Within the Limits of Civic Training: Education Moderates theRelationship Between Openness and Political Attitudes
Danny OsborneUniversity of Auckland
Chris G. SibleyUniversity of Auckland
Research demonstrates that the Big-Five’s Openness to Experience is inversely associated with politicalconservatism. This literature, however, implicitly assumes that the strength of this relationship is invariantacross the electorate. We challenge this assumption by arguing that education—an institution designed toincrease civic competence—affects the degree to which personality predicts various political attitudes. Specifi-cally, we posit that education facilitates people’s ability to identify issue positions that (theoretically) resonatewith their personality. Using a national probability sample of New Zealand voters (n = 6,518), we show thateducation consistently moderates the relationship between personality and a host of political attitudes. WhereasOpenness to Experience is inversely associated with politically conservative issue positions among the highlyeducated, it is often uncorrelated with the same attitudes among those with low levels of educational attainment.These results identify an important—though often neglected—moderator of the relationship between personalityand political attitudes.
KEY WORDS: Big-Five, personality, openness, education, ideology, political sophistication
[Education is learning] to hate what you ought to hate, and love what you ought to love . . .—Plato (360 B.C./2008, p. 32)
Scholars have long-noted the importance of education in promoting a healthy—and informed—democracy (Almond & Verba, 1963/1989; Nie, Junn, & Stehlik-Barry, 1996). An emerging literaturein psychology, however, shows that personality is reliably associated with political ideology (Carney,Jost, Gosling, & Potter, 2008; Riemann, Grubich, Hempel, Mergl, & Richter, 1993). Often implicitin this research is the assumption that personality is in and of itself capable of guiding voters towardissues that best suit their underlying needs. Examining these separate research traditions side by side,then, leads to a perplexing question: How can personality predict people’s policy preferences wheneducation—a resource that is unevenly distributed across the electorate—is a prerequisite for rea-soned vote choice?
Our study aims to resolve this contradiction by integrating the personality literature withresearch on the effects of education on civic competence. We begin by reviewing the literature on thepersonality correlates of political ideology. Next, we introduce the possibility that differences ineducational attainment affect the extent to which personality correlates with conservatism. We then
Political Psychology, Vol. xx, No. xx, 2013doi: 10.1111/pops.12070
and PO Box 378 Carlton South, 3053 Victoria, Australia
test our hypothesis using a large sample of New Zealand voters. Ultimately, we seek to highlight anoverlooked boundary condition for the relationship between personality and political orientation.
Personality and Politics
Political psychologists have long-posited that people adopt political attitudes that satisfy theirpsychological needs. In perhaps the best-known iteration of this theme, Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, and Sanford (1950) argued that children raised by strict, punitive, and emo-tionally withholding parents develop a personality style that predisposes them to submit to thewhims of an authoritarian regime. Though this work was quickly attacked on methodological andtheoretical grounds (see Hyman & Sheatsley, 1954; Rokeach, 1956), the idea that political atti-tudes reflect one’s personality has withstood the test of time (see Jost, Glaser, Kruglanski, &Sulloway, 2003).
Research has advanced considerably since the days of projective tests and Freudian conceptionsof the unconscious—ideas that formed the basis of Adorno and colleagues’ (1950) classic work.What has emerged is the view that personality is organized along five broad personality dimensionscollectively known as the Big-Five (Costa & McCrae, 1988; McCrae & Costa, 1987). Thesedimensions are commonly labelled (2) Openness to Experience (Openness; i.e., one’s preference fororiginality), (2) Conscientiousness (i.e., one’s preference for order and discipline), (3) Extraversion(i.e., one’s level of sociability), (4) Agreeableness (i.e., one’s preference for cooperation), and (5)Neuroticism (i.e., one’s level of personal insecurities/emotionality). Big-Five theorists maintain thatmost universally recognized individual differences reflect distinct blends of these five basic dimen-sions of personality.
Shortly after validating the Big-Five, research began examining the relationships between thesefive personality dimensions and political attitudes. Riemann and colleagues (1993) found thatpolitical conservatism was reliably associated with each of the Big-Five factors: Whereas Openness,Agreeableness, and Neuroticism were negatively correlated with conservatism, both Conscientious-ness and Extraversion were positively correlated with the same conservative attitudes. Openness,however, was by far the best predictor of ideological preferences.
A number of scholars have since investigated the relationship between the Big-Five and politicalconservatism. Though many have failed to replicate Riemann and colleagues’ (1993) results forExtraversion, Agreeableness, and/or Neuroticism (e.g., see Gosling, Rentfrow, & Swann, 2003;Rentfrow, Jost, Gosling, & Potter, 2009), Openness and (to a lesser extent) Conscientiousnessconsistently predict political conservatism (Gosling et al., 2003; Rentfrow et al., 2009). Carney andcolleagues (2008) even showed that behavioral markers of Openness and Conscientiousness corre-late with political ideology: Whereas having a neat and orderly living space (i.e., indicators ofConscientiousness) was positively correlated with political conservatism, there was a negativecorrelation between endorsement of a conservative ideology and living in an environment in whicha wide array of books, CDs, and art (i.e., indicators of Openness) were out for display.
In perhaps the most comprehensive treatment of the topic to date, Sibley, Osborne, and Duckitt(2012) conducted a meta-analysis of 72 published and unpublished studies that examined therelationship between one or more dimension(s) of the Big-Five and political conservatism. Theauthors found that Openness and Neuroticism were negatively, but Conscientiousness was positively,correlated with political conservatism. Extraversion and Agreeableness, in contrast, were unassoci-ated with self-rated levels of political conservatism. That said, Openness was by far the strongestpredictor of conservatism—the average effect size for Openness was close to twice as large as theaverage effect size for Conscientiousness (and almost six times larger than the average effect size forNeuroticism). These results show that Openness is a particularly important correlate of politicalconservatism.
Osborne and Sibley2
Education and Political Socialization
The literature reviewed above demonstrates that personality (most notably, Openness) is reliablyassociated with political ideology. Implicit in this research is the assumption that the strength of thisrelationship is invariant across the population. It is possible, however, that individual differences incivics training—an intrinsic component of higher education (for a review, see Emler & Frazer,1999)—moderates the relationship between personality and political attitudes. Specifically, byteaching people the skills needed to comprehend complex political information and promotingpolitical engagement, education may facilitate people’s ability to identify issue positions thatresonate with their personality.
Scholars often note the importance of education in promoting the democratic skills of theelectorate (e.g., Almond & Verba, 1963/1989; Nie et al., 1996). Indeed, educational attainment ispositively associated with the frequency at which people read the newspaper (Dee, 2004; Rhee &Cappella, 1997), the extent to which they follow political campaigns (Milligan, Moretti, &Oreopoulos, 2004), and the amount of factual knowledge they have about politics (Bennett, 1988;Delli Carpini & Keeter, 1996; Nie et al., 1996). It is perhaps not surprising, then, that educationpositively correlates with people’s ability to identify issue positions that satisfy their underlying(racial) predispositions (Federico, 2005; Federico & Sidanius, 2002).
A competent electorate requires more than just knowledge; healthy democracies need engagedcitizens. Accordingly, educational attainment is positively correlated with both the likelihood ofvoting in elections (Dee, 2004; Milligan et al., 2004; Nie et al., 1996) and the propensity to engagein political activism (Hillygus, 2005; Verba, Schlozman, Brady, & Nie, 1993). These findings showthat people’s awareness of—and engagement with—their political world must not be taken forgranted. Rather, the extent to which people are actively engaged with their political surroundings is(partly) the product of political socialization—a process that lies at the heart of the educationalsystem.
Study Overview
This study aims to resolve an apparent—though often overlooked—discrepancy in the twoliteratures reviewed above. Specifically, research shows that personality (i.e., Openness and Consci-entiousness) is reliably associated with political ideology (Carney et al., 2008; Gosling et al., 2003;Sibley et al., 2012). The political socialization literature, however, demonstrates that education playsa key role in creating politically knowledgeable—and engaged—voters (Bennett, 1988; Dee, 2004;Hillygus, 2005; Milligan et al., 2004; Nie et al., 1996; Verba et al., 1993). This increased attentive-ness to the political world should, in turn, facilitate people’s ability to identify the issue positions thatresonate with their underlying needs. Indeed, people must first know what the available issuepositions are before selecting the ones that best-suit their personality. As such, the relationshipbetween personality and political conservatism should be largely confined to those with high levelsof educational attainment.
It is likely that education will only selectively moderate the relationships between the differentBig-Five dimensions and conservatism. That is, the specific pattern of thoughts, feelings, andbehaviors unique to each dimension of the Big-Five should make some personality dimensions moresusceptible to the effects of education than others. Because Openness represents people’s interestin—and facility with—new information (McCrae & Costa, 1987), the relationship between Open-ness and a given issue position should be particularly affected by one’s level of educationalattainment. In contrast, the remaining dimensions of the Big-Five lack this affinity for new infor-mation. Thus, the moderating effects of education should be largely confined to those relationshipswhere information is relevant to the given personality dimension (i.e., Openness).
Education Moderates the Relationship 3
In the current study, we test this hypothesis by examining the relationship each of the Big-Fivedimensions (and educational attainment) has with conservatism in a national probability sample ofvoters. To demonstrate the generalizability of our results, we examine a range of issues that are eithersymbolic (e.g., political ideology and corporal punishment) or resource based (e.g., affirmativeaction and resource redistribution). By examining attitudes toward multiple issues in a nationalprobability sample, we are ideally situated to identify a previously neglected boundary condition forthe relationship between personality and ideology. Thus, this study represents an important exami-nation of the extent to which personality “matters” for the average voter.
Method
Participants
Sampling procedure. Data for this study come from the first wave of the New Zealand Attitudesand Values Study (NZAVS). The NZAVS is a mail-based longitudinal study of the New Zealandelectorate that began in 2009. Invitations to participate in the first wave of the NZAVS were sent to40,500 people listed on the 2009 electoral roll (a registry of all New Zealand citizens who are eligibleto vote). Due to estimated levels of inaccuracy in the electoral roll (0.60%), however, invitationsreached approximately 39,123 people. The response rate after adjusting for this inaccuracy was16.6%. Participants who returned their surveys were entered into a prize draw for a $500 groceryvoucher.
Sample details. Wave I of the NZVAS consisted of a national probability sample of 6,518participants (3,866 women, 2,652 men) who were 18 years of age or older (Mage = 47.9, SD = 15.8).Overall, the sample reflected the ethnic diversity of New Zealand—participants’ self-identified asNew Zealand European (n = 4,629), Maori (n = 1,112), Asian (n = 312), and Pacific Nations(n = 280). An additional 158 participants did not respond to this question. Because women and NewZealand Europeans were slightly overrepresented in our sample, all analyses reported below wereweighted to provide estimates representative of the New Zealand population.1
Measures
Measures included in the NZAVS relevant to this study were (1) the Big-Five, (2) educationalattainment, (3) support for symbolic issues, (4) support for resource-based issues, and (5) demo-graphic controls (for the wording of these items, see the online supporting information). Items werekeyed so that higher values represent more of the given variable. Table 1 provides the descriptivestatistics and bivariate correlations for these measures.
Predictors
The Big-Five. The 20-item Mini-International Personality Item Pool (Mini-IPIP) was used toassess the Big-Five (Donnellan, Oswald, Baird, & Lucas, 2006). The Mini-IPIP consists of four itemsper Big-Five dimension, each of which has participants indicate their level of agreement with aself-directed statement. Example Openness items are “I have a vivid imagination” and “I am notinterested in abstract ideas” (reverse coded). Sample Conscientiousness items are “I like order” and“I make a mess of things” (reverse coded). Sample Extraversion items are “I am the life of the party”and “I don’t talk a lot” (reverse coded). Sample Agreeableness items are “I feel others’ emotions”
1 The sample weight adjusts for the gender and ethnic composition of New Zealand (as reported in the 2006 census). Analyseswithout this sample weight yielded comparable results.
Osborne and Sibley4
Tabl
e1.
Des
crip
tive
Stat
istic
san
dB
ivar
iate
Cor
rela
tions
Bet
wee
nth
eV
aria
bles
Incl
uded
inO
urA
naly
ses
12
34
56
78
910
1112
1314
15
1.Se
xa–
2.A
ge.0
9*–
3.In
com
e.0
7*−.
11*
–4.
Ope
nnes
s.0
1−.
18*
.12*
–5.
Con
scie
ntio
usne
ss−.
12*
.10*
.02
.03+
–6.
Ext
rave
rsio
n−.
05*
−.11
*.0
8*.2
4*.0
1–
7.A
gree
able
ness
−.27
*−.
00.0
5*.2
5*.1
6*.2
0*–
8.N
euro
ticis
m−.
12*
−.16
*−.
04*
−.03
*−.
13*
−.08
*−.
04*
–9.
Con
serv
atis
m.0
1.0
6*−.
00−.
21*
.05*
−.12
*−.
07*
−.02
–10
.L
GB
TR
ight
s−.
14*
−.26
*.1
0*.1
9*−.
