What Goes with Red and Blue? Mapping Partisan and Ideological Associations in the Minds of Voters

Goggin, Stephen N.; Henderson, John; Theodoridis, Alexander G.

doi:10.1007/s11109-018-09525-6

Cited by 41 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 60 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We therefore join the many scholars who maintain that the left‐right (or liberal‐conservative) dimension is useful, and perhaps even indispensable, for understanding the beliefs, opinions, and values of ordinary citizens as well as political elites (e.g., Bartels, ; Bénabou, ; Freeze & Montgomery, ; Goggin, Henderson, & Theodoridis, ; Hibbing, Smith, & Alford, ; Knight, ; Noël, & Thérien, )—even if it is true that people are neither perfectly consistent nor loyal when it comes to their ideological preferences (Jost, ). As a general rule, however, conservatives and rightists are indeed more likely to value tradition, social order, authority, conformity, hierarchy, and social stability, whereas liberals and leftists are more likely to value progress, social change, and social, economic, and political forms of equality (e.g., Bobbio, ; Clifford, Jewell, & Waggoner, ; Erikson & Tedin, ; Jost et al., ; Laponce, ; Lipset, Lazarsfeld, Barton, & Linz, ; Noël, & Thérien, ).…”

Section: The Contested Nature Of Ideology and Its Role In Public Opinionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neoliberal Ideology and the Justification of Inequality in Capitalist Societies: Why Social and Economic Dimensions of Ideology Are Intertwined

Azevedo

Jost

Rothmund

et al. 2019

Journal of Social Issues

164

132

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article we analyze data from high-quality surveys conducted in the United States and the United Kingdom that included multiple symbolic and operational measures of political ideology and psychological orientations. Our overarching goal is to elucidate the nature of conceptual and empirical connections between neoliberalism and social conservatism. In so doing, we revisit three major questions about public opinion in neoliberal societies: (1) Are ordinary citizens "innocent" of ideology? (2) Are social and economic dimensions of ideology structurally and functionally independent? (3) Are support for laissez-faire capitalism and opposition to welfare-hallmarks of neoliberal ideology-unrelated or negatively related to authoritarianism? In contrast to previous investigations relying upon fewer and poorer measures, we found that ordinary citizens do indeed hold coherent political attitudes, and their attitudes about social and economic issues are closely aligned. For instance, we observed that for five previously published

show abstract

Section: The Contested Nature Of Ideology and Its Role In Public Opinionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Neoliberal Ideology and the Justification of Inequality in Capitalist Societies: Why Social and Economic Dimensions of Ideology Are Intertwined

Azevedo

Jost

Rothmund

et al. 2019

Journal of Social Issues

164

132

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The typical conjoint design asks respondents to choose between two profiles, each with a set of randomized attributes, and then repeats this choice task for many pairs of profiles. For example, a respondent might review information about two politicians, complete with randomized information on the candidates' demographics and issue stances (e.g., Goggin, Henderson, and Theodoridis 2020). While conjoint experiments are a form of repeated measures designs, they differ from the within-subjects design in that respondents are not typically exposed to all treatment conditions.…”

Section: Experimental Designs In Political Sciencementioning

confidence: 99%

Increasing Precision without Altering Treatment Effects: Repeated Measures Designs in Survey Experiments

Sheagley²,

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of survey experiments has surged in political science. The most common design is the between-subjects design in which the outcome is only measured posttreatment. This design relies heavily on recruiting a large number of subjects to precisely estimate treatment effects. Alternative designs that involve repeated measurements of the dependent variable promise greater precision, but they are rarely used out of fears that these designs will yield different results than a standard design (e.g., due to consistency pressures). Across six studies, we assess this conventional wisdom by testing experimental designs against each other. Contrary to common fears, repeated measures designs tend to yield the same results as more common designs while substantially increasing precision. These designs also offer new insights into treatment effect size and heterogeneity. We conclude by encouraging researchers to adopt repeated measures designs and providing guidelines for when and how to use them.

show abstract

“…Estimating and using IMCEs from conjoint experiments can also be useful for studying political phenomena other than preferences. An example would be multidimensional stereotypes about politically relevant social categories that researchers have recently started to explore with conjoint analysis (Flores and Schachter 2018; Goggin, Henderson, and Theodoridis 2020). IMCEs can be applied to study political implications of such stereotypes.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Estimating and Using Individual Marginal Component Effects from Conjoint Experiments

Zhirkov¹

2021

Polit. Anal.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conjoint experiments are quickly gaining popularity as a vehicle for studying multidimensional political preferences. A common way to explore heterogeneity of preferences estimated with conjoint experiments is by estimating average marginal component effects across subgroups. However, this method does not give the researcher the full access to the variation of preferences in the studied populations, as that would require estimating effects on the individual level. Currently, there is no accepted technique to obtain estimates of individual-level preferences from conjoint experiments. The present paper addresses this gap by proposing a procedure to estimate individual preferences as respondent-specific marginal component effects. The proposed strategy does not require any additional assumptions compared to the standard conjoint analysis, although some changes to the task design are recommended. Methods to account for uncertainty in resulting estimates are also discussed. Using the proposed procedure, I partially replicate a conjoint experiment on immigrant admission with recommended design adjustments. Then, I demonstrate how individual marginal component effects can be used to explore distributions of preferences, intercorrelations between different preference dimensions, and relationships of preferences to other variables of interest.

show abstract

What Goes with Red and Blue? Mapping Partisan and Ideological Associations in the Minds of Voters

Cited by 41 publications

References 60 publications

Neoliberal Ideology and the Justification of Inequality in Capitalist Societies: Why Social and Economic Dimensions of Ideology Are Intertwined

Neoliberal Ideology and the Justification of Inequality in Capitalist Societies: Why Social and Economic Dimensions of Ideology Are Intertwined

Increasing Precision without Altering Treatment Effects: Repeated Measures Designs in Survey Experiments

Estimating and Using Individual Marginal Component Effects from Conjoint Experiments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About