jost_j_t_kay_a_c_thorisdottir_n_social_and_psychological_bas

McCann, S. J. H., & Stewin, L. L. (1990). Good and bad years: An index of American social, economic and political threat (1920–1986). Journal of Psychology, 124, 601–617.

McFarland, S. (1998). Toward a typology of prejudiced persons. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Society of Political Psychology, Montreal, Canada.

McFarland, S. (2005). On the eve of war: Authoritarianism, social dominance, and American students’ attitudes toward attacking Iraq. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 360–367.

McFarland, S. (2006). Prejudiced people: Individual differences in explicit prejudice. Manuscript submitted for publication.

McFarland, S., & Adelson, S. (1996). An omnibus study of personality, values, and prejudice. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Society of Political Psychology, Vancouver, Canada.

Middendorp, C. (1991). Ideology in Dutch politics. Assen, Netherlands: Van G. Corcum.

Perrin, A. J. (2005). National threat and political culture: Authoritarianism, antiauthoritarianism, and the September 11th attacks. Political Psychology, 26, 167–194.

Pratto, F. (1999). The puzzle of continuing group inequality: Piecing together psychological, social, and cultural forces in social dominance theory. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 31, pp. 191–263). San Diego: Academic Press.

Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L., & Malle, B. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 741–763.

Roccato, M., & Ricolfi, L. (2005). On the correlation between right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 27, 187–200.

Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press.

Sales, S. (1973). Threat as a factor in authoritarianism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28, 44–57.

Sales, S., & Friend, K. (1973). Success and failure as determinants of level of authoritarianism. Behavioral Science, 18, 163–172.

Saucier, G. (1994). Separating description and evaluation in the structure of personality attributes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 141–154.

Saucier, G. (2000). Isms and the structure of social attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 366–385.

Schmitt, M., Branscombe, N., & Kappen, D. (2003). Attitudes toward group-based inequality: Social dominance or social identity. British Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 161–186.

Schwartz, S. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1–65). San Diego: Academic Press.

Schwartz, S. (1996). Value priorities and behavior: Applying a theory of integrated value systems. In C. Seligman, J. Olson, & M. Zanna (Eds.), The psychology of values: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 8, pp. 1–24).

Sibley, C. G., Wilson, M. S., & Duckitt, J. (2007a). Effects of dangerous and competitive worldviews on right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation over a five-month period. Political Psychology, 28, 357–371.

Sibley, C. G., Wilson, M. S., & Duckitt, J. (2007b). Antecedents of men’s hostile and benevolent sexism: The dual roles of social dominance orientation and rightwing authoritarianism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 160–172.

Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., & Bobo, L. (1994). Social dominance orientation and the political psychology of gender: A case of invariance? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6, 998–1011.

Stangor, C., & Leary, M. (2006). Intergroup beliefs: Investigations from the social side. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 39, pp. 243–281). New York: Academic.

Tomkins, S. (1964). The polarity scale. New York: Springer.

Triandis, H., & Gelfand, M. (1998). Converging measurement of horizontal and vertical individualism and collectivism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 118–128.

Trompenaars, F. (1993). Riding the waves of culture. London: Brealey.

Van Hiel, A., & Kossowska, M. (2002). Explaining conservative beliefs and political preferences: A comparison of Social Dominance Orientation and authoritarianism. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 956–976.

Van Hiel, A., & Kossowska, M. (2007). Contemporary attitudes and their ideological representation in Flanders (Belgium), Poland, and the Ukraine. International Journal of Psychology, 42, 16–26.

Wilson, G. D. (Ed.). (1973). The psychology of conservatism. New York: Academic.

individuals in a state vote. A growing body of work in personality and social psychology suggests that there may be some truth to this claim.

In this article, we build on previous research on personality and political orientation in proposing that regional differences in voting patterns can be understood in terms of regional differences in modal personality. More specifically, we seek to integrate work in psychology, political science, and cultural geography to develop and investigate the hypothesis that regional differences in voting patterns reflect regional differences in the psychological characteristics of individuals living in those regions. After all, values, including political values, are in large part psychological in nature (e.g., Barnea & Schwartz, 1998; Feldman, 2003; Rokeach, 1973).

REGIONAL DIFFERENCES IN POLITICAL ORIENTATION

Regional differences in political orientation have existed for quite some time. Indeed, political geographers and scientists have shown that American regions and states have voted in fairly stable ways for over a century (Agnew, 1987a; 1987b; Bensel, 1984; Elazer, 1994; Heppen, 2003; Hero, 1998). Explanations for these differences generally emphasize regional differences in historical settlement patterns (Elazer, 1994), cultural and racial composition (Hero, 1998; Heppen, 2003), and local economic conditions (Heppen, 2003).

Elazer (1994), for example, argued that regional differences in political ideology are the result of historical settlement and immigration patterns. The synthesis of religion, politics, and culture brought by early settlers gave rise to different political subcultures, each of which regarded government as serving different functions. Three political subcultures identified in Elazer’s research are: individualistic, moralistic, and traditionalistic. The individualistic subculture is a result of the commercialism and social pluralism of the English, Eastern European, and Mediterranean immigrants to the North Mid-Atlantic and eventually the West Coast. In this subculture, the sole purpose of government is to maintain a healthy economy. The moralistic subculture is a product of the religious convictions of early Puritan, Jewish, and Western European settlers of New England (and later the Midwest and Northwest). This subculture considers government to be an instrument for achieving the greatest good for all individuals. The traditionalistic subculture is a result of the plantation agrarianism of the South and accepts a hierarchical social structure in which government is entrusted to uphold social order.

Others have emphasized the importance of ethnic diversity for regional voting patterns (Heppen, 2003; Hero, 1998). According to Hero (1998), class

differences between majority and minority ethnic groups shape the political climate of a state. Racially homogenous regions (with high percentages of Whites) tend to have simple social structures and are concerned with community development. In contrast, racially heterogeneous regions (with high percentages of non-White minorities) tend to have more complex social structures and are concerned with maintaining social order and economic prosperity.

In an analysis of U.S. Presidential elections from 1892 to 2000, Heppen (2003) identified four fluid political regions that were differentiated according to the degree of social diversity, economic status, and political behavior: the East and West Coasts, Middle America, the Sun Belt, and the Capital. The Coastal states and Washington D.C. are historically liberal regions with large populations, high percentages of non-White residents, and relatively high per capita income levels. The Middle American and Sun Belt states are historically conservative regions with smaller populations, less cultural and racial diversity, and poorer economies in general.

Taken together, this research suggests that regional differences in political orientation can be understood in terms of the historical, social, and economic differences among regions. These regional differences in turn appear to moderate how individuals in those regions react to various political issues. This work is consistent with the notion that the psychological characteristics of individuals (e.g., attitudes, beliefs, and values) inhabiting different regions affect local political preferences. Regional social climates may (a) attract individuals with similar personality characteristics and belief systems, and

(b) increase the degree of similarity among inhabitants in a given area. It is therefore conceivable that regional differences in personality could inform our understanding of the Red state/Blue state divide.

REGIONAL DIFFERENCES IN PERSONALITY

Early investigations of geographic differences in personality attempted to provide explanations for the anti-Semitism displayed before and during World War II. This work spawned several theories about the nature of national differences in personality or character (e.g., Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, & Sanford, 1950; Lewin, 1936; Peabody, 1985). For example, in The Authoritarian Personality, Adorno and colleagues (1950) sought to integrate dynamic personality theory with the study of social attitudes and political ideology. They identified an authoritarian syndrome, which was defined in terms of conservatism, intolerance of ambiguity, narrow-mindedness, conventionalism, and obedience to authority. This work was very influential, and sparked numerous international projects that revealed national

differences in authoritarianism among Americans, Germans, Japanese, and Russians (e.g., Inkeles, Hanfmann, & Beier, 1958).

Although work on national character was a useful starting point for understanding cross-national differences, most of this research treated entire nations as homogenous entities. It was assumed that individuals within various regions of a country were more similar to each other than to individuals in other countries (Bock, 2000). This work failed to take into account the possibility that individuals living in different regions of the same country could be quite different from one another. There has, however, been some research in social psychology on regional differences within countries. This research has focused on regional differences in self-concept (Vandello & Cohen, 1999), well-being (Plaut, Markus, & Lachman, 2002), and violence (Cohen, 2001; Nisbett & Cohen, 1996). For example, work by Vandello and Cohen (1999) suggests that regional differences exist in individualism and collectivism, such that collectivism is highest in the Southern states and lowest in the Mountain and Great Plains states. Moreover, research by Cohen (e.g., Cohen, 2001; Nisbett & Cohen, 1996) reveals that the Southern United States embraces a culture of honor, in which individuals are willing to resort to violence to protect their reputation.

Perhaps the first study to directly examine regional variation in personality within the United States was conducted by Krug and Kulhavy (1973). Their findings revealed striking differences: individuals living in urban, industrial regions (Northeast, Midwest, and West Coast) were significantly higher in “creative productivity” (defined in terms of creativity, imagination, intelligence, tolerance, and unconventionality), than were those living in rural regions (Great Plains and South). Midwesterners appeared to be higher in traits associated with conscientiousness (e.g., hardworking) than were people in the West Coast and Southwest. Finally, individuals living in the Northeast were higher in extraversion (defined by traits such as urgency and energy) than were individuals living in the Western Mountain states.

Krug and Kulhavy (1973) attributed geographic personality differences to immigration patterns, but the emergence and persistence of such differences are likely due to a myriad of factors (Rentfrow, Gosling, & Potter, 2008). Historical immigration patterns could have caused regional differences in personality to emerge by way of genetic and social founder effects. Specifically, the genetic predispositions of immigrants who settled in particular regions could have restricted the variety of personality traits available in the gene pool, which, in turn, could have caused certain regions to develop disproportionate numbers of individuals with certain personality traits (Hofstede & McCrae, 2004). Moreover, the intellectual histories, customs, lifestyles, and daily practices of early settlers could have contributed to the establishment

of certain social norms within particular regions, which, in turn, could have influenced the prevalence of particular behavioral tendencies and personality traits within the region (Hofstede & McCrae, 2004; Kitayama, Ishii, Imada, Takemura, & Ramaswamy, 2006). Thus, it is plausible that the genetic predispositions and social customs of early immigrants could have both caused regional differences in personality to emerge. But once those differences do emerge, how might they persist over time?

Three mechanisms that probably have the biggest impact on maintaining regional differences are self-selection, social influence, and environmental influence. First, regional personality differences could persist as a result of individuals migrating to places that satisfy and reinforce their psychological needs. For instance, open-minded individuals might move to cosmopolitan areas, where their needs for diversity and cultural stimulation are more easily met than in small-town environments. Similarly, members of minority groups might choose to live in regions where the residents are believed to be open-minded and tolerant of diversity. Support for this idea comes from work indicating that individuals seek out environments in which their attitudes, beliefs, and personalities are valued and shared by others (Buss, 1987; Florida, 2002; Swann, Rentfrow, & Guinn, 2002).

Second, regional differences could persist as a result of social influence. According to social dynamic influence, local clustering of attitudes and beliefs can occur when individuals engage in repeated social interaction with others (Bourgeois & Bowen, 2001; Latané, 1981). As a result, “attitudes become geographically clustered not because [people] choose to live with others who share common interests but rather as a result of social influence” (Bourgeois & Bowen, 2001, p. 434). For instance, the degree of cultural diversity in a region could influence the attitudes that individuals in that region have about different racial and ethnic groups (e.g., Allport, 1954). Indeed, similar arguments have been made about the geographic clustering of political attitudes (Huckfeldt & Sprague, 1995). Similarly, regional psychological characteristics, such as industriousness or creativity, could influence various sociodemographic characteristics of a region, like unemployment rates and median income.

Third, regional differences in personality could persist as a result of environmental influence. Specifically, aspects of the physical environment influence the types of activities (e.g., professions, leisure pursuits) in which individuals can engage, which could influence various psychological characteristics of individuals in that region. For example, urbanization in general and neighborhood characteristics in particular—housing quality and proximity to basic necessities like hospitals and markets—appear to influence

Regional

Sociodemographic

Characteristics

(e.g., cultural diversity,

economic conditions) Statewide Voting

Patterns

(e.g., Liberal

vs. Conservative)

Regional

Psychological

Characteristics (e.g., personality, attitudes)

Figure 13.1 Mutual reinforcement between regional sociodemographic characteristics and regional psychological characteristics and their infl uence on statewide voting patterns.

rates of depression over and above the effects of family income (Cutrona, Wallace, & Wesner, 2006). Thus, it is conceivable that certain environmental aspects of regions could cause specific psychological characteristics to persist there over time.

We are suggesting that the psychological, sociological, and environmental aspects of regions are mutually reinforcing and could each influence regional variation in a number of geographic social indicators, including political preferences. Self-selection, social influence, and environmental influence are three of the possible mechanisms that could create and sustain differences in regional characteristics that could, in turn, affect voting patterns. But what are the processes underlying the expression of personality at the geographic level? That is, how might regional variation in personality and voting patterns become linked?

In line with recent work by Rentfrow and colleagues (2008), it is possible that regional differences in personality and political orientation could become linked through a series of dynamic processes. Specifically, the dominant personality characteristics in a region could have a direct, or additive, effect on the political views at the regional level. For instance, if a disproportionately large number of people in a region have personality traits associated with liberalism, then it is reasonable to suppose that there would be more votes cast for Democratic than Republican political candidates, simply because there are more people with a predisposition for liberalism. Yet, it is also conceivable that the psychological characteristics dominant in a place could produce a unique psychosocial environment in which liberal values are the norm. If so, then that psychosocial environment could, in turn, affect the political views of other people in the environment who do not possess the modal personality traits. But what are the personality traits that could play a role in this dynamic process?

PERSONALITY AND POLITICAL ORIENTATION

The study of personality and politics goes back at least three-quarters of a century, and may be said to originate if not with Freud then with the publication of Lasswell’s (1930) Psychopathology and Politics. This work, like many that followed it, defended a psychoanalytic theory of personality structure as emanating largely from unconscious drives and motivational conflicts. From this perspective, political ideology was generally regarded as a result of early life experiences and unconscious motives. Although psychoanalytic contributions were influential and popular (e.g., Adorno et al., 1950; Erikson, 1950; Lane, 1962; Smith, Bruner, & White, 1956; Wolfenstein, 1967), they often lacked conclusive scientific evidence and were open to a wide range of conceptual and methodological criticisms (see, e.g., Greenstein, 1992).

More recent applications of personality theory to political science have been more directly based on quantifiable measures of personality and political variables. Many of these studies focused on personality differences between liberals (or leftists) and conservatives (or rightists) (e.g., Costantini & Craik, 1980; Di Renzo, 1974; Elms, 1976; McClosky, 1958; Milbrath, 1962; Sidanius, 1985; St. Angelo & Dyson, 1968; Tetlock, 1983, 1984). Traits under investigation ranged from self-control, restraint, negativity, endurance, and order (higher among conservatives) to open-mindedness, impulsivity, tolerance of ambiguity, and integrative complexity (higher among liberals). This work was extremely important because it confirmed suspicions in both psychology and political science that personality traits underlie support for specific types of ideological and policy outcomes (see also Jost,

Glaser, Kruglanski, & Sulloway, 2003a, 2003b). However, this work began to fade from view in political psychology, largely because of the isolated and fragmented nature of personality psychology at the time. As noted by Caprara, Barbaranelli, and Zimbardo (1999), “in the absence of a general theory of personality or consensual agreement about its standardized assessment, research focused on multiple individual constructs without being guided by an integrated conceptual vision” (p. 176).

It was not until the 1990s that a suitable conceptual and empirical framework for classifying and measuring personality dimensions emerged and began to garner scientific consensus. Factor analyses of large numbers of trait ratings made by native speakers of several different languages provided evidence for the existence of five broad personality dimensions that can be reliably measured and used to predict behavior in multiple situations (e.g., Goldberg, 1992; John & Srivastava, 1999; McCrae & Costa, 1999; Ozer & Benet-Martínez, 2006; Wiggins, 1996). Different authors prefer slightly different terms for the “Big Five” dimensions, but the most popular labels spell the acronym OCEAN: openness (also referred to as culture or intellect), conscientiousness, extraversion (or energy), agreeableness, and neuroticism (or emotional instability). In the remainder of this article, we develop and investigate the hypothesis that regional differences in the prevalence of particular personality styles (as measured in terms of the Big Five dimensions) are related to differences in political orientation (as reflected in voting patterns).

THE FIVE-FACTOR MODEL OF PERSONALITY

AND POLITICAL ORIENTATION

Based on research in personality and social psychology, the Big Five dimension that is most likely to predict voting patterns is openness (Carney, Jost, Gosling, & Potter, 2008; Jost et al., 2003a; McCrae, 1996). Numerous studies suggest that self-described political liberals tend to score higher than conservatives on measures of stimulus-seeking and preferences for novelty, creativity, curiosity, imaginativeness, and broad-mindedness— all of which are aspects of openness (e.g., Barnea & Schwartz, 1998; Caprara et al., 1999; Feather, 1979; Gosling, Rentfrow, & Swann, 2003; Levin & Schalmo, 1974; Peterson, Smirles, & Wentworth, 1997; Riemann, Grubich, Hempel, Mergl, & Richter, 1993; Trapnell, 1994; Van Hiel, Mervielde, & De Fruyt, 2004). In a meta-analytic review of psychological predictors of political orientation, Jost and colleagues (2003a) estimated, on the basis of 21 studies, that the overall effect size (r) for the relation between openness and political liberalism was between .28 and .35, assuming a 95% confidence interval (CI). The sheer consistency of the research findings led McCrae (1996) to conclude