Political Psychology

Following the September 11 th attacks on the United States, President Bush said that "the United States will hunt down and punish those responsible." What does this bring out in your mind? Much attention has been given to his usage of the phrase "hunt down;" what does that specifically make you think of? Furthermore, what effect does this have on the way you see the terrorists? These are some of the questions that are asked in the important perspective of political psychology.

Generally, but not always, in political psychology, studies focus on the ways that individuals think and see the world. This approach is most easily broken down into two main areas: cognition and personality.

Personality studies look at the way that different personality types approach the world in different ways. If you ever get the chance, check out the book Please Understand Me II by David Keirsey; it begins with a temperament sorter and breaks down personality types in a Myers-Briggs fashion. This is interesting because as you read the different ways that personality types see and interpret their world, it is almost impossible to deny the effects this might have on political views. I am now only hypothesizing at this point, but perhaps a quite, introspective, person would prefer a political view that is moderate and creates conflict with the fewest people. Either way, it is difficult to deny that our personalities likely affect our political views and the ways we respond to political stimulus.

Still, likely the largest and most influential area of political psychology has been in cognition; this generally looks at the ways we think and make decisions. This area of study focuses a great deal on the way we make mental short-cuts with things like schema, framing, context and images. Think back to Bush's usage of the phrase "hunt down;" does that make you think of animals? The statement in many ways "frames" your thought about the terrorists; in the back of your mind, you have likely already made the association between terrorists and beasts. Also consider the usage of the American colors of red, white and blue in political races; it would almost be impossible to imagine a candidate not using that color scheme throughout the campaign. This is because we associate those images with traditional American values such as freedom and liberty.

A relatively current example of this comes with the war in Iraq. Many critics of the operation have referenced action in that country as another "Vietnam." This statement is not an institutional reference; it is not referring to similarities between the Vietnamese and Iraqi governments. Instead, the statement is meant to appeal to an American population that has a specific view of the Vietnam War; the statement provides a shortcut to thinking. By only having said that Iraq will be or is like Vietnam, a critic can immediately bring out certain images, opinions and fears that are associated with the Vietnam War.

Many also take into consideration what is known in psychology as "schema;" this refers to the way that we view some aspect of our world. Think of something you feel strongly about, maybe your Church or your opinion on taxes. Now, what happens when somebody tells you something positive on that subject; chances are you will really listen to what they say and agree. Now, what if somebody tells you something you deem as negative on that subject; how are you likely to respond? Many people would, in essence, listen to respond, standing prepared to make their comeback; either that, or largely just ignore what is being said. Many now are discussing the way evidence was "ignored" before September 11 th ; but the Bush Administration has made the argument that nobody thought terrorism was a real domestic threat to the United States; therefore, as much evidence as there was for the attacks, it was downplayed because it did not fit with what was then the representation of terrorism.

This kind of approach to politics once again brings forth the question of "is this political science?" While interesting and revealing in many ways, how much of the concepts expressed in political psychology are empirical and can be methodologically tested? Perhaps those who are developing these concepts are themselves ideologically opinionated and therefore create them to be in conflict with ideas they do not agree with; for example, some have argued that conservatives are more often thought to have negative personality issues while the liberal academia is labeling what is "negative." Whether or not this is actually the case is open to much debate, but either way, this does highlight the problems of such an approach. Still, political psychology is a revealing and intriguing examination of the interactions of political entities and should not be taken lightly.
-Mike Ryckman