Personality & PoliticsPsychobiography and the Authoritarian Personality

Why Study Personality and Politics?

Landmark studies in personality and politics

Political elites Harold Lasswell’s, Psychopathology and Politics (1930). (First) Alexander & Juliette George, Woodrow Wilson and Colonel House

(1964). (best) James David Barber, Presidential Character (1992). (most popular) David Winter. 1987. “Leader Appeal, Leader Performance, and the

Motive Profile of Leaders and Followers.”

Mass Publics The Authoritarian Personality, (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson,

& Sanford, 1950). (first) Bob Altemeyer. Enemies of freedom: understanding right-wing

authoritarianism, 1988. (second) Marc Hetherington. 2009. Authoritarianism and Polarization in

American Politics . (best in AU) Jeffrey Mondak & Matt Hibbing. 2010. Personality and the

Foundations of Political Behavior. (Big Five)

Personality studies of political elites Walter C. Langer, The Mind of

Adolph Hitler "Hitler might commit suicide. This is the

most plausible outcome. . . .It is probably true that he has an inordinate fear of death, but being a psychopath he could undoubtedly screw himself up into the superman character and perform the deed. In all probability, however, it would not be a simple suicide. He has much too much of the dramatic for that, and since immortality is one of his dominant motives we can imagine that he would stage the most dramatic and effective death scene he could possibly think of. . . .He might even engage some other fanatic to do the final killing at his orders."

From Walter C. Langer, in a top-secret psychoanalysis of Adolph Hitler written for the Office of Strategic Services, 1943.

Personality studies of political elites "The danger is that crisis will be transformed

into tragedy--that Nixon will go from a dramatic experiment to a normal commitment, a commitment to follow his private star, to fly off in the face of overwhelming odds. That type of reaction is to be expected when and if Nixon is confronted with a severe threat to his power and sense of virtue.“

James David Barber, on Richard Nixon, 1971, seemed to foreshadow Nixon’s behavior in the Watergate cover-up. The Presidential Character: Predicting

Performance in the White House

Impact in the 1980s: Huge impact on news coverage of

presidents after LBJ & RMN convinced people that flawed characters matter.

Continual search for flawed personality traits among pundits and academics.

James David Barber's, The Presidential Character: Predicting Performance in the White House.

Positive NegativeActive ADAPTIVE: self-confident;

flexible; creates opportunities for action; enjoys the exercise of power, does not take himself too seriously; optimistic; emphasizes the "rational mastery" of his environment; power used as a means to achieve beneficial results.

Thomas Jefferson, F. D. Roosevelt, H. Truman, J. F. Kennedy, G. Ford, G. W. Bush(?)

COMPULSIVE: power as a means to self-realization; expends great energy on tasks but derives little joy; preoccupied with whether he is failing or succeeding; low self-esteem; inclined to rigidity and pessimism; highly driven; problem managing aggression. John Adams, W. Wilson, H. Hoover, A. Lincoln, L. B. Johnson, R. Nixon,

Passive

COMPLIANT: seek to be loved; easily manipulated; low self-esteem is overcome by ingratiating personality; reacts rather than initiates; superficially optimistic.

James Madison, W. H. Taft, W. Harding, R. Reagan,Bill Clinton

WITHDRAWN: responds to a sense of duty; avoid power; low self-esteem compensated by service to others; responds rather than initiates; avoids conflict and uncertainty. emphasizes principles and procedures and an aversion to politicking.

George Washington, C. Coolidge, D. Eisenhower

Do you agree with the placement of Clinton and Bush?

Where would you put Obama?

Problems with Barber? Simplicity? Ideological bias? Predictions? Problem with available data

Data Problems of Psychobiographies

Data: Speeches, writings, autobiographies, interviews are influenced by: Impression management Authorship ▪ Lee Sigelman: content

analysis of speeches. Evidence of "Two Reagans” based on different speech writers!

