1

Online Political Engagement, Facebook and Personality Traits

Paper to be presented at the International Political Science Association (IPSA) meeting, 22nd World Congress of Political Science – Madrid – July 8-12, 2012

Authors

Ellen Quintelier, KU Leuven, Belgium

Yannis Theocharis, University of Mannheim, Germany

Abstract Despite the growing literature on the effects of personality traits on political participation, there is little discussion

about the potential effects of such traits on the increasingly popular forms of online political engagement. In a

changing media environment where social production and exposure becomes central, people with different

personality traits may be inclined to engage into forms of participation that are different from those in the offline

realm. Using the ‘Big 5’ framework we test the effect of personality traits on various forms of online and offline

political engagement in sample of 433 undergraduate students. Consistent with long-standing empirical

observations in the offline realm, our findings show that the effects of personality traits on online forms of

political engagement do not differ. Only openness to experience and extraversion have an effect on online

political engagement. For consciousness, agreeableness and emotional stability only small effects were observed.

Key words Personality, Big 5, political participation, Facebook, online political engagement

2

Introduction

In the current, ever-changing new media environment people with different personality traits may be inclined to

engage in types of participation that are different not only from those in the offline realm (Mondak, 2010), but

even from those that have long established themselves in the online realm, such as signing e-petitions and

emailing politicians. The mass popularisation of Facebook, a platform based largely on already existing networks,

which offers new opportunities for political engagement (Kushin & Yamamoto, 2010; Valenzuela, Park, & Kee,

2009), is likely to have made some modes of online-based participation more attractive to individuals with, for

instance, more extravert personality traits, but less appealing to others whose more introvert personality traits may

lead them to adopt more subtle ways of engaging in politics. To date, this interaction between personality and

online participation has remained unexplored territory. There are various reasons for studying the relationship

between personality and online political engagement. Among them are the increasing importance of the internet,

the diversity of political opinions expressed online and the new forms of political campaigning, such as Facebook

campaigns. Political communication research has also shown that there is an increasing ‘hybridisation’ between

social media and online news outlets. This is beginning to influence the kind of news traditionally produced by

mainstream broadcasters (Anstead & O’ Loughlin, 2011; Chadwick, 2007) and it allows social media users to

shape the political news agenda by having their blog and Facebook posts or tweets appear on the news roll.

Understanding whether these new ways of agenda setting reflect the personality traits of a certain people who

engage in politics online can expand our knowledge about what such an agenda may look like in the future.

Research by Jenkins et al (2009) shows that content sharing, experience exchange and knowledge acquisition that

take place alongside problem solving in online participatory cultures, helps participants develop a sense of

connection with one another and with community norms. Getting to know more about the personality

characteristics that make (especially young) people more likely to participate online in these cultures can provide

valuable information for civic education specialists who develop platforms for teaching young people civic skills

(see for example Coleman, 2008). In addition, learning more about what personality traits are more likely to foster

engagement in online politics may be especially useful to political campaigners. Indeed, it is plausible to state that

the famous digitally-based Obama campaign was so successful because the majority of those involved were

extravert and keen to engage in politics using new, creative social networking site-based ways, than because they

were introvert and skeptical of the effectiveness of social media in politics (Kushin & Yamamoto, 2010). Finally,

considering that research has suggested different personality traits may be associated with different ideological

positions (Gerber, Huber, Doherty, & Dowling, 2011a; van Hiel, Kossowska, & Mervielde, 2000), studying the

effect of personality traits on online political behaviour can be valuable for a better understanding of the

ideological predisposition of future news agendas.

3

While previous political science research has examined the effects of personality on various forms of political

participation (Gerber et al., 2011b; Gosling, 2008; Katosh & Traugott, 1981; Mondak, Hibbing, Canache,

Seligson, & Anderson, 2010), their impact on the increasingly prominent forms of online engagement in politics

has received no attention. The purpose of the present study was to explore the impact of a group (N=433) of

undergraduate students’ personality traits on offline and online political engagement, based on a set of personality

dimensions reducing the complexities of personality to five basic traits: extraversion, agreeableness, emotional

stability, conscientiousness and openness to experience (known as the ‘Big Five’) (Gerber, et al., 2011b). To

explore the effects of personality traits we designed three scales. The first one refers to Facebook engagement and

allowed us to monitor types of participation that in the vast majority of cases take place transparently, i.e. under

the full visibility of one’s circle of friends1. The second one refers to more general, pre-social-media forms of

online political engagement and includes online political activities that can also be practised anonymously

avoiding exposure to a wider social circle, for example disseminating political information on the web. With our

last scale, for offline engagement, we aimed to observe whether the internet, with its capacity for both broader

social exposure and anonymity, allows people with certain personality traits to engage to a greater or lesser degree

in different political practices online and offline. We find similar results of personality traits analysis on online

and offline political participation: while openness to experience and extraversion are relevant for all types of

political participation, the other three personality traits (agreeableness, conscientiousness and emotional stability)

have only a minor influence. In order to interpret the findings in a wider context, we first review the literature on

personality and political participation and outline the main findings. We then present the Big Five personality

traits, elaborate on our reasons for thinking that they have an impact on how people engage in online politics, and

propose our hypotheses.

Personality traits, offline and online political engagement

Personality is a biologically influenced and enduring psychological structure that shapes behavior (Mondak, 2010,

p. 6). Personality traits can be understood as ‘inherently dynamic dispositions that interact with the opportunities

and challenges of the moment’ (McCrae & Costa, 1994, p. 175), which, scholars have argued, are inheritable and

quite stable over life (McCrae & Costa, 1994; Mondak, 2010, p. 43). The Five Factor Model, or the Big 5

framework, is a set of personality dimensions which ‘capture broad and enduring dispositions that shape how

people respond to the stimuli they encounter in the world' (Gerber, et al., 2011b) and is broadly accepted as the

best way to measure dispositional traits in a meaningful way (Gosling, Rentfrow, & Swann, 2003; Mondak, 2010,

p. 29; Ross et al., 2009). Gerber et al. (2011b) have argued that the effects of personality are comparable to the

effect of income and education on political participation, hence one of the most important predictors of political

participation (Gerber, et al., 2011b; Verba, Schlozman, & Brady, 1995). Based on the Big 5, there are five

different personality traits: openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and emotional

4

stability (John & Srivastava, 1999; Mondak, 2010)2. These traits have not only been found to be related to

political behavior, but also to predict a variety of behaviours ranging from job and school performance to juvenile

delinquency, musical tastes and dress (see Gosling, 2008; Ozer & Benet-Martínez, 2006).

Do different personality traits matter for engagement in politics online? Given the growing preoccupation with

social networking sites (SNS) such as Facebook and Twitter by a very large proportion of the world’s population

(Facebook numbers 750 million active users), and their adoption for political purposes by everyday citizens,

activists, revolutionaries, campaign organisers and elected representatives, studying the effect of personality traits

on online engagement is becoming increasingly relevant. Research shows that the online realm is becoming an

increasingly popular space for discussion about politics (Dahlgren, 2005; Papacharissi, 2004), group support,

organisation and coordination of political action (Bimber, Flanagin, & Stohl, 2009; Earl & Kimport, 2011),

political socialisation, political commentary and political reporting (Anstead & O’ Loughlin, 2011; Papacharissi

& Oliveira, 2011) and social capital enrichment (Valenzuela, et al., 2009). The arrival of Web 2.0 and social

media allowed for quick, easy and –if desired- public formation of political groups that support particular

candidates or issues, fast acquisition of political information, engagement in online discussions with others about

issues or candidates and ‘befriending’ elected representatives, blogging about political issues and video sharing

(boyd, 2008). Brown et al. (2007) found that individuals who participate in online social environments such as

SNS are likely to experience a sense of understanding, connection, involvement and interaction with others who

participate in these environments. Haythornthwaite (1999) notes that social resources such as emotional support,

companionship and a sense of belonging are visibly exchanged online between individuals who do not know each

other in the offline environment. All in all, the internet provides opportunities to engage in politics not only in a

transparent and even discussion-provoking way via social networking sites, but also anonymously through less

identity-revealing ways. As in offline politics, where engagement in political acts can sometimes be carried out

without disclosure of the identity of the participant, (for example, a masked protester in conflictual protest action

context or, more commonly, the anonymity of voting), participation offered by the internet might have an impact

on which personalities end up reacting politically in different online frameworks. If this holds true, observations

regarding political engagement online may differ from those offline.

In the current, rapidly changing media environment the use of Facebook by hundreds of millions makes it more

likely that calls for political action, newspaper articles with political content, political connotations or even

pictures and videos related to both national and global political issues will find their way into news feeds,

Faceboook walls and inboxes. As such, the various ways through which people may find themselves confronted

with information about elections, causes, and challenging social and political issues posted by friends, are

increasing, and so does the opportunity to spontaneously ‘like’, ‘join’ or ‘comment’ on these topics3. Different

personalities, however, may engage in different ways on Facebook, which is built around existing networks where

5

everyone can see what their friends do (Ellison, Steinfeld, & Lampe, 2007; Ross, et al., 2009). This is not the case

for other forms of anonymous, online political engagement. People with particular personality traits might be

more likely to engage in low-profile and potentially anonymous forms of online engagement -such as signing a

petition- than embrace and redistribute a call for action for a controversial issue on a Facebook wall. It might

therefore be that introvert personalities are more likely to engage in politics through online platforms in general,

and less likely to engage in forms of Facebook participation requiring far greater social interaction (e.g., posting

on one’s social networking profile information about joining a political meeting or a demonstration). Considering

these differences in personality traits, we argue that personality may have an important role to play on which

political issues people will seek online. If people with certain predominant personality traits engage in different

political issues online than others, this, as a consequence, may lead to greater visibility, organisation and

popularisation reflecting the preferences of people with some personality traits but not those of others. This poses

an interesting political question: if people with certain, say, more open and new-experience-seeking personality

traits are more likely to participate in mainstream discussion, organisation, and participation eponymously online4,

when others, emotionally less stable and introvert are less likely to participate in such online engagement, then is

it not likely that the news agenda and political actions organised may end up reflecting the main tenets of such

personalities? Considering that social media users have started to influence the way news is produced (Anstead &

O’ Loughlin, 2011; Chadwick, 2007), getting to know which personalities are more attracted to different forms of

engagement with politics, becomes increasingly important.

We distinguish between 3 forms of political participation: individualistic (and, if desired, anonymous) online

political engagement, visible Facebook engagement and (also visible) offline political engagement5. As for the

terminology used, we will refer to Facebook engagement and online political engagement for the separate scales

and to refer to both, we will use the term online political participation. Taking into consideration the potential

consequences of having socially-based but also more individualistic (and, if desired, anonymous) forms of

participation, we will explore whether people with different personality traits prefer different types of political

engagement. Each of the 5 personality traits will be outlined in what follows.

The Big Five and online engagement in politics

Openness to experience

Openness to experience ‘describes the breadth, depth, originality, and complexity of an individual’s mental and

experiential life’ (John & Srivastava, 1999, p. 121). People who are open to experiences are open-minded and

prefer originality. They always look for new information and experiences; they are intellectually curious and more

likely to engage in politics (Mondak & Halperin, 2008, p. 342). Evidence shows that people who are open to

6

experience are more likely to contact a politician, to try and convince other people how to vote, to show their

party preference through stickers, bumper signs or campaign buttons and to donate money to a campaign, but not

more likely to attend a meeting or to report voting (Mondak, 2010). Vecchione and Caprara (2009), using a sum

scale of five items (participating in political manifestations, distributing leaflets, donating money to a political

association, having contacts with politicians, and working for a political party), found that people who are more

open to new experiences are also more likely to participate in politics, while others have found positive effects of

openness to experience on protest behavior (Opp & Brandstätter, 2010). Nevertheless, Mondak and Halperin

(2008, p. 356), using data from 3 different surveys, found only limited effects of openness to experience on

political participation: out of a list of 11 political activities containing items such as voting and attending rallies,

only the frequency of speaking at meetings on local issues is influenced by openness to experience.

