Open versus Closed

Purchase now at Cambridge or Amazon
Reproduction materials
Winner of the 2018 David O. Sears Book Award from the International Society of Political Psychology
Reviews: Public Opinion Quarterly, Social Justice Research
‘A creative and original investigation into the puzzling, polarizing and often contradictory personality-based forces driving economic policy preferences. It’s a fascinating read and a major contribution to the field of political psychology.’ Kevin Smith, University of Nebraska, Lincoln
‘Political psychologists know why people adopt particular stances on social issues but the sources of economic preferences remain murky. Johnston, Lavine, and Federico rectify this situation in one fell swoop with an inventive and compelling account of the reasons many people – especially the well-informed – frequently act contrary to their own economic self-interest.’ John R. Hibbing, Co-Author of Predisposed: Liberals, Conservatives and the Biology of Political Differences
‘Open versus Closed develops a fascinating theoretical argument around a central dimension of personality: the disposition for being ‘open’ or ‘closed’ to uncertainty and risk…[this] work reminds us of the critical importance of political elites and citizen engagement in channeling how personality informs what citizens demand from government and why.’ Cindy D. Kam, Vanderbilt University, Tennessee
‘This is a path-breaking study. It brings into view, arguably more dramatically than any previous work, the complexity – or perhaps better the perversity – of personality and political choice. Among other things, it is on the thinking of the politically aware and engaged, not the inattentive and indifferent, that personality, the emblem of the irrational, has its strongest impact.’ Paul Sniderman, Stanford University
‘Open Versus Closed is certain to have a major impact on the field. Not only do Johnston, Lavine, and Federico comprise a veritable all-star team of co-authors, their book embodies the best features of political psychology. It doesn’t give short shrift to the political in its exploration of the psychological. Instead the emphasis on the psychological allows them to solve an important political puzzle about attitudes toward redistribution that no one else has been able to crack.’ Marc J. Hetherington, Vanderbilt University, Tennessee