Download The Civic Personality: Personality and Democratic Citizenship

bs_bs_banner
POLITICAL STUDIES: 2013
doi: 10.1111/1467-9248.12094
The Civic Personality: Personality and
Democratic Citizenship
Peter Thisted Dinesen
Asbjørn Sonne Nørgaard and Robert Klemmensen
University of Copenhagen
University of Southern Denmark
This article examines the foundations of democratic citizenship along three dimensions: generalised trust in other
people; norms of citizenship; and participation in organisations. Contrary to previous research, which mainly focuses
on situational factors, this article scrutinises how individual predispositions, in terms of personality traits, influence the
three dimensions of democratic citizenship. In accordance with recent research, personality is conceptualised according
to the Big Five personality model encompassing the five traits Openness (to experience), Conscientiousness,
Extraversion, Agreeableness and Neuroticism. Based on a nationally representative Danish survey, which includes a
60-item Big Five personality inventory, we show that personality traits to a considerable extent influence all three
dimensions of democratic citizenship. Furthermore, for norms of citizenship and organisational involvement, the
personality traits have differential impacts contingent on the norm and type of organisational involvement in question.
Keywords: democratic citizenship; generalised trust; citizenship norms; organisational
involvement; Big Five personality model
Democratic citizenship is an essential element of a civic culture which underpins democratic government (Almond and Verba, 1963).When citizens think and act in accordance
with the virtues of democratic citizenship, they form the basis for a thriving democracy
characterised by widespread political participation and cooperation to solve collective
action problems (Putnam, 1993). Given its importance for democratic governance, previous
research has attempted to explain how democratic citizenship is formed and this article adds
to this research agenda by examining the foundations of democratic citizenship along three
dimensions: generalised trust in other people;1 norms of citizenship; and participation in
organisations. These comprise both the cognitive (trust and norms) and structural
(organisational involvement) aspects of democratic citizenship, or what Christopher
Anderson and Aida Paskeviciute (2006, p. 784) have collectively labelled ‘citizenship
behaviour’, which they define as ‘attitudes and behaviors thought to be conducive to
high-quality civil society and representative (mass) democracy’.2 So far, research has primarily looked at situational factors, that is, the context and life circumstances of the
individual, when explaining democratic citizenship. Conversely, dispositional factors –
fundamental individual behavioural predispositions – have largely been overlooked in the
study of civic attitudes and behaviour. The purpose of this article is not to question the
importance of situational factors in forming democratic citizenship, but rather to highlight
how one important class of dispositional factors – personality traits – may also contribute
to the explanation of civic attitudes and behaviour.
Situational factors are important in shaping the various forms of democratic citizenship.
Our trust in others, participation in organisational life and civic norms critically depend on
our life circumstances and experiences in the environment in which we live.This is perhaps
© 2013 The Authors. Political Studies © 2013 Political Studies Association
2
P E T E R T H I S T E D D I N E S E N ET AL.
best illustrated by the immense variation in generalised trust and organisational involvement
across countries (Freitag and Bühlmann, 2009; Paxton, 2002; Schofer and
Fourcade-Gourinchas, 2001). In some countries citizens trust each other more and participate more in civic life than in others, which indicates the importance of the national
context in forming democratic virtues of citizens. Similarly, within a given country,
indicators of democratic citizenship vary systematically with levels of education (Brehm and
Rahn, 1997; Denters et al., 2007; Verba et al., 1995).That said, it is also clear that variation
still exists between individuals living in the same environment and being in the same life
situation. Even in the most civic of countries some citizens do not think or act accordingly,
and among low-educated citizens, who are generally the least engaged, we also find people
who are very civically oriented. In this article we take a step towards explaining this
variation among individuals by examining how democratic citizenship depends upon
psychological predispositions in terms of personality. Specifically, we examine the role of the
five personality traits – Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Neuroticism and
Openness to experience – in the Big Five personality model, which is a broad-scale
framework for assessing personality.We employ an extensive survey instrument rarely used
in political science, namely the 60-item Neo-FFI inventory, which provides more robust
measures of the five personality traits than shorter instruments do. By examining how
indicators of democratic citizenship depend on personality, we add to the burgeoning
literature on how personality affects various aspects of political attitudes and behaviour.
Moreover, in line with recent contributions (Gerber et al., 2010; Mondak et al., 2010), we
investigate the conditionality of the impact of personality on civic engagement and
attitudes, as two of the three indicators of democratic citizenship, associational activity and
citizenship norms, vary in nature and scope. This way we attempt to understand in more
detail when and how personality affects civic behaviour and attitudes.
In the following we briefly review the literature about the Big Five personality framework before theorising its relevance for the three dimensions of democratic citizenship
examined. Then we describe the data and variables employed in the empirical analysis.After
that we present the results of the empirical analyses before finally discussing the implications
of the findings for future research.
Personality and Democratic Citizenship
Personality psychologists have to some extent reached a working consensus that personality
traits can be measured by the Big Five personality model (Costa and McCrae, 1988; 1992;
Goldberg, 1992; 1993; John et al., 2008), which conceptualises personality by five global
traits: Openness (to experience), Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness and Neuroticism (or its inverse, Emotional stability). These personality traits are influenced by
genetic differences and are only to a limited extent susceptible to changes in environmental
factors after adolescence (Bouchard and McGue, 2003; Costa and McCrae, 1988). As such,
personality traits have been considered largely exogenous to political behaviour and
attitudes (compare Mondak, 2010), although recent studies have challenged this view with
regard to political attitudes (Verhulst et al., 2010; 2012).
The five traits can briefly be described as follows (Costa and McCrae, 1988; 1992;
Goldberg, 1992; 1993). People who score high on Openness tend to be open-minded,
© 2013 The Authors. Political Studies © 2013 Political Studies Association
POLITICAL STUDIES: 2013
THE CIVIC PERSONALITY
3
tolerant, creative, curious and generally appreciative of encounters with novel and alternative ideas, people and situations. Scoring high on Conscientiousness implies strong
impulse control, dutifulness and sense of organisation, as well as adherence to norms and
rules, and a preference for order and dependability. Extraversion is associated with an
energetic, active and excitement-seeking approach to life, outgoing and sociable
behaviour, and positive emotionality in general. Individuals scoring high on Agreeableness
are typically cooperative, sympathetic, altruistic, modest and generally pro-social and
communal in their orientations toward other people. A high score on Neuroticism is
associated with anxiety, uneasiness, feelings of vulnerability and high sensitivity to negative emotions in general.
The emerging literature on the relationship between the Big Five personality traits and
political behaviour has focused mainly on political ideology (see Gerber et al., 2010, for an
overview; Jost, 2006), political participation (Gerber et al., 2011; Mondak and Halperin,
2008; Mondak et al., 2010; 2011) and political discussion (Hibbing et al., 2011; Mondak
et al., 2010). So far our three dimensions of democratic citizenship have received limited
attention in the literature, and the few studies that have considered these attributes either
focus on specific facets (or sub-traits) of the global personality traits or measure the traits by
shorter (and thus less reliable) personality instruments in smaller samples. The present
analysis builds on a large Danish nationally representative survey with a large (60-item)
personality inventory, which provides greater leverage with regard to drawing inferences
about the impact of personality on democratic citizenship. In the following, we review
previous studies and discuss how we expect the Big Five personality traits to be related to
the three dimensions of democratic citizenship examined here: trust, norms of citizenship
and organisational involvement.
The Big Five and Trust
The substantial body of research on the foundations of social trust offers considerable
evidence that trust is shaped markedly by environmental factors (Dinesen, 2012; Glanville
and Paxton, 2007), most importantly institutional fairness (Dinesen, 2013; Rothstein and
Stolle, 2008) and income inequality (Rothstein and Uslaner, 2005). Only one study, by
Jeffery Mondak and Karen Halperin (2008),3 has examined how the broader psychological
set-up of the individual, in terms of the Big Five personality traits, is related to trust.This
study, which builds on a small American sample with a limited ten-item personality
inventory, found that only Agreeableness had an impact on trust. A number of studies look
at specific traits. Examining only Agreeableness and Openness, Kai Hirashi et al. (2008)
found that both were positively related to trust in a Japanese sample. Looking at more
specific facets, Eric Uslaner (2002) has shown that trust is positively related to optimism and
a sense of control – both facets that can be subsumed under the global Big Five traits, most
likely Extraversion (the former) and Conscientiousness (both). Likewise, Laurie Couch and
Warren Jones (1997) found that generalised trust is significantly negatively associated with
shyness, jealousy and suspicion, which are likely to be considered facets under Neuroticism
(and, in the case of the former, possibly also Extraversion). Finally, Agreeableness has been
shown to contribute to pro-social behaviour more generally (Graziano and Eisenberg,
1997).
© 2013 The Authors. Political Studies © 2013 Political Studies Association
POLITICAL STUDIES: 2013
4
P E T E R T H I S T E D D I N E S E N ET AL.
Hence, based on the few earlier studies, which hold various limitations, there is reason to
believe that all five traits (or associated facets) in the Big Five personality framework are
related to trust in others. That said, we have the strongest theoretical expectations for the
traits Neuroticism, Agreeableness and Openness. We think that people scoring high on
Neuroticism, due to their anxious and uneasy nature, would be more likely to see other
people as potential threats and hence be less likely to trust them. Conversely, individuals
who score high on Agreeableness are sympathetic, altruistic and generally pro-social in their
orientations toward other people, and therefore likely to trust others more. Finally, people
scoring high on Openness may be expected to trust other people more due to their tolerant
and open-minded nature. Although facets under Extraversion and Conscientiousness have
been shown to influence trust, the theoretical expectations for the role of these two traits
are generally weaker.
The Big Five and Norms of Citizenship
We know considerably less about the foundations of citizenship norms than we do about
trust. Socio-demographic factors such as age, education and income matter for citizenship
norms in general, and so does religiosity (Dalton, 2008; Denters et al., 2007; Kotzian, 2009).
Moreover, Natalia Letki (2006) showed that confidence in institutions is strongly related to
citizenship norms with regard to public institutions. Although it is acknowledged in the
literature that citizenship norms are influenced by personality (Kotzian, 2009), no empirical
studies have been conducted so far – with the exception of norms regarding voting (Blais
and St-Vincent, 2011).As pointed out by Russell Dalton (2008) and Peter Kotzian (2009),
we should distinguish between different types of norm and we hypothesise that the Big Five
personality traits influence these various citizenship norms differently.
First, given that the citizenship norms may involve a sense of civic duty with regard to
various aspects of being a democratic citizen, we expect people high on Conscientiousness
– the personality trait associated with dutifulness – to display stronger norms of citizenship
in general.This is in line with Mondak (2010),who argues that conscientious individuals will
be involved with politics when it constitutes a duty to them. Second, as people high on
Agreeableness tend to hold communal and other-regarding orientations, they should be
more likely to adhere to citizenship norms that concern the well-being of others and society
as a whole. Moreover, as compliance is characteristic for people who are high on Agreeableness, we expect a positive relationship between this trait and norms for which adherence is
legally regulated such as not cheating on taxes.Third, due to the social and outgoing nature
of people high on Extraversion, we expect this trait to be positively associated with
adherence to norms regarding the social aspects of citizenship such as voting or being active
in organisations. Fourth, given the importance attached to open-mindedness and alternative
thinking among people high on Openness to experience, this trait should be positively
associated with adherence to norms that promote these qualities. Finally, we do not generally
have strong expectations with regard to the impact of Neuroticism on citizenship norms.
The Big Five and Organisational Involvement
Organisational involvement is shaped by a number of environmental factors, most importantly resources in terms of education and income at the individual level (Bekkers, 2005;
© 2013 The Authors. Political Studies © 2013 Political Studies Association
POLITICAL STUDIES: 2013
THE CIVIC PERSONALITY
5
Brehm and Rahn, 1997; Verba et al., 1995) and political culture and political institutions at
the society level (Van Oorschot and Arts, 2006; Schofer and Fourcade-Gourinchas, 2001).
However, organisational involvement is also rooted in psychological predispositions in
terms of personality. In this regard René Bekkers (2005) examined the impact of the Big
Five personality traits on organisational membership and level of organisational involvement in the Netherlands. He found that scoring high on Openness to experience is
conducive to holding memberships of organisations, while high scores on Conscientiousness have the opposite effect. He also found that people high on Extraversion are more
likely to volunteer. Similarly, Bernadette Smith and L. D. Nelson (1975) and Donald Burke
and Maureen Hall (1986) found Extraversion, and facets related to this trait, to be positively
correlated with volunteering. In the same vein, David Smith (1966) found differences
between active members and both non-members and inactive members of voluntary
organisations on a number of personality traits that can be counted as facets of the global
traits in the Big Five model. Finally, Gustavo Carlo et al. (2005) found that all Big Five
personality traits except Neuroticism are correlated with volunteering in organisations, but
with the strongest relationship found for Agreeableness. This is in line with the results by
Louis Penner and Marcia Finkelstein (1998), who found that a pro-social personality in
terms of displaying other-oriented empathy and helpfulness – both facets related to
Agreeableness – is positively related to various volunteer-related behaviours.
In the empirical analyses we distinguish between different types of organisation as well
as the level of engagement in these organisations with the main distinctions being between
non-membership, passive membership and active membership. We expect the Big Five
personality traits to influence different aspects of organisational involvement as well as the
propensity to be engaged in a given organisation. Generally, we expect people high on
Openness, given their open-minded and curious nature, to be more engaged in most types
of organisation as organisational involvement is a likely source of exposure to new people
and ideas.With regard to active engagement in organisations, we expect Extraversion to be
the main personality correlate because of the outgoing nature of people with high scores
on this trait. Conversely, people who are high on Neuroticism tend to be anxious and shy
and should therefore be less likely to be active in organisations.With regard to Agreeableness, we expect people with a high score on this trait to participate more in organisations
that work for the general well-being of others because they tend to be pro-social and
altruistic in character. Finally, given their strong sense of duty, people high on Conscientiousness are expected to be more likely to be engaged in organisations for which strong
norms of engagement exist.
Data and Variables
We examine the personality correlates of democratic citizenship using a web survey of a
sample of the Danish population stratified by gender, age, region and education.The survey
was fielded between 25 May and 6 June 2010 and distributed to a sample of Danes via an
internet panel containing approximately 400,000 individuals. Invitations were sent to 8,012
persons and 3,612 answered the full questionnaire, resulting in a response rate of 45 per
cent. A post-stratification weight was applied in all analyses to make the sample nationally
representative.4
© 2013 The Authors. Political Studies © 2013 Political Studies Association
POLITICAL STUDIES: 2013
6
P E T E R T H I S T E D D I N E S E N ET AL.
Table 1: Descriptive Statistics for Personality Scales
Personality trait
Openness to experience
Conscientiousness
Extraversion
Agreeableness
Neuroticism
Scale mean (s.d.)