Internet use has been associated with personality before. Ross and colleagues (2009), however, in their

examination of the relationship between personality traits and Facebook use did not find any significant difference

for the trait of openness in Facebook users. On the other hand, Correa et al. (2010) found that, among a general

population study of US citizens, social media users are more open to new experiences. Openness to experience is

a feature that encourages the type of creative participation and engagement with different ideas about how to

influence the political process, which generally the online realm allows for. People with such a personality trait

would be intrigued by new participatory forms, such as discussions within Facebook groups (Ellison, et al., 2007)

or would provide information that could assist in the organisation and coordination of protest online (Shirky,

2010), and would consequently be curious to try them out because they present a novel way to approaching

participation. We test this hypothesis:

H1: People open to experience are more likely to engage in all forms of online political participation

Extraversion

Extraversion ‘implies an energetic approach to the social and material world and includes traits such as

sociability, activity, assertiveness, and positive emotionality’ (John & Srivastava, 1999, p. 121). Mondak (2010)

found positive effects between extraversion and contacting politicians, and attending political meetings, but not

for contributing money, displaying party preference and voting. Mondak and Halperin’s (2008) analysis shows

positive effects of extraversion on 7 out of the 11 political activities they examined. Other political activities

found to be related with extraversion include participating in political manifestations, distributing leaflets,

donating money to a political association, having relations with politicians, and working for a political party.

Introvert people, on the other hand, have been found to be slightly less likely to vote (Blais & Labbé St-Vincent,

2011). Extravert people are more likely to find the Internet an intriguing place to advocate their preferences.

7

Social networking websites such as Facebook, in which political discussion can be transparent and challenging

due to its high exposure to one’s broader social networks (boyd, 2008) should be especially attractive to people

with the highest scores of extraversion. Conversely, introvert people may be unwilling to participate in social-

based forms of engagement with politics such as those offered by Facebook, and more willing to engage through

online forms of participation which have the potential to be carried out anonymously. Based on this we

hypothesise:

H2: Extravert people are more likely to engage in online political participation, and this effect is stronger for

Facebook engagement than for online political engagement

Agreeableness

Agreeable people are cooperative and trustful. In other words: ‘agreeableness contrasts a pro-social and

communal orientation towards others with antagonism and includes traits such as altruism, tender-mindedness,

trust, and modesty’ (John & Srivastava, 1999, p. 121). Moreover, agreeableness is linked with conflict avoidance

(Gerber, et al., 2011b; Mondak & Halperin, 2008). According to Gerber and colleagues, findings regarding the

relationship between agreeable people and political participation are mixed. Agreeableness has been found to be

associated with nonpolitical volunteering, while altruism, which is an aspect of agreeableness, has been associated

with higher levels of turnout (see Bekkers, 2005; Fowler, 2006). Research, however, has also shown that

agreeableness is negatively linked with protest behavior (Opp & Brandstätter, 2010). This negative relationship

can be explained because protesting is more likely to put someone in the position of having to engage in conflict

over political issues, which could explain the negative effects on political participation. Voting and nonpolitical

volunteering, on the other hand, lack this confrontational aspect, leading to a positive effect of agreeableness on

these political activities6.

We posit that engagement in politics through social-based platforms such as Facebook is more likely to expose

someone into conflict with others because posting on walls, participating in group discussions or even simply

joining a group of potentially radical political texture, are transparent actions and therefore visible to one’s social

network (although, it should be noted, recent privacy settings introduced by Facebook may alter this). As a result,

people with high scores in agreeableness may be repelled by forms of engagement in online politics if this may

lead to conflict with their friends or members of their broader social network and, conversely, they may be

attracted to forms of engagement that can be carried out anonymously. We therefore hypothesise that:

H3: Agreeable people are more likely to engage in politics through online political engagement, rather than

through Facebook engagement.

8

Conscientiousness

Conscientiousness can be defined as ‘socially prescribed impulse control that facilitates task- and goal-directed

behavior, such as thinking before acting, delaying gratification, following norms and rules, and planning,

organizing, and prioritizing tasks’ (John & Srivastava, 1999, p. 121). Conscientious people like to have control,

are orderly and responsible while they are also characterised by ‘dutifulness, norm compliance and achievement

striving’ (Gerber, et al., 2011b, p. 696). They note that, to the extent that political participation is seen as a civic

duty, conscientious people may be likely to participate (by way of adhering to social norms) in forms such as

voting rather than in political meetings. They also note that conscientiousness may be associated with a focus on

instrumental beliefs, which means that such individuals may eschew participation in favour of more practical and

direct engagement activities that can lead to concrete personal payoffs. As with agreeableness, evidence supports

both predictions (Mondak, et al., 2010). Mondak and Halperin (2008), for example, found that conscientious

people were more likely to attend meetings and contact public officials regarding local issues, but found no effects

for the other nine activities they examined. Bekkers (2005) found that conscientious people are slightly more

likely to engage in (quasi-)political associations such as political parties, labor unions and environmental

organizations. Ross et al. (2009, p. 579) expected that conscientious people would be less likely to use the internet

because it distracts them from their daily tasks (which are seen as a duty). However, they did not find significant

effects for this expectation. This trait is less likely to be related to online participation as none of the forms of

general online engagement and Facebook engagement that we consider can be seen as civic duty. We also do not

see how any form of engaging in politics online can lead to immediate, concrete personal payoffs (we are not

considering extreme cases such as that of unleashing online classified diplomatic cables as with Wikileaks, for

which that could well be the case) and we therefore hypothesise:

H4: Conscientious people are less likely to engage in both forms of online political participation

Emotional Stability

Emotional stability is associated with ‘self-assuredness and absence of anxiety, depression and other negative

emotionality’ (Gerber, et al., 2011b, p. 696). An emotionally stable individual, therefore, is more likely to engage

in a conflictual field as politics than someone less calm, anxious, easily upset and tense, although evidences

appears again to be mixed. Emotionally stable people have been found to be slightly less likely to engage in

politics (Mondak, 2010), while others found that they are more likely to attend campaign meetings or work for

political parties or candidates (Mondak & Halperin, 2008). However, other studies find no effect (Vecchione &

Caprara, 2009).

9

Neurotic people’s (as the opposite of emotionally stable) engagement in politics may also be sheltered through

online forms of engagement in politics as long as there is the option to remain anonymous. However, it might also

be argued that neurotic people are less likely to engage in social-based types of online engagement such as

Facebook engagement due to the exposure to their broader social network ,which can cause them distress. We

therefore hypothesise:

H5: Less emotionally stable people are less likely to participate in Facebook engagement and more likely to

participate in online political engagement.

Data, measurement and methodology

The study was conducted among Belgian first-year university students, during their first weeks at the university.

83.6 per cent of our sample had a Facebook profile (in Belgium, nearly half of the population is on Facebook -see,

checkfacebook.com)- with the 16-24 age group consisting of the 29,5 per cent). Participation in the survey was

not a course requirement, but in practice more than 90 percent (or 433) of all students enrolled in the course

participated. It is worth noting that all Belgian universities have open admission policies, hence there has not been

any prior selection of respondents in this study. We assume that these students have not yet been exposed to any

substantial influence from the university environment. We caution that the sample limitations prohibit us from

generalizing the findings to a larger segment of the (online) population and our results are in no way

representative of young people in Belgium. The purpose was, however, to assess the impact of personality traits

on the newly popularised forms of online engagement, and to provide some initial observations as a basis for

further research. Besides, the study contributes empirical evidence from an international study on Facebook use

and provides a benchmark comparison of college students’ use of Facebook in a country other than the US –where

most research evidence come from. The fact that young people are generally more technologically savvy was a

benefit to the study, along with their increased likelihood to be engaged in politics compared to the general

population (see appendix for frequencies). For the measurement of personality traits we relied on self-ratings of

personality. Mondak (2010, p. 32 & 108) argues that persons can easily, quickly and reliably rate their own

personality -although other research has shown that despite the ‘high degree of construct overlap’ between the

ratings of the self and observers, there is substantial variance (Connolly, Kavanagh, & Viswesvaran, 2007). We

used the traditional 44-Big Five item scale to measure the five types of personality7, because the survey setting

allowed a lengthier battery, leading to a better measure of personality than only 2 items per trait (Gerber, et al.,

2011a).

We used sum scales of different political activities (Gerber, et al., 2011b; Vecchione & Caprara, 2009), both for

offline political engagement, Facebook and online political engagement, inspired from scales constructed for

previous surveys on offline and online political participation (specifically see: Gibson, Lusoli, & Ward, 2005;

10

Gibson, Howard, & Ward, 2000). Despite growing research on the social and political effects of using Facebook,

there is no consistent battery of questions for measuring political Facebook engagement (however, see Ellison, et

al., 2007). As a result, we measured Facebook engagement based on whether the student participated in the

following seven activities which are often used as a form of engagement with political issues on Facebook:

supporting a societal/political group; using the share-button of a news website or other site to share a link; posting

of article or video about the news/politics; responding positively to an invitation for a political meeting by a

friend/group; liking a politician/party or supporting a group created by a politician/party; posting opinion about

politics on a wall; using the share-button of a website of a politician/political party to share a link, article or video

about the news/politics, and creating a Facebook group or activity for a societal/political event.

Online political engagement was measured based on four activities: signing an online petition; disseminating

information related to a political party or politician and disseminating a political message (not from politicians or

a political party) on the internet (through non-social networking means such as blogs, emails or forums) and

sending an email to a politician to complain about a certain issue. Although we use Facebook and online political

engagement as two separate scales, people who are politically active on Facebook, are also more likely to be

active in other places on the Net (as indicated by the correlation of .619 (p<0.001), but this does not indicate that

everyone who engages politically online also engages in politics through Facebook. As for the terminology used,

we will refer to Facebook engagement and online political engagement for the separate scales and when we refer

to both, we will use the term online political participation.

Offline political engagement, finally, was measured based on six items: signing a petition, participating in a

protest march, boycotting products, attending a show with political content, wearing a t-shirt, badge stating a

political message explicitly and making a political message publicly available. The frequency of each separate

activity and Cronbach’s α of the scales are reported in the appendix.

Results

Table 1 shows the frequency of each personality trait. All relevant personality items were coded in the same

direction and we computed the mean score for each scale (John, Naumann, & Soto, 2008). The students scored

highest on openness to experience and extraversion (two attitudes that are expected to have a positive effect on

political participation), and lower on emotional stability. We also tested whether there were differences between

the different majors (political and social science, communication as the largest groups and other majors) because

different personalities might select different subjects (Penney, Davida, & Witt, 2011). We only found one

difference for conscientiousness between the political/social science and other majors (p<0.01) with the

political/social science major students being less conscientious (3.0 vs. 3.3).

Table 1. about here

11

Table 2 shows the results of the bivariate analysis between personality traits and forms of political participation.

Based on these findings, we found that two personality traits were positively related to political participation:

openness to experience and extraversion. For the other personality traits, we found no significant correlation. This

is a clear confirmation of hypotheses 1 and 2. Hypotheses 3, 4 and 5 require further analysis. The next step was to

determine if the relationships hold true in multivariate analysis.

Table 2. about here

Table 3 shows the regression of the effect on political participation of all 5 personality traits. No control variables

were considered. As Mondak (2010) also suggests, to date the simultaneity of the effect of personality on political

participation on the one hand, and political interest, for instance, on the other is still unknown. To take these

concerns into account to some extent, we included both models. The personality traits were only modestly

correlated (as presented in the appendix). We used Poisson regression as the outcome of our analysis was count

data, and the mean and variance of the scales were not very different (Agresti, 1996; Hampton, Sessions, & Ja

Her, 2011). An odds ratio larger than 1 indicates a positive effect on political participation and an odds ratio

smaller than 1 a negative effect.

As we expected, openness to experience was related to more online political engagement, which confirms

hypothesis 1, while the effect was stronger for online political engagement than engagement through Facebook.

This means that, in our sample, people with more intellectual curiosity and openness to new alternatives were

more likely to engage in online politics in general. The model also shows that extraversion is positively related to

online political engagement and Facebook engagement, which confirms hypothesis 2. The effect is stronger on

Facebook engagement, confirming that expressing a political opinion on Facebook requires a certain level of

sociability and assertiveness, which can be avoided in online political engagement. The third hypothesis did not

hold true in our findings. We expected a positive effect at least for online political engagement but agreeableness

was not related to online political engagement –or to Facebook engagement for that matter. We also expected that

more conscientiousness would lead to less online political participation, which we found to be the case, but only

the effect on online political engagement was significant, thus only partially confirming hypothesis 4. This means

that people in our sample with this personality trait were probably skeptical about the effectiveness and concrete

outcomes of engaging in politics through Facebook, but more receptive to the idea of engaging in politics through

non-Facebook forms. Finally, while we expected emotional stability to be positively related to Facebook

engagement and less to online political engagement, we found no such effects, failing therefore to confirm

hypothesis 5. Apparently, for the people in our sample, emotional stability did not matter for engagement in

online politics. Summing up, our expectations regarding the impact of personality on engagement in politics

online were only confirmed for three personality traits. It is notable that the strongest effects on online

12

engagement observed in the two traits (openness to experience and extraversion), were also observed for offline

political engagement in our sample. Other research has also established that extraversion and openness to

experience have the strongest and most consistent effect on engagement in offline political participation (Gerber,

et al., 2011a; Mondak, 2010). Hence, our findings extend this result to the online sphere, indicating that some

personalities will be over-represented in all forms of political participation (both online and offline).

Table 3. about here

We then regressed the effect of personality on political participation, controlling for different background

variables and attitudes. We controlled for gender (1: female; 2: male), parental level of education (level of

education of the mother), frequency of internet use (1: less than once a week – 6: more than 5 hours a week),

political interest (range 1: not interest – 4: very interested) and political knowledge (sum scale of 13 questions

with four answering options and ‘don’t know’ coded as incorrect answer) (Gerber, et al., 2011b; Verba, et al.,

1995). Table 4 shows the results of the analysis including control variables. Including theses variables, we found

that men were more likely to engage in online political engagement while parental education had no effect. We

found that the more time young people spend online, the less likely they are to use it for online political

engagement and Facebook engagement. This contradicts previous findings showing that those spending more time

online are more likely to be politically active, especially those who are young and highly educated (Di Gennaro &

Dutton, 2006; Gibson, et al., 2005; Howard, Rainie, & Jones, 2001). We also found that political interest was

positively related to online political engagement and therefore the more interested people were in politics, the

more likely it was that they would engage politically online. We found no such effect for knowledge. However, it

should be kept in mind that this analysis was not based on a random sample, but on a sample of university

students, who tend to have a quite homogeneous profile with respect to socioeconomic status (Hooghe, Stolle,

Maheo, & Vissers, 2010). Similar effects of political attitudes on political participation have been found for

offline political engagement.

Table 4 shows positive effects for openness to experience and extraversion on all three types of political

participation, which is in agreement not only with the findings of the models in Table 3, but also with that of most

political participation-personality research. For the other personality traits results are mixed. We found that

agreeable people are more likely to engage in online and offline political engagement, but not in Facebook

engagement. Based on this finding, people in our sample are more likely to engage in online politics through acts

that can remain anonymous, perhaps as a way to avoid potential confrontation with their peers on visible social

network such as Facebook. This confirms hypothesis 3. Finally, as was the case in the first model,

conscientiousness and emotional stability had no statistically significant effect, despite our expectation for

13

negative effects for conscientiousness and positive effects for emotional stability, especially on Facebook.

Conscientiousness and emotional stability did not have any effect on offline political engagement either.

Table 4. about here

Conclusion

As internet political participation becomes more important in contemporary politics and young people

increasingly attracted by the internet and Facebook, learning more about how personality traits affect online

political participation, especially because of findings showing that certain personalities may be ideologically

predisposed in certain ways, acquires much significance. Given that some personality traits encourage more

participation, and more visibly so than others, an analysis of personality traits and their effect on political

engagement is one of the first steps in understanding who shapes the agendas on the internet, and what the

consequences might be. If internet users who can at the same time be online agenda shapers, such as bloggers or

Twitterers (who very often attract the attention of the media which thereafter publicise their contributions), are

extravert people with personalities open to experience, then these people may be more open to the multitude of

political opinions and ideas circulating on the internet and, as a result, more likely to advance their views and

shape the agenda with issues that reflect their personality. However, if internet users are more conscientious or

introvert people, less likely to be convinced about the concrete outcomes of online participation or unwilling to try

experimental social-based types of participation such as mini campaigns and supporting a politician through social

networks, this may well make a difference for highly social-based experimental and novel electoral campaigns

such as the famous social media campaign of Barack Obama.

This article is a first step towards exploring the impact of personality traits on political engagement. The findings

of our analyses are twofold. On the one hand, we found strong and consistent effects of openness to experience

and extraversion on both Facebook engagement and online political engagement. Openness to experience and

extraversion are positively related to online political engagement, indicating that those who participate online in

our sample are more open-minded, and look for new information than the inactive. These results also hold for the

online sphere. Furthermore, those who engage in politics online are also more sociable, energetic and assertive

than non-participants. On the other hand, the results for agreeableness, conscientiousness and, to a lesser extent,

emotional stability, are mixed and the effects much smaller. These results also do not differ for Facebook

engagement, online political engagement and offline political engagement. We found Facebook engagement to be

unrelated to these three personality characteristics. Online political engagement, on the other hand, is related to

less conscientiousness and more agreeableness. Less conscientious people are more likely to engage into politics

online, perhaps indicating that engaging in politics via these avenues is a less well-thought over and perhaps more

spontaneous and easy decision. Finally, we found that more agreeableness leads to more online political

14

engagement and that the last is not related to emotional stability. Agreeableness is weakly positively related to

offline political engagement, but only after control variables have been included.

