نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
عنوان مقاله English
نویسندگان English
The present article examines the impact of cognitive and affective processes on political behaviors and governance models. The main research question addresses how individual perceptions and beliefs influence political decision-making and policy formulation. The research hypotheses posit that cognitive and emotional processes play a significant role in shaping public opinions and political behaviors. The study employs a qualitative research method, utilizing focus groups to collect data, through which the views and perspectives of subject-matter experts were gathered and analyzed. The findings reveal that cognitive biases and emotions such as fear, hope, and anger can serve as powerful motivators for political participation. The article also introduces the Cognitive Governance Model as a novel framework in political studies that accounts for the complexities of human behavior and social interactions. The influence of social media and digital technologies on cognitive processes and political behavior is also investigated. Finally, practical recommendations are proposed to enhance public policy design and strengthen democracy, including the development of training programs for policymakers and the creation of digital participatory platforms. This research can serve as a theoretical and practical foundation for future studies in cognitive studies and political research.
کلیدواژهها English
Fredenberg, J., Silverman, G. (2008). Cognitive science: an introduction to the study of the mind, translator: Mohsen Pafid Hal and others, Tehran: Future Research Center for Defense Science and Technology. [In Persian]
James, G. (2014). Neurotechnology in national security and defense, translator: Seyed Ebrahim Seyedzadeh, Tehran: Houshman Tadbir. [In Persian]
Kahneman, D. (2019). Thinking, fast and slow, translator] Talosamadi, Forough [, Tehran, in Danesh Bahman. [In Persian]
Brader, T. (2006). Campaigning for hearts and minds: How emotional appeals in political ads work. University of Chicago Press.
Dahl, R. A. (1989). Democracy and its critics. Yale University Press.
Easton, D. (1965). A systems analysis of political life. Wiley.
Entman, R.M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43 (4),51-58.
Fung, A. (2006). Empowered participation: Reinventing urban democracy. Princeton University Press.
Lijphart, A. (1999). Patterns of democracy: Government forms and performance in thirty-six countries. Yale University Press.
Lodge, M., Taber, C. (2013). The rationalizing voterCambridge University Press.
Putnam, R.D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon & Schuster.
Simon, H.A. (1957). Models of man: Social and rational. Wiley.
Sunstein, C.R. (2017). Republic: Divided democracy in the age of social media. Princeton University Press.
Tajfel, H., Turner, J.C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp7-24). Nelson-Hall.
Tilly, C. (2007). Democracy. Cambridge University Press.
Tversky, A., Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185 (4157), 1124-1131
