18/01/2013
Political psychology is an interdisciplinary academic field dedicated to understanding politics, politicians and political behavior from a psychological 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, sociology, international relations, economics, philosophy, media, journalism and 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] 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, 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] The discipline political psychology was
formally introduced during the Franco-
Prussian war and the socialist revolution,
stirred by the rise of the Paris Commune (1871).[3] The term “political psychology” was first introduced by the ethnologist Adolph Bastian in his book Man in History (1860). The
philosopher 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
(1875–1893), to ideas on the founding and
development of the Third Republic. The head of Ecole Libre de Sciences Politiques, 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] The contributor of crowd theory Gustave LeBon (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] that in the uncontrollable state of a crowd people were
more vulnerable to submission and
leadership, and suggested that embracing nationalism would remedy this. Italy Meanwhile in Italy, the Risorgimento (1870) instigated various social reforms and voting
rights. A large divide in class during this
period led the lawyer 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]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 (1916) offers a sociology treatise.[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).[8] Austria A large psychoanalytical influence was
contributed to the discipline political
psychology by Sigmund Freud (1856–1939). His texts Totem and Taboo (1913) and Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego
(1921) link psychoanalysis with politics. Freud
and Bullitt (1967) developed the first psychobiography explaining how the
personality characteristics of U.S. President Woodrow Wilson affected his decision making during World War I. 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 theories in his book The Mass Psychology of Fascism (1933). He also edited the The Journal for
Political Psychology and Sexual Economy
(1934–1935) which was the first journal
implicating political psychology in a principal western language.[9] Germany In Germany novice political alterations and fascist control during World War II spurred research into authoritarianism from The
Frankfurt school. The philosopher Herbert Marcuse (1898–1979) opened up issues concerning freedom and authority. In his
work Reason and Revolution: Hegel and the Rise of Social Theory (1941) he suggested that groups compromise individual rights. Theodor Adorno (1903–1969) also investigated authoritarian individuals and anti-Semitism. His
report The Authoritarian Personality (1950) attempts to determine the personality type
susceptible to following fascism and anti-
democratic propaganda. N**i movements
during World War II also spurred controversial
psychologists such as Poppelreuter (1932) to
lecture and write about political psychology that identified with Hi**er. The psychologist Eric
Jaensch (1883–1940) contributed the racist
book The Anti-type (1933). The UK At the turn of the century Oxford University and 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).[10] The Oxford historian G. B. Grundy (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”.[11] He intended the science to instrument the clarification of mistaken
beliefs about others intentions based on mistaken beliefs about ourselves.[12] The intellectual 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 (1917) that recognition of such
processes could help to build a more
functional humanity. The US Across the Atlantic the first American to be
considered a political psychologist was 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.[13] 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 and 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 (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.[14] 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.[15] Thus the discipline quickly developed and
gained international accreditation. ↑Jump back a section Personality and politics The study of personality 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.[16] 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, ego and superego, and their control of the pleasure principle and 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.[17]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 (1916-1997) contributed three major traits, currently however Costa and 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.[18] 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 is viewed as a goal-orientated behavior driven
by a need for three things; power, affiliation intimacy, and achievement.[19] 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).[20] 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.[21] The 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. ↑Jump back a section Frameworks for assessing
personality The authoritarian personality The authoritarian personality is a syndrome theory that was developed by the researchers
Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswick, Levinson and
Sanford (1950) at The University of California. The American Jewish Committee[22] subsidized research and publishing on the
theory since it revolved around ideas
developed from World War II events. 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 s*xual and aggressive id
impulses. This resulted in a fear of them and thus a development of defense mechanisms to avoid confronting them.[23] 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, s*x
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 (1950) introduces several scales based on different authoritarian
personality types. These are; the F-scale which measures from where and to what degree
fascist attitudes develop, the anti-Semitism
scale, the ethnocentrism scale and the politico
economic conservatism scale. The F-scale
however, is the only scale that is expected to
measure implicit authoritarian personality tendencies. Bob Altemeyer (1996) deconstructed the authoritarian personality using trait analysis.
He developed a Right Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) scale based on the traits; authoritarian
submission, authoritarian aggression, and
conventionalism. Altmeyer (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. 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 (1930–2004) in The Presidential Character (1972) who highlighted the
importance of psychobiography in political personality analysis. Barber suggested that
leadership personality comprised three
dimensions; “character”, “world view”, and “style”.[24] 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 (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.[25] Margaret Hermann (1976) introduced the
Leader Trait Assessment (LTA) and advocated
the development of the Profiler-Plus. 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.[26] An alternative approach is the Operational-
Code method introduced by Nathan Leites
(1951) and restructured by Alexander George (1979). The code is based on five
philosophical beliefs and five instrumental
beliefs. A Verbs in Context (VIC) coding
system employed through the Profiler-Plus
computer program once again allows
substantial bodies of written and spoken speech, interviews and writings to be
analyzed subjectively. The method attempts to
be able to predict behavior thorough applying
knowledge of various beliefs. Although political behavior is governed and
represented by a leader the consequential
influence of the leader largely depends upon
the context in which they are placed and in
which type of political climate they are
running. For this reason group behavior is also instrumental for understanding
sociopolitical environments ↑Jump back a section The political psychology of groups 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).[27] 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.[28] The size of a 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).[29] 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.[30] 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.[31] A political party that provides; stability, clear information, offers
power to individuals and satisfies a sense of
affiliation, will gain popularity. Shutz’s (1958)
“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)[32] 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 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 and informational social influence (Asch, 1955).[33] 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.[34] 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 and expert power.[35] 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).[36] 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.[37] Extrinsic punishment and reward are also suggested to detract from intrinsic
motivation. A sense of freedom must be advocated to the group.[38] Decision-making in groups Decision-making is an important political
process which influences the course of a
countries 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.[39] For example an unpopular political party may
receive more votes during a period of
economic or political instability. Controversial
studies by 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.[40] 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 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 (Janis, 1972) suggests that group decision-
making is often more extreme whether is it more risky or cautious.[41] 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.[42] ↑Jump back a section 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 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 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
phenomenon 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 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. 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 and externalization are used by terrorists.[43] 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.[44] The 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)[45] 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.
