Midwest Political Science Association American Journal of Political Science

Correlation not Causation: The Relationship between Personality Traits and Political
Ideologies
Author(s): Brad Verhulst, Lindon J. Eaves and Peter K. Hatemi
Source: American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 56, No. 1 (January 2012), pp. 34-51
Published by: Midwest Political Science Association
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23075142
Accessed: 26-07-2018 17:01 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Midwest Political Science Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to American Journal of Political Science
This content downloaded from 193.49.18.238 on Thu, 26 Jul 2018 17:01:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Correlation not Causation: The Relationship between
Personality Traits and Political Ideologies
Brad Verhulst Virginia Commonwealth University
Lindon J. Eaves Virginia Commonwealth University
Peter Κ. 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.
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
The field
betweenof political
personality traits andscience
political preferis witnessing a re 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; Hatemietal. 2010; Martinetal. 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 (brad.verhulst@gmail.com). Lindon J. Eaves is Distinguished Professor of Human Genetics, Virginia Com
monwealth University, Virginia Institute of Psychiatric and Behavioral Genetics, Richmond, VA 23298-980003 (eaves.lindon@gmail.com).
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 (phatemi@gmail.com).
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
©2011, Midwest Political Science Association DOI: 10.1111/j. 1540-5907.2011.00568.x
34
PERSONALITY TRAITS AND POLITICAL IDEOLOGIES
situations ignoring specific situational pressures (Ban

test the assumed causal relationship between personality
dura
traits and political attitudes, we first highlight the 2001; Mischel 1968; Mischel and Shoda 1998). As
critical
findings that both underscore and challenge thesuch,
causal as
multiple intervening processes mediate the impact
sumption. In doing so, we evaluate recent evidence
of personality
which 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 individual's liberal or conservative preferences
reflect an
twins (5,748 pairs), we partition the covariation across
betweena range of interrelated policies (Campbell et al.
1960), which can be clustered along multiple ideological
personality traits and political attitudes into environmen
dimensions
tal and genetic sources that are shared between the two (Conover and Feldman 1981,1984; McClosky
and
traits. Finally, we conduct a direction of causation Zaller 1984; Treier and Hillygus 2009). In contrast to
analysis
which explores a variety of scenarios that may underlie
personality traits, political attitudes are thought to emerge
the established association between personality traits
only after
and the individual begins to engage with the polit
political attitudes (Duffy and Martin 1994; Heath
ical world.
et al. Thus, young voters are more susceptible to
1993; Neale and Cardon, 1992). These types of analyses
politicalaltides because they have relatively weak attitudes
that do not crystallize until their mid to late twenties
low us to empirically test the assumption that personality
traits cause people to develop attitudes or if other possible
(Alwin, Cohen, and Newcomb 1991 ; Jennings and Markus
1984;and
avenues exist for the relationship between attitudes Jennings and Niemi 1981). Accordingly, if the
development
personality. Specifically, we compare how the data fit four 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
attitudes.
ity traits, a reciprocal causal structure where personality
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 latentspecific attitudinal scales and specific personal
between
itypolitical
set of genes influences both personality traits and 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
et al. 2003; McCrae 1996; Mondak and Halperin 2008;
The Relationship between Personality Traits
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
nance
titudes. Personality traits are typically conceptualized as orientation (Adorno et al. 1950; Altemeyer 1996;
Carney et al. 2008; Duckitt 1989; Jost et al. 2003; Stenner
stable individual differences that, in a general sense, guide
behavior (Cattell 1957; Winter and Barenbaum 1999). 2005; Van Hiel, Kossowska, and Mervielde 2000; Van Hiel,
Although there is no universally accepted definition of
Pandelaere, and Duriez 2004). This relationship has been
attributed
personality, most research views personality traits as the to the "fact" that people who are more open
culmination of life events, personal adaptations, and bi experiences are less tied to the conventional ways
to new
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
personality traits is multifaceted, however, and ex
mental psychology has established that many personality
tends far beyond Openness and general liberalism
traits can be assessed early in life as temperaments, which
are predictive of adult personality traits (Roberts andconservatism. Research has also demonstrated a consis
DelVecchio 2000; Young, Eaves, and Eysenck 1980).tent,

Thisbut weaker, relationship between conservative polit
ical attitudes and Conscientiousness (Carney et al. 2008;
early emergence and relative stability across time insin
Gerber et al. 2010; Jost 2006). Political conservatism
uates that personality traits precede other social disposi
has been associated with dogmatism (Rokeach 1960),
tions, such as political attitudes. In this view, personality
traits are not conceptualized as proximate causes Eysenck's
that Ρ (Eysenck and Eysenck 1985; Verhulst, Hatemi,
and Martin 2010), intolerance of ambiguity or uncer
can explain specific behaviors, but rather as distal causes
that explain response tendencies across a wide range of a personal need to achieve order (Sanford 1973),
tainty,
BRAD VERHULST, LINDON J. EAVES, AND PETER K. HATEMI
desire for structure and closure, integrative complexity, relationship. Studies assessing political attitudes in chil
and fear of threat or loss (Jost et al. 2003). It has also been dren find that the building blocks of political attitudes
suggested that conservatism should be associated with are present quite early in life. For example, sharing, allo
high levels of anxiety, a major component of the person cation of resources, leadership roles in play, equity versus
ality trait Neuroticism. This link, however, has eluded em equality, hierarchy, and organization are all present in
pirical validation (Eaves and Eysenck 1974; Fromm 1947; early childhood (Block and Block 2006; Moore 1986).
Kline and Cooper 1984; Ray 1972; Wilson 1973; Wilson Other studies focusing on explicit political attitudes have
and Brazendale 1973). Intriguingly, the empirical link be used stories and pictures to demonstrate that children,
tween ideology and Neuroticism suggests the relationship some as young as four or five and even prior to their
is actually between certain facets of liberalism and Neu first year of school, possess independent political attitudes
roticism (Gerber et al. 2010; Van Hiél, Pandelaere, and (Coles 1986; Hatemi et al. 2009a; Hess and Torney 1967;
Duriez 2004; Verhulst, Hatemi, and Martin 2010). These Persson 2010; Torney-Purta 2004; Torney-Purta and
empirical relationships have been replicated across time Amadeo 2003). Thus, the finding that political attitudes
and in different political contexts. also develop early in life questions the temporal causal
In the majority of studies, the causal ordering priority of personality traits.
between personality traits and political attitudes was The strongest challenge to the prevailing causality
assumed, but has yet to be empirically evaluated. Fur assumption is the finding that genes influence political
thermore, the theoretical development connecting these attitudes. These findings suggest that even though attitu
varied findings remains embryonic. However, more de dinal measures cannot effectively assess political attitudes
veloped theoretical justifications are beginning to emerge. in infancy, the precursors of these attitudes are present
For example, Jost et al. (2003) suggest that exposure to nevertheless. In their landmark study, Nicholas Martin,
threat and uncertainty in the political environment evokes Lindon Eaves, and their colleagues (1986) demonstrated
fear and anxiety which heightens epistemic and existen substantial heritability of political attitudes, a finding that
tial motivations, resulting in increased confidence in the has been replicated in a variety of different political cli
"correctness" of one's attitudes and bolstering one's self mates, countries, time periods, and by various different
concept. From this perspective, political conservatism methods (Alford, Funk, and Hibbing 2005; Bouchard
serves as a coping mechanism that allows people to man et al. 1990; Eaves, Eysenck, and Martin 1989; Eaves and
age these threats, leaving conservatives more intolerant of Hatemi 2008; Eaves et al. 1999; Hatemi et al. 2007,2009a;
ambiguity and desiring high levels of order, structure, and Hatemi, Hobolt, and N0rgaard 2010; Hatemi, Medland,
cognitive closure (Carney et al. 2008; Jost et al. 2003). Es and Eaves 2009; Klemmensen et al. 2010). The fact that
sentially, fluctuations in the broad political environment both personality traits and political attitudes have sub
create political circumstances that require adaptive atti stantial genetic components opens the possibility that the
tudinal responses. However, even in this view, the causal relationship between the two constructs may not be as
path remains unchanged (Jost 2006); attitudinal modula simple as commonly assumed.
tions are a function of an individual's personality adapting Unfortunately, findings from the genetics and politics
to their political environment. literature have been poorly integrated into the personal
ity and politics literature. For example, rather than insti
gating a general debate on the connection between the
innate components of political attitudes and personality
Questioning the Causality Assumption
traits, the extant causal assumption has only been slightly
The assumption that personality traits cause or trigger the modified to suggest that genetic factors lead to the de
development of political attitudes is largely predicated on velopment of personality traits, which in turn "cause"
the interpretation and extension of two empirical find people to develop political attitudes either by motivating
ings: personality traits emerge early in life and guide be them to select environments that promote the develop
havior, and they are genetically influenced and part of ment of these attitudes or directly by the genetic variance
one's "fixed" disposition. According to temporal logic, in personality accounting for all of the genetic variance
the construct that develops first should guide the devel in political attitudes (e.g., Mondak et al. 2010). However,
opment of the constructs that develop afterward. This these assumptions were never explicitly tested.
has reinforced previous assumptions that the early devel In Figure 1 we summarize the assumed casual path
opment of personality traits leads to the development of way and alternative relationships between personality
political preferences in a causal manner. traits and political attitudes. The assumed causality hy
Recent findings regarding the development of politi pothesis would follow the pathways in the left panel of
cal attitudes have begun to challenge this assumed causal Figure 1: biological factors are the primary contributors
Figure 1 Theoretical Models Underlying Two Hypothesized Relationships

between Personality Traits and Political Attitudes and Behaviors
The Assumed Causality Model The Common Cause Model
Note: The left panel was re-created from recent explorations of personality and political attitudes (see Mondak
et al. 2010 for a similar figure).
So far
to an individual's personality, and an individual's this has also not been the case at all. Rather,
per
sonality then either directly causes them to develop
depicted
their in the right panel of Figure 1, Verhulst, Hatemi
and
political attitudes (pathway A), motivates them to Martin (2010) expanded on the earlier formulation
select
into a specific environment which then shapes their atti and Eysenck (1974) and found that the vast ma
by Eaves
jority to
tudes (pathway B), or interacts with the environment of the covariance between personality traits an
produce their attitudes (pathway C). attitudes was a function of a shared latent genetic fa
Complete mediation (pathway A) would be tor, entirely
and the majority of genetic variance within attitude
plausible if all of the genetic variance in attitudes is ac
was not explained by the genetic variance on personality
traits.
counted for by the genetic variance in personality traits.
That is, if the genetic component of personality The traits
fact that both personality traits and political at
directly causes people to develop political attitudes, we
titudes have nontrivial genetic components and that the
would expect the genetic variance in personality to ac
genetic variance in attitudes remains largely independen
count for the majority of the genetic variance in suggests
political an alternative hypothesis: a latent genetic trait
attitudes. Alternatively, if political attitudes were
mutually
over influences both personality and attitudes. This
whelmingly environmental and had virtually no view is more consistent with a modern understandin
genetic
component, genetic factors would promote theofdevelop
genetics: there are no specific genes for a given p
litical attitude or personality trait. Genes encode protein
ment of personality traits, which in turn would motivate
individuals to select into environments (pathwaymessengers
B). On that execute a series of physiological processe
the other hand, if the genetic component of an culminating
individ in behaviors, personality traits, and attitude
ual's personality moderates the impact of the environ
ment (pathway C) on the development of either liberal
interactions, if the latent genetic component interacts with the
or conservative political attitudes, we would expect
common theenvironment, the additive genetic component will be i
flated.
majority of the shared variance between personality Alternatively, if the latent genetic component interacts wit
traits
thelevel.1
and attitudes to be shared at the environmental common environment, the unique environmental componen
will be inflated. In general, personality traits have little commo
environmental variance (Bouchard and McGue 2003); thus, gen
1 Selection into an environment is called gene-environment co
environment interactions would inflate estimates of the unique e
variation. If the latent genetic component is correlatedvironmental
with the component. See Keller, Medland, and Duncan (200
shared (unique) environment, estimates of the shared (unique) en
for a detailed explanation of biases in the twin model under nonzer
gene-environment interactions and correlations.
vironmental component will be inflated. As for gene-environment
in conjunction with environmental stimuli. Thus, the knowledged that both "constructs and theories should be
same set of genes may result in myriad distinct behav seen, not as mutually contradictory, but as complemen
ioral phenotypes, two of which are political attitudes and tary and mutually supportive" (1984, 336). Both theories
personality traits. In genetics, this is called pleiotropy (see include Extraversion and Neuroticism as core traits and
Carey 2003). This common cause model—pleiotropy—is define them in a virtually equivalent manner. The theories
depicted in the right panel of Figure 1. According to this differ in that Eysenck's "Big 3" amalgamates the remaining
hypothesis, the relationship between personality traits variability of personality into Psychoticism and subscales
and political attitudes is not causal in nature. Specifi such as Social Desirability, whereas the FFM segregates
cally, if the majority of the covariance between personality the remaining variability into three separate core person
and political orientations is the result of shared genetic ality traits: Openness to Experience, Agreeableness, and
variance, but the majority of genetic variance in political Conscientiousness (Eysenck 1992; Goldberg and Roso
attitudes is unique, then the blanket assumption that per lack 1992; McRae and Costa 1985).
sonality is driving political orientations is untenable. In Eysenck's Psychoticism measure was poorly labeled.
such a case, a latent genetic variable would be a common Hence, going forward, we use the less pejorative, abbrevi
cause of both personality traits and political attitudes, ated label P, which was also adopted by Eysenck. Having
leaving the resulting relationship between the two traits a high Psychoticism score is not a diagnosis of being clini
a function of genetic covariation and not causation. To cally psychotic or psychopathic. Rather, Ρ is positively cor
discriminate between these alternatives, we conduct a serelated with tough-mindedness, risk-taking, sensation
ries of genetic analyses using a very large twin dataset that seeking, impulsivity, and authoritarianism (Adorno et al.
contained both personality and attitudinal items. 1950; Altemeyer 1996; Eysenck and Eysenck 1985, Mc
Court et al. 1999). In social situations, those who score
high on Ρ are more uncooperative, hostile, troublesome,
and socially withdrawn, but lack feelings of inferiority and
Data, Methods, and Results have an absence of anxiety. At the extremes, those scoring
high on Ρ are manipulative, tough-minded, and practical
Respondents. The sample is derived from the Mid At (Eysenck 1954). By contrast, people low on Ρ are more
lantic Twin Registry (MATR) based on a survey conducted likely to be more altruistic, well socialized, empathie, and
in the late 1980s, dubbed the Virginia 30,000. Approxi conventional (Eysenck and Eysenck 1985; Howarth 1986).
mately 40% of the sample was recruited from the larger As such, we expect higher Ρ scores to be related to more
Virginia area, and the remaining were solicited through a conservative political attitudes, particularly for militarism
national AARP mailer. At the time, both groups favored and social conservatism.
slightly more conservative political attitudes. The sample Eysenck's Ρ has a complex relationship to the FFM.
contains 28,877 individuals who are all familial relatives Specifically, the Openness to Experience dimension,
of the core population of roughly 12,000 twins. For more which has received the majority of the attention within
detail on the sample structure, ascertainment, and ques personality and politics studies, is not well captured by
tionnaire, see Eaves et al. (1999). Eysenck's taxonomy (McCrae 1987; McCrae and Costa
1985). While Ρ predicts conservative political attitudes
Personality Traits. There is no general agreement on in a similar manner as Openness predicts liberal political
the "best" way to measure personality; however, the Five attitudes (Eysenck 1954; McCrae 1995), and limited ev
Factor Model (FFM) has arguably become the most pop idence finds Ρ moderately negatively correlated with the
ular. In this article, we focus on an older, but equally valid greater Openness to Experience dimension (Eysenck and
measure of personality, the Eysenck Personality Ques Eysenck 1985; Larstone et al. 2002), Ρ also correlates pos
tionnaire (EPQ Eysenck and Eysenck 1985, 1991). The itively with certain subfacets of Openness, such as creativ
underlying theory for the FFM is lexical, whereas the un ity and originality (Eysenck and Eysenck 1985; Rawlings
derlying theory for EPQ is biological and pathological. et al. 1998). Furthermore, Ρ is negatively correlated with
However, both are highly related in their measurement Conscientiousness (McCrae and Costa 1985; Zuckerman
and are composed of similar constructs (Avia et al. 1995; et al. 1993), even though both traits correlate positively
Costa and McRae 1995b; Saggino 2000). Debates about with political conservatism (Carney et al. 2008; Verhulst,
the "best" measure of personality obscure the fact that the Hatemi, and Martin 2010). The remaining relationship,
FFM and Eysenck's theories were in great agreement re Ρ being negatively correlated to Agreeableness, is perhaps
garding human personality structure. Indeed, regarding the least complex, as measures of Agreeableness are part
Cattell's (1957) theory of personality, which is regarded of the measure of Ρ with regard to tough-mindedness and
as the foundation for modern FFM theories, Eysenck ac being uncooperative.
Finally, the Social Desirability scale measurescial

the Desirability)
ten and three political ideology factors (an
economic, a social, and a military/defense dimension).
dency to overestimate one's perceived positive character
The specific
istics and underestimate perceived negative ones. High items and factor loadings are banished to
online Appendix
scores indicate a propensity for social acquiescence and 2. In general, our CFA model fits the
data well.
conformity, or a lack of self-insight (Francis, Brown, and The root mean square error of approximation
(RMSEA) to
Pearson 1991). The conformity component is related of 0.045 suggests that our model accurately
individual self-presentation concerns, while the second
captures the intricacies of the data despite the fact that
the model
component captures an overestimation of desirable butis very complex and the sample size is very
unlikely behaviors and an underestimation of undesirable
large.
but likely behaviors. Social Desirability has only sparingly
been explored as it relates to ideological orientations.
This is likely due, in part, to its having a more complex
structure than other traits and its inherent contextual
component. Analyses. We present our analyses in four stages. First,

