No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Dalton and Putnam: Teaching Political Polarization to Generation Z Students
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 14 May 2021
Abstract
Political polarization and generational politics are important topics in contemporary political science classrooms. This article presents an approach to teaching political polarization in an introduction to politics course. Coauthored by two Generation Z students from the course and their Boomer Generation professor, the article provides conflicting views of young people and politics as found in the work of Robert Putnam and Russell Dalton. The article presents survey data on affective and issue political polarization from the course, including discussion by the two student coauthors of the survey results interpreting their generation’s political polarization. The course approaches the introductory politics course using cognitive psychology concepts including confirmative bias, motivated reasoning, and other cognitive biases. Teaching from this micro-level perspective helps students to reflect on their own political biases. The article provides concepts and readings for political science professors to use in replicating the course.
- Type
- Article
- Information
- Copyright
- © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the American Political Science Association
References
REFERENCES
Abramowitz, Alan I., and Webster, Steven W.. 2018. “Negative Partisanship: Why Americans Dislike Parties but Behave Like Rabid Partisans.” Political Psychology 39:119–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andris, Clio, Lee, David, Hamilton, Marcus J., Martino, Mauro, Gunning, Christian E., and Selden, John Armistead. 2015. “The Rise of Partisanship and Super-Cooperators in the US House of Representatives.” PLOS ONE 10 (4): e0123507. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0123507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, W. Lance, and Livingston, Steven. 2018. “The Disinformation Order: Disruptive Communication and the Decline of Democratic Institutions.” European Journal of Communication 33 (2): 122–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Center for Policy Attitudes. 2014. “A Not So Divided America.” Program for Public Consultation: A Joint Program of the Center for Policy Attitudes and the School of Public Policy at the University of Maryland. http://vop.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Red-Blue-Report.pdf.Google Scholar
Dalton, Russell J. 2015. The Good Citizen: How a Younger Generation Is Reshaping American Politics. Los Angeles: CQ Press.Google Scholar
Eyler, Joshua. 2018. How Humans Learn: The Science and Stories Behind Effective College Teaching. Morgantown: West Virginia University Press.Google Scholar
Festinger, Leon. 1957. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (Vol. 2). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris. P. 2016. “Party Sorting and Democratic Politics.” Contemporary American Politics. www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/research/docs/fiorina_party_sorting_and_democratic_politics_4.pdf.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P. 2018. “Polarization Is Not the Problem.” Stanford Magazine, May 2. https://medium.com/stanford-magazine/morris-fiorina-stanford-polarization-is-not-the-problem-cbb411a57a67.Google Scholar
Grieco, Elizabeth. 2020. “Americans’ Main Source for Political News Vary by Party and Age.” Pew Research Center, April 1. www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/04/01/americans-main-sources-for-political-news-vary-by-party-and-age.Google Scholar
Huddy, Leone, Mason, Lilliana, and Aarøe, Lene. 2015. “Expressive Partisanship: Campaign Involvement, Political Emotion, and Partisan Identity.” American Political Science Review 109 (1): 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, Michael D., and McBeth, Mark K.. 2010. “A Narrative Policy Framework: Clear Enough to Be Wrong?” Policy Studies Journal 38 (2): 329–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahan, Daniel M., Jenkins-Smith, Hank, and Braman, Donald. 2011. “Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus.” Journal of Risk Research 14:1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mariani, Mark D., and Hewitt, Gordon J.. 2008. “Indoctrination U.? Faculty Ideology and Changes in Student Political Orientation.” PS: Political Science & Politics 41 (4): 773–83.Google Scholar
Mason, Lilianna. 2015. “‘I Disrespectfully Agree’: The Differential Effects of Partisan Sorting on Social and Issue Polarization.” American Journal of Political Science 59 (1): 128–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McBeth, Mark. 2021. “Replication Data for: Dalton and Putnam: Teaching Political Polarization to Generation Z Students.” https://dataverse.harvard.edu/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.7910/DVN/0WRY9Q.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McBeth, Mark K., and Pearsall, Chadwick A.. 2019. “Using the Narrative Policy Framework in the Teaching of Introduction to Politics.” Journal of Political Science Education, first published October 24. https://doi.org/10.1080/15512169.2019.1682594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nowak, Martin A., Page, Karen M., and Sigmund, Karl. 2000. “Fairness versus Reason in the Ultimatum Game.” Science 289 (5485): 1773–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pariser, Eli. 2011. The Filter Bubble: How the New Personalized Web Is Changing What We Read and How We Think. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Parker, Kim, and Igielnik, Ruth. 2020. “On the Cusp of Adulthood and Facing an Uncertain Future: What We Know About Gen Z So Far.” Pew Research Center, May 14. www.pewsocialtrends.org/essay/on-the-cusp-of-adulthood-and-facing-an-uncertain-future-what-we-know-about-gen-z-so-far.Google Scholar
Center, Pew Research. 2014. “Political Polarization in the American Public.” www.pewresearch.org/politics/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public.Google Scholar
Phua, Joe, Jin, Seunga Venus, and Kim, Jeehon (Jay). 2017. “Uses and Gratifications of Social Networking Sites for Bridging and Bonding Social Capital: A Comparison of Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Snapchat.” Computers in Human Behavior 72:115–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Putnam, Robert D. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Taber, Charles S., and Lodge, Martin. 2006. “Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs.” American Journal of Political Science 50 (3): 755–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tucker, Joshua A., Theocharis, Yannis, Roberts, Margaret E., and Barberá, Pablo. 2017. “From Liberation to Turmoil: Social Media and Democracy.” Journal of Democracy 28 (4): 46–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyson, Alex, and Maniam, Shiva. 2016. “Behind Trump’s Victory: Divisions by Race, Gender, Education.” Pew Research Center. www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/behind-trumps-victory-divisions-by-race-gender-education.Google Scholar
Westen, Drew. 2008. The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation. Philadelphia: Public Affairs.Google Scholar
Williams, Dmitri. 2006. “On and Off the Net: Scales for Social Capital in an Online Era.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 11 (2): 593–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woessner, Matthew, and Kelly-Woessner, April. 2009. “I Think My Professor Is a Democrat: Considering Whether Students Recognize and React to Faculty Politics.” PS: Political Science & Politics 42 (2): 343–52.Google Scholar
Woessner, Matthew, and Kelly-Woessner, April. 2020. “Why College Students Drift Left: The Stability of Political Identity and Relative Malleability of Issue Positions Among College Students.” PS: Political Science & Politics 53 (4): 657–64.Google Scholar