Advertisement

It’s Who’s on the Inside that Counts: Campaign Practitioner Personality and Campaign Electoral Integrity

  • Hans J. G. HassellEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

Candidates for public office (and the individuals who run their campaigns) are not a randomly selected subset of the general population. Individuals with certain personality traits are more likely to become involved in political campaigns, are more likely to harbor political ambition, are more likely to be recruited to run for public office, and are more likely to actually run for office. But what influence do differences in individual traits have on the behavior of political campaigns? Using a unique survey of staff and candidates working on congressional, senatorial, and gubernatorial campaigns in the 2016 election cycle, this research shows that individual personality traits influence the decisions that campaigns make during the election. Personality traits affect the acceptance of campaign negativity and unethical campaign behaviors.

Keywords

Personality Political campaigns Campaign negativity Campaign tactics Ethical behavior 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Jonathan Klingler, Matthew Miles, Zoe Nemerever, Timothy Ryan, and three anonymous reviewers at Political Behavior (and Editor Dave Peterson) for their written comments and suggestions that vastly improved the quality of this work. I am fortunate to have good colleagues, specifically in this instance Quintin Beazer, Rob Carroll, and Matt Pietryka who provided key insights and suggestions as I worked on this project. I am also thankful to Ashley Brodell, Sandra Gomez, Nick Marn, and Zach Stoll for their help along the way in conducting the survey of campaigns. Lastly, this paper benefited from a great panel at the 2018 APSA conference. And yet despite all this incredible assistance from such good people, I’m sure there are still shortcomings and flaws to this work. Those shortcomings and errors are all mine. The data for this project is available at https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.7910/DVN/USP7LQ.

Supplementary material

11109_2019_9535_MOESM1_ESM.docx (18 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 17 kb)

References

  1. Azari, J. R., & Smith, J. K. (2012). Unwritten rules: Informal institutions in established democracies. Perspectives on Politics, 10(1), 37–55.Google Scholar
  2. Banda, K. K., & Windett, J. H. (2016). Negative advertising and the dynamics of candidate support. Political Behavior, 38(3), 747–766.Google Scholar
  3. Barber, J. D. (1965). The lawmakers: Recuritment and adoption to legislative life. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bergeman, C. S., Chlpuer, H. M., Plomin, R., Pedersen, N. L., McClearn, G. E., Nesselroade, J. R., et al. (1993). Genetic and environmental effects on openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness: An Adoption/Twin Study. Journal of Personality, 61(2), 159–179.Google Scholar
  5. Campbell, D. E., & Wolbrecht, C. (2006). See Jane Run: Women politicians as role models for adolescents. Journal of Politics, 68(2), 233–247.Google Scholar
  6. Canon, D. T. (1990). Actors, athletes, and astronauts: political amateurs in the United States Congress. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  7. Caprara, G., Francescato, D., Mebane, M., Sorace, R., & Vecchione, M. (2010). Personality foundations of ideological divide: a comparison of women members of parliament and women voters in Italy. Political Psychology, 31(5), 739–762.Google Scholar
  8. Carsey, T. M., Jackson, R. A., Stewart, M., & Nelson, J. P. (2011). Strategic candidates, campaign dynamics, and campaign advertising in gubernatorial races. State Politics and Policy Quarterly, 11(3), 269–298.Google Scholar
  9. Clifford, S., Kirkland, J. H., & Simas, E. N. (2018). How dispositional empathy influences nascent political ambition. Journal of Politics.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-018-9452-x.Google Scholar
  10. Cobb-Clark, D. A., & Schurer, S. (2012). The stability of big-five personality traits. Economics Letters, 115(1), 11–15.Google Scholar
  11. Collet, C., & Hansen, J. (1996). Minor parties and candidates in sub-presidential elections. In J. C. Green & D. M. Shea (Eds.), The state of the parties: The changing role of contemporary American Parties (pp. 239–255). New York: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  12. Cuhadar, E., Kaarbo, J., Kesgin, B., & Ozkececi-Taner, B. (2016). Personality or role? Comparisons of Turkish leaders across different institutional positions. Political Psychology, 38(1), 39–54.Google Scholar
  13. Dahl, R. A. (1956). A preface to democratic theory. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  14. DeYoung, C. G., Quilty, L. C., & Peterson, J. B. (2007). Between facets and domains: 10 aspects of the big five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 880.Google Scholar
  15. Dietrich, B. J., Lasley, S., Mondak, J. J., Remmel, M. L., & Turner, J. (2012). Personality and legislative politics: The big five trait dimensions among U.S. State Legislators. Political Psychology, 33(2), 195–210.Google Scholar
  16. Dionne, E. J., Ornstein, N. J., & Mann, T. E. (2017). One nation after Trump: A guide for the perplexed, the disillusioned, the desperate, and the not-yet deported. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  17. Druckman, J. N., Kifer, M. J., & Parkin, M. (2009). Campaign communications in U.S. congressional elections. American Political Science Review, 103(3), 343–366.Google Scholar
  18. Dynes, A. M., Hassell H. J. G., & Miles M. R. (2019). The personality of the politically ambitious. Political Behavior Google Scholar
  19. Dynes, A. M., Hassell H. J. G., Preece J. R., & Miles M. R. (2017). Evidence of gendered selection effects: Personality differences, political ambition, and Public Office. Conference on Elite Personality and Political Institutions.Google Scholar
  20. Enos, R. D., & Hersh, E. D. (2015). Party activists as campaign advertisers: The ground campaign as a principal-agent problem. American Political Science Review, 109(2), 252–278.Google Scholar
  21. Fenno, R. F. (1996). Senators on the campaign trail: The politics of representation. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
  22. Fishel, J. (1971). Ambition and the political vocation: Congressional challengers in American politics. Journal of Politics, 33(1), 25–56.Google Scholar
  23. Fox, R. L., & Lawless, J. L. (2005). To run or not to run for office: Explaining nascent political ambition. American Journal of Political Science, 49(3), 642–659.Google Scholar
  24. Franz, M. M., Freedman, P., Goldstein, K., & Ridout, T. N. (2008). Understanding the effect of political advertising on voter turnout: A response to Krasno and Green. Journal of Politics, 70(1), 262–268.Google Scholar
  25. Freedman, P., & Goldstein, K. M. (1999). Measuring media exposure and the effects of negative campaign ads. American Journal of Political Science, 43(4), 1189–1208.Google Scholar
  26. Fridkin, K. L., & Kenney, P. J. (2011). Variability in citizens’ reactions to different types of negative campaigns. American Journal of Political Science, 55(2), 307–325.Google Scholar