Partisanship and ideology. Bush self-portraits

Review Question

Provide a critique of James David Barber’s study of presidential character as discussed in class and Houghton. How does it point up some of the problems with doing psycho-biographical studies of political elites?

Allegedly painted by George W. Bush. Revealed by a hacker.

A psychiatrist’s dream?

Why study personality?

Genetics Personality

General Orientatio

ns (Values)

Attitudes Behavior

Environment

What is personality? DEFINITION:

FROM "PERSONA": MASK used by ANCIENT ROMANS to tell audience what to expect from that particular character; signified a consistent set of behaviors.

Gordon ALLPORT in 1937 noted over fifty types of definitions of personality

MINIMALIST DEFINITION: an enduring set of dispositions to respond in a particular manner that is consistent across time and situations.

What is personality? COMMON CHARACTERISTICS

INFERRED ENDURING CONSISTENT

TRAITS (e.g., extroversion, optimism): an enduring disposition to behave in a particular way over a range of situations, which are: COMPARABLE DIFFERENTIABLE STABLE

TYPES, FACTORS: clusters of related personality traits (e.g., introversion/extroversion; authoritarian/democratic)

Approaches to study of personality

Idiographic: emphasizes the uniqueness of individuals in terms of specific traits and the way the traits are organized.

Nomothetic: An approach to personality that emphasizes individual differences on standard measures in order to compare different individuals.

Methods for studying personality Case studies: in-depth study of single individuals to capture the

uniqueness and complexity of individuals. Problem with subjective interpretation of data & inability to generalize complexities across individuals. (Georges, Barber)

Correlational method: Is there an association or correlation between different traits and with behaviors across individuals? Do variable X (e.g., aggressiveness and variable Y (e.g., political violence) go together or vary together? Benefits are naturalness of the design, generalizabity of results to population (subjects are selected randomly); disadvantage is the inability to detect cause-and-effect relationships. (Winter, Hetherington, Mondak)

Experimental method: Causal variables are manipulated while all other variables are held constant. Benefit is ability to determine cause-and-effect relationships; disadvantage is laboratory setting and inability to generalize results to wider population. (Feldman & Stenner, Michels)

Personality and the study of mass political behavior

• Authoritarianism in Psychology & Political Science (Hetherington & Weiler)

• The Big Five Personality (Mondak & Hibbing)

The Authoritarian Personality

THE PREJUDICED PERSONALITY INTOLERANT PERSONALITY UNDEMOCRATIC PERSONALITY

Research on authoritarianism

Adorno et al., The Authoritarian Personality (1950) Psychoanalytic interpretation Problems with the F-scale

Bob Altemeyer, Right-Wing Authoritarianism Authoritarian submission Authoritarian aggression Conventionalism Problems with RWA measure?

Marc Hetherington & Jonathon Weiler. 2009. Authoritarianism and Polarization in American Politics

Core characteristics of Authoritarianism (AU)

AU is fundamentally motivated by a need for order & support for authorities seen as best able to secure that order against a variety of threats to social cohesion. Note: AU & conservatism aren’t the

same thing, and the association between them isn’t all that high.

Hetherington & Weiler’s Ranking measure of authoritarianism (from Feldman & Stenner)

Values in Children vs Actual childrearing practices.

“I am going to read you pairs of values. Which value is more important for a child to have?”

1. Independence? or Respect for elders? 2. Curiosity? or Good manners? 3. Being considerate or Being well-behaved?4. Obedience or Self-Reliance?

The AU measure is correlated with the things it should beConstruct validity: Is the measure correlated with the things theory tells us it should be?

AU is correlated with: Need for cognition (low AU agree)▪ “I would prefer complex to simple problems.”▪ “I like to have the responsibility of handling a situation that requires a lot of

thinking.”▪ “I have opinions on most things.”

