Correlation Not Causation: the Relationship Between Personality Traits and Political Ideologies

Correlation not Causation: The Relationship between Personality Traits and Political Ideologies Brad Verhulst Virginia Commonwealth University Lindon J. Eaves Virginia Commonwealth University Peter K. Hatemi The Pennsylvania State University and University of Sydney The assumption in the personality and politics literature is that a person’s personality motivates them to develop certain political attitudes later in life. This assumption is founded on the simple correlation between the two constructs and the observation that personality traits are genetically influenced and develop in infancy, whereas political preferences develop later in life. Work in psychology, behavioral genetics, and recently political science, however, has demonstrated that political preferences also develop in childhood and are equally influenced by genetic factors. These findings cast doubt on the assumed causal relationship between personality and politics. Here we test the causal relationship between personality traits and political attitudes using a direction of causation structural model on a genetically informative sample. The results suggest that personality traits do not cause people to develop political attitudes; rather, the correlation between the two is a function of an innate common underlying genetic factor. he field of political science is witnessing a re- political attitudes has been found to be largely a function naissance in the exploration of the relationship of latent shared genetic influences (Eaves and Eysenck T between personality traits and political prefer- 1974; Verhulst, Hatemi, and Martin 2010). These find- ences (Gerber et al. 2010; Jost et al. 2003; Mondak and ings cast doubt on the critical foundations necessary for Halperin 2008; Mondak et al. 2010). The belief that per- the assumed causal structure expounded throughout the sonality traits are innate, genetically influenced, and de- extant literature (e.g., Gerber et al. 2010; Mondak et al. velop in infancy (Bouchard et al. 1990; Eaves et al. 1999; 2010). In light of these empirical inconsistencies, it is im- Eysenck 1967; Loehlin 1992; McRae et al. 2000), whereas portant to reconsider this basic assumption to gain a more political attitudes develop in adulthood, has led to the accurate understanding of the complex interplay between assumption that personality traits cause the subsequent an individual’s disposition and their political attitudes. development of political attitudes. Recent scholarship, The recent introduction of behavioral genetic mod- however, has demonstrated that political attitudes de- els plays a pivotal role in expanding our understanding of velop much earlier than previously suspected (Block and the nature of the relationship between personality traits Block 2006; Hess and Torney 1967), the precursors of and political attitudes. These models allow us to examine which are present prior to a child’s first year in school whether the relationship is best accounted for by com- (Persson 2010) and are also influenced by genetic factors mon genetic or environmental influences shared between (Alford, Funk, and Hibbing 2005; Eaves, Eysenck, and the two phenotypes (e.g., Verhulst, Hatemi, and Martin Martin 1989; Hatemi et al. 2010; Martin et al. 1986). Fur- 2010) or whether a causal relationship exists between per- thermore, the relationship between personality traits and sonality and political attitudes (e.g., Heath et al. 1993). To Brad Verhulst is a Post-Doctoral Fellow at Virginia Commonwealth University, Virginia Institute of Psychiatric and Behavioral Genetics, Richmond, VA 23298-980003 ([email protected]). Lindon J. Eaves is Distinguished Professor of Human Genetics, Virginia Com- monwealth University, Virginia Institute of Psychiatric and Behavioral Genetics, Richmond, VA 23298-980003 ([email protected]). Peter K. Hatemi is Associate Professor of Political Science and Microbiology at The Pennsylvania State University and Research Fellow at the United States Studies Centre, University of Sydney, 307 Pond Lab, University Park, PA 16802 ([email protected]). The data for this article were collected with the financial support of the National Institute of Health AA-06781 and MH-40828 (PI: Eaves). Data analysis was supported by NIH Grant 5R25DA026119 (PI: Neale). To obtain a copy of the data for replication, please go to http: //polisci.la.psu.edu/facultybios/hatemi.html. The authors would like to thank John Jost and the members of his lab for useful comments in the preparation of this manuscript. Any errors of interpretation are, of course, our own. American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 56, No. 1, January 2012, Pp. 34–51 C 2011, Midwest Political Science Association DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00568.x 34 PERSONALITY TRAITS AND POLITICAL IDEOLOGIES 35 test the assumed causal relationship between personality situations ignoring specific situational pressures (Ban- traits and political attitudes, we first highlight the critical dura 2001; Mischel 1968; Mischel and Shoda 1998). As findings that both underscore and challenge the causal as- such, multiple intervening processes mediate the impact sumption.Indoingso,weevaluaterecentevidencewhich of personality traits on observed behaviors. has identified genetic sources of variance on attitudes Ideological orientations, on the other hand, are typi- and personality. Then, using a series of behavioral ge- cally conceptualized as an interrelated set of attitudes that netic analyses on data collected from a large sample of reflect an individual’s liberal or conservative preferences twins (5,748 pairs), we partition the covariation between across a range of interrelated policies (Campbell et al. personality traits and political attitudes into environmen- 1960), which can be clustered along multiple ideological tal and genetic sources that are shared between the two dimensions (Conover and Feldman 1981, 1984; McClosky traits. Finally, we conduct a direction of causation analysis and Zaller 1984; Treier and Hillygus 2009). In contrast to which explores a variety of scenarios that may underlie personality traits, political attitudes are thought to emerge the established association between personality traits and only after the individual begins to engage with the polit- political attitudes (Duffy and Martin 1994; Heath et al. ical world. Thus, young voters are more susceptible to 1993; Neale and Cardon, 1992). These types of analyses al- political tides because they have relatively weak attitudes low us to empirically test the assumption that personality that do not crystallize until their mid to late twenties traits cause people to develop attitudes or if other possible (Alwin, Cohen, and Newcomb 1991; Jennings and Markus avenues exist for the relationship between attitudes and 1984; Jennings and Niemi 1981). Accordingly, if the personality. Specifically, we compare how the data fit four development of political attitudes occurs much later possible causative models: the assumed causal structure, than personality development, it is reasonable to assume a reverse causal structure where attitudes cause personal- that personality traits cause the development of political ity traits, a reciprocal causal structure where personality attitudes. traits and political attitudes both have a causal influence Such a view has been used to explain the relationship on each other, and a correlational structure where a latent between specific attitudinal scales and specific personal- set of genes influences both personality traits and political ity traits. In research exploring the relationship between attitudes. these two constructs, the most common personality trait linked to politics has been Openness to Experience and more liberal social/moral issues (Gerber et al. 2010; Jost The Relationship between Personality Traits et al. 2003; McCrae 1996; Mondak and Halperin 2008; and Political Attitudes Mondak et al. 2010). Specifically, Openness to Experi- ence has been found to be negatively related to a vari- Before delving into the causality assumption, it is first ety of ideological measures, such as conservative political useful to explicate both personality traits and political at- attitudes, right-wing authoritarianism, and social domi- titudes. Personality traits are typically conceptualized as nance orientation (Adorno et al. 1950; Altemeyer 1996; stable individual differences that, in a general sense, guide Carney et al. 2008; Duckitt 1989; Jost et al. 2003; Stenner behavior (Cattell 1957; Winter and Barenbaum 1999). 2005; VanHiel, Kossowska, and Mervielde 2000; VanHiel, Although there is no universally accepted definition of Pandelaere, and Duriez 2004). This relationship has been personality, most research views personality traits as the attributed to the “fact” that people who are more open culmination of life events, personal adaptations, and bi- to new experiences are less tied to the conventional ways ological mechanisms (Buss 1999; Caprara and Cervone of doing things, and this “Openness” extends into every 2000; Eysenck 1967; for a review, see Pervin and Oliver facet of a person’s life, including political orientations. 1999). Consistent with this logic, research in develop- The relationship between political orientations and mental psychology has established that many personality personality traits is multifaceted, however, and ex- traits can be assessed early in life as temperaments, which tends far beyond Openness and general liberalism- are predictive of adult personality traits (Roberts and conservatism.

Load more