The mental well-being of politicians is not a fashionable issue. However, the effective functioning and delivery of representative democracy rests heavily on the capacity for those elected to perform their job role and to do so effectively. Despite this, wider recognition of the importance of politicians’ mental health and systems that can support it tends to be missing from public and political discourse. Progress in tackling long-standing stigma surrounding the psychological well-being of politicians has been gradual, owing to a range of societal, personal and political perceptions, yet, as an occupational group, they tend to be little or no different from the wider working population in terms of experience of depression, anxiety and related challenges to their mental health. Reviewing research on this topic, and drawing on new insights from experiences shared by parliamentarians across three continents – including from the UK, Malawi and Australia – this chapter considers a framework of nine sources of pressure facing democratically elected national politicians, reflecting the macro-, meso- and micro-level considerations of the book. These stressors emanate from societal expectations and distrust, harsh realities of political institutions and their processes, as well as the crucial, yet under-considered, influences of job design that risk failing to support the effective functioning of those we elect. Without addressing these, politicians’ well-being is a topic of concern for electors and elected alike.

This chapter proposes a new angle in studying the psychology of democracy by embracing a citizen-centric approach through the prism of electoral psychology. Most existing studies in political science focus on voters’ electoral choices, aiming to understand why people support x or y, or indeed, why they vote at all. These questions focus paradoxically on what institutions need from elections, rather than on what they offer voters. I argue electoral choice is often not the most important factor of how an election is experienced by citizens and, instead, investigate how an election affects citizens’ lives, how it makes them and others feel and whether it provides a sense of democratic resolution. The implicit institutional perspective in electoral behaviour is present in existing research, but often is unacknowledged. This chapter identifies those assumptions, assessing some untold consequences and considering instead how the questions we ask and answer change once the assumptions are relaxed. This new electoral psychology approach heralds more nuanced behavioural insights by switching the dependent variables, revisiting existing theories and proposing new concepts. Exploring elements of electoral memory and the experience of the vote, I discuss whether elections can lead to resolution or instead accentuate divisions within society.

This chapter assesses the role of integrative complexity (IC) in political beliefs and behaviours. Integrative complexity is a structural variable, measured by the degree to which a given document or other text demonstrates open-mindedness, tolerance of uncertainty, information search and processing, perspective-taking, and flexibility of opinions, plans and decisions. To different degrees across individuals, IC is responsive to situations and conditions. The extant corpus of research touches on a wide range of topics, with concentration on the political psychology of leaders and citizens. The chapter focuses on how IC is related to democratic governance, examining situations in which either low or high IC can be conducive or detrimental to the functioning of democracy.

In this chapter, we take a close look at a predominant feature of UK democracy – Prime Minister’s Questions – the weekly parliamentary event, most notable for the showdown between the Prime Minister and his/her main political opponent, the Leader of the Opposition. We begin with an overview of PMQs, including claims it has descended into an event characterised by antagonistic political point-scoring. We then consider its history, including apparent changes – procedural and behavioural – revealed by systematic research. Subsequent sections focus on two forms of behaviour: adversarialism and equivocation. In the first, we see evidence in support of those views expressing concern that impoliteness, incivility and personal attacks are salient features of PMQs; however, certain circumstances or topics of debate can prompt relative politeness. The section on equivocation reveals that, compared with other forms of political discourse (e.g., broadcast interviews), PMQs has some of the highest levels of question evasion. Those findings have generated not only national news headlines, but were also cited in a question at PMQs. Finally, we consider public opinion; the weekly showdown is the prime psychodrama of British democracy, and because people either love it or hate it, PMQs has aptly earned the soubriquet of ‘political Marmite’.

This chapter discusses how news contributes to informed citizenship by reviewing the different approaches adopted in the literature to understanding how individuals learn from the news. After reviewing the main theoretical and empirical perspectives on how news contributes to citizens’ ‘knowledge’, we advance the hypothesis that adopting a self-regulated learning perspective might provide a more comprehensive theoretical framework for this type of research. We therefore propose a GAMES approach (Goal-Oriented, Active, Motivated, Emotion-Laden, Situated), derived from a synthesis of the literature on self-regulated learning in the field of educational psychology.

This chapter examines how the personality of political leaders shapes their ability to campaign effectively, win votes and achieve success once in political office. We begin by examining how personality has been conceptualised in politics and why it is considered important. In our discussion of personality, we include psychological traits, such as the ‘big five’ (e.g., Extroversion, Conscientiousness), and Machiavellianism or charisma, but also individual characteristics including motivation, intelligence and traits ascribed to individuals based on their biological features, such as height. Next, we review existing research to examine the relevance of personality for leadership emergence (i.e. how personality contributes to individuals becoming political leaders), and leadership effectiveness (i.e. how personality may contribute to successful performance in political office). Finally, we examine the methods that researchers have used to examine personality and political leadership and consider future directions for research. The use of relevant measures of personality is considered as well as enhanced approaches to their analysis.

In seeking overarching psychological explanations for barbarity and totalitarianism, there is a constant tug of reductionist logic that seeks to set aside the social, cultural and historical engines of radicalism and extremism and which leads to the inevitable conclusion that humans have an in-built and inevitable capacity to oppress and to destroy. However, in many respects, it can be argued that liberal democracies stand and fall on the underpinnings of the cliché that ‘one person’s terrorist is another person’s freedom fighter’. If only we understood our enemies better, and all that they have been through, then their world, and ours, would be a much better place. Meanwhile, a historical vista and understanding show that radicalised conceptions of democracy are a constant presence on both the far Left and Right of politics, often characterised by themes of coercive culture. This chapter will provide an analysis of the operation of such radicalised movements and will show how psychology has contributed to understanding them.

