POLITICAL SCIENCE 681

American Political Behavior

Spring 2007, 1645 POT,

Tuesdays 5:15 pm - 7:45 pm

Professor Mark Peffley                               Hours: T 3-5 & appt.

Office:  1653 POT                                      Phone: 257-7033 (office), 296-4307 (home)

                                                                Email: mpeffl@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.        What are the major theoretical perspectives that structure research in a given area?  What are the major strengths and weaknesses of each perspective and how do they compare with other perspectives considered in the course?

2.        What are the strengths and weaknesses of the methodological strategies used to investigate the subject?  What methodologies, broadly conceived (e.g., basic issues of design, measurement, etc.) are most appropriate, given the subject of inquiry?  To what degree are substantive conclusions dependent on the methods employed?

3.        What are the major implications of the findings for democratic theory and public policy? 

4.        What suggestions would you make for improving research in a given area of study?  What theories, methods and substantive foci deserve more attention in future research?

5.        How should this material be presented 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 which 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 6th. The topic should be discussed with, and approved by me before you begin work on it. See Guidelines for Research Design Paper. Expectations will be slightly different for first-year students.

Critical Review.  Approximately one-fourth of your grade will be based on a critical review. For this paper, you will select a book (or collection of articles) listed under “Presentation” for one of the week’s readings. You will take the responsibility for reading the material, summarizing the book (and how it relates to the rest of the week’s readings), and providing a critical review.  You should make your review approximately 5-6 pages in length, and should distribute it to the other participants 24 hours prior to the seminar.  You will also be responsible for presenting your work during the seminar session.  In addition, during your week to present, you will also be asked to serve as the co-discussion leader. In this regard, you will meet with the instructor several days prior to the seminar to prepare a list of discussion questions, which will be distributed to seminar participants. During the seminar, you will take an active role in leading the discussion. Try to pick a book on the same topic that you’d like to write your research paper.

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.

 

·         Michael Delli Carpini and Scott Keeter. 1996. What Americans Know about Politics and Why It Matters. New Haven: Yale University Press.

·         Steven J. Rosenstone and John Mark Hansen, Mobilization, Participation, and American Democracy (1993).

·         John R. Zaller. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge University Press, 1992.

·         Robert S. Erikson, Michael B. MacKuen, James A. Stimson. 2002. The Macro Polity, Cambridge University Press.

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

 

 

These and other books are also on 2-hour reserve at the Young Library.

        In addition, a number of journal articles and manuscripts are required reading and I will make copies or links of these available to you prior to our meetings. Most journal articles can be accessed on-line from either a campus or home computer. Simply go to “Online Fulltext E-Journals” on the library web-page,  http://www.uky.edu/Libraries/ , where, at home, you’ll also be prompted for your username [your last name] and password [your UK library card number].  Also, if you are using a computer off-campus, be sure you have Adobe Reader installed.

Most books and 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 (indicated by “1643” at the end of the reading). 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.  Please note that for most topics I have appended a brief suggested reading list at the end of the required readings and on the page, Suggested Readings.  You may find some of these readings useful for leading discussion or for your research paper; otherwise, the suggested readings are not required. 

 

 

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

 

  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.  (1643)
  2. Jon Krosnick. 1999. “Survey Research.” Annual Review of Psychology, 50: 537-67. See esp. “Optimizing versus Satisficing.”
  3. Donald Kinder, “On Behalf of an Experimental Political Science” in Donald Kinder and Thomas R. Palfrey (Eds.), Experimental Foundations of Political Science, 1993, pp. 1-39. (1643)
  4. 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. (1643)
  5. 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.
  6. Explore examples of web-based survey experiments that manipulate video as well as textual messages at TESS: http://www.experimentcentral.org/ . Skim the following and examine stimulus materials at the end of the papers:
           “The Limits of the Norm of Racial Equality: Gender, Partisanship, and Support for Confederate Symbols” by Vincent Hutchings et al.
           “Race, Skin Color, and Candidate Preference” by Vesla Weaver. 
  7. Druckman, Green, Kuklinski, and Lupia. 2006. “The Growth and Development of Experimental Research in Political Science.” American Political Science Review, 100: 627-635. (skim)

       

        Discussion Questions (updated)

 

        Suggested:

 

II. Political Tolerance: Is the Public Tolerant? 

 

