Personality traits and political attitudes in ethnically
divided society: evidence from Latvia
Jānis Ikstens
University of Latvia
[email protected]
Paper to be presented at the ECPR General Conference in Montreal, August 26-29,
2015.
1
Abstract
Drawing on the Big Five model, this paper explores a linkage between personality
traits and political attitudes in Latvia. Using BFI-10 approach, personality traits of
ethnic Latvians and Slavic minorities are measured. The findings point to a
conclusion that personality traits are not helpful to explain vast differences among
ethnic Latvians and Slavic minorities in the realm of ethnic policy. A higher average
score of Conscientiousness among Latvians contributes to their differences with
Eastern Slavs on economic policy while higher Neuroticism scores and lower
Openness scores of Slavic minorities help explain their slightly higher level of social
conservatism
Introduction1
Since Downs’ (1957) (Downs 1957) seminal volume, there has been growing
empirical evidence that ideological proximity matters and voters tend to prefer
parties that they consider close to their own position on particular policy or
ideological issues. The formation of the ideological proximity is a complex process
and appears to be dependent on various factors including political sophistication,
valence politics and ideological position of the respective voter.
Ideological positions of voters embrace both voter self-placement along
certain dimensions and their stated attitudes to various ideological issues. The two
do not have to match as voters take cues from various sources to form their
positions. Moreover, socialization and various contextual factors likely influence
ideological positions of voters. In particular, Inglehart and Klingemann (1976)
(Inglehart and Klingemann 1976) demonstrate that ideological self-placement has
three components: partisan, social and value.
However, recent advances in personality psychology have laid groundwork
for advancing a view that ideological orientations (including ideological selfplacement) are influenced by personality traits of a particular individual. This paper
builds on this strand of research and seeks to explore the role of personality traits in
ideological orientations in Latvia. Further, this paper aims to study differences
between two major ethnic groups – ethnic Latvians and Slavic minorities – in this
realm.
1
This research was funded within the framework of a Latvian Research Council grant ‘Identity politics,
representation and accountability of Latvian political parties’.
2
Political attitudes and personal traits
Downs (1957) laid intellectual foundation for interpreting voter choice from a
perspective of ideological proximity between voters and parties/candidates. Over
years, scholars have empirically demonstrated the importance of congruence of
views between citizens and contestants for office for the electoral success of the
latter (Adams, Merrill III et al. 2005, Bafumi and Shapiro 2009).
The feeling of being ideologically closer to a particular political party results
from an interplay of various factors. Political socialization in family has strong effects
if political matters are often discussed and parents tend to have similar ideological
orientations (Jennings and Niemi 1974). Young adults may also be influenced by their
peers and reference groups (Alwin, Cohen et al. 1991, Dostie-Goulet 2009) as well as
media (Sears and Levy 2003). The feeling of closeness may result from an evaluation
of past performance of a party or attitudes towards valence issues (Clark 2009).
However, effects of those evaluations are mediated by political sophistication of
citizens – their educational attainment and interest in political matters
(Hetherington 2001, Kam 2005). Another factor is the ideological self-perception of
voters or self-placement. According to Inglehart and Klingemann (1976), ideological
self-placement results from an interaction of three major components: social status
of an individual; partisan loyalty; attitudes towards major political value conflicts.
Yet, several recent studies have linked ideological orientations and individual
self-placement to personality traits (Carney, Jost et al. 2008, Mondak and Halperin
2008, Caprara, Vecchione et al. 2009, Gerber, Huber et al. 2010). The above analyses
of this linkage seems to be part of a broader trend towards exploring the role
personality in politics. There are studies relating personality traits to political
participation and turnout (Mondak and Halperin 2008, Gerber, Huber et al. 2011,
Mondak, Canache et al. 2011, Gerber, Huber et al. 2013, Brandstätter and Opp 2014,
Dawes, Cesarini et al. 2014), vote choice (Hirsh, DeYoung et al. 2010, Blais and
ST‐VINCENT 2011, Dirilen‐Gümüş, Cross et al. 2012), media consumption and
political sophistication (Mondak and Halperin 2008, Gerber, Huber et al. 2011), and
interest in politics (Mondak and Halperin 2008, Gerber, Huber et al. 2011).
