Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Research suggests that citizens are increasingly turning to the market to express their political beliefs and values. Termed ‘political consumerism’, such behaviour can take a variety of forms—including boycotts and buycotts. While recent research has uncovered many of the sociodemographic and attitudinal correlates of political consumer behaviour, other individual differences, such as those rooted in personality, have been less studied. Drawing on a sample of more than 2500 voting-aged Canadians, we consider the relationship between individual differences in personality traits and political consumerism (boycotting and buycotting). Results reveal that, even after controlling for other known correlates such as age, gender, education, income, ideology, and political interest, differences in personality matter. We show that this is the case for both general and antagonistic traits.

Keywords

Personality boycott buycott political participation political consumerism

Introduction

From boycotts of French fries (Stolle et al., 2005) and Nike (Fernandes, 2020) to buycotts of fair-trade coffee (Fridell, 2007), citizens around the world are increasingly turning to political consumerism as a means of engaging in everyday (or ‘lifestyle’) forms of political participation (Friedman, 1999). While a growing literature has examined the practice of political consumerism in a variety of contexts, including Africa (Adugu, 2016), Latin America (Echegaray, 2015) and Europe and North America (Baek, 2010; Koos, 2012), a number of important questions remain regarding the kinds of individuals who are the most likely to engage in these unconventional forms of political participation. Copeland and Boulianne’s (2022) recent meta-analysis of political consumerism research includes dozens of published works and uncovers a number of relevant correlates relating to sociodemographic characteristics (education level, age, etc.) and political attitudes (political interest, ideological outlook, etc.). Less studied, however, have been individual differences in personality (but see Ackermann and Gundelach, 2022; Quintelier, 2014). As both general (i.e. agreeableness, etc.) and antagonistic (i.e. narcissism, etc.) personality traits have been linked to a variety of forms of political engagement (Chen et al., 2021; Mondak, 2010; Mungall et al., 2024) and political attitudes (Gerber et al., 2010; Osborne et al., 2018; Pruysers, 2021), these individual differences are likely to be relevant for better understanding political consumerism as well.

Drawing on a sample of more than 2500 voting-aged Canadians, we consider the relationship between individual differences in personality traits and engagement in political consumerism (boycotting and buycotting). In doing so, this paper extends previous research in a number of ways. First, our analysis considers general personality traits (extraversion, agreeableness, openness, etc.) as well as the more antagonistic personality traits of the Dark Triad (psychopathy, narcissism, and Machiavellianism). Second, from a methodological perspective we utilize more robust measures of personality. While past research has often measured general personality with 10 (Quintelier, 2014; You et al., 2023) or 15 items (Ackermann and Gundelach, 2022; Gundelach and Kalte, 2021), our analysis includes 60 items to measure the general traits of the HEXACO model and another 65 items to measure the three Dark Triad traits. This is an important advancement as short and abbreviated measures tend to underestimate the contribution of personality in explaining political outcomes (see Bakker and Lelkes, 2018). Considering both dark and general traits and utilizing more robust measures of personality should, therefore, provide new and more accurate insights into the relationship between political consumption and individual differences in personality.

Overall, the results provide compelling evidence that both general and dark personality traits are related to engaging in political consumerism, even when controlling for other known correlates such as age, gender, income, education, left–right ideology and political interest. Notably, traits such as openness and narcissism are significantly and positively related to both boycotting and buycotting whereas higher agreeableness is negatively related to participating in boycotting activities. At the same time, we find, somewhat counterintuitively, that individuals scoring higher on the antagonistic Dark Triad trait of psychopathy are significantly more (not less) likely to engage in political consumerism; an unexpected finding that is explored further in the discussion. The results also reveal that, when considering the relative importance of the various predictors included in the analyses, individual differences in personality are not completely overshadowed by sociodemographic and political variables. In fact, a dominance analysis reveals that the trait of openness is the single most powerful predictor of all the variables considered. The pattern of results uncovered here provide new insight into those who are the most likely to engage in political consumerism and confirm that the psychological foundations of political consumption are an important piece of the puzzle.

Personality, political participation, and political ponsumerism

Unconventional forms of everyday lifestyle politics (veganism, freeganism, minimalism, etc.) are becoming more common as citizens turn to the market to express their political ideals and beliefs (Cherry, 2006; Lorenzini and Forno, 2022; Micheletti et al., 2003). Often grouped together under the label of ‘political consumerism’, this form of political participation can be defined as ‘consumer choice of producers and products based on political or ethical considerations, or both’ (Stolle et al., 2005: 256).¹ Political consumerism is often differentiated into two specific types of political action: boycotts and buycotts.² The former refers to the deliberate withdrawal of support (i.e. purchasing) for a specific product or producer. The latter, by contrast, refers to deliberate support for a specific product or producer. When conceptualizing boycotts the action can be collective and organized, like that taken against Nestlé in the 1970s and 1980s. More commonly, however, boycotting activities are disorganized and individualized (occurring outside the realm of traditionally organized collective action). Buycotting, on the other hand, is sometimes referred to as ethical consumerism and includes support for movements such as free trade coffee, buying local, etc. In both cases the motivation for the behaviour is often considered to be broadly political in nature (based on ethical concerns, ideological concerns, environmental concerns, etc.). Micheletti and Boström (2014: 1508) sum this up as follows: ‘The concept of political consumerism identifies instances when people evaluate and choose producers and products because they want to change ethically, environmentally, or politically objectionable institutional or market practices.’ A growing body of research, however, adds nuance to this notion, suggesting that motivations for political consumption may be considerably more varied – including motivations relating to self-expression, social identification, and the desire of social approval (Gotlieb, 2015; Gotlieb and Cheema, 2016). Griskevicius et al. (2010), for instance, reveal that ‘going green’ can be the result of status seeking motivations (i.e. individuals more willing to buy green products when shopping in public vs. private).

