Loading field map
Why do people vote the way they do? Why do some citizens participate in protests while others stay home? Why do party loyalties form, shift, or persist across a lifetime? These questions define the subfield of political behavior, which studies the psychological, social, and rational foundations of individual and group political action. Since the 1940s, researchers have built and contested a series of frameworks to answer them, each responding to the limitations of its predecessors and each leaving a lasting imprint on how political scientists collect data, test theories, and interpret results.
The first systematic effort to study political behavior empirically emerged from Columbia University in the 1940s. The Columbia School, led by Paul Lazarsfeld and Bernard Berelson, used panel surveys—repeated interviews with the same voters over time—to track how people made electoral decisions. Their landmark study, The People's Choice (1944), showed that voting was shaped less by individual deliberation than by social context: class, religion, and the political leanings of friends and family. The Columbia School treated voters as embedded in social networks, and its methods—especially the panel design—became a template for later survey research.
At roughly the same time, a broader movement called Behavioralism swept through political science. Behavioralism was not a single theory but a meta-framework demanding that the discipline study observable behavior, use quantitative methods, separate facts from values, and emulate the natural sciences. In political behavior specifically, Behavioralism meant that researchers should measure attitudes and actions directly rather than rely on legal or institutional descriptions. The Columbia School was an early expression of this behavioral impulse, but Behavioralism extended far beyond voting studies, reshaping the entire discipline. The two frameworks coexisted during the 1940s and 1950s: Columbia provided concrete survey techniques, while Behavioralism supplied the scientific justification for using them.
By the 1950s, a new group at the University of Michigan—the Michigan School—offered a different answer to the same question. Where Columbia emphasized short-term social influences, the Michigan School argued that voters carry a long-term psychological attachment to a political party, which they called party identification. This attachment, formed early in life and reinforced over time, acted as a perceptual screen through which voters interpreted candidates and issues. The Michigan School’s The American Voter (1960) became the canonical text of the subfield, and its concept of party identification dominated research for decades.
The Michigan School absorbed Columbia’s survey methods—indeed, it used the same panel and cross-sectional techniques—but rejected Columbia’s emphasis on social context as the primary driver. Instead, it placed psychological identity at the center. This shift had profound consequences: it made the individual voter, rather than the social group, the unit of analysis, and it treated political behavior as a stable, enduring orientation rather than a series of context-dependent choices. For a time, the Michigan framework seemed to explain everything from voting to partisan change, and it became the default paradigm for political behavior research.
No sooner had the Michigan School established its dominance than cracks began to appear. Political Psychology emerged partly as an internal critique of Michigan’s stability claims. If party identification were truly a stable attachment, why did voters sometimes change their minds? Why did some people hold inconsistent attitudes? Political psychologists opened the black box of the individual mind, introducing cognitive mechanisms (such as information processing and motivated reasoning) and personality traits (such as authoritarianism and the Big Five). They argued that political behavior was not simply a reflection of party loyalty but a product of deeper psychological processes that could shift with context. The founding of the journal Political Behavior in 1979 institutionalized this approach, and experimental methods—including laboratory studies and survey experiments—became its hallmark.
At about the same time, Rational Choice Theory offered a different kind of challenge. Drawing on economics, rational choice theorists modeled political actors as utility-maximizers who weigh costs and benefits before acting. This deductive approach stood in sharp contrast to the inductive, survey-driven tradition of Columbia, Behavioralism, and Michigan. One of its most striking findings was the paradox of turnout: if voting is costly and a single vote almost never decides an election, why do so many people bother to vote? Rational choice theorists also reinterpreted party identification as a “running tally” of retrospective evaluations rather than a deep psychological bond. By the 1980s, rational choice had become a major framework in its own right, coexisting uneasily with the psychological tradition.
Since the early 2000s, a new wave of research—often called the Behavioral Turn—has extended the micro-level project even further. Drawing on behavioral economics, neuroscience, and genetics, this framework asks whether political behavior has biological roots. Twin studies suggest that political attitudes are partly heritable; fMRI scans show that partisan reasoning activates emotional brain regions; hormonal influences (such as testosterone and cortisol) have been linked to political aggression and risk-taking. The Behavioral Turn does not replace Political Psychology so much as extend it: both focus on individual-level mechanisms, but the Behavioral Turn adds biological and neurological layers that earlier psychological approaches lacked.
Today, three frameworks remain active: Political Psychology, Rational Choice Theory, and the Behavioral Turn. They agree on several fundamentals: political behavior must be studied systematically with empirical methods; individual-level variation matters; and no single factor—social, psychological, or rational—tells the whole story. But they disagree sharply on the fundamental drivers of behavior. Political psychologists emphasize cognition and personality; rational choice theorists insist on utility maximization; behavioral-turn researchers point to biology and evolution. These disagreements are productive, pushing each framework to refine its models and methods. Meanwhile, the earlier schools—Columbia and Michigan—have not disappeared. Their concepts (social networks, party identification) remain essential tools, and their survey techniques are still the backbone of public opinion research. The history of political behavior is not a story of one framework triumphing over others but of a field that has grown richer by continually asking what drives the political animal.