What I Like About You: Legislator Personality and Legislator Approval
Recent work in the study of legislative politics has uncovered associations between the Big Five personality traits and myriad phenomena in the United States Congress. This literature raises new questions about political representation in terms of the Big Five, specifically, whether voters are more likely to support legislators with similar personality traits to their own, who would presumably have similar process preferences, or legislators with valence personality traits, regardless of congruence, which are associated with better leadership. We first revisit the measurement validity of voter assessments of legislator personality in the 2014 and 2016 Cooperative Congressional Election Studies to demonstrate that such survey items are meaningful. Subsequently, we use these data to construct measures of personality congruence and valence and apply them to predict voters’ job approval of legislators. Our results support the claim that voters evaluate legislators’ job performance on the basis of perceived valence traits rather than legislators’ congruence to voters’ own personality dispositions.
KeywordsPersonality Big Five Congress Voter decision-making Non-nested model testing Candidate evaluations
Author order was determined by a singular value decomposition of the authors’ crowdsourced personality traits. All contributed equally to the paper. Support through ANR—Labex IAST and the Institute for Scholarship in the Liberal Arts at the University of Notre Dame is gratefully acknowledged. Thanks to Jeff Gulati, Travis Johnston, Cherie Maestas, John McNulty, attendees at the 2016 Annual Meetings of the Southern and American Political Science Associations and the International Society for Political Psychology, and attendees at the 2016 and 2017 Annual Meetings of the Midwest Political Science Association. All remaining errors are our own.
- Aberbach, J. D., & Rockman, B. A. (2000). In the web of politics: Three decades of the U.S. Federal Executive. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
- Almlund, M., Duckworth, A. L., Heckman, J., & Kautz, T. (2011). Personality psychology and economics. In E. A. Hanushek, S. Machin, & L. Woessmann (Eds.), Handbook of the economics of education (pp. 1–181). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
- Borghans, L., Duckworth, A. L., Heckman, J. J., & Ter Weel, B. (2008). The economics and psychology of personality traits. Journal of Human Resources, 43(4), 972–1059.Google Scholar
- Fenno, R. F., Jr. (1978). Home style: House members in their districts. Boston: Little Brown.Google Scholar
- Hall, M. E. K. (2015). Judging with personality: The justices’ personality traits and decision making on the U.S. Supreme Court. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
- Hetherington, M. J. (2005). Why trust matters: Declining political trust and the demise of American liberalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- John, O. P. (1990). The “Big Five” factor taxonomy: Dimensions of personality in the natural language and in questionnaires. In A. Lawrence, L. Pervin, & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 66–100). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Klingler, J. D., Hollibaugh, G. E., Jr., & Ramey, A. J. (2016). Don’t know what you got: A Bayesian hierarchical model of neuroticism and nonresponse. Political Science Research and Methods. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2016.50.
- Moe, T. M. (1985). The politicized presidency. In J. E. Chubb & P. E. Peterson (Eds.), The new direction in American politics. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
- Nathan, R. P. (1983). The Administrative Presidency. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Page, B. I. (1994). Democratic responsiveness? Untangling the links between public opinion and policy. PS: Political Science & Politics, 27(1), 25–29.Google Scholar
- Pateman, C. (1976). Participation and democratic theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Poole, K. T., & Rosenthal, H. (1997). Congress: A political-economic history of roll call voting. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Ramey, A. J., Klingler, J. D., & Hollibaugh, G. E., Jr. (2016). Measuring elite personality using speech. Political Science Research and Methods. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2016.12.
- Roberts, B. W., Kuncel, N. R., Shiner, R., Caspi, A., & Goldberg, L. R. (2007). The power of personality: The comparative validity of personality traits, socioeconomic status, and cognitive ability for predicting important life outcomes. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2(4), 313–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Rubenzer, S. J., & Faschingbauer, T. R. (2004). Personality, character, and leadership in the White House: Psychologists assess the presidents. Sterling, VA: Potomac Books Inc.Google Scholar
- Saward, M. (1998). The terms of democracy. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
- Shor, B., & Rogowski, J. C. (2016). Ideology and the US congressional vote. Political Science Research and Methods. http://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2016.23.