POLITICAL SCIENCE 681
American Political
Behavior
Office: 1653 POT Phone:
257-7033 (office), 296-4307 (home)
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 3rd. 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 Monday before our scheduled Tuesday meeting. I will comment and turn them back at the end
of Tuesday'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.
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.
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 (if they are not linked on the syllabus, chances are, a paper copy will
be placed in the box). 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. Please note that for most topics I
have linked or appended a brief suggested reading list at the end of the
required readings and on the page, Suggested
Readings (to be revised). You may find some of these readings useful
for your research paper or if you take prelims in American politics; otherwise,
the suggested readings are not required.
I. Approaches and Methods: How Can
Public Opinion Be Measured and Studied?
II. Biology & Politics
Additional Readings:
IIIA. Political
Tolerance: Is the Public Tolerant?
IIIB.
Democratic Theory and Mass Political Sophistication: How Sophisticated is the
Mass Public?
1. Benjamin
Page and Robert Shapiro. 1994. The
Rational Public. Chs. 1-2. (overview of debate).
Also review Kinder, “Attitude and Action in the Realm of Politics,” relevant
sections.
2. Michael
Delli Carpini and Scott Keeter. 1996. What Americans Know about Politics and Why
It Matters. New Haven: Yale University Press, chapters 1, 2, 6.
3. James
Kuklinski, et al. 2000. “Misinformation and the Currency of Democratic
Citizenship.” Journal of Politics,
62: 790-816.
4. Martin
Gilens. 2001. “Political Ignorance and Collective Policy Preferences.” American
Political Science Review, 95: 379-96.
5. Jennifer
Jerit, Paul Quirk and James Kuklinski. “Strategic Politicians,
Emotional Citizens, and the Rhetoric of Prediction.” In Borgida et al,
(Eds.), THE POLITICAL PSYCHOLOGY OF
DEMOCRATIC CITIZENSHIP. In press.
Discussion
Questions
1.
Review
Kinder, “Attitude and Action in the Realm of Politics,” relevant sections.
2.
Stanley
Feldman. 2003. “Values, Ideology, and the Structure of Political Attitudes,” in
David Sears, Leonie Huddy, and Robert Jervis (eds.), Handbook of Political Psychology, 3rd Edition, Oxford University
Press.
3.
Stanley
Feldman. 2003. Enforcing Social Conformity: A Theory of Authoritarianism. Political Psychology, Vol. 24, No. 1:
41-74.
4.
Marc
Hetherington & Jonathan Weiler. Authoritarianism
and Polarization in America. Cambridge University Press. (password
required)
Discussion Questions
V. Political Information
Processing: The “New Look” in Political
Psychology
Discussion Questions
VI. Groups & Political Behavior
Discussion Questions
VII.
The Impact of Events & Elites on Public Support for War
Discussion Questions
1.
Marcus
Prior. 2007. Post-Broadcast Democracy:
How Media Choice Increases Inequality in Political Involvement and Polarizes
Elections. Cambridge University Press.
2.
*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
IX.
Mass Media II: How Do Media Messages Influence Public Opinion?
1.
Overview:
Shanto Iyengar and Adam Simon. 2000. “New
Perspectives and Evidence on Political Communication and Campaign Effects.”
Annual Rev. of Psychology,
51:149-169.
2.
Dennis
Chong and James N. Druckman. “Framing Theory.” Annu.
Rev. Polit. Sci. 2007. 10:103–26.
3.
Dennis Chong and James N. Druckman. 2007.
Framing Public Opinion in Competitive Democracies. American Political Science Review Vol. 101, No. 4 November 2007.
4.
Gabriel S. Lenz. “Learning and
Opinion Change, Not Priming: Reconsidering the Evidence for the Priming
Hypothesis.”
5.
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.
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. Gabriel S.
Lenz & Chappell Lawson. “Looking the part:
Television leads less informed citizens to vote based on candidates’ appearance.”
9. 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.
Discussion Questions
X.
Social Influence Models of Political Behavior
Discussion Questions
XI. Social Context.
Discussion Questions
XII. Macro Opinion: Does
Public Opinion Influence Public Policy?
Discussion Questions
XIII. Public Opinion
& the Politics of Inequality
Discussion Questions
XIV.
Voting Behavior
1.
Anthony Downs, An Economic Theory of Democracy (1957),
Chapters 1, 3, 8, 11-13
2.
Aldrich,
John. “When Is It Rational to Vote?” In Dennis Mueller (ed.), Perspectives
on Public Choice. Cambridge, 1997.
3.
Powell, G. Bingham. 1986. “American Voting Turnout in
Comparative Perspective.” APSR 80: 17-43.
4.
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/
XIV. Presentation of
Research Papers
Final Exam