In an exploration of the intersection between personality and politics, a recent study published in the scientific journal Personality and Individual Differences reveals how our inherent traits might shape our reactions to political disagreements. The study found that traits like conscientiousness, extraversion, and agreeableness significantly influence how we handle conflicting political information — challenging previous assumptions about the role of openness in political engagement.
The study builds upon a rich background of research suggesting that personality impacts how people deal with conflict in social settings. The focus was on the Big Five personality traits: Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism. These traits have long been thought to influence our cognitive, behavioral, and emotional responses in various scenarios, including how we process information that contradicts our political beliefs. Previous studies have indicated that exposure to opposing political views, instead of fostering tolerance, often leads to resistance, which in turn could contribute to the polarization of political attitudes.
Researchers behind the study had an interest in understanding the nuances of how individual personality differences shape reactions to political disagreement. With the rise of political polarization and increasing avoidance of political engagement, they aimed to investigate how personality traits influenced the way individuals resist or engage with opposing political views. The study’s goal was to provide insights into the psychological mechanisms driving political discourse and engagement.
To test their hypotheses, the study employed an online survey involving 936 Swiss citizens, recruited through German panel provider Gapfish, during a referendum campaign on a “burqa ban” initiative. Participants averaged an age of 41 and were 54% female to 46% male. All participants first completed a questionnaire to assess their personality based on the Big Five traits — and were then exposed to counterarguments that challenged their initial stance on the referendum. The survey asked participants to report their cognitive, behavioral, and emotional responses to these counterarguments, allowing for a direct correlation between personality traits and specific resistance strategies in a real-world political context.
Contrary to expectations, openness did not significantly influence any of the resistance strategies. Conscientious individuals were less inclined to actively resist opposing political views, especially exhibiting lower levels of negative affect. Extraverts tended to reinforce their existing views, often seeking social validation, while agreeable individuals primarily used avoidance strategies and steered clear of confrontational information. Notably, those high in neuroticism exhibited strong emotional reactions, particularly negative, to oppositional political information.
However, the use of short forms of scales to assess resistance strategies might have impacted the validity of the constructs being measured. Additionally, the reliance on self-reported measures could introduce biases in the responses. The use of a 10-item personality inventory, while efficient, may not have captured the full complexity and subdimensions of the Big Five traits.
Moreover, focusing solely on resistance to opposing political views may have overlooked more positive or nuanced responses to such information. It’s also important to note that the specific context of the study – a Swiss referendum – might limit the generalizability of the findings to different cultural or political settings.
“From a broader societal perspective, this study can shed new light on the psychological mechanism related to political extremism, including recent events such as the violent occupation of government buildings in the US and Brazil. In a world increasingly defined by political contrasts and ideological oppositions, knowing why and under which conditions citizens resist incongruent political views likely matters for scholars, public officials, and democracy practitioners alike.”
