Download 828 Public Opinion and Political Behavior

PLS 828: American Politics Among the Masses – Public Opinion
and Political Behavior
Fall 2013
Tuesdays: 3:00-5:50PM
Room: S. Kedzie Hall 104
Instructor: Prof. Corwin D. Smidt
Office: 320 S. Kedzie Hall
Email: [email protected] – I rarely check it over weekends.
Phone: 353-3292
Website: angel.msu.edu
Office Hours: Monday 10AM-Noon, or by appointment
Course Description
In this seminar we will review and evaluate studies of mass public opinion and political behavior. A fundamental justi cation for electoral democracy is the legitimacy and value of popular
sovereignty. By understanding how (and why) Americans think about politics and how they act on
these thoughts we can begin to understand the constraints and freedoms of democratically elected
governments, and (ultimately) the value and perils of popular sovereignty.
is seminar will not provide a survey of popular topics in the eld. Even when limiting ourselves to American politics, the literature on public opinion, voting behavior, and political participation is too vast. Indeed, this task is much better accomplished by examining recent publications
like the Annual Review of Political Science and the Oxford Handbook series on Political Psychology,
American Elections and Voting Behavior, and American Public Opinion and the Media. Instead of
skimming the surface of a various elds, my hope is to dive deeper into the foundations and assumptions of the eld as a whole, focusing on theories and studies of lasting and broad relevance
and prominent areas of current debate. We might also spend some time on what I believe to be
ignored or future topics of importance.
Seminar Format, Requirements, and Grading
e seminar format will not differ much from others. You are expected to come to class having read
all the required material and be familiar with the additional readings that relate to your interests.
Participation in seminar discussions is a must. If you all talk less, then I will assign more required
reading so we have more content to discuss.
Each week you will need to write a response to the readings and submit it prior to class. e
syllabus outlines a number of questions that motivate the selection of the week’s readings. Your
response should engage these readings either by forming your own personal answer to a question
(in re ection of the readings) or addressing a concern or related conclusion that came about from
your reading. e response need not address all the readings, but stronger responses usually relate
to more than one. e response should be typed and no more than 600 words. Be concise and
comprehensive – i.e., edit. I intend to read the responses before seminar and incorporate them into
discussion. ey should either be emailed to me or placed in my mailbox before noon, prior to
class.
1
You will also be required to submit two written papers. e rst paper will be shorter and provide
your thoughts and comments in reaction to the readings we cover in the rst class’s rst month. e
second paper will be due on exam week and needs to be either a research proposal paper or a critical
review of the literature paper. More information will be given as exam week approaches.
Grading in this class follows typical graduate school conventions. A 4.0 represents very good
work, a 3.5 represents adequate completion of the course, a 3.0 indicates less than adequate performance, and a 2.5 or lower indicates very poor performance.
Note: For your bene t, I do not favor giving out incompletes. I also do not accept late assignments.
Course Outline
* - marks required readings for the section. It is expected that you familiarize yourself with the content of some of the other listed readings. Electronic versions of most journals are available online
through the library (http://er.lib.msu.edu). Blue font in this syllabus’s electronic le represents hyperlinks to online versions of work from book chapters or other hard to nd sources. All
other required reading is available on the class Angel page.
A: Foundational questions
1. What is public opinion and mass political behavior? What is the purpose of studying it? Have
these concepts changed? Readings:
• *Kinder, Donald R. 1998. “Opinion and Action in the Realm of Politics” in Daniel T.
Gilbert, Susan T. Fiske, and Gardner Lindzey (eds.) e Handbook of Social Psychology
4th edition. McGraw-Hill - pages 778-84. (on Angel)
• *Key, V. O., Jr. 1964. Public Opinion and American Democracy. Alfred A. Knopf Chapter 1 (on Angel)
• *Herbst, Susan. 2012. “e History and Meaning of Public Opinion” in New Directions
in Public Opinion, ed. Adam J. Berinsky. Routledge - pages 19-31. (on Angel)
• *Converse, Philip E. 1987. “Changing Conceptions of Public Opinion in the Political
Process” Public Opinion Quarterly 51: S21-S24
• Ginsberg, Benjamin. 1982. “Polling and the Transformation of Public Opinion.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association. (on Angel)
• Herbst, Susan. 1993. Numbered Voices: How Opinion Polling has Shaped American Politics. University of Chicago Press - Chapters 1-3, especially
2. e changing citizen, state, and public sphere: How have concepts of citizenship changed?
How do American civic institution interact with these changes? How might they change?
What opinions and behavior are currently or potentially political? Readings:
• *Schudson, Michael. 1998. 1999/2011. e Good Citizen: A History of American Civic
Life. Originally Harvard University Press, reprints published by Free Press.
• *Althaus, Scott L. 2006. “False Starts, Dead Ends, and New Opportunities in Public
Opinion Research.” Critical Review 18(1-3): 75-104
2
• *Kakutani, Michiko. February 21, 2011. “Friends, Without a Personal Touch” New York
Times - brief summary of Turkle, Sherry. 2011. Why We Expect More From Technology
and Less From Each Other. Basic Books.
• *Pew Research Center. April 25, 2013. “Civic Engagement in the Digital Age.”
• *Rusk, Jerrold G. 1970. “e Effect of the Australian Ballot Reform on Split Ticket Voting: 1876-1908.” American Political Science Review 64(4): 1220-38.
• *Either: Salmon, Daniel A., Lawrence H. Moulton, Saad B. Omer, M. Patricia deHart,
Shannon Stokley, and Neal Halsey. 2005. “Factors Associated with Refusal of Childhood Vaccines Among Parents of School-aged Children.” Archives of Pediatric Adolescent Medicine 159: 470-476; or the beginnings of Gumpert, David E. 2009. e Raw
Milk Revolution: Behind America’s Emerging Battle Over Food Rights that is available on
Google Books.
• Altschuler, Glenn C. and Stuart M. Blumin. 2000. Rude Republic: Americans and their
Politics in the Nineteenth Century Princeton University Press.
• Crenson, Matthew A. and Benjamin Ginsberg. 2002. Downsizing Democracy: How
America Sidelined its Citizens and Privatized its Public. e Johns Hopkins University
Press.
• Delli Carpini, Michael and Scott Keeter. 1996. “From Democratic eory to Democratic
Practice: e Case for an Informed Citizenry.” Chapter 1 from What Americans Know
About Politics and Why It Matters Yale University Press. (on Angel)
• Formisano, Ronald P. 1971. e Birth of Mass Political Parties in Michigan, 1827-1861
Princeton University Press.
• Howe, Daniel Walker. 2007. What Hath God Wrought: e Transformation of America,
1815-1848 Oxford University Press.
• Schudson, Michael. 1981. Discovering the News. Basic Books
• Wood, Gordon S. 1993. e Radicalism of the American Revolution Vintage.
3. What should we study: attitudes, preferences, or behavior? Are attitudes or preferences consistent over time? Is behavior consistent with attitudes? What are valid or useful measurements: surveys, experiments, and/or election outcomes? Can academic surveys survive?
• *Barabas, Jason, and Jennifer Jerit. 2010. “Are Survey Experiments Externally Valid?”
American Political Science Review 104(2): 226-242.
• *Bartels, Larry M. 2003. “Democracy with Attitudes” in Electoral Democracy, eds. Michael
MacKuen and George Rabinowitz. University of Michigan Press - pages 48-82.
• *Berinsky, Adam. 1999. “e Two Faces of Public Opinion.” American Journal of Political Science 43(4): 1209-1230.
• *Converse, Philip E. 1964 (2006). “e Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics.” Critical Review. Originally published in David E. Apter, ed., Ideology and Its Discontents Free
Press.
3
• *Hillygus, D. Sunshine. 2012. “e Practice of Survey Research: Changes and Challenges” in New Directions in Public Opinion, ed. Adam J. Berinsky. Routledge - pages
32-51. (on Angel)
• *Iyengar, Shanto. 2011. “Laboratory Experiments in Political Science” in Cambridge
Handbook of Experimental Political Science eds. James N. Druckman, Donald P. Green,
James H. Kuklinski, and Arthur Lupia. Cambridge University Press - pages 73-88. (on
Angel)
• *Kahneman, Daniel, Ilana Ritov, and David Schkade. 1999. “Economic Preferences or
Attitude Expression?” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 19(1-3): 203-235.
• *Lacy, Dean. 2001 “A eory of Nonseparable Preferences in Survey Responses.” American Journal of Political Science 45(2): 239-258.
• *Zaller, John. 2003. “Coming to Grips with V.O. Key’s Concept of Latent Opinion.”
in Electoral Democracy, eds. Michael MacKuen and George Rabinowitz. University of
Michigan Press - 311-336.
• Achen, Christopher H. 1975. “Mass Political Attitudes and the Survey Response.” American Political Science Review 69(4): 1218-1231.
• Ansolabehere, Stephen, Jonathan Rodden, and James M. Snyder. 2008. “e Strength of
Issues: using Multiple Measures to Gauge Preference Stability, Ideological Constraint,
and Issue Voting.” American Political Science Review 102(2): 215-232
• Brick, J. Michael. 2011 “e Future of Survey Sampling” Public Opinion Quarterly 75(5):
872-888.
• Fazio, Russell H. 1986. “How do Attitudes Guide Behavior?” in Handbook of Motivation
and Cognition: Foundations of Social Behavior eds. Richard M. Sorrentino and Edward
Tory Higgins. Guilford Press - 204-243.
• Groves, Robert M. 2011. “e ree Eras of Survey Research” Public Opinion Quarterly
75(5): 861-871.
• Hill, Jennifer L. and Hanspeter Kriesi. 2001. “An Extension an Test of Converse’s ‘Blackand-White’ Model of Response Stability.” American Political Science Review 95(2): 397413.
• Kramer, Gerald H. 1983. “e Ecological Fallacy Revisited: Aggregate- versus Individuallevel ndings on Economics and Elections, and Sociotropic Voting.” American Political
Science Review 77(1): 92-111.
• McFadden, Daniel. 1999. “Rationality for Economists?” Journal of Risk and Uncertainty
19(1-3): 73-105.
• Simon, Herbert A. 1985. “Human Nature in Politics: the Dialogue of Psychology with
Political Science.” American Political Science Review. 79(2): 293-304.
• aler, Richard. 2000. “From Homo Economicus to Homo Sapiens.” e Journal of
Economic Perspectives 14(1): 133-141.
• Traugott, Michael W. 2003. “e Nature of a Belief in a Mass Public.” in Electoral Democracy, eds. Michael MacKuen and George Rabinowitz. University of Michigan Press 262-278.
4
• Wahlke, John C. 1979. “Pre-Behaviorlism in Political Science.” American Political Science Review 73(1): 9-31.
• Weisberg, Herbert F. 2005. e Total Survey Error Approach: A Guide to the New Science
of Survey Research University of Chicago Press.
First Paper Assignment De ne public opinion and what qualities of it require study for evaluations of American democracy and the prospect of popular sovereignty. Based on your thoughts,
what does or does not make for a valuable study of public opinion and mass behavior?
B: Dominant models of how we think and behave politically.
1. Political Participation: Why do people participate? Have American political and social institutions become more or less amenable to civic engagement? What does this mean for representation?
• *Achen, Chistopher H., and Richard Sinnot. 2007. “Taking Sides: Learning and Voting.”
Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association; Chicago,
IL, April 12-15.
• *Aldrich, John H. 1993. “Rational Choice and Turnout.” American Journal of Political
Science 37:246-78
• *Campbell, Andrea Louise. 2002. “Self-Interest, Social Security, and Distinctive Participation Patterns of Senior Citizens.” American Political Science Review 96(3):565-574.
• *Fiorina, Morris P. 2002. “Parties, Participation, and Representation in America: Old
theories face new realities.” in Political Science: e State of the Discipline eds. Ira
Katznelson and Helen Milner. W.W. Norton & Company.
• *Gerber, Alan S. and Donald P. Green. 2000. “e Effects of Canvassing, Telephone
Calls, and Direct Mail on Voter Turnout: A Field Experiment.” American Political Science Review 94(3): 653-663.
• *Gerber, Alan S., Donald P. Green, and Christopher W. Larimer. 2008. “Social Pressure
and Voter Turnout: Evidence from a Large-Scale Field Experiment.” American Political
Science Review 102(1): 33-48.
• *McDonald, Michael P., and Samuel Popkin. 2001. “e Myth of the Vanishing Voter.”
American Political Science Review 95: 963-974
• *Putnam, Robert D. 1995. “Tuning In, Tuning Out: e Strange Disappearance of Social
Capital in America.” PS: Political Science and Politics 28: 664-683.
• *Skocpol, eda. 1999. “How Americans Became Civic” in Civic Engagement in American Democracy eds. eda Skocpol and Morris P. Fiorina. Brookings Institution Press/Russell
Sage Foundation.
• *Verba, Sidney, Kay Lehman Schlozman, and Henry E. Brady. Voice and Equality: Civic
Voluntarism in American Politics Harvard University Press.
• Achen, Chistopher H. 2006. “Expressive Vayesian Voters, their Turnout Decisions, and
Double Probit: Empirical Investigations of a eoretical Model.” Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the Political Methodology Society; Davis, California, July 20-22.
5
• Altschuler, Glenn C. and Stuart M. Blumin. 1997. “e Limits of Political Engagement
in Antebellum America: A New Look at the Golden Age of Participatory Democracy.”
Journal of American History 84(3): 855-885.
• Arceneaux, Kevin and David W. Nickerson. 2008. “Who is Mobilized to Vote? A Reanalysis of 11 Field Experiments.” American Journal of Political Science 53(1): 1-16.
• Berry, Jeffrey M. 1999. “e Rise of Citizen Groups” in Civic Engagement in American
Democracy eds. eda Skocpol and Morris P. Fiorina. Brookings Institution Press/Russell
Sage Foundation.
• Burns, Nancy, Kay Lehman Schlozman, and Sidney Verba. 2001. e Private Roots of
Public Action: Gender, Equality, and Political Participation Harvard University Press.
• Campbell, David E. 2009. “Civic Engagement and Education: An Empirical Test of the
Sorting Model.” American Journal of Political Science 53(4): 771-786.
• Campbell, David E. 2006. Why We Vote: How Schools and Communities Shape Our Civic
Life Princeton University Press.
• Citrin, Jack, Eric Schickler, and John Sides. 2003. “What if Everyone Voted? Simulating the Impact of Increased Turnout in Senate Elections.” American Journal of Political
Science 47(1): 75-90.
• Clark, Peter B., and James Q. Wilson. 1961. “Incentive Systems: A eory of Organizations.” Administrative Science Quarterly 6(2): 129-166.
• Fiorina, Morris P. 1999. “e Dark Side of Civic Engagment” in Civic Engagement in
American Democracy eds. eda Skocpol and Morris P. Fiorina. Brookings Institution
Press/Russell Sage Foundation.
• Hill, Kim Quaile and Tetsuya Matsubayashi. 2005. “Civic Engagement and Mass-Elite
Policy Agenda Agreement in American Communities.” American Political Science Review 99(2): 215-224.
• Leighley, Jan E. and Jonathan Nagler. 2013. Who Votes Now? Demographics, Issues,
Inequality, and Turnout in the United States Princeton University Press.
• Mutz, Diana C. 2001. “e Consequences of Cross-Cutting Networks for Political Participation.” American Journal of Political Science 46(4): 838-855.
• Putnam, Robert D. 2000. Bowling Alone: e Collapes and Revival of American Community Simon & Schuster.
• Salisbury, Robert H. 1969. “An Exchange eory of Interest Groups” Midwest Journal of
Political Science 13(1):1-32.
• Skocpol, eda. 1997. “e Tocqueville Problem: Civic Engagement in American
Democracy.” Social Science History 21(4): 455-479
• Skocpol, eda. 2003. Diminished Democracy: From Membership to Management in
American Civic Life. University of Oklahoma Press.
• Walker, Edward T., John D. McCarthy, and Frank Baumgartner. 2011. “Replacing
Members with Managers? Mutualism among Membership and Nonmembership Advocacy Organizations in the United States.” American Journal of Sociology 116(4): 12841337.
6
• Weaver, Vesla and Amy E. Lerman. 2010. “Political Consequences of the Carceral State.”
American Political Science Review 104(4): 817-833.
2. Party Support, Performance, and Voting Behavior: Why do people support one party over the
other? Is party support exible or malleable? How does it re ect government performance?
• *Achen, Christopher H. 1992. “Social psychology, demographic variables, and linear
regression: Breaking the iron triangle in voting research.” Political Behavior 14:195–211
• *Bartels, Larry M. 2000. “Partisanship and Voting Behavior, 1952-1996.” American Journal of Political Science 44(1): 35-50.
• *Bafumi, Joseph and Robert Y. Shapiro. 2009. “A New Partisan Voter” Journal of Politics
71(1): 1-24.
• *Beck, Paul Allen, Russell J. Dalton, Steven Greene, and Robert Huckfeldt. 2002. “e
Social Calculus of Voting: Interpersonal, Media, and Organizational In uences on Presidential Choices.” American Political Science Review 96(1): 57-73.
• *Bensel, Richard. 2003. “e American Ballot Box: Law, Identity, and the Polling Place
in the Mid-Nineteenth Century.” Studies in American Political Development 17(1): 1-27
• *Campbell, Angus, Philip E. Converse, Warren E. Miller, and Donald E. Stokes. 1960.
e American Voter University of Chicago Press (1980 Reprint). Chapters 1-12.
• *Carsey, omas M. and Geoffrey C. Layman. 2006. “Changing Sides or Changing
Minds? Party Identi cation and Policy Preferences in the American Electorate.” American Journal of Political Science 50(2): 464-477.
• *De Boef, Suzanna, and Paul Kellstedt. 2004. “e Political (and Economic) Origins of
Consumer Con dence.” American Journal of Political Science 48(4): 633-649.
• *Erikson, Robert S., Michael B. MacKuen, and James A. Stimson. 2002. e Macro Polity
Cambridge University Press. Chapters 1-5
• *Evans, Geoffrey and Mark Pickup. 2010. “Reversing the Causal Arrow: e Political
Conditioning of Economic Perceptions in the 2000-04 U.S. Presidential Election Cycle.”
Journal of Politics 72(4): 1236-1251
• *Fiorina, Morris P. Retrospective Voting in American National Elections Yale University
Press. Chapters 1-4. (On Angel)
• *Gerber, Alan S. and Gregory A. Huber. 2009. “Partisanship and Economic Behavior: Do Partisan Differences in Economic Forecasts Predict Real Economic Behavior?”
American Political Science Review 103(3): 407-426.
• *Gomez, Brad T., and J. Matthew Wilson. 2001. “Political Sophistication and Economic
Voting in the American Electorate: A eory of Heterogeneous Attribution.” American
Journal of Political Science 45(4): 899-914.
• *Huber, Gregory A., Seth J. Hill, and Gabriel S. Lenz. 2012. “Sources of Bias in Retrospective Decision Making: Experimental Evidence on Voters’ Limitations in Controlling Incumbents.” American Political Science Review 106(4): 720-741.
7
• *Rivers, Douglas. 1988. “Heterogeneity in Models of Electoral Choice” American Journal of Political Science 32(3): 737-757.
• *Wright, John R. 2012. “Unemployment and the Democratic Electoral Advantage.” American Political Science Review 106(4): 685-702.
• Bensel, Richard. 2004. e American Ballot Box in the Mid-Nineteenth Century. Cambridge University Press.
• Brandt, Patrick T., and John R. Freeman. 2009. “Modeling macro-political dynamics.”
Political Analysis 17:113–142
• Box-Steffensmeier, Janet M., and Renee M. Smith. 1996. “e Dynamics of Aggregate
Partisanship.” American Political Science Review 90(3): 567-580.
• Burnham, Walter Dean. 2003. “Comment on Bensel: ‘But the Bumblebee Flies Away
Does It?”’ Studies in American Political Development 17(1): 28-33.
• Gerber, Alan S., Gregory A. Huber, and Ebonya Washington. 2010. “Party Affiliation,
Partisanship, and Political Beliefs: A Field Experiment.” American Political Science Review 104(4): 720-744.
• Green, Donald, Bradley Palmquist, and Eric Schickler. 2002. Partisan Hearts and Minds
Yale University Press.
• Gerber, Alan S. and Gregory A. Huber. 2010. “Partisanship, Political Control, and Economic Assessments.” American Journal of Political Science 54(1): 153-173.
• Hetherington, Marc J. 2001. “Resurgent Mass Partisanship: e Role of Elite Polarization.” American Political Science Review 95(3): 619-631.
• Jackson, John E., and Ken Kollman. 2011. “Connecting Micro- and Macropartisanship.”
Political Analysis 19(4): 503-518.
• Lewis-Beck, Michael S., Helmut Norpoth, William G. Jacoby, and Herbert F. Weisberg.
2008. e American Voter Revisited. University of Michigan Press.
3. Public Opinion Processes: How are political attitudes formed? How do they change? What
are their consequences?
• *Druckman, James N., Jordan Fein, and omas J. Leeper. 2012. “A Source of Bias in
Public Opinion Stability.” American Political Science Review 106(2): 430-454.
• *Druckman, James N., and omas J. Leeper. 2012. “Is Public Opinion Stable? Resolving the Micro/Macro Disconnect in Studies of Public Opinion.” Daedulus 141: 50-68.
• *Erikson, Robert S., Michael B. MacKuen, and James A. Stimson. 2002. e Macro Polity
Cambridge University Press. Chapters 6-11.
• *Goren, Paul. 2004. “Political Sophistication and Policy Reasoning: A Reconsideration.”
American Journal of Political Science 48(3): 462-478.
• *Hurwitz, Jon, and Mark Peffley. 1987. “How are Foreign Policy Attitudes Structured?
A Hierarchical Model” American Political Science Review 81(4): 1099-1120.
• *Jacoby, William. 2006. “Value Choices and American Public Opinion.” American Journal of Political Science 50(3): 706-723.
8
• *Lavine, Howard. 2001. “e Electoral Consequences of Ambivalence Toward Presidential Candidates.” American Journal of Political Science 45(4): 915-929.
• *Lodge, Milton, Marco R. Steenbergen, and Shawn Brau. 1995. “e Responsive Voter:
Campaign Information and the Dynamics of Candidate Evaluation.” American Political
Science Review 89(2): 309-326.
• *Page, Benjamin I., and Robert Y. Shapiro. 1992. e Rational Public: Fiy Years of
Americans’ Policy Preferences. University of Chicago Press. Selected Chapters (on Angel).
• *Redlawsk, David P. 2001. “You Must Remember is: A Test of the On-Line Model of
Voting” Journal of Politics 63(1): 29-58.
• *Zaller, John. 1992. e Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion Cambridge University
Press.
• *Zaller, John. 1998. “Monica Lewinsky’s Contribution to Political Science.” PS: Political
Science & Politics. 31(2): 182-189.
• Feldman, Stanley, and John Zaller. 1992. “e Political Culture of Ambivalence: Ideological Responses to the Welfare State.” American Journal of Political Science 36(1):
268-307.
• Feldman, Stanley, Leonie Huddy, and George E. Marcus. 2012. “Limits of Elite In uence
on Public Opinion.” Critical Review 24(4): 489-504.
• Goren, Paul. 2012. “Political Values and Political Awareness.” Critical Review 24(4):
505-526.
• Holbrook, Allyson L., Jon A. Krosnick, Penny S. Visser, Wendi L. Gardner, John T. Cacioppo. 2001. “Attitudes Toward Presidential Candidates and Political Parties: Initial
Optimism, Inertial First Impressions, and a Focus on Flaws.” American Journal of Political Science 45(4): 930-950.
• Kam, Cindy D. 2012. “e Psychological Veracity of Zaller’s Model” Critical Review
24(4): 545-568
• Lodge, Milton, Kathleen M. McGraw and Patrick Stroh. 1989. “An Impression Driven
Model of Candidate Evaluation.” American Political Science Review 83(2): 399-419.
• Rahn, Wendy M., Jon A. Krosnick, and Marijke Breuning. 1994. “Rationalization and
Derivation Processes in Survey Studies of Political Candidate Evaluation.” American
Journal of Political Science 38(3): 582-600.
• Zaller, John. 2012. “What Nature and Origin Leaves Out.” Critical Review 24(4): 505526.
C: Topics of Current or Continuing Interest
Depending on progress, I will select the required readings the week before we discuss these in seminar.
1. Partisan Bias, Affect, & Motivated Reasoning:
9
• Bartels, Larry M. 2002. “Beyond the Running Tally: Partisan Bias in Political Perceptions.” Political Behavior 24:117–150.
• Bullock, John G., Alan S. Gerber, Seth J. Hill, and Gregory A. Huber. 2013. “Partisan
Bias in Factual Beliefs About Politics.” Unpublished Manuscript.
• Bullock, John G. 2009. “Partisan Bias and the Bayesian Ideal in the Study of Public
Opinion” Journal of Politics 71(3): 1109-1124.
• Druckman, James N. 2012. “e Politics of Motivation.” Critical Review 24(2): 199–216.
• Erisen, Cengiz, Milton Lodge, and Charles S. Taber. Forthcoming. “Affective Contagion
in Effortful Political inking” Political Psychology
• Gaines, Brian, James H. Kuklinski, Paul J. Quirk, Buddy Peyton, and Jay Verkuilen. 2007.
“Same Facts, Different Interpretations: Partisan Motivation and Opinion on Iraq.” Journal of Politics 69(3): 957–74.
• Kunda, Ziva. 1990. “e Case for Motivated Reasoning” Psychological Bulletin 108(3):
480-98.
• MacKuen, Michael, Jennifer Wolak, Luke Keele, and George E. Marcus. 2010. “Civic
Engagements: Resolute Partisanship or Re ective Deliberation” American Journal of Political Science 54(2): 440-458.
• Parker-Stephen, Evan. 2013. “Tides of Disagreement: How Reality Facilitates (and Inhibits) Partisan Public Opinion.” Journal of Politics 75(4).
• Redlawsk, David P. 2002. “Hot Cognition or Cool Consideration? Testing the Effects of
Motivated Reasoning on Political Decision Making.” Journal of Politics 63(1): 29–58.
• Sherman, David K., and Geoffrey L. Cohen. 2002. “Accepting reatening Information: Self-Affirmation and the Reduction of Defensive Biases.” Current Directions in
Psychological Sciences 11(4): 119-123.
• Taber, Charles S., and Milton Lodge. 2006. “Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of
Political Beliefs” American Journal of Political Science 50(3): 755-769.
2. Political Engagement, Knowledge, and Information:
• Althaus, Scott L. 1998. “Information Effects in Collective Preferences” American Political Science Review 92(3): 545-558.
• Basinger, Scott J., and Howard Lavine. 2005. “Ambivalence, Information, and Electoral
Choice.” American Political Science Review 99(2): 169-184.
• Bartels, Larry M. 1996 “Uninformed Votes: Information Effects in Presidential Elections” American Journal of Political Science 40(1): 194-230.
• Delli Carpini, Michael X. and Scott Keeter. 1996. What Americans Know About Politics
and Why it Matters Yale University Press. Selected Chapters on Angel.
• Gilens, Martin. 2001. “Political Ignorance and Collective Policy Preferences.” American
Political Science Review 95(2): 379-96.
10
• Gilens, Martin, Lynn Vavreck, and Martin Cohen. 2007. “e Mass Media and the
Public’s Assessments of Presidential Candidates, 1952-2000” Journal of Politics 69(4):
1160-1175.
• Highton, Benjamin. 2009. “Revisiting the Relationship between Educational Attainment and Political Sophistication” Journal of Politics 71(4): 1564-1576.
• Jerit, Jennifer, Jason Barabas, and Toby Bolsen. 2006. “Citizens, Knowledge, and the
Information Environment.” American Journal of Political Science 50(2): 266-282.
• Lau, Richard R., and David P. Redlawsk. 2001. “Advantages and Disadvantages of Cognitive Heuristics in Political Decision Making.” American Journal of Political Science
45(3): 951-971.
• Lupia, Arthur. 1994. “Shortcuts Versus Encyclopedias: Information and Voting Behavior in California Insurance Reform Elections” American Political Science Review 88(1):
63-76.
• Luskin, Robert C. 1990. “Explaining Political Sophistication.” Political Behavior 12(4):33161.
• Prior, Markus. 2005. “News vs. Entertainment: How Increasing Media Choice Widens
Gaps in Political Knowledge and Turnout.” American Journal of Political Science 49(3):
577-592.
• Sniderman, Paul M., Richard A. Brody, and Philip E. Tetlock. 1991. “e Role of Heuristics in Political Reasoning: A eory Sketch.” Chapter 2 from Reasoning and Choice:
Explorations in Political Psychology Cambridge University Press. On Angel.
• Zaller, John. 2004. “Floating Voters in U.S. Presidential Elections, 1948-2000.” In
Studies in Public Opinion, edited by William E. Saris and Paul M. Sniderman, 166–212.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
3. Message (or Event) Effects: Media, Priming, Framing, and Agenda Setting
• Althaus, Scott L., and Young Mie Kim. 2006. “Priming Effects in Complex Information
Environments: Reassessing the Impact of News Discourse on Presidential Approval”
Journal of Politics 68(4): 960-976.
• Bartels, Larry M. 1993. “Messages Received: e Political Impact of Media Exposure”
American Political Science Review 87(2): 267-285.
• Chong, Dennis and James N. Druckman. 2007. “Framing Public Opinion in Competitive Democracies.” American Political Science Review 101(4): 637-655.