06*
.09*
.09*
.05*
−.32
*–
11.
Cor
pora
lPu
nish
.10*
.06*
−.06
*−.
13*
.07*
.00
−.06
*−.
03+
.22*
−.27
*–
12.
Mao
riIn
clus
ion
−.15
*−.
20*
.04*
.11*
−.02
.10*
.17*
−.02
−.20
*.2
9*−.
18*
–13
.A
ffirm
ativ
eA
ctio
n−.
22*
−.07
*−.
12*
.02+
.03+
.05*
.12*
.07*
−.20
*.2
7*−.
16*
.38*
–14
.R
esou
rce
Red
istr
ibut
ion
−.07
*−.
13*
−.08
*.0
4*−.
08*
.05*
.02
.06*
−.21
*.2
0*−.
26*
.50*
.43*
–
15.
Edu
catio
nb−.
08*
−.14
*.2
7*.2
1*.0
3+.0
2+.1
2*−.
02−.
07*
.14*
−.18
*.0
7*−.
04*
.01
–
x.4
947
.36
649.
984.
755.
084.
025.
163.
433.
724.
305.
444.
914.
352.
881.
63SD
.50
15.6
969
2.88
1.12
1.08
1.16
1.00
1.07
1.22
2.00
1.62
1.41
1.35
1.56
1.32
α–
––
.66
.63
.69
.65
.61
––
–.7
7.7
4.8
2–
n6,
518
6,49
86,
518
6,46
06,
471
6,46
96,
471
6,46
76,
056
6,25
16,
504
6,47
66,
462
6,47
16,
518
a Sex
was
dum
my
code
d(0
=w
oman
;1
=m
an).
b Edu
catio
nw
asan
ordi
nal
vari
able
that
rang
edfr
om0
(unr
epor
ted/
noqu
alifi
catio
n)to
4(p
ostg
radu
ate)
.+ p
≤.0
5,*p
≤.0
1
Education Moderates the Relationship 5
and “I am not really interested in others” (reverse coded). Sample Neuroticism items are “I get upseteasily” and “I seldom feel blue” (reverse-coded). Each item was rated on a 7-point scale (1 = veryinaccurate; 7 = very accurate). Internal reliabilities for the scales comprising each dimension of theBig-Five were acceptable (αs ranged from .61 to .69).
Educational attainment. One item was used to assess educational attainment. This item hadparticipants state their highest level of education and was coded accordingly: (1) no qualification/unreported2 (25.0 %), (2) some high school (27.8%), (3) high school diploma or equivalent (15.5%),(4) undergraduate degree (22.4%), and (5) postgraduate degree (9.1%).
Symbolic Issues
Political conservatism. One item was used to assess political conservatism. This item hadparticipants indicate how conservative they viewed themselves on a 7-point scale (1 = extremelyconservative; 7 = extremely liberal). This item was recoded so that higher values represent higherlevels of political conservatism.
LGBT rights. One item was used to assess support for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender(LGBT) rights. This item had participants indicate their support for the Civil Union Act, a bill passedby New Zealand Parliament giving same-sex couples the right to form civil unions. This item wasrated on a 7-point scale (1 = strongly oppose; 7 = strongly support).
Corporal punishment. Two items were used to assess support for corporal punishment. The firstitem had participants indicate their support for a recently proposed anti-spanking bill (reverse-coded)on a 7-point scale (1 = strongly oppose; 7 = strongly support). The second item had participantsindicate their agreement with parents’ right to use spanking as a form of discipline on a 7-point scale(1 = strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree). Both items were combined to form an index of supportfor corporal punishment, r(6331) = .66, p < .01.
Maori inclusion. Four items from Liu and Sibley (2006) were used to assess support for theinclusion of Maori culture into New Zealand society. Examples include support for the “performanceof the Haka at international sports events” and “singing the national anthem in Maori and English.”Each item was rated on a 7-point scale (1 = strongly oppose; 7 = strongly support). These items werecombined to form an index of support for Maori inclusion (α = .77).
Resource-Based Issues
Affirmative action for women. Three items from Sibley and Perry (2010) were used to assessattitudes towards affirmative action for women. These items had participants indicate their supportfor policies designed to increase women’s representation in the general workforce, male-dominatedindustries (e.g., construction and trade), and business ownership. Each item was rated on a 7-pointscale (1 = strongly oppose; 7 = strongly support). These items were combined to form an index ofsupport for affirmative action (α = .74).
Resource redistribution. Four items from Liu and Sibley (2006) were used to assess support forpolicies that aim to redistribute resources to Maori. Examples include support for “Maori ownershipof the seabed and foreshore” and “rates exemptions on Maori land.” Each item was rated on a 7-pointscale (1 = strongly oppose; 7 = strongly support). These items were combined to form an index ofsupport for resource redistribution (α = .82).
2 Analyses excluding participants who failed to report their highest level of education yielded comparable results. Becausecombining these participants with those who reported that they had not obtained their qualifications allows us to retain asizable portion of our sample (i.e., 13.5%) without altering our results, we opted to keep our current coding strategy. It shouldbe noted, however, that this strategy provides a conservative test of our hypothesis by underestimating the educational levelof participants who failed to report their highest level of education.
Osborne and Sibley6
Controls
In the analyses presented below, we statistically adjusted for participants’ age, sex (woman = 0;man = 1), and household income. Household income was assessed via an open-ended item that askedparticipants to indicate their estimated total household income.3
Results
The aim of this study is to examine the impact that education has on the relationship betweenpersonality and political attitudes. Because the development of civic competence—a major aim ofthe educational system in Western democracies—should facilitate people’s ability to identify thepolitical issues that resonate with their personality, we predicted that Openness would be stronglyassociated with political attitudes for those with high levels of educational attainment. In the absenceof these skills, however, people should experience difficulty knowing which issues “best suit” theirpersonality. As such, Openness should be weakly (if at all) associated with political attitudes forthose with low levels of educational attainment.
Before testing our hypothesis, predictor variables were mean centered. An Openness × educa-tion interaction term was then created by multiplying our mean-centered Openness variable withour mean-centered variable for educational attainment. We then ran six regression models with(1) each of the Big-Five factors, (2) educational attainment, (3) our controls entered into the firstblock, and (4) our Openness × education interaction term entered into the second block.4 Finally, thegiven political attitude was regressed onto our full model. Tables 2 and 3 provide summaries of ourresults.
Symbolic Issues
Because symbolic issues are intrinsically less tangible than those based on resource redistribu-tion, education should be an important prerequisite for taking an informed position on symbolicpolicies. We examined this possibility for the following symbolic issues: conservatism, support forLGBT rights, support for corporal punishment, and support for Maori inclusion.
