Cited by 11Electoral Systems and Political ParticipationNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesSocial and Intergroup Psychology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Political Neuroscience: Understanding How the Brain Makes Political Decisions

Haas, Ingrid J, Warren, Clarisse, Lauf, Samantha J·2020·Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics

Abstract

Abstract Recent research in political psychology and biopolitics has begun to incorporate theory and methods from cognitive neuroscience. The emerging interdisciplinary field of political neuroscience (or neuropolitics) is focused on understanding the neural mechanisms underlying political information processing and decision making. Most of the existing work in this area has utilized structural magnetic resonance imaging, functional magnetic resonance imaging, or electroencephalography, and focused on understanding areas of the brain commonly implicated in social and affective neuroscience more generally. This includes brain regions involved in affective and evaluative processing, such as the amygdala, insula, anterior cingulate, and orbitofrontal cortex, as well as regions involved in social cognition (e.g., medial prefrontal cortex [PFC]), decision making (e.g., dorsolateral PFC), and reward processing (e.g., ventral striatum). Existing research in political neuroscience has largely focused on understanding candidate evaluation, political participation, and ideological differences. Early work in the field focused simply on examining neural responses to political stimuli, whereas more recent work has begun to examine more nuanced hypotheses about how the brain engages in political cognition and decision making. While the field is still relatively new, this work has begun to improve our understanding of how people engage in motivated reasoning about political candidates and elected officials and the extent to which these processes may be automatic versus relatively more controlled. Other work has focused on understanding how brain differences are related to differences in political opinion, showing both structural and functional variation between political liberals and political conservatives. Neuroscientific methods are best used as part of a larger, multimethod research program to help inform theoretical questions about mechanisms underlying political cognition. This work can then be triangulated with experimental laboratory studies, psychophysiology, and traditional survey approaches and help to constrain and ensure that theory in political psychology and political behavior is biologically plausible given what we know about underlying neural architecture. This field will continue to grow, as interest and expertise expand and new technologies become available.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.948

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Research works printed but not linked: 82

  1. 2014, Functional magnetic resonance imaging
  2. 2014, Political neuroscience: The beginning of a beautiful friendship., Advances in Political Psychology
  3. 2014, An introduction to the event-related potential technique
  4. 2017, Neuropolitics: Twenty years later., Politics and the Life Sciences
  5. 1998, The human amygdala in social judgment., Nature
  6. 1995, Fear and the human amygdala., Journal of Neuroscience
  7. 2014, Current Biology
  8. 2007, Neurocognitive correlates of liberalism and conservatism., Nature Neuroscience
  9. 2007, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
  10. Berkman, E. T., Cunningham, W. A., & Lieberman, M. D. (2014). Research methods in social and affective neuroscience. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in personality and social psychology (2nd ed., pp. 123–158). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. · DOI
  11. How the Republican field dwindled from 17 to Donald Trump.
  12. 2007, Conflict monitoring and decision making: Reconciling two perspectives on anterior cingulate function., Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience
  13. 2003, Political psychology and social neuroscience: Strange bedfellows or comrades in arms?, Political Psychology
  14. 2002, Emotion and motivation: The role of the amygdala, ventral striatum, and prefrontal cortex., Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews
  15. 2008, The secret lives of liberals and conservatives: Personality profiles, interaction styles, and the things they leave behind., Political Psychology
  16. 2007, Journal of Neuroscience
  17. 2010, Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience
  18. 2012, Remembering and voting: Theory and evidence from amnesic patients., American Journal of Political Science
  19. 2012, Motivational salience: Amygdala tuning from traits, needs, values, and goals., Current Directions in Psychological Science
  20. 2008, Psychological Science
  21. Damasio, H., & Damasio, A. R. (2000). The lesion method in cognitive neuroscience. In M. J. Farah & T. E. Feinberg (Eds.), Patient-based approaches to cognitive neuroscience (pp. 21–34). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  22. 1992, The role of the amgydala in fear and anxiety., Annual Review of Neuroscience
  23. 2012, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
  24. 1957, An economic theory of political action in a democracy., Journal of Political Economy
  25. 2004, Changes in grey matter induced by training., Nature
  26. 2003, Differential response patterns in the striatum and orbitofrontal cortex to financial reward in humans: A parametric functional magnetic resonance imaging study., Journal of Neuroscience
  27. Feldman, S. (2003). Values, ideology, and the structure of political attitudes. In D. O. Sears, L. Huddy, & R. Jervis (Eds.), Oxford handbook of political psychology (pp. 477–508). Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press.
  28. 2008, American Political Science Review
  29. 2014, Physiology & Behavior
  30. 2012, Measuring structural-functional correspondence: Spatial variability of specialised brain regions after macro-anatomical alignment., NeuroImage
  31. 2011, Annual Review of Political Science
  32. 2010, Human Brain Mapping
  33. 2013, Cerebral Cortex
  34. 2016, The impact of uncertainty, threat, and political identity on support for political compromise., Basic and Applied Social Psychology
  35. Haas, I. J. (2016b). Political neuroscience. In J. R. Absher & J. Cloutier (Eds.), Neuroimaging personality, social cognition, and character: Traits and mental states in the brain (pp. 355–370). Cambridge, MA: Academic Press. · DOI
  36. 2017, Social Justice Research
  37. 2002, Ecstasy and agony: Activation of the human amygdala in positive and negative emotion., Psychological Science
  38. 2012, NeuroImage
  39. 1995, The minimal group paradigm: Categorization into two versus three groups., European Journal of Social Psychology
  40. 1986, The relationship between memory and judgment depends on whether the judgment task is memory-based or on-line., Psychological Review
  41. 2014, Behavioral and Brain Sciences
  42. 2010, Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience
  43. 2009, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
  44. 2001, From social to political identity: A critical examination of social identity theory., Political Psychology
  45. 2004, A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo., Political Psychology
  46. 2014, Advances in Political Psychology
  47. 2014, The “chicken-and-egg” problem in political neuroscience., Behavioral and Brain Sciences
  48. 2011, Current Biology
  49. 2007, Us versus them: Political attitudes and party affiliation influence neural responses to faces of presidential candidates., Neuropsychologia
  50. 2016, Nature Scientific Reports
  51. 2018, Current Directions in Psychological Science
  52. 2000, NeuroImage,
  53. 2001, Advantages and disadvantages of cognitive heuristics in political decision making., American Journal of Political Science
  54. 2003, Is political cognition like riding a bicycle? How cognitive neuroscience can inform research on political thinking., Political Psychology
  55. 1989, An impression-driven model of candidate evaluation., American Political Science Review
  56. 2014, An introduction to the event-related potential technique
  57. 2000, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
  58. 2009, The case for increasing dialogue between political science and neuroscience., Political Research Quarterly
  59. 2018, Nature Human Behaviour
  60. 2010, Journal of Nonverbal Behavior
  61. 2008, Neuroscience
  62. 2017, Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience
  63. 2000, Performance on indirect measures of race evaluation predicts amygdala activation., Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
  64. 2009, Trends in Neurosciences
  65. 1993, Mobilization, participation, and democracy in America
  66. 2010, Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience
  67. 2003, The human amygdala: An evolved system for relevance detection., Reviews in the Neurosciences
  68. 2017, Politics and the Life Sciences
  69. 2013, PLoS One
  70. 2012, Frontiers in Neuroinformatics
  71. 2011, Disgust sensitivity and the neurophysiology of left–right political orientations., PLoS One
  72. 2008, Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience
  73. 2006, Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs., American Journal of Political Science
  74. 1992, The disappearing American voter
  75. 2005, Inferences of competence from faces predict election outcomes., Science
  76. 2013, NeuroImage
  77. 2008, The neural substrates of in-group bias: A functional magnetic resonance imaging investigation., Psychological Science
  78. 2013, Social Neuroscience
  79. 2006, Neural bases of motivated reasoning: An fMRI study of emotional constraints on partisan political judgment in the 2004 U.S. presidential election., Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
  80. 1998, Fear, vigilance, and ambiguity: Initial neuroimaging studies of the human amygdala., Current Directions in Psychological Science
  81. 2007, The uncertainty of it all., Trends in Cognitive Sciences
  82. 2015, Lateral orbitofrontal cortex links social impressions to political choices., Journal of Neuroscience

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Haas, I. J., Warren, C., & Lauf, S. J.
Affiliations
University of Nebraska–Lincoln (US)
Venue
Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics
Published
2020-05-29
OpenAlex
W3035326894
Cited by
11
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3
Type
reference entry
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
Keywords
political neuroscience, neuropolitics, political decision-making, political cognition, motivated reasoning, candidate evaluation, political participation, ideological differences, liberals and conservatives, amygdala, insula, medial prefrontal cortex, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, ventral striatum, reward processing, social cognition, emotional processing

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review