Study Guide for the Final Exam in PLSI 465, Spring 2008

The final exam will consist of three short essays you will write and hand in on a hard copy by noon, Monday, May 19^th. Your essays should be well-composed and you should use proper writing style, including parenthetical referencing. Note that when you cite works that we read in the course, you do not need to supply a full citation in a References sheet. However, if you cite work from outside the course, then you do need to provide the full citation. Please do not use direct quotes in your essays; it would not serve the primary purpose of the exam.

Your main purpose is to display a full understanding of the literature we read and the topics involved.

Work individually on the exams. You are not to discuss anything about the exam with classmates or anyone else. Pay close attention to the required length, and the questions posed. Be sure to address those as thoroughly as possible in the space allowed. Take care not to yield to the temptation to talk about politics more generally; instead, point your discussing straight to the topics we’ve covered, the theories in questions, and the evidence used to test them.

Each essay should

be approximately two pages long

use usual font size (10 to 12 point) and margins (1”)

include a title page that lists your name, the course number, and my name

The questions will require you to critically discuss the various approaches to understanding the role of emotions and reasoning in politics, specifically as they relate to individual’s political behavior. Below are some examples of the type of questions you’ll find on the exam.

Lupia and Manning argue that, in studying the role of emotions in politics, we would benefit by integrating a game-theoretic analytical framework with more traditional methods of political psychology. Make a case for the contrary—that this would not be a productive approach. Be sure to include details that are important or essential to both rational actor analyses and typical designs in political psychology.

Recent work has extended the application of the theory of Affective Intelligence. Discuss two such extensions that offer contrasting results. That is, critically review the theory by drawing specifically on two studies, one that supports and one that refutes aspects of the theory. Be sure to attend to details of the designs of those studies in your report (e.g., what emotions are examined, what the attitude objects are, how are emotions measured, etc.)

Drawing on the readings since the midterm, make an argument that refutes the theory of Affective Intelligence. Support your case with the empirical evidence we’ve read that fails to support, and/or contradicts, expectations arising from the theory.

A key distinction among the studies we’ve read since the midterm is the placement of emotions in cognitive processing. Critically consider which approach best accommodates evidence of rational decision-making among citizens—those that argue for the primacy of affect and those that draw on appraisal theory and consider affect as secondary to cognition.

Assume a general election for president between McCain and Obama. Assume, also, that the economy and national security will be key issues. Pick one candidate or the other, and then describe two campaign strategies for that one candidate—one based in Rational Actor theory, and one based in the theory of Affective Intelligence.

The Republican primary produced an unlikely winner—one who is not considered a conventional conservative, and who is not perceived as the most loyal partisan. Use the theory of Affective Intelligence to explain McCain’s success against Romney, Huckabee, and Guiliani. How might the theory have predicted McCain’s win vis-à-vis these candidates?