Introduction

People’s personality influences political attitudes and behaviours, which is often mediated by responses to political stimuli. A common type of political stimuli is the conflict that occurs during election campaigns. Previous studies looked at how voters’ personality is linked to conflict and can impact their intent to participate politically or evaluations of candidates engaging in attacks (Fridkin and Kenney 2011; Weinschenk and Panagopoulos 2014; Nai and Maier 2021). At the same time, TV debates are the arena for extensive verbal and visual conflict (Bucy and Grabe 2008; Nina and Santana-Pereira 2021), which can influence viewers’ judgements of candidates’ characteristics and abilities (Pfau and Rang 1991; Benoit et al. 2003; Baboš and Világi 2018). Some people, especially the politically unaffiliated or those without preconceived opinions towards the candidates, are most susceptible to the influence of the conflicts presented in these debates (Geer 1988; Maier and Faas 2011). So far, analyses have shown that personality is linked to conflict, conflicts occur frequently during TV debates, and voters react to those conflicts. However, we know very little about the role of personality traits in shaping reactions to conflict during televised debates. Understanding this is important, especially in the context of the high personalisation of politics, the conflictual nature of debate rhetoric (Caprara and Zimbardo 2004; Schill and Kirk 2014; Hopmann et al. 2018), and TV debates’ ability to alter voters’ preferences and choices (Benoit et al. 2003; Pattie and Johnston 2011). It can inform about voters’ predispositions and may predict their political behaviour based on some elements of political communication that have been neglected so far.

This article aims to address this gap in the literature by investigating the association between personality type, viewer evaluations and voting behaviour after exposure to political conflict in two TV debates during election campaigns. It focuses on viewer reactions along three analytical dimensions: evaluations of candidate character, candidate performance, and vote intention. We use a qualitative approach that draws on 23 semi-structured interviews with participants residing in the United Kingdom. The initial number of interviews was higher, but we stopped when we reached the saturation point. For personality, we use the Big Five approach according to which there are five primary personality traits that represent a range between two extremes: openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and neuroticism (McCrae and Costa 1987). In each interview, participants were shown two short TV debate clips, and were asked questions after each of these clips. We used three criteria to select the clips: the existence of negative rhetoric, attack types, and the attacker’s position (incumbent vs opposition). We presented the interviewees with a debate with familiar candidates (UK) and another with less familiar candidates (Australia) to observe the robustness of their reactions. We believe that the patterns identified in two debates that involve politicians with different discursive and campaign approaches would strengthen our findings. The debates were between the two main figures vying for elected office in two cases: Jeremy Corbyn vs Boris Johnson in 2019 and Anthony Albanese vs Scott Morrison in 2022. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the interview transcripts, taking a deductive, flexible approach, largely derived from existing literature but open to data-driven insights.

We contribute to the literature in three ways. First, we show that all Big Five personality traits are associated with different reactions to conflict in televised debates. Extraversion, agreeableness, and emotional stability are associated with evaluations along each reaction analysed, while openness and conscientiousness are linked with two out of three reaction types. Second, we provide evidence that can explain why some viewers prefer the two different sides of the attack, beyond the common explanation for the winner or the underdog effect covered by the literature. We find that some personality traits (high openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, emotional stability, and low agreeableness) display a preference for the attacker, while those with low openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, emotional stability, and high agreeableness favour the target. These relationships were often dependent on the nature of the attack. Third, we highlight the importance of preconceptions and partisanship in moderating the relationship between personality traits and reactions to the conflicts.

This article is structured as follows. The next section reviews the literature about personality and conflict and outlines the three types of reactions that will form the grounds for analysis: evaluations of candidate character, debate performance, and voting behaviour. The third section provides an in-depth discussion of the methodology used in this study, with emphasis on the case selection, data collection, and data analysis. Next, we present the findings and interpretation of results. The conclusions summarise the key findings and discuss their implications for the broader field of study.

TV debates, conflicts and viewers’ personality

Political attacks during televised debates can influence candidate evaluations and perceptions of their character. For example, people responded with negative character evaluations when politicians engaged in issue-based and character-based attacks during the 2008 and 2012 presidential debates. Both Obama and Romney were antagonistic and assertive during the 2012 debates, which led viewers to label both candidates as aggressive. Personal attacks, such as Obama accusing his opponent of lying, were consistently rated poorly (Schill and Kirk 2014) because people associated this behaviour with qualities that were unsuitable for governing. Policy-focused, civil attacks catalysed positive reactions. Uncivil attacks did not pay off, but did not catalyse negative repercussions, with the exception of polarisation when triggered by incumbents (Hopmann et al. 2018).

TV debates have an impact on viewers because they combine visual and verbal elements. Bucy and Grabe (2008, p. 85) reveal that agonic behaviour in debates can be successful in “bonding followers to leaders”, but debate winners were “featured in more hedonic displays than losers”. Viewers generalise their impressions “based on visual signals to a larger extent than… on verbal signals” (Maurer 2016, p. 1808). Nonverbal displays can influence viewer perceptions during televised debates by enticing certain emotions. Agonic displays used in political conflict, like lowered eyebrows or staring eye orientations, can “elicit negative feelings from supporters and critics alike” (Bucy and Grabe 2008, p. 92). In the case of the 2005 German election debate, verbal messages had by far the strongest impact on viewer impressions (Nagel et al. 2012). This observation is contradicted by a study about the effects of negativity and incivility during televised debates, which finds “virtually no effects of tone, focus, and (in)civility on those who only listened to the debate” (Hopmann et al. 2018, p. 297).

