Genes, Personality Traits, and the Sense of Civic Duty

• Author: Christopher T. Dawes,Aaron C. Weinschenk
• Date: 01 January 2018
• Published date: 01 January 2018
• DOI: 10.1177/1532673X17710760
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X17710760

American Politics Research

2018, Vol. 46(1) 47 –76

© The Author(s) 2017

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1532673X17710760

journals.sagepub.com/home/apr

Article

Genes, Personality

Traits, and the Sense

of Civic Duty

Aaron C. Weinschenk1

and Christopher T. Dawes2

Abstract

Political scientists have long known that the sense of civic duty is one of

the strongest predictors of individual voter turnout, yet scholars are only

just starting to study and understand the origins of this orientation. Recent

genopolitics research has indicated that the sense of civic duty is heritable,

and recent research in political psychology has illustrated that individual

personality traits, many of which have a heritable component, shape feelings

of civic obligation. In this article, we link these two lines of inquiry to better

understand how individual differences shape the sense of civic duty. More

specifically, we explore the relationship between personality traits, measured

using the Big Five model; genes; and the sense of civic duty. We show

that genetic factors account for between 70% and 87% of the correlation

between civic duty and four of the Big Five personality traits. Overall, the

results presented here expand our understanding of the process through

which prosocial orientations, such as civic duty, are formed.

Keywords

civic duty, voter turnout, personality traits, Big Five, genes, genopolitics,

prosocial

1University of Wisconsin–Green Bay, WI, USA

2New York University, New York City, NY, USA

Corresponding Author:

Aaron C. Weinschenk, Department of Political Science, University of Wisconsin–Green Bay,

2420 Nicolet Drive, Green Bay, WI 54311, USA.

Email: weinscha@uwgb.edu

710760APRXXX10.1177/1532673X17710760American Politics ResearchWeinschenk and Dawes

research-article2017

48 American Politics Research 46(1)

Introduction

Why do some people vote while others do not? This is one of the classic ques-

tions in political science. For decades now, political scientists have grappled

with this question, which seems fairly straightforward but is actually remark-

ably complicated. Indeed, after decades of study, scholars are still trying to

explain variation in voter turnout. The study of voter turnout is so important

and intriguing that scholars in other disciplines, including economics and

psychology, have also attempted to answer the question of why some vote

and some do not. One of the most prominent ideas about political participa-

tion—and one that has influenced much research in political science, eco-

nomics, and psychology—begins with the assumption that individuals will

vote if the expected utility from voting exceeds the expected utility from not

voting. According to Downs (1957), the decision to vote can be represented

by the equation R = (B × P) − C, where R is the reward that one receives from

voting, B is the utility gain from getting the preferred outcome, P is the prob-

ability that the individual’s vote will yield the preferred outcome (the proba-

bility that the individual is the pivotal voter), and C is the cost of voting.

According to the calculus of voting equation, if R > 0, then it is rational to

vote and if R ≤ 0, then it is not rational to vote. Given the infinitesimal chance

of being the pivotal voter and the notion that C > 0, B would have to be a large

number for R to be positive. Thus, R will typically be negative (even when a

person votes), which means that voting is irrational.

Recognizing that many people vote, despite the irrationality of voting

according to the calculus of voting equation, Riker and Ordeshook (1968)

attempted to modify the equation to account for other factors that might

shape the vote decision. Their famous modification suggests that the calcu-

lus of voting is represented by the equation R = (B × P) − C + D. Here, the

D term represents the positive benefits associated with the act of voting.

Many people think of the D term as the sense of civic duty to vote. According

to Blais and Galais (2016), “The civic duty to vote is the belief that one has

a moral obligation to vote in elections” (p. 61). It is important to note that

the sense of civic duty is about an individual’s sense of obligation, but it is

also about making a contribution to others and ultimately to society as a

whole. Indeed, as Loewen and Dawes (2012) note, “A sense of a duty to

vote is a prosocial orientation applied to politics” (p. 364, emphasis added).

Although voting is often costly to the individual who does it, some people

feel obligated to contribute to their local, state, or national government (or

all of the above), despite the costs of participating, by taking part in elec-

tions. The ability of people to behave prosocially is important for the func-

tioning of democracy.