Social cognition is the study of how people make sense of other people and themselves. As an area of study, social cognition relates directly to the study of attitudes, persuasion, stereotyping, and small group behavior. Political cognition, a subset of social cognition, is the study of how people make sense of the political world.

Political cognition research arose out of discontent with attitudinal studies of political behavior in the 1970s. Early studies in political cognition made wide use of schema theory (a schema can be thought of as a mental structure that represents some aspect of the world). One widely adopted schematic model of political cognition argued that people made sense of the political world by using pyramidal classification systems in which “big picture” ideas, such as liberalism or conservatism, were most influential in the evaluation of a political object, while “smaller” ideas, such as general feelings toward a group, candidate, or policy, refined attitudes. Further, this research argued that one could operate with several schemas that were not tightly connected. The nature of the stimulus object could direct an individual to use one schema or another in order to make sense of the object.

As the body of research grew, scholars were forced to move beyond schema theory in order to make meaningful advances in our understanding of social and political cognition. Memory-based models and online models of political cognition grew to popularity because of their ability to account for irregularities in individuals’ expressed attitudes. Memory-based models posit that, when asked to express an opinion, individuals scan their memory banks for relevant information, then integrate the given information to form an opinion. Because people cannot possibly remember all relevant pieces of information, a theory developed that argued people sampled only relevant information. Opinions seem inconsistent to the extent that different pieces of information are salient, and sampled, at different times.

Online models, unlike memory-based models, argue that people do not remember each piece of information. Rather, people evaluate a given piece of information as it pertains to a political object, decide whether it supports or opposes their current opinions, and update their opinions accordingly. Upon updating their tally, people may then forget specifics regarding processed information. Online models allow for both opinion change and for meaningful opinions to exist even though it may be the case that people cannot explicate why they feel the way they do about a given topic.

It is not clear which type of model, online or memory based, provides the most accurate description of how people think about politics. On one hand, research suggests that political sophisticates tend to engage in online processing while those with less political sophistication tend to use memory based processing. Further, it may be the case that people use different methods of processing information to analyze different political objects. For example, studies indicate people use online processing for candidate evaluation and memory-based processing for survey response.

Recent research considers the impact of values, elite behavior, institutions, social identities, and social networks on political cognition. While it is clear that research has made considerable strides in understanding peoples’ thought processes, there is still much to be discovered.

Bibliography:

Conover, Pamela Johnston, and Stanley Feldman. “How People Organize the Political World: A Schematic Model.” American Journal of Political Science 28 (1984): 95–126.
Fiske, Susan T., and Shelley E.Taylor. Social Cognition, 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1991.
Lewis-Beck, Michael S.,William G. Jacoby, Helmut Norpoth, and Herbert F.Weisberg. The American Voter Revisited. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2008.
Lodge, Milton, Marco R. Steenbergen, and Shawn Brau. “The Responsive Voter: Campaign Information and the Dynamics of Candidate Evaluation.” American Political Science Review 89 (1995): 309–326.
Zaller, John R. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinions. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992.

Social Capital

Why do some communities function well, while others do not? The concept of social capital recently flourished in political and social sciences, because it provides an explanation for prosperous and democratic social development.

The definition of social capital is somewhat ambiguous, but an accepted definition is that it is the connections among individuals, the social networks and norms of reciprocity and trust that arise from them. It is sometimes referred to as the glue that holds society together and related to social cohesion in general. We might ask: Why use the term capital? It is used frequently in social science to refer to properties that can be reproduced or augmented and represent an investment of some kind. Hence, social capital, like financial capital or human capital, represents a resource, in this case one held by social groups or within social networks. Social capital offers access to resources and valued collective outcomes that would be unattainable or too costly for individuals to access. An example would be that of blood donation, whereby individuals freely donate their blood, which then becomes a collective asset for the community.

The three main proponents of the term bring us slightly different definitions and functions of social capital. Pierre Bourdieu (1986) argued that social capital was a resource that people could draw on in their social networks. He identified a range of capitals (cultural, symbolic, economic) that formed part of an individual’s resources. However, he was concerned with how these resources were used to maintain systems of inequality and exclusion rather than to promote the public good.

James Coleman (1988), on the other hand, used social capital to explain why some children were less likely to drop out of school—the relationship between human and social capital. In his analysis, public participation and social networks reinforced social norms of achievement in families and communities.

Robert Putnam and colleagues (1993) carried out the most comprehensive survey of social capital, using the term to explain the differences in development between northern and southern Italy. He argued that it was the tradition of civic associations in northern Italy that had helped it become more democratic and prosperous than the south. Putnam (2000) went on to apply these ideas to the United States, arguing that social capital had declined in that country due to generational changes, increased labor force participation, passive entertainment such as watching TV, and urban sprawl.

Components

The components of social capital that emerge from these different perspectives include social resources provided through civic participation, social networks, and the social trust that is built up from these activities. Civic participation is measured often in terms of membership and participation in voluntary associations, although this does not entirely capture social capital. For example, public engagement can take place without joining associations. It is easy enough to simply subscribe to an association, but Putnam, for example, argues that social capital can only be built by face-to-face activity, so subscriptions are not enough.

Social networks are more difficult to measure, but Nan Lin (2001) assesses the role of social networks in building social capital. He argues that they are based on ongoing reciprocal relationships that can be used by individuals to promote their own goals and that they help to secure reputations. Like economic capital, they can form a basis of exchange and reciprocity. They also can form a source of economic capital in situations where people cannot turn to banks (for example, in migrant communities). However, this individualistic and instrumental view of social networks is contested by those who argue that the reason that social capital leads to good social relationships is because they are based on altruistic ties of friendship or contribution to the community, which is in itself a social resource.

Social networks operate in different ways, and some have argued that loose social networks are more useful than tight social networks for getting a job, for example. This has lead Putnam to identify two types of social capital: bridging social capital that links disparate social groups and bonding social capital based on dense and close ties among smaller groups. Woolcock (1998) has introduced the idea of linking social capital, which brings together social groups not normally in touch with each other, such as across religious divides. While bridging social capital can be good for creating social cohesion, bonding social capital helps to build up the dense networks of trust and reciprocity. However, it has the danger of becoming exclusionary and monopolizing resources, as in the example of mafia-type organizations based on strong internal loyalty. Too much bonding social capital also can be destructive for social development.

Trust is both an outcome and a component of social capital because without trust, social networks cannot operate. While trust may be seen in a purely personal dimension, social capital is measured often in terms of social trust with people responding to the question as to whether other people can generally be trusted. High trust societies tend to be high in social capital because economic and political institutions are based on shared norms.

The Future Of Social Capital

Has social capital recently declined? Putnam (2000) marshals impressive evidence that it has declined in the United States and that this poses a threat to the development of American society. In Europe it is possible that social capital may have declined due to the ongoing shrinkage in trade union and church membership as well as for similar reasons as in the United States. However, recent empirical analysis suggests that membership of civic associations has remained stable in Europe (even if it remains low in southern and eastern Europe) and that social trust has actually increased in recent decades. Social networks are thriving in some countries, especially those with strong welfare states, but take different forms in different regions. For example, in southern Europe family networks may be more important as a source of social cohesion than in the north.

Many have argued that in the era of electronic communications and the network society, people are less inclined to join organizations in the traditional way or to meet their friends face-to-face. Instead there has been an explosion of electronic networking activities as well as electronic mobilization, for example, through support of various causes, calls for participation, or petitions. Electronic communications have collapsed the space between the public and their leaders, as well as created new arenas for public debate. Therefore, the nature of social capital has changed also, but there is no agreement as to whether electronic communications have actually replaced the kinds of social capital described earlier.

Social capital is seen has having many benefits for the society, and various researchers have claimed that it is associated with economic growth, more democracy, less crime, better health, better educational performance, getting a job, and a better welfare state. For this reason it has been of great interest to policy makers, and the World Bank has been a champion of the promotion of social capital in international development. Other international organizations and national and local governments have applied these ideas in a variety of ways. Social capital is seen as a tool for building a well-functioning community.

Bibliography:

Bourdieu, Pierce. “Forms of Capital.” In Handbook of Theory and Research in the Sociology of Education, edited by John G. Richardson, 241–258. New York, Greenwood, 1986.
Coleman, James. “Social Capital and the Creation of Human Capital.” American Journal of Sociology 94, suppl. (1988): 94–120.
Field, John. Social Capital. London: Routledge, 2003.
Fukuyama, Francis. Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity. London: Penguin, 1995.
Granovetter, Mark. Getting a Job: A Study of Contacts and Careers. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1974.
Halpern, David. Social Capital. Cambridge, U.K.: Polity, 2005.
Knack, Stephan, and Philip Keefer. “Does Social Capital Have an Economic Payoff? A Cross Country Investigation.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 112 (1997): 1251–1288.
Lin, Nan. Social Capital. A Theory of Social Structure and Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.
Pahl, Ray E. On Friendship. Cambridge, U.K.: Polity, 2000.
Pichler, Florian, and Claire Wallace. “Patterns of Formal and Informal Social Capital in Europe.” European Sociological Review 23, no. 4 (2007): 423–436.
Portes, Alejandro. “Social Capital: Its Origins and Applications in Modern Sociology.” Annual Review of Sociology 22 (1998): 1–24.
Putnam, Robert D. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2000.
Putnam, Robert D., Robert Leonardi, and Raffaella Y. Nanetti. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton, N.J.: University of Princeton Press, 1993.
Woolcock, Michael. “Social Capital and Economic Development:Towards a Theoretical Synthesis and Policy Framework.” Theory and Society 27, no. 2 (1998): 151–208.

This example Social And Political Cognition Essay is published for educational and informational purposes only. If you need a custom essay or research paper on this topic please use our writing services. EssayEmpire.com offers reliable custom essay writing services that can help you to receive high grades and impress your professors with the quality of each essay or research paper you hand in.