Downloads & Free Reading Options - Results

Why people vote the way they do it is one of the most analysed topics in political science and political psychology. For years, two schools have been opposed, the first is the Columbia School, centred on social networks and grounded in sociology (Berelson et al., 1954; Lazersfeld et al., 1948), and the second the Michigan School, centred on individuals and grounded in psychology (Campbell et al., 1954, 1960). On the one hand, the Columbia School underlines the importance of the social context. In this case, people’s vote is based mainly on their belongingness to some specific social groups. People are social animals per se, meaning that they are always in some sort of social context. These social networks can be based on offline and/or online relationships, and they are a central part of our lives, affecting who we are, what we think, what we feel, and what we do (Christakis & Fowler, 2008, 2009). Since the 2000s, network analysis began to gain momentum in political science. In this case, concepts like social influence and peer pressure are key mechanisms of participation and voting habits and choices’ transmission (reinforcement), but also of changes in behaviours (Beck, 2002). Indeed, even regarding politics: “individual reasoning does not take place in a social vacuum, but depends on various ways on the actions and opinions of other people” (Rolfe, 2012: 2). Indeed, why people participate and how they participate can be affected by the network opinions and the network political habits, working in this case as a shortcut for the individuals (Ryan, 2011; Sinclair, 2012). On the other hand, the Michigan School emphasizes, as a central variable, the party identification which is a particular political attitude towards a party. From that point on, there has been the development of a whole body of literature on political psychology. Indeed, this school had the merit to be the pioneer of psychological explanations in political science. Michigan school based their explanations on extensive national surveys that centred on individualistic explanations for political behaviour (Campbel, 2013). If we consider these two schools as two competitors on a battlefield, it is clear to everyone that Michigan won the battle, since for many decades the explanations of political behaviours – including people’s vote – has been characterized as a main individual phenomenon. Even though, at the first sight, the two schools could appear opponent explanations of political behaviours, however, when the two paradigms are deeper analysed we can see much more overlapping than differences. Thus, to extensively understand why and how people behave in politics we need to focus simultaneously on individual and social logic. As stated by Campbell (2013, p. 35) “rather than two camps diametrically opposed to one another, the Columbia and Michigan schools are better described as having different theoretical assumptions that put these two research traditions on different tracks. Those tracks initially ran close to one another but over time they grew farther apart, especially as the individual-focused paradigm became dominant”. More generally, psychological characteristics are certainly important predictors of why we vote the way we do. Among the most important factors, we can find Moral Foundations which are theorised to be a set of universal and innate moral concerns that guide people in their evaluation of what is good and wrong in society (Graham et al., 2013). These moral concerns are also very important to understand people’s votes. Scholars have extensively analysed the impact of Moral foundations on political opinions and behaviours. Normally, people will vote for their vision of a good society, that is, the moral vision of society (Lakoff, 2002). When a party is stereotypically associated with specific moral values, which are also endorsed by people, then these people can be more likely to vote for that party (Johnson et al., 2007; Milesi, 2017). Recent studies have suggested six different moral foundations (Atari, 2022). Three are related to the so-called “Individualizing foundations” (e.g., care, equity, and proportionality), and the other three are related to the “Binding foundations” (e.g., ingroup loyalty, authority, and purity). Studies have discovered that liberal or leftist people give much more importance to the individualizing foundations – except for proportionality. At the same time, those people who give much more weight to the binding foundations (and also proportionality) are normally associated with a conservative ideology or vote (Atari et al., 2022; Graham et al., 2009, 2012; Lee, 2017). Some authors have even gone so far as to define these psychological characteristics as biologically inherited. When we are born, we are not blank pages. The way we are, even psychologically, is in part organized prior to our experience. A series of studies conducted on identical twins have stressed that these people – who completely share their genetic makeup – are much more likely to have the same behaviour, even politically, compared to non-identical twins where the share of the genetic makeup is less important (Haidt, 2012; Hatemi et al., 2014). Even though these inherited psychological characteristics are extremely important to affect our political behaviours, it is clear that our “book” is still composed of a lot of blank pages. Indeed, our psychological characteristics are not fixed but they can mutate based on our personal and social experience during our life (Haidt, 2012; Marcus, 2008). Moreover, we suppose that people are also affected by their peers’ psychological characteristics. In this case, we want to understand if the relationship between the fact of having a specific moral concern and its expected voting behaviour can be reinforced (changed) when the individuals are embedded in networks with a very specific moral concerns. More specifically, the purpose of this proposed project is to analyse the interplay and mediation effects between the sociological and psychological explanations of voting choice. More specifically, we want to understand how social networks and psychological characteristics are intrinsically related in explaining why we vote in the way we do.

