Report on the 1991 Ohio State University Summer Institute in Political Psychology Author(S): Jon A

Home , Ohio State University

Report on the 1991 Ohio State University Summer Institute in Political Psychology Author(s): Jon A. Krosnick and Margaret G. Hermann Source: Political Psychology, Vol. 14, No. 2, Special Issue: Political Theory and Political Psychology (Jun., 1993), pp. 363-373 Published by: International Society of Political Psychology Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3791416 . Accessed: 19/12/2013 19:10

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

International Society of Political Psychology is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Political Psychology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 171.67.216.21 on Thu, 19 Dec 2013 19:10:19 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions PoliticalPsychology, Vol. 14, No. 2, 1993

Reporton the 1991Ohio StateUniversity Summer Institutein PoliticalPsychology JonA. Krosnick Margaret G. Hermann The Ohio State University

In Julyand August1991, the Ohio State Universityhosted the first annual SummerInstitute in PoliticalPsychology. This program brought 57 scholars (includinggraduate students, faculty, and professionals)to Ohio StateUniver- sityto studytheory and methodsfor examiningthe psychological processes involvedin politicalphenomena and politicalinfluences on psychologicalpro- cesses. Theirone-month intensive training included lectures in basic psychology, basicpolitical science, research techniques, and approachesfor successful inte- grationof political science and psychology. Lecturers included faculty from OSU and nearbyuniversities, as well as guestspecialists from across thecountry. Formaland informalevaluations indicated that the institute achieved a varietyof itsgoals and thatparticipants considered it to be a stimulatinglearning experi- ence. Currently,plans are in place to offerthe institutefor the nextseveral summers. KEY WORDS: politics;psychology; training.

INTRODUCTION

BetweenJuly 15 andAugust 9, 1991,The Ohio StateUniversity offered the firstannual SummerInstitute in PoliticalPsychology. Directed by Margaret Hermann,Jon Krosnick, and WendyRahn, the institutewas a collaborative enterprisebetween the OSU Officeof ContinuingEducation and theOSU De- partmentsof PoliticalScience and Psychology.This articledocuments the plan- ningand developmentof theinstitute, as well as theevents that unfolded during the four-weeksession.

363

0162-895X/93/X900-OXXX$06.50/1? 1993 InternationalSociety of PoliticalPsychology Publishedby BlackwellPublishers, 238 Main Street,Cambridge, MA 02142, USA, and 108 CowleyRoad, Oxford,OX4 lJF,UK.

This content downloaded from 171.67.216.21 on Thu, 19 Dec 2013 19:10:19 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 364 Krosnick& Hermann

THE CONCEPT

The idea of establishinga summertraining institute in politicalpsychology was initiallydeveloped in January1988 at a "futuresconference" directed by MargaretHermann and sponsoredby theInternational Society of PoliticalPsy- chologyand theMershon Center. That meeting yielded a 10-yearplan forthe society'sfuture, which included a three-prongedset of traininggoals. The first was to developmodel curricula to be used in academic-yearcourses on political psychology.Second, regional workshops would be held in whichstudents and facultywould work side by side designingand conductingempirical research. Finally,in orderto enhancestudents' understanding of theliteratures and con- ceptsof politicalpsychology, a SummerInstitute was to be established.A con- creteplan for implementing the Summer Institute for three years was ratifiedby the ISPP GoverningCouncil at its 1990 midwintermeeting, and Ohio State Universitywas selectedas its initialsite.

TRAINING GOALS

The SummerInstitute was designedto accomplishthree primary goals, the firstof whichwas academic.For graduate students in traditionaldepartments of psychologyor politicalscience, it is typicallyvery difficult and time-consuming to acquireexpertise in theother discipline through regular academic-year course- work.For example,in orderfor a politicalscience graduate student to getbroad expertisein psychology,it is necessaryto takenumerous, quarter- or semester- long coursesover a periodof years.Unfortunately, most graduate curricula do notallow timefor such extensive course-taking in an outsidearea. This challengeholds true even for some studentscurrently enrolled at uni- versitiesthat have existing concentrations in politicalpsychology. The curricula offeredby manysuch programs emphasize research done by politicalpsychologists.Thus, studentsare exposedto areasof thetwo disciplines that have been successfullyintegrated in pastresearch efforts. But these curricula sometimes do notoffer many opportunities for broad yet efficient exposure to areasof thetwo disciplinesthat have notbeen extensivelyused by politicalpsychologists. Consequently,we feltthat all graduatestudents interested in politicalpsychology,whether in a formalgraduate program or not,could benefit a greatdeal froma quick, intensive,and broadintroduction to the literatureof the other discipline.After learning about a varietyof subareasof the otherdiscipline, graduatestudents could selectthose areas that are mostimmediately useful and relevantto theirinterests and could later obtain in-depth training in those areas at theirhome institutions. This is notto saythat we wantedto provide students with onlysuperficial training. Rather, forced to choosebetween depth and breadth,

This content downloaded from 171.67.216.21 on Thu, 19 Dec 2013 19:10:19 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Reporton the1991 Ohio State University Summer Institute 365 we choseto emphasizethe latter while being sure that students were given clear and precisetraining in the otherdiscipline sufficient to facilitatehigh-quality workin thefuture. In providingsuch broad training, we soughtto transcenda patternthat has typifiedpolitical psychology during this century. We notedearly in ourplanning thatalthough a greatdeal of exchangehas takenplace betweenpsychology and politicalscience, there have been clear linkages between certain areas of political science and certainareas of psychology.For example,personality theory has been widelyused by scholarsstudying political leadership, whereas it has been used onlyminimally in thestudy of masspolitics. Similarly, attitude theory has been utilizedmuch more in thestudy of masspolitics than in otherareas. There certainlyare exceptions to thispattern, such as theuse ofschema and consistency theoriesin bothmass and elitepolitical science research. But, in general,there has been substantialpairing of particularliteratures in bothdisciplines. We hopedto designa curriculumthat would provide engaging and useful exposurefor all studentsto as manypotentially relevant aspects of the two disciplines,regardless of whetherthese aspects had been used in previouspo- liticalpsychology research. Thus, ratherthan encouraging participants simply to perpetuatecurrent lines of politicalpsychology research, we hopedto equip them with skills and perspectivesto initiateinnovative integrations of the disciplines. Our secondgoal was to provideparticipants with general training in howto successfullyintegrate psychology and politicalscience in research.Although thereis muchsupport for interdisciplinary work throughout the social sciences thesedays, there are nonethelessnumerous practical impediments to doingsuch worksuccessfully. We wishedto expose our participantsto examplesof suc- cessfulintegration of the two fields, some done by psychologists and others done by politicalscientists. Furthermore, we wishedto provideour participants with exposureto successfulcareer development by politicalpsychologists. By il- lustratinghow individuals'careers unfolded, we hoped thatour participants woulddevelop useful ideas abouthow to organizeand directtheir own profes- sionaldevelopment. Our finalprimary goal was institution-building.Although there are many individualsdoing political psychology currently, there are fewtraining institu- tionsthat welcome developing young professionals early in theircareers into the internationalfellowship of politicalpsychologists. Certainly, schools with estab- lishedpolitical psychology graduate curricula (such as SUNY StonyBrook, Yale University,UCLA, Ohio State University,and others)do just this. But the majorityof colleges and universities have no suchprograms. We therefore sought to establishan institutionthat would bring together young scholars and senior researchersfrom around the world, providing opportunities for them to interact and to solidifytheir shared values and researchgoals.

This content downloaded from 171.67.216.21 on Thu, 19 Dec 2013 19:10:19 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 366 Krosnick& Hermann

THE TARGET AUDIENCE

In orderto mostbenefit from a trainingprogram designed to accomplish thesegoals, we feltthat an individualwould need to havea solidbackground in eitherpsychology or politicalscience and a set of personalresearch interests in politicalpsychology. We thereforefelt that our target audience should be second, third,and fourth-yeargraduate students in thetwo disciplines. Furthermore, we suspectedthat faculty who were eitherretooling to move intoa new area of researchor who wereat smallerinstitutions and wouldvalue participation in an intellectual"hothouse" might benefit as well. Finally,we hopedto appeal to professionalsin governmentwho could make practical use ofthe knowledge they mightgain.

THE CURRICULUM

Given our goals, we feltit mostsensible to conductthe institute for four weeks. We thereforedesigned a scheduleof instructionalactivities accordingly, as displayedin TableI. The curriculumhad five primary components: psychology lectures,political science lectures, discussion groups, methods workshops, and seminarswith guest specialists. Psychologylectures. Our goal in providingbasic psychologytraining was to exposeparticipants to a widerange of literaturesin psychologythat might be of use in studyingpolitical phenomena. The 19 topicsof theselectures (shown in Table II) were selectedfrom among a wide rangeof contenders.These topics

Table I. 1991 Scheduleof Activities

Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday 9:00-11:00 am Psych.lecture ------11:00-12:00 pm Poli. sci. lecture------12:00-1:30 pm Lunch------withmorning lecturers 1:30-3:30 pm Discussiongroups ------Guestspecialist (until4:30 pm) ------. 4:00-6:00 pm Researchmethods seminars ------Guest specialist meetswith discussion groups 5:00-6:30 pm Reception forguest specialist

This content downloaded from 171.67.216.21 on Thu, 19 Dec 2013 19:10:19 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Reporton the 1991 Ohio State UniversitySummer Institute 367

Table II. 1991 PsychologyLectures

Date Lecturer Topic July16 RichardPetty Attitudeformation and change July17 RichardPetty Cognitiveconsistency theories July18 RaymondMontemayor Socializationand development July19 Williamvon Hippel Knowledgestructures and memory July22 Williamvon Hippel Social identityand stereotyping July23 RobertArkin/ GiffordWeary Attributiontheory July24 RaymondMontemayor Moralreasoning July25 David Winter Motivation July26 David Winter Psychodynamicpersonality theory July29 ThomasNygren Judgmentand decisionmaking July30 HerbertMirels Contemporarypersonality theory July31 JamesVoss Problemrepresentation and problemsolving Aug 1 RobertBillings Decisionmaking in organizations Aug 2 GaroldStasser Groupdynamics Aug 5 Williamvon Hippel Heuristicsand biases Aug 6 CatherineHeaney Stressand coping Aug 7 TimothyBrock Obedience,conformity, and compliance Aug 8 TimothyBrock Aggression Aug 9 MargaretClark Altruism Note:All psychologylecturers were faculty from Ohio StateUniversity, with the exceptions of David Winter(University of Michigan),James Voss (Universityof Pittsburgh),Garold Stasser(Miami University),and MargaretClark (Carnegie-Mellon University).

includedsocial psychology,developmental psychology, cognitive psychology, personalitypsychology, organizational psychology, and clinical/counseling psychology. We asked the psychologylecturers to assumethat their audience had no backgroundin theirareas and to providebroad introductions to their literatures. Given thetime limitations, we feltit wouldbe impracticalfor the lecturers to providehistorical lectures describing all of thedevelopments in a fieldfrom its inception.Furthermore, we feltthat time limitations would make it difficultfor thelecturers to provideany detailed presentations of majorareas of controversy. Therefore,we wantedthe lecturers to exposeparticipants to thewidely accepted and supportedfindings and areas of agreementin each field.Furthermore, we asked themto give participantsreading lists so theycould pursueparticular writings.We did notexpect the psychology lecturers to place special emphasis on areas of theirliterature that directly involved political behavior-rather, we wantedthem to covertheir fields broadly with any eye towardthose areas of workthat were potentially applicable in thestudy of politics. Politicalscience lectures. In orderto providebasic trainingin politicalscience, we envisionedlectures on a rangeof basic political science topics (see TableIII). These topics addressedpolitical contexts, factors shaping political behavior, publicpolicy making, and internationalrelations. Whereas the first two topics

This content downloaded from 171.67.216.21 on Thu, 19 Dec 2013 19:10:19 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 368 Krosnick& Hermann

TableIII. 1991Political Science Lectures

Date Lecturer Topic July16 WendyRahn Beliefsystems July17 Paul Beck Publicopinion July18 Paul Beck Politicalsocialization July19 HerbertWeisberg Voting July22 RobertWoyach Politicalculture July23 JohnKessel Campaignsand elections July24 Goldie Shabad Ethnic,race, and genderissues July25 StevenWright Politicalparticipation July26 FilipeAguero Authoritarianismand alienation July29 LawrenceBaum Elitedecision making July30 SamuelPatterson Leadership July31 Donald Sylvan Definitionof thesituation Aug 1 Donald Sylvan Bureaucraticpolitics Aug 2 CharlesHermann Groupdecision making Aug 5 RichardHerrmann Internationalimages Aug 6 CharlesHermann Crisismanagement Aug 7 JosephKruzel Deterrence Aug 8 JamesHarf Internationalconflict Aug 9 MargaretHermann Bargainingand negotiation Note: All politicalscience lecturers were faculty from Ohio StateUniversity. focusedprimarily on mass politics,the lattertwo focusedprimarily on elite politics.We asked thepolitical science lecturers to takethe same approachas employedby thepsychology lecturers. Discussion groups. We feltit essentialfor the curriculum to addressthe suc- cessfulintegration of psychologyand politicalscience. We feltthat this integra- tioncould be addressedmost effectively inthe context of small discussion groups (approximately15 peopleeach). For each groupmeeting, participants read sev- eraljournal articles or bookchapters, typically reporting empirical investigations employingpsychological concepts and theories to studypolitical phenomena. We hopedthat discussions of theintent and implicationsof suchwork would help to clarifyhow politicalpsychology could be donemost effectively. In addition,we hopedthat the discussion groups would serve as forumsin whichthe participants could get to knoweach otherand debatethe meritsof variousapproaches to careerdevelopment. Finally, we intendedthe discussion groups to provide oppor- tunitiesfor participants to reflectupon and clarifythe implications of themorn- inglectures in politicalscience and psychology.In orderto helpthe discussion groupsfunction effectively, each one had a facilitatorwho coordinatedand directedthe discussions. Four advanced graduate students at OSU servedin these roles:Juliet Kaarbo, Ryan Beasley, Marijke Breuning (all in politicalscience), and MatthewBerent (in social psychology).Juliet Kaarbo also servedas the institute'sassistant director, coordinating a range of dailyactivities. Research methodsinstruction. Although most graduate programs in political

This content downloaded from 171.67.216.21 on Thu, 19 Dec 2013 19:10:19 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Reporton the1991 Ohio State University Summer Institute 369 scienceand psychologyoffer courses in mainstreamresearch methods, few offer coursesin thenontraditional research methods that are frequentlyemployed in politicalpsychology. Consequently, we feltit essential that our curriculum intro- duce participantsto theseresearch methods. The methodswe ultimatelychose to offerincluded survey techniques, experimental design, quasi-experimental design,protocol analysis, elite interviewing, use of archives,interpersonal simulation,and computationalmodeling (see TableIV). The methodsinstructors were askedto providean introductionto theirareas for an audiencewho had littleor no familiaritywith it. Furthermore,they were asked to provideparticipants with hands-onexperience with the methods. Guest specialistseminars. We feltthat perhaps the single most effective way to instructparticipants in politicalpsychology would be to expose themto role models.To thisend, we selectedprominent political psychologists whose work has been recognizedinternationally as having made important contributions. In orderfor our participants to mostbenefit from these individuals, we scheduled each guestspeaker to makea presentationon each of two successivedays. On thefirst day, the guest specialists provided intellectual autobiographies. Sometimesbeginning during their graduate school days and sometimeseven earlier,they described the development of theirlives as politicalpsychologists, whomtheir important influences were, how various factors shaped their research fociand ideas, and how they matured as politicalpsychologists over the course of