The Big Five personality traits can be described as follows. Openness stands for creativity, desire to experiment, curiosity and high range of interests. Conscientiousness refers to organisation, rigour, discipline, efficiency, responsible, have a sense of duty and attention to details. Extraversion involves sociability, assertiveness, emotional expressiveness and being outgoing. Agreeableness stands for trust, kindness, altruism, empathy, loyalty and sincerity. Neuroticism is characterised by anxiety, sadness, impulsivity, hostility or moodiness (Cottam et al. 2015). People can be high or low on each of these personality traits. For example, an individual who is high on openness is creative, willing to experiment and is curious, while an individual low on openness lacks imagination, dislikes change and resists new ideas.

The dispositions of certain personalities are sensitive to experiencing particular emotions. For example, neurotic viewers are susceptible to negative emotions and activated by emotional displays. Mondak and Halperin (2008) show that people scoring low in emotional stability are particularly susceptible to feeling negative emotions, like anxiety and fear, which can influence their political judgements. This is pronounced when there is indication of threat or potential danger, as displayed by agonic candidate behaviour. Bucy and Newhagen (1999, p. 74) argue that viewers anticipate specific kinds of physical actions at certain moments, and violations of these expectations can lead to negative emotions and intensified “scrutiny of the source”. In their study, people expected negative and low intensity presidential reactions, while positive or intense reactions were considered inappropriate.

Televised debates can also persuade voters to contradict their predispositions. If a viewer believes a certain politician to have won a debate, despite the candidate contradicting their original party identifications, the viewer’s voting intentions may change. In fact, this ‘conversion’ effect can be “more pronounced than reinforcement”—being statistically significant in most cases, whereas reinforcement effects were not (Maier and Faas 2011, p. 86). For independent viewers, winning a debate increased the likelihood of voting for that candidate.

Candidate character, performance and political participation

This paper’s argument is built on the idea that personality traits may function as an anchor for individuals’ reactions to debates. Existing research finds that, depending on their personality type, people differ in how they evaluate the character of others (Caprara et al. 2006; Willis et al. 2013; Mattarozzi et al. 2015; Hehman et al. 2017) and perceive leadership performance (Felfe and Schyns 2006; Salter et al. 2009). It has also been recognised that personality traits influence political participation (Gerber et al. 2011; Mattila et al. 2011; Boulianne and Koc-Michalska 2022). In some cases, this can be explained by the dispositions of certain traits towards conflict (Gerber et al. 2013; Weinschenk and Panagopoulos 2014; Kalmoe 2019; Valli and Nai 2023) or their susceptibility to persuasion (Matz et al. 2008; Gerber et al. 2013; Valli and Nai 2023). The following review explores this literature in depth, which informs the basis of our research and its analytical framework (see Table 1 for a summary of the major findings).

Table 1 A summary of previous findings
Full size table

We begin by exploring literature about the relationship between citizen personality and perceptions of politicians’ character. Voters have been shown to perceive and judge candidates’ character in a heterogenous fashion (Caprara et al. 2006). ‘Character’ refers to the aspects of an individual that make them distinct: “a set of observable behaviours—anchored in a set of virtues, personality traits, and values” (Seijts et al. 2021, p. 359). An individual’s character can include their trustworthiness, leadership ability, warmth, assertiveness, or likeability (Hehman et al. 2017). It can be gauged through verbal performance or physical appearance such as facial features (Willis et al. 2013).

The few studies on the topic illustrate that impressions of character, including trustworthiness and dominance, are subjective and conditional to perceivers’ characteristics (Hehman et al. 2017). Personality can influence judgements of trustworthiness: agreeableness is positively associated with judging an unfamiliar face as trustworthy, which is consistent with this trait’s trusting and compliant nature. Aggression traits correlate with assessments of trustworthiness, although this was only the case with women (Mattarozzi et al. 2015). After controlling for gender and age, trustworthiness judgements are associated with anxious trait dispositions rather than respondents’ state at the time of participation (Willis et al. 2013).

The relationship between personality and political or debate performance has been similarly understudied. There is, however, some literature suggesting that personality traits can influence implicit perceptions of leadership performance. Studies about the relationship between respondent personality and assessments of leadership style show that extroverts perceive and accept transformational leadership with ease (Felfe and Schyns 2006). Individuals scoring high in neuroticism rated George W. Bush’s leadership as less transformational than those who were emotionally stable (Salter et al. 2009). These results bring evidence to substantiate the theory of trait resonance, according to which transformational leaders are emotionally stable and extraverted. Since traits differ in their tolerance of political conflict, the nature of a candidate’s rhetoric might influence viewers’ perceptions of their performance.

Here, it is relevant to explore the tolerance of personality types to conflict, which may influence candidate evaluations given that “negativity and incivility are in the eye of the beholder” (Nai and Maier 2021, p. 269). Conflict avoidant citizens prefer positive rhetoric and turn away from the candidates who launch negative attacks (e.g. conscientious individuals). For individuals who are more tolerant of negative rhetoric, the civility of negative messages has little impact on how they assess candidates and their performance (Fridkin and Kenney 2011; Nai and Maier 2021).

These results could partly be explained by the congruency model of political preference: people react most favourably to candidates or messages that they believe share their personality traits (Gerber et al. 2013). People commonly “anchor their political preferences to their personal experiences”, giving greater value to “their own personalities and the personalities of their leaders” (Caprara and Zimbardo 2004, p. 582). The applicability of the congruency model was tested by investigating the Dark Triad, which includes grandiose narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. People generally preferred warm politicians, but participants with dark personalities reported a higher tolerance of dark characteristics in politicians (Hart et al. 2018). Further evidence is available from an experiment conducted in the United States, in which respondents considered candidate traits when forming impressions more consistently than partisanship (Nai et al. 2021). Along these lines, it could be the case that during televised debates, “individuals react differently to aggressive words depending on their own aggressive traits” (Kalmoe 2019, p. 413).

The final segment of our review concerns the filtering process that personality traits may have upon political participation (Boulianne and Koc-Michalska 2022). Extraverted citizens were the most likely to vote in Finland (Mattila et al. 2011) and there is a general association between a number of personality traits—namely openness, extraversion and emotional stability—and participation in various types of political activities, like voting or engaging in national campaign affairs (Gerber et al. 2011). This was notably pronounced for extraversion when the activity involved interaction with others.

The disposition of certain traits towards conflict may in part explain intentions to participate politically. Negative messages can decrease the desire of agreeable individuals to participate in politics, but can increase the motivation of extrovert citizens to participate after exposure to attacks (Weinschenk and Panagopoulos 2014; Boulianne and Koc-Michalska 2022). Agreeableness was negatively related to taking part in potentially conflictual activities, like talking at a local meeting (Gerber et al. 2011). Agreeable individuals often exert conflict avoidance strategies (Valli and Nai 2023), which are inconsistent with voting; agreeable citizens were more likely to register, but less likely to vote than other registered voters (Gerber et al. 2011). The use of aggressive metaphors in debates mobilises and reinforces the predispositions of individuals with high neuroticism and low agreeableness (Kalmoe 2019), thus, providing empirical support to the theory of trait resonance. All this indicates that several personality traits such as agreeableness, extraversion, and emotional stability are associated with political participation after exposure to political conflict.

Different personalities deviate in their susceptibility to persuasion, which is especially relevant when considering people’s responsiveness to voter mobilisation. Personality interacts with participants’ reactions to Get-Out-To-Vote appeals, both attitudinally and behaviourally. Those high in openness and emotional stability were more positively impacted than extroverts, who expressed a decreased intent to vote (Gerber et al. 2013).

In another study, extraverted individuals were less likely to feel the discomfort associated with cognitive dissonance, which means that they are less easily persuaded to alter their views and actions (Matz et al. 2008). Cognitive dissonance is a state of frustration occurring when an individual’s actions, beliefs and factors in their environment are contradictory. Extroverts “possess a less excitable nervous system” than introverts, so feel less compelled to rethink their opinions when disagreed with (Matz et al. 2008, p. 404). This is consistent with the findings from a more recent study, according to which extraverted people use empowerment as a defence strategy when facing opposing information (Valli and Nai 2023).

Several scholars have also distinguished the relationship between personality and vote choice. All Big Five traits are associated with vote choice amongst US voters: for example, amongst politically sophisticated participants, there was a strong negative relationship between openness and voting Republican (Osborne and Sibley 2012). Italian voters with high degrees of openness, agreeableness, and low in extraversion and conscientiousness would rather vote for the centre-left as opposed to the centre-right coalition. Voting can be a means of citizen trait expression. Solidarity and diversity in centre-left initiatives, and individual entrepreneurship emphasised by the centre-right, allowed voters to “express and affirm their own personalities” (Caprara et al. 2006, p. 21). High conscientiousness, low agreeableness and low openness were associated with endorsement of a Republican candidate, while the reverse was true for a Democrat candidate. However, emotional stability played a minor role in voting behaviour (Barbaranelli et al. 2007).

Analytical framework

This brief literature review indicates that some personality traits are more tolerant of negativity than others, which means that people assess and react to conflict in TV debates differently. The analytical framework of this article tests empirically the associations between personality traits and (1) candidate character, (2) candidate performance and (3) voting behaviour. Our study is exploratory and does not formulate theoretical expectations. Instead, we strive to outline the existence of relationships.

