Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T15:09:02.028Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 3 - From Big Ben to the Breakfast Table

Basic Values and Political Attitudes among Politicians and the Public

from Part I - Of the People

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 February 2022

By
James Weinberg
Edited by
Ashley Weinberg
Ashley Weinberg
Affiliation:
University of Salford
Get access

Summary

Representative democracy relies on those willing and able to put themselves forward for political office. Equally, elections involve a drastic transfer of democratic power from the many to the few, deciding ‘who’ has that power, but not necessarily ‘what’ is done with it. The latter may well depend on the personal predispositions and desires of those who seek a political career. Existing research suggests that political aspirants are not only a tiny minority of the population, but also distinct in their personality characteristics by comparison to those they govern or seek to govern. Reviewing and building upon this literature, this chapter draws on original data from political elites and members of the UK public to understand how the unique psychologies of politicians might also precipitate and explain differences and similarities between their political opinions and those of citizens. This chapter finds (a) personality predispositions represented as basic values share meaningful relationships with political attitudes, (b) politicians and candidates differ from the public in their basic values, (c) basic values have a stronger effect upon political attitudes among elites than masses, but (d) the explanatory potential of a predisposition model is improved by accounting for partisan conflict and socio-demographic factors.

Keywords

PoliticiansPersonalityBasic ValuesPolitical OpinionRepresentationAttitudes
Type
Chapter
Information
Psychology of Democracy
Of the People, By the People, For the People
 , pp. 52 - 83
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barbaranelli, C., Caprara, G. V., Vecchione, M. and Fraley, C. R. (2007). Voters’ personality traits in presidential elections. Personality and Individual Differences, 42, 1199–1208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bardi, A. and Schwartz, S. H. (2003). Values and behaviour: Strength and structure of relations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(10), 1207–1220.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barenbaum, N. B. and Winter, D. G. (2008). History of modern personality theory and research. In John, O. P., Robins, R. W. and Pervin, L. A. (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (3rd ed.) (pp. 3–26). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Benoit, K. and Laver, M. (2006). Party policy in modern democracies. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Best, H. (2011). Does personality matter in politics? Personality factors as determinants of parliamentary recruitment and policy preferences. Comparative Sociology, 10, 928–948.Google Scholar
Best, H. and Vogel, L. (2018). Representative elites. In Best, H., Daloz, J. P., and Hoffman-Lange, U.. (Eds.), Palgrave handbook of political elites (pp. 339–357). London: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bilsky, W., Janik, M. and Schwartz, S. H. (2011). The structural organization of human values-evidence from three rounds of the European Social Survey (ESS). Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42(5), 759–776.Google Scholar
Binmore, K. (2009). Rational decisions. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Borg, I. (2019). Age- and gender-related differences in the structure and the meaning of personal values. Personality and Individual Differences, 138, 336–343.Google Scholar
Caprara, G. V., Francescato, D., Mebane, M., Sorace, R. and Vecchione, M. (2010). Personality foundations of ideological divide: A comparison of women Members of Parliament and women voters in Italy. Political Psychology, 31, 739–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caprara, G. V., Schwartz, S., Capanna, C., Vecchione, M. and Barbaranelli, C. (2006). Personality and politics: Values, traits, and political choice source. Political Psychology, 27(1), 1–28.Google Scholar
Caprara, G. V. and Zimbardo, P. (2004). Personalizing politics: A congruency model of political preference. American Psychologist, 59, 581–594.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cervone, D. (2005). Personality architecture: Within-person structures and processes. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 423–452.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cieciuch, J., Schwartz, S. H. and Vecchione, M. (2013). Applying the refined values theory to past data: What can researchers gain? Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 44(8), 1215–1234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Converse, P. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In Apter, D. E. (Ed.). Ideology and discontent (pp. 206–261). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Cunningham, J. and Moore, M. K. (1997). Elite and mass foreign policy opinions: Who is leading this charade? Social Science Quarterly, 78(3), 641–656.Google Scholar
Dean, J. and Maiguashca, B. (2020). Did somebody say populism? Towards a renewal and reorientation of populism studies. Journal of Political Ideologies, 25(1), 11–27. doi: 10.1080/13569317.2020.1699712Google Scholar
Dye, T. R. and Ziegler, H. (1978). The irony of democracy. Boston, MA: Duxbury.Google Scholar
Federico, C. M. (2015). The structure, foundations, and expression of ideology. In Berinsky, A. (Ed.), New directions in public opinion (2nd ed.) (pp. 81–103). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Feldman, S. (2003). Values, ideology, and structure of political attitudes. In Sears, D. O., Huddy, L. and Jervis, R. (Eds.), Oxford handbook of political psychology (pp. 477–508). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gerber, A. S., Huber, G. A., Doherty, D., Dowling, C. M. and Ha, S. (2010). Personality and political attitudes: Relationships across issue domains and political contexts. American Political Science Review, 104, 111–133.Google Scholar
Hanania, R. (2017). The personalities of politicians: A Big Five study of American legislators. Personality and Individual Differences, 108, 164–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatemi, P. K. and McDermott, R. (2011). Man is by nature a political animal: Evolution, biology and politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Huddy, L., Sears, D. and Levy, J. (Eds.) (2013). Oxford handbook of political psychology. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Johnston, C. D., Lavine, H. G. and Federico, C. M. (2017). Open versus closed: Personality, identity, and the politics of redistribution. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Joly, J., Soroka, S. and Loewen, P. (2019) Nice guys finish last: Personality and political success, Acta Polit, 54, 667–683, doi:10.1057/s41269–018-0095-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jost, J. T. (2006). The end of the end of ideology. American Psychologist, 61, 651–670.Google Scholar
Jost, J. T., Federico, C. M. and Napier, J. L. (2009). Political ideology: Its structure, functions, and elective affinities. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 307–337.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W. and Sulloway, F. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 339–375.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kelsen, H. (1992). Introduction to the problems of legal theory. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Kinder, D. R. (1998). Communication and opinion. Annual Review of Political Science, 1, 167–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinder, D. R. and Kalmoe, N. P. (2017). Neither liberal nor conservative: Ideological innocence in the American public. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lavine, H., Johnston, C. and Steenbergen, M. (2012). The ambivalent partisan. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leeper, T. J. and Slothuus, R. (2014). Political parties, motivated reasoning, and public opinion formation. Political Psychology, 35(1), 129–156.Google Scholar
Lupia, A., McCubbins, M. and Popkin, S. L. (Eds.) (2000). Elements of reason. Cognition, choice and the bounds of rationality. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
May, J. (1973). Opinion structure of political parties: The special law of curvilinear disparity. Political Studies, 21(2), 135–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McAdams, D. P. and Pals, J. L. (2006). A new Big Five: Fundamental principles for an integrative science of personality. American Psychologist, 61, 204–217.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCloskey, H. (1964). Consensus and ideology in American politics. American Political Science Review, 58, 361–382.Google Scholar
McGraw, K. M. (2000). Contributions of the cognitive approach to political psychology. Political Psychology, 27(4), 805–832.Google Scholar
Näsström, S. (2015). Democratic representation beyond election. Constellations, 22(1), 1–12. doi:10.1111/1467-8675.12123Google Scholar
Nørgaard, A. S. and Klemmensen, R. (2018). The personalities of Danish MPs: Trait- and aspect-level differences. Journal of Personality, 87(2), 267–275. doi:10.1111/jopy.12388Google Scholar
Opp, K. (2017). Rational choice theory and methodological individualism. In Kivisto, P. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of social theory (pp. 1–23). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pacheco, G. and Owen, B. (2015). Moving through the political participation hierarchy: A focus on personal values. Applied Economics, 47(3), 222–238.Google Scholar
Page, B. I. and Shapiro, R. Y. (1983). Effects of public opinion on policy. American Political Science Review, 80, 1249–1270.Google Scholar
Parks-Leduc, L., Feldman, G. and Bardi, A. (2015). Personality traits and personal values: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19(1), 3–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peffley, M. and Rohrschneider, R. (2003). Democratization and political tolerance in seventeen countries: A multilevel model of democratic learning. Political Research Quarterly, 56(3), 243–257.Google Scholar
Piurko, Y., Schwartz, S. H. and Davidov, E. (2011). Basic personal values and the meaning of left-right political orientations in 20 countries, Political Psychology, 32, 537–561.Google Scholar
Riemann, R., Grubich, C., Hempel, S., Mergl, S. and Richter, M. (1993). Personality and attitudes towards current political topics. Personality and Individual Differences, 15, 313–321.Google Scholar
Roccas, S., Sagiv, L., Oppenheim, S., Elster, A. and Gal, A. (2014). Integrating content and structure aspects of the self: Traits, values, and self-improvement. Journal of Personality, 82(2), 144–157.Google Scholar
Sagiv, L. and Roccas, S. (2017). What personal values are and what they are not: Taking a cross-cultural perspective. In Roccas, S. and Sagiv, L. (Eds.), Values and behaviour: Taking a cross-cultural perspective (pp. 3–13). New York: Springer International Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandy, C. J., Gosling, S. D., Schwartz, S. H. and Koelkebeck, T. (2017). The development and validation of brief and ultrabrief measures of values. Journal of Personality Assessment, 99(5), 545–555.Google Scholar
Saroglou, V. and Munoz-Garcia, A. (2008). Individual differences in religion and spirituality: An issue of personality traits and/or values. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 43, 83–101.Google Scholar
Saward, M. (2010). The representative claim. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Saward, M. (2006). The representative claim. Contemporary Political Theory, 5(3), 297–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoen, H. and Schumann, S. (2007). Personality traits, partisan attitudes, and voting behaviour: Evidence from Germany. Political Psychology, 28, 471–498.Google Scholar
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theory and empirical tests in 20 countries. In Zanna, M. (Ed.). Advances in experimental social psychology. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Schwartz, S. H., Melech, G., Lehmann, A., Burgess, S., Harris, M. and Owens, V. (2001). Extending the cross-cultural validity of the theory of basic human values with a different method of measurement. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32(5), 519–542.Google Scholar
Scott, C. and Medeiros, M. (2020). Personality and political careers: What personality types are likely to run for office and get elected? Personality and Individual Differences, 152. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2019.109600Google Scholar
Sniderman, P. M. (2000). Taking sides: A fixed choice theory of political reasoning. In Lupia, A., McCubbins, M. D. and Popkin, S. L. (Eds.), Elements of reason (pp. 1–20). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Sniderman, P. M., Brody, R. A. and Tetlock, P. E. (1991). Reasoning and choice. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sood, G. and Iyengar, S. (2014). All in the eye of the beholder: Partisan affect and ideological accountability. Unpublished manuscript [Online]. Available at: www.gsood.com/research/papers/inNout.pdf [Accessed: 14 February 2018].Google Scholar
Tiberj, K. and Kerrouche, E. (2013). Up and down, old and new: Values and value systems of MPs and voters in France. The Journal of Legislative Studies, 19(2), 160–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vecchione, M., Schwartz, S., Caprara, G., Schoen, H., Cieciuch, J., Silvester, J., Bain, P., Bianchi, G., Kirmanoglu, H., Baslevent, C., Mamali, C., Manzi, J., Pavlopoulos, V., Posnova, T., Torres, C., Verkasalo, M., Lönnqvist, J., Vondráková, E., Welzel, C. and Alessandri, G. (2015). Personal values and political activism: A cross-national study. British Journal of Psychology, 106(1): 84–106.Google Scholar
Verplanken, B. and Holland, R. W. (2002). Motivated decision making: Effects of activation and self-centrality of values on choices and behaviour. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(3), 434–47.Google Scholar
Weinberg, J. (2020a). Who wants to be a politician? Basic values and candidate emergence in the United Kingdom. British Journal of Political Science, 51(4), 1565–1581. doi:10.1017/S0007123419000814Google Scholar
Weinberg, J. (2020b). Who enters politics and why? Basic human values in the UK Parliament. Bristol: Bristol University Press.Google Scholar
Weinberg, J. (2019). The winner takes it all? A psychological study of political success among UK Members of Parliament. Parliamentary Affairs, 73(4), 711–733. doi:10.1093/pa/gsz017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaller, J. R. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×