  27. Garcia Bedolla, L., & Michelson, M. R. (2012). Mobilizing inclusion: Transforming the electorate through get-out-the-vote campaigns. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Geer, J. G. (2006). In Defense of negativity: Attack ads in presidential campaigns. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  29. Gerber, A. S., Huber, G. A., Doherty, D., & Dowling, C. M. (2011a). The big five personality traits in the political arena. Annual Review of Political Science, 14, 265–287.Google Scholar
  30. Gerber, A. S., Huber, G. A., Doherty, D., Dowling, C. M., & Panagopoulos, C. (2013). Big five personality traits and responses to persuasive appeals: Results from voter turnout experiments. Political Behavior, 35(4), 687–728.Google Scholar
  31. Gerber, A. S., Huber, G. A., Doherty, D., Dowling, C. M., Raso, C., & Shang, E. Ha. (2011b). Personality traits and participation in political processes. Journal of Politics, 73(3), 692–706.Google Scholar
  32. Gerber, A. S., & Rogers, T. (2009). Descriptive social norms and motivation to vote: Everybody’s voting and so should you. Journal of Politics, 71(01), 178.Google Scholar
  33. Gershen, J. A., & McCreary, C. P. (1983). Personality comparisons of responders and nonresponders to a mailed personality inventory. Psychological Reports, 52(2), 555–562.Google Scholar
  34. Goldstein, K., & Freedman, P. (2002). Campaign advertising and voter turnout: New evidence for a stimulation effect. Journal of Politics, 64(3), 721–740.Google Scholar
  35. Graham, E. K., Gerstorf, D., Yoneda, T. B., Piccinin, A. M., Booth, T., Beam, C. R., et al. (2017). A coordinated analysis of big-five trait change across 14 longitudinal studies. PsyArXiv.  https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/ryjpc.Google Scholar
  36. Grossmann, M. (2012). What (or who) makes campaigns negative? American Review of Politics, 33, 1–22.Google Scholar
  37. Gulati, G. J., & Williams, C. B. (2007). Closing the gap, raising the bar: Candidate web site communication in the 2006 Campaigns for Congress. Social Science Computer Review, 25(4), 443–465.Google Scholar
  38. Hartman, R. R. (2012). 78 Percent of Americans frustrated by negative campaigns, poll finds. Yahoo! News, July 24.Google Scholar
  39. Hassell, H. J. G., & Oeltjenbruns, K. R. (2016). When to attack: The trajectory of congressional campaign negativity. American Politics Research, 44(2), 222–246.Google Scholar
  40. Herrnson, P. S. (2012). Congressional Elections: Campaigning at home and in Washington (6th ed.). Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.Google Scholar
  41. Jackson, R. A., & Carsey, T. M. (2007). US senate campaigns, negative advertising, and voter mobilization in the 1998 midterm election. Electoral Studies, 26(1), 180–195.Google Scholar
  42. Johnson, J. S., & Mowrer, R. R. (2000). Mail surveys among college students: Do initial responders score differently from nonresponders on the 16PF? Psychological Reports, 86(3), 901–908.Google Scholar
  43. Kahn, K. F., & Kenney, P. J. (1999). Do negative campaigns mobilize or suppress turnout? Clarifying the relationship between negativity and participation. American Political Science Review, 93(4), 877–889.Google Scholar
  44. Kalshoven, K., Den Hartog, D. N., & De Hoogh, A. H. B. (2011). Ethical leader behavior and big five factors of personality. Journal of Business Ethics, 100(2), 349–366.Google Scholar
  45. Klingler, J. D., Hollibaugh, G. E., & Ramey, A. J. (2018). What I Like About You: Legislator Personality and Legislator Approval. Political Behavior.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-018-9460-x.Google Scholar
  46. Krupnikov, Y. (2011). When does negativity demobilize? Tracing the conditional effect of negative campaigning on voter turnout. American Journal of Political Science, 55(4), 796–812.Google Scholar
  47. Lasswell, H. D. (1948). Power and personality. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  48. Lau, R. R. (1985). Two explanations for negativity effects in political behavior. American Journal of Political Science, 29(1), 119–138.Google Scholar
  49. Lau, R. R., & Pomper, G. M. (2001). Negative campaigning by US senate candidates. Party Politics, 7(1), 69–87.Google Scholar
  50. Lau, R. R., & Pomper, G. M. (2004). Negative campaigning: An analysis of U.S. senate elections. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  51. Lau, R. R., Sigelman, L., & Rovner, I. B. (2007). The effects of negative political campaigns: A meta-analytic reassessment. Journal of Politics, 69(4), 1176–1209.Google Scholar
  52. Levitsky, S., & Ziblatt, D. (2018). How democracies die. New York: Crown.Google Scholar
  53. Manin, B. (1997). The principles of representative government. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Marcus, B., & Schütz, A. (2005). Who are the people reluctant to participate in research? Personality correlates of four different types of nonresponse as inferred from self- and observer ratings. Journal of Personality, 73(4), 959–984.Google Scholar
  55. McConaughy, J. B. (1950). Certain personality factors of state legislators in South Carolina. American Political Science Review, 44(4), 897–903.Google Scholar
  56. McCrae, R. R. (2002). NEO-PI-R Data from 36 Cultures: Further Intercultural Comparisons. In R. R. McCrae & J. Allik (Eds.), The five-factor model of personality across cultures (pp. 105–125). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.Google Scholar
  57. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (2008). The five factor model of personality. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  58. Min, Y. (2004). News coverage of negative political campaigns: An experiment of negative campaign effects on turnout and candidate preference. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 9(4), 95–111.Google Scholar
  59. Mondak, J. J. (2010). Personality and the foundations of political behavior. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Mondak, J. J., Hibbing, 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.Google Scholar
  61. Mutz, D. C., & Reeves, B. (2005). The new videomalaise: Effects of televised incivility on political trust. American Political Science Review, 99(1), 1–15.Google Scholar
  62. Nai, A. (2018). Disagreeable narcissists, extroverted psychopaths, and elections: A new dataset to measure the personality of candidates worldwide. European Political Science.  https://doi.org/10.1057/s41304-018-0187-2.Google Scholar
  63. Nicholson, N., Soane, E., Fenton-O’Creevy, M., & Willman, P. (2005). Personality and domain-specific risk taking. Journal of Risk Research, 8(2), 157–176.Google Scholar
  64. Niven, D. (2006). A field experiment on the effects of negative campaign mail on voter turnout in a municipal election. Political Research Quarterly, 59(2), 203–210.Google Scholar
  65. Nyhan, B. (2017). Norms matter. Politico Magazine.Google Scholar
  66. Ozer, D. J., & Benet-Martinez, V. (2006). Personality and the prediction of consequential outcomes. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 401–421.Google Scholar
  67. Ramey, A., Klingler, J., & Hollibaugh, G. E. (2017). More than a feeling: Personality, polarization, and the transformation of the US Congress. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  68. 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.Google Scholar
  69. Remmel, M. L. (2016). The reliability of self-reported personality responses in political elites: Using second-hand reports to investigate the utility of state legislators’ self-reported personality inventories. In: Meetings of the American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
  70. Ridout, T. N., & Fowler, E. F. (2010). Explaining perceptions of advertising tone. Political Research Quarterly, 65(1), 62–75.Google Scholar
  71. Rupar, A. (2012). MNGOP staffer claims to be democrat in letter to editor, urges DFLers to vote for write-in candidate. City Pages, October 26.Google Scholar
  72. Schaefer, P. S., Williams, C. C., Goodie, A. S., & Keith Campbell, W. (2004). Overconfidence and the big five. Journal of Research in Personality, 38(5), 473–480.Google Scholar
  73. Sheffer, L., Loewen, P., Soroka, S., Walgrave, S., & Sheafer, T. (2018). Nonrepresentative representatives: An experimental study of the decision making traits of elected politicians. American Political Science Review, 112(2), 302–321.Google Scholar
  74. Sigelman, L., & Kugler, M. (2003). Why is research on the effects of negative campaigning so inconclusive? Understanding citizens’ perceptions of negativity. Journal of Politics, 65(1), 142–160.Google Scholar
  75. Specht, J., Egloff, B., & Schmukle, S. C. (2011). Stability and change of personality across the life course: The impact of age and major life events on mean-level and rank-order stability of the big five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(4), 862–882.Google Scholar
  76. Stevens, D. (2009). Elements of negativity: Volume and proportion in exposure to negative advertising. Political Behavior, 31(3), 429–454.Google Scholar
  77. Theilmann, J., & Wilhite, A. (1998). Campaign tactics and the decision to attack. Journal of Politics, 60(4), 1050–1062.Google Scholar
  78. Thompson, E. R. (2008). Development and validation of an international english big-five mini-markers. Personality and Individual Differences, 45(6), 542–548.Google Scholar
  79. Uriell, Z.A., Whittam K. P., Newell C. E., & Hargrove, M. J. (2007). Non-response assessment of a web-based navy quick poll. Navy Personnel Research, Studies, and Technology Division (August).Google Scholar
  80. Van Gestel, S., & Van Broeckhoven, C. (2003). Genetics of personality: Are we making progress? Molecular Psychiatry, 8(10), 840–852.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Florida State UniversityTallahasseeUSA

Personalised recommendations