Political Behavior

, Volume 34, Issue 3, pp 425–451 | Cite as

Personality and Political Participation: The Mediation Hypothesis

Original Paper

Abstract

Recent analyses have demonstrated that personality affects political behavior. According to the mediation hypothesis, the effect of personality on political participation is mediated by classical predictors, such as political interest, internal efficacy, political discussion, or the sense that voting is a civic duty. This paper outlines various paths that link personality traits to two participatory activities: voter turnout in European Parliament elections and participation in protest actions. The hypotheses are tested with data from a large, nationally representative, face-to-face survey of the Spanish population conducted before and after the 2009 European Parliament elections using log-linear path models that are well suited to study indirect relationships. The results clearly confirm that the effects of personality traits on voter turnout and protest participation are sizeable but indirect. They are mediated by attitudinal predictors.

Keywords

Personality Voter turnout Protest participation Political psychology Path models 

Supplementary material

11109_2011_9168_MOESM1_ESM.html (339 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (HTML 340 kb)

References

  1. Agresti, A. (2002). Categorical data analysis. New York: Wiley-Interscience.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allik, J., & McCrae, R. R. (2004). Toward a geography of personality traits: Patterns of profiles across 36 cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35(1), 13–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beier, M. E., & Ackerman, P. L. (2001). Current-events knowledge in adults: An investigation of age, intelligence, and nonability determinants. Psychology and Aging, 16(4), 615–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bekkers, R. (2005). Participation in voluntary associations: Relations with resources, personality, and political values. Political Psychology, 26(3), 439–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Benet-Martinez, V., & John, O. P. (1998). Los Cinco Grandes across cultures and ethnic groups: Multitrait multimethod analyses of the Big Five in Spanish and English. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 729–750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Benet-Martinez, V., & John, O. P. (2000). Toward the development of quasi-indigenous personality constructs: Measuring los cinco grandes in Spain with indigenous Castilian markers. American Behavioral Scientist, 44(1), 141.Google Scholar
  7. Berry, W. D., DeMeritt, J. H. R., & Esarey, J. (2010). Testing for interaction in binary logit and probit models: Is a product term essential? American Journal of Political Science, 54(1), 248–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blais, A. (2010). Political participation. In L. LeDuc, R. G. Niemi, & P. Norris (Eds.), Contemporary democracies 3 (pp. 165–183). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. Blais, A., & Labbe-St-Vincent, S. (2011). Personality traits, political attitudes and the propensity to vote. European Journal of Political Research, 50(3), 395–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Buse, A. (1982). The likelihood ratio, Wald, and Lagrange multiplier tests: An expository note. The American Statistician, 36, 153–157.Google Scholar
  11. Caspi, A., & Roberts, B. W. (2001). Personality development across the life course: The argument for change and continuity. Psychological Inquiry, 12(2), 49–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Costa, P. T., Terracciano, A., & McCrae, R. R. (2001). Gender Differences in Personality Traits Across Cultures: Robust and Surprising Findings. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(2), 322–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Croon, M. A. (1990). Latent class analysis with ordered latent classes. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 43(2), 171–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Denissen, J. J. A., & Penke, L. (2008). Motivational individual reaction norms underlying the Five-Factor model of personality: First steps towards a theory-based conceptual framework. Journal of Research in Personality, 42(5), 1285–1302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Denny, K., & Doyle, O. (2008). Political interest, cognitive ability and personality: Determinants of voter turnout in Britain. British Journal of Political Science, 38(2), 291–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Diani, M. (2004). Networks and participation. In D. A. Snow, S. A. Soule, & H. P. Kriesi (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to social movements (pp. 339–359). London: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  17. 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(01), 33–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gerber, A. S., Huber, G. A., Doherty, D., Dowling, C. M., Raso, C., & Ha, S. E. (2011). Personality traits and participation in political processes. The Journal of Politics, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  19. Gerber, A. S., Huber, G. A., Huberty, D., & Dowling, C. (2010). Personality and political attitudes: Relationships across issue domains and political contexts. American Political Science Review, 104(1), 111–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Goodman, L. A. (1979). Simple models for the analysis of association in cross-classifications having ordered categories. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 74(367), 537–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hagenaars, J. A. (1993). Loglinear models with latent variables. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  22. Hagenaars, J. A., & McCutcheon, A. L. (2002). Applied latent class analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hambrick, D. Z., et al. (2008). The roles of ability, personality, and interests in acquiring current events knowledge: A longitudinal study. Intelligence, 36(3), 261–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hampson, S. E., & Goldberg, L. R. (2006). A first large cohort study of personality trait stability over the 40 years between elementary school and midlife. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(4), 763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Heine, S. J., & Buchtel, E. E. (2009). Personality: The universal and the culturally specific. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 369–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Heinen, T. (1996). Latent class and discrete latent trait models: Similarities and differences. Sage Publications Inc.Google Scholar
  27. Hibbing, M. V., Ritchie, M., & Anderson, M. R. (2011). Personality and political discussion. Political Behavior. doi:10.1007/s11109-010-9147-4.
  28. John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative Big-Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and conceptual issues. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 114–158). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  29. Kitts, J. A. (2000). Mobilizing in black boxes: Social networks and participation in social movement organizations. Mobilization, 5, 241–257.Google Scholar
  30. Klandermans, B., & Oegema, D. (1987). Potentials, networks, motivations and barriers. American Sociological Review, 52, 519–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Krueger, R. F., & Johnson, W. (2008). Behavioral genetics and personality. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 287–310). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  32. Lane, R. E. (1955). Political personality and electoral choice. American Political Science Review, 49(1), 173–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Levinson, D. J. (1958). The relevance of personality for political-participation. Public Opinion Quarterly, 22, 3–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lodi-Smith, J., & Roberts, B. W. (2007). Social investment and personality: A meta-analysis of the relationship of personality traits to investment in work, family, religion, and volunteerism. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11(1), 68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Loehlin, J. C. (1992). Genes and environment in personality development. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  36. Mansbridge, J. (1980). Beyond adversary democracy. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  37. McClosky, Herbert. (1958). Conservatism and personality. The American Political Science Review, 52(1), 27–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. McCrae, R. R., & Costa Jr, P. T. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist, 52(5), 509–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. McCrae, R. R., et al. (2000). Nature over nurture: Temperament, personality, and lifespan development. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 173–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. McCrae, R. R., et al. (2005). Universal features of personality traits from the observer’s perspective: Data from 50 cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 547–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Medland, Sarah. E., & Hatemi, Peter. K. (2009). Political science, behavior genetics and twin studies: A methodological primer. Political Analysis, 17, 191–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Milbrath, L. W. (1965). Political participation: How and why do people get involved in politics?. Chicago: Rand McNally and Company.Google Scholar
  43. Mondak, J. J. (2010). Personality and the foundations of political behavior. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mondak, J. J., Canache, D., Seligson, M. A., & Hibbing, M. V. (2011). The participatory personality: Evidence from Latin America. British Journal of Political Science, 41(1), 211–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mondak, Hibbing, J. J. M. V., Canache, D., Seligson, M. A., & Anderson, M. R. (2010). Personality and civic engagement: An integrative framework for the study of trait effects on political behavior. American Political Science Review, 104(1), 85–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ozer, D. J., & Benet-Martínez, V. (2006). Personality and the prediction of consequential outcomes. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 401–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Raftery, A. E. (1995). Bayesian model selection in social research [with discussion]. In P. V. Marsden (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 111–195). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  49. Rammstedt, B., & John, O. P. (2007). Measuring personality in one minute or less: A 10-item short version of the Big Five Inventory in English and German. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 203–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Rizopoulos, D. (2009). ltm: Latent Trait Models under IRT. R package. Version 0.9-3, 9 December 2009.Google Scholar
  51. Roberts, B. W., Walton, K., & Bogg, T. (2005). Conscientiousness and health across the life course. Review of General Psychology, 9, 156–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Roberts, B. W., Walton, K., & Viechtbauer, W. (2006). Patterns of mean-level change in personality traits across the life course: A meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Schmitt, D. P., et al. (2007). The geographic distribution of Big Five personality traits: Patterns and profiles of human self-description across 56 nations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 38(2), 173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Schmitt, D. P., et al. (2008). Why can’t a man be more like a woman? Sex differences in Big Five personality traits across 55 cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(1), 168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sniderman, P. M. (1975). Personality and democratic politics. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  56. Terracciano, A., McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (2009). Intra-individual change in personality stability and age. Journal of Research in Personality, 44(1), 1–37.Google Scholar
  57. Terracciano, A., et al. (2005). National character does not reflect mean personality trait levels in 49 cultures. Science, 310, 96–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Van Aelst, P., & Walgrave, S. (2001). Who is that (wo)man in the street? From the normalisation of protest to the normalisation of the protester. European Journal of Political Research, 39(4), 461–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Van der Ark, L. A. (2007). Mokken scale analysis in R. Journal of Statistical Software, 20(11), 1–19.Google Scholar
  60. Vecchione, M., & Caprara, G. V. (2009). Personality determinants of political participation: The contribution of traits and self-efficacy beliefs. Personality and Individual Differences, 46(4), 487–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. E. (1995). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Vermunt, J. K., & Magidson, J. (2000). Latent Gold user’s guide. Belmont, MA: Statistical Innovations Inc.Google Scholar
  63. Vermunt, J. K., & Magidson, J. (2005). Technical guide for Latent GOLD 4.0: Basic and advanced. Belmont, MA: Statistical Innovations Inc.Google Scholar
  64. Wolak, J., & Marcus, G. E. (2007). Personality and emotional response: Strategic and tactical responses to changing political circumstances. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 614(1), 172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Yamagata, S., et al. (2006). Is the genetic structure of human personality universal? A cross-cultural twin study from North America, Europe, and Asia. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(6), 987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Facultat de Ciències Polítiques i SociologiaUniversitat Autonoma de BarcelonaBellaterraSpain
  2. 2.Tilburg UniversityTilburgThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Universitat Pompeu FabraBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations