Hubbry Logo
Theories of political behaviorTheories of political behaviorMain
Open search
Theories of political behavior
Community hub
Theories of political behavior
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Theories of political behavior
Theories of political behavior
Theories of political behavior
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Part of a series on
Politics
Primary topics
Systems
Academic disciplines
Public administration
Policy
Government branches
Related topics
Subseries
icon Politics portal

Theories of political behavior, as an aspect of political science, attempt to quantify and explain the influences that define a person's political views, ideology, and levels of political participation, especially in relation to the role of politicians and their impact on public opinion . Political behavior is the subset of human behavior that involves politics and power.[1] Theorists who have had an influence on this field include Karl Deutsch and Theodor Adorno.

Long-term influences on political orientation

[edit]

Interaction with the political views of parental figures is often thought of as the primary long-term influence on political orientation and willingness to take part in the political system.[2][3]

Teachers and other educational authority figures are also often thought to have a significant impact on political orientation. During the 2003–2004 school year, In the United States, students spent an average of 180.4 days in primary and secondary education each year, with a school day being defined as approximately 6.7 class hours.[4] This means that on average a student will spend around 1,208.68 hours in class each year. Post-secondary education appears to have an impact on both voting rates and political identification; as a study of 9,784,931 college students found that they voted at a rate of 68.5% in the 2016 Presidential Election[5] compared to the average of 46.1% for citizens aged 18–29 who voted.[6]

Peers also affect political orientation. Friends often, but not necessarily, have the advantage of being part of the same generation, which collectively develops a unique set of societal issues; Eric L. Dey has argued that "socialisation is the process through which individuals acquire knowledge, habits, and value orientations that will be useful in the future."[7] The ability to relate on this common level is what fuels and enables future ideological growth.

Sociologists and political scientists debate the relationship between age and the formation of political attitudes. The impressionable years hypothesis postulates that political orientation is solidified during early adulthood. By contrast, the "increasing persistence hypothesis" posits that attitudes become less likely to change as individuals become older, while the "life-long openness hypothesis" proposes that the attitudes of individuals remain flexible regardless of age.[8]

Short-term influences on political orientation

[edit]

Short-term factors also affect voting behavior; the media and the impact of individual election issues are among these factors. These factors differ from the long-term factors as they are often short-lived. However, they can be just as crucial in modifying political orientation. The ways in which these two sources are interpreted often relies on the individuals specific political ideology formed by the long-term factors.

Most political scientists agree that the mass media have a profound impact on voting behavior. One author asserts that "few would argue with the notion that the institutions of the mass media are important to contemporary politics ... in the transition to liberal democratic politics in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe the media was a key battleground."[9]

Second, there are election issues. These include campaign issues, debates and commercials. Election years and political campaigns can shift certain political behaviors based on the candidates involved, which have different degrees of effectiveness in influencing voters.

The influence of social groups on political outcomes

[edit]
See also: History of ethnocultural politics in the United States

Recently, some political scientists have been interested in many studies which aimed to analyze the relation between the behavior of social groups and the political outcomes. Some of the social groups included in their studies have been age demographics, gender, and ethnic groups. This can be understood through the lenses of pluralism or social identity theory.

For example, in U.S. politics, the effect of ethnic groups and gender has a great influence on the political outcomes. Hispanic Americans have a profound social impact on the political outcome of their vote and are emerging as a strong up-and-coming political force. The most noticeable increase in Hispanic American voting was in the 2000 presidential election, although the votes did not share a socially common political view at that time. In the 2006 election, the Hispanic American vote aided tremendously in the election of Florida Senator Mel Martinez, although in the 2004 presidential election, about 44% of Latin Americans voted for Republican President George W. Bush. However, Hispanic Americans have the lowest voting rate in the United States, with only 47.6% voting in the 2016 Presidential Election in the United States.[10] Currently illegal immigration has been claiming the most attention and Hispanic Americans, although not unanimous, are concerned with the education, employment and deportation of illegal immigrants in the United States. Although the majority of Hispanic Americans vote for Democratic candidates, Cuban Americans are likely the most conservative of Latinos, with 54% of Cuban American voters casting ballots for Donald Trump in the 2016 Presidential Election, compared to an average of 35% of all Latinos who voted.[11] Although this was represents a net decrease in support for the Republican Party among Cuban Americans, it continues a trend created by the exile of many Cubans after the Cuban Revolution.[12]

African Americans have the second highest voting rates in the United States and even surpassed white voters in the 2008 Presidential Election, although this has declined in the 2016 Presidential Election. In the 2008 Presidential Election and 2012 Presidential election, African Americans voted overwhelmingly for Democratic candidate, Barack Obama.[13][14] This trend of African Americans voting for candidates of the Democratic Party continued into the 2016 Presidential Election.[15]

Women in the United States have, in the past 30 years, surpassed male voting rates, with the 2016 Presidential Election having a ratio between females and males of 52 to 48.[16][17][18][19] This trend is often referred to as the Gender Gap and when combined with the tendency of women to vote for Democratic candidates, their effect on political outcomes is extremely important.[20]

Biology and political science

[edit]

Interdisciplinary studies in biology and political science aim to identify correlates of political behavior with biological aspects, for example the linkage of biology and political orientation, but also with other aspects like partisanship and voting behavior.[21] This field of study is typically referred to genopolitics although it is sometimes referred to as biopolitics,[22] although the term also has other meanings originating from the work of Michel Foucault.

The study of possible genetic bases of political behavior has grown since the 1980s. The term genopolitics was coined by political scientist James Fowler in the early-2000s to describe research into identifying specific transporter/receptor genes responsible for ideological orientation beyond the sociopsychological realm of political socialisation.

Other research on genopolitics includes the article entitled "Do Genes Contribute to the “Gender Gap”" which also attempts to explore genetic influences between the sexes and whether or not they contribute to political preferences. The authors concluded that “the findings support the claim that the environment (social or other) cannot be used in isolation to explain behavior differences between males and females, nor can all differences in modern political behaviors between the sexes simply be attributed to genes or presumptions about primitive man."[23]

Political participation

[edit]

Political scientists also aim to understand what drives individuals to participate in the democratic process, either by voting, volunteering for campaigns, signing petitions or protesting. Participation cannot always be explained by rational behavior. The voting paradox, for example, points out that it cannot be in a citizen's self-interest to vote because the effort it takes to vote will almost always outweigh the benefits of voting, particularly considering a single vote is unlikely to change an electoral outcome. Political scientists instead propose that citizens vote for psychological or social reasons. Studies show, for example, that individuals are more likely to vote if they see their friends have voted[24] or if someone in their household has received a nudge to vote.[25]

Political psychology

[edit]

Political psychology aims to explain political behavior through psychological analysis. Examples of theories include right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, and system justification theory.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Theories of political behavior

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Theories of political behavior comprise the analytical models in that seek to explain the origins and patterns of individuals' political attitudes, preferences, decisions, and actions, such as voting, protesting, and partisan affiliation. These frameworks draw on empirical evidence from diverse disciplines, including , , , and increasingly , to identify causal factors influencing political and outcomes within democratic and authoritarian systems. Early theories emphasized sociological influences, positing that voting and participation stem primarily from memberships, class structures, and networks, as seen in the Columbia school's panel studies of U.S. elections. Subsequent psychological models, exemplified by the Michigan school's funnel of , highlighted the role of long-term partisanship, short-term candidate evaluations, and issue positions in shaping voter choice, supported by survey data linking attitudes to . Rational choice approaches, grounded in economic theory, model political actions as utility-maximizing decisions where individuals weigh costs, benefits, and probabilities, though empirical tests reveal challenges like the paradox of turnout—wherein predicted participation rates fall short of observed levels despite low individual impact. Contemporary developments incorporate genetic and factors, with twin studies demonstrating substantial heritability in political participation and ideological leanings, challenging purely environmental explanations. Personality traits, such as the Big Five dimensions, correlate with vote choice and engagement, often outperforming traditional socioeconomic predictors in predictive models. Institutional and contextual elements, including electoral rules and negativity biases, further modulate behavior, as evidenced by reviews showing heightened responsiveness to negative information in political judgments. These theories underscore causal realism by prioritizing testable mechanisms over ideological priors, though academic studies frequently exhibit left-leaning biases that undervalue biological or market-oriented explanations.

