health Risks', European Journal of Personality, 13 (1999), 39-50.
84. George E. Marcus, 'Emotions in Politics', Annual Review of Political Science, 3 (2000), 221-50, p. 227.
85. Marcus, Sullivan, Theiss-Morse and Wood, With Malice toward Some.
86. Paul A. Kowert and Margaret G. Hermann, 'Who Takes Risks? Daring and Caution in Foreign Policy Making', Journal of Conflict Resolution, 41 (1997), 611-37.
87. Satterfield makes reference to five-factor approaches in an article on a related subject, but the framework is much more central in the Kowert and Hermann study; see Jason M. Satterfield, 'Cognitive-Affective States Predict Military and Political Aggression and Risk Taking: A Content Analysis of Churchill, Hitler, Roosevelt, and Stalin', Journal of Conflict Resolution, 42 (1998), 667-90.
88. Gian Vittorio Caprara, Claudio Barbaranelli, Chiara Consiglio, Laura Picconi and Philip G. Zimbardo, 'Personalities of Politicians and Voters: Unique and Synergistic Relationships', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84 (2003), 849-56;
89. Gian Vittorio Caprara, Claudio Barbaranelli and Philip G. Zimbardo, 'When Parsimony Subdues Distinctiveness: Simplified Public Perceptions of Politicians' Personality', Political Psychology, 23 (2002), 77-95;
90. Gian Vittorio Caprarar, Claudio Barbaranelli and Philip G. Zimbardo, 'Personality Profiles and Political Parties', Political Psychology, 20 (1999), 175-97.
91. Labelled as 'energy' in the Caprara et al. studies, and represented with adjectival indicators such as 'dynamic' and 'energetic'.
92. Goldberg, 'The Development of Markers for the Big-Five Factor Structure'.
93. More specifically, we included four items for each of the five factors, plus an extra item for intellect. The extra item was included because resources were available to do so and because our a priori, and largely intuitive, concerns regarding the adequacy of four-item batteries were greatest for intellect.
94. This survey was conducted by Mary Anderson, and we thank her for inclusion of our personality battery in part of her project.
95. For example, many more respondents should be expected to view themselves as being highly intelligent than as highly unintelligent. Using logged variables has no effect on the general patterns of relationships reported below, particularly in terms of the direction of relationships between the Big Five traits and the various dependent variables. The most important effect of use of logged variables is on scale construction; by minimizing the impact of social desirability, scale reliability typically was increased. For example, in the first section of Table 1, the largest alpha is 0.75 for conscientiousness. Using the unlogged variables, an alpha of 0.70 is attained.
96. For an example of another brief indicator of the Big five, see Samuel D. Gosling, Peter J. Rentfrow and William B. Swann Jr, 'A Very Brief Measure of the Big-Five Personality Domain', Journal of Research in Personality, 37 (2003), 504-28.
97. See Ioannis Tsaousis, 'The Traits Personality Questionnaire (TPQue)', in De Raad and Perugini, eds, Big Five Assessment, pp. 237-60;
98. Saucier and Goldberg, 'Assessing the Big Five'.
99. The Big Five markers are only weakly related to our demographic control variables. There are twenty bivariate correlations between the demographic controls and personality for each of the three datasets. The highest correlations are, respectively, 0.19 (1998 CS, sex and extroversion), 0.23 (2004 CS, sex and agreeableness), and 0.21 (2005 NJS, sex and agreeableness, and education and openness to experience). These results are consistent with those in earlier research; see Lewis R. Goldberg, Dennis Sweeney, Peter F. Merenda and John Edward Hughes Jr, 'Demographic Variables and Personality: The Effects of Gender, Age, Education, and Ethnic/Racial Status on Self-Descriptions of Personality Attributes', Personality and Individual Differences, 24 (1998), 393-403.
100. There are very few missing cases caused by the lack of data for the personality variables or our demographic controls, and listwise deletion is used for those few instances in which predictors are unavailable. It should be clear that for results in Tables 2-4 from within a given survey, variance in the number of cases from one model to the next is a consequence of the number of valid observations on the dependent variables.
101. This, of course, is partly a consequence of the dependent variables under consideration. For example, had the array of tests included fewer measures of political attitudes and more indicators of political participation, extroversion would have fared as well as, or better than, openness to experience and conscientiousness.
102. Saucier and Goldberg, 'The Language of Personality'.