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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
At least a bidimensional ideology distinguishing economic and social preferences is appropriate for domestic politics.
“Many political scientists and political psychologists argue for the use of at least a bidimensional ideology for domestic politics that distinguishes between economic and social preferences (Carsey and Layman, 2006;Carmines et al., 2012;Feldman and Johnston, 2014).”
From Political Ideology and Polarization: A Multi-dimensional Approach (2022) · cites this paper as Feldman and Johnston, 2014
Cites
Schwartz, S. H. (1992) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60281-6 · Cited by 14,619 · see citing works
Nylund, K. L., Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. O. (2007) · Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal · doi:10.1080/10705510701575396 · Cited by 11,415 · see citing works
The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion
Zaller, J. R. (1992) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511818691 · Cited by 7,785 · see citing works
Political conservatism as motivated social cognition.
Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.339 · Cited by 4,904 · cited 7× · see citing works
“The focus on economic and social ideology is consistent with a great deal of research in political science and psychology that suggests that they are the two fundamental dimensions of political ideology, and it follows the conceptualization of ideology in Jost et al. (2003).”
InfluentialDemocracy and Working-Class Authoritarianism
Lipset, S. M. (1959) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2089536 · Cited by 573 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Are Cultural and Economic Conservatism Positively Correlated? A Large-Scale Cross-National Test
Malka, A., Lelkes, Y., & Soto, C. J. (2019) · British Journal of Political Science · doi:10.1017/s0007123417000072 · Cited by 287 · see citing works
Collective Narcissism: Political Consequences of Investing Self‐Worth in the Ingroup’s Image
Golec de Zavala, A., Dyduch‐Hazar, K., & Lantos, D. (2019) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/pops.12569 · Cited by 200 · see citing works
“Future studies may explore whether collective narcissism corresponds to a unique dimension of political orientation, independent of preference for equality versus inequality (corresponding to individual difference in social dominance orientation) and to preference for openness versus conformity (corresponding to indiv…”
BackgroundThe Bias That Divides Us: The Science and Politics of Myside Thinking
Stanovich, K. E. (2021) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/13367.001.0001 · Cited by 152 · see citing works
Krouwel, A., Kutiyski, Y., van Prooijen, J.-W., Martinsson, J., & Markstedt, E. (2017) · Journal of Social and Political Psychology · doi:10.5964/jspp.v5i2.745 · Cited by 137 · see citing works
“The findings of Feldman and Johnston (2014) show a differentiation between the cultural and economic dimension of political ideology, which is crucial for understanding ideology in modern societies.”
Azevedo, F., & Jost, J. T. (2021) · Group Processes & Intergroup Relations · doi:10.1177/1368430221990104 · Cited by 113 · see citing works
Altering Perceived Cultural and Economic Threats can Increase Immigrant Helping
Burhan, O. K., & van Leeuwen, E. (2016) · Journal of Social Issues · doi:10.1111/josi.12181 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
Political Ideology and Polarization: A Multi-dimensional Approach
Sinno, B., Oviedo, B., Atwell, K., Alikhani, M., & Li, J. J. (2022) · Proceedings of the 2022 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies · doi:10.18653/v1/2022.naacl-main.17 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
“Many political scientists and political psychologists argue for the use of at least a bidimensional ideology for domestic politics that distinguishes between economic and social preferences (Carsey and Layman, 2006; Carmines et al., 2012; Feldman and Johnston, 2014).”
BackgroundThe Political Dynamics of Partisan Polarization
Schmidt, E. R., Carmines, E. G., & Sniderman, P. M. (2025) · doi:10.1017/9781009472760 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
- Authors
- Feldman, S., & Johnston, C.
- Affiliations
- Stony Brook University (US)
- Duke University (US)
- Venue
- Political Psychology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2013-06-12
- Volume
- 35
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 337-358
- ISSN
- 0162-895X (ISSN-L)
- 1467-9221
- OpenAlex
- W2121488104
- Cited by
- 731
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2026: 35 · 2025: 54 · 2024: 52 · 2023: 61 · 2022: 90 · 2021: 56 · 2020: 94 · 2019: 68 · 2018: 62 · 2017: 62 · 2016: 36 · 2015: 27 · 2014: 25 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 182.26
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Political Psychology (publishedVersion)
- 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
- political ideology, economic ideology, social ideology, ideological heterogeneity, liberals and conservatives
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