Contemporary political culture and discourse assumes that our views are largely malleable and most of us are blank slates waiting to be moulded by exposure to information. There is also something reassuring about this view of humanity and any perspective that is deterministic instils us with a degree of discomfort. However, an emerging body of research suggests quite the opposite is true, namely that personality traits, that are largely part of our genetic inheritance, play a significant role in shaping our political outlooks.
The most reliable and scientifically rigorous taxonomy for personality traits is known as the Big Five and this includes Extraversion, Neuroticism, Conscientiousness, Openness and Assertiveness. There are online personality tests that allow you to measure how you score on each of these personality dimensions. These traits can also be broken down into sub-traits which together inform the broader core trait. How one measures on each of these is a very stronger predictor of career choices, academic interests, lifestyle, romantic partners and, importantly, political views.
People on the political left tend to measure higher in openness and neuroticism, with openness being the trait that is most positively correlated. The sub-traits of openness are, ‘imaginativeness’, ‘creativity’, ‘open-mindedness’ and ‘insightfulness’. This means those who are creative and open to new ideas tend to lean to the left since it inherently seeks change and embraces the novel. This could help explain why those on the left are more likely to be political activists, they are perpetually disgruntled with the status quo and in search of something different.
Young people tend to be more left-leaning too, because we are generally more open and agreeable when we are younger. Artists and those who work in the creative industries are also likely to lean left which helps explain why the left dominates the entertainment industry. Similarly, academics need to be insightful and open to new ideas in order to be good at what they do, so it should come as no surprise that academia, in both the US and UK, is dominated by the left, especially in the social sciences. In fact, most industries develop a homogenous political culture over time which is likely to be driven by common personality traits amongst those attracted to the industry in question.
The sub-traits of neuroticism are ‘anxiety’, ‘hostility’, ‘depression’, ‘impulsiveness’ and ‘vulnerability to stress’. Interestingly, left-wing people who are more passionate about environmentalism and vote for green-friendly policies tend to measure much higher in these traits. This is perhaps because dread of a climatic apocalypse feeds anxiety, stress and hostility towards those who are not acting to bring about the much needed change. Interestingly, environmental knowledge seems to be negatively correlated with climate change anxiety, in that those who are most concerned are less likely to have studied the phenomenon and are, perhaps, primarily driven by their inherent anxieties and fears.
However, neuroticism is not unique to the left, UKIP voters in the UK also measured higher in this trait, which suggests political parties that dwell on impending doom and play on our deepest fears, whether that be mass immigration or climatic catastrophe, are more likely to attract the neurotic. Neuroticism is, therefore, found at both ends of the political spectrum and is a possible predictor of more extreme political behaviour.
Agreeableness is more complicated because whilst it is positively correlated with those who prefer left-wing economic ideas, it also correlates in a similar way with those who are socially conservative. As such it is not a stronger indicator of political views and neither is extraversion although it does measure slightly higher in those who lean to the right. Conscientiousness, on the other hand, tends to be much lower in those who are left-wing and much higher in those who are right-wing.
Sub-traits of conscientiousness are ‘orderliness’, ‘self-discipline’, ‘self-efficacy’, ‘achievement-striving’, ‘cautiousness’ and ‘dutifulness’. Those on the right tend to be more concerned with law and order, policing borders, patriotism and a strong work ethic in which people are less dependent on the state. This helps explain why those in the military, police, banking and sales are more likely to be right-leaning. Each of these professions require sub-traits of conscientiousness such ‘achievement-striving’ in banking or ‘orderliness’ in policing. Interestingly, farmers and cattle-herders tend to be the most right-leaning of all professions since their line of work requires a high degree of ‘self-efficacy’ and ‘self-discipline’. This may explain why support for right-leaning parties is higher in rural areas where the economy is more reliant on farming and less on the state in general.
Since we tend to get more conscientious as we get older, it should come as no surprise that older people are more likely to vote for right-wing parties. Higher voter turn-out amongst older people is, therefore, a crucial factor in success for the political right. Conversely, e-voting favours the left since older people tend to prefer voting in-person. Those who study or work in STEM-related subjects (Science, Technology, Engineering and Medicine) are also more likely to lean to the right, given there is a higher need for ‘cautiousness’ in these lines of work and, arguably, less need for ‘creativity’ and ‘imaginativeness’.
There are also interesting gender differences in the research with women measuring higher in neuroticism and agreeableness, whilst men measure higher in conscientiousness. However, the manner in which this translates into political behaviour and voting patterns is complex and shaped by prevailing social trends as well as issues championed by political parties which change over time. In general, the research suggests that women tend to vote for parties that promote social harmony whereas men are more likely to vote for those that are socially stigmatised or ideologically extreme.
Beyond the Big Five, the dark triad traits, which comprise ‘narcissism’, ‘machiavellianism’ and ‘psychopathy’ also have an intriguing relationship with political behaviour. According to the research, ‘machiavelliamism’ and ‘narcissism’ are negatively correlated with conservativism whilst ‘narcissism’, and especially ‘antagonistic narcissism’, seems to be positively correlated with a left-wing outlook. Other research has found that dark triad traits are found at both ends of the political spectrum and especially amongst those who are authoritarian and make harsh moral judgements about their political opponents. Narcissists are also more likely to get involved with politics in general because it can offer a sense of importance and appeal to those who feel a strong sense of entitlement.
Research has also found that people who signal victimhood and/or virtue in the political sphere are more likely to have dark triad traits, since they use this as a strategy to obtain rewards. This approach is particularly effective in a society that strives for egalitarianism and views any form of inequality as being related to suffering and injustice. In such a society virtuousness also signals status and, thus, virtue signalling becomes a means of seeking unwarranted status and prestige. This does explain a lot for those who have observed political activism up close.
The implications of this body of research are both profound and not fully appreciated in contemporary political discourse. If personality traits, which are largely inherited and shaped by our genes, drive our politics, should our political stances be treated as immutable characteristics? If they were more widely understood to be immutable would that change the way we look at those who adopt different political views from us? Would that make us less judgmental and more empathetic? Would it change the debate around cancel culture and free-speech? If personality traits are equally distributed amongst the population, is it then unethical to seek a political revolution since that will always involve suppressing the natural instincts a large portion of the population?
Most of us tend to approach the political sphere with an understanding of what works for us without an appreciation for the fact that it is both unfair and impracticable to impose that on others. For example, someone high in openness is likely to advocate for open borders without appreciating the effect that would have on those who are high in conscientiousness. Similarly, one who is high in conscientiousness is likely to prefer stricter punishments for those using Class C drugs which is absurd and oppressive to those who are high in openness. On many issues politics is, thus, less a debate about what is best for society and more a power struggle between different personality types.
Most of us adopt a blank slate approach to humanity and, thus, we assume we can eventually convince others of our point of view without appreciating how intractable others viewpoints can be. Ultimately, we all seek to create a world that works for us whilst thinking it can work for everyone. We seek to impose our own personal utopia on the others without realising how impractical that is. That is not to say political preferences and choices are entirely driven by personality traits, personal interests, life experiences and the socio-economic context can have an impact too. However, largely inherited personality traits are a central and dominant factor in shaping political choices and if this was more widely understood our political culture would be quite different.