The first analytical dimension is viewers’ assessments of candidate character, which builds upon the idea that viewers’ evaluations of candidate character during debates is reliant on their rhetoric (Pfau and Rang 1991). ‘Character’ is understood as developed and observable habitual behaviours that are rooted in a person’s values, personality traits, and virtues (Seijts et al. 2021, p. 359). Reactions will be gauged by asking participants about their perceptions of candidate likeability, charisma, trustworthiness, and leadership ability after each debate. The research presented in the previous section forms the theoretical ground for this relationship. The likeability and charisma indicators have been drawn from previous studies (Hart et al. 2018; Nai et al. 2021). We know from earlier accounts that personality traits vary in their judgments of candidates’ trustworthiness (Gerber et al. 2013; Willis et al. 2013; Mattarozzi et al. 2015), which can be dependent upon the nature of their rhetoric, including appropriateness and emotional appeals (Nagel et al. 2012; Schill and Kirk 2014). Also, evaluations of leadership ability can be altered by televised debates (Baboš and Világi 2018). Our analysis will focus on viewers’ assessments of strong leadership and charisma.

The second dimension is the assessment of candidate performance, gauged by asking participants who they believe to have won each debate that they have watched. It is based upon the theory that personality influences assessments of performance, like leadership or rhetorical presentations (Felfe and Schyns 2006; Salter et al. 2009; Fridkin and Kenney 2011; Nai and Maier 2021). Viewer perceptions of what constitutes a strong candidate performance in the debates could vary according to the dispositions of their personality. Some may perceive a candidate’s performance as weak if they use attacks (Schill and Kirk 2014). To others, issue-based negative rhetoric might improve debate performance, enhancing its persuasiveness (Hopmann et al. 2018).

The third reaction to analyse relates to voting behaviour. Personality, political conflict, and televised debates can influence citizens’ desires to vote (Gerber et al. 2011; Mattila et al. 2011; Weinschenk and Panagopoulos 2014) and vote preferences (Caprara et al. 2006; Barbaranelli et al. 2007; Osborne and Sibley 2012). There is also the possibility that relationships will transpire between our dimensions for analysis. For example, the chances of voting for a candidate increases if that actor was seen as the debate winner (Pattie and Johnston 2011). Voting is both an appraisal of candidates and an expressive function of self-perception (Caprara and Zimbardo 2004; Nina and Santana-Pereira 2021).

We also test the extent to which the relationship between personality traits and each of these three analytical dimensions is moderated by partisanship or preconceptions about the candidates. Both are sources of bias that can influence viewers’ reactions. Primary debates have influence mainly because voters know less about the candidates at that point in the campaign (Benoit et al. 2003). Viewer preconceptions were reinforced during the presidential televised debates in 1976 and 1984 (Geer 1988). Debates have little influence on people’s minds if preferences have been formed before the debate (Baboš and Világi 2018; Nina and Santana-Pereira 2021). Specifically, in the German case, the positive attitudes towards the candidate before the debate match the positive reception of that candidate’s debate performance (Maier and Faas 2003, p. 392). Therefore, televised debates can alter candidate evaluations, but individual viewer differences can shape this influence. Political affiliation, however, is the only individual difference accounted for.

Methodology

We use qualitative analysis to investigate the relationship between personality type and individuals’ reactions to televised debate conflict. We collected data with the help of 23 semi-structured interviews conducted online in July 2023. The participants were selected through online ads and snowball sampling to ensure variation in age, gender, occupation, and ideological self-placement (Table 2). These characteristics were defined in line with previous research that showed their potential in influencing viewers’ reactions to debates and political conflict. All participants are over the age of 18 and live in the UK. The distribution of gender was roughly even; 11 participants were male and 12 were female. There was a fair balance of occupation types—software engineers, a teacher, research scientists, an artist, a programme officer, a retired nurse, an events manager and students, for example. The distribution of respondents is skewed towards left leaning political affiliations and highly educated respondents (one third had secondary or high school education and two thirds university education); four interviewees belong to ethnic minority groups. The UK is a typical case to draw participants from. It shares similarities with other majoritarian parliamentary democracies in terms of political system, political conflict, and integration of TV debates into its electoral politics.

Table 2 The participant profiles
Full size table

The list of respondents recruited for interviews was longer. We stopped when we reached the saturation point (Hennink et al. 2020). We used an interview guide (Appendix 1) that gauged the themes from the analytical framework. Each interview began by asking questions about politics, televised debates, and conflict in general to establish trust and rapport. Participants were then shown the debate clips, lasting less than two minutes each, and asked set questions after each clip. This allowed us to observe their immediate reactions. Using semi-structured interviews and stimuli material enabled detailed, immediate information about people’s perceptions, emotions, decision making and motivations for behaviour to be extracted (Hennink et al. 2020). This design also allowed for tailored topical probes to be used when an interviewee did not touch upon certain topics or further elaboration was needed, while maintaining respect and fairness (Brinkmann and Kvale 2015).

At the end of the interview, participants responded verbally to the TIPI, which is a 10-item measure of the Five-Factor Model (Gosling et al. 2003). People were required to report their similarity to a series of ten trait pairs, based on a seven-point scale from disagree strongly to agree strongly. This inventory provides a quick and “fairly reliable way of measuring personality traits” (Weinschenk and Panagopoulos 2014, p. 169). It is important to recognise that while personality traits may change over a lifetime, in the short term they are stable and fixed predispositions. Therefore, responding to the TIPI after exposure to the stimuli material should not influence how participants respond to the trait pairs. Based on their answers, we organised the respondents into four categories: very low score (1), low score (2–3), high score (5–6), and very high score (7) for each personality trait. There were only isolated cases in which the respondents received a score that positioned them exactly in the middle of the personality trait scale. We did not include any of the middle cases in the analysis for that trait. There was no instance in which one respondent scored in the middle for more than one trait. The analysis in the following section compares the individuals with high scores on personality traits (score 5–7) with those individuals attaining low scores (score 1–3). In some cases that are explicitly mentioned, we compare the respondents with extreme scores: very low and very high.