  1. John Sullivan, et. al., Political Tolerance and American Democracy, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982, Read chs. 1-3, 9; Skim chs. 6-8 (or instead of chs. 6-8, read Sullivan, et al. “Sources of Political Tolerance,” APSR.
  2. James L. Gibson, "Political Intolerance and Political Repression during the McCarthy Red Scare," American Political Science Review, 82(2) (June 1988): 511-530.
  3. James L. Gibson. 2007. “Intolerance and Political Repression in the US: A Half Century After McCarthy.”
    Adam J. Berinsky. 2006. “Civil Liberties and War.” (Ch 5 in Berinsky, America at War: Public Opinion during Wartime, from World War II To Iraq, skim.)
  4. 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.
  5. Marc Hutchison and Douglas Gibler. 2007. “Political Tolerance and Territorial Threat: A Cross-National Study.” Journal of Politics, forthcoming.
  6. Peffley and Rohrschneider. 2003. “Democratization and Political Tolerance in Seventeen Countries: A Multi-level Model of Democratic Learning,” Political Research Quarterly, 56(3), September, 2003. Skim.

         Discussion Questions (updated)

 

         Presentation: pick one

·         Paul Sniderman and Ted Carmines. 1997. Reaching beyond Race.

·         Donald Kinder and Lynn Sanders. 1997. Divided by Color: Racial Politics and Democratic Ideals. 

·         James L. Gibson, Amanda Gouws. 2002. Overcoming Intolerance in South Africa : Experiments in Democratic Persuasion. Cambridge University Press.

·         Paul Sniderman and Thomas Piazza. Black Pride and Black Prejudice.

·         Paul Sniderman, et al. 2002. The Outsider: Prejudice and Politics in Italy. Princeton.

·         George E. Marcus, et al. With Malice toward Some: How People Make Civil Liberties Judgments. NY: Cambridge. 1995. 

·         J. Hochschild. 1995. Facing Up to the American Dream: Race, Class, and the Soul of a Nation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

·         Donald Kinder and Lynn Sanders. 1997. Divided by Color: Racial Politics and Democratic Ideals. 

·         Paul M. Sniderman,. et al. The Clash of Rights: Liberty, Equality, and Legitimacy in Pluralist Democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1996.

 

III. 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)

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, 7; skim chs. 3-5.

3.     M. Gilens. 2001. “Political Ignorance and Collective Policy Preferences.” American Political Science Review, 95: 379-96

4.     James Kuklinski, et al. 2000. “Misinformation and the Currency of Democratic Citizenship.” Journal of Politics, 62: 790-816.

5.     Jennifer Jerit, Jason Barabas, Toby Bolsen. 2006. “Citizens, Knowledge, and the Information Environment.” American Journal of Political Science, 50: 251-520.

 

        Discussion Questions

 

        Presentation:

  • Scott L. Althaus. Collective Preferences in Democratic Politics: Opinion Surveys and the Will of the People. Cambridge University Press, 2003.
  • Adam J. Berinsky. Silent Voices: Public Opinion and Political Participation in America. Princeton University Press, 2004. He concludes that "don't know" responses are often the result of a systematic process that serves to exclude particular interests from the realm of recognized public opinion. Thus surveys may then echo the inegalitarian shortcomings of other forms of political participation and even introduce new problems altogether.
  • George E. Marcus, Russell L. Hanson (Eds.). 1993. Reconsidering the Democratic Public. Pennsylvania State University Press. A re-examination of the evidence about citizens’ capacity for self-governance and what it means for the future of democratic politics, from both empirical and normative perspectives.

 

IV.   Mass Belief Systems and Ideology: Does the Public Think Ideologically?  .

 

1.        Philip Converse. "The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics," in David E. Apter (ed.), Ideology and Discontent. (Seminal piece on mass belief systems, ideology, and sophistication. An “eat your vegetables” piece.) Skim.

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.

3.        Mark Peffley and Jon Hurwitz. 1985. "A Hierarchical Model of Attitude Constraint." American Journal of Political Science, 29: 871-90.
OR Jon Hurwitz and Mark Peffley, "How Are Foreign Policy Attitudes Structured?  A Hierarchical Model," American Political Science Review, 81(4) (December, 1987): 1099-1120.

4.        Thomas E. Nelson and Donald Kinder. 1996. “Issue Frames and Group-Centrism in American Public Opinion.” The Journal of Politics 58(4): 1055-78.

5.        Stanley Feldman. 1988. “Structure and Consistency in Public Opinion: The Role of Core Beliefs and Values.” American Journal of Political Science, 32: 416-40.

        Presentation: pick one

·         Bob Altemeyer. 1997. The Authoritarian Specter. Harvard Univ Pr.

·         Jennifer Hochschild, What's Fair? American Beliefs about Distributive Justice., 1981 (c.f., Robert Lane).

·         J. Hochschild. 1995. Facing Up to the American Dream: Race, Class, and the Soul of a Nation, Princeton.

·         Michael Alvarez and John Brehm. 2002. Hard Choices, Easy Answers: Values, Information, and American Public Opinion. Princeton Univ Press. 

·         Paul Sniderman and Ted Carmines. 1997. Reaching beyond Race.

·         Donald Kinder and Lynn Sanders. 1997. Divided by Color: Racial Politics and Democratic Ideals. 

 

        Discussion Questions

 

V.  Social Cognition Models in Political Psychology

1.     Stuart Oskamp, Attitudes and Opinions, 3rd ed., chs. 1(“Background”) and 2 (“Social Perception and Social Cognition”); skim chs. 3 & 4 (Explicit & Implicit Measures of Attitudes”).

2.     Marco Steenburgen and Milton Lodge. 2003. “Process Matters: Cognitive Models of Candidate Evaluation.” In Michael MacKuen and George Rabinowitz, eds., Electoral Democracy, University of Michigan Press.

3.     Jon Hurwitz and Mark Peffley. 1997. Public Perceptions of Race and Crime: The Role of Racial Stereotypes. American Journal of Political Science, 41: 375-401.

4.     Milton Lodge, Marco Steenbergen and Shawn Brau. 1995. “The Responsive Voter: Campaign Information and the Dynamics of Candidate Evaluation.” American Political Science Review, 89: 309-326.  

5.     Richard R. Lau and David P. Redlawsk. “Advantages and Disadvantages of Cognitive Heuristics in Political Decision Making.” American Journal of Political Science 45, no. 4 (2001): 951-971.

6.     Charles Taber and Milton Lodge. 2006. “Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs.” American Journal of Political Science, 50:755-769.

7.     Adam J. Berinsky, Tali Mendelberg. 2005. “The Indirect Effects of Discredited Stereotypes in Judgments of Jewish Leaders.” American Journal of Political Science, 49: 845-864. 

 

Discussion Questions

 

 

        Suggested:

  1. Barbara Geddes and John Zaller. 1989. Sources of Popular Support for Authoritarian Regimes. American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 33, No. 2. (May, 1989), pp. 319-347.
  2. William D. Baker; John R. Oneal Patriotism or Opinion Leadership?: The Nature and Origins of the "Rally 'Round the Flag" Effect. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 45, No. 5. (Oct., 2001), pp. 661-687.
  3. Jeffrey J. Mondak. 1993. “Source Cues and Policy Approval:  The Cognitive Dynamics of Public Support for the Reagan Agenda.” American Journal of Political Science, 37(1):  186-212.  (an example of the use of heuristics)
  4. Milton Lodge and Charles Taber. 2000. “Three Steps Toward a Theory of Motivated Political Reasoning.”  In Lupia, McCubbins, and Popkin (eds.) Elements of Reason: Cognition, Choice and the Bounds of Rationality, Cambridge.
  5. Lupia, McCubbins, and Popkin. 2000. “Beyond Rationality: Reason and the Study of Politics.” In Lupia, McCubbins, and Popkin (eds.) Elements of Reason: Cognition, Choice and the Bounds of Rationality, Cambridge. 
  6. Milton Lodge, Kathleen McGraw, and Patrick Stroh. 1989. “An Impression-Driven Model of Candidate Evaluation.” American Political Science Review, 83(2): 399-420.
  7. John Sullivan and Wendy Rahn. 2002. “The Contours of Political Psychology: Situating Research on Political Information Processing.” And In James Kuklinski, Thinking about Political Psychology, Cambridge University Press, 2002.
  8. Wendy Rahn, Jon Krosnick, and Marijke Bruening, “Rationalization and Derivation Processes in Survey Studies of Political Candidate Evaluation,” American Journal of Political Science, 1994, 38(3): 582-600.
  9. Alan Gerber and Donald Green. 1999. “Misperceptions about Perceptual Bias.” Annual Review of Political Science, Jun 1999, Vol. 2: 189-210.

 

        Presentation: pick one topic

·         George Marcus, W. Russell Neuman, Michael Mackuen. 2000. Affective Intelligence and Political Judgment. Chicago

·         Stereotypes:

 Leonie Huddy; Nayda Terkildsen. 1993. “Gender Stereotypes and the Perception of Male and Female Candidates.” American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 37, No. 1. (Feb., 1993), pp. 119-147.

 Kim Fridkin Kahn “Does Gender Make a Difference? An Experimental Examination of Sex Stereotypes and Press Patterns in Statewide Campaigns.” American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 38, No. 1. (Feb., 1994), pp. 162-195.

 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.

 Wendy Rahn. 1993. "The Role of Partisan Stereotypes in Information Processing about Political Candidates." American Journal of Political Science, 37(2):  472-496.

 Nayda Terkildsen. “When White Voters Evaluate Black Candidates: The Processing Implications of Candidate Skin Color, Prejudice, and Self-Monitoring.” American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 37, No. 4. (Nov., 1993), pp. 1032-1053

·         Schema Controversy:

Milton Lodge and Ruth Hamill, "A Partisan Schema for Political Information Processing," American Political Science Review, 1986 80(2): 505-19.

Pamela Johnston Conover and Stanley Feldman, "How People Organize the Political World:  A Schematic Model," American Journal of Political Science, 28 (February 1984): 95-126.

Arthur H. Miller; Martin P. Wattenberg; Oksana Malanchuk. 1986. Schematic Assessments of Presidential Candidates.  American Political Science Review, Vol. 80, No. 2, pp. 521-540.

James H. Kuklinski; Robert C. Luskin; John Bolland 1991. Where is the Schema? Going Beyong the "S" Word in Political Psychology (in Symposium). American Political Science Review, Vol. 85, No. 4. (Dec., 1991), pp. 1341-1356.

Milton Lodge; Kathleen M. McGraw; Pamela Johnston Conover; Stanley Feldman; Arthur H. Miller “Where is the Schema? Critiques” (in Symposium). American Political Science Review, Vol. 85, No. 4. (Dec., 1991), pp. 1357-1380.

 

        Discussion Questions

 

VI.  Macro Opinion: Sources, Dynamics and Policy Consequences 

 

  1. Adam Berinsky. 2006. “Assuming the Costs of War: Events, Elites and American Public Support for Military Conflict.”
  2. Robert S. Erikson, Michael B. MacKuen, James A. Stimson. 2002. The Macro Polity, Cambridge University Press, pp. 1-108.
  3. Jeff Manza, Fay Lomax Cook and Benjamin Page (Eds.), Navigating Public Opinion, (2002), Chs. 1-4 (pp. 17-85) on the debate between Erikson et al versus Jacobs and Shapiro on the impact of public opinion on public policy.
  4. Martin Gilens. 2005. “Inequality and Democratic Responsiveness.” Public Opinion Quarterly, 69: 778-96.
  5. Lawrence Jacobs and Benjamin Page. 2005. “Who Influences U.S. Foreign Policy?” American Political Science Review, 99: 107-123.

 

        Discussion Questions

 

 

        Presentation:

  1. The rest of Navigating Public Opinion or The Macro Polity
  2. Jacobs and Shapiro, Politicians Don’t Pander.

 

VII. Mass Media I: Institutional Forces Shaping Political Messages: Is News Coverage of Elections Too Negative and Trivial?

 

 

1.     *Thomas E. Patterson, Out of Order (Vintage 1994), Prologue and Chapters 1-2.

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.”

3.     John Zaller. 1996. Political Communication. “Government's Little Helper: U.S. Press Coverage of Foreign Policy Crises, 1945-1991.”

4.     Thomas Patterson. 1996. Political Communication.  “News Decisions: Journalists as Partisan Actors.”

 

        

        Discussion Questions

 

VIII.  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. Or Kinder in Political Psychology, who does a better job of critiquing minimal effects.

2.   Joanne Miller. "Examining the Mediators of Agenda Setting: A New Experimental Paradigm.”

3.   James N. Druckman. 2001. On the Limits of Framing Effects: Who Can Frame? The Journal of Politics, 63(4): 1041 – 1066.

4.   Dennis Chong and James N. Druckman. 2006. “Democratic Competition and Public Opinion.”

5.   John Zaller. 1996. “The Myth of Massive Media Impact Discredited Idea.” In Political Persuasion and Attitude Change, ed. Paul Sniderman and Richard A. Brody. p.17-78.

        Suggested: