Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T21:20:19.920Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Explicating the Black Box Through Experimentation: Studies of Authoritarianism and Threat

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2017

Howard Lavine ,
Milton Lodge ,
James Polichak  and
Charles Taber
Howard Lavine
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, SUNY—Stony Brook, Stony Brook, NY 11794-4392. e-mail: [email protected]
Milton Lodge
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, SUNY—Stony Brook, Stony Brook, NY 11794-4392. e-mail: [email protected]
James Polichak
Affiliation:
School of Law, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109. e-mail: [email protected]
Charles Taber
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, SUNY—Stony Brook, Stony Brook, NY 11794-4392. e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We advocate for an experimental approach to the study of personality and politics. In particular, we propose an “interactionist” model of political behavior in which the cognitive and behavioral effects of dispositional variables are qualified by experimentally induced contexts. Our operating assumption is that the political effects of personality do not occur in a contextual vacuum, but instead are magnified by the presence of key precipitating or “activating” features of the political environment. We illustrate the approach with four experimental studies of authoritarianism. Results indicate that the effects of authoritarianism depend critically on the presence of situationally induced threat. More generally, we argue that interactions between personality variables and experimental treatments can lead to valuable insights about when and why personality makes a meaningful contribution to public opinion and political behavior. Finally, we close with a critique of the traditional skepticism toward experimentation in political science, and suggest that external validity is an overrated virtue when the research goal is the development of theory rather than the description of “real-world” phenomena.

