Political Psychology in International Relations: Beyond the Paradigms

Abstract

Political psychology in international relations (IR) has undergone a dramatic transformation in the past two decades, mirroring the broader changes occurring in IR itself. This review examines the current state of the field. We begin by offering a data-driven snapshot analyzing four years of manuscript classifications at a major IR journal to characterize the questions that IR scholars engaged in psychological research are and are not investigating. We then emphasize six developments in particular, both present-day growth areas (an increased interest in emotions and hot cognition, the rise of more psychologically informed work on public opinion, a nascent research tradition we call the first image reversed, and the rise of neurobiological and evolutionary approaches) and calls for additional scholarship (better integration of the study of mass and elite political behavior and more psychological work in international political economy). Together, these developments constitute some of the directions in which we see the next generation of scholarship heading.

Making Human Rights Emotional: A Research Agenda to Recover Shame in “Naming and Shaming”

“…Foundational work by Crawford and other early vanguards of the “emotional turn” have propelled a now thriving research agenda on emotions in IR (Ariffin, Coicaud, & Popovski, ; Bleiker & Hutchison, ; Coicaud, ; Hutchison, ; Hutchison & Bleiker, ; Mercer, ; Pace & Bilgic, ; Ross, ; Sasley, ; Solomon, ). This turn has occurred simultaneously with a recent “surge of interest” in psychology in IR (Kertzer & Tingley, ). As one marker of this confluence, in her International Society of Political Psychology (ISPP) Presidential Address and recent article in Political Psychology , Katherine Reynolds () points to the almost four‐fold growth in emotion‐related presentations in annual ISPP conferences in the past 40 years.…”

“…As one marker of this confluence, in her International Society of Political Psychology (ISPP) Presidential Address and recent article in Political Psychology , Katherine Reynolds () points to the almost four‐fold growth in emotion‐related presentations in annual ISPP conferences in the past 40 years. Concurrently, our political and public life seem increasingly emotionally charged, making the political consequences of emotions ripe for such analysis (Houghton, ) in areas such as immigration, terrorism, or populism (Albertson & Gadarian, ; Kertzer & Tingley, ).…”

“…Initial concerns that emotions might be too ephemeral to systematically measure or study (Crawford, ) are now acknowledged as somewhat overstated (Crawford, ; Mercer, ), and methodology is taking its rightful place along with theoretical and conceptual debates on emotions (Ahall & Gregory, ; Clément & Sangar, ). This has occurred in tandem with methodological innovations within psychological research in IR (Kertzer & Tingley, ), of particular relevance to emotions research. The literatures we have put into conversation have their own epistemological and methodological proclivities, ranging from the extensive use of statistical approaches and large‐ n data in the naming and shaming literature to the largely discursive bent of work on emotions in IR.…”

Politisk psykologi og utenrikspolitisk analyse

“…Det er ikke tilfeldig at tidsskriftet International Organizations i 2017 utga et spesialnummer der politisk psykologi var tema. I det hele tatt tyder utviklingen av, oppslutningen om og aksepten for fagfeltet politisk psykologi (Kertzer & Tingley, 2018) på at Jon Elsters (1993, s. viii) påpekning fra tidlig 1990-tallet, om at politisk psykologi er «nonexistent as an intelectual dicipline», ikke lenger er treffende. I Norge har blant annet Daniel Heradstveit (1981), Nils Johan Lavik og Nora Sveaass (2005), Inger Skjelsbaek (2012), Gunnar Fermann (2013), Tor Bukkvold (2016) og Siri Neset (2015) dokumentert fruktbarheten av psykologisk orienterte analyser.…”

Critical Engagement on Digital Sovereignty in International Relations: Actor Transformation and Global Hierarchy

“…Both embark on their literature review methods by selecting and sorting out literature deemed importance, pointing out consensus-debate, and synthesizing into their reflection based on findings. However, this article also uses Kertzer and Tingley (2018) methods on examining the current state of selected fields.…”