PSY 278: Psychology of Ideology (Fall 2025)

1 Course Details

Professor Joshua Rottman; Office: LSP 132D; Phone: (717)358-4874; Email: jrottman@fandm.edu
Class Meetings: Mondays and Wednesdays from 3:00–4:20, LSP 138
Office Hours: Tuesdays from 2:00–3:30, Wednesdays from 11:00–12:30, and by appointment

2 Course Description

How do we form and maintain our belief systems? What would it take to change our minds about religion, politics, or morality? This discussion-based course will draw from a wide range of empirical research to illuminate how commitments to particular values and identities shape ideological thinking. We will investigate the sources of dogmatism and belief polarization, and we will explore how cognitive science can help us escape from echo chambers.

3 Course Objectives

As an inevitable consumer of ideological information, this class will provide you with tools to capably evaluate the claims you encounter in the media and in your daily conversations, as well as to knowledgably utilize scientific findings to gain insight into some of your own thoughts, values, identities, and actions.

I expect that you will achieve the following outcomes by the end of this course (provided regular class attendance, active participation in class discussions, and the completion of all assignments), as designated by the requirements of Natural Science in Perspective (NSiP) classes:

Recognize the scope and limits of psychological science in being able to address questions about ideological thinking.
Understand the criteria for acceptable evidence in psychology and the role of this evidence in developing and testing psychological theories in the investigation of ideological thought and behavior.
Evaluate the validity and certainty of established theories in the psychological literature and the accuracy of recounted findings in the popular press.
Synthesize psychological literature in grappling with uncertainties, applying evidence to real-world situations, and formulating stances on relevant debates.

4 Grading

The modern grading system is problematic on many fronts. Grades detract from intrinsic motivations to learn, promote anxiety, and do not foster intellectual growth. Therefore, I will not assign letter grades on any of your work. Instead, I will provide you with extensive qualitative feedback on your work. This approach is meant to foster a focus on learning rather than on assessment, to empower you to evaluate your own progress rather than having it evaluated for you, and to foster your sense of accountability and your metacognitive ability to accurately reflect on your academic strengths and weaknesses.

Unfortunately, I am required to submit a letter grade to the College at the end of the semester. This leads to a dilemma. On the one hand, while I do not wish to assign or discuss grades, I greatly value transparency and I do not want to keep you guessing about your grade throughout the semester and risk eventually assigning something that you feel is unfair. On the other hand, I greatly value accuracy and I want to ensure that your final grade appropriately reflects your learning and achievements during the semester. My solution to this dilemma is to empower you to determine your own grade, with the important caveat that I reserve the right to override your determination if I think there is sufficient evidence indicating that it is not an earnest reflection of your accomplishments during the semester. I anticipate that such cases will be rare, and I will not supplant your grade before having a substantial conversation with you to understand the reasons for our discrepancies.

In order to provide you with the tools to assign yourself a grade that is suitably calibrated to your actual performance and efforts, I will require you to continually and thoroughly evaluate your work in a narrative format.

5 Course Requirements

5.1 Self-Evaluation

Your self-evaluation is designed for you to consistently assess your intellectual progress and performance in this course. This should be written in a Google Doc that is shared with me and which you update at least once per week. Otherwise, there is no recommended word count or format. Please take the space that you need, while aiming to balance being comprehensive and being concise. I will periodically comment on this throughout the semester, especially if I need more detailed information or if our perceptions are mismatched.

As we near the end of the semester, you should assign a final letter grade to yourself on the basis of a sincere appraisal of how well you have met the course expectations, providing me with clear reasons and specific evidence for your determinations. (You should also continue to reassess and update this grade until the final exam period has ended.) Your final grade should be determined in accordance with your achievements in each of the categories on the Criteria for Assessment listed below, with each of the three broad assessment criteria weighted equally. Thus, you should attend to the overall distribution of the italicized adjectives, with “reliably” and “exceptional” corresponding to an A, “often” and “strong” corresponding to a B, “occasionally” and “adequate” corresponding to a C, and “never” and “weak” corresponding to a D. Failing grades will result from not meeting the basic course requirements (e.g., through excessive absences or missing assignments), or from engaging in clear academic misconduct.

If I have concerns about your self-evaluation (e.g., if I believe your reflections are not accurately calibrated to your performance, or if your reflections are not sufficiently thorough), I will schedule a one-on-one meeting during class time on October 15th and/or during the end of the final exam period. I also encourage you to set up additional meetings with me to discuss your performance and/or to set goals for the semester.

5.2 Weekly Discussion Posts

By 11:59pm each Sunday (with the exceptions of Week 1 and Week 8), you are required to submit four questions about the set of assigned readings for the upcoming pair of classes, which should be posted in the appropriate discussion forum on Canvas. One of these can be a clarification question, but at least three should be aimed at fueling a sophisticated discussion for which there is no clear answer provided in the texts, thus indicating a careful and critical interrogation of the material (e.g., by raising contradictions or agreements between different readings, critiquing methods or conclusions, and/or asking about implications of the research). If a question relates to a particular passage, please include the page number from the reading. Please ensure that your questions span across both assigned readings for the week. (Note that these discussion posts will be viewable by your classmates. If you ever feel uncomfortable with posting a response publicly, you may instead submit it to me via email.)

5.3 Grappling with Expert Disagreements

In Weeks 3 and 4, we will be reading “target articles” (Hibbing et al., 2014 and Pinsof et al., 2023), which each were published alongside a series of short commentaries written by other experts in the field. In many cases, these commentaries indicate the existence of disagreements.

By October 1 at 11:59pm, you should read at least three commentaries on whichever paper you would like, and submit a 1,000-word reflection that highlights and attempts to reconcile the different viewpoints expressed across the target article and these commentaries. You should additionally write 500 words reflecting on what you learned from this exercise.

5.4 Passion Project (Media Matters, Intervening on Ideology, or an Alternative Avenue)

You should create a recording (similar to a podcast episode or YouTube video), paper, or other product that thoroughly applies central insights from the course. Two possible ideas for accomplishing this are below; you are more than welcome to submit other proposals for my approval!

Identify a series of television clips, news articles, blogs, or any other secondary sources that describe psychological research or that presume certain psychological tendencies. You should then compare these media sources to primary sources in which the experimental data were published. What is the relationship between how the work is presented in the media and how the work is presented in the original papers? In your project, you should think through what the journalists did well and what they could have improved upon, and attempt to produce an improved set of products for media consumption.
Design an evidence-based solution for overcoming ideological thinking, relying heavily upon information from the assigned readings. This intervention might aim to (a) reduce misconceptions and/or biased thinking (for example, by attenuating trust in misinformation or overcoming motivated reasoning), (b) encourage constructive dialogue across ideological boundaries (for example, by reducing affective polarization), and/or (c) intervene on systemic factors that inflame partisanship (for example, by changing how people interact with social media). You should precisely detail how your intervention could be implemented and provide a well-formulated argument for why your solution is better than various alternatives.

This project is expected to be a substantial endeavor that takes a minimum of 15 hours to create, and which integrates insights from at least 10 assigned articles and three additional sources that you identify. You will briefly present a “teaser”/preview of this product during the final exam period.

Please feel free to be creative. If you would like to work in a team, you can produce twice the amount of work and share this workload evenly.

In order to ensure that you are keeping yourself on track for this assignment, you will be required to submit an initial proposal on October 15th and a draft or substantial outline on November 19th.

6 Criteria for Self-Assessment

The following rubric should be used in determining your final grade. You should also consult this rubric when composing your ongoing self-evaluative comments.

