Cited by 731Electoral Systems and Political ParticipationSocial and Intergroup PsychologyAcademic Freedom and Politics

Understanding the Determinants of Political Ideology: Implications of Structural Complexity

Feldman, Stanley, Johnston, Christopher·2014·Political Psychology

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

Crossref · 10.1111/pops.12055

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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