POLSCI 240/PSY 225 – POLITICAL PSYCHOLOGY
Tuesdays/Thursdays, 10:05-11:20
Social Psychology 126
Professor Chris Johnston
christopher.johnston@duke.edu, (919)660-4345
Office hours: Tuesdays/Thursdays, 2:00-3:00, and by appointment
TA: Andy Ballard, andrew.ballard@duke.edu
Course Synopsis
Political psychology is a diverse and growing field that seeks a deeper understanding of human
behavior within the political context, and which draws theoretical and methodological inspiration
from a wide array of disciplines including social, cognitive, and evolutionary psychology (to
name but a few). The purpose of this course is to expose you to the core theoretical and
methodological tools that shape contemporary research in political judgment and decision
making. Rather than provide a “survey course” of every topic that interests political
psychologists, and thus cover these topics superficially, our focus will be on deeper development
of this important subfield of political psychology which should be particularly helpful to you as
you continue your studies in political science, and, hopefully, will be useful to you as you make
judgments and decisions in other areas of your life. Many of the lessons that we will learn about
political judgment and decision making have applications that extend well beyond questions of
immediate interest to political science.
Required Materials
All readings not listed below are available through the Duke library, through Google Scholar, or
will be posted on Sakai.
You should purchase the following books as soon as possible:
Kahneman, Daniel. 2011. Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Lodge, Milton, and Charles S. Taber. 2013. The Rationalizing Voter. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Tesler, Michael, and David O. Sears. 2010. Obama’s Race: The 2008 Election and the Dream of
a Post-Racial America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Iyengar, Shanto, and Donald R. Kinder. 2010. News That Matters: Television and American
Opinion, Updated Edition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gilens, Martin. 1999. Why Americans Hate Welfare. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Course Requirements




13 unannounced reading quizzes (drop 3): 2.5% each x 10 = 25%
Midterm exam: 25%
Final exam (non-cumulative): 25%
Final project: 25%
I will use the following scale to assign final grades:
A
B+
C+
D+
93-100
87-90
77-80
67-70
AB
C
D
90-93
83-87
73-77
60-67
BCF
80-83
70-73
<60
Extra Credit
Extra credit will be given for participation in departmental research projects. Students may
participate in up to three hours of projects, earning one point on their FINAL grade for each
hour. Thus, each student may earn up to three points on their final grade. As this is fairly
generous, and requires minimal time investment and effort, no other extra credit will be given;
no exceptions, so please do not ask.
More information on this option is available at http://www.duke.edu/web/psrp. If you wish to
participate, you can register at: http://duke-psrp.sona-systems.com. Please direct all questions
regarding the PSRP to the site administrator, David Sparks, at d.sparks@duke.edu.
Policy
I will follow Duke University’s procedures to establish whether absences from any event related
to this class are justified (e.g. illness, sport events) and merit ad hoc arrangements. Other than in
the very restrictive cases contemplated by the university, make up exams are not an option. Late
assignments will be reduced by one full letter grade for each day beyond the deadline.
I will also follow the University’s policy in any event of plagiarism and academic dishonesty.
Grade complaints: You have the right to dispute a grade if you disagree with it. You must do so
in writing, no more than 3 working days after I have returned the assignment to you. Upon
receiving your appeal, I will reevaluate your grade. Please note that I will reevaluate the entire
assignment. Thus, if I have made an error in your favor, this will also be corrected.
Unannounced Quizzes
Throughout the semester I will administer 13 “pop” quizzes at the beginning of class concerning
the reading material for that day. These quizzes are intended to ensure that you (1) attend class,
and (2) are prepared for that day’s lecture. If you have done the reading these quizzes should be
relatively easy. You will be allowed to drop your three lowest grades at the end of the semester
(including zeros or missed classes in which there was a quiz). This is an easy way to improve
your grade, and you should take advantage of it by reading and attending class!
Final Project
Your final project for the class will be a paper in which you design your own study to test a
hypothesis of your choosing. The only requirement is that the hypothesis you choose is related to
one or more of the topics covered in the course. The paper should be between 5 and 10 pages,
and should (1) introduce the topic (i.e., the problem of interest to you), (2) briefly review the
existing research on this topic that we discuss in class, as well as any other scholarly research
you may find online that is useful or relevant, (3) explain what new contribution your study
would make to the literature, (4) state clearly a hypothesis to be tested empirically, (5) explain in
detail your proposed research design, and how that design can test your hypothesis, and (6)
briefly discuss the implications of your (expected) results for politics more broadly (i.e., why
does this matter?). You will not actually conduct the study. Rather, I am simply interested in a
research proposal. Each student must obtain approval for their proposed topic from me. You
should think about this earlier rather than later, and see me (or email) prior to getting started. If
you have any questions or problem, feel free to seek help. Again, the sooner the better!
Course Outline
Week 1: Introduction and syllabus
August 27th: Introduction to course
August 29th: NO CLASS
Week 2: Dual-process models
September 3rd:
Kahneman, pages 3-59
September 5th:
Kahneman, 59-109
Week 3: “Hot” cognition
September 10th:
Lodge and Taber, Chapters 1 and 2 (pgs. 61-73 are optional)
September 12th:
Lodge and Taber, Chapters 3 and 4
Week 4: Motivated reasoning
September 17th:
Lodge and Taber, Chapter 5
September 19th:
Lodge and Taber, Chapters 6 and 7
Week 5: Racial animus
September 24th:
Tessler and Sears, Chapter 1-4
September 26th:
Tessler and Sears, Chapter 5-8
Week 6: Partisanship and polarization
October 1st:
Iyengar, Shanto, Gaurav Sood, and Yphtach Lelkes. 2012. “Affect, Not Ideology: A Social
Identity Perspective on Polarization.” Public Opinion Quarterly 76 (3): 405-431.
October 3rd:
Druckman, James, Erik Peterson, and Rune Slothuus. 2013. “How Elite Partisan Polarization
Affects Public Opinion Formation.” American Political Science Review 107 (1): 57-79.
Week 7: Irrelevant events
October 8th:
Healy, Andrew J., Neil Malhotra, and Cecilia Hyunjung Mo. 2010. “Irrelevant Events Affect
Voters’ Evaluations of Government Performance.” Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences 107 (29): 12804-12809.
October 10th: EXAM I
Week 8: The heuristics and biases program
October 15th: Fall break
October 17th:
Kahneman, 109-195
Week 9: Priming and agenda setting
October 22nd:
Iyengar and Kinder, Chapters 1-6
October 24th:
Iyengar and Kinder, Chapters 7-12
Week 10: Framing
October 29th:
Chong, Dennis, and James N. Druckman. 2007. “Framing Theory.” Annual Review of Political
Science 10: 103-126.
October 31st:
Chong, Dennis, and James N. Druckman. “Framing Public Opinion in Competitive
Democracies.” American Political Science Review 101 (4): 637-655.
Week 11: Race and welfare
November 5th:
Gilens, Chapters 1-4
November 7th:
Gilens, Chapters 5-9
Week 12: Prospect theory
November 12th:
Kahneman, 269-321
November 14th:
Kahneman, 322-374
Week 13: Status quo biases
November 19th:
Quattrone, George A., and Amos Tversky. 1988. “Contrasting Rational and Psychological
Analyses of Political Choice.” American Political Science Review 82 (3): 719-736.
November 21st:
Moshinsky, Avital, and Maya Bar-Hillel. 2010. “Loss Aversion and Status Quo Label Bias.”
Social Cognition 28 (2): 191-204.
Week 14: Thanksgiving break
Week 15: Individual differences and ideology
December 3rd:
Janoff-Bulman, Ronnie. 2009. “To Provide or Protect: Motivational Bases of Political Liberalism
and Conservatism.” Psychological Inquiry 20 (2-3): 120-128.
December 5th:
Oxley, Douglas R., Kevin B. Smith, John R. Alford, Matthew V. Hibbing, and Jennifer L. Miller,
Mario Scalora, Peter K. Hatemi, and John R. Hibbing. 2008. “Political Attitudes Vary
with Physiological Traits.” Science 321: 1667-1670.