Core Subject: Political Behavior

Course content

Undervisning forgår på Dansk og på Engelsk.

Én af grundpillerne i et repræsentativt demokrati er, at borgerne kommunikerer deres præferencer til politiske beslutningstagere – mest oplagt gennem valg af politikere, som repræsenterer deres interesser.

Studiet af politisk adfærd søger at forklare hvordan individer udvikler politiske holdninger, og den adfærd disse udmøntes i, og udgør derfor en kernekompetence for politologer. Ved at studere hvordan individers holdninger skabes som et resultat af henholdsvis ”dybe” påvirkninger, fx tidlig socialisering og iboende prædispositioner, og mere samtidige indflydelser, herunder konkrete personlige erfaringer og politisk kommunikation fra politikere og andre eliteaktører, kan vi opnå en nuanceret forståelse af, hvordan mennesker formes som politiske individer – og hvilken politisk adfærd dette giver sig udslag i

Faget giver de studerende en bred introduktion til state-of-the-art inden for forskning i politisk adfærd. Der bygges særligt oven på fagene Almen Statskundskab, Sammenlignende Statskundskab og Metode 1 og 2 fra 2012-ordningen eller DAK1-3 og metode 1-3 fra 2017-ordningen på grunduddannelsen. Faget dækker brede temaer som holdningsdannelse, vælgeradfærd, politisk psykologi og politisk kommunikation. Eksempler på emner som gennemgås i faget tæller bl.a. følgende:

  • Individets holdningsstruktur og politiske ideologi
  • Politisk socialisering
  • Følelser som disponerende faktorer for politisk adfærd
  • Sociostrukturelle forklaringer: Køn, uddannelse, indkomst
  • Social kontekst: Interpersonelle indflydelser herunder nabolag og andre netværk
  • Politisk kommunikation: Mediernes rolle
  • Partierne rolle i politisk holdningsdannelse
  • Social bevægelser, protest og politisk vold

 

Kvantitative metode står ligeledes centralt i faget, og vi vil bruge en del tid på at diskutere anvendelsen af disse i de gennemgåede studier samt forskningsdesign mere generelt. Mange begreber og idéer kan anvendes til analyse af alle udviklede demokratier, men empiriske studier i dette kursus kommer ofte fra USA.

Faget ruster de studerendes til at analysere politisk adfærd i bred forstand i en lang række sammenhænge og er derfor relevant i forhold til mange scient.pol. jobs (fx i politiske partier, som konsulenter, eller i analysestillinger i offentlige organisationer).

Faget vil være tæt knyttet til Videregående Anvendt Kvantitativ Metode, som også indgår i specialiseringen på dette semester.

Education

The course is in English and Danish. English description will be available soon

Planned schedule: Monday 13-17

 

 

Core subject in the core-subject line in Political Behavior. Only accessible to students who are admitted to the core-subject line.

NB! All exams (both ordinary and re-exams) will take place at the end of the autumn semester only, as the course is not offered in the spring

Learning outcome

Viden:

  • Redegøre for teoretiske hovedtraditioner inden for forskning i politisk adfærd samt de metoder disse anvender.
  • Reflektere over styrker og svagheder ved centrale teorier om politisk adfærd og de metoder der anvendes inden for disse.
  • Forstå hvordan teorier om politisk adfærd kan anvendes på aktuelle problemstillinger.

 

Færdigheder:

  • Anvende teorier og metoder fra forskning i politisk adfærd herunder udvælge relevante teorier og metoder til anvendelse i forbindelse med analyse af en given problemstilling.
  • Analysere problemstillinger inden for politisk adfærd bredt forstået og formidle denne analyse i et klart og præcist sprog.
  • Identificere og formidle problemstillinger i relation politisk adfærd.
  • Vurdere og selvstændigt diskutere undersøgelse af problemstillinger inden for feltet politisk adfærd.