We selected excerpts of several minutes from two televised debate clips in the UK and Australia as stimuli to observe reactions. These debates occurred within a time frame of the most recent four years, which increases the likelihood that participants will understand the issues that are discussed, increasing the validity of their reactions. The excerpts contain a mixture of attacks issued by the incumbent or challenger. The debates were purposefully selected from different countries so that we could compare the viewers’ reactions to familiar and unfamiliar candidates. These differences enable observation between a range of case characteristics and personality traits (Silverman 2019). The first clip includes candidates that are familiar to our respondents: the Conservative incumbent Boris Johnson and Labour challenger Jeremy Corbyn in the 2019 first General Election debate. The conflict included a comparative policy attack initiated by the incumbent (Johnson). The second clip came from the 2022 Australian federal election and covered a target-focused, policy and track-record attack initiated by the challenger Anthony Albanese against the incumbent Scott Morrison.

We use deductive flexible thematic analysis (Braun and Clarke 2006) or hybrid analysis (Fereday and Muir-Cochrane 2006) to interpret and present the interview answers. The analytical framework directed initial codes and themes, which were then altered inductively. This allows coding and themes to be anchored in both theory and the raw data (Silverman 2019). Thematic analysis is preferred here for its ability to “get as close as possible to precise descriptions of what people have experienced” (Brinkmann and Kvale 2015, p. 51). This is more appropriate than methods like discourse analysis and discursive psychology, in which the interview situation itself is given substantial analytical weight and participants’ reactions are not considered entirely representative of their current psychological state. We conducted the thematic analysis in five stages, adapted from the models proposed by Braun and Clarke (2006) and Fereday and Muir-Cochrane (2008): (1) we created a code manual with deductive codes (Appendix 2); (2) we applied these codes to the raw data and refined the deductive codes based on information from the data; (3) we organised the codes based on their common attributes to begin theme identification, which relate directly to the analytical framework (no new themes emerged from the data); (4) the core and sub-themes were corroborated and legitimised, by keeping a theme creation(n log to ensure transparency and reliability and (5) associations between participants’ personalities and their places within themes were subsequently identified. The coding was done independently by the authors and the results were compared, resulting in inter-coder similarity higher than 90%. The codes and exemplary transcript extracts for each theme are available in Appendices 3, 4, and 5.

Analysis and results

Most of the interviewees’ personality traits are associated with their reactions along all three analytical dimensions—candidate character, performance, and voting intent—to different degrees for the British and Australian debates (Table 3). The following sub-sections present the main findings and explore how they are connected with previous findings in the literature.

Table 3 Participant reactions to the UK and Australian debates
Full size table

Assessing candidate character

People’s openness has no link with character evaluations: those with high and low levels of openness provided similar assessments of the candidates. Conscientiousness, extraversion, and agreeableness have an impact amongst individuals with extreme trait scores. To start with conscientiousness, those respondents with the highest conscientiousness scores believed Johnson, the attacker, to be a stronger leader because of his confidence and rationale; his views seemed “less extreme than Corbyn’s” (R6) and he was “owning the conversation” (R8). Conscientious people follow norms (Gerber et al. 2013), which may translate into favouring political structures that they are accustomed to: “Johnson has a playfulness and brashness that is convincing” (R5). Conscientious individuals are also diligent and cautious (Nai et al. 2022), and perhaps perceived Corbyn’s plans as unachievable: “[Ending tuition fees] is a very, very unrealistic plan, and I like if candidates remain on the surface of reality” (R21). The participants with very low levels of conscientiousness (R3, R15, R19) saw Corbyn as the strongest leader. He appeared “more honest with the answer, not evasive” whereas Johnson was “bringing up irrelevant points” (R19). These observations hold irrespective of the respondents’ partisanship, and they contradict earlier findings (Nai and Maier 2021). In the Australian debate, conscientiousness does not make a difference: the respondents with the highest and lowest levels consider the target to be the stronger leader. As such, the role of conscientiousness on assessments of leadership ability could depend on the nature of the attack.

The introverted individuals (R11, R19, R23) ranked Corbyn as the stronger leader. His rhetoric made him appear “a more serious politician” (R11) while Johnson made “several statements that did not commit to leadership” (R15). The most extraverted participants (R1, R8, R10, R12) unanimously rated the attacker as showing the strongest leadership potential. For example, one participant stated that “Johnson had more energy… it seemed more aggressive, more passionate… Corbyn was not able to say everything he wanted, which made me feel sorry for him, I do not want to feel sorry for someone who is supposed to lead a country” (R8). This result is in line with previous findings according to which extroverts have a “domineering nature” (Valli and Nai 2023, p. 2), are associated with leadership, and may see energy, aggression, and charge as desirable in a leader. For the Australian debate, the most extraverted individuals (R1, R10, R12) rated the target as the stronger leader. In this case, extroverts are more likely to see candidates using comparative, policy-related attacks in televised debates as more competent to lead. This rhetoric style suggests that the source is authoritative and energetic, which is congruent with extraversion’s dispositions (Gerber et al. 2013).

Respondents with low agreeableness scores (R8, R9, R10) believed Albanese—the attacker—to be more charismatic than Morrison. This was often because Albanese’s performance reflected passion and wit: “There was more emotion to what he was saying, more passion… he came across as a truth teller and was convincing in making the other guy seem like he was covering things up” (R9). The participants with high agreeableness scores (R3, R11, R19) saw Morrison as more charismatic because he was knowledgeable and composed. This observation is less stark amongst reactions to Corbyn and Johnson’s debate but still visible. Both reactions confirm earlier accounts in the literature which contend that highly agreeable people are “empathetic and reluctant to judge others” (Valli and Nai 2023, p. 2) and consequently empathised with the target.

Emotionally stable participants saw the attacker as having stronger leadership potential, since they appeared “more engaging, more focused” (R21) and more competent (R4, R10). In their view, the attack showed greater confidence and an ability to take control, “more energy, more initiative” (R8). Another reasoned that Johnson’s rhetoric “certainly gives the impression that he's in charge. He's more perhaps at ease in a leadership role” (R5). Several neurotic individuals (R9, R11, R19) considered the attack target as the stronger leader because he “seemed calmer, more in control of what he wanted to say, and had a clear message… Johnson seemed a bit chaotic and disorganised" (R9). Corbyn was considered to be more transparent because his rhetoric laid out clear plans: “more honest because he talked about what his party would do. Whereas Johnson was talking about what Labour had done in the past, attacking Corbyn, and less about his own party's policies” (R19). Neuroticism is associated with aggression but, given that neurotic individuals tend to also be anxious and “reactive to negative events” (Valli and Nai 2023, p. 2), positive communication from a leader may be preferred as it is reassuring and avoids catalysing negative emotions.

Candidate performance

The relationship between openness and perceptions of debate performance is mixed. Most open respondents crowned Johnson as the winner, identifying his demeanour (R3, R8, R9), confidence (R13), and impact (R1, R2): “Johnson has a gift for narration… which is captivating” (R2). Another added that “charisma and a strong sense of personality… likely won over a clear and rational statement of position” (R9). The participants with lower openness saw Corbyn as the winner, largely because he answered the questions and communicated in a simple and understandable manner (R7, R14, R23). This would suggest that individuals lower in openness, who are conventional and less likely to deviate from normative expectations (Cottam et al. 2015), prefer orderly and clear communication during televised debates. This relationship is much more nuanced in the Australian debate where almost all the interviewees, irrespective of their openness, saw Albanese (the attacker) as the winner. In this case, either individuals with low openness prefer target-focused over comparative attacks or they perceived Albanese’s rebuttal as justified and relevant compared with Johnson’s.

While conscientiousness is not associated with the assessment of candidate performance, extraversion plays a prominent role. Extraverted participants (e.g. R5, R9, R22) consistently saw the attacker as the debate winner in both debates, since they had more power over the conversation (R10). For extrovert participants (e.g. R5, R9, R22), the attacker was “memorable” (R1), “exciting” (R8), and “in charge” of the debate (R5). For example, “Johnson won because he looks cruel but competent…and Corbyn looked sort of nice, fluffy, and woolly” (R10). Morrison’s positive performance did not trigger much reaction, and it was not exciting (R8). This reaffirms the idea that extraverted individuals prefer lively, exciting stimuli (Gerber et al. 2013), boldness and social dominance (Nai et al. 2022). Introverted respondents believed the targets won since they provided more reasoned arguments (R6, R17, R23) and were genuine (R11, R6, R16). Referring to Morisson, one respondent argues that he “had a positive message and emphasised what lots of people want in society. His opponent came across as a bit obstreperous and whiney” (R2). This is in line with previous accounts of introverts as typically preferring less stimulating and aggressive situations (Matz et al. 2008), which may explain their inclination to the less bombastic speakers.

Agreeable respondents considered the target as the winner, coming across as composed and calm (R15, R16, R6), confident (R12), empathic and characterised by reasoned argument (R3). For example, one participant with high agreeableness saw Corbyn as having “more gravitas” and Morrison to be “more genuine, affable, friendly, [and] positive” (R11). This observation is consistent with agreeableness’ dispositions towards cooperation—rather than competition—and sympathy (Gronostay 2019). According to the congruency model, candidates’ positive rhetoric may have resonated with these individuals; this communication style shares qualities with agreeableness (Gerber et al. 2013). The interviewees with low agreeableness referenced the attacker as the winner because they were dominant and critical (R13, R14, R21). For example, Johnson’s “big bluster attack on Corbyn” made him appear an “alpha male kind of leader” (R2). These attacks allowed the candidate “to be loud and be heard” (R18). Indeed, it was not only how the attack made the source appear, but the cloud it cast over the target: Albanese “made Morrison look as if he was making lots of excuses and taking credit for other people’s work” (R9).

