Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-25wd4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T11:03:15.062Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Pre-Behavioralism in Political Science

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

John C. Wahlke
John C. Wahlke*
Affiliation:
University of Iowa
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Political behavior research has delivered less than the “behavioral revolution” seemed originally to promise. A survey of recent work suggests that the reason is not its epistemological premises (which are accepted here) or its methodology, but (1) its unsystematic, atheoretical character and limited range of research topics, and (2) the erroneous conception of human nature on which research rests. Compared with either the established principles of modern biobehavioral science or the conceptions of human problems of earlier political science, political behavior research remains “pre-behavioral.”

To progress beyond this stage, political scientists must recognize and apply the basic knowledge about human behavior provided by the biobehavioral sciences. Two brief examples of such application are given: how ethological knowledge can supply a needed theoretical perspective for identifying political behavior problems worth studying; and how neurophysiological knowledge, particularly psychophysiology and psychophysics, can correct mistaken conceptions of the relationship between political attitudes, political words, and political actions.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 73 , Issue 1 , March 1979 , pp. 9 - 31
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1979

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

Alcock, John (1978). “Evolution and Human Violence.” In Farrai, L. L. Jr. (ed.), War: A Historical, Political and Social Study. Santa Barbara: ABC-Clio Press, pp. 21–27.Google Scholar
Almond, Gabriel, and Verba, Sidney (1963). The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arcelus, Francisco, and Meltzer, Allan H. (1975). “The Effect of Aggregate Economic Conditions on Congressional Elections.” American Political Science Review 69:1212–39.Google Scholar
Brodbeck, May (1968). “Methodological Individualism: Definition and Reduction.” In Brodbeck, May (ed.), Readings in the Philosophy of the Social Sciences. New York, N.Y.: Macmillan, pp. 280–303.Google Scholar
Caldwell, Lynton K. (1964). “Biopolitics.” Yale Review 54:1–16.Google Scholar
Campbell, Donald T. (1963). “Social Attitudes and Other Acquired Behavioral Dispositions.” In Koch, Sigmund (ed.), Psychology: A Study of a Science, Vol. 6. New York: McGraw-Hill, pp. 94–172.Google Scholar
Converse, Philip E. (1964a). “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics.” In Apter, David (ed.), Ideology and Discontent. New York: Free Press, pp. 206–61.Google Scholar
Converse, Philip E. (1964b). “New Dimensions of Meaning for Cross-Section Sample Surveys in Politics.” International Social Science Journal 16:19–34.Google Scholar
Converse, Philip E. (1970). “Attitudes and Non-Attitudes: Contin-uation of a Dialogue.” In Tufte, Edward B. (ed.), The Quantitative Analysis of Social Problems. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, pp. 168–89.Google Scholar
Crespi, Irving (1977). “Attitude Measurement, Theory, and Prediction.” Public Opinion Quarterly 41:285–94.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. (1961). “The Behavioral Approach in Political Science: Epitaph for a Monument to a Successful Protest.” American Political Science Review 55:763–72.Google Scholar
Deutscher, Irwin (1973). What We Say/What We Do: Statements and Acts. Glenview, Ill.: Scott Foresman.Google Scholar
DuBos, René (1968). So Human an Animal. New York: Scribner's.Google Scholar
Easton, David (1962). “The Current Meaning of ‘Behavioralism.’” In Charlesworth, James C. (ed.), The Limits of Behavioralism in Political Science. Philadelphia: American Academy of Political and Social Science, pp. 1–25.Google Scholar
Eulau, Heinz (1962). “Segments of Political Science Most Susceptible to Behavioristic Treatment.” In Charlesworth, James C. (ed.), The Limits of Behavioralism in Political Science. Philadelphia: American Academy of Political and Social Science, pp. 26–48.Google Scholar
Eulau, Heinz (1963). The Behavioral Persuasion in Politics. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Eulau, Heinz, ed. (1969a). Behavioralism in Political Science. New York: Atherton.Google Scholar
Eulau, Heinz (1969b). Micro-Macro Political Analysis: Accents of Inquiry. Chicago: Aldine.Google Scholar
Fainstein, Norman I., and Fainstein, Susan S. (1976). “The Future of Community Control.” American Political Science Review 70:905–23.Google Scholar
Goodman, Saul, and Kramer, Gerald H. (1975). “Comment on Arcelus and Meltzer: The Effect of Aggregate Economic Conditions on Congressional Elections.” American Political Science Review 69:1255–65.Google Scholar
Greenstein, Fred I. (1970). “A Note on the Ambiguity of ‘Political Socialization’: Definitions, Criticisms, and Strategies of Inquiry.” Journal of Politics 32:969–78.Google Scholar
Kirkpatrick, Evron M. (1962). “The Impact of the Behavioral Approach on Traditional Political Science.” In Ranney, Austin (ed.), Essays on the Behavioral Study of Politics. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, pp. 1–30.Google Scholar
LaPiere, Richard T. (1934–1935). “Attitudes vs. Actions.” Social Forces 13:230–37.Google Scholar
Lodge, Milton, Cross, David, Tursky, Bernard, Tanenhaus, Joseph and Reeder, Richard (1976). “The Psychcphysical Scaling of Political Support in the ‘Real World.’” Political Methodology 3:159–82.Google Scholar
Lodge, Milton, Cross, David V., Tursky, Bernard, and Tanenhaus, Joseph (1975). “The Psychophysical Scaling and Validation of a Political Support Scale.” American Journal of Political Science 19:611–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lorenz, Konrad (1965). “Preface” to Darwin, Charles R., The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mackenzie, W. J. M. (1975). “Political Apathy.” Political Studies 23:297–394.Google Scholar
Medawar, Peter B. (1976). “Does Ethology Throw Any Light on Human Behavior?” In Bateson, P. G. and Hinde, R. A. (eds.), Growing Points in Ethology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 496–507.Google Scholar
Milgram, Stanley (1974). Obedience to Authority. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Peterson, Steven A. (1976). “Biopolitics: A Bibliographical Essay.” In Somit, Albert (ed.), Biology and Politics. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Pierce, John C., and Rose, Douglas D. (1974). “Nonattitudes and American Public Opinion: The Examination of a Thesis.” American Political Science Review 68:626–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Przeworski, Adam, and Sprague, John (1971). “Concepts in Search of Explicit Formulation: A Study in Measurement.” Midwest Journal of Political Science 15:183–218.Google Scholar
Roberts, Morley (1938). Bio-Politics: An Essay in the Physiology, Pathology, and Politics of the Social and Somatic Organism. London: Dent.Google Scholar
Schwartz, Gary E. (1978). “Preface” to Hassett, James, A Primer of Psychophysiology. San Francisco: Freeman.Google Scholar
Somit, Albert, ed. (1976). Biology and Politics. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Spragens, Thomas C. (1973). The Dilemma of Contemporary Political Theory: Toward a Postbehavioral Science of Politics. New York: Dunellen.Google Scholar
Sullivan, John L., and O'Connor, Robert E. (1972). “Electoral Choice and Popular Control of Public Policy: The Case of the 1966 House Elections.” American Political Science Review 66:1256–68.Google Scholar
Thorson, Thomas Landon (1970). Biopolitics. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
Tinbergen, Nikolas (1969). The Study of Instinct. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Truman, David B. (1955). “The Impact on Political Science of the Revolution in the Behavioral Sciences.” In Bailey, Stephen K. (ed.), Research Frontiers in Politics and Government. Washington, D.C.: Brookings, pp. 202–31.Google Scholar
Tursky, Bernard, Lodge, Milton, Foley, Mary Ann, Reeder, Richard, and Foley, Hugh (1976). “Evaluation of the Cognitive Component of Political Issues by the Use of Classical Conditioning.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 34:865–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Verba, Sidney, and Nie, Norman H. (1972). Participation in America: Political Democracy and Social Equality. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Wahlke, John C. (1976). “Biopolitics and Political Science: In Search of a Dependent Variable.” Paper prepared for the Tenth World Congress of the International Political Science Association, Edinburgh.Google Scholar
Wahlke, John C. and Lodge, Milton (1972). “Psycho-physiological Measures of Political Attitudes and Behavior.” Midwest Journal of Political Science 16:505–37.Google Scholar
Webb, Eugene J., Campbell, Donald T., Schwartz, Richard D., and Sechrest, Lee (1966). Unobtrusive Measures: Nonreactive Research in the Social Sciences. Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
Weber, Max (1947). The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wicker, Allan W. (1969). “Attitude vs. Action: The Relationship of Verbal and Overt Behavior Responses to Attitude Objects.” Journal of Social Issues 25:41–78.Google Scholar
Willhoite, Fred R. Jr. (1971). “Ethology and the Tradition of Political Thought.” Journal of Politics 23:615–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, James D. (1976). The Dissent of the Governed: Alienation and Democracy in America. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar