Political Ideology: Its Structure, Functions, and Elective Affinities
Abstract
Ideology has re-emerged as an important topic of inquiry among social, personality, and political psychologists. In this review, we examine recent theory and research concerning the structure, contents, and functions of ideological belief systems. We begin by defining the construct and placing it in historical and philosophical context. We then examine different perspectives on how many (and what types of) dimensions individuals use to organize their political opinions. We investigate (a) how and to what extent individuals acquire the discursive contents associated with various ideologies, and (b) the social-psychological functions that these ideologies serve for those who adopt them. Our review highlights "elective affinities" between situational and dispositional needs of individuals and groups and the structure and contents of specific ideologies. Finally, we consider the consequences of ideology, especially with respect to attitudes, evaluations, and processes of system justification.
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?
In Western politics, ideology is a multi-dimensional construct that includes equal opportunity versus economic individualism, respect for tradition/hierarchy/stability versus social change, and beliefs about the fairness/efficiency of markets.
“In Western politics, these worldviews translate into a multi-dimensional construct that includes: equal opportunity as opposed to economic individualism; general respect for tradition, hierarchy and stability as opposed to advocating for social change; and a belief in the un/fairness and in/efficiency of markets (Jost et al., 2009).”
From Political Ideology and Polarization: A Multi-dimensional Approach (2022) · cites this paper as Jost et al., 2009
Political and cultural psychologists identify several categories of values that differ between conservatives and liberals: conservatives are high and liberals are low on conformity, uncertainty avoidance, maintenance of status quo, order and tradition, closedness about new ideas and ways, inequality of people, authoritarianism, dogmatism and rigidity in moral judgment, stereotyping, prejudice, and
“Political and cultural psychologists identify several categories of values that differ between conservatives and liberals - conservatives are high on each of the following and liberals are low: conformity, uncertainty avoidance, maintenance of status quo, order and tradition, closedness about new ideas and ways, inequality of people (both social inequality and economic inequality), authoritarian”
From Parasite-stress promotes in-group assortative sociality: The cases of strong family ties and heightened religiosity (2012) · cites this paper as Jost et al. 2009
Collectivism-individualism and conservatism-liberalism are unidimensional variables.
“Both collectivism-individualism and conservatism-liberalism are unidimensional variables (Gelfand et al. 2004; Jost et al. 2009).”
From Parasite-stress promotes in-group assortative sociality: The cases of strong family ties and heightened religiosity (2012) · cites this paper as Jost et al. 2009
Cites
The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037//0033-2909.117.3.497 · Cited by 23,245 · see citing works
The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behavior
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (2004) · Political Psychology · doi:10.4324/9780203505984-16 · Cited by 13,467 · 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 21× · see citing works
“The discursive superstructure refers to the network of socially constructed attitudes, values, and beliefs bound up with a particular ideological position at a particular time and place ( Jost et al. 2003c).”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialSelf-citationLerner, M. J. (1980) · doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-0448-5 · Cited by 2,656 · see citing works
Greenberg, J., Solomon, S., & Pyszczynski, T. (1997) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60016-7 · Cited by 1,505 · see citing works
The psychology of system justification and the palliative function of ideology
Jost, J., & Hunyady, O. (2003) · European Review of Social Psychology · doi:10.1080/10463280240000046 · Cited by 833 · see citing works
Self-citationLandau, M. J., Solomon, S., Greenberg, J., Cohen, F., Pyszczynski, T., Arndt, J., Miller, C. H., Ogilvie, D. M., & Cook, A. (2004) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/0146167204267988 · Cited by 663 · see citing works
Conservatives are more easily disgusted than liberals
Inbar, Y., Pizarro, D. A., & Bloom, P. (2009) · Cognition & Emotion · doi:10.1080/02699930802110007 · Cited by 574 · see citing works
Greenberg, J., Simon, L., Pyszczynski, T., Solomon, S., & Chatel, D. (1992) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.63.2.212 · Cited by 487 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Some studies suggest that mortality salience increases prejudice, but only in people who are already predisposed toward the holding of prejudicial attitudes (Greenberg et al. 1992).”
