CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 550Electoral Systems and Political ParticipationSocial and Intergroup PsychologyAcademic Freedom and Politics

Ideologues without Issues: The Polarizing Consequences of Ideological Identities

Open access
Mason, Lilliana·2018·Public Opinion Quarterly
DOI 10.1093/poq/nfy005
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The distinction between a person’s ideological identity and their issue positions has come more clearly into focus in recent research. Scholars have pointed out a significant difference between identity-based and issue-based ideology in the American electorate. However, the affective and social effects of these separate elements of ideology have not been sufficiently explored. Drawing on a national sample collected by SSI and data from the 2016 ANES, this article finds that the identity-based elements of ideology are capable of driving heightened levels of affective polarization against outgroup ideologues, even at low levels of policy attitude extremity or constraint. These findings demonstrate how Americans can use ideological terms to disparage political opponents without necessarily holding constrained sets of policy attitudes.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/poq/nfy005

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • La polarización afectiva puede tener como objeto a los partidos políticos dominantes, a las elites políticas, a los simpatizantes de uno u otro partido, a líderes o al posicionamiento ideológico.

    “la polarización afectiva puede tener como objeto a los partidos políticos dominantes, a las elites políticas o meramente a los simpatizantes de uno u otro partido, líder o, incluso, posicionamiento ideológico (Druckman y Levendusky, 2019;Mason, 2018).”

    From El estudio de la polarización afectiva: una mirada metodológica (2022) · cites this paper as Mason, 2018

    The section “Identity-Based Ideology and Affective Ideological Polarization” discusses dislike between Democratic and Republican partisans and affective polarization directed at liberals and conservatives. The paper therefore supports party supporters and ideological groups as targets, but the cited passages do not establish dominant parties, political elites, or individual leaders as targets. No page numbers were provided for these passages. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Algunos autores proponen que un proceso similar al de la identificación partidaria puede darse en relación con temas ideológicos.

    “Algunos autores proponen que un proceso similar puede darse en relación a temas ideológicos (Mason, 2018).”

    From El estudio de la polarización afectiva: una mirada metodológica (2022) · cites this paper as Mason, 2018

  • Mason (2018) shows that the concept of affective polarization can perfectly be applied in the field of ideological attitudes.

    “De hecho, Mason (2018) muestra que el concepto de polarización afectiva perfectamente se puede aplicar en el campo de las actitudes ideológicas.”

    From El estudio de la polarización afectiva: una mirada metodológica (2022) · cites this paper as Mason (2018)

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 28

  1. Abramowitz, Alan. 2010. The Disappearing Center: Engaged Citizens, Polarization, and American Democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
  2. Achen, Christopher H., and Larry M. Bartels. 2016. Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  3. Berry, William D., Evan J. Ringquist, Richard C. Fording, and Russell L. Hanson. 2007. "The Measurement and Stability of State Citizen Ideology." State Politics & Policy Quarterly 7:111-32.
  4. Billig, Michael, and Henri Tajfel. 1973. "Social Categorization and Similarity in Intergroup Behaviour." European Journal of Social Psychology 3:27-52.
  5. Broockman, David. 2016. "Approaches to Studying Policy Representation." Legislative Studies Quarterly 41:181-215.
  6. Carsey, Thomas M., and Jeffrey J. Harden. 2010. "New Measures of Partisanship, Ideology, and Policy Mood in the American States." State Politics & Policy Quarterly 10:136-56.
  7. Conover, Pamela Johnston, and Stanley Feldman. 1981. "The Origins and Meaning of Liberal/ Conservative Self-Identifications." American Journal of Political Science 25:617-45.
  8. Converse, Philip. 1964. "The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics." In Ideology and Discontent, edited by David Apter, pp. 206-61. New York: Free Press.
  9. DiPrete, Thomas A., Andrew Gelman, Tyler McCormick, Julien Teitler, and Tian Zheng. 2011. "Segregation in Social Networks Based on Acquaintanceship and Trust." American Journal of Sociology 116:1234-83.
  10. Ellis, Christopher, and James A. Stimson. 2012. Ideology in America, 1st ed. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  11. Fiorina, Morris P. 2009. Disconnect: The Breakdown of Representation in American Politics. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
  12. Free, Lloyd, A. and Hadley Cantril. 1967. The Political Beliefs of Americans: A Study of Public Opinion. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
  13. Grossman, Matt, and David Hopkins. 2016. Asymmetric Politics: Ideological Republicans and Group Interest Democrats. New York: Oxford University Press.
  14. Huddy, Leonie, Lilliana Mason, and Lene Aarøe. 2015. "Expressive Partisanship: Campaign Involvement, Political Emotion, and Partisan Identity." American Political Science Review 109:1-17.
  15. Jost, John T., Christopher M. Federico, and Jaime L. Napier. 2009. "Political Ideology: Its Structure, Functions, and Elective Affinities." Annual Review of Psychology 60:307-37.
  16. Kinder, Donald R., and Nathan P. Kalmoe. 2017. Neither Liberal nor Conservative: Ideological Innocence in the American Public. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  17. Klar, Samara. 2014. "A Multidimensional Study of Ideological Preferences and Priorities among the American Public." Public Opinion Quarterly 78:344-59.
  18. Lee, Frances E. 2009. Beyond Ideology: Politics, Principles, and Partisanship in the U. S. Senate, 1st ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  19. Levendusky, Matthew. 2009. The Partisan Sort: How Liberals Became Democrats and Conservatives Became Republicans. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  20. Levitin, Teresa E., and Warren E. Miller. 1979. "Ideological Interpretations of Presidential Elections." American Political Science Review 73:751-71.
  21. Mackie, Diane M., Thierry Devos, and Eliot R. Smith. 2000. "Intergroup Emotions: Explaining Offensive Action Tendencies in an Intergroup Context." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 79:602-16.
  22. Mason, Lilliana. 2015. "'I Disrespectfully Agree': The Differential Effects of Partisan Sorting on Social and Issue Polarization." American Journal of Political Science 59:128-45.
  23. Noel, Hans. 2014. Political Ideologies and Political Parties in America. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  24. Popp, Elizabeth, and Thomas J. Rudolph. 2011. "A Tale of Two Ideologies: Explaining Public Support for Economic Interventions." Journal of Politics 73:808-20.
  25. Stimson, James A. 1999. Public Opinion in America: Moods, Cycles, And Swings, 2nd ed. Boulder: Westview Press.
  26. Tajfel, Henri. 1981. Human Groups and Social Categories: Studies in Social Psychology. Cambridge University Press Archive.
  27. Tajfel, Henri, and John Turner. 1979. "An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict." In The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, edited by William G. Austin and Stephen Worchel, pp. 33-37. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
  28. Treier, Shawn, and D. Sunshine Hillygus. 2009. "The Nature of Political Ideology in the Contemporary Electorate." Public Opinion Quarterly 73:679-703.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mason, L.
Affiliations
University of Maryland, College Park (US)
Corresponding author
Mason, Lilliana
ORCID
Mason, Lilliana
Venue
Public Opinion Quarterly
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2018
Volume
82
Issue
S1
Pages
866-887
ISSN
  • 0033-362X (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-5331
DOI
10.1093/poq/nfy005
OpenAlex
W2798154493
Cited by
550
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 66 · 2025: 63 · 2024: 78 · 2023: 77 · 2022: 59 · 2021: 91 · 2020: 70 · 2019: 30 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1
FWCI
223.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
public-domain
Locations
Public Opinion Quarterly (publishedVersion, public-domain)
Funders
National Science Foundation (SES-1444721, SES-1444910)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Academic Freedom and Politics
Keywords
ideological identity, issue positions, affective polarization, political outgroups, political debate, political constraints, American electorate, 2016 elections

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review