July 12, 2007

Observations from ISPP

Last weekend the blog was silent because I was off in Portland (Oregon) at the annual meeting of the International Society of Political Psychology. It was the first time I'd attended that conference, despite the fact that normally it's held in highly appealing European cities (next year it's in Paris). Earlier I'd noted I might say a thing or two about that trip, but never got beyond my hatred of the Las Vegas airport. So with that in mind, here are a few quick observations dealing with what I saw at the conference.

Given that it's a multidisciplinary field, I was curious to see who would be attending. It turns out that both poli sci and psychology were well represented. And there were some participants from other fields as well (like the Volokh conspirator who is working on a Ph.D. in sociology). It felt to me like a younger than usual crowd. There were lots and lots of women there. And for whatever it's worth, the crowd appeared mostly white and coupled (lots of rings).

As to the work presented, the papers and roundtables were of a good quality. And of course it's always good to hear that current research is reinforcing some trends people in the field have noted before: the power of subliminal messages; the unequal effects of positive and negative stimuli (negative stimuli have a greater impact); that anxiety leads one to collect more information than one would otherwise (well, presuming one cares and thinks more information might prove useful) while anger leads you to shut out information and turn back to what you already know; those who read newspapers have quite different perceptions of politics than those who don't; a large majority of political leaders show low integrative complexity; and the Iranian leadership has extraordinarily high cognitive complexity, high levels of distrust and little belief in their ability to control events. And some of the newer observations were interesting too, for example how Ronald Reagan's behavior and style closely matched many traits one would expect in the child of an alcoholic, and Jimmy Carter's audacious decision to transform the vice presidency, and how that decision shaped who he selected as his running mate.

Finally, going to conferences means I also catch up on television, as something about being in a hotel room draws me to cable (and the Embassy Suites downtown is quite nice - it's the old Multnomah Hotel, built back in 1912). So with that in mind I can say that Entourage still rocks. Even the guest star selections are perfect (Lisa Rinna and Colleen Camp! oh, and yeah, Dennis Hopper). Of course the Transformer Stewie Griffin owns is Starscream. And The Devil Wears Prada holds up very well. Emily Blunt remains fabulous with a capital F, and on a second viewing I think I better understood all the praise Stanley Tucci received.

Posted by armand at July 12, 2007 08:20 PM | TrackBack | Posted to Random Thoughts | The Academy


Comments

"that anxiety leads one to collect more information than one would otherwise (well, presuming one cares and thinks more information might prove useful"

I'd be interested in knowing a little more about this. Typically, stress releases a chemical called cortisol which actually disturbs short term memory (and increases vulnerability to disease). Did they experimentally compare those who believed something was relevant with those who had anxiety about that same something?

Posted by: Morris at July 20, 2007 12:11 AM | PERMALINK

Sorry, I didn't print off the paper, and don't remember the methodological details. Might have been an experiment, but it might also have been survey research. As I recall the anxiety being tested came from the same source, but whether or not people thought information of some sort would help ... well that varied.

Posted by: Armand at July 20, 2007 11:47 AM | PERMALINK

Well it may be that people become motivated to find more information which they are worse at retaining while anxious, which sure fits from my perspective. If someone has anxiety, they tend to retreat into the security of what appears to be certainty, a static belief or set of beliefs, which is what the anger research points out. Psychodynamic psychologists would call this intellectualization.

Of course, the trouble is that semantic structures tend to be less experientially relevant than the visceral (body senses), perceptual (body senses of externals), or motor (body senses of what the body's doing, typically motion) structures. So reading a book doesn't tend to do as much to overcome problems, typically, as doing things that activate other sensory networks, though as the research says in people coming to think they understand something, typically they have less anxiety.

Posted by: Morris at July 20, 2007 09:36 PM | PERMALINK

Well that seems to fit with the paper that was presented in that they said anxiety had a significant effect leading one to increase their information search - but only if they believed such an increase would help. What they believe will help will likely be affected by their own framing of the problem, their preexisting perspectives on it.

Posted by: Armand at July 21, 2007 08:41 AM | PERMALINK

Though I should also add that I think this - "If someone has anxiety, they tend to retreat into the security of what appears to be certainty, a static belief or set of beliefs, which is what the anger research points out" - is taking things off target, in that 1) anger was also tested (in this study and several others) and has notably different effects (the ones you mentioned) and 2) anxiety seems to open up individuals, forcing them to consider things they wouldn't otherwise consider. This fits a bit from David Welch's theory of foreign policy change - the status quo rules until you are suffering a huge loss, or are on the cusp of a huge loss, that forces. The anxiety of that forces you to finally ditch the commitments and policies you had been holding on to.

[And no, this wasn't a foreign policy paper, but the point seems on target.]

Posted by: Armand at July 21, 2007 12:52 PM | PERMALINK

Well of course that's the part I'm interested in, how did they measure anger as different from the way they measured anxiety such that it led to coping instead of entrenching? From the perspective of psychological physics it would make sense that until one psychological object is acted upon by another, there's little change in its vector. But what explains the rigid, compulsive reaction on the one hand versus the kind of anxiety that brings forth an elastic collision versus an inelastic change?

Posted by: Morris at July 24, 2007 10:47 AM | PERMALINK

Morris!!!!

We thought you'd been kidnapped by Bedouins or something. Nice to see you back.

Posted by: baltar at July 24, 2007 01:23 PM | PERMALINK

No, the bedouins love me. Actually it was a gang of dingos who mistook me for a baby. Thanks for the welcome.

Posted by: Morris at July 25, 2007 11:16 PM | PERMALINK
Post a comment









Remember personal info?