1932

Abstract

Over 50 years of research into American political ideology have left scholars with a contested paradigm. One side argues that the mass public is distinctly nonideological. The other side argues that ideological thinking is not beyond the public. The way forward for research in political ideology does not lie in rehashing this debate but in advancing two new areas of work. The first considers the role that values and principles play in determining the political and ideological thinking of individuals. The second questions the current conception and measurement standards of political ideology. This research argues that ideology among the American mass public is formed by positions along two related but separate dimensions. In this article, we summarize the major arguments of and criticisms of current ideology research. Then we discuss recent research on principles and values and the measurement of ideology.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-060314-115422
2015-05-11
2024-03-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/polisci/18/1/annurev-polisci-060314-115422.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-060314-115422&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Abramowitz A. 2010. Transformation and polarization: the 2008 presidential election and the new American electorate. Elect. Stud. 29:594–603 [Google Scholar]
  2. Abramowitz A, Saunders K. 2008. Is polarization really a myth?. J. Polit. 70:542–55 [Google Scholar]
  3. Achen CH. 1975. Mass political attitudes and the survey response. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 69:1218–31 [Google Scholar]
  4. Alvarez RM, Brehm J. 1997. Are Americans ambivalent towards racial policies?. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 41:345–74 [Google Scholar]
  5. Ansolabehere S, Rodden J, Snyder JM Jr. 2008. The strength of issues: using multiple measures to gauge preference stability, ideological constraint, and issue voting. Am. Polit. Sci. Rev. 102:215–32 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bishop GF. 2005. The Illusion of Public Opinion: Fact and Artifact in American Public Opinion Polls Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield
  7. Campbell A, Converse PE, Miller WE, Stokes DE. 1960. The American Voter Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  8. Carmines EG, Ensley MJ, Wagner MW. 2012a. Political ideology in American politics: one, two, or none?. Forum 10:1–18 [Google Scholar]
  9. Carmines EG, Ensley MJ, Wagner MW. 2012b. Who fits the left-right divide? Partisan polarization in the American electorate. Am. Behav. Sci. 56:1631–53 [Google Scholar]
  10. Carmines EG, Ensley MJ, Wagner MW. 2014. Why American political parties can't get beyond the left-right divide. State of the Parties D Coffey, D Cohen, J Green 55–71 Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield [Google Scholar]
  11. Chong D. 1993. How people think, reason, and feel about rights and liberties. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 37:867–99 [Google Scholar]
  12. Conover P, Feldman S. 1981. The origins and meaning of the liberal-conservative self-identifications. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 25:617–45 [Google Scholar]
  13. Converse PE. 1964. The nature of belief systems in mass publics. Ideology and Discontent DE Apter 206–61 New York: Free Press [Google Scholar]
  14. Converse PE. 2006. Democratic theory and electoral reality. Crit. Rev. 18:297–329 [Google Scholar]
  15. Denzau AT, North DC. 1994. Shared mental models: ideologies and institutions. Kyklos 47:3–31 [Google Scholar]
  16. Ellis C, Stimson JA. 2009. Symbolic ideology in the American electorate. Elect. Stud. 28:388–402 [Google Scholar]
  17. Ellis C, Stimson JA. 2012. Ideology in America New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
  18. Evans G, Heath A, Lalljee M. 1996. Measuring left-right and libertarian-authoritarian values in the British electorate. Br. J. Sociol. 47:93–112 [Google Scholar]
  19. Federico CM. 2004. Predicting attitude extremity: the interactive effects of schema development and the need to evaluate and their mediation by evaluative integration. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 30:1281–94 [Google Scholar]
  20. Federico CM. 2007. Expertise, evaluative motivation, and the structure of citizens' ideological commitments. Polit. Psychol. 28:535–62 [Google Scholar]
  21. Federico CM, Schneider MC. 2007. Political expertise and the use of ideology: moderating effects of evaluative motivation. Public Opin. Q. 71:221–52 [Google Scholar]
  22. Federico CM, Sidanius J. 2002. Sophistication and the antecedents of whites' racial policy attitudes: racism, ideology, and affirmative action in America. Public Opin. Q. 66:145–76 [Google Scholar]
  23. Feldman S. 1988. Structure and consistency in public opinion: the role of core beliefs and values. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 32:416–40 [Google Scholar]
  24. Feldman S. 2003. Values, ideology, and the structure of political attitudes. The Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology D Sears, L Huddy, R Jervis 477–508 New York: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  25. Feldman S, Steenbergen MR. 2001. The humanitarian foundation of public support for social welfare. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 45:658–77 [Google Scholar]
  26. Fiorina MP, Abrams SJ, Pope JC. 2010. Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America Boston: Longman
  27. Goren P. 2013. On Voter Competence New York: Oxford Univ. Press
  28. Haidt J. 2012. The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion New York: Pantheon Books
  29. Jacoby WG. 1991. Ideological identification and issue attitudes. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 35:178–205 [Google Scholar]
  30. Jacoby WG. 2006. Value choices and American public opinion. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 50:706–23 [Google Scholar]
  31. Jost JT. 2006. The end of the end of ideology. Am. Psychol. 61:651–70 [Google Scholar]
  32. Jost JT, Blount S, Pfeffer J, Hunyaday G. 2003. Fair market ideology: its cognitive-motivational underpinnings. Res. Organ. Behav. 25:53–91 [Google Scholar]
  33. Jost JT, Federico CM, Napier JL. 2009. Political ideology: its structure, functions, and elective affinities. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 60:307–37 [Google Scholar]
  34. Karpowitz CF, Monson JQ, Patterson KD, Pope JC. 2011. Tea time in America? The impact of the Tea Party movement on the 2010 midterm elections. PS: Polit. Sci. Polit. 44:303–9 [Google Scholar]
  35. Kinder DR. 1998. Opinion and action in the realm of politics. Handbook of Social Psychology D Gilbert, ST Fiske, G Lindzey 778–867 Boston: McGraw-Hill [Google Scholar]
  36. Kinder DR. 2006. Belief systems today. Crit. Rev. 18:197–216 [Google Scholar]
  37. Lane RE. 1962. Political Ideology: Why the American Common Man Believes What He Does Glencoe, IL: Free Press of Glencoe
  38. Layman GC, Carsey TM. 2002. Party polarization and “conflict extension” in the American electorate. Am. J. Polit. Sci. 46:786–802 [Google Scholar]
  39. Levendusky M. 2009. The Partisan Sort: How Liberals Became Democrats and Conservatives Became Republicans Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  40. Miller G, Schofield N. 2008. The transformation of the Republican and Democratic Party coalitions in the U.S. Perspect. Polit. 6:433–50 [Google Scholar]
  41. Nie NH, Verba S, Petrocik JR. 1976. The Changing American Voter Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
  42. Poole KT, Rosenthal HL. 2007. Ideology and Congress Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers
  43. Rokeach M. 1973. The Nature of Human Values New York: Free Press
  44. Saucier G. 2000. Isms and the structure of social attitudes. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 78:366–85 [Google Scholar]
  45. Schwartz SH. 1992. Universals in the content and structure of values. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology MP Zanna 1–65 New York: Academic [Google Scholar]
  46. Williamson V, Skocpol T, Coggin J. 2011. The Tea Party and the remaking of Republican conservatism. Perspect. Polit. 9:25–43 [Google Scholar]
  47. Zaller J. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Univ. Press
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-060314-115422
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error