Please wait a minute...
   2011, Vol. 19 Issue (11) : 1713-1720     DOI:
研究前沿 |
A Review of Debates within Political Psychology


School of International Relations and Diplomacy, Beijing Foreign Studies University, Beijing 100089, China
Download: PDF(156 KB)  
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks    
Abstract  Bringing together political science and psychological science, Political Psychology has long been a source of interdisciplinary advances. Issues of debate in the history of Political Psychology theory include the relationship between rationality and the variables proposed by political psychology, the domain paradigm of Political Psychology or the decentralization problem, the selection problems of dispositionism and situationism, the balance problem of balance between political and psychological approaches, and the problem of how cultural variables influence variables of interest to political psychology. This author discusses in detail the controversies above and further gives a brief introduction to the cultural approach of Chinese political psychology research, such as focusing on cultural difference and the relationship between culture and rationality.
Keywords Political Psychology      rationality      situationism      Psychological Political Science      culture studies     
Corresponding Authors: YIN Ji-Wu   
Issue Date: 15 November 2011
E-mail this article
E-mail Alert
Articles by authors
Cite this article:   
YIN Ji-Wu. A Review of Debates within Political Psychology[J]. , 2011, 19(11): 1713-1720.
URL:     OR
[1] LIU Chenghao; XU Fuming; WANG Wei; LI Yan; SHI Yanwei. Conjunction Fallacy in Probability Judgment[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2015, 23(6): 967-978.
[2] Roni Setton; Evan Wilhelms; Becky Weldon; Christina Chick; Valerie Reyna. An Overview of Judgment and Decision Making Research Through the Lens of Fuzzy Trace Theory[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2014, 22(12): 1837-1854.
[3] ZHU Dongqing;XIE Xiaofei. Which One Is Better, Maximizing or Satisficing?[J]. Advances in Psychological Science, 2013, 21(2): 309-316.
[4] HU Jin-Sheng;YE Chun;LI Xu;GAO Ting-Ting. “Irrationality” in Justice Judgment: Processing Mechanisms, Main Forms and Influencing Factors[J]. , 2012, 20(5): 726-734.
[5] LIU Yong-Fang. Fast and Frugal Heuristics: The Related Debates and Brief Comments[J]. , 2009, 17(05): 885-892.

WU Sheng-Tao;WANG Li;ZHOU Ming-Jie;WANG Wen-Zhong;ZHANG Jian-Xin

. Belief in A Just World and Subjective Well-Being:
Comparing Disaster Sites with Normal Areas
[J]. , 2009, 17(03): 579-587.
[7] Bi Yanling;Li Shu. A Comparison between Two Models of Bounded Rationality: Equate-to-Differentiate and Priority Heuristic Approaches[J]. , 2007, 15(04): 682-688.
[8] Song Shengzun,Fu Xiaolan. Theoretical Models and Research Methods of Criminal Decision-Making[J]. , 2005, 13(01): 107-118.
[9] Zhuang Jinying. A Review on Ecological Rationality of Emotion[J]. , 2004, 12(06): 809-809~816.
[10] Xie Xiaofei,Zheng Rui. Risk Communication and Public Rationality[J]. , 2003, 11(04): 375-381.
[11] Huangfu Gang,Zhu Liqi. Vernon Smith’s Experimental Economics and Its Implication to Psychology[J]. , 2003, 11(03): 243-248.
Full text



Copyright © Advances in Psychological Science
Support by Beijing Magtech