POLITICAL SCIENCE 681

American Political Behavior

Spring 2011, 1645 POT, Conference Room

Wednesdays 1 pm - 3:30 pm

 

Professor Mark Peffley                             Hours: W 3:30- & appt.

Office:  1653 POT                                     Phone: 257-7033 (office), 608-4755 (cell)

                                                                Email: mpeffl@uky.edu or mark.peffley@uky.edu

Description

        This course is devoted to coverage of mass political behavior. What this means, very generally, is that we will explore literatures, controversies, and theories of the behavior of non-elite political actors. “Behavior” in this seminar is interpreted quite broadly and includes psychological attachments, affect, cognitions, perceptions, attitudes, and beliefs, in addition to various forms of overt behavior such as voting and political protest.

        As in any course, there are far more topics germane to the course that are excluded from coverage than are included in the syllabus. While students of political behavior examine areas such as childhood political socialization, political sociology, congressional elections, political parties, interest groups, electoral realignment, campaign technology and strategy, and more, we will address these concerns briefly if at all. Instead, we will focus our attention on the properties and characteristics of political citizens. And while several of the selections on the syllabus make cross-national comparisons and a few others are based on data from outside the U.S., our primary concern is with the American electorate. 

 

Seminar Organization and Requirements

        Seminar grades will be based on several considerations—class participation, a critical review, a research paper, and a final examination.

        Class Discussions. Approximately one fourth of your grade will be based on your seminar participation.  Each seminar will center on a critical analysis of the assigned readings.  Most of our class time will typically be spent in group discussion, although I will usually offer some commentary on the week's readings (e.g., placing the readings in context of previous research or research not represented on the syllabus, etc.).  Also, at the beginning of each class I will introduce the next week’s readings by briefly describing them, suggesting issues for you to think about, etc.

 

For each week's readings,  you should be prepared to discuss the following questions:

1.        In your view, what are some of the major theoretical perspectives that structure research in a given area, what are their major strengths and weaknesses, and how do they compare with other perspectives you’re familiar with (encountered in the course or elsewhere)?

2.        In your view, what do you see as some of the major strengths and weaknesses of the methods used to investigate the subject?  What methodologies, broadly conceived (e.g., basic issues of design, measurement, etc.) do you feel are most appropriate, given the subject of inquiry, and to what degree do you think the substantive conclusions drawn are dependent on the particular methods employed?

3.        What are the major implications of the findings for democratic theory and public policy?  What relevance do the studies have for your interests?

4.        How can this research be improved, in your view?  What theories, methods and substantive foci deserve more attention in future research?

5.        How could this material be presented most effectively to undergraduates?     

 

        Research Paper.  Approximately one-fourth of your grade will be based on a research paper (10-12 double-spaced pages) on a topic of your choice that will be due on the last day of class.  At a minimum, this paper must include a critical literature review and an accompanying research design. More ambitiously, you should think of this assignment as an opportunity to craft a piece of original research that states and tests hypotheses. Ultimately, this paper should lead to a conference paper or journal submission. Students will also present a short synopsis of their research on the final day of the seminar. A brief preliminary “proposal” for the research paper is due on February 2nd. The topic should be discussed with, and approved by me before you begin work on it. See Guidelines for Research Design Paper. First-year students will produce a research design while more advanced students will include some analysis.

Short “Think” Pieces. Approximately one-fourth of your grade will be based on 3-4 “think” pieces about a week’s readings. The essays will be only 2-3 double-spaced pages.  In these essays, you will be making an argument about, not a mere summary or description of, the week's readings.  For example, you might do one of the following:  juxtapose and comment on alternative explanations or approaches to a substantive topic; criticize the methods used and propose other strategies of research, criticize the conceptualization or measurement of a particular key construct, analyze the implications of a set of findings, suggest new questions or hypotheses for research, develop similarities and contrasts with arguments or research found in the readings of previous weeks.  These papers will be emailed to me no later than 12 noon Tuesday before our scheduled Wednesday meeting.  I will comment and turn them back at the end of Wednesday's session.  The essays will be incorporated into our weekly discussions.

Final Examination. Approximately one-fourth of your grade will be based on a final exam. If class participation is adequate during the semester—i.e., if most students contribute to an informed discussion of the material – the final may be waived.  In that case, the other three components of the class (participation, research paper and critical review) will each comprise a third of the final grade. Note: the last time I taught the class, students took a final. 

