Political psychology: A growing field


Michael Milburn, Ph.D., a professor of psychology at the University of Massachusetts Boston does research on the reasons behind the way people vote on key issues. (photo by Tom Croke)

By Catherine Robertson Souter

It's not an American Psychological Association division. There are few academic programs that offer training. Yet, as we deal with the fallout from the most hotly contested presidential election in…well, in four years, the field of political psychology takes a step into the limelight once again.

Even for a public who might not be aware of the field, the idea of psychology playing a part of the election process comes as no surprise. One would assume that million-dollar campaigns are using every tool in their hands, including psychological research and experts, to win the big prize. When you hear one candidate speak of the other being "in denial" or an ad campaign designed to provoke fear and anxiety, you suspect that psychology is playing a hand.

The field of political psychology has come into being somewhat organically. While the concepts of studying how and why people vote or follow a particular leader, or why anyone would run for office, are not new - there have been academic writings on the subject for nearly 100 years - the formal establishment of the field as an organized discipline dates back only 25 years.

Formed in 1979, the International Society of Political Psychology (ISPP) represents a variety of professions concerned with the relationships between political and psychological processes. Members from across the globe include psychologists, political scientists, psychiatrists, historians, sociologists, economists, anthropologists, journalists, government officials and others.

The ISPP currently has more than 1,300 members worldwide, a huge increase according to one former executive director, George Marcus, Ph.D., a political science professor at Williams College in Williamstown, Mass.

"When I took over in 1992 there were 400 to 500 members," he says. "By the mid-90s, that figure had nearly doubled. It is truly a growing field."

In part, the field has grown so rapidly because more people are starting to identify themselves as political psychologists. They haven't necessarily altered their research or switched fields, but professionals who once called themselves consultants now use the term political psychologist.

On the other hand, several schools have begun programs designed to train political psychologists. Where most professionals in the field today have come to it from either political science or psychology, these programs are beginning to integrate the two.

"There are few real programs in political psychology. Generally people now in the field have come to it in different ways," says William Stone, Ph.D., a professor emeritus at the University of Maine and the author of one of the first definitive books, used in academic settings for an overview of the field, "The Psychology of Politics" (1974, revised with Paul Shaffner in 1981, Free Press).

One program, at the University of Minnesota, offers a graduate minor at the doctoral level in political psychology. The faculty is drawn from within the graduate and law schools including the departments of psychology and political science, along with the departments of speech communication, law and journalism. SUNY Stony Brook has offered a doctoral program in political psychology since the late 70s. According to its Web site, the doctoral program trains students in "the application of contemporary psychological theories, concepts and methods to the study of political behavior."

In speaking with the various local experts in the field, it's obvious that another reason the field has grown is that it's possible through this work to have an immediate effect on the world today. When politicians use psychological terms in their discussions, ads or debates, it's clear that the line between what's done in the lab and what's happening out in the field has thinned.

"Kerry was talking about Bush being in denial in one speech," says Michael Milburn, Ph.D., a professor of psychology at the University of Massachusetts Boston. "From what we know about Bush's background and his experiences with alcoholism, the diagnosis of denial makes tremendous sense and it would explain a lot about this administration."

It's not difficult to see what makes this field so intriguing. The list of topics discussed at the most recent ISPP convention is reminiscent of headlines that would not be out of place in the tabloids or 6 o'clock news program. For example, who wouldn't mind sitting in on a discussion of the psychology of terrorists or the intersection of violence and political leadership? Other topics included one on "Identity and Conflict in the Israeli Context: Four Narrative Studies," and "Comparative Studies of the Psychology of Visual Propaganda."

"There is a wide range of research being done. It would be hard to even attempt to define all of the research," says Martha Crenshaw, Ph.D., the Colin and Nancy Campbell Professor of Global Issues & Democratic Thought at Wesleyan University in Middletown, Conn. Crenshaw found her way into the field as a graduate student when she wrote her doctoral dissertation on the Algerian War. That paper, "The Concept of Revolutionary Terrorism," was published in the Journal of Conflict Resolution in 1972. Since then, she has written extensively on the issue of political terrorism with recent works including writing on terrorism. She is also a former ISPP president. For Stone, it was his work on the campaign of '60s anti-war candidate Eugene McCarthy that turned him towards his work with politics. "I was trained as a social psychologist and when I worked on the campaign I decided that this was a very interesting field," he says. "So, I decided to learn more about it."

Marcus, who has a Ph.D. in political science, did his post-doctoral work at Yale in politics and psychology. He points to his early interest in Freud and in politics coming to a natural intersection in his career. Marcus has focused on the role of emotions in politics and how people make decisions based more on emotional response than previously thought.

Milburn got his start as an undergraduate when he studied both psychology and political science. Today, he does research on how people are affected by violent television images and the reasons behind the way some people vote on issues like capital punishment. He also gave the keynote address at the recent New England Psychological Association's meeting on "The Politics of Denial in the 2004 Election."

"But, it's hard to know," he says, "how much of it is a matter of them lying to themselves versus lying the public."

Political psychology: A growing field (November 2004 Issue)

Political psychology: A growing field
(November 2004 Issue)