Seminar in Political Psychology Political Science 512




Скачать 52.23 Kb.
НазваниеSeminar in Political Psychology Political Science 512
Дата20.10.2012
Размер52.23 Kb.
ТипДокументы

Seminar in Political Psychology

Political Science 512


Mon. 1:00-3:20pm

394 Lincoln Hall

Spring 2006


_______________________________________________________________________________


Professor: Thomas Rudolph

Email: rudolph@uiuc.edu

Phone: 244-6431 (office)

355-4853 (home)

Office: 375 Lincoln Hall

Office Hours: T/W 1:00-2:00, & by appt.

_______________________________________________________________________________


Course Description


Political Science 512 is the second of three courses offered in the department’s political behavior series, although these courses need not be taken sequentially. This seminar is designed to provide you with a broad introduction to the field of political psychology. As its name suggests, the field of political psychology lies principally at the intersection of two disciplines, psychology and political science. In this class we will survey the major theoretical and methodological approaches that political scientists and psychologists have used to understand the political attitudes, decisions, and behavior of citizens, groups, and elites. Particular emphasis will be placed on the psychology of mass political behavior. Readings will cover both classic and recent studies in the field, with an emphasis on more contemporary and more empirical work. Reading topics include the history and development of the field, personality and politics, attitudes and belief systems, value conflict and ambivalence, political tolerance, attitudes toward the political system, political sophistication, political communication and media effects, race and prejudice, political cognition (schemas, stereotypes, heuristics, and information processing), affect and emotions, motivation and bias, and relevant work in evolutionary psychology and neuroscience.


Course Goals


I have four goals for students in this class. First, I expect students to grasp the major theoretical perspectives that structure research in a given area and to assess the strengths and limitations of those perspectives. Second, I expect students to understand the strengths and weaknesses of different methodological approaches and to evaluate the extent to which substantive conclusions are contingent upon the methods employed. Third, in the spirit of Jon Krosnick’s (2002; Krosnick and McGraw 2002) distinction between “political psychology” and “political psychology true to its name,” students should be prepared to discuss two questions when evaluating each week’s readings: (1) To what extent, if any, have psychological theories been successfully used to inform our understanding of the political phenomena in question? (2) To what extent, if any, has the domain of politics helped to modify, qualify, or extend psychological theory? Finally, students are expected to make an original contribution to the field by conducting research on a relevant topic.

Course Requirements


Students will be evaluated based on their performance in fulfilling four responsibilities: class preparation and participation, critical reaction papers, discussion questions, and a research paper.


(1) Class Preparation and Participation (20% of Grade): Students are expected to complete the assigned readings each week and to participate actively in seminar discussions. Weekly reading loads are often sizable so plan accordingly.


(2) Discussion Questions (20% of Grade): Students will select three separate topics from the syllabus and prepare at least six questions for class discussion. These questions should be distributed by email to all seminar participants by 9:00am on the morning of class.


(3) Critical Reaction Papers (20% of Grade): Students will select three different topics from the syllabus and critique that week’s readings in a response paper. These response essays, which should be about two or three pages in length, should critically analyze and discuss the central ideas and arguments advanced in each set of readings. They should not merely summarize the weekly readings. Response papers are due at 1:00pm on the day for which the readings were assigned. Each paper will receive a grade of unacceptable, acceptable, or outstanding.


(4) Research Paper (40% of Grade): The main requirement for this course is a research paper on a relevant topic of the student’s choice. These papers, which should be about fifteen to twenty pages in length, should be based on some empirical analysis conducted by the student. To meet this requirement, students may either design and conduct their own study or perform some secondary analysis of existing data. Students are encouraged but not required to implement a research design they may have completed for another course. Students are also encouraged but not required to make use of the Political Science subject pool if conducting original research. Research Papers are due by the Wednesday of finals week, May 10, 2006.


Course Readings


Readings consist mostly of articles from leading political science, psychology, and communication journals. Most of these articles can be downloaded for free from jstor.org or from the library’s collection of electronic journals. Readings that are not available electronically will be placed in a folder in 361 Lincoln Hall. The required books are available for purchase in the bookstore or, if you prefer, on-line. Note that the Jost and Sidanius (2004) volume is a collection of previously published articles, ten of which have been assigned for this class. These readings are marked by an asterisk. So, if you purchase this book, you do not also need to print those articles.

Required Books



Alvarez, R. Michael, and John Brehm. 2002. Hard Choices, Easy Answers: Values, Information,

and Public Opinion. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Marcus, George E., John L. Sullivan, Elizabeth Theiss-Morse, and Sandra L. Wood. 1995.

With Malice Toward Some: How People Make Civil Liberties Judgments. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Hetherington, Marc J. 2005. Why Trust Matters: Declining Political Trust and the Demise of

American Liberalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Marcus, George E., W. Russell Neuman, and Michael B. MacKuen. 2000. Affective Intelligence

and Political Judgment. Chicago, University of Chicago.

Recommended Books



Sears, David O., Leonie Huddy, and Robert Jervis, eds. 2003. Oxford Handbook of Political

Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.

Jost, John T., and Jim Sidanius, eds. Political Psychology. New York: Psychology Press.


Week 1 (1/23): Introduction to Political Psychology


Sears, David O., Leonie Huddy, and Robert Jervis. 2003. “The Psychologies Underlying

Political Psychology.” In Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology, David O. Sears,

Leonie Huddy, and Robert Jervis, eds. New York: Oxford University Press.

Rahn, Wendy M., John L. Sullivan, and Thomas J. Rudolph. 2002. “Political Psychology and

Political Science.” In Thinking About Political Psychology, ed. James H. Kuklinski.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sullivan, John L., Wendy M. Rahn, and Thomas J. Rudolph. 2002. “The Contours of Political

Psychology: Situating Research on Political Information Processing.” In Thinking About

Political Psychology, ed. James H. Kuklinski. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Krosnick, Jon A. 2002. “Is Political Psychology Sufficiently Psychological? Distinguishing

Political Psychology from Psychological Political Science.” In Thinking About Political

Psychology, ed. James H. Kuklinski. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hermann, Margaret G. 2002. “Political Psychology as a Perspective in the Study of Politics.”

In Political Psychology, Kristen Renwick Monroe, ed. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates, Publishers.

Simon, Herbert A. 1985. “Human Nature in Politics: The Dialogue of Psychology with

Political Science.” American Political Science Review 79(2):293-304.

*Quattrone, George A., and Amos Tversky. 1988. “Contrasting Rational and Psychological

Analyses of Political Choice.” American Political Science Review 82(3):719-36.


Week 2 (1/30): Personality and Politics


*Altemeyer, Bob. 1998. “The Other ‘Authoritarian Personality.” Advances in Experimental

Social Psychology.” 30:47-91.

Feldman, Stanley. 2003. “Enforcing Social Conformity: A Theory of Authoritarianism.”

Political Psychology 24(1):41-74.

*Doty, Richard M., Bill E. Peterson, and David G. Winter 1991. “Threat and Authoritarianism

in the United States, 1978-1987.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

61(4):629-640.

Lavine et al. 1999. “Threat, Authoritarianism, and Voting: An Investigation of Personality and

Persuasion.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 25:337-47.

Lavine, Howard, Milton Lodge, and Kate Freitas. 2005. “Threat, Authoritarianism, and

Selective Exposure to Information.” Political Psychology 26(2):219-44.

Bizer, George Y., Jon A. Krosnick, Allyson L. Holbrook, Richard E. Petty, Derek D.

Rucker, and S. Christian Wheeler. 2002. “The Impact of Personality on Political Beliefs,

Attitudes, and Behavior: Need for Cognition and Need to Evaluate.” Paper presented at

the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston, MA.

*Greenstein, Fred. I. 1992. “Can Personality Be Studied Systematically?” Political Psychology

13(1):105-28.

*Winter, David G. 1987. “Leader Appeal, Leader Performance, and the Motive Profile of

Leaders and Followers: A Study of American Presidents and Elections.” Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology 52:196-202.

Week 3 (2/6): Attitudes and Belief Systems



*Converse, Philip E. 1964. “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics.” In Ideology and

Discontent, David E. Apter, ed. New York: The Free Press.

Zaller, John, and Stanley Feldman. 1992. “A Simple Theory of the Survey Response:

Answering Questions versus Revealing Preferences.” American Journal of Political

Science 36(3):579-617.

Tourangeau, Roger, Lance J. Rips, and Kenneth Rasinski. 2000. The Psychology of Survey

Response. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chapters 1, 6, and 7.

Sniderman, Paul M., Philip E. Tetlock, and Laurel Elms. 2001. “Public Opinion and Democratic

Politics: The Problem of Nonattitudes and the Social Construction of Political

Judgment.” In Citizens and Politics: Perspectives from Political Psychology, James H.

Kuklinski, ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

*Conover, Pamela Johnston, and Stanley Feldman. 1988. “The Origins and Meanings of

Liberal/Conservative Self-Identifications.” American Journal of Political Science

25(4):617-45.

Feldman, Stanley. 1988. “Structure and Consistency in Public Opinion: The Role of Core

Beliefs and Values.” American Journal of Political Science 32(2):416-40.

Hurwitz, Jon, and Mark Peffley. 1987. “How Are Foreign Policy Attitudes Structured? A

Hierarchical Model.” American Political Science Review 81(4): 1099-1120.

Goren, Paul. 2005. “Party Identification and Core Political Values.” American Journal of

Political Science 49(4):881-96.

Week 4 (2/13): Value Conflict and Attitudinal Ambivalence



Cacioppo, John T., Wendi L. Gardner, and Gary G. Berntson. 1997. “Beyond Bipolar

Conceptualizations and Measures: The Case of Attitudes and Evaluative Space.”

Personality and Social Psychology Review 1(1):3-25.

Feldman, Stanley, and John Zaller. 1992. “The Political Culture of Ambivalence: Ideological

Responses to the Welfare State.” American Journal of Political Science 36(1):268-307.

Alvarez, R. Michael, and John Brehm. 2002. Hard Choices, Easy Answers: Values, Information,

and American Public Opinion. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Chapters 1-7

Steenbergen, Marco R., and Paul R. Brewer. 2004. “The Not-So-Ambivalent Public: Policy

Attitudes in the Political Culture of Ambivalence.” In Willem E. Saris and Paul M.

Sniderman, eds. Studies in Public Opinion: Attitudes, Nonattitudes, Measurement

Error, and Change. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Jacoby, William G. “Core Values and Political Attitudes.” In Barbara Norrander and Clyde

Wilcox, eds. Understanding Public Opinion, 2nd edition. Washington DC: CQ Press.

Rudolph, Thomas J. 2005. “Group Attachment and the Reduction of Value-Driven Ambivalence.”

Political Psychology 26(6):905-28.

Lavine, Howard. 2001. “The Electoral Consequences of Ambivalence Toward Presidential

Candidates.” American Journal of Political Science 45(4):915-30.

Basinger, Scott J., and Howard Lavine. “Ambivalence, Information, and Electoral Choice.”

American Political Science Review 99(2):169-84.


Week 5 (2/20): Values, Rights, and Political Tolerance


Marcus, George E., John L. Sullivan, Elizabeth Theiss-Morse, and Sandra L. Wood. 1995.

With Malice Toward Some: How People Make Civil Liberties Judgments. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Sniderman, Paul M., Philip E. Tetlock, James M. Glasesr, Donald Philip Green, and Michael

Hout. 1989. “Principled Tolerance and the American Mass Public.” British Journal of

Political Science 19:25-45.

Mondak, Jeffrey J., and Mitchell S. Sanders. 2003. “Tolerance and Intolerance, 1976-1998.”

American Journal of Political Science 47(3):492-502.

Peffley, Mark, Pia Knigge, and Jon Hurwitz. 2001. “A Multiple Values Model of Political

Tolerance.” Political Research Quarterly 54(2):379-406.

Davis, Darren W., and Brian D. Silver. 2004. “Civil Liberties vs. Security: Public Opinion

in the Context of the Terrorist Attacks on America.” American Journal of Political

Science 48(1):28-46.

Gibson, James L., and Amanda Gouws. 2000. “Social Identities and Political Intolerance:

Linkages Within the South African Mass Public.” American Journal of Political

Science 44(2):278-92.

Gibson, James L. 1998. “A Sober Second Thought: An Experiment in Persuading Russians to

Tolerate.” American Journal of Political Science 42(3):819-50.

Chong, Dennis. 1993. “How People Think, Reason, and Feel about Rights and Liberties.”

American Journal of Political Science 37(3):867-99.


Week 6 (2/27): Attitudes toward the Political System


Miller, Arthur H. 1974. “Political Issues and Trust in Government: 1964-1970.” American

Political Science Review 68(3):951-72

Citrin, Jack. 1974. “Comment: The Political Relevance of Political Trust.” American Political

Science Review 68(3):973-88.

Hetherington, Marc J. 2005. Why Trust Matters: Declining Political Trust and the Demise of

American Liberalism. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Chapters 2-6.

Rudolph, Thomas J., and Jillian Evans. 2005. “Political Trust, Ideology and Public Support

for Government Spending.” American Journal of Political Science. 49(3):660-71.

Hetherington, Marc J., and Thomas J. Rudolph. 2006. “Priming, Performance, and the

Dynamics of Political Trust.” Unpublished Manuscript.

Cook, Timothy E., and Paul Gronke. 2005. “The Skeptical American: Revisiting the

Meaning of Trust in Government and Confidence in Institutions.” Journal of Politics

67(3):784-803.

Rahn, Wendy M., and Thomas J. Rudolph. 2005. “A Tale of Political Trust in American

Cities.” Public Opinion Quarterly 69(4):530-60.


Hibbing, John R., and Elizabeth Theiss-Morse. 1998. “Process Preferences and American

Politics: What the People Want Government to Be.” American Political Science

Review 95(1):145-53.


Week 7 (3/6): Political Sophistication



Fiske, Susan T., Donald R. Kinder, and W. Michael Larter. 1983. “The Novice and the Expert:

Knowledge-Based Strategies in Political Cognition.” Journal of Experimental Social

Psychology 19:381-400.

Luskin, Robert C. 1987. “Measuring Political Sophistication.” American Journal of Political

Science 31(4):856-99.

Mondak, Jeffrey J. 2001. “Developing Valid Knowledge Scales.” American Journal of

Political Science 45(1):224-38.

Althaus, Scott L. 1998. “Information Effects in Collective Preferences.” American Political

Science Review 92(3):545-58.

Bartels, Larry M. 1996. “Uninformed Votes: Information Effects in Presidential Elections.”

American Journal of Political Science 40(1):194-230.

Gilens, Martin. 2001. “Political Ignorance and Collective Policy Preferences.” American

Political Science Review 95(2):379-96.

Kuklinski, James H., Paul J. Quirk, Jennifer Jerit, and David Schwieder, and Robert Rich. 2000.

“Misinformation and the Currency of Democratic Citizenship.” Journal of Politics

62(3):790-816.

Jerit, Jennifer, Jason Barabas, and Toby Bolsen. 2006. “Citizens, Knowledge, and the

Information Environment.” American Journal of Political Science 50(2):TBA.


Week 8 (3/13): Political Communication and Media Effects


*Iyengar, Shanto, Mark D. Peters, and Donald R. Kinder. 1982. “Experimental Demonstrations of

the ‘Not-So-Minimal’ Consequences of Television News Programs.” American Political

Science Review 76(4):848-58.

*Krosnick, Jon, and Donald R. Kinder. 1990. “Altering the Foundations of Support for the

President Through Priming.” American Political Science Review 84(2):497-512.

Nelson, Thomas E., Rosalee A. Clawson, and Zoe M. Oxley. 1997. “Media Framing of a Civil

Liberties Conflict and Its Effect on Tolerance.” American Political Science Review

91(3):567-84.

Druckman, James N., and Kjersten R. Nelson. 2003. “Framing and Deliberation: How Citizens’

Conversations Limit Elite Influence.” American Journal of Political Science 47(4):729-45.

Druckman, James. N. 2004. “Political Preference Formation: Competition, Deliberation, and

the (Ir)relevance of Framing Effects.” American Political Science Review 98(4):671-87.

Kellstedt, Paul M. 2000. “Media Framing and the Dynamics of Racial Policy Preferences.”

American Journal of Political Science.” 44(2):245-60.

Ansolabehere, Stephen, Shanto Iyengar, and Adam Simon. 1999. “Replicating Experiments

Using Aggregate and Survey Data: The Case of Negative Advertising and Turnout.”

American Political Science Review 93(4):901-9.

Mutz, Diana C., and Byron Reeves. 2005. “The New Videomalaise: Effects of Televised

Incivility on Political Trust.” American Political Science Review 99(1):1-16.


Week 9 (3/27): Race and Politics

Kinder, Donald, and David O. Sears. 1981. “Prejudice and Politics: Symbolic Racism Vs. Racial

Threats to the Good Life.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 40(3):414-31.

Sniderman, Paul M., and Philip E. Tetlock. 1986. “Symbolic Racism: Problems of Motive

Attribution in Political Analysis.” Journal of Social Issues 42(2):129-50.

Sidanius, Jim, Felicia Pratto, and Lawrence Bobo. 1996. “Racism, Conservatism, Affirmative

Action, and Intellectual Sophistication: A Matter of Principled Conservatism or Group

Dominance?” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 70(3):476-90.

Kinder, Donald R., and Lynn M. Sanders. 1996. Divided by Color: Racial Politics and

Democratic Ideals. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Chapter 5.

Kinder, Donald R., and Tali Mendelberg. 2000. “Individualism Reconsidered: Principles and

Prejudice in Contemporary American Opinion.” In David O. Sears, Jim Sidanius, and

Lawrence Bobo, eds. Racialized Politics: The Debate about Racism in America.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Sniderman, Paul M., Gretchen C. Crosby, and William G. Howell. 2000. “The Politics of Race.”

In David O. Sears, Jim Sidanius, and Lawrence Bobo, eds. Racialized Politics: The Debate

about Racism in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Schuman, Howard. 2000. “The Perils of Correlation, the Lure of Labels, and the Beauty of

Negative Results.” In David O. Sears, Jim Sidanius, and Lawrence Bobo, eds. Racialized

Politics: The Debate about Racism in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Feldman, Stanley, and Leonie Huddy. 2005. “Racial Resentment and White Opposition to

Race-Conscious Programs: Principles or Prejudice?” American Journal of Political

Science 49(1):168-83.

Federico, Christopher M. 2004. “When Do Welfare Attitudes Become Racialized? The

Paradoxical Effects of Education.” American Journal of Political Science 48(2):374-91.

Week 10 (4/3): Political Cognition I: Schemas and Stereotypes

Lodge, Milton, and Ruth Hamill. 1986. “A Partisan Schema for Political Information

Processing.” American Political Science Review 80(2):505-20.

Kuklinski, James H., Robert C. Luskin, and John Bolland. 1991. “Where is the Schema? Going

Beyond the “S” Word in Political Psychology.” American Political Science Review

85(4):1341-56. (and critiques by Lodge and McGraw; Conover and Feldman)

Judd, Charles M., and James W. Downing. 1995. “Stereotypic Accuracy in Judgments of the

Political Positions of Groups and Individuals.” In Political Judgment. Milton Lodge and

Kathleen M. McGraw, eds. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Berinsky, Adam, and Tali Mendelberg. 2005. “The Indirect Effects of Discredited Stereotypes

in Judgments of Jewish Leaders.” American Journal of Political Science 49(4):845-64.

Devine, Patricia G. 1989. “Stereotypes and Prejudice: Their Automatic and Controlled

Components.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 56(1):5-18.

Wittenbrink, Bernd, Charles M. Judd, and Bernadette Park. 1997. “Evidence for Racial

Prejudice at the Implicit Level and Its Relationship With Questionnaire Measures.”

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 72(2):262-74.

Macrae, C. Neil, Galen V. Bodenhausen, Alan B. Milne, and Jolanda Jetten. 1994. “Out of

Mind but Back in Sight: Stereotypes on the Rebound.” Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology 67(5):808-17.

Bargh, John A., Mark Chen, and Lara Burrows. 1996. “Automaticity of Social Behavior: Direct

Effects of Trait Construct and Stereotype Activation on Action.” Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology 71(2):230-44.

Week 11 (4/10): Political Cognition II: Heuristics and Information Processing


Lupia, Arthur. 1994. “Shortcuts Versus Encyclopedias: Information and Voting Behavior in California Insurance Reform Elections.” American Political Science Review 88(1):63-76.

Lau, Richard R., and David P. Redlawsk. 2001. “Advantages and Disadvantages of Cognitive Heuristics in Political Decision Making.” American Journal of Political Science 45(4):951-71.

Kuklinski, James H., and Paul J. Quirk. 2000. “Reconsidering the Rational Public: Cognition, Heuristics, and Mass Opinion.” In Arthur Lupia et al., eds. Elements of Reason: Cognition, Choice, and the Bounds of Rationality. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Peffley, Mark, Jon Hurwitz, and Paul M. Sniderman. 1997. “Racial Stereotypes and Whites’ Political Views of Blacks in the Context of Welfare and Crime.” American Journal of Political Science 41(1):30-60.

Rahn, Wendy M. 1993. “The Role of Partisan Stereotypes in Information Processing about Political Candidates.” American Journal of Political Science 37(2):472-96.

Barker, David C., and Susan B. Hansen. 2005. “All Things Considered: Systematic Cognitive Processing and Electoral Decision-Making.” Journal of Politics 67(2):319-44.

Kam, Cindy D. 2005. “Who Toes the Party Line? Cues, Values, and Individual Differences.” Political Behavior 27(2):163-82.

Lodge, Milton, Marco R. Steenbergen, and Shawn Brau. 1995. “The Responsive Voter: Campaign Information and the Dynamics of Candidate Evaluation.” American Political Science Review 89(2):309-326.

Lavine, Howard. 2002. “On-Line Versus Memory-Based Process Models of Political Evaluation.” In Kristen Renwick Monroe, ed. Political Psychology. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.

Week 12 (4/17): Affect and Emotions



*Marcus, George E., and Michael B. MacKuen. 1993. “Anxiety, Enthusiasm, and the Vote:

The Emotional Underpinnings of Learning and Involvement during Presidential

Campaigns.” American Political Science Review 87(3):672-85.

Marcus, George E., W. Russell Neuman, and Michael B. MacKuen. 2000. Affective Intelligence

and Political Judgment. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.

Huddy, Leonie, Stanley Feldman, Charles Taber, and Gallya Lahav. 2005. “Threat, Anxiety,

and Support of Antiterrorism Policies.” American Journal of Political Science

49(3):593-608.

Nelson, Thomas E. 1999. “Group Affect and Attribution in Social Policy Opinion.” The Journal

of Politics 61(2):331-62.

Grant, J. Tobin, and Thomas J. Rudolph. 2003. “Value Conflict, Group Affect, and the Issue of

Campaign Finance.” American Journal of Political Science 47(3):453-69.

Brader, Ted. 2005. “Striking a Responsive Chord: How Political Ads Motivate and Persuade Voters by Appealing to Emotions.” American Journal of Political Science 49(2):388-405.

Kuklinski, James H., Ellen Riggle, Victor Ottati, Norbert Schwarz, and Robert S. Wyer. 1991.

“The Cognitive and Affective Bases of Political Tolerance Judgments.” American

Journal of Political Science 35(1):1-27.

Lavine, Howard, Cynthia J. Thomsen, Mark P. Zanna, and Eugene Borgida. 1998. “On the

Primacy of Affect in the Determination of Attitudes and Behavior: The Moderating

Role of Affective-Cognitive Ambivalence.” Journal of Experimental Social

Psychology 34:398-421.


Week 13 (4/24): Motivation and Bias


Lodge, Milton, and Charles Taber. 2000. “Three Steps toward a Theory of Motivated Reasoning.” In Elements of Reason: Cognition, Choice, and the Bounds of Rationality, Arthur Lupia, Mathew D. McCubbins, and Samuel L. Popkin eds., Cambridge University Press.

Taber, Charles S, and Milton Lodge. 2006. “Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs.” American Journal of Political Science. Forthcoming.

Redlawsk, David. 2002. “Hot Cognition or Cool Consideration: Testing the Effects of Motivated Reasoning on Political Decision Making.” Journal of Politics 64(4):1021-44.

Rudolph, Thomas J. 2006. “Triangulating Political Responsibility: The Motivated Formation of Responsibility Judgments.” Political Psychology 27(1):TBA.

Granberg, Donald. 1993. “Political Perception.” In Shanto Iyengar and William J. McGuire, eds. Explorations in Political Psychology. Durham: Duke University Press.

Chaffee, Steven H., Melissa Nichols Saphir, Joseph Graf, Christian Sandvig, and Kyu Sup Hahn. 2001. “Attention to Counter-Attitudinal Messages in a State Election Campaign.” Political Communication 18:247-72.

Jain, Shailendra Pratap, and Durairaj Maheswaran. 2000. “Motivated Reasoning: A Depth-of- Processing Perspective.” Journal of Consumer Research 26(4):358-71.

Fischle, Mark. 2000. “Mass Response to the Lewinsky Scandal: Motivated Reasoning or Bayesian Updating.” Political Psychology 21(1):135-59.


Week 14 (5/1): Evolutionary Psychology and Neuroscience


Sidanius, Jim, and Robert Kurzban. 2003. “Evolutionary Approaches to Political Psychology.”

In David O. Sears, Leonie Huddy, and Robert Jervis, eds. Oxford Handbook of

Political Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.

Cacioppo, John T., and Penny S. Visser. 2003. “Political Psychology and Social Neuroscience:

Strange Bedfellows or Comrades in Arms?” Political Psychology 24(4):647-56.

Alford, John R., and John R. Hibbing. 2004. “The Origins of Politics: An Evolutionary Theory of

Political Behavior.” Perspectives on Politics 2(4):707-23.

Alford, John R., Carolyn L. Funk, and John R. Hibbing. 2005. “Are Political Orientations

Genetically Transmitted?” American Political Science Review 99(2):153-68.

Lieberman, Matthew D., Darren Schreiber, and Kevin N. Ochsner. 2003. “Is Political

Cognition Like Riding a Bicycle? How Cognitive Neuroscience Can Inform Research

on Political Thinking.” Political Psychology 24(4):681-704.

McCourt, Kathryn, Thomas J. Bouchard, David T. Lykken, Auke Tellegen, and Margaret Keyes.

1999. “Authoritarianism Revisited: Genetic and Environmental Influences Examined in

Twins Reared Apart and Together.” Personality and Individual Differences 27:985-1014.

Morris, James. P., Nancy K. Squires, Charles S. Taber, and Milton Lodge. 2003. “Activation of

Political Attitudes: A Psychophysiological Examination of the Hot Cognition

Hypothesis.” Political Psychology 24(4):727-45.

Winkielman, Piotr, and Kent Berridge. 2003. “Irrational Wanting and Subrational Liking:

How Rudimentary Motivational and Affective Processes Shape Preferences and

Choices” Political Psychology 24(4):657-80.

Phelps, Elizabeth A., and Laura A. Thomas. 2003. “Race, Behavior, and the Brain: The Role of

Neuroimaging in Understanding Complex Social Behaviors.” Political Psychology

24(4):747-58.


Research Papers Due: May 10, 2006




Похожие:

Seminar in Political Psychology Political Science 512 iconThis class is intended to be a reading seminar at the intersection of two disciplines, psychology and political science. We will do our best in this course to

Seminar in Political Psychology Political Science 512 iconPolitical Science 561: Core Seminar in International Relations Theory

Seminar in Political Psychology Political Science 512 iconPhD in Social Psychology-Sociology. London School of Economics and Political Science. 1967

Seminar in Political Psychology Political Science 512 iconThis list contains = cette liste contient political science = science politique social problems and services = problèmes et services sociaux math = mathématiques engineering = art de l’ingénieur psychology = psychologie

Seminar in Political Psychology Political Science 512 iconWhat’s It All About?: Framing in Political Science*

Seminar in Political Psychology Political Science 512 iconDepartment of Political Science

Seminar in Political Psychology Political Science 512 iconDepartment of Political Science

Seminar in Political Psychology Political Science 512 iconDept of Political Science

Seminar in Political Psychology Political Science 512 iconDepartment of Political Science

Seminar in Political Psychology Political Science 512 iconDepartment of Political Science

Разместите кнопку на своём сайте:
Библиотека


База данных защищена авторским правом ©lib.znate.ru 2014
обратиться к администрации
Библиотека
Главная страница