{"title":"The democratic personality? The big five, authoritarianism and regime preference in consolidated democracies","authors":"Julian Erhardt","doi":"10.1177/02633957231172056","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Research frequently contends that support for democracy is a comparatively stable attitude. A previously neglected explanation for this finding is that regime preferences rest on deeply rooted psychological foundations. This article develops theoretical arguments about how the big five personality traits relate to democratic regime preferences in consolidated democracies, and presents empirical evidence using original survey data for six Western European countries. The results show that democratic regime support is substantively higher for more open, conscientious and agreeable individuals, but slightly lower for more extraverted and neurotic individuals. In addition, it highlights that it is important not to conflate support for democracy with authoritarianism, which the previous literature has frequently turned to for personality roots of anti-democratic sentiments. While authoritarianism also goes along with lower openness to experience, conscientiousness displays an opposite relationship, increasing pro-democratic attitudes but also individuals’ levels of authoritarianism. Thus, findings on authoritarianism should not be automatically translated to regime preferences.","PeriodicalId":47206,"journal":{"name":"Politics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Politics","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/02633957231172056","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Research frequently contends that support for democracy is a comparatively stable attitude. A previously neglected explanation for this finding is that regime preferences rest on deeply rooted psychological foundations. This article develops theoretical arguments about how the big five personality traits relate to democratic regime preferences in consolidated democracies, and presents empirical evidence using original survey data for six Western European countries. The results show that democratic regime support is substantively higher for more open, conscientious and agreeable individuals, but slightly lower for more extraverted and neurotic individuals. In addition, it highlights that it is important not to conflate support for democracy with authoritarianism, which the previous literature has frequently turned to for personality roots of anti-democratic sentiments. While authoritarianism also goes along with lower openness to experience, conscientiousness displays an opposite relationship, increasing pro-democratic attitudes but also individuals’ levels of authoritarianism. Thus, findings on authoritarianism should not be automatically translated to regime preferences.
期刊介绍:
Politics publishes cutting-edge peer-reviewed analysis in politics and international studies. The ethos of Politics is the dissemination of timely, research-led reflections on the state of the art, the state of the world and the state of disciplinary pedagogy that make significant and original contributions to the disciplines of political and international studies. Politics is pluralist with regards to approaches, theories, methods, and empirical foci. Politics publishes articles from 4000 to 8000 words in length. We welcome 3 types of articles from scholars at all stages of their careers: Accessible presentations of state of the art research; Research-led analyses of contemporary events in politics or international relations; Theoretically informed and evidence-based research on learning and teaching in politics and international studies. We are open to articles providing accounts of where teaching innovation may have produced mixed results, so long as reasons why these results may have been mixed are analysed.