"Unlike previous elections, fear and worry played a heavy hand in both the 2016 Donald Trump and "Brexit" elections, changing the script on how personality shapes political behavior, according to an international psychological study on voting behavior.
Research has long established that political attitudes are associated with the Big Five personality traits. For example, prior studies show low openness and high conscientiousness to be related to conservativism. But in 2016, two campaigns built on populist themes of fear, lost pride and loss aversion awoke previously uninfluential traits, particularly those of anxiety, anger and fear -- all of which are aspects of the Big Five trait of neuroticism.
The study, conducted by researchers from Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Ilmenau University of Technology, University of Cambridge, the London School of Economics and Political Science, Melbourne University and The University of Texas at Austin, was published in Social Psychological and Personality Science in March.
"The models traditionally used for predicting and explaining political behavior did not capture an essential factor that influenced people's voting decisions in 2016," said lead author Martin Obschonka, a psychologist and associate professor in entrepreneurship at QUT. "We propose a kind of "sleeper effect." Under normal conditions these traits have no influence, but in certain circumstances, widespread anxiety and fear in a region have the potential to profoundly impact the geopolitical landscape."
Using personality data from 417,217 British and 3,167,041 United States participants, researchers tested regional levels of fear, anxiety and anger, comparing them to the traits historically correlated with political orientation (openness and conscientiousness) to measure the link between regional psychological climate and 2016 voting behavior. Regions were measured at the county-level in the U.S. and local authority district level in the U.K.
The researchers found correlations between higher levels of anxiety and fear in a region and both the Brexit and Trump votes, and an even stronger influence of such traits when considering Trump gains since the 2012 election, when Mitt Romney was the Republican candidate. The 50 U.S. counties with the highest levels of fear and anxiety showed a 9 percent increase, on average, in Republican votes from 2012 to 2016; whereas the 50 counties lowest on fear and anxiety showed a shift of only 2 percent. Similarly, the 50 U.K. districts with the highest levels of fear and anxiety demonstrated an average of 60 percent support for the Brexit, with the lowest 50 districts supporting Brexit at the 46 percent level.
"This finding supports our initial suspicion that the regions highest on neuroticism are particularly receptive to political campaigns that emphasize danger and loss and that previous campaigns have not tapped into these themes as strongly as we saw in 2016," said co-author and UT Austin psychology professor Sam Gosling.
Researchers also considered the role of region's industrial heritage, political attitude, racial composition, educational attainment and economic conditions. In England, rural areas and industrialized locations had both higher levels of anxiety or fear and Brexit votes. And in the U.S., these personality traits also predicted Trump support in battlefields such as Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Ohio, as well as the Midwestern "Rust Belt."
Higher population density, economic earnings, educational attainment and openness traits were negatively related to Brexit and Trump votes, while conscientiousness showed little to no effect in either case.
"Much as the consequences of a region's fearful or anxious tendencies may remain hidden until certain conditions are met, there may be other regional characteristics that have the potential to influence geopolitical events but the necessary conditions have not yet materialized," Gosling said."
"Top graph: Trump gains (= Gain in Republican two-party vote share between the 2012 and the 2016 election) across US counties. White areas are counties that were dropped because of too few observations in the personality data set. Bottom graph: Regional distribution of neuroticism across US counties. White areas are counties that were dropped because of too few observations in the personality data set.
Credit: Obschonka, Martin; Social Psychological and Personality Science"
SyneMar 20, 2018 04:18 AM (This post was last modified: Mar 20, 2018 06:38 AM by Syne.)
I guess I know why I didn't vote for Trump. I'd be interested to see these same results for the 2020 election.
I'd also like to see if anyone could tease apart the reaction to rhetoric from the independent fear of the alternative.
At least in the US, it was often more about stopping the alternative than anything promised.
YazataMar 20, 2018 06:03 AM (This post was last modified: Mar 20, 2018 06:07 AM by Yazata.)
The Australians and Brits who authored this junk science "study" (some of whom have probably never met a Trump supporter face-to-face) talk about 3 million US "participants", but 'participants' in what exactly? What is the source of this sample of theirs? How can they dismiss millions of people as "neurotic" without any of those people being individually examined and diagnosed by mental health professionals? On the basis of what?
"However it is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement"
American Psychiatric Association - Principles of Medical Ethics with Annotations Especially Applicable to Psychiatry
Similar dismissive remarks could easily be made about any of the icons of the left. Blacks persumably vote Democrat because they fear "racism". Feminists presumably vote Democrat because they fear "sexism". Jews have arguably leaned left for several generations because they fear the Christian majority. 'Black Lives Matter' was all about promoting blacks' fear of the police. Homosexuals vote Democrat because they fear normal people. And all the hysterical over-the-top talk before the election about Trump being a "fascist" was obviously an attempt to stoke left-voters' fear. And on and on...
In fact, the Democrats could be described as the coalition of the alienated: Feminists, racial and ethnic minorities, black-clad 'antifa', workers against the bosses, anyone with a grudge can join their club and demand "Change!" (What kind of change is never clear since they would probably never all agree on a single course of action, so best to keep that as vague as possible.) Not exactly non-neurotic...
None of this has anything to do with science. It's just intentionally provocative political rhetoric all dressed up in pseudo-academic drag.
Yeah, apparently at least 100 in each county, and who knows if that's representative in general (being an online personality test) or even of likely voters.
"The US personality data (N= 3,167,041 ) come from the Gosling - Potter Internet Project , collected between 2003 and 2015 and divided into 2,082 counties, with at least 100 participants in each."
- https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mar...ctions.pdf
These kinds of studies are too lazy and eager to publish to conduct their own controlled surveys.
YazataMar 20, 2018 04:53 PM (This post was last modified: Mar 20, 2018 05:20 PM by Yazata.)
(Mar 20, 2018 06:50 AM)Syne Wrote: "The US personality data (N= 3,167,041 ) come from the Gosling - Potter Internet Project , collected between 2003 and 2015 and divided into 2,082 counties, with at least 100 participants in each."
It appears to be one of those internet personality tests where respondents answer some questions in order to receive a free assessment of their "temperment". I'm frankly surprised that they got 3 million Americans to respond to it (though apparently the responses were collected over a 12 year span). So right out of the gate they are going to face serious questions about their sample and their research methodology.
The maps in the OP seem to be trying to argue for a correlation between 1. -- Movement from the Democratic column in 2012 to the Republican column in 2016 -- and 2. what they call "fear". We all know about the dangers of spurious correlations.
What's more, 1. isn't a measure of total Trump vote, but rather a measure of voters who voted for Obama in 2012 and then for Trump. That's why it's concentrated in the Midwest, where Trump broke through the vaunted 'blue wall' and picked up his electoral margin of victory. I'm sure that had Hillary won those states as she expected, we wouldn't be hearing anything today about their supposed higher "fear" scores.
If we look at the maps again, we see that the Great Plains seems to have very low "fear" scores. And this region is where Trump picked up some of his largest margins of victory. The difference here is that Obama didn't do well here in 2012 so there wasn't any big shift in voting behavior.
Regarding 2., their "fear" score, I'd like to know how they distinguish between 'concern' and 'dissatisfaction' on one hand, from 'fear' on the other. I'd like to see some indication of what the 'fear' (assuming it really exists) is supposedly fear of and whether it is justified. How are they distinguishing between reasonable, justifiable concern and fear that they allege is pathological and "neurotic"?
As I wrote in my last post, pretty much anyone who desires "Change!" (Obama's old slogan) can be said to be fearful of something (whatever they want changed).
"Civil rights" activists are fearful of "racism". Gay activists are fearful of "homophobia". Feminists are fearful of "sexism". And on and on... Seen from that perspective, fear's the name of the contemporary political game. It doesn't suddenly become clinical neurosis when the white Middle Class decide that they don't like the way things are heading and want "Change" too. They are just belatedly joining the alienated crowd and are behaving more like Democrats.
Quote:These kinds of studies are too lazy and eager to publish to conduct their own controlled surveys.
It's just aggressive and angry left-political rhetoric dressed in pseudo-academic drag, in this case trying to stigmatize political views that the authors loathe (and yes, presumably FEAR) as psychopathology.
Fear and Anxiety Drive Conservatives' Political Attitudes
Can brain differences explain conservatives' fear-driven political stances?
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/...-attitudes
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- An Analysis of Trump Supporters Has Identified 5 Key Traits
A new report sheds light on the psychological basis for Trump's support.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/...key-traits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Are Conservatives More Scared of Stuff Than Liberals?
https://www.thecut.com/2017/02/are-conse...erals.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why fear is more prevalent — and powerful — among conservatives
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-...6cc4b80fa1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Your Brain on Politics: The Cognitive Neuroscience of Liberals and Conservatives
I've been talking to MR for something like 20 years, dating back to Webtv back in the day. I've stuck my neck out on Sciforums several times to defend him when I thought that he was being unfairly attacked.
I believed he was my friend. Apparently I was wrong.
If Scivillage isn't going to be an enjoyable place to discuss interesting things with friends, if it's going to be divided like the rest of life by implacable political hatreds, then it no longer seems to have any value for me. For me, its value was mostly that it was a refuge from all of that.
Frankly, I'm not sure I whether I'm going to continue posting here at all.
(Mar 21, 2018 09:50 PM)Yazata Wrote: I've been talking to MR for something like 20 years, dating back to Webtv back in the day. I've stuck my neck out on Sciforums several times to defend him when I thought that he was being unfairly attacked.
I believed he was my friend. Apparently I was wrong.
If Scivillage isn't going to be an enjoyable place to discuss interesting things with friends, if it's going to be divided like the rest of life by implacable political hatreds, then it no longer seems to have any value for me. For me, its value was mostly that it was a refuge from all of that.
Frankly, I'm not sure I whether I'm going to continue posting here at all.
"I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend." - Thomas Jefferson
I've disagreed with MR on several occasions and on various subjects. He even told me to fuck off once. Is there something going on behind the scenes that I'm not aware of?
Mar 20, 2018 01:20 AM
(This post was last modified: Mar 20, 2018 01:56 AM by Magical Realist.)
![[Image: 180308190807_1_540x360.jpg]](https://www.sciencedaily.com/images/2018/03/180308190807_1_540x360.jpg)
