POL 207: Reason and Passion in Politics
Instructor: Chris Johnston
Office Location: Perkins Library 301E
Meeting Times: T & TR 3:05-4:20
Meeting Place: Allen 318
Contact: christopher.johnston@duke.edu , (919)660-4345
Office Hours: Tuesdays 11:00-12:00; Wednesdays 2:00-3:00; and appointment
Course Description
There is a widely held view that “reason” and “passion” are something akin to separate modules
in the mind, and that greater use of one means less use of the other. Moreover, this view typically
sees emotion as an intrusion on the rationality of political thought and behavior. Contemporary
neuroscience, psychology, and political science, however, demonstrate that this is a false
dichotomy: reason and passion are inextricably intertwined. It thus makes little sense to wish for
a “cold” politics devoid of emotion. Rather, we must seek a deeper understanding of how
emotion enters into political thought and behavior. As we will observe throughout this course,
the role of affect and emotion in politics is not simply good or bad, but complex and
multifaceted.
This course is designed as a survey of theoretical perspectives on the role of passion, broadly
defined, in the political thought and behavior of the mass public, and is divided into five
sections. The first will introduce the topic, and consider classic normative concerns with the
influence of emotion in mass politics, as well as the construct of “emotion” itself at a conceptual
level. The next three sections consider three basic ways in which emotion influences political
thought and behavior. First, affect may serve as information relevant to making a judgment about
a political object. In this sense, emotion is a “summary” of what is known about the object and
the object’s relationship to citizens’ goals. Second, affect may influence the course of political
information gathering and processing by “biasing” initial reactions to political objects; an effect
that is often referred to as “motivated reasoning” in the contemporary literature. In this section,
we will explore how affective responses to objects influence how citizens reason about those
objects. Third, we will turn to an examination of how different emotions alter the information
processing and judgment strategies of citizens by signaling the qualitative character of the
immediate environment in terms of the sufficiency of well-worn habits and theories or,
alternatively, the need for greater attention and flexibility. In the final section of the course, we
will consider morality and ideology from a “passionate” perspective, and how the moral
principles and ideological orientations of citizens may arise from neurobiological and social
cognitive processes, and how these may exacerbate political polarization and vitriol in
contemporary politics.
Course Requirements




