1

PSCI 334: Political Course Syllabus – Fall 2015

Instructor: Efrén O. Pérez Class meetings: Tuesdays, 1:10– 3:40pm Classroom: Commons 349 Instructor’s office: Commons 345 E-mail: [email protected] Office hours: Tuesdays 4-5pm (or by appointment)

Course Description

Synergy between the study of and the study of the mind has been created at a clipping pace in the last few decades. This synergy is what is known as . The creative energy behind political psychology is rooted in the application of concepts, theories, and methods that deepen our understanding about the origins and consequences of political decision-making. The focus of political psychologists, then, is the individual psyche. But as we will learn throughout the course, the human psyche is itself a product of context: institutions, environments, and numerous webs of relationships that mold the political mind and its influence on political behavior. The course thus strives to impart greater appreciation for the workings of the political mind and its embedding within larger social frameworks.

Exciting as the study of political psychology may be, it is a vast and expanding field. For this reason, the course cannot cover every niche of inquiry within this corpus of knowledge. We will have to discipline ourselves and impose a curricular order that will give us both breadth and depth of knowledge. The course will therefore largely focus on the political psychology of individual judgment and choice. This emphasis will introduce doctoral students to recent and evolving developments in the study of attitudes, cognition, emotions, identities, and values, and their respective influences on political decision-making. Graduate students will also learn and gain a deeper appreciation for the promise—and the perils— associated with the main tools used by political psychologists, including: experiments, surveys, response latency measures, scales, and focus groups. Though these bodies of work will be presented separately, one goal of this course is to encourage students to identify linkages across bodies of work as a way for students to learn one of the pathways to the production and accumulation of social scientific knowledge.

Course Structure

The main objective of this course is to provide doctoral students with a foundation that blends tradition with innovation. That is, the course strives to, first, familiarize students with some core modes of theory and inquiry in political psychology; and second, to expose students to some of the cutting-edge research that is emerging in this field. In this way, the course is meant to provide you with a firm and solid background that can be used to integrate the knowledge you learn in other courses (e.g., public opinion, experiments, behavior, racial politics). To be sure, the course is comprehensive. Yet by no means is it exhaustive. Students can expect the material to be organized into the following four modules:

 Module I. Methods and Techniques – This first module focuses on some of the key methodological approaches used by political psychologists. We will learn about experiments and their advantages and disadvantages, as well as the design of effective experimental manipulations. We will also cover the important differences between moderating and mediating variables in psychological research. Finally, we will spend time learning about different approaches to measurement, including the use of scales. 2

 Module II. Cognition and Affect – This module begins by examining traditional work on social cognition, a body of work that views the human mind as a computer. We will learn about some of the core assumptions behind this corpus of research, as well as some of its more fruitful extensions, including dual-process models and research on framing and priming. This foundation will serve us well as we examine growing research on affect, automaticity, and implicit cognition. This type of research, we will learn, challenges some of the key assumptions of social cognition by carving out a larger role for phenomena such as emotions, implicit attitudes, and biased information-processing.

 Module III. Social Identity Theory (SIT) – Here we focus on a body of theoretical and empirical work that explains how group identities structure individual behavior. The well- elaborated theoretical mechanisms and predictions of this research make it a useful framework for inquiry into group dynamics, as scholars have used SIT to study diverse phenomena such as anti- immigrant opinion, patriotism and nationalism, and the political behavior of majority and minority groups in the U.S. We will learn about the core assumptions and predictions of SIT, as well as some of its applications and extensions in political settings. We will also discuss some of the limits of this body of work.

 Module IV. Biology, Personality, and Politics – This final module focuses on the self – a concept that plays a critical part in both longstanding (e.g., authoritarianism) and emerging (e.g., genes and politics) lines of inquiry. We will learn what the self is, how psychologists go about confirming its existence, and how the nature(s) of the self manifest themselves politically. To grapple with these themes, we will learn about the self and its relation to 1) the study of genes and political behavior; 2) authoritarianism, ethnocentrism, and social dominance orientation; and 3) political values and .

Expectations and Grading

This is an intensive graduate seminar. As such, the course is meant to begin training students in the craft of producing new knowledge in the area of political psychology. At minimum, this requires your mastery of the material, which in turn, requires that you actively engage and reflect on the readings each week. Your grade in the course, therefore, will be based on the following assignments:

1. Participation (10%) – Constructive engagement and critiques of each week’s readings. At minimum, this means you come to class having read and thought about the material for each week.

2. Discussion Leadership (20%) – Each student is responsible for leading class discussion of two topics from the course. This entails reading all of the assigned readings and one further reading. It also involves reflection on these readings in order to prepare discussion questions that force students to critically analyze the encountered readings, draw out the implications of the theories presented, and to create synergy between bodies of work. Individual selection of the topics is on a first-come, first-serve basis. I will be responsible for the first two class meetings, and possibly the two weeks on Social Identity Theory (SIT) (the latter will depend on final class enrollment).

3. Short Paper (30%) – Each student is responsible for writing a short, 4-6 page paper on one of the further readings. The paper should summarize and critically analyze the reading. To that end, the paper should explain the key theoretical ideas and methods used in the study, as well as your assessment of the research. Only one student can write on the same further reading. It perhaps makes most sense for a student to write on a further reading that falls under one of the weeks that he/she will lead discussion on.

3

4. Final Exam (40%) – Students will take a mock comprehensive exam on Monday, December 14 at 3:00pm. This will be an open-book, open-note, take-home exam. Students will have 24 hours to answer one broad question, and two topic-specific questions on the material from the course. As such, the exam is meant to test your ability to braid together various strands of theory and concepts from the seminar.

Course Books (required)

The following books are required reading. I highly recommend that you purchase these online through a trusted vendor. Doing so will enable you to keep your semester costs down, especially if you purchase slightly used versions of these books (which is what I often do).

Druckman, James N., Donald P. Green, James H. Kuklinski, and Arthur Lupia. 2011. Cambridge Handbook of Experimental . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Huddy, Leonie, David O. Sears, and Jack S. Levy. The Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Kinder, Donald R. and Cindy D. Kam. 2009. Us Against Them: Ethnocentric Foundations of American Opinion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lodge, Milton, and Charles S. Taber. 2013. The Rationalizing Voter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Stenner, Karen. 2005. The Authoritarian Dynamic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Module I: Methods, Techniques, and Frameworks

Week 1 (9/1): Political Psychology Frameworks

There are no assigned readings for today. During today’s class, we will review the syllabus, introduce ourselves, and discuss our expectations for this course. In addition, we will identify key themes and approaches within the study of political psychology. We will conclude by noting where this course fits in the larger field of political psychology.

Week 2 (9/8): Method and Technique in Political Psychology

 Druckman, James, N., and Cindy D. Kam. 2011. Students as Experimental Participants: A Defense of the “Narrow Data Base.” In J.N. Druckman, D.P. Green, J.H. Kuklinski, and A. Lupia, eds. Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 McDermott, Rose. 2011. Internal and External Validity. In J.N. Druckman, D.P. Green, J.H. Kuklinski, and A. Lupia, eds. Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 Baron, Reuben M., and David A. Kenny. 1986. The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51: 1173-1182.

4

 Bullock, John G., and Shang E. Ha. 2011. Mediation Analysis is Harder Than It Looks. In J.N. Druckman, D.P. Green, J.H. Kuklinski, and A. Lupia, eds. Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 Asher, Herbert B. 1974. Some Consequences of Measurement Error in Survey Data. American Journal of Political Science 18(2): 469-485.

 Pérez, Efrén O. 2011. The Origins and Implications of Language Effects in Multilingual Surveys: A MIMIC Approach with Application to Latino Political Attitudes. Political Analysis 19: 434- 454

Themes: Experiments; external versus internal validity; mediating versus moderating variables; measurement and scaling.

Further readings

 Sears, David O. 1986. College Sophomores in the Laboratory: Influences of a Narrow Data Base on Social Psychology’s View of Human Nature. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51(3): 515-530.

 Kam, Cindy D., Jennifer R. Wilking, and Elizabeth J. Zechmeister. 2007. Beyond the “Narrow Data Base”: Another Convenience Sample for Experimental Research. Political Behavior 29: 228-238

 Imai, Kosuke, and Teppei Yamamoto. 2013. Identification and Sensitivity Analysis for Multiple Causal Mechanisms: Revisiting Evidence From Framing Experiments. Political Analysis 21: 141- 171.

 Andrews, Frank M. 1984. Construct Validity and Error Components of Survey Measures: A Structural Modeling Approach. Public Opinion Quarterly 48: 409-442.

 Brown, Robert A., and Todd C. Shaw. 2002. Separate Nations: Two Attitudinal Dimensions of Black Nationalism. Journal of Politics. 64: 22-44.

 Davidov, Eldad. 2009. Measurement Equivalence of Nationalism and Constructive Patriotism in the ISSP: 34 Countries in a Comparative Perspective. Political Analysis 17: 64-82.

 Stegmueller, Daniel. 2011. Apples and Oranges? The Problem of Equivalence in Comparative Research. Political Analysis 19: 471-487.

Module II. Cognition and Affect

Week 3 (9/15): Introduction to Political Cognition

 Redlawsk, David P., and Richard R. Lau. 2013. Behavioral Decision-Making. In L. Huddy, D.O. Sears, and J.S. Levy, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

5

 Taber, Charles S. 2013. Political Information Processing. In L. Huddy, D.O. Sears, and J.S. Levy, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

 Collins, Allan M., and Elizabeth F. Loftus. 1975. A Spreading-Activation Theory of Semantic Processing. Psychological Review 82: 407-428.

 Lodge, Milton, Marco Steenbergen, and Shawn Brau. 1995. The Responsive Voter: Campaign Information and the Dynamics of Candidate Evaluation. American Political Science Review 89: 309-326.

 Zaller, John, and Stanley Feldman. 1992. A Simple Theory of the Survey Response: Answering Questions Versus Revealing Preferences. American Journal of Political Science 36: 579-616.

 Wilson, Timothy D., and Jonathan W. Schooler. 1991. Thinking Too Much: Introspection Can Reduce the Quality of Preferences and Decisions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 60(2): 181-192.

 Simon, Herbert. Human Nature in Politics: The Dialogue of Psychology with Political Science. 1985. American Political Science Review 79: 293-304.

Themes: Memory; information-processing; data-retrieval and judgment; bounded rationality.

Further readings:

 Schacter, Daniel L. 1999. The Seven Sins of Memory. American Psychologist. 54: 192-203.

 Lupia, Arthur, and Mathew D. McCubbins. 1998. The Democratic Dilemma: Can Citizens Learn What They Need to Know? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 Lau, Richard R., and David P. Redlawsk. 2001. Advantages and Disadvantages of Using Cognitive Heuristics in Political Decision-Making. American Journal of Political Science 45: 951-971.

 Steenbergen, Marco R., and Milton Lodge. 2003. Process Matters: Cognitive Models of Candidate Evaluation. In M.B. MacKuen and G. Rabinowitz, eds., Electoral . Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

 Sniderman, Paul M., Richard A. Brody, and Phillip E. Tetlock. 1991. Reasoning and Choice: Explorations in Political Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 Conover, Pamela J., and Stanley Feldman. 1984. How People Organize the Political World: A Schematic Model. American Journal of Political Science 28: 95-126.

 Lodge, Milton, Kathleen M. McGraw, Pamela Johnston, and Stanley Feldman. 1991. Where is the Schema? Critiques. American Political Science Review 85(4): 1357-1380.

 Bechara, Antoine, Hanna Damasio, Daniel Tranel, and Antonio R. Damasio. 1997. Deciding Advantageously Before Knowing the Advantageous Strategy. Science 275: 1293-1295.

6

Week 4 (9/22): Dual Process Models

 Eagly, Alice H., and Shelly Chaiken. 1993. The Psychology of Attitudes. For Worth: Harcourt Brace College Publishers. Chapter 7.

 Fazio, Russell H., and Tamara Towles-Schwen. 1990. The MODE Model of Attitude-Behavior Process. In S. Chaiken and Y. Trope, eds., Dual-Process Theories in Social Psychology. New York: The Guilford Press.

 Haugtvedt, Curtis P., and Richard E. Petty. 1992. Personality and Persuasion: Need for Cognition Moderates the Persistence and Resistance of Attitude Change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 63: 308-319.

 Kam, Cindy D. 2005. Who Toes the Party Line? Cues, Values, and Individual Differences. Political Behavior 27: 163-182.

 Arceneaux, Kevin. 2008. Can Partisan Cues Diminish Democratic Accountability? Political Behavior 30: 139-160.

 Nicholson, Stephen P. 2011. Dominating Cues and the Limits of Elite Influence. The Journal of Politics 73(4): 1165-1177.

Themes: Heuristic versus systematic information processing; information cues; need for cognition.

Further readings:

 Cacioppo, John T., and Richard E. Petty. 1979. Effects of Message Repetition and Position on Cogntive Response, Recall, and Persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 27: 97-109.

 Baker, Sara M., and Richard E. Petty. 1994. Majority and Minority Influence: Source-Position Imbalance as a Determinant of Message Scrutiny. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67(1): 5-19.

 Cobb, Michael D., and James H. Kuklinski. 1997. Changing Minds: Political Arguments and Political Persuasion. American Journal of Political Science 41: 88-121.

 Mondak, Jeffery J. 1993. Source Cues and Approval: The Cognitive Dynamics of Public Support for the Reagan Agenda. American Journal of Political Science 37(1): 186-212.

 Ottati, Victor C. 1990. Determinants of Political Judgments: The Joint Influence of Normative and Heuristic Rules of Inference. Political Behavior 12: 159-179.

 Forehand, Mark, John Gastil, and Mark A. Smith. 2004. Endorsements as Voting Cues: Heuristic and Systematic Processing in Initiative . Journal of Applied Social Psychology 34: 2215- 2233.

 Nelson, Thomas E., and Jennifer Garst. 2005. Values-Based Political Messages and Persuasion: Relationships among Speaker, Recipient, and Evoked Values. Political Psychology 26: 489-515.

7

Week 5 (9/29): Tools of Persuasion

 Tversky, Amos, and Daniel Kahneman. 1981. The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice. Science 211: 453-458.

 Druckman, James N. 2001. The Implication of Framing Effects for Citizen Competence. Political Behavior 23: 225-256.

 Druckman, James N. 2010. Dynamic Public Opinion: Communication Effects Over Time. American Political Science Review 104: 663-680.

 Kam, Cindy D., and Elizabeth N. Simas. 2010. Risk Orientations and Policy Frames. The Journal of Politics 72: 381-396.

 Valentino, Nicholas A., Vincent L. Hutchings, and Ismail White. 2002. Cues the Matter: How Political Ads Prime Racial Attitudes During Campigns. American Political Science Review 96: 75-90.

 Berinsky, Adam J., and Tali Mendelberg. 2005. The Indirect Effects of Discredited Stereotypes in Judgments of Jewish Leaders. American Journal of Political Science 49(4): 845-864.

 Nelson, Thomas E., Clawson, Rosalee A., and Oxley, Zoe. 1997. Media Framing of a Civil Liberties Controversy and its Effect on Tolerance. American Political Science Review 91(3): 567- 84.

Themes: Framing and priming; stereotypes and politics.

Further readings:

 Hartman, Todd K. Toll Booths on the Information Superhighway? Policy Metaphors in the Case of Net Neutrality. Political Communication 29: 278-298.

 Druckman, James N. 2001. On the Limits of Framing Effects: Who Can Frame? The Journal of Politics 63(4): 1041-1066.

 Druckman, James N. 2010. Competing Rhetoric Over Time: Frames versus Cues. The Journal of Politics 72: 136-148.

 Iyengar, Shanto, and Donald R. Kinder. 1987. News that Matters: Television and American Opinion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

 Huber, Gregory A., and John S. Lapinski. 2006. The ‘Race Card’ Revisited: Assessing Racial Priming in Policy Contests. American Journal of Political Science 50: 421-440.

 Mendelberg, Tali. 2008. Racial Priming Revived. Perspectives on Politics 6: 109-123.

 Schlesinger, Mark, and Richard R. Lau. 2000. The Meaning and Measure of Policy Metaphors. American Political Science Review 94: 611-626.

8

Week 6 (10/6): Attitude Strength, Ambivalence, and Political Knowledge

 Krosnick, Jon A. 1989. The Role of Attitude Importance in Social Evaluation: A Study of Policy Preferences, Presidential Candidate Evaluations, and Voting Behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 55: 196-210.

 Lavine, Howard.2001. The Electoral Consequences of Ambivalence Toward Presidential Candidates. American Journal of Political Science 45: 915-929.

 Mondak, Jeffrey. 2001. Developing Valid Knowledge Scales. American Journal of Political Science 45(1): 224-238.

 Luskin, Robert C., and John G. Bullock. 2011. “Don’t Know” Means “Don’t Know”: DK Responses and the Public’s Level of Political Knowledge. The Journal of Politics 73: 547-557.

 Prior, Markus, and Arthur Lupia. 2008. Money, Time, and Political Knowledge: Distinguishing Quick Recall and Political Learning Skills. American Journal of Political Science 52: 168-182.

 Pérez, Efrén O. 2015. Mind the Gap: Why Large Group Differences in Political Emerge—And What To Do About Them. Political Behavior Online First.

 Prior, Markus. 2014. Visual Political Knowledge? A Different Road to Competence? The Journal of Politics 76: 41-57.

Themes: Implications of attitude strength; origins and consequences of ambivalence; knowledge and its (mis-)measurement.

Further readings:

 Krosnick, Jon A. 1988. Attitude Importance and Attitude Change. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 24: 240-255.

 Krosnick, Jon A. Attitude Importance and Attitude Accessibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 15: 297-308.

 Steenbergen, Marco R., and Paul R. Brewer. 2004. The Not-So-Ambivalent Public: Policy Attitudes in the Political Culture of Ambivalence. In W.E. Saris and P.M. Sniderman, eds., Studies in Public Opinion: Attitudes, Nonattitudes, Measurement Error, and Change. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

 Alvarez and Brehm. 2002. Hard Choices, Easy Answers: Values, Information, and American Public Opinion. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Chapters 1-4, and 6.

 Delli Carpini, Micahel X., and Scott Keeter. 1996. What Americans Know About Politics and Why it Matters. New Haven: Yale University Press.

 Prior, Markus. Forthcoming. Visual Political Knowledge: A Different Road to Competence? The Journal of Politics.

9

 Bartels. 1996. Uninformed Votes: Information Effects in Presidential Elections. American Journal of Political Science 40: 194-230.

Week 7 (10/13): Affect: Emotion and Mood

 Brader, Ted, and George E. Marcus. 2013. Emotion and Political Psychology. In L. Huddy, D.O. Sears, and J.S. Levy, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

 Brader, Ted. 2005. Striking a Responsive Chord: How Political Ads Motivate and Persuade Voters by Appealing to Emotions. American Journal of Political Science 49: 388-405.

 Huddy, Leonie, Stanley Feldman, Charles Taber, and Gallya Lahav. 2005. Threat, Anxiety, and Support for Antiterrorism . American Journal of Political Science 49: 593-608.

 Brader, Ted, Nicholas A. Valentino, and Elizabeth Suhay. 2008. What Triggers Opposition to Immigration? Anxiety, Group Cues, and the Immigration Threat. American Journal of Political Science 52: 959-978.

 Banks, Antoine J., and Nicholas A. Valentino. 2012. Emotional Substrates of White Racial Attitudes. American Journal of Political Science 56: 286-297.

 Clifford, Scott, and Dane G. Wendell. 2015. How Disgust Influences Health Purity Attitudes. Political Behavior. Online First.

Themes: Models of emotion; measurement of emotion; emotion and political decision-making.

Further readings:

 Marcus, George E., W. Russell Neuman, and Michael MacKuen. 2000. Affective Intelligence and Political Judgment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Chapters 3 – 5.

 Zajonc, Robert B. 1980. Feeling and Thinking: Preferences Need No Inferences. American Psychologist 35: 151-175.

 Abelson, Robert P., Donald R. Kinder, and Mark D. Peters. 1982. Affective and Semantic Components in Political Person Perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 42: 619-630.

 Conover, Pamela J., and Stanley Feldman. 1986. Emotional Reactions to the Economy: I’m Mad as Hell and I’m Not Going to Take It Anymore. American Journal of Political Science 30: 50-78.

 Huddy, Leonie, Stanley Feldman, and Erin Cassese. 2007. On the Distinct Political Effects of Anxiety and Anger. In R.N. Neuman, G.E. Marcus, A.N. Crigler, and M. MacKuen, eds., The Affect Effect: Dynamics of Emotion in Political Thinking and Behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

 Rahn, Wendy M. 2000. Affect as Information: The Role of Public Mood in Political Reasoning. In A. Lupia, M.D. McCubbins, and S.L. Popkin, eds., Elements of Reason: Cognition, Choice, and the Bounds of Rationality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10

Week 8 (10/20): Automaticity: Implicit Attitudes

 Greenwald, Anthony G., Debbie E. McGhee, and Jordan L.K. Schwartz. 1998. Measuring Individual Differences in Implicit Social Cognition: The Implicit Association Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74: 1464-1480.

 Fazio, Russell H., Joni R. Jackson, Bridget C. Dunton, and Carol Williams. 1995. Variability in Automatic Activation as an Unobstrusive Measure of Racial Attitudes: A Bona Fide Pipeline? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 69(6): 1013 – 1027.

 Payne, B. Keith, Clara Michelle Cheng, Olesya Govorum, and Brandon D. Stewart. 2005. An Inkblot for Attitudes: Affect Misattribution as Implicit Measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 89: 277-293.

 Pérez, Efrén O. 2013. Implicit Attitudes: Meaning, Measurement, and Synergy with Political Science. Politics, Groups, and Identities 1: 275-297.

 Pérez, Efrén O. 2010. Explicit Evidence on the Import of Implicit Attitudes: The IAT and Immigration Policy Judgments. Political Behavior 32: 517-545.

 Kam, Cindy D., and Elizabeth J. Zechmeister. 2013. Name Recognition and Candidate Support. American Journal of Political Science 57: 971-986.

 Payne, B. Keith, Jon A. Krosnick, Josh Pasek, Yphtach Lelkes, Omair Akhtar, and Trevor Tompson. 2010. Implicit and Explicit Prejudice in the 2008 American Presidential . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 46: 367-374.

Themes: Implicit attitudes; Measures of implicit attitude (e.g., AMP, AP, and IAT); response latencies as data.

Further readings:

 Pérez, Efrén O. Forthcoming. Unspoken Politics: Implicit Attitudes and Political Thinking. New York: Cambridge University Press.

 Arkes, Hal R., & Tetlock, Phillip E. (2004). Attributions of Implicit Prejudice, or "Would Jesse Jackson 'Fail' the Implicit Association Test? Psychological Inquiry 15: 257 - 278.

 Blanton, Hart, James Jaccard, Patricia M. Gonzales, and Charlene Christie. 2006. Decoding the Implicit Association Test: Implications for Criterion Prediction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 42: 192-212.

 Fazio, Russell H., and Michael A. Olsen. 2003. Implicit Measures in Social Cognition Research: Their Meaning and Use. Annual Review of Psychology 54: 297-327.

 Kim, Do-Yeong. 2003. Voluntary Controllability of the Implicit Association Test (IAT). Social Psychology Quarterly 66(1): 83-96.

11

 Ottaway, Scott A., Davis C. Hayden, and Mark A. Oakes. 2001. Implicit Attitudes and Racism: Effects of Word Familiarity and Frequency on the Implicit Association Test. Social Cognition 19 (2): 97-144.

 Kam, Cindy D. 2007. Implicit Attitudes, Explicit Choices: When Subliminal Priming Predicts Candidate Preference. Political Behavior 29: 343-367.

 Arcuri, Luciano, Luigi Castelli, Silvia Galdi, Cristina Zogmaister, and Alessandro Amadori. 2008. Predicting the Vote: Implicit Attitudes as Predictors of the Future Behavior of Decided and Undecided Voters. Political Psychology 29: 369-387.

 Hawkins, Carlee Beth, and Brian A. Nosek. 2012. Motivated Independence? Implicit Party Identity Predicts Political Judgments Among Self-Proclaimed Independents. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 38: 1437-1452.

Week 9 (10/27): Automaticity: Motivated Reasoning

 Lodge, Milton, and Charles S. Taber. The Rationalizing Voter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chapter 1, 2, 3, 6, 7

Themes: Rationalization in political evaluation; hot cognition; affective transfer and contagion.

Further readings:

 Ditto, Peter H., and David F. Lopez. 1992. Motivated Skepticism: Use of Differential Decision Criteria for Preferred and Nonpreferred Conclusions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 63: 568-584.

 Kruglanski, Ari W., and Donna M. Webster. 1996. Motivated Closing of the Mind: “Seizing” and “Freezing.” Psychological Review 103: 263-283.

 Taber, Charles S., and Milton Lodge. 2006. Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs. American Journal of Political Science 50: 755-769.

 Druckman, James N. 2012. The Politics of Motivation. Critical Review 24: 199-216.

 Kruglanski, Arie W., and Lauren M. Boyatzi. 2012. The Psychology of Closed and Open Mindedness, Rationality, and Democracy. Critical Review 24: 217-232.

 Redlawsk, David P., Andrew J.W. Civettini, and Karen M. Emmerson. 2010. The Affective Tipping Point: Do Motivated Reasoners Ever “Get It”? Political Psychology 31: 563-593.

Module III. Social Identity Theory (SIT)

Week 10 (11/3): Social Identity Theory – Nuts and Bolts

 Tajfel, Henri, Michael G. Billig, R.P. Bundy, and Claude Flamente. 1971. Social Categorization and Intergroup Behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology 1(2): 149-178.

12

 Brewer, Marilynn B. 1991. The Social Self: On Being the Same and Different at the Same Time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 17: 475-482.

 Ellemers, N., Spears, R., and Doosje, B. (1997). Sticking together or falling apart: In-group identification as a psychological determinant of group commitment versus individual mobility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 72(3): 617-626.

 Huddy, Leonie. 2013. From Group Identity to Political Cohesion and Commitment. In L. Huddy, D.O. Sears, and J.S. Levy, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

 Nicholson, Stephen. 2012. Polarizing Cues. American Journal of Political Science 56(1): 52-66.

 Pérez, Efrén O. 2015. Ricochet: How Elite Discourse Politicizes Racial and Ethnic Identities. Political Behavior 37: 155-180.

 Suhay, Elizabeth. 2015. Explaining Group Influence: The Role of Identity and Emotion in Political Conformity and Polarization. 37: 221-251.

Themes: In-group favoritism; out-group derogation; the content and origins of social identities.

Further readings:

 Billig, Michal, and Henri Tajfel. 1973. Social Categorization and Similarity in Intergroup Behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology 3: 27-52.

 Ellemers, N., Spears, R., and Doosje, B. (2002). Self and social identity. Annual Review of Psychology 53: 161-186.

 Huddy, Leonie, and Nadia Khatib. 2007. American Patriotism, National Identity, and Political Involvement. American Journal of Political Science 51(1): 63-77.

 Shayo, Moses. 2009. A Model of Social Identity With An Application to : Nation, Class, and Redistribution. American Political Science Review 103: 147-174.

 De Figuieredo, Rui J.P., and Zachary Elkins. 2003. Are Patriots Bigots? An Inquiry Into the Vices of In-Group Pride. American Journal of Political Science 47(1): 1717-188.

 Kosterman, Rick and Seymour Feshbach. 1989. Toward a Measure of Patriotic and National Attitudes. Political Psychology 10(2): 257-274.

Week 11 (11/10): SIT Extensions: Stigmatization, Status Hierarchies, and Super-Ordinate Identities

 Crocker, Jennifer and Brenda Major. 1989. Social Stigma and Self-Esteem: The Self-Protective Properties of Stigma. Psychological Review 96(4): 608-630.

 Steele, Claude M., Steven J. Spencer, and Joshua Aronson. 2002. Contending With Group Image: The Psychology of Stereotype and Social Identity Threat. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 34: 379-440. 13

 Garcia Bedolla, Lisa. 2005. Fluid Borders: Latino Power, Identity, and Politics in Los Angeles. Berkeley: UC California Press. Chapter 3.

 Pérez, Efrén O. 2015. Xenophobic Rhetoric and Its Political Effects on Immigrants and Their Co-Ethnics. American Journal of Political Science 59: 549-564.

 Ho, Arnold K., James Sidanius, Daniel T. Levin, and Mahzarin R. Banaji. 2011. Evidence for Hypodescent and Racial Hierarchy in the Categorization and Perception of Biracial Individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 100: 492-506.

 Carter, Niambi, and Efrén O. Pérez. 2015. Race and Nation: How Racial Hierarchy Shapes Notions of National Belonging. Political Psychology. Early View.

 Transue, John E. 2007. Identity Salience, Identity Acceptance, and Racial Policy Attitudes: American National Identity as a Uniting Force. American Journal of Political Science 51(1): 78- 91.

Themes: Stigma; status hierarchies; nested identities.

Further readings:

 Sidanius, Jim, Seymour Feshbach, Shana Levin, and Felicia Pratto. 1997. The Interface Between Ethnic and National Attachment: Etnnic Pluralism or Ethnic Dominance? Public Opinion Quarterly 61(1): 102-133.

 Ethier, Kathleen A., and Kay Deaux. 1994. Negotiating Social Identity When Contexts Change: Maintaining Identification and Responding to Threat. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67(2): 243-251.

 Leach, Colin Wayne, Patricia M. Rodriguez Mosquera, Michael L.W. Vliek, and Emily Hirt. 2010. Group Devaluation and Group Identification. Journal of Social Issues 66: 535-552.

 Brook, Amara T., Julie Garcia, and Monique Fleming. 2008. The Effects of Multiple Identities on Psychological Well-Being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 34: 1588-1600.

 Gaertner, Samuel L., John F. Dovidio, Jason A. Nier, Christine M. Ward, and Brenda S. Banker. 1999. Across Cultural Divides: The Value of a Super-Ordinate Identity. In D.A. Prentice and D.T. Miller, eds., Cultural Divides: Understanding and Overcoming Group Conflict. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Module IV. Biology, Personality, and Politics

Week 12 (11/17): Bio-Politics

 Funk, Carolyn L. 2013. Genetic Foundations of Political Behavior. In L. Huddy, D.O. Sears, and J.S. Levy, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

 Fowler, James H., and Christopher T. Dawes. 2008. Two Genes Predict . Journal of Politics 70(3): 579-594. 14

 Charney, Evan William English. Candidate Genes and Political Behavior. American Political Science Review 106(1): 1-34.

 Fowler, James H., and Christopher Dawes. 2013. In Defense of Genopolitics. American Political Science Review 107(2): 362-374.

 Charney, Evan, and William English. 2013. Genopolitics and the Science of . American Political Science Review 107(2): 382-395.

 Smith, Kevin B., Douglas Oxley, Matthew V. Hibbing, John R. Alford, and John R. Hibbing. 2011. Disgust Sensitivity and the Neurophysiology of Left-Right Political Orientations. PLOS One 6: 1-9.

 Oxley, Douglas R., Kevin B. Smith, John R. Alford, Matthew V. Hibbing, Jennifer L. Miller, Mario Scalora, Peter K. Hatemi, and John R. Hibbing. 2008. Political Attitudes Vary with Physiological Traits. Science 321: 1667-1670.

Themes: Genetic bases of politics; designs; measurement error.

Further readings:

 Alford, John R., and John Hibbing. 2004. The Origin of Politics: An Evolutionary Theory of Political Behavior. Perspectives on Politics 2: 707-723.

 Alford, John R., Carolyn L. Funk, and John R. Hibbing. 2005. Are Political Orientations Genetically Transmitted? American Political Science Review 99: 153-167.

 Smith, Kevin B., Christopher W. Larimer, Levente Littvay, and John R. Hibbing. 2007. Evolutionary Theory and Political Leadership: Why People Usually Do Not Trust Decision- Makers. Journal of Politics 69: 285-299.

 Fowler, James H., Laura A. Baker, and Christopher T. Dawes. 2008. in Political Participation. American Political Science Review 102(2): 233-248.

 Charney, Evan. 2008. Genes and . Perspectives on Politics. 6(2): 299-319.

 Alford, John R., Carolyn L. Funk, and John R. Hibbing. 2008. Beyond Liberals and Conservatives to Political Genotypes and Phenotypes. Perspectives on Politics. 6(2): 321- 328.

THANKSGIVING BREAK!

Week 13 (12/1): Personality and Politics: Authoritarianism, Ethnocentrism, and Social Dominance Orientation

 Altemeyer, Bob. 1996. The Authoritarian Specter. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Pp. 1- 15 and Chapter 2.

 Stenner, Karen. 2005. The Authoritarian Dynamic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Chapters 2-4, and 9. 15

 Pérez, Efrén O., and Marc J. Hetherington. 2014. Authoritarianism in Black and White: Testing the Cross-Racial Validity of the Child Rearing Scale. Political Analysis. 22: 398-412.

 Kinder, Donald D., and Cindy D. Kam. 2009. Us Against Them: Ethnocentric Foundations of American Public Opinion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Chapters 1-4, and 5.

 Pratto, Felicia, Jim Sidanius, Lisa M. Stallworth, and Bertram F. Malle. 1994. Social Dominance Orientation: A Personality Variable Predicting Social and Political Attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67(4): 741-763.

Themes: Conceptualization and measurement validity; intergroup settings; categorization; conformity; hierarchy and inequality.

Further readings:

 John, Oliver P., and Sanjay Srivastava. 1999. The Big Five Trait Taxonomy: History, Measurement, and Theoretical Perspectives. In L. Pervin and O.P. John, eds., Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research. New York: The Guilford Press.

 Mondak, Jeffery J. 2010. Personality and the Foundations of Political Behavior. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 Hetherington, Marc J., and Jonathan D. Weiler. 2009. Authoritarianism and Polarization in American Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.

 Feldman, Stanley. 2003. Enforcing Social Conformity: A Theory of Authoritarianism. Political Psychology 24(1): 41-74.

 Feldman, Stanley, and Karen Stenner. Perceived Threat and Authoritarianism. Political Psychology 18(4): 741-770.

 Altemeyer, Bob. 1998. The Other ‘Authoritarian Personality’. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 30: 47-92.

 Pratto, Felicia, Deborah G. Tatar, and Sahr Conway-Lanz. 1999. Who Gets What and Why: Determinants of Social Allocations. Political Psychology 20(1): 127-150.

 Jost, John T., Jack Glaser, Arie W. Kruglanski, and Frank J. Sulloway. 2003. Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition. Psychological Bulletin 123: 339-375.

Week 14 (12/8): Political Ideology and Political Values

 Feldman, Stanley. 2013. Political Ideology. In L. Huddy, D.O. Sears, and J.S. Levy, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

 Sears, David O., and Christia Brown. 2013. Childhood and Adult Political Development. In L. Huddy, D.O. Sears, and J.S. Levy, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

16

 Feldman, Stanley, and Christopher Johnston. 2014. Understanding the Determinants of Political Ideology: Implications of Structural Complexity. Political Psychology 35: 337-358.

 Feldman, Stanley, and Marco R. Steenbergen. 2001. The Humanitarian Foundation of Public Support for Social Welfare. American Journal of Political Science 45: 658-677.

 Goren, Paul. 2005. Party Identification and Core Political Values. American Journal of Political Science 49: 882-897.

 Jacoby, William G. 2006. Value Choices and American Public Opinion. American Journal of Political Science 50: 706- 723.

Themes: Manifestations of values; origins of values; measurement of values; values and political choice.

Further readings:

 Markus, Gregory B. 2001. American Individualism Reconsidered. In Citizens and Politics: Perspectives from Political Psychology, ed. J.H. Kuklinski. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

 Newman, Benjamin J., Todd K. Hartman, Patrick L. Lown, and Stanley Feldman. Forthcoming. Easing the Heavy Hand: Humanitarian Concern, Empathy, and Opinion on Immigration. British Journal of Political Science

 Feldman, Stanley. 1988. Structure and Consistency in Public Opinion: The Role of Core Beliefs and Values. American Journal of Political Science 32: 416-440.

 Rockeach, Milton. 1973 The Nature of Human Values. New York: Free Press. Chapters 1 and 6.

 Schwartz, Shalom H., and Wolfgang Bilskiy. 1990. Toward a Theory of of the Universal Content and Structure of Values: Extensions and Cross-Cultural Replications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 21: 139-157.

 Davidov, Eldad, Peter Schmidt, and Shalom H. Schwartz. 2008. Bringing Values Back In: The Adequacy of the European Social Survey to Measure Values in 20 Countries. Public Opinion Quarterly 72: 420-445.