Theories and Research in Political Psychology

Introduction
At the announcement of the current Australian Federal Election on October 14, John Howard stated that Australia "does not need new leadership, it does not need old leadership. It needs the right leadership". But what makes the right leadership? What influences voting behaviour? An exploration of the psychology—the personalities, thought processes, emotions, and motivations—of people involved in political activity provides a unique basis for understanding politics. “Political psychology explores the border between the intellectual nations of political science and psychology... that addresses the ways in which political institutions both affect and are affected by human behaviour.” (Jost & Sidanius, 2004, p. 1) Essentially, political psychology is the affect, behaviour and cognition of political science. Initially, this discipline aimed to research personalities of political leaders and political attitudes; however, the field of political psychology has grown dramatically and there is an explosion of information and interest (Herman, 2004). Political psychology theories supported by research seek to describe not only personality and attitudes, but the role of cognition and emotion in political attitudes and behaviour, political ideology and intergroup dynamics. This essay will strive to provide an overview of the main theories and research in political psychology and discuss these theories and research with respect to current Australian federal Politics and the forthcoming election.

Personality and Politics
The field of political psychology began with the study of personality in politics mid last century. As approaches to the general study of personality developed, they were soon adapted to the analysis of political figures and behaviour (Jost & Sidanius, 2004). The studies of political personality and political leadership developed conjointly in the early stages of political psychology by looking at personal characteristics, such as motivation and traits in the analyses of political leaders (Cottam, Dietz-Uhler, Mastors, & Preston, 2004). Psychoanalytic approach, trait approach and motive theories were predominantly analysed in an effort to describe political personality. Psychoanalytic studies used psychobiographies in the analysis of political figures. These explored the psychoanalytic perspective on ego-defence (Link & Glad, 1994; Renshon, 1996) and the analysis of specific personality trait disorders such as narcissism and paranoia in political figures (Birt, 1993; Volkan, 1980). In contrast, the trait approach specifically assessed individual characteristics, motivations and cognitive style and how these shape decision making, interpersonal interaction, information processing, and management in politics.

Authoritarian Personality
In an attempt to understand fascism of World War II, political psychologists developed the concept of the authoritarian personality (Adorno et al., 1950) based on psychoanalytic principles. The authoritarian personality was suggested to denote a number of qualities such as conventionalism, submission to authority figures and authoritarian aggression that predict the individual’s potential for fascism and antidemocratic behaviour. The basis of the system was suggested to rise out of early childhood experiences, and their internalisation (Adorno et al., 1950). The authoritarian personality theory was the first substantial political psychological theory. It enjoyed success and was greatly influential in the immediate years following its publication. However, the theory has later been criticized on both theoretical and methodological grounds due to nonrepresentative samples, experimenter bias and the use of causal conclusions (Eysenck, 1954; Rokeach, 1960).

Attitudes and Voting Behaviour
The second wave in the development of political psychology in the 1960s and 1970s showed increased interest in attitudes and voting behaviour created by research by the Michigan School (Cottam et al., 2004). The University of Michigan were the first to conduct extensive research on public opinion and voting preference (Campbell, Converse, Miller, & Stokes, 1960). Their findings on the nature of political attitudes in America produced debate and sparked the emergence of further models on attitudes and behaviour in political psychology including the role of media in affecting political attitudes, racial politics and political socialisation (Ottai, Wyer, Deiger & Houston, 2002).

Political Socialisation
As a result of the Michigan studies, an extensive amount of research has sought to address the degree to which political cognition, attitudes and behaviours are the result of socialisation by parents, teachers and peers. Political socialization is a concept concerning the process through which an individual acquires particular political orientations that is mostly formed during childhood (Ottai et al., 2002). The agents a child is exposed to during childhood are argued to be crucial to the child's development of future voting behaviours with parents recognised as the primary influence in the development of a child’s political orientation (Glass et al., 1986) Despite this, there is disagreement as the strength of the relationship as some psychologists warn of the diversity of attitudes being studied and family characteristics may be limiting factors (Jennings & Niemi, 1974). However, recent research in Australia by the Australian Electoral Commission supports the theory of parents as a primary influence in political information (Print & Saha, 2006).

Social Cognition
Political psychology continued to advance and the 1980s and 1990s which signified the third era of political ideology and social cognition (Jost & Sidanius, 2004). The information processing model dominates this phase of political psychology. Traditional models of candidate evaluation and voter decision emphasised sociological, attitudinal and rational determinants of voting choice. Yet, these did not provide a realistic or precise description of the psychological process that was involved. These early models of voting behaviour virtually disregarded cognitive processing in evaluating candidates. The Columbia School Model assumed rather that voting choices were a reflection of socioeconomic status, religious affiliation and place of residence and the individuals’ knowledge of the candidate was of little importance (Lazarsfield, Berelson, & Gaudet, 1949); and the Michigan School Model suggested that voting preference was determined by attitudes towards the candidates and party. However, more recent models of political judgement have emphasised cognitive processes that enter into political judgements and voting decisions. These models identify the acquisition, comprehension, interpretation, and integration of information about the political candidate to decide on their voting preference.

Information Processing
In modern times, there is an abundance of information that is potentially relevant to forming voting preferences. However, individuals are often unable or unmotivated to attend to all of this information (Riggle & Johnson, 1996). Some information receives more attention and may therefore have a greater impact on political judgements. Generally, individuals seek out and attend to information that is analogous with prior knowledge and expectations (Wyer, Stack, & Fuhrman, 1984). Consistent with the cognitive dissonance theory, individuals approach and attend to information that upholds their attitudes and avoid attitude discrepant information (Festinger, 1964). People also actively seek information that supports their beliefs, such as the honesty of a candidate or even information that supports a certain ideology. In Australia, the individual may only seek information that supports the Liberal party such as the strength of their economic policies and selectively disregards issues like the John Howard’s refusal to ratify the Kyoto Protocol.

Heuristics of Selective Retrieval
Cognitive heuristics can potentially distort both elites' decision-making and the mass public's preferences (Tost & Sidanius, 2004). Individuals who use heuristic processing have minimal levels of motivation and cognitive ability to systematic processors. In voting, the individual relies on cognitive shortcuts to evaluate a candidate (Chaiken et al., 1998) such as evaluating a candidate purely based on the candidate’s party, gender or race. The use of these stereotyping heuristics avoids the arduous process of carefully considering all aspects of the candidate. It is suggested that when voters possess little candidate information and are unable or unmotivated to possess that information, they are most likely to rely on heuristic processing. Unfortunately, Australian research shows that young Australians show high levels of political alienation and disengagement. A paper published from the University of Queensland said, “Most students had strong views on the war in Iraq, yet most did not express their opposition or support in a political arena” (Louis & Terry, 2003, 193). This suggests that the lack of motivation in students to become politically active may result in futile decision-making.

Political Affect
Research in the area of political affect is relatively recent. Many view affect as integral to the candidate evaluation process. Recent studies suggest that voters regularly experience affective reactions and use these feelings as a basis for evaluating political candidates. This research has included candidate characteristics, contextual cues and affective states guiding cognition (Marcus, 2000). This emotion can also play a positive role in decision making as trying to be unemotional has been proven to impede important elements in decision making (Richard & Gross, 1999). Further, Isen (1993) in a review of studies of positive affect, notes that positive affect and emotions promotes promote improvements in problem solving, negotiating, and decision making.

Intergroup Theories
Political psychology involves not only the individual, but the individual’s interaction with the political environment (Cottam, 2004). Contemporary political psychological approaches to intergroup relations contribute to the understanding of creating public policies, making political decisions and of political intergroup conflict. Two main theories have emerged in intergroup relations- the social dominance theory and the social identity theory. The social dominance theory (Jost & Sidanius, 2004)attributes prejudice to an individual's acceptance of an ideology that legitimises ingroup-serving hierarchy and domination, and rejects egalitarian ideologies. Secondly, the social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) argues that intergroup conflict arises from psychological processes of perceptual categorisation, social comparison and identity enhancement. Thus this theory is successful in explaining such phenomena as ingroup favouritism and discrimination against outgroups which politically can provide the basis of race and ethnic conflict, and political extremism. A pertinent example of this phenomenon was the 2005 ‘Cronulla riots’ that were fuelled by racial categorisation, favouritism and comparison.

Summary
In conclusion, political psychology is a relatively young area of psychology. Early theories of leaders and the authoritarian personality provided the basis for the development of the discipline of political psychology and led the way for the generation of theories of political attitudes and voting behaviour, and modern theories such as intergroup dynamics, and the affect and cognitions of political behaviour. The use of both classic and contemporary theories and research highlights the ever-changing nature and evolution of the interplay between politics and psychology; and with the forthcoming Australian federal election, political psychology can assist in the diverse analysis of such an event as both an individual and a member of a group.

References

Adorno, T., Frenkel-Brunswick, E., Levinson, D., & Sanford, P. (1950) The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper

Altemeyer, B. (1996) The Authoritarian Spectre. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Barber, J.D. (1972) The Presidential Character: Predicting Performance in the White House. New Jersey: Prentice Hall

Birt, R. (1993) Personality and foreign policy: the case of Stalin. Political Psychology, 15, 607- 627

Browning, R.P., & Jacob, H. (1964). Power motivation and political personality. Public Opinion Quarterly 24, 75-90.

Campbell, A Converse, P.E., Miller, W.E., & Stokes, D.E. (1960). The American Voter. NewYork: John Wiley & Sons

Chaiken, S., Liberman, A., & Eagly, A. (1998). Heuristic and systematic information processing within and beyond the persuasion context. In J.S. Uleman & J.A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thought(pp. 212-252). New York: Guilford Press.

Cottam, M., Dietz-Uhler, B., Mastors, E.M., & Preston, T. (2004). Introduction to political psychology. New Jersey: Thomas Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Festinger, L. (1964). Conflict, Decision and Dissonance. California: Stanford University Press.

Herman, M.G. (2004) Advances in Political Psychology (Vol. 1). Oxford: Elsevier.

Isen, A. (1993). Positive affect and decision making. In M. Lewis & J.M. Haviland. (Eds.), The Handbook of Emotion. New York: The Guilford Press

Jost, J.T., & Sidanius, J. (2004). Political Psychology. New York: Taylor & Francis Books.

Lazarsfield, P., Berelson, B., & Gaudet, H. (1949). The People’s Choice (2nd ed). New York: Columbia University Press.

Link, M., & Glad, B. (1994). Exploring the psychopolitical dynamics of advisory relations. Political Psychology, 15, 461-480.

Louis, W.R., & Terry, D.J. (2003). Avoidance and engagement in Australian political decision-making: The couch potato as a seething mass of impotent frustration. Australian Journal of Psychology, 55, 193-99.

Marcus, G.E. (2000). Emotions in politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 3, 221-250.

Ottai, V.C., Wyer, R.S., Deiger, M., & Houston, D. (2002). The psychological determinants of candidate evaluation and voting preference. In V.C. Ottai, R.S. Tindale, J.Edwards, F.B. Bryant, L. Heath, D.C. O’Connell, Y. Suarez-Balcazar, & E.J. Posavac (Eds.), The Social Psychology of Politics, Social Psychological Application to Social Issues Vol. 5. New York: Plenum Publishers.

Print, M., & Saha, L. (2006) Youth Electoral Study (YES) - Report 3: Youth, The Family, and Learning About Politics and Voting. Australian Electoral Commission. Retrieved 20 October 2007 from http://www.aec.gov.au/About_AEC/Publications/youth_study_3/page01.htm online

Renshon, S.A. (1996). High hopes: the Clinton Presidency and the Politics of Ambition. New York: New York University Press.

Richards, J.M., & Gross, J.J. (1999). Composure at any cost? The cognitive consequences of emotion suppression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25 (8), 1033-1044

Riggle, E.D.B. & Johnson, M.M.S. (1996). Age differences in political decision making: Strategies for evaluating political candidates. Political Behaviour, 18, 99-118.

Volkan, V. (1980). Narcissistic personality organization and reparative leadership. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy, 30, 131-152.

Wyer, R.S., Jr., Strack, F., & Fuhrman, R. (1984). The acquisition of information about persons: Effects of task objectives and personal expectancies. Unpublished manuscript, University of Illinois, Champaign.



Appendix A
Concept Map

Appendix B

Theory
I believe that I have made effective use of the key theoretical literature of political psychology. I have covered a small amount of theories showing an in depth understanding of some of the theories in using Australian political examples. As this was such a vast topic I aimed to create broader categories to explain the theories and tried not to cover every single theory as that would be impossible so that the main theories could be addressed.

Research
This theory was integrated effectively with the research which was critical analysed, often providing evaluation of inconsistent research. All of the research is from peer reviewed journals and edited book chapters and is relevant to my topic.

Written expression
My essay is well laid out with an introduction, a conclusion and subheadings to improve flow and readability. My APA style is consistent and accurate. My Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level was 11.7 which is under the recommendation. The Flesch Reading Ease (FR) was lower than last time 23, however I endeavoured to make it higher and it ended up at 30.9 which is markedly better! I suppose I just use long sentences.

Online engagement
This blog I was extremely connected and engaged with the online environment. I chose my topic on the day they were released and blogged early on my intentions on my topic. I have made useful/polite contributions to other people’s blogs including collaborations (10+) such as with the leadership topic and meaningful contributions of blogging to my own with links, pictures, articles etc (5+). I customised my blog by using a profile picture, posting a poll, embedding a video and creating a list of links to other blogs in which I have commented.

Appendix C
Useful links

Youth Electoral Study
Youth participation in the electoral process- a study by the Australian Electoral Commission.

Love me or Loathe me
Prime Minister John Howard says the Australian people know where he stands on key issues … 10/2007 Footage: Sky News.

Australian Federal Election
A Guide to the 2007 Australian Federal Election courtesy of Wikipedia.

Wikipedia
Political Psychology