Historical Foundations

Early Theories and Pre-Behavioral Approaches

Pre-behavioral approaches to political behavior emphasized philosophical, normative, and institutional explanations, viewing political action as shaped by moral virtues, social contracts, and structural necessities rather than empirically observed individual motivations. Ancient Greek thinkers laid foundational ideas, with Aristotle in his Politics (c. 350 BC) arguing that humans are political animals by nature, engaging in civic participation to achieve eudaimonia within the polis, where regimes' stability depended on rulers' alignment with the common good versus self-interest. Plato, in contrast, in The Republic (c. 375 BC), restricted meaningful political behavior to an educated guardian class, positing that the masses' participation led to instability due to unchecked appetites, advocating rule by philosopher-kings to enforce justice. These classical views prioritized ethical cultivation and hierarchical order over egalitarian involvement, influencing subsequent understandings of citizenship as duty-bound rather than rights-driven. Enlightenment social contract theories further explained political allegiance and rebellion through rational consent amid natural states of conflict. Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan (1651) depicted individuals surrendering freedoms to a sovereign to escape a war of all against all, attributing obedience to fear of chaos rather than intrinsic political instincts. John Locke's Two Treatises of Government (1689) countered with conditional consent to protect natural rights, justifying resistance when rulers violate property and liberty, framing political behavior as self-interested preservation. Jean-Jacques Rousseau's The Social Contract (1762) introduced the general will, where true political action aligned individual wills with collective sovereignty, warning against factionalism that fragmented unity. These deductive frameworks assumed human nature's uniformity, deriving behavior from abstract principles without aggregate data. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, elite theories shifted focus to inevitable hierarchies, portraying mass political behavior as passive or manipulated. Gaetano Mosca's Elementi di Scienza Politica (1896) contended that all societies feature a ruling minority superior in organization and energy, with the ruled majority exhibiting inertia due to inferior capacities, falsifying egalitarian ideals through historical evidence of elite dominance. extended this in The Mind and Society (1916), theorizing elite circulation via "residues" (persistent traits like or ) and "derivations" (rationalizations), where lions (force-oriented) or foxes (cunning) elites displaced each other, explaining public quiescence as non-logos driven. ' Political Parties (1911) applied the "" to democracies, arguing bureaucratic needs and followers' psychological dependence on leaders inexorably concentrated power, even in mass movements. These realist accounts, grounded in observation of European politics, emphasized causal roles of and structure over voter . Traditional institutionalism dominated pre-1950 , analyzing formal rules, constitutions, and state apparatuses as determinants of , often holistically and legalistically. Scholars examined how legal frameworks channeled or class interests, as in James Madison's (1787), which proposed republican filters to mitigate factional passions through extended spheres and representation. Precursors to , like Graham Wallas' Human Nature in Politics (1908), incorporated psychological —instincts and emotions—challenging rationalist assumptions, while Arthur Bentley's The Process of Government (1908) reconceived politics as group interactions observable in legislative processes, prioritizing empirical description over normative ideals. These approaches relied on historical case studies and logical inference, critiquing overly optimistic views of mass competence amid industrial-era mobilizations. Overall, pre-behavioral theories privileged causal explanations rooted in human nature's constants—ambition, fear, —over quantifiable variances, setting stages for later empirical scrutiny.

The Behavioral Revolution and Post-WWII Shifts

The behavioral revolution in represented a fundamental shift toward empirical, data-driven analysis of individual political actions, diverging from earlier emphases on normative theory, legal institutions, and historical description. Emerging prominently in the and early , it prioritized observable behaviors over abstract ideals, insisting on verifiable evidence through quantitative methods like surveys and statistical modeling. This approach sought to identify patterns in political conduct, such as voting preferences and attitude formation, by treating as amenable to scientific akin to natural sciences. Post-World War II conditions catalyzed this transformation, as scholars grappled with the causes of mass mobilization, authoritarianism, and democratic fragility exposed by the conflict. Traditional political science, criticized for its reliance on impressionistic and non-falsifiable claims, faced widespread discontent amid advances in social psychology, sociology, and computing technology that enabled large-scale data collection. The war's emphasis on applied behavioral research for propaganda and public opinion analysis further underscored the need for rigorous, predictive models of human political responses, fostering a "selective radicalization" of pre-existing tendencies toward quantification and experimentation. Institutional support, including funding from entities like the Ford Foundation, accelerated the adoption of these methods in American academia. In theories of political behavior, the revolution manifested through pioneering empirical studies of elections and public attitudes, shifting focus from elite-driven or structural explanations to micro-level individual dynamics. The University of Michigan's Survey Research Center, established in 1946, conducted continuous national election surveys starting with the 1948 presidential race, revealing patterns in party loyalty, issue salience, and through . This work culminated in Angus Campbell et al.'s 1960 book The American Voter, which used 1952 and 1956 data to model voting as a function of psychological predispositions and short-term forces, establishing party identification as a stable predictor of behavior. Similarly, V.O. Key Jr.'s analyses, such as his 1949 study of Southern politics and 1961 examination of public opinion's role in democracy, employed aggregate and survey evidence to challenge assumptions of irrational mass electorates, arguing instead for structured, if latent, rationality in voter choices. Key figures bridged earlier groundwork with this postwar surge; Charles Merriam, in the 1920s and 1930s at the , advocated scientific observation of political processes, laying the intellectual foundation by critiquing purely doctrinal approaches. formalized behavioral tenets, emphasizing criteria like the discovery of behavioral regularities, empirical verification, and systematization over ethical prescription. Other contributors, including , , and Heinz Eulau, advanced applications in , attitude measurement, and legislative behavior, embedding in data-centric frameworks. This era's innovations yielded testable hypotheses about political motivation, though later critiques highlighted potential overreliance on aggregate correlations at the expense of contextual depth.

Individual-Level Theories

Rational Choice and Economic Models

Rational choice theory in political behavior applies microeconomic principles to model individuals as self-interested utility maximizers who select actions yielding the highest net benefits given constraints and information. This framework emerged prominently in the mid-20th century, with Anthony Downs' 1957 work An Economic Theory of Democracy treating voters as consumers of policies and political parties as firms competing in an electoral market to maximize votes. Downs posited that in a two-party system with single-peaked preferences along a one-dimensional policy spectrum, parties converge toward the median voter's position to capture the largest electorate share, as formalized in the median voter theorem originally derived by Duncan Black in 1948. Economic models extend to explain phenomena like through the calculus of voting, where individuals weigh the utility differential between candidates, the probability their vote is pivotal, and voting costs against . This predicts low participation since the pivotal probability is typically negligible in large elections, aligning with observed turnout rates often below 60% in U.S. presidential contests—for instance, 66.6% in 2020 but historically averaging around 55% since 1960. Empirical support includes higher turnout in closer races where pivotality rises, as seen in U.S. data showing turnout spikes in competitive states. Public choice theory, developed by and in their 1962 book The Calculus of Consent, applies rational choice to collective decision-making, viewing constitutions as mechanisms to constrain self-interested behavior in legislatures and bureaucracies. It highlights , where actors pursue transfers via political means, and , explaining policy outcomes diverging from efficiency due to concentrated benefits and diffuse costs. While these models generate testable predictions, such as policy convergence in unidimensional settings, empirical evidence is mixed; U.S. party platforms have polarized since the , challenging simple median voter convergence due to multidimensional issues, primaries, and activist pressures. Critics argue rational choice overemphasizes instrumental rationality, neglecting bounded , yet it remains foundational for formal modeling in .

Psychological Mechanisms and Cognitive Processes

Psychological mechanisms in political behavior encompass cognitive biases, personality traits, emotional responses, and intuitive moral judgments that systematically influence attitudes, evaluations, and choices independent of rational deliberation. These processes often operate heuristically, prioritizing intuitive or affective cues over comprehensive evidence assessment, as evidenced by dual-process models distinguishing fast, automatic thinking from slower, effortful System 2 reasoning in political contexts. Empirical investigations reveal that such mechanisms contribute to polarization by reinforcing and , where individuals interpret ambiguous political information to align with prior commitments rather than objective criteria. Personality traits from the Big Five model—openness to experience, , extraversion, , and —exhibit reliable, though non-causal, associations with ideological leanings across large-scale studies. Higher , characterized by curiosity and tolerance for novelty, correlates negatively with (r ≈ -0.20 to -0.30), while , involving orderliness and self-discipline, correlates positively with it (r ≈ 0.10 to 0.20); these patterns hold in meta-analyses of over 575,000 participants from diverse samples, including longitudinal . and show weaker or context-dependent links, with liberals often scoring higher on facets of , but effects diminish when controlling for variance. These traits predict not only but also behaviors like voting turnout, where boosts participation among conservatives. Twin studies suggest partial genetic underpinnings, with estimates for ideological differences around 0.40-0.50, though environmental interactions moderate expression. Cognitive biases, particularly confirmation and partisan biases, distort political judgment by favoring belief-consistent information. manifests as selective exposure and interpretation, where individuals undervalue disconfirming evidence; experiments show partisans rate identical arguments as stronger when attributed to their preferred party, with effects persisting across real and hypothetical scenarios. Partisan bias extends this, as voters exhibit "motivated skepticism" toward out-party claims, discrediting true facts more than falsehoods when they oppose group affinities—a pattern amplified in polarized environments like the U.S. since the . Other heuristics, such as , lead to risk-averse preferences in policy evaluation, while causes overgeneralization from vivid anecdotes in assessments. These biases are not symmetric across ideologies but vary by , with empirical indicating stronger effects under uncertainty or . Moral foundations theory posits that political differences arise from differential weighting of innate moral intuitions: care/harm, fairness/cheating, loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, sanctity/degradation, and liberty/oppression. Conservatives endorse all foundations relatively equally, emphasizing binding foundations (loyalty, authority, sanctity) alongside individualizing ones (care, fairness), while liberals prioritize care and fairness, often undervaluing the others; this divergence explains variances in attitudes toward issues like or redistribution, with predictive power validated in cross-national surveys (e.g., r ≈ 0.40-0.60 for ). Experimental manipulations framing policies via mismatched foundations shift attitudes modestly, particularly among conservatives, though effects are constrained by foundational priors. Critics note measurement challenges and cultural variability, but longitudinal data affirm stability, with foundations mediating personality- links. Emotions serve as heuristic signals in political cognition, with discrete affects like anger promoting punitive policies and fear heightening threat perception. Reviews of public opinion data indicate that anxiety correlates with support for interventionist governance, while enthusiasm drives turnout; these effects interact with cognition, as negative emotions amplify confirmation bias in information processing. Neuroimaging studies reveal amygdala activation during partisan disagreement, underscoring affective primacy in sustaining divides. Overall, these mechanisms highlight how political behavior emerges from evolved cognitive shortcuts rather than pure rationality, with empirical robustness across methodologies but calls for caution against overgeneralizing causal directions amid correlational data dominance.

Biological and Genetic Determinants

Research in behavioral genetics has established that genetic factors contribute substantially to individual differences in and behavior, with twin studies providing the primary empirical foundation. Classical twin designs, comparing monozygotic twins (sharing nearly 100% of genes) to dizygotic twins (sharing about 50%), estimate the of political ideology at around 40%, indicating that genetic variance explains a moderate portion of observed differences after accounting for shared environments. These findings hold across diverse measures of ideology, populations, and time periods, including self-reported liberalism-conservatism scales and policy attitudes on issues like and welfare. For instance, analyses of over 12,000 twin pairs from five countries revealed genetic influences on core political values persisting from to adulthood, with estimates ranging from 30% to 60% depending on the trait specificity. Personality traits, which are themselves highly heritable, mediate much of this genetic influence on . Traits from the Big Five model—such as , linked to liberal ideologies through receptivity to novelty, and , associated with via emphasis on order and tradition—show genetic correlations with political participation and attitudes. Twin studies confirm that genetic factors account for up to 50% of the between these traits and political interest or efficacy, suggesting indirect pathways where genes shape , which in turn predisposes electoral behavior. Emerging genome-wide association studies (GWAS) and polygenic indices further support this, as scores derived from genetic variants predicting cognitive and psychological traits forecast political engagement even within families, controlling for socioeconomic confounds. Neuroscience research complements genetic findings by identifying brain structures correlated with ideological leanings, though causal directions remain debated. Conservatives tend to exhibit greater reactivity, potentially reflecting heightened threat sensitivity, while liberals show more activity, associated with conflict monitoring and uncertainty tolerance. Functional MRI studies reveal partisanship-dependent neural responses to political stimuli, with biased processing in regions like the insula driving polarized interpretations of events. However, preregistered replications have questioned the robustness of structural volume differences, such as amygdala enlargement in conservatives, attributing some prior effects to methodological artifacts rather than innate biology. These biological determinants do not imply ; gene-environment interactions modulate expression, as evidenced by higher in stable environments or among politically informed individuals. Critics of twin-based estimates argue that assumptions of equal environments for mono- and dizygotic twins may inflate figures, though extended designs incorporating and longitudinal data largely refute this by confirming genetic stability over the life course. Overall, the evidence underscores a polygenic architecture where thousands of variants contribute small effects, interacting with to shape political predispositions without overriding learned behaviors.

Social and Group Influences

Sociological Socialization and Class-Based Explanations

Sociological theories of political behavior highlight the mechanisms through which social environments transmit political attitudes and affiliations, particularly via processes of . Political socialization encompasses the acquisition of political knowledge, values, and behaviors, predominantly during formative years, through primary agents such as family, schools, peers, and community institutions. indicates that family serves as the most potent initial vector, with parent-child correlations in partisanship averaging 0.4 to 0.6 in U.S. panel studies from the and , reflecting moderate intergenerational transmission influenced by repeated exposure to parental discussions and voting habits. These effects persist into adulthood but diminish with generational turnover, geographic mobility, and exposure to diverse influences, as evidenced by longitudinal data showing decay in transmission rates over time. Secondary socialization agents, including educational systems and peer networks, further reinforce or modify early imprints. Schools, for instance, impart civic norms and ideological leanings through curricula and teacher interactions, with studies revealing that exposure to correlates with heightened but variable partisan shifts depending on institutional emphases. Peer influences gain prominence in , contributing to attitude formation via social , though empirical gaps persist in quantifying their independent effects amid confounding familial ties. Overall, socialization theories underscore environmental determinism in early life, yet twin and adoption studies suggest shared environments explain only 10-20% of variance in adult political attitudes, with non-shared experiences and innate predispositions accounting for the remainder. Class-based explanations root political behavior in socioeconomic stratification, positing that occupational position and economic interests drive alignments toward parties advocating class-specific policies. Originating in Marxist frameworks, these theories argue that working-class voters prioritize redistribution and labor protections, favoring left-wing parties, while middle and upper classes support market-oriented . Seymour Martin Lipset's cross-national analyses in the 1960s confirmed stronger class voting in than the U.S., with working-class support for socialist parties reaching 60-70% in countries like the and post-World War II. Lipset and Rokkan's cleavage theory formalized class as a core structural divide emerging from the , "frozen" into party systems by the 1920s through cross-cutting conflicts like owner-worker antagonisms, which structured voter-party linkages for decades. However, post-1970s data document a pronounced dealignment, with absolute class voting indices declining from 40-50% in the to 10-20% by the in Western democracies, driven by expanded welfare states eroding material stakes, rising homogenizing outlooks, and the emergence of non-economic issues like and cultural values. Relative class effects—measuring differentials between classes—have shown greater resilience, as argued by Geoffrey Evans, who critiques aggregate measures for understating amid overall turnout drops. This shift challenges rigid class determinism, revealing how and service-sector growth have fragmented traditional proletarian blocs, redirecting lower-class support toward populist or authoritarian appeals in recent elections.

Social Identity, Networks, and Group Dynamics

Social identity theory, originally developed by Henri Tajfel and John Turner in the 1970s, posits that individuals derive part of their self-concept from membership in social groups, leading to in-group favoritism and out-group discrimination even in minimal conditions without material incentives. In political behavior, this manifests as partisan identities functioning akin to social groups, where loyalty to one's party overrides policy preferences; for instance, empirical studies show that Americans increasingly sort social identities (e.g., race, religion) along partisan lines, amplifying affective polarization—dislike of the opposing party—beyond ideological disagreements. Lilliana Mason's research demonstrates that this "social sorting" drives voters to prioritize group signals over issue positions, with experiments revealing heightened bias against out-partisans who share policy views but differ in identity alignment. Such dynamics explain phenomena like negative partisanship, where opposition to the out-group motivates turnout more than support for one's own, as evidenced in U.S. election data from 1992 to 2016 showing rising emotional hostility uncorrelated with policy extremity. Social networks serve as conduits for reinforcing these identities and shaping political attitudes through interpersonal influence and selective exposure. Robert Huckfeldt's longitudinal studies of discussion networks in U.S. elections, such as the 1980 and 2000 cycles, found that voters' choices align closely with the modal preferences of their core discussants, with network homogeneity predicting up to 70% vote similarity due to persuasive communication and pressures. Empirical models from further indicate autoregressive effects, where political and attitudes propagate bidirectionally within ties, reducing exposure to cross-cutting views and fostering echo chambers; for example, panel from German households revealed that ideological transmission via family and friends accounts for 20-30% variance in offspring partisanship, independent of parental socioeconomic status. This relational counters individualistic models by highlighting causal pathways: disagreement within networks lowers participation, while homogeneity boosts , as seen in Huckfeldt's findings that diverse networks correlate with rates 15-20% higher than homogeneous ones. Group dynamics exacerbate these effects through mechanisms like polarization and conformity, where collective deliberation shifts attitudes toward extremes. Cass Sunstein's synthesis of experimental evidence shows group discussion amplifies predeliberation leanings—risky groups take riskier decisions, cautious ones more cautious—via normative and informational influences; in political contexts, this underlies partisan echo chambers, with meta-analyses of deliberation studies indicating average polarization shifts of 10-15% on issues like immigration policy. Real-world applications include networks, where algorithms and create feedback loops: a 2023 field experiment on feeds during the 2020 U.S. found that exposure to like-minded content increased partisan bias by 5-8%, though effects on were modest without identity cues. Critically, these dynamics reveal causal realism in —group cohesion prioritizes loyalty over evidence, as Tajfel's minimal group experiments (1971) demonstrated arbitrary categorizations eliciting 20-50% resource favoritism toward in-groups, mirroring modern partisanship where identity trumps facts. Overall, integrating identity, networks, and dynamics underscores how social structures causally entrench divisions, with empirical estimates suggesting genetic predispositions interact with these environments to sustain behavioral patterns.

Contextual and Institutional Factors

Long-Term Structural and Cultural Influences

Long-term structural influences on political behavior encompass enduring economic, institutional, and geographic factors that shape voting patterns and ideological alignments across generations through mechanisms like and . theory explains how early institutional choices or historical events create self-reinforcing feedback loops, locking in political outcomes that resist change despite external pressures. For instance, , counties with higher historical reliance on in 1860 exhibit more conservative voting patterns today, including stronger Republican support in presidential elections from 2000 to 2012, reflecting both institutional legacies like and behavioral persistence in white voters' preferences. Similarly, experimental evidence from the Moving to Opportunity program demonstrates that childhood exposure to high-poverty neighborhoods reduces future voting turnout and shifts preferences away from Democratic candidates among adolescents, with effects persisting into adulthood and altering partisan gaps by up to 10 percentage points. Economic structures, such as and inequality, exert long-term effects by influencing resource access and opportunity, which in turn condition political mobilization and party alignments. Seymour Martin Lipset's analysis linked higher socioeconomic development to stable democratic participation and reduced class-based volatility in voting, positing that industrialization fosters a supportive of liberal institutions. However, empirical tests of , which predicts that economic growth uniformly promotes democratic values and secular political behavior, face challenges; cross-national data from 1960–2010 show that while GDP per capita correlates with in some cases, authoritarian reversals occur in high-growth contexts like , undermining linear causal claims. Institutional amplifies these effects, as seen in persistent formations post-World War II in , where initial electoral rules and coalitions generated increasing returns that stabilized voter alignments for decades. Cultural influences involve transmitted values, norms, and identities that endure via , , and , often overriding short-term economic shifts in predicting partisanship. Persistent cultural traits, such as versus collectivism, correlate with policy preferences; for example, societies scoring high on Hofstede's dimension exhibit stronger support for authority-oriented , with longitudinal surveys across 50 countries from 1981–2014 linking these to stable conservative leanings. Migration patterns preserve ancestral cultures, influencing host-country voting: second-generation immigrants from hierarchical origins show 5–15% higher endorsement of welfare-skeptical parties compared to natives, per European . Local cultural contexts further embed these effects; U.S. counties with dense "cultural scenes" emphasizing traditional values predict lower support for progressive policies, with geospatial analyses revealing 8–12% variance in turnout and attributable to such milieus over 20-year periods. These influences interact dynamically, with structural constraints channeling cultural expressions; for instance, rigid class structures in agrarian economies reinforce ethnic or religious voting blocs, as evidenced by stable parties in and the persisting from the despite modernization. Empirical challenges arise from endogeneity—cultural values may both cause and result from structures—but twin studies and instrumental variable approaches confirm heritability-independent persistence, estimating 40–60% of ideological stability from early-life cultural exposure. Mainstream academic sources often underemphasize genetic confounders in favor of socialization narratives, potentially inflating , yet rigorous models integrating both reveal structural paths as dominant in low-mobility contexts.

Short-Term Events, Media, and Information Effects

Short-term events exert influence on political behavior primarily through retrospective evaluations, where voters assess incumbents based on recent performance in domains such as the economy or crises, leading to shifts in vote shares. Empirical studies demonstrate that economic shocks, including localized income declines, correlate with reduced support for governing parties; for instance, analysis of UK data from 1997 to 2022 reveals that negative income shocks prompt voters to alter preferences toward opposition candidates and express dissatisfaction with incumbents. Similarly, random natural disasters like tornadoes in the United States have been linked to incumbent punishment in presidential elections, with a 10% increase in tornado damage associated with a 1-2% drop in the incumbent party's vote share, as voters attribute such losses to government competence despite their exogenous nature. These effects align with bounded rationality models, where voters use proximate heuristics rather than deep causal analysis, though the magnitude remains modest compared to long-term partisanship. Crises like pandemics amplify retrospective voting, but outcomes vary by government handling and public attribution. During the , cross-national evidence from 2020-2021 elections shows voters rewarding incumbents for effective while punishing those perceived as incompetent, with handling evaluations explaining up to 5-10% variance in vote shifts in affected countries like the and . Extreme weather events tied to climate variability also influence behavior; for example, exposure to floods or heatwaves in the has been associated with increased campaign contributions to climate-focused candidates and modest shifts in outcomes, though aggregate national effects are diluted. Such findings underscore causal realism in short-term volatility: events disrupt equilibrium preferences only when salient and attributable, but systemic biases in media attribution—often amplifying government failures over successes due to —may exaggerate perceived impacts. Media effects on political behavior operate through agenda-setting, priming, and limited persuasion, with empirical meta-analyses indicating small but detectable influences on turnout and opinions rather than wholesale vote switching. In the United States, variations in television news exposure have shaped voter priorities and opinions, with Fox News viewership correlating to a 0.4-1% shift toward Republican candidates in congressional races from 1996-2008, though causation is confounded by self-selection. Social media amplifies these dynamics; a 2024 meta-analysis of global studies found that higher engagement with platforms like Facebook and Twitter predicts a 5-10% increase in electoral participation, particularly among youth, but effects on persuasion are minimal in high-information environments. Political advertising on social media, however, demonstrates causal sway: randomized exposure in US elections increased candidate vote shares by 0.5-2%, with targeted ads proving more effective than broad messaging due to micro-targeting precision. Information effects in elections reveal bounded persuasion, as voters resist attitude change amid partisan cues and confirmation bias. Field experiments from the 2020 US presidential campaign tested hundreds of messages, finding that factual corrections on candidate traits persuaded undecided voters by 1-3% in low-partisanship contexts, but effects decayed rapidly post-exposure, often within weeks, due to counter-messaging and motivated reasoning. A 2017 review of campaign contacts confirms minimal long-term persuasion in general elections, with early interventions yielding temporary shifts that fade by Election Day, estimating overall vote influence at under 1% per tactic like mailers or calls. These constraints highlight causal limits: while information updates beliefs in lab settings, real-world elections feature noise from competing sources, reducing net effects; peer-reviewed evidence consistently shows persuasion stronger in primaries or low-stakes referenda than polarized national contests. Academic research, often conducted in left-leaning institutions, may understate conservative media's symmetric priming effects, as self-reported data biases toward mainstream outlets.

Theories of Political Participation and Outcomes

Voting and Electoral Behavior

Voting and electoral behavior encompasses the mechanisms by which individuals choose candidates or parties, influenced by stable predispositions, performance evaluations, and policy alignments. identifies party identification as a primary driver, with longitudinal studies demonstrating that it accounts for 80-90% of vote stability across elections, as voters inherit loyalties from family and social networks early in life. This psychosocial model, developed from the 1950s American National Election Studies, posits that partisanship serves as a perceptual screen, filtering information to favor the preferred party. Economic voting theory emphasizes retrospective assessments, where gain support when economic conditions improve and lose when they deteriorate. Cross-national analyses reveal that a 1% increase in GDP growth correlates with a 0.5-1% rise in vote share, with sociotropic judgments—perceptions of national economy—outweighing personal finances in predictive power. In presidential systems like the U.S., this effect is pronounced during years, explaining swings beyond baseline partisanship, though clarity of responsibility—such as unified government—amplifies it. Spatial models of voting, formalized by in 1957, assume rational actors select the option minimizing ideological distance, implying candidate convergence to the voter. Empirical tests, however, show frequent divergence, as parties target core supporters or face multidimensional issues, with data from elections indicating voters' policy preferences cluster but candidates polarize. Prospective voting, focusing on promised future outcomes, receives less empirical support than retrospective evaluations, as voters face uncertainty in forecasts and rely on incumbents' track records for accountability. Studies of U.S. congressional midterms find retrospective economic perceptions predict outcomes more reliably than candidate pledges, with forward-looking judgments often proxying backward ones. Bounded rationality tempers pure rational choice accounts, as cognitive limits lead voters to employ heuristics like partisanship over exhaustive policy calculation. Experimental and survey evidence confirms that low-information voters cue off party labels, achieving outcomes akin to informed deliberation, while high-knowledge individuals integrate issues but still weigh identity heavily. Institutional factors, such as electoral rules, further shape behavior; proportional systems foster issue-based volatility, whereas majoritarian ones reinforce partisanship.

Activism, Protest, and Non-Electoral Engagement

Non-electoral engagement encompasses actions such as , petitions, boycotts, advocacy campaigns, and , which aim to influence policy or power dynamics outside formal electoral processes. These forms of participation are typically less frequent than voting, with surveys indicating that only about 10-20% of citizens in established democracies report engaging in or demonstrations over a given year, compared to 60-80% in high-stakes elections. Participation rates vary by context, rising during perceived crises, as seen in the 2011 Arab Spring uprisings where non-electoral actions mobilized millions in and before electoral reforms. Resource mobilization theory posits that successful hinges on the strategic assembly of resources—including financial support, organizational infrastructure, and social networks—rather than solely on widespread grievances. Empirical studies of movements like the U.S. civil rights campaigns of the 1960s demonstrate that groups with access to funding from philanthropists and dense church networks achieved higher rates, sustaining actions like the 1963 March on Washington, which drew over 250,000 participants. This approach critiques earlier grievance-based models by emphasizing elite patronage and professionalization, evidenced in data showing that resource-rich environmental organizations in outlasted efforts lacking similar support. Political opportunity structure theory argues that protest emerges when institutional openings, such as elite divisions or weakened repression, lower the risks and costs of collective action. Cross-national analyses confirm this, with protest participation increasing in countries experiencing policy shifts or electoral volatility; for instance, a 2022 study across 50 nations found that perceived openness in governance correlated with 15-25% higher protest potential. In the 1980s anti-nuclear movements in Western Europe, opportunities like government scandals facilitated larger demonstrations, contrasting with suppressed activity under stable authoritarian regimes. However, critics note that opportunities alone do not suffice without mobilizers, as stable democracies with open structures still see low baseline activism rates among apathetic populations. Relative deprivation theory links non-electoral engagement to perceived disparities between individuals' or groups' expectations and attainments, fostering frustration that motivates disruptive behavior. Originating from post-World War II studies of soldiers' morale, it explains spikes in unrest, such as urban riots in the U.S. during the , where African American communities reported heightened relative economic gaps amid rising aspirations. Yet, empirical tests reveal inconsistencies; for example, absolute poverty often predicts violence less reliably than relative perceptions, but the theory struggles to account for why deprived groups frequently remain passive without organizational catalysts. Recent data from group-level surveys link it to anti-outgroup actions, though individual-level deprivation more strongly predicts voting than high-cost protests. Rational choice frameworks address the , where individuals weigh personal costs (e.g., arrest risk, time) against benefits, often overcome via selective incentives like social ties or ideological . from 1980s Germany showed that prior participation and network density predicted future s, as friends' involvement reduced free-riding by providing reputational gains. In rebellious contexts, such as East German demonstrations leading to reunification, rational actors joined when thresholds lowered perceived futility, aligning with Mancur Olson's logic of selective goods. Empirical predictors consistently include high , interest, and education—factors enabling cost assessment—with studies across new democracies finding interest as the strongest driver of over demographics like age or income. Hybrid models integrate these, recognizing that while structural factors enable engagement, micro-level decisions—shaped by information asymmetries and —determine turnout. Online has expanded repertoires since the , with platforms lowering entry barriers but yielding shallower commitments, as evidenced by high clicktivism rates (e.g., millions signing petitions) versus sustained offline . Overall, non-electoral forms enhance representation for marginalized voices but risk or backlash, with evidence suggesting they complement rather than substitute voting in robust democracies.

Criticisms, Controversies, and Empirical Challenges

Nature vs. Nurture Debates and Heritability Evidence

The debate in theories of political behavior centers on the relative contributions of genetic predispositions and environmental influences to traits such as political , partisanship, and participation. Traditional sociological and psychological models have predominantly emphasized nurture, attributing political orientations to , , , and peer networks, often assuming these factors operate independently of innate differences. However, behavioral genetic research, particularly twin and studies, has challenged this by demonstrating that genetic factors account for a substantial portion of variance in political traits, typically estimated at 30-50%, with the remainder attributable to non-shared environments rather than shared upbringing. Twin studies provide the primary empirical foundation for heritability estimates, comparing monozygotic () twins, who share nearly 100% of their genes, with dizygotic (fraternal) twins, who share about 50%. A of 12,000 twins across four democracies (, , , and the ) found genetic influences on ranging from 34% to 62% depending on the measure, with an average of approximately 40% for self-reported liberal-conservative scales and specific issue attitudes like and equality. Similar results emerge for political participation, where genes explain 50-54% of variation in voting turnout and , as evidenced in longitudinal twin data from the . These findings hold across cultures and eras, suggesting genetic effects are not artifacts of specific contexts but robust predispositions that interact with environments to shape expressed behaviors. Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) offer molecular evidence supporting , identifying polygenic scores—aggregates of thousands of genetic variants—that predict small but significant portions of ideological variance (1-5%). For instance, a GWAS on economic and political preferences highlighted the polygenic nature of these traits, with genetic correlations to personality dimensions like (linked to ) and (linked to ). However, such studies underscore the complexity: no single "political gene" exists, and effects are mediated through traits like threat sensitivity or , which amplify environmental cues differently across individuals. Critics of nurture-dominant theories argue that overlooking leads to causal overreach, such as assuming uniform effects when genetic differences drive selective exposure to influences (e.g., ideologically similar networks). Adoption studies reinforce this by showing negligible shared environmental effects on adult political attitudes, with correlations between adoptive parents and children near zero after controlling for . Methodological critiques of twin studies, including the equal environments assumption, have been tested and largely upheld, as political attitudes correlate more strongly within monozygotic pairs even when reared apart or in dissimilar settings. Nonetheless, does not imply ; gene-environment interactions mean that while set latent potentials, outcomes depend on experiential triggers, complicating purely environmental models. In , resistance to genetic evidence has persisted, partly due to ideological commitments favoring malleable social explanations, which align with interventionist policies but may underestimate stable individual differences. Peer-reviewed syntheses counter this by replicating across diverse populations, urging integration of genetic insights to refine predictive models of . Future , combining polygenic scores with environmental , promises to clarify these dynamics, revealing how innate variances underpin apparent nurture effects like media susceptibility.

Ideological Biases and Methodological Critiques in Research

Research in political behavior has been critiqued for exhibiting ideological biases stemming from the predominance of left-leaning scholars in social sciences, including and , where self-identified liberals outnumber conservatives by ratios exceeding 10:1 or higher in recent surveys. This asymmetry, documented through faculty surveys and data, fosters environments where conservative viewpoints are underrepresented, potentially leading to in hypothesis testing, such as prioritizing adverse impact explanations for group differences in political attitudes while neglecting alternative interpretations. For instance, studies on symbolic racism have applied politicized evidentiary standards that favor narratives aligning with progressive priors, as noted in analyses of historical literature. Such biases manifest in selective of ideologically incongruent findings; challenging left-leaning assumptions, like those on innate sex differences influencing political preferences, faces heightened resistance or replication hurdles compared to conforming studies. Empirical tests reveal that while liberals may demonstrate greater accuracy in discerning factual truths on certain political issues, the overall lack of viewpoint diversity amplifies across the ideological spectrum, with conservatives' underrepresentation limiting robust falsification of dominant environmentalist models of behavior. Critics argue this homogeneity undermines causal realism by overemphasizing socialization and institutional factors while sidelining biological or dispositional predictors supported by twin studies, though the latter receive disproportionate skepticism in . Methodologically, political behavior research grapples with reproducibility challenges akin to the broader in social sciences, where initial high-profile findings on voter or priming effects often fail to replicate in large-scale efforts, with success rates below 50% in meta-analyses of experiments. Incentives favoring novel, statistically significant results encourage practices like p-hacking and selective reporting, particularly in survey-based studies of attitudes where small effect sizes and endogeneity—such as reverse causation between media exposure and —are inadequately addressed through instrumental variables or natural experiments. Reliance on WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic) samples exacerbates generalizability issues, as political behaviors observed in elite university cohorts may not extrapolate to broader populations, a critique amplified by the field's slow adoption of preregistration and protocols despite calls for reform since the mid-2010s. These methodological shortcomings intersect with ideological ones, as homogeneous reviewer pools may overlook flaws in ideologically sympathetic work while rigorously dissecting dissenting claims, perpetuating a cycle where non-replicable findings supportive of narratives persist longer in citation networks. Advances like pre-analysis plans and adversarial collaborations have mitigated some issues, yet persistent gaps in transparency—evident in only partial uptake of standards by 2024—underscore the need for diversified research teams to enhance empirical rigor in modeling political .

Recent Empirical Advances

Behavioral Insights and Nudge Theory Applications

Behavioral insights, drawn from and , emphasize cognitive biases and heuristics that influence political , such as and , which can affect and policy preferences. , formalized by and in their 2008 book Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness, posits that subtle alterations in —without restricting options or mandating actions—can predictably steer individuals toward desired behaviors. In political contexts, these insights have been applied to enhance participation, with governments establishing behavioral insights teams, such as the United Kingdom's Behavioral Insights Team in 2010, to test interventions like personalized voting reminders. Applications in electoral behavior include leveraging social norms and commitment devices to boost turnout. A large-scale in the 2000 U.S. elections mailed postcards to over 300,000 registered voters, revealing that messages invoking social pressure—such as notifying neighbors of voting records—increased turnout by up to 8.1 percentage points compared to controls, demonstrating the power of descriptive norms over civic duty appeals. Similarly, automatic voter registration, implemented in states like in 2016, defaults citizens to registered status unless they , capitalizing on to expand electorates; by 2020, this had added millions to rolls with minimal administrative burden. Text message reminders before Finland's 2022 county elections mobilized low-propensity voters, raising participation among infrequent voters by highlighting ease of access. Empirical evidence underscores modest but context-dependent effects. Prepaid postage on mail-in ballots has shown inconsistent results across European elections, with some studies finding no significant turnout boost due to varying baseline participation rates. While nudges like election-day reminders via or apps have yielded 2-5% increases in localized trials, meta-analyses indicate effects diminish in high-stakes national elections where intrinsic motivations dominate. Critics argue that nudges risk and , potentially eroding by exploiting biases rather than fostering informed deliberation. Fifteen years of research reveals many interventions produce small effect sizes, with replication challenges highlighting in behavioral studies, often favoring positive outcomes from government-affiliated units. Ethical concerns persist regarding transparency and equity, as nudges may disproportionately influence less-informed demographics, raising questions about democratic legitimacy despite claims of preserving choice.

Affective Polarization, Negativity Bias, and Computational Models

Affective polarization refers to the increasing emotional distance between political in-groups and out-groups, characterized by warmth toward one's own partisans and coldness or hostility toward opponents, distinct from ideological disagreement. This phenomenon has intensified in the United States since the , with partisan identification functioning as a primary group identity that fosters animosity, as evidenced by longitudinal surveys showing Democrats and Republicans rating the opposing party at record lows—averaging around 20-30 on a 0-100 feeling thermometer scale by the . Empirical studies confirm its association with heightened political participation, including voting and , though effects vary by context and measurement. Recent multidimensional assessments incorporate othering (perceiving out-groups as alien), aversion (dislike), and moralization (viewing opponents as immoral), revealing polarization levels exceeding simple partisan affect in surveys from 2020 onward. Negativity bias, the cognitive tendency to prioritize negative information over positive equivalents, influences political behavior by amplifying perceptions of threats from out-parties, thereby fueling affective divides. Conservatives exhibit stronger physiological and attentional responses to negative stimuli, such as aversive images or threats, compared to liberals, with skin conductance and eye-tracking data from lab experiments across cultures supporting this pattern since studies in the 2010s. In electoral contexts, negative campaign ads and attacks weigh more heavily in voter impressions than positive ones, though this bias diminishes among strong partisans who discount opponent negativity; field experiments from 2018 U.S. congressional races found negativity effects moderated by party loyalty, with independents showing up to 10-15% shifts in candidate evaluations. Cross-national analyses of 17 countries link higher negativity sensitivity to right-leaning ideologies, suggesting an evolutionary basis where vigilance against losses drives ideological differences in threat perception. Computational models integrate affective polarization and to simulate emergent political dynamics, often using agent-based simulations or to capture how biased information processing propagates in social environments. These frameworks posit that negativity-weighted learning rules—where agents update beliefs more from —lead to rapid formation and belief extremization, as demonstrated in models of social networks where initial mild biases amplify into polarized clusters within 50-100 simulated interactions. models incorporating affective parameters, such as aversion costs in contentious interactions, quantify polarization by estimating how out-group penalties distort information flows, with applications to platforms showing 20-30% faster divergence under negativity assumptions versus neutral ones. Cognitive-motivational simulations further reveal that confirmation-seeking combined with negativity drives polarization beyond mere exposure, predicting real-world patterns like increased partisan sorting observed in U.S. data from 2000-2020. Such models emphasize causal mechanisms like selective attention to threats, offering testable predictions for interventions, though they rely on assumptions of rational updating that may overlook deeper motivational asymmetries.

References

  1. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/social-sciences/political-behavior
  2. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3756812/
  3. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242653736_Theoretical_models_of_voting_behaviour
  4. http://sa.uh.edu/hobby/eitm/_docs/past-lectures/2014-lectures/jeremy-gilmore/rational-theories-of-voter-turnout.pdf
  5. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9831368/
  6. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8998150/
  7. https://iep.utm.edu/aristotle-politics/
  8. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344005260_The_Origins_of_Political_Behavior_and_the_First_Political_System
  9. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2404&context=dissertations
  10. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9046547/
  11. https://www.britannica.com/topic/elite-theory
  12. https://www.politicalsciencenotes.com/articles/evolution-of-behavioural-outlook-explained-with-diagram/450
  13. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304661477_Arthur_F_Bentley%27s_early_writings_his_relevance_to_Behavior_Analysis_Contemporary_Psychology_and_the_Social_Sciences
  14. http://www.apsanet.org/Portals/54/PresidentialAddresses/1969AddrEASTON.pdf
  15. https://jrps.shodhsagar.com/index.php/j/article/download/290/1410/2810
  16. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25363444/
  17. https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/ICPSR/series/00003
  18. https://news.umich.edu/why-we-vote-the-way-we-do/
  19. https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/27993/chapter/211704198
  20. https://www.lib.uchicago.edu/collex/exhibits/university-chicago-centennial-catalogues/university-chicago-faculty-centennial-view/charles-e-merriam-1874-1953-political-science/
  21. https://ehb.ucsd.edu/pdfs/br.pdf
  22. https://oxfordre.com/politics/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-1019
  23. https://adambrown.info/p/notes/downs_an_economic_theory_of_democracy
  24. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/analytical-politics/spatial-model-of-downs-and-black-one-policy-dimension/B379B978547F1323E4A26520ACBD3108
  25. https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/10.1257/089533004773563458
  26. https://sites.stat.columbia.edu/gelman/research/published/rational_final7.pdf
  27. https://gceps.princeton.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/196farber.pdf
  28. https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PublicChoice.html
  29. http://files.libertyfund.org/files/1063/Buchanan_0102-03_EBk_v6.0.pdf
  30. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/424737
  31. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0951692899011002001
  32. https://oxfordre.com/politics/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-974
  33. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9342595/
  34. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353815831_Personality_and_ideology_A_meta-analysis_of_the_reliable_but_non-causal_association_between_Openness_and_conservatism
  35. https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051010-111659
  36. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8170087/
  37. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/08902070251383955
  38. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0092656619300455
  39. https://gspp.berkeley.edu/assets/uploads/research/pdf/Acland%2C_Lerman_%282020%29_United_in_states_of_dissatisfaction--confirmation_bias_across_the_partisan_divide.pdf
  40. https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-psych-030424-122723
  41. https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2024/10/new-study-shows-that-partisanship-trumps-truth
  42. https://jkertzer.sites.fas.harvard.edu/Research_files/Hawkish_Biases_Web.pdf
  43. https://fbaum.unc.edu/teaching/articles/JPSP-2009-Moral-Foundations.pdf
  44. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/am-pdf/10.1111/ajps.12255
  45. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4858184/
  46. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2053168018781748
  47. https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051120-105353
  48. http://www.stevenwwebster.com/research/Webster%2520and%2520Albertson%2520%282022%29.pdf
  49. https://web.stanford.edu/dept/communication/faculty/krosnick/docs/2009/2009%2520Handbook%2520of%2520Social%2520Psychology.pdf
  50. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352154620300553
  51. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4038932/
  52. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1017/S0022381609090938?journalCode=jop
  53. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/politics-and-the-life-sciences/article/genes-personality-and-political-behavior/CE6A2F64A262E29F396893965E286FAF
  54. https://midus.wisc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/1668.pdf
  55. https://preprints.apsanet.org/engage/apsa/article-details/6397533a9e687becc048a532
  56. https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.neuropsych.16030051
  57. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2008530117
  58. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589004224017577
  59. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/01/opinion/politics-genetics-research.html
  60. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/political-analysis/article/genes-and-politics-a-new-explanation-and-evaluation-of-twin-study-results-and-association-studies-in-political-science/7F2F1CB976B7DD2D89CC254802C09659
  61. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0168952512001114
  62. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/241278328_Family_Political_Socialization_in_Multiparty_Systems
  63. https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstreams/23512f2b-effb-459a-b8cd-522f6b92e438/download
  64. https://hammer.purdue.edu/articles/thesis/The_Influence_of_Peer_Relationships_on_Political_Socialization_Among_College_Students/15060864/files/28965777.pdf
  65. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8907492/
  66. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-political-science/article/two-models-of-class-voting/19BA3382F0166E5AC1B87BAD5286FB65
  67. https://janda.org/c24/Readings/Lipset&Rokkan/Lipset&Rokkan.htm
  68. https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.so.21.080195.001033
  69. https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.polisci.3.1.401
  70. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01402382.2020.1774203
  71. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8575975/
  72. https://academic.oup.com/poq/article/82/S1/866/4951269
  73. https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/U/bo27527354.html
  74. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-political-science/article/autoregressive-influence-of-social-network-political-knowledge-on-voting-behaviour/2E4C3C1839F82AE3BA4681A8FE4DCBD6
  75. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/231980683_The_Autoregressive_Influence_of_Social_Network_Political_Knowledge_on_Voting_Behaviour
  76. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0093650218792794
  77. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2116950118
  78. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abp9364
  79. https://www.nature.com/articles/s44271-024-00089-2
  80. https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/msen/files/slavery-voting.pdf
  81. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/longterm-effects-of-neighborhood-disadvantage-on-voting-behavior-the-moving-to-opportunity-experiment/4896C6743CF5D53DDD067D51D93A8CA7
  82. https://socialsciences.ucsd.edu/~mnaoi/page4/POLI227/files/page1_13.pdf
  83. https://www.nber.org/papers/w29007
  84. https://fbaum.unc.edu/teaching/articles/Pierson_APSR_2000.pdf
  85. https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=8252&context=etd_theses
  86. https://www.hbs.edu/ris/download.aspx?name=Fouka%20and%20Tabellini%202025.pdf
  87. https://direct.mit.edu/ecps/article/2/3-4/241/126000/Cultural-scenes-and-contextual-effects-on
  88. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cultural-logic-of-politics-in-mainland-china-and-taiwan/cultures-impact-on-political-attitudes-and-behaviors/5879095EF133BD3964452E397BC04CE8
  89. https://academic.oup.com/ijpor/article/32/4/711/5702180
  90. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5120865/
  91. https://electionstudies.org/papers-documents/conference-papers/the-psychology-of-voting-and-election-campaigns/the-psychology-of-voting-and-election-campaigns-about-the-psychology-of-voting/
  92. https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1003&context=econ_facpub
  93. https://www.bemidjistate.edu/academics/political-science/wp-content/uploads/sites/40/2022/03/coen-tuff-thesis.pdf
  94. https://sites.dartmouth.edu/dlacy/research/economic-voting/
  95. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/when-politics-becomes-personal/from-rational-choice-to-partisan-identity/298E913F28405FEF38236333D40758CC
  96. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249676275_The_Downsian_Model_Predicts_Divergence
  97. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/30024380.pdf
  98. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1004999309630
  99. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0261379416302463
  100. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S026137942300063X
  101. https://www3.trincoll.edu/employees/mfrankli/Structuring%2716_final.pdf
  102. https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/28169/chapter/213032920
  103. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2014/06/12/section-5-political-engagement-and-activism/
  104. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330397148_Theories_of_Protest_Participation_A_Review_and_a_New_Approach
  105. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/226464
  106. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319581221_Resource_Mobilization_Theory
  107. https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.so.09.080183.002523
  108. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00207152221133059
  109. https://www.jstor.org/stable/193981
  110. https://bibliothek.wzb.eu/pdf/1991/iii91-103.pdf
  111. https://www.thoughtco.com/relative-deprivation-theory-4177591
  112. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/social-sciences-and-humanities/social-movement-theory-relative-deprivation-theory
  113. https://ejpr.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1475-6765.12731
  114. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1043463194006001006
  115. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1958269
  116. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260433356_Predictors_of_Political_Participation_in_New_Democracies_A_Comparative_Study
  117. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13501763.2024.2418962
  118. https://direct.mit.edu/euso/article/22/2/231/127151/Life-beyond-the-ballot-box-the-political
  119. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352154620300553
  120. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/caveman-politics/201909/nature-and-nurture-connecting-personality-politics
  121. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24569950/
  122. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1120666109
  123. https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:244583/UQ244583_OA.pdf?dsi_version=2c27e164bc62c6736f5c837f796a0e37
  124. https://research.unl.edu/blog/twins-study-confirms-link-between-genetics-politics-3/
  125. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S019188692400237X
  126. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/14789299211053780
  127. https://www.cell.com/trends/genetics/pdf/S0168-9525%2812%2900111-4.pdf
  128. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25036715/
  129. https://sites.rutgers.edu/lee-jussim/wp-content/uploads/sites/135/2020/04/Honeycutt-Jussim-2020-A-Model-of-Political-Bias-in-Social-Science-Research.pdf
  130. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3791572
  131. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2024-24022-005
  132. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10371040/
  133. https://jonathanhaidt.com/viewpoint-diversity/
  134. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/20531680241233439
  135. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2214804324001642
  136. https://madoc.bib.uni-mannheim.de/46605/1/Wuttke%2520Why%2520Too%2520Many%2520Political%2520Science%2520Findings%2520Cannot%2520be%2520Trusted%2520and%2520What%2520We%2520Can%2520Do%2520About%2520it.pdf
  137. https://today.ucsd.edu/story/a-new-replication-crisis-research-that-is-less-likely-be-true-is-cited-more
  138. https://newsroom.haas.berkeley.edu/research/amid-a-replication-crisis-in-social-science-research-six-year-study-validates-open-science-methods/
  139. https://www.bi.team/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/BIT-Behavioral-Government-Report-US.pdf
  140. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/social-pressure-and-voter-turnout-evidence-from-a-largescale-field-experiment/11E84AF4C0B7FBD1D20C855972C2C3EB
  141. https://responsivegov.org/research/how-nudge-theory-helps-us-design-effective-voter-registration-systems/
  142. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11109-024-09954-6
  143. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379425000745
  144. https://theconversation.com/nudge-theory-what-15-years-of-research-tells-us-about-its-promises-and-politics-210534
  145. https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/phc3.12658
  146. https://oxfordre.com/politics/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-2293
  147. https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-073034
  148. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00323217251338496
  149. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/new-measure-of-affective-polarization/DEF7FCC26D4F09BDE5603BCC02B4765D
  150. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/context/poliscifacpub/article/1069/viewcontent/Hibbing_BBS_2014_Differences_in_negativity__Cambridge_UP.pdf
  151. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4477934/
  152. https://ou.edu/content/dam/carlalbertcenter/documents/munis-ashton-negativity-bias-congress.pdf
  153. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/negativity-biases-and-political-ideology-a-comparative-test-across-17-countries/F80A700B09BE107D15C51A3301C495E7
  154. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1364661319301810
  155. https://d-scholarship.pitt.edu/46788/13/Dissertation_MinsuJang_ETDCombined_AfterRevision.pdf
  156. https://arxiv.org/html/2412.14414v1
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.