Political Psychology: Final

Core assumptions of behaviorism:

Behaviorism sees humans as blank slates whose behaviors are shaped entirely by conditioning and reinforcement, implying that with proper environmental control, society could theoretically eliminate negative traits like greed or prejudice.

Reinforcement and punishment:

Positive reinforcement strengthens behavior through immediate rewards, while punishment only temporarily suppresses behavior and can create fear or model aggression.

Observational learning/modeling:

Bandura’s Bobo Doll experiment showed that children imitate observed aggression, supporting the idea that humans learn by watching others, not just through direct reinforcement.

Evidence for, and limitations of, behaviorist models:

 Conditioning explains many learned behaviors, but biological predispositions and cognitive factors limit its reach—organisms learn some associations more easily and can form mental maps without reinforcement.

Behaviorism vs. cognitive approaches:

Cognition shapes behavior through thoughts and schemas, revealing that learning involves mental interpretation, not just stimulus–response conditioning.

Behaviorism vs. biological constraints:

Evolutionary preparedness and instinctive drift demonstrate that biological factors limit what conditioning can achieve, as innate behaviors often override learned ones.

Freud’s model of human motivation:

Freud viewed personality as a constant struggle between instinctual drives (id), moral constraints (superego), and the ego’s realistic attempts to balance the two using the reality principle.

The unconscious:

The unconscious stores hidden thoughts, desires, and memories that influence behavior and can produce psychological symptoms when conflicts or repressed material surface.

Defense mechanisms:

The ego unconsciously distorts reality through strategies like projection, rationalization, and reaction formation to reduce anxiety and protect self-image.

Influence of unconscious drives on political attitudes:

Emotional and symbolic cues in politics often shape voter behavior more effectively than rational arguments, revealing how unconscious biases drive judgment and perception.

Evidence for, and limitations of, psychodynamic approaches:

Research on terror management and reaction formation supports some Freudian ideas, but critics argue the theory lacks falsifiability and overstates the role of repression.

Humanistic assumptions about human nature:

Humanistic psychology, led by Maslow and Rogers, emphasizes free will, personal growth, and inherent human goodness, focusing on authenticity and self-realization over unconscious conflict or conditioning.

Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and self-actualization:

Maslow proposed that people progress from basic survival needs to self-actualization, though evidence shows that human motivation often doesn’t follow this strict order and creativity or fulfillment can occur even under unmet lower needs.

Carl Rogers and unconditional positive regard:

Rogers argued that unconditional acceptance fosters psychological health and authenticity, helping individuals align their behavior with their “true self” rather than external expectations.

Political implications:

Humanistic ideas support social policies that meet citizens’ basic needs, allowing them to pursue self-actualization and ethical growth, and help explain leadership styles through psychological fulfillment and self-esteem.

Humanistic critiques of behaviorism and psychodynamics:

Humanists reject behaviorism’s mechanistic view and Freud’s pessimism, instead promoting optimism about personal change, autonomy, and the transformative power of supportive environments.

Critiques of humanistic models:

Critics contend that humanism’s concepts are vague, overly individualistic, and naïve about human evil, with limited empirical support and a tendency to prioritize personal satisfaction over social or moral responsibility.

Evolutionary explanations of behavior:

Evolution shaped universal human behaviors—from cooperation to fear—based on ancestral survival pressures, but many instincts now mismatch modern life since little genetic change occurred in the last 40,000 years.

Evolutionary explanations for status and aggression:

Male aggression and status seeking evolved from reproductive competition, explaining patterns like violence among low-status men and widespread female preference for high-status partners.

In-group favoritism and out-group threat responses:

Human bias toward one’s own group and suspicion of outsiders stem from ancestral resource competition, still influencing modern politics, prejudice, and economic fairness preferences.

Gendered behavior patterns:

Men and women differ in mating and jealousy responses due to evolutionary pressures—men focus on sexual fidelity, women on emotional commitment and resource security.

Mismatch theory (ancestral environment vs. modern world):

Ancient instincts tuned for scarcity and threat persist in modern abundance, causing anxiety, status obsession, and misapplied zero-sum thinking in non-zero-sum societies.

Critiques of evolutionary psychology:

 Critics argue that evolutionary explanations often rely on post-hoc reasoning, overstate gender differences, ignore cultural influence, and underestimate human adaptability through learning and neuroplasticity.

Distinguishing evolved tendencies from cultural norms:

Though humans retain evolved drives like pair-bonding and protective instincts, culture, learning, and environment heavily shape how these tendencies manifest across societies.

Brain structure and political orientation:

Conservatives tend to have larger, more reactive amygdalas linked to fear and emotional sensitivity, while liberals show more engagement in the prefrontal cortex, tied to judgment and complex reasoning.

Genetic predispositions vs. environmental shaping:

Although humans share 99% of genes, environmental factors and early experiences play a significant role alongside genetics, shaping traits like ideology and behavior.

Heritability (context-dependent variability):

The degree to which traits are inherited depends on environment—heritability of height or intelligence rises in stable conditions but falls under deprivation or inequality.

Twin studies: identical vs. fraternal, reared together/apart:

Twin research shows strong genetic influence on traits like ideology and mental health, with identical twins remaining more alike than fraternals even when raised apart.

Adoption studies:

Adopted children’s verbal ability and educational outcomes align more closely with their biological parents, underscoring nature’s influence within supportive environments.

Romania and the Bucharest Early Intervention Project:

Early foster care placement dramatically improved neglected children’s development, proving that nurturing environments can offset biological and early-life disadvantages.

IQ and the Flynn Effect:

Average IQ scores have steadily risen across generations due to better nutrition, education, and test familiarity, illustrating strong environmental effects on intelligence.

Cross-national differences in nutrition, schooling, and height:

Variations in average IQ and physical growth across nations reflect socio-economic, nutritional, and educational disparities more than inherent biological differences.

Biological constraints vs. social plasticity:

Biological sex differences exist in certain skills, but cultural influence—like rejecting sexist stereotypes—can reshape expectations and performance outcomes.

Political implications of biological tendencies:

Nature and nurture interact in shaping intelligence, behavior, and ideology, meaning social policies that improve education and opportunity can enhance outcomes despite genetic limits.

Heritability of intelligence:

While average intelligence is equal between sexes, men and women exhibit strengths in different cognitive areas such as spatial reasoning for men and verbal or emotional skills for women.

Test score distributions and variance differences across groups:

Over time, gender gaps in top math performance have narrowed significantly with social change, reflecting the combined power of biology and evolving opportunity.

Basic assumptions of trait theories and Big Five personality traits:

Trait theory views personality as enduring patterns —Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism—which remain relatively stable across situations and over time.

Trait stability and partial heritability:

Personality traits become more consistent with age and are moderately heritable, though life events can cause gradual increases in conscientiousness and decreases in neuroticism.

Personality as a predictor of life outcomes:

Conscientiousness reliably predicts success and well-being, while neuroticism correlates with emotional problems, showing how personality meaningfully shapes real-world outcomes.

Link between Openness, Conscientiousness, and politics:

High openness is associated with liberal, change-oriented values, while high conscientiousness aligns with conservative, rule-based ideologies across cultures.

Person–situation debate:

Behavior reflects both stable traits and situational contexts, with individual differences—like impulsivity—moderating how environments influence actions, as shown in studies like the marshmallow test.

Nature vs. nurture:

Genetics accounts for roughly half of personality and ideological variation, but environment strongly interacts, meaning biological tendencies set limits without determining outcomes.

Stability vs. change:

Personality stabilizes with age—especially conscientiousness and neuroticism—though major life events or new contexts can still shift behavior and attitudes modestly.

Biological predispositions vs. environmental shaping:

While biology creates predispositions for traits and intelligence, environmental conditions such as abuse, education, or culture crucially shape how these traits manifest.

Individual differences vs. situational influence:

Personality influences behavior across contexts, yet situations can magnify or suppress traits, showing that who people are and where they are both matter.

Role of culture in shaping expression of traits:

 Individualistic cultures emphasize autonomy and self-expression, while collectivistic cultures value social harmony and duty, shaping how similar traits appear across societies.

Interactionist perspective:

 Biology and environment continually interact—traits guide responses to situations, and situations shape the expression of traits, illustrating why identical predispositions yield different life outcomes.

Policy implications of environmental interventions:

Because traits change little after midlife, early-life interventions and socioeconomic improvements offer the strongest leverage for improving psychological and cognitive outcomes.