The central question of this paper is who is likely to engage in this kind of political action. While political consumerism can undoubtedly have a collective element as noted above (i.e. organized campaigns to boycott a product or producer), it is at its core an individualized action. Micheletti (2003: 25), for example, used the terms ‘citizen-created action’ and ‘individualized collective action’ to describe political consumerism. Consistent with its individualized nature, a number of individual-level sociodemographic differences such as education and age, as well as attitudinal differences such as political interest and left–right ideology, have been identified as consistent correlates of the propensity to engage in political consumerism (Copeland and Boulianne, 2022). As an individualized form of political engagement, Ackermann and Gundelach (2022) argue that political consumerism should also have its roots in individual differences in personality.

Personality generally refers to a set of deeply rooted and relatively stable traits that shape who we are, what we believe and how we act. Mondak (2010: 15), for instance, writes that ‘there is something intrinsic in each of us, largely present at birth, that defines who and what we are, and that shapes how we behave’. Likewise, Feist and Feist (2009: 4) note that ‘although no single definition is acceptable to all personality theorists, we can say that personality is a pattern of relatively permanent traits and unique characteristics that give both consistency and individuality to a person’s behavior’. The most commonly used and well-validated models of personality include the Big Five (McCrae and Costa, 2003), the HEXACO (Ashton and Lee, 2009), and the Dark Triad (Paulhus and Williams, 2002). The HEXACO model of personality captures six general personality traits: honesty–humility (e.g. modesty, fairness); emotionality (e.g. worry, empathy); extraversion (e.g. sociability, energy); agreeableness (e.g. kindness, warmth); conscientiousness (e.g. organization, discipline); and openness (e.g. curiosity, imaginativeness). While models of personality like the HEXACO and the Big Five capture general personality traits, other models of personality focus on more antagonistic and socially aversive, traits. The Dark Triad model of personality, for example, consists of psychopathy (e.g. blunted affect, antisocial behaviour), Machiavellianism (e.g. callousness, cunning), and narcissism (e.g. grandiosity, hypersensitivity).

As a set of stable and enduring characteristics, personality traits have the ability to shape how individuals see and interact with the world around them. Individual differences in personality influence information processing (i.e. those higher in conscientiousness are diligent planners), emotional responses (i.e. highly disagreeable individuals are more prone to anger), and behavioural tendencies (i.e. extraverted individuals are more likely to engage in group activities than solitary ones). Both general and dark personality traits have been shown to be related to a broad range of consumer behaviours and attitudes such as impulse purchasing (Verplanken and Herabadi, 2001), consumer satisfaction (Castillo, 2017), brand name consumerism (Sedikides et al., 2011), and customer loyalty and spending habits (Ou, 2021). At the same time, individual differences in personality have been shown to influence a variety of political outcomes, attitudes, and behvaiours. This includes political orientation (Osborne et al., 2018) and partisanship (Blais et al., 2022), interest in politics (Chen et al., 2021), political ambition (Blais et al., 2019), political participation and engagement (Mondak, 2010), turnout (Blais and Labbé St-Vincent, 2011), feelings of civic duty (Pruysers et al., 2019), and a variety of other politically oriented attitudes and beliefs (Gravelle et al., 2020; Pruysers, 2021). If personality influences general consumer behaviour, and if personality influences political behaviour, surely personality should influence the intersection of consumer and political behaviour as well.

While limited, a small number of studies have explored the link between the general traits of the Big Five and political consumerism (Ackermann and Gundelach, 2022; Gundelach and Kalte, 2021; Quintelier, 2014; You et al., 2023). As these small number of studies have utilized different measures (of both personality and political consumerism) and different samples, there is yet to be a consensus on the precise relationship between personality and the propensity to engage in acts of political consumerism. The most consistent finding in the existing literature relates to a positive relationship between the trait of openness (creative, curious and innovative) and political consumerism. Other relationships have been found too, although not as consistently. Ackermann and Gundelach (2022), for example, find that traits such as conscientiousness (organized, diligent and prudent) and agreeableness (forgiving, patient and flexible) are negatively related to such behaviours (especially boycotting). Quintelier (2014), by contrast, does not find significant results for agreeableness or conscientiousness, but does find evidence for a negative relationship between extraversion (outgoing, social, bold) and boycotting across two studies.

Building on this research we consider the extent to which both general and dark personality traits are related to political consumer behaviour in a large Canadian sample. While we do not put forward specific hypotheses for each of the nine personality traits included in the analyses, we do expect a number of relationships with specific traits. In particular, we expect to find a positive relationship for the traits of honesty–humility, openness, and narcissism, and a negative relationship for agreeableness and the remaining Dark Triad traits. We briefly outline our expectations below.

Individuals scoring higher in the trait of openness tend to be more ideologically progressive (left-wing, environmentally conscious, etc.; Osborne et al., 2018). These individuals are also open to new and unconventional ideas and activities (Costa and McCrae, 1995). Such a profile should result in a greater willingness to participate in alternative forms of political participation such as boycotting and buycotting (H1). Individuals who score higher on the trait of honesty–humility avoid fraud and corruption when dealing with others, have a tendency to be fair and genuine, and are generally cooperative (Ashton et al., 2014). Their prosocial attitudes and commitment to their border community (Pruysers et al., 2019) should result in greater levels of political consumerism among those higher in honesty–humility (H2).

Highly agreeable individuals tend to be flexible, forgiving and empathetic. These individuals avoid conflict and are not prone to anger or resentment (Hepp et al., 2014). Individuals who are lower in agreeableness, by contrast, tend to be stubborn, argumentative and do not shy away from disagreements or outright conflict. Given their flexibility and conflict avoidance, highly agreeable individuals should be less likely to engage in boycotting campaigns, whereas highly disagreeable individuals should be more likely to engage in such behaviours (H3). Because buycotting is inherently less conflictual than boycotting, we do not expect to find the same pattern for buycotting behaviours.

Finally, the Dark Triad traits (Machiavellianism, narcissism and psychopathy) are characterized by an antagonistic core (Vize et al., 2020). Individuals scoring higher in these traits tend to be unempathetic, callous and self-interested. Given the often ethical dimensions of political consumerism (i.e. concern for the environment; Micheletti and Boström, 2014), we expect a negative relationship between the traits of Machiavellianism and psychopathy and acts of buycotting/boycotting (H4).

The one exception within the Dark Triad is narcissism. Research suggests that there is a social-approval dimension that can also motivate political consumption (Aagerup and Nilsson, 2016; Brenton, 2013; Gotlieb, 2015). Here individuals may engage in political consumerism not because of ethical, political or environmental reasons but rather to be thought of favourably by others, to project a positive self-image, and to engage in positive impression management. Given that narcissism is associated with an inflated sense of self and a strong desire/need for praise and admiration from others (Neave et al., 2020), we expect that those scoring higher in narcissism will be more likely to engage in political consumerism (H5). Consistent with this expectation, Naderi and Strutton (2014: 381) report that those scoring higher in narcissism are more likely to purchase green products ‘when the probability of being seen and admired by other people is relatively high’.³

Data and methods

Data for this study were derived from an original online survey of voting-aged Canadians (collected between August and September of 2019). Canada is an excellent case to study political consumerism as it is an industrialized western democracy where individuals have access to high levels of both political and economic resources. This is important as individuals interested in engaging in political consumption often require knowledge (i.e. of companies and products), efficacy (i.e. a sense that their actions will or can make a difference), and spending capacity (i.e. to purchase alternative, and sometimes more expensive, products). Respondents were recruited and compensated through an online survey panel maintained by Qualtrics. Participants completed a 25 minute survey that included three primary blocks of questions: the first asked questions relating to participant demographics and background; the second included questions regarding political behaviour and policy attitudes; and the third included the various batteries of personality items. While the survey was derived from an online, non-probability, sample, a number of steps were taken to ensure that participants were broadly reflective of the Canadian population. In particular, we included a number of quotas for characteristics such as gender, age and income matched to the 2016 Canadian census – a procedure similar to that taken by recent Canadian election studies.

Participants who failed our attention check questions, engaged in straight lining (i.e. choosing the same response option for all questions), and completed the survey in an unreasonably short amount of time (speedsters) were removed. After this initial data cleaning and reaching our various quotas, the final sample included 2551 voting aged Canadians (M_age = 47.2, SD = 16.4). The data include an even split between men and women (50% men; 49% women; 1% gender non-binary). Twenty-two percent of respondents self-identified as either a person of Indigenous heritage or as a member of a visible minority community. A quarter (26%) report having a university degree. The final sample, therefore, is highly reflective of the Canadian population in terms of characteristics such as age, gender, visible minority status and education.

To capture political consumerism, we rely on two standard questions in our survey. The first asked respondents about boycotting products, whereas the second asked about purchasing (both included dichotomous yes/no response options). The boycotting question was worded as follows: ‘In the past 12 months, have you boycotted a product, service, brand, or company for ethical, environmental, or political reasons?’. The purchasing (buycotting) question, by contrast, was worded as follows: ‘In the past 12 months, have you purchased one product or brand over another for ethical, environmental, or political reasons?’. These questions serve as the dependent variable for the analyses that follow.⁴

The primary independent variables are personality traits. Beginning with general personality traits, we draw upon the HEXACO-60 (Ashton and Lee, 2009). The HEXACO-60 is a well-validated, 60-item, self-report scale that asks respondents to rate their agreement to a variety of statements (i.e. ‘I rarely express my opinions in group meetings’; ‘I do only the minimum amount of work needed to get by’). The scale captures six general personality traits (10 items per trait). While diverging from the Big Five slightly, these traits include honesty–humility (H), emotionality (E), extraversion (X), agreeableness (A), conscientiousness (C), and openness to experience (O). Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for each trait are well within the acceptable range (0.69 to 0.77).

Moving to the Dark Triad (psychopathy, Machiavellianism and narcissism), we make use of three separate inventories. Although measures such as the Short Dark Triad (Jones and Paulhus, 2014) capture all three traits in a single battery, these abbreviated measures are not without limitation or criticism (see, for example, Miller et al., 2019). In the current study Machiavellianism is measured using the 20-item MACH IV (Christie and Geis, 1970), narcissism is measured with the 16-item Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI-16; Ames et al., 2006), and psychopathy is measured using the 29-item Self-Report Psychopathy Short Form (SRP-SF; Paulhus et al., 2016). The Machiavellianism and psychopathy scales required participants to rate their agreement with several statements (i.e. ‘The best way to handle people is to tell them what they want to hear’; ‘People sometimes say that I’m cold-hearted’), while the narcissism scale had participants choose from competing pairs of descriptions (i.e. ‘I really like to be the center of attention’ OR ‘It makes me uncomfortable to be the center of attention’). Like the HEXACO, the internal consistency of the three Dark Triad trait scales were all well within the acceptable range (Cronbach’s alpha: Machiavellianism = 0.71; narcissism = 0.76; psychopathy = 0.95).⁵

In addition to personality traits, our analyses include a number of theoretically informed control variables derived from the existing literature (Copeland and Boulianne, 2022). This includes age (in years), gender (dichotomous: man, woman),⁶ education (6-point scale ranging from elementary school to doctorate/professional degree), income (9-point scale from $25,000 to $200,000), self-reported political ideology (0–10 scale in which 10 is right and 0 is left), and political interest (0–10 scale in which 10 is a great deal of interest).

Results

Before we move to the multivariate analysis, it is worth highlighting the extent to which individuals in the sample engaged in acts of political consumerism. Table 1 provides the simple frequencies (boycott, buycott and engagement in either activity), and reveals that nearly half of the sample (45%) had participated in some form of political consumerism in the 12 months prior to the survey. This figure is largely consistent with Ackermann and Gundelach (2022) who find that 53% of their sample of Swiss individuals had engaged in some form of political consumerism in a 12-month period. Of the two main types of political consumerism examined here, boycotting (31%) is slightly less common than buycotting (35%).

Table 1.

Political consumerism (frequencies).

	Boycott	Buycott	Either boycott or buycott
Engaged in activity in past 12 months	31% (790)	35% (899)	45% (1135)
Did not engage in activity in past 12 months	69% (1761)	65% (1646)	55% (1410)
N	2551	2545	2545

Given the binary nature of the outcome (1 = engaged in the activity; 0 = did not), we model our multivariate analyses using binary logistic regression. We begin the analysis with boycotting as our dependent variable (Table 2). The analysis includes three models. Model 1 includes only the control variables: age, gender, education, income, self-report political ideology, and political interest. Model 2 adds the six general personality traits of the HEXACO (honesty–-humility, emotionality, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness and openness) whereas model 3 includes the three antagonistic traits of the Dark Triad (Machiavellianism, psychopathy and narcissism). All models are significant and explain a considerable amount of the total variance: model 1 (controls) explains 13% of the total variance while model 2 (general traits) explains 19%, and model 3 (dark traits) explains approximately 14%. In both cases, the total explained variance improves with the addition of the personality traits.

Table 2.

Personality and boycotting (Binary logistic regression).

	Model 1			Model 2			Model 3
	B	SE	Exp (B)	B	SE	Exp (B)	B	SE	Exp (B)
Age	−0.007	0.003	0.993*	−0.010	0.003	0.990**	−0.006	0.003	0.994
Gender (man)	−0.242	0.093	0.785**	−0.204	0.104	0.815*	−0.290	0.098	0.748**
Education	0.145	0.043	1.156**	0.117	0.045	1.125**	0.134	0.043	1.143**
Income	0.035	0.022	1.035	0.025	0.023	1.026	0.034	0.022	1.034
Left–right ideology	−0.111	0.020	0.895**	−0.083	0.021	0.920**	−0.118	0.020	0.889**
Political interest	0.209	0.017	1.232**	0.168	0.018	1.183**	0.202	0.017	1.224**
Honesty–humility				0.005	0.004	1.006
Emotionality				−0.004	0.003	0.996
Extraversion				0.005	0.004	1.005
Agreeableness				−0.014	0.004	0.986**
Conscientiousness				−0.004	0.004	0.996
Openness				0.030	0.004	1.031**
Machiavellianism							−0.011	0.005	0.989*
Psychopathy							0.007	0.003	1.007*
Narcissism							0.004	0.003	1.004*
Constant	1.549	0.220	0.212**	−2.40	0.432	0.090**	−1.27	0.321	0.280**
Nagelkerke	0.130			0.186			0.135

P < 0.01; *P < 0.05.

The political and sociodemographic controls in model 1 follow a predictable pattern based on the existing literature. Older individuals, men, and those on the right of the political spectrum are less likely to report engaging in boycotting activities. Those with higher levels of education and higher reported political interest, by contrast, are more likely to take part in boycotting activities. As for the general personality traits in model 2, two are significant. Consistent with H1 and H3, those higher in trait openness are more likely to engage in boycotting activities whereas those higher in agreeableness are significantly less likely to do so. Despite our expectations regarding an emphasis on ethics and fairness (H2), honesty–humility appears to be unrelated to boycotting activities.

Moving to model 3 (antagonistic personality traits), the controls follow the same pattern as reported in model 1. The one exception is that the coefficient for age is no longer significant when the antagonistic personality traits are included and the general traits removed. Here we find that the antagonistic traits are pulling in different (and even unexpected) directions. Those scoring higher in psychopathy and narcissism are more likely to engage in boycotting activities, while those higher in Machiavellianism are less likely to do so.⁷ Our expectations for the Dark Triad, therefore, are only partially supported with regard to boycotting. The Machiavellianism and narcissism results, while in diverging directions, are consistent with H4 and H5. The psychopathy results, however, are in contrast to our expectations (H4).

Table 3 includes the results for buycotting, with model 1 including the control variables, model 2 including general personality traits, and model 3 including the antagonistic traits. Once again all three models are significant and explain a considerable amount of the total variance: Model 1 (controls) explains approximately 16% of the total variance whereas model 2 (general traits) and model 3 (dark traits) explain 22% and 17%, respectively. The control variables continue to relate to this aspect of political consumerism as expected (older individuals less likely to take part in buycott activities, highly educated individuals more likely, etc.).

Table 3.

Personality and buycotting (Binary logistic regression).

	Model 1			Model 2			Model 3
	B	SE	Exp (B)	B	SE	Exp (B)	B	SE	Exp (B)
Age	−0.019	0.003	0.981**	−0.021	0.003	0.980**	−0.018	0.003	0.982**
Gender (man)	−0.353	0.092	0.703**	−0.234	0.102	0.792*	−0.393	0.097	0.675**
Education	0.216	0.042	1.242**	0.186	0.044	1.204**	0.204	0.043	1.226**
Income	0.051	0.021	1.052*	0.043	0.023	1.044	0.048	0.022	1.049*
Left–-right ideology	−0.073	0.020	0.930**	−0.041	0.021	0.960*	−0.078	0.020	0.925**
Political interest	0.215	0.016	1.240**	0.162	0.018	1.176**	0.206	0.017	1.228**
Honesty–humility				0.002	0.004	1.002
Emotionality				0.003	0.003	1.003
Extraversion				0.009	0.004	1.009**
Agreeableness				0.001	0.004	1.001
Conscientiousness				−0.009	0.004	0.991*
Openness				0.032	0.003	1.032**
Machiavellianism							−0.019	0.005	0.982**
Psychopathy							0.008	0.003	1.008*
Narcissism							0.006	0.003	1.006*
Constant	−1.261	0.214	0.283**	−3.160	0.434	0.042**	−0.673	0.315	0.510*
Nagelkerke	0.164			0.217			0.174

P < 0.01; *P < 0.05.

As for general personality, we see a number of relationships. Those scoring higher on openness (H1) and extraversion are more likely to take part in buycotting whereas conscientious individuals are less likely to do so. Once again, we find no relationship between honesty–humility (H2) and political consumerism (buycotting behaviours in this case). Model 3, which includes the three antagonistic traits, follows the same pattern as was uncovered for boycotting: those scoring higher in psychopathy and narcissism are more likely to engage in buycotting activities, while those higher in Machiavellianism are less likely to do so.

The results of Tables 2 and 3 reveal that a number of personality traits are significantly related to political consumption. To consider the importance of our personality variables relative to the sociodemographic and political variables, we conducted a dominance analysis (also known as a relative importance analysis). As Lee and Dahinten (2021: 2) explain, ‘dominance analysis, which identifies predictors’ relative importance in a statistical model, can be used to supplement regression analysis’. Unlike standard regression coefficients, which reveal the unique effect of a variable while controlling for others in the model, dominance analysis evaluates the contribution of each predictor across all possible subsets of variables (including subsets where some variables are excluded). Table 4 provides the results for boycotting and Table 5 for buycotting. The first column in each table, the standardized dominance, indicates the calculated proportion that each predictor in the model contributes to the explained variance of the dependent variable (with all variables totalling 1). The second column, by contrast, shows the rank of each predictor, with 1 representing the variable that contributes the most explanatory power in the model, 2 being the second most powerful predictor, and so on.

Table 4.

Dominance analysis (boycotting).

	Model 1 (general traits)		Model 2 (antagonistic traits)
	Standardized dominance	Rank	Standardized dominance	Rank
Age	0.020	9	0.014	9
Gender (man)	0.008	11	0.026	6
Education	0.059	3	0.100	2
Income	0.021	8	0.037	5
Left–right ideology	0.042	4	0.093	3
Political interest	0.359	2	0.651	1
Honesty–humility	0.012	10
Emotionality	0.003	12
Extraversion	0.034	5
Agreeableness	0.025	6
Conscientiousness	0.021	7
Openness	0.395	1
Machiavellianism			0.024	7
Psychopathy			0.015	8
Narcissism			0.040	4

Standardized dominance values total 1.

Table 5.

Dominance analysis (buycotting).

	Model 1 (general traits)		Model 2 (antagonistic traits)
	Standardized dominance	Rank	Standardized dominance	Rank
Age	0.092	4	0.092	3
Gender (man)	0.013	8	0.037	6
Education	0.101	3	0.146	2
Income	0.041	6	0.061	4
Left–right ideology	0.001	9	0.029	8
Political interest	0.312	2	0.526	1
Honesty–humility	0.001	12
Emotionality	0.005	10
Extraversion	0.055	5
Agreeableness	0.004	11
Conscientiousness	0.017	7
Openness	0.350	1
Machiavellianism			0.037	7
Psychopathy			0.019	9
Narcissism			0.053	5

Standardized dominance values total 1.

Table 4, which provides the dominance results for boycotting, reveals that a number of personality traits outrank standard sociodemographic variables in terms of their explanatory power. Extraversion, agreeableness and conscientiousness are each ranked higher than traditional factors such as age and gender. In fact, the analysis reveals that the trait of openness is the single most important predictor in the model – rank 1 and accounting for 39.5% of the total explained variance. Other than political interest (rank 2; 36% of the explained variance), no other factor is nearly as powerful. Turning to the antagonistic traits, we see that the trait of narcissism is the fourth most powerful predictor in the boycotting model – behind interest, education and political ideology. Table 5, which includes the dominance results for buycotting, provides a very similar pattern. Once again, we find that the trait of openness is the single most powerful predictor in the model, accounting for 35% of the explained variance. In the Dark Triad model, we see that narcissism is again the most powerful predictor of the antagonistic traits (rank 5 overall).

Discussion and conclusion

Research suggests that unconventional forms of political participation through marketplace action (political consumerism) are increasingly commonplace. While a recent meta-analysis of political consumption studies (Copeland and Boulianne, 2022) sheds light on many of the correlates of political consumer behaviour, including numerous sociodemographic and attitudinal factors, individual differences in personality have remained an understudied piece of the puzzle. Moreover, the results of the few studies that do consider personality have utilized truncated batteries to measure personality, and none to date have considered the antagonistic traits of the Dark Triad. The purpose of this study, therefore, was to explore the personality correlates (both dark and general) of political consumerism (boycotting and boycotting) in a large sample using robust measures of personality while controlling for a variety of other known correlates.

In terms of general personality, the results are largely consistent with our expectations as well as the existing literature (Ackermann and Gundelach, 2022; Quintelier, 2014). Highly open individuals, for example, are more likely to participate in both boycotting and buycotting activities. This is consistent with a personality profile that is open to new ideas and unconventional ways of thinking and acting. Highly agreeable individuals, by contrast, are less likely to do so – but this only applies to boycotting. Again, this is in line with our expectations as agreeable individuals are forgiving, empathetic and tend to avoid conflict. Such a profile is not conducive to public acts of boycotting. Our expectations regarding honesty–humility, however, are not borne out by the data. Despite their desire to be fair and sincere, individuals scoring higher in the trait of honesty–humility do not engage in political consumerism at elevated rates. This is especially surprising given the ethical or moral foundations of political consumerism. Such a finding, however, may be consistent with the fact that social approval and status signaling have also been identified as potentially relevant motivations for political consumption (Gotlieb, 2015; Naderi and Strutton, 2014). As individuals who are modest and uninterested in elevated social status, the social benefits of engaging in acts of boycotting and boycotting may be of little interest to those scoring higher in honesty–humility. These individuals may well avoid activities that have performative and status-seeking optics.