Emotional stability is associated with performance evaluations for the Australian debate. Emotionally stable participants (e.g. R5, R10, R21) favoured the attacker’s performance, since it was brave, pragmatic, and convincing (e.g. R8, R14, R15). Albanese was “more natural and fluent than Morrison” (R10) and able to “dismantle” Morrison’s points (R14). Neurotic participants (e.g. R1, R2, R19) assessed the target as the winner, often because Albanese’s retort was overly negative and fear inducing (e.g. R3, R11, R18). Morrison was more positive and reassuring, which made neurotic individuals “want to listen to him” (R18). Another neurotic respondent explained that Albanese sounded very accusatory and aggressive, while Morrison talked about ideas (R3). Yet, both emotionally stable and neurotic participants reported the attacker as the winner in the UK debate. This could be due to the nature of the attack: in the UK it was comparative and issue related, and possibly not excessively anxiety inducing. When the attack is target focused, the neurotic citizens are more likely to perceive it as unfair and worrying (Mondak and Halperin 2008).

Vote intention

Openness, conscientiousness, and agreeableness are weakly linked with vote intention. Openness has a mild impact on turnout preference. In relation to the UK debate, the people with high and low levels of agreeableness are demobilised and would vote for the target. Regarding the Australian debate, there is no reaction observed for turnout or voting preference amongst those low in openness, while participants with high openness felt mobilised, and would vote for the attacker (e.g. R8, R19). This may have been triggered by a target-focused, track-record and issue-related attack. Albanese’s points were “skilled and effective” (R13) and he displayed competence and wit when revealing Morrison’s claims as misleading (R10). Conscientiousness is related to turnout preferences only for those at the upper end of this trait (e.g. R9, R16, R17): they felt demobilised after the Corbyn vs Johnson debate and mobilised after Albanese vs Morrison. For example, one respondent argued after watching the UK debate: “I wouldn't vote. I don't like how Johnson behaves, and I don't like how Corbyn behaved” (R8). This finding is counter-intuitive since conscientiousness is usually associated with rule compliance and good citizenship (Gronostay 2019).

High levels of agreeableness appeared to have no relationship with voter turnout, which is consistent with previous results that agreeable individuals are less likely to vote than other voters (Gerber et al. 2011). The participants low in agreeableness felt demobilised after the UK debate and mobilised by the Australian debate (R1, R3) because the latter did not “wake any cynicism” (R8). It appears that low agreeableness translates into mobilisation after complex political conflict. Highly agreeable respondents would vote for the target in both debates, referring to Corbyn’s willingness to answer questions and engage (R12) and to Morrison’s tendency to be more reasonable in presenting his points of view (R6). The respondents with low agreeableness would vote for the target after watching the UK debate, but for the attacker after the Australian debate. This may be due to partisanship and existing preconceptions, to be explored in the following section.

After exposure to the Australian debate, extroverts declared their intention to vote and preferred the attacker, who displayed an ability to be heard and listened to (R5, R13, R18) and was more convincing overall (R9). One extrovert felt “optimistic and excited for positive change” (R12). Many introverts were demobilised by this debate, arguing explicitly that they were turned off to politics after experiencing any kind of conflict (R15, R17, R19). For instance, one introvert saw the attacks as “over the top” and felt “unhappy” about voting in this environment (R6). However, those who would turn out to vote prefer the target because he was rational (R4, R9), a better communicator (R7), composed (R3, R16), and more positive (R19). These observations confirm previous findings according to which extroverts participate more in politics after exposure to negative political rhetoric (Weinschenk and Panagopoulos 2014; Kalmoe 2019). Since they lack inhibition, they may not recognise or care about the potential consequences related to negative campaigning (Nai et al. 2022). Thus, they are drawn to an attack’s stimulating nature during televised debates.

Emotional stability is associated only with voting preference. Emotionally stable participants would vote for the attackers after seeing each debate because they confronted issues up front (R10, R14, R21). Neurotic individuals would vote for the candidate using positive rhetoric because the attacker was fear inducing (R1, R12, R18, R19), which is usually avoided by neurotics (Nai and Maier 2021). One participant explained that Johnson’s attack was “scaremongering”, which is “dangerous” in politics (R1). Another neurotic respondent noted that they would vote for the “composed candidate” (R3) in the Australian debate.

Partisanship and preconceptions

This section suggests that there is a relationship between personality traits and reactions to conflict in televised debates, but it is neither universal for all personality traits nor straightforward. The observed associations between traits and reactions diverge according to the relevant analytical dimension—whether that is assessments of candidate character and performance or voting intentions. The interview answers also indicate that partisanship and preconceptions may have played a role in shaping some of the respondents’ evaluations, which means that our conclusions are conditional and must, therefore, be taken with some caution.

