P SC 5423: Mass Politics University of Oklahoma Spring 2010 Thursday, 6:30-9:20 PM, Kaufman 319 Dr. Tyler Johnson Office location: 215 Dale Hall Tower Phone: 325-5910 Email: tylerjohnson@ou.edu Office hours: Wednesday, 1:00 PM - 3:00 PM or by appointment Course Description This class is an introduction to American political behavior. We will assess historical and modern debates in American politics as to why people think the way they do about issues and candidates and how the decisions individuals make affect political outcomes. Several broad topics in mass politics will be covered: the nature of mass belief systems, the ability of citizens to perform in a democratic society, the predictors of vote choice, the psychology behind vote choice, the role of the mass media and society on citizen decision making, the relationships Americans build with political actors and institutions, the changing face of participation, the evolution of aggregate public opinion, the role of candidates and information in elections, and the consequences of electoral outcomes. Class Structure Class time will be spent as a discussion. There will be no lectures. Graduate seminars are not spectator sports, and I expect you to be heavily involved in the conversation on a weekly basis. Please be prepared to address the following questions concerning the assigned readings: 1) What are the major questions motivating the research? 2) How are the key concepts defined? 3) What are the major theoretical perspectives that guide the debate? 4) What are the strengths and weaknesses of each conceptual definition and theoretical perspective? 5) When there is disagreement between scholars, which argument is most persuasive and why? 6) How do measurement and methodological choices change the arguments? 7) What are the principle implications of the findings for understanding American politics? Required Texts The following texts are available at local bookstores (as well as through online sources). Campbell, Angus, Philip Converse, Warren Miller, and Donald Stokes. 1960. The American Voter. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Delli Carpini, Michael and Scott Keeter. 1997. What Americans Know about Politics and Why It Matters. New Haven: Yale University Press. 1
Erikson, Robert, Michael Mackuen, and James Stimson. 2002. The Macro Polity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Iyengar, Shanto and Donald Kinder. 1989. News That Matters: Television and American Opinion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Page, Benjamin and Robert Shapiro. 1992. The Rational Public: Fifty Years of Trends in Americans Policy Preferences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Prior, Markus. 2007. Post-Broadcast Democracy: How Media Choice Increases Inequality in Political Involvement and Polarizes Elections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Verba, Sidney, Kay Lehman Schlozman, and Henry Brady. 1995. Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Zaller, John. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. In addition, each week s reading assignment includes several related journal articles. I reserve the right to add or subtract reading assignments as I see fit. Expectations and Assignments First, I expect you to come to class having read the books or articles assigned for the week and ready to discuss them. To further facilitate discussion, each week you will send me two talking points on the readings. Talking points are due to me via e-mail by 3 PM on Wednesday. Talking points should be the most interesting questions or arguments you have identified based on the week s literature. They should refer to a specific section or sections of the readings and should be submitted in the form of a short paragraph (complete with author/page number when necessary). The quality and promptness of these talking points, along with your in-class discussion, will make up the participation portion of your final grade. Everyone is required to complete a 15-20 page research paper. For students pursuing the M.A. or M.P.A. degree, this paper should take the form of a critical literature review assessing the state of research in a given area of political behavior. For students pursuing the Ph.D. degree, this paper should take the form of a literature review and research design for a project that could ideally become a conference paper in the future. As part of the research paper process, you must present me with a two page overview summarizing your paper plans (including the beginnings of a bibliography) to me by March 25. We will then pick a time to meet to discuss the proposal in the week following the proposal submission. Papers will be due May 13. Finally, there will be an essay examination modeled after the American comprehensive exam. This experience will help you synthesize the different literatures discussed in the course and ideally will prepare you for future thesis writing or prelim exam taking. The exam will be take-home. It will be handed out after class on April 15 and due at the beginning of class on April 29. More specific rules regarding the exam format will be discussed in class. Your course grade will be calculated as follows: Participation and Talking Points 30% Essay Examination 30% Paper Proposal 10% Research Paper 30% Final class grades will be assigned as follows: 2
A = 89.5-100 B = 79.5-89.4 C = 69.5-79.4 D = 59.5-69.4 F = Less Than 59.5 Questions concerning grades should be dealt with during office hours. I will not discuss grades via e-mail. Statement about Students with Disabilities The University of Oklahoma is committed to providing reasonable accommodation for all students with disabilities. Any student in this course who has a disability that may prevent him or her from fully demonstrating his or her abilities should contact the instructor personally as soon as possible to discuss accommodations necessary to ensure full participation and facilitate your educational opportunities. Students with disabilities must be registered with the Office of Disability Services prior to receiving accommodations in this course. The Office of Disability Services is located in Goddard Health Center, Suite 166, phone 405-325-3852 or TDD only 405-325-4173. Statement about Religious Holidays It is the policy of the University to excuse the absences of students that result from religious observances and to provide without penalty for the rescheduling of examinations and additional required classwork that may fall on religious holidays. Please see the instructor immediately if you will need to miss class any time during this semester. Statement about Course Materials/Copyright and Plagiarism The handouts used in this course are copyrighted. By handouts, I mean all products generated for this class, which include but are not limited to syllabi, web pages, multimedia files, presentations, quizzes, exams, written assignments, and in-class material review sheets. Because these are copyrighted, you do not have the right to copy the handouts, unless I expressly grant permission. Academic misconduct includes plagiarism, cheating on exams, improper collaboration, and fraud (such as submitting the same assignment for different classes or fabricating sources). See http://www.ou.edu/provost/integrity for academic misconduct policies and http://www.ou.edu/provost/integrity-rights for information on student rights with regards to misconduct. Plagiarized assignments will automatically be given a zero. Course Calendar Students are expected to have read the assigned readings before class. Week 1 January 21: Introduction (readings not required, but recommended) Berelson, Bernard. 1952. Democratic Theory and Public Opinion. Public Opinion Quarterly 16:313-330. Converse, Philip. 2000. Assessing the Capacity of Mass Electorates. Annual Review of Political Science 3:331-353. Verba, Sidney. 1996. The Citizen as Respondent: Sample Surveys and American Democracy. American Political Science Review 90:1-7. 3
Week 2 February 4: Knowledge and Sophistication Althaus, Scott. 1998. Information Effects in Collective Preferences. American Political Science Review 92:545-558. Delli Carpini, Michael and Scott Keeter. 1997. What Americans Know about Politics and Why It Matters. New Haven: Yale University Press. Gilens, Martin. 2001. Political Ignorance and Collective Policy Preferences. American Political Science Review 95:379-396. Jerit, Jennifer, Jason Barabas, and Toby Bolsen. 2006. Citizens, Knowledge, and the Information Environment. American Journal of Political Science 50:266-282. Lupia, Arthur. 1994. Shortcuts Versus Encyclopedias: Information and Voting Behavior in California Insurance Reform Elections. American Political Science Review 88:63-76. Week 3 February 11: Partisanship Bartels, Larry. 2000. Partisanship and Voting Behavior, 1952-1996. American Journal of Political Science 44:35-50. Campbell, Angus, Philip Converse, Warren Miller, and Donald Stokes. 1960. The American Voter. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Carsey, Thomas and Geoffrey Layman. 2006. Changing Sides of Changing Minds? Party Identification and Policy Preferences in the American Electorate. American Journal of Political Science 50:464-477. Franklin, Charles and John Jackson. 1983. The Dynamics of Party Identification. American Political Science Review 77:957-973. Hetherington, Marc. 2001. Resurgent Mass Partisanship: The Role of Elite Polarization. American Political Science Review 95: 619-632. Johnston, Richard. 2006. Party Identification: Unmoved Mover or Sum of Preferences? Annual Review of Political Science 9:329-351. Week 4 February 18: Ideology Achen, Christopher. 1975. Mass Political Attitudes and the Survey Response. American Political Science Review 69:1218-31. Ansolabehere, Stephen, Jonathan Rodden, and James Snyder. 2008. The Strength of Issues: Using Multiple Measures to Gauge Preference Stability, Ideological Constraint, and Issue Voting. American Political Science Review 102:215-232. Converse, Philip. 1964. The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Politics. In Ideology and Discontent, ed. David Apter. New York: Free Press. Hurwitz, John and Mark Peffley. 1987. How are Foreign Policy Attitudes Structured? A Hierarchical Model. American Political Science Review 81:1099-1120. Krosnick, Jon and Matthew Berent. 1993. Comparisons of Party Identification and Policy Preferences: The Impact of Survey Question Format. American Journal of Political Science 37:941-964. 4
Lacy, Dean. 2001. A Theory of Nonseparable Preferences. American Journal of Political Science 45:239-258. Stimson, James. 1975. Belief Systems: Constraint, Complexity, and the 1972 Election. American Journal of Political Science 19:393-417 Sullivan, John, James Piereson, and George Marcus. 1978. Ideological Constraint in the Mass Public: A Methodological Critique and Some New Findings. American Journal of Political Science 22:227-249. Week 5 February 25: Cognition, Context, and Networks Beck, Paul Allen, Russell Dalton, Steven Green, and Robert Huckfeldt. 2002. The Social Calculus of Voting: Interpersonal, Media, and Organizational Influences on Presidential Choices. American Political Science Review 96:57-73. Lodge, Milton, Marco Steenbergen, and Shawn Brau. 1994. The Responsive Voter: Campaign Information and the Dynamics of Candidate Evaluation. American Political Science Review 89:309-326. McClurg, Scott. 2006. The Electoral Relevance of Political Talk: Examining the Effect of Disagreement and Expertise in Social Networks on Political Participation. American Journal of Political Science 50:737-754. Miller, Arthur, Martin Wattenberg, and Oksana Malanchuk. 1986. Schematic Assessments of Presidential Candidates. American Political Science Review 80:521-540. Mutz, Diana. 2002. Cross-Cutting Social Networks: Testing Democratic Theory in Practice. American Political Science Review 96:111-126. Rahn, Wendy, Jon Krosnick, and Marijke Breuning. 1994. Rationalization and Derivation Processes in Survey Studies of Political Candidate Evaluation. American Journal of Political Science 38:582-600. Zaller, John. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Week 6 March 4: Issues, Economics, and the Vote Carmines, Edward and James Stimson. 1980. The Two Faces of Issue Voting. American Political Science Review 74:78-91. De Boef, Suzanna and Paul Kellstedt. 2004. The Political (and Economic) Origins of Consumer Confidence. American Journal of Political Science 48:633-649. Erikson, Robert, Michael MacKuen, and James Stimson. 1992. Peasants or Bankers. American Political Science Review 86:597-611. Gomez, Brad and J. Matthew Wilson. 2001. Political Sophistication and Economic Voting in the American Electorate: A Theory of Heterogeneous Attribution. American Journal of Political Science 45:899-914. Kinder, Donald and D. Roderick Kiewiet. 1981. Sociotropic Voting: The American Case. British Journal of Political Science 11:129-161. 5
Markus, Gregory. 1988. The Impact of Personal and National Economic Conditions on the Presidential Vote: A Pooled Cross-Sectional Analysis. American Journal of Political Science 32:137-154. Norpoth, Helmut. 1996. The President and the Prospective Voter. The Journal of Politics 58:776-792. Page, Benjamin and Richard Brody. 1972. Policy Voting and the Electoral Process: The Vietnam War Issue. American Political Science Review 66:979-995. Petrocik, John. 1996. Issue Ownership in Presidential Elections, With a 1980 Case Study. American Journal of Political Science 40:825-850. Rudolph, Thomas. 2003. Who s Responsible for the Economy? The Formation and Consequences of Responsibility Attributions. American Journal of Political Science 47:698-713. Week 7 March 11: Approval, Trust, Confidence Chanley, Virginia, Thomas Rudolph, and Wendy Rahn. 2000. The Origins and Consequences of Public Trust in Government. Public Opinion Quarterly 64:239-256. Citrin, Jack. 1974. Comment: The Political Revelance of Trust in Government. American Political Science Review 68:973-988. Durr, Robert, John Gilmour, and Christina Wolbrecht. 1997. Explaining Congressional Approval. American Journal of Political Science 41:175-207. Durr, Robert, Andrew Martin, and Christina Wolbrecht. 2000. Ideological Divergence and Public Support for the Supreme Court. American Journal of Political Science 44:768-776. Gronke, Paul and Brian Newman. 2003. FDR to Clinton, Mueller to?: A Field Essay on Presidential Approval. Political Research Quarterly 56:501-512. Hibbing, John and Elizabeth Theiss-Morse. 1998. The Media s Role in Public Negativity Toward Congress: Distinguishing Emotional Reactions and Cognitive Evaluations. American Journal of Political Science 42:475-498. Hibbing, John and Elizabeth Theiss-Morse. 2001. Process Preferences and American Politics: What the People Want Government To Be. American Political Science Review 95:145-153. Miller, Arthur. 1974. Political Issues and Trust in Government: 1964-1970. American Political Science Review 68:951-972. Week 8 Week 9 March 18: No Class (Spring Vacation) March 25: Macro Politics Erikson, Robert, Michael Mackuen, and James Stimson. 2002. The Macro Polity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Page, Benjamin and Robert Shapiro. 1992. The Rational Public: Fifty Years of Trends in Americans Policy Preferences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Wlezien, Christopher. 1995. The Public as Thermostat: Dynamics of Preferences for Spending. American Journal of Political Science 39:981-1000. 6
Week 10 April 1: Media Environment Bartels, Larry. 1993. Messages Received: The Political Impact of Media Exposure. American Political Science Review 87:265-285. Hetherington, Marc. 1996. The Media s Role in Forming Voters Retrospectiv Evaluations in 1992. American Journal of Political Science 40:372-395. Mutz, Diana. 1992. Mass Media and the Depoliticization of Personal Experience. American Journal of Political Science 36:483-508. Mutz, Diana and Paul Martin. 2001. Facilitating Communication Across Lines of Political Difference: The Role of Mass Media. American Political Science Review 95:97-114. Mutz, Diana and Byron Reeves. 2005. The New Videomalaise: Effects of Televised Incivility on Political Trust. American Political Science Review 99:1-16. Prior, Markus. 2007. Post-Broadcast Democracy: How Media Choice Increases Inequality in Political Involvement and Polarizes Elections. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Week 11 April 8: Media Effects Druckman, James. 2001. On The Limits Of Framing Effects: Who Can Frame? The Journal of Politics 63:1041-1066. Iyengar, Shanto and Donald Kinder. 1989. News That Matters: Television and American Opinion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Iyengar, Shanto and Adam Simon. 2000. New Perspectives and Evidence on Political Communication and Campaign Effects. Annual Review of Psychology 51:149-169. Krosnick, Jon and Laura Brannon. 1993. The Impact of War on the Ingredients of Presidential Evaluations: Multidimensional Effects of Political Involvement. American Political Science Review 87:963-975. Krosnick, Jon and Donald Kinder. 1990. Altering Popular Support for the President Through Priming: The Iran-Contra Affair. American Political Science Review 84:497-512. Nelson, Thomas, Rosalee Clawson, and Zoe Oxley. 1997. Media Framing of a Civil Liberties Controversy and its Effect on Tolerance. American Political Science Review 91:567-584. Valentino, Nicholas, Vincent Hutchings, and Ismail White. 2002. Cues That Matter: How Political Ads Prime Racial Attitudes During Campaigns. American Political Science Review 96:75-90. Week 12 April 15: Turnout and Participation Gerber, Alan and Donald Green. 2000. The Effects of Personal Canvassing, Telephone Calls, and Direct Mail on Voter Turnout: A Field Experiment. American Political Science Review 94:653-664. Lake, Ronald La Due and Robert Huckfeldt. 1998. Social Capital, Social Networks, and Political Participation. Political Psychology 19:567-584. Rahn, Wendy and John Transue. 1998. Social Trust and Value Change: The Decline of Social Capital in American Youth, 1976-1995. Political Psychology 19:545-565. Verba, Sidney, Kay Lehman Schlozman, and Henry Brady. 1995. Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 7
Week 13 Week 14 April 22: To Be Determined (Midwest Political Science Association conference) April 29: Candidates and Campaigns Abramowitz, Alan. 1989. Viability, Electability, and Candidate Choice in a Presidential Primary Election: A Test of Competing Models. The Journal of Politics 51:977-992. Finkel, Steven. 1993. Reexamining the Minimal Effects Model in Recent Presidential Campaigns. The Journal of Politics 55:1-21. Freedman, Paul, Michael Franz, and Kenneth Goldstein. 2004. Campaign Advertising and Democratic Citizenship. American Journal of Political Science 48:723-741. Gelman, Andrew and Gary King. 1993. Why Are American Presidential Election Campaign Polls So Variable When Votes Are So Predictable? British Journal of Political Science 23:409-451 Goldstein, Kenneth and Paul Freedman. 2000. New Evidence for Old Arguments: Money and Advertising in the 1996 Senate Elections. The Journal of Politics 62:1087-1108. Hillygus, D. Sunshine and Simon Jackman. 2003. Voter Decision Making in Election 2000: Campaign Effects, Partisan Activation, and the Clinton Legacy. American Journal of Political Science 47:583-597. Mutz, Diana. 1994. Effects of Horse Race Coverage on Campaign Coffers: Strategic Contributing in Presidential Primaries. The Journal of Politics 57:1015-1044. Vavreck, Lynn, Constantine Spiliotes, and Linda Fowler. 2002. The Effects of Retail Politics in the New Hampshire Primary. American Journal of Political Science 46:595-610. Week 15 May 6: Election Outcomes and Issue Evolution Abramowitz, Alan. 1994. Issue Evolution Reconsidered: Racial Attitudes and Partisanship in the U.S. Electorate. American Journal of Political Science 38:1-24. Adams, Greg. 1997. Abortion: Evidence of Issue Evolution. American Journal of Political Science 41:718-737. Carmines, Edward and Michael Wagner. 2006. Political Issues and Party Alignments: Assessing the Issue Evolution Perspective. Annual Review of Political Science 9:67-81. Dahl, Robert. 1990. The Myth of the Presidential Mandate. Political Science Quarterly 105:355-372. Grossback, Peterson, and Stimson. 2005. What Causes a Mandate? Competing Theories on the Causes of Mandate Perceptions. American Journal of Political Science 49:406-419. Hershey, Marjorie Randon. 1992. The Constructed Explanation: Interpreting Election Results in the 1984 Presidential Race. The Journal of Politics 54:943-956. Layman, Geoff and Thomas Carsey. 2002 Party Polarization and Conflict Extension in the American Electorate. American Journal of Political Science 46:786-802. Weinbaum, Marvin and Dennis Judd. 1970. In Search of the Mandate Congress. Midwest Journal of Political Science 14:276-302. 8