Political Psychology Flashcards
Différence with RC
Humans are NOT rationals
Focus on structure and évents
Researches abt policy-makers subject to structures, continuité in policy and socialisation
In PP: indiv matter, difficult to prove
Leadership trait analysis + leaders have values and beliefs+ are political elites really différent?
What is thé major inventive to devlp PP
Understand HB, violence, deshumanising others… After WW2
When is thé New attention abt PP
Post 2000’ with terrorism…: to explain behaviour that are not rational
Diff btwn IR méthodology and PP
IR: understanding thé structures ( ex eco système) vS
PP: understanding Human Behaviour
Focus points over thé Time of PP
40-50’: psycho-analysis (personnalité traits of leaders and masses, with ex experiments)
60-70’: behaviouralism (public opinion and voting behaviour, with ex survey)
80-90’: cognitive approaches ( decision-making, info processing, focus on political elites)
2000 onwards (émotions:’ hot cognitions and neurobiology, focus on mass public)
What is PP ( more positivist or interpretivist) and why?
Mostly positivist:
. SC method: hypothesis, data…
. Borrows method from psychology: exp, survey
.but also a bit interpretivism: small case study, understand rather than explain behaviour
What do PP try to understand in a mass public level
Domestic level aspects: ideology, voting behaviour, perceptions
Ex: citizen’s moral view regarding FP, impact of médias on our political perceptions…
What is thé HB based on
A. Personnalité
B. Cognitive processes
C. Attitude, value and id
Explain experiment of Theodor Adorno
Theodor Adorno and Authoritarian Personality Theory
Certain Personality traits made individuals more likely to bé drawing to authoritarianism:
.obédience to authority: strong, almost blind willingness to follow established authority figures
. Hostility towards ‘lower status groups’: a tendency to show aggression or disdain toward those pervieved as socially inferior
.rigid, traditional values: commitment to maintaining established social norms and a résistance to change
Critics:
.other experiments After found mixed or contradictory résults, challenging the universality his findings
.sélective sample: sample that may have not rep thé broader pop, so résults biaised and not generalisable
Explain Milgram experiment
By Stanley Milgram
Experiment: to understand if ordinary people would follow ordres that could harm, so rôle of obedience beyond mere Personality traits
-> participants were instructed to administrer electric shocks to a “learner”( actors) whenerver an incorrect answere was given, with shocks more and more intense
Findings: everyone did it, even 65% continued til the end: show that many ppl are willing to follow orders from an authoritary figure, even against their moral beliefs
SO capacity for obedience is Linked to situational pressures and influence of authority ( and not personal traits)
‘agentic shift’: psychological process in which indiv pervieve themselves as agents executing another’s order, shifting thé respo for their action to another figure: moral respo on others
Critics:
psy harm( causes stress and emotional distress to participants, feeling of guilt…so qu abt ethical treatment of participants)
Real-world application (critics abt thé controlled labortatory setting, artificiel nature of thé task..)
Explain experiment of Stanford prison
By Philip Zimbardo
Experiment: sée how people will réact when given authority or powerlesness
Participants with either “guards” or “prisoners” roles
People could exhibit violence not only when ordered to but also by initiating themselves: guards enforced Authoritarian mesures and abusive behaviour toward thé prisoners without explicit ordres
‘role internalisation’: indiv Can deeply adopt thé behaviour and attitudes associated with a tôle they are assigned
Critics: set-up and validité (suspicion that guards were influenced by Zimbardo to action harshiy), psychological harm for prisoners: stress, humiliation …
Importance despite critics: shows how social rôles and power dynamics Can influence behaviour
Explain Solomon asch
Informal conformity from Solomon Asch
Participants are Ask to match Lines with lengs on cards while seated with a group who deliberatly chose incorrect answere ( same exp as red pochette in uni)
1) informal conformity: participant genuinely believes the group must be right about the incorrect line lengths
2) normative conformity: Many participants conformes to thé group’s incorrect answere despite knowing they were wrong
SO align behaviour with a group to avoir social isolation or opposition, be liked or accepted even if they internally disagree
Explain concept of desindividuation and author
Leon Festinger
Fact that indiv behave diff in groups: they don’t see themselves as indiv ( groups so they don’t have thé repo, snm else does)
May trigger anti-social behaviour( but also social ex if thé group help ppl in the street, you will help):
.increased sense of excitement
.anonimity
.reduced sense of respo
Neurobiology nas evolutionary psychology
Effect of traumas, intergenerational change of DNA ( ex conflict cab have long terme impact, change ur DNA)
Possible explanations for irrationality
