In this article, we propose an individual-level explanation for variation in personalized representation, and ask which personality fits personalized representation. Building on political psychology literature, we derive hypotheses about how fundamental personality traits such as extraversion and agreeableness correlate with politicians’ preferences for personalized representation. We investigate these expectations using new survey data collected simultaneously among Danish and British MPs, including comprehensive personality measures. We show that personalized representation is particularly pronounced among MPs with higher levels of extraversion, openness to experience and lower levels of agreeableness. Furthermore, and in line with our theoretical expectations, we show that the correlations between personality traits and preferences for personalization vary across countries. Our findings suggest that personalized representation has an underlying personal dimension; consequently, politicians with certain personality traits may have an electoral advantage, particularly where politics become increasingly personalized.
AdornoT (1950) The Authoritarian Personality. New York: Harper.
2.
AmsalemEZoiznerASheaferT, et al. (2018) The effect of politicians’ personality on their media visibility. Communication Research. DOI: 10.1177/0093650218758084.
3.
AndreAFreireAPappZ (2014) Electoral rules and legislators’ personal vote seeking. In: DeschouwerKDepauwS (eds) Representing the People: A Survey Among Members of Statewide and Sub-state Parliaments. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 87–109.
4.
BakkerBNHopmannDNPerssonM (2015) Personality traits and party identification over time. European Journal of Political Research54(2): 197–215.
5.
BakkerBNLelkesY (2018) Selling ourselves short? How abbreviated measures of personality change the way we think about personality and politics. The Journal of Politics80(4): 1311–1325.
6.
BalmasMRahatGSheaferT, et al. (2014) Two routes to personalized politics: centralized and decentralized personalization. Party Politics20(1): 37–51.
7.
BaumannMDebusMMullerJ (2015) Personal characteristics of MPs and legislative behavior in moral policymaking. Legislative Studies Quarterly40(2): 179–210.
8.
BestH (2011) Does personality matter in politics? Personality factors as determinants of parliamentary recruitment and policy preferences. Comparative Sociology10(6): 928–948.
9.
BouchardTMcGueM (2003) Genetic and environmental influences on human psychological differences. Journal of Neurobiology54(1): 4–45.
10.
BøggildT (2020) Politicians as party hacks: party loyalty and public distrust in politicians. Journal of Politics 82(4). DOI: 10.1086/708681
11.
BøggildTPedersenHH (2018) Campaigning on behalf of the party? Party constraints on candidate campaign personalization. European Journal of Political Research57(4): 883–899.
12.
ButlerDMNaurinEÖhbergP (2017) Party representatives’ adaptation to election results: dyadic responsiveness revisited. Comparative Political Studies50(14): 1973–1997.
13.
CainBEFerejohnJAFiorinaMP (1984) The constituency service basis of the personal vote for U.S. representatives and British members of parliament. The American Political Science Review78(1): 110–125.
14.
CainBEFerejohnJAFiorinaMP (1987) The Personal Vote: Constituency Service and Electoral Independence. New York: Harvard University Press.
15.
CampbellRCowleyPVivyanN, et al. (2019) Legislator dissent as a valence signal. British Journal of Political Science49(1): 105–128.
16.
CapraraGVVecchioneM (2013) Personality approaches to political behavior. In: HuddyLSearsDOLevyJS (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 23–58.
17.
CapraraGVVecchioneM (2017) Personalizing Politics and Realizing Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
18.
CapraraGVBarbaranelliCConsiglioCPicconiLZimbardoPG (2003) Personalities of politicians and voters: Unique and synergistic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology84(4): 849.
19.
CapraraGVZimbardoPG (2004) Personalizing politics: a congruency model of political preference. American Psychologists59(7): 581–594.
20.
CarmanCJ (2006) Public preferences for parliamentary representation in the UK: an overlooked link?Political Studies54(1): 103–122.
21.
CarsonJKogerGLeboMYoungE (2010) The electoral costs of party loyalty in Congress. American Journal of Political Science54(3): 598–616.
22.
CloseCGherghinaS (2018) Introduction: Towards a better understanding of parliamentary unity. Parliamentary Affairs72(2): 379–386.
23.
ColomerJM (2011) Personal Representation: The Neglected Dimension of Electoral Systems. Essex: ECPR Press.
24.
CostantiniECraikKH (1980) Personality and politicians: California party leaders, 1960–1976. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology38(4): 641–661.
25.
ConversePEPierceR (1986) Political representation in France. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
26.
DeschouwerKDepauwSAndréA (2014) Representing the people in parliaments. In: DeschouwerKDepauwS (eds) Representing the People: A Survey Among Members of Statewide and Sub-state Parliaments. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1–18.
27.
DietrichBJLasleySMondakJJ, et al. (2012) Personality and legislative politics: the Big Five trait dimensions among US state legislators. Political Psychology33(2): 195–210.
28.
DiStefanoCZhuMMïndriláD (2009) Understanding and using factor scores: considerations for the applied researcher. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation14(20): 1–11.
29.
EsaiassonPHolmbergS (1996) Representation from Above: Members of Parliament and Representative Democracy in Sweden. Dartmouth: Ashgate.
30.