Intelligence (interviewer rating), education, political knowledge Need for order▪ “Personally, I tend to think that there is a right way and a wrong way to do

almost everything”▪ “Nothing gets accomplished in this world unless you stick to some basic rules”

Next: Does AU help us explain political & social intolerance toward a range of unpopular groups?

Authoritarianism and Opposition to Gay Rights Issues

Even after adding lots of controls for demographic characteristics, political values, partisanship, liberalism-conservatism, and religiosity, Authoritarianism still has a large impact on support for (opposition to) Gay Rights Issues.

Social Intolerance toward OutgroupsGraphing the influence of AU on Support for Gay Rights:

As AU increases, support for gay rights decreases, even after removing the influence of all control variables, such as political values, partisanship, liberalism-conservatism, and religiosity.

Immigration Attitudes as a Function of Authoritarianism, Symbolic Attitudes, andSocial Characteristics

Even after adding lots of controls for demographic characteristics, partisanship, liberalism-conservatism, Authoritarianism still has a large impact on Immigration Attitudes.

How much of a difference does AU make in taking positions on immigration attitudes that is: Unfavorable to Immigrants or Illegal Immigrants

Even after controlling for other factors, like PID, Ideology and Social characteristics, the magnitude of authoritarianism’s effect is sizeable. Percentage difference in

immigration attitudes for people at the lowest and highest ends of the AU scale. 30% to 40%.

% Opposition to Immigration Policies for Low vs. High Authoritarianism, controlling for other predictors

Economy Culture Breakers, ImmigrantsAmerican American are Law- for Illegal

is a Threat to should Adopt Immigrants to CitizenshipImmigration Immigrants Illegal Against Path

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

28

50

38 37

67

83 8277

Low Author High Author

The influence of AU on support for limiting civil liberties (to ward off internal threats), controlling for other factors

Civil Liberties Questions1. As you may know, federal

government agencies have recently been given more power to use electronic surveillance to monitor phone calls and emails within the United States without first getting a court warrant to do so. Do you consider this an acceptable or unacceptable way for the federal government to investigate terrorism?

2. Some people think installing video cameras in public places is a good idea because they may help to reduce the threat of terrorism. Other people think this is a bad idea because surveillance cameras may infringe on people’s privacy rights. What do you think? Would you say this it is a good idea or a bad idea to install surveillance cameras in public places?

3. These days, if someone disagrees with the president on issues relating to terrorism, do you think it is okay to criticize him publicly, or should people not criticize the president on issues relating to terrorism?

4. Do you think the news media should - or should not - report information it obtains about the secret methods the government is using to fight terrorism?

Use of Force versus Diplomacy as a Function of Authoritarianism + lots of controls

Even after adding lots of controls for demographic characteristics, partisanship, liberalism-conservatism, and perceived threat from terrorism, Authoritarianism still has a large impact on support for Use of Force vs. Diplomacy abroad.

The influence of AU on taking a hawkish position on using force vs. diplomacy, controlling for other factors

Hawkish Views:1. Do you think the war in

Iraq was a mistake? 2. Allies vs. National

Interest: “The U.S. should take into account the interests of its allies even if it means making compromises,” or “the U.S. should follow its own national interests even when its allies strongly disagree.”

3. Strength vs. Diplomacy: Agree more: “the best way to ensure peace is through military strength” or “Good diplomacy is the best way to ensure peace.”

Summary: Authoritarian worldview evolution explains increasing polarization on many non-economic issues. Sometimes the issue favors Republicans,

such as when perceived threat from terrorists, immigration or cultural issues increases among a majority of the public.

But it also creates a wedge issue that divides Republicans and prevents them from winning elections if the establishment cannot move a larger portion of their supporters to a majority position on cultural and other “hot button” issues.

Question: Why is AU related to these political attitudes? (internal validity)H&W’s study is correlational so while it

provides lots of external validity for the associations between AU & political attitudes, internal validity is harder to establish with their cross-sectional survey data.

