[RC] Article : Political psychology

[BILROJ via Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community]

 
Political  psychology
 
>From Wikipedia


 
 
Political psychology is an _interdisciplinary_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interdisciplinarity)   academic field dedicated 
to understanding 
_politics_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics) , _politicians_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politician)  and _political behavior_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_behavior)   from a _psychological_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology)  perspective.  The relationship 
between politics and 
psychology is considered bi-directional,  with psychology being used as a lens 
for 
understanding politics and politics  being used as a lens for understanding 
psychology. As an interdisciplinary  field, political psychology borrows from 
a wide range of other disciplines,  including: _anthropology_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropology) , _sociology_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociology) , _international  relations_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_relations) , _economics_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics) , 
_philosophy_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy) , _media_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_(communication)) , _journalism_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalism)   and _history_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History) 
. 
Political psychology aims to understand interdependent relationships 
between  individuals and contexts that are influenced by beliefs, motivation, 
perception,  cognition, information processing, learning strategies, 
socialization and  attitude formation. Political psychological theory and 
approaches 
have been  applied in many contexts such as: leadership role; domestic and 
foreign policy  making; behavior in ethnic violence, war and genocide; group 
dynamics and  conflict; racist behavior; voting attitudes and motivation; 
voting and the role  of the media; nationalism; and political extremism._[1]_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_psychology&printable=yes#c
ite_note-1)   In essence political psychologists study the foundations, 
dynamics, and outcomes  of political behavior using cognitive and social 
explanations. 
History and early  influences
France
Political psychology originated in _Western Europe_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Europe) , where it  was closely tied to 
the emergence of new 
disciplines and paradigms, as well as  to the precise social and political 
context in various countries._[2]_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_psychology&printable=yes#cite_note-2)
 
The  discipline political psychology was formally introduced during the  
Franco-Prussian war and the socialist revolution, stirred by the rise of the 
_Paris  Commune_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Commune)  (1871)._[3]_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_psychology&printable=yes#
cite_note-3)   The term “political psychology” was first introduced by the 
_ethnologist_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnologist)  Adolph Bastian  
in his book _Man  in History_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Man_in_History&action=edit&redlink=1)
  (1860). The philosopher _Hippolyte Taine_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippolyte_Taine)   (1828–1893), a founder of 
the Ecole Libre de Sciences Politiques, applied  Bastian’s theories in his 
works _The  Origins of Contemporary France_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Origins_of_Contemporary_France&action=edit&redlink=1)
  (1875–
1893), to ideas on the founding and  development of the _Third Republic_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Third_Republic) .  The head of Ecole Libre 
de Sciences Politiques, _Emile  Boutmy_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emile_Boutmy)  (1835–1906), was a famous explorer 
of social, political and  
geographical concepts of national interactions. He contributed various works on 
 
political psychology such as English People; A study of their Political  
Psychology (1901) and The American People; Elements of Their Political  
Psychology (1902)._[4]_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_psychology&printable=yes#cite_note-Rudmin-p6-7-4)
   The contributor of _crowd 
theory_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crowd_psychology)  _Gustave Le Bon_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustave_Le_Bon)   (1841–1931) suggested that 
crowd 
activity subdued will and polluted rational  thought which resulted in 
uncontrollable impulses and emotions. He suggested in  his works Psychology of 
Socialism (1896) and Political Psychology and  Social Defense (1910)_[5]_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_psychology&printable=yes#cite_
note-5)   that in the uncontrollable state of a crowd people were more 
vulnerable to  submission and leadership, and suggested that embracing 
_nationalism_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalism)  would remedy  this. 
Italy
Meanwhile in Italy, the _Risorgimento_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risorgimento)  (1870)  instigated various social 
reforms and voting rights. A 
large divide in class  during this period led the lawyer _Gaetano Mosca_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaetano_Mosca)  (1858–1914)  to publish his work 
The 
Ruling Class: Elements of Political Science  (1896), theorizing the presence 
of a ruling and a ruled class in all  societies._[6]_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_psychology&printable=yes#cite_note-6)
   
_Vilfredo Pareto_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vilfredo_Pareto)   (1828–1923), 
inspired by Mosca’s concepts, contributed The Rise and Fall of  the Elites 
(1901) and The Socialist System (1902–1903) to the  discipline of political 
psychology, theorizing on the role of class and social  systems. His work 
_The Mind and  Society_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mind_and_Society)  
(1916) offers a sociology _treatise_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treatise) 
._[7]_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_psychology&printable=yes#cite_note-VanGinneken-c1-7)
   Mosca and Pareto’s texts on the 
Italian elite contributed to the theories of  Robert Michels (1875–1936). 
Michels 
was a German socialist fascinated by the  distinction between the largely 
lower class run parliament in Germany and upper  class run parliament in 
Italy. He wrote Political Parties: A Sociological  Study of the Oligarchic 
Tendencies of Modern Democracy (1911)._[7]_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_psychology&printable=yes#cite_note-VanGinneken-c1-7)
  
Austria
A large psychoanalytical influence was contributed to the discipline  
political psychology by _Sigmund Freud_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sigmund_Freud)  (1856–1939).  His texts _Totem 
and Taboo_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totem_and_Taboo)   (1913) and _Group  Psychology 
and the Analysis of the 
Ego_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_Psychology_and_the_Analysis_of_the_Ego)  
(1921) link psychoanalysis with  politics. Freud and _Bullitt_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Christian_Bullitt,_Jr.)   (1967) 
developed the 
first psychobiography explaining how the personality  characteristics of 
U.S. President _Woodrow Wilson_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodrow_Wilson)  
affected  his decision making during World War I. _Wilhelm Reich_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Reich)  (1897–1957)  inspired by the 
effects of 
WWII was interested in whether personality types  varied according to epoch, 
culture and class. He implicated the bidirectional  effect of group, 
society and the environment with personality. He combined  Freudian and 
_Marxist_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist)  theories in his book  _The Mass  
Psychology of Fascism_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mass_Psychology_of_Fascism)  (1933). He also 
edited the The Journal for  Political Psychology and 
Sexual Economy (1934–1938) which was the first  journal implicating 
political psychology in a principal western language._[8]_ (http://en.wikipe
dia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_psychology&printable=yes#cite_note-8)  
Germany
In Germany novice political alterations and _fascist_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascist)  control  during World War II spurred 
research into 
authoritarianism from the _Frankfurt school_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_school) . The  philosopher _Herbert 
Marcuse_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Marcuse)   (1898–1979) opened up issues 
concerning freedom and 
authority. In his work _Reason  and Revolution: Hegel and the Rise of Social 
Theory_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason_and_Revolution:_Hegel_and_the_Rise_of_Social_Theory)
  (1941) he suggested  that groups compromise individual 
rights. _Theodor Adorno_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_Adorno)   
(1903–1969) also investigated authoritarian individuals and anti-Semitism. His  
report _The  Authoritarian Personality_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Authoritarian_Personality)  (1950) attempts 
to determine the personality  
type susceptible to following fascism and anti-democratic propaganda. Nazi  
movements during World War II also spurred controversial psychologists such as  
_Walther  Poppelreuter_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walther_Poppelreuter) 
 (1932) to lecture and write about political psychology that  identified 
with Hitler. The psychologist _Eric  Jaensch_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eric_Jaensch&action=edit&redlink=1)  
(1883–1940) contributed the 
racist book The Anti-type  (1933). 
United Kingdom
At the turn of the century _Oxford University_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_University)  and  _Cambridge  University_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_University)  introduced the discipline 
political psychology 
offering courses  on “The Sciences of the Man”, along with the foundation of 
the Psychological  society (1901) and the Sociological society (1904)._[9]_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_psychology&printable=ye
s#cite_note-9)   The Oxford historian _G.  B. Grundy_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=G._B._Grundy&action=edit&redlink=1)  
(1861–1948) noted 
political psychology (1917) as a sub-discipline  of history. Motivated by 
social and political behavior during WWI he deemed the  new branch of 
historical science “The Psychology of Men Acting in Masses”._[4]_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_psychology&printable=yes#cite_note-Rudmi
n-p6-7-4)   He intended the science to instrument the clarification of 
mistaken beliefs  about others intentions based on mistaken beliefs about 
ourselves._[4]_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_psychology&printable=yes#cite_note-Rudmin-p6-7-4)
   The intellectual _Graham Wallas_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Wallas)  (1859–1932)  implicated the 
significance of studying psychology in politics in Human  Nature in Politics 
(1908). Wallace stated the importance of enlightening  politicians and the 
public 
to unconscious psychological processes to help to  guard oneself against 
exploitation and to control ones own psychological  processes intellectually. 
He suggested in _The  Great Society_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Great_Society_(book)&action=edit&redlink=1)
  (1917) that recognition 
of such processes could help to  build a more functional humanity. 
United States
Across the Atlantic the first American to be considered a political  
psychologist was _Harold Lasswell_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Lasswell)  
 (1902–1978) whose research was also spurred by a sociological fascination 
of  World War I. His work Propaganda Technique in the World War (1927)  
implicated the use of applying psychological theories in order to enhance  
propaganda technique._[10]_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_psychology&printable=yes#cite_note-10)
   Lasswell moved to Europe shortly 
after where he started to tie Freudian and  Adler personality theories to 
politics and published Psychopathology and  Politics (1930). His major theories 
involved the motives of the politically  active and the relation between 
propaganda and personality. 
Another contributing factor to the development of Political Psychology was  
the introduction of psychometrics and "The Measurement of Attitude" by 
_Thurstone_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thurstone)  and _Chave_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chave)  (1929). The methodological  revolution in 
social 
science gave quantitative grounds and therefore more  credibility to Political 
Psychology. Research into political preference during  campaigns was spurred 
by _George Gallup_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Gallup)  (1901–
1984),  who founded the "American Institute of Public Opinion". The 1940s 
election in  America drew a lot of attention being at the start of World War 
II. 
Gallup,  Roper and Crossley instigated research into the chances of Roosevelt 
being  re-elected. Lazarsfeld, Berelson and Gaudet (1944) also conducted a 
famous panel  study “The People’s Choice” on the 1940s election campaign. 
These studies drew  attention to the possibility of measuring political 
techniques using  psychological theories._[11]_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_psychology&printable=yes#cite_note-11)
   The entry of 
the US into WWII spiraled vast research into fields such as war  technique, 
propaganda, group moral, psycho-biography and culture conflict to  name a few, 
with the U.S. army and Navy recruiting young psychologists._[12]_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_psychology&printable=yes#cite_not
e-12)   Thus the discipline quickly developed and gained international  
accreditation. 
Personality and  politics
The study of _personality_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_psychology)  in  political psychology 
focuses on the effects of leadership 
personality on  decision-making, and the consequences of mass personality on 
leadership  boundaries. Key personality approaches utilized in political 
psychology are  psychoanalytic theories, trait-based theories and motive-based 
theories._[13]_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_psychology&printable=yes#cite_note-13)
  
A psychoanalytical  approach
Sigmund Freud (1856–1939) made significant contributions to the study of  
personality in political psychology through his theories on the unconscious  
motives of behavior. Freud suggested that a leader's behavior and decision  
making skill were largely determined by the interaction in their personality 
of  the _id_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id,_ego_and_super-ego#id) , 
_ego_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id,_ego_and_super-ego#ego)  and _superego_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superego) , and their control of  the _pleasure 
 principle_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleasure_principle_(psychology))  
and _reality principle_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_principle) . 
The  psychoanalytic approach has also been used extensively in 
psychobiographies of  political leaders. Psychobiographies draw inferences from 
personal, 
social and  political development, starting from childhood, to understand 
behavior patterns  that can be implemented to predict decision-making motives 
and strategies. 
A trait-based  approach
Traits are personality characteristics that show to be stable over time and 
 in different situations, creating predispositions to perceive and respond 
in  particular ways._[14]_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_psychology&printable=yes#cite_note-14)
   _Gordon Allport_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Allport)   (1897-1967) realized the study 
of traits 
introducing central, secondary,  cardinal and common traits. These four 
distinctions suggest that people  demonstrate traits to varying degrees, and 
further that there is a difference  between individual and common traits to be 
recognized within a society. _Hans  Eysenck_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Eysenck)  (1916-1997) contributed three 
major traits, currently however 
_Costa_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Costa_Jr)  and _McCrae_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_R._McCrae) ’s (1992) “Big  Five” 
personality 
dimensions are the most recognized. 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._[15]_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_psychology&printable=yes#cite_note-15)
   The Myers-Briggs Type indicator (MBTI) is a 
personality assessment scale  commonly used in the study of political 
personality and for job profiling. 
A motive-based  approach
In terms of political psychology _motivation_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivation)  is viewed as a  goal-orientated 
behavior driven by a need for 
three things; _power_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_(social_and_political)) ,  affiliation 
intimacy, and _achievement_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goal#Achieving_personal_goals) ._[16]_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_psychology&printable=yes#cite_note-16)
   These categories 
were grouped by Winter (1996) from Murray’s (1938) twenty  suggested common 
human goals. Need for power affects the style in which a leader  performs. 
Winter and Stewart (1977) 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. Lastly, achievement motivation has  
demonstrated 
to not correspond with political success, especially if it is  higher than 
power motivation (Winter, 2002)._[17]_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_psychology&printable=yes#cite_note-17)
   Motivation between 
a leader and those whom they are ruling needs to be  consistent for success. 
Motives have been shown to be correlated more highly  with situation and 
time since last goal-fulfillment, rather than consistent  traits._[18]_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_psychology&printable=yes#cite_
note-18)   The _Thematic  Apperception Test_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thematic_Apperception_Test)  (TAT) is commonly 
used for assessing motives. 
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
The authoritarian  personality
The _authoritarian  personality_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian_personality)  is a syndrome theory 
that was developed by the researchers 
_Adorno_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adorno) , _Frenkel-Brunswick_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Else_Frenkel-Brunswik) ,  _Levinson_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Levinson)  and _Sanford_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nevitt_Sanford)  (1950) at The  University of 
California. The American Jewish 
Committee_[19]_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_psychology&printable=yes#cite_note-19)
   subsidized research and publishing on the 
theory since it revolved around ideas  developed from World War II events. 
_Adorno_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adorno)  (1950) explained the  
authoritarian personality type from a psychoanalytic point of view suggesting 
it  
to be a result of highly controlled and conventional parenting. Adorno 
(1950)  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._[20]_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_psychology&printable=yes#cite_note-20)
   
Authoritarian personality types are persons described as swinging between  
depending on yet resenting authority. The syndrome was theorized to encompass  
nine characteristics; conventionalism, authoritarian submission, 
authoritarian  aggression, anti-intraception, superstition 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_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Authoritarian_Personality)  (1950) introduces 
several scales based on  different authoritarian 
personality types. These are; the _F-scale_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-scale_(personality_test))  which  measures from 
where and to what degree 
fascist attitudes develop, the  anti-Semitism scale, the ethnocentrism scale 
and 
the politico economic  conservatism scale. The F-scale however, is the only 
scale that is expected to  measure implicit authoritarian personality 
tendencies. 
_Bob Altemeyer_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Altemeyer)  (1996)  
deconstructed the authoritarian personality using trait analysis. He developed 
a  
_Right-wing  Authoritarianism_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_Authoritarianism)  (RWA) scale based 
on the traits; authoritarian submission,  
authoritarian aggression, and conventionalism. Altmeyer (1996) 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_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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 WWII. 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
Trait-based frameworks, excluding the Freudian approach, were suggested by 
_James Barber_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_David_Barber)   (1930–
2004) in The Presidential Character (1972) who highlighted the  importance of 
_psychobiography_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychobiography)  in  
political personality analysis. Barber suggested that leadership personality  
comprised three dimensions; “character”, “world view”, and “style”._[21]_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_psychology&printable=yes#cit
e_note-Cottam-p28-21)   Barber also proposed that leadership typology 
followed a pattern leading from an  individuals first political success and 
that 
it is includes two variables; the  effort that a leader puts in and the 
personal satisfaction that the leader  gains. This typology is fairly limited 
in 
its dimensions. 
_Etheredge_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Etheredge&action=edit&redlink=1)   
(1978) 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._[21]_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_psychology&printable=yes#cite_note-Cottam-p28-21)
  
_Margaret  Hermann_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Margaret_Hermann&action=edit&redlink=1)
  (1976) introduced the _Leader  Trait 
Assessment_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leader_Trait_Assessment&action=edit&redlink=1)
  (LTA) and advocated the development of the _Profiler-Plus_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Profiler-Plus&action=edit&redlink=
1) .  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 
(1994) 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._[22]_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_psychology&printable=yes#cite_note-22)
  
An alternative approach is the _Operational-Code_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operational-Code&action=edit&redlink=1)
   method 
introduced by _Nathan Leites_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Leites)  
(1951) 
and  restructured by _Alexander  George_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_George_(philosopher))  (1979). The code 
is based on five philosophical 
beliefs and five  instrumental beliefs. A _Verbs  in Context_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Verbs_in_Context&action=edit&redlink=1)
  (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
_Group behavior_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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
Group size has various consequences. In smaller groups individuals are more 
 committed (Patterson and Schaeffer, 1997) and there is a lower turnover 
rate  (Widmeyer, Brawley and Carron, 1990)._[23]_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_psychology&printable=yes#cite_note-Cottam-p67-23)
   
Large groups display greater levels of divergence (O’Dell, 1968) and less  
conformity (Olson and Caddell, 1994). Group performance also diminishes with 
 size increase, due to decreased co-ordination and free-riding._[23]_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_psychology&printable=yes#cite
_note-Cottam-p67-23)   The size of a _political party_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_party)  or  nation can therefore have 
consequential 
effects on their ability to co-ordinate  and progress. 
Group structure
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,  
1994)._[23]_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_psychology&printable=yes#cite_note-Cottam-p67-23)
   This has implications for 
political parties based in strongly colonial or  multiracial nations. 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._[24]_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_psychology&printable=yes#cite_note-24)
   These 
factors should be considered when attempting to form an efficient  
political group. 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
Studying the purpose for formation of a group, whether it is serving a  “
functional” purpose or an “interpersonal attraction” purpose (Mackie and  
Goethals, 1987), has implications for political popularity. Often people join  
groups in order to fulfill certain survival, interpersonal, informational 
and  collective needs._[23]_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_psychology&printable=yes#cite_note-Cottam-p67-23)
   A political party 
that provides; stability, clear information, offers power to  individuals and 
satisfies a sense of affiliation, will gain popularity. _Shutz’s_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Schutz)  (1958) “_Fundamental  
interpersonal 
relations orientation_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_interpersonal_relations_orientation) 
” theory suggests that groups satisfy the  need for 
control, intimacy and inclusion. Groups also form due to natural  attraction. 
Newcomb (1960)_[25]_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_psychology&printable=yes#cite_note-25)
   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
_Group development_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_development)   
tends to happen in several stages; forming, storming, norming, performing, and  
adjourning (Tuckman, 1965). Group awareness of these stages is important in  
order for members to acknowledge that a process is taking place and that 
certain  stages such as storming are part of progression and that they should 
not be  discouraged or cause fear of instability. Awareness of group 
development also  allows for models to be implemented in order to manipulate 
different stages.  External influences upon a group will have different effects 
depending upon  which stage the group is at in its course. This has 
implications for how open a  group should be depending upon the stage of 
development 
it is at, and on its  strength. Consistency is also a key aspect in a group 
for success (Wood,  1994). 
The  influence of conformity in groups
The application of conformity is key for understanding group influence in  
political behavior. Decision making within a group is largely influenced by  
conformity. It is theorized to occur based on two motives; _normative 
social  influence_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normative_social_influence)  
and 
_informational  social influence_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informational_social_influence)  (Asch, 
1955)._[26]_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_psychology&printable=yes#cite_note-Cottam-p74-26)
   
Chance of conformity is influenced by several factors; an increase in group 
size  
but only to a certain degree at which it plateaus, and degree of unanimity 
and  commitment to the group. Therefore the degree of popularity of a 
political group  can be influenced by its existing size and the believed 
unanimity 
and commitment  by the public of the already existing members. The degree 
by which the group  conforms as a whole can also be influenced by the degree 
of individuation of its  members._[26]_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_psychology&printable=yes#cite_note-Cottam-p74-26)
  
The influence of  power in groups
Power is another influential factor within a group or between separate  
groups. The "critical bases of power" developed by French and Raven (1959)  
allocates the following types of power as the most successful; reward power,  
coercive power, legitimate power, _referent power_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referent_power)  and expert  power._[27]_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_psychology&printable=yes#cite_note-27)
   The way in 
which power is exerted upon a group can have repercussive outcomes  for 
popularity. Referent power results in greater popularity of a political  group 
or 
leader than coercive power (Shaw and Condelli, 1986)._[28]_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_psychology&printable=yes#cite_note-Cott
an-p77-28)   This has implications for leaders to manipulate others to 
identify with them,  rather than to enforce consequential punishment. However 
if 
coercive power is  enforced, success and a trusted leader (Friedland, 1976) 
are necessary in order  for group conflict not to escalate._[28]_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_psychology&printable=yes#cite_not
e-Cottan-p77-28)   Extrinsic punishment and reward are also suggested to 
detract from intrinsic  motivation. A sense of freedom must be advocated to 
the group._[28]_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_psychology&printable=yes#cite_note-Cottan-p77-28)
  
Decision-making in  groups
Decision-making is an important political process which influences the 
course  of a country's policy. Group decision-making is largely influenced by 
three  rules; “majority-wins rule”, “truth-wins rule”, and “first-shift rule”
.  Decision-making is also coerced by conformity. Irrational decisions are  
generally made during emotional periods._[29]_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_psychology&printable=yes#cite_note-29)
   For 
example an unpopular political party may receive more votes during a period  of 
economic or political instability. Controversial studies by _George  Marcus_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Marcus)  (2003) however imply that high 
levels of anxiety can actually cause  an individual to analyze information 
more rationally and carefully, resulting in  more well-informed and 
successful decisions._[30]_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_psychology&printable=yes#cite_note-30)
   The psychology of decision-making 
however must be analyzed in accordance with  whether it is within a leadership 
context or a between group context. The  implementation of successful 
decision-making is often enhanced by group  decision-making (Hill, 1982) 
especially 
if the decision is important to the  group and when the group has been 
working together for an extended period of  time (Watson, Michaelson and Sharp, 
1991). However groups can also hinder  decision-making if a correct answer is 
not clear. Janis (1972) introduced the  notion of _Groupthink_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink)  that advocates an  increased chance 
of groups 
making faulty decisions under several conditions;  strong group cohesion, 
isolation of group decision from public review, the  presence of a directive 
leader in the group, and high stress levels. _Group polarization_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_polarization)   (Janis, 1972) suggests that 
group 
decision-making is often more extreme whether  is it more risky or 
cautious._[31]_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_psychology&printable=yes#cite_note-31)
  
Techniques to establish more effective decision making skills in political  
dimensions have been suggested. Hirt and Markman (1995) claim that 
implementing  an individual in a group to find faults and to critique will 
enable 
the members  to establish alternative view points. George (1980) suggested “
multiple  advocacy” which implements that a neutral person analyses the pros 
and cons of  various advocate suggestions and thus makes an informed 
decision. 
Applied psychology theories to improve productivity of political groups  
include implementing “team development” techniques, “quality circles” and  
autonomous work groups._[32]_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_psychology&printable=yes#cite_note-32)
  
Using psychology in the understanding of certain political  behaviors
Voting behavior
In order to make inferences and predictions about behavior concerning 
voting  decision, certain key public influences must be considered. These 
influences  include the role of emotions, political socialization, tolerance of 
diversity of  political views and the media. The effect of these influences on 
_voting behavior_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_behavior)  is best  
understood through theories on the formation of attitudes, beliefs, schema,  
knowledge structures and the practice of information processing. The degree 
to  which voting decision is affected by internal processing systems of 
political  information and external influences, alters the quality of making 
truly  democratic decisions. 
Conflict
The application of psychology for understanding conflict and extreme acts 
of  violence can be understood in both individual and group terms. Political  
conflict is often a consequence of ethnic disparity and “ethnocentrism” 
Sumner  (1906). 
On an individual level participators in situations of conflict can either 
be  perpetrators, bystanders or altruists. The behavior of perpetrators is 
often  explained through the authoritarian personality type. Individual 
differences in  levels of empathy have been used to explain whether an 
individual 
chooses to  stand up to authority or ignore a conflict. Rotter’s (1954) 
_locus of control_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locus_of_control)  theory  in 
personality psychology has also been used to determine individual differences 
 in reaction to situations of conflict. 
Group behavior during conflict often affects the actions of an individual.  
The _bystander effect_ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bystander_effect)   
introduced by Darley and Latane (1968) demonstrates that group behavior causes 
 individuals to monitor whether others think it is necessary to react in a  
situation and thus base their behavior on this judgment. They also found 
that  individuals are more likely to diffuse responsibility in group 
situations. These  theories can be applied to situations of conflict and 
genocide in 
which  individuals remove personal responsibility and therefore justify 
their behavior.  _Social identity  theory_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_identity_theory)  explains that during the 
Holocaust of WWII political 
leaders used the  Jews as an out-group in order to increase in-group cohesion. 
This allowed for  the perpetrators to depersonalize from the situation and to 
diffuse their  responsibility. The out-groups were held in separate confines 
and dehumanized in  order to aid the in-group to disengage themselves from 
relating. 
Research by Dr. Dan Kahan has demonstrated that individuals are resistant 
to  accepting new political views even if they are presented with evidence 
that  challenges their views. The research also demonstrated that if the 
individual  was required to write a few sentences about experiences they 
enjoyed 
or spend a  few moments affirming their self-worth, the individual was more 
likely to accept  the new political position. _[33]_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_psychology&printable=yes#cite_note-33)
  
Terrorism
On an individual level terrorism has been explained as a display of  
psychopathological personality disorders. Terrorists have demonstrated to show  
narcissistic personality traits (Lasch, 1979, Pearlstein, 1991). Post (2004)  
argues that narcissistic and borderline personality disorders are found in  
terrorists and that mechanisms such as _splitting_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Splitting_(psychology))  and _externalization_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externalization)  are used  by terrorists._[34]_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_psychology&printable=yes#cite_note-34)
   
Others such as Silke (2004) and Mastors and Deffenbaugh (2007) refute this 
view.  Crenshaw (2004) showed that certain terrorist groups are actually 
careful 
in not  enlisting those demonstrating pathology._[35]_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_psychology&printable=yes#cite_note-35)
   
The _authoritarian  personality_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian_personality)  theory has also been 
used as an explanation for terrorist  
behavior in individuals. 
In terms of explaining reasons for which individuals join terrorist groups, 
 motivational theories such as need for power and need for affiliation 
intimacy  are suggested. Festinger (1954) explained that people often join 
groups in order  to compare their own beliefs and attitudes. Joining a 
terrorist 
group could be a  method to remedy individual uncertainty. Taylor and Louis 
(2004) explained that  individuals strive for meaningful behavior. This can 
also be used to explain why  terrorists look for such radical beliefs and 
demonstrations. Studies on children  in northern Ireland by Field (1979) have 
shown that exposure to violence can  lead to terrorist behavior later on. 
Implicating the effect of developing  acceptable norms in groups. However this 
view has also been criticized (Taylor,  1998). Other theories suggest that 
goal frustration can result in aggression  (Dollard, Doob. Miller, mower, 
and Sears, 1939)_[36]_ 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_psychology&printable=yes#cite_note-36)
   and that aggression can lead to 
frustration (Borum, 2004). Group settings can  cause a social identity and 
terrorist behavior to manifest. Methods such as  dehumanization allow 
individuals 
to detach more easily from moral  responsibility, and group influence 
increase the chance that individuals will  concede to conformity and 
compliance. 
Manipulations of social control and  propaganda can also instrument terrorist 
involvement. 
---------------------------- 
External links
    *   _International Bulletin of Political Psychology_ 
(http://security.pr.erau.edu/)  
    *   _The Center for the Study of Political Psychology_ 
(http://www.polisci.umn.edu/cspp/)  
    *   _The Center for Research in Political Psychology (Queen's  
University Belfast)_ (http://www.psych.qub.ac.uk/CResPP/)  
    *   _The  International Society of Political Psychology_ 
(http://ispp.org/)  
    *   _Political Psychology at The George Washington University_ 
(http://www.gwu.edu/learn/graduateprofessional/findagraduateprogram/fulllistofprogram
s/politicalpsychology)  
    *   _Facebook Page in Political Psychology_ 
(https://www.facebook.com/pages/Colchester-United-Kingdom/Political-Psychology/49782405109?ref=ts)
 
This page was last modified on 10 October 2014 

-- 
-- 
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 
<RadicalCentrism@googlegroups.com>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to radicalcentrism+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.