Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-544b6db54f-n9d2k Total loading time: 0.413 Render date: 2021-10-19T21:59:07.926Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Politics in the Mind's Eye: Imagination as a Link between Social and Political Cognition

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2013

MICHAEL BANG PETERSEN*
Affiliation:
Aarhus University
LENE AARøe*
Affiliation:
Aarhus University
*
Michael Bang Petersen is Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science and Government, Aarhus University, Bartholins Alle 7, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark (michael@ps.au.dk).
Lene Aarøe is Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science and Government, Aarhus University, Bartholins Alle 7, 8000 Aarhus C, Denmark (leneaaroe@ps.au.dk).

Abstract

How do modern individuals form a sense of the vast societies in which they live? Social cognition has evolved to make sense of small, intimate social groups, but in complex mass societies, comparable vivid social cues are scarcer. Extant research on political attitudes and behavior has emphasized media and interpersonal networks as key sources of cues. Extending a classical argument, we provide evidence for the importance of an alternative and internal source: imagination. With a focus on social welfare, we collected survey data from two very different democracies, the United States and Denmark, and conducted several studies using explicit, implicit, and behavioral measures. By analyzing the effects of individual differences in imagination, we demonstrate that political cognition relies on vivid, mental simulations that engage evolved social and emotional decision-making mechanisms. It is in the mind's eye that vividness and engagement are added to people's sense of mass politics.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2013 

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

Aarøe, Lene. 2011. “Investigating Frame Strength: The Case of Episodic and Thematic Frames.” Political Communication 28 (2): 207–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Benedict. 1983. Imagined Communities. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Baltes, Boris B., Dickson, Marcus W., Sherman, Michael P., Bauer, Cara C., and LaGanke, Jacqueline S.. 2002. “Computer-mediated Communication and Group Decision Making: A Meta-analysis.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 87 (1): 156–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bassili, John N. 1996. “Meta-judgmental versus Operative Indexes of Psychological Attributes: The Case of Measures of Attitude Strength.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 71 (4): 637–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, Paul Allen, Dalton, Russell J., Greene, Steven, and Huckfeldt, Robert. 2002. “The Social Calculus of Voting: Interpersonal, Media, and Organizational Influences on Presidential Choices.” American Political Science Review 96 (1): 5773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blair, Irene V. 2002. “The Malleability of Automatic Stereotypes and Prejudice.” Personality and Social Psychology Review 6: 242–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyer, Pascal. 2008. “Evolutionary Economics of Mental Time Travel?Trends in Cognitive Sciences 12 (6): 219–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, William M., Palameta, Boris, and Moore, Chris. 2003. “Are There Nonverbal Cues to Commitment? An Exploratory Study Using the Zero-acquaintance Video Presentation Paradigm.” Evolutionary Psychology 1: 4269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buckner, Randy L., and Carroll, Daniel C.. 2007. “Self-Projection and the Brain.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 11 (2): 4957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cacioppo, John T., and Petty, Richard E.. 1982. “The Need for Cognition.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 42: 116–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camerer, Collin F. 2003. Behavioral Game Theory: Experiments on Strategic Interaction. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Cosmides, Leda, and Tooby, John. 2000. “Consider the Source: The Evolution of Adaptations for Decoupling and Metarepresentation.” In Metarepresentations: A Multidisciplinary Perspective, ed. Sperber, Dan. New York: Oxford University Press, 53116.Google Scholar
de Quervain, Dominique J. F., Fischbacher, Urs, Treyer, Valerie, Schellhammer, Melanie, Schnyder, Ulrich, Buck, Alfred, and Fehr, Ernst. 2004. “The Neural Basis of Altruistic Punishment.” Science 305: 1254–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Vreese, Claes H., and Boomgaarden, Hajo G.. 2006. “Media Messages Flows and Interpersonal Communication: The Conditional Nature of Effects on Public Opinion.” Communication Research 33 (1): 1937.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Druckman, James N., and Nelson, Kjersten R.. 2003. “Framing and Deliberation: How Citizens’ Conversations Limit Elite Influence.” American Journal of Political Science 47 (4): 729–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunbar, Robin I. M. 1998. “The Social Brain Hypothesis.” Evolutionary Anthropology 6 (5): 178–90.3.0.CO;2-8>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eagly, Alice H., and Chaiken, Shelly. 1993. The Psychology of Attitudes. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.Google ScholarPubMed
Esping-Andersen, Gøsta. 1990. The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Fazio, Russell H., and Roskos-Ewoldsen, David R.. 2005. “Acting as We Feel: When and How Attitudes Guide Behavior.” In Persuasion: Psychological Insights and Perspectives, eds. Brock, Timothy C. and Green, Melanie C.. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 4162.Google Scholar
Figner, Bernd, and Murphy, Ryan O.. 2011. “Using Skin Conductance in Judgment and Decision Making Research.” In A Handbook of Process Tracing Methods for Decision Research, eds. Schulte-Mecklenbeck, Michael, Kuehberger, Anton, and Ranyard, Rob. New York: Psychology Press, 163–84.Google Scholar
Fowler, James, and Schreiber, Darren. 2008. “Biology, Politics, and the Emerging Science of Human Nature.” Science 322 (5903): 912–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frey, Meredith, and Detterman, Douglas K.. 2004. “Scholastic Assessment or g? The Relationship between the Scholastic Assessment Test and General Cognitive Ability.” Psychological Science 15 (6): 373–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gerber, Alan S., Huber, Gregory A., Doherty, David, and Dowling, Conor M.. 2011. “The Big Five Personality Traits in the Political Arena.” Annual Review of Political Science 14: 265–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerber, Alan S., Huber, Gregory A., Doherty, David, Dowling, Conor M., and Ha, Shang E.. 2010. “Personality and Political Attitudes: Relationships across Issue Domains and Political Contexts.” American Political Science Review 104 (1): 111–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gigerenzer, Gerd, Todd, Peter M., and The ABC Research Group. 1999. Simple Heuristics that Make Us Smart. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gilens, Martin. 1999. Why Americans Hate Welfare: Race, Media, and the Politics of Anti-Poverty Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Lewis R. 1999. “A Broad-bandwidth, Public-domain, Personality Inventory Measuring the Lower-level Facets of Several Five-factor Models.” In Personality Psychology in Europe (Vol. 7), eds. Mervielde, Ivan, Deary, Ian, De Fruyt, Filip, and Ostendorf, Fritz. Tilburg: Tilburg University Press, 728.Google Scholar
Green, Melanie C., and Brock, Timothy C.. 2000. “The Role of Transportation in the Persuasiveness of Public Narratives.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 79 (5): 701–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greenwald, Anthony G., and Banaji, Mahzarin. 1995. “Implicit Social Cognition: Attitudes, Self-Esteem, and Stereotypes.” Psychological Review 102 (1): 427.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gross, Kimberly. 2008. “Framing Persuasive Appeals: Episodic and Thematic Framing, Emotional Response, and Policy Opinion.” Political Psychology 29 (2): 169–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haidt, Jonathan. 2003. “The Moral Emotions.” In Handbook of Affective Sciences, eds. Davidson, Richardson J., Scherer, Klaus R., and Goldsmith, H. Hill, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 852–70.Google Scholar
Haley, Kevin J., and Fessler, Daniel M. T.. 2005. “Nobody's Watching? Subtle Cues Affect Generosity in an Anonymous Dictator Game.” Evolution and Human Behavior 26 (3): 245–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hatemi, Peter K., and McDermott, Rose, eds. 2011. Man is by Nature a Political Animal. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirsh, Jacob, DeYoung, Colin G., Xu, Xiaowen, and Peterson, Jordan B.. 2010. “Compassionate Liberals and Polite Conservatives: Associations of Agreeableness with Political Ideology and Moral Values.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 36: 655–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hunt, Lynn. 2007. Inventing Human Rights: A History. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
Iyengar, Shanto. 1991. Is Anyone Responsible? How Television Frames Political Issues. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iyengar, Shanto, and Kinder, Donald R.. 1987. News that Matters: Television and American Opinion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Jarvis, W. Blair G., and Petty, Richard E.. 1996. “The Need to Evaluate.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 70: 72194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, Robert L. 1995. The Foraging Spectrum: Diversity in Hunter-Gatherer Lifeways. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.Google Scholar
Ketelaar, Timothy, and Au, Wing T.. 2003. “The Effects of Guilty Feelings on the Behavior of Uncooperative Individuals in Repeated Social Bargaining Games: An Affect-as-information Interpretation of the Role of Emotion in Social Interaction.” Cognition & Emotion 17: 429–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krosnick, Jon A., Boninger, David S., Chuang, Yao C., Berent, Matthew K., and Carnot, Catherine G.. 1993. “Attitude Strength: One Construct or Many Related Constructs?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65 (6): 1132–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krueger, Joachim, and Rothbart, Myron. 1988. “Use of Categorical and Individuating Information in Making Inferences about Personality.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 55: 187–95.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kuklinski, James H., and Quirk, Paul J.. 2000. “Reconsidering the Rational Public: Cognition, Heuristics, and Mass Opinion.” In Elements of Reason, eds. Lupia, Arthur, McCubbins, Mathew, and Popkin, Samuel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 153–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kunda, Ziva. 1990. “The Case for Motivated Reasoning.” Psychological Bulletin 108 (3): 480–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kunda, Ziva, and Sherman-Williams, Bonnie. 1993. “Stereotypes and the Construal of Individuating Information.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 19: 9099.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurzban, Robert. 2001. “The Social Psychophysics of Cooperation: Nonverbal Communication in a Public Goods Game.” Journal of Nonverbal Behavior 25 (4): 241–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lane, Kristin A., Banaji, Mahzarin R., Nosek, Brian A., and Greenwald, Anthony G.. 2007. “Understanding and Using the Implicit Association Test: IV. What We Know (so far).” In Implicit Measures of Attitudes: Procedures and Controversies, eds. Wittenbrink, Bernd and Schwarz, Norbert S.. New York: Guilford, 59102.Google Scholar
Lau, Richard P., and Redlawsk, David E.. 2006. How Voters Decide: Information Processing in Election Campaigns. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lippmann, Walter. 1922. Public Opinion. Lexington: Feather Trail Press.Google Scholar
Lodge, Milton, McGraw, Kathleen M., and Stroh, Patrick. 1989. “An Impression-Driven Model of Candidate Evaluation.” American Political Science Review 83: 399420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackie, Diane M., and Asuncion, Arlene G.. 1990. “On-line and Memory-based Modification of Attitudes: Determinants of Message Recall-attitude Change Correspondence.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 59: 516.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marcus, George, MacKuen, Michael, Wolak, Jennifer, and Keele, Luke. 2006. “The Measure and Mismeasure of Emotion.” In Feeling Politics, ed. Redlawsk, David P.. New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 3146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mazzocco, Philip J., Green, Melanie C., Sasota, Jo A., and Jones, Norman W.. 2010. “This Story Is Not for Everyone: Transportability and Narrative Persuasion.” Social Psychological and Personality Science 1 (4): 361–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCrae, Robert R. 1994. “Openness to Experience: Expanding the Boundaries of Factor V.” European Journal of Personality 8 (4): 251–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCrae, Robert R., and Costa, Paul T.. 1996. “Toward a New Generation of Personality Theories: Theoretical Contexts for the Five-factor Model.” In The Five Factor Model of Personality, ed. Wiggins, Jerry S.. New York: Guilford, 5187.Google ScholarPubMed
Mondak, Jeffery J., and Halperin, Karen D.. 2008. “A Framework for the Study of Personality and Political Behaviour.” British Journal of Political Science 38: 335–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mondak, Jeffery J., Hibbing, Matthew V., Canache, Damarys, Seligson, Mitchell A., and Anderson, Mary R.. 2010. “Personality and Civic Engagement: An Integrative Framework for the Study of Trait Effects on Political Behavior.” American Political Science Review 104: 85110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mutz, Diana C. 1998. Impersonal Influence: How Perceptions of Mass Collectives Affect Political Attitudes. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, Thomas E., Clawson, Rosalee A., and Oxley, Zoe M.. 1997. “Media Framing of a Civil Liberties Controversy and its Effect on Tolerance.” American Political Science Review 91 (3): 567–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oxley, Douglas R., Smith, Kevin B., Alford, John R., Hibbing, Matthew V., Miller, Jennifer L., Scalora, Mario, Hatemi, Peter K., and Hibbing, John R.. 2008. “Political Attitudes Vary with Physiological Traits.” Science 321 (5896): 1667–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peffley, Mark, Hurwitz, Jon, and Sniderman, Paul M. 1997. “Racial Stereotypes and Whites’ Political Views of Blacks in the Context of Welfare and Crime.” American Journal of Political Science 41 (1): 3060.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, Michael, Laeng, Bruno, Latham, Kerry, Jackson, Marla, Zaiyouna, Raghad, and Richardson, Chris. 1995. “A Redrawn Vandenberg and Kuse Mental Rotations Test: Different Versions and Factors that Affect Performance.” Brain and Cognition 28 (1): 3958.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peters, Michael, and Battista, Christian. 2008. “Applications of Mental Rotation Figures of the Shepard and Metzler Type and Description of a Mental Rotation Stimulus Library.” Brain and Cognition 66 (3): 260–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Petersen, Michael B. 2012. “Social Welfare as Small-scale Help: Evolutionary Psychology and the Deservingness Heuristic.” American Journal of Political Science 56 (1): 116.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Petersen, Michael B., Slothuus, Rune, Stubager, Rune, and Togeby, Lise. 2011. “Deservingness versus Values in Public Opinion on Welfare: The Automaticity of the Deservingness Heuristic.”European Journal of Political Research 50 (1): 2452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petersen, Michael B., Sznycer, Daniel, Cosmides, Leda, and Tooby, John. 2012. “Who Deserves Help? Evolutionary Psychology, Social Emotions, and Public Opinion about Welfare.” Political Psychology 33 (3): 395418.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sanfey, Alan G., Rilling, James K., Aronson, Jessica A., Nystrom, Leigh E., and Cohen, Jonathan D.. 2003. “The Neural Basis of Economic Decision-making in the Ultimatum Game.” Science 300: 1755–58.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schacter, Daniel L., and Addis, Donna R.. 2007. “Constructive Memory: Ghosts of Past and Future.” Nature 445: 27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schacter, Daniel L., Addis, Donna R., and Buckner, Randy L. 2007. “Remembering the Past to Imagine the Future: The Prospective Brain.” Nature Reviews Neuroscience 8: 657–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scharlemann, Jörn P. W., Eckel, Catherine C., Kacelnik, Alex K., and Wilson, Rick K.. 2001. “The Value of a Smile: Game Theory with a Human Face.” Journal of Economic Psychology 22 (5): 617–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schreiber, Darren. 2007. “Political Cognition as Social Cognition: Are We All Political Sophisticates?” In The Affect Effect: Dynamics of Emotion in Political Thinking and Behavior, eds. Neuman, Russell, Marcus, George. E., Crigler, Ann N., and Mackuen, Michael. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 4870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sell, Aaron, Tooby, John, and Cosmides, Leda. 2009. “Formidability and the Logic of Human Anger.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106 (35): 15073–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shepard, Roger N., and Metzler, Jacqueline 1971. “Mental Rotation of Three Dimensional Objects.” Science 171 (972): 701–03.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Skitka, Linda J., and Tetlock, Philip E.. 1993. “Providing Public Assistance: Cognitive and Motivational Processes Underlying Liberal and Conservative Policy Preferences.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 65: 1205–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Kevin B., Oxley, Douglas R., Hibbing, Matthew V., Alford, John R., and Hibbing, John R.. 2011. “Disgust Sensitivity and the Neurophysiology of Left-Right Political Orientations.” PLoS ONE, 6 (10): 19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sniderman, Paul M., Brody, Richard A., and Tetlock, Philip E.. 1991. Reasoning and Choice: Explorations in Political Psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sugiyama, Lawrence S., Tooby, John, and Cosmides, Leda. 2002. “Cross-Cultural Evidence of Cognitive Adaptations for Social Exchange among the Shiwiar of Ecuadorian Amazonia.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99 (17): 11537–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Taber, Charles S., and Lodge, Milton. 2006. “Motivated Skepticism in Political Information Processing.” American Journal of Political Science 50 (3): 755–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tormala, Zakary L., and Petty, Richard E.. 2001. “On-line versus Memory-based Processing: The Role of ‘Need to Evaluate’ in Person Perception.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 27 (12): 1599–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tricomi, Elizabeth, Rangel, Antonio, Camerer, Colin F., and O'Dohert, John P.. 2010. “Neural Evidence for Inequality-averse Social Preferences.” Nature 463: 1089–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Turiel, Elliot. 1983. The Development of Social Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van Oorschot, Wim. 2000. “Who Should Get What, and Why? On Deservingness Criteria and the Conditionality of Solidarity among the Public.” Policy & Politics 28: 3348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wainwright, Mark A., Wright, Margaret J., Luciano, Michelle, Geffen, Gina M., and Martin, Nicholas G.. 2008. “Genetic Covariation among Facets of Openness to Experience and General Cognitive Ability.” Twin Research and Human Genetics 11 (3): 275–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Webster, Donna, and Kruglanski, Arie 1994. “Individual Differences in Need for Cognitive Closure.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67 (6): 1049–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weiner, Bernard. 1995. Judgments of Responsibility: A Foundation for a Theory of Social Conduct. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
Wilson, Rick K., and Eckel, Catherine C.. 2006. “Judging a Book by its Cover: Beauty and Expectations in the Trust Game.” Political Research Quarterly 59: 189202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaller, John. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: PDF

PETERSEN and AARøe

Appenidx

Download PETERSEN and AARøe(PDF)
PDF 394 KB
38
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Politics in the Mind's Eye: Imagination as a Link between Social and Political Cognition
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Politics in the Mind's Eye: Imagination as a Link between Social and Political Cognition
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Politics in the Mind's Eye: Imagination as a Link between Social and Political Cognition
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *