Understanding the Determinants of Political Ideology: Implications of Structural Complexity

Abstract

There has been a substantial increase in research on the determinants and consequences of political ideology among political scientists and social psychologists. In psychology, researchers have examined the effects of personality and motivational factors on ideological orientations as well as differences in moral reasoning and brain functioning between liberals and conservatives. In political science, studies have investigated possible genetic influences on ideology as well as the role of personality factors. Virtually all of this research begins with the assumption that it is possible to understand the determinants and consequences of ideology via a unidimensional conceptualization. We argue that a unidimensional model of ideology provides an incomplete basis for the study of political ideology. We show that two dimensions-economic and social ideology-are the minimum needed to account for domestic policy preferences. More importantly, we demonstrate that the determinants of these two ideological dimensions are vastly different across a wide range of variables.Focusing on a single ideological dimension obscures these differences and, in some cases, makes it difficult to observe important determinants of ideology. We also show that this multidimensionality leads to a significant amount of heterogeneity in the structure of ideology that must be modeled to fully understand the structure and determinants of political attitudes.

Ideological Labels in America

“…These two dimensions are only modestly correlated: at 0.30 in Treier andHillygus (2009) and0.21 and0.36 in Feldman andJohnston's (2013) two samples. Shafer and Claggett (1995) infer that the two dimensions of American political attitudes create "two majorities" with different social and political compositions.…”

“…5 We should point out, however, that there is another way, not tested here, that two dimensions of ideology might result in operational-symbolic conflict. If individuals vary in the salience they ascribe to either the economic and cultural dimensions, as Feldman and Johnston (2013) and Baldassari and Goldberg (n.d.) suggest, then they would be more likely to make issue-label mismatches. We leave this possibility to be tested in further analyses.…”

“…Finally, we consider the role played by economic versus cultural issues in the conflict between positions and labels, as suggested by the bidimensionality arguments of Shafer and Claggett (1995), Feldman and Johnston (2013), Treier and Hillygus (2009), and others. We find that conflicted conservatism largely occurs on economic issues, while conflicted liberalism emanates from issues on both dimensions.…”

Do People Naturally Cluster into Liberals and Conservatives?

“…A long line of political science-having its most direct origins in Converse (1964)-notes that members of the US general public tend not to have issue opinions that line up on a single left-right axis (Feldman & Johnston 2014;Stimson 1975;Treier & Hillygus 2009) and often don't use ideological terms in ways that reflect their issue opinions (Claassen, Tucker, & Smith 2015;Ellis & Stimson 2012). The "genuinely ideological" segments of the population tend to be limited to relatively narrow slices of the public who are more politically involved, are better educated, possess greater political knowledge, and so on (Feldman & Johnston 2014;Jacoby 1991;Jessee 2012).…”

“…The "genuinely ideological" segments of the population tend to be limited to relatively narrow slices of the public who are more politically involved, are better educated, possess greater political knowledge, and so on (Feldman & Johnston 2014;Jacoby 1991;Jessee 2012). …”