Personality, Regulatory Focus, and Political Ideology Paper

Running head: PERSONALITY, REGULATORY FOCUS & POLITICAL IDEOLOGY 1
12/08/15 9:53 AM
Extroversion-Introversion, Regulatory Focus and Political Ideology: A Correlational Study
Jennifer Burke
The College of New Jersey
Author Note
Jennifer Burke, Psychology Department, The College of New Jersey.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jennifer Burke,
Department of Psychology, The College of New Jersey, Ewing, NJ 08560.
E-mail: burkej10@tcnj.edu

PERSONALITY, REGULATORY FOCUS & POLITICAL IDEOLOGY 2
Abstract
This research investigated the influence of extroversion-introversion on regulatory foci and
political ideology by correlating the conditions to one another using a multiple regression
equation. Ninety eight participants (53% female) aged 18-22 (M = 19.35, SD = 1.24) were
recruited. Participants completed a compilation of three surveys, the Right-Wing
Authoritarianism Scale, Regulatory Focus Questionnaire, and the Introversion Scale. Results
showed a statistically significant correlation between extroversion-introversion and regulatory
focus, r(97) = .27, p < .001. Specifically, participants who scored higher in extroversion also
scored higher promotion-focus. It was also demonstrated that extroverted participants exhibited
stronger conservative ideologies, r(97) = .35, p = .035. However, the correlation between
political ideology and regulatory focus was not statistically significant when controlling for
personality type, β = -0.13, t(97) = -0.49, p = .626. This data shows the importance of examining
the determinants of political ideology from a multidimensional approach rather than using a
simple unidimensional approach.

Extroversion-Introversion, Regulatory Focus and Political Ideology: A Correlational Study
Regulatory focus can be described as how an individual’s decision making processes are
related to the achievement of goals. That being said, there are two different regulatory foci,
prevention-focused and promotion-focused. Prevention-focused individuals focus on minimizing
losses, whereas promotion-focused individuals concentrate on maximizing gains (Higgins,
2002). Additionally, prevention-focused individuals have been found to demonstrate resistance
to change, whereas promotion-focused individuals exhibit more openness to change. The ways
that individuals respond to everyday situations are directly related to their personality traits and
cognitive functioning. Extroversion plays a significant role in the adaptive (vs. maladaptive)
personality traits individuals possess, the genes they express, and differing levels of cognitive
functioning (vs. impairment). These differences in cognition and resilience to change, in both
extroverts and introverts and prevention- and promotion-focused individuals, indicate differences
in perceived social and environmental threats which strongly relates to an individual’s belief
system, and consequently, their political ideologies (Dhont and Hodson, 2014). Thus, it is
hypothesized that extroversion will be strongly correlated to regulatory focus and subsequently,
both of these variables will be correlated to political ideology.
Past research has shown differences between extroverts and introverts and their traits, but
it has recently been found that differences in personality are caused by biological and cognitive
differences, as well (De Beaumont, Fiocco, Quesnel, Lupien, and Poirier, 2013). Although
extroverts and introverts exhibit certain tendencies consistent with their personality type, it has
also been proven by recent research that they express biological differences, through gene
expression. Extremely introverted individuals express a gene called BDNFMET, which is
significantly associated with impaired learning and memory function and maladaptive

personality traits (De Beaumont, Fiocco, Quesnel, Lupien, and Poirier, 2013). Additionally, a
study by Kong, Hu, Xue, Song, and Liu (2015) was able to correlate extroversion with a larger
mid-dorsal limbic prefrontal cortex (mid-DLPFC), which is responsible for working memory,
cognitive flexibility, and other cognitive processes and executive functions. These differences in
brain areas, learning abilities, cognitive flexibility, and personality traits could help explain the
differences in the way individuals approach a threat in their environment. In addition to
biological differences, extroverts are more open to new experiences (Nikitin & Freund, 2015)
and have a tendency to experience stronger positive emotions (Costa & McCrae, 1992) than their
introverted counterparts. Introverts demonstrate a more distrustful, conservative style in which
they approach novel situations with suspicion (Dewinne & Johnson, 1976). Collectively, this
research illustrates the clear existence of cognitive differences between extroverts and introverts.
Some of these fundamental cognitive and social differences between extroverts and introverts are
expected to give insight into the formation of prevention- versus promotion-focused individuals.
According to Higgins’ theory of regulatory focus (2002), cognitive abilities and
motivations shape how an individual assesses situations in their environment, which in turn
explains how they will respond to those situations. Higgins’ theory of regulatory focus examines
how individuals’ decision making processes are related to achieving goals. According to Higgins
(2002), the decision making processes that individuals possess will be either promotion-focused
or prevention-focused. Promotion-focused individuals focus on achievements, accomplishments,
and maximizing gains. Prevention-focused individuals, on the other hand, focus on obligation,
responsibility, and minimizing losses. According to Dhont and Hodson (2014), when we are
presented with a threat in our environment, our immediate response to that threat involves
prevention- or promotion-focused reactions. Additionally, Higgins (2002) found that there are

fundamental differences in emotion, motivation, and cognition between the two foci that affect
how individuals react to threats. Our cognitive abilities and styles influence the way we assess
the threats in our environment, albeit social or environmental. Assessment of and responses to
certain threats vary from individual to individual based on their response type. Not only are there
motivational differences between prevention- and promotion-focused individuals, but there are
also fundamental cognitive differences between the two regulatory foci. Differences in
regulatory foci, and subsequently the decision making processes, are important for understanding
differences in motivations and how those motivations are connected with the decision making
process.
Differences in recent research have found that the theory of regulatory focus can be
correlated to political ideology. According to Dhont and Hodson’s (2014) Cognitive Ability and
Style to Evaluation (CASE) model, the differences in an individual’s regulatory focus and
cognitive abilities result in different belief systems. They provided evidence that individuals who
possess lower cognitive abilities prefer predictable and orderly contexts which predisposes the
individual to increased threat perceptions when change occurs. Because of their increased threat
perceptions, these individuals generally focus on minimizing losses and typically prefer
simplicity and monotony over complexity and reform (Higgins, 2002). These prevention-focused
individuals tend to lean more toward conservative ideologies because of the consistent beliefs
that the conservative party follows. Contrarily, individuals who possess higher cognitive abilities
are open-minded and more accepting of changes and threats in their environment. These open-
minded individuals are considered to be promotion-focused and tend to lean more toward liberal
ideologies. Similar to the CASE model, Boldero & Higgins (2011) found that prevention and
promotion-focused individuals exhibit different strategies (i.e., vigilant or eagerness) when

making decisions. Prevention-focused individuals exhibit vigilant strategies associated with
making more conservative political decisions. Contrarily, promotion-focused individuals exhibit
strategic eagerness which was associated with making risky political decisions. Differences in
cognition, decision making processes, and the way that people perceive changes and threats in
their environment seem to play a crucial role in understanding how an individual’s political
ideologies are formed because they suggest cognitive differences can result in the evolution of a
particular regulatory focus.
To our knowledge, there has been no previous research correlating extroversion-
introversion levels, political ideology, and regulatory focus. The purpose of this current research
is to investigate the influences of extroversion-introversion on regulatory foci and political
ideology. We aim to close the gap between extroversion-introversion, regulatory focus, and
political ideology by correlating the three conditions to one another. It has already been shown
that certain cognitive differences between conservatives and liberals correlate with the evolution
of certain regulatory foci (Dhont & Hodson, 2014). Additionally, the existence of cognitive and
biological differences between extroverts and introverts has been demonstrated (De Beaumont et
al., 2013; Kong et al., 2015). Through transitive reasoning, it is thus hypothesized that the level
of extroversion-introversion will influence political ideology and regulatory focus. It is expected
that participants who score lower in extroversion on the Eysenck Personality Inventory (EPI)
will tend to be more prevention-focused on the Regulatory Focus Questionnaire (RFQ) and will
therefore score as more conservative on the Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) political
ideology scale. Consequently, it is further hypothesized that participants who score higher in
extroversion on the EPI will tend to be more promotion-focused on the RFQ and will therefore

score as more liberal on the RWA. Once the scales are completed, they will be analyzed and
compared to examine possible correlations.
Method
Participants
Ninety eight participants (53% female) were recruited through The College of New
Jersey’s online participant pool. Of the 98 participants involved in the study, only 97 completed
the demographics form. See Table 1 for detailed demographics. Participants’ ages ranged from
18-22 (M = 19.35, SD = 1.24). Participants under the age of 18 were excluded from the study. As
compensation for their participation in the study, participants received one credit applied towards
the completion of their mandatory participation in experimental research.
Measures
Political ideology. Political ideology was assessed using the 22 item Right-Wing
Authoritarianism (RWA) Scale. The RWA was developed by psychologist Bob Altemeyer
(1981) as a revision of the California F-scale (F for fascist) that improved its statistical
properties. According to Hoggs and Abrams (2001), the RWA has strong internal reliability (α =
0.78) and outstanding validity. The RWA measures authoritarian submission, aggression, and
conventionalism. Some sample items on the RWA include “Women should have to promise to
obey their husbands when they get married” and “There is no one right way to live life;
everybody has to create their own way.” The measure takes about three to five minutes to
complete and items are rated on a nine-point Likert scale ranging from “-4 = very strongly
disagree” to “4 = very strongly agree.” Half of the items were reverse coded and the sum of all
responses ranged from the lowest possible score of 20 to the highest possible score of 180.

Regulatory focus. The Regulatory Focus Questionnaire (RFQ) was developed by
Higgins et al. (2001). It is an 11 item measure used to assess the regulatory focus of individuals
based on their reactions to past experiences. Question number six, "Growing up, did you ever act
in ways that your parents thought were objectionable?" was excluded from participants’
questionnaire due to a systematic error. A sample item on the measure is “How often did you
obey rules and regulations that were established by your parents?” The measure takes about three
to five minutes to complete and items are rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from “1 =
never or seldom” to “5 = very often.” Participant’s responses were scored and the sum of all
prevention- and promotion-focused questions were averaged to compute one overall score
identifying each participant as either one of the regulatory foci. Compared to other regulatory
focus scales, the RFQ was shown to have strong convergent and discriminant validity (Harlow,
Friedman, & Higgins, 1997). Additionally, Higgins et al. (2001) was able to demonstrate that the
questionnaire displays strong test-retest reliability, goodness of fit, and strong internal reliability
for both the prevention (α = 0.80) and promotion scales (α = 0.73) separately and together (α =
0.85).
Extroversion-introversion levels. Level of extroversion-introversion was assessed using
McCroskey’s Introversion Scale (1998). The scale contains a total of 18 items; 12 of the
questions measure level of introversion and six questions are measures of neuroticism.
Responses were summed and individuals who score above 28 are considered highly introverted,
while those who score below 20 are considered highly extroverted. The Introversion Scale takes
about three to five minutes to complete and items are rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging
from “1= strongly disagree” to “5 = strongly agree.” Some sample items include “Are you
inclined to keep in the background on social occasions?” and “Do you sometimes feel happy,

sometimes depressed, without any apparent reason?” According to McCroskey, Burroughs,
Daun, and Richmond (1990), the Introversion Scale has been shown to demonstrate strong
internal reliability (α = 0.80) and it builds on Eysenck’s work of the psychology of politics and
personality (Eysenck, 1954 & 1994).
Procedure
The data for this correlational design was collected using a quantitative approach that
combined the results of three self-report measures. In addition to the three scales, several quality
control questions and two attention refresher items were added into the survey in order to reduce
response bias. Participants were given a brief description about the survey they would complete
when they signed up for the study online. Additionally, the date, time, and room number of the
study were also presented at the time of signup. When arriving for the study, participants were
asked to sign-in at the front desk and enter the computer lab. The participants were asked to
complete a paper-and-pencil consent form and demographic sheet before starting the survey.
Then, participants were instructed to sign on to the computer and click on a link which brought
them to a combined version of the three surveys (Right-Wing Authoritarianism Scale,
Regulatory Focus Questionnaire, and the Introversion Scale). The surveys were scored and
compared to one another. After completing the survey, participants signed out at the front desk
and received a debriefing form. Finally, participants were emailed an online Research Evaluation
form to complete.
Results
The aim of this study was to determine whether participants’ regulatory focus mediated
the effect of extroversion-introversion on their political ideologies. First, it had to be determined
whether extroversion-introversion and regulatory focus were correlated. The results showed a

statistically significant correlation between extroversion-introversion and regulatory focus, r(97)
= .27, p < .001. More specifically, the higher participants tested in extroversion, the more
strongly a promotion focus was observed. Next, we wanted to examine the relationship between
extroversion-introversion and political ideology. The correlation was statistically significant and
demonstrated that the more extroverted the participant was, the more conservative ideologies
they exhibited, r(97) = .35, p = .035. Finally, to provide a formal test of mediation, we used a
procedure developed by Preacher and Hayes (2008) that allowed us to estimate the indirect effect
of extroversion-introversion on political ideology with regulatory focus as the mediator. The
relationship between political ideology and regulatory focus was not statistically significant
when controlling for personality type, β = -0.13, t(97) = -0.49, p = .626. Additionally, the
relationship between personality type and political ideology was slightly stronger in the
mediational analysis (β = 0.38, t(97) = 2.15, p = .034) compared to the direct relationship (β =
0.35 t(97) = 2.14, p = .035). See Figure 1.
Discussion
As mentioned previously, it was initially hypothesized that personality type would
influence political ideology and regulatory focus. It was further hypothesized that participants
who score higher on extroversion on the EPI will tend to be more promotion-focused on the RFQ
and will therefore score as more liberal on the RWA. The results found that the relationship
between political ideology and regulatory focus was not statistically significant when controlling
for personality type. However, a statistically significant correlation between extroversion and
promotion focus was observed, which was our only supported hypothesis. When comparing
personality type with political ideology, the relationship was slightly stronger in the mediational
analysis when compared to the direct relationship. Additionally, the results showed that there

was a statistically significant correlation that demonstrated that the more extroverted the
participant was, the more conservative ideologies they exhibited. However, this was the opposite
of what we initially hypothesized. One possible explanation for this is that the students we
researched were all social science majors. Recent research has shown that students majoring in
different programs have different environmental attitudes and behaviors, implying that students
choose majors that are consistent with their worldviews (Lang, 2011).
Alone, this data is limited conceptually. However, this does not suggest that these
quantitative data have no merit. Rather, it shows the importance of examining the determinants
of political ideology from a multidimensional approach instead of just looking at one aspect (e.g.
personality type and/or regulatory focus) that affects it. There is a wealth of theoretical and
empirical research that suggests that conservative ideologies are associated with personality
dispositions related to needs for certainty and security (Johnston & Wronski, 2015). However,
recent empirical research has found that political ideology is not based simply on personality
traits or motivational factors. Rather, there are two primary dimensions that are considered
necessary to account for policy preferences and other political beliefs – economic and social
ideology (Feldman & Johnston, 2014). Because these two ideological dimensions can vary
across a wide range of variables, comparing a person’s score on the RFQ with one dimension of
their personality traits makes it difficult to observe the real determinants of political ideology.
Other limitations of this study could have also affected the results. For example, the
reliability of the RFQ and the RWA scales were found to be poor. Future studies should consider
using different, more reliable measures. Additionally, the sample size was too small and the
sample was not representative of the population. Also, there was very limited time to collect data
and all measures utilized were self-report which allows ample room for responses bias. Future

research should consider using a larger sample with more diversity. For example, older
populations who have more established beliefs may score differently on political ideology
measures than their younger counterparts. Additionally, different cultural backgrounds should be
examined, particularly if researchers have the ability to collect a larger and more diverse sample.
Furthermore, with a larger sample, future research could more easily examine differences
between people who scored as highly introverted (people who scored 28 or more on the
Introversion Scale) compared to people who scored as highly extroverted (people who scored 20
or less on the Introversion Scale). Such research could help psychologists better understand if
people that are one personality extreme or the other have stronger relationships with regulatory
focus and political ideology than individuals who are not extreme or highly
extroverted/introverted. Moreover, future research should consider testing different personality
traits like neuroticism, agreeableness, or psychoticism.
The purpose of this current research was to investigate the influences of personality type
on regulatory foci and political ideology. Our aim was to close the gap between extroversion-
introversion, regulatory focus, and political ideology by correlating the three conditions to one
another. Of our several hypotheses, only one was supported. Although more correlations were
not found, our findings have helped expand on previous research conducted by Dhont and
Hodson, Higgins, and Esyenck. However, further research is required to gain a more complete
understanding of the determinants of political ideology and how policy beliefs are correlated
with extroversion-introversion and regulatory focus.

References
Altemeyer, B. (1981) Right-wing authoritarianism. Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press.
Retrieved from: http://www.panojohnson.com/automatons/rwa-scale.xhtml
Boldero, J. M., & Higgins, E. T. (2011). Regulatory focus and political decision making: When
people favor reform over the status quo. Political Psychology, 32(3), 399-418. doi:
10.1111/j.1467-9221.2010.00814.x
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Normal personality assessment in clinical practice: The
NEO personality inventory. Psychological Assessment, 4(1), 5-13. doi: 10.1037/1040-
3590.4.1.5
De Beaumont, L., Fiocco, A. J., Quesnel, G., Lupien, S., & Poirier, J. (2013). Altered declarative
memory in introverted middle-aged adults carrying the BDNF val66met allele.
Behavioural Brain Research, 253, 152-156. doi: 10.1016/j.bbr.2013.07.002
Dewinne, R., & Johnson, R. W. (1976). Extroversion-introversion: The personality
characteristics of drug abusers. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 32(3), 744-746. doi:
10.1002/1097-4679(197607)32:3<744::AID-JCLP2270320354>3.0.CO;2-0
Dhont, K., & Hodson, G. (2014). Does lower cognitive ability predict greater prejudice? Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 23(6), 454-459. doi: 10.1177/0963721414549750
Eysenck, H.J. (1954) The Psychology of Politics. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Eysenck, H. J. (1994). Manual of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire: (EPQ-R Adult)
comprising the EPQ-Revised (EPQ-R) and EPQ-R short scale. San Diego: Educational
and Industrial Testing Service.