 

Required Readings     

        The following books have been ordered for this class and will be available at the university bookstores. Please note that only selected chapters of some of these books are required reading.

·         Larry Bartels. 2008. Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age. Princeton University Press.

·         Richard Lau and David Redlawsk. 2007. How Voters Decide: Information Processing During Election Campaigns. Cambridge University Press.

·         Diana Mutz. 2006. Hearing the Other Side: Deliberative versus Participatory Democracy. Cambridge.

·         Marcus Prior. 2007. Post-Broadcast Democracy: How Media Choice Increases Inequality in Political Involvement and Polarizes Elections. Cambridge University Press.

·         Marc Hetherington and Jonathan Weiler. 2009. Authoritarianism and Polarization in America. Cambridge.

·         Adam Berinsky. 2009. In Time of War: Understanding American Public Opinion from World War II to Iraq, Chicago.

·         Mark Peffley and Jon Hurwitz. 2010. Justice in America: The Separate Worlds of Blacks and Whites, Cambridge.

 

        These books will be on 24-hour reserve at the Young Library in the next few weeks.

        In addition, a number of journal articles and manuscripts are required reading, some of which I will make available in class and others will be available on-line, either linked on the syllabus or through the library web-page. If you are using a computer off-campus, be sure you have Adobe Reader installed.

Some book chapters will be placed in a box labeled “Peffley” in the computer room on the 16th floor of Patterson Office Tower about a week before our class. Please, write your name, the checkout time and a phone number or email address where you can be reached. Please, no hording before class.

 

Topical Reading List

        The tentative reading list follows. It will definitely will be revised from week to week.  For several topics, Additional Readings are listed that are not required. You may find some of the additional readings useful for your research paper or if you take prelims in American politics; or you might want to substitute one of the additional readings for the required readings if you find it more relevant to your research interests.  

 

 

I.  Introductory Meeting:  

1.     Donald Kinder. “Attitude and Action in the Realm of Politics.” In Daniel T. Gilbert, Susan T. Fiske and Gardner Lindzey, (eds.), The Handbook of Social Psychology, 4th ed., pp. 778-867. Skim for broad trends and topics in the study of political behavior. We’ll refer to the summaries of various topics in later weeks.  (See the copy in the computer lab on the 16th floor of POT)

2.     Spencer Piston. How Explicit Racial Prejudice Hurt Obama in the 2008 Election. Political Behavior. December, 2010.

3.     Vesla Weaver. “The Electoral Consequences of Skin Color: The “Hidden” Side of Race in Politics.” Political Behavior. Forthcoming.

 

II.  Approaches and Methods:  How Can Public Opinion Be Measured and Studied?

 

Experiments:

  1. David Sears. 1988. “College sophomores in the laboratory:  Influences of a narrow data base on psychologists' views of human nature.”  In Letita Peplau, et al. (eds.), Readings in Social Psychology. (A classic critique)
  2. James Druckman, et al. (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science. Cambridge, 2011. Chs. 1-4, 36.

Opinion Research:

  1. Roger Tourangeau. 2004. SURVEY RESEARCH AND SOCIETAL CHANGE. Annual Review of Psychology, 55:775–801.
  2. John Zaller and Stanley Feldman. 1992. "A Simple Theory of the Survey Response: Answering Questions or Revealing Preferences?" American Journal of Political Science, 36(3): 579-616. (Focus on the theory and the Summary & Discussion; skim the analysis [pp. 587-606]). (On the findings, see Ansolabehere et al. 2008. APSR, below).
  3. The Handbook of Attitudes, Chs. 2, 5, 18.
  4. Brian Gaines, James Kuklinski and Paul Quirk.2006. “The Logic of the Survey Experiment Reexamined.” Political Analysis 15, 1 (Winter 2007): 1-20..

       

        Additional Readings:

       

Discussion Questions 

 

III. Personality, Biology & Politics

 

    Personality

  1. Jeff Mondak et al. 2010. Personality and Civic Engagement: An Integrative Framework for the Study of Trait Effects on Political Behavior. American Political Science Review (2010), 104: 85-110.
  2. Alan Gerber, et al. 2010. Personality and Political Attitudes: Relationships across Issue Domains and Political Contexts. American Political Science Review (2010), 104: 111-133.

