Date post: | 01-Nov-2014 |
Category: |
Technology |
Upload: | ciaran-mc-mahon |
View: | 1,325 times |
Download: | 1 times |
POLITICS AND PERSONALITYA closer look at the 2011 candidates for the
Presidency
Ciarán Mc Mahon, Ph.D.Dept. of Psychology
WHAT SORT OF PERSONALITY DO WE LOOK FOR IN A PRESIDENTIAL
CANDIDATE?
Introduction
• Previous research has demonstrated solid theoretical basis for this examination: – observers frequently interpret an actor’s behaviour
in terms of personality (the ‘fundamental attribution error’, Jones and Harris, 1967);
– nonverbal images of candidates influence voter decision making (Todorov, Mandisodza, Goren, & Hall, 2005);
– and inferred personality traits can be predictive of electoral success (Immellman, 2005)
– all five major traits associated with ‘transformational leadership (Bono & Judge, 2004)
Extraversion
Conscientiousness
AgreeablenessOpenness
to experience
Emotional stability
Leadership
Leadership
Leadership...
Introduction
• Hypotheses– 1 (a/b/c/d/e) that there will be
significant correlation between each of the five major personality traits and first preference votes received
– 2 (a/b/c/d/e/f/g/h) that a candidate’s supporters will differ from the rest of the population in how they perceive their personality traits
Method
• 391 survey participants– 215 male, 174 female– age range 18-76 years, mean 39.92, st.
dev. 13.02
• Asked of impressions of the personality of the candidates– Ten-Item Personality Inventory-(TIPI)• Gosling, Rentfrow, & Swann (2003)• 2 items each for 5 major personality traits
TIPI example
Results
• Hypothesis 1 a/b/c/d/e all supported–weak-to-moderate positive correlations
observed between each trait with first preference votes received» Extraversion (r = .095, N = 2737, p < .001, one-tailed)» Agreeableness (r = .169, N = 2737, p < .001, one-
tailed)» Conscientiousness (r = .220, N = 2737, p < .001, one-
tailed)» Emotional Stability (r = .299, N = 2737, p < .001, one-
tailed)» Openness to Experiences (r = .199, N = 2737, p
< .001, one-tailed)
Extraversion
Agreeableness
ConscientiousnessEmotional Stability
Openness to Experiences
Davis
Total
Extraversion
Agreeableness
ConscientiousnessEmotional Stability
Openness to Experiences
Gallagher
Total
Extraversion
Agreeableness
ConscientiousnessEmotional Stability
Openness to Experiences
Higgins
Total
Extraversion
Agreeableness
ConscientiousnessEmotional Stability
Openness to Experiences
McGuinness
Total
Extraversion
Agreeableness
ConscientiousnessEmotional Stability
Openness to Experiences
Mitchell
Total
Extraversion
Agreeableness
ConscientiousnessEmotional Stability
Openness to Experiences
Norris
Total
Extraversion
Agreeableness
ConscientiousnessEmotional Stability
Openness to Experiences
Scallon
Total
Results
• Hypothesis 2 supported, generally...– multivariate analysis of variance revealed significant effect of
1st choice preference (support) on impressions of all traits for all candidates F(210, 2082.408) = 5.550, p < 0.001, Wilks’ Lamda = .072, partial eta squared = .355.
– NB – equality of covariance assumption not met, and some equality of error variance assumptions not met either, but observed power (alpha = .05) was high (1.0).
• with the exception of extraversion for Davis, McGuinness, Mitchell and Scallon, where no significant differences were observed
– pairwise comparisions reveal many expected patterns• e.g those who gave Davis their first preference rated her as
significantly more agreeable than did those who gave any of the other candidates their first preferences
– however, some other, unexpected patterns were revealed also
Extraversion
Agreeableness
ConscientiousnessEmotional Stability
Openness to Experiences
Davis
Supporters Others
Extraversion
Agreeableness
ConscientiousnessEmotional Stability
Openness to Experiences
Gallagher
Supporters Others
Extraversion
Agreeableness
ConscientiousnessEmotional Stability
Openness to Experiences
Higgins
Supporters Others
Extraversion
Agreeableness
ConscientiousnessEmotional Stability
Openness to Experiences
McGuinness
Supporters Others
Extraversion
Agreeableness
ConscientiousnessEmotional Stability
Openness to Experiences
Mitchell
Supporters Others
Extraversion
Agreeableness
ConscientiousnessEmotional Stability
Openness to Experiences
Norris
Supporters Others
Extraversion
Agreeableness
ConscientiousnessEmotional Stability
Openness to Experiences
Scallon
Supporters Others
?
Voting behaviour
Voting behaviourWill vote for the
candidate
Voting behaviourWill vote for the
candidate
Like the candidate
Voting behaviourWill vote for the
candidate
Like the candidate
Won’t vote for the candidate
Voting behaviourWill vote for the
candidate
Likes the candidate
Won’t vote for the candidate
Don’t like the candidate
Voting behaviour
Liking the candidate
Will vote for the candidate
Likes the candidate
Won’t vote for the candidate
Don’t like the candidate
Voting for the candidate
Voting behaviour
Liking the candidate
Will vote for the candidate
Likes the candidate
Won’t vote for the candidate
Don’t like the candidate
Will vote for the candidate
Don’t like the candidate
Voting for the candidate
Voting behaviour
Liking the candidate
Won’t vote for the candidate
Like the candidate
Will vote for the candidate
Likes the candidate
Won’t vote for the candidate
Doesn’t like the candidate
Will vote for the candidate
Likes the candidate
Voting for the candidate
Voting behaviour
Liking the candidate
Won’t vote for the candidate
Like the candidate
Will vote for the candidate
Like the candidate
Won’t vote for the candidate
Don’t like the candidate
Will vote for the candidate
Don’t like the candidate
Voting for the candidate
Voting behaviour
Liking the candidate
Won’t vote for the candidate
Like the candidate
Will vote for the candidate
Like the candidate
Won’t vote for the candidate
Don’t like the candidate
Will vote for the candidate
Don’t like the candidate
Voting for the candidate
ONLY FOR PARTY CANDIDATES
Voting behaviour
Liking the candidate
Won’t vote for the candidate
Like the candidate
Will vote for the candidate
Like the candidate
Won’t vote for the candidate
Don’t like the candidate
Will vote for the candidate
Don’t like the candidate
Voting for the candidate
ALL THAT IN
DEPENDENT
CANDIDATES CAN DEAL WITH
Voting behaviour
Liking the candidate
Won’t vote for the candidate
Likes the candidate
Will vote for the candidate
Likes the candidate
Won’t vote for the candidate
Doesn’t like the candidate
Will vote for the candidate
Likes the candidate
Voting for the candidate
In other words,
• A party candidate can be assured that– some people will always vote for them– and some people will never vote for
them
• whereas• An independent candidate– should have neither that luxury nor
obstacle
– this is basic in-group/out-group bias
In other words,
• Consequently,– if a party candidate can transcend their
affiliation, they will do well– but if an independent candidate becomes so
associated, then they will not
• Ultimately, the effect of personality on leadership is fundamentally different both within and without political groupings...