Social psychology and the study of politics

Martin Rosema; John T. Jost; Diederik A. Stapel

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511801921.013

This chapter is part of a book that is no longer available to purchase from Cambridge Core

13 - Social psychology and the study of politics

Martin Rosema ,

John T. Jost and

Diederik A. Stapel

Edited by

Linda Steg ,

Abraham P. Buunk and

Talib Rothengatter

Show author details

Martin Rosema: Affiliation:
University of Twente, Department of Political Science and Research Methods
John T. Jost: Affiliation:
New York University, Department of Psychology
Diederik A. Stapel: Affiliation:
Tilburg University, Tilburg Institute for Behavioural Economics Research
Linda Steg: Affiliation:
Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, The Netherlands
Abraham P. Buunk: Affiliation:
Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, The Netherlands
Talib Rothengatter: Affiliation:
Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, The Netherlands

Book contents

Get access

Summary

Introduction

The application of social psychology to the study of politics is at the heart of the discipline called political psychology. Political psychology has been defined as the ‘application of what is known about human psychology to the study of politics’ (Sears, Huddy & Jervis, 2003, p. 3). Social psychology has been a more influential source of inspiration for the study of politics than any other subfield of psychology. Insights from social psychology have been of paramount importance in the study of both political elites and mass political behaviour. The many topics that have thus been studied include political socialization, public opinion, voting behaviour, collective political action, ideology, prejudice, political campaigns, presidential performance, policy making, conflict resolution, terrorism and genocide (see Jost & Sidanius, 2004). By providing insights about the psychological processes involved, social psychology has contributed to our understanding of all these aspects of politics. Several of those insights have been used in attempts to change political attitudes and political behaviour that are considered undesirable, such as racial prejudice, low voter turnout and political violence.

In this chapter we focus on three topics that have been central to political psychology: political leadership, voting behaviour and ideology. We discuss how different types of psychological studies have contributed to understanding these crucial aspects of politics. The field of political psychology comprises at least four different types of studies. First, some psychological studies are not directly about politics but contribute significantly to our understanding of political processes.

Type: Chapter
Information: Applied Social Psychology
Understanding and Managing Social Problems
, pp. 291 - 315

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511801921.013 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Iyengar, S. & McGuire, W. (eds.) (1993). Explorations in political psychology. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Jost, J. T. & Sidanius, J. (eds.) (2004). Political psychology: Key readings in social psychology. New York: Psychology Press.

Kuklinski, J. H. (ed.) (2000). Citizens and politics: Perspectives from political psychology. Cambridge University Press.

Post, J. M. (ed.) (2003). The psychological assessment of political leaders. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

Sears, D. O., Huddy, L. & Jervis, R. (eds.) (2003). Oxford handbook of political psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.

Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J. & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper & Row.

Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E. & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American voter. New York: John Wiley.

Converse, P. E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In Apter, D. E. (ed.), Ideology and discontent (pp. 206–265). New York: Free Press.

Duckitt, J. (2001). A dual-process cognitive-motivational theory of ideology and prejudice. In Zanna, M. P. (ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, 33 (pp. 41–113). San Diego: Academic Press.

Dyson, S. B. (2001). Drawing policy implications from the ‘Operational Code’ of a ‘new’ political actor: Russian President Vladimir Putin. Policy Sciences, 34 (3–4), 329–346.Google Scholar

Gerber, A. S. & Green, D. P. (2000). The effects of canvassing, telephone calls, and direct mail on voter turnout: A field experiment. American Political Science Review, 94 (3), 653–663.Google Scholar

Haas, M. L. (2001). Prospect theory and the Cuban missile crisis. International Studies Quarterly, 45 (2), 241–270.Google Scholar

Inglehart, R. (1977). The silent revolution. Princeton University Press.

Janis, I. L. (1972). Victims of groupthink. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Jost, J. T. (2006). The end of the end of ideology. American Psychologist, 61 (7), 651–670.Google Scholar

Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W. & Sulloway, F. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129 (3), 339–375.Google Scholar

Jost, J. T. & Sidanius, J. (eds.) (2004). See Further reading.

Kaarbo, J. & Hermann, M. G. (1998). Leadership styles of prime ministers: How individual differences affect the foreign policymaking process. Leadership Quarterly, 9 (3), 243–263.Google Scholar

Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: Analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47 (2), 263–291.Google Scholar

Lau, Richard R. & Redlawsk, David P. (2006). How voters decide. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Lodge, M., McGraw, K. M. & Stroh, P. (1989). An impression-driven model of candidate evaluation. American Political Science Review, 83 (2), 399–419.Google Scholar

McGuire, W. J. (1985). Attitudes and attitude change. In Lindzey, G. & Aronson, E. (eds.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 233–346). New York: Random House.

Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority. New York: Harper & Row.

Quattrone, G. A. & Tversky, A. (1988). Contrasting rational and psychological analyses of political choice. American Political Science Review, 82 (3), 719–736.Google Scholar

Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press.

Rubenzer, S. J., Faschingbauer, T. R. & Ones, D. S. (2000). Assessing the U.S. presidents using the Revised NEO Personality Inventory. Assessment, 7 (4), 403–419.Google Scholar

Sears, D. O., Huddy, L. & Jervis, R. (2003). See Further reading.

Sidanius, J. & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Thomassen, J. & Rosema, M. (in press). Party identification revisited. In Bartle, J. & Bellucci, P. (eds.), Party identification, social identity and political experience. London: Routledge/ECPR Studies in European Political Science.

Tyler, T. R. & Jost, J. T. (2007). Psychology and the law: Reconciling normative and descriptive accounts of social justice and system legitimacy. In Kruglanski, A. W. & Higgins, E. T. (eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles. 2nd edn (pp. 807–825). New York: Guilford.

Winter, D. G. (1987). Leader appeal, leader performance, and the motive profiles of leaders and followers: A study of American presidents and elections. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52 (1), 196–202.Google Scholar

Book contents

13 - Social psychology and the study of politics

Summary

Access options

References

Save book to Kindle

Save book to Dropbox

Save book to Google Drive