The growing interest of political scientists in personality traits as independent
variables appears to be related to advances in psychology. There is a broad
consensus among psychologists that differences in personality can be traced to five
major traits (the so called Big Five traits): Extraversion, Agreeableness,
Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and Openness to Experience (or Openness). John
and Srivastava (1999) provide an oft-cited description of each trait: (John and
Srivastava 1999)
3
Extraversion implies an energetic approach toward the social and material
world and includes traits such as sociability, activity, assertiveness, and
positive emotionality. Agreeableness contrasts a prosocial and communal
orientation towards others with antagonism and includes traits such as
altruism, tender-mindedness, trust, and modesty. Conscientiousness
describes socially prescribed impulse control that facilitates task- and goaldirected behavior, such as thinking before acting, delaying gratification,
following norms and rules, and planning, organizing, and prioritizing tasks.
Neuroticism contrasts emotional stability and even-temperedness with
negative emotionality, such as feeling anxious, nervous, sad, and tense.
Finally, Openness to Experience (vs. closed-mindedness) describes the
breadth, depth, originality, and complexity of an individual’s mental and
experiential life. (bold added for emphasis)
Although there have been issues with the conceptualization of the traits
across cultures (John and Srivastava 1999), the Big Five model has been found robust
in many countries (Schmitt, Allik et al. 2007).
The Big Five traits are thought to be a core of personality and they are largely
based on genetic differences and childhood experiences of individuals, which makes
them less open to changes later in life (Bouchard Jr and Loehlin 2001, Asendorpf and
Van Aken 2003, Ekehammar and Akrami 2007). Interaction of these traits with
contextual factors help shape surface traits (Ekehammar and Akrami 2007) that are
expressed as values, expectations, and attitudes including ideological stances.
However, some biologists have warned against a simplified causal model that
assumes personality traits being prior and causal to political attitudes as the
correlation between traits and attitudes ‘is a function of an innate common
underlying genetic factor’ (Verhulst, Eaves et al. 2012).
Apart from conceptual clarifications, major advances have been made in the
ways personality traits are measured. Early lexical approaches in the first half of the
20th century included as many as 18,000 items to describe differences in human
behaviour (John and Srivastava 1999). While this abundance was subsequently
reduced to single-digit categories, their measurement remained demanding. For
example, NEO-PI-R instrument included 60 items and required substantial resource
investment in research (Costa and MacCrae 1992). Several shorter psychometric
instruments have been developed (Robins, Hendin et al. 2001, Rammstedt and
Rammsayer 2002) including ones for measuring the Big Five traits – Ten Item
Personality Instrument (TIPI) (Gosling, Rentfrow et al. 2003) and Big Five Inventory10 (BFI-10) (Rammstedt and John 2007).
The recent explosion of scholarly interest in linkages between personality
traits, on the one hand, and political attitudes and behaviour, on the other has
4
resulted in covering a wide range of subjects. However, most research seems to be
confined to advanced democracies in the USA (Mondak and Halperin 2008, Gerber,
Huber et al. 2010, Gerber, Huber et al. 2011, Gerber, Huber et al. 2011,
Dirilen‐Gümüş, Cross et al. 2012), Canada (Blais and ST‐VINCENT 2011), Spain
(Gallego and Oberski 2012), Italy (Caprara, Schwartz et al. 2008), Great Britain
(Denny and Doyle 2008). Some studies have included Uruguay and Venezuela
(Mondak, Canache et al. 2011).
This paper explores linkage between personality traits and ideological
orientations in Latvia along three dimensions – economic policy, ethnic policy and
social conservatism. This country re-established a democratic institutional setting
after an extensive period of the Soviet rule. Moreover, Latvia has a vast Eastern
Slavic minority (Russians, Belorussians, and Ukrainians) making up more than 31 per
cent of Latvia’s residents. This allows for a comparison of correlation between
personality traits and ideological orientations among ethnic Latvians, on the one
hand, and Eastern Slavs, on the other. In contrast to a number of studies relying on
surveys of university students or web-based surveys, this paper draws on face-toface interviews and uses BFI-10 to measure the Big Five personality traits.
Hypotheses
Mondak and Halperin (2008) provide a useful point of departure for
developing hypotheses about linkage between human traits and ideological
orientations. However, certain points need to be revised in view of the divergent
meanings certain ideological labels have in Latvia and the USA.
Extraversion as one of the Big Five traits is associated with sociability, activity,
and assertiveness. Therefore, Extraversion should correlate with support to
(economic) competition and weaker state intervention in economic matters. On the
issues of ethnic policy, Extraversion would likely be associated with equal
opportunities for all residents regardless of their ethnic identity. Similarly, this trait
should be negatively associated with social conservatism.
The core of Agreeableness is linked to altruism, modesty and cooperative
behavior. This trait, then, should correlate with support to economic redistribution
and similar leftist attitudes. Agreeableness should lead to accommodative views on
ethnic policy and, arguably, to indifference on the dimension of social conservatism.
Constientiousness emphasizes dutifulness and following the rules and norms.
This trait seems to be a fertile ground for social conservatives. The sense of duty
associated with this trait may facilitate support to nationalist views.
5
Neuroticism embraces inter alia anxiousness, sadness, and negativity.
Mondak and Halperin (2008) believe this trait facilitates viewing many developments
as unfair, therefore, support to greater state interference on economic and social
matters should be associated with this trait. If individuals feel threatened, this trait
likely facilitates support to nationalist policies.
Openness to Experience is associated with curiosity, risk-taking and nonconformity. This trait, therefore, should be associated with liberal economic views,
rejection of social conservatism and ethnic nationalism.
Table 1. Hypotheses on association between personality traits and ideological
orientations
Extraversion
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Neuroticism
Openness
Economic
redistribution
+
?
+
-
Nationalism
+
+
-
Social conservatism
?
+
+
-
The above hypotheses will be verified against data about self-placement and
attitudes towards a set of policy questions.
Data and methods
The data for this paper are obtained from a nation-wide survey of citizens of
Latvia carried out after the 2014 parliamentary elections held on October 4. The
post-election nature of the survey defined the general population – adults holding
the Latvian citizenship. The sample of 1,036 respondents was representative of
Latvian citizens between 18 and 74 years of age. All interviews were done face-toface in respondents’ places of residence.
Several ideology variables are derived from the survey data. First,
respondents were asked to place on an 11-point scale their own political views along
two major axes of competition in Latvia – the social economic and the ethnic one
(Evans and Whitefield 1993, Nørgaard and Johannsen 1999, Ikstens 2005).
6
Table 2. Summary of model variables
Ethnic attitudes
Entire
sample Latvians
7.2805
7.611
(2.3461) (2.2442)
7.4767
8.1375
(2.4272) (2.1569)
5.634
5.5063
(1.5065) (1.4655)
4.91
5.31
(1.657)
(1.463)
Social conservatism
4.7644
(1.7532)
Self-placement economic
policy
Self-placement ethnic policy
Economic attitudes
Extraversion BFI
Agreeableness BFI
Conscientiousness BFI
Openess BFI
Neuroticism BFI
Eastern
Slavs
6.2294
(2.2711)
5.6871
(2.1601)
5.9286
(1.5616)
3.85
(1.612)
4.5385
5.2769
(1.7604) (1.6277)
7.4556
7.6014
7.4916
(1.9518) (1.95290) (1.9618)
7.7058
7.5823
7.54
(1.7206) (1.73795) (1.6661)
8.1739
7.7543
8.0807
(1.6525)
(1.6423)
(1.6492)
6.6899
6.4801
6.6254
(2.1198) (2.0750) (2.1409)
5.0917
5.1567
5.3275
(2.0738)
(2.0968)
(2.1272)
Notes: Standard deviation values are provided in the brackets.
