Since the emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic in December 2019 about 500,000 people died within the first 6 months. The virus itself, as well as the related political decisions, intensified an increasing feeling of fear in billions of people worldwide. However, while some people remained unperturbed, others experienced panic over the current situation. In order to investigate individual differences in the perceptions, emotions and behaviors in response to the Coronavirus pandemic, an online survey was conducted between 6th and 27th of March 2020. Participants included 7309 individuals from 96 countries, who provided information on socio-demographics, personality, political orientation and general life satisfaction. To determine the specificity of fear of Coronavirus, we also investigated fear related to two other current political issues: the refugee and the climate crises. Overall, in parallel with the escalation of the pandemic, fear of Coronavirus increased significantly over the 22-day period, with the strongest predictors being the personality variable neuroticism, as well as education, sex and being an at-risk person. A detailed longitudinal analysis of the largest sample, Germany, revealed that political orientation was also an important predictor of fear of Coronavirus. Specifically, conservatives were more afraid of Coronavirus than liberals. However, as the perceived threat of the virus increased, the influence of political orientation disappeared, whereas personality remained a stable predictor. The pattern of results regarding the perceived threat of the refugee and climate crises painted a different picture: political orientation was by far the best predictor, more important even than personality. Conservatives were more worried about the refugees, and liberals about climate change. Cross-cultural analyses showed pronounced differences between countries, dependent on the crisis. Nonetheless, the importance of personality for the prediction of fear of Coronavirus remained stable over time and across the world within the investigated 22-day period.

Abstract. Gender and personality traits influence risk proneness in the context of financial decisions. However, most studies on this topic have relied on either self-report data or on artificial measures of financial risk-taking behavior. Our study aimed to identify relevant trading behaviors and personal characteristics related to trading success. N = 108 Caucasians took part in a three-week stock market simulation paradigm, in which they traded shares of eight fictional companies that differed in issue price, volatility, and outcome. Participants also completed questionnaires measuring personality, risk-taking behavior, and life stress. Our model showed that being male and scoring high on self-directedness led to more risky financial behavior, which in turn positively predicted success in the stock market simulation. The total model explained 39% of the variance in trading success, indicating a role for other factors in influencing trading behavior. Future studies should try to enrich our model to get a more accurate impression of the associations between individual characteristics and financially successful behavior in context of stock trading.

To examine whether political orientation is reflected in actual behavior, we applied classical paradigms of behavioral economics, namely the Public-Goods-(PGG) and the Trust-Game (TG) which constitute measures of cooperativeness, interpersonal trust and reciprocity respectively in a large German sample of N = 454. Participants intending to vote for right-of-center-parties showed significantly lower monetary transfers in both games than those intending to vote for left-of-center-parties. Accordingly, both scores were negatively associated with self-assessed conservatism and support for policies advocated by Germany's right-of-center-parties, while showing positive correlations with the support of policies left-of-center-parties advocate. Interestingly, both measures also show distinct correlational patterns with Right-Wing-Authoritarianism and Social-Dominance-Orientation. None of these patterns applied to the Lottery-Game measuring unspecific risk-tolerance. We conclude by discussing potential psychological mechanisms mediating the relationships between ideology and actual social behavior as well as differences in experimental design to explain the deviant pattern of (null-) results in former studies relating ideology to behavior in game-theoretic paradigms.

Though meat-consumption is known to be a key factor in environmental damage, veganism and vegetarianism are still perceived to be left-wing-phenomena, ironically not penetrating to those who hold ideologies of conservation. Logical contradictions and historical counter-examples cast doubt on a substantive connection between political orientation and meat-eating. Instead, common psychological factors may predispose people toward both: left vs. right-wing political orientation and self-restrictive vs. omnivore eating preferences. Moral foundations have been shown to explain why even seemingly contradictory issue stances are brought forward in the context of the same ideological or political orientation. Here, we expand on these findings by showing the moral foundations to connect political orientation and vegan and vegetarian eating preferences as well as specific strategies of meat-eating justification in a large German sample. Specifically, the binding foundations authority and purity as well as avoidance tendencies are shown to differentially interact with meat-eating across the political spectrum with stronger effects for left-wing adherents and centrists than for the right-wing. Mediation analyses reveal that substantive parts of the association between political orientation and self-restriction in eating are attributable to differences in the moral makeup of left- and right-wing adherents. Connecting our results to prior work on the explanatory power of moral foundations for the political polarization of environmentalism, we discuss how our results may inform inter-ideologically appealing communications of reducing meat consumption, which is a worthwhile and necessary goal for mitigating climate change.

Growing evidence suggests that the general personality structure predisposes the political or ideological orientation. Here, we first replicated findings of associations between Big Five factors openness, agreeableness and conscientiousness, and self-reported political orientation in a large German sample. However, the new aspect of our study is the addition of Wahl-O-Mat (WoM; a prominent voting advice application) as a measure of concrete policy-positions. Here, a score of accordance between a participant’s and the several German parties’ stances on current and relevant policy-issues is computed. Given that political science identifies trends towards a dealignment of voters with political parties and a decreasing significance of socio-structural factors, an issue-based approach to vote choice may become critical in the future. Therefore, we investigated whether personality’s influence on political orientation also extends to stances about specific issues and, thus, is not restricted to self-placements. As expected, WoM-scores also showed meaningful correlations with personality traits: accordance with right-of-center-parties is negatively related to openness and agreeableness and positively related to conscientiousness. Finally, we recruited smaller samples in the United States, Denmark, Sweden, Turkey, Spain, Australia, and Bulgaria and showed that the associations mentioned above are cross-nationally replicable. We conclude that personality influences not only self-perceived political identity but also attitudes towards current issues of political controversy. In both cases, the effects of personality were mediated by Right-Wing-Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Orientation.