Esping-AndersenG (1990) The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
31.
EulauHWahlkeJCBuchananW, et al. (1959) The role of the representative: some empirical observations on the theory of Edmund Burke. American Political Science Review53(3): 742–756.
32.
FerraraFWeishauptT (2004) Get your act together: party performance in European Parliament elections. European Union Politics5(3): 283–306.
33.
GoslingSDRentfrowPJSwannWBJr (2003) A very brief measure of the Big Five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality37(6): 504–528.
34.
GschwendTZittelT (2015) Do constituency candidates matter in German Federal Elections? The personal vote as an interactive process. Electoral Studies39: 338–349.
35.
HananiaR (2017) The personalities of politicians: a big five survey of American legislators. Personality and Individual Differences108: 164–167.
36.
HazanRY (2003) Introduction: Does cohesion equal discipline? Towards a conceptual delineation. The Journal of Legislative Studies9(4): 1–11.
37.
HeitshusenVYoungGWoodD (2005) Electoral context and MP constituency focus in Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. American Journal of Political Science49(1): 32–45.
38.
Holtz-BachaCLangerAIMerkleS (2014) The personalization of politics in comparative perspective: campaign coverage in Germany and the United Kingdom. European Journal of Communication29(2): 153–170.
39.
JangKLLivesleyWJVernonPA (1996) The genetic basis of personality at different ages: a cross-sectional twin study. Personality and Individual Differences21(2): 299–301.
40.
JostJGlaserJKruglanskiA, et al. (2003) Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin129(3): 339–375.
41.
KamCJ (2009) Party Discipline and Parliamentary Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
42.
KowertPAHermannMG (1997) Who takes risks? Daring and caution in foreign policy making. The Journal of Conflict Resolution41(5): 611–637.
43.
LambMChuangSWesselsH, et al. (2003) Emergence and construct validation of the Big Five factors in early childhood: a longitudinal analysis of their ontogeny in Sweden. Child Development73(5): 1517–1524.
44.
LoboMC (2015) Party dealignment and leader effects. In: LoboMCCuticeJ (eds) The Role of Leader Evaluations in Democratic Elections. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 148–166.
45.
McConaughyJB (1950) Certain personality factors of state legislators in South Carolina. American Political Science Review44(4): 897–903.
46.
McCraeRRCostaPT (1989) The structure of interpersonal traits: Wiggins’s circumplex and the five-factor model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology56(4): 586–595.
47.
Mendez-LagoMMartinezA (2002) Political representation in Spain: an empirical analysis of the perception of citizens and MPs. The Journal of Legislative Studies8(1): 63–90.
48.
MondakJJHalperinK (2008) A framework for the study of personality and political behaviour. British Journal of Political Science38(2): 335–362.
49.
MondakJJ (2010) Personality and the Foundations of Political Behavior. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
50.
NørgaardASKlemmensenR (2019) The personalities of Danish MPs: trait- and aspect-level differences. Journal of Personality87(2): 267–275.
51.
OzbudunE (1970) Party Cohesion in Western Democracies: A Causal Analysis. Beverly Hills: Sage.
52.
PearsonK (2015) Party Discipline in the U.S. House of Representatives. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
53.
PedersenHHRahatG (2021) Political personalization and personalized politics within and beyond the behavioural arena. Party Politics27(2): 211–219.
54.
ProkschOSlapinJ (2012) Institutional foundations of legislative speech. American Journal of Political Science56(3): 520–537.
55.
RenwickAPiletJB (2016) Faces on the Ballot: The Personalization of Electoral Systems in Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
56.
RussellM (2014) Parliamentary party cohesion: Some explanations from psychology. Party Politics20(5): 712–723.
57.
SearingDD (1985) The role of the good constituency member and the practice of representation in Great Britain. The Journal of Politics47(2): 348–381.
58.
ShugartMSValdiniMESuominenK (2005) Looking for locals: voter information demands and personal vote-earning attributes of legislators under proportional representation. American Journal of Political Science49(2): 437–449.
59.
SlapinJBKirklandJHLazzaroJA, et al. (2018) Ideology, grandstanding, and strategic party disloyalty in the British Parliament. American Political Science Review112(1): 15–30.
60.
StudlarDMcAllisterI (1996) Constituency activity and representational roles among Australian legislators. The Journal of Politics58(1): 69–90.
61.
SwansonDLManciniP (eds) (1996) Politics, Media, and Modern Democracy: An International Study of Innovations in Electoral Campaigning and their Consequences. Westport: Greenwood.
62.
Van AelstPSheaferTStanyerJ (2012) The personalization of mediated political communication: a review of concepts, operationalizations and key findings. Journalism13(2): 203–220.
63.
VecchioneMCapraraGV (2009) Personality determinants of political participation: the contribution of traits and self-efficacy beliefs. Personality and Individual Differences46(4): 487–492.
64.
WattenbergM (1991) The Rise of Candidate-Centered Politics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
65.
ZittelT (2012) Legislators and their representational roles: strategic choices or habits of the heart? In: BlomgrenMRozenbergO (eds) Parliamentary Roles in Modern Legislatures. London: Routledge, pp. 101–120.
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.
