826 vIII. EMERGING  ISSuES AND  NEW  DIRECTIONS
from small towns, with Los Angeles and San 
Francisco, California, New York City, Cam -
bridge, Massachusetts, and Miami, Florida, 
showing significantly higher levels of Open -
ness compared to small rural towns in the 
South and Midwest, including Andalusia, 
Alabama, Vidalia, Georgia, Shippensburg, 
Pennsylvania, and Andover, Minnesota. 
Furthermore, several city-level differences 
were observed within states. For instance, 
five cities in Texas ranked in the top 10% 
of all cities in openness, and three cities in 
the state ranked in the bottom 10%. These 
findings point to the value of considering re -
gional personality variation across multiple 
geographical levels.
Most of the research concerned with re -
gional personality variation has been con -
ducted in the U.S.; it is perhaps not surpris -
ing that geographic differences emerge here 
because residential mobility is high, allow -
ing people to move to areas that suit their 
needs. But would such variation emerge in 
countries with less residential mobility? To 
evaluate that possibility, Rentfrow and col -
leagues (2015) examined regional person -
ality differences across 380 Local Author -
ity Districts (LADs) in Great Britain. The 
LAD unit of analysis is significantly smaller 
physically and has fewer residents on aver -
age compared to U.S. states, which allows 
for a more nuanced analysis of geographi -
cal variation. The results revealed variation 
in personality across LADs, with compara -
tively high levels of neuroticism throughout 
many of the Welsh districts and several dis -
tricts throughout the English Midlands, and 
high levels of openness in most of the met -
ropolitan areas in Great Britain, including 
many London boroughs, Brighton, Bristol, 
Manchester, and Glasgow.
Several conclusions can be drawn from re -
search that has mapped geographical varia -
tion in personality. First, there is meaningful 
variation in personality across nations and 
across regions within nations. Second, to a 
certain extent, personality–  trait levels tend 
to be concentrated in neighboring areas, 
such that geographical proximity is associ -
ated with psychological similarity. Third, re -
gional personality variation occurs in coun -
tries with not only high residential mobility 
but also those with relatively low levels of 
mobility (e.g., Great Britain).What Are the Mechanisms Responsible 
for Geographical Variation in  Personality?
The available research provides compelling 
evidence that personality traits differ across 
geographical regions. But how do those dif -
ferences emerge? Drawing on previous work 
on person–  environment interactions, there 
appear to be at least three key mechanisms 
that could drive and maintain geographical 
variation in personality: social influence, 
ecological influence, and selective migration 
(Jokela, 2009; Jokela, Elovainio, Kivimäki, 
& Keltikangas-  Järvinen, 2008; Obschonka, 
Stuetzer, Rentfrow, Potter, & Gosling, 2017; 
Rentfrow et al., 2008).
Social  Influence
Decades of research in the social sciences 
demonstrate that people’s thoughts, feelings, 
and behaviors are influenced by others. Con -
ceptual and empirical work in cross-  cultural 
psychology makes a compelling case that so -
cialization creates opportunities and reward 
structures that encourage certain personal -
ity traits, which in turn influences the preva -
lence of those traits (e.g., Oishi, Kushlev, & 
Benet-Martínez, Chapter 32, this volume; 
Bond et al., 2012; Hofstede, 2001; Hofstede 
& McCrae, 2004; Triandis & Suh, 2002). 
The idea is that the social and cultural his -
tories within regions establish social norms 
that encourage certain attitudes, values, and 
behaviors and discourage others. Over time, 
these norms become internalized and elicit 
traits that are socially valued and advanta -
geous, which can lead to regional differences 
in those traits. For example, there is consid -
erable historical and empirical evidence that 
cultures of honor emerged in regions that 
were settled by herding societies (Nisbett 
& Cohen, 1996). Specifically, the harsh and 
lawless existence experienced in such remote 
regions meant that people had no option but 
to resort to aggression to protect themselves 
from threats to their reputations or prop -
erty. Eventually, social norms emerged that 
made physical violence an acceptable form 
of self-  defense and, consequently, greater 
proportions of people in those areas have 
committed violent crimes (Brown, Oster -
man, & Barnes, 2009; Vandello & Cohen, 
2003).