Political science thrives in the space that connects the individual and the collectivity. From its roots in ancient Greece, the discipline has always aimed to help individuals live artfully together in a community. It is in this sense that the discipline necessarily concerns the links between individuals' personal lives and the operation of the broader polity. It is not that we might choose to, but instead we must, bridge the micro–macro gap.

In this chapter, I argue that political psychology has already contributed much to the understanding of how individual and polity join together. And yet, much work remains to be done. In particular, when we want to employ political psychology to bridge the micro–macro gap, we need to think explicitly about the mechanisms that link the individual to the broader polity. But more than that – the nature of the microworld depends on the macroworld for its very meaning. By this I do not mean only that individuals interact with and try to make sense of a social environment, though this is true. Instead, I want to suggest that what is political about people lies rooted in their shared collective life rather than in their personal lives.

A story might illustrate the point. In the 1960s both Robert Lane and Philip Converse were asked to participate in an American Political Science Association panel on the character of the public's political beliefs. Fireworks were expected.