Political conservatism. As an initial test of our hypothesis, we examined the impact thateducational attainment has on the relationship between the Big-Five and conservatism. The results ofour basic regression model, which are displayed in the upper-half of Table 2, demonstrate thatExtraversion (B = −.08, SE = .01, p < .001), Neuroticism (B = −.03, SE = .01, p = .06), and education(B = −.04, SE = .01, p = .001) each had negative relationships with conservatism. In contrast, Con-scientiousness was positively associated with conservatism (B = .07, SE = .01, p < .001). Mostimportant for our purposes, however, are the results for Openness. After partialling out the effects ofthe other variables included in our regression model, there was a strong negative relationshipbetween Openness and conservatism (B = −.20, SE = .01, p < .001).
The robust relationship between Openness and conservatism is more complicated than it appearsat first blush. Specifically, the lower half of Table 2 shows that this relationship was qualified by aninteraction with educational attainment (B = −.06, SE = .01, p < .001). To further examine thisinteraction, we plotted the simple slopes for participants who were ±1 SD from the mean ofeducational attainment (see Figure 1). As predicted, the negative relationship between Openness and
3 Missing values were replaced with the sample mean.4 The results reported here are unaffected by the simultaneous inclusion of the two-way interactions between education and
each of the remaining four personality variables.
Education Moderates the Relationship 7
Tabl
e2.
Mul
tiple
Reg
ress
ion
Ana
lyse
sPr
edic
ting
Sym
bolic
Atti
tude
sas
aFu
nctio
nof
the
Big
-Fiv
e,E
duca
tiona
lAtta
inm
ent,
and
the
Inte
ract
ion
Bet
wee
nO
penn
ess
and
Edu
catio
nal
Atta
inm
ent
Polit
ical
Con
serv
atis
mSu
ppor
tfo
rL
GB
TR
ight
sSu
ppor
tfo
rC
orpo
ral
Puni
shm
ent
Supp
ort
for
Mao
riIn
clus
ion
BSE
BSE
BSE
BSE
Bas
eM
odel
Con
stan
t3.
72**
*.0
24.
55**
*.0
35.
27**
*.0
35.
06**
*.0
2O
penn
ess
−0.2
0***
.01
0.23
***
.02
−0.1
5***
.02
0.04
**.0
2C
onsc
ient
ious
ness
0.07
***
.01
−0.1
2***
.02
0.13
***
.02
−0.0
5***
.02
Ext
rave
rsio
n−0
.08*
**.0
10.
04*
.02
0.05
**.0
20.
04**
.01
Agr
eeab
lene
ss−0
.01
.02
0.02
.03
−0.0
1.0
20.
17**
*.0
2N
euro
ticis
m−0
.03+
.01
0.01
.02
−0.0
2.0
2−0
.07*
**.0
2E
duca
tion
−0.0
4***
.01
0.10
***
.02
−0.1
8***
.02
0.02
.01
Inte
ract
ion
Mod
elC
onst
ant
3.73
***
.02
4.52
***
.04
5.30
***
.03
5.05
***
.02
Ope
nnes
s−0
.21*
**.0
20.
24**
*.0
2−0
.16*
**.0
20.
05**
.02
Con
scie
ntio
usne
ss0.
07**
*.0
2−0
.11*
**.0
20.
13**
*.0
2−0
.05*
**.0
2E
xtra
vers
ion
−0.0
8***
.01
0.04
*.0
20.
05**
.02
0.04
**.0
2A
gree
able
ness
−0.0
2.0
20.
03.0
3−0
.01
.02
0.17
***
.02
Neu
rotic
ism
−0.0
3+.0
10.
01.0
2−0
.02
.02
−0.0
7***
.02
Edu
catio
n−0
.04*
*.0
10.
09**
*.0
2−0
.17*
**.0
20.
02.0
1O
penn
ess
×E
duca
tion
−0.0
6***
.01
0.09
***
.02
−0.0
9***
.01
0.03
**.0
1M
odel
Sum
mar
yR
2 adj
.05
.12
.06
.08
F39
.43*
**90
.85*
**44
.16*
**66
.82*
**ΔR
2.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
0ΔF
27.7
3***
30.8
8***
44.0
0**
8.51
***
Not
e.A
naly
ses
cont
rol
for
part
icip
ants
’ag
e,se
x,an
dho
useh
old
inco
me.
Res
ults
wer
eco
mpa
rabl
ew
hen
the
two-
way
inte
ract
ions
betw
een
educ
atio
nan
dea
chof
the
rem
aini
ngfo
urpe
rson
ality
vari
able
sw
ere
sim
ulta
neou
sly
ente
red
into
each
ofth
ere
gres
sion
mod
els
liste
dab
ove.
+ p≤
.10;
*p<
.05;
**p
≤.0
1;**
*p≤
.001
Osborne and Sibley8
conservatism was stronger among those with high (B = −.28, SE = .02, p < .001), relative to low(B = −.13, SE = .02, p < .001), levels of educational attainment.
LGBT rights. Though education affected the relationship between personality and conservatism,confidence in our results would be strengthened if we replicated these findings across a broad rangeof issues. To these ends, the upper half of Table 2 shows the relationships each of the Big-Five factors(and education) have with support for LGBT rights. As can be seen, both Extraversion (B = .04,SE = .02, p = .05) and educational attainment (B = .10, SE = .02, p < .001) were positively associatedwith support for LGBT rights. Conscientiousness, however, was negatively associated with supportfor LGBT rights (B = −.12, SE = .02, p < .001). Moreover, after statistically adjusting for theseeffects, we found the predicted positive relationship between Openness and support for LGBT rights(B = .23, SE = .02, p < .001).
Despite the robust size of this association, it is possible that individual differences in educationalattainment moderate the relationship between Openness and support for LGBT rights. Indeed, thelower-half of Table 2 shows that there was a significant interaction between Openness and education(B = .09, SE = .02, p < .001). To follow-up on this finding, we plotted the simple slopes for partici-pants who were ±1 SD from the mean of educational attainment (see Figure 2). These analysesshowed that the relationship between Openness and support for LGBT rights was particularly strongfor participants who had obtained high levels of education (B = .36, SE = .03, p < .001). This samerelationship was noticeably weaker among those who had low levels of educational attainment(B = .12, SE = .03, p < .001).
Table 3. Multiple Regression Analyses Predicting Resource-Based Attitudes as a Function of the Big-Five, EducationalAttainment, and the Interaction Between Openness and Educational Attainment
Support for Affirmative Action Support for Resource Redistribution
Note. Analyses control for participants’ age, sex, and household income. Results were comparable when the two-wayinteractions between education and each of the remaining four personality variables were simultaneously entered into eachof the regression models listed above.+p ≤ .10; *p < .05; **p ≤ .01; ***p ≤ .001
Education Moderates the Relationship 9
Corporal punishment. Another symbolic issue long thought to form the basis of personalitydifferences in political ideology is one’s support for punitive parenting practices (e.g., see Adornoet al., 1950). The results displayed in the upper-half of Table 2 show that, after adjusting for theeffects of the remaining variables in our model, Conscientiousness (B = .13, SE = .02, p < .001) and
3
3.5
4
4.5
Low Openness High Openness
Pol
itic
al C
onse
rvat
ism
Low Education High Education
Figure 1. Participants’ level of conservatism as a function of Openness to Experience and educational attainment. Error barsrepresent 95% confidence intervals.
4
4.5
5
5.5
Low Openness High Openness
Su
pp
ort
for
LG
BT
Rig
hts
Low Education High Education
Figure 2. Participants’ level of support for LGBT rights as a function of Openness to Experience and educational attainment.Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals.
Osborne and Sibley10
Extraversion (B = .05, SE = .02, p = .006) were positively associated with support for corporalpunishment. Educational attainment, in contrast, had a negative relationship with support for thisissue (B = −.18, SE = .02, p < .001). Importantly, Openness and support for corporal punishmentwere—as predicted—negatively associated with each other (B = −.15, SE = .02, p < .001).
Though these results show that Openness is inversely associated with attitudes toward punitivechild-rearing practices, it is possible that educational attainment moderates this relationship. Indeed,the interaction model presented in the lower half of Table 2 shows that this relationship varied byparticipants’ level of education (B = −.09, SE = .01, p < .001). To probe this interaction, we plottedthe simple slopes for participants who were ±1 SD from the mean of education (see Figure 3). Aspredicted, Openness had a strong negative relationship with support for corporal punishment amongthose with high levels of educational attainment (B = −.28, SE = .03, p < .001). For those with lowlevels of educational attainment, however, Openness was unassociated with support for corporalpunishment (B = −.04, SE = .03, p = .14).
Maori inclusion. A final symbolic issue that is particularly divisive within New Zealand isattitudes toward the inclusion of Maori culture into New Zealand society. The upper half of Table 2shows that Conscientiousness (B = −.05, SE = .02, p = .001) and Neuroticism (B = −.07, SE = .02,p < .001) each had independent negative relationships with support for Maori inclusion. In contrast,both Extraversion (B = .04, SE = .01, p = .003) and Agreeableness (B = .17, SE = .02, p < .001) werepositively associated with support for Maori inclusion. Most importantly, after partialling out theeffects of the other variables included in our regression model, the predicted positive relationshipemerged between Openness and support for Maori inclusion (B = .04, SE = .02, p = .007).
Though the relationship between Openness and support for Maori inclusion was small whenaveraging across the sample, the strength of this relationship may vary by levels of educationalattainment. Consistent with this thesis, the Openness × education interaction term (B = .03, SE = .01,p = .004) was significant (see the lower half of Table 2). As such, we followed up on this interactionby plotting the simple slopes for those who were ±1 SD from the mean of education. As seen in
4.5
5
5.5
6
Low Openness High Openness
Su
pp
ort
for
Cor
por
al P
un
ish
men
t
Low Education High Education
Figure 3. Participants’ level of support for corporal punishment as a function of Openness to Experience and educationalattainment. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals.
Education Moderates the Relationship 11
Figure 4, Openness and support for Maori inclusion were positively associated among participantswho had high levels of educational attainment (B = .09, SE = .02, p < .001). This same relationshipwas nonexistent among those who had low levels of educational attainment (B = .00, SE = .02,p = .93).
Resource-Based Political Attitudes
Our regression models predicting attitudes toward symbolic issues show that education has aclear and consistent impact on the relationship between Openness and voters’ issue positions.Because symbolic issues are intrinsically intangible, it is perhaps unsurprising that educationalattainment would affect the extent to which people are able to identify issue positions that resonatewith their personality. Indeed, people must understand the issues before they can vote in ways thatsatisfy their underlying needs. Therefore, a strict test of our hypothesis would be to show thateducation moderates the relationship between personality and tangible political issues. The remain-der of our analyses address this issue.
Affirmative action for women. A particularly tangible political issue of late in New Zealandfocuses on the implementation of affirmative action policies aimed at increasing women’s repre-sentation in the workforce. The upper half of Table 3 shows the results of our basic regressionpredicting support for these policies. As shown here, Extraversion (B = .03, SE = .01, p = .02),Agreeableness (B = .10, SE = .02, p < .001), and Neuroticism (B = .05, SE = .02, p = .001) eachhad an independent positive relationship with support for affirmative action. Educational attain-ment, in contrast, was inversely associated with support for these policies (B = −.04, SE = .01,p = .001). Unexpectedly, after partialling out the effects of the remaining variables included in ourregression model, Openness was unassociated with support for affirmative action (B = .02,SE = .02, p = .31).
4.5
5
5.5
Low Openness High Openness
Supp
ort f
or M
āori
Incl
usio
n
Low Education High Education
Figure 4. Participants’ level of support for Maori inclusion as a function of Openness to Experience and educationalattainment. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals.
Osborne and Sibley12
Though our basic regression model indicates that Openness is uncorrelated with support foraffirmative action when averaging across all of our participants, this relationship may be masked bydifferences in educational attainment. Consistent with this interpretation, the unstandardized regres-sion coefficients for our interaction model (see the lower half of Table 3) demonstrates that thisnon-significant relationship was qualified by an interaction with education (B = −.04, SE = .01,p = .001). After plotting the simple slopes for those who were ±1 SD from the mean of education (seeFigure 5), we found that the predicted positive relationship between Openness and support foraffirmative action was present among those with high levels of educational attainment (B = .07,SE = .02, p = .002). Among participants who had attained a low level of education, however, Open-ness was uncorrelated with support for affirmative action (B = −.03, SE = .02, p = .14).
Resource redistribution. As a final test of our hypothesis, we examined the relationship betweenthe Big-Five and support for the redistribution of resources. The results of our basic regression modelare shown in the upper half of Table 3. As can be seen, after adjusting for the effects of the remainingvariables in our model, both Extraversion (B = .04, SE = .02, p = .01) and Neuroticism (B = .04,SE = .02, p = .03) were positively associated with support for the redistribution of resources. Con-scientiousness, in contrast, was inversely associated with support for these policies (B = −.11,SE = .02, p < .001). Most relevant for our purposes, there tended to be a positive relationship betweenOpenness and support for resource redistribution (B = .03, SE = .02, p = .08).
