The Big Five Personality Factors and Mass Politics

Abstract

In this paper, we argue that a stable set of characteristics—personality—can help explain mass political opinions and behavior. By analyzing data collected from over 750 people, we examine the influence of the Five‐Factor Model of personality on ideology, partisanship, political efficacy, and two forms of political participation. After controlling for a host of demographic factors, we find that openness to experience, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and extraversion help explain public opinion and political behavior. Neuroticism is the only factor that does not influence political life. We conclude by comparing these results to other findings in the field and suggest directions for future research.

Exploring the Political Organization-Public Relationship in Terms of Relationship, Personality, Loyalty, and Outcomes Among First-Time Voters

“…Conservatives are found to have higher levels neuroticism (called by its inverse, emotional stability, in the current study here on relationships; Van Hiel et al, 2007). Sweetser (2014) points out that the literature in this area shows agreement among scholars that Liberals and Conservatives differ on openness to experiences (Liberals high, Conservatives low) and conscientiousness (Liberals low, Conservatives high) (Cooper et al, 2013;Ha, Kim, & Jo, 2013;Van Heil & Mervielde, 2004). To this point, Cooper et al (2013) concluded findings regarding partisan personality for extraversion, agreeableness, and emotional stability necessitate more research to more accurately build a personality profile.…”

“…Sweetser (2014) points out that the literature in this area shows agreement among scholars that Liberals and Conservatives differ on openness to experiences (Liberals high, Conservatives low) and conscientiousness (Liberals low, Conservatives high) (Cooper et al, 2013;Ha, Kim, & Jo, 2013;Van Heil & Mervielde, 2004). To this point, Cooper et al (2013) concluded findings regarding partisan personality for extraversion, agreeableness, and emotional stability necessitate more research to more accurately build a personality profile. As such, there a there is still much debate about the finer points of ideology and personality.…”

“…When it comes to examining personality and its relation to a political context, scholars have mostly relied on the dimensions of personality such as agreeableness, openness to experiences, emotional stability (the inverse of which is called neuroticism), extroversion, and conscientiousness (Caprara, Barbaranelli, & Zimbardo, 1999;Carney et al, 2008;Cooper, Golden, & Socha, 2013;Gosling et al, 2002;Schoen & Schumann, 2007;Van Hiel, Cornelis, & Roots, 2007), as well as locus of control (Sweetser, 2014). When it comes to examining personality and its relation to a political context, scholars have mostly relied on the dimensions of personality such as agreeableness, openness to experiences, emotional stability (the inverse of which is called neuroticism), extroversion, and conscientiousness (Caprara, Barbaranelli, & Zimbardo, 1999;Carney et al, 2008;Cooper, Golden, & Socha, 2013;Gosling et al, 2002;Schoen & Schumann, 2007;Van Hiel, Cornelis, & Roots, 2007), as well as locus of control (Sweetser, 2014).…”

“…The domains are summed into five separate, two-item indices, which were used for analysis. The five personality domains and subsequent indices are: extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, and openness to experiences (for further personality explication see Cooper et al, 2013;Schoen & Schumann, 2007;Sweetser, 2013). The five personality domains and subsequent indices are: extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, and openness to experiences (for further personality explication see Cooper et al, 2013;Schoen & Schumann, 2007;Sweetser, 2013).…”

Personality Traits and South Koreans' Attitudes Toward North Korea

“…The newly generated personality measures are short -yet reliable -enough to be incorporated in large-scale surveys. They eventually lead to a growing number of studies that report a direct, significant effect of personality on political ideology (e.g., Carney, Jost, Gosling, & Potter, 2008;Gerber et al, 2010), party identification (e.g., Gerber, Huber, Doherty, & Dowling, 2012a;Vecchione et al, 2011), political efficacy (e.g., Cooper, Golden, & Socha, 2013), political discussion (e.g., Gerber, Huber, Doherty, & Dowling, 2012b;Hibbing, Ritchie, & Anderson, 2011), vote choice (e.g., Barbaranelli, Caprara, Vecchione, & Fraley, 2007;Schoen & Schumann, 2007), voter turnout (e.g., Gerber et al, 2011;Mattila et al, 2011), and non-electoral political participation (e.g., Gallego & Obserski, 2011;Mondak, Hibbing, Canache, Selig-son, & Anderson, 2010). It is also known that personality traits exert a direct influence on citizens' opinion on a specific political issue such as the usage of military force in foreign affairs (Schoen, 2007) and immigration (Vecchione, Caprara, Schoen, Castro, & Schwartz, 2012).…”