While Eysenck's measures have been used less fre
we estimate the correlations between the latent personal
ity traits and the ideological dimensions using the latent
quently than the FFM in the last decade, there are some
unique benefits of using the EPQ. There is a wealthfactor
of correlations estimated in the CFA model to identify
both psychological and behavior genetic work on thethe moderate to strong phenotypic relationships between
EPQ (Bouchard et al. 1990; Eysenck and Eysenck 1985).
personality traits and political attitudes. Next, we use a
maximum likelihood-based structural equation model to
And, the EPQ is relatively untainted by explicitly political
items—as is the case with several facets of the FFM. For partition the variance into additive genetic, common en
example, Costa and McCrae's (1995a) FFM was originally vironment, and unique environmental variance (Neale
designed to include a political values dimension and in and Cardon 1992). Then, we use a multivariate genetic
cludes politically charged questions such as "I don't take model (Cholesky decomposition) to identify the mag
civic duties like voting very seriously," "I believe that laws nitude of shared genetic or environmental covariation
and social policies should change to reflect the needs of a between the personality traits and the ideological dimen
changing world," or "I believe that the 'new morality' of sions. The Cholesky decomposition is a completely sat
permissiveness is no morality at all." urated model that serves two separate purposes. First, it
identifies the level on which personality traits and politi
Measuring Political Attitudes. Consistent with our
cal attitudes covary. Second, it serves as a baseline model
conceptualization of ideology as a set of interrelated atti
that can be used in hypothesis testing for more parsimo
tudes, we specified a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)
nious models. Finally, we conduct a direction of causation
to capture three latent attitudinal dimensions from a
(DoC) analysis to explicitly test whether the covariance
Wilson-Patterson (1968) inventory: social attitudes (e.g.,
between the personality traits and the political attitudes
Gay Rights, Abortion), economic attitudes (e.g., For
is best captured by a model where personality traits cause
eign Aid, Federal Housing), and defense/military atti
political attitudes, where political attitudes cause person
tudes (e.g., The Draft, Military Drill; see online Appendix
ality traits, where reciprocal causation between the two
1 ), with higher scores indicating the more conservative re
constructs exists, or where a correlational relationship
sponse. These dimensions loosely reflect the classic social,
provides the best fit to the data.
fiscal, and foreign policy ideological dimensions of the
We restrict our analyses to the substantively mean
American electorate (Converse 1964; Conover and Feld
ingful relationships identified in the previous stages. This
man 1981, 1984; McClosky and Zaller 1982). As political
stage of the analysis uses only the 2,665 pairs of monozy
ideology has a multifaceted structure that can be obscured
gotic (MZ) twins and 3,083 pairs of dizygotic (DZ) twins,
by focusing on a unitary Left-Right dimension (Treier and
with the knowledge that more extensive extended kinship
Hillygus 2009), this measurement strategy allows us to ex
models have provided similar estimates to twin-only de
amine the specific ideological subfactors rather than over
signs with regard to political attitudes (Eaves and Hatemi
whelm the reader with the relationship between the per
2008; Hatemi et al. 2010) and personality traits (Eaves
sonality traits and all of the individual political attitudes.
et al. 1999). Due to known sex differences in both vari
ance components models (Hatemi, Medland, and Eaves
Confirmatory Factor Analysis Model Fit Indices. A 2009) and phenotypic assessments (Shapiro and Mahajan
CFA was used to estimate seven latent factors: four per 1986) for political attitudes, we estimate models for males
sonality factors (P, Extraversion, Neuroticism, and So and females separately.
Table 1 Correlations between Personality Variables and Political Attitudes for Females and Males
Neuroticism Ρ Extraversion Social Desirability

Females Military 0.101 0.302 -0.069 -0.074
Social -0.016 0.383 0.136 -0.335
Economic -0.242 -0.142 0.074 -0.205
Males Military 0.141 0.388 -0.070 -0.062
Social -0.050 0.292 0.095 -0.255
Economic -0.239 -0.253 0.080 -0.143
Note: The boldfaced correlations are those large enough for further consideration. Correlations are taken from the
with all twins and relatives (N = 28,877). Respondents were excluded if they had a nonresponse rate of 20% or highe
Correlations between Personality Traits