For the social economic dimension, 1 denotes ‘left’ whereas 11 refers to
‘right’. For the ethnic dimension, respondents were asked to place their views
between those advocating interests of Slavic minorities (1) and those advocating
interest of ethnic Latvians (11). Advocacy of interests of Slavic minorities typically
include a wider use of Russian language in the public realm (with a prospect of giving
it a status of official language), (financial) support to schools with Russian as a
language of instruction, closer ties with Russia, relaxation of the citizenship and
naturalization policy etc.
Recent surveys have repeatedly shown that there is a notable disparity
between ideological self-placement and actual views on a variety of ideological
issues in Latvia (Populares Latvija 2012, 2014). Therefore, in addition to the two
stated preferences, three indexes capturing respondent’s views along different
dimensions were developed. An economic attitudes index was design to tap into the
social economic dimension and was constructed on the basis of two survey
questions – one on the preferred size of government and another on the division of
responsibility for an individual’s social security between the state and the individual
(r = .181, p < 0.001). A higher value of the index indicates support to right-wing
policies.
7
An index of attitudes towards issues of the ethnic policy was developed on
the basis of two questions pertaining to the desirability of nurturing cultural
identities of ethnic minorities and to the role ethnic minorities should be afforded in
the government of Latvia (r = .312, p < 0.001). This index was expected to crosscheck the self-placement on the ethnic dimension. A higher value of the index
indicates support to Latvian nationalism.
Following work on the ‘new politics’ or GAL/TAN dimension (Hooghe, Marks
et al. 2002, Marks, Hooghe et al. 2006), an index of social attitudes was developed
on the basis of two questions about the separation of the state and the church and
about attitudes towards homosexuality (r = .247, p < 0.001). A higher value of the
index indicates support to socially conservative views.
The main explanatory variables are the Big Five personality traits. To measure
the traits, the Big Five Inventory (BFI) is used. For the purposes of conciseness, the
author employed a 10 item version of BFI (Rammstedt and John 2007) that uses a
five-point response scale. As the survey was administered in both Latvian and
Russian language for the purpose of expedience and accuracy, versions of question
wording were used that had been adapted in prior research on personality traits2
(Perepjolkina 2011, Van Skotere and Perepjolkina 2011).
In addition to BFI-10 items, several control variables of demographic
background were used in regression analysis: gender (female = 1), age, monthly
income per household member. Further, respondents were asked to state their
ethnic identity, and responses ‘Russian’, ‘Belorussian’ and ‘Ukrainian’ were
aggregated as ‘Eastern Slavs’ whereas ethnic Latvians formed category ‘Latvians’.
Results
As shown in Table 1, there are notable differences between Latvians and
Eastern Slavic minorities in terms of their ideological self-perception along the two
major axes of political competition in Latvia, particularly in the area of ethnic policy.
Moreover, there are some differences between the two groups in the realm of
personality traits. Therefore, an expectation that personality traits may help explain
ideological differences is not unfounded.
2
The author would like to express sincere gratitude to Professor Ivars Austers of the University of
Latvia who provided most of the formulations of BFI-10 questions in both languages.
8
Table 3. Big Five traits and ideological self-placement
Extraversion
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Neuroticism
Openess
Age
Gender (F)
Income
Education
Ethnic Latvian
Constant
R-sq.
Adjusted R-sq.
N
Self-placement
Self-placement
economic policy
ethnic policy
-.070
-.061
-.012
.002
-.048
-.019
.000
.061
.074
.019
.088
.034
-.055
-.073
-.045
-.012
.095*
.047
.033
.010
-.002
.000
.102
.328
.001
.001
.042
-.092
1.237**
2.245**
7.211** 10.620 6.867**
5.544
.013
.074
.007
.200
.007
.060
.002
.190
711
674
823
804
Note: ** significant at .01 level; * significant at .05 level. Unstandardized B coefficients.
Results from OLS regression in Table 2 show that personality traits provide a
very weak explanation for variance in self-placement along two major policy
dimensions in Latvia. It is the self-placement along the economic dimension for
which personality bears marginal effect as Openness produces a small increase in
pro-market self-placement. However, the effect of personality traits fades away as
demographic variables are brought in – being a Latvian produces a robust shift in the
self-placement towards a pro-market position on economic issues and towards
Latvian nationalism on the ethnic dimension. Other background variables such as age
gender or income do not reach levels of statistical significance.
Given the discrepancy between the ideological self-placement and policy
preferences among residents of Latvia mentioned above, it is important to explore
the linkage between personality traits and actual preferences as captured by indexes
on three policy dimensions. Aggregate survey data in Table 1 show that largest
differences in policy preferences between Latvians and Slavic minorities exist in the
area of ethnic policy, with both groups gravitating towards an advocacy of their
perceived interests. Differences are notably smaller on social issues, with Slavic
minorities being more socially conservative than Latvians. On economic issues,
differences between the two groups shrink further, with Latvians being slightly more
leftist.
9
Table 4. Big Five traits and policy preferences
Extraversion
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Neuroticism
Openess
Age
Gender (F)
Income
Education
Ethnic Latvian
Economic attitudes
.021
.033
.083*
.09**
.058
.022
.077**
.079**
.015
-.013
.003
.170
.000
-.089*
-.481**
Constant
R-sq.
Adjusted R-sq.
N
4.208**
.017
.011
802
-1.420
.056
.043
718
Ethnic attitudes Social conservatism
.018
.021
.017
.034
-.031
-.006
.079*
.080*
.045
.052
.070
.051
.042
.040
.047
.055
-.046
-.036 -.116**
-.078*
-.015**
.020**
.042
-.559**
.000
-.001**
-.143**
-.049
1.236**
-.660**
4.734** 25.660** 4.002** 45.631**
.009
.185
.030
.141
.003
.173
.024
.129
789
708
788
709
Note: ** significant at .01 level; * significant at .05 level. Unstandardized B coefficients.
Regression analysis yields some interesting results. Although personality
traits at the aggregate level differ slightly among Latvians and Eastern Slavs (Table 1),
there is no effect of those traits on actual preferences in the realm of ethnic policy. It
is demographic variables that are at play. As expected, ethnic identity of
respondents has the largest effect. Further, higher educational attainment is
negatively related to support for Latvian nationalism. Meanwhile, respondents of
younger age find Latvian nationalism slightly less appealing.
Some personality traits appear to have an impact on views about economic
policy (Table 3). Agreeableness is associated with support to state regulation in
economy, which is an expected finding. Moreover, the effect of Agreeableness on
economic preferences holds after demographic variables are included in the analysis.
Further, the size of the effect of Agreeableness is comparable to that of educational
attainment. Yet, respondents with higher levels of formal education tend to prefer a
smaller presence of state in the national economy. Neuroticism is also associated
with support to state regulation in economy and its effect remains nearly unchanged
after demographic controls are entered into analysis. The size of Neuroticism effect
is rather similar to that of Agreeableness in models both with and without
demographic variables. Three other traits appear to have smaller and insignificant
associations with views on economic policy.
Social conservatism is related to certain personality traits (Table 3). Openness
is negatively associated with holding socially conservative views, which is consistent
with theoretical assumptions. If considered only in the context other Big Five traits,
the impact of Openness is larger than that of any other trait. When demographic
10
controls are entered, the impact of Openness is reduced and becomes comparable
to that of Agreeableness. While ethnicity plays a role for both social and economic
views, it is for social issues that other demographic variables gain statistical
importance. Male respondents appear particularly socially conservative. Higher age
and lower income are both associated with holding socially conservative views.
Analysis of the effect of personality traits within each of major ethnic groups
reveals noteworthy differences (Table 4).
Table 5. Big Five traits and policy preferences by ethnic group
Extraversion
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Neuroticism
Openess
Age
Gender (F)
Income
Education
Constant
R-sq.
Adjusted R-sq.
N
Economic attitudes
LAT
SLA
-,003
,101
,038
,121
0,120**
-,050
0,069*
,091
,036
-,038
,008
-,010
,227
,242
,000
,000
-0,113*
-,106
-11.292** 24.668
.050
.066
.032
.021
481
201
Ethnic attitudes
LAT
SLA
0,004
0,095
-0,03
0,061
0,03
0,012
-0,001
0,146*
-0,059
-0,046
0,013**
0,027**
-0,038
0,244
0
.000
-0,081
-0,32**
19.389* -49.638**
.044
.199
.025
.161
478
202
Social conservatism
LAT
SLA
,077
-,028
,075
,119
,030
,083
,026
0,139*
-0,083*
-,070
-0,024** -0,016*
-0,570** -0,508*
-0,0007**
-,001
-0,122*
,055
52.380** 36.745*
.136
.106
.119
.065
467
203
Note: ** significant at .01 level; * significant at .05 level. Unstandardized B coefficients.
Among Latvians, some personality traits are associated with preferences in
the realm of economic policy. In particular, Conscientiousness and Neuroticism are
positively related to an increased state involvement in the economy. A higher level
of formal education, in turn, discourages this preference. Among Eastern Slavs,
however, no factor reached a level of statistical significance. Further, models of
personality traits in combination with select demographic variables provide small
explanatory power for variance in preferences for a particular economic policy
among both ethnic groups.
Given the profoundly politicised ethnic divide, weakness of personality traits
and certain demographic variables in explaining attitudes of Latvians towards ethnic
policy makes sense. However, the situation is somewhat more complex among
Eastern Slavs. Both Neuroticism and older age make respondents more prone to
Latvian nationalism. However, a higher educational attainment sways Eastern Slavs
towards advocacy of minority interests. It is important to note that this model
explains 16 per cent of variation in ethnic policy preferences among Slavic minorities.
11
Demographic variables are helpful to explain variance in social conservatism
among both Latvians and Slavic minorities and the impact of most variables have the
same direction and comparable size in both groups. Surprisingly, older age is
negatively associated with social conservatism in both ethnic groups. It is only
among Slavs that Neuroticism plays a statistically important role.
Discussion and conclusions
The Big Five personality traits turn out to be poor predictors of ideological
self-placement along two major axes of competition in Latvia. Except for Openness
to Experience that works in the expected direction in a model that regresses
economic policy self-placement on personality traits only, no other trait possesses
statistically significant influence. This observation runs contrary to studies that have
documented a linkage between the traits and ideological self-placement (Gerber,
Huber et al. 2010).
One possible explanation for a lack of congruence echoes an argument that
political perceptions are shaped inter alia by the public discourse and discussions
among politicians that may establish a frame of reference for individual ideological
judgements. It is these discussions that appear responsible for an idiosyncratic use of
terms ‘Left’ and ‘Right’ in Latvia to denote support to advocacy of Slavic and Latvian
identity interests, respectively. And it is this idiosyncrasy that may have produced a
mismatch between ideological self-placement and actual social and economic policy
preferences documented elsewhere (Populares Latvija 2012, 2014).
However, the mentioned idiosyncrasy hardly explains a lack of trait impact
upon self-placement on ethnic policy dimension. A respondent’s stated ethnic
identity is a strong predictor of self-placement on this dimension. Seemingly,
personal traits do not provide shortcuts to particular preferences in the realm of
identity politics. This observation is further strengthened by analysis of revealed
policy preferences – no Big Five trait is significantly associated with particular
preferences with the exception of Neuroticism among Eastern Slavs.
Table 6. Summary of verification of hypotheses
Economic
redistribution
Expected Observed
Extraversion
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Neuroticism
Openness
+
?
+
-
Nationalism
Expected
Observed
+
+
-
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
12
Social conservatism
Expected Observed
?
+
+
-
N
+
N
N
Y
In the realm of economic policy, both Agreeableness and Neuroticism have a
statistically significant effect, and this finding conforms with research results in other
countries. Assumptions about Openness and Extraversion did not find empirical
ground either in the whole sample or within two ethnic groups.
As far as social conservatism is concerned, there is evidence that Openness is
negatively associated with socially conservative views - a finding that is in line with
initial assumptions and previous research. While no clear expectations were
formulated, Agreeableness emerges as supportive of social conservatism in the
entire sample. The seemingly robust hypothesis about Conscientiousness, in turn,
received no empirical backing.
These findings point to a conclusion that personality traits are not helpful to
explain vast differences among ethnic Latvians and Slavic minorities in the realm of
ethnic policy. A higher average score of Conscientiousness among Latvians
contributes to their differences with Eastern Slavs on economic policy while higher
Neuroticism scores and lower Openness scores of Slavic minorities help explain their
slightly higher level of social conservatism.
References
Adams, J. F., et al. (2005). A unified theory of party competition: A cross-national
analysis integrating spatial and behavioral factors, Cambridge University Press.
Alwin, D. F., et al. (1991). Political attitudes over the life span: The Bennington
women after fifty years, Univ of Wisconsin Press.
Asendorpf, J. B. and M. A. Van Aken (2003). "Personality–relationship transaction in
adolescence: Core versus surface personality characteristics." Journal of Personality
71(4): 629-666.
Bafumi, J. and R. Y. Shapiro (2009). "A new partisan voter." The Journal of Politics
71(01): 1-24.
13
Blais, A. and S. L. ST‐VINCENT (2011). "Personality traits, political attitudes and the
propensity to vote." European Journal of Political Research 50(3): 395-417.
Bouchard Jr, T. J. and J. C. Loehlin (2001). "Genes, evolution, and personality."
Behavior genetics 31(3): 243-273.
Brandstätter, H. and K. D. Opp (2014). "Personality traits (“Big Five”) and the
propensity to political protest: Alternative models." Political Psychology 35(4): 515537.
Caprara, G., et al. (2009). "Mediational role of values in linking personality traits to
political orientation." Asian Journal of Social Psychology 12(2): 82-94.
Caprara, G. V., et al. (2008). "The personalization of politics: Lessons from the Italian
case." European Psychologist 13(3): 157-172.
Carney, D. R., et al. (2008). "The secret lives of liberals and conservatives: Personality
profiles, interaction styles, and the things they leave behind." Political Psychology
29(6): 807-840.
Clark, M. (2009). "Valence and electoral outcomes in Western Europe, 1976–1998."
Electoral Studies 28(1): 111-122.
Costa, P. T. and R. R. MacCrae (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO PI-R)
and NEO five-factor inventory (NEO FFI): Professional manual, Psychological
Assessment Resources.
Dawes, C., et al. (2014). "The relationship between genes, psychological traits, and
political participation." American Journal of Political Science 58(4): 888-903.
Denny, K. and O. Doyle (2008). "Political interest, cognitive ability and personality:
Determinants of voter turnout in Britain." British Journal of Political Science 38(02):
291-310.
Dirilen‐Gümüş, Ö., et al. (2012). "Who voted for whom? Comparing supporters of
Obama and McCain on value types and personality traits." Journal of Applied Social
Psychology 42(12): 2879-2900.
Dostie-Goulet, E. (2009). "Social networks and the development of political interest."
Journal of youth studies 12(4): 405-421.
14
Downs, A. (1957). "An economic theory of democracy."
Ekehammar, B. and N. Akrami (2007). "Personality and prejudice: From Big Five
personality factors to facets." Journal of Personality 75(5): 899-926.
Evans, G. and S. Whitefield (1993). "Identifying the bases of party competition in
Eastern Europe." British Journal of Political Science 23(04): 521-548.
