Abstract
Traditional political science approaches to political behavior cannot always satisfactorily account for the causes and variations in how individuals interact with politics. The prevalence of sociological and economic explanations usually neglect psychological aspects essential to understanding an individual phenomenon. As personality research on political phenomena developed, new avenues for studying political behavior are now open. However, an interdisciplinary proposition that combines political science and personality psychology is still lacking. In this paper, we seek to tackle this double theoretical gap. To do so, we carry out a theoretical discussion addressing the limitations of political science approaches, the definition of personality, and the evidence in political behavior studies using personality. Based on this, we propose an interdisciplinary theoretical framework for political behavior. Therefore, personality as an analytical dimension has the potential to account for empirical gradations. Our main contribution is shedding light on how research on political behavior can advance through interdisciplinary dialogues with psychological sciences.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
These three approaches for political behavior studies in political science are embedded within different schools of political thought that developed in the discipline: the sociological approach with political sociology school, the psychosociological approach with the Michigan school, and the rational choice with rational choice school and economic theories of political behavior.
Translated by the Authors. In the original: “O somatório de milhares de micromotivos não explica os macrocomportamentos.”
Translated by the authors. In the original: “O eleitor optará sempre pelo partido que lhe dará a maior renda de utilidade.”
It is worth mentioning that other theories in psychology have analyzed individual differences. For example, temperaments also correspond to individual differences that characterize behavior patterns. There are also other theories about personality such as the psychoanalytic, humanistic, cognitive, and psychobiological.
Translated by the authors. In the original: “selecionamos, reformulamos e transcendemos essas maneiras [culturais e sociais] até um determinado grau.”
Translated by the authors. In the original: “hábitos e capacidades, quadros, referências, fatos e valores culturais.”
These are just a few examples of personality inventories used. There are variations of those as revisions, revisitation, and adaptations, but the theoretical and methodological basis remains the same.
Some studies analyze personality and political behavior from a psychogenetic perspective, that is, a genetic inheritance (Eaves et al., 1999; Hatemi & McDermott, 2012; Verhulst et al., 2010; Verhulst et al., 2012). They point to a correlational, rather than causal, relationship between behavior and personality stemming from common genetic origins. These studies contribute to understanding personality’s biological background but they use Eysenck and Eysenck (1975) inventories rather than the FFM. Thus, we will not focus on this discussion.
Personality traits are also related to acquiring information, engaging in political discussions, and formulating opinions. On the one hand, extroversion and conscientiousness are related to greater proactivity in these political actions but also with less sophistication (Dusso, 2017; Mondak & Halperin, 2008). On the other hand, openness to experiences and neuroticism have an influence as well but are associated with greater political sophistication (Gerber et al., 2011b; Mondak & Halperin, 2008). However, these studies are more limited and, as Gerber et al. (2011a) and Mondak and Halperin (2008) point out, political knowledge and political sophistication may be preceded by personality traits, in other words, be endogenous to them.
It is important to note that the formulations regarding what characterizes the different contexts (proximal and distal) also aim to dialogue with the literature in political science, adopting understandings from social sciences about them. Therefore, distal contexts are taken as structural social, economic, and political factors, while proximal contexts are understood as situational social, economic, and political factors.
It is worth noting that some complementary aspects of interpreting the political situation are political knowledge and political sophistication. But, as previously pointed out, Mondak and Halperin (2008) found that openness to experiences is antecedent to political knowledge.
References
Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The Authoritarian Personality. Harpers.
Aichholzer, J., & Zandonella, M. (2016). Psychological bases of support for radical right parties. Personality and Individual Differences, 96(1), 185–190.
Alea, N., Diehl, M., & Bluck, S. (2004). Personality and emotion in late life. In C. Spielberger (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Applied Psychology (Vol. 3, p. 1-10). Elsevier Academic Press.
Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. H. Holt & Company.
Allport, G. W. (1975). Desenvolvimento da personalidade: considerações básicas para uma psicologia da personalidade (3rd ed., H. A. Simon, Trans.). Editora Pedagógica e Universitária.
Almond, G. A., & Verba, S. (1989). The civic culture: Political attitudes and democracy in five countries. Sage.
Altemeyer, B. (1981). Right-Wing Authoritarianism. University of Manitoba Press.
Antunes, R. (2010). Theoretical models of voting behaviour. Exedra, 4(1), 145–170.
Baert, P. (1997). Algumas limitações das explicações da escolha racional na Ciência Política e na Sociologia. Revista Brasileira de Ciências Sociais, 12(35), 1–13.
Black, P. U. V. (2016). Antecedentes internos da participação política, Doctoral Dissertation. Universidade de Brasília, Brasília.
Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American voter. The University of Chicago Press.
Caprara, G., & Cervone, D. (2004). Personality assessment. In C. Spielberger (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Applied Psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 11-14). Elsevier Academic Press.
Caprara, G., Vecchione, M., & Schwartz, S. H. (2009). Mediational role of values in linking personality traits to political orientation. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 12(1), 82–94.
Cattell, R. B. (1965). The scientific analysis of personality. Penguin.
Church, A. T. (2010). Current perspectives in the study of personality across cultures. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(4), 441–449.
Dalton, R. J., & Welzel, C. (2014). The civic culture transformed: From allegiant to assertive citizens. Cambridge University Press.
de Oliveira Santos, D. (2020). As disposições inatas de personalidade como dimensões analíticas do comportamento político. Master Thesis, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre.
Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. Harper and Row.
Dusso, A. (2017). Personality and the challenges of democratic governance: How unconscious thought influences political understanding. Palgrave Macmillan.
Eaves, L., Heath, A., Martin, N., Maes, H., Neale, M., Kendler, K., Kirk, K., & Corey, L. (1999). Comparing the biological and cultural inheritance of personality and social attitudes in the Virginia 30 000 study of twins and their relatives. Twin Research, 2(2), 62–80.
Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1975). Manual of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (junior and adult). Hodder and Stoughton.
Fatke, M. (2016). Personality traits and political ideology: A first global assessment. Political Psychology, 38(5), 881–899.
Figueiredo, M. (1991). A decisão do voto: democracia e racionalidade. Editora Sumaré: ANPOCS.
Fisichiella, D. (1998). Comportamento Eleitoral. In N. Bobbio, N. Mateucci, & G. Pasquino (Org.), Dicionário de Política (11th ed., C. C. Varriale, G. L. Mônaco, J. Ferreira, L. G. P. Cacais, & R. Dini, Trans.) (pp. 189–192). Editora UnB.
Freire, A. (2001). Modelos do comportamento eleitoral: uma breve introdução crítica. Celta Editora.
Gallego, A., & Oberski, D. (2012). Personality and political participation: The mediation hypothesis. Political Behavior, 34(3), 425–451.
Gerber, A. S., Green, D. P., & Larimer, C. W. (2008). Social pressure and voter turnout: Evidence from a large-scale field experiment. American Political Science Review, 102(1), 33–48.
Gerber, A. S., Huber, G. A., Doherty, D., Dowling, C. M., Raso, C., & Ha, S. E. (2011a). Personality traits and participation in political processes. Journal of Politics, 73(3), 692–706.
Gerber, A. S., Huber, G. A., Doherty, D., & Dowling, C. M. (2011b). The big five personality traits in the political arena. Annual Review of Political Science, 14(1), 265–289.
Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative ‘description of personality’: The Big-Five Factor Structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(6), 1216–1229.
Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. B. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37(6), 504–528.
Hatemi, P., & McDermott, R. (2012). The political psychology of biology, genetics, and behavior. Political Psychology, 33(3), 307–312.
Hyman, H. H. (1959). Political socialization: A study in the psychology of political behavior. The Free Press.
Inglehart, R., & Welzel, C. (2009). Modernização, mudança cultural e democracia: a sequência do desenvolvimento humano (H. M. L. P. Coelho, Trans.). Francis.
Jost, J. T. (2020). A theory of system justification. Harvard University Press.
Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 339–375.
