The Secret Lives of Liberals and Conservatives:Personality Profiles, Interaction Styles, and theThings They Leave Behind

Dana R. CarneyColumbia University

John T. JostNew York University

Samuel D. GoslingUniversity of Texas at Austin

Jeff PotterCambridge, Massachusetts

Although skeptics continue to doubt that most people are ideological, evidence sug-gests that meaningful left-right differences do exist and that they may be rooted in basicpersonality dispositions, that is, relatively stable individual differences in psychologicalneeds, motives, and orientations toward the world. Seventy-five years of theory andresearch on personality and political orientation has produced a long list of dispositions,traits, and behaviors. Applying a theory of ideology as motivated social cognition and aBig Five framework, we find that two traits, Openness to New Experiences and Con-scientiousness, parsimoniously capture many of the ways in which individual differencesunderlying political orientation have been conceptualized. In three studies we investigatethe relationship between personality and political orientation using multiple domainsand measurement techniques, including: self-reported personality assessment; nonverbalbehavior in the context of social interaction; and personal possessions and the charac-teristics of living and working spaces. We obtained consistent and converging evidencethat personality differences between liberals and conservatives are robust, replicable,and behaviorally significant, especially with respect to social (vs. economic) dimen-sions of ideology. In general, liberals are more open-minded, creative, curious, and

Political Psychology, Vol. 29, No. 6, 2008

807

0162-895X 2008 International Society of Political PsychologyPublished by Wiley Periodicals, Inc., 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA

novelty seeking, whereas conservatives are more orderly, conventional, and betterorganized.

KEY WORDS: Political orientation, Ideology, Liberalism, Conservatism, Personality, Openness,Conscientiousness, Nonverbal behavior

The individuals pattern of thought, whatever its content, reflects hispersonality and is not merely an aggregate of opinions picked up helter-skelter from the ideological environment.

(Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, & Sanford, 1950, p. 176)

Despite evidence of stark ideological polarization in American and Euro-pean politics (Abramowitz & Saunders, 2005; Bishop, 2004; Bobbio, 1996; Jost,2006), a number of sociologists, psychologists, and political scientists remainskeptical about the notion that most people are ideological in any stable, con-sistent, or profound sense (Baker, 2005; Bishop, 2005; Converse, 2000; Fiorina,Abrams, & Pope, 2006; McGuire, 1999; Zaller, 1992). There are several reasonsfor the skepticism, and many of these can be traced to theoretical and empiricalclaims first made in the 1950s and 1960s by Raymond Aron, Edward Shils,Daniel Bell, Seymour Lipset, and Philip Converse. These end-of-ideology pro-ponents argued that there were no major differences between the left and rightin terms of political content or psychological characteristics and that there wasno compelling cognitive or motivational structure to ideologies such as liberal-ism and conservatism. Jost (2006) reevaluated these skeptical claims and con-cluded that, although ordinary citizens may fail strict tests of ideologicalsophistication, most people can and do use ideological constructs such as liber-alism and conservatism meaningfully and appropriately and that they are indeedmotivated by ideological commitments that guide (or constrain) both attitudesand behaviors.

Skepticism about the role of ideology in everyday life persists at least in partbecause of the ambiguity and multiplicity of definitions of the term that pervadeboth popular and scientific discussions (Gerring, 1997; see also Jost, 2006, pp.652654). In this article, we conceptualize political ideology in terms of onesrelative position on an abstract left-right (or liberal-conservative) dimension that iscomprised of two core aspects that tend to be correlated with one another, namely:(a) acceptance versus rejection of inequality and (b) preference for social changevs. preservation of the societal status quo (see also Jost, Glaser, Kruglanski, &Sulloway, 2003a, 2003b; Jost, Nosek, & Gosling, 2008). The theoretical possibil-ity we investigate in this research program is that, as Tomkins (1963) argued longago, ideological differences between the left and right are partially rooted in basicpersonality dispositions. That is, ideology both reflects and reinforces individualdifferences in fundamental psychological needs, motives, and orientations towardthe world.

808 Carney et al.

Theories of Personality and Political Orientation

For almost as long as social scientists have located political orientation on asingle left-right (or, in the United States, a liberal-conservative) dimension, theyhave speculated about the personality characteristics that typify each ideologicalpole (e.g., Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, & Sanford, 1950; Constantini &Craik, 1980; DiRenzo, 1974; Eysenck, 1954; McClosky, 1958; Tomkins, 1963).As Tetlock and Mitchell (1993) have pointed out, it is possible to generate eitherflattering or unflattering psychological portraits at either end of the politicalspectrum. The important question, from a scientific point of view, is not whetherany given theory is gratifying to left-wing or right-wing audiences, but whether itpossesses truth value. Obtaining an accurate understanding of the personalityneeds and characteristics of liberals and conservatives has taken on added urgencyin the current political climate, in which people from liberal blue states find itincreasingly difficult to understand people from conservative red states and viceversa (see Abramowitz & Saunders, 2005; Bishop, 2004; Rentfrow, Jost, Gosling,& Potter, 2009).

In this article, we draw on eclectic sources of data to investigate the degree towhich historical speculations concerning the traits of liberals and conservativespossess genuine diagnostic utility, that is, empirical accuracy.1 We address threemain questions. First, does political orientation covary with basic psychologicaldimensions in the ways that have been suggested (but seldom comprehensivelyinvestigated) by theorists over the past several decades? Second, what, specifically,are the differences (as well as similarities) between liberals and conservatives interms of personality profiles and dispositions, and how strong are they? Third, ifthere are indeed meaningful psychological differences between liberals and con-servatives, how are they manifested in daily behavior?

Influential theories mapping personality profiles to political ideology weredeveloped by Fromm (1947, 1964), Adorno et al. (1950), Tomkins (1963), Brown(1965), Bem (1970), and Wilson (1973), among others. In this section, we reviewa number of these perspectives, which span the last 75 years. All of these theoriesassume that specific ideologies have for different individuals, different degrees ofappeal, a matter that depends upon the individuals needs and the degree to whichthese needs are being satisfied or frustrated (Adorno et al., 1950, p. 2). Althoughthe specific personality needs and characteristics under investigation (italicizedbelow) have varied somewhat across cultural contexts and historical periods, wewill show that the underlying contents identified by diverse theorists and observersconverge to a remarkable degree. Moreover, these characterizations are broadlyconsistent with a psychological theory of political ideology as motivated social

1 For purposes of simplicity in exposition we frequently use the categorical terms of liberalsand conservatives, although these labels refer to opposite poles of a single, underlying dimension,and our statistical analyses treat political orientation as a continuous variable (see also Fuchs &Klingemann, 1990; Jost, 2006; Knight, 1999).

809Liberals and Conservatives

cognition (Jost et al., 2003a, 2003b) and the hypothesis that dispositional (as wellas situational) differences in epistemic and existential needs to manage uncertaintyand threat are linked to individual preferences for liberalism versus conservatism(Jost et al., 2007).

Early Theories, 193055

Early accounts of personality differences between left-wingers and right-wingers focused largely on issues that would come to define the syndrome ofauthoritarianism. Roger Brown (1965) famously recounted the work of Nazipsychologist Erich Jaensch (1938), who proposed one of the first distinctionsbetween two personality types with clear political significance. The J-type, accord-ing to Jaensch, was predisposed to make a good Nazi: J made definite, unam-biguous perceptual judgments and persisted in them . . . [he] would recognize thathuman behavior is fixed by blood, soil, and national tradition . . . would be tough,masculine, firm; a man you could rely on (Brown, 1965, p. 478, emphasis added).By contrast, the S-Type was someone of racially mixed heredity and includedJews, Parisians, East Asians, and communists. As Brown observed:

The S-Type [described a] synaesthetic: one who enjoys concomitantsensation, a subjective experience from another sense than the one beingstimulated, as in color hearing. Synaesthesia, which we are likely toregard as a poets gift, seemed to Jaensch to be a kind of perceptualslovenliness, the qualities of one sense carelessly mixed with those ofanother . . . characterized by ambiguous and indefinite judgments and tobe lacking in perseverance. . . . The S would be a man with so-calledLiberal views; one who would think of environment and education asthe determinants of behavior; one who takes a childish wanton pleasure inbeing eccentric, S would say individualistic. (Brown, 1965, p. 477,emphasis added)

Adorno et al. (1950) accepted at least a few elements of Jaenschs (1938) descrip-tion but viewed the aggressive J-type as a societal menace, an authoritarian, apotential fascistnot as a cultural ideal. The right-wing personality type wasrecast as rigid, conventional, intolerant, xenophobic, and obedient to authorityfigures. Brown (1965) noted that What Jaensch called stability we called rigid-ity and the flaccidity and eccentricity of Jaenschs despised S-Type were for us theflexibility and individualism of the democratic equalitarian (p. 478, emphasisadded). It is remarkable that such diametrically opposed theorists as Jaensch andAdorno would advance parallel personality theories linking general psychologicalcharacteristics to specific ideological belief systems, but this is only one of manyhistorical volleys in the longstanding effort to understand the relationship betweenpersonality and politics.