Trust in political institutions represents a central component of democratic systems. When citizens lack confidence in state bodies, such as the government and parliament, the legitimacy of democracy is dangerously challenged. In the case of Latin America, we observe a critical scenario, with a steady decrease of institutional trust in the last decade, accompanied by alarming levels of support for authoritarian regimes. Most of the previous evidence in this regard refers to the adult population and omits the young generation who certainly have a stake in the future of democracy in the region. Focusing on the role of the acquisition of civic knowledge at school as a protective factor for democracy, we analyse the role of civic knowledge to understand trust in civic institutions and authoritarian attitudes among fourteen-year-old students. The data correspond to the International Civic and Citizenship Education Study (ICCS) of 2009 and 2016, in which seven Latin American countries participated. The results indicate the puzzling role of civic knowledge, as it diminishes trust in institutions, yet at the same time reduces authoritarian beliefs. The consequences for democracy and citizenship education are addressed.

This chapter draws upon Australian prime ministers and their attempt to (re)build trust through their actions regarding two long-term policy issues, asylum-seekers and climate change, as well as an immediate major event occurring during their respective prime ministerships. To help us further ground this analysis, we draw upon data from three prime ministers’ press conferences, examining their responses to questioning within the theoretical lens of trust. The research reveals that building or rebuilding trust is essential in any relationship, but especially so today in terms of political leadership in liberal democracies. They illustrate how competence is regarded as crucial in building trust with colleagues and the public, while integrity is especially important for leaders who enter the job with less perceived legitimacy than a leader who was elected and hence has a mandate to implement their policy platform. Crucially though, a leader who ignores integrity does so at their own peril, as it gives a potential challenger ammunition for a tilt at the leadership position. The leadership needs to send positive messages of unity rather than division and individual aspirations if trust is to be built or rebuilt. In earlier research, we revealed that what one says and how one says it can be important. Politicians who tended to acknowledge successes due to the collective group of their own party, rather than themselves, benefitted greatly in the situations at hand. Thus, (re)building trust becomes more important than ever for political leaders but, perhaps, also more difficult than ever.

Democracies provide civic education in order to support young people as they emerge as responsible, well-informed and effective citizens. In this chapter, we critically assess the idea of civic efficacy as it pertains to young people in an era characterised by ongoing economic, political, social and environmental crises, as well as uncertainty, precarity and inequality. Civic education proposes an optimistic, progressive perspective at a time when young people may well be pessimistic about their future prospects and sceptical about the likelihood of positive political change. In this chapter, the authors explore ways in which young people make sense of the future through dystopic and pessimistic imaginaries. Drawing on comparative fieldwork in the UK and Greece to illustrate the concepts, we examine how the social construct of imaginaries can inform our concept of the role young people play in contemporary democracies in crisis. We argue that civic education, and democracy more widely, can empower young people during times of crisis through a new civic approach that accommodates critical – and sceptical – thinking among young people, and supports a wider repertoire of young people’s civic and political action.

Representative democracy relies on those willing and able to put themselves forward for political office. Equally, elections involve a drastic transfer of democratic power from the many to the few, deciding ‘who’ has that power, but not necessarily ‘what’ is done with it. The latter may well depend on the personal predispositions and desires of those who seek a political career. Existing research suggests that political aspirants are not only a tiny minority of the population, but also distinct in their personality characteristics by comparison to those they govern or seek to govern. Reviewing and building upon this literature, this chapter draws on original data from political elites and members of the UK public to understand how the unique psychologies of politicians might also precipitate and explain differences and similarities between their political opinions and those of citizens. This chapter finds (a) personality predispositions represented as basic values share meaningful relationships with political attitudes, (b) politicians and candidates differ from the public in their basic values, (c) basic values have a stronger effect upon political attitudes among elites than masses, but (d) the explanatory potential of a predisposition model is improved by accounting for partisan conflict and socio-demographic factors.

Democracy is under attack. Whether from those within its systems who seek to gain at the expense of others, or from without by rival forms of rule. Yet the crises we face as a species demand not only that we recognise the perils of a changing planet, but that we address them together. Democracy may imply an imperfect form of government, but its purported advantages lie in seeking to give voice to all people, political parties and perspectives, in hopes that the common good is served and citizens not only represented, but respected. The challenge of a pandemic, finding nations divided in their responses, underlines the pressing need for a genuine understanding of what democracy can and does deliver. This necessitates a clearer focus on our own roles as citizens – and thereby politicians in our daily lives – and on occupational politicians, as well as the political institutions and influences that shape our experiences of democracy. In opening ‘Psychology of Democracy: Of the people, by the people, for the people’, the editor points to the power of harnessing multidisciplinary and cutting-edge knowledge from psychology, political and allied social sciences. The opening chapter maps out the design and potential impact of the book, examining the psychology ‘of the people’ who are elected, the political institutions and processes created ‘by the people’ and the influences from broader societies that shape the context of democracy ‘for the people’. Its message is clear: the future is ours if we can better harness all human talents.