BackgroundThreat, authoritarianism, and selective exposure to information
Lavine, H., Lodge, M., & Freitas, K. (2005) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2005.00416.x · Cited by 227 · see citing works
McCann, S. J. H. (2008) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.94.5.913 · Cited by 116 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Fincher, C. L., & Thornhill, R. (2012) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x11000021 · Cited by 526 · see citing works
Walter, N., & Tukachinsky, R. (2020) · Communication Research · doi:10.1177/0093650219854600 · Cited by 522 · see citing works
Boutyline, A., & Willer, R. (2017) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/pops.12337 · Cited by 491 · see citing works
Wullenkord, M. C., Tröger, J., Hamann, K. R. S., Loy, L. S., & Reese, G. (2021) · Climatic Change · doi:10.1007/s10584-021-03234-6 · Cited by 344 · see citing works
Hennes, E. P., Nam, H. H., Stern, C., & Jost, J. T. (2012) · Social Cognition · doi:10.1521/soco.2012.30.6.669 · Cited by 245 · see citing works
Self-citationPluralistic Collapse: The “Oil Spill” Model of Mass Opinion Polarization
DellaPosta, D. (2020) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.1177/0003122420922989 · Cited by 219 · see citing works
Political Psychology in the Digital (mis)Information age: A Model of News Belief and Sharing
Van Bavel, J. J., Harris, E. A., Pärnamets, P., Rathje, S., Doell, K. C., & Tucker, J. A. (2021) · Social Issues and Policy Review · doi:10.1111/sipr.12077 · Cited by 213 · see citing works
Motivated Closed‐Mindedness Mediates the Effect of Threat on Political Conservatism
Thórisdóttir, H., & Jost, J. T. (2011) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2011.00840.x · Cited by 202 · see citing works
Self-citationOrdabayeva, N., & Fernandes, D. (2018) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1093/jcr/ucy004 · Cited by 192 · see citing works
Golec de Zavala, A., & Federico, C. M. (2018) · European Journal of Social Psychology · doi:10.1002/ejsp.2496 · Cited by 136 · see citing works
Self-citationKrouwel, 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
“Ideologies aim at describing and interpreting the functioning of society by relying on assertions or assumptions about “human nature, historical events, present realities, and future possibilities” (Jost et al., 2009, p. 309).”
InfluentialClark, C. J., & Winegard, B. M. (2020) · Psychological Inquiry · doi:10.1080/1047840x.2020.1721233 · Cited by 128 · see citing works
The illusion of explanatory depth and endorsement of conspiracy beliefs
Vitriol, J. A., & Marsh, J. K. (2018) · European Journal of Social Psychology · doi:10.1002/ejsp.2504 · Cited by 118 · see citing works
Ideology and the promotion of social change
Becker, J. C. (2020) · Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.cobeha.2019.10.005 · Cited by 117 · see citing works
Algorithmic Political Bias in Artificial Intelligence Systems
Peters, U. (2022) · Philosophy & Technology · doi:10.1007/s13347-022-00512-8 · Cited by 111 · see citing works
Moral polarization and out-party hostility in the US political context
Tappin, B. M., & McKay, R. T. (2019) · Journal of Social and Political Psychology · doi:10.5964/jspp.v7i1.1090 · Cited by 79 · see citing works
An Asymmetrical “President-in-Power” Effect
MORISI, D., JOST, J. T., & SINGH, V. (2019) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055418000850 · Cited by 73 · see citing works
Self-citationIdeologies that justify political violence
Webber, D., Kruglanski, A., Molinario, E., & Jasko, K. (2020) · Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.cobeha.2020.01.004 · Cited by 72 · see citing works
Orian Harel, T., Maoz, I., & Halperin, E. (2020) · Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.cobeha.2019.11.013 · Cited by 71 · see citing works
Masters of suspicion: A Bayesian decision model of motivated political reasoning
Rigoli, F. (2021) · Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour · doi:10.1111/jtsb.12274 · Cited by 15 · 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
“Political ideology rests on a set of beliefs about the proper order of a society and ways to achieve this order (Jost et al., 2009; Adorno et al., 2019; Campbell et al., 1980).”
BackgroundInfluential
- Authors
- Jost, J. T., Federico, C. M., & Napier, J. L.
- Affiliations
- New York University (US)
- University of Minnesota (US)
- Venue
- Annual Review of Psychology
- Publisher
- Annual Reviews
- Published
- 2009-01-01
- Volume
- 60
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 307-337
- ISSN
- 0066-4308 (ISSN-L)
- 1545-2085
- OpenAlex
- W2128106636
- Cited by
- 2,125
- References
- 12
- Citations by year
- 2026: 140 · 2025: 164 · 2024: 186 · 2023: 146 · 2022: 174 · 2021: 198 · 2020: 204 · 2019: 166 · 2018: 146 · 2017: 127 · 2016: 90 · 2015: 78 · 2014: 95 · 2013: 73 · 2012: 61
- FWCI
- 14.36
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Annual Review of Psychology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Opinion Dynamics and Social Influence
- Keywords
- political ideology, Elective Affinities, political attitudes, system justification
- MeSH terms
- Attitude, Authoritarianism, Culture, Humans, Individuality, Motivation, Politics, Prejudice, Social Environment, Social Identification, Social Problems, Social Values, United States
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