(1) You reliably/often/occasionally/never demonstrate active engagement, as evidenced by the extent to which each of the following statements is accurate:

You arrive punctually to class sessions, and you consistently remain present and engaged (undistracted by technology or side conversations) while enthusiastically contributing to a respectful classroom culture.
You advance the depth of class discussions, by asking thoughtful questions to illuminate difficult content, by critically examining relevant assumptions and perspectives, by contributing your own insights to build on others’ claims, and by synthesizing ideas across readings and discussions.
You cite appropriate evidence and arguments from the readings in the majority of your contributions to class discussion, rather than relying upon intuitions or anecdotes.
You strive for intellectual growth and consistently challenge yourself (for example, by seeking out clarification on points of confusion, both during and outside of class).

(2) You reliably/often/occasionally/never post excellent weekly discussion questions and an insightful commentary on expert disagreements, as evidenced by the extent to which each of the following statements is accurate:

Your weekly discussion questions consistently facilitate comparison, synthesis, and/or evaluation, thus promising to provoke new insights and to spark a productive class discussion.
Your weekly discussion questions draw upon elements of both assigned readings, providing clear evidence that you substantially engaged in completing the full set of readings.
Your weekly discussion questions show improvement throughout the semester, showing earnest responsiveness to feedback.
Your reflection of the commentaries on your chosen target article demonstrates careful thought and hard work, and it identifies a way of thinking about the target article that moves beyond ideas discussed during class.

(3) You produce a(n) exceptional/strong/adequate/weak “passion project”, as evidenced by the extent to which each of the following statements is accurate: - You craft a polished final product that relies upon substantial evidence from a wide range of readings. - Your product displays sophisticated considerations of theoretical and practical issues, and a strong grasp of all material being discussed. - You use your project as a vehicle for undergoing an intellectual transformation, such that working on your project allows you to approach familiar phenomena from radically new vantage points and to question previously unquestioned assumptions - You deliver a strong presentation during the final exam period, which displays evidence of significant preparation and practice, and for which you provide insightful answers to questions.

7 Course Policies and Tips for Success

7.1 Academic Accommodations

I strive to provide an environment that is equitable and conducive to achievement and learning for all students. As such, I invite you to speak with me about your individual learning needs so we can discuss how this course can best accommodate them. In addition, formal academic accommodations are available for students who require them. Please meet with me during the first week of class to discuss any accommodations for this course that have been supported by appropriate documentation and approved by the Office of Student Accessibility Services. I will keep all information confidential.

7.2 Academic Integrity

You risk severe academic and disciplinary consequences if you do not uphold priniciples of academic integrity. I urge you to be especially careful to avoid plagiarism (i.e., representing someone else’s work as your own). Please note that, in scientific work, you must provide citations to denote credit for any idea (not merely verbatim text). If a classmate or a published paper contributes an idea you want to integrate into your work, or if you use generative AI to refine your writing or ideas, you must clearly denote credit. Penalties for acts of academic dishonesty (including submitting text produced by generative AI or a teammate without properly assigning credit) will be carefully assessed on a case-by-case basis, and may include receiving a failing grade in the course or expulsion from F&M (or, in most cases, needing to redo an assignment). Please refer to the Franklin & Marshall College Catalog for additional details.

7.3 Policy on Electronic Devices

To maximize your success and minimize the possibility for distractions, I encourage you to use electronic devices only when they directly facilitate your learning (e.g., for notetaking or for consulting PDFs of assigned readings). I will sometimes ask you to put away electronic devices during discussions. If you have compelling reasons for using a laptop or other device more often, particularly if official accommodations have been arranged, please speak with me privately at the beginning of the semester.

7.4 Policies on Attendance and Late/Missing Assignments

It is your responsibility to come to each class on time, prepared to learn and discuss; failing to do this will hinder your success in the course. You are also responsible for submitting your best work for every assignment, and to submit each assignment by the deadline (which will facilitate me in returning feedback within two weeks). However, I understand that life can sometimes get in the way of upholding these responsibilities in all instances. Therefore, I will award you three “tokens” that you can use for missing a class session or for obtaining a 24-hour extension on an assignment.