Cronbach’s alpha
0.517 (0.149)
0.588 (0.147)
0.567 (0.151)
0.622 (0.132)
0.418 (0.155)
0.721
0.789
0.811
0.740
0.848
Notes: All scales are constructed to range between 0 (lowest observed value on trait) and 1 (highest observed value on trait).
Number of observations = 3,612.
Unlike the studies by Mondak et al. (2010; 2011) and Alan Gerber et al. (2010), which
generally rely on ten-item personality inventories, we employ the 60-item Neo-FFI
inventory and thereby obtain a more reliable measure of the five traits. The personality
assessment consists of 60 statements about the respondents to which they were asked to
indicate their agreement on a 5-point Likert scale with the categories ‘Strongly agree’,
‘Agree somewhat’, ‘Neutral’, ‘Disagree somewhat’ and ‘Strongly disagree’. In constructing
the scales for each of the five personality dimensions, we summated the twelve statements
(identically signed) relating to a given dimension. The response distribution on the statements in the inventory was not markedly skewed and for that reason we did not – as has
been done in some work (compare Mondak, 2010) – log the items before constructing the
scales.The scales were constructed to range between 0 (lowest observed value on the trait)
to 1 (highest observed value on the trait) and were close to normally distributed. Table 1
shows the descriptive statistics for the scales constructed for each of the five personality
traits. The alpha values range from 0.721 for Openness to 0.848 for Neuroticism and the
constructed scales are thus internally consistent.
The operationalisation of the dependent variables is described in the following and
descriptive statistics are reported in the online Appendix. Trust is measured as an additive
index using a slightly revised version of the widely used and validated three-item scale
(Reeskens and Hooghe, 2008; Zmerli and Newton, 2008). For each of the following items,
the respondents were asked to indicate their (dis)agreement with two opposing statements
with four response alternatives ranging from ‘agree completely with A’ to ‘agree completely
with B’:
• A says ‘Generally speaking most people can be trusted’ vs. B says ‘You can’t be too careful
in dealing with people’.
• A says ‘Most people would try to be fair’ vs. B says ‘Most people would try to take
advantage of me’.
• A says ‘Most people mostly look out for themselves’ vs. B says ‘Most people try to be
helpful’.
When the third item is reversed, the three items offer a reliable scale of generalised trust
with a Cronbach’s α of 0.654 and hence an acceptable internal coherence. The final
© 2013 The Authors. Political Studies © 2013 Political Studies Association
POLITICAL STUDIES: 2013
THE CIVIC PERSONALITY
7
additive trust index was coded to range between 0 (lowest level of trust) to 1 (highest level
of trust).
Our second dependent variable, norms of citizenship, is assessed by respondents indicating how important (ranging between 0,‘not important at all’ and 3,‘very important’) they
find the following six virtues in order to be a good citizen:
•
•
•
•
•
•
always vote in public elections;
never attempt to cheat on taxes;
always follow rules and regulations;
always keep watch on actions of public authorities;
be active in social and political associations;
try to understand the reasoning of people with other opinions.
The first four citizenship norms regard the relation between citizens and a number of
public institutions and their underlying rules and regulations. The fifth norm relates to
being active in civil society and the sixth norm regards the deed of trying to understand
how other citizens think. Dalton (2008) distinguishes between norms related to ‘citizen
duty’ (associated with social order) and ‘engaged citizenship’, which he identifies empirically by means of a principal component analysis (with varimax rotation). Employing a
similar analysis, we find the contours of a similar structure in our data with the first three
and the last three norms loading on two separate dimensions. However, the structure of the
loadings is not straightforward as the norm regarding voting in public elections loads
moderately on both dimensions. Because of this result, paired with the fact that we have
hypothesised the Big Five personality traits to affect clusters of norms of citizenship not
tangential to the two dimensions identified by Dalton (e.g. extraversion being associated
with adherence to norms related to the social aspects of citizenship, which include both
voting and being active in organisations), we have decided to analyse each norm separately.
In order to assess their associational involvement, the respondents were asked to indicate
whether they currently are or have been members of the following six types of voluntary
association, and whether they currently participate actively in these associations:
•
•
•
•
•
•
a political party;
a municipal council, school board, board for the elderly or other local public board;5
a union, employer organisation or professional association;
a church or other religious association;
a sports club, a leisure club or cultural association;
other voluntary organisations or associations.
The six types of association are quite diverse, representing political, professional, religious
and recreational aspects of civil society, and the various types of association are therefore
analysed separately. As mentioned, we examine two related issues with regard to the
personality foundations of organisational involvement: how personality affects membership
and whether membership is active or passive.
To examine to what extent personality has an impact on democratic citizenship independent of other factors, we include a host of controls in the models in addition to the
scales tapping the Big Five personality traits. Resources are among the most important
© 2013 The Authors. Political Studies © 2013 Political Studies Association
POLITICAL STUDIES: 2013
8
P E T E R T H I S T E D D I N E S E N ET AL.
predictors of the three dimensions of democratic citizenship (Brehm and Rahn, 1997;
Denters et al., 2007) and consequently we include education and household income in the
models. However, both earnings and educational achievement are related to personality
traits. Neuroticism and Agreeableness are negatively associated with earnings (Heineck,
2007), whereas Agreeableness, Openness to experience and Conscientiousness correlate
positively with various measures of educational attainment (Poropat, 2009; compare also
Wolfe and Johnson, 1995). Although personality traits tend to be stable after adolescence
and are usually seen as exogenous to education and labour market involvement, the
direction of causality is somewhat debated (Heckman et al., 2006; Heineck, 2007). Here we
remain agnostic about the relationship between personality and earnings and education, but
for the purpose of this article it is important to point out that household income and
education are not strongly associated with the personality traits in our sample.The strongest
relationship is found between education and Openness to experience (a positive one), but
it remains relatively weak (regressing Openness on education yields an r2 of 0.076). Hence,
including education and income along with the personality traits leaves the impact of the
latter on indicators of democratic citizenship largely unaffected and as such personality
matters for democratic citizenship beyond education and earnings regardless of the direction of the relationship between the variables.
In addition to resources, the demographic variables of ethnicity, gender and age are also
included in the models. In line with Mondak et al. (2011) we decided to leave out
attitudinal variables for two reasons. Including such variables typically involves simultaneity
with the dependent variables studied, and they potentially obscure the relationship between
personality and the indicators of democratic citizenship, as attitudes are likely to be affected
by the personality traits and as such would merely function as mediators of personality
(although see Verhulst et al., 2010; 2012, as noted earlier).6
Results
We report analyses for our three sets of dependent variables. We first look at generalised
trust, then norms of citizenship and, finally, organisational involvement. In order to take the
potential correlation of errors among individuals living in the same municipalities into
account, we cluster the standard errors at the municipal level in the analyses. Moreover, as
mentioned in Note 4, we employed a sampling weight in the analyses in order to render the
sample nationally representative.
Trust
We estimate the impact of the five personality traits on the trust scale using OLS regression.
In the model for trust it is important to note that two items in the Agreeableness scale fall
very close to the items in the trust scale (‘I think most people would try to take advantage
of you if they had the chance’ and ‘I tend to believe the best about people’), reflecting that
trust has been seen as a facet of the global trait of Agreeableness (Costa et al., 1991).To avoid
circular reasoning and inflation of the relationship between Agreeableness and trust due to
inclusion of very similar indicators in the constructs, we estimate models including two
versions of the Agreeableness scale: one with the full scale and one with a scale with the two
items akin to the items in the trust scale removed (for a similar approach, see Hirashi et al.,
© 2013 The Authors. Political Studies © 2013 Political Studies Association
POLITICAL STUDIES: 2013
9
THE CIVIC PERSONALITY
Table 2: Personality and Trust
Openness to experience (0–1)
Neuroticism (0–1)
Extraversion (0–1)
Conscientiousness (0–1)
Agreeableness (0–1)
Male
Age
Age2/100
Danish (ref. = other ethnicity)
Household income (0–10)
Education (ref. = primary school)
Vocational education
High school or some college
Completed college
Constant
Joint sig. personality traits (F-test)
Observations
R-squared
Full agreeableness
scale
Reduced agreeableness
scale
0.211*** (0.028)
−0.251*** (0.028)
0.090** (0.028)
−0.138*** (0.026)
0.442*** (0.024)
−0.014* (0.007)
0.002 (0.001)
−0.002 (0.001)
0.004 (0.011)
0.005*** (0.002)
0.230*** (0.028)
−0.273*** (0.031)
0.096** (0.028)
−0.128*** (0.027)
0.260*** (0.023)
−0.025*** (0.007)
0.003 (0.002)
−0.003 (0.001)
0.008 (0.012)
0.004** (0.002)
0.004 (0.008)
0.028* (0.012)
0.046*** (0.009)
0.314*** (0.050)
***
3,160
0.232
0.004 (0.009)
0.028* (0.012)
0.050*** (0.009)
0.405*** (0.054)
***
3,160
0.181
Note: Cell entries are ordinary least squares regression coefficients with cluster robust standard errors in parentheses.
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.
2008).7 In the reporting of the results we focus on the latter.The two estimated models for
trust are presented in Table 2.
Table 2 shows that, to a considerable extent, trust is rooted in an individual’s personality
as all five personality traits are significantly associated with trust in the ways we expected.
Those who score higher on Agreeableness and Openness, who are more open and
sympathetic to other people, tend to be more trusting. Extraversion is also positively
associated with trust. Conversely, people scoring high on Neuroticism and Conscientiousness, who are more anxious about other people and who cherish reliability and control,
tend to be less trusting. We find that the full Agreeableness scale has the most marked impact
on trust, but when the two items most akin to the trust items are removed, the impact of
Agreeableness drops to about that of the two other most important traits, Neuroticism and
Openness. The magnitude of the impact of the personality traits is substantial. A change
from the lowest to the highest observed value on the reduced Agreeableness scale amounts
to an increase in the trust scale (ranging from 0 to 1) of 0.260 or a bit less than one and a
half standard deviations on this scale.The negative impact of Neuroticism is slightly higher,
while the positive impact of Openness is a bit lower. The effects of Extraversion and
Conscientiousness are substantially smaller. The two most important control variables,
household income and having completed a college education, are less important than the
© 2013 The Authors. Political Studies © 2013 Political Studies Association
POLITICAL STUDIES: 2013
10
P E T E R T H I S T E D D I N E S E N ET AL.
personality traits.A move from the lowest to the highest income bracket only increases trust
by about one-fifth of a standard deviation, while the positive effect of having completed a
college education rather than only having attended primary school is somewhat stronger.
Hence, adding personality traits – in particular the traits of Agreeableness, Openness and
Neuroticism – substantially adds to our understanding of why people trust others.
Citizenship Norms
The response to each of the citizenship norms takes the form of an ordered categorical
variable with four categories (‘not important at all’, ‘less important’, ‘quite important’ and
‘very important’) and we therefore estimate an ordered logistic regression model.The results
for each of the six citizenship norms are presented in Table 3.The table confirms a number
of our hypotheses regarding the impact of personality on citizenship norms. First, we find
the expected positive impact of Conscientiousness on the strength of the four citizenship
norms, which concerns political institutions and the rules and regulations that underlie
them. Conversely, Conscientiousness is not related to the importance assigned to trying to
understand how other citizens think or to the importance attached to being active in social
and political associations. This indicates that Conscientiousness – most likely through a
strong sense of duty – has a positive influence on citizenship norms regarding the more
formal, in some cases legally regulated, aspects of political institutions required to make
democracy work properly, but not on other citizenship norms of a more normative or
voluntary character.
Agreeableness is positively related to four out of the six citizenship norms. Most
importantly, Agreeableness is very strongly positively related to the norm of trying to
understand how other people think (a change over the full range in the Agreeableness scale
raises the probability of answering ‘very important’ from 0.07 to 0.48),8 which seems like
a natural consequence of the sympathetic character of people scoring high on this trait.
Agreeableness is also positively related to the importance attached to never cheating on
taxes and always adhering to rules and regulations. Given that adherence to these two norms
is legally regulated, the positive relationship is likely to reflect a high level of compliance
among people scoring high on Agreeableness. Moreover, this relationship may have to do
with the altruism and communal orientation displayed by people with high scores on this
trait as not adhering to these norms will have negative implications for other people and
society as a whole.
Higher scores on Extraversion are significantly associated with four of the citizenship
norms examined. In line with our prediction based on the social and outgoing nature of
people scoring high on this trait, Extraversion is most strongly (positively) related to the
most social citizenship norm: being active in associations (the predicted probability of
answering ‘important’ or ‘very important’ changes from 0.10 to 0.60 when moving from the
lowest to the highest score on this trait).The (social) act of voting in elections is the norm
for which the second strongest effect of Extraversion is found.This positive effect may also
stem from the stimulating effect voting may have on the excitement-seeking side of people
scoring high on Extraversion. Similarly, understanding how other people think may involve
social interactions that invoke excitement and positive emotions among extraverts and this
may account for the positive relationship between Extraversion and this norm. Finally, we
© 2013 The Authors. Political Studies © 2013 Political Studies Association
POLITICAL STUDIES: 2013
Never cheat
on taxes
Follow rules
Watch public
authorities
Active in
associations
Understand
others
© 2013 The Authors. Political Studies © 2013 Political Studies Association
POLITICAL STUDIES: 2013
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.
Notes: Cell entries are ordered logistic regression coefficients with cluster robust standard errors in parentheses. Thresholds not reported.