Overall, our results did not differ significantly from those of similar analyses regarding offline political

engagement: people who are more open to new experiences and extravert are more likely to engage in all forms of

participation, both in the offline and online sphere. These findings are especially important in view of the civic

training that government initiatives often seek to promote (Coleman, 2008). By knowing more about the online

participation preferences of young people with different personality traits, website developers and civic

engagement project managers can modify the concepts young people would relate to if they visited those sites,

inviting people with, for example, introvert characteristics, and not just with extravert and new-experience seeking

traits.

The findings acquire additional importance given that some personalities are also linked to political opinions and

ideology (Gerber, et al., 2011a). For example, if extravert people and those who are more open to new experiences

are known to be more active online, but at the same time are known to have different opinions than those of the

public at large, caution may be needed in interpreting or generalizing the agendas generated at the internet realm.

Extravert people are known to be socially liberal, and those open to new experiences have been found to be more

liberal and more center-left oriented (Caprara, et al., 2006; Gerber, et al., 2011a). However, as some of these

ideological predispositions will cancel out, others will reinforce each other, with the potential consequence of

leading to a more polarized opinion.

Our findings indicate that many effects of personality on political participation are influenced by political

attitudes such as political interest and knowledge. Indeed, in our sample adding the control variables led to

(slightly) different effects of personality on online political engagement. Future research should thus explore the

simultaneous effect of political attitudes and personality on political participation8. In line with this, more research

is needed to establish how environment, personality, attitudes and political behavior interact. Few attempts have

been made: Mondak et al. (2010) present a scheme of how personality could affect political behavior, but they did

not test this model. Even the causality of the relationship between personality, attitudes and behavior has hardly

been tested yet. More, and especially longitudinal data from a young age onwards, are needed to fully explore this

relationship. Furthermore, it is still not clear how these five personality traits are most effectively measured as to

the number of items, the type of scale used and the items on the scale. Finally, more research is required for a

consistent theory on the effects of personality on both offline and online political engagement.

15

Bibliography

Agresti, A. (1996). An introduction to categorical data analysis. New York, NY: John Wiley. Almond, G. A., & Verba, S. (1963). The Civic Culture: political attitudes and democracy in five nations. Princeton:

Princeton University Press. Anstead, N., & O’ Loughlin, B. (2011). The Emerging Viewertariat and BBC Question Time: Television Debate and

Real-Time Commenting Online. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 16(4), 440-462. Bekkers, R. (2005). Participation in voluntary associations: Relations with resources, personality, and political

values. Political Psychology, 26(3), 439-454. Bimber, B., Flanagin, A. J., & Stohl, C. (2009). Technological Change and the Shifting Nature of Political

Organisation. In A. Chadwick & P. Howard (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Internet Politics. London: Routledge.

Blais, A., & Labbé St-Vincent, S. (2011). Personality traits, political attitudes and the propensity to vote. European Journal of Political Research, 50(3), 395-417.

boyd, d. (2008). Why Youth (Heart) Social Network Sites: The Role of Networked Publics in Teenage Social Life. In D. Buckingham (Ed.), MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Learning - Youth, Identity, and Digital Media Volume (pp. 119–142). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Brown, J., Broderick, A. J., & Lee, N. (2007). Word of Mouth Communication within Online Communities: Conceptualizing the Online Social Network. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 21(3), 2-20.

Caprara, G. V., Schwartz, S., Capanna, C., Vecchione, M., & Barbaranelli, C. (2006). Personality and Politics: Values, Traits, and Political Choice. Political Psychology, 27(1), 1-28.

Carney, D. R., Jost, J. T., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2008). The Secret Lives of Liberals and Conservatives: Personality Profiles, Interaction Styles, and the Things They Leave Behind. Political Psychology, 29(6), 807-840.

Chadwick, A. (2007). Digital network repertoires and organizational hybridity. [Proceedings Paper]. Political Communication, 24(3), 283-301.

Coleman, S. (2008). Doing IT for Themselves: Management versus Autonomy in Youth E-Citizenship. In L. Bennett (Ed.), Civic Life Online: Learning How Digital Media can Engage Youth. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Connolly, J. J., Kavanagh, E. J., & Viswesvaran, C. (2007). The convergent validity between self and observer ratings of personality: A meta-analytic review. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 15(1), 110-117.

Correa, T., Hinsley, A., & de Zuniga, H. (2010). Who interacts on the Web?: The intersection of users' personality and social media use. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(2), 247-253.

Dahlgren, P. (2005). The Internet, public spheres, and political communication: Dispersion and deliberation. [Article]. Political Communication, 22(2), 147-162.

Di Gennaro, C., & Dutton, W. (2006). The Internet and the Public: Online and Offline Political Participation in the United Kingdom. Parliamentary Affairs, 59(2), 299-313.

Earl, J., & Kimport, K. (2011). Digitally Enabled Social Change: Activism in the Internet Age. Cambridge: MIT Press. Ellison, N. B., Steinfeld, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The Benefits of Facebook "Friends": Social Capital and College

Students' Use of Online Social Network Sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12, 1143-1168.

Fowler, J. (2006). Altruism and turnout. Journal of Politics, 68(3), 674-683. Gerber, A. S., Huber, G. A., Doherty, D., & Dowling, C. M. (2011a). The Big Five Personality Traits in the Political

Arena. Annual Review of Political Science, 14, 265-287. Gerber, A. S., Huber, G. A., Doherty, D., Dowling, C. M., & Ha, S. E. (2010). Personality and Political Attitudes:

Relationships across Issue Domains and Political Contexts. American Political Science Review, 104(1), 111-133.

16

Gerber, A. S., Huber, G. A., Doherty, D., Dowling, C. M., Raso, C., & Ha, S. E. (2011b). Personality Traits and Participation in Political Processes. Journal of Politics, 73(3), 692-706.

Gibson, R., Lusoli, W., & Ward, S. (2005). Online participation in the UK: Testing a ‘Contextualised’ Model of Internet Effects. Policy Studies Association, 7(4), 561-583.

Gibson, R. K., Howard, P. E. N., & Ward, S. (2000). Social Capital, Internet Connectedness & Political Participation: A Four-Country Study. Paper prepared for the 2000 International Political Science Association. Quebec, Canada.

Gosling, S. D. (2008). Snoop: What Your Stuff Says about You. New York: Basic Books. Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann, W. B. (2003). A Very Brief Measure of the Big-Five Personality Domains.

Journal of Research in Personality, 37(6), 504-528. Hampton, K. N., Sessions, L., & Ja Her, E. (2011). Core Networks, Social Isolation, and New Media: Internet and

Mobile Phone Use, Network Size, and Diversity. Information, Communication & Society, 14(1), 130-155. Haythornthwaite, C. (1999). A Social Network Theory of Tie Strength and Media Use: A Framework for Evaluating

Multi-level Impacts of New Media. Technical Report UIUCLIS—2002/1+DKRC, Graduate School of Library and Information Science. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Hooghe, M., Stolle, D., Maheo, V., & Vissers, S. (2010). Why Can't a Student Be More Like an Average Person?: Sampling and Attrition Effects in Social Science Field and Laboratory Experiments. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 85-96.

Howard, P. E. N., Rainie, L., & Jones, S. (2001). Days and Nights on the Internet: The Impact of a Diffusing Technology. American Behavioral Scientist, 45(3), 383-404.

Jenkins, H., Purushotma, R., Weigel, M., Clinton, K., & Robinson, A. J. (2009). Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21st Century. White paper. Cambridge: MIT Press.

John, O. P., Naumann, L. P., & Soto, C. J. (2008). Paradigm shift to the integrative Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and conceptual issues. In O. P. John, R. W. Robins & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 114-158). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big-Five Trait Taxonomy: History, Measurement, and Theoretical Perspectives. In L. Pervin & J. O.P. (Eds.), Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research (2nd ed.) (pp. 102-139). New York: Guilford.

Katosh, J., & Traugott, M. (1981). The Consequences of Valitated and Self-reported Voting Measures. [Article]. Public Opinion Quarterly, 45(4), 519-535.

Kushin, M., & Yamamoto, M. (2010). Did Social Media Really Matter? College Students' Use of Online Media and Political Decision Making in the 2008 Election. [Article]. Mass Communication and Society, 13(5), 608-630.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1994). The Stability of Personality - Observations and Evaluations. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 3(6), 173-175.

Mondak, J., & Halperin, K. (2008). A framework for the study of personality and political behaviour. British Journal of Political Science, 38(2), 335-362.

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

Mondak, J. J., Hibbing, M., Canache, D., Seligson, M. A., & Anderson, M. R. (2010). Personality and Civic Engagement: An Integrative Framework for the Study of Trait Effects on Political Behavior. American Political Science Review, 104(01), 85–110.

Opp, K.-D., & Brandstätter, H. (2010). Political Protest and Personality Traits: A Neglected Link. Mobilization, 15(3), 323-346.

Ozer, D., & Benet-Martínez, V. (2006). Personality and the prediction of consequential outcomes. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 401-421.

Papacharissi, Z. (2004). Democracy online: civility, politeness, and the democratic potential of online political discussion groups. [Article]. New Media & Society, 6(2), 259-283.

17

Papacharissi, Z., & Oliveira, M. F. (2011). The Rhytms of News Storytelling on Twitter. Paper presented at the World Association for Public Opinion Research Conference, Amsterdam, September 2011. .

Penney, L. M., Davida, E., & Witt, L. A. (2011). A review of personality and performance: Identifying boundaries, contingencies, and future research directions. Human Resource Management Review, 21(4), 297-310.

Ross, C., Orr, E., Sisic, M., Arseneault, J., Simmering, M., & Orr, R. (2009). Personality and motivations associated with Facebook use. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 578-586.

Shirky, C. (2010). The Political Power of Social Media. Foreign Affairs, 90(1), 28-41. Valenzuela, S., Park, N., & Kee, K. (2009). Is There Social Capital in a Social Network Site?: Facebook Use and

College Students' Life Satisfaction, Trust, and Participation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(4), 875-901.

van Hiel, A., Kossowska, M., & Mervielde, I. (2000). The relationship between Openness to Experience and political ideology. Personality and Individual Differences, 28(4), 741-751.

Vecchione, M., & Caprara, G. V. (2009). Personality determinants of political participation: The contribution of traits and self-efficacy beliefs. Personality and Individual Differences, 46(4), 487-492.

Verba, S., & Nie, N. (1972). Participation in America. Political Democracy and Social Equality. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. E. (1995). Voice and equality: civic voluntarism in American Politics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

18

Appendix

Table. Entries are percentage of valid responses of political Facebook activism (n=356; 77 missing; Cronbach’s α:

.768).

Never Sometimes Often

Supported a societal/political goal, for instance by

becoming member of a certain group (not founded by a

politician or political party)

52.5 40.2 7.3

Used a share-button of a newswebsite or other site to

share a link, article or video about the news/politics

64.3 31.2 4.5

Being invited for a political meeting by a friend/group 67.1 28.1 4.8

Indicated that you like a politician/party or support a

group that is created by a politician/party

67.4 26.4 6.2

Given your opinion about politics on a wall 68.5 26.4 5.1

Used a share-button of a website of a politician/political

party to share a link, article or video about the

news/politics

87.6 10.4 2.0

Created a Facebook-group or activity for a

societal/political event

94.9 4.8 0.3

19

Table. Entries are percentage of valid responses of online political participation (n=375; 58 missing; Cronbach’s

α: .575).

Never Sometimes Often

Signed an online petition 72.3 26.9 0.8

Disseminated information from a political party or

politician through the internet (email, blog, website,..)

75.7 21.9 2.4

Disseminated a political message (not from politicians

or a political party) through the internet

76.8 21.1 2.1

Sent an email to a politician to complain about a certain

issue

94.7 5.3 0

Table. Entries are percentage of valid responses of offline political participation (n=375; 58 missing; Cronbach’s

α: .612).

Never Sometimes Often

Boycotted certain products for political, ethical or

environmental reasons

54.7 36.5 8.8

Signed a petition 59.7 38.7 1.6

Attended a show or cultural event with political content, 69.9 28.3 1.9

Writing or displaying a political statement publicly 83.5 14.4 2.1

Deliberately wearing a patch, sticker, button or T-shirt

for a political or social cause,

84.5 13.1 2.4

Took part in a legal march or protest 90.9 8.3 0.8

For all these activities, it was explicitly stated that they should not be performed online.

20

Table. Correlations between personality measures

Openness to

experience Extraversion Agreeableness

Conscientiousn

ess

Emotional

stability

Openness to

experience

1 .184*** .035 -.015 -.032

Extraversion .184*** 1 .068 .142** .288***

Agreeableness .035 .068 1 .120* .204***

Conscientiousness -.015 .142** .120* 1 -.060

Emotional stability -.032 .288*** .204*** -.060 1

Entries are Pearson correlations.

Table. Descriptives of control variables.

Missing Mean Std. Deviation

Gender 5 0.407 .492

Education mother 15 2.876 .862

Frequency of internet use 76 2.482 .752

Political interest 32 3.040 .670

Political knowledge 82 7.986 2.736

21

Table 1. Personality measures rated on a 5 point scale.

Mean Std.dev Cronbach’s α

Openness 3.725 0.601 0.802

Extraversion 3.595 0.668 0.831

Agreeableness 3.485 0.588 0.740

Conscientiousness 3.082 0.668 0.826

Emotional stability 2.015 0.762 0.837

N=345, 88 missing cases. Range scales 1-5. A 5 indicates more open, conscientious, extravert, agreeable, and/or

emotional stability.

Table 2. Bivariate correlations between personality traits and three types of political participation

Online political

engagement

Facebook engagement Offline political

engagement

Openness .257*** .252*** .285***

Extraversion .173*** .235*** .185***

Agreeableness .032 -.021 .077

Conscientiousness -.070 -.021 -.036

Emotional stability .067 .028 .048

22

Table 3. Predicting different types of political participation.

Online political

engagement

Facebook engagement Offline political

engagement

Odds Sign. Odds Sign.

Openness to experience 1.696 *** 1.458 *** 1.545 ***

Extraversion 1.306 * 1.421 *** 1.236 *

Agreeableness 1.055 ns 0.964 ns 1.122 ns

Conscientiousness 0.853 ° 0.931 ns .920 ns

Emotional stability 1.033 ns 0.975 ns .990 ns

Intercept 0.051 *** 0.210 * .129 ***

Deviance (df) 450.807(399) 700.740(311) 497.670(339)

Likelihood Ratio Chi-Square

(df)

45.249(5)*** 79.037(5)*** 59.919(5)***

N 345 317 345

Entries are odds ratios and significances: p>0.001: ***; p<0.01: **; p<0.05: *; p<0.1: °.

23

Table 4. Predicting different types of political participation with controls.

Online political

engagement

Facebook engagement Offline political

engagement

Odds Sign. Odds Sign. Odds Sign.

Openness to experience 1.611 *** 1.350 ** 1.443 ***

Extraversion 1.315 * 1.383 *** 1.234 *

Agreeableness 1.234 ° 1.120 ns 1.180 °

Conscientiousness .895 ns .936 ns .906 ns

Emotional stability .905 ns .877 ns .942 ns

Gender 1.440 * 1.208 ns .949 ns

Education mother .985 ns .921 ns 1.018 ns

Frequency of internet use .812 * .772 *** 1.008 ns

Political interest 1.288 * 1.354 *** 1.320 ***

Political knowledge 1.032 ns 1.040 ns 1.038 °

Intercept .014 *** .116 *** .051 ***

Deviance (df) 420.324(334) 612.993(306) 466.905(334)

Likelihood Ratio Chi-Square

(df)

75.732(10)*** 166.784(10)*** 90.684(10)***

N 345 317 345

Entries are odds ratios and significances: p>0.001: ***; p<0.01: **; p<0.05: *; p<0.1: °.

24

Endnotes

1 Facebook can, of course, be used as a tool for anonymously engaging in politics but as it is in principle

an open social network based on sharing information with friends it is obvious that political content

posted there is subject to the logic of being visible to others. 2 It is worth noting that these traits have been found to be related to political ideology (Gerber, et al.,

2011a). It has been argued, for example, that openness to experience is related to political liberalism

(Carney, Jost, Gosling, & Potter, 2008; Gerber, Huber, Doherty, Dowling, & Ha, 2010; Mondak, 2010)

and center-left voting behavior (Caprara, Schwartz, Capanna, Vecchione, & Barbaranelli, 2006), and

inversely related to right-wing political ideology in Belgium and Poland (van Hiel, et al., 2000), racial

prejudice and homophobia. Extravert people have been found to be less liberal (Gerber, et al., 2010),

while research has shown that those who score low in emotional stability are less conservative (Carney,

et al., 2008; Gerber, et al., 2010) and that agreeableness is linked with conflict avoidance (Gerber, et al.,

2011b; Mondak & Halperin, 2008). 3 The extent to which all these acts can be considered as political participation is, of course, debatable.

4 Several examples are platforms such as Facebook but also the space for commentary or integrated

blogging offered by online news outlets that require registration such as The Guardian or The New York

Times. 5 We label these online acts as ‘political engagement’ rather than ‘political participation’ due to

reservations about whether they actually constitute political participation. Political participation

literature has not adequately addressed whether these new forms of creative participation adhere to the

40-year old definitions introduced by early scholarly work on participation (see (Verba & Nie, 1972)

(Almond & Verba, 1963)). 6 Indeed, according to Blais and Labbe-St-Vincent (2011) and Mutz (2002), conflict avoidance has been

associated with lower levels of participation. 7 http://nl.outofservice.com/bigfive/; John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The Big Five

Inventory-Versions 4a and 54. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Personality

and Social Research. 8 We tested for the interactions between political attitudes (political interest and political knowledge)

and personality on the three forms of political participation, and found only 2 to be significant:

consciousness people with more knowledge are less likely to participate in online political engagement

(OR: 0.923*) and consciousness people with more interest are more likely to participate in offline

political engagement (OR: 1.201*).