Thomas J. Leeper PhD

About

Thomas J. Leeper, Ph.D., is a post-doctoral researcher in political science at Aarhus University, Denmark. A native of Minnesota, he completed his doctorate in political science at Northwestern University and his undergraduate degree in political science and global studies at the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities. His research uses psychology to explain how citizens make sense of politics and the effects of politics on the opinions and behaviors of the electorate. He is particularly interested in how the strength of political opinions differentiates those who actively learn about and participate in politics from those less engaged with political processes. His research has been published in the American Political Science Review and the American Journal of Political Science, among others.

Recent Posts

What’s Important?

Media, citizens, and politicians seem to disagree about what is important. Psychological tendencies to over-estimate the similarity of others to one’s self means that the public and politicians are quite poor at estimating what the public thinks, and as a result, what government should do.

Emotionally Polarized

Disagreement is the core of politics. If everyone agreed, we would have little societal need for campaigns, elections, or any other democratic institution. But the increasing divisiveness of politics is worrisome. Why do we seem to disagree so much and feel that disagreement so strongly? New research offers some answers.

Trusting Government to Kill, Despite Distrusting Government

The public holds views of government activity that largely appear incoherent. This is problematic if we expect democracy to function as a direct translation of public views into policy, but can work if elites can be trusted to act in a more coherent fashion than the public they represent. Unfortunately, we don't trust our government.

When Our Partisan Attachments Let Politicians Fail

The fiscal cliff is a prime example of political leaders shirking their responsibilities – failing to debate and make enlightened policies – and taking advantage of our psychological predispositions toward partisan attachment for their own gain.

Means, Motive, and Opportunity

If crime is a function of means, motive, and opportunity, then a comprehensive policy response—rather than narrowly targeted policies (gun control) with little public support—seems to be in order.

Do We Really Want Political Compromise?

With the fiscal cliff debate looming large in Washington and on the national news agenda, there is increasing talk of the importance of political compromise. This call for putting aside differences and getting past polarization is, of course, nothing new. But is compromise what we really want?

No Politics at the Dinner Table?

For those with politically compatible social networks, holiday dinner offers a great time for uncontroversial bashing of political opponents. For those who find themselves surrounded by relations with different views from their own, political discussion can be thoroughly unpleasant. Here are five pointers for surviving political disagreement at Thanksgiving dinner.

What Do We See in the Electoral Map?

Some psychoanalysts believe that Rorschach tests tell us about what is going on in our minds and what you see in two different maps of the 2012 election says a lot about how you perceive American polarization.

Finding Common Ground in Divisive Times

We often think that the other side in a political debate is trying to destroy America, or at least offering a dangerous alternative to our own views of the political good. Why do we think these things and what can we do about it?

Thinking Fast and Slow in Crisis Politics

The attack on the American diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya has been the subject of considerable political conversation. Media coverage of the attack, and the ensuing response by the candidates, missed an interesting story about how people think about low-information incidents like the attack in Benghazi.