rolling in the deep: how values and personality …...!1! ecpr general conference montréal, august...
TRANSCRIPT
! 1!
ECPR General Conference Montréal, August 2015
Rolling in the deep: How values and personality traits affect individual perceptions of electoral integrity
Camille Reynolds† and Alessandro Nai††
† University of Lausanne ([email protected]) †† University of Sydney ([email protected])
****** preliminary draft, do not quote
version: 2015.08.23 ******
Abstract An established literature assesses the substantial conditions for the presence of electoral integrity (e.g., Norris 2014); within this framework, recent research focuses on how individual perceive the integrity of elections, that is, if and how citizens perceive that elections in their country are "free and fair" and globally lacking manipulations and malpractices (e.g., Aarts and Thomassen 2008; Birch 2008, 2010). This contribution investigates the deep individual underpinnings of those perceptions. More specifically, our aim is to uncover how values (Schwartz 1992) and the Big Five personality traits (John et al. 1991, 2008) affect how citizens perceive the conduct of elections, and their integrity, in their country. To the best of our knowledge no existing research has yet provided empirical evidence in this sense; compensating this gap is paramount for a full understanding of electoral dynamics, given that both values and personality traits have been shown to matter greatly for attitudes, opinions and perceptions. Empirical analyses rely on the sixth wave of the World Value Survey (2014), the only individual dataset providing information simultaneously on values, personality traits and perceptions of electoral integrity. The dataset allows us, furthermore, to compare results across 13 countries, thus controlling for differences across party and electoral systems, and foremost for varying levels of measured electoral integrity (PEI index; Norris et al. 2013, 2014): rather high (Germany, Netherlands, Rwanda, South Africa), average (Colombia, Ecuador, India, Kuwait, Pakistan, Thailand), rather low (Algeria, Iraq, Jordan). Keywords Electoral integrity, perceptions, values, personality traits, comparative study
! 2!
Introduction
Elections are probably the most important event in any given country’s political life,
as they establish the roots for the future governance of the country through an
interactive process between political elites and citizens. Within this normative
framework, many authors stress the fundamental role of citizens’ electoral confidence
for the electoral process and the political system on the whole (Elklit 1999; Elklit and
Reynolds 2002, 2005; Hartlyn and McCoy 2006; Lehoucq 2003; Lyons 2004;
Mozaffar 2002; Mozaffar and Schedler 2002; Schedler 2002a; 2002b; 2006;
Anderson and Tverdova 2003; Birch 2007, 2008, 2010). This literature has however
less to say about how citizens perceive the conduct of elections (but see, e.g., Aarts
and Thomassen 2008; Birch 2008, 2010). In fact, how do citizens assess the overall
quality of the elections that take place in their country? And even more profoundly,
why, facing the same electoral contest, some citizens tend to evaluate the elections
rather positively while others are more skeptical about their overall quality?
The growing body of literature on electoral integrity mostly focuses on contextual
determinants and so far we know little about the roots of individual perceptions of
electoral integrity. Existing research on those micro-level determinants has mainly
examined the role of basic socio-demographic background, such as age, gender,
education, religion or ethnicity (e.g. Norris 2002a, 2004). Although important, this
literature has not yet provided empirical evidence assessing how, and under which
conditions, differences in individual predispositions define assessments of electoral
integrity. Even more, existing literature is silent on the effect of deep psychological
constructs – values and personality traits – on such assessments. However, given the
profound implications of such constructs for social and political behaviors, chances
are that perceptions of electoral integrity strongly depend on them. Thus, as noticed
by Newton and Norris (2000: 59), “because of their psychological history and make-
up, some individuals have an optimistic view of life and are willing to help others,
cooperate, and trust. Because of their own early life experiences, others are more
pessimistic and misanthropic. They are thus inclined to be guarded or alienated, more
distrustful and cautious of others, and pessimistic about social and political affairs and
about people and politicians in general”.
! 3!
The purpose of this paper is to explore the impact of two major psychological
constructs on citizens’ perceptions of electoral integrity: core values and personality
traits. Indeed, both values and personality traits have been shown to matter greatly for
attitudes, opinions and perceptions in the political field (Gerber et al. 2011). However,
to the best of our knowledge, there is no previous research examining the link
between values and/or personality traits and individual perceptions of electoral
integrity. In this paper, our aim is thus to fill this gap and investigate how values and
personality traits affect how citizens perceive the (mis)conduct of elections in their
country. Furthermore, setting a comparative research framework, we also show that
those individual-level relationships vary according to the political context.
Our paper unfolds as follows. First, we introduce the theoretical foundations of
individual values and personality traits and discuss some existing research linking
those psychological constructs to political trust, which allows us develop some
preliminary theoretical expectations. Second, we present the two datasets we rely on,
that is, the sixth wave of the World Value Survey (2010-2014) for individual data and
the Perceptions of Electoral Integrity Index (PEI data) for contextual-level
determinants. We also present the variables and methods used to test our hypotheses.
Third, we discuss our main results regarding the direct and mediated effects of values
and personality traits on individual perceptions of electoral integrity. The last section
concludes.
Values and personality traits as deep underpinnings of attitudes, perceptions and
behaviors
Basic personal values and personality traits are major psychological constructs. The
recent renewed interest in those individual characteristics has led to a plethora of
studies regarding their influence on many different types of psychological middle-
level constructs (e.g. attitudes) and behaviors, especially in the field of political
science1. However, to the best of our knowledge, there is no previous research on the
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 For an excellent review, see for instance Gerber et al. (2011).
! 4!
role of personality traits or basic values regarding individuals’ perception of electoral
integrity. Thus, systematic hypotheses have not yet been formulated nor empirically
investigated. Nonetheless, a few empirical researches have examined the link between
values or traits and political trust (e.g. Devos et al. 2002; Mondak and Halperin 2008;
Ackermann and Freitag, forthcoming; Morselli et al. 2012). As political trust “reflects
evaluations of whether or not political authorities and institutions are performing in
accordance with normative expectations held by the public” (Miller and Listhaug
1990: 358) and thus “stems from how people perceive political institutions to work”
(Luhiste 2006: 478, cited in Kong 2014: 2), it seems reasonable to think that political
trust and perception of electoral integrity are narrowly linked, as already shown by
some recent research (e.g. Nunnally 2011). Therefore, based on the few prior research
examining the link between personality and political trust, we can build up some
expectations about the effects of personality traits and basic values on individuals’
perception of electoral integrity.
Basic personal values and the perception of electoral integrity
The value concept is a central one in social sciences and its spread has led to many
different conceptualizations. In this paper, we adopt the theoretical approach
developed by Schwartz (1992, 1994) who defines human values (or “basic personal
values”) as “desirable, transsituational goals that vary in their importance as guiding
principles in people’s lives” (Roccas et al. 2002: 790). In this sense, values differ
from attitudes – which refer to object-specific evaluations – because of their
abstractness and generality (Schwartz 1992: 4). Accordingly, values are assumed to
be causally prior to attitudes, the latter being the concrete expression of the former.
Furthermore, values constitute “the criteria people use to select and justify actions and
to evaluate people (including the self) and events” (Schwartz 1992: 1). They guide
people’s choices and behavior by identifying desirable goals. As values are
hierarchically ordered by their relative importance, individuals use them to select (a
priori) or justify (a posteriori) choices and actions (Roccas et al. 2002: 790). As such,
they could influence the way people perceive, interpret, and respond to environmental
stimuli.
