Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-k7p5g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T00:50:51.486Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Research at Stony Brook: Political Science in a Biobehavioral Laboratory∗

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 May 2016

D. Calvin Andrus
D. Calvin Andrus*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, SUNY-Stony Brook, Stony Brook, New York 11794
Get access

Extract

Political behavior, like all human behavior, can be studied using the S–O–R paradigm, where S is a particular stimulus, 0 is the human organism, and R is a response or behavior (cf. Tursky, Lodge, and Cross, 1976). Here at the Laboratory for Behavioral Research at Stony Brook we are currently conducting research projects that investigate each of these components of the paradigm and the interactions among them. Before reviewing these projects, however, I will briefly describe our laboratory facilities.

Type
Research in Progress
Information
Politics and the Life Sciences , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , July 1982 , pp. 58 - 59
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Politics and the Life Sciences 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andrus, D. Calvin (1982). “Ideological Sophistication and Political Cognitive Processing: Informational Effects on the Perception of Candidates.” Research in progress.Google Scholar
Andrus, D. Calvin(in press). “Measuring Political Stimuli: A Comparison of Category, “Thermometer,” and Magnitude Scales.” Poltical Methodology.Google Scholar
Bastedo, Ralph W. and Lodge, Milton (1980). “The Meaning of Party Labels.” Political Behavior 2:287–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finkel, Steven E., and Norpoth, Helmut (1932). “Ideological Perception of Candidates and Issues in the 1980 Elections.” Paper presented at the meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Milwaukee, Wisc.Google Scholar
Lodge, Milton (1982). “The Effects of Political Sophistication on the Recognition of Ideologically Congruent and Incongruent Information.” Research in progress.Google Scholar
Lodge, Milton, and Tursky, Bernard (1979). “Comparison Between Category and Magnitude Scaling of Political Opinion Employing SRC/CPS Items,” American Political Science Review 73:50–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lodge, Milton, and Tursky, Bernard (1981). “On the Magnitude Scaling of Political Opinion in Survey Research.” American Journal of Political Science 25:376–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, Jeffrey W., Sharp, Carol, and Tursky, Bernard (1982). “Non–Verbal Measures of Perception of Elite Militarism: An Example of the Classical Conditioning Paradigm in Political Science.” Research in progress.Google Scholar
Norpoth, Helmut, and Lodge, Milton. (1982) “Flipping the Coin of Ideological Self Image: Heads, It's Partisanship; Tails, It's Policy Preference.” Research in progress.Google Scholar
Tanenhaus, Joseph, and Foley, Mary Ann (1981). “Separating Objects of Specific and Diffuse Support: Experiments on Presidents and the Presidency.” Micropolitics 1:345–367.Google Scholar
Tursky, Bernard, Lodge, Milton, and Cross, David (1976). “A Biobehavioral Framework for the Analysis of Political Behavior.” In Somit, Albert (ed.) Biology and Politics: Recent Explorations. The Hague: Mouton, pp. 59–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tursky, Bernard, Lodge, Milton, and Reeder, Richard (1979). “Psychophysical and Psychophysiological Evaluation of the Direction, Intensity, and Meaning of Race–Related Stimuli.” Psychophysiology 16:452–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar