Introduction

Biological factors of political behavior are factors linked to genes and

hormones to political attitudes and behaviors, though the evidence remains
controversial. To a large extent, who we are and how we behave is a result of
our genetic makeup. While genes do not determine behavior, they play a
huge role in what we do and why we do it.
Socialization factors relate to the process by which people form their ideas
about politics. It's the lifelong development of a person's political values.
Though most political socialization occurs during childhood, people continue
to shape their political values throughout their lives. A lot of different factors
affect a person's political socialization. Personal factors, such as your family,
social and economic classes, education and peer groups, all influence your
political values. More general items, like the mass media and key world
events, also affect your political values.
According to Eldersveld and Katz in 1961, political behaviour or behavioral
approach to the study of politics identifies the behaviour of individuals or
group of individuals as the primary unit of analysis. It seeks to examine
the behaviour, actions and acts of individuals, rather than characteristics of
institutions such as legislature, executive and judiciary. The main aim of
political behavior is to explain behaviour with an unbiased, neutral point of
view, using methods such as sampling, scaling statistical analysis and
interviewing among others. The most practical way to do it is to focus on
individuals and groups who are the actors in politics.
Biological factors influencing political behavior of actors in politics
From genes to hormone levels, biology may help to shape political behavior
as explained in detail below;
Innate ideology

The past few decades have seen a wave of research connecting genes to
disorders such as schizophrenia, depression and alcoholism, and to complex
outcomes such as sexual orientation and how far people progress in
education. But until the past decade, this trend largely passed by the field of
political science. Modern politics seemed too divorced from basic human
biology, too recent an innovation in human evolutionary history, to be
influenced by genetic material.
In 1986, Nicholas Martin and his colleagues published a study suggesting
that genes could exert a pull on attitudes concerning topics such as abortion,
immigration, the death penalty and pacifism. Martin, a geneticist now at the
Queensland Institute of Medical Research in Brisbane, Australia, used a
classic behavioural-genetics technique: comparing genetically identical twins
with fraternal twins of the same sex (who share only 50% of genes on
average). The identical twins had similar political beliefs more often than
fraternal twins did. Because twins tend to grow up in the same family
environments, Martin's team suggested that genes made the difference, and
that they have a significant role in helping to shape attitudes on social
issues.
Although Martin's study had obvious implications for political science,
researchers in that field ignored the work. The eugenics movement in the
early part of the twentieth century and Nazi theories about the biology of
human differences had made political scientists extremely wary about topics
that examined genetic differences among people.
The publication was like a stone down a well, says Martin. There was
absolutely no reaction. It just lay there for 20 years.
But in the early 2000s, Hibbing and John Alford, a political scientist at Rice
University in Houston, Texas, learned about Martin's work. They reanalysed
his data and incorporated similar data from a study of attitudes among US
2

twins. In 2005, Hibbing and Alford published findings nearly identical to those
earlier studies showing strong correlations between genetics and political
views. These finally caught the attention of political scientists.
It wasn't the kind of attention that Alford and Hibbing were hoping for,
however. They thought we were crazy, says Hibbing.
But a few researchers, mainly in the United States, were intrigued enough to
follow up with further work. James Fowler, a political scientist at the
University of California, San Diego, used the twin method to show that voter
turnout and political participation also had a genetic component. Peter
Hatemi, a political scientist at Pennsylvania State University in University
Park, found results similar to Alford and Hibbing's using twins from Australia,
Denmark, Sweden and the United States, although the work has not yet been
published.
Trouble with twins
The twin studies were far from definitive, in large part because such research
cannot completely control for environmental factors. Compared with fraternal
twins, genetically identical twins are more likely to have the same friends
and to maintain regular contact as adults. Furthermore, parents, friends and
teachers often treat identical twins more equally than fraternal twins. All of
that makes it hard to unpack how much genes and environment each
contribute to the shared political attitudes of identical twins.
A few attempts have been made to tease apart the various influences. In one
study, Hatemi found that identical twins who do not spend much time
together are still more concordant than are fraternal twins who do,
suggesting that genetic factors do matter. But the twin studies continue to
face strong opposition. I'm very sceptical about estimating heritability from
twin studies, says Laura Stoker, a political scientist at the University of

California, Berkeley. The entire framework is built with a tonne of

assumptions.
Twin studies also offer no insight into how the genome can nudge people to
lean left or right on various political issues. For that, researchers have started
exploring candidate genes. Genes involved with the olfactory system and the
neurotransmitters glutamate, dopamine and serotonin have all been linked
to behaviours such as voter turnout and ideology, although these findings
have come under scrutiny and are yet to be independently replicated.
Jeremy Freese, a sociologist at Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois,
says that such studies have found implausibly large effects from individual
genes. What's been revealed over the past few years is just how vulnerable
the candidate-gene approach is, he says.
Part of the problem, says Freese, is that studies linking specific genes to
political behaviours have usually been published in political-science journals,
rather than scientific journals, so editors and reviewers may not have picked
up on some deficiencies in the studies. The reviewers have not been
familiar with the replication problems that exist, says Freese.
Christopher Dawes, a political scientist at New York University, acknowledges
complications in some of his own studies of specific genes and says that
more illuminating results might come from molecular techniques such as
genome-wide association studies, which scan the genomes of large numbers
of people, looking for sequences linked to a behaviour or trait. But
researchers in this area are only just beginning to use such resourceintensive strategies.
We're starting to better appreciate the limitations of the data and
techniques, says Dawes.

If other complex behaviours and traits are any indication, the answer is not
going to be simple. Even for traits known to have a very large genetic
component, such as height, the evidence points to the influence of
thousands of genes, each applying a feather-light force. So it seems unlikely
that a small number of genes can push someone towards being a liberal
activist, a social conservative or a libertarian.
Many researchers have come to the conclusion that it is premature to focus
on the genetics of politics. It doesn't make sense to go after the most
difficult part of the puzzle, says Alford.
An easier approach is to investigate the pathways that might connect genes
with political behaviours and attitudes. One connection that has been
suggested is personality. US conservatives may not seem to have much in
common with Iraqi or Italian conservatives, but many political psychologists
agree that political ideology can be narrowed down to one basic personality
trait: openness to change. Liberals tend to be more accepting of social
change than conservatives. Some studies suggest that liberals tolerate more
ambiguity and uncertainty, whereas conservatives are more decisive,
conscientious and attracted to order.
Theoretically, a person who is open to change might be more likely to favour
gay marriage, immigration and other policies that alter society and are
traditionally linked to liberal politics in the United States; personalities
leaning towards order and the status quo might support a strong military
force to protect a country, policies that clamp down on immigration and bans
on same-sex marriage. But some researchers baulk at such simple links
between personality and ideology. Evan Charney, a political scientist at Duke
University in Durham, North Carolina, points out that conservatives
sometimes embrace change, such as proposals in the United States to alter
the tax code and welfare system. He also says that he and most people in his

field are liberals an imbalance that could bias how they interpret
connections between personality and politics.
Visceral reactions
Some researchers have sought to move beyond personality studies to
evaluate how participants' physiological reactions can influence how they
interpret and respond to political issues. In 2008, Alford, Hibbing, Hatemi and
others measured how people reacted to threatening images and sudden,
loud noises. People who blinked harder and showed heightened sensitivity
as gauged by their skin conductance were more likely to favour gun rights,
capital punishment and the war in Iraq than were those who showed less
sensitivity.
In another study, Hibbing showed subjects a series of emotionally charged
images, including a spider on a man's face, a maggot-infested wound, a cute
rabbit and a happy child. People who described themselves as conservatives
tended to respond more strongly when looking at the negative images than
at the positive images, whereas liberals reacted more to the positive
pictures. Conservatives also stared at the negative images longer than
liberals did, which Hibbing connects to the idea that conservatives are more
likely to confront fearful or disgusting situations, making them more disposed
to support a strong military and harsh sanctions for criminals.
Some researchers are exploring whether hormone systems play a part in
political attitudes. A few studies, for example, have looked at connections
between people's prejudices and their levels of oxytocin the feel-good
hormone linked to empathy and bonding with loved ones. In one experiment,
Dutch participants who had taken puffs of oxytocin responded more
favourably to Dutch people than to foreigners, suggesting a bias towards
their own group

Regardless of whether biology shapes political choice, it may affect a

person's likelihood of voting in the first place. In an as-yet unpublished study,
Hibbing has found that people with high levels of the stress hormone cortisol
are much less likely to vote than are demographically similar people who
have lower cortisol levels. Hibbing is currently working to find a way to ease
voting for these 'stressed' people, perhaps through options such as postal
voting.
Socialization factors influencing political behavior of actors in
politics
The primary agents of political socialization are those that people first come
across when they are children and they unavoidably interact with as they
grow. Almost all human beings pass through these agents, though not
necessarily on their will. The primary agents of political socialization in
todays world include the family, the school, the peer group and the religious
gatherings. In the contemporary world these socialization agencies can
hardly be avoided, and they affect peoples believes and attitudes towards
politics. In what follows i shall discuss these agents one after the other.
The Family:
The family is a principal agent of political socialization, or any other form of
socialization at all.

In fact, M. Kent Jennings in his 2007 work titled Political

Socialization asserts that "from the early scholarly inquiries on through to

the present time, the role of the family as a prime agent of socialization has
occupied an imports in the literature". This is because the family is a
relatively small and enduring institution that makes the processes of learning
and imitation easier. Apart from this, the family is the first point of call of the
individual, and, to that extent, it determines a lot about individual's
behaviour; including the political. Above all, every human being, by no

choice of theirs, is presumably born into a family, so, except in few cases,
every human being passes through the socialization of the family.
The School
Formal educational system organized in forms of schools and colleges is a
common phenomenon in the modern world. In fact, most advanced countries
of the world are beginning to lay claim to zero percent illiteracy level in their
society while third world countries are following suit. The implication of this
is that everyone in the society will now have to pass through one form of
school or the other. Thus, the school, like the family, is an agent of
socialization that is almost impossible to escape. Some societies deliberately
teach subjects such as civil education, political history and government to
educate their citizens on politics. National anthems and other extra
curriculum exercises are basically performed in schools to expose students to
certain values about politics. What most people know and believe about
politics is therefore, especially in todays world, a function of school
attendance. The school then qualifies as a primary agency of political
socialization.
The Peer Group
Man, by nature, Aristotle has long insisted, is a political animal. What you get
from this is that man is a gregarious being that love to live with, and around
other men. In the process of this social interaction peer groups are formed.
These groups consist of people of same or close age brackets, and members
of the groups learn many things socially from one another through emulation
and reciprocal determinism. If a person belongs to a peer group that is
politically conscious for instance, the tendency of the person to become very
active and interested in the politics of his nation is very high due to the kind
of socialization received in the course of interacting with his or her peers.
Peer group is also a primary agent of political socialization because it is
8

difficult to escape in the process of existing in the society. Even schools

where the child is socialized is full of peer group influence, though many peer
groups also exist outside the school.
Religious Gatherings
Apart from the family and the school, organized religious gathering is
another very strong agency of political socialization in the modern world. It is
almost inescapable today. When people gather in the name of religion, they
often inevitably discuss socio political issues that concern them directly or
indirectly, politics being, according to David Easton, authoritative allocation
of values in the society. Values that may be authoritatively allocated to, or
omitted from peoples homes, families, streets, work places, states of
residence, international relation and so on, often make people relate with
politics even in religious gatherings where they are supposed to be
worshiping. Today is universities, religious associations sponsor candidates
into elective positions in order to gain influence. Citizens of some countries
consider the religious affiliation of a political candidate as determinant of his
or her capacity to rule, and such beliefs color behaviour even in elections.
The discussions and decision on these political issues are often taken in
religious gatherings; hence, religion becomes a strong agent of political
socialization.

Subordinate Agents of Political Socialization

Structures and institutions such as the media and political parties are not
common to all men; they are optional, so they belong to the secondary
political socialization agents. Other ones in this category are gender and age
which are though common to all men, yet,

do not command strong

organizational political influence that, say, the church

and the school may have. Let us examine these four agents of political
socialization in details.
Race and Ethnicity
As a general rule, for the past half-century African Americans have been the
most loyal Democrats than any other identifiable group. Some experts
believe that this loyalty is weakening, but recent elections have confirmed
the strong tendency for black Americans to vote Democratic. Latinos as a
whole have a tendency to vote Democratic, but the relationship is not as
strong as it is for blacks. To further complicate matters, the various Latino
groups have very different voting patterns. For example, Cuban Americans
overall have a strong tendency to vote Republican, and Mexican Americans
have an equally strong tendency to vote Democratic. Some studies indicate
that Asian Americans tend to vote conservative, but there is still a lack of
concrete evidence to prove this.
The Media
The media is a strong agent of political socialization. The print media
produces newspapers and magazines while the electronic media comes in
forms of radio and television. In all of these media politics and political issues
are discussed in daily basis. In fact, it has been argued by Allan Smith that
the 21st century press media is a political media as majority of the news
items are either completely political or are connected to politics. The most
recent one is the social media: the facebook and the twitters that are fast
penetrating the whole world.

Issues discussed in all these media create

values, attitudes and believes in people, and as such, stand as means of

socializing them into politics as well as influencing their political behaviour.
Political Party

10

A political party is an organized body of people who participate in political

activities with the sole aim of getting political power. Membership of a
political party automatically translates to discussion and practice of political
activities, with all the pranks, and the intrigues. People who belong to
political parties learn a great deal of their political tricks, values, orientations,
opinions and believes from them, so, the political party is a very strong agent
of political socialization. In specific terms, political parties have orientations
and ideological divides. There are left wing parties, right wing parties, mass
parties and so on, and the orientation that is dominant in each of these
parties are systematically handed down to their members from one
generation to another. In Britain you have the conservative (right wing) and
the labour (left wing) political parties. In the United States it is between the
Republican (right wing) and the Democrat (left wing) parties. Although
Nigerian

political

parties

have

been

unstable

and

episodic

since

independence, the current ideological divide still stands between the PDP
and the APC.
Gender
Until recently when universal adult suffrage has permeated the whole world,
gender was a very key issue in political socialization. In the earlier Athenian
society in Greece, women were not allowed to participate in politics, and so it
was in some other parts of the world. The implication is that men would be
differently socialized to form different believes opinions and orientation of
politics, compared to women. Now that the dichotomy is changing rapidly,
and universal adult suffrage is gaining popularity around the world; womens
socialization in politics is fast taking different dimension. Conversely, in the
old
Oyo kingdom where women were known to occupy important political
positions such as Iyalode, Iyaloja and Iyalaje, and where they exerted great
influence in the politics of their people, there was a difference in gender
11

relationship with politics, and this created egalitarian and democratic values
among the people. You may wish to read Eesuolas Using Indigenous Political
Structures to Facilitate Democratic Ideals in Nigeria: Lessons from Pre
Colonial Yoruba Kingdom, published in the University of Lagos, Nigeria,
Sociological Review, Volume 9, 2011.

Age
Also unlike gender, age was and is still a strong factor in the politics of
courtiers. Today, as a result of universal adult suffrage, most constitutions
allow citizens of eighteen years to vote and be voted for. In some countries
where gerontology is common in political activities, only old people take
certain electoral positions in politics. These different practices in different
societies often shape opinions and orientations of people towards politics, so,
age is equally an agent of political socialization.
Let us also quickly add that socialization may involve an individual's
formative years, or his mature years, or both. Political socialization through
the primary agency is not only latent, but also tends to occur during the
formative years of an individual.

Political socialization through secondary

agencies, on the other hand, tends to be manifest and to occur during an

individual's relatively mature years.
Conclusion
Political socialization can produce either systemic or non-systemic change.
Systemic change refers to a fundamental or far-reaching change in the
distribution or exercise of authority in the political system. Non-systemic
change, on the other hand, refers to relatively insignificant or incremental
changes in the patterns of political participation and association which do not
alter or upset the existing distribution of power and authority in the polity.
Indeed, generally speaking, political socialization is essentially a stabilizing
process and hardly produces systemic change. The political socialization
12

process becomes destabilizing, or produces systemic change, only under

conditions of rapid modernization or general societal crisis.

REFERENCES
Alan, B. (1965) Modern' Politics and Government, London, Macmillan Press.
Almond, G. and Verba, S. (1965) The Civic Culture, Boston, Little Brown.
Ball, A.R. (1977) Modern Politics and Government, London, Macmillan.
Bender G.J. (1967) Political Socialization and Political Change, Western
Political Quarterly,

390 - 407.

Bowman, L. and Boyton, G.R. (1974) Political Behaviour and Public Opinion:
Comparative Analysis. New Jersey, Prentice Hall.
Dalton, R.J and Klingemann, H.D. (2007) (eds.), Oxford Handbook of Political
Behaviour. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
De Gracia, A. (1952) Political Behaviour, New York, The Free Press.
Easton D. and Dennis J. (1969), Children and the Political System, New York,
McGrawHill.
Eldersveld, J. and Katz, D (1961) The Impact of Local Party Activities Upon
Electorates,
Eric, R. (1969) Modern Politics: An Introduction to Behaviour and Institutions,
London, Rout-ledge and Kegan.
Greenstein F. (1965) Children and Politics, New Haven, Yale University Press.
13

Jennings M. Kent (2007) Political Socialization, in, Dalton, R. and

Klingemann, H. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of political behavior, Oxford,
Oxford University Press
Malbraith, L. (1972) Political Behavior, Chicago, Rand McNally.
Norman, H. N. And Sidney, V. (1975) Political Behavior in Fred Greenstein
and Nelson Polsby (eds.) Handbook of Political Science Vol. 4. Massachusetts,
AddisonWesley.
Robert, E. D. And John, A. H. (1972) Political Sociology, London, John

14