Week 1 -Lecture
Epistemological (almost ontological)
- Positivism
- Constructivism: everything we create comes from what we create
Opinions
- Key element in contemporary "models" of pol beh
- Emotions
- Assumption: measuring opinions allows to predict (voting) beh → downstream beh of
indivs (e.g., opinion polls for elections) —> media obsession w ops: used to frame pol
climate and thus, pol consultants are key players for politicians to "shape" beh (e.g.,
"campaign this way u will gain 1%)
- Central to way we think of politics (also narrative)
Evolution of 3 theoretical models of (political) beh (US) → examples of switch between
concepts of opinions
1. Rational (economic) models
- Central element: individual preferences (ppl have preferences)
- "Behaviors are driven by your preferences" --> architecture of the mind: buyer mentality;
you know your options & ur preferences, then make a decision based on that
- Individuals are seen as having an economic mind, rational!
- "Homo oeconomicus"
1. "Customer" w/ simplified psychology but full info
- Limitations: ppl may not know full preferences or offers! (they may know
what they've done in the past/ rn, but nobody knows themselves deep
down)
2. Able to choose among alternatives
3. Driven by logic
- Limitation: does not take feelings into account (as they are the ones who
help u decide if u wanna rely on ur preferences or not)
4. Stable "taste" and preferences
- Limitation: Taste changes! (maybe not radically)
5. If identical circumstances, identical choice
- Limitation: circumstances may not change but don't always choose the
same (e.g., you may choose a diff strawberry yogurt just bc u feel like it)
6. Egoistical (no altruistic beh) and decided "rationally"
Example of left-wing voters who voted for right-wing: (voting that goes against model)
- Voting for Clinton (she's not extremely left) just to not have Trump be president
, - 2016 Bernie Sanders (left) supporters voting for Donald Trump (right) in general
elections for populist reasons (bc they were anti-system candidates)
2. Sociological models (Colombia model)
After WW2: (hypothesis) people's minds can be changed through political persuasion (political
propaganda)
- Individuals do not behave rationally (bc of the effect of political info)
- First time in history that its abt what ppl are exposed to generate an opinion & beh
(based on exposure to pol propaganda)
Results of systematic study (SHOCKING)
- Preferences almost stable in time, minimal effect of pol comm → ppl are not
persuaded by political campaigns (foundation bc scholars were surprised w the
results)
- Preferences tend to be stable over time (hints that rational econ model may not be so
wrong) → where do these stable preferences come from?
- Key factor: individual values ("brand loyalties") = stable in time
- Social class (socioecon level)
- Religious affiliation (and religiosity)
- Residence (urban vs. rural)
Limitation: if preferences (values) are stable in time, how do we explain fluctuations in voting
choices (aggregated, indvs)
Answer: we need a more complex conceptualization of human mind (take into account stable
& fluctuating parts of the human mind)
Example: Colombia model voting map that predicts voting attitudes based on languages each
region in Switzerland speaks (e.g., German, french, italian) or prediction by population density
(e.g., urban: more progressive vs. rural)
- Conclusion: where you live/ grew up can tell a bit on what u vote
3. Socio-psychological models (Michigan model)
Premises
1. Mind is complex
2. Mind can be persuaded/ changed (can change fluctuating components of the hum mind)
Adds psychological perspective to account for ST fluctuation (builds on sociological mode
which discusses importance of stable prefs to shape beh)
3 (levels) of behavioural dispositions
, 1. Values: deeper way u see world (glasses u put on to see world), STABLE IN TIME
(anchor/ guide our vision) (e.g., hedonism, conformism)
2. Attitudes: preferences abt imp aspect of our life (issue-specific → how u feel abt
specific topics) (like/ dislike, beliefs and deep values) (e.g., green voter)
RELATIVELY STABLE (slow shifts) (e.g., party identification, movies/ music prefs)
3. Opinions: ideas & perceptions about specific (political) "objects" UNSTABLE,
FLUCTUATIONS
Do opinions matter?
- "Funnel of causality": value orientation (deep part of mind) comes from your social
upbringing (econ structure, social divisions, hist patterns)
- More u go towards end of funnel (beh) the more they fluctuate
-
Genetic structure → personality traits (e.g., extrovert) → val, att, ops
Week 2 - Readings
Lees-Marshment, J. (2001). The marriage of politics and marketing. Political Studies, 49(4),692-713.
Country: Britain
, Main argument: political marketing is broad in scope and offers fresh analytical tools to explain
how political organizations behave (polisci + marketing)
- Offers rational econ theoretical basis for explaining party & voter beh that is more broad
and inclusive than either the convential polisci campaign studies or pol communication
approaches
- The greater the market-orientation = greater success a party achieved in general
election (opposition nature is important; if no party is market-oriented, then sales-
oriented may win over product-oriented)
- Party can win w/out being completely market-oriented (just need to be more
market-oriented than their competitors)
- Strong & stable base of support from members/ voters means that parties can be product-
oriented (like in Britain & Europe early 20th century)
- As support began to decline, parties responded by becoming sales-oriented &
trying to persuade voters
- Since 1970s: voters became more educated, informed & critical of politics and
parties, levels of party identification and membership = 'market' nature became
more heterogeneous (Ds of voters less class-based, and desire for support of
diverse majority)
Summary of developmental process of political parties
Product-oriented → sales-oriented → market-oriented
E.g., Labour Party (whereas, Conservatives did not)
1983: Product → 1987: Sales → 1997: Market
Product = party behaviour
Party Behaviors
1. Product-orientation political party: (worst one to be) argues for what it stands for and
believes in
- Focuses on production best product it can, as efficiently and cheaply as poss
(assumes good will sell; if it doesn't it assumes it bc consumer is ignorant)
- Assumes voters will realize their ideas are right ones and therefore, vote for it
- Party refuses to change its ideas/ product even if it fail to gain electoral/
membership support
- Can help placing new issues on agenda & stimulating education & discussion
2. Sales-oriented party: focus on selling its argument and product to voters
- More effort than product-oriented business into selling the good
Epistemological (almost ontological)
- Positivism
- Constructivism: everything we create comes from what we create
Opinions
- Key element in contemporary "models" of pol beh
- Emotions
- Assumption: measuring opinions allows to predict (voting) beh → downstream beh of
indivs (e.g., opinion polls for elections) —> media obsession w ops: used to frame pol
climate and thus, pol consultants are key players for politicians to "shape" beh (e.g.,
"campaign this way u will gain 1%)
- Central to way we think of politics (also narrative)
Evolution of 3 theoretical models of (political) beh (US) → examples of switch between
concepts of opinions
1. Rational (economic) models
- Central element: individual preferences (ppl have preferences)
- "Behaviors are driven by your preferences" --> architecture of the mind: buyer mentality;
you know your options & ur preferences, then make a decision based on that
- Individuals are seen as having an economic mind, rational!
- "Homo oeconomicus"
1. "Customer" w/ simplified psychology but full info
- Limitations: ppl may not know full preferences or offers! (they may know
what they've done in the past/ rn, but nobody knows themselves deep
down)
2. Able to choose among alternatives
3. Driven by logic
- Limitation: does not take feelings into account (as they are the ones who
help u decide if u wanna rely on ur preferences or not)
4. Stable "taste" and preferences
- Limitation: Taste changes! (maybe not radically)
5. If identical circumstances, identical choice
- Limitation: circumstances may not change but don't always choose the
same (e.g., you may choose a diff strawberry yogurt just bc u feel like it)
6. Egoistical (no altruistic beh) and decided "rationally"
Example of left-wing voters who voted for right-wing: (voting that goes against model)
- Voting for Clinton (she's not extremely left) just to not have Trump be president
, - 2016 Bernie Sanders (left) supporters voting for Donald Trump (right) in general
elections for populist reasons (bc they were anti-system candidates)
2. Sociological models (Colombia model)
After WW2: (hypothesis) people's minds can be changed through political persuasion (political
propaganda)
- Individuals do not behave rationally (bc of the effect of political info)
- First time in history that its abt what ppl are exposed to generate an opinion & beh
(based on exposure to pol propaganda)
Results of systematic study (SHOCKING)
- Preferences almost stable in time, minimal effect of pol comm → ppl are not
persuaded by political campaigns (foundation bc scholars were surprised w the
results)
- Preferences tend to be stable over time (hints that rational econ model may not be so
wrong) → where do these stable preferences come from?
- Key factor: individual values ("brand loyalties") = stable in time
- Social class (socioecon level)
- Religious affiliation (and religiosity)
- Residence (urban vs. rural)
Limitation: if preferences (values) are stable in time, how do we explain fluctuations in voting
choices (aggregated, indvs)
Answer: we need a more complex conceptualization of human mind (take into account stable
& fluctuating parts of the human mind)
Example: Colombia model voting map that predicts voting attitudes based on languages each
region in Switzerland speaks (e.g., German, french, italian) or prediction by population density
(e.g., urban: more progressive vs. rural)
- Conclusion: where you live/ grew up can tell a bit on what u vote
3. Socio-psychological models (Michigan model)
Premises
1. Mind is complex
2. Mind can be persuaded/ changed (can change fluctuating components of the hum mind)
Adds psychological perspective to account for ST fluctuation (builds on sociological mode
which discusses importance of stable prefs to shape beh)
3 (levels) of behavioural dispositions
, 1. Values: deeper way u see world (glasses u put on to see world), STABLE IN TIME
(anchor/ guide our vision) (e.g., hedonism, conformism)
2. Attitudes: preferences abt imp aspect of our life (issue-specific → how u feel abt
specific topics) (like/ dislike, beliefs and deep values) (e.g., green voter)
RELATIVELY STABLE (slow shifts) (e.g., party identification, movies/ music prefs)
3. Opinions: ideas & perceptions about specific (political) "objects" UNSTABLE,
FLUCTUATIONS
Do opinions matter?
- "Funnel of causality": value orientation (deep part of mind) comes from your social
upbringing (econ structure, social divisions, hist patterns)
- More u go towards end of funnel (beh) the more they fluctuate
-
Genetic structure → personality traits (e.g., extrovert) → val, att, ops
Week 2 - Readings
Lees-Marshment, J. (2001). The marriage of politics and marketing. Political Studies, 49(4),692-713.
Country: Britain
, Main argument: political marketing is broad in scope and offers fresh analytical tools to explain
how political organizations behave (polisci + marketing)
- Offers rational econ theoretical basis for explaining party & voter beh that is more broad
and inclusive than either the convential polisci campaign studies or pol communication
approaches
- The greater the market-orientation = greater success a party achieved in general
election (opposition nature is important; if no party is market-oriented, then sales-
oriented may win over product-oriented)
- Party can win w/out being completely market-oriented (just need to be more
market-oriented than their competitors)
- Strong & stable base of support from members/ voters means that parties can be product-
oriented (like in Britain & Europe early 20th century)
- As support began to decline, parties responded by becoming sales-oriented &
trying to persuade voters
- Since 1970s: voters became more educated, informed & critical of politics and
parties, levels of party identification and membership = 'market' nature became
more heterogeneous (Ds of voters less class-based, and desire for support of
diverse majority)
Summary of developmental process of political parties
Product-oriented → sales-oriented → market-oriented
E.g., Labour Party (whereas, Conservatives did not)
1983: Product → 1987: Sales → 1997: Market
Product = party behaviour
Party Behaviors
1. Product-orientation political party: (worst one to be) argues for what it stands for and
believes in
- Focuses on production best product it can, as efficiently and cheaply as poss
(assumes good will sell; if it doesn't it assumes it bc consumer is ignorant)
- Assumes voters will realize their ideas are right ones and therefore, vote for it
- Party refuses to change its ideas/ product even if it fail to gain electoral/
membership support
- Can help placing new issues on agenda & stimulating education & discussion
2. Sales-oriented party: focus on selling its argument and product to voters
- More effort than product-oriented business into selling the good
