Theories of political behavior

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Theories of political behavior" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (December 2010) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

Part of the Politics series
Politics
Outline Index Category
Primary topics Outline of political science Index of politics articles Politics by country Politics by subdivision Political economy Political history Political history of the world Political philosophy
Political systems Anarchy City-state Collective leadership Democracy Dictatorship Directorial Federacy Feudalism Hybrid regime Meritocracy Monarchy Parliamentary Presidential Republic Semi-parliamentary Semi-presidential Theocracy
Academic disciplines Political science (political scientists) International relations (theory) Comparative politics Election science Political analysis Political theory Policy studies Political psychology Political sociology
Public administration Bureaucracy (street-level) Technocracy Adhocracy Service (Public / Civil)
Policy Public policy (doctrine) Domestic policy Foreign policy Civil society Public interest
Government branches Separation of powers Legislature Executive Judiciary Election commission
Related topics Sovereignty Polity / State (Politeia / Nation / Civilization / Territorial / Rump / Quasi / Warlord) Theories of political behavior Biology and political orientation Political organisations Critique of political economy
Subseries Electoral systems Elections voting Unitarism Federalism Government (forms / Governance) Ideology Culture Political campaigning Political parties
Politics portal
v t e

Theories of political behavior, as an aspect of

Long-term influences on political orientation

Interaction with the political views of parental figures is often thought of as the primary long-term influence on political orientation and willingness to take part in the political system.^[2][3]

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."[7] The ability to relate on this common level is what fuels and enables future ideological growth.

Sociologists and political scientists debate the relationship between age and the formation of political attitudes. The impressionable years hypothesis postulates that political orientation is solidified during early adulthood. By contrast, the "increasing persistence hypothesis" posits that attitudes become less likely to change as individuals become older, while the "life-long openness hypothesis" proposes that the attitudes of individuals remain flexible regardless of age.^[8]

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

African Americans have the second highest voting rates in the United States and even surpassed white voters in the 2008 Presidential Election, although this has declined in the 2016 Presidential Election. In the 2008 Presidential Election and 2012 Presidential election, African Americans voted overwhelmingly for Democratic candidate, Barack Obama.^[13][14] This trend of African Americans voting for candidates of the Democratic Party continued into the 2016 Presidential Election.^[15]

Women in the United States have, in the past 30 years, surpassed male voting rates, with the 2016 Presidential Election having a ratio between females and males of 52 to 48.^{[16][17][18][19]} This trend is often referred to as the Gender Gap and when combined with the tendency of women to vote for Democratic candidates, their effect on political outcomes is extremely important.^[20]

Biology and political science

Interdisciplinary studies in

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.

Other research on genopolitics includes the article entitled "Do Genes Contribute to the “Gender Gap”" which also attempts to explore genetic influences between the sexes and whether or not they contribute to political preferences. The authors concluded that “the findings support the claim that the environment (social or other) cannot be used in isolation to explain behavior differences between males and females, nor can all differences in modern political behaviors between the sexes simply be attributed to genes or presumptions about primitive man."^[23]

Political participation

Political scientists also aim to understand what drives individuals to participate in the democratic process, either by voting, volunteering for campaigns, signing petitions or protesting. Participation cannot always be explained by rational behavior. The

Political psychology aims to explain political behavior through psychological analysis. Examples of theories include right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, and system justification theory.

See also

• Political parties

References