Political Psych Midterm

Front 1

Empirical analysis/empirical question

Back 1

knowledge derived from observation or experiment; questions that can be resolved by analyzing the facts and data.

Front 2

Normative analysis/normative questions

Back 2

Analysis of how things ought to be, why something is a good thing/bad thing.

Front 3

Dependent variable

Back 3

variable whose variation is to be explained in the study

Front 4

Independent variable

Back 4

a variable that is used to explain variation in a dependent variable.

Front 5

Intervening variable

Back 5

an intermediate factor between the independent and dependent variables in a causal chain; it is theorized to be caused by the independent variable and theorized to cause the dependent variable.

Front 6

Control variable

Back 6

To find out if a relationship between two variables continues to hold when there is a third variable

Front 7

Measure of Association

Back 7

Many times we cannot see the strength of the relationship between variables simply by “eyeballing” the crosstabulation. Any time in social science when we need to measure the strength of the relationship between two variables...

Front 8

Causal mechanism

Back 8

a statement that explains why there is a relationship between two or more variables. It explains why something happens.

Front 9

Causality

Back 9

we can establish causality between variables using (1) correlation of the variables, (2) independent variables must precede dependent variable in time, (3) the relationship between independent and dependent variable must not be spurious.

Front 10

Spurious relationship

Back 10

though it appears that dependent and independent variables are related, they are not related in fact; the relationship is spurious if in fact there is a third hidden “extraneous variable”

Front 11

case

Back 11

an individual unit being analyzed. Can be individual or aggregate (such as a nation)

Front 12

data

Back 12

information on each case`

Front 13

aggregate data

Back 13

data on collections of individuals.

Front 14

individual data

Back 14

data on an individual person.

Front 15

concept

Back 15

an abstraction based on characteristics of perceived reality. An idea or mental construct that represents phenomena in the real world.

Front 16

variable

Back 16

an attempt to measure a characteristic of a concept.

Front 17

variation

Back 17

differences within a set of measurements of a variable

Front 18

unit of analysis

Back 18

the object or entity under study. It could be an individuals, groups, states or state-systems

Front 19

Conceptual definition

Back 19

statement of the meaning of a particular concept, that describes clearly the concept’s measurable properties, and specifies the units of analysis (people, nations, states, NGOs).

Front 20

Operational definition

Back 20

specification of the process by which a concept is measured. – What are the indicators of the presence or absence of a concept.

Front 21

Indicators

Back 21

specific observations that are made in order to measure a concept.

Front 22

Reliability

Back 22

the extent to which a measurement procedure CONSISTENTLY measures whatever it measures.

Front 23

Validity

Back 23

the extent to which a measurement procedure measures what it is INTENDED to measure.

Front 24

Internal Validity

Back 24

extent to which the causal claims within a study represent true cause-and-effect relationships in the cases being studied.

Front 25

External Validity

Back 25

extent to which methods, or findings, are generalizable outside the study

Front 26

Theory

Back 26

in positive political science, a system of ideas used to develop an explanation of something independent of the thing explained.

Front 27

N: (or n)

Back 27

the symbol used to represent the number of cases in a study.

Front 28

Law

Back 28

a correlation between two variables.

Front 29

Equifinality

Back 29

The same outcome can be explained in different cases by different causal chains

Front 30

Hypothesis

Back 30

a testable statement of a relationship, derived from a theory.

Front 31

Null hypothesis

Back 31

a testable statement that says there is no relationship between variables

Front 32

Haphazard sample

Back 32

type of non-probability sample. a sample selected in such a way – usually convenience or self-selection – that certain people within a population are more likely to be included than are others.

Front 33

Quota sample

Back 33

a type of non-probability sample. Tries to obtain a group representative of the population by setting quotas for selecting various categories of people based on their proportions in the population.

Front 34

Probability sample

Back 34

Same as a random sample. A sample of a population in which each person has a known (equal) chance of being selected, throughout the selection process.

Front 35

Sampling error (or Margin of error)

Back 35

a statistic that represents the level of accuracy of a survey sample compared to the larger population the sample is taken from

Front 36

Confidence level

Back 36

the probability the results are outside the specified level of accuracy (i.e. margin of error).

Front 37

Statistical Significance

Back 37

a statistic that expresses how likely a survey result reflects the larger population.

Front 38

Open-ended questions

Back 38

questions that allow respondents to answer questions in their own way

Front 39

Close-ended questions

Back 39

where the survey question contains a limited number of response options, chosen by the researcher.

Front 40

Dishonesty

Back 40

respondents lie to interviewers either because one enjoys doing it, or (more serious) to protect one’s image (see social desirability)

Front 41

Social desirability

Back 41

respondent can (intentionally or unintentionally) select a response to avoid looking bad.

Front 42

Nonresponse

Back 42

those selected for the survey may refuse to take part in the survey. Or people refuse to answer particular questions

Front 43

Question Order Effects

Back 43

the impact that question order in a survey has upon the respondents.

Front 44

Leading questions

Back 44

respondent is led to select a particular response.

Front 45

Argumentative questions

Back 45

feed the respondent inflammatory information in question to generate negative response (“push polls”)

Front 46

Vagueness

Back 46

different people can interpret question in different ways, thus generating confusion in what is being really asked.

Front 47

Double barreled questions

Back 47

Question asking more than one question in a survey question, so it is impossible to know what respondents were really saying.

Front 48

Attitude

Back 48

a psychological tendency that is expressed by evaluating a particular entity with some degree of favor or disfavor.

Front 49

Belief

Back 49

a thought or information a person has regarding an attitude object.

Front 50

Emotions

Back 50

The emotional part of attitudes. The feelings that a person has toward an attitude object.

Front 51

Stereotype

Back 51

a kind of belief. stereotypes are cognitive beliefs about the characteristics of members of social groups (whites, gays, women, low-income people, etc.)

Front 52

Prejudice

Back 52

negative emotions about a social group

Front 53

Values

Back 53

A certain kind of belief referring to ideals. Belief that a certain kind of conduct or goal in life is personally or socially preferable to other modes of conduct or life goals.

Front 54

Opinion

Back 54

an expression of a latent attitude

Front 55

Public opinion

Back 55

“those opinions held by private persons, which governments find it prudent to heed”

Front 56

Public judgment

Back 56

When a large proportion of the public have examined an issue from multiple sides for many years, understand the choices it leads to, and accepted the full concequences of the choices they make.

Front 57

The spiral of silence

Back 57

developed by Noelle-Neumann’s research. Individuals who, when observing their environments, notice that their own personal opinion is spreading and is taken over by others, will voice this opinion self-confidently in public.

Front 58

Party Identification

Back 58

A person’s allegiance to a political party

Front 59

Leaners

Back 59

In survey research, leaners are individuals who express no party identification, but when asked which party you “lean towards on most issues,” will express a preference.

Front 60

Panel Study

Back 60

The same people are asked their opinions on the same issue, more than once.

Front 61

Benevolent Leader

Back 61

based on an original study by Fred Greenstein of New Haven CT schoolchildren in late 1950s and early 1960s. The children saw political authorities as helpful and benevolent.

Front 62

Efficacy

Back 62

belief that one can influence the decisions of government, and that government is responsive to the wishes of the people.

Front 63

Trust

Back 63

belief that government officials are honest and act in the public’s interest

Front 64

Confidence

Back 64

belief that an office or institution is effective at benefitting the public interest

Front 65

Confidence

Back 65

belief that an office or institution is effective at benefitting the public interest

Front 66

Political reality explanation

Back 66

theoretical explanation for why individuals belonging to minority groups show less confidence, trust and sense of efficacy than dominant groups.

Front 67

Political socialization

Back 67

The process by which attitudes and values are passed from one generation to the next

Front 68

Attitude stability

Back 68

how stable over time an attitude is, in an individual.

Front 69

Life cycle effects

Back 69

Attitude or opinion changes which occur when an individual passes from one stage in life to the next.

Front 70

Generational effects

Back 70

When an entire generation is influenced by the nature of the times when they become adults. Differences in attitude between age cohorts, based on shared experiences of events that occurred when the age cohort was young.

Front 71

Period Effects

Back 71

When a major event affects all generations living at that time, for a limited period of time.

Front 72

Attitude crystallization

Back 72

The period when an attitude becomes more stable and consistent.

Front 73

Hypodermic Model

Back 73

idea that the media influences people by “injecting” information and images into their minds.

Front 74

Agenda-setting Effects

Back 74

Media does not tell you what to think, but has major influence in what to think about, what matters, which issues are important.

Front 75

Priming effects

Back 75

The issues covered by the media affect the standards used by the public to evaluate leaders.

Front 76

Framing effects

Back 76

The process by which a media source such as a news organization, defines and constructs a political issue or public controversy.

Front 77

Propaganda model

Back 77

breaks down the components of any message into the communicator, the message, the medium, the receiver and the effect. (model of communication)

Front 78

Soft news / hard news

Back 78

More news is appearing in “entertainment” or “non-political” sources, such as Oprah Winfrey, The View, Stephen Colbert, The Daily Show and Morning shows. Younger audiences receive greater proportion of their political news from “soft” news sources This effect is occurring less powerfully with older generations.

Front 79

Attitude change/attitude stability

Back 79

party identification is very stable over a long period of time, while opinions on policy issues are less stable.

Front 80

Central route of persuasion

Back 80

people more likely to be persuaded to change an attitude if they know background information already and are motivated to pay attention.

Front 81

Peripheral route to persuasion

Back 81

People less motivated and who have less background information are less likely to accept...

Front 82

Nonattitudes

Back 82

political opinions that are fleeting, not well considered or lacking meaning to those who hold them.

Front 83

Personality

Back 83

the personal dispositions that matter in shaping behavior.

Front 84

Beliefs

Back 84

A person’s _____ represents all the hypotheses and theories that he is convinced are valid at a given moment (Vertzberger).

Front 85

normative beliefs

Back 85

beliefs about what ought to be

Front 86

central beliefs

Back 86

beliefs that are unshakeable

Front 87

peripheral beliefs

Back 87

beliefs that are less important to the person.

Front 88

open belief systems

Back 88

belief systems open to change

Front 89

closed belief systems

Back 89

belief systems not open to change

Front 90

Authoritarian personality

Back 90

personality that favors conformity to group norms and group cohesion.

Front 91

Libertarian personality:

Back 91

personality that places high value on diversity and new experiences.

Front 92

The “big five” personality traits

Back 92

openness to experience, conscientiousness, agreeableness, extraversion and emotional stability.

Front 93

openness

Back 93

respond positively to wide range of experiences

Front 94

conscientiousness

Back 94

appreciate rules and group norms, use these to control impulses

Front 95

extraversion

Back 95

active, energetic, sociable, outgoing

Front 96

emotional stability

Back 96

steady and resilient. Not nervous or anxious.