or more "liberal" economic policies rather than "liberal"
and Ideological Dimensions social policies.2
There is also a substantively interesting relationship
The correlations between the latent personalitybetween
traitsSocial
andDesirability and social ideology, which is
ideological dimensions are presented in Tablelarger
1. Itfor
is females
im (rfemaies = -0.335; rmaies = -0.255).
portant to note that there are only a few substantively
This facet of personality is highly context dependent,
significant correlations. Based on the inherent and
difficultly
therefore we can only speculate on this relationship,
in reliably disentangling variance components if theour
though pheresults are consistent with other conceptually
notypic relationship between traits is small,similar
we pursue
findings. During the same time period in nation
the connection between personality traits and ally
ideological
representative samples, in several other attitude do
dimensions if the effect size is in the medium to liberal
mains, largeresponses were also seen as more socially
range for both sexes (if the correlation for both sexes is
desirable (Kinder and Sears 1981). Thus, it appears that
above 0.20; Cohen 1988). people who are motivated to present themselves in a so
There are several correlations that merit further at
cially desirable light also present themselves as socially
tention. First, in line with our expectations, higher Ρliberal. This is only the second study we are aware of
scores correlate with more conservative military atti to explore the relationship between any ideological di
tudes and more socially conservative beliefs for both fe mension and social desirability, yet the findings replicate
males and males. For males, the relationship betweenthe Verhulst, Hatemi, and Martin (2010) study on an
Ρ and military attitudes (r = 0.388) is larger thanAustralian population.
the relationship between Ρ and social attitudes (r = The analysis above extends the existing personal
0.292). Alternatively, for females, social attitudes correlate
ity and politics literature in several important ways. In
more highly with Ρ (r = 0.383) than military attitudesline with our expectations, Ρ (positively related to tough
(r = 0.302). mindedness and authoritarianism) is associated with so
Further, we find a negative relationship between Neu cial conservatism and conservative military attitudes. In
roticism and economic conservatism (rfemaies = —0.242,
triguingly, the strength of the relationship between Ρ and
''males = —0.239). People higher in Neuroticism tend topolitical ideology differs across sexes. P's link with so
be more economically liberal. What is intriguing aboutcial conservatism is stronger for females while its link
this relationship is that it is in the opposite direction of with military attitudes is stronger for males. We also find
what past theories would predict (Fromm 1947; Wilsonindividuals higher in Neuroticism are more likely to be
1973), but consistent with more recent evidence (Gerber
et al. 2010; Van Hiél, Pandelaere, and Duriez 2004; Ver2 Evidence from the authoritarianism literature suggests that so
hulst, Hatemi, and Martin 2010). That is, neurotic people cial threats activate latent authoritarian predispositions, resulting
in more conservative behaviors and preferences in those high in
are more likely to support public policies that provide
authoritarianism when they are threatened (Duckitt 1989; Stenner
aid to the economically disadvantaged (public housing,2005). The person-situation interaction cannot be tested with our
foreign aid, immigration, etc). Moreover, Neuroticism is data. However, our findings are not necessarily inconsistent with
unrelated to social ideology (rfemaie = —0.016, rmaie =this expectation as they suggest an interaction between a person
and his or her immediate environment. Specifically, filling out a
—0.050). This finding suggests that neurotic individuals survey is unlikely to create the levels of anxiety necessary to activate
cope with their anxiety by supporting a "social safety net"any latent predisposition.
Table 2 Univariate Variance Components Analyses for Personality Traits and Ideologica
Dimensions
Males Females
a2 c2 e2 a2 c2 e2
Ρ 0.379 0.094 0.527 0.395 0.102 0.503
(0.21,0.52) (0.00, 0.24) (0.48,0.58) (0.28, 0.51) (0.00, 0.20) (0.47, 0.54)
Extraversion 0.455 0.000 0.545 0.512 0.000 0.488
(0.35, 0.50) (0.00, 0.09) (0.50, 0.60) (0.48, 0.54) (0.00, 0.02) (0.46, 0.52)
Neuroticism 0.377 0.000 0.623 0.366 0.008 0.550
(0.22, 0.43) (0.00, 0.133) (0.57, 0.68) (0.25, 0.48) (0.00, 0.19) (0.52,0.59)
Social Desirability 0.265 0.200 0.535 0.401 0.140 0.459
(0.09, 0.44) (0.04, 0.35) (0.49, 0.59) (0.29, 0.51) (0.04, 0.24) (0.43, 0.49)
Social 0.352 0.232 0.417 0.320 0.363 0.317
(0.21,0.50) (0.10, 0.36) (0.38, 0.46) (0.24,0.41) (0.28, 0.44) (0.30, 0.34)
Economic 0.322 0.228 0.450 0.401 0.167 0.432
(0.17,0.48) (0.09, 0.36) (0.41,0.50) (0.30, 0.51) (0.07, 0.26) (0.40, 0.46)
Military 0.443 0.031 0.526 0.302 0.082 0.616
(0.27, 0.52) (0.00, 0.18) (0.48,0.58) (0.18,0.42) (0.00, 0.19) (0.58, 0.65)
Notes: Maximum likelihood-based 95% confidence intervals are presented in parentheses. Italicized entries are not statistically significan
at conventional levels.
economically liberal. Furthermore, Neuroticism is com components models were estimated in OpenMx (Boker
pletely unrelated to social ideology, which has been the et al. 2010) using a maximum-likelihood estimator. We
focus of many in the field. Finally, those higher in Social estimate the full model with all three components (ACE)
Desirability are also more likely to express socially liberal and allow the variance components to differ across the
attitudes. sexes. The model-fitting results are presented in online
Appendix 3.
Consistent with our expectations and nearly all other
behavior genetic studies of personality traits, the best
Variance Components Analysis
model for Extraversion, Neuroticism, and Ρ is one that
In the second stage of our analysis, we decompose the partitions the variance into additive genetic and unique
variance of the individual personality traits and ideologenvironment components for both sexes. The common
ical dimensions into three separate sources of variance: environment is not significant in any of these variables
additive genetic, common environment, and unique en (Table 2). This reduced model is typically referred to as
vironment. The additive genetic factor (A) is the sum of an AE model, as the C parameter drops out of the model
the linear additive influence of all individual genes on due to a lack of statistical significance.
the dimensions. The common or shared environmental The only personality trait that deviates from this
factor (C) accounts for systematic attempts at socializa
trend is Social Desirability. Social Desirability is character
ized by large genetic and unique environmental variance
tion, within-family similarity in environment, and com
mon social background (e.g., family income, neighbor components; however, there is also a significant, though
more subtle, common environmental influence.
hood, etc). The unique environment factor (E) represents
unique, random, idiosyncratic environment influences For political attitudes, the results are notably dif
ferent. For the social and economic dimensions, the
that are not shared by members of the same family (for
a detailed explanation of the methodology and theory,
best-fitting model is the full model of additive genetic,
common environmental, and unique environmental
along with limitations and criticisms, see Medland and
Hatemi 2009). influences (ACE). There are sizable additive genetic
The results of the variance components estimates components and substantial common environmental
for the individual personality traits and ideological components
di to the attitudes, suggesting that individual
differences in these attitude constructs are a mixture of
mensions are presented in Table 2. All of the variance
genetic, shared, and unique environmental components. We first examine the relationship between Ρ and the
In contrast, military attitudes display a pattern of trans social ideology dimension. The standardized path coeffi
mission similar to that of personality traits (AE), suggest cients are presented in the top-left panel of Figure 2. As
ing that attitudes toward the military are a function of can be seen, the relationship between Ρ and social ideol
what is learned through unique environmental (nonfa ogy is primarily a function of a common latent additive
milial) influences and genetic transmission, more so than genetic factor. Specifically, the path from A| to social at
any common environmental influences. titudes is significantly larger than the path from Ej to
social attitudes. Importantly, the vast majority of the ge
netic variance in social ideology is not shared with P, as
Cholesky Decomposition can be seen by the large path coefficient from A2 to social
ideology. Accordingly, although the relationship between
The preceding steps lay the foundation for the exami
Ρ and social ideology is primarily a function of a common
nation of the relationships between the specific variance
additive genetic variance, the majority of the additive ge
components of personality traits and political ideologies.
netic variance in social ideology remains unaccounted for
Specifically, we seek to identify what part of the relation
after accounting for the covariance with P. Moreover, ap
ship between personality and political attitude dimen
proximately two-thirds of the phenotypic correlation is a
sions are due to shared genes or shared environments and
function of common genetic variance.
by doing so, gain insight into the potential for, or lack of,
As can be seen in the top-right panel of Figure 2,
a causal relationship between the two constructs.
a similar pattern of findings emerges for Ρ and military
To explore this relationship, we utilize a common
attitudes. There is a meaningful path between A| and
multivariate genetic technique called the Cholesky de
military attitudes and a smaller path from E¡ to military
composition.3 The Cholesky builds on the univariate ACE
attitudes, suggesting the majority of the relationship be
model by simultaneously decomposing the variance of
tween the two dimensions is a function of additive genetic
multiple traits into additive genetic, common environ
variance shared between the two traits. Importantly, there
ment, and unique environment variances and explores
are very strong residual paths from A2 and E2 to military
the amount of the relationship between the personality
attitudes, again suggesting a large amount of indepen
trait and the political attitude factor that can be accounted
dence between the traits. Thus, approximately 60% of the
for by each level of variance. The bivariate Cholesky de
relationship between Ρ and military attitudes is driven by
composition estimates six latent factors (A1; Q, and E],
common genetic factors.
and A2, C2, and E2). The estimation procedure ensures
The bottom-left panel of Figure 2 presents the anal
that all variance in the personality trait as well as all of the
ysis for Social Desirability and social ideology. In this
covariance between the personality trait and the political
analysis, the paths from A! and E¡ to social ideology are
attitude dimension loads on the first factor (e.g., A1} Q,
relatively small, suggesting the genetic and unique en
or Ei), and the residual variance in the political attitude
vironmental influences are not significantly shared for
loads on the second factor (e.g., A2, C2, or E2). Thus, the
these traits. Thus, the relationship between Social Desir
cross-over pathways, A[2, Q2, or E)2, determine the extent
ability and social ideology seems to be primarily a func
to which the correlation between the personality traits and tion of the common environmental variance shared be
the political attitude is a function of common additive ge
tween these two traits. This is compatible with theoretical
netic variance, common shared environmental variance,
implications of Social Desirability, as it is not generally
or common unique environmental variance. A relatively
considered a core personality trait. This is an important
large coefficient for the crossover pathways would suggest
finding, as it differs from any other result on personality
that the correlation between a personality trait and an at
and political preferences.
titude is primarily a function of additive genetic variance,
Finally, the relationship between Neuroticism and
shared environmental, or unique environmental variance,
economic ideology is very similar to the relationship for
respectively.4
Ρ and ideological dimensions. The Αχ cross-path is sub
3 The Cholesky decomposition is a saturated model and can be stantively meaningful while the Ei cross-path is not, sug
mathematically transformed in a number of different ways thatgesting that the relationship between Neuroticism and
may be easier to interpret for some readers. Two transformations
economic liberalism is primarily a function of shared
are presented in online Appendix 4: the proportion of variance
accounted for by genetic and environmental components and the genetic variance, with approximately two-thirds of the
genetic and environmental correlations.
4 For multivariate Cholesky decompositions, the ordering of itemsconcern for bivariate analyses, as the model fit and covariance are
can be important (Loehlin 1996). The order of variables is less of aequivalent regardless.
Figure 2 Cholesky Decompositions for the Moderate and Strong Relationships betwe
Personality Traits and Attitudes
Proportion of the Correlation shared by Proportion of the Co

Correlation A C E Correlation ACE
Males .36 .64 .36 Males .52
Females .46 .69 .31 Females .40
Proportion of the Correlation shared by Proportion of the Correlation shared by

Correlation A C E Correlation ACE
Males -.27 .29ns .42 .29 Males -.31 .66 .34
Females -.37 .41 .40 .19 Females -.29 .63 .37
Note: To simplify the path diagrams, models are presented for one twin only, with the standard CTD assumptions. The coefficients
presented in the path diagram are standardized coefficients and the coefficients for females are in bold. An ns indicates that the path
is not significant. Variances of the latent variables are constrained to unity. The embedded tables indicate the phenotypic correlations
and the proportions of the correlation that are accounted for by the additive genetic (A), common (C), and unique environmental (E)
variance components, respectively.
correlation being a function of additive genetic covari the environment is moderating the impact of personality
ance in both sexes. Again, the loadings of and to on their political attitudes (pathway C), as these path
economic ideology are strong and consistent for both ways imply that the predominant source of covariance
males and females, suggesting that the constructs are sub between personality and attitudes would be localized in
stantively distinct. the environmental variance components.
Overall, the Cholesky decompositions provide sev The results so far suggest that the relationship be
eral important insights into the broad understanding of tween personality traits and political attitudes is more
the relationship between personality traits and political likely a function of a common set of genes shared between
attitudes. First, the vast majority of genetic variance in po the personality traits and the political attitudes (depicted
litical attitudes is not accounted for by the covariance with in the right panel of Figure 1). These results imply that
the personality dimensions, underscoring the distinctive the current understanding of the relationship between
ness between the constructs. This suggests pathway A in personality and political attitudes needs revision. Strictly
Figure 1 is unlikely to be true. Second, because the major speaking, however, the Cholesky decomposition does not
ity of the relationship between attitudes and personality is test causation. Rather, the Cholesky decomposition is a
localized in the additive genetic variance component, it is fully saturated model and cannot disentangle whether the
also unlikely that people are selecting into environments phenotypic relationship between the personality traits
based on their personality which subsequently foster the and the political attitudes is causal or what direction
development of political attitudes (pathway B) or that that causality flows, should it be present. It remains
BRAD VERHULST, LINDON J. EAVES, AND PETER K. HATEMl
possible, though implausible, that personality traits could DoC model compares the cross-twin cross-trait covari
cause people to develop political attitudes, even though ance with the two products of the cross-twin within
the variance between the personality traits and the so trait covariance with the within-person cross-trait. If
cial attitudes was primarily shared at the additive genetic the pattern of cross-twin cross-trait covariance mimics
level. To examine the causal structure that exists between the product of cross-twin personality covariance and the
personality traits and political attitudes, therefore, we es within-person personality and attitudes covariance, then
timate a direction of causation (DoC) model. the best-fitting model will suggest that personality causes
people to develop their political attitudes. If the cross
twin cross-trait covariance corresponds with the product
The Direction of Causation Model
of cross-twin attitudes covariance and the within-person
personality and attitudes covariance, then the best-fitting
The final analyses explicitly test the possibility of causal
relationships between the personality traits and model politi will suggest that attitudes cause people to develop
their personality. If both products correspond with the
cal attitudes. The DoC model explores the four scenarios
cross-twin cross-trait covariance, causality cannot be de
which may underlie the association between personality
termined,
traits and political attitudes. The first possibility is the uni suggesting a correlation rather than causation
directional causal model where the variation in personal (Heath et al. 1993). As such, the DoC model has the most
power
ity traits drives the variation in political attitudes. This is to detect causality when the pattern of phenotypic
what is implied by the causality assumption. The second transmission is clearly distinct and becomes more diffi
cult as the pattern of transmission becomes more similar.
possibility points the causal arrow in exactly the opposite
Figure 3 presents the best-fitting DoC models for
direction: the set of genes that influence variation in po
each of the relationships discussed above, with the com
litical attitudes in turn leads to variation in personality
traits. The third possibility is reciprocal causation, wheremodel-fitting results presented in Table 3. As can be
plete
seen in Figure 3, the model that best captures the covari
personality traits and political attitudes have a nonrecur
ance
sive causal structure. The final possibility is pleiotropy orstructure of the data for both Ρ and social ideology
and Neuroticism and economic ideology is the reverse
a common set of genes that influences both personality
causation
traits and political attitudes. This is essentially what is model where the political attitude causes the
personality trait. Thus, in direct contrast with the exist
suggested by the Cholesky results presented above (Neale
ing assumption regarding the causal ordering of political
and Cardon 1992). To evaluate the models, we compare
the model fit of the two unidirectional DoC models and attitudes and personality traits, across two completely in
the reciprocal causation model against the fully saturateddependent analyses, the causal ordering appears to be the
Cholesky models. To satisfy both the explanatory and complete opposite of what is typically assumed.
parsimony criteria, each DoC model is compared with The relationship between Social Desirability and so
the saturated Cholesky using a Likelihood Ratio test. Ac cial ideology is more complex. In this case, the best-fitting
cordingly, the model that fits the data best is the modelmodel is the reciprocal causation model with a nega
where the exclusion of an additional parameter does not tive feedback loop. Because the phenotypic correlation is
decrease the overall fit of the model (and therefore doesnegative, the product of the two pathways must also be
not fit the data worse than the saturated model). negative, which is precisely what we find. Here, socially
To determine which causal direction best fits the liberal attitudes causally result in more social desirability
data, the DoC model leverages the genetic relatednessresponses,
of as can be seen with the strong negative causal
pathway. This strong negative causal effect is dampened by
individuals within the same family to parse the causal
structure between personality traits and politicala atti
weaker, though significant, positive causal effect flowing
in the opposite direction.
tudes by utilizing the cross-twin cross-trait covariance
to determine the causal direction.5 Mathematically, theThe DoC analysis for the relationship between Ρ and
military attitudes supports a correlational, not causal, re
lationship. Specifically, because both constructs have an
5 To identify the model, it must be specified in terms of phenotypic
causality. Thus, strictly speaking, we cannot directly test whether
AE structure, the reciprocal causality DoC model and the
the genetic components of personality traits cause the genetic com
Cholesky have the same degrees of freedom, and the DoC
ponents of the political attitudes, or vice versa, but rather whether
model
personality traits at the phenotypic level cause political attitudes at is unable to accurately estimate a reciprocal causa
tion model. In this case, both of the unidirectional models
the phenotypic level or the reverse. Because the previous analyses
suggest that relationships between the personality traits and the
fit the data significantly worse than the Cholesky. There
political attitudes are primarily a function of additive genetic vari
ance, it is reasonable to suggest that what causality may be fore,
found the model that most accurately fits the data is one
is primarily a function of additive genetic variance as well. with a common latent additive genetic factor accounting
Figure 3 Best-Fitting Direction of Causation Models for the Moderate and Strong Relation
between Personality Traits and Attitudes
Note: The path diagrams are for the best-fitting models. To simplify the path diagrams, models are presented for one tw
the standard CTD assumptions. The coefficients presented in the path diagram are standardized coefficients, and the coe
females are in bold. An ns indicates that the path is not significant at the 95% level.
for the relationship between the two constructs. from

In other
any personality theory (Bouchard et al. 1990). Thus,
it seems reasonable that the pattern of genetic and envi
words, it is more plausible that the relationship between
ronmental
Ρ and military attitudes is indicative of a common causal relationships between political attitudes and
mechanism, or pleiotropy, rather than a sequential chain
other personality traits will likely mimic the relationships
of causality. presented here.
The final criticism of the current analyses is that all
the traits we have utilized have some level of measure
Limitations
ment error and if the errors in measurement are larger in
One potential criticism is the focus on Eysenck'sone
pervariable, the results may be biased (as is the case with
measurement error in predictor variable in an ordinary
sonality traits, instead of the more common Five-Factor
least squares regression). In the DoC model, the causal
Model. Eysenck's personality theory, however, has been
pathway from the variable with more measurement er
examined in tandem with a variety of other personality
ror to the variable with less measurement error will be
theories, and the relationships between Eysenck's con
attenuated.
structs and the core constructs of the Five-Factor Model of We have attempted to minimize the impact
of measurement error on our results by using confirma
personality is well established (Eysenck 1992). Eysenck's
Neuroticism and Extraversion are effectively the same toryas factor analysis to predict factor scores rather than
those in the FFM, while Ρ is a complex combination constructing
of simple additive scales or individual items.
the remaining three FFM personality traits. More im Although the use of factor scores minimizes errors in
measurement,
portantly, the transmission of Eysenck's core personality it does not negate the problem of mea
surement error entirely.
traits is essentially the same as nearly all other constructs
Table 3 Direction of Causation Model-Fitting Results

Males Females
Estimated LR Test LR Test

Model Parameters Statistic df Probability Statistic df Probability
Ρ and Social Atts Cholesky 11 - - - - - -
10 1.14
Reciprocal 1 0.29 0 1 0.94 Ca
Personality Causes Attitudes 9 13.06 2 0 104.76 2 0
Attitudes Cause Personality 9 2.97 2 0.23 0.15 2 0.93
Ρ and Military Cholesky 11 - - - - - -
Attitudesa3
9 20.34
Personality 2 0 13.04 2 0 C
Attitudes Cause Personality 9 21.26 2 0 49.86 2 0
Social Cholesky 11 - - - - - -
Desirability
Reciprocal
10 1.64 1 0.2 1.91 1 0.17 C
and Social 9 19.64 2 0 126.39 2 0
Personality Causes Attitudes
Attitudes 9 9.87 2 0.01 37.49 2 0
Attitudes Cause Personality
Neuroticism and Cholesky 11 - - - - - -
Economic 10 1.82 1 0.18 1.06 1 0.3