Schwartz (1992, 1994) distinguishes among 10 universal types of values according to
the type of motivational concern they express: universalism, benevolence, conformity,
! 5!
tradition, security, power, achievement, hedonism, stimulation and self-direction. As
those 10 different types can be compatible or may conflict to different degrees, the
dynamic relations are conceived as organized along a circular motivational continuum.
Moreover, the 10 types of values can be summed up in two broad dimensions: (1)
self-enhancement vs. self-transcendence, and (2) openness to change vs. conservation.
To begin with the first dimension, self-enhancement includes achievement and power
values. It refers to “the extent to which [people are motivated] to enhance their own
personal interests (even at the expense of others)” (Schwartz 1992: 44). Individuals
who foster those values tend to focus on their own social esteem. They are motivated
by personal success, prestige and control or dominance (Schwartz 1992: 8-9). Thus,
they should not express deep concern about electoral rules or political fairness.
Moreover, they tend to “take a negative view of human nature and have a disregard
for ethical means” (Ghosh 2009: 287). Indeed, empirical studies have reported a
strong relationship between self-enhancement values and (social) cynicism (e.g. Bond
et al. 2004; Chen et al. 2006; Leung et al. 2007). Because of this cynical world view,
we expect self-enhancement values to be negatively related to perception of electoral
integrity. In other words, individuals who pursue self-enhancement goals should
generally perceive politics and especially election procedures in a negative manner,
regardless of the political situation.
At the contrary, self-transcendence arrays universalism and benevolence values.
Those values motivate people “to transcend selfish concerns and promote the welfare
of others, close and distant, and of nature” (Schwartz 1992: 44). Individuals who
cherish those values are known to adopt more pro-social behaviors and to show a
great concern for common goods (e.g. Caprara et al. 2012; Schwartz 2010: 236).
Moreover, universalism values are related to a concern for equality and fairness in the
whole society (Schwartz, 1992: 7). As political corruption and electoral fraud
seriously undermine democracy, seeking those values should lead to a particular
attention to the electoral rules and thus an accurate perception of electoral integrity;
that is a negative one when facing unfair electoral contests and a positive one when
things go smoothly.
On the second dimension, self-direction and stimulation constitute the openness to
change type of values. It refers to the motivation for people to “follow their own
intellectual and emotional interests in unpredictable and uncertain directions”
(Schwartz 1992: 43). Individuals who pursue those goals value independence of
! 6!
thought and action, and seek novelty and challenges (Schwartz 1992: 6-8). Moreover,
they seem to be more likely than others to adopt critical attitudes, especially towards
authorities. This could be explained by the fact that when seeking individual
autonomy, “institutions are more likely to be appraised as constraining and less
confidence is prompted” (Morselli et al. 2012: 50). For people who hold openness
values, we thus expect a negative perception of political institutions in general, which
could lead to a pessimistic evaluation of electoral integrity even when elections are
carried out democratically.
Finally, in contrast to openness to change, conservation encompasses conformity,
tradition and security values. Individuals who endorse those values wish to “preserve
the status quo and the certainty it provides in relationships with close others,
institutions, and traditions” (Schwartz 2002: 43). Accordingly, those individuals
attach a great importance to rules, social norms and expectations, in order to preserve
social and political order. At the individual level, they value self-restriction, respect
and commitment: group membership is particularly important and thus individuals
have to conform themselves to the community’s rules in order to ensure stability and
predictability (Schwartz 2002: 9-10). Prior research has shown that people oriented
towards those values are more likely to trust institutions because they provide stability
and preserve social and political order (e.g. Devos et al. 2002; Morselli et al. 2012).
Accordingly, we expect conservation values to be related to a more positive
perception of electoral integrity.
Personality traits and the perception of electoral integrity
The concept of personality refers to “a multifaceted and enduring internal, or
psychological, structure” (Mondak 2010: 6) and traits might be described as the
“foundational personality dispositions” (Gerber et al. 2010: 111). They constitute a
highly consistent internal structure which is believed to “shape how [individuals]
respond to the vast array of stimuli they encounter in the world” (Gerber et al. 2011:
266). Because of their partially biological foundation, those core psychological
characteristics are believed to be quite stable throughout an individual’s life (Plomin
et al. 1990; Bouchard and Loehlin 2001; Van Gestel and Van Broeckhoven 2003;
McCrae and Costa 2003; Hatemi and McDermott 2011). They appear to exert an
influence on the development of other psychological constructs (i.e. “characteristic
! 7!
adaptations”, such as attitudes, interests, and so on) and also to predict behavior
(McAdams and Pals 2006: 207; Mondak et al. 2010: 2). In other words, personality
traits represent “dimensions of individual differences in tendencies to show consistent
patterns of thought, feelings, and actions” (McCrae and Costa 2003: 25).
Although there are several ways to describe – and measure – personality traits (see
John et al. 2008 for a good review), the most prominent one, which seems to reach
consensus among psychologists, is the so-called “Big-Five Model”. This holistic trait
model allows “to represent the central elements of trait structure with parsimonious
measures that are focused on five trait dimensions” (Mondak 2010: 9). According to
this view, personality traits can be combined into five broad factors: Openness to
experience, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism (an
inverse function of emotional stability). As they appear to be universal human
characteristics and thus to transcend cultural disparities (McCrae and Costa 1997),
they provide a powerful framework to investigate personality dispositions and its
influence on individuals’ behavior.
In the first place, openness to experience characterizes people who enjoy new,
stimulating ideas and experiences. Open-minded individuals tend to be creative,
curious and to think critically. This latter characteristic should logically lead to lower
levels of political trust. Though Ackermann and Freitag (forthcoming) found no direct
effects of this factor on institutional trust, Mondak and Halperin (2008) did found a
significant negative relationship. In other words, open citizens are more prone to
adopt a critical view about the way the political institutions work and then a general
distrustful stance towards them. They also should be particularly sensitive to any sign
that something is probably wrong. Consequently, it seems logical to expect those
people to have a negative perception of electoral integrity, especially when facing
unfair political situations.
Second, conscientiousness describes people who consistently follow rules in order to
preserve order, both at the societal and individual levels. They are perceived as
organized, responsible and reliable individuals, with a great sense of duty and a high
level of conformity. Furthermore, they appreciate structure and control. Recent
research found a negative relationship between conscientiousness and political trust
(Gabriel and Völkl 2005; Ackermann and Freitag, forthcoming). According to us, this
could be explained by the fact that conscientious citizens are less inclined to believe
that “the system […] will do what is right even in the absence of constant scrutiny"
! 8!
(Miller and Listhaug 1990: 358, cited in Kong 2014: 2, our emphasis). In other words,
because of their need for control, conscientious people are less prone than others to
express blind and absolute confidence in something. Accordingly, people who score
high on conscientiousness dimension should pay special attention to the scrupulous
observance of electoral rules. Consequently, we expect higher levels of
conscientiousness to be associated with an accurate perception of electoral integrity;
that is a negative evaluation in bad situations and a positive one in a fair electoral
context.