Though the relationship between Openness and support for resource redistribution did not reachtraditional levels of significance when averaging across the sample, it is possible that the strength ofthis relationship varied by participants’ level of educational attainment. The results of our interactionmodel confirm this suspicion (see the lower half of Table 3). Specifically, the Openness × educationinteraction (B = .08, SE = .01, p < .001) qualified the lower-order relationship between Openness andsupport for resource redistribution. Figure 6, which plots the simple slopes for participants who are±1 SD from the mean of education, shows that there was a positive relationship between Opennessand resource redistribution among those who had attained a high level of education (B = .15,
4
4.5
5
Low Openness High Openness
Su
pp
ort
for
Aff
irm
ativ
e A
ctio
n
Low Education High Education
Figure 5. Participants’ support for affirmative action policies aimed at increasing women’s representation in the workforceas a function of Openness to Experience and educational attainment. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals.
Education Moderates the Relationship 13
SE = .03, p < .001). Interestingly, those who had attained a low level of education took an issueposition that was inconsistent with their personality—Openness was negatively associated withsupport for resource redistribution among those with low levels of educational attainment (B = −.07,SE = .03, p = .007).
Model Summaries
Variance explained across models. An additional way to test our hypothesis that personalitymatters more for educated (relative to uneducated) voters is to examine the amount variance ourregressions explain for the most and least educated in our sample. To do this, we split our sample intotwo groups. Participants who had either an undergraduate or postgraduate degree were categorizedas the most educated (n = 2,059), whereas those with either no education (or who failed to reporttheir level of education) or who had completed some high school were categorized as the leasteducated (n = 3,447). Those who had received a high school diploma or an equivalent certificatewere excluded from these analyses (n = 1,012). Each of the basic regression models reported abovewere then reran separately for the least and most educated.5 If education allows participants toidentify issue positions that resonate with their personality, then regressions predicting politicalattitudes from the Big-Five should explain more variance among the most, relative to the least,educated in our sample.
Consistent with this hypothesis, the results in Table 4 show that our basic regression modelsincluding each of the Big-Five traits explained noticeably more variance in each issue for the mosteducated voters relative to the least educated voters. Indeed, the amount of variance explained by theBig-Five is oftentimes two to three times greater among the most (relative to the least) educated
5 Because we were only interested in the effect that education has on participants’ ability to map their personality traits ontothe appropriate political choice, we ran these analyses without our control variables. Running these analyses with our controlvariables does not change the pattern of results reported here.
2.5
3
3.5
Low Openness High Openness
Su
pp
ort
for
Res
ourc
e R
edis
trib
uti
on
Low Education High Education
Figure 6. Participants’ level of support for the redistribution of resources as a function of Openness to Experience andeducational attainment. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals.
Osborne and Sibley14
voters. Moreover, the amount of variance explained among the least educated voters never exceedsthat of the most educated voters. These results show that education clearly matters when assessingthe relationship between personality and a host of political attitudes.
Discussion
This study examined an often overlooked boundary condition for the relationship betweenpersonality and political ideology. Though Openness is negatively correlated with conservatism(Carney et al., 2008; Rentfrow et al., 2009; Riemann et al., 1993; Sibley et al., 2012), researchimplicitly assumes that voters have comparable skills for evaluating and understanding politicalinformation. Because educational attainment varies across the population—and education facilitatescivic competence (Almond & Verba, 1963/1989; Hillygus, 2005; Nie et al., 1996)—we argued thatthis assumption is untenable. Indeed, research demonstrates that the average voter is remarkablyunaware of his/her political surroundings (Bennett, 1988; Converse, 1964; Delli Carpini & Keeter,1996; Osborne & Sibley, 2012). Given this known limitation, many voters may have never developedthe skills needed to identify the issue positions that resonate with their personality.
Consistent with this argument, we showed that education moderated the relationship betweenOpenness and a host of political issues. Whereas Openness consistently predicted the politicalattitudes of those who had attained a high level of education, personality was only weakly associated(or even uncorrelated) with the same attitudes for those with a low level of educational attainment.For one issue in particular (i.e., resource redistribution), those with a low level of educationalattainment took an issue position that was theoretically incompatible with their personality. More-over, regression models split by levels of educational attainment showed that the Big-Five explainedmore variance in the political attitudes of the most, relative to the least, educated voters. Thesefindings provide a needed qualification to the literature on the personality correlates of politicalattitudes.
Our data also showed that two other Big-Five factors (i.e., Conscientiousness and Extraversion)were consistently associated with political attitudes. Across all but one of our outcome variables,increases in Conscientiousness were associated with increases in support for conservative policies.In contrast, Extraversion was often associated with liberal issue positions. These results are consis-tent with prior work in this area (Carney et al., 2008; Chirumbolo & Leone, 2010; Rentfrow et al.,2009; Riemann et al., 1993), though others have failed to find either one, or both, of these relation-ships (Gosling et al., 2003; Sibley et al., 2012; Soldz & Vaillant, 1999). Such inconsistencies suggestthat the relationship between these two personality traits and sociopolitical attitudes are moderatedby an unknown variable(s). Future research should aim to identify the factors that affect when (and/orfor whom) Conscientiousness and Extraversion correlate with various sociopolitical attitudes.
Table 4. Amount of Variance Explained in the Given PoliticalAttitude by a Regression Model Including Each of the Big-FiveFactors. Analyses Are Split by Level of Educational Attainment
Another interesting and (partly) unexpected finding is that Agreeableness was inconsistentlyassociated with political attitudes. Specifically, among the symbolic issues assessed in this study,Agreeableness was only correlated with support for the inclusion of Maori culture in New Zealand.The fact that Agreeableness, a trait associated with altruism and cooperation (Costa & McCrae,1988; McCrae & Costa, 1987), was uncorrelated with a number of symbolic prosocial policies isremarkable. Such inconsistencies have led some to argue that the two facets of Agreeableness (i.e.,politeness and compassion) have opposing relationships with political ideologies (Hirsh, DeYoung,Xu, & Peterson, 2010; Osborne, Wooton, & Sibley, in press; Sibley & Duckitt, 2012). Our results areconsistent with this view.
Alternative Explanations, Strengths, and Future Directions
An alternative explanation for the results presented in this study is that educational attainmentcaptures both training in civic competence and intelligence. As such, participants with low levels ofeducational attainment may have simply misunderstood the items included in our study. Suchmisunderstandings would systematically reduce the reliability of our measures for these participants,thereby attenuating the relationships between their personality and political attitudes. In other words,differences in participants’ ability to understand the questions, rather than their differential amountsof civic training, may explain our results.