The findings relating to the antagonistic traits are somewhat contrary to our initial expectations. Here the data revealed that Machiavellianism was negatively related to political consumerism while narcissism and psychopathy were positively related to engaging in such activities. While the patterns of Machiavellianism and narcissism are consistent with the expectations, the findings around psychopathy are surprising. Individuals scoring higher on psychopathy are often described as callous, unemotional and impulsive (Paulhus and Williams, 2002). Political consumerism, by contrast, is often portrayed as thoughtful, deliberate and in many cases, ethically driven. Why, then, do those scoring higher in psychopathy engage in political consumerism? Although the precise mechanism remains unclear, it may be the case that a more antagonistic motivation, such as revenge, is driving the results reported here. Rather than political, environmental or ethical motivations, as the survey’s question wording would suggest, those scoring higher in psychopathy may be driven to engage in acts of boycotting as a means of retaliation towards a specific product or producer.⁸ Indeed, there is ample evidence to suggest those scoring higher in psychopathy tend to be vengeful (see, for example, Ramussen and Boon, 2014) and recent evidence suggests that this may extend to the consumer realm in the context of service failures (Hancock et al., 2023). For these individuals boycotts may be less about political and ethical motivations and more the result of their proneness to anger and a desire to seek out revenge. Further research on this relationship is needed to uncover the precise mechanism at work here, especially given that the finding also applies to buycotting.

Overall, the results presented here add to our understanding of the kinds of individuals most likely to engage in political consumerism in a number of ways. First, the results of the dominance analysis reveal that the psychological underpinnings of political consumption should not be ignored. Of all the variables included in the analysis (age, gender, knowledge, ideology, etc.), an individual’s score on the personality trait of openness contributed the most explanatory power for boycotting and buycotting alike. Moreover, the traits of extraversion, agreeableness and conscientiousness outperformed standard sociodemographic factors such as age, gender and income in the boycotting model, while extraversion and conscientiousness outperformed variables such as gender and ideology in the buycotting model. Second, the inclusion of the antagonistic traits reveals that the psychological correlates of political consumption do not stop with general personality. While less powerful in their overall explanatory power, each of the Dark Triad traits nonetheless shows a significant relationship to political consumption. Finally, that we find differing results for boycotts and buycotts (i.e. highly agreeable individuals avoid boycotting) suggests that there is value in studying different acts of political consumption separately from one another, a finding that is consistent with recent research (see Zorell, 2019).

The analysis and conclusions drawn here also raise a number of questions and avenues for future research. First, while this paper advances the methodology on the personality side of this question (moving beyond the Big Five, drawing on more robust measures of personality, etc.), there are limitations associated with the measurement of political consumerism utilized here. In particular, the binary measure employed in this paper does not capture the frequency of political consumption and therefore cannot distinguish between those who engage in routine and sustained political consumerism on the one hand, and those who have done so just once in the past year on the other. This is especially relevant when considering that political consumerism is often viewed as a form of everyday, or lifestyle, politics (i.e. one that happens continually). Future studies, therefore, would benefit from not only utilizing more fulsome measures of personality as this paper does, but also utilizing more robust measures of political consumerism as well (see Gundelach, 2020).

Similarly, boycotting and buycotting are not the only forms of political consumption. More expansive definitions include discursive political consumerism as well as broader lifestyle practices (Boström et al., 2019). While the psychology literature already considers the relationship between personality and what we would define as lifestyle forms of political consumerism (i.e. veganism; see Tan et al., 2021), it does not do so through the lens of political consumerism. As a result, these literatures remain largely distinct. Expanding the personality and political consumerism research agenda to incorporate a broader range of activities beyond boycotting and buycotting would, therefore, be worthwhile.

Finally, the results presented here suggest that a fruitful avenue for future research would be to explore the intersection of personality and the motivation for political consumption. While often portrayed as ethical, political, and environmental in nature, the literature has also identified a number of other motivations for political consumption (value expression, social identity, etc.). Although this paper connects personality and various motivations together in a theoretical fashion, it cannot do so empirically. Do, for example, those scoring higher in narcissism engage in political consumerism in order to enhance their reputation and be seen in a positive light? Conversely, are those scoring higher on honesty–humility turned off from engaging in political consumption because of the very same status seeking and performative optics? And do those scoring higher in psychopathy care about any of these motivations, or are they driven by retaliatory action as suggested here? Understanding how individual personality traits are related to specific motivations to engage in political consumption is an important next step for this stream of research.

Supplemental Material

sj-zip-1-ips-10.1177_01925121241308213 – Supplemental material for Supermarket politics: personality and political consumerism

Supplemental material, sj-zip-1-ips-10.1177_01925121241308213 for Supermarket politics: personality and political consumerism by Scott Pruysers in International Political Science Review

Footnotes

Data availability

Requests for access to the data for the purposes of verifying the findings of this article can be addressed to the author.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research,authorship,and/or publication of this article: The research was funded by a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) Insight Development Grant (430-2018-00950).

ORCID iD

Scott Pruysers

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Author biography

Scott Pruysers is an Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science at Dalhousie University. His research explores questions of participation and representation in party and electoral politics.

References

Aagerup

Ulf

Nilsson

Jonas

(2016) Green consumer behavior: being good or seeming good? Journal of Product & Brand Management 25: 274–284.

Ackermann

Kathrin

Gundelach

Brite

(2022) Psychological roots of political consumerism: personality traits and participation in boycott and buycott. International Political Science Review 43(1): 36–54.

Adugu

Emmanuel

(2016) Correlates of political consumption in Africa. In Gbadamosi

Ayantunji

(ed.) The Handbook of Research on Consumerism and Buying Behavior in Developing Nations. Hershey: IGI Global, 452–473.

Ames

Daniel

Rose

Paul

Anderson

Cameron

(2006) The NPI-16 as a short measure of narcissism. Journal of Research in Personality 40(4): 440–450.

Ashton

Michael

Lee

Kibeom

(2009) The HEXACO-60: a short measure of the major dimensions of personality. Journal of Personality Assessment 91(4): 340–345.

Ashton

Michael

Lee

Kibeom

de Vries

Reinout

(2014) The HEXACO honesty-humility, agreeableness, and emotionality factors: a review of research and theory. Personality and Social Psychology Review 18(2): 139–152.

Baek

Young Min

(2010) To buy or not to buy: who are political consumers? What do they think and how do they participate? Political Studies 58: 1065–1086.

Bakker

Bert N

Lelkes

Yphtach

(2018) Selling ourselves short? How abbreviated measures of personality change the way we think about personality and politics. Journal of Politics 80(4): 1311–1325.

Blais

André

Labbé St-Vincent

Simon

(2011) Personality traits, political attitudes, and the propensity to vote. European Journal of Political Research 50(3): 395–417.

10.

Blais

Julie

Mungall

Luke R

Pruysers

Scott

(2022) Personality, political ideology, and partisanship in Canada. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science 56: 81–92.

11.

Blais

Julie

Pruysers

Scott

Chen

Phillip G

(2019) Why do they run? The psychological underpinnings of political ambition. Canadian Journal of Political Science 52(4): 761–779.

12.

Blais

Julie

Solodukhin

Elizabeth

Forth

Adelle

(2014) A meta-analysis exploring the relationship between psychopathy and instrumental versus reactive violence. Criminal Justice and Behavior 41(7): 797–821.

13.

Boström

Magnus

Micheletti

Michele

Oosterveer

Peter

(2019) Studying political consumerism. In Boström

Magnus

Micheletti

Michele

Oosterveer

Peter

(eds) The Oxford Handbook of Political Consumerism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 205–226.

14.

Brenton

Scott

(2013) Political motivations of ethical consumers. International Journal of Consumer Studies 37: 490–497.

15.

Castillo

Javier

(2017) The relationship between big five personality traits, customer empowerment and customer satisfaction in the retail industry. Journal of Business and Retail Management Research 11(2): 11–29.

16.

Chen

Phillip

Pruysers

Scott

Blais

Julie

(2021) The dark side of politics: participation and the dark triad. Political Studies 69(3): 577–601.

17.

Cherry

Elizabeth

(2006) Veganism as a cultural movement: a relational approach. Social Movement Studies 5(2): 155–170.

18.

Christie

Richard

Geis

Florence

(1970) Studies in Machiavellianism. New York, NY: Academic Press.

19.

Copeland

Lauren

Boulianne

Shelley

(2022) Political consumerism: a meta-analysis. International Political Science Review 43(1): 3–18.

20.

Costa

Paul

McCrae

Robert

(1995) Solid ground in the wetlands of personality: a reply to block. Psychological Bulletin 117(2): 216–220.

21.

Echegaray

Fabian

(2015) Voting at the marketplace: political consumerism in Latin America. Latin American Research Review 50(2): 176–199.

22.

Feist

Jess

Feist

Gregory

(2009) Theories of Personality (7th edn). New York, NY: McGraw- Hill.

23.

Fernandes

Daniel

(2020) Politics at the Mall: The moral foundations of boycotts. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing 39(4): 494–513.

24.

Fridell

Gavin

(2007) Fair Trade Coffee: The Prospects and Pitfalls of Market-Driven Social Justice. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

25.

Friedman

Monroe

(1999) Consumer Boycotts: Effecting Change Through the Marketplace and the Media. New York, NY: Routledge.

26.

Gerber

Alan

Huber

Gregory

Doherty

David

Dowling

Conor

Shange

(2010) Personality and political attitudes: relationships across issue domains and political contexts. American Political Science Review 104: 111–133.

27.

Gotlieb

Melissa R

(2015) Civic, cooperative or contrived? A functional approach to political consumerism motivations. International Journal of Consumer Studies 39: 552–563.

28.

Gotlieb

Melissa R

Cheema

Sadia E

(2016) From consumer to producer: motivations, internet use, and political consumerism. Information, Communication & Society 20(4): 570–586.

29.

Gravelle

Timothy

Reifler

Jason

Scotto

Thomas

(2020) Personality traits and foreign policy attitudes: a cross-national exploratory study. Personality and Individual Differences 153: 109607.

30.

Griskevicius

Vladas

Tybur

Joshua

Van den Bergh

Bram

(2010) Going green to be seen: status, reputation, and conspicuous conservation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 98(3): 392–404.

31.

Gundelach

Brite

(2020) Political consumerism as a form of political participation: challenges and potentials of empirical measurement. Social Indicators Research 151: 309–327.

32.

Gundelach

Brite

Kalte

Deborah

(2021) Explaining the reversed gender gap in political consumerism: personality traits as significant mediators. Swiss Political Science Review 27(1): 41–60.

33.

Hancock

Tyler

Waites

Stacie

Johnson

Catherine

Stevens

Jennifer

(2023) How do Machiavellianism, narcissism, and psychopathy tendencies influence consumer avoidance and revenge-seeking following a service failure? Journal of Consumer Marketing 40: 721–733.

34.

Hepp

Johanna

Hilbig

Benjamin

Moshagen

Morten

Zettler

Ingo

Schmahl

Christian

Niedtfeld

Inga

(2014) Active versus reactive cooperativeness in borderline psychopathology: a dissection based on the HEXACO model of personality. Personality and Individual Differences 56: 19–23.

35.

Jones

Daniel N

Paulhus

Delroy

(2014) Introducing the short dark triad (SD3): a brief measure of dark personality traits. Assessment 21(1): 28–41.

36.

Koos

Sebastian

(2012) What drives political consumption in Europe? A multi-level analysis on individual characteristics, opportunity structures and globalization. Acta Sociologica 55(1): 37–57.

37.

Lee

Seung

Dahinten

Susan

(2021) Using dominance analysis to identify the most important dimensions of safety culture for predicting patient safety. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18(15): 7746.

38.

Lorenzini

Jasmine

Forno

Francesca

(2022) Political consumerism and lifestyle activism. In Giugni

Marco

Grasso

Maria

(eds) The Oxford Handbook of Political Participation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 417–434.

39.

McCrae

Robert

Costa

Paul

(2003) Personality in Adulthood: A Five-Factor Theory Perspective (2nd edn). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

40.

Micheletti

Michele

(2003) Shopping with and for virtues. In Micheletti

Michele

(ed.) Political Virtue and Shopping. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 149–168.

41.

Micheletti

Michele

Boström

Magnus

(2014) Political consumerism: consumer choice, information, and labeling. In Thompson

Paul B

Kaplan

David M

(eds) Encyclopedia of Food and Agricultural Ethics. Dordrecht: Springer, 1508–1515.

42.

Micheletti

Michele

Follesdal

Andreas

Stolle

Dietlind

(2003) Politics, Products, and Markets: Exploring Political Consumerism Past and Present. New York, NY: Transaction Press.

43.

Miller

Joshua

Vize

Colin

Crowe

Michael

Lynam

Donald

(2019) A critical appraisal of the darktriad literature and suggestions for moving forward. Current Directions in Psychological Science 28(4): 353–360.

44.

Mondak

Jeffrey

(2010) Personality and the Foundations of Political Behavior. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

45.

Mungall

Luke

Pruysers

Scott

Blais

Julie

(2024) Online and unkind: personality and incivility. Social Science Computer Review. Online First.

46.

Naderi

Iman

Strutton

David

(2014) Normal narcissism and green consumption. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 44: 375–391.

47.

Neave

Lydia

Tzemou

Effy

Fastoso

Fernando

(2020) Seeking attention versus seeking approval: how conspicuous consumption differs between grandiose and vulnerable narcissists. Psychology & Marketing 37: 418–427.

48.

Osborne

Danny

Satherley

Nicole

Sibley

Chris

(2018) Personality and ideology: a meta analysis of the reliable, but non-causal, association between openness and conservatism. In Mintz

Alex

Terris

Lesley G

(eds) The Oxford Handbook of Behavioral Political Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 315–356.

49.

Jiaqiao

(2021) Relationship between the big five personalities traits and customer loyalty in the retail industry. Review of Integrative Business and Economics Research 10(2): 75–83.

50.

Paulhus

Delroy

Neumann

Craig

Hare

Robert

(2016) Manual for the Hare Self-Report Psychopathy Scale. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.

51.

Paulhus

Delroy

Williams

Kevin

(2002) The dark triad of personality: narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Journal of Research in Personality 36(6): 556–563.

52.

Pruysers

Scott

(2021) A Psychological Predisposition Towards Populism? Contemporary Politics 27(1): 105–124.

53.

Pruysers

Scott

Blais

Julie

Chen

Phillip

(2019) Who makes a good citizen? The role of personality. Personality and Individual Differences 146: 99–104.

54.

Quintelier

Ellen

(2014) The influence of the big 5 personality traits on young people’s political consumer behavior. Young Consumers 15(4): 342–352.

55.

Ramusssen

Kyler

Boon

Susan

(2014) Romantic revenge and the dark triad: a model of impellance and inhibition. Personality and Individual Differences 56: 51–56.

56.

Rico-Bordera

Pilar

Piqueras

Jose

Soto-Sanz

Victoria

Rodríguez-Jiménez

Tiscar

Marzo

Juan-Carlos

Galán

Manuel

Pineda

David

(2023) Civic engagement and personality: associations with the big five and the dark triad. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 20(3): 2126.

57.

Sedikides

Constantine

Cisek

Sylwia

Hart

Claire

(2011) Narcissism and brand name consumerism. In Campbell

W Keith

Miller

Joshua D

(eds) The Handbook of Narcissism and Narcissistic Personality Disorder. New York, NY: Wiley & Sons, 382–392.

58.

Sleep

Chelsea

Lynam

Donald

Hyatt

Courtland

Miller

Joshua

(2017) Perils of partialing redux: the case of the dark triad. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 126(7): 939–950.

59.

Stolle

Dietlind

Hooghe

Marc

Micheletti

Michele

(2005) Politics in the supermarket: political consumerism as a form of political participation. International Political Science Review 26(3): 245–269.

60.

Tan

Nicholas

Conner

Tamlin

Sun

Haisu

Loughnan

Steven

Smillie

Luke

(2021) Who gives a veg? Relations between personality and vegetarianism/veganism. Appetite 163: 105195.

61.

Verplanken

Bas

Herabadi

Astrid

(2001) Individual differences in impulse buying tendency: feeling and no thinking. European Journal of Personality 15(S1): S71–S83.

62.

Vize

Colin

Collison

Katherine

Miller

Joshua

Lynam

Donald

(2020) The “core” of the dark triad: a test of competing hypotheses. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment 11(2): 91–99.

63.

You

Leping

Wang

Rang

Lan

Xiaomeng

Hon

Linda

(2023) Exploring predictors of consumer digital engagement and political consumerism in corporate political advocacy. Telematics and Informatics 79: 101955.

64.

Zorell

Carolin V

(2019) Varieties of Political Consumerism: From Boycotting to Buycotting. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.27 MB