Reciprocal Causation
Attitudes 9 25.24 2 0 21.02 2 0
Personality Causes Attitudes
Attitudes Cause Personality 9 3.79 2 0.15 3.74 2 0.15
Note: The best models are presented in bold. LR test denotes the likelihood ratio test, df indicate degrees of freedom, and probability
is the probability of improved model fit as a function of the inclusion of an additional parameter. aThe reciprocal causation model has
psychoticism and military attitudes as fatal identification issues because both variables have AE modes of transmission. This results in the
reciprocal causation model having the same number of estimated parameters as the Cholesky.
Discussion cal attitude dimensions, but expands on the literature

by grouping the individual attitudes into ideological di
mensions
Although the causal relationship between personality and which roughly reflect those established in the
political ideology has been assumed by many, and the Although the common environment was gen
literature.
erally unimportant for personality traits, it did account
heritability of both personality traits and political orien
for a significant amount of variance in the social and
tations has been established, to our knowledge this is the
economic ideological dimensions.
first attempt to systematically examine the casual relation
These analyses provide the backdrop for the more
ship between the genetic influences on political ideology
and personality traits as we have done here. pivotal third and fourth sets of analyses: the examination
of the relationship between personality traits and political
In the first stage of our analysis, we demonstrated
attitudes. These analyses show that the majority of covari
that there are several substantively significant relation
ance between personality and attitudes was due to shared
ships between the personality traits and political ideology
genetic variance, while the relationship between the id
dimensions. Most notably, Ρ is substantially correlated
iosyncratic
with conservative military and social attitudes, while So environmental components of politics and
cial Desirability is related to liberal social attitudes, personality
and was notably smaller. Furthermore, the major
Neuroticism is related to liberal economic attitudes. Our ity of genetic influence on attitudes was not explained by
the genetic influence on personality traits. In total, the
findings at the phenotypic level are highly consistent
with similar explorations in an Australian populationCholesky analyses validate the possibility of an alterna
(Verhulst, Hatemi, and Martin 2010). tive relationship between personality traits and political
The second stage of our analyses replicates the find attitudes, whereby a latent common genetic factor drives
ings of substantial genetic and unique environmentalthe development of both personality traits and political
attitudes.
influence on personality traits as well as the ideologi
ness di
The fourth and final analysis explicitly tests the has been described as the readiness to re-examine
rection of the causal arrows. In two situations, the causal
traditional social, religious, and political values (Moutafi,
arrow flows from political attitudes to personalityFurnham,
traits, and Crump 2006; Zimprich, Allemand, and
Dellenbach 2009). That is, personality psychologists con
contrary to the assumed causal hypothesis. In another,
there is reciprocal causation with the dominant arrow
sider political values part of one's personality, and not
again flowing from attitudes to personality. In theindependent
last sit constructs. However, this understanding is
uation, the relationship is correlational. In no case
oftendoes
missing in the current literature. This might be due
the data support that the direction of causation in (DoC)
part to the use of abbreviated scales. The values di
flows from personality traits to political attitudes.mension in the original 244-item NEO-PI-R explicitly
measures political values (McRae and Costa 1987). Due
These findings directly challenge the causal pathway
to 2010;
assumed in the extant literature (e.g., Gerber et al. the length of the scale and copyrights placed on it,
Mondak et al. 2010). Rather than personality traits
other personality psychologists have reduced the factors
into scales that do not include all the subfactors theorized
causing people to develop liberal or conservative political
by McCrae and Costa. However, the reduced measures
attitudes, the current results suggest two alternative
relationships. First, the combined Cholesky andof Openness
DoC were designed to capture the variance in
the original Openness super-factor, which contained the
analyses suggest that a common set of genes mutually
influences personality traits and political attitudes,
explicit political values subdimension. As such, because
implying the relationship between personality and values are viewed as a subcomponent of Open
political
ness
politics is a function of an innate common genetic and not as an independent factor, political attitudes
factor
should
rather than a sequential personality to politics model (seebe viewed as part and parcel of the same latent
the right panel of Figure 1). The results from construct.
the DoC From this perspective, when it comes to Open
ness predicting
analysis also suggest an alternative causal model. That is, political attitudes, researchers have been
not only comparing apples to apples, but predicting an
the latent set of genes shared between political attitudes
and personality traits directly influences attitudes
apple and
with the same apple.
indirectly influences personality traits. In other words, believe that while ideological and attitudinal di
We
the genetic component of political attitudes partially
mensions are correlated with personality traits and share
certain
mediates the genetic influence on personality traits. Thiselements, the two constructs are also conceptually
and statistically distinct. The correlations between the
finding is completely opposite from the basic assumption
in the most recent literature (e.g., Gerber et al. 2010;
items within the ideological or trait dimensions are much
Mondak et al. 2010). Thus, it appears the genetic
higher than the correlations between the items across the
dimensions.
component of political attitudes measured relatively later Furthermore, the majority of the variance on
in an individual's life contributes to the development
everyof
level was not shared between the personality traits
andview,
an individual's personality along the way. In this the political attitudes (the residual variance compo
nents in Figures 2 and 3 were very large), suggesting that
attitudes are more than what is expressed in adulthood,
each and
but part of one's disposition which guides behavior construct is unique. Thus, the two constructs are
undeniably related, but not necessarily in the assumed
selection into environments, which later are recognized
and measured as attitudes in adulthood. Regardless
causal manner. Rather, what is shared between person
of whether the final analysis supports a latentality
genetic
traits and attitudes is most likely due to a common
source of covariance or a mutual causal structure, both
underlying genetic influence.
Based
perspectives require a major revision to the prevailing as on the current results, the claim that personal
ity
sumptions about political attitudes and personality traits lead to political orientations should no longer be
traits.
assumed, but explicitly tested for each personality and
political trait prior to making any claims about their
relationship. We recognize that no single analysis can
Implications
provide a definitive answer to such a complex question,
Personality psychologists have long held the view that and our analysis did not include the Agreeableness, Con
political attitudes are part of a person's personality. The scientiousness, and Openness Five-Factor Model mea
Openness dimension of the Five-Factor Model was ex sures. Future studies which use different personality mea
plicitly designed to include a values dimension to capture sures, or other methodological designs, including panel
moral beliefs and include attitudinal content that resem studies that examine the developmental trajectories of
bles political conservatism (Costa and McCrae 1995a; Van personality and attitudes from childhood to adulthood,
Heil, Kossowska, and Mervielde 2000). This part ofOpen would be invaluable for investigating more nuanced
relationships between personality traits and political atTimothy Brick, and Michael Spiegel. 2010. OpenMx: The
titudes. These would also include models which captureOpenMx Statistical Modeling Package. R package version
1.0.3.
the nonrandom selection into environments that foster
Bouchard, Thomas J., Jr, David T. Lykken, Matthew McGue,
the development of more liberal or conservative political
Nancy L. Segal, and Auke Tellegen. 1990. "Sources of Human
attitudes (active gene-environment covariation) as well Psychological Differences: The Minnesota Study of Twins
as the possibility for differential expression of personalityReared Apart." Science 250(4978): 223-28.
traits and political attitudes at different stages of the devel
Bouchard, Thomas J., and Matt McGue. 2003. "Genetic and
opmental process that may illuminate "critical periods"Environmental Influences on Human Psychological Differ
for the interface of personality and attitudes. ences." Journal of Neurobiology 54(1): 4-45.
Buss, David M. 1999. "Human Nature and Individual Differ
ences: The Evolution of Human Personality." In Handbook
of Personality: Theory and Research, 2nd ed., ed. Lawrence A.
Conclusion Pervin and Oliver P. John. New York: Guilford Press, 31-56.
Campbell, Angus, Philip E. Converse, Warren E. Miller, and
Donald E. Stokes. 1960. The American Voter. New York: John
Researchers in personality and politics have assumed
Wiley & Sons.
a causal link between personality traits and political
Caprara, Gian V., and Daniel Cervone. 2000. Personality: Deter
ideology. The results presented here do not support this
minants, Dynamics and Potentials. Cambridge: Cambridge
assumption. Rather, the primary connection between
University Press.
personality traits and political ideology rests on common
Carey, Gregory. 2003. Human Genetics for the Social Sciences.
genetic precursors of each. At this stage of research,
Los Angeles: Sage.
we find no support for the reigning assumptionCarney,
that Dana R., John T. Jost, Samuel D. Gosling, and Jeff
personality traits cause people to develop political
Potter. 2008. "The Secret Lives of Liberals and Conser
vatives: Personality Profiles, Interaction Styles, and the
attitudes. Our results imply that humans are, at heart,
Things They Leave Behind." Political Psychology 29(6):
political animals. Political attitudes are not simply 807-40.
an
afterthought and while largely measured in adulthood,
Cattell, Raymond B. 1957. Personality and Motivation Structur
the foundation elements exist as part of our core
and Measurement. Yonkers-on-Hudson, NY: World Book.
disposition and appear to be just as important to shaping
Cohen, Jacob. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral
our behavior as our personalities. Sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum.
Coles, Robert. 1986. "The Political Life of Children." New York:
Atlantic Monthly Press.
Conover, Pamela J., and Stanley Feldman. 1981. "The Origins
References
and Meaning of Liberal Conservative Self-Identifications."
American Journal of Political Science 25(4): 617-45.
Adorno, Theodor W., Else Frenkel-Brunswik, Daniel J. Conover, Pamela J., and Stanley Feldman. 1984. "How People
Levinson, and R. Nevitt Sanford. 1950. The Authoritarian Organize the Political World: A Schematic Model." American
Personality. New York: Harper and Row. Journal of Political Science 28(1): 95-126.
Alford, John R., Carolyn L. Funk, and John R. Hibbing. Converse, Philip. 1964. "The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass
2005. "Are Political Orientations Genetically Transmitted?" Publics." In Ideology and Discontent, ed. David E. Apter.
American Political Science Review 99(2): 153-67. New York: Free Press, 206-61.
Altemeyer, Robert. 1996. The Authoritarian Specter. Cambridge, Costa, Paul T., Jr., and Robert R. McCrae. 1995a. "Domains
MA: Harvard University Press. and Facets: Hierarchical Personality Assessment Using the
Alwin, Duane F., Ronald L. Cohen, and Theodore M. Revised NEO Personality Inventory." Journal of Personality
Assessment 64(1): 21-50.
Newcomb. 1991. Political Attitudes over the Lifespan: The
Bennington Women after Fifty Years. Madison: UniversityCosta,
of Paul T., Jr., and Robert. R. McCrae. 1995b. "Primary
Wisconsin Press.
Traits of Eysenck's P-E-N System: Three- and Five-Factor
Avia, M. D., J. Sanz, M. L. Sánchez-Bernardos, M. R. Martínez Solutions." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 69(2) :
Arias, F. Silva, and J. L. Graña. 1995. "The Five-Factor Model 308-17.
li. Relations of the NEO-PI with Other Personality Vari Duckitt, John. 1989. "Authoritarianism and Group Identifica
ables." Personality and Individual Differences 19(1): 81-97.
tion: A New View of an Old Construct." Political Psychology
Bandura, Albert. 2001. "Social Cognitive Theory: An Agentic 10(1): 63-84.
Perspective." Annual Review of Psychology 52(1): 1-26. Duffy, David L., and Nicholas Martin. 1994. "Inferring the Di
Block, Jack, and Jeanne H. Block. 2006. "Nursery School Person rection of Causation in Cross-Sectional Twin Data: Theo
ality and Political Orientation Two Decades Later." Journal retical and Empirical Considerations." Genetic Epidemiology
of Research in Personality 40(5): 734-49. 11(6): 483-502.
Boker, Steven, Michael Neale, Hermine Maes, Paras Metah, Eaves, Lindon J., and Hans J. Eysenck 1974. "Genetics and the
Sarah Kenny, Timothy Bates, Ryne Estabrook, Jeffrey Spies, Development of Social Attitudes." Nature 249: 288-89.
netics
Eaves, Lindon J., Hans J. Eysenck, and Nicolas G. Martin. 1989.of Voting: An Australian Twin Study." Behavior Ge
Genes, Culture and Personality: An Empirical Approach.netics
Lon37: 435-48.
don: Academic Press.
Heath, A. C., R. C. Kessler, M. C. Neale, L. J. Eaves, and K. S.
Eaves, Lindon J., and Peter K. Hatemi. 2008. "Transmission of Kendler. 1993. "Testing Hypotheses about Direction of Cau
Attitudes toward Abortion and Gay Rights: Parental Social sation Using Cross-Sectional Family Data."Behavior Genetics
ization or Parental Mate Selection?" Behavior Genetics 38: 23: 29-50.
247-56.
Hess, Robert D., & Judith V. Torney. 1967. The Development of
Eaves, Lindon, Andrew Heath, Nicholas Martin, Hermine Maes,
Political Attitudes in Children. Chicago: Aldine.
Michael Neale, Kenneth Kendler, Katherine Kirk, and Linda
Howarth, E. 1986 "What Does Eysenck's Psychoticism Scale
Corey. 1999. "Comparing the Biological and Cultural In Measure?" British Journal of Psychology 77(2): 223-27.
Really
heritance of Personality and Social Attitudes in the Virginia
Jennings, M. Kent, and Gregory B. Markus. 1984. "Partisan
30,000 Study of Twins and Their Relatives." Twin Research
2: 62-80. Orientations over the Long Haul: Results from the Three
Wave Political Socialization Panel Study." American Political
Eysenck, Hans J. 1954. The Psychology of Politics. London:Science Review 78(4): 1000-1018.
Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Jennings, M. Kent, and Richard G. Niemi. 1981. Generations
Eysenck, Hans J. 1967. The Biological Basis of Personality.and Politics: A Panel Study of Young Adults and Their Parents.
Springfield, IL: CC Thomas. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Eysenck, Hans J. 1984. "H. J. Eysenck, Cattell and the Theory Jost,
of John. 2006. "The End of the End of Ideology." American
Personality." Multivariate Behavioral Research 19: 323-36. Psychologist 61(7): 651-70.
Eysenck, Hans J. 1992. "A Reply to Costa & McCrae: Ρ orJost,A John, Jack Glaser, Arie W. Kruglanski, and Frank J.
and C—The Role of Theory." Personality and IndividualSulloway. 2003. "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social
Differences 13(8): 867-68. Cognition." Psychological Bulletin 129(3): 339-75.
Eysenck, Hans J., and Michael W. Eysenck. 1985. Personal Keller, Matthew C., Sarah E. Medland, and Laramie Duncan.
ity and Individual Differences: A Natural Science Approach. 2009. "Are Extended Twin Family Designs Worth the Trou
New York: Plenum.
ble? A Comparison of the Bias, Precision, and Accuracy of
Eysenck, Hans J., and S. B. G. Eysenck. 1991. Manual of the Parameters Estimated in Four Twin Family Models." Behav
Eysenck Personality Scales. London: Hodder and Stroughton. ior Genetics 40(3): 377-93.
Francis, Leslie J., Laurence B. Brown, and Paul R. Pearson. 1991.
Kinder, Donald R., and David Sears. 1981. "Prejudice and Pol
"The Dual Nature of the EPQ Lie Scale among University itics: Symbolic Racism versus Racial Threats to the Good
Students in Australia." Personality and Individual Differences Life." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 40(3):
12(10): 989-91. 414-31.
Fromm, Erich. 1947. Man for Himself: An Inquiry into the PsyKlemmensen, Robert, Sara Binzer Hobolt, and Asbjorn Sonne
chology of Ethics. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Norgaard. 2010. "The Determinants of Political Participa
Gerber, Alan S., Gregory A. Huber, David Doherty, Conor M. tion: Exploring the Interaction between Genes and the En
Dowling, and Shang E. Ha. 2010. "Personality and Politi vironment." Article presented at the American Political Sci
cal Attitudes: Relationships across Issue Domains and Po ence Association, Washington, DC.
litical Contexts." American Political Science Review 104(1):Kline, Paul, and Colin Cooper. 1984. "A Factorial Analysis of
111-33. the Authoritarian Personality." British Journal of Psychology
75(2): 171-76.
Goldberg, Lewis R., and Tina K. Rosolack. 1992. "The Big-Five
Factor Structure as an Integrative Framework: An Empirical
Larstone, Roseann M., Kerry L. Jang, W. John Livesley, Philip A.
Comparison with Eysenck's P-E-N Model." In The Develop Vernon, and Heike Wolf. 2002. "The Relationship between
ing Structure of Temperament and Personality from Infancy Eysenck's
to P-E-N Model of Personality, the Five-Factor Model
Adulthood, ed. C. F. Halverson, G. A. Kohnstamm, and R.of P. Personality, and Traits Delineating Personality Dysfunc
Martin. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 7-35. tion." Personality and Individual Differences 33(1): 25-37.
Loehlin,
Hatemi, Peter K., Carolyn Funk, Sarah E. Medland, Hermine H. John C. 1992. Genes and Environment in Personality
Maes, Nicholas G. Martin, and Lindon J. Eaves. 2009. "Ge
Development. London: Sage.
netic Influences on Social Attitudes over the Life Course."
Loehlin, John C. 1996. "The Cholesky Approach: A Cautionary
Journal of Politics 71(3): 1141-56. Note." Behavior Genetics 26(1): 65-70.
Hatemi, Peter K., John R. Hibbing, Sarah E. Medland, Matthew Martin N. G., L. J. Eaves, A. C. Heath, Rosemary Jardine, Lynn
C. Keller, John R. Alford, Kevin B. Smith, Nicholas G. Martin,
M. Feingold, and H. J. Eysenck. 1986. "Transmission of Social
and Lindon J. Eaves. 2010. "Not by Twins Alone: Using the Attitudes." Proceedings for the National Academy of Sciences
Extended Twin Family Designed to Investigate the Genetic 83(June): 4364-68.
Basis of Political Beliefs." American Journal of Political Science
McClosky, Herbert, and John Zaller. 1984. The American Ethos.
54(3): 798-814.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hatemi, Peter K., Sarah E. Medland, and Lindon J. Eaves. 2009.
McCourt, Kathryn, Thomas J. Bouchard Jr., David T. Lykken,
"Genetic Sources for the Gender Gap?" Journal of Politics
Auke Teilegen, and Margaret Keyes. 1999. "Authoritarianism
71(1): 262-76.
Revisited: Genetic and Environmental Influences Examined
Hatemi, Peter K., Sarah E. Medland, Katherine I. Morley, in Twins Reared Apart and Together." Personality and Indi
Andrew C. Heath, and Nicholas G. Martin. 2007. "The Ge
vidual Differences 27(5): 985-1014.
McCrae, Robert R. 1996. "Social Consequences of ExperientialOld Age: A Quantitative Review of Longitudinal Studies."
Openness." Psychological Bulletin 120(3): 323-37. Psychological Bulletin 126(1): 3-25.
McCrae, Robert R., and Paul T. Costa Jr. 1985. "Comparison
Rokeach, Milton. 1960. The Open and Closed Mind. New York:
of EPI and Psychoticism Scales with Measures of the FiveBasic Books.
Factor Model of Personality." Personality and Individual Dif
Saggino, Aristide. 2000. "The Big Three or the Big Five? A
ferences 6(5): 587-97. Replication Study." Personality and Individual Differences
McCrae, Robert R„ and Paul T. Costa Jr. 1987. "Validation 28(5): 879-86.
of the Five-Factor Model of Personality across Instruments
Sanford, Nevitt. 1973. "Authoritarian Personality in Contem
and Observers." Journal of Personality and Social Psychologyporary Perspective." In Handbook of Political Psychology, ed.
52(1): 81-90. J. N. Knutson. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 139-70.
McCrae, Robert R., Paul T. Costa Jr., Fritz Ostendorf, Alois
Shapiro, Robert Y., and Harpreet Mahajan. 1986. "Gender Dif
Angleitner, Martina Hrebícková, Maria D. Avia, Jesús Sanz,ferences in Policy Preferences: A Summary of Trends from
Maria L. Sánchez-Bernardos, M. Ersin Kusdil, Ruth Wood
the 1960s to the 1980s." Public Opinion Quarterly 50(1):
field, Peter R. Saunders, and Peter B. Smith. 2000. "Na 42-61.
ture over Nurture: Temperament, Personality, and Life Span
Stenner, Karen. 2005. The Authoritarian Dynamic. London:
Development." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Cambridge University Press.
78(1): 173-86.
Medland, Sarah E., and Peter K. Hatemi. 2009. "Political Sci Torney-Purta, Judith. 2004. "Adolescents' Political Socialization
in Changing Contexts: An International Study in the Spirit
ence, Biometrie Theory and Twin Studies: A Methodological
of Nevitt Sanford." Political Psychology 25(3): 465-78.
Introduction." Political Analysis 17(2): 191-214.
Torney-Purta, Judith, and Jo-Ann Amadeo. 2003. "A Cross
Mischel, Walter. 1968. Personality and Assessment. New York:
National Analysis of Political and Civic Involvement
Wiley.
among Adolescents." PS: Political Science and Politics 36(2):
Mischel, Walter, and Shoda, Yuichi. 1998. "Reconciling Process 269-74.
ing Dynamics and Personality Dispositions." Annual Review
Treier, Shawn, and D. Sunshine Hillygus. 2009. "The Nature of
of Psychology 49(February): 229-58.
Political Ideology in the Contemporary Electorate." Public
Mondak, Jeffery J., and Karen D. Halperin. 2008. "A Framework Opinion Quarterly 73(4): 679-703.
for the Study of Personality and Political Behaviour." British
Van Hiel, Alain, Malgorzata Kossowska, and Ivan Mervielde.
Journal of Political Science 38(2): 335-62.
2000. "The Relationship between Openness to Experience
Mondak, Jeffery J., Matthew V. Hibbing, Damarys Canache, and Political Ideology." Personality and Individual Differ
Mitchell A. Seligson, and Mary R. Anderson. 2010. "Person ences 28(4): 741-51.
ality and Civic Engagement: An Integrative Framework for
Van Hiel, Alain, Mario Pandelaere, and Bart Duriez. 2004. "The
the Study of Trait Effects on Political Behavior." American
Political Science Review 104(1): 85-110. Impact of Need for Closure on Conservative Beliefs and
Racism: Differential Mediation by Authoritarian Submis
Moore, Robin C. 1986. Childhood's Domain: Play and Place in sion and Authoritarian Dominance." Personality and Social
Child Development. London: Croom Helm. Psychology Bulletin 30(7): 824-37.
Moutafi, Joanna, Adrian Furnham, and John Crump. 2006. Verhulst, Brad, Peter K. Hatemi, and Nicolas G. Martin. 2010.
"What Facets of Openness and Conscientiousness Predict "Personality and Political Attitudes." Personality and Indi
Fluid Intelligence Score?" Learning and Individual Differ vidual Differences 49(4): 306-16.
ences 16(1): 31-42.
Wilson, Glen D. 1973. The Psychology of Conservatism. London
Neale, Michael C., and Lon R. Cardon. 1992. Methodology for Academic Press.
Genetic Studies of Twins and Families. Dordrecht, Nether
lands: Kluwer Academic.
Wilson, Glen D., and A. H. Brazendale. 1973. "Social Attitude
Correlates of Eysenck's Personality Dimensions." Social Be
Persson, Mikael. 2010. "Reconsidering the Role of Education havior and Personality 1(2): 115-18.
in Political Socialization: Results from a Panel Study." Pre
Wilson, Glen D., and John R. Patterson. 1968. "A New Mea
sented at the annual meeting of the International Society of
sure of Conservatism." British Journal of Social and Clinical
Political Psychology, San Francisco.
Psychology 7(4): 264-69.
Pervin, A. Lawrence, and John P. Oliver. 1999. Handbook of
Winter, David G., and Nicole B. Barenbaum. 1999. "History of
Personality: Theory and Research. 2nd ed. New York: Guilford
Press. Modern Personality Theory and Research." In Handbook of
Personality: Theory and Research, 2nd ed., ed. Lawrence A.
Rawlings, David, Fionnuala Twomey, Elizabeth Burns, and Pervin and Oliver P. John. New York: Guilford Press, 3-27.
Sharon Morris. 1998. "Personality, Creativity, and Aes
Young, Philip Α., Lindon J. Eaves, and Hans J. Eysenck. 1980.
thetic Preference: Comparing Psychoticism, Sensation Seek
"Intergenerational Stability and Change in the Causes of
ing Schizotypy, and Openness to Experience." Empirical
Variation in Personality." Journal of Personality and Individ
Studies of the Arts 16(2): 153-78.
ual Differences 1(1): 5-55.
Ray, John J. 1972. "Militarism, Authoritarianism, Neuroti
Zimprich, Daniel, Mathias Allemand, and Myriam Dellenbach.
cism, and Antisocial Behavior." Journal of Conflict Resolution
16(3): 319-40. 2009. "Openness to Experience, Fluid Intelligence, and
Crystallized Intelligence in Middle-Aged and Old
Roberts, Brent W, and Wendy F. DelVecchio. 2000. "The Rank Adults." Journal of Research in Personality 43:
Order Consistency of Personality Traits from Childhood to 444-54.
Zuckerman, Marvin, D. Michael Kuhlman, Jeffrey Joireman,Table Al: Tests of Model Fit
Paul Teta, and Michael Kraft. 1993. "A Comparison of Table
ThreeA2: Confirmatory Factor Analysis for Eysenck
Structural Models for Personality: The Big Three, the Big
Personality Traits
Five, and the Alternative Five." Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology 65(4): 757-68. Table A3: Standardized Factor Loadings for the Di
mensions of Political Ideology
Table A4: Univariate Variance Components Model
Supporting Information Fitting Results for Personality Traits
Table A5: Univariate Variance Components Model
Additional Supporting Information may be found in the
Fitting Results for the Ideological Dimensions
online version of this article:
Please note: Wiley-Blackwell is not responsible for the
Online Appendix 1: Wilson-Patterson Attitude
contentIn
or functionality of any supporting materials sup
ventory plied by the authors. Any queries (other than missing
Online Appendix 2: Confirmatory Factor Analysis material) should be directed to the corresponding author
Online Appendix 3: Univariate Model-Fitting Re for the article.
sults

Midwest Political Science Association American Journal of Political Science

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Midwest Political Science Association American Journal of Political Science

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Correlation not Causation: The Relationship between Personality Traits and Political

political attitudes has been found to be largely a function

situations ignoring specific situational pressures (Ban

DelVecchio 2000; Young, Eaves, and Eysenck 1980).tent,

Figure 1 Theoretical Models Underlying Two Hypothesized Relationships

The Assumed Causality Model The Common Cause Model

Finally, the Social Desirability scale measurescial

component. Analyses. We present our analyses in four stages. First,

Neuroticism Ρ Extraversion Social Desirability

Correlations between Personality Traits

Ρ 0.379 0.094 0.527 0.395 0.102 0.503

Proportion of the Correlation shared by Proportion of the Co

Proportion of the Correlation shared by Proportion of the Correlation shared by

for the relationship between the two constructs. from

Table 3 Direction of Causation Model-Fitting Results

Estimated LR Test LR Test

Attitudes Cause Personality 9 2.97 2 0.23 0.15 2 0.93

Ρ and Military Cholesky 11 - - - - - -

Neuroticism and Cholesky 11 - - - - - -

Economic 10 1.82 1 0.18 1.06 1 0.3

Discussion cal attitude dimensions, but expands on the literature

You might also like