One way to examine this possibility is to compare the reliabilities of our multi-item measuresacross participants who had low and high levels of educational attainment. To do this, we conductedan additional set of analyses in which we split our sample into two groups: those with the lowest andthose with the highest levels of educational attainment. We then examined the reliabilities of themulti-item measures included in our study. If our results are due to differences in the ability tounderstand the questions, then the reliability of our measures should be lower for participants whohad attained low (relative to high) levels of education.
Contrary to these predictions, our analyses consistently revealed similar levels of reliabilityacross these two groups. Specifically, the reliability of our measure of Openness was comparable forparticipants with low and high levels of educational attainment (α = .63 vs. α = .67, respectively).Likewise, the multi-item dependent variables included in our study were equally reliable for thosewho had attained low and high levels of education: The reliability of our measures of support forMaori inclusion (α = .78 vs. α = .77, respectively), affirmative action for women (α = .73 vs.α = .76, respectively), and resource redistribution (α = .82 vs. α = .82, respectively) were nearlyidentical for our least and most educated participants. These findings are inconsistent with thepossibility that our results are due to differences in participants’ ability to understand the questions.
Another possible explanation for our results is that the joint combination of Openness andeducation—two factors that are independently associated with people’s liberalism (Emler & Frazer,1999; Sibley et al., 2012)—led to increasingly high levels of support for liberal policies. That is,rather than helping people identify the issue positions that (theoretically) resonate with their per-sonality, education may have merely increased participants’ exposure to liberal ideals. Such exposurewould, in turn, be particularly well-received by those who are high on Openness (e.g., see Costa &McCrae, 1988; McCrae & Costa, 1987). Thus, our results may simply capture the extent to whichvarying levels of Openness affect people’s receptiveness to the socialization effects of a liberaleducation.
A few inconsistencies in our data argue against this alternative interpretation. Specifically,though education increased the extent to which those who were high on Openness supported theredistribution of resources to Maori (i.e., a liberal issue position), it also accentuated conservativeresponses for those who were low on Openness. Likewise, education had essentially no effect onsupport for affirmative action among those who were high on Openness. For those who were low on
Osborne and Sibley16
Openness, however, education increased the extent to which participants expressed opposition toaffirmative action (i.e., a conservative issue position). This indicates that, rather than merely increas-ing the likelihood that people adopt liberal attitudes, education helped our participants identify theissue positions that best suited their personality.
An immediate question that arises from these data, then, is why does educational attainmentstrengthen the relationship between personality and various issue positions? As indicated earlier,education affects a number of politically relevant outcomes (see Emler & Frazer, 1999). Oneplausible explanation, then, is that education moderated the relationship between personality andpolitical attitudes by affecting participants’ political sophistication. That is, educational attainmentlikely facilitated participants’ ability to think about politics in a complex (i.e., ideological) manner.This increased understanding of politics should allow people to identify the broad ideological themesthat underlie specific issue positions, thereby helping them locate the policies that (theoretically) bestsuit their underlying psychological needs.
A number of studies provide indirect support for this thesis. Though they are largelyindependent/distinct constructs (e.g., see Highton, 2009; also see Luskin, 1990), educational attain-ment is positively correlated with multiple aspects of political sophistication (Bennett, 1988; DelliCarpini & Keeter, 1996; Highton, 2009). Moreover, political sophistication (as measured via eitherinterest in, or knowledge of, politics) has been shown to moderate the relationship between Opennessand RWA (Leone, Chirumbolo, & Desimoni, 2012), Need for Closure and conservatism (Federico &Goren, 2009), and Openness and vote choice (Osborne & Sibley, 2012)—results that corroborate thefindings produced in the current study. Nevertheless, future research is needed to identify the specificaspects of educational attainment that increase voters’ ability to identify issue positions that resonatewith their personality.
Our study also had a number of strengths that are worth noting. Of particular importance is ouruse of a national probability sample of voters. Our impression of the literature on the personalitycorrelates of political attitudes is that this research is typically done using convenience samples.Though notable exceptions to this trend exist (e.g., Rentfrow et al., 2009), scholars have oftenlamented over the limitations of using such a narrow database (Henry, 2008; Sears, 1986). We hopethat our study further highlights the problems associated with relying on “college sophomores” andmotivates scholars to use diverse sample populations. Indeed, our results indicate that studies usingpredominately well-educated participants will likely overestimate the relationship between person-ality and issue positions among the general electorate.
An additional strength of this study is that our results replicated across numerous issues thatvaried in their level of abstraction. Specifically, education moderated the relationships betweenOpenness and various symbolic and resource-based political issues. This implies that our results arenot specific to any one issue (or any one type of issue) but rather capture a general phenomenonwhereby education accentuates the relationship between Openness and a multitude of issue posi-tions. Such a powerful demonstration suggests that we have identified a particularly robust modera-tor. Future research must therefore consider this important boundary condition when examining therelationship between personality and political attitudes.
Conclusion
We would like to close with a brief cautionary note. Though our data show that education hasa substantial impact on the relationship between personality and political attitudes, these resultsshould not be used to incriminate individual voters for an alleged “misunderstanding” of politics.Indeed, we believe that these data identify a troubling structural problem that must be fixed.Specifically, inequalities in the educational system produce an unsettling trend whereby a sizableportion of the electorate fail to vote in ways that should resonate with their personality. As such, it
Education Moderates the Relationship 17
is our hope that this study highlights an unfulfilled promise of democratic institutions and thusmotivates society to work towards achieving an informed popular sovereignty. As we have shownhere, education provides voters with the skills needed to reach this goal. Until citizens are given thetools needed to vote in an informed manner, it is difficult to maintain that democracy truly represents“the will of the people.”
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Data collection for the New Zealand Attitudes and Values Study (NZAVS) was supported byUniversity of Auckland FRDF (3624435/9853) and ECREA (3626075) grants awarded to ChrisSibley. Correspondence concerning this article should be sent to Danny Osborne, School of Psy-chology, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland 1142, New Zealand. Email:[email protected]
REFERENCES
Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The authoritarian personality (Vol. 1). NewYork, NY: Wiley & Sons.
Almond, G. A., & Verba, S. (1963/1989). The civic culture: Political attitudes and democracy in five nations. Newbury Park,CA: Sage.
Bennett, S. E. (1988). Know-nothings revisited: The meaning of political ignorance today. Social Science Quarterly, 69(2),476–490.