Gallego, A. and D. Oberski (2012). "Personality and political participation: The
mediation hypothesis." Political Behavior 34(3): 425-451.
Gerber, A. S., et al. (2011). "Personality traits and the consumption of political
information." American Politics Research 39(1): 32-84.
Gerber, A. S., et al. (2010). "Personality and political attitudes: Relationships across
issue domains and political contexts." American Political Science Review 104(01):
111-133.
Gerber, A. S., et al. (2013). "Big five personality traits and responses to persuasive
appeals: Results from voter turnout experiments." Political Behavior 35(4): 687-728.
Gerber, A. S., et al. (2011). "Personality traits and participation in political
processes." The Journal of Politics 73(03): 692-706.
Gosling, S. D., et al. (2003). "A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality
domains." Journal of research in Personality 37(6): 504-528.
Hetherington, M. J. (2001). Resurgent mass partisanship: The role of elite
polarization. American Political Science Association, Cambridge Univ Press.
Hirsh, J. B., et al. (2010). "Compassionate liberals and polite conservatives:
Associations of agreeableness with political ideology and moral values." Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin 36(5): 655-664.
Hooghe, L., et al. (2002). "Does left/right structure party positions on European
integration?" Comparative Political Studies 35(8): 965-989.
15
Ikstens, J. (2005). "FHRUL Bloc: Leftist Parties or Parties of Russian-speaking People?"
Acta Universitatis Latviensis 680: 152-161.
Inglehart, R. and H.-D. Klingemann (1976). "Party identification, ideological
preference and the left-right dimension among Western mass publics." Party
identification and beyond: representations of voting and party competition: 243-273.
Jennings, M. K. and R. G. Niemi (1974). "The Political character of adolescence."
John, O. P. and S. Srivastava (1999). "The Big Five trait taxonomy: History,
measurement, and theoretical perspectives." Handbook of personality: Theory and
research 2(1999): 102-138.
Kam, C. D. (2005). "Who toes the party line? Cues, values, and individual
differences." Political Behavior 27(2): 163-182.
Marks, G., et al. (2006). "Party competition and European integration in the east and
west different structure, same causality." Comparative Political Studies 39(2): 155175.
Mondak, J. J., et al. (2011). "The participatory personality: evidence from Latin
America." British Journal of Political Science 41(01): 211-221.
Mondak, J. J. and K. D. Halperin (2008). "A framework for the study of personality
and political behaviour." British Journal of Political Science 38(02): 335-362.
Nørgaard, O. and L. Johannsen (1999). The Baltic states after independence, Edward
Elgar.
Perepjolkina, V. (2011). "Daudzdimensionālas personības aptaujas izstrāde un
validizācija Latvijas pieaugušo izlasē."
Rammstedt, B. and O. P. John (2007). "Measuring personality in one minute or less:
A 10-item short version of the Big Five Inventory in English and German." Journal of
research in Personality 41(1): 203-212.
Rammstedt, B. and T. H. Rammsayer (2002). "Gender differences in self‐estimated
intelligence and their relation to gender‐role orientation." European Journal of
Personality 16(5): 369-382.
16
Robins, R. W., et al. (2001). "Measuring global self-esteem: Construct validation of a
single-item measure and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale." Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin 27(2): 151-161.
Schmitt, D. P., et al. (2007). "The geographic distribution of Big Five personality traits
patterns and profiles of human self-description across 56 nations." Journal of CrossCultural Psychology 38(2): 173-212.
Sears, D. O. and S. Levy (2003). "Childhood and adult political development."
Handbook of Political Psychology: 60-109.
Van Skotere, L. and V. Perepjolkina (2011). "Personības iezīmju piecu faktoru modeļa
aptauju NEOPI-R, NEO-FFI un NEO-FFI-R latvisko versiju psihometriskie rādītāji." LU
raksti. Psiholoģija 768: 57-78.
Verhulst, B., et al. (2012). "Correlation not causation: The relationship between
personality traits and political ideologies." American Journal of Political Science
56(1): 34-51.
17