International Relations and Politics, Political Psychology
Build Bright University, Master of Law and Social Sciences
1
In...
International Relations and Politics, Political Psychology
Build Bright University, Master of Law and Social Sciences
2
In...
International Relations and Politics, Political Psychology
Build Bright University, Master of Law and Social Sciences
3
wo...
International Relations and Politics, Political Psychology
Build Bright University, Master of Law and Social Sciences
4
Th...
International Relations and Politics, Political Psychology
Build Bright University, Master of Law and Social Sciences
5
1....
International Relations and Politics, Political Psychology
Build Bright University, Master of Law and Social Sciences
6
in...
International Relations and Politics, Political Psychology
Build Bright University, Master of Law and Social Sciences
7
co...
International Relations and Politics, Political Psychology
Build Bright University, Master of Law and Social Sciences
8
co...
International Relations and Politics, Political Psychology
Build Bright University, Master of Law and Social Sciences
9
1....
International Relations and Politics, Political Psychology
Build Bright University, Master of Law and Social Sciences
10
1...
International Relations and Politics, Political Psychology
Build Bright University, Master of Law and Social Sciences
11
m...
International Relations and Politics, Political Psychology
Build Bright University, Master of Law and Social Sciences
12
r...
International Relations and Politics, Political Psychology
Build Bright University, Master of Law and Social Sciences
13
4...
International Relations and Politics, Political Psychology
Build Bright University, Master of Law and Social Sciences
14
r...
International Relations and Politics, Political Psychology
Build Bright University, Master of Law and Social Sciences
15
H...
International Relations and Politics, Political Psychology
Build Bright University, Master of Law and Social Sciences
16
i...
International Relations and Politics, Political Psychology
Build Bright University, Master of Law and Social Sciences
17
p...
International Relations and Politics, Political Psychology
Build Bright University, Master of Law and Social Sciences
18
i...
International Relations and Politics, Political Psychology
Build Bright University, Master of Law and Social Sciences
19
s...
International Relations and Politics, Political Psychology
Build Bright University, Master of Law and Social Sciences
20
I...
International Relations and Politics, Political Psychology
Build Bright University, Master of Law and Social Sciences
21
R...
of 21

Political psychology tol

I want to share and learn for peace building.
Published on: Mar 4, 2016
Published in: Law      
Source: www.slideshare.net


Transcripts - Political psychology tol

  • 1. International Relations and Politics, Political Psychology Build Bright University, Master of Law and Social Sciences 1 International Relations and Politics THE POLITICALPSYCHOLOGY Preface: The people in the World wish living in the peace. For almost as long as I can remember, I have always been interested in the causes of political, great leader, and other social behaviors, though it took me a long time to realize that what I was most interested in had International Relations and Politics. So this term I wrote one assignment the topic: “political psychology.” In fact, for the world got World War I & II that had destroyed a lot of resources of human, natural, physical, finance, and social. They wanted to be powered and empired the countries. Cambodia people used to get civil war for long time that had destroyed infrastructure, and people live. Especially in Pol Pot Regime killed live over three million people. According to above reason, how did they used the political style and political psychology? So on behalf of student study at master of Law and Social Sciences, I try my best learning from lecture, observing, research and conduct one assignment for learning” Political Psychology”. The purpose of assignment is learning, increasing knowledge, improved my writing, and file document for lecture comment and adjust for better. Especially I want to be a good writer in the future to contribute for building the world peace. Acknowledgment: The research emerged from my effort and introduced from lecture, the subject International Relationship and Politics. Nowadays I study at Master of Law and Social Sciences. Through lecture advise and researched international relations and political psychology it might be a good idea for me to write this assignment on political psychology. I would like to thank you the lecture who provided guidance and support along my intellectual path and inspired me to write this concept, political psychology. I am extremely grateful to you for encouragement, motivation and supports. Moreover I also would like to thank you for school, Build Bright University, BBU that has provide good lecture and try to support course for equipment capacity for student of Mater degree of Law and Social Sciences. In addition, I owe several large intellectual debts to those who trained me in psychology and in international relations. It goes without saying that my work would never have been possible with-out the work. As my dissertation adviser and beyond, through teaching and modeling, I have learned a great deal not only about content and substance but also about process and form. My appreciation for his skills, integrity, and support continues to grow for researching.
  • 2. International Relations and Politics, Political Psychology Build Bright University, Master of Law and Social Sciences 2 Introduction: For those who are not very familiar with psychology, it could be surprising to find a work area called political psychology. It could be thought that psychology and politics are two spaces of action that have nothing to do with each other. However, we do not need to analyze very much the dynamics of politics to see that there is a series of factors such as perceptions, attitudes, values, and conflicts that constitute the object of interest and study that defines the science of psychology. Recently, the International Relations and Politics wrote about the great philosophy and political psychology for level master degree of Law and Social Sciences. These concepts provided the real experiences and contributed the knowledge to student at University. The philosophy are: Confucius, Plato, Aristole, Thomas Aquinas, Maki Avaely, Thomas Hobbes and Jonh Locke. They shared, advised and recommend on how to choose the ways for management and leading the country in order to get peace and prosperity for people. Both successful are people and leader. Especially the leader work by heart and hand. They think of the people. Furthermore Mr. G. Le Bon, in his La Psychologie Politique et La Défense Sociale (1910), claimed the need to develop a discipline of political psychology, because at that moment there were very few studies concerned with these topics. Also, he was surprised that studies in political science did not include knowledge offered by psychology, which he thought constituted the true foundation of politics. In any event, it should be clear that we can apply to political psychology the well- known saying that it has a long past but a short history. We say this because there have been some authors and books we could classify in this discipline without any difficulty, even before the term political psychology existed. Without any doubt, one of the clearest examples is Machiavelli, who is cited by Le Bon as the author of the only treatise in political psychology that existed at that time. In The Prince, Machiavelli gathered different principles and reflections over how to maintain domination over others and to retain power, all of evident psychological content. The ideas of Machiavelli are of importance not only because of the interesting reflections on human nature, but also because of the influence they had on later psycho- political thinking. Good evidence of this is that one of the personality dimensions put forward in the study of political attitudes has been called Machiavellism. In this case dimensions put forward center on three central aspects indicated by the author from Florence: opinions over human nature, strategies to be used in relationships with others, and generalized moral principles. Abstract: As an increasingly popular interdisciplinary and multi-method approach to studying individual-level political phenomena, political psychology has made important strides in explaining the processes behind political attitudes and behaviour, decision making, and the interaction between the individual and the group. Hence, it is in a unique position to improve the explanatory power of international relations research that deals with the individual, such as in the study of leadership, foreign policy decision making, foreign policy analysis, and public opinion. After discussing the defining characteristics of political psychology, the research trends in the field, and its research methods, the article reviews the existing and potential contributions of political psychology to the study of international relations. Next, the article points to new areas for research in international relations that
  • 3. International Relations and Politics, Political Psychology Build Bright University, Master of Law and Social Sciences 3 would particularly benefit from the theories and the methods already in use in political psychology. On the international relations front, studies on foreign policy analysis and decision making, international conflict, and conflict resolution greatly benefitted from a psychological perspective in explaining their respective political phenomenon. Dating back to the study of personality and leadership in the 1930s, political psychology established itself as a self-conscious discipline during the behaviourist revolution of the 1960s, lived through the cognitive revolution of the 1980s, and has recently witnessed the emergence of emotions and affect as major explanatory variables of political attitudes, decisions, and behaviour. Recently, new technologies in neuroimaging, new data made available by genetics research, and the recent studies on the physiology of human behavior are likely to bring an epidemiological perspective into political psychology. What is Political Psychology? What is Political Psychology? Political psychology explores the border that runs between the intellectual nations of political science and psychology. It is a dynamic subfield that addresses the ways in which political institutions both affect and are affected by human behavior. Our understanding of the reciprocal relationship between politics and psychology (especially social psychology, which borders also on sociology) has been steadily evolving in recent years, making it a compelling and exciting area of study. To know everything there is to know about the world of politics in theory and in practice, one must be, among other things, an expert in psychology. Political psychologists belong to a relatively young interdisciplinary community that not only draws on theories and methods from psychology and political science, but is also happy to borrow from neighboring fields such as international relations, anthropology, sociology, organizational behavior, economics, history, and philosophy. The work of political psychologists can be quantitative and statistical, as with analyses of experimental effects on candidate perception or longitudinal studies of voting trends. Or their work can be qualitative and narrative, as with case studies of decision-making fiascoes or archival analyses of famous presidential speeches. There is no single way to do political psychology. In this book, you will learn many different approaches to the vast array of questions that emanate from this broad, exciting field of inquiry. There are live controversies and unresolved issues—plenty of work for future generations of political psychologists to complete. One perennial question is whether drawing on one’s own political values and ideological convictions can help to produce valid scientific insight, or whether this inevitably leads to distortion and bias. Tetlock (1994), for instance, argued that “the road to scientific hell is paved with good moral intentions” and complained that (predominantly liberal) social scientists have too often allowed their own personal views to influence their professional analyses of racism and other value-laden topics. To these charges, Sears (1994) replied that being explicit about one’s theoretical and political preferences is “far healthier than cloaking our own feelings in a pretense of scientific objectivity, while ignoring a ream of scientific evidence we happen to find distasteful” (p. 555). To be sure, when moral and political values are at stake, perfect neutrality is elusive. But to what extent is it even desirable as an ideal goal? The reader will have to answer this thorny question for himself or herself. It is important to realize that political psychology is part of a long, venerable, and often controversial cultural tradition that goes back many centuries in Europe. Our brief historical overview draws extensively on insightful summaries by Stone (1981), Van Ginneken (1988), Ward (2002), and Deutsch and Kinnvall (2002).