Third, people with a high level of extraversion are assumed to be particularly sociable
and dynamic. Moreover, extroverts tend to be optimistic and this could logically lead
to a higher level of both social and political trust. However, previous research finds
no significant effect of this factor on political trust (Gabriel and Völkl 2005; Mondak
and Halperin 2008; Ackermann and Freitag, forthcoming). We thus have no
theoretical expectations about the influence of extraversion on the perception of
electoral integrity.
Fourth, agreeableness refers to a tendency to please other people and to avoid conflict.
Thus, agreeable individuals are notably kind and sympathetic, and most often exhibit
cooperative and pro-social behavior. As noted by Mondak and Halperin (2008: 346),
“the most obvious political correlates of agreeableness are interpersonal and political
trust”. Indeed, past research has repeatedly found a robust positive relationship
between this personality dimension and both social and political trust (McCrae and
Costa 1996; Mondak and Halperin 2008; Hirashi et al. 2008; Dinesen et al. 2014;
Ackermann and Freitag, forthcoming). In other words, individuals highly agreeable
are generally trusting – to such an extent that general trust is often considered as a
“sub-trait” of agreeableness. We thus expect individuals who score high on
agreeableness dimension to have a markedly positive perception of electoral integrity,
even when they face unfair or corrupt electoral contests.
Finally, the last factor identified by the Big Five approach is neuroticism – an inverse
function of emotional stability. It indicates a tendency to feel anxious, nervous, and to
experience psychological distress or negative emotions. Moreover, individuals with
low levels of emotional stability are characterized by negativity and “view many
developments as unfair and often unsatisfactory” (Mondak and Halperin 2008: 345).
Accordingly, and even if prior work has found no relationship between this factor and
political trust (Gabriel and Völkl 2005; Mondak and Halperin 2008; Ackermann and
! 9!
Freitag, forthcoming), it seems logical to expect neuroticism to be associated with
pessimistic views of political functioning. Thus, for individuals higher on this last
dimension, the likelihood for a negative perception and evaluation of electoral
integrity should be high, whether things actually “go right” or not. In other words,
positive perceptions increase with increasing levels of emotional stability.
To sum up, regarding the influence of basic personal values, we expect conservation
to have a positive effect on the perception of electoral integrity, while self-
enhancement and openness to change values should lead to lower levels of perceived
integrity. With regard to personality traits, people who are open to experience or
characterized by a high level of neuroticism should hold a negative view of electoral
integrity, whereas a higher level of agreeableness should be associated to a positive
perception of political fairness2.
On the relationship between personal values and personality traits
As reflected by the previous section, basic values and personality traits are distinct
psychological constructs. In particular, traits are descriptive variables that depict an
individual’s patterns of feelings, thoughts, and behaviors; whereas values express
motivations or goals – and then may not be directly reflected in one’s behavior.
Thereby, while values refer to “what people consider important”, personality traits
refer to dispositions describing “what people are like” (Roccas et al. 2002: 790).
But at the same time, values and traits share certain similarities: (1) in their nature,
and (2) in their content (Parks-Leduc et al. 2014). First, in their nature because values
and traits are (at least partially) cognitively based. While this is true for all basic
values, the strength of traits’ cognitive component may vary because some traits (e.g.
neuroticism) are more emotionally based. At the contrary, openness to experience, for
example, has a strong cognitive component (Pytlik et al. 2002) and thus should be
highly correlated with some values – namely, openness to change values. Second,
regarding their content, some traits and values are close to each other. This is the case,
for example, for agreeableness which shares similarities in orientation with self-!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!2 As can be seen in the formulation of our hypotheses, notably regarding the influence of self-transcendence values and conscientiousness personality factor, we do not reject the possibility of a moderating effect of contextual-level determinants on individual-level relationships. However, due to the exploratory nature of our research, we choose not to go ahead in the theoretical discussion and formalization of such interaction effects. We will return to this question when discussing empirical results.
! 10!
transcendence values, especially with benevolence values. Indeed, both of them are
other-oriented and thus refer to a concern for others’ well-being, especially people in
one’s immediate circle. Empirical analyses support this view by establishing a strong
correlation between those traits and values (see Parks-Leduc et al. 2014; Fischer and
Boer 2014).
Thus, how are traits and values causally related? Some researchers have argued that
they constitute two different components of one’s personality (McAdams 1995;
Caprara et al. 2012; McCrae and Costa 2008; Saroglou and Munoz-Garcia 2008).
These kinds of integrative models generally view traits as antecedent (i.e. causally
prior) to values. According to this view, traits may influence values because people
tend to value the goals served by their own traits in order to justify their behaviors and
then reduce cognitive dissonance (Roccas et al. 2002: 791). Moreover, many studies
have already demonstrated the mediational role of values in linking personality traits
to different attitudes or behaviors (@@@). But as stated by Roccas and her
colleagues (2002) it could also be that values influence traits, because people
generally tend to act in a manner consistent with the values they cherish (Schwartz
1996). In sum, traits and values may likely be correlated and mutually influence one
other. Even if this is beyond the scope of this study, we must be aware of those
possible interplays and keep them in mind when interpreting our empirical results.
Data and methods
Our study combines data coming from two different sources: the World Value Survey
data (sixth wave) to measure variables at the individual level, and the Perceptions of
Electoral Integrity Index (PEI data) at the contextual level. Measures for individual
perceptions of electoral integrity (our dependent variable), values and personality
traits are available only for 22 countries out of the 57 in the WVS sixth wave. Among
those countries 9 (Brazil, Palestine, Hong Kong, Lebanon, Libya, Singapore, Tunisia,
Egypt, Yemen) do not have an overall score of electoral integrity in the 3.0 release of
the PEI index3. Our analyses are thus run on the remaining 13 countries, i.e., Algeria,
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!3 Note that some of those countries, for which an election occurred recently, have a electoral integrity score in the newest release of the PEI index (PEI 3.5, July 2015); we decided not to take those countries into account, however, given that the lapse between the election date and the survey dates is
! 11!
Colombia, Ecuador, Germany, India, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Netherlands, Pakistan,
Rwanda, South Africa, and Thailand.
At the contextual level, we measure the quality of recent elections, for each country,
by relying on data gathered within the Electoral Integrity Project (Harvard University
and University of Sydney)4 . Developed within the project, the Perceptions of
Electoral Integrity Index (PEI; Norris 2014; Norris et al. 2014; Martinez i Coma and
van Ham 2015) relies on experts’ assessments of recent national elections. For each
national election (legislative or presidential) since June 2012 a survey has been sent to
a sample of local and international scholars working or having published on elections.
The survey asks to evaluate the “quality” of elections using 49 indicators, grouped
into eleven categories reflecting the whole electoral cycle (election laws, electoral
procedures, boundaries, voter registration, party and candidate registration, campaign
media, campaign finance, voting process, vote count, results and EMBs). The overall
PEI index is computed by adding the 49 separate indicators for each election and for
each country5.
Information about the 13 countries covered in our study (WVS survey dates, election
date, PEI scores) is detailed in Table 1 below.
[Table 1 about here]
To measure individual variables we rely on the sixth wave of the World Value Survey
data, which introduces for the first time several questions that allow us to provide an
estimation of individual perceptions of electoral integrity. Furthermore, to the best of
our knowledge, the sixth wave of the WVS provides virtually the only systematic
cross-sectional data that contain measures for both values and personality traits.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!too high to draw any consistent causal inference between individual perceptions and overall quality of those elections. 4 www.electoralintegrityproject.com 5 For more details see the « Year in Elections 2014 » report : https://sites.google.com/site/electoralintegrityproject4/projects/expert-survey-2/the-year-in-elections-2014.
