This past
week the conservative blogosphere was alive with finger pointing and pseudo
analysis of a research paper published in the December 2011 edition of the American Journal of Political Science. The paper was titled, Correlation Not
Causation: The Relationship between
Personality Traits and Political Ideologies. The authors of this paper were Brad Verhulst,
Post-Doctoral Fellow, Lindon J. Eaves, Distingushed Professor, and Peter K.
Hatemi, Associate Professor Political Science and Microbiology.
The reason
for all the uproar over some obscure academic article is additional information
has come to light that shows the authors had misunderstood their data and the conclusions
they reached were exactly 180 degrees off from what the data showed. Since its original findings seemed to reflect
poorly on the conservatives they are now beating the drum on the new
conclusions.
So let’s
talk about this a minute.
Background
The study set
out to show that personality traits do not cause a person’s choice in political
ideology, as previous studies had assumed, but political attitudes develop much
earlier in life and there is a direct correlation between the two that can be
traced back to the individual’s genetic factors.
To help show
this they took data from a fairly large scale study of twins known as the
Mid-Atlantic Twins Registry (MATR) and an AARP mailer. To assess the personality traits, they used
the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ).
Let’s pause here to discuss Mr. Eysenck.
Hans Eysenck
was born in Germany in 1916, but fled to England in the 30’s to escape Nazi
persecution. He received his PhD in
Psychology from the University of London in 1940. He is widely cited for his work in linking
personality to the genetic make-up of the the individual.
Eysenck developed
a definition of personality that suggests it is the “sum of the actual or
potential behavior patterns of the organism, as determined by heredity and
environment it originated and develops through the functional interaction of
the four main sectors the behaviors-patterns are organized.”[i] He goes on to classify personality into three
dimensions: Psychoticism, Extraversion, and Neuroticism, or PEN for short.
Extraversion
vs Introversion – Extroverts are toughminded, impulsive, have a tendency to be
outgoing, desire for novelty, prefer vocations involving contact with people,
have a tolerance for pain, and their performance is enhanced by excitement. Introverts, on the other hand are
tenderminded, introspective, serious, easily aroused but restrained, inhibited,
with preference for solitary vocations, and their performance is degraded by
excitement.
Psychoticism
vs Super Ego – This was the last dimension developed by Professor Eysenck and
is, therefore, the least defined, but in summary at the two ends of the
spectrum you have either a non-conformist who is tough minded and unconcerned
with the welfare of others, or a warm sensitive individual who makes concern
for others a priority.
Finally, we
have Neuroticism. Eysenck classified neurotics
as unstable individuals governed by irrational fears and concerns. The opposite end of the spectrum is therefore
a stable individual who is calm and even-tempered.
Figure 1
summarizes the three spectrum's that Eysenck believed make up human personality.
-->
 |
| Figure 1: Eysenck's PEN Model |
The “Correlation,
Not Causation” study used the PEN model to help explain the linkage to
personality the separates the liberal from the conservative. They also used something called the Five
Factor Model or FFM. According to the
researchers this is another popular modeling tool that has been used to show a correlation
between personality aspects and political positions and they talk about a
complex relationship between the FFM and EPQ regarding a characteristic knows
as “Openness to Experience,” which other studies have suggested is a strength
of those who are politically liberal.
Discussion
In the study the authors conducted
four sets of analysis.
The first was to demonstrate a significant
relationship between personality traits and political ideology. In the authors words, this study demonstrated
“there are several substantively significant relationships
between the personality traits and political ideology dimensions. Most notably,
P [psychoticism] is substantially correlated with conservative military
and social attitudes, while Social Desirability is related to liberal social
attitudes, and Neuroticism is related to liberal economic attitudes.” If the data they used to determine this was
assessed 180 degrees out then it is safe to assume that social desirability is
a conservative value while P actually
correlated with liberal social attitudes, i.e. risk taking, a lack of concern
for others, and tough-mindedness, leaving the conservatives as the ones who are
most concerned with the welfare of others.
With regard to Neuroticism, it would be most correlated with
conservative economic attitudes. The
authors were puzzled by this relationship, and the failure to correctly
evaluate their data would explain that confusion.
In the other
analysis they attempt to confirm previous studies, in the case of the third and
fourth analysis examine the relationship between personality and political
attitudes. I am not sure how the use of
the core data affects the understanding of causal relationships, and it seems
relatively unimportant to the overall assessment of the current social media frenzy.
Summary
So we come
to the question of the study. Do we see
in practical application anything that suggests that the data, once correctly
interrupted is reflected in the real political world?
Are Liberals
more likely to be: tough-minded, non-conforming, risk takers with little
concern for the rights of others, and occasionally exhibiting anti-social
behavior but overall they feel good about themselves?
Are
Conservatives more likely to exhibit unsubstantiated fears, obsessive
behaviors, fear and anxiety over fiscal policies, but are at the same time sensitive, warm and concerned about the rights of others?
Beats me… I
only have the illusion of knowledge… I don’t claim to know everything -- unlike most
of the people on the internet.
No comments:
Post a Comment