Five standard objections dismiss personality as a cause of political behavior.

Evidence

In Reading 5, Fred Greenstein directly confronts the most common major objections to studying personality in seeking to understand the dynamics of political events. These objections usually take one or more of the following forms: (a) Insofar as individual personality types are randomly distributed across different social roles, personality variables will “cancel out” and become irrelevant in comparison with the enactment of social roles; (b) Political behavior is determined much more by the specific political context than by the personality characteristics of individuals; (c) The psychodynamic aspects of personality that most political psychologists concern themselves with (e.g., ego-defense mechanisms) are not directly relevant to most political outcomes; (d) Social structural and demographic characteristics of political actors (e.g., race, social class, religion) have much greater political importance than do aspects of their “personalities;” and (e) Large-scale social forces, rather than individuals, are the real determinants of political events. Greenstein discusses the validity of each objection and suggests ways of overcoming them. — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 402 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Reservations have been expressed about the utility of studying the personalities of political actors on the grounds that (1) political actors are randomly distributed in roles and therefore their personalities “cancel out”; (2) political action is determined more by the actors’ political environments than by their own characteristics; (3) the particular stratum of the psyche many political scientists equate with personality, psychodynamics, and the ego defenses, does not have much of a political impact; (4) the social characteristics of political actors are more important than their psychological characteristics; and (5) individuals are typically unable to have much effect on political outcomes. — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 1126 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Five standard objections challenge personality-based explanations of political behavior — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 402; Five distinct objections question whether personality can explain political outcomes — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 1126

Broader Connections

• Five standard objections challenge personality-based explanations of political behavior #corroborates (0.98) — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 402
• Five distinct objections question whether personality can explain political outcomes #corroborates (0.95) — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 1126