the personality of the presidency candidates

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...