Table IV 1991 ResearchMethods Seminars

Topic Lecturer UniversityAffiliation Week1 Surveys KathleenCarr Ohio StateUniversity Observation MargaretHermann Ohio StateUniversity Quasi-Experiments RobertBillings Ohio StateUniversity Week2 Case Studies CharlesHermann Ohio StateUniversity ContentAnalysis MargaretHermann & Ohio StateUniversity David Winter Universityof Michigan Focus Groups SaundraJones Ohio StateUniversity Week3 Computational Donald Sylvan Ohio StateUniversity Modeling ProtocolAnalysis JamesVoss Universityof Pittsburgh ArchivalAnalysis CindyOrbovich MacalesterCollege Week4 Simulation MargaretHermann & Ohio StateUniversity RichardHerrmann Ohio StateUniversity Elite Interviewing JennieLincoln GeorgiaTech University Experiments Williamvon Hippel Ohio StateUniversity

This content downloaded from 171.67.216.21 on Thu, 19 Dec 2013 19:10:19 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 370 Krosnick& Hermann theircareers. In theprocess, the participants learned about the major areas of researcheach specialisthad conducted,the methodsemployed, and whatthe specialistconsidered her or his principalfindings. During the second afternoon, each guestspecialist delivered a detailedlecture on a researchproject that was recentlycompleted or currentlyongoing. Thus, participantslearned in depth aboutthe intellectual style the specialist brought to his or herwork. Following thesepresentations, the guest specialists met with each discussiongroup for an extendedperiod of informalexchange and also had numerousopportunities for one-on-oneconversations with the participants. We decidedto have a differentset of guestspecialists each yearof the institute.For thefirst year, we identifiedfive exemplary political psychologists: David Sears(University of Californiaat Los Angeles),Pamela Conover (Univer- sityof North Carolina), Philip Tetlock (University of California at Berkeley),and thecollaborative team of JaniceGross Stein (University of Toronto) and Richard Ned Lebow (Universityof Pittsburgh). Althoughthe second-day research presentations were quite similar in struc- tureand approachfor all thespecialists, the autobiographies were approached quite differentlyby the variousindividuals. David Sears's autobiographywas chronologicaland focused on hispersonal development and the links between his personallife and his major research interests in racial attitudes and race relations. Pam Conoverfocused on the majorresearch enterprises she had engagedin duringher career,describing the issues addressedin each area and how the methodsshe used becamemore radical and less traditionalover time. She also raisedprofessional issues, such as thechallenges posed by doinginterdisciplin- ary research.Phil Tetlockapproached his task by addressinga philosophical issue thathe has confrontedwith his research.This issuehas yieldedthe emer- genceof a new,basic viewof humannature that has beenunderrecognized in the social sciencesgenerally. And JaniceStein and Ned Lebow describedthe pro- gressionof theirresearch programs on internationalrelations using their case studiesas illustrations.This varietyof approacheswas veryengaging for the participants.