Openness to experience (0–1)
0.239 (0.321)
0.868** (0.267) −1.055*** (0.289)
1.133*** (0.268) 1.887*** (0.241)
4.534*** (0.313)
Neuroticism (0–1)
0.649 (0.417)
−0.111 (0.310)
0.688* (0.330)
1.164** (0.394) 0.876** (0.295)
0.680* (0.342)
Extraversion (0–1)
1.295*** (0.381) −0.704* (0.349)
0.191 (0.288)
0.354 (0.309) 2.593*** (0.313)
0.890*** (0.263)
Agreeableness (0–1)
1.255*** (0.397) 2.483*** (0.353)
2.131*** (0.407)
0.080 (0.389)
0.426 (0.297)
2.484*** (0.338)
Conscientiousness (0–1)
1.423*** (0.425) 1.060*** (0.283)
2.316*** (0.342)
0.779** (0.303)
−0.561 (0.306)
0.397 (0.273)
Male
0.054 (0.110) −0.217** (0.077) −0.381*** (0.073)
0.290*** (0.069) 0.263** (0.083)
0.164 (0.096)
Age
−0.043* (0.024)
−0.025 (0.016)
−0.008 (0.014)
0.046** (0.016)
−0.022 (0.015) −0.054*** (0.015)
Age2/100
0.063** (0.023)
0.040** (0.016)
0.019 (0.014)
−0.012 (0.015) 0.045** (0.014)
0.053*** (0.014)
Danish (ref. = other ethnicity)
0.196 (0.211)
−0.030 (0.124)
−0.258 (0.157) −0.401** (0.140)
0.222 (0.174)
−0.095 (0.201)
Household income (0–10)
0.006 (0.021)
−0.017 (0.018)
−0.024 (0.020) −0.080*** (0.016)
−0.026 (0.015) −0.039** (0.015)
Education (ref. = primary school)
Vocational education
−0.097 (0.113)
0.138* (0.083)
−0.021 (0.108)
−0.094 (0.102) −0.175* (0.078)
−0.013 (0.077)
High school or some college
0.041 (0.181)
0.177 (0.172)
0.166 (0.148)
−0.225 (0.146)
−0.015 (0.113)
0.250 (0.156)
Completed college
0.277* (0.127) 0.347*** (0.088)
0.225 (0.115)
−0.028 (0.097) 0.283** (0.086)
0.419*** (0.080)
Joint sig. personality traits (Chi2 test)
***
***
***
***
***
***
Observations
3,346
3,313
3,331
3,298
3,237
3,322
Pseudo R-squared
0.033
0.035
0.041
0.051
0.051
0.089
Vote in
elections
Table 3: Personality and Norms of Citizenship
THE CIVIC PERSONALITY
11
12
P E T E R T H I S T E D D I N E S E N ET AL.
have no immediate explanation for the negative impact of Extraversion on the norm of not
cheating on taxes, but we also note that this relationship is barely significant at conventional
levels.
Openness is significantly associated with the strength of five citizenship norms. As
predicted, the strongest association is between Openness and the norm of trying to
understand how other people think. In fact, this is the strongest relationship observed in
Table 3 (the predicted probability of answering ‘very important’ changes drastically from
0.03 to 0.76 when moving from the lowest to the highest level of Openness).This is hardly
surprising given the curiosity and open-mindedness to new impressions and ideas that is
characteristic of people scoring high on Openness. Openness is also positively related to
being active in civil society, which may be due to this type of participation being a means
to meet people with different outlooks, a preference characteristic for people scoring high
on Openness. Interestingly, we also found a negative impact of Openness on the norm of
always adhering to rules and regulations, which in part may stem from the nonconformity
and general willingness to reconsider established conventions by people scoring high on
Openness. Somewhat surprisingly, Openness has a positive impact on the norms of not
cheating on taxes and keeping an eye on public authorities, which underlines that the
relation between Openness and citizenship norms is rather complex.
We did not have strong expectations with regard to Neuroticism, but find that it is
positively related to four of the six citizenship norms.The strongest impact of Neuroticism
is found on the norm of keeping an eye on public authorities.We think this effect may stem
from a perceived need to be on guard to prevent corruption and being treated unfairly by
these authorities among people scoring high on this trait. Neuroticism is significantly but
less strongly related to the strength of the norms of being active in civil society, following
rules and regulations, as well as trying to understand how other people think, for which we
have no immediate explanation.
Finally, the most notable finding for the control variables is that having completed college
(as opposed to only having completed primary school) has a positive significant impact on
the strength of four of the six citizenship norms. In contrast, household income is
significantly negatively related to two of the six citizenship norms. As for trust, the impact
of all control variables is generally weaker than that of the personality variables, thereby
adding to the impression that personality is important in explaining democratic citizenship.
In conclusion, the adherence to various citizenship norms is markedly affected by
personality, but the effect of the various personality traits depends on the nature of the
norms.
Organisational Involvement
Table 4 reports the impact of the Big Five personality traits on participation in six different
types of association. The participation of the respondent is measured with the following
four categories: never held a membership (1); used to hold a membership (2); hold a
membership, but do not participate actively (3); hold a membership and are active (4). For
the purpose of this analysis it is useful to distinguish both between holding memberships (or
not) and whether membership is accompanied by active participation (or not). For that
reason we conduct a multinomial logistic regression. Passive membership is the reference
© 2013 The Authors. Political Studies © 2013 Political Studies Association
POLITICAL STUDIES: 2013
© 2013 The Authors. Political Studies © 2013 Political Studies Association
POLITICAL STUDIES: 2013
Active
Previously
Never
Active
Previously
Never
Active
Previously
Never
Active
Previously
Never
Active
Previously
Never
Active
Previously
Never
Membership
(ref. = passive)
membership)
Neuroticism
Extraversion
Agreeableness
0.439 (0.831)
0.576 (0.827)
1.586* (0.748)
−0.896 (0.757)
0.412 (0.541)
−0.051 (0.631)
−0.938 (0.630)
−1.326* (0.552)
−1.232* (0.572)
−0.230 (0.622)
−1.530 (0.801)
−0.158 (0.486)
1.453 (1.244)
1.357 (1.378)
1.581 (1.493)
−1.580 (1.262)
1.080 (1.086)
−0.367 (1.309)
−0.459 (1.183)
−1.368 (1.130)
0.433 (1.062)
−0.305 (1.183)
−2.854* (1.154)
−0.763 (1.078)
1.286** (0.445)
0.574 (0.519)
1.509** (0.507)
−0.292 (0.528)
0.099 (0.390)
0.442 (0.472)
−0.231 (0.461) −1.054** (0.384)
−0.223 (0.345)
0.022 (0.451)
0.111 (0.443) −1.547*** (0.383)
0.846* (0.387)
0.412 (0.540)
0.532 (0.475)
−0.258 (0.511)
2.584*** (0.465) −1.364** (0.487) −1.758*** (0.505) −1.607** (0.522)
0.644 (0.428)
−0.444 (0.409)
0.059 (0.440)
−1.097* (0.463)
0.037 (0.403)
0.394 (0.487) 2.059*** (0.473)
0.286 (0.376)
0.563 (0.404)
0.463 (0.490)
−0.884 (0.499)
0.424 (0.398)
0.607 (0.567)
0.140 (0.670) −2.260*** (0.674)
−0.000 (0.638)
0.467 (0.570)
0.082 (0.507) 2.582*** (0.573) −1.958*** (0.436)
0.517 (0.495)
0.035 (0.556)
0.377 (0.534) −1.463** (0.460)
−2.067*** (0.461)
−0.344 (0.488)
−0.753 (0.511) −1.977*** (0.398)
Openness
0.355 (0.729)
0.481 (0.756)
0.347 (0.620)
1.507 (1.269)
1.396 (1.204)
1.394 (1.155)
1.212* (0.478)
−0.152 (0.382)
0.051 (0.455)
0.502 (0.468)
−0.810* (0.369)
0.139 (0.400)
−0.359 (0.519)
0.242 (0.470)
−1.130* (0.490)
0.246 (0.521)
0.032 (0.487)
0.312 (0.476)
0.046 (3,142)
0.037 (3,335)
0.026 (3,336)
0.079 (3,343)
0.075 (3,340)
0.066 (3,346)
Pseudo
R-squared
Conscientiousness (number of obs.)
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01 ;***p < 0.001.
Notes: Cell entries are multinomial logistic regression coefficients with cluster robust standard errors in parentheses. Control variables are included but not shown.
Other organisation
Sports club,
cultural assoc.
Church or religious
association
Union/professional
association
Local public
boards
A political party
Dependent
variable
Table 4: Personality and Organisational Involvement
THE CIVIC PERSONALITY
13
14
P E T E R T H I S T E D D I N E S E N ET AL.
category on the dependent variable against which the other three categories are contrasted.
We include the same control variables in the analyses as in the models for trust and
citizenship norms, but do not report the results for these variables to save space.9 Note that
this table is organised differently from the two previous tables as the dependent variables
(and the three response categories) are arranged along the rows with the independent
variables being arranged along the columns.
Table 4 shows that personality influences organisational involvement and although the
relationship is contingent on the type and mode of involvement, a number of patterns are
broadly in line with our expectations. The most consistent pattern observed is that
Extraversion is associated with active participation in organisations (as opposed to passive
membership). This goes for active participation in a political party, unions/professional
associations, leisure time/sports associations and other organisations. It seems that the social
nature of people scoring high on Extraversion is an important dispositional factor furthering active participation in organisations in general and, notably, political parties. While
Extraversion is mainly related to active participation, we also observe that those who have
never participated on a local board or in leisure/sports associations score significantly lower
on Extraversion than those who hold a passive membership.
The results generally confirm the expectation that Openness tends to be positively
associated with organisational involvement as Openness is positively correlated with participating actively in union/professional associations as well as in church organisations.
Moreover, never having joined a political party and other organisations (as opposed to being
a passive member) is associated with lower Openness. Supposedly, the open-minded and
curious nature of people high on Openness underlies the positive relationship with
organisational involvement.
Agreeableness is also related to organisational involvement. Most notably, previous
membership and never having held membership of unions/professional organisations and
church organisations (as opposed to passive membership) is associated with lower levels of
agreeableness.The altruistic nature of people scoring high on Agreeableness is likely to lead
to increased membership of church organisations as this may provide an opportunity to
help other people. The potential mechanism linking Agreeableness to membership of
unions and professional organisations is less clear, but may have to do with the strong norms
of membership of these organisations in Denmark, which people scoring high on Agreeableness may be more prone to follow given their preference for harmony.10 The strong
norm of union membership may also explain one of the findings with regard to
Conscientiousness: highly conscientious individuals with their strong sense of duty may be
more likely to participate actively in unions and professional organisations.
Finally, we find no impact of Neuroticism on organisational involvement, which goes
against our expectation that higher scores on this trait would be associated with lower levels
of organisational involvement. With regard to the control variables (not shown), there are
generally no strong predictors of organisational involvement with the most consistent
finding being that the lower educated, as well as younger people, have a greater tendency
never to have been a member of the various types of organisation.
Overall, the results suggest that the Big Five personality traits are significantly related to
organisational involvement, although in a less straightforward manner than for trust and
© 2013 The Authors. Political Studies © 2013 Political Studies Association
POLITICAL STUDIES: 2013
THE CIVIC PERSONALITY
15
norms of citizenship. Most consistently, we found that Extraversion is related to active
membership of organisations, while the impact of the other four traits is somewhat less
clear.
Discussion and Conclusion
In this article we have examined whether democratic citizenship – conceptualised as
generalised trust in other people, norms of citizenship and participation in organisations –
is founded upon individual predispositions in terms of personality. We hereby add to
previous research on the foundations of democratic citizenship, which has primarily looked
at situational factors, as well as to the burgeoning literature on the role of personality traits
in forming political attitudes and behaviour. Building on a nationally representative Danish
survey, which includes a 60-item Big Five personality inventory, we show that to a
considerable extent the Big Five personality traits influence all three dimensions of democratic citizenship in a manner generally consistent with our expectations.
When seen in conjunction with previous results from the literature, our findings
contribute to a more complete account of the ‘civic personality’. Openness to experience
and Agreeableness are generally positively related to all three aspects of democratic citizenship and as such seem to be key traits in the ‘civic personality’. While the findings for
Openness generally confirm results from previous research on civic engagement (although
see Gerber et al., 2011, for an exception), the positive influence of Agreeableness on various
aspects of democratic citizenship is more pronounced than previously reported (Mondak
and Halperin, 2008; Mondak et al., 2010). As for the last three traits, the pattern is a bit
more mixed. Conscientiousness is mainly positively associated with adherence to citizenship
norms and specifically those that invoke a strong sense of duty. This confirms Mondak
et al.’s (2010) results for political campaign activity. Extraversion is primarily positively
related to the social aspects of democratic citizenship, including active organisational
involvement and adherence to norms concerning more social acts of citizenship, and this
squares with the pattern found for political participation more generally (Gerber et al.,
2011; Mondak and Halperin, 2008). Finally, our mixed results for Neuroticism – with the
primary findings being that this trait is weakly positively related to adherence to various
citizenship norms, but adversely related to trusting others – underline the inconsistent
relationship between this trait and political attitudes and behaviour. Seen in conjunction
with earlier studies, these patterned, differentiated effects of personality traits on various
civic attitudes and behaviours suggest that different political personalities, varying systematically across several attitudes and behaviours, can be established.
At this point it may be timely to take research a step further with regard to which aspects
of personality matter for political attitudes and behaviour. Research on how the broader
personality make-up in terms of the Big Five traits is related to political attitudes and
behaviour has been a logical first step in the burgeoning literature on the link between
personality and mass politics. At this point, however, the next step may reasonably be to
disaggregate the five global traits into their various facets in order to examine how these
more specific aspects of personality influence how individuals think and act politically. Each
of the global traits in the Big Five model subsumes a number of correlated but distinct facets
and each may be differently related to political attitudes and behaviour. Consequently,
© 2013 The Authors. Political Studies © 2013 Political Studies Association
POLITICAL STUDIES: 2013
16
P E T E R T H I S T E D D I N E S E N ET AL.
examining only the global traits we likely conflate the influence of the individual facets,
which may be differentially (or even inversely) related to political attitudes and behaviour.
Jacob Hirsh et al. (2010) provide evidence in favour of the fruitfulness of this approach as
they find that two aspects of Agreeableness, compassion and politeness, are differentially
associated with political ideology (positively and negatively related with liberalism, respectively). Similarly, considering the results in this article, we may for example expect the impact
of Openness to experience on democratic citizenship to be differentiated according to the
lower-order facets. The lack of adherence to the norm of always following rules and
regulations may primarily be driven by facets relating to the readiness to reconsider social
and political conventions and values.The norm of always trying to understand others, on the
other hand, may be influenced more by facets relating to the curiosity of new ideas and
alternative thinking.At this point these conjectures are merely hypothetical, but we believe
they should be tested empirically in future research, preferably based on the 240-item
NEO-PI-R personality inventory. This would provide leverage in examining the specific
role of each facet under the five global personality traits for political attitudes and behaviour.
Another important issue in the study of the connection between personality traits and
political attitudes and behaviour is that of the nature of the relationship. In this study, we
have, in line with most previous studies, suggested that the Big Five personality traits
influence the various aspects of democratic citizenship. However, causality is only assumed
and recent studies have challenged this assumption (Verhulst et al., 2010; 2012). Moreover,
as already noted, it has been argued that trust constitutes one facet under the global trait of
Agreeableness and thus that it makes little sense to speak of cause and effect in this regard.
Future studies should therefore aim to substantiate that personality in fact exerts a causal
impact on political attitudes and behaviour.
Finally, one may ask whether our findings with regard to the alleged influence of
personality traits on various aspects of democratic citizenship in Denmark can be
generalised to other contexts. After all, Denmark is located at the top of country rankings
of various indicators of democratic citizenship and this leaves open the question of whether
there are idiosyncrasies about the Danish case which render it unlikely that a similar pattern
would be found in other countries. One may, for example, speculate whether political
cultures marked by very high levels of democratic citizenship leave more or less room for
the influence of individual predispositions in terms of personality traits compared to less
civic political cultures. In the vein of recent research (Gerber et al., 2010; Mondak et al.,
2010; 2011), examining how personality affects democratic citizenship in different contexts,
which vary on a number of parameters such as political culture, social conflict, economic
inequality and population heterogeneity, would provide new insights into the potential
interaction between situational and dispositional factors in forming civic attitudes and
behaviour.
(Accepted: 27 February 2013)
About the Authors
Peter Thisted Dinesen is Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Copenhagen. His research
interests are social trust and intergroup attitudes as well as political behaviour and political psychology more generally.
© 2013 The Authors. Political Studies © 2013 Political Studies Association
POLITICAL STUDIES: 2013
THE CIVIC PERSONALITY
17
Recent work has appeared in Political Psychology, Comparative Politics and European Sociological Review. He was formerly
part of the programme ‘Individual Differences and Political Behaviour’ at the University of Southern Denmark and
is currently working on a project examining how neighbourhood characteristics influence political attitudes. Peter
Thisted Dinesen, Department of Political Science, University of Copenhagen, Øster Farimagsgade 5, DK-1353
Copenhagen K, Denmark; email: [email protected]
Asbjørn Sonne Nørgaard is Professor of Political Science at the University of Southern Denmark. His research
interests are public policy, elite and mass political behaviour, political psychology and behavioural genetics. Recent
publications have appeared in Comparative Political Studies, Government and Opposition, Journal of Press/Politics, Journal of
Theoretical Politics and Twin Research and Human Genetics.Together with Robert Klemmensen he leads the programme
‘Individual Differences and Political Behaviour’ at the University of Southern Denmark. Asbjørn Sonne Nørgaard,
Department of Political Science, University of Southern Denmark, Campusvej 55, DK-5230 Odense M, Denmark;
email: [email protected]
Robert Klemmensen is Professor of Political Science at the University of Southern Denmark. His research interests
are elite and mass political behaviour, political psychology and behavioural genetics. Recent publications have appeared
in Comparative Political Studies, Comparative Politics, Governance, Journal of Theoretical Politics and Twin Research and Human
Genetics. Together with Asbjørn Sonne Nørgaard he leads the programme ‘Individual Differences and Political
Behaviour’ at the University of Southern Denmark. Robert Klemmensen, Department of Political Science, University
of Southern Denmark, Campusvej 55, DK-5230 Odense M, Denmark; email: [email protected]
Notes
The authors would like to acknowledge the helpful comments we received from participants in the panel ‘Personality as a Mediator
of Political Attitudes and Behavior’ at the 2011 Midwest Political Science Association conference.
1 Also known as ‘social trust’ or ‘generalised social trust’ in the literature.
2 Our conception of democratic citizenship also falls close to the concept of social capital as defined by Putnam (1993, ch. 6).
However, in addition to generalised trust in others and participation in organisations (or networks) – the core aspects of social
capital – our concept of democratic citizenship includes norms of citizenship, which deviates somewhat from Putnam’s focus on
norms of reciprocity.
3 See also Anderson, 2010.
4 The post-stratification weight (mean = 1; std. dev. = 0.395; min. = 0.354; max. = 3.417) is based on the following variables (known
in the population): gender by age, region, education and the election results from the national election in 2007.
5 Although not organisations or associations per se, we have decided to include this type of activity in the analysis.
6 In line with this reasoning we have also decided to leave out trust as an explanation of organisational involvement, and vice versa.
While the direction of the relationship between trust and organisational involvement is still debated in the literature (see
Sønderskov, 2011, for a summary), both variables are likely to mediate the impact of personality traits in their potential influence
on the other variable. Given that our primary interest is in the role of personality traits, we thus refrain from studying the
relationship between trust and organisational involvement in the present analysis.
7 Alpha for the reduced Agreeableness scale is 0.724.
8 All predicted probabilities are calculated for a Danish man of age 50 with a vocational education, mean household income and
mean scores on the other personality traits.
9 Results are available upon request.
10 Non-membership of unions is actually known to lead to conflicts in the workplace in some situations.
References
Almond, G. and Verba, S. (1963) The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations. Newbury Park CA: Sage.
Anderson, C. and Paskeviciute, A. (2006) ‘How Ethnic and Linguistic Heterogeneity Influence the Prospects for Civil Society:
A Comparative Study of Citizenship Behavior’, Journal of Politics, 68 (4), 783–802.
Anderson, M. R. (2010) ‘Community Psychology, Political Efficacy, and Trust’, Political Psychology, 31 (1), 59–84.
Bekkers, R. (2005) ‘Participation inVoluntary Associations: Relations with Resources, Personality, and Political Values’, Political
Psychology, 26 (3), 439–54.
Blais, A. and St-Vincent, S. L. (2011) ‘Personality Traits, Political Attitudes and the Propensity to Vote’, European Journal of
Political Research, 50 (3), 395–417.
Bouchard, T. J. Jr and McGue, M. (2003) ‘Genetic and Environmental Influences on Human Psychological Differences’,
Journal of Neurobiology, 54 (1), 4–45.
Brehm, J. and Rahn, W. (1997) ‘Individual-Level Evidence for the Causes and Consequences of Social Capital’, American
Journal of Political Science, 41 (3), 999–1023.
Burke, D. M. and Hall, M. (1986) ‘Personality Characteristics of Volunteers in a Companion for Children Program’,
Psychological Reports, 59 (2), 819–25.
Carlo, G., Okun, M.A., Knight, G. P. and de Guzman, M. R.T. (2005) ‘The Interplay of Traits and Motives on Volunteering:
Agreeableness, Extraversion and Prosocial Value Motivation’, Personality and Individual Differences, 38 (6), 1293–305.
© 2013 The Authors. Political Studies © 2013 Political Studies Association
POLITICAL STUDIES: 2013
18
P E T E R T H I S T E D D I N E S E N ET AL.
Costa, P. T. and McCrae, R. (1988) ‘Personality in Adulthood: A Six-Year Longitudinal Study of Self-Reports and Spouse
Ratings on the NEO Personality Inventory’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54 (5), 853–63.
Costa, P. T. and McCrae, R. (1992) NEO PI-R: Professional Manual. Odessa FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Costa, P.T., McCrae, R. and Dye, D. (1991) ‘Facet Scales for Agreeableness and Conscientiousness: A Revision of the NEO
Personality Inventory’, Personality and Individual Differences, 12 (9), 887–98.
Couch, L. L. and Jones, W. H. (1997) ‘Measuring Levels of Trust’, Journal of Personality Research, 31 (3), 319–36.
Dalton, R. J. (2008) ‘Citizenship Norms and the Expansion of Political Participation’, Political Studies, 56 (1), 76–98.
Denters, B., Gabriel, O. and Torcal, M. (2007) ‘Norms of Good Citizenship’, in J. van Deth, J. Ramón Montero and A.
Westholm (eds), Citizenship and Involvement among the Populations of European Democracies:A Comparative Analysis. London:
Routledge, pp. 88–108.
Dinesen, P. T. (2012) ‘Does Generalized (Dis)Trust Travel? Examining the Impact of Cultural Heritage and DestinationCountry Environment on Trust of Immigrants’, Political Psychology, 33 (4), 495–511.
Dinesen, P.T. (2013) ‘Where You Come From or Where You Live? Examining the Cultural and Institutional Explanation of
Generalized Trust using Migration as a Natural Experiment’, European Sociological Review, 29 (1), 114–28.
Freitag, M. and Bühlmann, M. (2009) ‘Crafting Trust: The Role of Political Institutions in a Comparative Perspective’,
Comparative Political Studies, 42 (12), 1537–66.
Gerber, A. S., Huber, G. A., Doherty, D. and Dowling, C. M. (2010) ‘Personality and Political Attitudes: Relationships across
Issue Domains and Political Contexts’, American Political Science Review, 104 (1), 111–33.
Gerber, A. S., Huber, G. A., Doherty, D., Dowling, C. M., Raso, C. and Ha, S. E. (2011) ‘Personality Traits and Participation
in Political Processes’, Journal of Politics, 73 (3), 682–706.
Glanville, J. L. and Paxton, P. (2007) ‘How do We Learn to Trust? A Confirmatory Tetrad Analysis of the Sources of
Generalized Trust’, Social Psychology Quarterly, 70 (3), 230–42.
Goldberg, L. R. (1992) ‘The Development of Markers for the Big-Five Factor Structure’, Psychological Assessment, 4 (1), 26–42.
Goldberg, L. R. (1993) ‘The Structure of Phenotypic Personality Traits’, American Psychologist, 48 (1), 26–34.
Graziano, W. G. and Eisenberg, N. H. (1997) ‘Agreeableness: A Dimension of Personality’, in R. Hogan, J. Johnston and
S. Briggs (eds), Handbook of Personality Psychology. San Diego CA: Academic Press, pp. 795–825.
Heckman, J. J., Stixrud, J. and Uzara, S. (2006) ‘The Effects of Cognitive and Noncognitive Abilities on Labor Market
Outcomes and Social Behavior’, Journal of Labor Economics, 24 (3), 411–82.
Heineck, G. (2007) ‘Does it Pay to be Nice? Personality and Earnings in the UK’, LASER Discussion Papers No. 3, University
of Erlangen-Nuremberg.
Hibbing, M.V., Ritchie, M. and Anderson, M. R. (2011) ‘Personality and Political Discussion’, Political Behavior, 33 (4), 601–24.
Hirashi, K., Yamagata, S., Shikishima, C. and Ando, J. (2008) ‘Maintenance of Genetic Variation in Personality through
Control of Mental Mechanisms: A Test of Trust, Extraversion, and Agreeableness’, Evolution and Human Behavior, 29 (2),
79–85.
Hirsh, J. B., DeYoung, C. G., Xu, X. and 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), 655–64.
John, O. P., Naumann, L. P. and Soto, C. J. (2008) ‘Paradigm Shift to the Integrative Big Five Trait Taxonomy: History,
Measurement, and Conceptual Issues’, in O. P. John, R.W. Robins and L. A. Pervin (eds), Handbook of Personality:Theory
and Research. New York: Guilford Press, pp. 114–58.
Jost, J. T. (2006) ‘The End of the End of Ideology’, American Psychologist, 61 (7), 651–70.
Kotzian, P. (2009) ‘Norms of Citizenship: Their Patterns, Determinants, and Effects in a Cross-National Perspective’,Working
paper. Available from: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1512490 [Accessed 20 March 2011].
Letki, N. (2006) ‘Investigating the Roots of Civic Morality: Trust, Social Capital, and Institutional Performance’, Political
Behavior, 28 (4), 305–25.
Mondak, J. J. (2010) Personality and the Foundations of Political Behavior. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mondak, J. J. and Halperin, K. D. (2008) ‘A Framework for the Study of Personality and Political Behavior’, British Journal of
Political Science, 38 (2), 335–62.
Mondak, J. J., Hibbing, M.V., Canache, D., Seligson, M. A. and Anderson, M. R. (2010) ‘Personality and Civic Engagement:
An Integrative Framework for the Study of Trait Effects on Political Behavior’, American Political Science Review, 104 (1),
85–110.
Mondak, J. J., Canache, D., Seligson, M. A. and Hibbing, M.V. (2011) ‘The Participatory Personality: Evidence from Latin
America’, British Journal of Political Science, 41 (1), 211–21.
Paxton, P. (2002) ‘Social Capital and Democracy: An Interdependent Relationship’, American Sociological Review, 67 (2),
254–77.
Penner, L. A. and Finkelstein, M. A. (1998) ‘Dispositional and Structural Determinants of Volunteerism’, Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 74 (2), 525–37.
Poropat, A. E. (2009) ‘A Meta-analysis of the Five-Factor Model of Personality and Academic Performance’, Psychological
Bulletin, 135 (2), 322–38.
Putnam, R. D. (1993) Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.
Reeskens, T. and Hooghe, M. (2008) ‘Cross-Cultural Measurement Equivalence of Generalized Trust: Evidence from the
European Social Survey (2002 and 2004)’, Social Indicators Research, 85 (3), 515–32.
Rothstein, B. and Stolle, D. (2008) ‘The State and Social Capital: An Institutional Theory of Generalized Trust’, Comparative
Politics, 40 (4), 441–60.
© 2013 The Authors. Political Studies © 2013 Political Studies Association
POLITICAL STUDIES: 2013
THE CIVIC PERSONALITY
19
Rothstein, B. and Uslaner, E. M. (2005) ‘All for All: Equality, Corruption, and Social Trust’, World Politics, 58 (3), 41–72.
Schofer, E. and Fourcade-Gourinchas, M. (2001) ‘The Structural Contexts of Civic Engagement: Voluntary Association
Membership in Comparative Perspective’, American Sociological Review, 66 (6), 806–28.
Smith, B. M. and Nelson, L. D. (1975) ‘Personality Correlates of Helping Behavior’, Psychological Reports, 37 (3), 307–10.
Smith, D. H. (1966) ‘A Psychological Model of Individual Participation in Formal Voluntary Organizations: Application to
Some Chilean Data’, American Journal of Sociology, 72 (3), 249–66.
Sønderskov, K. (2011) ‘Does Generalized Social Trust Lead to Associational Membership? Unravelling a Bowl of Well-Tossed
Spaghetti’, European Sociological Review, 27 (4), 419–34.
Uslaner, E. M. (2002) The Moral Foundation of Trust. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Van Oorschot, W. and Arts, W. (2006) ‘The Social Capital of European Welfare States: The Crowding Out Hypothesis
Revisited’, Journal of European Social Policy, 15 (1), 5–26.
Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L. and Brady, H. (1995) Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics. Cambridge MA:
Harvard University Press.
Verhulst, B., Hatemi, P. K. and Martin, N. G. (2010) ‘The Nature of the Relationship between Personality Traits and Political
Attitudes’, Personality and Individual Differences, 49 (4), 306–16.
Verhulst, B., Eaves, L. J. and Hatemi, P. K. (2012) ‘Correlation Not Causation: The Relationship between Personality Traits
and Political Ideologies’, American Journal of Political Science, 56 (1), 34–51.
Wolfe, R. N. and Johnson, S. D. (1995) ‘Personality as a Predictor of College Performance’, Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 55 (2), 177–85.
Zmerli, S. and Newton, K. (2008) ‘Social Trust and Attitudes toward Democracy’, Public Opinion Quarterly, 72 (4), 706–24.
Supporting Information
Additional Supporting Information can be found in the online version of this article at the
publisher’s website:
Appendix S1: Descriptive statistics for the dependent variables
© 2013 The Authors. Political Studies © 2013 Political Studies Association
POLITICAL STUDIES: 2013