Attendance and reading responses: 10% (see below)
Critical reaction papers: 30% (3 papers at 10% each)
Group project design: 20% (10% group and 10% individual contribution)
Midterm and final exams: 40% (20% each)
Attendance and reading responses:
You are expected to complete all readings prior to the class for which they are scheduled. For
each class, write down any thoughts, questions, comments, criticisms, and/or broader
implications (or anything else you find interesting!), and bring these with you to class to
facilitate discussion. At the end of each class, you will turn in your thoughts to me (either typed
or handwritten is fine), and these will serve as evidence for your completion of that day’s
assignments and as evidence of your class attendance for that day. These thought papers are not
intended to be formal. You may write bullet points, notes, random thoughts, paragraphs, simple
questions, rants, or anything else you wish that is relevant to the day’s topic. These will not be
graded for content.
You may miss 3 classes without penalty. After 3 absences, your attendance grade will decline by
5 percentage points for each additional absence. You are expected to participate in class
discussions. I am sensitive to the fact that not everyone is talkative. Some people will always
participate more than others. You should, however, try your best to contribute to class
discussions as much as possible. Your thoughts and opinions will help us all learn more about
these topics, and robust discussions will make the class more interesting for everyone.
My expectation is that classes will proceed as follows. The first portion of each class will be
dedicated to clarifying and expanding upon the topic of that day’s readings, and to any questions
that anyone has regarding the topic of the day. This will be the “lecture” for that day, and I will
use PowerPoint to guide this part of each class. The second portion of the class (i.e., any time
remaining) will be dedicated to more freewheeling discussions about the implications of the
day’s readings and lecture for politics or anything else we all find interesting.
Reaction papers:
You are required to complete 3 reaction papers. These papers are intended to be formal papers
(as opposed to the informality of your daily thought responses to the readings). Each paper
should be about 4-5 pages long. They should be double-spaced and utilize 12-point font. The
papers are due at the beginning of the class corresponding with their due date. Late papers will
be reduced by 10 points for every day that the paper is late. Papers turned in more than 15
minutes after the start of class will be considered 1 day late. If there is a legitimate reason why
you cannot complete a paper by the time it is due, you must see me prior to the due date to make
alternative arrangements. I will not accept excuses after the due date except under exceptionally
unique circumstances. You may choose any one of the following three approaches to writing
each paper:
1. Critical Analysis: Choose one (or two) readings from the relevant section and critically
analyze this reading. “Critically analyze” means you should evaluate the theory,
arguments, and methods used by the author(s). You do not have to be negative only, and
should highlight what is good and what is bad (i.e., needs improvement) in that project.
Justify your criticisms and positive comments as best you can. Make specific suggestions
for what could be improved theoretically and/or methodologically. You can also propose
a better theory or empirical study if you wish as part of the paper (but not its entirety).
2. Synthesis: Choose multiple readings or perspectives from the relevant section, and
explain how they conflict with one another, and then seek a broader perspective that
suggests how they might be integrated to form a better overall theory or argument. Can
you reconcile competing theories, arguments, and evidence? If not, which perspective
wins out and why?
3. Application: Choose a contemporary issue or debate in any realm (e.g., U.S. politics,
comparative politics, ethics, conflict studies, mass politics, democratic theory, etc.) and
explain how what we have learned in one or more sections can shed light on this debate.
How do the theories and perspectives we have discussed help us to understand salient
problems in politics, political science, and/or political theory that are of interest to you?
How do they contribute new insights into this problem, or resolve existing conflicts?
Group project design:
At the beginning of the semester you will be assigned to one of three or four groups, each of
which will be required to design an empirical study to test a theory or hypothesis related to the
topics we discuss in class. These projects will be due on the last day of class, and each group will
give a 15 minute presentation on their proposal on that day. Each group must meet with me, in
person, twice during the semester (see below for meeting deadlines) to discuss your progress.
The proposed project should consist of: (1) a 2 page (or so) introduction that states the topic of
interest, how it relates to a broader area of concern discussed in class, and the specific question
that your group’s project will address, (2) a 2 page (or so) statement of your “theory” and
hypothesis or hypotheses, (3) a 2 page (or so) research design section that outlines exactly how
you would conduct your study to test your hypothesis or hypotheses (you will not actually
conduct the study), and (4) a 1 page or so conclusion that discusses why your project matters to
the study of politics more broadly. Ten percent of your project grade will be common to your
group (the “group grade”), and 10% will be based on your individual contributions to the project.
Your group should keep basic records of your meetings, and of each member’s contribution.
Each member should turn in a short summary of their own contributions along with the group’s
meeting notes and final paper. These will all be turned in to me on the last day of class.
Midterm and final exams:
Two exams will be given. They will consist of a combination of multiple choice, short answers,
and essay questions, and are intended to test your assimilation of the key concepts discussed in
this course. The final exam will not be comprehensive, and will consist of questions concerning
the second half of the course (i.e., post-Spring Break).
Required Books
You should purchase the following books immediately. These should all be available at the book
store on campus, but you may find cheaper versions online or in digital formats. I have no
preferences regarding format or source.

Marcus, George E. 2002. The Sentimental Citizen: Emotion in Democratic Politics.
University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.

Damasio, Antonio. 2005. Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain.
New York: Penguin Books.

Haidt, Jonathan. 2012. The Righteous Mind. New York: Pantheon.

Brader, Ted. 2006. Campaigning for Hearts and Minds. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.

