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 used as a lens for understanding psychology. As an interdisciplinary field, political psychology borrows from various other disciplines, including: anthropology, sociology, international relations, economics, philosophy, media, journalism and history.
Political psychology aims to understand the interdependent relationships between individuals and contexts that are influenced by beliefs, motivations, perceptions, cognitions, information processing, learning strategies, socialization and attitude formation. Theories and approaches of political psychology have been applied in many contexts such as: leadership roles; domestic and foreign policy making; behavior in ethnic violence, war and genocide; group dynamics and conflict; racist behavior; attitude and motivation to choose; voting and media roles; nationalism; and political extremism. In essence, political psychologists study the foundations, dynamics, and outcomes of political behavior using cognitive and social explanations.
Video Political psychology
Initial history and influence
French
Political psychology comes from Western Europe, where it is closely linked to the emergence of new disciplines and paradigms, as well as the appropriate social and political context in various countries. The disciplinary political psychology was formally introduced during the Franco-Prussian war and the socialist revolution, driven by the rise of the Paris Commune (1871). The term "political psychology" was first introduced by ethnologist Adolph Bastian in his book Man History (1860). The philosopher Hippolyte Taine (1828-1893), founder of the Ecole Libre de Sciences Politiques, applied the theory of Bastian in his Contemporary French Origin (1875-1893) to the idea of ​​the establishment and development of the Third Republic. The head of the Ecole Libre de Sciences Politiques, Emile Boutmy (1835-1906), is a well-known explorer of the social, political and geographical concepts of national interaction. He contributed various works on political psychology such as The English; A study of their Political Psychology (1901) and American People; Elements of their Political Psychology (1902). Contributors of the Gustave Le Bon crowd theory (1841-1931) argue that crowd activity will diminish and contaminated rational thinking that results in uncontrolled impulses and emotions. He suggested in his works Psychology of Socialism and Political Psychology and Social Defense (1910) that in an uncontrolled state the crowd is more vulnerable to submission and leadership, and suggests that embracing nationalism will improve this. Italy
Meanwhile, in Italy, Risorgimento (1870) incited various social reforms and voting rights. A large division in the class during this period led the lawyer Gaetano Mosca (1858-1914) to publish his work on the Ruling Class: Political Elements (1896), theorizing the existence of decisions and ruled classes in all societies. Vilfredo Pareto (1828-1923), inspired by the concept of Mosca, contributed The Rise and Fall of the Elites (1901) and The Socialist System (1902-1903) to the discipline of psychology politics, theorizing about the role of the class and the social system. His work The Mind and Society (1916) offers a sociological treatise. Mosca and Pareto's texts on the Italian elite contributed to the theory of Robert Michels (1875-1936). Michels is a German socialist who is fascinated by the differences between the lower-class lower parliament in Germany and the upper-class run parliament in Italy. He wrote Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchic Tendency of Modern Democracy (1911).
Austria
The great psychoanalytic influence contributed to the discipline of political psychology by Sigmund Freud (1856-1939). The texts of Totem and Taboo (1913) and Group Psychology and Ego Analysis (1921) link psychoanalysis with politics. Freud and Bullitt (1967) developed the first psychobiography explaining how the characteristics of US President Woodrow Wilson's personality influenced his decision-making during World War I. Wilhelm Reich (1897-1957), inspired by the effects of World War II, was interested in whether personality types vary by age, culture and class. He described the two-way effect of group, society, and environment with personality. He combined the Freudian and Marxist theories in his book The Mass Psychology of Fascism (1933). He also edited The Journal for Political Psychology and Sexual Economy (1934-1938), which was the first journal to present political psychology in a major Western language.
German
In Germany, new political changes and fascist control during World War II spurred authoritarian research from the Frankfurt school. The philosopher Herbert Marcuse (1898-1979) opened the issue of freedom and authority. In his Reason and Revolution: Hegel and Rise of Social Theory (1941) he suggested that groups compromise the rights of individuals. Theodor Adorno (1903-1969) also investigates authoritarian and anti-Semitic individuals. His Report The Authoritarian Personality (1950) attempted to determine the personality types susceptible to the following fascism and anti-democratic propaganda. The Nazi movement during World War II also encouraged controversial psychologists such as Walther Poppelreuter (1932) to lecture and write about the political psychology identified with Hitler. Psychologist Eric Jaensch (1883-1940) contributed the racist book The Anti-type (1933).
