A superordinate identity improves intergroup relations and bolsters support for the political system. Yet, why do only some identify superordinately? I argue that personality is an important determinant. I test this using an original survey in the United Kingdom, where European Union integration has increased the salience and feasibility of the “European” identity option in addition to a national one. Several Big Five traits matter: openness and extraversion increase identification with Europe while agreeableness decreases it. Mediation analysis subsequently shows that personality’s effects also travel through the mechanisms of risk aversion, knowledge, and ideology. Results imply that certain predispositions prompt some to be more receptive than others to seeing themselves in superordinate terms and that European identification may be at least partly more primordial than previously thought.
AllportG (1954) The Nature of Prejudice, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
2.
ArceneauxK (2012) Cognitive biases and the strength of political arguments. American Journal of Political Science56(2): 271–285.
3.
AronsonE (1969) The theory of cognitive dissonance: A current perspective. In: BerkowitzL (ed.) Advances in Experimental Social PsychologyVolume 4, New York: Academic Press, Inc, pp. 2–34.
4.
AspinwallM (2002) Preferring Europe: Ideology and national preferences on European integration. European Union Politics3(1): 81–111.
5.
BakkerBNde VreeseCH (2016) Personality and EU attitudes: Relationships across EU attitude dimensions. European Union Politics. 17(1): 25-45.
6.
Baron RM and Kenny DA (1986) The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51(6): 1173–1182.
7.
BellucciPSandersDSerricchioF (2012) Explaining European identity. In: SandersDBellucciPTókaGTorcalM (eds) The Europeanization of National Polities? Citizenship and Support in a Post-Enlargement Union, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 61–90.
8.
BlockJBlockJH (2006) Nursery school personality and political orientation two decades later. Journal of Research in Personality40(5): 734–749.
9.
BloeserAJCanacheDMitchellD-G (2015) The temporal consistency of personality effects: Evidence from the British Household Panel Survey. Political Psychology36(3): 331–340.
10.
BorghansLHeckmanJJGolsteynBHH (2009) Gender differences in risk aversion and ambiguity aversion. Journal of the European Economic Association7(2–3): 649–658.
11.
BruterM (2005) Citizens of Europe? The Emergence of a Mass European Identity, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Camerer C (2005) Three cheers–psychological, theoretical, empirical–for loss aversion. Journal of Marketing Research 42(2): 129–133.
14.
CanacheDHayesMMondakJJ (2013) Openness, extraversion, and the intention to emigrate. Journal of Research in Personality47(4): 351–355.
15.
CapraraGVSchwartzSCapannaC (2006) Personality and politics: Values, traits, and political choice. Political Psychology27(1): 1–28.
16.
CareyS (2002) Undivided loyalties: Is national identity an obstacle to European integration?European Union Politics3(4): 387–413.
17.
CarneyDRJostJTGoslingSD (2008) The secret lives of liberals and conservatives: Personality profiles, interaction styles, and the things they leave behind. Political Psychology29(6): 807–840.
18.
CitrinJSidesJ (2004) More than nationals: How identity choice matters in the new Europe. In: HerrmannRKRisseTBrewerMB (eds) Transnational Identities: Becoming European in the EU, New York: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc, pp. 161–185.
19.
CooperCAGoldenLSochaA (2013) The Big Five personality factors and mass politics. Journal of Applied Social Psychology43(1): 68–82.
20.
Costa, Jr. PT and McCrae RR (1992) Normal personality assessment in clinical practice: The NEO personality inventory. Psychological Assessment 4(1): 5–13.
21.
CurtisKA (2014) Inclusive versus exclusive: A cross-national comparison of the effects of subnational, national, and supranational identity. European Union Politics15(4): 521–546.
22.
Díez MedranoJ (2003) Framing Europe: Attitudes to European Integration in Germany, Spain, and the United Kingdom, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
23.
DinesenPTKlemmensenRNørgaardAS (2016) Attitudes toward immigration: The role of personal predispositions. Political Psychology37(1): 55–72.
24.
DruckmanD (1994) Nationalism, patriotism, and group loyalty: A social psychological perspective. Mershon International Studies Review38(1): 43–68.
25.
DuckittJSibleyCG (2016) Personality, ideological attitudes, and group identity as predictors of political behavior in majority and minority ethnic groups. Political Psychology37(1): 109–124.
26.
EdwardsKSmithEE (1996) A disconfirmation bias in the evaluation of arguments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology71(1): 5–24.
27.
EhrlichSMaestasC (2010) Risk orientation, risk exposure, and policy opinions: The case of free trade. Political Psychology31(5): 657–684.
28.
FearonJDLaitinDD (2000) Violence and the social construction of ethnic identity. International Organization54(4): 845–877.
29.
FestingerL (1957) A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
30.
FligsteinN (2009) Who are the Europeans and how does this matter for politics? In: CheckelJTKatzensteinPJ (eds) European Identity, New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 132–166.
31.
FreitagMAckermannK (2015) Direct democracy and institutional trust: Relationships and differences across personality traits. Political Psychology. Epub ahead of print 1 September 2015. DOI: 10.1111/pops.12293.
32.
GaertnerSLDovidioJF (2000) Reducing Intergroup Bias: The Common Ingroup Identity Model, Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
33.
GaertnerSLDovidioJFAnastasioPA (1993) The common ingroup identity model: Recategorization and the reduction of intergroup bias. European Review of Social Psychology4(1): 1–26.
34.
GallegoAOberskiD (2011) Personality and political participation: The mediation hypothesis. Political Behavior34(3): 425–451.
35.
GellnerE (1983) Nations and Nationalism, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
36.
GerberASHuberGADohertyD (2010) Personality and political attitudes: Relationships across issue domains and political contexts. American Political Science Review104(1): 111–133.
37.
GerberASHuberGADohertyD (2011a) Personality traits and the consumption of political information. American Politics Research39(1): 32–84.
38.
GerberASHuberGADohertyD (2011b) The Big Five personality traits in the political arena. Annual Review of Political Science14: 265–287.
39.
GerberASHuberGADohertyD (2012) Personality and the strength and direction of partisan identification. Political Behavior38(4): 653–668.
40.
GibsonJLCaldeiraG (1995) The legitimacy of transnational legal institutions: Compliance, support, and the European Court of Justice. American Journal of Political Science39(2): 459–489.
41.
GivensTE (2005) Voting Radical Right in Western Europe, New York: Cambridge University Press.
42.
GoldbergLR (1992) The development of markers for the Big-Five factor structure. Psychological Assessment4(1): 26–42.
43.
GreenDM (2007) The Europeans: Political Identity in an Emerging Polity, Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
44.
GreensteinFI (1967) The impact of personality on politics: An attempt to clear away the underbrush. American Political Science Review61(3): 629–641.
45.
HibbingMVRitchieMAndersonMR (2011) Personality and political discussion. Political Behavior33: 601–624.
46.
HicksRTingleyD (2011a) Causal mediation analysis. Stata Journal11(4): 1–15.
HoogheLMarksG (2004) Does identity or economic reality drive public opinion on European integration?Political Science and Politics37: 415–420.
49.
HuddyL (2003) Group identity and political cohesion. In: SearsDOHuddyLJervisR (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 511–558.
50.
ImaiKKeeleLTingleyD (2010) A general approach to causal mediation analysis. Psychological Methods15(4): 309–334.
51.
ImaiKKeeleLTingleyD (2011) Unpacking the black box of causality: Learning about causal mechanisms from experimental and observational studies. American Political Science Review105(4): 765–789.
52.
ImaiKKeeleLTingleyD (2013) Unpacking the black box of causality: Learning about causal mechanisms from experimental and observational studies. APSA Short Course. Available at: http://imai.princeton.edu/talk/files/APSA13.pdf (accessed 14 September 2015).
53.
ImaiKYamamotoT (2013) Identification and sensitivity analysis for multiple causal mechanisms: Revisiting evidence from framing experiments. Political Analysis21(2): 141–171.
54.
InglehartR (1970) Cognitive mobilization and European identity. Comparative Politics3(1): 45–70.
55.
InglehartRAbramsonPR (1999) Measuring postmaterialism. American Political Science Review93(3): 665–677.
56.
JohnOPSrivastavaS (1999) The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In: PervinLAJohnOP (eds) Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research, New York: Guilford Press, pp. 102–138.
57.
KahnemanDTverskyA (1979) Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica47(2): 263–292.
58.
KeeleL (2015) Causal mediation analysis: Warning! Assumptions ahead. Journal of Evaluation. Epub ahead of print 16 July 2015. DOI: 10.1177/1098214015594689.
59.
KritzingerS (2003) The influence of the nation-state on individual support for the European Union. European Union Politics4(2): 219–241.
60.
Levy JS (2003) Applications of prospect theory to political science. Synthese 135(2): 215–241.
61.
LewisGJBatesTC (2011) From left to right: How the personality system allows basic traits to influence politics via characteristic moral adaptations. British Journal of Psychology102(3): 546–558.
62.
McCraeRRCostaPT Jr (1992) Normal personality assessment in clinical practice: The NEO personality inventory. Psychological Assessment4(1): 5–13.
63.
McDermottR (2004) Prospect theory in political science: Gains and losses from the first decade. Political Psychology25(2): 289–312.
64.
McDonoughP (1995) Identities, ideologies, and interests: Democratization and the culture of mass politics in Spain and Eastern Europe. Journal of Politics57(3): 649–676.
65.
McPhersonMSmith-LovinLCookJM (2001) Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology27: 415–444.
66.
MercerJ (2005) Prospect theory and political science. Annual Review of Political Science8: 1–21.
67.
MollicaKAGrayBTreviñoLK (2003) Racial homophily and its persistence in newcomers’ social networks. Organization Science14(2): 123–136.
68.
MondakJJHalperinKD (2008) A framework for the study of personality and political behavior. British Journal of Political Science38(2): 335–362.
69.
MondakJJHibbingMVCanacheD (2010) Personality and civic engagement: An integrative framework for the study of trait effects on political behavior. American Political Science Review104(1): 85–110.
70.
MummendeyAKlinkABrownR (2001) Nationalism and patriotism: National identification and out-group rejection. British Journal of Social Psychology40(2): 159–172.
71.
NicholsonNSoaneEFenton-O’CreevyM (2005) Personality and domain-specific risk taking. Journal of Risk Research8(2): 157–176.
72.
NickersonRS (1998) Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon. Review of General Psychology2(2): 175–220.
73.
OsborneDSibleyCG (2015) Within the limits of civic training: Education moderates the relationship between openness and political attitudes. Political Psychology36(3): 295–313.
74.
OzerDJBenet-MartínezV (2006) Personality and the prediction of consequential outcomes. Annual Review of Psychology57: 301–321.
75.
PapacostaA (2009) Eurobarometer 71.3: Globalization, Personal Values and Priorities, European Identity, Future of the European Union, Social Problems and Welfare, and European Elections, June–July, 2009. [Computer file]. ICPSR28184-v1. Cologne, Germany: GESIS/Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributors], 2010-08-13. DOI: 10.3886/ICPSR28184.v1.
76.
PettigrewTF (1998) Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology49: 65–85.
77.
PiagetJ (1972) The Principles of Genetic Epistemology, New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
78.
PichlerF (2008) Socio-structural differences in identification with Europe. Perspectives on European Politics and Society9(4): 381–396.
79.
PreacherKJHayesAF (2008) Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavioral Research Methods40(3): 879–891.
80.
RoccasSSagivLSchwartzSH (2002) The Big Five personality factors and personality values. Personal and Social Psychology Bulletin28: 789–801.
81.
RohrschneiderR (2002) The democracy deficit and mass support for an EU-wide government. American Journal of Political Science46(2): 463–475.
82.
Ruiz JiménezAMGórniakJJKandullaM (2004) European and national identities in the EU’s old and new member states: Ethnic, civic, instrumental and symbolic components. European Integration online Papers (EIoP). Vol. 8, No. 11. Available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=570601 (accessed 9 March 2013).
83.
SchmittDPAllikJMcCraeRR (2007) The geographic distribution of Big Five personality traits. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology38(2): 173–212.
84.
SchoenHSchumannS (2007) Personality traits, partisan attitudes, and voting behavior: Evidence from Germany. Political Psychology28(4): 471–498.
85.
SchuckARTde VreeseCH (2006) Between risk and opportunity: News framing and its effects on public support for EU enlargement. European Journal of Communication21(1): 5–32.
86.
SearsDOHuddyLJervisR (2003) The psychologies underlying political psychology. In: SearsDOHuddyLJervisR (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 3–16.
87.
SibleyCGDuckittJ (2008) Personality and prejudice: A meta-analysis and theoretical review. Personality and Social Psychology Review12(3): 248–280.
88.
SidesJCitrinJ (2007) European opinion about immigration: The role of identities, interests and information. British Journal of Political Science37(3): 477–504.
89.
SinnottR (2005) An evaluation of the measurement of national, subnational, and supranational identity in crossnational surveys. International Journal of Public Opinion Research18(2): 211–223.
90.
SpannringRWallaceCDatlerG (2008) What leads young people to identify with Europe? An exploration of the impact of exposure to Europe and political engagement on European identity among young Europeans. Perspectives on European Politics and Society9(4): 480–498.
91.
SpieringM (2004) British Euroscepticism. European Studies20: 127–149.
92.
TaberCSLodgeM (2006) Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science50(3): 755–769.
93.
Theiss-MorseE (2009) Who Counts as an American? The Boundaries of National Identity, New York: Cambridge University Press.
94.
TransueJE (2007) Identity salience, identity acceptance, and racial policy attitudes: American national identity as a uniting force. American Journal of Political Science51(1): 78–91.
95.
Tugendhat C (1977) The European community: Its moral identity and mission. Speech by Christopher Tugendhat, European Commissioner, to Cambridge University Conservative Association. November 6. Available at: http://aei.pitt.edu/11110/ (accessed 1 November 2010).
96.
VecchioneMSchoenHGonzález CastroJL (2011) Personality correlates of party preference: The Big Five in five big European countries. Personality and Individual Differences51(6): 737–742.
97.
WolakJMarcusGE (2007) Personality and emotional response: Strategic and tactical responses to changing political circumstances. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science614(1): 172–195.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