• Dalton, Russell Paul, A. Beck, and Robert Huckfeldt. 1998. “Partisan Cues and the
Media: Information Flows in the 1992 Presidential Election.” American Political Science
Review 92(2):111-26.
• Druckman, James N. 2004. “Political Preference Formation: Competition, Deliberation,
and the (Ir)relevance of Framing Effects” American Political Science Review 98: 671-686.
• Gilliam, Franklin D., Jr., and Shanto Iyengar. 2000. “Prime Suspects: e In uence
of Local Television News on the Viewing Public” American Journal of Political Science
44(3): 560-573.
11
• Hetherington, Marc J. 1996. “e Media’s Role in Forming Voters’ National Economic
Evaluations in 1992.” American Journal of Political Science 40(May):372-95.
• Krosnick, Jon A., and Donald R. Kinder. 1990. “Altering the Foundations of Support for
the President through Priming.” American Political Science Review 84(2): 497-512.
• Krosnick, Jon A., and Laura A. Brannon. 1993. “e Impact of the Gulf War on the
Ingredients of Presidential Evaluations: Multidimensional Effects of Political Involvement.” American Political Science Review 87(4):963-75.
• Miller, Joanne M., and Jon A. Krosnick. 2000. “News Media Impact on the Ingredients
of Presidential Evaluations: Politically Knowledgeable Citizens Are Guided by a Trusted
Source” American Journal of Political Science 44(2): 301-315.
• Mutz, Diana C. 1992. “Mass Media and the Depoliticization of Personal Experience”
American Journal of Political Science 36(2): 483-508.
• Nelson, omas E., Rosalee A. Clawson, and Zoe M. Oxley. 1997. “Media Framing of a
Civil Liberties Conflict and Its Effect on Tolerance.” American Political Science Review
91 (3): 567–83.
• Winter, Nicholas. 2006. “Beyond Welfare: Framing and the Racialization of White
Opinion on Social Security.” American Journal of Political Science 50(2): 400-420.
4. Source Effects: Opinion Leadership, Manipulation, and Accountability.
• Bullock, John G. 2011. “Elite In uence on Public Opinion in an Informed Electorate.”
American Political Science Review 105(3): 496-515.
• Druckman, James N., Erik Peterson, and Rune Slothuus. 2013. “How Elite Polarization
Affects Public Opinion Formation.” American Political Science Review 107(1): 57-79.
• Gerber, Elisabeth R., and John E. Jackson. 1993. “Endogenous Preferences and the Study
of Institutions.” American Political Science Review 87(3): 639-656.
• Jacobs, Lawrence R., and Robert Y. Shapiro. 2000. Politicians Don’t Pander: Political
Manipulation and the Loss of Democratic Responsiveness University of Chicago Press.
Selected chapters on Angel.
• Lens, Gabriel S. 2012. Follow the Leader? How Voters Respond to Politicians’ Policies and
Performance University of Chicago Press.
• Nicholson, Stephen P. 2011. “Dominating Cues and the Limits of Elite In uence.” Journal of Politics 73(3): 1165-77
• Nicholson, Stephen P. 2012. “Polarizing Cues.” American Journal of Political Science
56(1): 52-66.
5. Students’ Choice: Identity Politics, Emotion, Democratic Values, Networks, Deliberation,
Motivation, …
• Readings to be selected
12
Second Paper Assignment: Due exam week, either: 1) Research Proposal (details to follow) or 2)
Critical Review – Evaluate our understanding of mass public opinion and political behavior using
the evaluation criteria you developed in the rst paper. To what extent are these works meaningful
and/or valuable (where are the greatest contributions)? To what extent are they theoretical crutches
hindering advancements or the development or more meaningful constructs? Where do you see
the greatest potential for future contributions?
A Couple Last ings
Academic Misconduct
Academic misconduct will not be tolerated. Speci cally, claiming ownership of ideas and or work
that is not your own is considered cheating or plagiarism. It is an insult to me, your peers, and
yourself; it is not to be tolerated. Instances of cheating will be handled according the school’s policy
on integrity of scholarship and grades.
Electronic Submissions
As a general rule, students should always submit their work in paper form. If, under special circumstances, you are submitting a document electronically, then you need to submit it in an archival
format. is means no modi able Word/Text documents (.doc, .txt, .rtf) and instead formats where
content is xed (.pdf, .ps).
13