Lecture
Outline: Personality and Politics
Dr.
Peffley, Political Psychology
I. Why
Study Personality and Politics?
A. A
classic focus of research in Political Psychology, is there a democratic or
non-democratic personality among both leaders and masses?
1. Lasswell's famous study of Psychopathology and Politics
(1930), the Georges’ of Woodrow Wilson, etc.
2. Adorno et al’s, The
Authoritarian Personality, 1950, and its long research tradition in the social
sciences.
B. Personality
as a predictor of general orientations, attitudes, beliefs and behavior.
II. WHAT
IS A PERSONALITY?
A. DEFINITION: FROM "PERSONA": MASK used by
ANCIENT ROMANS to tell audience what to expect from that particular character;
signified a consistent set of behaviors.
1. IMPOSSIBLE
TO DEFINE PRECISELY. Gordon ALLPORT in
1937 noted over fifty types of definitions of personality. Definitions depend on theoretical
approach. Freud--unconscious; Trait
theorists--traits.
2. MINIMALIST
DEF: an enduring set of dispositions to respond in a particular manner that is
consistent across time and situations.
B.
COMMON CHARACTERISTICS:
1. INFERRED
entity rather than directly observable phenomenon.
2. ENDURING
traits across time and situations
3.
TRAIT—an enduring disposition to behave in a
particular way over a range of situations, which are:
a)
COMPARABLE--i.e., able to compare people on
the extent to which they possess this trait (e.g., extroversion, optimism)
b) DIFFERENTIABLE--allow
us to make describe differences between people (e.g., people vary in the degree
to which they possess this trait)
c)
STABLE over time.
4.
TYPES--clusters of related personality traits
(e.g., introversion/extroversion; authoritarian/democratic)
II. Approaches
to study of personality
A. Idiographic:
An approach to research and personality description that emphasizes the
uniqueness of individuals in terms of specific traits and the way the traits
are organized.
B. Nomothetic: An approach to personality that emphasizes
individual differences on standard measures.
III. Techniques
for Studying Personality
A. Case
studies: in-depth study of single individuals to capture the uniqueness of
individuals and the full complexity of the person-environment relationships.
Problem with subjective interpretation of data, inability to generalize complexities
across individuals.
B. Correlational
method: Is there an association or correlation between different traits and with
behaviors across individuals? Do variable X (e.g., aggressiveness and variable
Y (e.g., political violence) go together or vary together? Benefits are
naturalness of the design, generalizabity of results
to population (subjects are selected randomly); disadvantage is the inability
to detect cause-and-effect relationships.
C. Experimental
method: Causal variables are manipulated while all other variables are held
constant. Benefit is ability to determine cause-and-effect relationships;
disadvantage is laboratory setting and inability to generalize results to wider
population.
IV.
POTENTIAL OBJECTIONS TO THE STUDY OF
PERSONALITY IN POLITICS:
A. SITUATION
MORE IMPORTANT THAN PERSONALITY
1. General
argument in psychology. EX: Walter Mischel (1968)—claimed that people's behavior from
situation to situation was variable and depended on the situational
circumstances, low correlsation between personality
and behavior.
2. Rejoinder:
a) Aggregates:
Personality is a very general construct meant to predict a general pattern of behavior
across all situations (i.e., of someone's overall trends).
b) Consistent
meaning of behavior across situations and over time. Might be dominant in some
situations and submissive in others, but personality could predict those
inconsistencies.
c) Personality
may influence situations.
d) Interactionist
perspective: Traits and Situations interact to influence behavior - how else
could it be? Depends on the person, the situation and the trait.
B. Objection
in Political Science
1. Social
and economic factors are far more important, conceptually and empirically.
a) Complementary,
not competing perspectives.
2. Individuals
don't really make a difference when compared with broader (historical) factors.
a) Under
what circumstances are actions of single individuals likely to have a greater
effect on the course of events?
(1) Individuals
are strategically or centrally placed in the environment to have more impact.
(2) Individuals
who are skillful or strong in overcoming environmental obstacles
(3) When
the environment is ripe for change or fluid
3. Personality
(and other individual predispositions) don’t have an impact.
a) Question
is: what types of political situations are more likely to activate or allow for
the expression of personality versus situational influences?
b) Weak
political situations (ambiguous, novel, complex, few sanctions attached to
certain actions).
c) When
are personality traits activated? Depends on trait and situation.
V. Personality
of political elites
A. Measurement
of elite personalities
1. Problem
of access
2. Content
analysis of written text (Winter’s
study)
3. Sigelman’s critique.
B. Idiographic
value versus nomothetic value
VI.
AUTHORITARIANISM IN PSYCHOLOGY AND POLITICAL
SCIENCE
A. THE
PREJUDICED PERSONALITY
B. INTOLERANT
PERSONALITY
C. UNDEMOCRATIC
(FASCIST) PERSONALITY.
D. Research
by Adorno et al., The Authoritarian Personality
(1950). Psychoanalytic approach.
E. Altemeyer’s trait approach
1. Authoritarian
submission: a high degree of submission
to the authorities who are perceived to be established and legitimate in the
society in which one lives.
2. Authoritarian
aggression: a general aggressiveness,
directed against various persons, that is perceived to be sanctioned by
established authorities.
3. Conventionalism: a high degree of adherence to dominant social
conventions endorsed by society and established authorities.
F. Problems
with research on authoritarianism:
1. Response
set problem
2. Left-Wing
Authoritarianism?
G. Measure
of Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA):
see Altemeyer
H. More
recent political science approaches: Feldman and Stenner
1. Childhood
values and social conformity
I. Authoritarian
Responses:
1. Punitiveness
2. Prejudice
toward a wide range of outgroups
3. Political
intolerance: unwillingness to extend civil liberties to unpopular groups
J. Roots
of authoritarianism
1. Genetic?
2. Socialization
3. Religious
orthodoxy?