Type
Research Article
Information
Political Analysis , Volume 10 , Issue 4: Special Issue on Experimental Methods in Political Science , Autumn 2002 , pp. 343 - 361
Copyright
Copyright © Political Methodology Section of the American Political Science Association 2002 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adorno, Theodor W., Frenkel-Brunswik, Elsa, Levinson, Daniel J., and Nevitt Sanford, R. 1950. The Authoritarian Personality. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
Altemeyer, Bob. 1988. Enemies of Freedom. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Bem, Daryl, and Funder, David C. 1978. “Predicting More of the People More of the Time: Assessing the Personality of Situations.” Psychological Review 85:485–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brock, Timothy C., and Balloun, J. L. 1967. “Behavioral Receptivity to Dissonant Information.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 6:413–428.Google Scholar
Cacioppo John., T., Petty, Richard E., and Sidera, J. A. 1982. “The Effects of a Salient Self-Schema on the Evaluation of Proattitudinal Editorials: Top-Down versus Bottom-Up Processing.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 18:324–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Angus, Converse, Philip E., Miller, Warren E., and Stokes, Donald E. 1960. The American Voter. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Doty, Richard M., Peterson, Bill E., and Winter, David G. 1991. “Threat and Authoritarianism in the United States, 1978-1987.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 61:629–640.Google Scholar
Eagly, Alice H., and Chaiken, Shelly. 1993. The Psychology of Attitudes. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Eagly, Alice H., Chen, Patrick Kulesa, Serena, and Chaiken, Shelly. 2001. “Do Attitudes Affect Memory? Tests of the Congeniality Hypothesis.” Current Directions in Psychological Science 10:5–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fazio, Russell H. 1990. “A Practical Guide to the Use of Response Latency in Social Psychological Research.” Review of Personality and Social Psychology 11:74–97.Google Scholar
Feldman, Stanley. 1988. “Structure and Consistency in Public Opinion: The Role of Core Beliefs and Values.” American Journal of Political Science 32:416–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, Stanley, and Stenner, Karen. 1997. “Perceived Threat and Authoritarianism.” Political Psychology 18:741–770.Google Scholar
Festinger, Leon. 1957. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freedman, John L., and Sears, David O. 1965. “Selective Exposure.” In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, ed. Berkowitz, Leonard. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 41–88.Google Scholar
Frey, Dieter. 1986. “Recent Research on Selective Exposure to Information.” In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, ed. Berkowitz, Leonard. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Funder, David C. 1982. “On Assessing Social Psychological Theories Through the Study of Individual Differences: Template Matching and Forced Compliance.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 43:100–110.Google Scholar
Greenberg, Jeffrey, Pyszczynski, Thomas, Solomon, S., Rosenblatt, A., Veeder, M., Kirkland, S., and Lyon, D. 1990. “Evidence for Terror Management Theory II: The Effects of Mortality Salience on Reactions to Those Who Threaten or Bolster the Cultural Worldview.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 58:308–318.Google Scholar
Higgins, E. Tory, and King, G. 1981. “Accessibility of Social Constructs: Information-Processing Consequences of Individual and Contextual Variability.” In Personality, Cognition, and Social Interaction, eds. Cantor, Nancy and Kihlstrom, John. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 69–122.Google Scholar
Huckfeldt, Robert, Levine, J., Morgan, William, and Sprague, John. 1999. “Accessibility and the Political Utility and Partisan and Ideological Orientations.” American Journal of Political Science 43:888–911.Google Scholar
Iyengar, Shanto, and Kinder, Donald R. 1987. News that Matters. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kinder, Donald R., and Palfrey, Thomas R. 1993. “On Behalf of an Experimental Political Science.” Preface to Experimental Foundations of Political Science, eds. Kinder, Donald R. and Palfrey, R. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krosnick Jon., A., and Kinder, Donald R. 1990. “Altering Popular Support for the President Through Priming: The Iran-Contra Affair.” American Political Science Review 84:497–512.Google Scholar
Lavine, Howard. 1997. “Reaction Time: A Methodological Tool for Political Psychology?” The Political Psychologist 2:3–6.Google Scholar
Lavine, Howard. 2001. “The Electoral Consequences of Ambivalence Toward Presidential Candidates.” American Journal of Political Science 45:915–929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lavine, Howard, Borgida, Eugene, and Sullivan, John. 2000. “On the Relationship Between Attitude Involvement and Attitude Accessibility: Toward a Cognitive-Motivational Model of Political Information Processing.” Political Psychology 21:81–106.Google Scholar
Lavine, Howard, Burgess, Diana, Snyder, Mark, Transue, John, Sullivan, John L., Haney, Beth, and Wagner, Stephen H. 1999. “Threat, Authoritarianism, and Voting: An Investigation of Personality and Persuasion.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 25:337–347.Google Scholar
Lavine, Howard, and Snyder, Mark. 1999. “Cognitive Processes and the Functional Matching Effect in Persuasion: Studies of Personality and Political Behavior.” In Why We Evaluate: Functions of Attitudes, eds. Olson, James and Maio, R. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Lewin, Kurt. 1936. Principles of Topological Psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lodge, Milton, McGraw, Kathleen, and Stroh, Patrick. 1989. “An Impression-Driven Model of Candidate Evaluation.” American Political Science Review 83:399–419.Google Scholar
Lodge, Milton, and Taber, Charles S. 2000. “Three Steps Toward a Theory of Motivated Reasoning.” In Elements of Reason: Understanding and Expanding the Limits of Political Rationality, ed. Lupia, Arthur, McCubbins, Matthew D., & Popkin, Samuel L. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 183–213.Google Scholar
McCann, S. J. H. 1997. “Threatening Times, ‘Strong’ Presidential Popular Vote Winners, and the Victory Margin (1824-1964).” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 73:160–170.Google Scholar
McCann, S. J. H. 1999. “Threatening Times and Fluctuations in American Church Memberships.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 25:325–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGraw, Kathleen M., and Hoekstra, Valerie. 1994. “Experimentation in Political Science: Historical Trends and Future Directions.” In Research in Micropolitics, eds. Michael, X. Delli Carpini, Leonie Huddy, and Robert Shapiro. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 3–30.Google Scholar
Meyer, David E., and Schvaneveldt, R. W. 1971. “Facilitation in Recognizing Pairs of Words: Evidence of a Dependence Between Retrieval Operations.” Journal of Experimental Psychology 90:227–234.Google Scholar
Mischel, Walter. 1968. Personality and Assessment. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Mook, Dennis G. 1983. “In Defense of External Invalidity.” American Psychologist 38:379–387.Google Scholar
Peterson, Bill E., Doty, Richard M., and Winter, David G. 1993. “Authoritarianism and Attitudes Toward Contemporary Social Issues.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 19:174–184.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, Robert, and Rosnow, Ralph. 1991. Essentials of Behavioral Research: Methods and Data Analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Rudman, Laurie A., and Borgida, Eugene. 1995. “The Afterglow of Construct Accessibility: The Behavioral Consequences of Priming Men to View Women as Sexual Objects.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 31:493–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sales, Steven M. 1972. “Economic Threat as a Determinant of Conversion Rates in Authoritarian and Nonauthoritarian Churches.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 23:420–428.Google Scholar
Sales, Strven M. 1973. “Threat as a Factor in Authoritarianism: An Analysis of Archival Data.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 28:44–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sears, David O. 1986. “College Students in the Laboratory: Influences of a Narrow Data Base on Social Psychology's View of Human Nature.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51:515–530.Google Scholar
Sidanius, Jim, Pratto, Felicia, and Bobo, Larry. 1996. “Racism, Conservatism, Affirmative Action and Intellectual Sophistication: A Matter of Principled Conservatism or Group Dominance?” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 70:476–490.Google Scholar
Sniderman, Paul M., Brody, Richard A., and Tetlock, Philip E. 1991. Reasoning and Choice: Explorations in Political Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sniderman, Paul M., and Carmines, Edward. 1997. Reaching Beyond Race. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Sullivan, John L., Piereson, James E., and Marcus, George E. 1978. “Ideological Constraint in the Mass Public: A Methodological Critique and Some New Findings.” American Journal of Political Science 22:233–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Megan, Zanna, Mark P., and Griffin, Dale. 1995. “Let's Not Be Indifferent About (Attitudinal) Ambivalence.” In Attitude Strength: Antecedents and Consequences, eds. Petty, Richard E. and Krosnick, A. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 361–386.Google Scholar
Valentino, Nicholas, Hutchings, Vincent L., and White, Ismail K. 2002. “Cues That Matter: How Political Ads Prime Racial Attitudes During Campaigns.” American Political Science Review 96:75–90.Google Scholar
Wegner, Daniel M., and Bargh, John A. 1998. “Control and Automaticity in Social Life.” In The Handbook of Social Psychology, 4th ed., eds. Gilbert, Danial T., Fiske, Susan T., and Lindzey, Gardner. New York: McGraw Hill, pp. 446–496.Google Scholar
Zaller, John 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zaller, John, and Feldman, Stanley. 1992. “A Simple Theory of the Survey Response: Answering Questions Versus Revealing Preferences.” American Journal of Political Science 36:579–616.Google Scholar