Expertise, Evaluative Motivation, and the Structure of Citizens’ Ideological Commitments

Federico, Christopher M.

doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2007.00589.x

Cited by 32 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, despite the fact that at least two-thirds of adults identify themselves as liberals or conservatives, only a minority of citizens can accurately think about politics in the abstract ideological language of liberalism versus conservatism (Campbell et al, 1960;Delli Carpini & Keeter, 1996;Erikson & Tedin, 2003;Stimson, 2004; but see Jost, 2006, for another perspective on being ''ideological''). However, research also suggests that political elites and members of the mass public with high levels of political expertise-who are more likely to have learned the ideological language elites use to discuss politics-are more likely to correctly understand and use ideologies to structure their attitudes (resulting in higher levels of ideological consistency among attitudes, a stronger tendency to conceptualize politics in ideological terms, and so on; see Campbell et al, 1960;Converse, 1964Converse, , 2000Delli Carpini & Keeter, 1996;Erikson & Tedin, 2003;Federico, 2007;Federico & Schneider, 2007;Judd & Krosnick, 1989;Kinder, 2006;Lavine, Thomsen, & Gonzales, 1997;Layman & Carsey, 2002;Zaller, 1992). Thus, although various prepolitical variables may play a role in citizens' ideological affinities, it is also clear that citizens vary widely in the extent to which they understand the ideological attitude systems they have to choose from in the first place.…”

Section: Political Expertise and The Worldview-ideology Connectionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Political Expertise, Social Worldviews, and Ideology: Translating “Competitive Jungles” and “Dangerous Worlds” into Ideological Reality

2009

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The psychological bases of ideology have received renewed attention amid growing political polarization. Nevertheless, little research has examined how one's understanding of political ideas might moderate the relationship between ''pre-political'' psychological variables and ideology. In this paper, we fill this gap by exploring how expertise influences citizens' ability to select ideological orientations that match their psychologically rooted worldviews. We find that expertise strengthens the relationship between two basic social worldviews-competitivejungle beliefs and dangerous-world beliefs and left-right self-placement. Moreover, expertise strengthens these relationships by boosting the impact of the worldviews on two intervening ideological attitude systems-social dominance orientation and right-wing authoritarianism. These results go beyond previous work on expertise and ideology, suggesting that expertise strengthens not only relationships between explicitly political attitudes but also the relationship between political attitudes and their psychological antecedents.

show abstract

Section: Political Expertise and The Worldview-ideology Connectionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Political Expertise, Social Worldviews, and Ideology: Translating “Competitive Jungles” and “Dangerous Worlds” into Ideological Reality

2009

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is important to note that although we expect that some individuals have relatively incompatible attitudes toward peace and war, for some individuals the attitudes can be relatively compatible (the warlike peaceniks would care about both, and the unconcerned do not give much value to either). In a similar way, researchers showed that although conservatism and liberalism tend to be generally opposed in people's minds, there are certain individuals who may have positive attitudes toward both (see Federico, ; Sidanius & Duffy, ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 93%

“…unconcerned do not give much value to either). In a similar way, researchers showed that although conservatism and liberalism tend to be generally opposed in people's minds, there are certain individuals who may have positive attitudes toward both (see Federico, 2007;Sidanius & Duffy, 1988).…”

mentioning

confidence: 94%

On the (In)Compatibility of Attitudes Toward Peace and War

Bizumić

Stubager

Mellon

et al. 2013

Political Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although attitudes toward peace and war are usually treated as two opposite poles of one dimension, in this article we argue that they may represent two distinct dimensions. To investigate this idea, we developed and tested a new balanced measure, the Attitudes Toward Peace and War (APW) Scale, in three studies (N = 4,742) in the United States and Denmark. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses showed that attitudes toward peace and war formed two distinct, though negatively related, factors. Structural equation modeling showed that antecedents of attitudes toward peace included egalitarian ideological beliefs, the values of international harmony and equality, and empathic concern for others, and consequences included intentions to engage in peace‐related activities. On the other hand, antecedents of attitudes toward war included authoritarian ideological beliefs, the values of national strength and order, and less personal distress, and consequences included intentions to engage in warlike activities. Results also showed that political affiliation had an impact on the relationship between peace and war attitudes, with conservatives less likely to find the attitudes incompatible. The findings support the view that attitudes toward peace and war represent two distinct dimensions.

show abstract

“…As advanced by Downs (), ideological poles provide an informational shortcut useful to make low‐cost political judgments (Grofman, ; Popkin, ). Some scholarly literature believes that the lack of issue consistency may impose excessive informational demands on voters (Federico, ), which could put them apart from politics, and ideologies may help them to simplify the complexity of politics by reducing the dimensions of conflict from many to few (Jost, Federico, and Napier, ). I call low‐sophisticated citizens with high ideological levels passive ideological voters .…”

Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ideological Consistency, Political Information and Elite–Mass Congruence*

Barceló

2016

Social Science Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective. The literature considers the importance of political sophistication for controlling political elites, although it disregards the role of ideological consistency. The objective of this article is to gain insight into the role of citizens' ideological consistency as either an impairment to citizens' ability or an effective tool in bringing about elite-mass congruence. Methods. Combining data from the European Social Survey (ESS) and the Comparative Manifesto Project (CMP) for 29 European countries, I implement an empirical strategy to disentangle the top-down and bottom-up processes of mutual influence between elites and citizens. Results. Consistent with the enabling (as opposed to the impairing) conception of ideological consistency, ideological consistency closes, rather than increases, the gap between the elites and the masses. Also, bottom-up models dominate top-down models regardless of electorates' ideological consistency and information. Conclusion. Empirical findings challenge the literature about the causal effect of political ignorance on the autonomy of political elites, and they urge for the inclusion of ideological consistency as a crucial factor for a better understanding of the positional gaps between the elites and the masses.A common assumption in the pluralist political science up to the 1960s was that policy outcomes were the result of the interaction among equals. The theory was society-centered. In this, the political system transferred citizens and actors' preferences directly into political outcomes as an automatic mechanism with no margin for the state's autonomy. Citizens were thought to have full capacity to make political elites accountable for the political outcomes they were responsible for, and this connection was believed to be the key for democratic equilibrium. Consistent with the democratic ideal narration of the pluralists, the responsible party model describes an analogue scenario where citizens are able to monitor elite activities and elites must follow citizens' instructions in order to achieve their reelection (Cox and McCubbins, 2005;Downs, 1957;Mayhew, 2004;Miller and Stokes, 1963).However, two parallel theoretical advancements put into question both the pluralist idea of the world and the responsible party model. First, some scholarly literature points out that policies tend to be rooted in organizations themselves, in internal needs, which are often the result of officials pursuing their own goals (Skocpol, 1985). And, second, scholarly research on public opinion suggests that the level of political information of citizens is so limited and rudimentary that most people are totally unaware of political affairs, posing a critical challenge for the classic democratic equilibrium (Bennett

show abstract

Expertise, Evaluative Motivation, and the Structure of Citizens’ Ideological Commitments

Cited by 32 publications

References 53 publications

Political Expertise, Social Worldviews, and Ideology: Translating “Competitive Jungles” and “Dangerous Worlds” into Ideological Reality

Political Expertise, Social Worldviews, and Ideology: Translating “Competitive Jungles” and “Dangerous Worlds” into Ideological Reality

On the (In)Compatibility of Attitudes Toward Peace and War

Ideological Consistency, Political Information and Elite–Mass Congruence*

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About