Carney, D. R., Jost, J. T., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2008). The secret lives of liberals and conservatives: Personality profiles,interaction styles, and the things they leave behind. Political Psychology, 29(6), 807–840. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2008.00668.x
Chirumbolo, A., & Leone, L. (2010). Personality and politics: The role of the HEXACO model of personality in predictingideology and voting. Personality and Individual Differences, 49(1), 43–48. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.03.004
Converse, P. E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In D. E. Apter (Ed.), Ideology and discontent(pp. (206–261). New York, NY: The Free Press.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1988). From catalog to classification: Murray’s needs and the five-factor model. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 55(2), 258–265. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.55.2.258
Dee, T. S. (2004). Are there civic returns to education? Journal of Public Economics, 88(9), 1697–1720. doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2003.11.002
Delli Carpini, M. X., & Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. New Haven, CT: YaleUniversity Press.
Donnellan, M. B., Oswald, F. L., Baird, B. M., & Lucas, R. E. (2006). The mini-IPIP scales: Tiny-yet-effective measures ofthe Big Five factors of personality. Psychological Assessment, 18(2), 192–203. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.18.2.192
Emler, N., & Frazer, E. (1999). Politics: The education effect. Review of Education, 25(1/2), 251–273. doi:10.1080/030549899104242
Federico, C. M. (2005). Racial perceptions and evaluative responses to welfare: Does education attenuate race-of-targeteffects? Political Psychology, 26(5), 683–697. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2005.00439.x
Federico, C. M., & Goren, P. (2009). Motivated social cognition and ideology: Is attention to elite discourse a prerequisite forepistemically motivated political affinities? In J. T. Jost, A. C. Kay, & H. Thorisdottir (Eds.), Social and psychologicalbases of ideology and system justification (pp. 267–291). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Federico, C. M., & Sidanius, J. (2002). Racism, ideology, and affirmative action revisited: The antecedents and consequencesof principled objections to affirmative action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(4), 488–502.doi:10.1037/0022-3514.82.4.488
Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. B. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journalof Research in Personality, 37(6), 504–528. doi:10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00046-1
Henry, P. J. (2008). College sophomores in the laboratory redux: Influences of a narrow data base on social psychology’s viewof the nature of prejudice. Psychological Inquiry, 19(2), 49–71. doi:10.1080/10478400802049936
Highton, B. (2009). Revisiting the relationship between educational attainment and political sophistication. Journal ofPolitics, 71(4), 1564–1576. doi:10.1017/S0022381609990077
Hillygus, D. S. (2005). The missing link: Exploring the relationship between higher education and political engagement.Political Behavior, 27(1), 25–47. doi:10.1007/s11109-005-3075-8
Hirsh, J. B., DeYoung, C. G., Xu, X., & Peterson, J. B. (2010). Compassionate liberals and polite conservatives: Associationsof agreeableness with political ideology and moral values. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(5), 655–664.doi:10.1177/0146167210366854
Hyman, H. H., & Sheatsley, P. B. (1954). The Authoritarian Personality: A methodological critique. In R. Christie & M.Jahoda (Eds.), Studies in the scope and method of The Authoritarian Personality (pp. 50–122). Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition.Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 339–375. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.339
Leone, L., Chirumbolo, A., & Desimoni, M. (2012). The impact of the HEXACO personality model in predicting socio-political attitudes: The moderating role of interest in politics. Personality and Individual Differences, 52(3), 416–421.doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.10.049
Liu, J. H., & Sibley, C. G. (2006). Differential effects of societal anchoring and attitude certainty in determining support oropposition to (bi)cultural diversity in New Zealand. Papers on Social Representations, 15, 1–15.
Luskin, R. C. (1990). Explaining political sophistication. Political Behavior, 12(4), 331–361. doi:10.1007/BF00992793
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(1), 81–90. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.52.1.81
Milligan, K., Moretti, E., & Oreopoulos, P. (2004). Does education improve citizenship? Evidence from the United States andthe United Kingdom. Journal of Public Economics, 88(9), 1667–1695. doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2003.10.005
Nie, N. H., Junn, J., & Stehlik-Barry, K. (1996). Education and democratic citizenship in America. Chicago, IL: Universityof Chicago Press.
Osborne, D., & Sibley, C. G. (2012). Does personality matter? Openness correlates with vote choice, but particularly forpolitically sophisticated voters. Journal of Research in Personality, 46(6), 743–751. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2012.09.001
Osborne, D., Wooton, L., & Sibley, C. G. (in press). Are liberals agreeable or not? Politeness and compassion differentiallypredict political conservatism via distinct ideological goals. Social Psychology. doi:10.1027/1864-9335/a000132
Rentfrow, P. J., Jost, J. T., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2009). Statewide differences in personality predict voting patterns in1996–2004 U.S. presidential elections. In J. T. Jost, A. C. Kay, & H. Thorisdottir (Eds.), Social and psychological basesof ideology and system justification (pp. 314–347). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Rhee, J. W., & Cappella, J. N. (1997). The role of political sophistication in learning from news: Measuring schemadevelopment. Communication Research, 24(3), 197–233. doi:10.1177/009365097024003001
Riemann, R., Grubich, C., Hempel, S., Mergl, S., & Richter, M. (1993). Personality and attitudes towards current politicaltopics. Personality and Individual Differences, 15(3), 313–321. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(93)90222-O
Rokeach, M. (1956). Political and religious dogmatism; an alternative to the authoritarian personality. PsychologicalMonographs, 70(18), 43.
Sears, D. O. (1986). College sophomores in the laboratory: Influences of a narrow data base on social psychology’s view ofhuman nature. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(3), 515–530. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.51.3.515
Sibley, C. G., & Duckitt, J. (2012). Personality geneses of authoritarianism: The form and function of Openness toExperience. In F. Funke, T. Petzel, J. C. Cohrs, & J. Duckitt (Eds.), Perspectives on authoritarianism (pp. 169–199).Weisbaden, Ger.: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Sibley, C. G., Osborne, D., & Duckitt, J. (2012). Personality and political orientation: Meta-analysis and test of a threat-constraint model. Journal of Research in Personality, 46(6), 664–677. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2012.08.002
Sibley, C. G., & Perry, R. (2010). An opposing process model of benevolent sexism. Sex Roles, 62(7), 438–452. doi:10.1007/s11199-009-9705-6
Soldz, S., & Vaillant, G. E. (1999). The Big Five personality traits and the life course: A 45-year longitudinal study. Journalof Research in Personality, 33(2), 208–232. doi:10.1006/jrpe.1999.2243
Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., Brady, H., & Nie, N. H. (1993). Citizen activity: Who participates? What do they say? AmericanPolitical Science Review, 87(2), 303–318. doi:10.2307/2939042