 

    Biology:

  1. John R. Alford, Carolyn L. Funk, and John R. Hibbing. 2005. Are political orientations genetically transmitted?  American Political Science Review 99: 153-68.
    (for an augmented analysis, skim Peter K. Hatemi et al. 2010. AJPS_Not by Twins Alone_Using the Extended Family Design to Investigate Genetic Influence on Political Beliefs, 798–814).
  2. Peter K. Hatemi, et al. 2010. A Genome-Wide Analysis of Liberal and Conservative Political Attitudes. Journal of Politics. (Example of how genetics researchers search for mechanisms underlying covariation)
  3. Evan Charney. 2008. Genes and Ideologies. Perspectives on Politics, Volume 6, Issue 02, June 2008, pp 299-319. (critique of the approach)
  4. John R. Alford, Carolyn L. Funk, and John R. Hibbing. 2008. Beyond Liberals and Conservatives to Political Genotypes and Phenotypes. Perspectives on Politics, Volume 6, Issue 02, June 2008, pp 321-328. (rejoinder to Charney)
  5. Douglas R. Oxley, et al. 2008. Political Attitudes Vary with Physiological Traits. Science 321, 1667-1670.
  6. James H. Fowler and Christopher T. Dawes. 2008. "Two Genes Predict Voter Turnout." The Journal of Politics 70 (03):579-94.(Skim)

 

        Additional Readings:

 

        Discussion Questions

 

IV. Democratic Theory and Mass Political Sophistication: Challenges to Democratic Citizenship

1.     Review Kinder, “Attitude and Action in the Realm of Politics,” Challenges to Democratic Citizenship.

2.     Skim: Philip Converse. 1964. The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In Ideology and Discontent, ed. David Apter. (Summarized in Kinder’s chapter, but a classic, “brussel sprouts” reading in this area.) 

3.     John Zaller and Stanley Feldman. 1992. "A Simple Theory of the Survey Response: Answering Questions or Revealing Preferences?" American Journal of Political Science, 36(3): 579-616. (Focus on the theory and the Summary & Discussion; skim the analysis [pp. 587-606]). (On the findings, see Ansolabehere et al. 2008. APSR, below)

4.     Stephen Ansolabehere et al. 2008 APSR. The Strength of Issues: Using Multiple Measures to Gauge Preference Stability, Ideological Constraint, and Issue Voting. 215-232.

5.     James Kuklinski, et al. 2000. “Misinformation and the Currency of Democratic Citizenship.” Journal of Politics, 62: 790-816. (It’s not just a lack of information that’s worrisome.)

  1. Sullivan, et al. 1993. “Why Politicians are More Tolerant:  Selective Recruitment and Socialization among Political Elites in Britain, Israel, New Zealand, and the United States,” British Journal of Political Science, 23: 51-76.
  2. James L. Gibson. 2008. “Intolerance and Political Repression in the US: A Half Century After McCarthy.” American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 52, No. 1, January 2008, Pp. 96–108.
  3. Marc Hutchison and Douglas Gibler. 2007. “Political Tolerance and Territorial Threat: A Cross-National Study.” Journal of Politics, (2007), 69 : 128-142.(skim)

        Additional Readings:

o    John L. Sullivan, Amy Fried and Mary G. Dietz. 1992. Patriotism, Politics, and the Presidential Election of 1988. American Journal of Political Science, 36(1): 200-234.

 

Discussion Questions

 

V.   How Are Mass Political Attitudes Organized, If At All?    

 

1.     Review Kinder, “Attitude and Action in the Realm of Politics,” relevant sections. 

2.     *Marc Hetherington & Jonathan Weiler. Authoritarianism and Polarization in America. Cambridge University Press.

3.     Lavine, Howard, Diana Burgess, Mark Snyder, John Transue, John L. Sullivan, Beth Haney, and Stephen H. Wagner. 1999. “Threat, Authoritarianism, and Voting: An Investigation of Personality and Persuasion.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 25:337-347.

4.     Lavine, Howard, Lodge, Milton, Polichak, J., and Charles Taber. 2002. Explicating the Black Box through Experimentation: Studies of Authoritarianism and Threat. Political Analysis, 10, 342-360.

        Discussion Questions

 

VI. Models of Decision Making and Information Processing in Political Psychology (2 weeks)
   

    Decision Making and Information Processing

  1. Anthony Downs, An Economic Theory of Democracy (1957), Chapters 1, 3, 8, 11-13
  2. Richard Lau and David Redlawsk. 2007. How Voters Decide: Information Processing During Election Campaigns. Cambridge University Press.
  3. Richard Lau and David P. Redlawsk. 2008. "Older but Wiser? Effects of Age on Political Cognition." The Journal of Politics 70 (01):168-85.
  4. Richard Lau, D. J. Andersen, and David P. Redlawsk. 2008. "An exploration of correct voting in recent US presidential elections." American Journal of Political Science 52 (2):395-411.

 

    Motivated Reasoning

  1. Milton Lodge, Charles Taber, and Brad Verhulst. Conscious and Unconscious Information Processing with Implications for Experimental Political Science. Chapter 11 in James Druckman, et al. (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science. Cambridge, 2011.

2.     Charles Taber and Milton Lodge. 2006. Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 50, No. 3, July 2006, Pp. 755–769.

3.     Sung-youn Kim, Charles S Taber, Milton Lodge. 2010. PB. “A Computational Model of the Citizen as Motivated Reasoner: Modeling the Dynamics of the 2000 Presidential Election.”

4.     Brendan Nyhan & Jason Reifler. 2010. PB. When Corrections Fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. 32:303–330.

5.     Dan Kahan et al. Journal of Risk Research. Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus.

6.     Brian Gaines, et al. Interpreting Iraq: Partisanship and the Meaning of Facts. Journal of Politics 69, 4 (November 2007): 957-974.

 

Additional Readings:

 

        Discussion Questions

 

VII. Groups & Political Behavior

 

  1. Thomas E. Nelson and Donald Kinder. 1996. “Issue Frames and Group-Centrism in American Public Opinion.” The Journal of Politics 58(4): 1055-78.
  2. Martin Gilens, “Racial Attitudes and Race-Neutral Social Policies: White Opposition to Welfare and the Politics of Racial Inequality” in Hurwitz & Peffley, 19

3.     Keith Payne, et al. Implicit and explicit prejudice in the 2008 American presidential election. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology.

4.     Kuklinski and Cobb. 1998. “When White Southerners Converse About Race”. In Perception and Prejudice: Race and Politics in the United States, eds. Jon Hurwitz and Mark Peffley. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

  1. Anderson & Fetner. 2008. Economic Inequality and Intolerance: Attitudes toward Homosexuality in 35 Democracies. American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 52, No. 4, October 2008, Pp. 942–958.
  2. Ted Brader, Nicholas A. Valentino, and Elizabeth Suhay.  2008.  "What Triggers Public Opposition to Immigration?  Anxiety, Group Cues, and Immigration Threat."  AJPS 52 (4).
  3. Paul M Sniderman, Louk Hagendoorn, and Markus Prior, 2004. “Predispositional Factors and Situational Triggers: Exclusionary Reactions to Immigrant Minorities,” American Political Science Review, 98: 35-50.
  4. Daniel J. Hopkins. Politicized Places: Explaining Where and When Immigrants Provoke Local Opposition. American Political Science Review, 2010, 104(1):40-60.
  5. John Sides & Kimberly Gross. 2009. “Stereotypes of Muslims and Support for the War on Terror.”

 

Additional Readings:

o    Pettigrew et al. 2007. WHO OPPOSES IMMIGRATION? Comparing German with North American Findings. Du Bois Review, 4:1 (2007) 19–39.

o    Stanley Feldman & Leonie Huddy. Racial Resentment and White Opposition to RaceConscious Programs: Principles or Prejudice? American Journal of Political Science, Volume 49, Issue 1, pages 168–183, January 2005.

o    Daniel J. Hopkins. 2010. BJPS.  National Debates, Local Responses: The Origins of Local Concern about Immigration in the U.K. and the U.S.

o    Jon Hurwitz & Mark Peffley. 1997. Public Perceptions of Race and Crime: The Role of Racial Stereotypes. American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 41, No. 2. (Apr., 1997), pp. 375-401.

o    James L. Gibson. Do Strong Group Identities Fuel Intolerance? Evidence From the South African Case. Political Psychology, 27(5): 665–705, October 2006.

o    James L. Gibson and Amanda Gouws. 2000. Social identities and political intolerance: Linkages within the South African mass public. AJPS, 44(2): 278-292.

       

Discussion Questions

 

VIII.  The Impact of War and Terrorism

 

1.     Adam Berinsky. In Time of War: Understanding American Public Opinion from World War II to Iraq.

2.     Leonie Huddy et al. 2005. Threat, anxiety, and support of antiterrorism policies. American Journal of Political Science, Volume 49, Issue 3, pages 593–608, July 2005.

3.     CLAUDE BERREBI & ESTEBAN F. KLOR. Are Voters Sensitive to Terrorism? Direct Evidence from the Israeli Electorate. American Political Science Review Vol. 102, No. 3 August 2008.

4.     Cindy D. Kam & Donald R. Kinder. Terror and ethnocentrism: Foundations of American support for the War on Terrorism. Journal of Politics, 2007, 69: 320-338. 

 

Additional Readings:

o    Adam Berinsky & James Druckman. Public Opinion Research and Support for the Iraq War. Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 71, No. 1, Spring 2007, pp. 126–141.

o    C. Gelpi, J. Reifler.  "Success Still Matters: A Reply to Berinsky and Druckman." Public Opinion Quarterly (Fall, 2007) .

o   Darren W. Davis & Brian D. Silver. Civil Liberties vs. Security: Public Opinion in the Context of the Terrorist Attacks on America. American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 48, No. 1, January 2004, Pp. 28–46.

o    Leonie Huddy & Nadia Khatib. American patriotism, national identity, and political involvement. American Journal of Political Science, Volume 51, Issue 1, pages 63–77, January 2007.

o    Jennifer L. Merolla, Jennifer M. Ramos, Elizabeth J. Zechmeister. Crisis, charisma, and consequences: Evidence from the 2004 US presidential election. Journal of Politics, 69(1):30–42, February 2007.

o    Richard Herrmann, Philip Tetlock and Penny Visser. 1999.Mass Public Decisions to Go To War: A Cognitive-Interactionist framework. American Political Science Review.

o    Herrmann, Richard K., and Choi, Jong Kun. 2007. From Prediction to Learning: Opening Experts’ Minds to Unfolding History. International Security, Volume 31, Number 4, Spring 2007, pp. 132-161.

 

  Discussion Questions

 

IX. Mass Media I: Do Changes in the News Environment Influence Political Behavior?

 

1.     Marcus Prior. 2007. Post-Broadcast Democracy: How Media Choice Increases Inequality in Political Involvement and Polarizes Elections. Cambridge University Press.

2.     Norman Nie et al. “The World Wide Web and the U.S. Political News Market.” American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 54, No. 2, April 2010, Pp. 428–439.

3.     *John Zaller, new Ch 1 of “ Theory of Media Politics”, and chs 2 to p. 160 of the rest of the book, “A Theory of Media Politics: How the Interests of Voters, Journalists and Candidates Shape Coverage of Presidential Campaigns.”

        

        Discussion Questions

 

X.  Mass Media II: How Do Media Messages Influence Public Opinion?

 

1.   Shanto Iyengar. 2011. Laboratory Experiments in Political Science. In James Druckman, et al. (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science. Cambridge, 2011, Ch. 6. (read first)

2.   Thomas E. Nelson, Sarah M. Bryner and Dustin M. Carnahan. Media and Politics. In James Druckman, et al. (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science. Cambridge, 2011, Ch. 14. (read last)

3.   Dennis Chong and James N. Druckman. Dynamic Public Opinion: Communication Effects over Time. American Political Science Review, Vol. 104, No. 4 November 2010.

4.   Dennis Chong and James N. Druckman. “Framing Theory.” Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci. 2007. 10:103–26. (Theoretically, framing and priming are equivalent)

5.   Dennis Chong and James N. Druckman. 2007. Framing Public Opinion in Competitive Democracies. American Political Science Review Vol. 101, No. 4 November 2007.

6.   Diana C. Mutz. 2007. “Effects of “In-Your-Face” Television Discourse on Perceptions of a Legitimate Opposition." American Political Science Review Vol. 101, No. 4 November 2007.

7.   Jason Barabas & Jennifer Jerit. 2008. “Estimating the Causal Effects of Media Coverage on Policy-Specific Knowledge.” American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 53, No. 1, January 2009, Pp. 73–89.

8.   James N. Druckman, James H. Kuklinski, Lee Sigelman. “The Unmet Potential of Interdisciplinary Research: Political Psychological Approaches to Voting and Public Opinion.” Political Behavior.

 

Additional Readings:

o    Shana Kushner Gadarian and Richard R. Lau. Candidate Advertisements. In James Druckman, et al. (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science. Cambridge, 2011, Ch. 15.

o    Richard R. Lau, Lee Sigelman, Caroline Heldman, Paul Babbitt. The Effects of Negative Political Campaigns: A Meta-Analytic Reassessment. The American Political Science Review, Vol. 93, No. 4 (Dec., 1999), pp. 851-875.

o    Gregory A. Huber and Kevin Arceneaux. Identifying the Persuasive Effects of Presidential Advertising (pages 957–977). American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 51, No. 4, October 2007, Pp. 957–977.

o    Gabriel S. Lenz & Chappell Lawson. “Looking the part: Television leads less informed citizens to vote based on candidates’ appearance.”

o    Tim Groeling & Matthew A. Baum. 2008. “Crossing the Water’s Edge: Elite Rhetoric, Media Coverage, and the Rally-Round-the-Flag Phenomenon.” Journal of Politics, Vol. 70, No. 4, October 2008, Pp. 1065–1085.

o    Brooks & Geer_07_AJPS_Beyond Negativity_The Effects of Incivility on the Electorate American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 51, No. 1, January 2007, Pp. 1–16.

o    Natalie Jomini Stroud. Media Use and Political Predispositions: Revisiting the Concept of Selective Exposure. Political Behavior.

o    Gabriel S. Lenz. “Learning and Opinion Change, Not Priming: Reconsidering the Evidence for the Priming Hypothesis.”

o    John Zaller. 1996. “The Myth of Massive Media Impact Revived: New Support for a Discredited Idea.” In Political Persuasion and Attitude Change, ed. Paul Sniderman and Richard A. Brody. p.17-78.

 

        Discussion Questions

 

XI.  Social Influence Models of Political Behavior

 

  1. Diana Mutz. 2006. Hearing the Other Side: Deliberative versus Participatory Democracy. Cambridge.

 

        Discussion Questions

 

XII. Macro Opinion: Does Public Opinion Influence Public Policy?

 

  1. Robert S. Erikson, Michael B. MacKuen, James A. Stimson. 2002. The Macro Polity, Cambridge University Press, pp. 1-108.
  2. Jeff Manza, Fay Lomax Cook and Benjamin Page (Eds.), Navigating Public Opinion, (2002), Selected Chs.on the debate between Erikson et al versus Jacobs and Shapiro & Page on the impact of public opinion on public policy.
  3. Lawrence Jacobs and Benjamin Page. 2005. “Who Influences U.S. Foreign Policy?” American Political Science Review, 99: 107-123.

 

        Discussion Questions

 

Additional Readings:

o    Jacobs and Shapiro, Politicians Don’t Pander.

 

 

XIII. Public Opinion & the Politics of Inequality

 

  1. Larry Bartels. 2008. Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age. Princeton University Press, selected chapters.

 

        Discussion Questions

 

XIV. Groups and Social Justice

 

1.     Mark Peffley & Jon Hurwitz. Justice in America: The Separate Realities of Blacks and Whites. Cambridge, 2010.

2.     Vesla Weaver & Amy Lerner. Political Consequences of the Carceral State. American Political Science Review (2010), 104: 817-833.

 

XV.  Voting Behavior

 

1.         Alan S. Gerber. 2011. Field Experiments in Political Science. In James Druckman, et al. (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science. Cambridge, 2011.

2.         Alan S. Gerber and Donald P. Green, “The Effects of Personal Canvassing, Telephone Calls, and Direct Mail on Voter Turnout: A Field Experiment,” American Political Science Review 94 (2000): 653-664. See also the Get Out the Vote! website: http://research.yale.edu/GOTV/  

3.         Michael Tomz & Robert Van Houweling. Candidate Positioning and Voter Choice. American Political Science Review Vol. 102, No. 3 August 2008.

4.         Powell, G. Bingham. 1986. “American Voting Turnout in Comparative Perspective.” APSR 80: 17-43.

 

XVI. Presentation of Research Papers

 

Final Exam