Thornton Chase is commonly recognized as the first convert to the Bahá’í Faith of Occidental background. During his life he organized many Bahá’í activities in Chicago and Los Angeles and was considered a prominent Bahá’í. In 1894, Chase met Ibrahim Kheiralla, a Bahá’í from Beirut who had recently come to the United States. Chase and a small group of Chicagoans began to study the Bahá’í Faith with him. By 1895 he had completed the class and become a Bahá’í. In 1907 Chase was able to go on pilgrimage. Though Chase was able to be with ‘Abdu’l-Bahá in Akka for only three days, the experience transformed him. ‘Abdu’l-Bahá, highly impressed by Chase’s qualities, conferred on him the title Thábit, "steadfast". On returning home, Chase wrote an account of his pilgrimage, which was published under the title In Galilee in 1908. The short work gives a detailed and poignant description of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá's home and family in Akka, as well as a moving description of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá himself. Chase then turned his thoughts to an introductory book on the Bahá’í Faith. Published as The Bahai Revelation in 1909, this work was one of the most comprehensive and accurate introductions to the Bahá’í Faith written by an early American Bahá’í. It continued to be reprinted until the 1920s. The work emphasized the Bahá’í Faith and its teachings as a vehicle for personal spiritual transformation. Shoghi Effendi, the Guardian of the Bahá’í Faith, later honoured him as one of the Disciples of ‘Abdu’l-Bahá (also termed “Heralds of the Covenant”). (Adapted from Wikipedia)

Thornton Chase is commonly recognized as the first convert to the Bahá'í Faith of Occidental background. During his life he organized many Bahá'í activities in Chicago and Los Angeles and was considered a prominent Bahá'í. In 1907 Chase was able to go on pilgrimage. Though Chase was able to be with `Abdu'l Bahá in Akka for only three days, the experience transformed him. `Abdu'l Bahá, highly impressed by Chase's qualities, conferred on him the title <i>Thábit</i>, "steadfast." On returning home Chase wrote an account of his pilgrimage, which was published under the title <i>In Galilee</i>] in 1908. The short work gives a detailed and poignant description of `Abdu'l-Bahá's home and family in Akka, as well as a moving description of `Abdu'l-Bahá Himself. The work remains one of the most important examples of the genre commonly known as pilgrim's notes. (Summary by Wikipedia)

Hiram Chase is a well liked Reverend in a small ministry in Utica. When his mental and physical health deteriorates, he is taken to Utica lunatic asylum. After his stay in the asylum, Hiram documents his experiences and those of other patients in the asylum. He describes his daily routine and the negative experiences he had, along with praising certain individuals whom he met during his "Two Years and Four Months in a Lunatic Asylum". (Summary by Elaine Webb)

In 1911, decades before California's coast Highway 1 was built, an Englishman rode 2000 miles on horseback the length of California, from Mexico to Oregon. On the way he is courteously received at isolated ranches, has many quiet adventures, and is generally amazed by the beauty of our coast. A classic early California travelog. Chase was born in Islington (London) and but lived most of this life in the California desert.<br /><br />Here are Chase's major landmarks, first going south and then turning north:<br />Chap. 1 El Monte to Laguna Beach. Chap. 2 Aliso Canyon to San Juan Capistrano. Chap. 3 San Juan hot springs (east of Mission Viejo) to Oceanside. Chap 4. Del Mar to San Diego. Chap. 5 San Fernando Valley to Malibu. Chap. 6 Boney Mountain (in the Santa Monica Mtns.) to Ventura. Chap. 7 Carpenteria to Santa Barbara. Chap 8. Refugio Pass (south of Solvang) to Lompoc. Chap. 9 Solvang to Las Cruces (south of Solvang). Chap. 10 Point Conception back to Lompoc. Chap. 11 Casmalia to Avila (on SLO Bay). Chap. 12 San Luis Obispo to Morro Bay. Chap. 13 to Jolon and Mission San Antonio de Padua (SE of Ft. Hunter Liggett). Chap. 14 to Pacific Valley (south of Limekiln State Park). Chap. 15 Limekiln, Lucia, to about Lopez Point. Chap. 16 Big Sur, Point Sur Lighthouse to Monterey. Chap. 17 Seaside through the Santa Cruz Mtns. to Pescadero (San Mateo Co.). Chap. 18 Half Moon Bay, San Francisco, to Drakes Bay. Chap. 19 Tomales Bay to Gualala. Chap. 20 Navarro to Westport. Chap. 21 King Range and the Mattole Valley to Eureka. Chap. 22 Arcata to the Klamath.<br />(Summary by Adrian Praetzellis)

Owen Chase (October 7, 1797 – March 7, 1869) was First Mate of the whale ship Essex, that was struck and sunk by a sperm whale on October 28, 1820. Chase wrote about the incident in Narrative of the Most Extraordinary and Distressing Shipwreck of the Whale-Ship Essex. This book, published in 1821, would inspire Herman Melville to write Moby-Dick. (Summary from Wikipedia)

"The Challenge of Waste" examines the wasteful nature of the competitive market system, particularly from a Veblenian point of view. He also praises World War I era planning by the Fuel Administration and other government wartime agencies. (Summary by progressingamerica)

"I fell an easy prey to the beckonings of the other principal feature of California's topography, the dreamy, dreary desert. Long ago, on short expeditions into and across it at various points, I had fallen under its inexplicable charm; now I determined to know it more closely, by daily and nightly intercourse through months of travel in its sun-blasted solitudes: gaining the experience I desired at the price, certainly, of some discomfort, and, possibly, of a trifling degree of danger — merely enough for spice. This volume, then, is the fruit of over two years continuous camping and traveling on the desert." (From the Preface) - Summary by Steven Seitel