PSYC 305A:

Personality Psychology
Week 10: Personality as Lived Experience II
Friedrich M. Götz, Ph.D.
Yilin Guo
Gordon Heltzel
Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia
Welcome Back
 Today’s Learning Goals
• (1) Consider geographical personality differences
across various constructs, countries, and spatial levels
• (2) Learn about the causes of geographical personality
differences
• (3) Discuss the societal and individual consequences
of geographical personality differences

3
Geographical Personality Differences?

4
Science or Stereotype?

5
Science or Stereotype?

6
Science or Stereotype?

7
Science or Stereotype?

8
Science or Stereotype?

9
Science or Stereotype?

10
Science or Stereotype?

11
Science or Stereotype?

12
The Rise of Big Data

13
 Regional Personality Differences
Across the United States
Openness
to
Experience

Jason Rentfrow
N = 619,397 14
Rentfrow et al., 2008
 The Big Five Across the United States

15
N = 3,387,303; Ebert et al., 2021
 High
Low

16
N = 513,224; Götz et al., in prep
 Courage Across the United States
High
Low

17
N = 513,224; Götz et al., in prep
18
19
 Loneliness Across Germany
High
Low

20
N = 17,602; Buecker et al., 2021
 The Dark Triad Across Japan

Machiavellianism Narcissism Psychopathy

High
Low

21
N = 51,426; Götz et al., in prep
 Life Satisfaction Across Canada

22

N > 500,000; Helliwell et al., 2019

 Personality Across London

23
N = 56,019; Jokela et al., 2015
 Openness Across New York

High
Low

24
N = 51,426; Ebert et al., in prep
 Openness Across New York
Net of Ethnicity, Income, Gender, Age, & Education
High
Low

25
N = 51,426; Ebert et al., in prep
Causes of Regional Personality Differences?

26
 3 Causes of Regional Personality
Differences
• Selective migration
• Open and extraverted people are more likely to move to cities (Jokela, 2020;
Jokela et al., 2008; Yoshino & Oshio, 2022)
• Conservatives are more likely to move to rural areas (Jokela, 2022)
• Sociocultural influence
• People living in former frontier regions (Mountain West, Hokkaido) are
more independent, resilient, and socially withdrawn (Götz et al., 2020;
Kitayama et al., 2006, 2010)
• Ecological influence
• People living in more clement climates are more extraverted and open (Wei 27

et al., 2017)
Consequences of Regional Personality
Differences?

28
 Societal Consequences
• Political
• More open regions vote liberal (Garretsen et al., 2018; Rentfrow, 2010)
• More conscientious regions vote conservative (Rentfrow, 2010)
• More neurotic regions show greater support for Trump (Talaifar et al, 2022)
and Brexit (Obschonka et al., 2018)
• Economic
• More open regions show more economic resilience (Garretsen et al., 2020),
innovation (Mewes, 2019) and higher median income (Rentfrow et al., 2015)
• More courageous regions have higher start-up foundation – and failure
rates (Ebert et al., 2019)
• More agreeable regions face greater financial hardship (Matz & Gladstone,
29
2020)
 Societal Consequences – Ct’d
• Social
• More agreeable regions have more social capital and less crime (Rentfrow, 2010;
Rentfrow et al., 2008, 2015)
• More extraverted regions have more social capital and more crime (Rentfrow,
2010; Rentfrow et al., 2008)
• More neurotic regions show diminished work satisfaction, lower volunteering
rates and decreased social capital (McCann, 2017, 2018; Rentfrow, 2010)

30
 Societal Consequences – Ct’d
• Health
• More neurotic regions show higher prevalence of cancer, Alzheimer’s, obesity,
chronic disease (McCann, 2011,2014, 2019, 2020; Rentfrow et al., 2008), but fewer
Covid-19 cases and deaths (Peters et al., 2023)
• More conscientious regions have lower cancer mortality, heart disease morality
and fewer long-term health problems (Rentfrow et al., 2015)
• More open regions had higher infection- and death rates in the initial stages of
Covid-19, but also showed faster and stronger behavioural responses to it (i.e.,
reduced mobility; Peters et al., 2023)

31
 Individual Consequences
• Regional personality determines individual
• Emotions (e.g., well-being; Stavrova, 2015)
• Behaviours (e.g., personal spending; Ebert et al., 2021)
• Cognitions (e.g., faking intentions at job interviews;
Schilling et al., 2020)

above and beyond individual personality

32
Regional Personality Spending Behavior Individual Personality
(N = 368,375) (N = 31,915,942) (N = 1,716)
 Person-Environment-Fit
• Person-environment-fit hypothesis:
living in an environment that matches one’s own profile provides
better chances to satisfy one’s psychological and physical needs and
– in turn – flourish (Fulmer et al., 2010)

• Empirical support:
• Higher congruence between individual personality and average
personality of the surroundings is associated with greater
subjective well-being, self-esteem, relationship satisfaction
(Bleidorn et al., 2016; Du et al., 2023; Götz et al., 2018; Jokela et al., 2015)
• Lower congruence is related to difficult relationships and
33
decreased sense of belonging (Chopik & Motyl, 2016; Motyl et al., 2014)
 Person-Environment-Fit
• Religious people live longer – but only in religious counties

34
Ebert et al., 2020
Due TOMOROW (11.59pm, Canvas):
Personal Reflection
In your own words, summarise the 3 most important points that you take
away from this week's lectures on national and regional cultural variation in
personality.

35
THANK YOU! That’s all for today!
Enjoy the rest of your day and see
you on Friday!

36