ADDITIONAL EVENTS

In additionto thesecore elementsof the curriculum,a numberof other eventswere planned. We held an openingbanquet the night before classes began, duringwhich the participants began getting to knoweach otherinformally. The firstday of theinstitute included presentations by the directors of their research, discussionsof thehistory and natureof political psychology, an overviewof the institute'splan and goals, and an opportunityfor the participants to describetheir

This content downloaded from 171.67.216.21 on Thu, 19 Dec 2013 19:10:19 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Report on the 1991 Ohio State UniversitySummer Institute 371 backgroundsand intereststo thegroup. Every Thursday evening, a wine-and- cheese receptionwas held forthat week's guestspecialist on the bankof the OlentangyRiver. Recreational activities included regular athletics, parties at the homesof Peg Hermannand MichaelYoung, and organized visits to Columbus's Jazzand Ribs Festival,the Short North Gallery Hop, and KingsIsland Amuse- mentPark. The participantsorganized lots of sportsactivities as well. A closing banquetwas heldon thelast night, with Alexander George (Stanford University) as thekeynote speaker. The participantsreceived certificates signifying comple- tionof thecurriculum during this "graduation"ceremony.

THE PARTICIPANTS

Therewere 57 participants;their demographics are displayedin Table V. People came fromnine countries: The UnitedStates, Venezuela, Spain, Italy,

Table V. 1991 SummerInstitute Participants

Name Field L* Country Institution Strydom,S. L. Anthro N S. Africa S. AfricanDept. of ForeignAffairs Carrasquero,Gilberto Business 3 USA StanfordUniversity Philip,Dorrell Educ 3 USA Universityof Maryland RodriguezMojon, Maria Psych N Spain St. Louis University,Madrid Cohen,Michael V. Psych UG USA BrandeisUniversity Gruenfeld,Deborah Psych 3 USA Universityof Illinois Ito, Takehiko Psych N Japan WakoUniversity Jost,John T. Psych 2 USA Yale University Mercer,Jeffrey J. Psych 2 USA CaliforniaState Univ./Long Beach Reichl,Arleigh J. Psych 5 USA Universityof Iowa Saita, Emanuela Psych 5 Italy UniversitaKattolica Di Milano Schmitt,David P. Psych 2 USA Universityof Michigan Schooler,Tonya Y. Psych 4 USA Universityof Pittsburgh Struman,Ted S. Psych 3 USA Universityof Michigan Van Der Schyff,G. S. Psych N S. Africa S. AfricanDept. of ForeignAffairs Weisz,Carolyn Psych 4 USA PrincetonUniversity Weston,Christine Psych 2 USA BostonUniversity Aziabu, Yao E. Pol Sci 4 USA Duke University Bird,Karen L. Pol Sci 2 USA Universityof Minnesota Blackwood,J. P. Pol Sci 1 USA Ohio StateUniversity Boiney,John Pol Sci 5 USA Duke University Bond,Doug Pol Sci N USA HarvardUniversity Briand,Michael K. Pol Sci N USA KetteringFoundation Bucholz,Harald Pol Sci 3 USA Ohio StateUniversity Clawson,Rosalee Pol Sci 1 USA Ohio StateUniversity Delaet, Debra L. Pol Sci 1 USA NotreDame University Dickson,Joyce Pol Sci 3 USA Ohio StateUniversity

(continued)

This content downloaded from 171.67.216.21 on Thu, 19 Dec 2013 19:10:19 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 372 Krosnick& Hermann

Table V. (Continued)

Name Field L* Country Institution Edwards,Pamela J. Pol Sci N USA WittenbergCollege Filicko,Therese M. Pol Sci 5 USA Duke University Fischerkeller,Michael Pol Sci UG USA Universityof Pittsburgh Golebiowska,Ewa Pol Sci 2 USA Ohio StateUniversity Gordon,Diane G. Pol Sci N USA U.S. StateDepartment Gueron,Eva Pol Sci N Venezuela CentralUniv. of Venezuela Healy,Sally Pol Sci I USA Ohio StateUniversity Hillerbrand,Ronald Pol Sci N Netherlands Universityof Leiden Hinz, Phil Pol Sci 3 USA Ohio StateUniversity Holley,Kim M. Pol Sci 1 USA NotreDame University Hoyt,Paul Pol Sci 4 USA Ohio StateUniversity Hudson,Valerie M. Pol Sci N USA BrighamYoung University Hughes,Elizabeth Pol Sci 3 USA GeorgiaState University Hughes,Mary M. Pol Sci 3 USA Vanderbilt Hunter,Susan Pol Sci N USA WestVirginia University Kemper,Mark Pol Sci 1 USA Ohio StateUniversity Marshall,Richard H. Pol Sci 2 USA Universityof Illinois Nwabuzor,Elone Pol Sci N Nigeria Centerfor Democratic Studies Oishi,Koichiro Pol Sci N Japan KokushikanUniversity Roebuck,Josh Pol Sci 2 USA Ohio StateUniversity Ronczka,Keith Pol Sci 1 USA Ohio StateUniversity Schoebel,Carolin Pol Sci N Germany GermanScience Center Berlin Shahan,Carolyn Pol Sci 4 USA Ohio StateUniversity Simon,Adam Pol Sci 1 USA UCLA Van Dooren,Ron Pol Sci N Netherlands Universityof Leiden Young,Michael Pol Sci 3 USA Ohio StateUniversity Zilber,Jeremy Pol Sci 2 USA Ohio StateUniversity Zurovchak,John Pol Sci 3 USA Ohio StateUniversity Florez-Morris,Mauricio Pub Admin 3 USA AmericanUniversity Ruggeri,Ana M. Pub Admin N Venezuela CentralUniv. of Venezuela * Level: UG = undergraduate;I = first-yeargraduate student; 2 = second-yeargraduate student; 3 = third-yeargraduate student; 4 = fourth-yeargraduate student; 5 = fifth-yeargraduate student; N = nota student.

Germany,Japan, the Netherlands, South Africa, and Nigeria. Two studentswere undergraduatesintending to begingraduate studies in politicalpsychology. Eight were first-yeargraduate students; 10 were second-yeargraduate students; 11 werethird-year graduate students; five were fourth-year graduate students; and fourwere more advanced graduate students. Ten were faculty members at West VirginiaUniversity, Brigham Young University,Wittenberg College, Central Universityof Venezuela,the University of Leiden,Wako University in Japan, McMaster,and elsewhere.Of theparticipants, 14 werein psychology;38 were in politicalscience; one in anthropology;one in business;one in education;and twoin publicadministration. Six participantswere professional staff members at researchinstitutions.

This content downloaded from 171.67.216.21 on Thu, 19 Dec 2013 19:10:19 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Report on the 1991 Ohio State UniversitySummer Institute 373

SELF-EVALUATION

Duringthe course of theinstitute, we had numerousopportunities to speak withparticipants about their experiences. These conversationsprovided oppor- tunitiesto pinpointaspects of the curriculum that seemed to be workingwell and aspectsthat were less successful.We also learnedabout the participants' reac- tionsto theinstitute through various formal evaluation procedures. Each week, studentsfilled out questionnairesevaluating the lectures they had heard.At the end of theinstitute, they filled out overallevaluation questionnaires that asked aboutpossible changes that might be made to theinstitute in futureyears. All thesesources of informationhelped us to identifythe strengths and weaknesses of theinstitute's design. Overall evaluationassessments made it clear thatthe participantsfound theirexperiences to be valuable,worthwhile, and enjoyable. They believed they hadgained considerable knowledge in both disciplines and had better ideas about how to integratethe two. Furthermore,large majorities of theparticipants felt thatmost aspectsof the curriculumshould be preserved.However, they did indicatea fewaspects of thecurriculum that could be improved.Our plans for futureinstitutes were adjusted in responseto thisevaluation information.

Correspondenceregarding this articleshould be addressedto JonA. Krosnick,Department of Psychology,Ohio State University,1885 Neil Avenue,Columbus, Ohio 43210, or to Margaret Hermann,The MershonCenter, Ohio StateUniversity, 199 West 10thAvenue, Columbus, Ohio 43201.

This content downloaded from 171.67.216.21 on Thu, 19 Dec 2013 19:10:19 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions