Search

In this article, we examine the nature of the relationship between educational attainment and ideology. Some scholars have argued that the effect of education on political variables like ideology is inflated due to unaccounted-for family factors, such as genetic predispositions and parental socialization. Using the discordant twin design and data from a large sample of Danish twins, we find that after accounting for confounders rooted in the family, education has a (quasi)-causal effect on economic ideology, but not social ideology. We also examine whether the relationship between education and economic ideology is moderated by levels of economic hardship in the local context where individuals reside. We find that the (quasi)-causal effect of education on economic ideology increases in economically challenged areas.

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-psx-10.1177_00323217211008788 for Educational Attainment Has a Causal Effect on Economic, But Not Social Ideology: Evidence from Discordant Twins by Stig Hebbelstrup Rye Rasmussen, Aaron Weinschenk, Asbjørn Sonne Nørgaard, Jacob von Bornemann Hjelmborg and Robert Klemmensen in Political Studies

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-2-psx-10.1177_00323217211008788 for Educational Attainment Has a Causal Effect on Economic, But Not Social Ideology: Evidence from Discordant Twins by Stig Hebbelstrup Rye Rasmussen, Aaron Weinschenk, Asbjørn Sonne Nørgaard, Jacob von Bornemann Hjelmborg and Robert Klemmensen in Political Studies

Following Hirschman, voters who are discontent with the party they voted for have two options: exit the party and vote for another or stay loyal. The inclination to exit or stay loyal is rooted in the Five Factor Model (FFM) of personality. We test our argument in two panel studies in Denmark and the United Kingdom. We find that citizens open to experience are more likely to switch parties since they are more likely to think about alternatives and take risks. Extroverts identify and commit themselves to organizations and stay loyal in Denmark, but we do not confirm this pattern in the United Kingdom. Our findings demonstrate that electoral volatility is, at least partly, rooted in personality.

This article examines if deep-seated psychological differences add to the explanation of attitudes toward immigration. We explore whether the Big Five personality traits matter for immigration attitudes beyond the traditional situational factors of economic and cultural threat and analyze how individuals with different personalities react when confronted with the same situational triggers. Using a Danish survey experiment, we show that different personality traits have different effects on opposition toward immigration. We find that Openness has an unconditional effect on attitudes toward immigration: scoring higher on this trait implies a greater willingness to admit immigrants. Moreover, individuals react differently to economic threat depending on their score on the traits Agreeableness and Conscientiousness. Specifically, individuals scoring low on Agreeableness and individuals scoring high on Conscientiousness are more sensitive to the skill level of immigrants. The results imply that personality is important for attitudes toward immigration, and in the conclusion, we further discuss how the observed conditional and unconditional effects of personality make sense theoretically.

Individuals are not equally politically tolerant. To explain why, individual differences in emotions and threat have received much scholarly attention in recent years. However, extant research also shows that psychological dispositions, habitual cognitive styles, ideological orientation and ‘principled reasoning’ influence political tolerance judgments. The extent to which cognitive ability plays a role has not been entertained even if the capacity to think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas and apply abstract ideas to concrete situations is inherent to both principled tolerance judgment and cognitive ability. Cognitive ability, we argue and show, adds to the etiology of political tolerance.In Danish and American samples cognitive ability strongly predicts political tolerance after taking habitual cognitive styles (as measured by personality traits), education, social ideology, and feelings of threat into account. Also, a survey experiment shows that the most cognitively able are more willing to extend civil liberties to extreme groups (Neo Nazis) as compared to non-extreme groups (Far Right/Christian Fundamentalists) than the less cognitively able. In the conclusion we discuss the theoretical and normative implications of our findings.

Udgivelsesdato: November 2009

Udgivelsesdato: 3.10