Experimental studies: manipulate threat from outgroups to see if that makes authoritarianism a stronger source of political attitudes when AU feel threatened.

Threat & Authoritarianism: Polarization or Convergence of High & Low AUs?

Chapter 6 (Not Assigned!)

H&W’s argument about threat and authoritarianism Experimental studies find polarization of

high and low authoritarian responses after manipulating threat in the laboratory or a survey experiment e.g., Merolla and Zechmeister (2008): after

raising the salience of terrorist threat in their experiments, high authoritarian individuals, compared with low authoritarian individuals: ▪ Perceive greater threat from terrorism ▪ Support restrictions on civil liberties at home▪ Support the war on terror abroad▪ Support for a strong leader

H & W argue that these findings occur in the “laboratory” and do not accurately reflect rising threat levels in the “real” world.

H&W find …

A very different effect of perceived threat. Non-authoritarians converge to an authoritarian response.

Problem: H&W do not manipulate threat. They ask people about their existing level of threat and find that non-authoritarians who perceive high threat from terrorism, say, shift to the Right.

High & low Authoritarians converge if they both perceive high threat. In other words, low authoritarians adopt an authoritarian response if they perceive high threat.

Problems:1. Their cross-sectional survey

results are interpreted as if threat levels had just changed. Association is interpreted as causation.

2. Non-authoritarians who perceive a lot of threat may be atypical.

3. Their survey was done in 2006, 5 years after 9/11. Authoritarians may have already moved to the Right on this issue after 9/11 and a ceiling effect prevents further movement to the Right.

Problems with their measure of Authoritarianism: Basically, their measure of

Authoritarianism works for white respondents but doesn’t perform as expected for African American respondents.

And they are not sure why that is the case. Their recommendation is for further research.

“Authoritarianism in Black & White” (Perez & Hetherington)

“Authoritarianism in Black & White” (Perez & Hetherington) To further investigate whether and why their measure doesn’t work as

well for African Americans, they conduct an experiment where they manipulate the level of threat from illegal immigrant groups that either pose a threat to the established order or not (i.e., Mexicans or Canadians). ▪ The control group provided no information about immigrants’ legal status or

national origin. The second and third conditions identified immigrants as illegal Canadians and illegal Mexicans, respectively.

▪ Let’s talk about a group of immigrants that has been coming illegally into the U.S. for some years. Because [Canada/Mexico] is so close to the U.S., many [Canadian/Mexican] immigrants have found it relatively easy to cross into the U.S. without American authorities detecting them. This ease of movement has permitted these [Canadian/Mexican] immigrants to settle and find jobs in the U.S. Some individuals believe that illegal immigration is beneficial to the U.S. economy because it supplies labor that employers demand. Other individuals believe, however, that the unchecked flow of illegal immigrants into the U.S. leads to more problems than benefits, such as an increase in crime.

• White AUs are more opposed to Mexican & Canadian illegal immigrants than the Control, while Black AUs are only more opposed to Canadian illegal immigrants.

• Conclusion: AU doesn’t seem to measure the same concept for Blacks.

Authoritarianism in Black and White

“Authoritarianism in Black & White” (Perez & Hetherington)

Conclusions Based on research employing different authoritarianism measures (e.g.,

Smith and Prothro 1957; Henry 2011), it is reasonable to believe that Blacks might be relatively more authoritarian than Whites. Yet the fact that Blacks’ authoritarianism—as measured by the child rearing scale—does not correlate with a range of theoretically relevant variables suggests this scale is not effectively measuring authoritarianism within this group.

The child rearing scale is a very effective measure of authoritarianism among Whites.

Solutions? Further research. ▪ Focus groups▪ Our results indicate the current child rearing items are too “easy” for African

Americans to answer in an authoritarian direction, which helps to produce a large racial gap in authoritarianism. If the goal of researchers is to shrink this gap to a more reasonable size, while also enhancing the link between authoritarianism and other variables among Blacks, then scholars might design slightly revised items that assess preferences for different sets of desirable traits, such as “conforming to others” versus being “unafraid to be different.”