Churchland, Patricia S. 2011. Braintrust: What Neuroscience Tells Us about Morality.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
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.
Course Outline
Course Introduction

January 10th: Introductions and syllabus

January 15th: Normative concerns with passion in politics
o Read: The Sentimental Citizen. Chapters 1-3.
o Food for thought: What is the role of emotion in democratic politics? Is emotion a
positive or negative force in a democracy? Some of both? Are reason and passion
separable sources of political thought and action? What are the requirements of
“good citizenship”?

January 17th: Thinking about the passions: Some concepts and themes of the course
o Read: LeDoux 1996. The Emotional Brain. Chapters 1-3. [on Sakai]
o Read: Clore and Huntsinger 2007. “How Emotions Inform Judgment.”
o Read: Zajonc 1980. “Feeling and Thinking.” [Skim]
o Food for thought: What is an emotion? What is affect? What are moods? What is
the purpose of emotion in human life? How much attention should political
scientists give to emotions in their study of politics? Can emotion be studied
scientifically? What are the difficulties in studying emotions scientifically?
Affect as Information

January 22nd: Cold cognition
o Read: Descartes’ Error. Introduction, and Chapters 1-4.
o Food for thought: What is rationality? What makes us more or less rational? How
might emotion contribute to rationality?
 January 24th: Hot cognition
o Read: Descartes’ Error. Chapters 8-9.
o Food for thought: How do somatic markers (“affective tags”) contribute to
rationality? How might somatic markers hinder reasonable decision making?
How might all of this apply to politics? What is “Descartes’ Error” do you think?
Could a “disembodied mind” exist? Does that concept even make sense?

January 29th: Automaticity of affect
o Read: Lodge and Taber 2005. “Automaticity of Affect.”
o Food for thought: Can the activation of affect precede cognition entirely? What
does automatic affect imply about political judgment and decision making? To
what extent can we learn about day-to-day politics from these types of
experiments?

January 31st: The online model of political judgment
o Read: Lodge et al. 1995. “The Responsive Voter.”
o Read: Coronel et al. 2012. “Remembering and Voting.”
o Food for thought: Does the online model “elevate” unsophisticated citizens to the
level of good citizenship? Can democratic theorists rest easy? How might the
online model lead to “failures” of political judgment?
Affect-Driven Biases

February 5th: The affect heuristic and the “halo effect”
o Read: Sears 2001. “The Role of Affect in Symbolic Politics.”
o Read: Kahneman 2011. “Answering an Easier Question.” In Thinking, Fast and
Slow. [on Sakai]
o Food for thought: Affective responses to political objects are “information-laden.”
The affect heuristic and halo effects imply a “spreading” of that affect to other,
related objects. What does this imply about the information that often rests at the
core of many heuristic political judgments? Introspect: Someone asks you about
your support or opposition to a new policy proposed by your preferred political
group. By what process is your response generated? What information did you
use?

February 7th: Intuition and reason
o Read: The Righteous Mind. Introduction and Chapters 1-3.
o Food for thought: Is Haidt’s model of moral and political judgment broadly
applicable, or limited to a subset of judgments? Where do our moral and political
intuitions come from? Does it really matter if we cannot justify our intuitions?
Introspect: Do you have strong moral and/or political beliefs? Why or why not?

February 12th: Confirmation biases and motivated skepticism
o Read: The Righteous Mind. Chapter 4.
o Read: Taber and Lodge 2006. “Motivated skepticism.”
o Food for thought: Are we judges or lawyers in the political realm? Are some
people more like lawyers than others? Who, and why? Why do we care about,
read about, and argue about politics at all? What is the function of politics in our
lives?

February 14th: Politics, emotion, and social interaction
o Read: Monroe 2001. “Comfort.” In Hateship, Friendship, Loveship, Courtship,
Marriage. [on Sakai]
o Read: Vallier 2012. “How to Learn From a Tragedy.”
o Food for thought: Is politics a negative force in our social lives? Would it be
better for each of us, individually, to forego strong moral and political beliefs?
Does politics “make us stupid most of the time”? How might we be “moral” or
“political” in constructive ways?
o DUE: FIRST CRITICAL REACTION PAPER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Reflexive and Reflective Politics
 February 19th: Habit and deliberation
o Read: Kahneman 2011. “The Characters of the Story.” In Thinking, Fast and
Slow. [on Sakai]
o Read: The Sentimental Citizen. Chapter 4.
o Food for thought: What portion of our lives is ruled by the unconscious? Should
we be disturbed by this? Could it be any other way? Introspect: Go through major
parts of your day looking for System 1 and 2 operations and see what you find.
 February 21th: Enthusiasm and anxiety
o
o
Read: The Sentimental Citizen. Chapters 5-6.
Food for thought: Does Marcus’ model of Affective Intelligence imply that
modern democracy is on sound footing? To what extent does Marcus succeed in
making his argument for the necessity of emotion for good citizenship? Does
“anxiety” always lead to a more reflective judgment style? Introspect: What
happens to your own cognition in situations of experienced anxiety?

February 26th: Emotions in campaigns
o Read: Campaigning for Hearts and Minds. Chapters 1-2.
o Food for thought: What is the purpose of campaign ads? What is the purposeof
emotion in campaign ads? What do positive ads do? What do negative ads do?
What makes television a unique medium for campaigning? How has the rise of
television altered the nature of politics, political behavior, and political
campaigns?

February 28th: Emotions in campaigns
o Read: Campaigning for Hearts and Minds. Chapters 3.
o Read: Lau et al. 2007. “The Effects of Negative Political Campaigns.”
o Food for thought: Is it possible that a short political ad can alter the decision
calculus of a citizen? Should this be more or less the case for some citizens over
others? Can we reconcile Brader’s theory with Lau et al.’s evidence? Does the
level of anxiety induced by an ad matter for its effect? Does it matter who
sponsors the ad?

March 5th: Emotions in campaigns
o Read: Campaigning for Hearts and Minds. Chapters 4-5 [Skim 6-7].
o Food for thought: What do you think of Brader’s methodology? Do his findings
apply broadly, or only in specific contexts? What might the implications of his
findings be once they are “aggregated up” to the level of electoral outcomes?
o LAST DAY TO MEET WITH ME (1ST) FOR GROUP PROJECT!!!!!

March 7th: MIDTERM EXAM!!!! (ALL MATERIAL THROUGH 2/28)

March 12th and March 14th: SPRING BREAK!!!!

March 19th: Group-threat and anxiety
o Read: Brader et al. 2008. “What Triggers Public Opposition to Immigration?”
o Read: Amodio 2009. “Intergroup anxiety effects on the control of racial
stereotypes.”
o Food for thought: Do emotional reactions to out-groups create a positive feedback
loop of stereotyping and prejudice? To what extent is prejudice related to the
concept of “fear conditioning.” How can we reduce stereotyping and prejudice?

March 21st: Terrorism and anxiety
o Read: Landau et al. 2004. “Deliver Us From Evil.”
o Read: Huddy et al. 2005. “Threat, Anxiety, and Support for Antiterrorism.”
o Food for thought: How can we reconcile these other perspectives on anxiety with
Affective Intelligence Theory? Can we? If not, how can we account for the
variety of effects anxiety appears to exert on political information processing and
judgment?

March 26th: Anger and reason
o Read: Parker and Isbell 2010. “How I Vote Depends on How I Feel.”
o Read: MacKuen et al. 2010. “Civic Engagements.”
o Food for thought: What kind of an emotion is anger? Positive? Negative?
Introspect: What happens to your thinking and behavior when you are angry?

