Floyd Henry Allport: Political Science and Psychology
In international relations (IR), researchers have typically narrowed the study of In addition to psychology and political science, researchers. In these mergings of the activities of psychologists and political scientists it must not be Political relationships as seen from this approach are not groupings of. Political psychology is a thriving field of social scientific inquiry, with roots in basic theories of cognitive processes and social relations that were originally.
General Overviews Because political psychology is such an expansive field, even within the narrower discipline of international relations, it is difficult to find a definitive statement that covers everything. Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky are the key pioneers in constructing, on the basis of clinical experiments, a variety of decision-making models that IR scholars have used. These models are collected in Kahneman and Tversky and Kahneman, et al.
A textbook on political psychology designed specifically for college students, Cottam, et al. For IR in particular, McDermott is a good source to begin with. Goldgeier and Tetlock is more explicit about using political psychology to study specific issue areas in IR. Introduction to Political Psychology. There is also a chapter on group psychology in the international context.
Huddy, Leonie, David O. Sears, and Jack S. The Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology. Oxford University Press, We need also the longitudinal approach, which shows the origin and development of the habit patterns and enables us to predict their future significance in the personality.
Of even greater importance, perhaps, is the fact that the longitudinal study reveals how the various traits and capacities function together, and which ones are more basic and prevalent in the behavior pattern than others.
It shows, more-over, how excellence in one trait may compensate for defect in another, how plans of life are worked out which give all the traits expression, or how the failure to find such a career leaves some of them suppressed and involved in a condition of inner tension and: One might, for example, investigate the manner in which a leader possessing a specific pattern of personal' traits comes to be selected, as it were, by the circumstances of a, situation.
The nomination and election of Warren G. Harding afford materials for such a study. Often the traits by which one climbs to a position of authority in the political scheme are widely different from those requisite for effective administration while in authority; and a period of failure and readjustment inevitably follows.
There is frequently a discoverable relationship between dynamic elements of the leader's personality and his acts in office. The outlook of the executive upon life, and his peculiar drives, prejudices, and set of values help to determine the political and social products constructed by his administration. The civil and institutional reforms achieved by Gladstone are an illustration.
What is the relationship between psychology, economics and political science?
The idealistic leaning of Woodrow Wilson, combined with his skill in the use of language, was a potent factor in building a structure designed to harmonize the nationalistic enmities of Europe and the world.
An example upon the judicial side can be found in the personality traits of judges in the higher courts. In those cases where no clear-cut legal criterion exists for the decision, there can be found a constant though defensible and well-rationalized slant toward the social philosophy of the particular judge.
Another problem capable of investigation links personality with the social psychology of prestige. It is interesting to observe which of the outstanding traits of a leader are used to create a popular "image" of the man, and to measure, if possible, the discrepancy between this social image and the true personality.
There is, finally, to be considered the effects of a career upon the further development of the leader's personality. The situation reacts backward upon the individual; leadership is a process, not of one-sided control, but of give and take. The office of presidency, for example, helped Abraham Lincoln to resolve his inner conflict between humility and ambition by the expression of both these traits in his political acts.
Such leadership is exerted by the outstanding individual or the spokesman of public opinion. Opinion upon any public issue can be measured by presenting each individual in a chosen sample of the population with a scale of attitudes ranging from the logically extreme view on one side of the question to the logical extreme upon the other, and asking him to check the statement which most nearly expresses his own attitude. We shall return later to these distributions as measures of public opinion.
At present our interest centers in the possible relationship between personality and the position checked upon such an opinion scale.
We are especially concerned with the characteristics of the person who chooses a statement selected by only a very few of the group and lying perhaps at one extreme of the scale, as contrasted with the personality of an individual choosing the attitude characteristic of the large majority.
By using the percentage of individuals who fall in the same step as the person chosen, we may compute for that person an index showing his degree of typicality. The "typical" and the "atypical" upon any question form suggestive categories for studying the connection between political attitude and trends of the personality. Of especial importance is the question whether an individual is typical or atypical only upon a given question or upon the larger part of his social and political attitudes.
That is to say: Is there a tendency toward individual constancy of typicality index for different issues? If so, the man with a high average typicality index might be regarded as a "political weathervane. The atypical individual, on the other hand, would be important as an index of social change and as a means of suggesting the traits of personality one might expect in leaders of minorities and in social movements of the c lading order.
Tentative studies have already revealed in the personalities of atypicals a high level of intellectual interest, an intensity of feeling, and a firm conviction of the truth of their atypical opinions.
Investigations of the intelligence and emotional facto of atypical individuals have also been started.
The scientific study of the typical and the atypical individual is thus clearly possible, and promises results of some significance for political science. The difficult problem of radicalism, conservation, and reactionism lies largely within this field. Much theorizing has been done upon the motivation of these groups, an, some suggestive interpretations have been made showing the presence of emotional factors, rationalizations, projections, over-correction for feelings of inferiority, and other defense mechanisms.
We are faced at the outset with a problem of definition. Do we mean, in calling a person a radical, that he possesses a radical view on a certain political question, or that he is a radical by nature a and will therefore express radical views on almost every question? Scientific caution would compel us to insist upon the first formulation and to refuse to speak until further evidence of a radical or, reactionary personality, but only of a radical or reactionary opinion as defined by political standards.
It is commonly assumed that individuals are characteristically radical, conservative, or reactionary. This assumption must be tested. Although psychological differences have been suggested between conservative and radical thinkers, there is also evidence that the mere degree of typicality regardless of whether reactionary, conservative, or radical seems the more constant and significant category.
The important question then arises as to what is the psychological nature of typicality? What are the personality traits of atypicals? The specific contacts between individuals are the media through which the integrated patterns of traits are evoked or given expression. In the free give-and-take of discussion the personality functions as a whole. In relation to leadership we observe, first, the more obvious complementary attitudes, such as ascendance and submission, between leader and followers.
In the round-table, the arbitration conference, and the working committee, there arise peculiar and novel effects, amounting sometimes to social inventions. These conditions result from the evoking of trained habits of thinking in one individual by the stimulus of a different viewpoint formulated by another.
Miss Follett has pointed out the importance of this process in the resolution of conflicts. Little can be accomplished so long as we consider conflict as a group-wise pitting against each other of two detached, segmental interests. The solution is to be found, not in the institutionalized common segment approach, but in considering the relation of the demands to the entire personalities from which they emanate.
Through face-to-face discussion there may emerge a deeper, more personal significance of the demand, that is, what the disputant really wants; and upon such a basis we may proceed to a more fundamental and satisfying adjustment An important task of the political psychologist is the revealing and measurement of these effects, and the suggestion of techniques for their more effective use.
By far the most politically important type of common segment is that of opinion on public issues. Before we can analyze public opinion, however, it is necessary to give some attention to a more fundamental and biological characteristic, the distribution of native capacity to form opinions, to learn, and to solve problems — in short, the classification of the citizens with respect to levels of intelligence.
The development of tests to measure native capacity in school: Degree of intelligence is measured by rapidity of its development. When applied to adults, however, this standard and the tests based upon it become dubious.
In the first place, native capacity probably becomes mature by a given age; hence, since each adult has reached what for him is the limit of growth in capacity; some criterion other than stage of development must be found for a comparing his capacity with that of his fellows. This task is extremely difficult, for adults are more highly specialized in their activities than children.
Following, as they do, widely different vocations, there is no common situation or measure of success, as in the case of school children, which can be employed as a test. In spite of the many pitfalls of mental measurement, at least one conclusion of political significance is assured. Whatever the type of test-scale used, the population in any large sample arranges itself according to the probability curve of normal distribution.
Those of mediocre attainment in the scale comprise the large majority or mode of the curve. Increasingly inferior individuals shade off in numbers at one end, as do the superior individuals or geniuses at the other.
For this reason a "government of the people," so far as these tests may be taken as criteria, will be a government of mediocre laws, policies, and statesmanship. The theory which seems to underly American democracy is that no one man can be trusted to govern for the welfare of others. The people must govern directly by the means of majority assent; that is, there must be self-government. Between the safeguarding of public interest as the direct expression of the masses and the efficient administration of public affairs as the work of the intelligent few, lies the dilemma of the political scientist.
The psychologist has done little to help him solve this problem, but he has drawn his attention sharply to one horn of the dilemma, and has taught him to become increasingly skeptical both of the political ingenuity and the quality of judgment to be expected at the hands of public opinion. The notion of public opinion has become entrenched not only in popular usage but in agencies of control, so that resistance is offered to an analytical approach.
The labor of conducting adequate experiments is great. Only a few tentative researches upon method, mainly in connection with universities, have thus far been completed. Organizations for formulating and controlling opinion are flourishing in abundance; but the facilities for scientific study of opinion are hopelessly meager. The suggestions which we shall give here pertain chiefly, therefore, to future development. The desired direction for the study of public opinion can best be indicated by contrasting two ways of dealing with it.
The first is the traditional way, namely, that of the editor or campaign manager, the publicity director and spokesman. The other attitude is the scientific one, which shuns all popular appeal and works only through patient and tedious research. We shall call them for convenience the publicity approach and the scientific approach respectively.
In the following summary of their differences the writer believes that a scientifically useful definition of public opinion will emerge. The scientific method employs no organ for building up or controlling public opinion except for experimental purposes.
Its purpose is purely one of investigating the present status of opinion. This is accomplished through either 1 selecting that opinion Which seems likely to be accepted by the great number, or 2 creating by propaganda the acceptance of a certain stated opinion. The scientific process, on the other hand, deals not only with the majority acceptance but with the views of all minority groups as' well.
It does not select a statement for majority agreement, but tries to give a comprehensive and accurate picture of the entire range of opinions at a given moment. The publicity man, in other words, asks the question, " What will the public agree upon? If there is not complete agreement, in what proportion is acceptance distributed upon all possible attitudes which are relevant to the question? What are the geographical, institutional, or other differences with regard to acceptance of different proposals?
For the scientist there is always public opinion that is, opinions so long as individuals are able to hold coherent views upon a question. The scientific student uses it to denote the attitudes and thought processes existing in the neuro-muscular pattern of the individuals making up the public.
For him public opinion is in terms of response. The first is making a canvass of newspaper publicity, editorial opinion, public speeches, and political advertisement to which the people in a certain locality have been subjected — surveying, in other words, the local and representative centers for the formulation and control of opinion.
The second means is the use of the straw vote or referendum ballot, usually to be answered by "yes" or "no," thus forcing the attitudes of the citizens who vote into one or the other of these categories. The scientific approach, on the other hand, deals not with centers of opinion formation, but with individuals; and it deals with them by a more discriminating process than the use of the customary ballot.
A scale is presented to the individual on which he is asked to check his opinion, not as merely positive or negative, but upon all the logically discriminable attitudes which one might hold upon the question. It is thus possible to measure the distribution of opinion among a sample of a mass of individuals and to indicate this distribution numerically or graphically.
In discussing the values for social science to be derived from a technique of measuring opinion, the first to be mentioned is the substitution of measurement for guesswork. The merit of the scientific approach is that it enables us to ascertain public opinion directly and quantitatively rather than through the general impression of an editor or a leader who considers himself in close touch with public affairs. These include; neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness, openness to experience and conscientiousness.
Theories in political psychology induce that one's combination of these traits has implications for leadership style and capacity. For example, individuals who score highly on extroversion are demonstrated as having superior leadership skills. A motive-based approach[ edit ] In terms of political psychology motivation is viewed as goal-oriented behavior driven by a need for three things; poweraffiliation intimacy, and achievement.
Need for power affects the style in which a leader performs. Winter and Stewart suggested that leaders high in power motivation and low in need of affiliation intimacy motivation make better presidents.
Affiliation-motivated leaders alternatively tend to collaborate joint efforts in the absence of threat.
Political psychology - Wikipedia
Lastly, achievement motivation has demonstrated to not correspond with political success, especially if it is higher than power motivation Winter, Motives have been shown to be correlated more highly with situation and time since last goal-fulfillment, rather than consistent traits. However, in the case of leadership assessment this test is more difficult to implement therefore more applicable tests are often used such as content analysis of speeches and interviews.
Frameworks for assessing personality[ edit ] The authoritarian personality[ edit ] The authoritarian personality is a syndrome theory that was developed by the researchers AdornoFrenkel-BrunswickLevinson and Sanford at The University of California. The American Jewish Committee  subsidized research and publishing on the theory since it revolved around ideas developed from World War II events. Adorno explained the authoritarian personality type from a psychoanalytic point of view suggesting it to be a result of highly controlled and conventional parenting.
Adorno explained that individuals with an authoritarian personality type had been stunted in terms of developing an ability to control the sexual and aggressive id impulses.
This resulted in a fear of them and thus a development of defense mechanisms to avoid confronting them. The syndrome was theorized to encompass nine characteristics; conventionalism, authoritarian submission, authoritarian aggression, anti-intraception an opposition to subjective or imaginative tendenciessuperstition and stereotypy, power and toughness, destructiveness and cynicism, sex obsession, and projectivity.
The authoritarian personality type is suggested to be; ethnocentric, ego-defensive, mentally rigid, conforming and conventional, adverse to the out of the ordinary, and as having conservative political views. The book The Authoritarian Personality introduces several scales based on different authoritarian personality types.
These are; the F-scale which measures from where and to what degree fascist attitudes develop, the anti-Semitism scale, the ethnocentrism scale and the politico economic conservatism scale.
- A Mead Project source page
- Political Science and Other Social Sciences
The F-scale however, is the only scale that is expected to measure implicit authoritarian personality tendencies. Bob Altemeyer deconstructed the authoritarian personality using trait analysis. He developed a Right-wing Authoritarianism RWA scale based on the traits; authoritarian submission, authoritarian aggression, and conventionalism. Altmeyer suggested that those who score high on the F-scale have a low ability for critical thinking and therefore are less able to contradict authority.
Altmeyer's theories also incorporate the psychodynamic point of view, suggesting that authoritarian personality types were taught by their parents to believe that the world was a dangerous place and thus their impulses lead them to make impulsive, emotional and irrational decisions. The beliefs and behavior of an authoritarian are suggested to be easily manipulated by authority instead of being based on internal values.
Altmeyer also theorized that leaders with authoritarian personality types were more susceptible to the fundamental attribution error. There are many weaknesses associated with this syndrome and the F-scale. It may have been more relevant during the period in which it was produced, being shortly after World War II. The authoritarian personality is generally related to a fascist image however it is suggested to explain behavior of individuals in all political fields. Trait-based frameworks[ edit ] Trait-based frameworks, excluding the Freudian approach, were suggested by James Barber — in The Presidential Character who highlighted the importance of psychobiography in political personality analysis.
Barber suggested that leadership personality comprised three dimensions; "character", "world view", and "style". This typology is fairly limited in its dimensions. Etheredge proposed the importance of the traits; "dominance", "interpersonal trust", "self-esteem" and "introversion-extroversion", in leadership views and policy shaping.
Etheredge found from studies on leaders during the Soviet Union, that those who scored highly on dominance were more likely to support the use of force during debate settlement.
He found that the trait introversion can lead to a lack of co-operation, and that extroversion usually leads to cooperation and negotiation.
Further he suggested that interpersonal trust and self-esteem were closely related to not advocating force. The Profiler-Plus is a computer system used to code spontaneous interview answers for seven major characteristics; need for power, cognitive complexity, task-interpersonal emphasis, self-confidence, locus of control, distrust of others, and ethnocentrism.
This method can profile large bodies of leadership related text whilst removing any subjective bias from content analysis. It is efficient and has high reliability. Hermann and Preston suggested 5 distinct variables of leadership style; their involvement in policy making, their willingness to tolerate conflict, their level and reasons for motivation, their information managing strategies, and their conflict resolving strategies.
The code is based on five philosophical beliefs and five instrumental beliefs. A Verbs in Context VIC coding system employed through the Profiler-Plus computer program once again allows substantial bodies of written and spoken speech, interviews and writings to be analyzed subjectively. The method attempts to be able to predict behavior thorough applying knowledge of various beliefs.
Although political behavior is governed and represented by a leader the consequential influence of the leader largely depends upon the context in which they are placed and in which type of political climate they are running. For this reason group behavior is also instrumental for understanding sociopolitical environments The political psychology of groups[ edit ] Group behavior is key in understanding the structure, stability, popularity and ability to make successful decisions of political parties.
Individual behavior deviates substantially in a group setting therefore it is difficult to determine group behavior by looking solely at the individuals that comprise the group.
Group form and stability is based upon several variables; size, structure, the purpose that the group serves, group development and influences upon a group. Group size[ edit ] Group size has various consequences. In smaller groups individuals are more committed Patterson and Schaeffer, and there is a lower turnover rate Widmeyer, Brawley and Carron, Group performance also diminishes with size increase, due to decreased co-ordination and free-riding.
Group structure[ edit ] The structure of a group is altered by member diversity, which largely affects its efficiency. Individual diversity with in a group has proven to demonstrate less communication and therefore to increase conflict Maznevski, Member diversity has consequences for; status, role allocation and role strain within a group, all of which can cause disagreement.
Thus maintenance of group cohesion is key. Cohesion is affected by several factors; the amount of time members spend in the group, the amount that members like one another, the amount of reward that the group offers, the amount of external threat to the group and the level of warmth offered by leaders.
President decision efficiency for example is affected by the degree to which members of the advisory group have a hierarchical status and by the roles that each member is assigned. Group function[ edit ] Studying the purpose for formation of a group, whether it is serving a "functional" purpose or an "interpersonal attraction" purpose Mackie and Goethals,has implications for political popularity. Often people join groups in order to fulfill certain survival, interpersonal, informational and collective needs.
Shutz's " Fundamental interpersonal relations orientation " theory suggests that groups satisfy the need for control, intimacy and inclusion. Groups also form due to natural attraction.
Newcomb  states that we are drawn to others close in socioeconomic status, beliefs, attitudes and physical appearance. Similarity in certain respects can thus be related to how much a person is attracted to joining one group over another. Group development[ edit ] Group development tends to happen in several stages; forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning Tuckman,