! 12!
We measure individual perceptions of electoral integrity, our dependent variable, by
combining answers to nine questions asking respondents to provide evaluations of the
state of electoral processes in their countries. More specifically, respondents were
asked to evaluate, on a 4-points scale ranging from ‘very often’ to ‘not at all often’
how often in their country’s elections votes are counted fairly, opposition candidates
are prevented from running, TV news favor the governing party, voters are bribed,
journalists provide fair coverage of elections, election officials are fair, rich people
buy elections, voters are threatened with violence at the polls, and voters are offered
with a genuine choice in the elections. We reversed the coding of some variables (e.g.,
‘voters are bribed’) so that all items are coded positively, and computed a simple
additive scale that cumulates answers for all nine questions6. The resulting variable
ranges from 0 ‘very negative individual perception of electoral integrity’ to 27 ‘very
positive individual perception of electoral integrity’. A factor analysis (PCA)
confirmed the reliability of our additive measure, as our variable is strongly correlated
with the principal underlying factor extracted (Pearson’s R = .96***).
Unsurprisingly, average individual perceptions of electoral integrity strongly and
significantly differ between countries (Eta2 = .27***), as shown in Figure 1 below.
[Figure 1 about here]
Basic personal values were measured through the Portrait Values Questionnaire
(PVQ), a well-established measure of personal values developed by Schwartz
(Schwartz et al. 2001). The short version included in the World Values Survey (WVS)
consists of 11 short portraits of different people each describing “a person’s goals,
aspirations or wishes that point implicitly to the importance of a value” (Schwartz
2003: 273). Each item refers to one of the 10 motivational types (except for
universalism which is measured by two different statements). For each of them,
respondents had to indicate how similar to them is the person described, and thus
what is important to them. The original variables were first recoded to range from ‘not
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!6 Cronbach’s alpha = .75
! 13!
at all like me’ to ‘very much like me’. Then, 4 additive scales measuring the four
higher-order value orientations were computed by aggregating the relevant items:
openness to change (hedonism, stimulation, self-direction), self-transcendence
(universalism, benevolence), conservation (conformity, tradition, security) and self-
enhancement (power, achievement). Missing data systematically excluded.
We measured the five personality traits through a series 10 questions asking
respondents how much they agree with a series of qualifying sentences (e.g., ‘I'm
someone who is reserved’, ‘who has few artistic interests’); possible answers range on
a 5-points scale from ‘disagree strongly’ to ‘agree strongly’. Those questions bear a
strong similitude to the Ten Item Personality Measure (TIPI; Gosling et al. 2003),
which is considered the shortest survey inventory currently available to efficiently
measure personality traits (Gerber et al 2011: 267). To be sure, more complex
alternative measures of the five personality traits exist, form the very lengthy NEO-
Personality Inventory-Revised (NEO-PI-R; Costa and McCrae 1992) based on dozens
of items to the BFI inventory based on 44 questions (John et al. 1991; John et al.
2008). Those measures have the advantage of higher internal reliability, but are very
time-consuming to administer (Gerber et al 2011: 267).
We reversed the coding of some of the variables to provide comparable measures, and
computed five additive standardized scales, one for each personality trait: openness to
experience (many artistic interest, active imagination), conscientiousness (not lazy,
does a thorough job), agreeableness (never finds faults in others, trusting),
extraversion (not reserved, outgoing/sociable), and emotional stability (never gets
nervous, relaxed). Missing data were systematically excluded.
To increase robustness, our models are controlled by age (year of birth), gender,
education (9-points scale ranging from 1 ‘no formal education’ to 9 ‘university’),
interest in politics (from 0 ‘not at all interested’ to 3 ‘very interested’), satisfaction
with institutions (10-point scale). Respondents in the WVS were asked to assess the
importance of honest elections for them personally and for the economic development
of the country (1-4 scale); we use those two variables as additional controls, as they
might affect how individuals perceive the quality of elections. Descriptive statistics
for all individual variables are presented in Table 2 below.
! 14!
[Table 2 about here]
Empirics
Is the way individuals perceive the conduct of elections related to their innermost
traits and values? Empirical evidence discussed here shows that, indeed, this seems to
be the case. This section presents several models that provide information on the
direct and joint effect of values and personality traits on individual perceptions of
electoral integrity, in the 13 countries in our database.
First, the direct effect on individual perceptions of electoral integrity (IPEI) of each
individual value (self-transcendence, self-enhancement, openness to change, and
conservatism) and personality trait (openness to experience, conscientiousness,
extraversion, agreeableness, and emotional stability) appears as statistically
significant in Table 3 (last row).
[Table 3 about here]
These results are however not controlled by any intervening factors related to the
respondents’ sociodemographic profile or the other components of their innermost
values and personality traits. Furthermore, those results do not take into account the
fact that individual perceptions of electoral integrity are highly likely to be affected by
the quality of elections itself (that is, how elections in any given country scored in the
overall electoral integrity index). In order to control for the confounding effect of
those intervening factors we ran a series of multilevel OLS models able to take into
account that individual observations (respondents in the WVS data) are nested within
different countries, which in turn are characterized by rather different levels of
electoral integrity.
! 15!
First, Table 4 presents a “baseline” model (M1) in which individual perceptions of
electoral integrity are estimated as a function of sociodemographic factors (gender,
age, education) and other relevant controls (interest in politics, overall satisfaction
with institutions, importance of honest elections for the respondent personally and for
the economy). Model M1 also tests for the direct effect of country-level electoral
integrity (PEI classification). Results for this baseline model show that individual
perceptions of electoral integrity are significantly more positive when “honest”
elections are deemed important for the respondent him/herself personally and for the
economy, for male and more educated respondents, and when interest in politics and
overall satisfaction with institutions are higher. More importantly, our results show a
clear and positive association, ceteris paribus, between the experts’ assessment of
electoral integrity (PEI scores) and the way respondents in any given country assess
the quality of elections in their country: when experts assess elections as having a
high electoral integrity, respondents are strongly and significantly more likely to have
very positive perceptions of electoral integrity in their country, and vice-versa.
Although this baseline model does not provide any substantial information regarding
our main research question, it allows us to establish that (i) individual perceptions of
electoral integrity, ceteris paribus, strongly vary between individuals and that (ii)
contextual variations have to be taken into account.
[Table 4 about here]
Model M2 adds to this baseline model the direct effect of the four basic values, for
whose only self-enhancement has a significant effect. The direction of such effect –
negative – is consistent with our expectations, as individuals who foster self-
enhancement values tend to focus on their own social esteem, are motivated by
personal success, prestige and control or dominance (Schwartz 1992: 8-9), and tend to
“take a negative view of human nature and have a disregard for ethical means”
(Ghosh 2009: 287). Our results highlight that strong self-enhancement values
significantly decrease a positive evaluation of electoral integrity – that is, people high
in self-enhancement tend to assess the conduct of elections in their country as globally
poor and far from the ideal of “free and fair” elections, which corroborates the
! 16!
expectations that such individuals tend to have more cynical views of the social and
political world (e.g. Bond et al. 2004; Chen et al. 2006; Leung et al. 2007).
Model M3 replicates the same analysis, but instead of introducing the direct effect of
values as in M2 we now test for the direct effect of the five components of personality
according to the BFI model. Results highlight that all five personality traits have,
ceteris paribus, a rather strong and significant effect on individual perceptions of
electoral integrity. Furthermore, the direction of those effects is positive, that is,
individual perceptions of electoral integrity are higher with increasing levels of
openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and
emotional stability.
For some traits, the result is in line with our expectations. Agreeable people tend to
avoid conflict, usually display cooperative and pro-social behaviours, and score high
in interpersonal and political trust (McCrae and Costa 1996; Mondak and Halperin
2008; Hirashi et al. 2008; Dinesen et al. 2014), which should naturally lead to more
positive perceptions of electoral integrity. Similarly, individuals with low levels of
emotional stability are characterized by negativity and “view many developments as
unfair and often unsatisfactory” (Mondak and Halperin 2008: 345), which implies that
higher levels of emotional stability are more likely to result in positive evaluations,
even if no prior work has established a clear link between emotional stability and
political trust (Gabriel and Völkl 2005; Mondak and Halperin 2008; Ackermann and
Freitag, forthcoming). This is also the case for extraversion, for which no clear effect
on trust has been established but which usually implies optimistic views that could
lead to more positive assessments on the conduct of elections.
Results for openness to experience and conscientiousness are less straightforward.
First, individuals scoring high in openness to experience tend to think more critically,
and have lower political trust (Mondak and Halperin 2008), which should normally
lead to more dire perceptions of electoral integrity; our results suggest that the
opposite is at work, the relationship being clearly positive. The data we dispose of is
not detailed enough to pinpoint to specific causal underpinnings of the positive
association between openness to experience and perceptions of electoral integrity. We
might however imagine that, beyond fostering critical thinking, high openness to
experience creates favourable conditions for a less argumentative and antagonistic
approach to politics, as previous research showed positive effects for this trait on
! 17!
internal efficacy and the feeling that politics is not too complicated (Mondak 2010),
political efficiency (Vecchione and Caprara 2009), knowledge and interest in politics
(Mondak and Halperin 2008), and decreasing self-reported anger and hostility
(Tremblay and Ewart 2005). As we will discuss below, this effects becomes clearer
when we interact this specific personality trait with the actual level of electoral
integrity at the country level (PEI scores).
Second, we had no clear expectations for the direct effect of conscientiousness,
beyond the fact that respondents scoring high in this trait should provide an
assessment in line with the one made by the experts (that is, a positive assessment
when electoral integrity is high, and vice versa). Our results highlight that individuals
with high conscientiousness are significantly more likely to assess the quality of
elections positively.
Model M4 in Table 4 introduces the direct effect of both values and personality traits
simultaneously. Under mutual control, some interesting effects appear. First, the
direct effect of openness to experience is no longer statistically significant, whereas
the effects for the other four personality traits remain significant and of about the
same strength (and direction) as in the previous model (M3). More interestingly,
concerning values, self-enhancement no longer has a significant effect, and openness
to change appears as the only value having a significant direct effect on individual
perceptions of electoral integrity, ceteris paribus. This is in line with what we
expected: individuals high in openness to change value independence of thought and
action (Schwartz 1992). For them, “institutions are more likely to be appraised as
constraining and less confidence is prompted” (Morselli et al. 2012: 50), which leads
to a greater tendency towards critical attitudes, especially towards authorities.
The multilevel nature of the data we dispose of – that is, individual observations
nested within countries – allow us to assess the contextual conditions under which
respondents’ innermost traits (values and personality dimensions) affect perceptions
of electoral integrity. More specifically, our data allow us to test if different structural
situations regarding the conduct of elections in a given country affect the relationships
described before.
! 18!
[Table 5 about here]
Table 5 presents a final model in this sense (M5), in which individual perceptions of
electoral integrity are estimated as a function of sociodemographic and political
controls (our baseline model), the direct effect of values and personality traits, and
crosslevel interactions between country-level PEI scores and values and personality
traits.
Model M5 shows, first, that self-transcendence values interact significantly with high
levels of electoral integrity (PEI scores), and the direction of the interaction is as
expected: perceptions about the quality of elections in their country are significantly
more positive, when respondents score high in self-transcendence values and in
countries that know high levels of integrity according to PEI experts. Self-
transcendence values promote universalism, benevolence, and motivate people “to
transcend selfish concerns and promote the welfare of others, close and distant”
(Schwartz 1992: 44). Pro-social behaviors, pleas for common goods, equality and
universal fairness are common concerns for individuals with strong self-enhancement
values (Caprara et al. 2012; Schwartz 2010: 236; Schwartz, 1992: 7). We thus
expected those individuals to be particularly responsive of the actual quality of
elections in their country, and to provide a negative evaluation when elections
perform badly, and a positive evaluation when things go smoothly. Our results
provide empirical evidence that supports this expectation, as perceptions of integrity
for individuals who score high in self-transcendence are significantly more positive
when elections are evaluated positively by PEI experts, and negative when elections
perform poorly. This provides a first, substantial proof that how voters perceive
elections depends on a delicate balance between contextual and individual
determinants.
Turning to the joint effect of country-level PEI scores and personality traits, model
M5 highlights that openness to experience has statistically significant and positive
effect on individual perceptions of electoral integrity (as showed before in model M3),
but only when elections have an average or high integrity at the country level (PEI
scores); when elections are poorly rated, as for instance in Algeria, Iraq or Jordan,
increasing levels of openness to experience decrease the individual perception of
! 19!
electoral integrity (i.e., respondents rate elections more poorly). Figure 2 depicts
marginal changes in individual perceptions of electoral integrity as a function of the
interaction between openness to experience (x-axis) and the three values for country-
level PEI scores of electoral integrity (low, average and high). Respondents high in
openness to experience fosters critical thinking (Mondak and Halperin 2008), which
lead us to anticipate a direct negative effect on individual perceptions of electoral
integrity (that is, respondents high in openness to experience should be more critical
towards the actual quality of elections). Results for the direct effect of this personality
trait showed that, in reality, the opposite seems likely to happen as respondents high
in openness to experience are significantly more likely to have positive perceptions of
electoral integrity. This, we concluded, might be related to the fact that beyond
critical thinking openness to experience might foster a less antagonistic and
argumentative approach to politics, which could lead to more positive evaluation of
the political system itself (and the elections that are held within it).
[Figures 2 and 3 about here]
Results presented in Model M5 bring a new element to the picture, and nuance this
assessment. Indeed, respondents high in openness to experience have more positive
perceptions of electoral integrity, but this happens only when elections are evaluated
as positive (high or average integrity) by the independent experts in the PEI scores;
when this is not the case – that is, elections are of poor quality – openness to
experience decreases positive individual perceptions. A more complex than expected
logic seems to be at work here. Openness to experience, as shown in existing
literature, enhances critical thinking. The effect of such cognitive tool on individual
perceptions, in turn, depends on the evaluative situation people face: when the
situation is favourable, critical thinkers have the tools to recognize that and provide
positive assessments, and vice-versa they are able to pinpoint problematic situations
when facing negative realities. In other terms, openness to experience provides the
cognitive tools to properly assess a given situation. This moderation effect is far from
trivial, as it shows that personality traits strongly affect perceptions, but they do so in
accordance with the specific context in which the evaluation takes place. An
! 20!
additional interesting interaction effect is shown in model M5 between agreeableness
and PEI scores. In this case, as depicted in Figure 3, agreeableness globally enhances
positive perceptions of electoral integrity, and especially when the context is positive
(high PEI scores). In this sense, the context acts as a reinforcing factor on the
relationship between personality traits and individual perceptions.
Discussion and conclusion
@@@
! 21!
References Anderson, C. J. and Tverdova, Y. V. (2003) “Corruption, political allegiances, and attitudes
toward government in contemporary democracies”, American Journal of Political Science, 47(1): 91-109.Birch, S. (2007) “Electoral systems and electoral misconduct”, Comparative Political Studies, 40(12) : 1533-56.
Birch, S. (2008) “Electoral institutions and popular confidence in electoral processes: A crossnational analysis”, Electoral Studies, 27(2): 305-320.
Birch, S. (2010) “Perceptions of electoral fairness and voter turnout”, Comparative Political Studies December, 43(12): 1601-1622.
Bond, M. H., Leung, K., Au, A., Tong, K.-K. and Chemonges-Nielson, Z. (2004) “Combining social axioms with values in predicting social behaviours”, European Journal of Personality, 18(3): 177-191.
Bouchard, T. J. Jr. and Loehlin, J. C. (2001) “Genes, evolution and personality”, Behavior Genetics, 31(3): 243-273.
Caprara, G.-V., Alessandri, G. and Eisenberg, N. (2012) “Prosociality: The contribution of traits, values, and self-efficacy beliefs”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(6): 1289-1303.
Chen, S. X., Fok, H.-K., Bond, M. H. and Matsumoto, D. (2006) “Personality and beliefs about the world revisited: Expanding the nomological network of social axioms”, Personality and Individual Differences, 41: 201-211.
Costa, P. T. and McCrae, R. R. (1992) NEO PI-R Professional Manual, Odessa: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.
Devos, T., Spini, D. and S. H. Schwartz (2002) “Conflicts among human values and trust in institutions”, British Journal of Social Psychology, 41: 481-494.
Dinesen, P. T., Nørgaard, A. S. and Klemmensen, R. (2014) “The civic personality: Personality and democratic citizenship”, Political Studies, 62(1): 134-152.
Elklit, J. (1999) “Electoral institutional change and democratization: You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink”, Democratization, 6(4): 28-51.
Elklit, J. and Reynolds, A. (2002) “The impact of election administration on the legitimacy of emerging democracies”, Commonwealth and Comparative Politics, 40(2): 86-119.
Elklit, J. and Reynolds, A. (2005) “A framework for the systematic study of election quality”, Democratization, 12(2): 147-62.Fischer, R. and Boer, D. (2014) “Motivational basis of personality traits: A meta-analysis of value-personality correlations”, Journal of Personality, DOI: 10.1111/jopy.12125.
Freitag, M. and Ackermann, K. (2015) “Direct democracy and institutional trust: Relationships and differences across personality traits”, Political Psychology, forthcoming.
Gabriel, O. W. and Völkl, K. (2005) “Persönlichkeitseigenschaften und institutionenvertrauen”, in Schumann, S. (ed) Persönlichkeit. Eine vergessene Grösse der Sozialforschung, Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, pp. 175-192.
Gerber, A. S., Huber, G. A., Doherty, D. and Dowling, C. M. (2011) “The big five personality traits in the political arena”, Annual Review of Political Science, 14: 265-287.
! 22!
Gerber, A. S., Huber, G.A., Doherty, D. and Dowling, C. M. (2010) “Personality and political attitudes: Relationships across issue domains and political contexts”, American Political Science Review, 104(1): 111-133.
Ghosh, A. (2009) “Social axioms and individualistic-collectivist orientations in Indian college students”, in Leung, K. and Bond, M. H. (eds) Psychological Aspects of Social Axioms. Understanding Global Belief Systems, New-York: Springer, pp. 283-292.
Gosling, S., Rentfrow, P. and Swann, W. (2003) ‘A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains’, Journal of Research in Personality 37(6): 504.528.
Hartlyn, J. and McCoy, J. (2006) “Observer paradoxes: How to assess electoral manipulation”, in Schedler, A. (ed) Electoral authoritarianism: The dynamics of unfree competition, Boulder and London: Lynne Rienner, pp. 41-54.
Hatemi, P. K. and McDermott, R. (eds) (2011) Man is by nature a political animal. Evolution, biology, and politics, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Hirashi, K., Yamagata, S., Shikishima, C. and Ando, J. (2008) “Maintenance of genetic variation in personality through control of mental mechanisms: A test of trust, extraversion, and agreeableness”, Evolution and Human Behavior, 29(2): 79-85.
John, O. P., Donhaue, E. M., and kentrle, R. L. (1991) ‘The Big Five Inventory--Versions 4a and 54’, Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Personality and Social Research.
John, O. P., Naumann, L. P. and Soto, C. J. (2008) “Paradigm shift to the integrative big five trait taxonomy: history, measurement, and conceptual issues”, in John, O. P., Robins, R. W. and Pervin, L. A. (eds) Handbook of Personality Psychology: Theory and Research (3rd ed.), New-York: The Guilford Press, pp. 114-158.
Kong, D. T. (2014) “Perceived competence and benevolence of political institutions as culturally universal facilitators of political trust: Evidence from Arab countries”, Cross-Cultural Research, 48(4): 385-399.
Lehoucq, F. E. (2003) “Can parties police themselves? Electoral governance and democratization”, International Political Science Review, 23(1): 29-46.
Leung, K., Au, A., Huang, X., Kurman, J., Niit, T. and Niit, K. K. (2007) “Social axioms and values: A cross-cultural examination”, European Journal of Personality, 21: 91-111.
Luhiste, K. (2006) “Explaining trust in political institutions: Some illustrations from the Baltic states”, Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 39: 475-496.
Lyons, T. (2004) “Post-conflict elections and the process of demilitarizing politics: The role of electoral administration”, Democratization, 11(3): 36-62.
Martínez i Coma, F., & van Ham, C. (2015) ‘Can experts judge elections? Testing the validity of expert judgments for measuring election integrity’, European Journal of Political Research, 54(2): 305-325.
McAdams, D. P. (1995) “What do we know when we know a person?”, Journal of Personality, 63: 365-396.
McAdams, D. P. and Pals, J. L. (2006) “A new big five: Fundamental principles for an integrative science of personality”, American Psychologist, 61: 204-217.
McCrae, R. R. and Costa, P.T. (1996) “Toward a new generation of personality theories: theoretical contexts for the five-factor model”, in Wiggins, J. S. (ed) The five-factor model of personality: theoretical perspectives, New-York: The Guilford Press, pp. 51-87.
! 23!
McCrae, R. R. and Costa, P.T. (1997) “Personality trait structure as a human universal”, American Psychologist, 52: 509-516.
McCrae, R. R. and Costa, P.T. (2003) Personality in Adulthood. A five-factor theory perspective, New-York: The Guilford Press.
McCrae, R. R. and Costa, P.T. (2008) “The five-factor theory of personality”, in John, O. P., Robins, R. W. and Pervin, L. A. (eds) Handbook of personality: Theory and Research (3rd ed.), New-York: The Guilford Press.