  • 4. International Relations and Politics, Political Psychology Build Bright University, Master of Law and Social Sciences 4 The key words in this assignment are motive, trait, group psychology, ego, personality, politics, The authoritarian Personal, political, psychology, Sources, influences, group behavior, group size, group structure, group function, group development, influence of conformity in groups, the influence of power in groups, decision-making in groups, individual as political actor, political movements, politician, political leader, political alignments and structures, political intergroup relations, political processes, case studies, human development and the political economy, illustrative studies, people psychology, foreign policy analyses, government and self-esteem, identity and group conflict. I. APPRAOCH OF POLITITICAL PSCYCHOLOGY: 1.1. A motive-based approach: In terms of political psychology motivation is viewed as a goal-orientated behavior driven by a need for three things; Power (social and political), affiliation intimacy, and Goal. These categories were grouped by Winter (1996) from Murray’s (1938) twenty suggested common human goals. Need for power affects the style in which a leader performs. Winter and Stewart (1977) suggested that leaders high in power motivation and low in need of affiliation intimacy motivation make better presidents. Affiliation-motivated leaders alternatively tend to collaborate joint efforts in the absence of threat. Lastly, achievement motivation has demonstrated to not correspond with political success, especially if it is higher than power motivation Motivation between a leader and those whom they are ruling needs to be consistent for success. Motives have been shown to be correlated more highly with situation and time since last goal-fulfillment, rather than consistent traits. University Press, The Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) is commonly used for assessing motives. However in the case of leadership assessment this test is more difficult to implement therefore more applicable tests are often used such as content analysis of speeches and interviews. 1.2. A trait-based approach: Traits are personality characteristics that show to be stable over time and in different situations, creating predispositions to perceive and respond in particular ways. Psychology Press, Gordon Allport (1897-1967) realized the study of traits introducing central, secondary, cardinal and common traits. These four distinctions suggest that people demonstrate traits to varying degrees, and further that there is a difference between individual and common traits to be recognized within a society. Hans Eysenck (1916-1997) contributed three major traits, currently however Paul Costa and Robert R. McCrae McCrae (1992) “Big Five” personality dimensions are the most recognized. These include; neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness, openness to experience and conscientiousness. Theories in political psychology induce that one’s combination of these traits has implications for leadership style and capacity. For example individuals who score highly on extroversion are demonstrated as having superior leadership skills. The Myers-Briggs Type indicator (MBTI) is a personality assessment scale commonly used in the study of political personality and for job profiling.
  • 5. International Relations and Politics, Political Psychology Build Bright University, Master of Law and Social Sciences 5 1.3. Personality and politics: We have divided the readings on personality and politics into two subsections. First, we focus on the theory of authoritarianism and its consequences for understanding mass psychology. Second, we turn our attention to the personality structures of political leaders and other elites. 1.3.1. Authoritarianism and Mass Psychology: A book published in 1950 by Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, and Sanford entitled The Authoritarian Personality is probably the single most well-known work in all of political psychology. Christie and Cook (1958) found that in the first 7 years after the publication of this book, there were at least 230 published articles referring to it. It is a rare book in social science that stimulates other books to be written about it, but The Authoritarian Personality has received this honor more than once (e.g., Christie & Jahoda, 1954; Stone, Lederer, & Christie, 1993). At the time of writing the introduction to this section, a Google search of the Internet turned up 2,920 citations referring to the work by Adorno and his colleagues. These figures undoubtedly underestimate the degree of impact that this book has had, not only within political psychology and the social sciences in general, but especially on the lay public. The work that resulted in the publication of The Authoritarian Personality was originally commissioned by the American Jewish Committee in 1944 and was aimed at deepening the scientific psychological understanding of anti-Semitism and the events leading to the Holocaust. In addition to the sheer scope and ambition of the project, The Authoritarian Personality was also unique because of its methodological creativity. It was the first study of its time to combine the relatively rigorous and empirically-oriented techniques of survey research with the use of psychoanalytically-oriented projective assessment techniques, including the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) and clinical interviews. While the theory of authoritarianism had many contributors and had been in the works for years (e.g., Fromm, 1941; Horkheimer, 1936; Reich, 1946), the research by Adorno and his colleagues was the first attempt to investigate these ideas empirically. As Roger Brown points out in the first reading we have selected for this section, some of the general ideas contained in The Authoritarian Personality had been independently explored by Nazi psychologists. Ernst R.Jaensch of the University of Marburg, for instance, wrote a (1938) book entitled Der Gegentypus (or The Anti-Type) in which he distinguished between two types of political personalities: (a) the S-type, which he believed was characterized by introversion, intelligence, femininity, passivity, lack of physical activity, and Jewish or mixed race ancestry; and (b) the J-type, which he believed was characterized by extraversion, strong reality constraints, masculinity, aggressiveness, interest in contact sports, Nazi attitudes, and Aryan ancestry. It is remarkable that such opposed theorists as Jaensch and the members of the Marxist-oriented Frankfurt School would propose parallel personality schemes linking general psychological characteristics to specific political belief systems. Whether there are in fact meaningful and measurable differences in the general cognitive and motivational styles of left-wingers vs. right-wingers remains a controversial issue to this day (Jost, Glaser, Kruglanski, & Sulloway, 2003). According to Adorno and his colleagues, the authoritarian personality syndrome was theorized to include general ethnocentrism, ego-defensiveness (the inability to admit one’s own fears or weaknesses combined with a lack of self-insight), mental rigidity and intolerance of ambiguity, projection and the idealization of authority figures, conformity and conventionalism, the expression of hostility and aggression towards deviants, and political-economic conservatism. The personality syndrome was assumed to result from oppressive, overly punitive and restrictive socialization practices within the family, arising from economic and other frustrations. The syndrome was measured with a survey
  • 6. International Relations and Politics, Political Psychology Build Bright University, Master of Law and Social Sciences 6 instrument, called the F-Scale (or Fascism Scale), which was one of the most widely used scales in all of political psychology during the 1950s and 1960s. Because Adorno et al. failed to write a succinct, thorough summary of their work, which was enormous in size (23 chapters and over 1,000 pages), we have chosen to introduce students to this tradition of research by reprinting Roger Brown’s outstanding and influential (1965) review of the strengths and weaknesses of early research on the authoritarian personality. Criticisms of the work include all of the following: (a) the use of non-representative samples in drawing general, far-reaching conclusions, (b) reliance on poorly constructed attitude surveys that allowed for the intrusion of response bias, (c) failure to establish controlled procedures for content analyses of the clinical interviews, and (d) reluctance to seriously consider alternative explanations for their empirical findings. For example, it seems plausible that correlations among authoritarianism, ethnocentrism, education, and socio-economic status could arise from cultural associations rather than personality dynamics per se (see Pettigrew, 1959). And even if one were to accept the validity of the authoritarian syndrome, the original researchers were never able to make a convincing case that it was caused by authoritarian child-rearing practices. Despite numerous and serious methodological shortcomings of the original work by Adorno et al., many of their insights do stand the test of time. The second reading in this section by Richard Doty, Bill Peterson, and David Winter develops Fromm’s (1941) ideas about the psychological causes of authoritarian behavior. Whereas Adorno et al. (1950) located the sources of authoritarianism in the family, Fromm put much greater emphasis on generalized threats caused by social, economic, and political instability. In testing this notion empirically, Doty and his colleagues demonstrate that various public manifestations of authoritarianism are increased during historical periods of relatively high threat. Similarly, with some interesting exceptions, authoritarianism appears to dip below baseline levels in periods of low threat. 1.3.2. Political Elites and Leadership: The remaining readings on personality and politics focus on understanding the behavior of individual political actors, especially professional politicians and other elite decision- makers. In Reading 5, Fred Greenstein directly confronts the most common major objections to studying personality in seeking to understand the dynamics of political events. These objections usually take one or more of the following forms: (a) Insofar as individual personality types are randomly distributed across different social roles, personality variables will “cancel out” and become irrelevant in comparison with the enactment of social roles; (b) Political behavior is determined much more by the specific political context than by the personality characteristics of individuals; (c) The psychodynamic aspects of personality that most political psychologists concern themselves with (e.g., ego-defense mechanisms) are not directly relevant to most political outcomes; (d) Social structural and demographic characteristics of political actors (e.g., race, social class, religion) have much greater political importance than do aspects of their “personalities;” and (e) Large-scale social forces, rather than individuals, are the real determinants of political events. Greenstein discusses the validity of each objection and suggests ways of overcoming them. Our final article in this section is an excellent example of how researchers endeavor to investigate the personalities of political leaders “from a distance” in an effort to determine how personal and situational attributes might affect leadership success. Drawing on archival data concerning American presidents, David Winter assesses the evidence for and against three different models of successful political leadership: (a) the leader characteristics model, which assumes that successful leaders tend to share specific personality characteristics such as energy, decisiveness, and charisma; (b) a leader-situation match model, which proposes that the most successful leaders will be those with personal characteristics that are most appropriate for the immediate political
  • 7. International Relations and Politics, Political Psychology Build Bright University, Master of Law and Social Sciences 7 context; and (c) a leader-follower match model, according to which the most successful political elites will be those whose personal characteristics are most consistent with the characteristics of the mass public. Winter’s analysis suggests that when leadership success is defined in terms of electoral outcomes, the most successful presidents are those whose personal motives fit with the motives that are most prevalent and contemporary in society. However, when success is defined in terms of “presidential greatness” as judged by historical experts in retrospect, success is largely a function of the personal characteristics of the president and the degree of incongruence between the president and the society around him! 1.4. The Authoritarian Personality: The Authoritarian Personality "invented a set of criteria by which to define personality traits, ranked these traits and their intensity in any given person on what it called the 'F scale' (F for fascist)." The personality type Adorno et al. identified can be defined by nine traits that were believed to cluster together as the result of childhood experiences. These traits include conventionalism, authoritarian submission, authoritarian aggression, anti- intellectualism, anti-intraception, superstition and stereotypy, power and "toughness", destructiveness and cynicism, projective, and exaggerated concerns over sex. Nowadays when so many different kinds of people move around and mix together so much, a person has to protect himself especially care-fully against catching an infection or disease from them.” i. Sex. Exaggerated concern with sexual “goings-on.” 1. “The wild sex life of the old Greeks and Romans was tame compared to some of the goings-on in this country, even in places where people might least expect it.” 2. “Homosexuals are hardly better than criminals and ought to be severely punished.” Do you know him—the Authoritarian, the Antidemocrat, the Pre-Fascist? It seems to me that I do. Item after item in the F Scale is something I have heard or very like something I have heard. Furthermore, the people I know who have made one of these statements have usually gone on to make others of them. The items as a whole had something in common. The scores on each single item were correlated with total scores for the remaining items and the mean of these correlations was .33. At a later date the authors of the F Scale made their original data available to Melvin (1955) who did a factor analysis of it and found a very strong general factor running through all items (cited by Eysenck, 1954, p. 152). The Berkeley authors had found a superficially heterogeneous set of opinions that had, as a total set, some kind of psychological unity. However the items within a subscale were not more closely correlated with one another than they were with numerous items outside the subscale. The nine symptoms or characteristics (e.g., “conventionalism,” “objectivity”) were not, in short, shown to be psychologically real. With the F Scale the Berkeley group hoped to identify a personality system that was potentially fascistic and so they expected F Scale scores to correlate with the explicit tenets of fascism expressed in the A-S, E, and PEC scales. This proved to be the case. For the first form of the scale the mean correlation with A-S was .53, with E it was .65, and with PEC, .54. The F Scale was revised several times by dropping items that did not correlate with total scores or that were not predictive of A-S and E scores. For the final version of the scale the mean correlation with an E Scale that included anti-Semitic items. It was ethnocentrism, anti-Semitism, and potentiality for fascism that were most strongly interrelated. These attitudes and personality characteristics tended to be associated with
  • 8. International Relations and Politics, Political Psychology Build Bright University, Master of Law and Social Sciences 8 conservatism in political and economic matters but not so strongly as they were associated with one another. This pattern suggests that there may have been quite a few ethnocentric and antidemocratic subjects who were leftish liberal in the political and economic sphere. That is a fact to remember because it is related to later developments. 1.4.1. Sources and influences: The Authoritarian Personality was based in part on earlier Frankfurt School analyses undertaken in Germany, but with a few key changes. First, their Marxist and radical] roots were downplayed. For example, the earlier “authoritarian personality/revolutionary personality” axis was changed to an “authoritarian personality/democratic personality” axis in America. Thus, values and behaviors earlier associated with revolutionary Marxism were now associated with support for democracy. Second, the book abandoned and/or modified traditional Marxist sociological and economic explanations for human behavior in favor of psychological explanations, earning scorn from more orthodox Marxists. 1.5. The political psychology of group: 1.5.1. Group behavior: Group behavior is key in understanding the structure, stability, popularity and ability to make successful decisions of political parties. Individual behavior deviates substantially in a group setting therefore it is difficult to determine group behavior by looking solely at the individuals that comprise the group. Group form and stability is based upon several variables; size, structure, the purpose that the group serves, group development and influences upon a group. 1.5.2.Group size: Group size has various consequences. In smaller groups individuals are more committed Group performance also diminishes with size increase, due to decreased co-ordination and free-riding. The size of a [[political party]] or nation can therefore have consequential effects on their ability to co-ordinate and progress. 1.5.3.Group structure: The structure of a group is altered by member diversity, which largely affects its efficiency. Individual diversity within a group has proven to demonstrate less communication and therefore to increase conflict (Maznevski, 1994). This has implications for political parties based in strongly colonial or multiracial nations. Member diversity has consequences for; status, role allocation and role strain within a group, all of which can cause disagreement. Thus maintenance of group cohesion is key. Cohesion is affected by several factors; the amount of time members spend in the group, the amount that members like one another, the amount of reward that the group offers, the amount of external threat to the group and the level of warmth offered by leaders. These factors should be considered when attempting to form an efficient political group. President decision efficiency for example is affected by the degree to which members of the advisory group have a hierarchical status and by the roles that each member is assigned.
  • 9. International Relations and Politics, Political Psychology Build Bright University, Master of Law and Social Sciences 9 1.5.4.Group function: Studying the purpose for formation of a group, whether it is serving a “functional” purpose or an “interpersonal attraction” purpose (Mackie and Goethals, 1987), has implications for political popularity. Often people join groups in order to fulfill certain survival, interpersonal, informational and collective needs. A political party that provides; stability, clear information, offers power to individuals and satisfies a sense of affiliation, will gain popularity. Fundamental interpersonal relations orientation, theory suggests that groups satisfy the need for control, intimacy and inclusion. Groups also states that we are drawn to others close in socioeconomic status, beliefs, attitudes and physical appearance. Similarity in certain respects can thus be related to how much a person is attracted to joining one group over another. 1.5.5.Group development: Group development tends to happen in several stages; forming, storming, norming, performing, and adjourning (Tuckman, 1965). Group awareness of these stages is important in order for members to acknowledge that a process is taking place and that certain stages such as storming are part of progression and that they should not be discouraged or cause fear of instability. Awareness of group development also allows for models to be implemented in order to manipulate different stages. External influences upon a group will have different effects depending upon which stage the group is at in its course. This has implications for how open a group should be depending upon the stage of development it is at, and on its strength. Consistency is also a key aspect in a group for success (Wood, 1994). 1.5.6.The influence of conformity in groups: The application of conformity is key for understanding group influence in political behavior. Decision making within a group is largely influenced by conformity. It is theorized to occur based on two motives; normative social influence and informational social influence is influenced by several factors; an increase in group size but only to a certain degree at which it plateaus, and degree of unanimity and commitment to the group. Therefore the degree of popularity of a political group can be influenced by its existing size and the believed unanimity and commitment by the public of the already existing members. The degree by which the group conforms as a whole can also be influenced by the degree of individuation of its members. 1.5.7.The influence of power in groups: Power is another influential factor within a group or between separate groups. The "critical bases of power" developed by French and Raven (1959) allocates the following types of power as the most successful; reward power, coercive power, legitimate power, referent power and expert power. The way in which power is exerted upon a group can have repercussive outcomes for popularity. Referent power results in greater popularity of a political group or leader than coercive power, Shaw and Condelli (1986.This has implications for leaders to manipulate others to identify with them, rather than to enforce consequential punishment. However if coercive power is enforced, success and a trusted leader (Friedland, 1976) are necessary in order for group conflict not to escalate punishment and reward are also suggested to detract from intrinsic motivation. A sense of freedom must be advocated to the group.
  • 10. International Relations and Politics, Political Psychology Build Bright University, Master of Law and Social Sciences 10 1.5.8.Decision-making in groups: Decision-making is an important political process which influences the course of a country's policy. Group decision-making is largely influenced by three rules; “majority- wins rule”, “truth-wins rule”, and “first-shift rule”. Decision-making is also coerced by conformity. Irrational decisions are generally made during emotional periods. For example an unpopular political party may receive more votes during a period of economic or political instability. Controversial studies by George Marcus (2003) however imply that high levels of anxiety can actually cause an individual to analyze information more rationally and carefully, resulting in more well-informed and successful decisions. The psychology of decision-making however must be analyzed in accordance with whether it is within a leadership context or a between group context. The implementation of successful decision-making is often enhanced by group decision-making (Hill, 1982) especially if the decision is important to the group and when the group has been working together for an extended period of time (Watson, Michaelson and Sharp, 1991). However groups can also hinder decision-making if a correct answer is not clear. Janis (1972) introduced the notion of Groupthink that advocates an increased chance of groups making faulty decisions under several conditions; strong group cohesion, isolation of group decision from public review, the presence of a directive leader in the group, and high stress levels. Techniques to establish more effective decision making skills in political dimensions have been suggested. Hirt and Markman (1995) claim that implementing an individual in a group to find faults and to critique will enable the members to establish alternative viewpoints. George (1980) suggested “multiple advocacy” which implements that a neutral person analyses the pros and cons of various advocate suggestions and thus makes an informed decision. The politician applied psychology theories to improve productivity of political groups include implementing “team development” techniques, “quality circles” and autonomous work groups. 1.6.Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego: Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego (German: Massenpsychologie und Ich Analyse) is a work of Sigmund Freud from the year 1921. In this monograph, Freud describes psychological mechanisms at work within mass movements. A mass, according to Freud, is a "temporary entity, consisting of heterogeneous elements that have joined together for a moment." He refers heavily to the writings of sociologist and psychologist Gustave Le Bon (1841-1931), summarizing his work at the beginning of the book in the chapter Le Bons Schilderung der Massenseele ("Le Bon's description of the group mind"). Like Le Bon, Freud says that as part of the mass, the individual acquires a sense of infinite power which allows him to act on impulses that he would otherwise have to curb as an isolated individual. These feelings of power and security allow the individual not only to act as part of the mass, but also to feel safety in numbers. This is accompanied, however, by a loss of conscious personality and a tendency of the individual to be infected by any emotion within the mass, and to amplify the emotion, in turn, by "mutual induction". Overall, the
  • 11. International Relations and Politics, Political Psychology Build Bright University, Master of Law and Social Sciences 11 mass is "impulsive, changeable, and irritable. It is controlled almost exclusively by the unconscious." Freud distinguishes between two types of masses. One is the short-lived kind, characterized by a rapidly transient interest, such as trends. The other kind consists of more permanent and enduring masses, which are highly organized, such as the Church or the military. "The masses of the former type, so to speak, ride on the latter, like the short but high waves on the long swell of the sea." However, the same basic mental processes operate in both kinds of masses. Freud refers back to his theory of instincts and believes that masses are held together by libidinal bonds. Each individual in the mass acts on impulses of love that are diverted from their original objectives. They pursue no direct sexual goal, but "do not therefore work less vigorously". Freud initially called the (largely unconscious) identification with the other individuals of the mass, all of whom are drawn in the same way to the leader, a binding element. The ego perceives a significant similarity with others in the group and identifies with them. In addition, admiration and idealization of the leader of the group takes place through the process of idealization. The narcissistic libido is displaced to the object which is "loved because of its perfection which the individual has sought for his own ego" Also, a process of identification with the aggressor can take place, for example, as happens in regression. Thus, Freud came to the conclusion: "A primary mass is a number of individuals who have put one and the same object in place of their ego ideal and consequently identify with each other. II. THE FIELDS: 1. The Individual as Political Actor: This area is at the center of a cluster of studies concerned with the determinants and consequences of the individual’s political behavior. Studies of political socialization, the formation of political attitudes, political participation, political alienation, voting behavior, the social backgrounds of political terrorists, the relationship between personality and political attitudes, group membership and political attitudes/behavior, situational factors in political behavior, the mass media, etc., are some of the many studies in political psychology that could be under this heading. This is by far the largest area of research in political psychology as it constitutes the basis for most other research within the Weld. The individual as a political actor is at the heart of the debate on how political psychology differs from rational choice models as it seeks to explain behavior that is outside the Hobbesian world of individuals as instrumentalist rational creatures. Instead, political psychology insists that individuals may reason differently in different circumstances and that emotional aspects guide interaction and action in the social world. How we determine the individual as a political actor also has implications for how we understand collective identity formation and collective action. Instrumentalist explanations have difficulty in explaining circumstances when people identify themselves with the group for reasons other than those that are purely instrumental. Emotional aspects of belonging, or other needs for identifying and bonding, are often overlooked and so is the desire for mutual