United Kingdom
At the turn of the century, Oxford University and Cambridge University introduced psychology psychology courses that offer courses in The Sciences of the Man, together with the foundations of Psychological society (1901) and sociological societies (1904). The Oxford historian G. B. Grundy (1861-1948) notes political psychology (1917) as a historical sub-discipline. Motivated by social and political behavior during World War I he considered the new branch of the history of "The Psychology of Men Acting in Masses." He intends science to instrument clarification of wrong beliefs about the intentions of others based on false beliefs about ourselves. Intellectual Graham Wallas (1859-1932) implies the importance of studying psychology in politics within Human Nature in Politics (1908). Wallace expressed the importance of enlightening politicians and the public on an unconscious psychological process to help keep away from exploiting and controlling one's intellectual psychological processes. He suggested at the Great Society (1917) that recognition of the process could help build a more functional humanity.
United States
Across the Atlantic, the first American to be considered a political psychologist was Harold Lasswell (1902-1978) whose research was also driven by the sociological appeal of World War I. His work The Propaganda Technique in the World War (1927) application of psychological theories to improve propaganda techniques. Lasswell moved to Europe shortly after where he began to bind Freudian and Adler's personality theory with politics and published Psychopathology and Politics (1930). The main theory involves the active motive of politics and the relationship between propaganda and personality.
Other factors that contribute to the development of Political Psychology are the introduction of psychometry and "The Measurement of Attitudes" by Thurstone and Chave (1929). Methodological revolution in social science provides a quantitative reason and therefore more credibility to Political Psychology. Research into political preferences during the campaign was spurred by George Gallup (1901-1984), who founded the "American Institute of Public Opinion". The election of the 1940s in America attracted much attention in connection with the start of World War II. Gallup, Roper and Crossley instigated research into the possibility of Roosevelt being re-elected. Lazarsfeld, Berelson and Gaudet (1944) also performed the famous panel study "The People's Choice" in the 1940s election campaign. These studies draw attention to the possibility of measuring political techniques using psychological theories. The entry of the US into World War II made great research into such areas as war techniques, propaganda, group morals, psychographies and cultural conflicts into several names, with US troops and the Navy recruiting young psychologists. Thus the discipline quickly developed and gained international accreditation.
McGuire identifies three broad phases in the development of political psychology, these three phases are: 1. The study period of personality in the 1940s and 1950s was dominated by psychoanalysis. 2. The era of political attitudes and the study of voter behavior in the 1960s and 1970s characterized by the popularity of "rational human" assumptions 3. An era since the 1980s and 1990s, which focused on political beliefs, information processing and retrieval decisions, and especially with regard to international politics.
Maps Political psychology
Personality and politics
The study of personality in political psychology focuses on the effects of leadership personalities on decision making, and the consequences of the personality of the masses on the limits of leadership. The main personality approaches used in political psychology are psychoanalytic theory, theory based on nature and motive-based theory.
The psychoanalytic approach
Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) made a significant contribution to the study of personality in political psychology through his theory of the motive of unconscious behavior. Freud suggests that leader behavior and decision-making skills are largely determined by the interactions in their personality of the id, ego and superego, and their control over the principles of pleasure and the principle of reality. The psychoanalytic approach has also been used extensively in the psychobiography of political leaders. Psychobiography draws conclusions from personal, social and political development, from childhood, to understanding behavioral patterns that can be applied to predicting motives and decision-making strategies.
The nature-based approach
Nature is a characteristic of personality that shows stable over time and in different situations, creating a tendency to feel and respond in a certain way. Gordon Allport (1897-1967) is aware of the study of traits that introduce central, secondary, cardinal and general features. These four differences show that people exhibit attributes of varying degrees, and further that there is a distinction between individual and public traits to be recognized in society. Hans Eysenck (1916-1997) contributed three main traits, while the personality dimensions of the "Big Five" Costa and McCrae (1992) are the best known. These include; neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness, openness to experience and thoroughness. Theories in political psychology suggest that the combination of these traits has implications for leadership style and capacity. For example, individuals who score high on extroversion are shown to have superior leadership skills. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is a common personality assessment scale used in studies of political personality and for work profiles.
Motif based approach
In terms of political psychology motivation is seen as a goal-oriented behavior driven by the need for three things; power, affiliate intimacy, and achievement. These categories grouped by Winter (1996) of Murray (1938) suggested twenty ordinary human goals. The need for power affects the style in which a leader performs. Winter and Stewart (1977) argue that leaders who have high and low power motivation in the need for motivation of affiliate intimacy make the president better. Leaders who are motivated by affiliates or tend to collaborate on joint efforts in the absence of threats. Finally, achievement motivation has proven to be incompatible with political success, especially if it is higher than power motivation (Winter, 2002). The motivation between the leader and the people they are in power needs to be consistent with success. Motives have been shown to correlate higher with the situation and time since the fulfillment of the last goal, rather than consistent traits. The Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) is usually used to assess the motives. However, in the case of a leadership assessment, this test is more difficult to implement, therefore more applicable tests are often used such as content analysis of speeches and interviews.
Framework for Personality Rate
Authoritarian personality is a syndrome theory developed by Adorno researchers, Frenkel-Brunswick, Levinson and Sanford (1950) at The University of California. The American Jewish Committee subsidizes research and publishing on theory because it revolves around ideas developed from the events of World War II. Adorno (1950) describes the type of authoritarian personality from a psychoanalytic point of view that shows it as the result of a very controlled and conventional parenting. Adorno (1950) explains that individuals with authoritarian personality types have been hampered in terms of developing the ability to control sexual and aggressive sexual impulses. This results in their fear and thus the development of defense mechanisms to avoid confronting them. The type of authoritarian personality are people who are described as swinging in between depending on the authority that is still being debated. This syndrome theorizes to include nine characteristics; conventionalism, authoritarian surrender, authoritarian aggression, anti-intraception, superstitions and stereotypes, strength and toughness, destructive and cynicism, sexual obsessions, and projectiveness. An authoritarian personality type is suggested to be; ethnocentric, ego-defensive, mentally rigid, appropriate and conventional, detrimental, and have conservative political views. The Authoritarian Personality (1950) book introduces several scales based on different authoritarian personality types. This is; The F scale measures where and to what extent fascist attitudes develop, the scale of anti-Semitism, the scale of ethnocentrism and the scale of political economic conservatism. Scale F however, is the only scale that is expected to measure the implicit authoritarian personality traits.
Bob Altemeyer (1996) deconstructed an authoritarian personality using character analysis. He developed the Right-wing Authoritarianism (RWA) scale by virtue of its properties; authoritarian surrender, authoritarian aggression, and conventionalism. Altmeyer (1996) suggests that those who score high on the F-scale have a low ability to think critically and are therefore less able to challenge authority. Altmeyer's theory also incorporates a psychodynamic point of view, showing that an authoritarian personality type is taught by their parents to believe that the world is a dangerous place and thus their impetus leads them to make impulsive, emotional and irrational decisions. An authoritarian belief and behavior is suggested to be easily manipulated by authority rather than based on internal values. Altmeyer also theorizes that leaders with authoritarian personality types are more vulnerable to fundamental attributional mistakes. There are many weaknesses associated with this syndrome and F-scale. It may be more relevant during the period in which it was produced, which was shortly after World War II. Authoritarian personalities are generally associated with fascist imagery but are advised to explain the behavior of individuals in all areas of politics.
Trait-based framework
The Trait-based framework, excluding the Freudian approach, was suggested by James Barber (1930-2004) in The Presidential Character (1972) which highlights the importance of psychobiography in the analysis of political personality. Barber suggests that leadership personality consists of three dimensions; "character", "world view", and "style". Barber also proposed that leadership typology follows a pattern that leads to the individual's first political success and that includes two variables; the efforts made by a leader and the personal satisfaction the leader gains. This typology is quite limited in its dimensions.
Etheredge (1978) proposed the importance of these traits; "dominance," "interpersonal trust," "self-esteem" and "extroversion," in the view of leadership and policy formation. Etheredge discovered from the study of leaders during the Soviet Union that those who scored highly on dominance were more likely to support the use of force during the debate settlement. He found that the nature of introversion can lead to a lack of cooperation, and that openness usually leads to cooperation and negotiation. He further suggests that interpersonal trust and self-esteem are closely related to not advocating for strength.
Margaret Hermann (1976) introduced the Leader Trait Assessment (LTA) and advocated the development of Profiler-Plus. The Profiler-Plus is a computer system used to code answers for spontaneous interviews for seven main characteristics; power needs, cognitive complexity, interpersonal task-stress, confidence, locus of control, unbelief of others, and ethnocentrism. This method can profile large bodies of leadership-related texts while eliminating any subjective biases of content analysis. It is efficient and has high reliability. Hermann and Preston (1994) suggest 5 different variables of leadership style; their involvement in policy-making, their willingness to tolerate conflicts, their level and reasons for their motivation, their information management strategies, and their conflict resolution strategies.
An alternative approach is the Operational-Code method introduced by Nathan Leites (1951) and restructured by Alexander George (1979). This code is based on five philosophical beliefs and five instrumental beliefs. The Verbs in Context (VIC) coding system used through the Profiler-Plus computer program once again allows written substance and oral interviews, interviews and writings to be analyzed subjectively. This method tries to be able to predict the overall behavior by applying the knowledge of various beliefs.
Although political behavior is governed and represented by a leader, the consequential effects of leaders largely depend on the context in which they are placed and where the type of political climate they are running. For this reason group behavior also plays a role in understanding the socio-political environment
Group political psychology
Group behavior is key in understanding the structure, stability, popularity and ability to make successful decisions from political parties. Individual behavior deviates substantially in group settings because it is difficult to define group behavior by only looking at the individuals that make up the group. Group form and stability are based on several variables; size, structure, purpose of the group serves, group development and influence on a group.
Group size
Group size has many consequences. In smaller groups, individuals are more committed (Patterson and Schaeffer, 1997) and there is a lower turnover rate (Widmeyer, Brawley and Carron, 1990). Large groups display greater levels of divergence (O'Dell, 1968) and less suitable (Olson and Caddell, 1994). Group performance is also reduced with increasing size, due to decreased coordination and free riders. Therefore, the size of a party or a political nation can have an effect that results in their ability to coordinate and develop.
Group structure
The group structure is altered by the diversity of members, which greatly affects its efficiency. The diversity of individuals within a group has been shown to exhibit poor communication and therefore increase conflict (Maznevski, 1994). This has implications for political parties based in colonial or multiracial countries. The diversity of members has consequences for; status, role allocation, and role strain within a group, all of which can cause disputes. So group cohesion maintenance is the key. Cohesion is influenced by several factors; the number of time members spent in groups, the number of members who are like each other, the number of prizes offered by the group, the number of external threats to the group and the level of warmth offered by the leaders. These factors should be considered when trying to form an efficient political group. The efficiency of presidential decisions for example is influenced by the extent to which members of the advisory group have hierarchical status and by the roles assigned by each member.
Group function
Studying the purpose of group formation, whether it serves "functional" or "interpersonal" purposes (Mackie and Goethals, 1987), has implications for political popularity. Often people join groups to meet specific life, interpersonal, information and collective needs. A political party that provides; stability, clear information, offering power to the individual and satisfying the sense of affiliation, will gain popularity. The fundamental "relationship interpersonal relationship" theory of Shutz (1958) shows that groups meet the need for control, intimacy and inclusion. Groups are also formed because of the natural attraction. Newcomb (1960) states that we are attracted to others who approach socioeconomic status, beliefs, attitudes and physical appearance. The similarities in certain things can be attributed to how many people are interested in joining one group in another.
Group development
Group development tends to occur in several stages; forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning (Tuckman, 1965). The group consciousness of these stages is important so that members recognize that the process is in progress and certain stages such as raiding are part of the development and that they should not be discouraged or cause fear of instability. Awareness of group development also allows models to be implemented to manipulate different stages. The external effects on a group will have different effects depending on which stage the group is on track. This implies how open a group must depend on its developmental stage, and on its strength. Consistency is also a key aspect in the group for success (Wood, 1994).
Influence of conformity in group
The application of conformity is the key to understanding the influence of groups in political behavior. Decision-making within a group is strongly influenced by suitability. Theory to occur based on two motives; the influence of normative social and social influences of information (Asch, 1955). Opportunity suitability is influenced by several factors; an increase in group size but only to a certain extent where it is a plateau, and a level of determination and commitment to the group. Therefore, the popularity level of a political group can be influenced by the existing size and beliefs that are believed and the public commitment of the existing members. The rate at which the group adjusts overall can also be influenced by the degree of individuation of its members.
Influence of power in group
Power is another influential factor in a group or between separate groups. The "critical basis of power" developed by France and Raven (1959) allocates the following types of power as the most successful; reward power, coercive force, legitimate power, reference strength and expert power. The way in which power is given to a group can have an interesting result for popularity. Referend power results in greater popularity of groups or political leaders rather than coercive forces (Shaw and Condelli, 1986). This has implications for leaders to manipulate others to identify with them, rather than enforcing consequential punishment. However, if coercive forces are upheld, success and trustworthy leaders (Friedland, 1976) are necessary for group conflict not to escalate. Extrinsic punishment and rewards are also suggested to reduce intrinsic motivation. A sense of freedom should be advocated to the group.
Group decision making
Decision-making is an important political process that influences the course of a country's policies. Group decision making is strongly influenced by three rules; "the rule of victory of the majority", "the rule of victory-truth", and the "first-order rule". Decision-making is also forced by conformity. Irrational decisions are generally made during periods of emotion. For example, unpopular political parties may receive more votes during periods of real or perceived economic or political instability. However, controversial research by George Marcus (2003) implies that high levels of anxiety can actually cause one to analyze information more rationally and cautiously, resulting in better and more successful decisions. However, decision-making psychology should be analyzed according to whether within the context of leadership or between group contexts. Successful implementation of decision-making is often enhanced by group decision making (Hill, 1982) especially if decisions are important for groups and when groups have worked together for long periods of time (Watson, Michaelson and Sharp, 1991). But the group can also hinder the decision if the correct answer is not clear. Janis (1972) introduced the idea of ​​GroupThink which advocated an increased chance of the group making the wrong decision under some circumstances; strong group cohesion, group decision isolation from public reviews, presence of group directive leaders, and high stress levels. The group polarization (Janis, 1972) suggests that group decision making is often more extreme whether more risky or cautious. "Groupthink" refers to "the way people think that people engage when they are deeply involved in a cohesive group, as members struggle for unanimity to override their motivation to realistically assess alternative actions."
Techniques to establish more effective decision-making skills in the political dimension have been suggested. Hirt and Markman (1995) stated that implementing individuals in groups to find fault and criticism would allow members to establish alternative points of view. George (1980) suggests "multiple advocacy" which implies that neutral people analyze the pros and cons of advocate advice and thus make informed decisions.
Applied psychology theories to increase the productivity of political groups include applying "team development", "quality circles" and autonomous work groups.
Using psychology to understand certain political behaviors
Behavior choosing
To make inferences and predictions about behavior regarding voting decisions, certain key public influences should be considered. These influences include the role of emotion, political socialization, political sophistication, tolerance of the diversity of political views and the media. The effect of these influences on voting behavior is best understood through theories about the formation of attitudes, beliefs, schemes, knowledge structures and information processing practices. The extent to which voting decisions are influenced by the internal processing system of political information and external influences, changes the quality of decision making that is truly democratic.
Conflicts
The application of psychology to understanding extreme violence and acts of violence can be understood both in individual and group terms. Political conflict is often a consequence of ethnic differences and Sumner's "ethnocentrism" (1906).
At the individual level, the participants in a conflict situation can be the perpetrator, the observer or the altruist. Behavioral behavior is often explained through an authoritarian personality type. Individual differences in the level of empathy have been used to explain whether a person chooses to defend authority or ignore the conflict. Rotator (1954) locus of control theory in personality psychology has also been used to determine individual differences in reaction to conflict situations.
Group behavior during conflict often affects individual actions. The observer effect introduced by Darley and Latane (1968) suggests that group behavior causes individuals to monitor whether others think it is necessary to react in situations and thus base their behavior on this assessment. They also found that individuals were more likely to spread 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. The theory of social identity explains that during the Holocaust World War II political leaders used Jews as out-groups to increase cohesion within groups. It allows the actors to depersonalize from the situation and to defuse their responsibilities. The outside groups are held within separate and inhuman borders to assist the group in breaking away from relationships.
Research by Dr. And Kahan has shown that individuals can bear to accept new political views even if they are presented with evidence that challenges their views. The research also shows that if individuals are asked to write a few sentences about experiences they enjoy or spend a few moments confirming their self-esteem, the individual is more likely to accept a new political position.
Although somewhat unusual, evolutionary psychology can also explain the conflicts in politics and the international community. A journal by Anthony C. Lopez, Rose McDermott and Michael Bang Petersen use this idea to provide a hypothesis for explaining political events. According to the author, the instincts and psychological characteristics developed through evolution still exist in modern people. They suggest humans as "adaptation implementers"; people designed through natural selection, rather than "utility maximizer"; people are trying to utility at any time. This approach helps scientists to explain seemingly unreasonable behaviors such as aggressiveness in politics and the international community because "irrational behavior" will be the result of a mismatch between the modern world and evolutionary psychology.
For example, according to evolutionary psychology, coalition aggression is more common in males. This is because of their psychological mechanisms that have been designed since ancient times. During that time, men have more money when winning wars than women (they have more chances to find a partner, or even multiple partners). In addition, the winners have more opportunities for reproduction that ultimately lead to the success of aggressive DNA and want to war. As a result, the authors hypothesize that countries with more males will tend to exhibit more aggressive politics and thus have more possibility of triggering conflicts within and especially among countries.
There are indeed some exceptions in this theory because this is just a hypothesis. It is however quite feasible to be the hypothesis to be tested to explain certain political events such as war and crisis.
Terrorism
At the individual level of terrorism has been described as a display of psychopathological personality disorder. Terrorists have shown to exhibit the nature of narcissistic personality (Lasch, 1979, Pearlstein, 1991). Post (2004) argues that narcissistic personality disorder and limitations are found in terrorists and mechanisms such as separation and externalization are used by terrorists. Others such as Silke (2004) and Mastors and Deffenbaugh (2007) disagree with this view. Crenshaw (2004) suggests that certain terrorist groups are actually cautious in not registering the pathology that demonstrates it. Authoritarian personality theories have also been used as an explanation for terrorist behavior in individuals.
In terms of explaining the reasons in which individuals join a terrorist group, motivational theories such as the need for power and the need for affiliate intimacy are advised. Festinger (1954) explains that people often join groups to compare their own beliefs and attitudes. Joining a terrorist group could be a method of overcoming individual uncertainty. Taylor and Louis (2004) explain that individuals strive for meaningful behavior. It can also be used to explain why terrorists seek such radical beliefs and demonstrations. A study of children in Northern Ireland by Field (1979) has shown that exposure to violence can lead to future terrorist behavior. It implies the effect of developing acceptable norms within the group. But this view has also been criticized (Taylor, 1998). Other theories suggest that the purpose of frustration can lead to aggression (Dollard, Doob Miller, cutting machine, and Sears, 1939) and that aggression can lead to frustration (Borum, 2004). Group settings can cause social identity and terrorist behavior to materialize. Methods such as dehumanization allow individuals to break away more easily from moral responsibility, and group influences increase the likelihood that individuals will recognize conformity and compliance. Manipulation of social control and propaganda can also be an instrument of terrorist engagement.
See also
References
External links
- Political Bulletin of International Psychology
- Center for the Study of Political Psychology
- Research Center in Political Psychology (Queen Belfast University)
- The Political Society of International Psychology
- Political Psychology at The George Washington University
- The Facebook page in Political Psychology
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments