Recent research demonstrates growing scholarly interest in the relationship between personality characteristics and political attitudes and behaviors. In this article we present analysis using data from a national panel survey conducted in two waves—the first prior to the 2010 U.S. midterm election, the second after it. We assess the stability of a variety of personality measures and find high correlations between the pre- and postelection measures. We also leverage the fact that Republicans made substantial gains in Congress in the 2010 election to determine whether various personality measures are affected by the intersection of partisan attachments and political events and find little evidence that they are. The findings provide encouraging evidence for those interested in examining the relationship between personality and political attitudes using survey data.
American Association for Public Opinion Research Executive Council Task Force. (2010). Research synthesis: AAPOR report on online panels’. Public Opinion Quarterly, 74, 711-781.
2.
BarbaranelliC.CapraraG. V.VecchioneM.FraleyC. R. (2007). Voters’ personality traits in presidential elections. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 1199-1208.
3.
BizerG. Y.KrosnickJ. A.HolbrookA. L.WheelerS. C.RuckerD. D.PettyR. E. (2004). The impact of personality on cognitive, behavioral, and affective political processes: The effects of need to evaluate. Journal of Personality, 72, 995-1027.
4.
CacioppoJ. T.PettyR. E.FeinsteinJ. A.JarvisW. B. G. (1996). Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation: The life and times of individuals varying in need for cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 197-253.
5.
CapraraG. V.BarbaranelliC.ConsiglioC.PicconiL.ZimbardoP.G. (2003). Personalities of politicians and voters: Unique and synergistic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 849-856.
6.
CapraraG. V.ZimbardoP. G. (2004). Personalizing politics: A congruency model of political preference. American Psychologist, 59, 581-594.
7.
CarneyD. R.JostJ. T.GoslingS. D.PotterJ. (2008). The secret lives of liberals and conservatives: Personality profiles, interaction styles, and the things they leave behind. Political Psychology, 29, 807-840.
8.
CaspiA.RobertsB. W.ShinerR. L. (2005). Personality development: Stability and change. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 453-484.
9.
CondraM. B. (1992). The link between need for cognition and political interest, involvement, and media usage. Psychology, 29, 13-18.
10.
CostaP. T.McCraeR. R. (1992). NEO PI-R. Professional Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
11.
CrowsonH. M. (2009). Are all conservatives alike? A study of the psychological correlates of cultural and economic conservatism. Journal of Psychology, 143, 449-463.
12.
DuckittJ.SibleyC. G. (2010). Personality, ideology, prejudice, and politics: A dual-process motivational,model. Journal of Personality, 78, 1861-1894.
13.
DuckittJ.WagnerC.du PlessisI.BirumI. (2002). The psychological bases of ideology and prejudice: Testing a dual process model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 75-93.
14.
EkehammarB.AkramiN.GyljeM.ZakrissonI. (2004). What matters most to prejudice: Big five personality, social dominance orientation, or right-wing authoritarianism?European Journal of Personality, 18, 463-482.
15.
GerberA. S.HuberG. A. (2009). Partisanship and economic behavior: Do partisan differences in economic forecasts predict real economic behavior?American Political Science Review, 103, 407-426.
16.
GerberA. S.HuberG. A. (2010). Partisanship, political control, and economic assessments. American Journal of Political Science, 54, 153-173.
17.
GerberA. S.HuberG. A.DohertyD.DowlingC. M.HaS. E. (2010). Personality and political attitudes: Relationships across issue domains and political contexts. American Political Science Review, 104, 111-133.
18.
GoslingS. D.RentfrowP. J.SwannW. B.Jr. (2003). A very brief measure of the big five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 504-528.
19.
HolbrookT. M. (2006). Cognitive style and political learning in the 2000 US presidential campaign. Political Research Quarterly, 59, 343-352.
20.
JarvisW. B. G.PettyR. E. (1996). The need to evaluate. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 172-194.
21.
KeeleL. (2005). The authorities really do matter: Party control and trust in government. Journal of Politics, 67, 873-886.
22.
McAdamsD. P.PalsJ. L. (2006). A new Big Five: Fundamental principles for an integrative science of personality. American Psychologist, 61, 204-217.
23.
MondakJ. J.HibbingM. V.CanacheDSeligsonM. A.AndersonM. R. (2010). Personality and civic engagement: An integrative framework for the study of trait effects on political behavior. American Political Science Review, 104, 85-110.
24.
OlssonU. (1979). Maximum likelihood estimation of the polychoric correlation coefficient. Psychometrika, 44, 443-460.
25.
OzerD. J.Benet-MartinezV. (2006). Personality and the prediction of consequential outcomes. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 401-421.
26.
PetersonB. E.DotyR. M.WinterD. G. (1993). Authoritarianism and attitudes toward contemporary social issues. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 174-184.
27.
VavreckL.RiversD. (2008). The 2006 Cooperative Congressional Election Study. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 18, 355-366.
28.
von CollaniG.GrummM. (2009). On the dimensional structure of personality, ideological beliefs, social attitudes, and personal values. Journal of Individual Differences, 30, 107-119.
