With two studies (N=1,257), we examined the aspect-level personality predictors of support for major U.S. presidential candidates in 2016 and 2020. U.S. residents completed measures of aspect-level personality, overall political orientation, and support for each candidate. The profile that predicted support for each candidate diverged from the profile that predicted generic liberalism/conservatism. Moreover, differences emerged between supporters of different candidates within the same party. For example, preference for Clinton was predicted by higher Openness, but lower Intellect, Politeness, and Volatility, whereas preference for Sanders was predicted only by higher Openness and lower Volatility. Preference for Trump was predicted by lower Openness and higher Volatility in 2016, but lower Compassion and higher Industriousness in 2020. Support for Biden was predicted by higher Compassion, Intellect, and Withdrawal. This work provides a more nuanced understanding of how the psychology of generalized political orientation may deviate from the psychology behind support for specific candidates.
AjzenI. (2012). The theory of planned behavior. In LangeP. A. M.KruglanskiA. W.HigginsE. T. (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 438–459). SAGE.
2.
AlfordJ. R.FunkC. L.HibbingJ. R. (2005). Are political orientations genetically transmitted?American Political Science Review, 99, 153–167.
3.
ArditteK. A.ÇekD.ShawA. M.TimpanoK. R. (2016). The importance of assessing clinical phenomena in Mechanical Turk research. Psychological Assessment, 28, 684–691.
4.
AshtonM. C.LeeK. (2007). Empirical, theoretical, and practical advantages of the HEXACO model of personality structure. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 150–166.
BakkerB. N.LelkesY. (2018). Selling ourselves short? How abbreviated measures of personality change the way think about personality and politics. The Journal of Politics, 80, 1311–1325.
CapraraG. V.SchwartzS.CapannaC.VecchioneM.BarbaranelliC. (2006). Personality and politics: Values, traits, and political choice. Political Psychology, 27, 1–28.
9.
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.
10.
DenissenJ. J. A.GeenenR.SotoC. J.JohnO. P.van AkenM. A. G. (2020). The Big Five Inventory–2 (BFI-2): Replication of psychometric properties of the Dutch adaptation and first evidence for the discriminant predictive validity of the facet scales. Journal of Personality Assessment, 3, 309–324.
11.
DeYoungC. G.QuiltyL. C.PetersonJ. B. (2007). Between facets and domains: 10 aspects of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 880–896.
12.
DeYoungC. G.QuiltyL. C.PetersonJ. B.GrayJ. R. (2014). Openness to experience, intellect, and cognitive ability. Journal of Personality Assessment, 96, 46–52.
13.
FaynK.TiliopoulosN.MacCannC. (2015). Interest in truth versus beauty: Intellect and Openness reflect different pathways towards interest. Personality and Individual Differences, 81, 47–52.
14.
FeinbergM.WillerR. (2012). The moral roots of environmental attitudes. Psychological Science, 24(1), 56–62.
15.
GerberA. S.HuberG. A.DohertyD.DowlingC. M. (2011). The Big Five personality traits in the political arena. Annual Review of Political Science, 14, 265–287.
16.
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.
17.
GlassmanL. R.AlbarracinD. (2006). Forming attitudes that predict future behavior: A meta-analysis of the attitude-behavior relation. Psychological Bulletin, 132(5), 778–822.
18.
GoldbergL. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public-domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. In MervieldeI.DearyI.De FruytF.OstendorfF. (Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe (Vol. 7, pp. 7–28). Tilburg University Press.
19.
HirshJ. B.DeYoungC. G.XuX.PetersonJ. B. (2010). Compassionate liberals and polite conservatives: Associations of agreeableness with political ideology and moral values. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 655–664.
20.
KandlerC.BleidornW.RiemannR. (2012). Left or right? Sources of political orientation: The roles of genetic factors, cultural transmission, assortative mating, and personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 633–645.
21.
KoppensteinerM.StephanP. (2014). Voting for a personality: Do first impressions and self-evaluations affect voting decisions?Journal of Research in Personality, 51, 62–68.
22.
KrosnickJ. A. (1988). The role of attitude importance in social evaluation: A study of policy preferences, presidential candidate evaluations, and voting behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 196–210.
23.
McCredieM. N.MoreyL. C. (2019). Who are the Turkers? A characterization of MTurk workers using the personality assessment inventory. Assessment, 26(5), 759–766.
24.
MondakJ. J.CanacheD. (2014). Personality and political culture in the American states. Political Research Quarterly, 67, 26–41.
25.
MondakJ. J.HalperinK. D. (2008). A framework for the study of personality and political behaviour. British Journal of Political Science, 38, 335–362.
26.
MoshagenM.HilbigB. E.ZettlerI. (2018). The dark core of personality. Psychological Review, 125, 656–688.
27.
OsborneD.WoottonL. W.SibleyC. G. (2013). Are liberals agreeable or not? Politeness and compassion differentially predict political conservatism via distinct ideologies. Social Psychology, 44, 354–360.
28.
PrattoF.SidaniusJ.StallworthL. M.MalleB. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 741–763.
29.
RentfrowP. J.JostJ. T.GoslingS. D.PotterJ. (2009). Statewide differences in personality predict voting patterns in 1996-2004 U.S. presidential elections. In JostJ. T.KayA. C.ThorisdottirH. (Eds.), Social and psychological bases of ideology and system justification (pp. 314–347). Oxford University Press.
RobinsonJ. S.XuX.PlaksJ. E. (2019). Disgust and deontology: Trait sensitivity to pathogens promotes a preference for clarity, hierarchy, and rule-based moral judgment. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 10, 3–14.
32.
SchoenH.SchumannS. (2007). Personality traits, partisan attitudes, and voting behavior: Evidence from Germany. Political Psychology, 28(4), 471–498.
33.
SibleyC. G.OsborneD.DuckittJ. (2012). Personality and political orientation: Meta-analysis and test of a Threat-Constraint Model. Journal of Research in Personality, 46, 664–677.
34.
SotoC. J. (2019). How replicable are links between personality traits and consequential life outcomes? The life outcomes of personality replication project. Psychological Science, 30, 711–727.
35.
SotoC. J.JohnO. P. (2017). The next Big Five Inventory (BFI-2): Developing and assessing a hierarchical model with 15 facets to enhance bandwidth, fidelity, and predictive power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113, 117–143.
36.
VecchioneM.SchoenH.González CastroJ. L.CieciuchJ.PavlopoulosV.CapraraG. V. (2011). Personality correlates of party preference: The Big Five in five big European countries. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 737–742.
37.
XuX.KarinenA.ChapmanH. A.PlaksJ. E.PetersonJ. B. (2020). Orderliness mediates the link between disgust sensitivity and political conservatism. Cognition and Emotion, 34, 302–315.
38.
XuX.PlaksJ. E.PetersonJ. B. (2016). From dispositions to goals to ideology: Toward a synthesis of personality and social psychological approaches to political orientation. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10, 267–280.
39.
XuX.SotoC. J.PlaksJ. E. (2021). Beyond openness to experience and conscientiousness: The Big Five personality aspect predictors of American political orientation. Journal of Personality, 89, 754–773.