Questions on Hetherington & Weiler1. In their 2009 study of Authoritarianism and Polarization in

American Politics, how do Hetherington & Weiler measure authoritarianism and how is their measure an improvement over prior studies of authoritarianism? What are some of their measure’s limitations?

2. Why don’t Hetherington & Weiler include African Americans in their study? Does the omission of blacks undermine their study? Why or why not?

3. On what sorts of political issues do Hetherington & Weiler find that high authoritarians differ a lot from low authoritarians?

Personality and the Foundations of Political Behavior, Jeffery Mondak

“Personality and Public Opinion”Jeffery Mondak & Matthew Hibbing

Broader definition of personality We can define personality as being a

multifaceted and enduring psychological structure that influences patterns in behavior.

Instead of a single trait or disposition, the Big Five focuses on many traits that are subsumed by 5 dimensions

The Big Five Personality Trait Dimensions

The Big Five Personality Dimensions predict many behaviors and outcomes

Personality test?

Advances in Personality Research in Psychology since the 1990s

Big Five Factors Reduces the semantic nightmare of 1000’s of studied traits Hierarchy of general factors subsumes most studied traits Genetic basis (H = .45 to .90); mediates biological factors

(“news you can use” vs. genes, alleles) Highly stable across the lifespan Provides a complete personality profile vs. specific trait Consensus in Psychology on:▪ Factors, traits, measures (NEO-PI-R = 240 items, 30-45 mins; short-

form = 45-60 items)

Genetics Personality

General Orientatio

ns (Values)

Attitudes Behavior

DeYoung Personality Laboratory at MN: How do individual differences in brain function produce individual differences in personality?

Which one is he?

The Big Five Personality Traits Aspects Facets

Mondak & Hibbing, 2015

Table 2. Personality and Ideology 2010 Americas

Barometer 2012 CCES 2012 ANES

Constant

4.77 (0.40)

4.10 (0.41)

0.60 (0.22)

Female -0.55*** (0.14)

-0.29** (0.12)

-0.31*** (0.08)

African-American -0.79*** (0.22)

-0.66*** (0.19)

-1.16*** (0.11)

Hispanic -0.47** (0.21)

-0.23 (0.22)

-0.62*** (0.11)

Age 0.02*** (0.00)

0.02*** (0.00)

0.07*** (0.01)

Openness to Experience

-2.17*** (0.35)

-2.38*** (0.36)

-2.87*** (0.23)

Conscientiousness 1.88*** (0.35)

1.18** (0.43)

1.69*** (0.23)

Extraversion 0.29 (0.31)

-0.17 (0.30)

0.23 (0.19)

Agreeableness 0.46 (0.39)

0.03 (0.34)

-0.43 (0.24)

Emotional Stability 0.62* (0.34)

0.59* (0.34)

0.60** (0.22)

R2 0.09

0.08 0.08

Number of Cases 1493

879 4679

Source: U.S. component of the 2010 AmericasBarometer (first column); 2012 Cooperative Congressional Election Study (second column); 2012 American National Election Study (third column). Note: Cell entries are OLS regression coefficients with standard errors in parentheses. The dependent variable is a 10-point (column one) or 7-point (columns two and three) measure of ideological self-placement, coded liberal (1) to conservative (highest value). *** p < .001 ** p < .05 * p < .10

Personality shapes Ideology

Personality & Ideology shape SSM

Direct and Indirect Links

Direct and Indirect Effects of Personality Traits on Approval of Same-Sex Couples Having the Right to Marry

Direct effect

Indirect effects (by shaping Ideology, which, in turn, shapes Approval of SSM)

-2.17

-.18

1.52

Note: Coefficients are from AmericasBarometer surveys