Jeffery J. Mondak

Personality and Civic Engagement: An Integrative Framework for the Study of Trait Effects on Political Behavior

Peoples enduring psychological tendencies are reflected in their traits. Contemporary research on personality establishes that traits are rooted largely in biology, and that the central aspects of personality can be captured in frameworks, or taxonomies, focused on five trait dimensions: openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and emotional stability. In this article, we integrate a five-factor view of trait structure within a holistic model of the antecedents of political behavior, one that accounts not only for personality, but also for other factors, including biological and environmental influences. This approach permits attention to the complex processes that likely underlie trait effects, and especially to possible trait–situation interactions. Primary tests of our hypotheses draw on data from a 2006 U.S. survey, with supplemental tests introducing data from Uruguay and Venezuela. Empirical analyses not only provide evidence of the value of research on personality and politics, but also signal some of the hurdles that must be overcome for inquiry in this area to be most fruitful.

A Framework for the Study of Personality and Political Behaviour

Variance in how citizens interact with the political world constitutes one of many classes of individual difference. Understanding the antecedents of this variance is the central objective for students of political behaviour, and researchers draw on numerous factors in addressing this task. Unfortunately, one potentially vital factor, personality, has received only sporadic attention in recent decades. Neglect of personality was understandable for many years, as psychological research on personality failed to produce concise taxonomies applicable to the study of politics. As the present analysis demonstrates, however, this situation has changed. Research on personality has gained new footing with the emergence of a series of five-factor models, and these frameworks hold great potential for the study of political behaviour. This thesis is advanced in a two-part analysis. First, we outline how and why our understanding of citizen politics may be improved through application of five-factor models of personality. In doing so, we focus on the components of one specific taxonomy, the Big Five lexical model. Secondly, using three datasets, we explore the link between the Big Five personality factors and a wide array of political attitudes and behaviours. Results reveal that all facets of personality captured by the Big Five framework matter for citizen politics, and that personality effects operate on virtually all aspects of political behaviour. These findings demonstrate the insight that can emerge with further application of broad-scale models of personality.

The Workplace as a Context for Cross-Cutting Political Discourse

Political dialogue among citizens offers numerous potential contributions to American politics, but attainment of these benefits hinges largely on the extent to which conversations cross lines of political difference. In what contexts are cross-cutting interactions most likely to thrive? Using data from five surveys, we find consistent evidence that the workplace is the social context best positioned to facilitate cross-cutting political discourse. Political discussion in the workplace involves a large number of discussants, and it involves greater exposure to people of dissimilar perspectives than does discussion in contexts such as the family, the neighborhood, or the voluntary association. We next consider whether workplace-based interactions are capable of producing beneficial effects. Despite the notoriously weak nature of work-based social ties, we find evidence that workplace-based exposure to differing political views increases peoples knowledge of rationales for political perspectives other than their own and also fosters political tolerance.

Dimensions of Sociotropic Behavior: Group-Based Judgements of Fairness and Well-Being

Theory: Drawing on theories of group-based effects on political judgments, we argue that group-level economic perceptions may complement the familiar pocketbook and sociotropic indicators as determinants of political evaluations. We examine three processes by which groups may influence political judgement: group membership, group identification, and group comparison. Hypotheses: We hypothesize that people hold group-level economic perceptions that are independent from family-level and national-level appraisals, and that these group-level perceptions influence political judgments. Further, we develop a series of specific hypotheses regarding the influence of group membership, group identification, and group comparison on the link between economic perceptions and political evaluations. Methods: Our dependent variable is the presidential vote choice, with data from the 1984 South Bend Study. We estimate a series of logistic regression models of the presidential vote to explore if and how group-level economic perceptions affect the vote choice. Results: People do hold group-level economic perceptions that are largely independent from economic judgments regarding the family and the nation as a whole. Group-based economic assessments affect the presidential vote choice, but, surprisingly, this influence is not a function of group membership, group identification, or traditional forms of group comparison such as relative deprivation. Instead, findings point to the significance of a unique form of group comparison, sociotropic fairness: voters are substantially more likely to judge the president favorably if they feel that class groups have enjoyed similar rather than dissimilar changes in economic performance.

Do Attitudes Toward Specific Supreme Court Decisions Matter? The Impact of Webster and Texas v. Johnson on Public Confidence in the Supreme Court

In this article, we revisit the question of whether, and in what manner, attitudes regarding specific Supreme Court decisions influence subsequent levels of confidence in the Court itself. Analysis centers on the impact of the 1989 Webster abortion decision and Texas v. Johnson, the flag-burning edict released immediately prior to Webster. Using data from three Harris polls, one conducted just before the two decisions, and two conducted soon after, we design a quasi-experimental test in which data are ana lyzed using ordered logistic regression. Results demonstrate that agree ment with the rulings did affect perceptions of the Court, and that the pattern of effects is indicative of a negativity bias; that is, disagreement with one or both decisions substantially reduced confidence in the Court, but agreement with both edicts brought only a marginal gain in confi dence. Results also reveal that these effects did not decay in strength from the time of the first postdecision poll (conducted immediately after the decisions were released) to the time of the second postdecision poll (con ducted six weeks later).

Policy Legitimacy and the Supreme Court: The Sources and Contexts of Legitimation

Conflicting evidence regarding the ability of the Supreme Court to confer policy legitimacy suggests that the process of legitimation is both subtle and multifaceted. Two aspects of this process are examined here First, the rela tionship between policy legitimacy and policy agreement is explored. Ex perimental tests demonstrate that policy legitimacy emerges from a direct process of symbolic legitimation, and through an indirect process of per suasive legitimation. Second, the mediated character of Supreme Court rul ings is examined as it relates to the Courts ability to enhance policy legitimacy. Experimental tests reveal that the Courts power of legitimation remains con sistent regardless of variance in the specific content of news coverage Col lectively, findings highlight the intricacy of policy legitimation while providing evidence that the institutional legitimacy maintained by the Supreme Court can produce significant shifts in policy evaluations.

Examining the Possible Corrosive Impact of Negative Advertising on Citizens' Attitudes toward Politics

Negative campaign advertisements have been depicted by many observers as a scourge on American politics. One facet of the case against negative ads—that such commercials discourage voter turnout—has been studied extensively in the past decade. In contrast, a second criticism—that negative advertisements produce corrosive effects on mass attitudes—has received less attention. This is unfortunate as it would be highly consequential for American political behavior if exposure to negative campaign ads breeds widespread cynicism and antipathy toward politics, disapproval of political institutions and elected officials, and a decline in political efficacy. We examine these charges in the context of the 2002 U.S. midterm elections. Merging data on political ads from the 2002 rendition of the Wisconsin Advertising (WiscAds) Project with individual-level data collected via the 2002 Exercising Citizenship in American Democracy Survey, we devise a thorough and multifaceted test of the case against negative advertising. Our analyses do not provide empirical support for the charges levied against negative campaign ads.

The Participatory Personality: Evidence from Latin America

To a substantial extent, political participation arises as a result of individuals’ interactions with aspects of the social and political environment. The resources people amass, the social connections they develop and the messages they receive combine to influence their propensity towards political action. However, building on recent research on personality and political behaviour,1 we posit that attention to these factors alone yields an incomplete account of the origins of participation. Our claim is that by their nature, some people are open to new experiences and others are not, some are responsible, some are outgoing and so on. These factors constitute fundamental elements of personality. We contend that enduring psychological differences – differences in personality – influence patterns of political participation.

Typing Together? Clustering of Ideological Types in Online Social Networks

ABSTRACT In the brief span of only a few years, the Facebook social networking site has emerged as a central forum for social interaction and communication. The fact that Facebook members may well be rich in “virtual social capital” could be important news from the standpoint of political engagement and mobilization, and, more broadly, in terms of the content and patterns of social interaction. In this article, we discuss the significance of the Facebook phenomenon for scholarship on social networks. A brief introduction to Facebook is presented, along with an assessment of the benefits and limitations inherent in research regarding Facebook networks. We then report some preliminary analyses of small samples from those networks. Drawing on past research regarding face-to-face social relationships, we examine whether online linkages possess some of the central characteristics common in more traditional forms of networks. Specifically, we focus on whether there are signs of clustering by Facebook members according to their political views, and whether the effects of tie strength observed in other forms of networks also are in evidence on Facebook.

Presidential Source Cues and Policy Appraisals, 1981-2000

To gain efficiency in political decision making, citizens rely on a great number of simplifying devices. One especially significant approach involves attention to elite political signals, or source cues. Although the nature of individual-level cue-based processing has been examined in numerous studies, less is known about the effects of elite signals on collective opinion. In this article, we expand on past quasi-experimental research in this area. Whereas previous research focused on the impact of source cues during the Reagan era, we broaden the analysis to include data from the Reagan, Bush, and Clinton administrations. Furthermore, we advance and test the thesis that the effects of presidential cues are contingent on baseline levels of policy support. Results reveal very strong effects of presidential approval on opinion about policy, findings that highlight the potential significance of presidential leadership of public opinion.