PP study no only mass level but also élite level, what are thé concernés fields of IR
.FP
.crisis situation
Rôle of leadership
Relation btwn states
-> more interpretivism
How much décision fail according to who
Rus and Schippers: 50%
Diff btwn homo economicus and homo psychologicus
Psycho vS eco:
Humans are not rational, bounded rat vS humans are rational actors
Descion-makers posses imperfect infos, limited cognitive processing capabilities vS dec-makers possess perfect infos
Cognitive shortcuts are used when assessing options and taking a décision vS déc are made by weighing up pros and cons
Satisficing option is chose vS thé option with maximum utility is chosen
3 floors of groupthink
= “phenomenon that occurs when a group of well-intentioned people makes sub-optimal decisions, usually spurred by the urge to conform or the belief that dissent is impossible” according to Schipers and Rus
. Info collection: risk of ‘tunnel vision’: focus on one option without inspection the others (will not to cause disagreement and disturb the harmony of the group, consensus more important than the best decision)
. Info processing: risk of informational conformity -> the way an information is presented influence a decision= “framing effect”
.drawing ccl: ‘muddling through’, “escaltion of commitment” ex chantier that is more Time and money coasting than planned but still WE continue, there are other faster and cheper options bcs WE already chose, began -> decision-maker do not want to go back.
‘antidote’ to groupthink
. promote open criticism: Create an environment where dissenting opinions are encouraged
. Appoint a Devil’s Advocate: Assign someone the explicit role of challenging group decisions to ensure alternative perspectives are considered
. Use Parallel Groups: Split teams into subgroups to analyze the same problem independently, then bring them together to compare findings
.Engage Outside Experts: Involve external consultants or advisors to offer fresh insights
Info collection: Always consider alternative
Info processing : truely listen to others
Drawing ccl: Test strategies on a smaller scale before committing fully + Hold teams accountable for the quality of their decision-making process rather than the outcomes alone
Do indiv leaders matter
Débats:
Some think that Structure matters more: so broader système and env constraint or facilitate indiv actions
Some think that agency ( indiv leaders) matter more: so strong and décisive leaders Can shaped policy
Some both
who’s experience result on informal conformity?
Solomon Asch
who’s experience is with electic shocks
stanley milgram
challenges/limits of political psychology
-method challenge: measuring abstract psychological concepts (e.g., attitudes, emotions) reliably, experimental methods do not always reflect real-world political behavior.
-overemphasis on individual-level analysis: focus heavily on individual cognition, emotions, and behaviors-> neglect the influence of broader systemic, institutional, and cultural factors that shape political dynamics
-contextual and cultural biaisis: Many theories and findings in political psychology are based on research conducted in Western democracies, leading to concerns about their applicability in other cultural or political contexts
-Limited Predictive Power (indiv are not rational)
-ethical concern: Knowledge of political psychology can be used in manipulative ways, for example as part of propaganda, disinformation or targeted political campaigns.
-
What is the main difference between Foreign Policy Analysis (FPA) and other approaches in IR? and by who?
by Kesing
FPA focus on the role of individuals, groups and society on decision-makers (humans, indiv and states) vS IR: how states on the world interact, the system; then what happened in the states, what it result on the world sys (world and states)
What are the three levels that are analysed within a state by Foreign Policy scholars to explain decision-making? according to who?
according to Janis
the influence of individuals, groups and society (states):
1. influence of individuals: “human mind” -> can lead to misperceptions, shaping foreign policy: emotions, beliefs, traits, need of power…shape a country’s international role
2. influence of groups: what can affect decisions making in grps is to reject new information in order to avoid controversy and lack of cohesion within the group + Competition among policy-maker
3. influence of society: political, social, historical context, the culture, public opinion or elites, the national characteristics of a state shapes its foreign policy
how othering occurs in international relations? and according to who
Buitrago
-Othering is the representation of self and other as different. It can be in a positive way, yet it reflects most of the time a hierarchy, a superiority-inferiority view (others are perceived as a rival and receive a distinct treatment, with exclusionary practice)
-(Images, medias, states and institutions influence our perceptions of the other)
- difficult to measure the impact
-justify actions and specifically foreign policy to “protect national security” (such as the ‘hunt’ of terrorists, Iraq occupation…)
