ArticlePDF Available

Personality and political orientation: Meta-analysis and test of a Threat-Constraint Model

December 2012
Journal of Research in Personality 46(6):664–677

DOI:10.1016/j.jrp.2012.08.002

Authors:

Chris G. Sibley

University of Auckland

Danny Osborne

University of Auckland

John Duckitt

University of Auckland

We synthesized and meta-analyzed 73 studies (N = 71,895) examining the associations between Big-Five personality and single-item self-placement measures of political orientation. Openness to Experience (r = −.18) and Conscientiousness (r = .10) were significantly but weakly correlated with political conservatism. The weak Openness-political orientation link was moderated by systemic threat and uncertainty (indexed by nation-wide homicide and unemployment). We propose a Threat-Constraint Model explaining this previously undetected Person × Situation interaction. The model shows that there was a moderately-sized negative correlation between Openness and political conservatism when systemic threat was low (r = −.422) but that this association was negligible at only moderate levels of threat (r = −.066). These findings highlight the economic and societal constraints of personality-political ideology associations.

Figures - uploaded by John Duckitt

Content may be subject to copyright.

Content uploaded by John Duckitt

Content may be subject to copyright.

Personality and political orientation: Meta-analysis and test

of a Threat-Constraint Model

Chris G. Sibley

⇑

, Danny Osborne, John Duckitt

University of Auckland, New Zealand

article info

Article history:

Available online 13 August 2012

Keywords:

Meta-analysis

Political orientation

Systemic threat

Unemployment

Cross-cultural

abstract

We synthesized and meta-analyzed 73 studies (N= 71,895) examining the associations between Big-Five

personality and single-item self-placement measures of political orientation. Openness to Experience

(r=.18) and Conscientiousness (r= .10) were signiﬁcantly but weakly correlated with political conser-

vatism. The weak Openness-political orientation link was moderated by systemic threat and uncertainty

(indexed by nation-wide homicide and unemployment). We propose a Threat-Constraint Model explain-

ing this previously undetected Person Situation interaction. The model shows that there was a moder-

ately-sized negative correlation between Openness and political conservatism when systemic threat was

low (r=.422) but that this association was negligible at only moderate levels of threat (r=.066). These

ﬁndings highlight the economic and societal constraints of personality-political ideology associations.

‘‘[T]he various qualities of men are clearly the reason why there

are various kinds of states and many forms of government;

for different men... make for themselves different... forms of

government.’’ – Aristotle (350 B.C./1988, p. 167, emphasis

added)

1. Introduction

The idea that personality is associated with political worldviews

has a long tradition in Western thought. Indeed, Aristotle (350 B.C./

1988) argued that individual differences drive people to establish

different governments. Though the extent to which scholars

endorse this view has varied over the centuries, it was not until

the mid-to-late-1930s that the personality correlates of political

ideology became fertile ground for empirical study (Adorno,

Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, & Sanford, 1950/1964; Fromm,

1941; Maslow, 1943; Reich, 1933/1970).

The ﬁrst decade of the 21st century witnessed an explosion

of interest in the relationship between personality and political

orientation. This renewed attention was stimulated—at least in

part—by Jost, Glaser, Kruglanski, and Sulloway’s (2003) meta-

analysis on the personality correlates of political conservatism.

Jost et al. (2003) argued that political conservatism consists of

the following two related—though conceptually-distinct—factors:

(a) opposition to change and (b) acceptance of inequality. In

their own words, Jost et al. (2003, p. 369) deﬁned political conser-

vatism as:

‘‘an ideological belief system that is signiﬁcantly (but not com-

pletely) related to motivational concerns having to do with the

psychological management of uncertainty and fear. Speciﬁcally,

the avoidance of uncertainty (and the striving for certainty)

may be particularly tied to one core dimension of conservative

thought, resistance to change (Wilson, 1973). Similarly,

concerns with fear and threat may be linked to the second core

dimension of conservatism, endorsement of inequality

(Sidanius & Pratto, 1999).’’

Jost and colleagues (2003) thus argued that political conserva-

tism reﬂects a belief system that reduces uncertainty, opposes

change, and legitimizes the status quo. They further posited that

political ideology is a form of motivated social cognition, and that

people express the liberal versus conservative attitudes which

meet their epistemic, existential, and ideological needs. Individual

differences in these needs (i.e., personality differences) should

therefore affect the extent to which conservative beliefs resonate

with people.

Consistent with this position, Jost et al. (2003) provided evi-

dence showing that political conservatism was associated with a

host of social-cognitive motives. Averaging across 88 samples,

multiple personality-based epistemic motives including Dogma-

tism, Need for Cognitive Closure, and Openness to Experience were

consistently associated with political orientation. Similarly, exis-

tentially-based needs such as threat sensitivity, fear of death, and

the presence of a social crisis were positively correlated with

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2012.08.002

⇑

Corresponding author. Address: Department of Psychology, University of

Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, New Zealand.

E-mail address: c.sibley@auckland.ac.nz (C.G. Sibley).

Journal of Research in Personality 46 (2012) 664–677

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Research in Personality

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jrp

political conservatism. Finally, various ideological motives (e.g., So-

cial Dominance Orientation and Right-Wing Authoritarianism)

were also associated with political orientation.

2. Big-Five personality

Jost et al. (2003) provide a much needed framework for

understanding the relationship between personality and political

orientation. It is important to keep in mind, however, that their

meta-analysis examined personality measures of varying band-

widths. That is, some of their measures assessed particularly

narrow facets of personality (e.g., Dogmatism), whereas others

captured relatively broad dimensions that subsume these nar-

rower traits (e.g., Openness to Experience). This leaves one

wondering whether the core dimensions of personality are reliably

associated with political orientation, and just how substantive

such effects might be.

Research on the Big-Five provides an important starting point

for addressing this question. Big-Five theorists (e.g., Costa &

McCrae, 1988; DeYoung, Quilty, & Peterson, 2007; Digman, 1990;

Goldberg, 1990; McCrae & Costa, 1997; McCrae & John, 1992)

argue that traits are organized into the following ﬁve core dimen-

sions (each of which contain two speciﬁc facets): Extraversion

(enthusiasm and assertiveness), Agreeableness (politeness and

compassion), Conscientiousness (industriousness and orderliness),

Neuroticism (volatility and withdrawal) and Openness to Experi-

ence (intellect and openness).

Studies consistently support the ﬁve factor model of personal-

ity. The Big-Five emerges across a variety of methodologies includ-

ing (a) psycho-lexical analyses of trait descriptors (Digman, 1990;

Goldberg, 1990), (b) self-report surveys (McCrae & Costa, 1997),

and (c) peer-ratings (McCrae & Costa, 1987). Likewise, the Big-Five

is robust to different factor extraction methods (Goldberg, 1990)

and shows remarkable within-person stability over time (Costa &

McCrae, 1991; Soldz & Vaillant, 1999). Moreover, ﬁve personality

factors appear across many cultures, suggesting that the Big-Five

is (relatively) universal (McCrae & Costa, 1997; McCrae et al.,

2000). Research even shows that each Big-Five factor is partly

heritable (Jang, Livesley, Angleitner, Reimann, & Vernon, 2002;

Jang, Livesley, & Vemon, 1996).

Two of the Big-Five factors have been repeatedly linked with

values associated with political attitudes. First, people’s interest

in—and appreciation of—novelty (i.e., Openness to Experience)

seems to relate to their support for cultural diversity. Likewise, a

strong preference for organization (i.e., Conscientiousness) seems

to cross-over into people’s attitudes toward maintaining the status

quo. Consistent with this view, Roccas, Sagiv, Schwartz, and Knafo

(2002) examined the correlations between each of the Big-Five

personality dimensions and 10 core values identiﬁed by Schwartz

(1992). Of particular interest for our purposes, the authors found

that Conscientiousness was positively correlated with valuing con-

formity and security. In contrast, Openness to Experience was neg-

atively correlated with valuing traditionalism, but positively

correlated with universalism. Notably, these values correspond to

the two central components of conservatism (opposition to change

and acceptance of inequality) identiﬁed by Jost et al. (2003). In-

deed, Roccas and colleagues noted that Openness to Experience

‘‘...is antithetical to values that emphasize maintaining the status

quo’’ (p. 796).

Other work demonstrates that only two dimensions of the Big-

Five—namely, Conscientiousness and Openness to Experience—are

consistently correlated with political orientation. In six separate

samples, Carney, Jost, Gosling, and Potter (2008a, 2008b) showed

that both (a) low Openness to Experience and (b) high Conscien-

tiousness were associated with participants’ self-reported political

conservatism. Even more striking, behavioral indices of Openness

to Experience and Conscientiousness—as measured by third-party

ratings of participants’ (a) interpersonal behavior (Study 2) and

(b) living spaces (Study 3)—predicted participants’ level of conser-

vatism. Studies outside of North America also show that Openness

to Experience is negatively correlated (Van Hiel, Kossowska, &

Mervielde, 2000; van Hiel & Mervielde, 2004), whereas Conscien-

tiousness is positively correlated (Hirsh, DeYoung, Xu, & Peterson,

2010), with political conservatism.

Conscientiousness and Openness to Experience have been shown

to correlate with political orientation at the macro level of analysis.

Across three separate presidential elections, Rentfrow, Jost, Gosling,

and Potter (2009) demonstrated that State-wide averages of Consci-

entiousness were negatively correlated with the percentage of votes

captured by Democratic presidential candidates. State-wide levels

of Openness to Experience, in contrast, were positively correlated

with the percentage of votes gained by Democratic presidential

candidates over the same period. Conscientiousness and Openness

to Experience are robust predictors of political worldviews.

3. Malleability of the personality–conservatism link: a Threat-

Constraint Model (TCM)

Though it is clear that some broad bandwidth measures of

personality consistently predict political orientation, there is reason

to believe that this relationship will be moderated by the situation.

Nail and McGregor (2009) showed that both conservatives and liber-

als became more conservative in the wake of the September 11th

terrorist attacks on the United States (also see Bonanno & Jost,

2006). Other research shows similar conservative shifts following

increases in economic threat (Sales, 1973;Thórisdóttir & Jost,

2011), and social threat (McCann, 1997). These ﬁndings corroborate

Jost et al.’s (2003) thesis that political conservatism is a motived

form of social cognition that helps people cope with uncertainty.

The malleability of political conservatism has important impli-

cations for our understanding of the relationship between person-

ality and political orientation. Personality variables—particularly

those of the broad bandwidth nature—are chieﬂy conceptualized

as trans-situational predictors of behavior (Ozer & Benet-Martinez,

2006). Because situational threats affect the extent to which people

endorse politically conservative worldviews, these threats will

likely attenuate—or constrain—the relationship between personal-

ity and political orientation. We refer to this hypothesis as the

Threat-Constraint Model (TCM) of political conservatism.

We posit that the relationship between Openness to Experience

and political orientation will be attenuated by situational threat.

Duckitt and Sibley (2009, 2010) argued that a low level of Open-

ness to Experience causes people to view the social world as dan-

gerous and threatening. Thus, because threats in the environment

directly challenge the safe world view of those high in Openness,

situational threats should attenuate the relationship between

Openness to Experience and political conservatism. That is, situa-

tional threats directly challenge the beliefs of those who are high

on Openness to Experience, whereas they merely conﬁrm the

worldviews of people who are low on Openness to Experience. This

should result in larger conservative shifts among liberals (relative

to conservatives) under threatening situations, thereby attenuating

the relationship between Openness to Experience and political

conservatism.

4. Overview of the current study

A considerable amount of research has examined the relation-

ship between personality and political orientation since the publi-

cation of Jost et al.’s (2003) inﬂuential meta-analysis. An initial goal

C.G. Sibley et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 46 (2012) 664–677 665

of this study is to provide an updated summary of this literature.

As we already noted, however, Jost and colleagues (2003) work

examined facets of personality that varied considerably in their

bandwidth (e.g., cognitive ﬂexibility, intolerance of ambiguity,

etc.). Most of these personality facets are subsumed under the

higher-order (i.e., broad bandwidth) personality constructs cap-

tured by the Big-Five. The growing number of studies examining

the relationships between each of the Big-Five factors and political

orientation impels such a review.

Another goal of this study is to evaluate the viability of our TCM.

Because people who are low in Openness to Experience tend to

perceive the world as relatively dangerous and threatening (see

Duckitt & Sibley, 2009, 2010), events that conﬁrm this worldview

may do little to change their beliefs. People who are high in Open-

ness to Experience, in contrast, believe the world is relatively safe.

Events that challenge this worldview should therefore have a

marked impact on their worldviews. Speciﬁcally, systemic threat

should constrain the extent to which those who are high in Open-

ness to Experience feel free to explore their social world and

support political parties and systems aligned with their default

or unconstrained behavioral tendencies (a preference for novelty

and willingness to consider change). This should attenuate the

relationship between Openness to Experience and political orienta-

tion under conditions of prolonged exposure to systemic threat.

5. Method

5.1. Literature search

We used multiple search engines (i.e., PsycINFO, PsychLit, Pro-

Quest, SCOPUS, and Google Scholar) to conduct an exhaustive liter-

ature search for studies that included measures of the Big-Five and

political orientation. Our search included combinations of the fol-

lowing terms: personality, Big-Five, extraversion, agreeableness, con-

scientious, neuroticism, openness, ﬁve factor model, politics, political,

ideology, liberal, conservative, vote, and voting. To address the ‘‘ﬁle

drawer’’ problem (see Rosenthal, 1979), we also posted a request

for unpublished data on the Society for Personality and Social

Psychology (SPSP) listserv. Scholars who were working on related

research were also contacted and asked for relevant unpublished

data. To be included in our analysis, a study had to (a) assess one

or more of the Big-Five personality dimensions and (b) include a

single-item measure of political orientation as liberal versus con-

servative on a continuous self-placement scale. Data collection

for our meta-analysis was ﬁnalized in October 2009.

5.2. Study characteristics

A total of 73 studies (N= 71,895) were identiﬁed that met our

inclusion criteria. Study characteristics and effect sizes are reported

in Table 1. Of these studies, 36 (49%) were published, in press, or

accepted for publication. All other studies (including those that were

under review) were coded as unpublished (k= 37). Only 6 (8%) of

the 73 studies were included in Sibley and Duckitt’s (2008) meta-

analysis of the relationship between personality and prejudice,

whereas none were included in Jost et al.’s (2003) study. Twenty-

four studies (33%) included adult or community samples, 4 (6%) were

internet samples, 2 (2%) included a mix of adults and undergradu-

ates, and 4 (6%) included a mix of undergraduates and adolescents.

The remaining 39 studies (53%) included only undergraduates.

Studies were conducted in 10 different nations (details are pre-

sented in Table 2). Thirty-nine studies (53%) were conducted in

North America (i.e., the US or Canada), 19 (26%) in nations belong-

ing to the European Union (i.e., Belgium, Germany, Italy, Poland,

Sweden), and 11 (15%) in New Zealand. Of the remaining four

studies, one was conducted in Turkey and the other in Israel.

Two studies were internet-based and, to the best of our knowledge,

included participants from multiple nations.

As for personality measurement, 24 studies (33%) used the Big-

Five Inventory (BFI; John & Srivastava, 1999), 13 (18%) used the

NEO-FFI, 9 (12%) used the Ten-Item Personality Inventory (TIPI;

Gosling, Rentfrow, & Swann, 2003), two used the NEO-PI-R (Costa

& McCrae, 1992), two used the Big-Five Mini-Markers (Saucier,

1994), and one used the revised Big-Five Questionnaire (BFQ-2;

Caprara, Barbaranelli, Borgogni, & Vecchione, 2007). An additional

seven studies (10%) used a general personality measure from the

International Personality Item Pool (IPIP; Goldberg, 1999) and

two others used the IPIP’s derivative, the Big-Five Aspects Scale

(BFAS; DeYoung et al., 2007).

Trait adjective ratings were also used

in six studies (8%), whereas the HEXACO-PI-R (Ashton & Lee, 2009)

was used in two studies (3%).

Five studies (7%) used other short-

ened, adapted, or unspeciﬁed measures of the Big-Five.

5.3. Measures of systemic threat

National-level indicators of systemic threat were identiﬁed by

referencing the United Nations’ Human Development Report

(2007/2008). We matched each nation in which a study was con-

ducted with its corresponding average annual (a) number of inten-

tional homicides (per 100,000 people) from 2000 to 2004 and (b)

unemployment rate (% of labor force) from 1996 to 2006. We view

these as indicators of systemic danger and instability, respectively.

Together, they capture nation-wide levels of systemic threat.

To control for baseline differences in nation-wide development,

the United Nations’ Human Development Report (2007/2008) was

used to identify each nation’s Human Development Index (HDI)

rating from 2005. The HDI is a measure of the average level of

well-being within a nation and is standardized to facilitate cross-

nation comparisons. The formula used to calculate the HDI is based

on a weighted average of (a) the average life expectancy of a

nation’s citizens, (b) adult literacy rate, and (c) log gross domestic

product (GDP). Scores range from 0 (low) to 1 (high). High scores

on the HDI indicate higher average levels of well-being within a

nation (see Table 2).

6. Results

6.1. Data analytic approach

We followed the meta-analytic procedures outlined by Hedges

and Olkin (1985). Bivariate correlations between measures of

personality and political orientation were transformed to z-score

effect sizes, weighted by their inverse variance, and then averaged

before being converted back to r-equivalent effect sizes. We

adopted a random-effects model to estimate weighted average

effect sizes and then used a mixed-effects model to examine mod-

erating (i.e., cross-study) factors (see below). Bivariate correlations

between each of the Big-Five personality dimensions and political

orientation are presented in Table 2.

6.2. Meta-analytic averages

Table 3 presents the average weighted r-values across studies

assuming a random-effects model. This table also displays the low-

er and upper 95% conﬁdence intervals, z-values testing the signif-

icance of the average weighted r(also assuming a random-effects

We report results from the BFAS averaged across aspect scales to give overall

indices of each Big-Five dimension.

We only report results for the ﬁve dimensions of the HEXACO that correspond to

the Big-Five (i.e., we exclude Honesty-Humility).

666 C.G. Sibley et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 46 (2012) 664–677

Table 1

Sample details and correlation coefﬁcients for all studies included the meta-analysis of the relationship between each of the Big-Five personality dimensions and political

orientation.

Reference Sample

details

Personality

measure

Nation Publication

status

Sample

size

Correlation with conservative political orientation

EACNO

Akrami and Ekehammar (in preparation) Mixed BFI Sweden UnPub. 185 .133 .026 .162 .066 .070

Alford and Hibbing (2007) Undergrad Non-Standard US Pub. 299 .097 .153 .012 .021 .136

Caprara, Vecchione, and Schwartz (2009) Undergrad/

School

BFQ Italy Pub. 192 .070 .010 .020

Carney et al. (2008a, Sample 1) Undergrad NEO-PI-R US Pub. 85 .130 .030 .210 .190 .420

Carney et al. (2008a, Sample 2) Undergrad BFI US Pub. 79 .100 .040 .160 .060 .050

Carney et al. (2008a, Sample 3) Undergrad BFI US Pub. 155 .050 .130 .030 .020 .330

Carney et al. (2008a, Sample 4) Undergrad BFI US Pub. 1826 .020 .090 .080 .080 .200

Carney et al. (2008a, Sample 5) Undergrad BFI US Pub. 17,103 .010 .050 .100 .030 .260

Carney et al. (2008a, Sample 6) Undergrad TIPI US Pub. 536 .057 .017 .112 .040 .107

Carney et al. (2008b) Undergrad BFI US UnPub. 83 .040 .010 .270 .100 .280

Choma, Busseri, and Sadava (2009) Undergrad Mini-markers Canada UnPub. 462 .076 .023 .059 .096 .187

Cohrs (2003) Undergrad BFI Germany UnPub. 78 .013 .082 .030 .146 .003

Cohrs (2005) Undergrad BFI Germany UnPub. 93 .208 .011 .157 .177 .332

Cohrs, Kielmann, Maes,

and Moschner (2005, Study 1)

Internet NEO-FFI Germany Pub. 602 .021 .170 .075 .083 .302

Cohrs et al. (2005, Study 2) Internet BFI Germany Pub. 508 .025 .043 .123 .078 .132

Crowson (2007) Community Mini-markers US UnPub. 212 .075 .110 .089 .006 .219

Dirilen-Gumus (2009, Study 1) Undergrad BFI US UnPub. 277 .080 .010 .040 .190 .150

Dirilen-Gumus (2009, Study 2) Undergrad BFI Turkey UnPub. 277 .050 .060 .050 .020 .120

Duncan (2002) Undergrad Non-Standard US UnPub. 86 .080 .039 .252 .129 .090

Duncan & Stewart, 2007 Community BFI US Pub. 101 .161 .012 .098 .136 .218

Duriez and Soenens (2006a, Study 1) Undergrads NEO-FFI Belgium Pub. 294 .001 .093 .024 .079 .190

Duriez and Soenens (2006a, Study 2) Undergrad/

School

NEO-FFI Belgium Pub. 323 .063 .201 .081 .017 .304

Duriez and Soenens (2006b)

Community NEO-FFI Belgium UnPub. 320 .091 .138 .042 .032 .362

Federico and Tagar (2009) Community IPIP Israel UnPub. 181 .085 .061

Federico, Ergun, and Hunt (2009) Undergrad/

School

IPIP US UnPub. 288 .109 .113 .102 .463

Hirsh et al. (2010) Community BFAS Canada Pub. 146 .015 .029 .142 .016 .145

Hodson, Ashton, and Lee (2009c) Undergrad HEXACO-PI-R Canada UnPub. 158 .045 .113 .062 .016 .241

Hodson, Choma, and Costello (2009b) Undergrad BFI Canada UnPub. 193 .205 .004 .123 .051 .191

Hodson, Hogg, and MacInnis (2009a) Undergrad BFI Canada Pub. 194 .133 .124 .148 .071 .160

Iyer, Koleva, Graham, Ditto,

and Haidt (2009)

Internet BFI Internet UnPub. 24,130 .047 .006 .024 .076 .183

Johnson (2008) Undergrad BFI US UnPub. 209 .092 .057 .064 .028 .159

Jost et al. (2007, Study 1) Undergrad NEO-PI-R US Pub. 182 .171 .010 .181 .143 .393

Jost et al. (2007, Study 3) Undergrad Non-Standard US Pub. 194 .125

Jost et al. (2009) Undergrad TIPI US Pub. 734 .019 .021 .182 .086 .205

Mehrabian (1996, Study 1) Community Non-Standard US Pub. 95 .260

Mehrabian (1996, Study 4) Community Non-Standard US Pub. 167 .150 .130 .070 .010 .160

Mondak (2010) Community Non-Standard US Pub. 1,094 .020 .070 .090 .070 .170

Mondak and Halperin (2008, Sample 1) Community Non-Standard US Pub. 380 .030 .020 .160 .070 .020

Mondak and Halperin (2008, Sample 2) Community Non-Standard US Pub. 782 .040 .030 .090 .110 .050

Mondak and Halperin (2008, Sample 3) Community Non-Standard US Pub. 1,208 .020 .010 .090 .100 .100

Nierman, Crandall, and Gillath (2009a) Undergrad TIPI US UnPub. 178 .110 .010 .120 .180 .040

Nierman, Crandall, and Gillath (2009b) Undergrad TIPI US UnPub. 390 .080 .030 .170 .120 .150

Nosek and Hansen (2008) Internet BFI Internet Pub. 8,662 .022 .023 .100 .081 .214

Onraet, Van Hiel, Roets, and Cornelis

(submitted for publication)

Community NEO-FFI Belgium UnPub. 212 .009 .170 .213 .070 .332

Sibley (2003) Undergrad IPIP NZ UnPub. 55 .010 .280 .210 .336 .329

Sibley (2004) Undergrad IPIP NZ UnPub. 80 .160 .159 .293 .127 .247

Sibley (2005) Undergrad IPIP NZ UnPub. 160 .150 .030 .126 .055 .342

Sibley (2009a) Undergrad TIPI NZ UnPub. 331 .065 .029 .082 .043 .170

Sibley (2009b) Undergrad TIPI NZ UnPub. 158 .169 .149 .143 .061 .142

Sibley and Duckitt (2009) Undergrad IPIP NZ UnPub. 68 .181 .104 .122 .031 .218

Sibley and Duckitt (in press) Community BFAS NZ Pub. 792 .074 .032 .127 .027 .208

Sibley and Wilson (2007, Study 1)

Undergrad IPIP NZ Pub. 259 .100 .080 .190 .080 .220

Sibley, Harding, Perry,

Asbrock, and Duckitt (2010)

Undergrad HEXACO-PI-R NZ Pub. 319 .008 .059 .092 .012 .260

Sibley, Perry, and Asbrock (2009a) Undergrad TIPI NZ UnPub. 349 .118 .007 .103 .041 .168

Sibley, Perry, and Asbrock (2009b) Undergrad TIPI NZ UnPub. 378 .142 .050 .065 .026 .188

Silver, Poulin, and Blum (2009) Community TIPI US UnPub. 1574 .020 .040 .040 .060 .090

Stenner (2005) Community Non-Standard US Pub. 361 .123 .177

Torges, Stewart, and Duncan (2008) Community BFI US Pub. 83 .036 .170 .085 .179 .088

Van Hiel (1996) Community NEO-FFI Belgium UnPub. 199 .005 .032 .280 .019 .240

Van Hiel (2005)

Community NEO-FFI Belgium UnPub. 144 .082 .104 .142 .131 .196

Van Hiel (2006) Community NEO-FFI Belgium UnPub. 135 .062 .227 .264 .052 .347

Van Hiel and Mervielde (2004, Study 2)

Mixed NEO-FFI Belgium Pub. 176 .098 .150 .128 .059 .272

Van Hiel and Mervielde (1996) Undergrad/

School

NEO-FFI Belgium Pub. 175 .159 .058 .109 .018 .126

Van Hiel, Cornelis, and Roets (2007)

Community NEO-FFI Belgium Pub. 171 .038 .203 .167 .042 .392

(continued on next page)

C.G. Sibley et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 46 (2012) 664–677 667

model), Q

statistics examining the homogeneity of effect sizes

across studies (described below), number of studies included in

the given analysis (k), and the total number of participants (N)

included in each analysis.

Meta-analytic averages indicated that three of the ﬁve Big-Five

personality dimensions were reliably correlated with political ori-

entation (see Table 3). Speciﬁcally, there was a weak, albeit signif-

icant, positive correlation between Conscientiousness and political

conservatism (weighted r = .098, z= 10.83, p< .01). In contrast, both

Openness to Experience (weighted r =.180, z=15.67, p< .01)

and Neuroticism (weighted r =.033, z=3.90, p< .01) were nega-

tively correlated with political conservatism. The magnitude of this

latter effect, however, was trivial. Finally, Extraversion and Agree-

ableness were uncorrelated with political orientation (weighted

rs6.017, zs61.86, ps > .05). We also present meta-analytic

averages of the relationship between personality and political ori-

entation for each nation (see Table 4).

As shown in Table 3, the Q

statistic measuring the cross-study

variability in effect sizes was signiﬁcant for the bivariate correla-

tions between each of the Big-Five personality dimensions and

political orientation. This indicates that the cross-study variability

in effect sizes for each of these relationships was greater than

chance. It is interesting to note, however, that the Q

statistic for

the relationship between Openness to Experience and political

Table 1 (continued)

Reference Sample

details

Personality

measure

Nation Publication

status

Sample

size

Correlation with conservative political orientation

EACNO

Van Hiel et al. (2000, Sample 3) Community NEO-FFI Poland Pub. 134 .042 .041 .090 .031 .106

Von Collani and Grumm (2009, Sample 1) Undergrad BFI Germany Pub. 302 .020 .030 .060 .100 .170

Von Collani and Grumm (2009, Sample 2) Undergrad NEO-FFI Germany Pub. 154 .040 .090 .160 .120 .270

Watson (2009a) Undergrad BFI US UnPub. 388 .060 .080 .120 .050 .090

Watson (2009b) Undergrad BFI US UnPub. 132 .020 .040 .090 .020 .020

Watson (2009c) Community BFI US UnPub. 299 .090 .070 .130 .030 .210

Watson (2009d) Community BFI US UnPub. 195 .040 .100 .110 .010 .310

Watson (2009e) Community BFI US UnPub. 196 .050 .080 .000 .110 .270

Whitaker, Fulwider, and

Herian (2007)

Undergrad Non-Standard US UnPub. 175 .134 .118 .257 .013 .130

Note: Political orientation was scored so that higher values represent greater levels of political conservatism than do lower values. See text for deﬁnitions of personality

measures used. E = Extraversion, A = Agreeableness, C = Conscientiousness, N = Neuroticism, and O = Openness to Experience.

Denotes samples also included in the meta-analysis of personality and prejudice conducted by Sibley and Duckitt (2008).

Table 2

Summary of sample sizes for the 10 different nations included in the meta-analysis and the corresponding values for each nation’s Human Development Index, intentional

homicide rate, and annual average unemployment rate.

Nation No. of samples NHDI Intentional Homicides

(per 100,000 people)

2000–2004

Annual Average Unemployment

(% of labor force)

1996/2006

Belgium 10 2149 .946 1.5 8.3

Canada 5 1153 .961 1.9 7.7

Germany 6 1737 .935 1.0 8.5

Israel 1 181 .932 2.6 9.0

Italy 1 192 .941 1.2 9.4

New Zealand 11 2949 .943 1.3 5.4

Poland 1 134 .870 1.6 15.7

Sweden 1 185 .956 2.4 6.9

Turkey 1 277 .775 3.8 8.6

United States 34 30,146 .951 5.6 5.0

Mean .945 3.48 6.36

Standard deviation .023 2.09 1.91

Note:N= total number of participants sampled in studies conducted in each nation. Human Development Index (HDI) is based on 2005 ﬁgures. Data on intentional homicides

were collected during one year within the 2000–2004 range for each nation (note that legal deﬁnitions of intentional homicide may differ across nations). Annual average

unemployment rate represents the percentage of unemployed people in the total available labor force in a given country for the period ranging from 1996 to 2006.

Unemployment data for Israel represent a one-year average for data collected at some point between 1996 and 2005. These data were garnered from The United Nations

Human Development Report (2007/2008). Means and standard deviations represent the grand mean across all 71 included samples.

Table 3

Meta-analysis of bivariate correlations between each Big-Five personality dimension and political orientation.

r95% CI z-test Q

No. of studies N

Lower Upper

Extraversion .010 .026 .007 1.19 144.23

67 70,584

Agreeableness .017 .035 .001 1.86 192.12

70 71,245

Conscientiousness .098 .080 .116 10.83

190.36

70 71,425

Neuroticism .033 .050 .016 3.90

150.63

68 70,872

Openness to Experience .180 .202 .158 15.67

394.71

72 71,895

Note: Political orientation was scored so that higher values represent greater levels of political conservatism than do lower values. r-values and associated conﬁdence

intervals were calculated assuming a random-effects model. z-tests reﬂect signiﬁcance tests of weighted r-values, also assuming a random-effects model. Q

statistics reﬂect a

test of the homogeneity of effect sizes, calculated assuming a ﬁxed-effects model.

⁄

p< .05.

p< .01.

668 C.G. Sibley et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 46 (2012) 664–677

orientation was over twice the size of the Q

statistics for the other

four personality dimensions. Still, these ﬁndings suggest that

systematic differences across studies moderate the relationship

between personality and political orientation.

6.3. Cross-study differences: effects of study characteristics

The TCM posits that systemic threat will attenuate the relation-

ship between Openness to Experience and political orientation. To

test this hypothesis, we conducted a series of inverse variance

weighted regression analyses using the macros provided by Lipsey

and Wilson (2001) and adopting a mixed-effects model using an

iterative method based on maximum likelihood estimation

(Raudenbush, 1994). In our initial regressions, we regressed the

effect sizes for the relationships between each of the Big-Five

personality dimensions and political orientation onto the following

four study characteristics: (a) publication status, (b) personality

inventory, (c) region (i.e., international region in which the study

was conducted),

and (d) sample population (adult vs. under-

graduate vs. mixed). These four factors are the ‘‘usual suspects’’ for

explaining cross-study differences and constitute reasonable alter-

natives to our TCM.

To include these variables in our initial regression model, we

ﬁrst had to develop a viable coding strategy. As such, publication

status was contrast coded based on whether the study was pub-

lished (coded .50) or unpublished (coded .50). The sheer number

of measures used to assess the Big-Five, however, made it impossi-

ble to create a simple contrast code for the type of personality

inventory used in a given study. To overcome this difﬁculty, we

created two mutually-exclusive variables that coded each study

based on whether it used (a) the BFI (.50 yes, .50 no) or (b) a

NEO-based measure (i.e., either the NEO-FFI or NEO-PI-R; .50 yes,

.50 no). Miscellaneous personality inventories (e.g., the IPIP)

were thus captured by two .50 contrast codes. A similar two-

variable coding strategy was used to capture differences in sample

region. Speciﬁcally, each study was coded based on whether it

sampled (a) North Americans (US and Canada coded as .50, other

coded as .50) or (b) residents of nations in the European Union

(European Union samples coded as .50, other coded as .50). Stud-

ies conducted outside of these regions (e.g., New Zealand, Turkey)

were thus captured by two .50 contrast codes.

Finally, differences in sample populations were captured by

coding each study based on whether it included (a) adult/commu-

nity samples (coded as .50), (b) internet or otherwise ‘‘mixed’’ sam-

ples (coded as 0), or (c) undergraduate samples (coded as .50).

Thus, each regression model’s constant represents the estimated

average (Fisherized) r-value of the relationship between the given

Big-Five personality dimension and political orientation after con-

trolling for our four study characteristics. The results of the full

regression model for each of the Big-Five personality dimensions

are presented in Table 5.

6.3.1. Extraversion

The regression model examining cross-study differences in the

strength of the relationship between Extraversion and political ori-

entation is shown in Table 5. As can be seen, the overall model was

non-signiﬁcant (Model R

= .19; Q

model

(6,60) = 15.23, p= .02). Extra-

version was unrelated to political orientation after controlling for

our four study characteristics (constant = .008, z= .61, p= .54).

Study characteristics did not, however, moderate the relationship

between Extraversion and political orientation.

6.3.2. Agreeableness

Table 5 also shows the results of our regression model predict-

ing cross-study differences in the strength of the relationship

between Agreeableness and political orientation. As can be

seen, the overall model was signiﬁcant (Model R

= .47;

model

(6,63) = 56.86, p< .01). After controlling for our four study

characteristics, there was a weak negative correlation between

Agreeableness and political conservatism (constant = .043,

z=3.67, p< .01). The type of personality inventory used to assess

Agreeableness, however, moderated this relationship. Speciﬁcally,

all else being equal, the negative correlation between Agreeable-

ness and political conservatism was weaker in studies that used

the BFI than in studies that used a different measure of Agreeable-

ness (b= .042, z= 2.62, p< .01). There was also a signiﬁcant effect

of sample population such that the negative correlation between

Agreeableness and political conservatism was slightly stronger in

studies that used adult (relative to undergraduate) samples

(b=.040, z=2.36, p= .02). We return to a discussion of possible

moderators of this relationship in our discussion section.

6.3.3. Conscientiousness

Our regression model examining cross-study differences in the

strength of the relationship between Conscientiousness and political

orientation is also shown in Table 5. As can be seen, the overall model

was non-signiﬁcant (Model R

= .07; Q

model

(6, 63) = 5.27, p= .51). The

constant in this model indicates that there was a weak, albeit

reliable, positive correlation between Conscientiousness and politi-

cal conservatism across studies (constant = .104, z= 7.90, p< .01).

Again, this relationship controls for our four study characteristics.

Table 4

Bivariate correlations between each Big-Five personality dimension and political orientation by country.

Extraversion Agreeableness Conscientiousness Neuroticism Openness to Experience No. of

studies

r95% CIs r95% CIs r95% CIs r95% CIs r95% CIs

Belgium .007 (.042, .056) .126 (.176, .076) .134 (.079, .188) .061 (.036, .049) .271 (.318, .222) 10 2149

Canada .082 (.159,.004) .043 (.015,.100) .056 (.035, .145) .059 (.001,.117) .185 (.241, .129) 5 1153

Germany .005 (.052,.043) .068 (.136,.001) .096 (.049, .143) .074 (.132,.016) .210 (.295, .122) 6 1737

Israel – (–, –) .085 (–, –) – (–, –) – (–, –) .061 (–, –) 1 181

Italy – (–,–) .070 (–, –) .010 (–, –) – (–, –) .020 (–, –) 1 192

New Zealand .079 (.128,.030) .008 (.056, .040) .120 (.084,.155) .010 (.031, .051) .211 (.245, .176) 11 2949

Poland .042 (–, –) .041 (–,–) .090 (–, –) .031 (–, –) .106 (–, –) 1 134

Sweden .133 (–,–) .026 (–,–) .162 (–, –) .066 (–, –) .070 (–, –) 1 185

Turkey .050 (–,–) .060 (–, –) .050 (–, –) .020 (–, –) .120 (–, –) 1 277

United States .009 (.011, .030) .006 (.020, .031) .094 (.071, .117) .048 (.072,.024) .155 (.198, .111) 34 30146

Note: Political orientation was scored so that higher values represent greater levels of political conservatism than do lower values. r-values and associated conﬁdence

intervals were calculated assuming a random-effects model. Details regarding the number of studies and sample Nvaried in some cases across different personality measures

within each nation (see Table 2 for full sample size details for each association). Conﬁdence intervals for rwere not estimated for nations with only one sample.

Two large internet samples (Sample 30, Iyer et al., 2009; and Sample 43, Nosek

and Hansen, 2008) were excluded from these analyses as we were unable to obtain

information about the nationality of participants in those samples.

C.G. Sibley et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 46 (2012) 664–677 669

6.3.4. Neuroticism

Table 5 also shows our regression model examining cross-study

differences in the strength of the relationship between Neuroticism

and political orientation. As can be seen, the overall model was non-

signiﬁcant (Model R

= .05; Q

model

(6, 61) = 3.75, p= .71). Nonetheless,

there was a weak, albeit reliable, negative correlation between Neu-

roticism and political conservatism across studies (constant =.041,

z=3.07, p< .01). Again, this relationship emerged after controlling

for our four study characteristics. In other words, all else being equal,

the lower people are on Neuroticism (i.e., as people become more

emotionally stable), the higher their political conservatism. None

of our four study characteristics reliably moderated this effect.

6.3.5. Openness to Experience

Finally, Table 5 shows our regression model examining cross-

study differences in the strength of the relationship between Open-

ness to Experience and political orientation. As can be seen, the

overall model was statistically signiﬁcant (Model R

= .27;

model

(6,66) = 33.60, p< .01). The constant in this model indicates

that, after controlling for our four study characteristics, there was

a negative correlation between Openness to Experience and

political conservatism (constant =.234, z=13.59, p< .01). That

is, the higher people are on Openness to Experience, the less likely

they are to identify as conservative. Though the strength of this

relationship was only moderate in size, Openness to Experience

was by far the strongest predictor of political orientation among

the Big-Five personality dimensions.

Table 5 also shows that a few study characteristics moderated

the relationship between Openness to Experience and political

orientation. Speciﬁcally, after controlling for other study character-

istics, studies that used NEO-based measures (either NEO-FFI

or NEO-PI-R) reported stronger correlations between Openness

to Experience and political conservatism (b=.250, z=5.25,

p< .01) than did studies that used other measures. Sibley and

Duckitt (2008) observed a similar measurement artefact in their

meta-analysis of personality and prejudice, which, as we indicated

earlier, was largely based on an independent set of studies. They

noted that this artefact was likely due to content overlap between

the Openness to Experience items included in the NEO-based

scales and measures of social attitudes.

We also found that, all else being equal, studies conducted in

nations belonging to the European Union produced weaker corre-

Table 5

Inverse variance mixed-effects weighted regression analyses examining the effects of study characteristics on the relationship between each of the Big-Five personality

dimensions and political orientation.

Study factor b se z-Test Model R

Extraversion

Constant .008 .013 .61

Published (.50 = no; .50 = yes) .039 .017 2.19

Used BFI (.50 = no; .50 = yes) .009 .020 .48

Used NEO (.50 = no; .50 = yes) .036 .039 .93

North American Sample (.50 = no; .50 = yes) .043 .021 2.09

European Sample (.50 = no; .50 = yes) .023 .038 .59

Sample (.50 = undergraduates; 0 = mixed/internet; .50 = community/adult) .022 .019 1.13 .19

Agreeableness

Constant .043 .012 3.67

Published (.50 = no; .50 = yes) .005 .015 .36

Used BFI (.50 = no; .50 = yes) .042 .016 2.63

Used NEO (.50 = no; .50 = yes) .043 .034 1.28

North American Sample (.50 = no; .50 = yes) .020 .017 1.20

European Sample (.50 = no; .50 = yes) .052 .031 1.68

Sample (.50 = undergraduates; 0 = mixed/internet; .50 = community/adult) .040 .017 2.36

.47

Conscientiousness

Constant .104 .013 7.90

Published (.50 = no; .50 = yes) .016 .017 .89

Used BFI (.50 = no; .50 = yes) .013 .019 .64

Used NEO (.50 = no; .50 = yes) .040 .037 1.06

North American Sample (.50 = no; .50 = yes) .011 .021 .53

European Sample (.50 = no; .50 = yes) .017 .036 .49

Sample (.50 = undergraduates; 0 = mixed/internet; .50 = community/adult) .011 .019 .58 .07

Neuroticism

Constant .041 .013 3.07

Published (.50 = no; .50 = yes) .001 .018 .05

Used BFI (.50 = no; .50 = yes) .025 .020 1.24

Used NEO (.50 = no; .50 = yes) .019 .040 .48

North American Sample (.50 = no; .50 = yes) .008 .022 .37

European Sample (.50 = no; .50 = yes) .014 .039 .36

Sample (.50 = undergraduates; 0 = mixed/internet; .50 = community/adult) .031 .020 1.55 .05

Openness to Experience

Constant .234 .017 13.59

Published (.50 = no; .50 = yes) .006 .024 .23

Used BFI (.50 = no; .50 = yes) .058 .027 2.13

Used NEO (.50 = no; .50 = yes) .250 .048 5.25

North American Sample (.50 = no; .50 = yes) .048 .030 1.58

European Sample (.50 = no; .50 = yes) .140 .048 2.92

Sample (.50 = undergraduates; 0 = mixed/internet; .50 = community/adult) .018 .026 .70 .27

Note: Political orientation was scored so that a higher value reﬂected a more conservative political orientation. brefers to the unstandardized regression coefﬁcient in

Fischerized (z

) effect size units, se refers to the standard error of b. z-tests reﬂect signiﬁcance tests of b. All effects were calculated using an inverse variance weighted

regression analysis assuming a mixed-effects model.

p< .05.

p< .01.

670 C.G. Sibley et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 46 (2012) 664–677

lations between Openness to Experience and political conservatism

than did studies conducted in other nations (b= .140, z= 2.92,

p< .01). This raises the possibility that additional between-country

differences (e.g., systemic threat) moderate this relationship.

6.4. Testing a Threat-Constraint Model of personality and political

orientation

The analyses reported above indicate that a few study charac-

teristics had small, though reliable, effects on the relationship be-

tween Openness to Experience and political orientation. The next

step in evaluating our TCM is to show that measures of systemic

threat predict variability in this relationship above and beyond

these study characteristics. To do this, we re-ran our inverse vari-

ance weighted regression model for Openness to Experience after

adding grand-mean centered national-level rates of (a) intentional

homicide (per 100,000 people) and (b) unemployment. We also

controlled for baseline differences in human development by

entering each nation’s grand-mean centered HDI. Because each of

these measures were centered around the grand mean, the con-

stant in our regression model represents the expected correlation

between Openness to Experience and political orientation for

countries that are at the average level of these three variables

(after controlling for study characteristics).

As shown in Table 6, the overall regression model predicting

variation in the strength of the relationship between Openness

to Experience and political orientation was signiﬁcant (Model

= .37; Q

model

(9,61) = 41.66, p< .01). Relative to our earlier model

that only included study characteristics, this model explained an

additional 10% of the cross-study variance in effect sizes. Consistent

with our TCM, systemic danger (as indexed by intentional homicide

rates) moderated the strength of this relationship (b= .053, z= 2.58,

p< .01). Speciﬁcally, increases in nation-wide systemic danger

attenuated the relationship between Openness to Experience and

political orientation. Note that the positive bcoefﬁcient for sys-

temic danger leads to a reduction in the strength of this relationship

because the constant in this equation is negative. That is, the posi-

tive bcoefﬁcients for economic and societal indictors of systemic

danger shifted the negative constant towards 0.

Table 6 also shows the impact that systemic instability (as

indexed by annual unemployment rate) has on the relationship be-

tween Openness to Experience and political orientation. Consistent

with our TCM, systemic instability tended to independently moder-

ate this relationship (b= .043, z= 2.35, p= .02). Increases in systemic

instability slightly attenuated the negative relationship between

Openness to Experience and political orientation. The effects of

systemic instability emerged after controlling for speciﬁc study

characteristics and nation-wide levels of human development.

Human development (as indexed by the HDI), in contrast, had no im-

pact on the strength of this relationship (b= .835, z= .87, p= .39).

To provide a clear demonstration of the impact that systemic

threat has on the relationship between Openness to Experience

and political orientation, we calculated the expected (Fisherized)

correlation for this relationship at different rates of intentional

homicide and unemployment.

Our calculations included inten-

tional homicide rates that ranged from 1 to 5 (per 100,000 people)

and unemployment rates that ranged from 5.0% to 9.0%, and were

thus within the sample range for both of these variables. These pro-

jections provide a marked demonstration of the impact subtle

changes in systemic threat have on the relationship between Open-

ness to Experience and political orientation.

As shown in Table 7, the (Fisherized) correlation between

Openness to Experience and political conservatism is predicted

to be r=.422 for a nation with low systemic threat (i.e., a na-

tion with an annual homicide rate = 1 per 100,000 and an unem-

ployment = 5%) all else being equal. At the other extreme, the

(Fisherized) correlation between Openness to Experience and

political conservatism is predicted to be r=.066 for a nation

with high systemic threat (i.e., a nation with an annual homicide

rate = 5 per 100,000 and an unemployment = 9%), all else being

equal.

Intentional homicide rate, unemployment rate, and HDI had

no impact on the relationships between the remaining four

Big-Five personality dimensions and political orientation

(zs < 1). In other words, the moderation effect was entirely lim-

ited to the relationship between Openness and conservatism.

This is consistent with our TCM, which argues that the Open-

ness-conservatism relationship should be particularly sensitive

to systemic danger and instability. Moreover, our data indicated

that Conscientiousness retained a weak positive correlation with

conservatism regardless of the level of nation-wide systemic

threat. Finally, the correlations between the three remaining

Big-Five personality dimensions and political orientation were

trivial in regression models that included our measures of sys-

temic threat (and controls).

Table 6

Inverse variance mixed-effects weighted regression analyses examining the moder-

ating effect of cross-national differences in the Human Development Index and

United Nations indices of intentional homicide rate and annual average unemploy-

ment on the relationship between Openness to Experience and political orientation.

Study factor bsez

Constant .260 .021 12.42

Published (.50 = no; .50 = yes) .007 .026 .28

Used BFI (.50 = no; .50 = yes) .079 .034 2.35

Used NEO (.50 = no; .50 = yes) .281 .051 5.49

North American Sample (.50 = no; .50 = yes) .110 .090 1.23

European Sample (.50 = no; .50 = yes) .069 .077 .90

Sample (.50 = undergraduates; 0 = mixed/

internet; .50 = community/adult)

.010 .029 .33

Human Development Index .838 .968 .87

Intentional Homicide Rate (per 100,000) .053 .020 2.58

Annual Average Unemployment .043 .018 2.35

Note: Political orientation was scored so that a higher value reﬂected a more con-

servative political orientation. brefers to the unstandardized regression coefﬁcient

in Fischerized (z

) effect size units, se refers to the standard error of b,z-tests reﬂect

signiﬁcance tests of b. All effects were calculated using an inverse variance

weighted regression analysis assuming a mixed-effects model. (R

= .37, p< .01).

p< .05.

p< .01.

We recalculated all analyses excluding Poland, as the unemployment rate of 15.7%

for this nation might be considered an outlier relative to the other nations included in

our sample (see Table 2 for sample details). We also separately recalculated all

analyses excluding Carney et al. (2008a, Sample 5), as this large US sample (n= 17,103)

may have unduly affected the results given its large size. Poland may also be

considered an outlier relative to the other nations in our sample given that it is a

former communist nation. Kossowska and Van Hiel (2003), for instance, reported that

Need for Closure (a construct closely related to low Openness to Experience) predicted

increased economic liberalism in Poland. This is consistent with the premise that Need

for Closure (low Openness) should predict increased support for the status quo, and

given its status as a former communist nation, the status quo in Poland would have

been one of socialism and economic liberalism rather than free-market capitalism. The

effects of intentional homicide rate (b= .063, se = .024. z= 2.64, p< .01) and unem-

ployment (b= .059, se = .026. z= 2.25, p= .02) on the Openness–political orientation

association were comparable in signiﬁcance, and in fact slightly greater in magnitude,

when Polish data were excluded. We however opted to report the model with Poland

included. Note that all regional differences (North American samples, European Union

Samples, and other samples) in the association between Openness and political

orientation also remained comparable when Poland was excluded from the analysis.

The effects of intentional homicide rate (b= .055, se = .021. z= 2.62, p< .01) and

unemployment (b= .044, se = .018. z= 2.37, p= .02) on the Openness-political orien-

tation association were also comparable when the large sample reported by Carney

et al. (2008a, Sample 5) was excluded from the model.

For ease of presentation, we calculated the predicted correlations for a parallel

linear increase in homicide and unemployment rates.

C.G. Sibley et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 46 (2012) 664–677 671

7. Discussion

There has been an explosion of interest in the relationship be-

tween personality and political orientation in recent years. Indeed,

both Jost et al. (2003) and Sibley and Duckitt (2008) have

presented comprehensive meta-analytic reviews of related areas.

A meta-analysis of research focusing speciﬁcally on the relation-

ships between each of the Big-Five personality dimensions and

political orientation, however, has remained absent from the

literature.

We addressed this lacuna by conducting a meta-analysis of 73

samples from 10 nations (N= 71,895) that examined the relation-

ship between one or more of the Big-Five personality dimensions

and political orientation. We limited our analyses to studies that

included single-item Likert-style rating measures of political orien-

tation as liberal versus conservative. This is arguably one of the

most widely used measures of ideology in political psychology,

and, despite its brevity, has considerable predictive utility. Jost

(2006) reported single-item measures of liberal versus conserva-

tive self-placement consistently explained between 80% and 90%

of the variance in presidential vote choice for United States’

elections over a 30-year period from 1972 to 2004.

Nearly half of the samples we sourced were previously unpub-

lished, whereas the majority of published studies were reanalyzed

because they had not reported the bivariate correlations between

personality and political orientation. Moreover, there was little-

to-no overlap between the studies included in our meta-analysis

and those that were a part of either Jost et al.’s (2003) or Sibley

and Duckitt’s (2008) meta-analyses. As such, our results are based

on a mostly independent (and very large) set of samples, the

majority of which have not been reported in the literature.

7.1. Summary of meta-analytic averages

Our meta-analysis showed that Openness to Experience and

Conscientiousness were both reliably correlated with political ori-

entation. Averaged across studies, however, these two dimensions

of personality displayed (at best) weak associations with political

orientation. Speciﬁcally, the negative correlation between Open-

ness to Experience and political conservatism was relatively small

(r=.18), and the correlation between Conscientiousness and

political conservatism was smaller still (r= .10).

These small average effect sizes are startling given the extensive

research focus on the personality antecedents of political orienta-

tion that has emerged in recent years (e.g., Alford & Hibbing,

2007; Gerber, Huber, Doherty, Dowling, & Ha, 2010; Jost et al.,

2003; Mondak, 2010). Our meta-analysis indicates that the person-

ality antecedents of political orientation, while theoretically

important for a uniﬁed model of individual differences in attitudes

and voting behavior, are only one small (and subtle) part of such a

model. Indeed, averaged across studies, Openness to Experience

explained only 3.2%, whereas Conscientiousness only explained

1.0%, of the variance in political orientation. The other three-

dimensions of the Big-Five had (at best) trivial associations with

political orientation.

These ﬁndings demonstrate that there is vastly more variance in

political orientation that remains to be explained by factors other

than the Big-Five. Moreover, our analyses show that the small

effect sizes for personality were relatively consistent within each

nation. Our results indicate that it may be a misnomer to charac-

terize the different personality ‘styles’, ‘types’ or ‘temperaments’

of liberals and conservatives. Indeed, these labels imply far larger

personality differences between liberals and conservatives than

may actually exist.

Of course, the average associations between personality and

political orientation we observed in our meta-analysis may have

been attenuated by our focus on single-item self-placement mea-

sures of political orientation. For instance, Sibley and Duckitt

(2008) showed that Openness correlated with multi-item

measures of Right-Wing Authoritarianism (which should relate to

moral or social aspects of conservatism) at r=.36. Similarly, in

their multilevel analysis of 14 New Zealand samples, Wilson and

Sibley (in press) showed that Right-Wing Authoritarianism corre-

lated with political conservatism (measured in a variety of differ-

ent ways) at r= .48. Such associations may also depend upon

levels of political sophistication, as recent work suggests that peo-

ple with a greater knowledge of politics tend to be more likely to

vote or express political attitudes in ways that are theoretically

consistent with their personality (Osborne & Sibley, submitted

for publication a, submitted for publication b). Nevertheless, when

indexed using simple single-item measures, it seems that self-

reported political orientation is only weakly related to the Big-Five

dimensions of personality.

While the personality-conservatism associations we observed

were small on average, we identiﬁed reliable differences across

studies that at least partially explain why personality was more

weakly correlated with political orientation in some samples rela-

tive to others. In the following sections, we ﬁrst discuss ﬁndings for

four study characteristics that could plausibly explain this cross-

study variation: (a) publication bias, (b) personality inventory, (c)

national region in which a study was conducted, and (d) sample

population (adult vs. mixed vs. undergraduate). We then summa-

rize ﬁndings from the initial test of our Threat-Constraint Model,

which indicates that to understand the association between Open-

ness to Experience and political orientation, one must consider

other factors relating to threat and economic stability. Threat and

economic stability these have a critical effect on the extent to

which people’s political orientation is expressed in ways consistent

with their default personality tendencies.

7.1.1. Publication bias

Contrary to the ‘‘ﬁle drawer problem’’ noted in meta-analyses of

experimental data (Rosenthal, 1979), the unpublished studies we

analyzed reported effect sizes that were comparable to those found

in published studies. Sibley and Duckitt (2008) observed a similar

lack of publication bias in studies that examined the relationship

Table 7

Predicted correlation between Openness to Experience and political conservatism at

different linear combinations of intentional homicide and unemployment rates.

Systemic

threat

Intentional

homicides (per

100,000 people)

Unemployment

rate (% of labor

force)

Predicted correlation

between openness

to experience and

conservatism

Low

High

1.0 5.0 .422

1.5 5.5 .382

2.0 6.0 .340

2.5 6.5 .297

3.0 7.0 .252

3.5 7.5 .207

4.0 8.0 .161

4.5 8.5 .113

5.0 9.0 .066

Note: The equation to calculate these predicted effects takes the general form of:

predicted effect size (Fisherized rvalue) = constant + ((predicted value of homi-

cide bcoefﬁcient) + (predicted value of unemployment bcoefﬁcient)). The

predicted value is adjusted to account for the fact that the constant represented the

value at the mean level of homicide and unemployment rates in our regression

model. This yields the following equation predicting a Fisherized r-value for the

association between Openness to Experience and political orientation at homicide

conditions of 1 person per 100,000 and a 5% unemployment rate of: effect

size = .260 + ((2.48 .053) + (1.36 .043)) = .445 (note that the predicted

values are adjusted as they deviate from mean centered values). Converting this

Fisherized effect size back to an r-value gives us an r=.422.

672 C.G. Sibley et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 46 (2012) 664–677

between personality and prejudice. It seems that publication bias

is more common in experimental than in correlational studies.

We suspect this is because experimental and correlation studies

usually have different goals. Speciﬁcally, the merits of a given

experimental study are often tied to the detection of speciﬁc

hypothesized differences. Correlational studies, in contrast, tend

to examine general patterns of relationships between a broad set

or combination of variables. Regardless of the reason(s) for this dif-

ferential susceptibility to publication bias, it is encouraging to ﬁnd

that effect size estimates in correlational studies are not upwardly

biased in the published literature (at least not among those that

examine the personality correlates of political orientation).

7.1.2. Personality inventory

The two most frequently used personality inventories in our

sample were the NEO-FFI and the BFI. Given their frequent

usage, we examined the extent to which studies employing

either of these measures produced average effect sizes that dif-

fered from those produced by studies using other personality

measures (e.g., the TIPI, trait adjective ratings, or IPIP-based

measures). Our analyses indicated that the type of personality

inventory used in a given study had no inﬂuence on the size

of the correlations between three of the ﬁve Big-Five personality

dimensions (namely, Extraversion, Conscientiousness, and

Neuroticism) and political orientation. Studies using the BFI,

however, reported a slightly stronger (though nonetheless weak)

relationship between Agreeableness and conservatism than did

studies using alternative measures. Taken together, this suggests

that different personality inventories measure Extraversion,

Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Neuroticism in a similar

manner – insofar as they relate to ideology.

In marked contrast, the type of personality inventory used to

assess Openness to Experience dramatically affected its relation-

ship with political orientation. Our results showed that, after

controlling for the other three study characteristics, studies that

used a NEO-based personality inventory produced correlations

between Openness to Experience and political orientation that

were roughly double the size of those obtained in studies that

used other personality inventories. Sibley and Duckitt (2008)

identiﬁed a similar bias in the relationship between Openness

to Experience and prejudice. Speciﬁcally, the average correlation

between Openness to Experience and prejudice was near r=.40

for studies that used the NEO-FFI or NEO-PI-R, but only around

r=.15 for studies that used the BFI. This suggests that different

personality inventories operationalize Openness to Experience

with varying success.

We attribute this difference to a bias in the NEO items for Open-

ness to Experience. Speciﬁcally, the NEO includes items that reﬂect

social attitudes and values that closely parallel that included in

many common measures of political conservatism. Consider, for

example, the following items from the NEO-PI-R (O6) values facet

of Openness to Experience: ‘‘I believe that the ‘new morality’ of

permissiveness is no morality at all’’ and ‘‘I believe that loyalty

to one’s ideals and principles is more important than ‘open-

mindedness.’’’ These items strike us as being measures of political

ideology (or related authoritarian beliefs) rather than personality.

Van Hiel and Mervielde (2004), for example, raised a similar con-

cern in their analysis of the relationship between NEO-PI-R facets

of Openness to Experience and conservatism. Likewise, DeYoung

et al. (2007) conducted a facet-level Exploratory Factor Analysis

and found that ﬁve of the six facets of NEO-PI-R Openness to

Experience loaded reasonably well onto distinct dual aspects of

Openness to Experience (namely, openness and intellect). The O6

Values facet, in contrast, loaded poorly on both of these factors.

We view the values facet of the NEO-PI-R as a measure that is

closer to Right-Wing Authoritarianism than it is to personality.

7.1.3. Undergraduate versus adult samples

Undergraduate and community/adult samples yielded nearly

identical correlations between each of the Big-Five personality

dimensions and political orientation. There was, however, one

exception. The negative correlation between Agreeableness and

political conservatism was slightly stronger in studies conducted

with undergraduates relative to those conducted with adults.

These ﬁndings imply that individual differences in Agreeableness,

but not other dimensions of personality, predict political attitudes

better in younger (i.e., undergraduate) than in older samples. Our

data therefore support Sibley and Duckitt’s (2008) suggestion that

Agreeableness and political attitudes share a similar developmen-

tal trajectory in late adolescence/early adulthood and, as a result,

co-vary highly during this period. We stress, however, that the

effect of sample population was extremely small in our data.

Our comparison of undergraduate and adult samples tells a

story of impressive consistency: The relationship between person-

ality and political orientation observed in undergraduate samples

tended to generalize to older (and presumably more representa-

tive) samples from the general community. It seems that, at least

when dealing with the relationship between personality and polit-

ical orientation, one can be reasonably conﬁdent that the ﬁndings

produced in studies based on undergraduates can be generalized to

other samples. As indicated above, the type of instrument used to

assess personality seems to be far more important than the age of

the sample population.

7.1.4. Regional differences

We also examined the possibility that broad regional differ-

ences could explain why the relationship between personality

and political orientation differed across samples. To do this, we

classiﬁed studies into three broad regional categories: (a) those

conducted in North America (i.e., the US and Canada), (b) those

conducted in the European Union, and (c) those conducted in other

nations. All else being equal, results indicated that the strength of

the relationships between four of the ﬁve Big-Five personality

dimensions (i.e., Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness,

and Neuroticism) and political orientation were comparable across

regions. Thus, regardless of where the study was conducted,

Conscientiousness tended to be weakly correlated with political

conservatism, whereas Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroti-

cism tended to be uncorrelated with political orientation.

The relationship between Openness to Experience and political

orientation was another story. Speciﬁcally, our results indicated

that studies conducted in the European Union observed correla-

tions between Openness to Experience and political orientation

that were nearly half the size of those seen in studies conducted

in other nations. Because the European Union includes nations that

vary considerably in their levels of systemic threat, this ﬁnding

provides indirect support for our TCM.

7.2. The Threat-Constraint Model (TCM) of personality and political

orientation

As noted earlier, a number of studies support the general thesis

that situational factors can inhibit or constrain a person’s auto-

matic/baseline tendencies to act a certain way (i.e., one’s personal-

ity). This general Person Situation thesis states that personality

should be most predictive of behavior when situational factors

(e.g., extreme social norms or chronic perceptions of the social

world) do not inhibit individual tendencies. When extreme situa-

tional factors are present, however, individual-differences in

behavior and related variables (e.g., political orientation) should

be reduced (see Mischel & Shoda, 1995, 1999, for discussion of this

issue). These assumptions form the basis of our TCM of Openness

to Experience and political orientation.

C.G. Sibley et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 46 (2012) 664–677 673

Our meta-analysis provides strong support for the Person Sit-

uation interaction predicted by our TCM. Controlling for speciﬁc

study characteristics, our results showed that cross-national differ-

ences in systemic danger (i.e., intentional homicide rate) and, to a

lesser degree, systemic instability (i.e., national unemployment

rate) moderated the relationship between Openness to Experience

and political conservatism. Speciﬁcally, when systemic threat

within a nation is low (annual homicide rate = 1 per 100,000 and

unemployment = 5%), this relationship is expected to be particu-

larly robust (r=.422). When systemic threat within a nation is

high (i.e., annual homicide rate = 5 per 100,000 and unemploy-

ment = 9%), in contrast, this same relationship is expected to be

trivial (r=.066).

These results suggest that a liberal political orientation may be

thought of as (for lack of a better term) a relative luxury. People

who are interested in novelty and, creativity (i.e., those who are

high on Openness) tend to adopt a liberal political orientation. This

tendency only emerges, however, when cues from the environ-

ment signal that the world is relatively safe, stable, and/or predict-

able. This interpretation is consistent with Ashton and Lee’s (2007)

cost-beneﬁt analysis of the evolved origins of species-wide varia-

tion in Openness to Experience (see Table 8). Openness to Experi-

ence should shape a person’s tendency to perceive environments

as being more or less conducive to novelty and risk. This automatic

tendency, however, will be constrained by extreme, obvious, and/

or overt cues that signal the presence of danger in the environment

(i.e., systemic threat). Many scholars have argued that a liberal

political position is inherently one that advocates change to the

status quo and increased social equality (see for example, Jost,

West, & Gosling, 2009). Our results demonstrate that people who

are high in Openness to Experience are more willing than their

counterparts who are low in Openness Experience to endorse a

liberal position. As predicted by our TCM, however, this willingness

is severely constrained when environmental cues signal that the

world is unsafe.

What is particularly compelling about our analysis is that we

were able to deﬁne likely boundary conditions within which Open-

ness to Experience will predict political orientation, and thus

potentially voting behavior. The predicted correlation coefﬁcients

displayed in Table 7 show that very small changes to nation-wide

intentional homicide and unemployment rates can dramatically

affect the strength of the relationship between Openness to Expe-

rience and political orientation. When systemic threat is low, there

are relatively few constraints on this relationship. When systemic

threat is high, in contrast, the relationship between Openness to

Experience and political orientation is reduced to the point that

these two variables are only trivially associated.

At the low end of systemic threat, a rate of 1 homicide per

100,000 people is only slightly below the rates observed in Italy

and New Zealand (i.e., 1.2 and 1.3, respectively; United Nations

Human Development Report, 2007/2008). Similarly, an unemploy-

ment rate of 5% is identical to that observed in the US for the period

of 1996–2006. It is easy to imagine a nation with homicide and

unemployment rates near both of these ﬁgures (prior to the 2009

economic collapse, New Zealand was reasonably close). These are

precisely the conditions that are likely to yield a strong relation-

ship between Openness to Experience and political orientation.

At the other extreme are nations with high systemic threat. It is

also all too easy to imagine a nation with an intentional homicide

rate of 5 per 100,000 people and an unemployment rate of 9%. In

fact, this homicide rate is lower than the one observed in the US

for the 2000–2004 period (i.e., 5.6 per 100,000 people). Moreover,

given the economic collapse of 2009, many nations currently have

an unemployment rate closely approaching (or even exceeding) 9%.

Nevertheless, the studies included in our meta-analysis did not

include nations with both homicide and unemployment rates

approaching those we deﬁned as ‘high’ systemic threat. This caveat

must be kept in mind when interpreting projections based on our

meta-analytic synthesis.

7.3. Strengths, caveats, and an agenda for future research

Our analyses were, by necessity, based on data collected across

a number of years. It is important to keep in mind that, in most

cases, we did not have information on the exact year in which data

were collected. Because there is often a time lag between data

collection and publication, we were reluctant to use publication

year as a covariate in our analyses. As such, we cannot say with

certainty that our indicators of systemic danger and instability cor-

respond to the exact time at which data were collected. This also

made it impossible for us to examine whether the relationship be-

tween personality and political orientation systematically changed

over time. It is likely, however, that the relationship between

Openness to Experience and political orientation would experience

a temporary change in response to dramatic events (e.g., the period

following September 11th for studies conducted in the United

States).

Our suspicion that short-term forces affect the relationship

between Openness to Experience and political orientation is indi-

rectly supported by other studies. Relative to before the attacks,

both liberals and conservatives in the United States were more

conservative in their policy preferences immediately after the ter-

rorist attacks of September 11th, 2001 (Nail & McGregor, 2009).

Recent work has also shown that priming mortality salience in-

creased support for John McCain, the Republican candidate in the

2008 US Presidential Election (Vail, Arndt, Motyl, & Pyszczynski,

2009). Historiometric analyses of voting behavior have observed

a similar pattern. For example, conservative political incumbents

receive greater support during periods of high social threat,

whereas liberal political incumbents receive greater support

during periods of low threat (Doty, Peterson, & Winter, 1991). This

supports our argument that danger and threat (as well as changes

in the cognitive accessibility of danger and threat) alter the extent to

Table 8

Summary of item content, and theoretical cost-beneﬁt trade-offs associated with high

versus low levels of Openness to Experience and Conscientiousness (adapted from

Ashton & Lee, 2007,Table 3, p. 156).

Deﬁnition and basis for variation and in Openness to Experience

Interpretation Engagement in ideas-related endeavors

Common deﬁning

adjectives

Intellectual, creative, unconventional, innovative,

ironic

Versus

Shallow, unimaginative, conventional

Sample IPIP Items ‘‘Have a vivid imagination’’

‘‘Have difﬁculty understanding abstract ideas’’

Versus

‘‘Do not have a good imagination’’

‘‘Am not interested in abstract ideas’’

Beneﬁts of high level Material and social gains (resulting from

discovery)

Beneﬁts of low level Energy and time; risks from social and natural

environment

Distinct facets or

aspects

Intellect and openness

Note: The interpretation, common deﬁning adjectives, and beneﬁts of a high versus

low level of Openness to Experience are reproduced from Ashton and Lee (2007,

Table 2, p. 154, and Table 3, p. 156). Ashton and Lee (2007) proposed this cost-

beneﬁt analysis of high versus low trait levels in the context of the HEXACO model

of personality structure. However, their analysis applies equally to Big-Five models

of Openness to Experience as this personality dimension is operationalized very

similarly in both Five- and Six-Factor models. Sample IPIP items are taken from the

Mini-IPIP, developed by Donnellan, Oswald, Baird, and Lucas (2006). The distinct

facets or aspects of Openness to Experience are those proposed by DeYoung et al.

(2007).

674 C.G. Sibley et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 46 (2012) 664–677

which people adopt conservative political views. It is also consis-

tent with our ﬁnding that systemic threat attenuated the relation-

ship between Openness to Experience and political orientation.

Our ﬁndings emphasize the need for further large-scale cross-

cultural studies examining the relationship between personality

and political orientation. The meta-analytic data synthesized

here provide an initial test of our thesis that societal threat and

instability constrains the extent to which people express political

orientations (and presumably voting behavior) in ways that are

theoretically consistent with their underlying personalities.

Mapping the parameters governing such effects will require com-

prehensive (and large-scale) cross-cultural research that assesses

the relationship between personality and various indicators of

political orientation in as many nations as possible (and at parallel

multiple points in time).

As indicated earlier, we restricted our meta-analysis to studies

that utilized single-item ratings of political orientation as liberal

versus conservative. Though there are drawbacks to this approach,

we focused our attention on this speciﬁc operationalization of polit-

ical orientation because of its common usage in the published (and

unpublished) literature. On the one hand, this allowed us to include

a large number of studies in our meta-analysis. Indeed, we located

73 studies that met our inclusion criteria. On the other hand, focus-

ing on research that used a unidimensional measure of political ori-

entation prevents us from examining the speciﬁc relationships

between personality and multiple dimensions of conservatism

(e.g., economic and social conservatism). Given that there are many

multi-item measures of political orientation available (e.g., Janoff-

Bulman, 2009;Stangor & Leary, 2006), future research would be

well-advised to make use of these measures when examining the

relationship between personality and political orientation.

8. Concluding comments

The exploration of possible personality differences in political

orientation has long-captivated scholars. The current study synthe-

sized this research by providing a meta-analytic review of studies

that have examined the relationship between one or more of the

Big-Five personality dimensions and single-item measures of polit-

ical orientation. Our results indicated that Conscientiousness was

positively, but Openness to Experience was negatively, correlated

with political conservatism. The size of the association between

these two dimensions of personality and political orientation,

however, was relatively small. Although Openness and Conscien-

tiousness do predict political conservatism, the lion’s share of vari-

ance remains unexplained by the broad factors of personality.

Moreover, despite having a small average effect size across studies,

the association between Openness to Experience and political orien-

tation varied substantially depending upon levels of systemic threat

and instability (as indexed by unemployment and national homicide

rates). Our TCM shows that relatively small shifts in these two objec-

tive national metrics can lead to quite dramatic shifts in the extent to

which personality correlates with political orientation.

Our ﬁndings are particularly relevant for understanding the fac-

tors that inﬂuence people’s political worldviews. Our results high-

light the need to create uniﬁed models of political behavior that

incorporate Person Situation interactions. As we have shown,

the relationship between personality and political orientation fun-

damentally depends on the social context. Therefore, assessing

either of these explanatory variables in isolation would miss an

important piece of the puzzle. We hope that these meta-analytic

ﬁndings stimulate additional (and more comprehensive) cross-

cultural studies that link personality and economic factors to pre-

dict political ideology (and voting behavior). Although Aristotle

(350 BC/1988) may have been correct in asserting that different

people are motivated to establish different ‘‘forms of government’’

(p. 167), it is also true that the larger social context will profoundly

affect the types of government that people are likely to consider.

Acknowledgments

Order of authorship is arbitrary. All three authors contributed

equally to this manuscript. We are indebted to the following

people for generously providing unpublished data or reanalyses

of previously published data for use in this meta-analysis: Nazar

Akrami, Dana Carney, Chris Cohrs, Becky Choma, Mike Crowson,

Ozlem Dirilen-Gumus, Lauren Duncan, Bart Duriez, Christopher

Federico, Sam Gosling, Jesse Graham, Jacob Hirsh, Gordon Hodson,

Sara Johnson, Jeffery Mondak, Jaime Napier, Angela Nierman, Brian

Nosek, Michael Poulin, Alain Van Hiel, and David Watson.

References

Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The

authoritarian personality (Vol. 1). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Akrami, N., & Ekehammar, B. (in preparation). Personality and political orientation.

Alford, J. R., & Hibbing, J. R. (2007). Personal, interpersonal, and political

temperaments. ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,

614, 196–212.

Aristotle. (350 B.C./1988). The politics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press

(J. Barnes, Trans.).

Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2007). Empirical, theoretical, and practical advantages of

the HEXACO model of personality structure. Personality and Social Psychology

Review, 11, 150–166.

Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2009). The HEXACO-60: A short measure of the major

dimensions of personality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 91, 340–345.

Bonanno, G. A., & Jost, J. T. (2006). Conservative shift among high-exposure

survivors of the September 11th terrorist attacks. Basic and Applied Social

Psychology, 28(4), 311–323. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp2804_4.

Caprara, G. V., Barbaranelli, C., Borgogni, L., & Vecchione, M. (2007). Big Five

questionnaire-2: Manuale. Firenze: Organizzazioni Speciali.

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, 82–94.

Carney, D. R., Jost, J. T., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2008b). bUnpublished data.

Columbia University.

Carney, D. R., Jost, J. T., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2008a). The secret lives of liberals

and conservatives: Personality proﬁles, interaction styles, and the things they

leave behind. Political. Psychology, 29, 807–839.

Choma, B. L., Busseri, M. A., & Sadava, S. W. (2009). Liberal and conservative political

ideologies: Different routes to happiness? Journal of Research in Personality, 43,

502–505.

Cohrs, J. C. (2003). Unpublished data. Germany: Friedrich-Alexander University of

Erlangen-Nuremburg.

Cohrs, J. C. (2005). Unpublished data. Germany: Friedrich-Alexander University of

Erlangen-Nuremburg.

Cohrs, J. C., Kielmann, S., Maes, J., & Moschner, B. (2005). Zur Reliabilität und

Validität der Erfassung von Persönlichkeitsmerkmalen im Internet: Ergebnisse

einer Längsschnittstudie [Reliability and validity of personality assessment over

the Internet: Results of a longitudinal study]. In K.-H. Renner, A. Schütz, & F.

Machilek (Eds.), Internet und Persönlichkeit (pp. 38–53). Göttingen, Germany:

Hogrefe (Internet and personality).

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1988). From catalog to classiﬁcation: Murray’s needs

and the ﬁve-factor model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(2),

258–265. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.55.2.258.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). The NEO personality inventory. Odessa, FL:

Psychological Assessment Resources (Revised).

Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1991). Trait psychology comes of age. In T. B.

Sonderegger (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation: Psychology and aging

(pp. 169–204). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Crowson, H. M. (2007). Unpublished data. The University of Oklahoma.

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, 880–896.

Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the ﬁve-factor model.

Annual Review of Psychology, 41(1), 417–440. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/

annurev.ps.41.020190.002221.

Dirilen-Gumus, O. (2009). The Relationships between culture, values, personality and

political ideology: A cross-cultural comparison (Turkey–USA). Unpublished PhD

dissertation, Ankara, Turkey: University of Ankara.

Doty, R., Peterson, B., & Winter, D. (1991). Threat and authoritarianism in the United

States, 1978–1987. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 629–640.

Donnellan, M. B., Oswald, F. L., Baird, B. M., & Lucas, B. E. (2006). The Mini-IPIP

scales: Tiny-yet-effective measures of the Big Five factors of personality.

Psychological Assessment, 18, 192–203.

C.G. Sibley et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 46 (2012) 664–677 675

Duriez, B., & Soenens, B. (2006a). Personality, identity styles and religiosity: An

integrative study among late and middle adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 29,

119–135.

Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2009). A dual process motivational model of ideology,

politics, and prejudice. Psychological Inquiry, 20, 98–109.

Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2010). Personality, ideology, prejudice, and politics: A

dual process motivational model. Journal of Personality, 78, 1861–1894.

Duncan, L. E. (2002). Unpublished data. Harvard University.

Duncan, L. E., & Stewart, A. J. (2007). Personal political salience. The role of

personality in collective identity and action. Political Psychology, 28, 143–164.

Duriez, B., & Soenens, B. (2006b). Unpublished data. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.

Federico, C. M. & Tagar, M. R. (2009). Attachment, personality, and the dimensions of

political belief. Unpublished data, University of Minnesota.

Federico, C. M., Ergun, D., & Hunt, C. V. (2009). Personality correlates of ideology,

worldviews, and moral foundation endorsement. Unpublished data, Department

of Psychology, University of Minnesota.

Fromm, E. (1941). Escape from freedom. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Gerber, A. S., Huber, G. A., Doherty, D., Dowling, C. M., & Ha, S. E. (2010). Personality

and political attitudes: Relationships across issue domains and political

contexts. American Political Science Review, 104, 111–133.

Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative ‘‘description of personality’’: The Big-Five

factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(6), 1216–1229.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.6.1216.

Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public domain, personality inventory

measuring the lower-level facets of several ﬁve-factor models. In I. Mervielde, I.

Deary, F. De Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.). Personality psychology in Europe (Vol. 7,

pp. 7–28). Tilburg, The Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.

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, 504–528.

Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando, FL:

Academic Press.

Hirsh, J. B., DeYoung, C. G., Xu, X., & Peterson, J. B. (2010). Compassionate liberals

and polite conservatives: Associations of agreeableness with political ideology

and moral values. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(5), 655–664.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167210366854.

Hodson, G., Choma, B. L., & Costello, K. (2009b). Unpublished data, Brock University.

Hodson, G., Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2009c). Unpublished data, Brock University.

Hodson, G., Hogg, S. M., & MacInnis, C. C. (2009a). The role of ‘‘dark personalities’’

(narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy), Big Five personality factors,

and ideology in explaining prejudice. Journal of Research in Personality, 43,

686–690.

Human Development Report. (2007/2008). Fighting climate change: Human solidarity

in a divided world. United Nations Human Development Programme.

Iyer, R., Koleva, S., Graham, J., Ditto, P. H., & Haidt, J. (2009). Unpublished data

collected at yourmorals.org.

Jang, K. L., Livesley, W. J., Angleitner, A., Reimann, R., & Vernon, P. A. (2002). Genetic

and environmental inﬂuences on the covariance of facets deﬁning the domains

of the ﬁve-factor model of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 33,

83–101.

Jang, K. L., Livesley, W. J., & Vemon, P. A. (1996). Heritability of the Big Five

personality dimensions and their facets: A twin study. Journal of Personality,

64(3), 577–592. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1996.tb00522.x.

Janoff-Bulman, R. (2009). To provide or protect: Motivational bases of political

liberalism and conservatism. Psychological Inquiry, 20, 120–128.

John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big-Five trait taxonomy: History,

measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.),

Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 102–138). New York:

Guilford Press.

Johnson, S. J. (2008). Religious orientation and attitudes toward women. Unpublished

master’s thesis, DeKalb: Northern Illinois University.

Jost, J. T. (2006). The end of the end of ideology. American Psychologist, 61, 651–670.

Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003). Political conservatism

as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 339–375.

Jost, J. T., Napier, J. L., Thorisdottir, H., Gosling, S. D., Palfai, T. P., & Ostaﬁn, B. (2007).

Are needs to manage uncertainty and threat associated with political

conservatism or ideological extremity? Personality and Social Psychology

Bulletin, 33, 989–1007.

Jost, J. T., West, T. V., & Gosling, S. D. (2009). Personality and ideology as

determinants of candidate preferences and ‘‘Obama conversion’’ in the 2008

US presidential election. Du Bois Review, 6, 103–124.

Kossowska, M., & Van Hiel, A. (2003). The relationship between need for closure and

conservatism in Western and Eastern Europe. Political Psychology, 24, 501–518.

Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. London: Sage.

Maslow, A. H. (1943). Dynamics of personality organization: II. Psychological Review,

50(6), 541–558. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0062037.

McCann, S. J. H. (1997). Threatening times, ‘‘strong’’ presidential popular vote

winners, and the victory margin, 1824–1964. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 73(1), 160–170. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.1.160.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. Jr., (1987). Validation of the ﬁve-factor model of

personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 52(1), 81–90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.1.81.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. Jr., (1997). Personality trait structure as a human

universal. American Psychologist, 52(5), 509–516. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/

0003-066X.52.5.509.

McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Jr., Ostendorf, F., Angleitner, A., Hr

ˇebíc

ˇková, M., et al.

(2000). Nature over nurture: Temperament, personality, and life span

development. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(1), 173–186.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.1.173.

McCrae, R. R., & John, O. P. (1992). An introduction to the ﬁve-factor model and its

applications. Journal of Personality, 60(2), 175–215. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/

j.1467-6494.1992.tb00970.x.

Mehrabian, A. (1996). Relations among political attitudes, personality, and

psychopathology assessed with new measures of libertarianism and

conservatism. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 18, 469–491.

Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1995). A cognitive–affective system theory of personality:

Reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in

personality structure. Psychological Review, 102, 246–268.

Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1999). Integrating dispositions and processing dynamics

within a uniﬁed theory of personality: The cognitive-affective personality

system. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and

research. New York: 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, 335–362.

Nail, P. R., & McGregor, I. (2009). Conservative shift among liberals and

conservatives following 9/11/01. Social Justice Research, 22(2), 231–240.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11211-009-0098-z.

Nierman, A., Crandall, C., & Gillath, O. (2009a). Unpublished data. University of

Kansas.

Nierman, A., Crandall, C., & Gillath, O. (2009b). Unpublished data. University of

Kansas.

Nosek, B. A., & Hansen, J. J. (2008). The associations in our heads belong to us:

Searching for attitudes and knowledge in implicit evaluation. Cognition and

Emotion, 22, 553–594.

Onraet, E., Van Hiel, A., Roets, A., & Cornelis, I. (submitted for publication). The closed

mind: Distinct and non-distinct aspects of Openness to Experience and Need for

Closure as psychological bases for right-wing attitudes and ideology.

Osborne, D., & Sibley, C. G. (submitted for publication a). Does personality matter?

Openness correlates with vote choice, but particularly for educated voters.

Osborne, D., & Sibley, C. G. (submitted for publication b). Political sophistication

moderates the relationship between openness and political attitudes.

Ozer, D. J., & Benet-Martinez, V. (2006). Personality and the prediction of

consequential outcomes. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 401–421.

Raudenbush, S. W. (1994). Random-effects models. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges

(Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 301–321). New York: Russell Sage

Foundation.

Reich, W. (1933). The mass psychology of fascism. In M. B. Higgins (Ed.), Trans (3rd

ed.. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.

Rentfrow, P. J., Jost, J. T., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2009). Statewide differences in

personality predict voting patterns in 1996–2004 US presidential elections. In J. T.

Jost, A. C. Kay, & H. Thorisdottir (Eds.), Social and psychological bases of ideology and

system justiﬁcation (pp. 314–347). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Roccas, S., Sagiv, L., Schwartz, S. H., & Knafo, A. (2002). The Big Five personality

factors and personal values. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(6),

789–801. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167202289008.

Rosenthal, R. (1979). The ‘‘ﬁle drawer problem’’ and tolerance for null results.

Psychological Bulletin, 86, 638–641.

Sales, S. (1973). Threat as a factor in authoritarianism: An analysis of archival data.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28, 44–57.

Saucier, G. (1994). Mini-markers: A brief version of Goldberg’s unipolar Big-Five

markers. Journal of Personality Assessment, 63, 506–516.

Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical

advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.). Advances in

experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1–65). San Diego, CA: Academic

Press, Inc.

Sibley, C. G. (2003). Unpublished data. The University of Auckland.

Sibley, C. G. (2004). Unpublished data. The University of Auckland.

Sibley, C. G. (2005). Unpublished data. The University of Auckland.

Sibley, C. G. (2009a). Unpublished data. The University of Auckland.

Sibley, C. G. (2009b). Unpublished data. The University of Auckland.

Sibley, C. G., & Duckitt, J. (2009). Unpublished data. The University of Auckland.

Sibley, C. G., & Duckitt, J. (in press). Personality geneses of Authoritarianism: The

form and function of Openness to Experience. In F. Funke, T. Petzel, J. C. Cohrs, &

J. Duckitt (Eds.), Perspectives on authoritarianism. Weisbaden, Germany: VS-

Verlag.

Sibley, C. G., & Duckitt, J. (2008). Personality and prejudice. A meta-analysis and

theoretical review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12, 248–279.

Sibley, C. G., Perry, R., & Asbrock, F. (2009a). Unpublished data. The University of

Auckland.

Sibley, C. G., Perry, R., & Asbrock, F. (2009b). Unpublished data. The University of

Auckland.

Sibley, C. G., Harding, J. F., Perry, R., Asbrock, F., & Duckitt, J. (2010). Personality and

prejudice. Extension to the HEXACO personality model. European Journal of

Personality, 24(6), 515–534. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/per.750.

Sibley, C. G., & Wilson, M. S. (2007). Political attitudes and the ideology of equality:

Differentiating support for liberal and conservative political parties in New

Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 36, 72–84.

Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance. An intergroup theory of social

hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Silver, R., Poulin, M., & Blum, S. (2009). Unpublished data. University of California,

Irvine.

676 C.G. Sibley et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 46 (2012) 664–677

Soldz, S., & Vaillant, G. E. (1999). The Big Five personality traits and the life course: A

45-year longitudinal study. Journal of Research in Personality, 33(2), 208–232.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.1999.2243.

Stangor, C., & Leary, M. (2006). Intergroup beliefs: Investigations from the social

side. In M. Zanna (Ed.). Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 38,

pp. 243–281). New York: Academic.

Stenner, K. (2005). The authoritarian dynamic. Cambridge university press.

Thórisdóttir, H., & Jost, J. T. (2011). Motivated closed-mindedness mediates the

effect of threat on political conservatism. Political Psychology, 32(5), 785–811.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2011.00840.x.

Torges, C. M., Stewart, A. J., & Duncan, L. E. (2008). Achieving ego integrity:

Personality development in late midlife. Journal of Research in Personality, 42,

1004–1019.

Vail, K. E., III, Arndt, J., Motyl, M., & Pyszczynski, T. (2009). Compassionate values

and presidential politics: Mortality salience, compassionate values, and support

for Barack Obama and John McCain in the 2008 presidential election. Analyses of

Social Issues and Public Policy, 9(1), 255–268. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-

2415.2009.01190.x.

Van Hiel, A. (1996). Unpublished data. Ghent University.

Van Hiel, A. (2005). Unpublished data, Ghent University.

Van Hiel, A. (2006). Unpublished data, Ghent University.

Van Hiel, A., Cornelis, I., & Roets, A. (2007). The intervening role of social worldviews

in the relationship between the Five-Factor model of personality and social

attitudes. European Journal of Personality, 21, 131–148.

Van Hiel, A., Kossowska, M., & Mervielde, I. (2000). The relationship between

openness to experience and political ideology. Personality and Individual

Differences, 28, 741–751.

Van Hiel, A., & Mervielde, I. (1996). Personality and current political beliefs.

Psychologica Belgica, 36, 221–226.

Van Hiel, A., & Mervielde, I. (2004). Openness to experience and boundaries in the

mind: Relationships with cultural and economic conservative beliefs. Journal of

Personality, 72, 659–686.

Von Collani, G., & Grumm, M. (2009). On the dimensional structure of personality,

ideological beliefs, social attitudes, and personal values. Journal of Individual

Differences, 30, 107–119.

Watson, D. (2009a). Unpublished data. University of Iowa.

Watson, D. (2009b). Unpublished data. University of Iowa.

Watson, D. (2009c). Unpublished data. University of Iowa.

Watson, D. (2009d). Unpublished data. University of Iowa.

Watson, D. (2009e). Unpublished data. University of Iowa.

Whitaker, E. A., Fulwider, J. M., & Herian, M. N. (2007). Exploring the links between

personality and political orientation and identiﬁcation. In Paper prepared for the

2007 International society of political psychology annual meeting, Portland, OR.

Wilson, G. D. (1973). The psychology of conservatism. Oxford, England: Academic

Press.

Wilson, M. S., & Sibley, C. G. (in press). Social Dominance Orientation and Right-

Wing Authoritarianism: Additive and interactive effects on political

conservatism. Political Psychology.

C.G. Sibley et al. / Journal of Research in Personality 46 (2012) 664–677 677

The more you want to fit in, the more similar you become: How others' ideologies relate to our own intergroup attitudes

Article

Full-text available

Mar 2025
POLIT PSYCHOL

Why people develop prejudice has been under the spotlight of many political and social psychological studies. The current contribution bridges the gap between individual and contextual perspectives and conceptualizes attitudes as joint products of personal ideologies and social norms, as such adopting a person‐within‐context approach. In two US samples (total N = 1150), representative in terms of age, gender, ethnic background (Studies 1–2), and political orientation (Study 2), we examined whether perceived levels of Right‐Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) and Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) in one's close groups (family, friends, colleagues, and people in one's town) were related to outgroup warmth and avoidance through one's own RWA and SDO. We also included norm enactment as a moderator of close‐group ideologies' effect on one's own ideologies. The results showed that close‐group ideologies were positively linked to participants' own RWA and SDO, which, in turn, were associated with lower outgroup warmth and higher outgroup avoidance in both studies. Most importantly, these effects were strongest for those who have a high desire to enact close‐group norms, and weakest for those who have a low desire for norm enactment. These findings highlight the significance of situating personal ideologies within their contextual plenum while studying intergroup relations.

Sorry, you make less sense to me: The effect of non-native speaker status on metaphor processing

Article

Full-text available

Mar 2025
ACTA PSYCHOL

Preconceived assumptions about the speaker have been shown to strongly and automatically influence speech interpretation. This study contributes to previous research by investigating the impact of non-nativeness on perceived metaphor sensibility. To eliminate the effects of speech disfluency, we used exclusively written sentences but introduced their "authors" as having a strong native or non-native accent through a written vignette. The author's language proficiency was never mentioned. Metaphorical sentences featured familiar ("The pictures streamed through her head") and unfamiliar ("The textbooks snored on the desk") verbal metaphors and closely matched literal expressions from a pre-tested database. We also administered a battery of psychological tests to assess whether ratings could be predicted by individual differences. The results revealed that all sentences attributed to the non-native speaker were perceived as less sensical. Incorporating the identity of the non-native speaker also took more effort, as indicated by longer processing and evaluation times. Additionally, while a general bias against non-native speakers emerged even without oral speech, person-based factors played a significant role. Lower ratings of non-native compared to native speakers were largely driven by individuals from less linguistically diverse backgrounds and those with less cognitive reflection. Extraversion and political ideology also modulated ratings in a unique way. The study highlights the impact of preconceived notions about the speaker on sentence processing and the importance of taking interpersonal variation into account.

Why Anxious People Lean to the Left on Economic Policy: Personality, Social Exclusion, and Redistribution

Article

Full-text available

Feb 2025
BRIT J POLIT SCI

Liberals experience more distress than conservatives. Why? We offer a novel explanation, the social support hypothesis. Maintaining social support and avoiding exclusion are basic human motivations, but people differ in their sensitivity to the threat of social exclusion. Among people high in the personality trait neuroticism , exclusion easily triggers feelings of vulnerability and neediness. The social support hypothesis translates this to politics. Concerned with their own vulnerability, we find that neurotic people prefer policies of care – social welfare and redistribution – but not other left-wing policies. Specifically, it is anxiety – the facet of neuroticism tapping sensitivity to social threats – that drives this link. And it is only for people experiencing exclusion that anxiety predicts support for social welfare. Our results come from two experiments and four representative surveys across two continents. They help to resolve the puzzle of liberal distress while providing a new template for research on personality and politics.

News Media Use and Crime Perceptions – The Dual Role of Ideology

Article

Mar 2025
Mass Comm Soc

Dennis Andersson

Ideological beliefs as cues to exploitation-exploration behavior

Article

Mar 2025

Personality, Ideology, and Attitudes Toward Social Justice

Article

Feb 2025
J PERS

Objective The importance of diversity, inclusiveness, and social justice has been increasingly emphasized in different institutions and organizations around the world. The present research adopted an individual differences approach to understanding people's attitudes toward diversity and social justice. Method Across three studies ( N s ranging from 371 to 700), participants completed measures of Big Five personality traits, political ideology, and attitudes toward a range of social justice issues (diversity, LGBTQ+, racial relations, abortion). Results Higher Openness to Experience and Agreeableness emerged as the most consistent predictors of higher support for social justice. Higher Neuroticism and lower Conscientiousness also predicted support for social justice issues. Furthermore, consistent with the dual‐process model of ideology, we found that right‐wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation tended to predict social justice support above and beyond Openness to Experience and Agreeableness. Conclusion This work provides important insights into the personality predictors of social justice support.

Setting the Course: CEO Beliefs as the North Star in the Hotel-OTA Relationship

Article

Feb 2025
Int J Hospit Manag

Navigating market waves: How CEO political ideology shapes the currents of innovation-induced tourism value

Article

Feb 2025
TOURISM MANAGE

Testing Theories of Threat, Individual Difference, and Ideology: Little Evidence of Personality-Based Individual Differences in Ideological Responses to Threat

Article

Oct 2024

Recent attempts to establish the veracity of the conservative shift hypothesis have failed to find supportive evidence. Instead, this work yields inconsistent results and reveals considerable individual differences in ideological responses to ecological threats. In two studies, we build upon this work in two ways. First, we test the conservative shift hypothesis across five ecological threats: unemployment, immigration, racial diversity, COVID-19, and violent crime, more than has been examined previously. Second, we test whether, in line with political personality theories, openness to experience and conscientiousness predict who is likely to shift to the right in the face of threat and who is not. In one nationally representative panel study from the Netherlands ( N = 11,189) and one nationally representative repeated cross-sectional study in the United States ( N = 9,040), we find minimal support for the conservative shift hypothesis and theories that predict personality-based individual differences in ideological responses to threat.

The 4D Model of American Political Conservatism: Disgust, Disorder Aversion, Deontology, and (Social) Dominance

Article

Aug 2024
REV GEN PSYCHOL

Over the decades, numerous researchers have identified psychological predictors of conservative and liberal political orientation. However, most research teams have focused on a single predictor at a time, occasionally two. Moreover, most researchers have tended to stay within the theoretical and methodological confines of their subdiscipline (e.g., social psychology vs. personality psychology). Here, we review and integrate evidence across different subdisciplines to propose a constellation of four psychological constructs (disgust sensitivity, preference for order, deontological morality, and social dominance orientation) that, working together, form a more nuanced and fine-grained account of why people are attracted to different ends of the political spectrum. In doing so, we demonstrate the usefulness of moving beyond operationalizing political orientation in a single-dimensional (left-to-right) manner. We suggest that the proposed “4D Model” represents an incremental advance that makes more specific predictions about who will be attracted to which strands of political conservatism.

The End of the End of Ideology

Chapter

Full-text available

Jan 2012

John T Jost

Formally, the law purports to be based solely in reasoned analysis, devoid of ideological bias or unconscious influences. Judges claim to act as umpires applying the rules, not making them. They frame their decisions as straightforward applications of an established set of legal doctrines, principles, and mandates to a given set of facts. As scholars who carefully study the law understand, that frame is a façade, and the impression that the legal system projects is an illusion. Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. made a similar claim more than a century ago when he wrote that “the felt necessities of the time, the prevalent moral and political theories, intuitions of public policy, avowed or unconscious, even the prejudices which judges share with their fellow-men, have a good deal more to do than the syllogism in determining the rules by which men should be governed.” A century later, though, we are much closer to understanding the mechanisms responsible for the gap between the formal face of the law and the actual forces shaping it. Over the last decade or so, political scientists and legal academics have begun studying the linkages between ideologies, on one hand, and legal principles and policy outcomes on the other. During that same period, mind scientists have turned to understanding the psychological sources of ideology. This book is the first to bring many of the world’s experts on those topics together to examine the sometimes unsettling interactions between psychology, ideology and law.

Personality and Current Political Beliefs

Article

Full-text available

Jan 1996
PSYCHOL BELG

A sample of 328 subjects completed a questionnaire measuring various political beliefs. Part of the sample also filled in the Dutch NEO-FFI personality inventory. The aims of this study are as follows: (1) to determine the dimensional structure of current political beliefs and (2) to examine the relationship between the dimensions of political beliefs and personality. Factor analysis of the 126 political items reveals four factors referring to general conservatism, humanitarian military interventions, fairness of taxation and general social welfare. Joint factor analysis indicates relationships between personality and political beliefs similar to those reported by Riemann, Grubich, Hempel, Mergl and Richter, 1993.

The revised NEO personality inventory (NEO-PI-R)

Article

Full-text available

Jan 2008

FROM CATALOG TO CLASSIFICATION - MURRAY NEEDS AND THE 5-FACTOR MODEL

Article

Aug 1988

The alphabetical list of needs described by Murray (1938) has formed the basis for a number of inventories, including the Personality Research Form (PRF; Jackson, 1984). In an attempt to provide a more meaningful classification of the Murray needs, the scales of Form E of the PRF were examined in relation to the NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI; Costa & McCrae, 1985), which measures the five major dimensions of normal personality. Data from 296 adult men and women showed hypothesized correlations on the level of individual scales, and suggested that the Desirability scale of the PRF measures substantive traits when used in a volunteer sample. Although the NEO-PI and PRF have different conceptual origins and measure somewhat different aspects of personality, a joint factor analysis showed that the needs measured by the PRF can be meaningfully organized within the framework of the five-factor model. Use of this taxonomy can facilitate communication between motivational and trait psychologists, and supplement the dynamic interpretation of motives with a second level of interpretation that points to related affective, interpersonal, and experiential styles. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)

Zur Reliabilität und Validität der Erfassung von Persönlichkeitsmerkmalen im Internet: Ergebnisse einer Längsschnittstudie [Reliability and validity of personality assessment over the Internet: Results of a longitudinal study]

Article

Jul 2005

Political attitudes and the ideology of equality: Differentiating support for liberal and conservative political parties in New Zealand

Article

Jul 2007
New Zeal J Psychol

A new scale summarizing the central and core elements of a social representation of individual versus group-based entitlement to resourceallocations in New Zealand (NZ) is presented. Item content for the Equality Positioning Scale was drawn from qualitative analyses of the discourses of NZ's citizens, its political elites, and the media. As hypothesized, equality positioning differentiated between Pakeha (NZ European) undergraduates who supported liberal versus conservative political parties.People who positioned equality as group-based tended to support the Labour and Green parties and those who positioned equality as meritocracy tended to support the National and NZ First parties. Regression models predicting political party support in the two months prior to the 2005 NZ general election demonstrated that the effects of equality positioning on political party preference were unique, and were not explained by universal (Study 1: Big-Five Personality, Social Dominance Orientation, Right-Wing Authoritarianism, liberalism- conservatism) or culture-specific; Study 2: pro-Pakeha ingroup attitudes, support for the symbolic principles of biculturalism) indicators derived from other theoretical perspectives. Taken together, these findings indicate that the Equality Positioning Scale provides a valid and reliable measure that contributes to models of the psychological and ideological bases of voting behaviour in NZ. Moreover, our findings suggest that the positioning of equality provided an axis of meaning that aided in the creation and mobilization of public opinion regarding resource-allocations, land claims, affirmative action programs, and a host of other material issues in the months leading up to the 2005 NZ election.

On the Social and Psychological Bases of Ideology and System Justification

Article

Aug 2009

This chapter summarizes research that both reflects and exemplifies the recent resurgence of interest in the social and psychological characteristics and processes that give rise to ideological forms. Ideology is an elusive, multifaceted construct that can usefully be analyzed in terms of "top-down" processes related to the social construction and dissemination of ideology as well as "bottom-up" processes, including dispositional and situational factors, that make certain ideological outcomes more likely than others. The chapter briefly summarizes the contents of this volume, focusing especially on the cognitive and motivational antecedents and consequences of adopting specific ideologies, the functions served by those ideologies, and the myriad ways in which people accept and justify (versus reject) aspects of the social and political worlds they inhabit. Current challenges and future directions for the study of ideology and system justification are also discussed.

Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis

Article

Jun 1986

Personality and the Foundations of Political Behavior

Article

Jan 2010

Jeffrey J Mondak

Personality and the Foundations of Political Behavior is the first study in more than thirty years to investigate the broad significance of personality traits for mass political behavior. Drawing on the Big Five personality trait framework, Jeffery J. Mondak argues that attention to personality provides a valuable means to integrate biological and environmental influences via rich, nuanced theories and empirical tests of the antecedents of political behavior. Development of such holistic accounts is critical, Mondak contends, if inquiry is to move beyond simple “blank slate” environmental depictions of political engagement. Analyses examining multiple facets of political information, political attitudes, and participation reveal that the Big Five trait dimensions – openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and emotional stability – produce both direct and indirect effects on a wide range of political phenomena.

Social Dominance: An Intergroup Theory of Social Hierarchy and Oppression

Book

Jul 1999

Part I. From There to Here - Theoretical Background: 1. From visiousness to viciousness: theories of intergroup relations 2. Social dominance theory as a new synthesis Part II. Oppression and its Psycho-Ideological Elements: 3. The psychology of group dominance: social dominance orientation 4. Let's both agree that you're really stupid: the power of consensual ideology Part III. The Circle of Oppression - The Myriad Expressions of Institutional Discrimination: 5. You stay in your part of town and I'll stay in mine: discrimination in the housing and retail markets 6. They're just too lazy to work: discrimination in the labor market 7. They're just mentally and physically unfit: discrimination in education and health care 8. The more of 'them' in prison, the better: institutional terror, social control and the dynamics of the criminal justice system Part IV. Oppression as a Cooperative Game: 9. Social hierarchy and asymmetrical group behavior: social hierarchy and group difference in behavior 10. Sex and power: the intersecting political psychologies of patriarchy and empty-set hierarchy 11. Epilogue.

Personality and political orientation: Meta-analysis and test of a Threat-Constraint Model

Abstract and Figures

Recommended publications

Joan Didion’s Democracy: Moderate Ruling-Elite Constituencies

Supplementary Data 3

Anchoring Precision or Precision in Anchoring? Exploring Precision in Negotiations

Dynamics of goal characterization in students’ exams-preparation systemic activity transition proces...