Partisanship and preconceptions could have interfered with viewers’ voting intentions after watching the debate between Corbyn and Johnson. The vast majority of those declaring a desire to vote for Corbyn identified themselves as centre-left or left-wing, which means that ideology was important. This was referenced directly: “my issue-based politics are much more closely aligned with Corbyn’s view of the world” (R13), “I would have to go with Corbyn because of his views” (R3), “I would have voted for Johnson, only for the party” (R5). Preconceived ideas are associated with voting preferences here too, since several respondents noted their familiarity with the candidates—“I have heard of [Johnson] a lot” (R4)—or their opinions about whether Corbyn was a “capable politician” (R2). Ideology did not appear to be connected with evaluations of debate performance or candidate character for the British debate. Yet, some participants used their existing knowledge about Corbyn and Johnson to assess their character. For instance, one participant recognised that during the debate “Johnson did his usual—not answering the question” (R11). Another pointed out that they knew Johnson was lying because they had followed the situation when it occurred in 2019, which meant they could “take that into account” when evaluating Johnson’s trustworthiness (R16). It is sensible to suggest that partisanship and preconceptions may have, therefore, directed some responses to the British debate, which is unsurprising given participants’ proximity to the British political context.

Preconceived ideas were not noteworthy amongst responses to the Australian debate, whereas partisanship may be related with two of the three analysed reactions. Just over half of respondents’ voting intentions and evaluations of Albanese and Morrison’s debate performances aligned with their political affiliation. This was most evident when participants justified their voting preference. For example, one respondent noted that he would vote for Albanese “partly because [he is a] Labour candidate, so I assume he’s a socialist” (R2). A different interviewee stated that they would vote for Albanese because they “prefer the left-wing to the right-wing” (R20). For others, Morrison’s views better matched their own, which made him more voteworthy (R22). It is, therefore, possible that partisanship played some role in influencing participants’ voting intentions and performance evaluations after watching the Australian debate. Interviewees were less familiar with the Australian candidates and, thus, preconceptions appear to have had little impact.

Conclusion

This article aimed to investigate the association between personality traits and viewer reactions to political conflict in televised debates during election campaigns. The findings indicate that many personality traits can shape the way in which people assess candidates’ characteristics, performance, mobilise and form voting preferences. High openness is linked with positive performance evaluations for the attacker, mobilisation and voting for the attacker in the Australian case. Low openness is associated only with the assessment of the target as a winner for the UK debate. Conscientiousness is related to perceptions of strong leadership in the UK debate and with mobilisation in the Australian case. Extroverts assess the attacker as superior to the target on each analytical dimension. This is moderated by the attack type and ideological preferences—the latter especially in the UK debate—for evaluations of character and vote intention. Introverts are linked with demobilisation and support for the target—irrespective of attack type—mainly due to their calm rhetoric. Introverts’ aversion towards conflict was stronger than their tendency to vote along ideological lines. Agreeableness is associated with reactions on each dimension, being the only trait that shows consistent relations with the candidate charisma assessment. Highly agreeable individuals perceive the target as preferable in every instance. The emotionally stable respondents assessed the attacker as having the upper hand in the debates, while the neurotic individuals preferred the target.

Some of these findings contradict the conclusions of earlier research. For example, the result about conscientiousness goes against earlier accounts according to which people with high values on this trait value positive rhetoric (Nai and Maier 2021). We show that highly conscientious individuals might perceive comparative policy attacks as revealing leadership potential, mainly because they are diligent and consider pertinent details (Mondak and Halperin 2008) that may be available in such attacks. Other findings nuance previous conclusions. For instance, the preferences of neurotic respondents for the target deviates from the idea that they are often associated with “impulsiveness and premeditated aggressiveness” (Nai et al. 2022, p. 776) or with the avoidance of argumentation (Gronostay 2019). Finally, some results confirm earlier findings. The observations about openness strengthen the conclusion that people at the upper end of this trait may be susceptible to persuasive political appeals (Gerber et al. 2013). Similarly, low agreeableness translates into mobilisation after conflict exposure, underpinning conclusions regarding the importance of aggressive political metaphors (Kalmoe 2019).

This study has implications beyond the case study analysed here. At theoretical level, it shows that personality may be related to viewer assessments of candidate character, debate performance, and voting intentions after watching candidate conflict in televised debates. As such, it points to personality as a relevant explanation for the formation of political attitudes and behaviours during election campaigns. At an empirical level, we bring evidence that illustrates how the relationships between some personality traits (e.g. conscientiousness or emotionally stability) and political conflict are not as straightforward as previously implied. In this sense, we show a stronger association between personality types to assessment of leadership strength and debate winning rather than to mobilisation and voting preference. From a practical standpoint, this study shows that it could be valuable for candidates and campaign managers to assess and consider the personality profiles of their target audience before going negative during televised debates.

A limitation of our study is the limited number of participants, which means that it cannot and does not claim to be representative. Another limitation was the low number of conflicts and types of attacks in the TV debates presented to the respondents. Further research can include more debates and political actors, including some that are less well known internationally. This could mean widening the time frame for analysis and selecting debates in different political settings to add a broader comparative dimension. Given the focus of our study, not all data could be explored and analysed in depth. Future research could give greater centrality to the role of other factors, such as partisanship or preconceptions, in influencing reactions to conflict during debates. Another avenue for research could tap into the issue of causality. Our study identifies an association between personality traits and reactions to conflict. While this is a first useful step, more in-depth analysis is required to gauge causality and isolate the effects of personality from those of other alternative explanations, such as the visual aspect of candidates or political interest.