172 Do Citizens Organize Their Political Thinking? Table 6-3 Ten-Item Personality Inventory "Here are a number of personality traits that may or may not apply to you. Please write a number next to each statement to indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with that statement. You should rate the extentto which the pair of traits applies to you, even if one characteristic applies more strongly than the other." Disagree Disagree strongly moderately 1 2 Disagree a Neither agree Agree a little nor disagree little 3 4 5 Agree Agree moderately strongly 6 7 I see myself as: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. . Extraverted, enthusiastic. . Critical, quarrelsome. . Dependable, self-disciplined. .Anxious, easily upset. _ Open to new experiences, complex. . Reserved, quiet. .Sympathetic, warm. . Disorganized, careless. . Calm, emotionally stable. .Conventional, uncreative. Source: Samuel D. Gosling, "Ten-Item Measure of the Big Five," http://homepage.psy . utexas. edu/homepage/faculty/gosling/ tipi%20site/tipi.pdf. Note: Each of the Big Five personality dimensions is measured by answers to two of the trait pairs: Openness to experiences: agreeing with 5, disagreeing with 10; Conscientiousness: agreeing with 3, disagreeing with 8; Agreeableness: agreeing with 7, disagreeing with 2; Extraversion: agreeing with 1, disagreeing with 6; and Emotional stability: agreeing with 9, disagreeing with 4. the researchers are not certain why being sociable and energetic is associated with conservatism. Gerber et al. also consider whether the relationship between personality traits and political attitudes differs for whites and blacks. Why might the relationship differ for the two groups? Because whites and blacks operate in substantially different political environments and the effects of personality on policy attitudes is context-specific. That is, political context influences how individuals interpret government policies, which then affects whether a particular personality trait leads to more or less support for those policies. For example, given historical and current discrimination against black Americans, blacks perceive liberal economic policies as helping those who have been systematically denied opportunities to succeed in the marketplace. Thus, compared with whites, conscientious blacks see liberal economic policies as "dutiful, (e.g., helping those who are in bad circumstances through no fault of their own) rather than as undermining social norms Pluralistic Roots: Personality, Self-Interest, Values, and History 173 (e.g., work hard and you will get ahead) ."z6 As a result, conscientiousness does not lead to strong sj^port for conservative economic policies among blacks as it does for whites. Blacks tend to support liberal economic policies regardless of their level of conscientiousness. Gerber and his colleagues' findings are fascinating. Overall, however, the scholarship on personality traits and political attitudes is still in its infancy. Much more work is needed to fully understand why certain personality traits lead to particular policy positions and how the political context influences the relationship between traits and policy attitudes. Self-Interest It seems incredibly intuitive that self-interest would have an important effect on our policy attitudes. When considering human nature, it certainly seems as if people are looking out for number one. Indeed, James Madison argued that a representative form of government is the best form of government because citizens are too focused on their narrow self-interest, whereas representatives have the wisdom to "best discern the true interest of their country."27 Elite democratic theorists have used this argument to justify why elites (rather than citizens) should have central decision-making roles in politics. Despite the intuitive-—even compelling—nature of the claim that citizens follow their self-interest, there is actually quite limited evidence to support the proposition^ On policy opinions ranging from government spending to government health insurance to race and gender issues to foreign policy, scholars have found only weak or nonexistent effects of self-interest.28 For example, several studies showed that white nonparents were as likely to oppose school busing as a means to achieve racial integration as white parents with school-age children/^1 Instead of self-interest, racial prejudice was a key factor influencing attitudes on school busing: prejudiced citizens were more opposed to busing, whereas nonprejudiced citizens were more supportive of the policy (regardless of whether the citizens had kids or not). Other research indicates that citizens' evaluations of the nation's economy are more important than their own personal economic ciixumstances_when assessing the political party in power.'0 In other words, general concerns about society—what political scientists call soci-otropic concerns—trump pocketbook issues when citizens evaluate their government. There are a few instances, however, when self-interest does influence citizens' policy attitudes. For example, homeowners arejrtore likely to favor property tax cuts than nonhomeowners.3' Smokers are more opposed to cigarette taxes and bans on smoking than nonsmokers.32 And gun owners are less supportive of gun restrictions than people whodo not own^uns.33 These examples suggest that self-interest plays a meaningful role when the effects of a policy are visible, tangible, e, and certain?"' 174 Do Citizens Organize Their Political Thinking? In an innovative study, Dennis Chong, Jack Citrin^ and Patricia^ Conley examined the conditions under which self-interest matters.35 They define self-interest as the "tangible, relatively immediate, personal or family benefits of a policy."36 They conducted an experiment to examine when self-interest has a stronger effect on citizens' attitudes. Specifically, they collected data by embedding an experiment in a telephone survey of a national representative sample of 1,067 U.S. citizens. The survey was conducted between June 21, 1998, and March 7, 1999. Respondents were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: No Prime, Self-interest Prime, or Sociotropic Pjirne. In the No Prime condition, subjects were asked to indicate their preference regarding two possible reforms of the Social Security system: reducing benefits to wealthier retired people or increasing taxes on people who are working. In the Self-interest Prime condition, suhjeo^were first prompted (or primed) to consider how the_pplicy changes would affect them personally and then asked the question about which reform they would prefer. In_ the Sociotropic Prime condition, subjects were first asked to consider which policy change would be better for future generations and then asked to indicate which change they would prefer. See Table 6-4 for question wordings. Chong et al. compared the responses of people ages sixty and over with those under sixty in these three conditions. If self-interest is at work, then older people should lean toward raisingj^xesjDn peoplejwh^>_are^wojrkmg, whereas those under sixty should favor cutting benefits for retirees. That is the pattern we see in the No Prime and Self-interest conditions: a strong majority of the older group supported raising taxes, while a small majority of those under sixty preferred to reduce retiree benefits (see Table 6-4). But when citizens were primed to think about sociotropic considerations—which proposal will be best for future generations— opinions varied little by age. In the Sociotropic Prime condition, the younger group became more supportive of raising Social Security taxes and the older group became more open to reducing benefits. Overall, these results suggest that self-interest influences how citizens think about Social Security, yet the extent to which self-interest matters depends heavily on how the issue is presented. In an entirely different domain, Robert Erikson and Laura Stoker also demonstrate that self-interest can influence political attitudes when the stakes are visible, tangible, large, and certain.37 Specifically, Erikson and Stoker examine what happens to the political attitudes of young men when they are faced with the prospect of being drafted for military service. In 1969 in the midst of the Vietnam War, Republican President Richard Nixon instituted a new policy that assigned numbers (1 through 366) to draft-eligible men based on their birth dates. The men assigned low numbers were called up first for duty, whereas the men assigned high numbers were virtually assured they would not be drafted. The_ policyJnefjfectrandomly assignecTsome men to be vulnerable to being sent to war in Vietnam and others not to be. This was a perfect case in which self-interest should have shaped public opinion because those with low draft numbers faced Pluralistic Roots: Personality, Self-Interest, Values, and History 175 Table 6-4 The Influence of Self-interest on Social Security Attitudes "There is a lot of discussion about the possible ways to change Social Security to make sure that all people who retire can get their Social Security benefits. One proposal is to reduce the amount of money paid to retired people who have additional sources of income. Another proposal is to keep the amount of money paid to retired people the same as it is now, but increase Social Security taxes for people who are currently working." Reduce retiree benefits Raise Social Security taxes No prime: "Which proposal do you think should be adopted?" Under 60 60 and over 56% 32 45% 68 Self-interest prime: "Which proposal do you think would be financially better for you personally—reducing the amount of money paid to retired people who have additional sources of income, or keeping the amount of money paid to retired people the same as it is now, but increasing Social Security taxes for people who are working?" "Which proposal do you think would be financially better for other members of your family?" "Which proposal do you think should be adopted?" Under 60 60 and over 52 28 49 72 Sociotropic prime: "Which proposal do you think would do more to ensure that the Social Security fund will have enough money to provide for future generations?" "Which proposal do you think should be adopted?" Under 60 60 and over 45 42 55 58 Source: Dennis Chong, Jack Citrin, and Patricia Conley, "When Self-interest Matters," Political Psychology 22 (2001): 555, 565—566. "a (relatively) high likelihood of being forced to abandon all personal plans and undertakings and to take part in a potentially life-threatening war. As one's lottery number increased, one's vulnerability decreased."38 As luck would have it, a representative sample of young men affected by this draft policy were interviewed in 1965 and reinterviewed several times later as part 176 Do Citizens Organize Their Political Thinking? Pluralistic Roots: Personality, Self-Interest, Values, and History 177 of an ongoing panel study to examine political attitudes and socialization. (This is the Jennings and Niemi panel^study we discuss at some length in Chapter 2.) The da"ta~cc)IIected included the respondents' birth dates, which allowed Erikson and Stoker to determine the draft number assigned to each male respondent. As a result, the researchers were able to use these data to investigate whether vulnerability to the draft changed young men's political attitudes. Indeed, they found striking evidence that being assigned a lower draft number influenced attitudes in several ways. Whenreinterviewed in 1973, men with lower numbers were more likely to think the war in Vietnam was a mistake than those with higher_numbers. In addition, compared with the men who held high draft numbers, the men vulnerable to the draft were less likely to have voted for Nixon for reelection and were more likely to express a liberal ideology and liberal issue positions. Remarkably, when interviewed twenty-eight years later in 1997, themen whohad been assigned low numbers continued to be more likely to report that the war was a mistake than those assigned high numbers. Erikson and Stoker also present evidence that the vulnerable men reconsidered their partisanship, which led them to become more Democratic and largely stay that way into later adulthood. Overall, Erikson and Stoker's research demonstrates that self-interest can have powerful and long-lasting effects when citizens are faced with circumsiances in which their lives might be severely disrupted and even put in jeopardy. Values ~