Theories of political behavior

Theories of political behavior, as an aspect of political science, attempt to quantify and explain the influences that define a person's political views, ideology, and levels of political participation.Broadly speaking, behavior is political whenever individuals or groups try to influence or escape the influence of others.Political behavior is the subset of human behavior that involves politics and powers.[1] Theorists who have had an influence on this field include Karl Deutsch and Theodor Adorno.

Long-term influences on political orientation

There are three main sources of influence that shape political orientation which creates long-term effects. Generally, the primary influence originates from family. As stated previously, children will often adopt their parents' ideological values. Some theorists have argued that family tends to be the strongest, most influential force which exists over the lifetime; one essay has credited the majority of the student activism of the 1930s to the influence of parents.[2]

Secondly, teachers and other educational authority figures have a significant impact on political orientation. From as early as age 4 up until 18, children spend about 25% of their time involved in educational processes. Post-secondary education significantly raises the impact of political awareness and orientation; an October 2004 study of 1,202 college undergraduates across the United States showed that 87% of college students were registered to vote, compared to a national average of 64% of American adults.[3] A study at Santa Clara University also showed that 84% of students there were registered to vote.[3] Also consider that childhood and adolescent stages of personal growth have the highest level of impressionability.

Thirdly, peers also affect political orientation. Friends often, but not necessarily, have the advantage of being part of the same generation, which collectively develops a unique set of societal issues; Eric L. Dey has argued that "socialisation is the process through which individuals acquire knowledge, habits, and value orientations that will be useful in the future."[4] The ability to relate on this common level is what fuels and enables future ideological growth.

Short-term influences on political orientation

Short-term factors also affect voting behavior; the media and the impact of individual election issues are among these factors. These factors differ from the long-term factors as they are often short-lived. However, they can be just as crucial in modifying political orientation. The ways in which these two sources are interpreted often relies on the individuals specific political ideology formed by the long-term factors.

Most political scientists agree that the mass media have a profound impact on voting behavior. One author asserts that "few would argue with the notion that the institutions of the mass media are important to contemporary politics ... in the transition to liberal democratic politics in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe the media was a key battleground."

Second, there are election issues. These include campaign issues, debates and commercials. Election years and political campaigns can shift certain political behaviors based on the candidates involved, which have different degrees of effectiveness in influencing voters.

The influence of social groups on political outcomes

Recently, some political scientists have been interested in many studies which aimed to analyze the relation between the behavior of social groups and the political outcomes. Some of the social groups included in their studies have been age demographics, gender, and ethnic groups.

For example, in U.S. politics, the effect of ethnic groups and gender has a great influence on the political outcomes.

Latin Americans have a profound social impact on the political outcome of their vote and are emerging as a strong up-and-coming political force. The most noticeable increase in Latin American voting was in the 2000 presidential election, although the votes did not share a socially common political view at that time. In the 2006 election, the Latin American vote aided tremendously in the election of Florida Senator Mel Martinez, although in the 2004 presidential election, about 44% of Latin Americans voted for Republican President George W. Bush. Latin Americans have been seen to be showing an increasing trend in the issues on which they vote for, causing them to become more united when faced with political views. Currently illegal immigration has been claiming most attention and Latin Americans, although not completely unanimous, are concerned with the education, employment and deportation of illegal immigrants in the United States.

Over seven decades ago, women were acknowledged the right to vote and since then they have been making a difference in the outcomes of political election. Given that the right to be politically active has granted them the opportunity to expand their knowledge and influence in current affairs, they are now considered one of the main components in the country's decision-making in both politics and economy. According to The American Political Science Association, over the past 2004 presidential election, the women's vote may have well decided the outcome of the race. Susan Carroll, the author of Women Voters and the Gender Gap, states that the increase of women influence on political behaviors is due to four main categories: women outnumber men among voters; significant efforts are underway to increase registration and turnout among women; a gender gap is evident in the 2004 election as it has been in every presidential election since 1980; and women constitute a disproportionately large share of the undecided voters who will make their decision late in the campaign.

Biology and political science

Interdisciplinary studies in biology and political science aim to identify correlates of political behavior with biological aspects, for example the linkage of biology and political orientation, but also with other aspects like partisanship and voting behavior.[5] This field of study is sometimes called biopolitics,[6] although the term has other meanings.

The study of possible genetic bases of political behavior has grown since the 1980s. The term genopolitics was coined by political scientist James Fowler in the early-2000s to describe research into identifying specific transporter/receptor genes responsible for ideological orientation beyond the sociopsychological realm of political socialisation.

See also

References

  1. ↑ Clark, William Roberts, Matt Golder, and Sona N. Golder. 2013. “Power and politics: insights from an exit, voice, and loyalty game.”
  2. ↑ Activist Impulses: Campus Radicalism in the 1930s (Cohen)
  3. 1 2 Ethics and Political Behavior: A Portrait of the Voting Decisions of Santa Clara Students
  4. ↑ Dey, Eric L., Undergraduate Political Attitudes: Peer Influence in Changing Social Contexts, Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 68, 1997
  5. ↑ Albert Somit; Steven A. Peterson (2011). Biology and Political Behavior: The Brain, Genes and Politics - The Cutting Edge. Emerald Group Publishing. p. 232. ISBN 978-0-85724-580-9.
  6. ↑ Robert Blank (2001). Biology and Political Science. Psychology Press. ISBN 978-0-415-20436-1. This book demonstrates the increasing convergence of interest of some social scientists in the theories, research and findings of the life sciences in building a more interdisciplinary approach to the study of politics. It discusses the development of biopolitics as an academic perspective within political science, reviews the growing literature in biopolitics, and presents a coherent view of biopolitics as a framework for structuring inquiry across the current subfields of political science.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.