You do not need to inform me when you are using a token; instead, you should document these yourself and account for their usage in your self-narrative. In some cases, I may offer opportunities to obtain extra tokens (e.g., by attending outside events or by making particularly excellent contributions during class discussions). In fact, I have hidden an Easter egg here: the first person who sends me an email with a picture of a cute animal will earn an extra token. If you use more than the allotted number of tokens, your final grade will be adjusted downward accordingly (at a rate of 2% per token, or one full letter grade for each five tokens).

7.5 Support for Achieving Excellence

This course will be challenging. You will be expected to consistently keep up with the readings and to assimilate a lot of difficult material. This will often require spreading readings across several days preceding each week and re-reading some material after classes. I am here to help you succeed, and I urge you to come chat with me often. I will be available to meet during my office hours, by appointment, and anytime when my office door is open. I strongly encourage you to take advantage of this, particularly in cases when you need further clarity on an assignment or when course material has made you uncomfortable in any way. While mild discomfort is often a positive indication of personal and intellectual growth, please come speak to me immediately if you experience (or anticipate experiencing) any form of distress. If any issues arise that have the potential to interfere with your success in the course, please be in touch with me as soon as possible. I value open communication, and I invite you to be frank with me. Your fellow students can also be great resources; reaching out to them can be a fun and collaborative way to learn. Additionally, please feel free to take advantage of the many other resources that F&M has to offer!

In general, email is the best way to reach me; I strive to respond within 24 hours. I also convey most announcements via email; please be sure to stay on top of your inbox and read all emails fully.

8 Semester Schedule

Components of this schedule are subject to change. All assigned readings should be completed before the week for which they are assigned.

Date	Topic	Assigned Readings
Part 1: What causes us to disagree? The roots of general ideological tendencies
Week 1: Aug. 25 & Aug. 27	Overview of the course	(1) Syllabus
Week 2: Sept. 1 & Sept. 3	Causes and consequences of ideology	(1) Zmigrod, L. (2022). A psychology of ideology: Unpacking the psychological structure of ideological thinking. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(4), 1072–1092.
Week 2: Sept. 1 & Sept. 3	Causes and consequences of ideology	(2) Crawford, J. T., & Brandt, M. J. (2020). Ideological (a)symmetries in prejudice and intergroup bias. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 34, 40–45.
Week 3: Sept. 8 & Sept. 10	Deep roots of liberalism and conservatism	(1) Hatemi, P. K., & McDermott, R. (2012). The genetics of politics: Discovery, challenges, and progress. Trends in Genetics, 28(10), 525–533.
Week 3: Sept. 8 & Sept. 10	Deep roots of liberalism and conservatism	(2) Hibbing, J. R., et al. (2014). Differences in negativity bias underlie variations in political ideology. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 37(3), 297–307.
Week 4: Sept. 15 & Sept. 17	Ideological coalitions as drivers of beliefs	(1) Van Bavel, J. J., & Pereira, A. (2018). The partisan brain: An identity-based model of political belief. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22(3), 213–224.
Week 4: Sept. 15 & Sept. 17	Ideological coalitions as drivers of beliefs	(2) Pinsof, D., et al. (2023). Strange bedfellows: The alliance theory of political belief systems. Psychological Inquiry, 34(3), 139–160.
Week 5: Sept. 22 & Sept. 24	Is partisan bias irrational?	(1) Ditto, P. H., et al. (2025). Partisan bias in political judgment. Annual Review of Psychology, 76 (1), 717–740.
Week 5: Sept. 22 & Sept. 24	Is partisan bias irrational?	(2) Barlev, M., & Neuberg, S. L. (2025). Rational reasons for irrational beliefs. American Psychologist, 80(1), 79–90.
Week 6: Sept. 29 & Oct. 1	Do partisans believe what they say?	(1) Bullock, J. G., & Lenz, G. (2019). Partisan bias in surveys. Annual Review of Political Science, 22(1), 325–342.
Week 6: Sept. 29 & Oct. 1	Do partisans believe what they say?	(2) Malka, A., & Adelman, M. (2023). Expressive survey responding: A closer look at the evidence and its implications for American democracy. Perspectives on Politics, 21(4), 1198–1209.
Week 7: Oct. 6 & Oct. 8	How do we justify our beliefs?	(1) Effron, D. A., & Helgason, B. A. (2022). The moral psychology of misinformation: Why we excuse dishonesty in a post-truth world. Current Opinion in Psychology, 47, 101375.
Week 7: Oct. 6 & Oct. 8	How do we justify our beliefs?	(2) Cusimano, C. (2025). The case for heterogeneity in metacognitive appraisals of biased beliefs. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 29(2), 188–212.
Week 8: Oct. 15	Midterm check-ins	(1) No assigned readings (enjoy Fall Break!)
Part 2: Why do people believe falsehoods? Acquiring specific ideologies
Week 9: Oct. 20 & Oct. 22	The (in)accuracy of ideological beliefs	(1) Joshi, H. (2020). What are the chances you’re right about everything? An epistemic challenge for modern partisanship. Politics, Philosophy & Economics, 19(1), 36–61.
Week 9: Oct. 20 & Oct. 22	The (in)accuracy of ideological beliefs	(2) Hannon, M. (2023). The politics of post-truth. Critical Review, 35(1–2), 40–62.
Week 10: Oct. 27 & Oct. 29	(Dis)believing misinformation	(1) Ecker, U. K. H., et al. (2022). The psychological drivers of misinformation belief and its resistance to correction. Nature Reviews Psychology, 1., 13–29.
Week 10: Oct. 27 & Oct. 29	(Dis)believing misinformation	(2) Budak, C., et al. (2024). Misunderstanding the harms of online misinformation. Nature, 630(8015), 45–53.
Week 11: Nov. 3 & Nov. 5	Trust and skepticism	(1) Levy, N. (2019). Due deference to denialism: Explaining ordinary people’s rejection of established scientific findings. Synthese, 196(1), 313–327.
Week 11: Nov. 3 & Nov. 5	Trust and skepticism	(2) Mercier, H. (2017). How gullible are we? A review of the evidence from psychology and social science. Review of General Psychology, 21(2), 103–122.
Week 12: Nov. 10 & Nov. 12	Early roots of ideological thinking	(1) Brown, C. S., & Bigler, R. (2022). The developmental science of politics: Insights from the 2016 US presidential election. In The Cambridge Handbook of Political Psychology (1st ed., pp. 159–174).
Week 12: Nov. 10 & Nov. 12	Early roots of ideological thinking	(2) Over, H., & McCall, C. (2018). Becoming us and them: Social learning and intergroup bias. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 12(4), e12384.
Part 3: Can we build a better future? Moving beyond ideology
Week 13: Nov. 17 & Nov. 19	Improving information consumption	(1) Kozyreva, A., et al. (2024). Toolbox of individual-level interventions against online misinformation. Nature Human Behaviour, 8(6), 1044–1052.
Week 13: Nov. 17 & Nov. 19	Improving information consumption	(2) Chinn, C. A., et al. (2021). Education for a “post-truth” world: New directions for research and practice. Educational Researcher, 50(1), 51–60.
Week 14: Dec. 1 & Dec. 3	Bridging partisan divides	(1) Read, H. (2023). When and why to empathize with political opponents. Philosophical Studies, 180(3), 773–793.
Week 14: Dec. 1 & Dec. 3	Bridging partisan divides	(2) Saguy, T. (2018). Downside of intergroup harmony? When reconciliation might backfire and what to do. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 5(1), 75–81.