A Theory of the Emergence, Persistence, and Expression of Geographic Variation in Psychological Characteristics

Abstract

Volumes of research show that people in different geographic regions differ psychologically. Most of that work converges on the conclusion that there are geographic differences in personality and values, but little attention has been paid to developing an integrative account of how those differences emerge, persist, and become expressed at the geographic level. Drawing from research in psychology and other social sciences, we present a theoretical account of the mechanisms through which geographic variation in psychological characteristics emerge and persist within regions, and we propose a model for conceptualizing the processes through which such characteristics become expressed in geographic social indicators. The proposed processes were examined in the context of theory and research on personality traits. Hypotheses derived from the model were tested using personality data from over half a million U.S. residents. Results provided preliminary support for the model, revealing clear patterns of regional variation across the U.S. and strong relationships between state-level personality and geographic indicators of crime, social capital, religiosity, political values, employment, and health. Overall, this work highlights the potential insights generated by including macrolevel perspectives within psychology and suggests new routes to bridging theory and research across several disciplines in the social sciences.

Divided we stand: Three psychological regions of the United States and their political, economic, social, and health correlates.

“…states also differ systematically in terms of their mean personality scores (e.g., Rentfrow, Gosling, & Potter, 2008). Such findings raise the possibility of dividing regions, not in terms of traditional social and economic indicators, but in terms of psychological characteristics instead.…”

Tightness–looseness across the 50 united states

“…[1][2][3][4]. Indeed, this trend is belied by ample anecdotal and empirical evidence documenting wide cultural differences between the regions and states of the United States (1)(2)(3)5), as well as extensive state-level differences in ecological and historical conditions (1,(5)(6)(7), personality characteristics (8), and numerous outcomes, such as substance abuse, social organization, discrimination, and creativity, among others. To date, however, we have surprisingly very little insight as to what accounts for this variation.…”

“…Why, for example, is the incidence of illicit substance use greater in states like Hawaii, Alaska, and New Hampshire relative to Mississippi, Ohio, and Oklahoma (9), but incidents of discrimination much higher in the latter than the former (10)? Why do states like Colorado and Connecticut score low on trait conscientiousness and high on trait openness, but other states, such as Alabama and Kansas, score high on trait conscientiousness and low on trait openness (8)? Why do some states, such as Oregon and Vermont, exhibit high levels of creativity (11), but have very low levels of social organization (12), whereas other states, such as Kentucky and North Dakota, exhibit the exact opposite patterns?…”

Personality, Interpersonal Disagreement, and Electoral Information

“…Third, geographic variation in the aggregate distribution of personality types (Plaut, Markus, and Lachman 2002;Rentfrow 2010;Rentfrow, Gosling, and Potter 2008) suggests that personality may drive very different kinds of social interactions across different contexts. If personality influences responses to disagreement (as it pertains to information seeking), but if networks are composed predominantly of one personality-type or another in different locales, then the implications of disagreement for democratic citizenship may be subject to contextual constraints.…”