Miller, A. H. and Listhaug, O. (1990) “Political parties and confidence in government: A comparison of Norway, Sweden and the United States”, British Journal of Political Science, 20: 357-386.
Mishler, W. and Rose, R. (2001a) “What are the origins of political trust? Testing institutional and cultural theories in post-communist societies”, Comparative Political Studies, 34(1): 30–62.
Mondak, J. J. (2010) Personality and the Foundations of Political Behavior, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mondak, J. J. and Halperin, K. D. (2008) “A framework for the study of personality and political behaviour”, British Journal of Political Science, 38(2): 335-362.
Mondak, J. J., Hibbing, M. V., Canache, D., Seligson, M. A. and Anderson, M. R. (2010) “Personality and civic engagement: an integrative framework for the study of trait effects on political behavior”, American Political Science Review, 104(1): 85-110.
Morselli, D., Spini, D. and Devos, T. (2012) “Human values and trust in institutions across countries: A multilevel test of Schwartz’s hypothesis of structural equivalence”, Survey Research Methods, 6(1): 49-60.
Mozaffar, S. (2002) “Patterns of electoral governance in africa’s emerging democracies”, International Political Science Review, 23(1).
Mozaffar, S. and Schedler, A. (2002) “The comparative study of electoral governance – introduction”, International Political Science Review, 23(1): 5-27.
Newton, K. and Norris, P. (2000) “Confidence in public institutions: Faith, culture, or performance”, in Pharr, S. J. and Putnam, R. D. (eds) Disaffected democracies: What’s troubling the trilateral countries, Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 52-73.
Norris, P. (2002) “Ballots not bullets: Testing consociational theories of ethnic conflict, electoral systems, and democratization”, in Reynolds, A. (ed) The architecture of democracy: Constitutional design, conflict management, and democracy, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 206-247.
Norris, P. (2004) Electoral engineering: Voting rules and political behavior, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Norris, P. (2014). Why electoral integrity matters. Cambridge University Press.
Norris, P., Frank, R. W., & Martínez i Coma, F. (2014) ‘Measuring Electoral Integrity around the World: A New Dataset’ PS: Political Science & Politics, 47(4): 789-798.
Nunnally, S. C. (2011) “(Dis)counting on democracy to work: Perceptions of electoral fairness in the 2008 Presidential Election”, Journal of Black Studies, 42(6): 923-942.
Parks-Leduc, L., Feldman, G. and Bardi, A. (2014). “Personality traits and personal values: A meta-analysis”, Personality and Psychology Review, 19: 3-29.
! 24!
Plomin, R., DeFries, J. C. and McClearn, G. E. (1990) Behavioral genetics: A primer, New-York: Freeman.
Pytlik Zillig, L. M., Hemenover, S. H., and Dienstbier, R. A. (2002) “What do we assess when we assess a Big 5 trait? A content analysis of the affective, behavioral, and cognitive processes represented in Big 5 personality inventories”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28: 847-858.
Roccas, S., Sagiv, L., Schwartz, S. H. and Knafo, A. (2002) “The big five personality factors and personal values”, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(6): 789-801.
Saraglou, V. and Munoz-Garcia, A. (2008) “Individual differences in religion and spirituality: An issue of personality traits and/or values”, Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 47: 83-101.
Schedler, A. (2002a) “Elections without democracy: The menu of manipulation”, Journal of Democracy, 13(2).
Schelder, A. (2002b) “The nested game of democratization by elections”, International Political Science Review, 23(1): 103-22.
Schedler, A. (2006) “The logic of electoral authoritarianism”, in Schedler, A. (ed) Electoral authoritarianism: The dynamics of unfree competition, Boulder and London: Lynne Rienner, pp. 1-23.
Schwartz, S. H. (1992) “Universals in the content and structure of values: theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries”, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25: 1-65.
Schwartz, S. H. (1994) “Are there universal aspects in the content and structure of values?”, Journal of Social Issues, 50: 19-45.
Schwartz, S. H. (1996) “Value priorities and behavior: Applying a theory of integrated value systems”, in Seligman, C., Olson, J. M. and Zanna, M. P. (eds) The Ontario Symposium: Vol. 8. The psychology of values, Hillsdale: Erlbaum, pp. 1-24.
Schwartz, S. H. (2003) “A Proposal for Measuring Value Orientations across Nations”, Chapter 7 in the Questionnaire Development Package of the European Social Survey. Website: http://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=126&Itemid=80.
Schwartz, S. H. (2010) “Basic values: How they motivate and inhibit prosocial behavior”, in Mikulincer, M. and Shaver, P. R. (eds) Prosocial motives, emotions, and behavior: The better angels of our nature, Washington: American Psychological Association, pp. 221-241.
Schwartz, S., Melech, G., Lehmann, A., Burgess, S., Harris, M., and Owens, V. (2001) “Extending the cross-cultural validity of the theory of basic human values with a different method of measurement”, Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32: 519-542.
Tremblay, P. and Ewart, L. (2005) ‘The Buss and Perry Aggression Questionnaire and its relations to values, the Big Five, provoking hypothetical situations, alcohol consumption patterns, and alcohol expectancies’, Personality and Individual Differences 38: 337-346.
Van Gestel, S. and Van Broekhoven, C. (2003) “Genetics of personality: are we making progress?”, Molecular Psychiatry, 8(10): 840-852.
Vecchione, M. and Caprara, G. V. (2009) ‘Personality determinants of political participation: The contribution of traits and self-efficacy beliefs’, Personality and Individual Differences 46: 487-492.
! 25!
Tables and figures
Table 1: Countries and elections details Country WVS wave 6 survey dates Election date (type) PEI score (level) Algeria 17.12.2012 – 12.01.2013 17.04.2013 (Presidential) 54.2 (low) Colombia 17.11.2012 – 06.12.2012 09.03.2014 (Legislative) 69.1 (average) Ecuador 10.06.2013 – 29.08.2013 17.02.2013 (Presidential) 63.9 (average) Germany 22.07.2013 – 13.11.2013 22.09.2013 (Legislative) 84.2 (high) India 24.10.2013 – 17.04.2014 12.05.2014 (Legislative) 67.0 (average) Iraq 18.11.2013 – 29.11.2013 30.04.2014 (Legislative) 55.2 (low) Jordan 19.02.2014 – 01.03.2014 23.01.2013 (Legislative) 56.6 (low) Kuwait 01.01.2014 – 20.03.2014 27.06.2013 (Legislative) 66.9 (average) Netherlands 01.12.2012 – 31.12.2014 12.09.2012 (Legislative) 82.6 (high) Pakistan 04.10.2012 – 19.10.2012 11.05.2013 (Legislative) 60.0 (average) Rwanda 28.11.2012 – 10.12.2012 06.09.2013 (Legislative) 71.2 (high) South Africa 18.08.2013 – 06.10.2013 07.05.2014 (Legislative) 70.3 (high) Thailand 01.09.2013 – 20.09.2013 02.02.2014 (Legislative) 60.6 (average)
Table 2: Descriptive statistics for individual variables Variable Valid obs. Mean Std. dev. Min Max Individual perception of electoral integrity 18928 14.30 5.98 0 27 Honest elections: important personally 20335 2.24 1.02 0 3 Honest elections: important for economy 20314 2.33 0.95 0 3 Female 20525 0.50 0.50 0 1 Year of birth 20519 1972.63 16.23 1914 1999 Education 20394 5.19 2.38 1 9 Interest in politics 20443 1.47 0.98 0 3 Satisfaction with institutions 20437 6.25 2.33 1 10 Value: Self-transcendence 18023 0.75 0.18 0.17 1 Value: Self-enhancement 20142 0.65 0.20 0.17 1 Value: Openness to change 19971 0.67 0.18 0.17 1 Value: Conservatism 20087 0.74 0.18 0.17 1 Personality: Openness to experience 11785 0.64 0.17 0.25 1 Personality: Conscientiousness 13619 0.72 0.21 0.25 1 Personality: Extraversion 13652 0.66 0.16 0.25 1 Personality: Agreeableness 13270 0.67 0.19 0.25 1 Personality: Emotional stability 12529 0.66 0.18 0.25 1
! 26!
Table 3: Bivariate correlations of main variables Self
trans. Self enhanc.
Openn. change
Conserv Openn. exp.
Consc. Extrav. Agreeab. Emo. stab.
Self-transcendence 1 Self-enhancement .34*** 1 Openness to change .40*** .53*** 1 Conservatism .63*** .40*** .38*** 1 Openness to exp. -.02 .05*** -.01 -.06*** 1 Conscientiousness -.01 .04 -.07*** .02 .36*** 1 Extraversion -.01 .02* .04*** -.04*** .03** -.01 1 Agreeableness -.07*** -.06*** -.05*** -.07*** .15*** .38*** -.10*** 1 Emotional stability .01 -.04*** -.04*** -.07*** .05*** .28*** .06*** .27*** 1 IPEI -.05*** -.14*** -.12*** -.14*** .11*** .16*** .05*** .21*** .17*** *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001
Table 4: Multilevel determinants of individual perceptions of electoral integrity (IPEI) – direct effects M1 M2 M3 M4 Coeff. Se Sig. Coeff. Se Sig. Coeff. Se Sig. Coeff. Se Sig. Constant 45.12 (5.40) *** 96.53 (5.85) *** 78.00 (9.84) *** 55.86 (10.75) *** Honest elections: - important personally 0.37 (0.05) *** 0.30 (0.05) *** 0.12 (0.10) 0.24 (0.11) * - important economy 0.25 (0.05) *** 0.17 (0.06) ** 0.20 (0.12) 0.16 (0.12) Female -0.29 (0.07) *** -0.26 (0.08) ** -0.05 (0.15) -0.10 (0.16) Year of birth -0.02 (0.00) *** -0.04 (0.00) *** -0.04 (0.00) *** -0.03 (0.01) *** Education 0.13 (0.02) *** 0.18 (0.02) *** 0.15 (0.03) *** 0.17 (0.03) *** Interest in politics 0.47 (0.04) *** 0.59 (0.04) *** 0.56 (0.08) *** 0.49 (0.08) *** Satisf with institutions 0.12 (0.02) *** 0.16 (0.02) *** 0.12 (0.03) *** 0.10 (0.03) *** Country PEI: - Average integrity 1.26 (1.64) 0.81 (0.12) *** 1.83 (0.24) *** 1.85 (0.24) *** - High integrity 3.97 (1.77) * 1.69 (0.13) *** 4.73 (0.24) *** 3.40 (0.26) *** Values: - Self-transcendence . -0.23 (0.32) . -0.31 (0.61) - Self-enhancement . -2.21 (0.26) *** . 0.45 (0.46) - Openness to change . -0.07 (0.30) . -1.08 (0.50) * - Conservatism . -0.35 (0.32) . -0.70 (0.60) Personality traits: - Openness to exp. . . 1.87 (0.46) *** 0.91 (0.49) - Conscientiousness . . 2.09 (0.40) *** 2.80 (0.42) *** - Extraversion . . 1.82 (0.47) *** 2.15 (0.49) *** - Agreeableness . . 3.59 (0.43) *** 2.47 (0.45) *** - Emotional stability . . 1.94 (0.43) *** 1.86 (0.44) *** N (individuals) 18,492 16,012 5,041 4,491 N (countries) 13 12 13 12 R2 .12 .09 .23 .16 Note: Dependent variable is individual perceptions of electoral integrity, continuous. Models are random-effects GLS regressions, estimated with Stata 12.1. *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001
! 27!
Table 5: Multilevel determinants of individual perceptions of electoral integrity (IPEI) – crosslevel interactive effects (country PEI * values/personality traits) M5 Coeff. Se Sig. Constant 45.07 (11.10) *** Honest elections: - important personally 0.25 (0.11) * - important economy 0.14 (0.12) Female -0.04 (0.15) Year of birth -0.02 (0.01) *** Education 0.14 (0.03) *** Interest in politics 0.49 (0.08) *** Satisfaction with institutions 0.09 (0.03) ** Country PEI: - Average integrity 0.47 (2.37) - High integrity -2.90 (2.60) Values: - Self-transcendence -1.55 (1.26) - Self-enhancement 1.08 (1.04) - Openness to change -1.49 (1.03) - Conservatism 1.44 (1.49) Personality traits: - Openness to exp. -5.29 (1.18) *** - Conscientiousness 4.44 (1.09) *** - Extraversion 2.92 (1.29) * - Agreeableness 0.87 (0.93) - Emotional stability 2.63 (0.91) ** Country PEI * values: - Average integrity * Self-transcendence 0.32 (1.50) - High integrity * Self-transcendence 4.12 (1.82) * - Average integrity * Self-enhancement 0.54 (1.21) - High integrity * Self-enhancement -2.38 (1.44) - Average integrity * Openness to change 1.11 (1.22) - High integrity * Openness to change -0.19 (1.55) - Average integrity * Conservatism -0.92 (1.68) - High integrity * Conservatism -3.78 (1.94) Country PEI * personality traits: - Average integrity * Openness to exp. 7.64 (1.33) *** - High integrity * Openness to exp. 7.19 (1.56) *** - Average integrity * Conscientiousness -1.92 (1.24) - High integrity * Conscientiousness -3.12 (1.43) * - Average integrity * Extraversion -2.29 (1.45) - High integrity * Extraversion 0.78 (1.58) - Average integrity * Agreeableness 0.70 (1.13) - High integrity * Agreeableness 4.67 (1.38) *** - Average integrity * Emotional stability -2.68 (1.08) * - High integrity * Emotional stability 2.29 (1.34) N (individuals) 4,491 N (countries) 12 R2 .18 Note: Dependent variable is individual perceptions of electoral integrity, continuous. Models are random-effects GLS regressions, estimated with Stata 12.1. *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001
! 28!
Figure 1: Mean and standard deviations of individual perceptions of electoral integrity, by country (WVS data, wave 6)
Figure 2: Individual perceptions of electoral integrity by openness to experience and levels of electoral integrity
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
05
1015
2025
IPEI
0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1Openess to experience
Low electoral integrity Average electoral integrityHigh electoral integrity
! 29!
Figure 3: Individual perceptions of electoral integrity by agreeableness and levels of electoral integrity
!
05
1015
2025
IPEI
0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1Agreeableness
Low electoral integrity Average electoral integrityHigh electoral integrity