810 Carney et al.

Members of the Frankfurt Schoolincluding Adorno, Fromm, Horkheimer,Reich, and otherswere strongly influenced by both Karl Marx and SigmundFreud. From Marx they inherited the notion that ideology is derived from eco-nomic class interests and material conditions of the capitalist system. But to reallyunderstand the relationship between the individual and society and the allure ofpolitical and religious ideologies, these theorists needed a psychology. What wasavailable to them at the time was Freudian psychology, and so the members of theFrankfurt School turned to Freuds writings on character structure. For example,Freud identified one personality configuration that seemed particularly relevant topolitical orientation:

The people I am about to describe are noteworthy for a regular combi-nation of the three following characteristics. They are especially orderly,parsimonious, and obstinate . . . Orderly covers the notion of bodilycleanliness, as well as of conscientiousness in carrying out small dutiesand trustworthiness . . . Parsimony may appear in the exaggerated formof avarice; and obstinacy can go over into defiance, to which rage andrevengefulness are easily joined . . . it seems to me incontestable that allthree in some way belong together. (Freud, 1959/1991, pp. 2126,emphasis added)

Freud referred to this collection of traitsorderliness, parsimony, andobstinacyas the anal character (see also Freud, 1930/1961, pp. 4044), but oneneed not retain his scatological terminology to consider the possibility that thesecharacteristics tend to co-occur. Indeed, Sears (1936) found in a sample of 37fraternity brothers that peer ratings of a given individuals degree of orderliness,stinginess (parsimony), and obstinacy were significantly intercorrelated at .36 orabove (see also Hilgard, 1952, pp. 1516).

Fromm (1947) built on Freuds conception of the anal character, but herenamed it the hoarding orientation and suggested that it was: Conservative,less interested in ruthless acquisition than in methodical economic pursuits, basedon sound principles and on the preservation of what had been acquired (p. 81,emphasis added). Fromm described the hoarding character in some detail:

This orientation makes people have little faith in anything new they mightget from the outside world; their security is based upon hoarding andsaving, while spending is felt to be a threat . . . Their miserliness refers tomoney and material things as well as to feelings and thoughts . . . Thehoarding person often shows a particular kind of faithfulness towardpeople and even toward memories . . . They know everything but aresterile and incapable of productive thinking . . . One can recognize thesepeople too by facial expressions and gestures. Theirs is the tight-lippedmouth; their gestures are characteristic of the withdrawn attitude . . .

811Liberals and Conservatives

Another characteristic element in this attitude is pedantic orderli-ness . . . his orderliness is sterile and rigid. He cannot endure things outof place and will automatically rearrange them . . . His compulsive clean-liness is another expression of his need to undo contact with the outsideworld. (Fromm, 1947, pp. 6566, emphasis added)

Although much of this description seems critical, Fromm explicitly cited bothpositive and negative aspects of the hoarding (or preserving) orientation. Thepositive traits he listed include being careful, reserved, practical, methodical,orderly, loyal, and tenacious (p. 115). On the negative side, Fromm stressed thatthis personality type could be stingy, cold, anxious, suspicious, stubborn, obses-sional, and unimaginative.2

Middle Era Theories, 195580

Psychological investigations of the personalities of liberals and conservativesbetween 1955 and 1980 built on the earlier work on authoritarianism but ponderedan ever-widening circle of traits. Daryl Bem (1970, pp. 1921) described anunpublished study by Maccoby (1968) that set out to test Fromms (1964) theoryof the left-wing biophilous character and the right-wing necrophilouscharacter:

A person with intense love of life is attracted to that which is alive,which grows, which is free and unpredictable. He has an aversion toviolence and all that destroys life . . . dislikes sterile and rigid order. . . rejects being mechanized, becoming a lifeless part of machine-likeorganization. He enjoys life in all its manifestations in contrast to mereexcitement or thrills. He believes in molding and influencing by love,reason and example rather than by force . . . At the other pole, thereare individuals attracted to that which is rigidly ordered, mechanical,and unalive. These people do not like anything free and uncontrolled.They feel that people must be regulated within well-oiled machines.(Maccoby, 1968, p. 2, quoted in Bem, 1970, p. 20, emphasisadded)

Maccoby and Fromm constructed a questionnaire to measure these two per-sonality poles and found that supporters of liberal and left-wing candidates in the1968 Presidential primaries (e.g., E. McCarthy, N. Rockefeller, and R. F.Kennedy) scored disproportionately at the life-loving end of the scale, whereas

2 Although there has been no direct attempt to assess Fromms (1947) theory, there is at least somefactor analytic evidence that authoritarian conservatism is associated with anal (or obsessional)characteristics (Kline & Cooper, 1984).

812 Carney et al.

supporters of conservative and right-wing candidates (e.g., R. Nixon, R. Reagan,and G. Wallace) scored disproportionately at the mechanistic end of the scale.Bem (1970) also noted that scores on this scale predicted liberal versus conserva-tive opinions on specific issues. The distinction between life-loving and mecha-nistic personality styles is noteworthy not only for its originality and the fact thatit received at least some empirical support in the late 1960s, but also because of thefact that some features of the distinction (e.g., an attraction to unpredictable,unconstrained life experiences vs. self-control, orderliness, and mechanistic coor-dination) parallel other accounts of liberal versus conservative personality styles,including Sylvan Tomkins (1963) theory of ideological polarity.

According to Tomkins (1963), people adopt ideo-affective postures towardthe world that are either leftist (stressing freedom and humanism) or rightist(focusing on rule following and normative concerns). People who resonate withleft-wing ideologies believe that people are basically good and that the goal ofsociety should be to foster human creativity and experience. Those who resonatewith right-wing ideologies, by contrast, believe that people are inherently flawedand that the function of society is to set rules and limits to prevent irresponsiblebehavior. These differences, according to Tomkins, have important implicationsfor emotions and their control:

The left-wing theorist stresses the toxicity of affect control and inhibition,and it therefore becomes a special case of the principle of minimizingnegative affect that such control should be kept to a minimum . . . He islikely to stress the value both to the individual and to society of anopenness and tolerance for intrusions of the irrational, of the Dionysian. . . The right-wing ideologist sets himself sternly against such intrusionsand argues for the importance of controlling affects in the interest ofmorality, achievement, piety . . . he is for some norm, which may requireheroic mobilization of affect and energy to achieve or which may requireunrelenting hostility against those who challenge the good. (Tomkins,1963, p. 407, emphasis added)

Like Fromm (1947), Tomkins saw advantages to both left-wing and right-wingpersonality styles. Whereas the former is associated with humanism, creativity,openness, and emotional expression (especially enthusiasm and excitement), thelatter is associated with norm attainment, conscientiousness, and morality. Severalstudies have revealed that liberals score higher than conservatives on measures ofsensation seeking and imaginativeness (Feather, 1979, 1984; Levin & Schalmo,1974), whereas conservatives score higher than liberals on measures of self-control and orderliness (Constantini & Craik, 1980; Milbrath, 1962; St. Angelo &Dyson, 1968).

A dynamic theory of conservatism was proposed by Wilson (1973), whointegrated the notion that there are emotional differences between liberals and

813Liberals and Conservatives

conservatives with earlier work on dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity.The gist of the theory is that politically conservative individuals are driven by ageneralized susceptibility to experiencing threat or anxiety in the face of uncer-tainty (Wilson, 1973, p. 259). Wilson and his collaborators suggested thatconservatism is determined by genetic factors such as trait anxiety, stimulusaversion, and low IQ, as well as environmental factors, such as parental incon-sistency and aggressiveness, low self-esteem, and low social class. Sources ofthreat and/or uncertainty in the social world (e.g., death, dissent, immigration,complexity, ambiguity, social change, and anarchy) were seen as prompting con-servative ideological responses, including conventionalism, ethnocentrism,authoritarianism, militarism, moral rigidity, and religious dogmatism. Much ofWilsons account has received correlational support, most especially the notionthat situational and dispositional factors that produce heightened psychologicalneeds to reduce uncertainty and threat tend to be associated with proponents ofconservative (rather than liberal) ideology (see Jost et al., 2003a, for a meta-analytic review).

Recent Theories, 19802007

Over the last quarter of a century, psychological accounts of differencesbetween liberals and conservatives have focused largely on the dimension ofopen-mindedness versus closed-mindedness. Building on earlier traditions ofresearch on authoritarianism and uncertainty avoidance, numerous studies haveshown that liberals tend to score higher than conservatives on individual differencemeasures of openness, cognitive flexibility, and integrative complexity (e.g., Alte-meyer, 1998; Sidanius, 1985; Tetlock, 1983, 1984; Tetlock, Bernzweig, & Gallant,1985). Furthermore, conservatives tend to possess stronger personal needs fororder, structure, closure, and decisiveness in comparison with liberals (e.g., Jostet al., 2003a, 2003b; Kruglanski, 2005; Van Hiel, Pandelaere, & Duriez, 2004).These findings and many others seem to fit an uncertainty-threat model of politicalorientation, as summarized by Jost et al. (2003a):

We regard political conservatism as an ideological belief system that issignificantly (but not completely) related to motivational concerns havingto do with the psychological management of uncertainty and fear. Spe-cifically, the avoidance of uncertainty (and the striving for certainty) maybe particularly tied to one core dimension of conservative thought, resis-tance to change. . . . Similarly, concerns with fear and threat may belinked to the second core dimension of conservatism, endorsement ofinequality. . . . Although resistance to change and support for inequalityare conceptually distinguishable, we have argued that they are psycho-logically interrelated, in part because motives pertaining to uncertaintyand threat are interrelated. . . . (p. 369)

814 Carney et al.

Implications of this theoretical model were further tested by Bonanno and Jost(2006); Jost et al. (2007); Amodio, Jost, Master, and Yee (2007); and Jost et al.(2008).

A longitudinal study by Block and Block (2006) revealed that many of thepersonality differences between liberals and conservatives that appear in adult-hood are already present when children are in nursery school, long before theydefine themselves in terms of political orientation. Specifically, preschool childrenwho later identified themselves as liberal were perceived by their teachers as:self-reliant, energetic, emotionally expressive, gregarious, and impulsive. Bycontrast, those children who later identified as conservative were seen as: rigid,inhibited, indecisive, fearful, and overcontrolled. These findingsespecially inconjunction with adult data (see Jost et al., 2003a, 2003b, for a summary) andgrowing evidence that there is a heritable component of political attitudes (Alford,Funk, & Hibbing, 2005)appear to substantiate the convictions of Adorno et al.,Tomkins, Wilson, and many others that basic personality dimensions underlieideological differences between the left and right. The problem, however, is thatprevious research on personality and political orientation over the last 75 years hasbeen far from systematic, coordinated, or cumulative. Each investigator (or team ofinvestigators) has merely added a new distinction or way of characterizing liberalsand conservatives without attempting to develop a common or shared frameworkfor interpreting and integrating the mass of theories and findings.

An Integrative Taxonomy and Overview of the Current Research

In an effort to distill a core set of personality characteristics that have beentheorized to distinguish between political liberals and conservatives, we havelisted in Table 1 the traits that have figured most prominently in relevant psycho-logical theories since 1930. To help organize the resulting list into thematiccategories that could be used to guide our research program, we drew heavily uponconceptual and empirical contributions of the Big Five model of personality,which provides a useful organizing framework for classifying and measuringdistinct, relatively nonoverlapping personality dimensions (e.g., Goldberg, 1992;John & Srivastava, 1999; McCrae & Costa, 1999; Wiggins, 1996). Because of theunprecedented scope, comprehensiveness, and empirical backing of the Big Fiveframework, we found it to be uniquely helpful as a means of cataloguing andassessing the validity of the enormous number of trait descriptions of liberals andconservatives that psychologists have generated over the last 75 years (see alsoCaprara & Zimbardo, 2004). Thus, for each of the descriptive traits (or clusters oftraits) listed in Table 1, we have sought to identify which of the five basic person-ality dimensions best capture the essence of the description. The result is aremarkable consensus over more than seven decades (and across numerous cul-tures and languages) that the two personality dimensions that should be mostrelated to political orientation are Openness to Experienceconsistently theorized

815Liberals and Conservatives

to be higher among liberalsand Conscientiousnesssometimes theorized to behigher among conservatives. Traits associated with the other three dimensions(Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism) have occasionally been linked topolitical orientation in previous theorizing (see Table 1), but their mention hasbeen far less frequent and consistent.

Moreover, profiles of liberals as relatively high on Openness (and low onConscientiousness) and conservatives as relatively high on Conscientiousness (andlow on Openness) fit with an integrative theory of ideology as motivated socialcognition:

Table 1. Personality Traits (and Their Big Five Classifications) Theorized to be Associated withLiberal (or Left-Wing) and Conservative (or Right-Wing) Orientation, 19302007

Liberal/Left-Wing Conservative/Right-Wing

Slovenly, ambiguous, indifferent1 (C-)Eccentric, sensitive, individualistic1,3 (O+)Open, tolerant, flexible2,3,9,20 (O+)Life-loving, free, unpredictable7,8 (O+, C-, E+)Creative, imaginative, curious9,10,11,20 (O+)Expressive, enthusiastic9,22 (O+, E+)Excited, sensation-seeking9,10,11,20 (O+, E+)Desire for novelty, diversity9,20 (O+)Uncontrolled, impulsive9,12,13,22 (C-, E+)Complex, nuanced16,17,18,20,21 (O+)Open-minded20,21 (O+)Open to experience10,11,20,23,24,25 (O+)

Definite, persistent, tenacious1,2,5 (C+)Tough, masculine, firm1,2,3,18 (C+, A-)Reliable, trustworthy, faithful, loyal1,4,5 (C+, A+)Stable, consistent1,2 (C+, N-)Rigid, intolerant2,3,5,7,8,15,18,20,22 (O-, A-)Conventional, ordinary2,3,5,18 (O-, C+)Obedient, conformist2,3,18 (O-, C+, A+)Fearful, threatened2,15,18,20,22 (N+)Xenophobic, prejudiced2,3,15,18,19 (O-, A-)Orderly, organized4,5,7,8,12,13,14,20 (C+)Parsimonious, thrifty, stingy4,5 (C+)Clean, sterile4,5,7,8 (C+)Obstinate, stubborn4,5 (O-, C+, A-)Aggressive, angry, vengeful2,3,4,15 (A-)Careful, practical, methodical5 (O-, C+)Withdrawn, reserved5,9 (E-)Stern, cold, mechanical5,7,8,9 (O-, E-, A-)Anxious, suspicious, obsessive5,6,15 (N+)Self-controlled7,8,9,12,13,14 (C+)Restrained, inhibited7,8,9,22 (O-, C+, E-)Concerned with rules, norms7,8,9 (C+)Moralistic9,15,18,28 (O-, C+)Simple, decisive19,20,21 (O-, C+)Closed-minded20,21 (O-)Conscientious25,26,27 (C+)

Sources: 1Jaensch (1938); 2Adorno et al. (1950); 3Brown (1965); 4Freud (1959/1991); 5Fromm(1947); 6Kline & Cooper (1984); 7Maccoby (1968); 8Bem (1970); 9Tomkins (1963); 10Levin &Schalmo (1974); 11Feather (1984); 12Milbrath (1962); 13St. Angelo & Dyson (1968); 14Constantini &Craik (1980); 15Wilson (1973); 16Tetlock (1983, 1984); 17Sidanius (1985); 18Altemeyer (1998);19Van Hiel, Pandelaere, & Duriez (2004); 20Jost, Glaser, Kruglanski, & Sulloway (2003a, 2003b);21Kruglanski (2005); 22Block & Block (2006); 23McCrae (1996); 24Barnea & Schwartz (1998);25Gosling, Rentfrow, & Swann (2003); 26Caprara, Barbaranelli, & Zimbardo (1999); 27Rentfrow,Jost, Gosling, & Potter (2009); 28Haidt & Hersh (2001)Note. O = Openness to Experience; C = Conscientiousness; E = Extraversion;A = Agreeableness; N = Neuroticism; + = High; = Low

816 Carney et al.

According to Jost et al. (2003a, 2003b), political conservatism is anideological belief system that consists of two core components, resistanceto change and opposition to equality, which serve to reduce uncertaintyand threat. The idea is that there is an especially good fit between needsto reduce uncertainty and threat, on one hand, and resistance to changeand acceptance of inequality, on the other, insofar as preserving the statusquo allows one to maintain what is familiar and known while rejecting therisky, uncertain prospect of social change. The broader argument is thatideological differences between right and left have psychological roots:stability and hierarchy generally provide reassurance and structure,whereas change and equality imply greater chaos and unpredictability.(Jost et al., 2007, p. 990, emphasis added)

The general idea is that there is an underlying match or resonance betweengeneral psychological characteristics and the specific contents of ideologicalbeliefs and opinions. In this sense, the liberal preference for social change andequality both reflects and reinforces motivational needs for openness, creativity,novelty, and rebelliousness, whereas the conservative preference for social stabil-ity and hierarchy both reflects and reinforces the opposing motivational pulltoward order, structure, obedience, and duty (see also Jost, 2006).

Although direct attempts to understand personality differences between lib-erals and conservatives in terms of Big Five dimensions have been rare (e.g., seeCaprara, Barbaranelli, & Zimbardo, 1999), several Big Five studies have includedmeasures of political orientation. The largely serendipitous results derived fromthese studies are generally consistent with expectations gleaned from Table 1. Byfar the most consistent finding is that liberals tend to score higher than conserva-tives on self-report measures of Openness to New Experiences (e.g., Barnea &Schwartz, 1998; Ekehammar, Akrami, & Gylje, 2004; Gosling, Rentfrow, &Swann, 2003; Jost et al., 2003a, 2007; McCrae, 1996; Riemann, Grubich, Hempel,Mergl, & Richter, 1993; Sidanius, 1978; Stenner, 2005; Trapnell, 1994; Van Hiel& Mervielde, 2004). There is also some evidence that conservatives tend to scoreslightly higher than liberals on Conscientiousness (Caprara et al., 1999; Ekeham-mar et al., 2004; Gosling et al., 2003; Jost, 2006; Mehrabian, 1996; Van Hiel,Mervielde, & De Fruyt, 2004). Stenner (2005) argued that Conscientiousness,which is primarily associated with rigidity, orderliness, and a compulsion aboutbeing in control of ones environment . . . promotes conservatism to a considerabledegree (p. 172). There is no consistent evidence in the research literature thatNeuroticism, Extroversion, or Agreeableness are reliably correlated with politicalorientation, although some theorists have proposed differences between liberalsand conservatives on traits related to these dimensions (see Table 1).

In our first study we sought to determine definitively whether the two dimen-sions of Openness and Conscientiousness would adequately capture personalitytrait differences between liberals and conservatives, at least in the context of the

817Liberals and Conservatives

United States. We therefore examined correlations between scores on Big Fivedimensions and liberalism-conservatism in six different samples. At the same time,we wanted to be sure that any personality differences were genuine and notmerely the result of divergent self-presentational strategies adopted by liberals andconservatives. This was especially important given that many of the theories wehave reviewed predict differences that would emerge only in private, nonreactivesettings (e.g., cleanliness, expressiveness, and organization) or in the context ofinterpersonal interaction (e.g., stubbornness, enthusiasm, and withdrawal). There-fore, we went well beyond traditional self-report methods of personality assess-ment in Study 1 to explore more subtle, unobtrusive differences (e.g., Webb,Campbell, Schwartz, Sechrest, & Grove, 1981) with respect to nonverbal behaviorand social interaction styles (Study 2) and identity claims and behavioral residuein living and working spaces (Study 3). Taken as a whole, these studies provide themost sustained and comprehensive investigation of personality differences under-lying political orientation to date.

Study 1: Personality Differences between Liberals and Conservatives

The goal of Study 1 was to obtain general personality profiles of liberals andconservatives to assess the accuracy of the theoretical speculations adumbrated inTable 1. It was hypothesized that, based on prior theory and research, liberalswould score higher than conservatives on Openness to New Experiences, whereasconservatives would score higher than liberals on Conscientiousness. No consistentdifferences between liberals and conservatives on the three other Big Five dimen-sions (Extroversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism) were expected. Personalityprofiles were gathered in six different American samples (total N = 19,784) byusing individuals scores on each of the Big Five personality dimensions to predicttheir political orientation. In this and in subsequent studies, political orientationwas assessed using self-report items, as is customary in the political scienceliterature (e.g., Knight, 1999). Although very short measures can be subject topsychometric limitations, in many cases they are effective for assessing constructsthat are well understood by laypeople (e.g., Burisch, 1997; Gosling et al., 2003).The single item measure of liberalism-conservatism, which was administered toSamples 15, has been found in previous research to demonstrate good test-retestreliability and predictive validity (e.g., see Fuchs & Klingemann, 1990; Jost, 2006;Knight, 1999). Sample 6 completed three items, including separate measures ofsocial and economic dimensions of ideology to investigate the possibility thatpersonality exerts stronger effects on social (vs. economic) attitudes.

Method and Procedure

Samples 14. The first four samples (Ns = 85, 79, 155, and 1826) wererecruited from the University of Texas at Austin. Sixty-four percent of the

818 Carney et al.

participants (across samples) were female. Racial/ethnic group identification wasas follows: 60% European American, 23% Asian American, and 12% Latino; theremaining 5% were of other ethnicities. Sample 1 completed the NEO-PI-R (Costa& McCrae, 1985), which contains 240 items that are answered on a scale rangingfrom 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Samples 24 completed the44-item Big Five Inventory (BFI; John, Donahue, & Kentle, 1991) using either a1 (disagree strongly) to 7 (agree strongly) (Samples 2 and 4) or 1 to 5 (Sample 3)scale.

Reliability was acceptable for all five factors and all four samples: Openness(a = .90 for Sample 1, .77 for Sample 2, .76 for Sample 3, and .79 for Sample 4),Conscientiousness (a = .92, .76, .78, .77), Extraversion (a = .90, .89, .86, .87),Agreeableness (a = .89, .79, .82, .77), and Neuroticism (a = .92, .85, .79, .77).Participants indicated their political orientation on a scale ranging from 1 (liberal)to 9 (conservative) for Sample 1 (M = 5.02, SD = 2.30) and for Sample 4(M = 4.95, SD = 2.23). For Sample 2, the scale ranged from 1 (liberal) to 7(conservative), M = 4.29, SD = 1.88, and for Sample 3 it ranged from 1 (liberal) to5 (conservative), M = 3.17, SD = 1.15.

Sample 5. Participants in Sample 5 were similar in terms of age and educa-tional experience, but they constituted a larger and far more representative group.They were part of the Gosling-Potter Internet Personality Project and wererecruited with the use of a noncommercial, advertisement-free website throughone of several channels: (1) major search engines (in response to keywords such aspersonality tests), (2) portal sites, such as Yahoo! (under directories of person-ality tests), (3) voluntary mailing lists that participants had previously joined, and(4) word-of-mouth from other visitors. We analyzed data from 17,103 Ameri-can, college-attending participants between the ages of 18 and 25 years old whovisited the website between March 2001 and May 2004. In terms of demographiccharacteristics, 68% of the sample was female, 72% identified themselves asEuropean American, 8% as Asian American, 7% as African American, 7% asLatino, and 1% as Native American; the remaining 5% declined to prove racial/ethnic information about themselves.

Upon arrival at the website, participants opted to take a personality test. Theycompleted the same 44-item BFI used in Samples 24. Scale means, standarddeviations, reliabilities, and intercorrelations were consistent with those typicallyobtained in laboratory studies (e.g., John et al., 1991). Participants were also askedhow politically conservative-liberal are you? They responded using a scaleranging from 1 (extremely liberal) to 5 (extremely conservative), M = 2.94,SD = 1.40. Internal consistency for each of the Big Five constructs was adequate:Openness (a = .80), Conscientiousness (a = .81), Extraversion (a = .86), Agree-ableness (a = .81), and Neuroticism (a = .83).

Sample 6. Five hundred and thirty-six participants were recruited from theUniversity of Texas at Austin as part of a course requirement. Sixty-nine percentof the participants were female. Of the 97% respondents who reported race, 54%

819Liberals and Conservatives

were European American, 5% were African American, 20% Asian American, and15% Latino; the remaining 6% were of other ethnicities. Sample 6 completed theTen Item Personality Inventory (TIPI; Gosling et al., 2003), which contains 10items (two tapping each of the Big 5 constructs). Items were answered on a scaleranging from 1 (disagree strongly) to 7 (agree strongly). Because each subscale ofthe TIPI consists of only two items, Cronbachs alphas were not computed.However, as reported in Gosling et al. (2003), the TIPI is a reliable and validmeasure of personality.

To gauge political orientation as well as its independent social and economicdimensions, participants responded to the following three questions on scalesranging from 1 (extremely liberal) to 5 (extremely conservative): (1) Overall,where would you place yourself, on the following scale of liberalism-conservatism? (M = 3.01, SD = 1.01); (2) In terms of social and cultural issues(e.g., abortion, separation of church and state, affirmative action), where wouldyou place yourself on the following scale? (M = 2.91, SD = 1.28); and (3) Interms of economic issues (e.g., taxation, welfare, privatization of social security),where would you place yourself on the following scale? (M = 3.19, SD = 1.04).Because of widespread interest in differences (as well as similarities) betweensocial and economic dimensions of political orientation (e.g., Duckitt, 2001), wereport the data separately for each of these three items and also for the compositemeasure (a = .83).3

Results

For each of the six samples we conducted a simultaneous regression analysisin which each of the scores on the five personality factors were used to predictparticipants political orientation. This method enabled us to estimate the statisti-cally unique contribution of each of the five personality dimensions, adjusting forthe effects of the other four. Unique effects are reported as unstandardizedregression coefficients (b) along with their standard errors (SE). Prior to analysis,all variables were transformed to range from 0 to 1 so that the unstandardizedregression coefficients would be directly comparable and easily interpretable (seeCohen, Cohen, Aiken, & West, 1999). Table 2 summarizes the results of theseanalyses.

Samples 14. The same multiple regression model was used in Samples 14.With regard to Sample 1, the five personality factors were significant predictors ofpolitical orientation, R = .46, F (5, 84) = 4.25, p < .01, and accounted for 21% ofthe variance. The only significant unique predictor of political orientation wasOpenness (b = -1.03, SE = .26, b = -.40, t [79] = -3.90, p < .001; see Table 2).

3 Scores on the overall liberalism-conservatism item were robustly correlated with the individual itemstapping social (r = .74, p < .001) and economic (r = .63, p < .001) attitudes. The latter two items weremore modestly but significantly intercorrelated (r = .32, p < .001).

820 Carney et al.

Tabl

e2.

Rel

atio

nsbe

twee

nB

igFi

vePe

rson

ality

Dim

ensi

ons

and

Polit

ical

Ori

enta

tion

(Stu

dy1)

.

Sam

ple

NPe

rson

ality

Inst

rum

ent

Polit

ical

Mea

sure

Rel

atio

nw

ithlib

eral

ism

-con

serv

atis

m

OC

EA

N

Sam

ple

185

NE

O-P

I-R

Ideo

logi

cal

self

-pla

cem

ent

-1.0

3***

(.26

).1

4(.

28)

.29

(.28

).1

2(.

29)

-.18

(.25

)Sa

mpl

e2

79B

FIId

eolo

gica

lse

lf-p

lace

men

t-.

13+

(.21

).3

1(.

25)

.13

(.18

)-.

03(.

23)

-.01

(.21

)Sa

mpl

e3

155

BFI

Ideo

logi

cal

self

-pla

cem

ent

-.66

***

(.16

)-.

04(.

16)

.04

(.12

).2

5(.

15)

.05

(.12

)Sa

mpl

e4

1,82

6B

FIId

eolo

gica

lse

lf-p

lace

men

t-.

43**

*(.

05)

.11*

(.05

)-.

02(.

04)

.12*

*(.

05)

-.13

***

(.04

)Sa

mpl

e5

17,1

03B

FIId

eolo

gica

lse

lf-p

lace

men

t-.

52**

*(.

02)

.15*

**(.

02)

.02

(.01

).0

5**

(.02

)-.

03*

(.01

)Sa

mpl

e6

536

TIP

IC

ompo

site

mea

sure

(3ite

ms)

-.24

**(.

09)

.18*

(.07

).2

0**

(.07

).0

8(.

09)

.11+

(.07

)

Not

e.E

ntri

esar

eun

stan

dard

ized

regr

essi

onco

effic

ient

s(b

)fr

omm

ultip

lere

gres

sion

sin

whi

chea

chof

the

Big

Five

scor

esw

ere

ente

red

assi

mul

tane

ous

pred

icto

rs(w

ithst

anda

rder

rors

liste

din

pare

nthe

ses)

.Pri

orto

anal

ysis

,all

vari

able

sw

ere

tran

sfor

med

toa

0to

1sc

ale

byan

chor

ing

all

vari

able

sat

zero

and

divi

ding

each

scal

eby

itsm

axim

umpo

ssib

leva

lue.

Pers

onal

ityin

stru

men

ts(

BFI

,N

EO

-PI-

R,

and

TIP

I)

are

desc

ribe

din

the

Met

hods

sect

ion

for

Stud

y1.

O

=O

penn

ess

toN

ewE

xper

ienc

es;

C

=C

onsc

ient

ious

ness

;E

=

Ext

rave

rsio

n;A

=

Agr

eeab

lene

ss;

and

N

=N

euro

ticis

m.

+ p