March 28th: Anger, risk, and action
o Read: Lerner and Keltner 2001. “Fear, Anger, and Risk.”
o Read: Valentino et al. 2011. “Election Night’s Alright for Fighting.”
o Food for thought: Is anger a positive or negative force in politics? How might
(is?) anger be used in a manipulative fashion? Does inducing anger in another
constitute some form of violation of their selfhood?
o DUE: SECOND CRITICAL REACTION PAPER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Morality and Ideology

April 2nd: Empathy and care
o Read: Braintrust. Chapters 1-3.
o Food for thought: Can neuroscience, and science more generally, approach the
problem of morality? What can science tell us about morality? What can’t science
tell us about morality? What is the relationship between what is and what ought to
be? Can morality really be rooted in neurophysiology? Why are we “good” (when
we are good)? How might Churchland’s model actually imply substantial human
conflict rather than cooperation?

April 4th: Trust and cooperation
o Read: Braintrust. Chapter 4.
o Read: Kosfeld et al. 2005. “Oxytocin Increases Trust in Humans.”
o Watch: Paul Zak. “Trust, Morality – and Oxytocin?”
o Food for thought: Given the theory of natural selection, why do people cooperate
with one another? Why do people engage in “costly punishment” with no
personal benefits? How much can we learn about human morality from
experiments like those conducted by Zak and colleagues? If they are right, are we
not, as a society, morally required to use this knowledge to promote greater
cooperation chemically? If not, why not? Defend your intuition!

April 9nd: WEIRD morality and beyond
o Read: The Righteous Mind. Chapters 5-6.
o Food for thought: Why does education appear to have a strong relationship to the
possession of certain moral intuitions? Why is there variation across the world, on
average? Is Haidt right that we need to move the study of morality beyond harm
and fairness? How many “moral foundations” do you think there are? Does it
even make sense to talk about modular foundations in the brain?

April 11th: Moral foundations theory and its critiques
o Read: The Righteous Mind. Chapter 7.
o Read: Braintrust. Chapter 5.
o Food for thought: Are Haidt’s additional moral foundations (beyond harm and
fairness) legitimate, either as principles or as a theory of the moral mind? Do you
buy the evolutionary argument? Why or why not? Is the moral mind really like a
tongue with five (or six) receptors? Are there more or fewer “moral taste buds”?
o LAST DAY TO MEET WITH ME (2ND) FOR GROUP PROJECT!!!!!

April 16th: Liberalism, Conservatism, and Polarization
o Read: The Righteous Mind. Chapter 8.
o Read: Graham et al. 2012. “The Moral Stereotypes of Liberals and
Conservatives.”
o Food for thought: Is “ideology” liberalism v. conservatism? Is reduction of
ideology to such a continuum useful, or does it obscure? What if we broke
ideology down into various domains (e.g., economic, foreign policy, etc.), what
might we observe regarding relationships to these moral foundations? Do you buy
the addition of “liberty/oppression,” or is this ad hoc? Does Haidt’s theory offer a
reasonable account of why contemporary American politics seems so vitriolic?
What is the role of misperception of others? Is polarization self-fulfilling (a
positive feedback loop)?

April 18th: A neurobiology of ideology?
o Read: Alford et al. 2005. “Are Political Orientations Genetically Transmitted?”
o Read: Oxley et al. 2008. “Political Attitudes Vary with Physiological Traits.”
o Food for thought: To what extent are we predestined to be liberal or conservative
at birth? In what ways might “twin studies” be problematic methodologically?
Should political scientists be pursuing this type of research? Why or why not? Is
this type of research “reductionist”? Why or why not? Is there an unbridgeable
gap between genes and/or basic neurophysiological processes and the level of
abstract concepts, such as ideology? Why or why not?

April 23rd: Group presentations
o DUE: GROUP PROJECTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
o DUE: THIRD CRITICAL REACTION PAPER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

April 25th: NO CLASS

April 29th: FINAL EXAM, 9AM-12PM (EVERYTHING POST-SPRING BREAK)