Lasswell, H. D. (1948). Power and personality. W. W. Norton & Company.
Lazarsfeld, P. F., Berelson, B., & Gaudet, H. (1968). The people’s choice: How the voter makes up his mind in a presidential campaign (3rd ed.). Columbia University Press.
Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2008). The HEXACO personality factors in the indigenous personality lexicons of English and 11 other languages. Journal of Personality, 76, 1001–1053.
Lipset, S. M. (1960). Political man: The social bases of politics. Doubleday & Company.
Lipset, S. M., & Rokkan, S. (1967). Cleavage structures, party systems, and voter alignments: Cross-national perspectives. In S. M. Lipset, & S. Rokkan (Ed.), Party systems and voter alignments: cross-national perspectives. The Free Press.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist, 52(5), 509–516.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (2003). Personality in adulthood: A five-factor theory perspective (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
Mondak, J. J. (2010). Personality and the foundations of political behavior. Cambridge University Press.
Mondak, J. J., & Halperin, K. D. (2008). A framework for the study of personality and political behaviour. British Journal of Political Science, 38(2), 335–362.
Morton, R., Tyran, J. R., & Wengström, E. (2011). Income and ideology: How personality traits, cognitive abilities, and education shape political attitudes (pp. 0–50). Discussion Papers 11-08, University of Copenhagen, Department of Economics.
Nai, A. (2019). Disagreeable narcissists, extroverted psychopaths, and elections: A new dataset to measure the personality of candidates worldwide. European Political Science, 18(1), 309–334.
Norris, P. (Ed.). (1999). Critical citizens: Global support for democratic government. Oxford University Press.
Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67(4), 741–763.
Rubenzer, S. J., Faschingbauer, T. R., & Ones, D. S. (2000). Assessing the U.S. presidents using the revised NEO personality inventory. Assessment, 7(1), 403–420.
Salgado, J. F. (2004). Traits. In C. Spielberger (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Applied Psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 569–573). Elsevier Academic Press.
Schoen, H., & Schumann, S. (2007). Personality traits, partisan attitudes, and voting behavior. Political Psychology, 28(4), 471–498.
Silva, R. (2016). Comportamento eleitoral na América Latina e no Brasil: em busca dos determinantes das abstenções, votos brancos e votos nulos, Doctoral Dissertation. Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Florianópolis.
Singelis, T. M., & Brown, W. J. (1995). Culture, self, and collectivist communication linking culture to individual behavior. Human Communication Research, 21(3), 354–389.
Triandis, H. C., & Suh, E. M. (2002). Cultural influences on personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 133–160.
Turska-Kawa, A. (2013). Big five personality traits model in electoral behaviour studies. Romanian Journal of Political Science, 13(2), 69–105.
Verhulst, B., Eaves, L. J., & Hatemi, P. K. (2012). Correlation not causation: The relationship between personality traits and political ideologies. American Journal of Political Science, 56(1), 34–51.
Verhulst, B., Hatemi, P. K., & Martin, N. G. (2010). The nature of the relationship between personality traits and political attitudes. Personality and Individual Differences, 49(4), 306–316.
Visser, M. (1994). The psychology of voting action on the psychological origins of electoral research, 1939–1964. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 30(1), 43–52.
Visser, B. A., Book, A. S., & Volk, A. A. (2017). Is Hillary dishonest and Donald narcissistic? A HEXACO analysis of the presidential candidates’ public personas. Personality and Individual Differences, 106(1), 281–286.
Wasburn, P. C., & Covert, T. J. A. (2017). Making citizens: Political socialization research and beyond. Palgrave Macmillan.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank Luana Isabelle Beal for revising the final version of this paper.
Funding
This work was supported by CAPES (Coordination of Superior Level Staff Improvement, Brazil).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Consent to Participate
Not applicable.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
de Oliveira Santos, D., de Oliveira de Castro, H.C. Rethinking the Political Through the Psychological: a Theoretical Discussion About Personality and Political Behavior. Trends in Psychol. (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43076-023-00320-9
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43076-023-00320-9