Feldman, S., & Johnston, C. D. (2014). Understanding the determinants of political ideology:
Implications of structural complexity. Political Psychology, 35(3), 337-358. doi:
10.1111/pops.12055
Harlow, R. E., Friedman, R. S., & Higgins, E. T. (1997). The regulatory focus
questionnaire. Unpublished manuscript, Columbia University. Retrieved from:
http://bobharlow.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Higgins-Friedman-Harlow-Idson-
et-al..pdf
Hogg, M. A., & Abrams, D. (2001). Key readings in social psychology: Intergroup Relations.
Ann Arbor: Psychology Press. Retrieved from:
https://books.google.com/books?id=yeN368qcx54C&pg=PA43&lpg=PA43&dq=rwa+int
ernal+reliability&source=bl&ots=WKyge0DvKG&sig=pZ52gm2MdYAW5vFjSNp8UR
2UJTc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiT_KjBlaXJAhWEFx4KHZ99CWoQ6AEIMTAD
#v=onepage&q=rwa%20internal%20reliability&f=false
Higgins, E. T. (2002). How self-regulation creates distinct values: The case of promotion and
prevention decision making. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 12(3), 177-191.
doi:10.1207/S15327663JCP1203_01
Higgins, E. T., Friedman, R. S., Harlow, R. E., Idson, L. C., Ayduk, O. N., & Taylor, A. (2001).
Achievement orientations from subjective histories of success: Promotion pride versus
prevention pride. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31(1), 3-23. doi:
10.1002/ejsp.27
Johnston, C. D., & Wronski, J. (2015). Personality dispositions and political preferences across
hard and easy issues. Political Psychology, 36 (1), 35-53. doi: 10.111/pops.12068

Kong, F., Hu, S., Xue, S., Song, Y., & Liu, J. (2015). Extroversion mediates the relationship
between structural variations in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and social well-being.
Neuroimage, 10(5), 269-275. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.10.062
Lang, K. B. (2011). The relationship between academic major and environment among college
students: Is it mediated by the effects of gender, political ideology, and financial
security? The Journal of Environmental Education, 42(4), 203-215. doi:
10.1080/00958964.2010.547230
McCroskey, J. C., Burroughs, N. F., Daun, A., & Richmond, V. P. (1990). Correlates of
quietness: Swedish and American perspectives. Communication Quarterly, 38(2), 127-
137. doi: 10.1080/01463379009369749
Nikitin, J., & Freund, A. M. (2015). The indirect nature of social motives: The relation of social
approach and avoidance motives with likeability via extroversion and
agreeableness. Journal of Personality, 83(1), 97-105. doi:10.1111/jopy.12086
Richmond, V. P., & McCroskey, J. C. (1998). Communication apprehension, avoidance and
effectiveness. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Retrieved from:
http://www.as.wvu.edu/~richmond/measures/introversion.pdf

Table 1
Demographics of Participants in the Extroversion-Introversion, Regulatory Focus and Political
Ideology Study
Characteristic n (%)
Gender
Male 46 (47)
Female 52 (53)
Race
Caucasian 71 (72)
African American 2 (2)
Latino/Hispanic 7 (7)
Asian Indian 10 (10)
Asian/Pacific Islander 7 (7)
Multi-ethnic 2 (2)
Note. N = 97. CI = 95%. The column to the
right expresses the number of participants who
identified as each gender and race with the
percentages of each in parentheses.

Figure 1. Mediation model of personality and the direct and indirect effects on regulatory focus
on political ideology. The number above the dotted reflects the relation between introversion and
political ideology controlling for regulatory focus. CI = 95%.
*p <.05. ** p <.01.

Personality, Regulatory Focus, and Political Ideology Paper

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (17)

Similar to Personality, Regulatory Focus, and Political Ideology Paper

Similar to Personality, Regulatory Focus, and Political Ideology Paper (20)

Personality, Regulatory Focus, and Political Ideology Paper