  • 12. International Relations and Politics, Political Psychology Build Bright University, Master of Law and Social Sciences 12 recognition and community building. As noted by Marcus (this volume), works on the psychology of emotion and on emotion in politics are starting to have a serious impact on the Weld of political psychology. Collective identity, whether based on ethnicity, class, gender, race, religion, nation, or the state must, in other words, be understood within the frame-work of how individuals constitute political actors. The focus, and problem, of aggregating from the individual level to the group level is thus at the forefront of political psychology. 2. Political Movements: Studies of political movements make up the nexus of investigations of such social formations, groups, organizations, and communities in which the political actor is not an individual but rather a social unit composed of interacting individuals and groups. Both social identity theory and its derivative, self-categorization theory, have been attempts to create a non-reductionist cognitive social psychological model of group processes (Monroe, Hankin, & Bukovchik VanVechten, 1999). Proceeding from and developing Tajfel’s (1982) “minimal group paradigm,” a number of political psychologists have applied social identity theory to understand political movements and other social formations (Abrams, 1994; Hogg & Abrams, 1988; Oakes, Haslam, & Turner, 1994). As early as 1982, Helmut Moser for instance, in a review of political psychology in the Federal Republic of Germany, identify studies of the “youth movement” and studies of action groups of citizens as two of the major topics that had been studied extensively by political psychologists in that country. Similarly, there have been studies of the women’s movement (Carroll, 1989; Clayton & Crosby, 1992), of terrorist groups (Crenshaw, 1986, 1990 and this volume; Reich, 1990), of religious sects (Robins & Post, 1997), of the development of ethnic and/or national movements (Staub, 1989; Druckman, 1994; Volkan, 1997), and of inter-group relations and group conflict. 3. The Politician or Political Leader: This area is closely related to the one except that the research here deals with a special category of political actors, those who are identified as playing or having played a particularly significant role in the political process. Studies of political leaders and political leadership, the personalities of politicians, psychobiography, and psychohistory fall under this heading. Analyses of political leaders have been concerned with a number of issues, such as decision making in general and foreign policy making in particular, crisis behavior, national and international negotiation behavior, group dynamics, and charismatic leadership. Political psychologists have analyzed how attribution and inference guide interpretation of political events and how signaling, misperceptions, groupthink, self-images, and images of the other have consequences for negotiation tactics and the escalation of violence and war (Janis, 1982; Jervis, Lebow, & Stein, 1985; Lar-son, 1985; Tetlock, 1993; Jervis, 1997). Many studies of political leaders have been done because of the inherent interest in personalities that have loomed large in history. Recent attempts to explain differences in leadership style, from Roosevelt via Nixon to Clin-ton, using a psychobiography approach are evidence of this trend (Farn-ham, 1997; Volkan, Itzkowitz, & Dod, 1997; George & George, 1998; Green-stein, 2000). Most leadership analyses include the personality component of leadership, although a minority of scholars study the interrelation between personality and environment. Personality trait analyses are at the heart of those interested in the relationship between images of the political leader and voting behavior. Studies have shown that judgments about the personality traits of political leaders affect both overall evaluations of those leaders and individual vote decisions (Stewart & Clarke, 1992; Jones & Hud-son, 1996; Pancer, Brown, & Widdis Barr, 1999).
  • 13. International Relations and Politics, Political Psychology Build Bright University, Master of Law and Social Sciences 13 4. Political Alignments and Structures: This area is similar to “political movements” except that the research here is concerned with the social formations, groupings, and organizations that develop among politicians. The focus is on such questions as how coalitions are formed, what leads to splintering of groups, what gives rise to particular leader-follower relations, and what initiates cooperative rather than competitive relations. More generally, here the interest is in the “socio metric” structures and interactions that occur among the politicians in a given political unit, what has given rise to them, and what are their consequences. As demonstrated by Jackman and Sniderman (this volume), recent studies have focused on the role of political parties in large-scale representative democracies, the extent to which partisan elites maintain and organize coalitions along ideological lines, and the way in which party ideologies constrain the opportunities for candidates to raise questions (Poole & Rosenthal, 1993; Aldrich, 1995; Sniderman, 2000). 5. Political Intergroup Relations: This area is similar to the preceding one but is centered on investigations dealing with the structures and interactions existing among political units and not on those among individual politicians. The political units may be local governments, nations, alliances, international organizations, and so on. The study of hostile interrelations such as are involved in threat, war, deterrence, etc., as well as the study of cooperative interrelations such as mutual aid, scientist and cultural exchanges, and trade are included under this rubric (Jervis, 1989; Woshinsky, 1994; Axelrod, 1997; Reich, 1990). Under this and the preceding heading, as well as the one following, the distinctive orientation of political psychology is concerned with the role of individual and group psychological processes in affecting, as well as being affected by, the natural development of political structures, political inter-actions, and political processes. Here, so to speak, political psychology con- tributes a distinctive emphasis to the understanding of the subject matters of political science and international relations; it does not provide a substitute for these disciplines. 6. Political Processes: Perhaps the most central area in political psychology concerns the various individual and group processes that are involved in, and affect as well as are affected by, the behavior of political entities. The study of political processes is at the heart of all previously mentioned areas, but a number of these processes have been studied fairly extensively and warrant distinctive and major subareas. These include: perception and cognition (Jervis, 1976, 1997; Lebow, 1981; Hopf, 1994), decision-making (Janis & Mann, 1977; George, 1969, 1980; Stein, 1989; Moscovici & Doise, 1994), per-suasion (Doob, 1948; Nimmo, 1970; Petty & Cacioppo, 1996; Pratkanis & Aronson, 1991; Taylor, 1998), learning (Dawson et al., 1977; Levy, 1994; Stein, 1994), conXict (Deutsch, 1973; Deutsch, 1983; Deutsch & Coleman, 2000; Snyder & Diesing, 1977; Walter & Snyder, 1999), and mobilization (Etzioni, 1968; Alford, 1994; Bar-Tal & Staub, 1997). ;, 7. Case Studies: Cross-cutting the structure of political psychology organized around relatively abstract areas is an organization around particular “cases”—for example, understanding the voting or nonvoting behavior of individuals in particular localities; studying particular political leaders such as Churchill, Roosevelt, Hitler, Gorbachev, or Saddam Hussein; investigating in the Middle East, Afghanistan, or Rwanda; studying the images and perceptions of opposing parties in context; investigating decision making in specific situations such as the Cuban missile crisis, the Gulf War, or Indian nuclear testing. Such case studies are primarily meant to describe in a meaningful way a historically significant person or episode. However, a well conceptualized case study will not only have
  • 14. International Relations and Politics, Political Psychology Build Bright University, Master of Law and Social Sciences 14 relevance to the particular individual or episode being characterized, it will also have relevance for general, theoretical ideas; it should not only provide understanding of the case that was studied but also help us to understand other cases. The literature of political psychology and other social science disciplines is dotted with many case studies: Some of them have considerable general import but many, by themselves, go no further than providing interesting descriptions of the object of study. 8. Human Development and the Political Economy: The area of interest focused on the individual as someone whose actions have political consequences; the present area centers on the consequences for the individual (for his or her personal development, self-esteem, cognitive development, and so forth) of living in a society that has a political economy with given characteristics. Here, the focus is on how politico–economic structures and processes affect socio-psychological processes and structures rather than the reverse. Marxist theorists (Venable, 1945; Bowles & Gintis, 1976; Giddens & Held, 1982; Giddens, 1990, 1991) have written extensively on these matters. So have such theorists as Weber (1930), Merton (1957), Berger and Luckmann (1966), Lane (1982, 1991,2000), Baumeister (1986), Kristeva (1991), and Cash (1996). There is much of relevance to this area in a good deal of the research in psychological anthropology (Le Vine, 1974; Casson, 1981; Bock, 1988; Renshon, 2000); in the research on the effects of class, caste, race and sex on personal development (Deutsch, Katz, & Jensen, 1968; Unger, 1979; Scarr, 1981; Flax, 1990; Sowell, 1994; Sainsbury, 1996); in the research on the psychological effects of unemployment, an expanding economy (Brenner, 1973; Hayes & Nutman, 1981; Whelan, Hannan, & Creighton, 1991; Gallie, Marsch, & Vogler, 1994); in the studies of the effects of demo-cratic versus authoritarian groups (e.g., Lewin, Lippitt, & White, 1939; Alte-meyer, 1996; Milburn & Conrad, 1996); and in the investigations of the social psychological consequences of different systems of distributive justice (e.g., Deutsch, 1985; Lane, 1982, 1991). III. ILlUSTRATIVE STUDDIES OF PEOPLE SCYCHOLOGY: 1 .How Voters Decide: Empirical works on how voters decide generally take one of two theoretical approaches. Either the belief is that people choose the party that will improve their overall economic beneficiaries (Downs, 1957; Erikson, 1990; Page & Shapiro, 1992; Miller & Shanks, 1996), or it is argued that people prefer parties that take an ideological, economic, and political stand on certain issues, such as social welfare, foreign policy, or employment issues (Furn-ham, 1982; Heaven, 1990). The former belief is grounded in self-interest theory, which suggests that individuals choose alternatives that maximize expected utilities, whereas the latter is founded on the belief that people are socialized into a particular ideological system that molds their values and attitudes. Some of the earliest research in political psychology sup-ported the ideological approach by pointing to certain predispositions of the voter, such as party identification, affecting the electoral choice (Lazars-feld, Berelson, & Gaudet, 1948; Campbell, Converse, Miller, & Stokes, 1960). However, these studies also found that income and socioeconomic status were associated with voting preference and thus concluded that self-interested motivation may play a role in forming political party preference. Empirical studies of how voters decide provide a mixed pattern. Him-melweit, Humphreys, Jaeger, and Katz (1981), whose work in the Weld of political psychology greatly strengthened the understanding of human decision making by voters, conducted a longitudinal study of voting behavior in the United Kingdom over a period of six elections, extending from 1959 to 1974. They used a consumer model of voting that is an application of multiple-attribute utility theory (MAUT; Von Winterfeld & Fischer, 1975;
  • 15. International Relations and Politics, Political Psychology Build Bright University, Master of Law and Social Sciences 15 Humphreys, 1977). MAUT assumes that a person chooses the alternative with the highest total subjective or expected utility among the possible objects of choice. Based on their MAUT analysis, Himmelweit et al. predicted the vote of 80% of their sample correctly for the 1974 elections, whereas predictions based on the voter’s prior voting history were correct only for 67% of the sample. These results are clearly consistent with thesis that British voters mostly make their voting decisions so as to increase their perceived chances that the policy issues they favor will be implemented: that is, voting behavior is rational. They also reported that the voters they studied had clearly structured, interrelated attitudes or “ideologies” which persisted over time and which were closely related to their voting. This Wnding runs counter to Bell’s claim (1962) about the demise of ideology in advanced Western societies and to Converse’s (1964) early conclusion that, apart from a small elite, the mass public had no coherent set of political beliefs that could be construed as a political ideology. The importance of ideology and/or symbolic dispositions has also been the concern of Sears and his colleagues in a number of studies. Sears and Funk (1991) argued, for instance, that in cases when proximal measures of self-interest are used and the effects of ideology or symbolic predispositions on party references are statistically controlled, self- interest rarely has a significant effect. In later research, using the term longitudinal study following a number of individuals for approximately 40 years, the same authors concluded that basic political predispositions tend to be stable over time and that significant political events are likely to polarize attitudes around predispositions (Sears & Funk, 1999; Sears, this volume). Sears and Funk (1991) did suggest, however, that there may be times when a large and unambiguous stake in a certain outcome can increase the role of self-interest in forming political party preference. Recent studies of voting behavior in New Zealand that mixed pattern by suggesting that voters who have the most to gain or lose from the parties’ proposed economic policies make their choices more on economic interests, whereas the remainder form party preference from ideological compatibility (Wilson, 1998; Allen & Ng, 2000). The continuous emphasis on ideological and symbolic predispositions points to the fact that political issues have a life history. As Berelson, Lazars-feld, & McPhee suggested as early as 1954, an issue goes through certain stages which have bearing on its relevance to the vote from initial rejection to hesitant acceptance to being taken as a given in the society. The salience and importance of an issue to voting or to an individual’s ideology depends on where the issue is in its life history. 2. Foreign Policy Analyses: Since the mid-1950s, the psychological aspects of international relations have become an increasingly important area of research, and a number of significant empirical studies have been published. Among the more inXu-ential are Janis’ (1972, 1982, 1983) studies of group dynamics, or so-called groupthink; Larson’s (1985) application of ideas taken from cognitive psychology to the origins of American Cold War policies; George’s (1969, 1980) development of operational codes and other cognitive limits on rational decision making; Jervis’ (1976, 1997) systematic analyses of signaling and perception in international politics; and Hermann’s (1977, 1980) work on the psychological dimensions of leadership and foreign policy. Although most of these works belong to what Hudson (1995) named the generation of foreign policy analysis, they still play a vital role and have been revisited in various empirical and theoretical works. A few of these are outlined next, followed by a discussion of their impact on more current research. Janis’ (1972, 1982) work on groupthink launched a new research tradition. Drawing on social psychology, Janis explored the unique dynamics of small group decision making
  • 16. International Relations and Politics, Political Psychology Build Bright University, Master of Law and Social Sciences 16 in foreign policy settings. He did six case studies of historic Wascoes to identify the sources of defective decision making in governmental policy-making groups concerned with foreign policy decisions. The case studies included: (a) Neville Chamberlain’s inner circle, (b) Admiral Kimmel’s in group of naval commanders in the autumn of 1941; (c) President Truman’s advisory group on the Korean War; (d) President Kennedy’s advisory group concerning the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba; (e) President Johnson’s “Tuesday Luncheon Group” regarding the war in Vietnam; and (f) President Nixon’s inner circle and the way they handled the Watergate cover-up. One major source of defective decision making running through these diverse Wascoes was a concurrence-seeking tendency (referred to as groupthink). Janis showed how the incentive to maintain group consensus and personal acceptance by the group impacted negatively on the quality of the decisions. Janis’ work was extended in the empirical research of Tetlock (1979), Semmel (1982), and others using experimental data as well as case studies, and groupthink became an important psychological dimension of later works on foreign policy decision making (Hudson, 1995). Janis’ concept of groupthink has been revisited,and critiqued in a number of recent studies (Herek, Janis, & Huth, 1987; t’Hart, 1990; Purkitt, 1992). Purkitt (1992) showed, for instance, how the closure of options is a much more tentative and process than was previously understood. In this he points to the Cuban Missile Crisis, where options that had previously been ruled out resurfaced time and again throughout the crisis (Hudson, 1995). Larson’s (1985) study of how Harriman, Truman, Byrnes, and Acheson contributed to the development of cold war policies also constituted a novel approach. She was among the ways to explore in some detail the extent to which attitude change was likely to occur among political leaders. Using historical documents such as policy memoranda, diaries, and letters, Larson tried to establish what information policy makers were exposed to, how they interpreted it, and its effects on their beliefs. By comparing different theoretical interpretations of individual cognitive processes, such as the Hovland approach, cognitive dissonance theory, and self- perception theory, Larson was able to detail the shifts in attitudes at the end of the Second World War. This use of different explanatory frameworks for under-standing the same leader has been utilized in a number of recent studies (Jones & Hudson, 1996), and has allowed for the inspection of each frame-work’s relative strengths and weaknesses (Hudson, 1995). Larson herself has continued to study how different cognitive frameworks offer several explanations to a common phenomenon, such as the persistence of negative images (1988), or how mistrust may cause partisans to exaggerate the extent to which their interests are in context (1997). The study of perceptions and images, especially as they are related to war and deterrence, thus continues to be an important area of research. The works of Jervis (1976) deserve special mention in this respect. In his studies of superpower behavior, he unraveled the severe consequences of preconceived images and misperceptions in foreign policy situations by exploring the roots of such conceptions. In these and later works (Jervis, 1997), he also provided evidence of how leaders may learn from previous encounters and how sometimes such lessons are overextended. Jervis supplied not only warnings, however, but also advice and suggestions for improved policy making. The inXuence of Jervis and others (Jervis, Lebow, & Stein, 1985; Lebow & Stein, 1990; Hermann, 1993), resulted in a number of more recent studies of how perceptions become linked to the formation of images and to the development of various types of image theory. One such type has been concerned with national role conceptions which serve to bridge the conceptual gap between the general beliefs held in a society and the beliefs of foreign
  • 17. International Relations and Politics, Political Psychology Build Bright University, Master of Law and Social Sciences 17 policy decision makers (Le Prestre, 1997). National role conceptions are viewed as social phenomena that can be shared among most of the individuals within a state (Mercer, 1995; Wendt, 1992, 1994), and even in cases when such role conceptions are not shared, the individuals who make foreign policy in the name of the states do so on the basis of their ideas about the role of their states in the world and which roles will be acceptable to their constituents (Putnam, 1988; Chafetz, Abramson, & Grillot, 1996). As a result, there has been a renewed interest in empirical studies of the relationship between culture and foreign policy (Wilkening, 1999; Hudson, 1997) as well as in the topic of comparative political socialization and political learning (Voss & Dorsey, 1992; Duckitt, 1992; Renshon & Duckitt, 2000). However, as noted by both Stein and Renshon (this volume), political psychology as a Weld is still in need of more empirical research on these issues. 3. Government and Self-Esteem: In a number of studies, Lane made significant contributions to the study of government and self-esteem (1982) and to how the market affects social well-being and human development (1991, 2000, this volume). In a very evocative theoretical paper (1982), Lane drew on his deep knowledge of political science, moral philosophy, and psychology to present an analysis of the effect of government on individual self-esteem. He rejected the view advanced by Rawls (1971) that political equity is central to self-esteem. Instead Lane (1982) asserted that “political life is simply not important enough to bear this burden” (p. 7). Public opinion surveys indicate that the national government or political organizations are rarely mentioned as sources of life satisfaction, and people spend relatively few minutes a week engaging in political activities. There also appears to be little correlation between rankings of satisfactions with one’s own life and national life. Work, family life, leisure-time activities, and standard of living are, in Lane’s view, much more likely to be the “dimensions” along which people measure themselves and their worth. Lane (1982) pointed out that: People who value themselves are more likely to value others; low self-esteem makes people deeply unhappy, and high self-esteem offers the condition for life happiness or life satisfaction; and high self-esteem serves as the psycho-logical basis for learning, and hence, for growth. This generative power of self-esteem makes it of crucial importance to government. All governments engage in the distribution and redistribution of the conditions that facilitate self-esteem. Government actions give significant, power, honor, opportunities, and wealth to some, but not to others. These actions also indicate that certain dimensions for self-evaluation (money, education, ethnicity, experience, sex) are better than others. Thus, there is no point in saying that esteem is not the business of government; the government is inevitably engaged in that business. Based on philosophical as well as psychological considerations, Lane (1982) set forth a set of rules for governmental promotion of self-esteem. In his elaboration of these rules, Lane suggested that since achievement is so central to self-esteem, “The way right is the right to work”. He also stressed the importance of participation in self-direction at work: “The second basic right, therefore, is the right to participate in decisions affecting one’s work.” Compared with many other theorists, he placed much less emphasis on the importance of the political rights of participation in the political sphere than on the rights of participation in the sphere of work as self-esteem. Lane developed this line of reasoning in his later works. Discussing the relationship between democracy and happiness, he proceeded from Veen-hoven’s (1993) recent analysis of 23 countries which argued that across nations it is the level of income, not democracy, that has increased subjective well-being (SWB; Lane, this volume). However,
  • 18. International Relations and Politics, Political Psychology Build Bright University, Master of Law and Social Sciences 18 it is not money itself that buys happiness. Instead social well-being has to do with the less easily denied issues of work satisfaction and good family relations (Lane, 2000). To promote social well-being and facilitate the pursuit of happiness, the most emancipating idea for a government is an understanding of the economistic fallacy, which says that beyond the poverty level in advanced economies, increased income is irrelevant. In concrete terms, Lane argued (1991, this volume), that governments can do more to promote SWB by relieving poverty, which has a demonstrable effect on SWB, than by promoting equality, which does not. Also, to promote work satisfaction and good family relations in advanced economies, governments can subsidize to give maternity and paternity leave for employees with new family responsibilities even at the cost of some loss of productivity. 4. Identity and Group Conflict: Empirical studies that fall under this heading can be found at both the national and the international level. Identity, as a more general term, has commonly been used to signify broad social categories based on such factors as ethnicity, culture, class, race, gender, or nationality, among others. The emphasis has been on identity formation in the form of collective identities, and the attempt has been to show (in various ways) how different categories of people come to share a sense of collective identity that can serve to explain collective action. Examples range from Marxist theory to political culture theories, to contemporary feminism, to Foucault’s discourse theories, as well as to present-day rational choice theories. This approach, which is common in political science and macro- sociology, differs from the way identity is conceptualized in psychology and micro- sociology, where a more subjective version of some kind of unique self is put into focus (Lemert, 1994; Mennell, 1994). Here the construction of self is commonly viewed as a social process that most human beings pass through, and self-identity is predominantly seen as a universal human property. Central here are the writings of George Herbert Mead as developed through the tradition of symbolic interactionism and psychoanalytic theories of identification. Psychological explanations of identity construction and identity context have seen an upsurge in contemporary literature in combination with a renewed (albeit limited) focus on culture and learning. In a recent publication, Monroe et al. (1999) outlined a number of social psychological explanations to issues of prejudice, racism, genocide, and ethnic violence. Apart from social identity theory and self-categorization theory mentioned earlier, some of these include: psychodynamic approaches; works on symbolic racism; social dominance theory; and realist group theory. Works are asking a psychodynamic approach (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, & Sanford, 1950; Fromm, 1965; Cash, 1989) attribute discriminatory and racist behavior to the psychological structures of the unconscious. Ross’s (1995) work on ethnic context, for instance, privileged object relations theory in favor of the older drive-based theories of psychodynamic functioning. Works on symbolic racism, in contrast, draws on attitudinal research to explain prejudice. Kinder and Sears (1981; see also Sears, 1988, 1993) argued, for example, that White racism against African-Americans is based on symbolic dispositions learned early in life. In comparison, social dominance theory views symbolic predispositions not as the cause but rather as the legitimizing myths that mediate more basic individual and group motivations into individual or institutional acts of discrimination (Sidanius, 1993). Another attempt to ex-plain these phenomena can be found in realist (instrumentalist) group theory, where identification with the in-group and prejudice against the out-group is based on group members’ perceptions of group competition for resources (Sherif, 1966; Monroe et al., 1999). Empirical studies taking social identity theory and social categorization as their point of departure have, however, consistently shown that individuals will identify with the in-group, support group norms and, in a competitive
  • 19. International Relations and Politics, Political Psychology Build Bright University, Master of Law and Social Sciences 19 social context, derogate out group members along stereotypical lines, even when there is no individual gain at stake (Gagnon & Bourhis, 1996; cf. Monroe et al., 1999). Both social-psychological and psychoanalytical approaches offer means to understand the relationship between “self” and “other” as it affects inter-group. At an international level, issues of self, other, and identity conXict have been studied by, among others, Volkan (1988, 1997) and Kris-teva (1982, 1991). Volkan conducted a number of studies of group in the post–Cold War world of former Yugoslavia, Cyprus, Latvia, Estonia, and elsewhere. As a psychological phenomenon, the essentialization of self and others within these processes has been explained by Volkan (1988), using object relations theory, as the externalization and projection of our unwanted elements onto enemies. He argued, for instance, that the closer the resemblance between self and other, the more likely the other is to become a suitable target for projection. However, by viewing the other as an object, he also implied that the enemy-other already exists and is different from the self, which comes close to an essentialist view of identity construction. Kristeva’s treatment of these phenomena differs in that she sees the creation of self as an internal psychological process. The other, she says, can exist in individuals’ minds even when they are not physically present, such as the Jews in Poland despite the fact that there are few Jews actually living there (Kristeva, 1982; Murer, 1999). This phenomenon is what Kristeva (1991) referred to as the “strangers within ourselves.” The important point here is that the enemy-other is not only created by the self, but has previously been part of the self. It becomes the abject (Kristeva, 1982), which differs from Volkan’s object. What causes abjection is that which disturbs identity, system, or order, such as traumatic changes. Abject becomes a major ingredient of collective identity formation when the familiar “stranger” is suddenly recognized as a threat. Within this process, hate and dehumanization construct a link between the present, the future, and a recreated past and may serve as a social chain for successive generations as a particular event or trauma is mythologized and intertwined with a group’s sense of self (Murer, 1999). This is what Volkan (1997) referred to as a “Chosen Trauma.” A chosen trauma is often used to interpret new traumas. Thus it relies on previously experienced (real or imagined) rage and humiliation associated with victimization in the case of the Chosen Trauma, which is validated in a new context. A recent comparative study (Kinnvall, 2001) of the Hindu–Muslim contact in northern India and the Sikh–Hindu seem to be tendencies. Although a subjective perception of discrimination existed among the Sikhs of Punjab in the 1980s, there was no clear Chosen Trauma to rely on for generating and sustaining xenophobic hostility toward the Hindus. Partition could not, as has been the case for Hindu– Muslim antagonism, work as a source of reference (a Chosen Trauma) for the Sikhs of Punjab experiencing the traumatic effects of modernization and party polarization. What Kristeva and Volkan show in their different interpretations is how feelings of “ancient hatred” are constructed and maintained. These are not, as today’s mass media often make them out to be, primordial feelings of hatred or entrenched animosities waiting to break out in a largely chaotic world. Instead, as Volkan’s and Kristeva’s texts show, they are structural and psychological make-ups that manifest themselves in Chosen Traumas. By emphasizing the other as a mental image, an intra-psychic abject-other, onto which the self- projects it’s (or the group’s) unwanted (constructed) traits, we may escape the tendency to describe context in essentialist terms. The emphasis on traumatic events, shared anxiety, regression, stressfull conditions, and/or disturbances also brings attention to the emotional aspects of human relatedness. As such, it points to the need for ontological and existential security, which is an important topic for current and future research in political psychology.
  • 20. International Relations and Politics, Political Psychology Build Bright University, Master of Law and Social Sciences 20 IV.EVALUATION ON ADVANTAGE AND DISADANTAGE: 1. Advantage: For subject of International Relations and Politics, lecture trained me on big picture for globalization on political, philosophy, behavior, leadership, ideology, democratic, liberal democracy, democratic socialism, and communism. Especially assignment made me increased knowledge and writing through researching the political psychology by hard book, soft book, and internet (website-politics and psychology). This research make me satisfied through encouragement, motivation and supporting document from lecture, the subject of Intentional Relations and Politics, the topic: “Political Psychology.” 2. Disadvantage: In Cambodia for this assignment took so long time and was shortage and limited for supporting document for political psychology. However the Build Bright University, BBU is not enough document for this research. V. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION: 1. Conclusion: My conclusion of political psychology is very important for politicians for management and leading society to be peace, democracy and prosperity. I believe that political psychology does have an underlying theoretical of psychology and the ways for leading community and country for peace and prosperity. More importantly, political psychology is useful foundation for social science analysis than paradigm that currently dominates social science, rational choice theory. Political psychologists allow not just for a dual nature of human kind. Political psychologists know that our basic identities are far more complex and multifaceted, and that what is critical for the analyst seeking to under-stand political action is to understand which aspects of our identities in relation to others come into play and in response to what outside stimuli. Only by understanding how people see themselves in relation to others can we begin to build a science of politics that allows for these human needs to both protect and further our self-interest and to respond to our needs for human social ability. The politic is our future. It’s impacted to our living on freedom, basic human right, economic, marketing, communication, relationship and globalization. So all the people must participate to know and work all for human right, safety, freedom, and social security. 2. Recommendation: This assignment is good for student learning on political psychology. They can improve their learning, capacity, knowledge, researching and writing. But some document is difficult to find it. So I would like to request and support from lecture as possible as.
  • 21. International Relations and Politics, Political Psychology Build Bright University, Master of Law and Social Sciences 21 REFERENCES  Hard book” International Relations and Politics that prepared by: Dr. Hu Ty  Soft book the edited by Kristen Renwick Monroe (University of California, Irvine)  Book: David Patrick Houghton is Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Central Florida.  David O.Sear: Department of Psychology and Political Science, University of California, Los Angeles, California 90024.  Questia, a part of Gale, Cengage Learning. www.questia.com.  Website: Google searching and www.ebook.com. RECOMMENDATION: (For lecture) ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Related Documents