 

Kompetencer:

  • Selvstændigt formulere en løsning på en problemstilling inden for politisk adfærd bredt forstået.
  • Planlægge undersøgelser af problemstillinger inden for politisk adfærd bredt forstået.
  • Strukturere og gennemføre empiriske analyser i samarbejde med tilgrænsende fagområder (særligt kvantitativ metoder).

Hainmueller, J., Hangartner, D. & Pietrantuono, G. (2017). Catalyst or Crown: Does Naturalization Promote the Long-Term Social Integration of Immigrants? American Political Science Review, 111(2):256-276.

Hansen, K.M. & Stubager, R. (eds.) (2021) Klimavalget. København: Djøf Forlag.

Healy, A., & Malhotra, N. (2013) Childhood Socialization and Political Attitudes: Evidence from a Natural Experiment. Journal of Politics, 75(4):1023-1037.

Healy, A., Malhotra, N & Mo, C. H. (2010). “Irrelevant events affect voters' evaluations of government performance.” Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(29):12804-12809.

Hersh, E. (2020, January 20). College-Educated Voters Are Ruining American Politics. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/political-hobbyists-are-ruining-politics/605212/

Hayward, C. R. (2020). Disruption: What is it good for?. The Journal of Politics, 82(2), 448-459.

Huddy, L., Bankert, A., & Davies, C. (2018). Expressive versus instrumental partisanship in multiparty European systems. Political Psychology, 39, 173-199.

Humphreys, M., & Weinstein, J. M. (2008). Who fights? The determinants of participation in civil war. American Journal of Political Science, 52(2), 436-455.

Hopkins, D. J. (2010). “Politicized Places: Explaining Where and When Immigrants Provoke Local Opposition.” American Political Science Review, 104(1):40-60.

Jennings, M. K., Stoker, L., & Bowers, J. (2009). “Politics across Generations: Family Transmission Reexamined.” Journal of Politics, 71(3): 782-799.

Kinder, D. R. (1998). Opinion and action in the realm of politics. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (pp. 778-867). New York, NY, US: McGraw-Hill.

Kinder, D. R. (2003). Belief Systems after Converse. In M. MacKuen and G. Rabinowitz (Eds.), Electoral Democracy (pp. 13–47). University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor.

Kitschelt, H. (2007) Party Systems. In C. Boix and S. C. Stokes (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics (pp. 499-521). Oxford University Press.

Klar, S. (2013). The influence of competing identity primes on political preferences. The Journal of Politics, 75(4), 1108-1124.

Ladd, J. M. & Lenz, G. S. (2009). Exploiting a rare communication shift to document the persuasive power of the news media. American Journal of Political Science, 53(2), 394-410.

Lau, R., & Redlawsk, D. (2001). Advantages and Disadvantages of Cognitive Heuristics in Political Decision Making. American Journal of Political Science, 45(4), 951-971.

Lax, J. R., & Phillips, J. H. (2012). The democratic deficit in the states. American Journal of Political Science, 56(1), 148-166.

Lenz, G. S. (2009). Learning and Opinion Change, Not Priming: Reconsidering the Priming Hypothesis. American Journal of Political Science, 53(4): 821-837.

Levitan, L. C., & Verhulst, B. (2016). Conformity in groups: The effects of others’ views on expressed attitudes and attitude change. Political Behavior, 38(2), 277-315.

Malhotra, N., Margalit, Y., & Mo, C. H. (2013). Economic explanations for opposition to immigration: Distinguishing between prevalence and conditional impact. American Journal of Political Science, 57(2), 391-410.

McCauley, C., & Moskalenko, S. (2008). Mechanisms of political radicalization: Pathways toward terrorism. Terrorism and political violence, 20(3), 415-433.

Mondak, J. J., Hibbing, M. V., Canache, D., Seligson, M., Anderson, M. R. (2010). “Personality and Civic Engagement: An Integrative Framework for the Study of Trait Effects on Political Behavior.” American Political Science Review, 104(1):85-110.

Munger, K. (2017). Tweetment effects on the tweeted: Experimentally reducing racist harassment. Political Behavior, 39(3), 629-649.

Pearlman, W. (2013). Emotions and the Microfoundations of the Arab Uprisings. Perspectives on Politics, 11(2), 387-409.

Petersen, M. B. (2015). Evolutionary Political Psychology: On the Origin and Structure of Heuristics and Biases in Politics. Advances in Political Psychology, 36(1):45-78.

Petersen, M. B., & Aarøe, L. (2013). Politics in the mind's eye: Imagination as a link between social and political cognition. American Political Science Review, 107(2), 275-293.

Power, S. A. (2018). The deprivation-protest paradox: how the perception of unfair economic inequality leads to civic unrest. Current Anthropology, 59(6), 765-789.

Roozenbeek, J., & van der Linden, S. (2019). Fake news game confers psychological resistance against online misinformation. Palgrave Communications, 5(1), 12.

Ritter, D. (2015). Civil Resistance. In D. Della Porta and M. Diani (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Social Movements. Oxford University Press.

Sears, D. O., Lau, R. R., Tyler, T. R., & Allen, H. M. Jr. (1980). “Self-Interest vs. Symbolic Politics in Policy Attitudes and Presidential Voting.” American Political Science Review, 74(3):670-684.

Seeberg, H. B. (2017). How stable is political parties’ issue ownership? A cross-time, cross-national analysis. Political Studies, 65(2), 475-492.

Selvanathan, H. P., & Jetten, J. (2020). From marches to movements: Building and sustaining a social movement following collective action. Current opinion in psychology, 35, 81-85.

Schlozman, K. L., Brady, H. E., Verba, S. (2018). Unequal and Unrepresented: Political Inequality and the People's Voice in the New Gilded Age

Scruggs, L., & Benegal, S. (2012). Declining public concern about climate change: Can we blame the great recession?. Global Environmental Change, 22(2), 505-515.

Steinert-Threlkeld, Z. C., Mocanu, D., Vespignani, A., & Fowler, J. (2015). Online social networks and offline protest. EPJ Data Science, 4(1), 19.

Stokes, Donald E. "Spatial Models of Party Competition," American Political Science Review, 1963 (57): 368-377. (CP, 10 pp.)

Taber, C. S. & Lodge, M. (2006). ”Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs.” American Journal of Political Science, 50(3):755-769.

Tezcür, G. M. (2016). Ordinary people, extraordinary risks: Participation in an ethnic rebellion. American Political Science Review, 110(2), 247-264.

Tucker, J. A., Theocharis, Y., Roberts, M. E., & Barberá, P. (2017). From liberation to turmoil: Social media and democracy. Journal of democracy, 28(4), 46-59.

Vandeweerdt, C. (2021). In-group interest cues do not change issue attitudes. Politics, Groups, and Identities, 1-9.

Vandeweerdt, C. (2021b). Higher volume, same tune: How political talk radio reacts to events. Working paper.

Weeden, J., & Kurzban, R. (2016). The hidden agenda of the political mind: How self-interest shapes our opinions and why we won't admit it. Princeton University Press.

Zaller, J.R. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Continuous feedback during the course of the semester

TBA

ECTS
15 ECTS
Type of assessment
Written assignment
Free assignment
Marking scale
7-point grading scale
Censorship form
External censorship
Criteria for exam assessment
  • Grade 12 is given for an outstanding performance: the student lives up to the course's goal description in an independent and convincing manner with no or few and minor shortcomings
  • Grade 7 is given for a good performance: the student is confidently able to live up to the goal description, albeit with several shortcomings
  • Grade 02 is given for an adequate performance: the minimum acceptable performance in which the student is only able to live up to the goal description in an insecure and incomplete manner

Single subject courses (day)

  • Category
  • Hours
  • Class Instruction
  • 56
  • English
  • 56