Cited by 68Electoral Systems and Political ParticipationPolitical Dynamics in Latin AmericaPolitics and Society in Latin America

Knowing Left from Right: Ideological Identification in Brazil, 2002-2006

Open access
Ames, Barry, Smith, Amy Erica·2010·Journal of Politics in Latin America

Abstract

Ideology, typically defined on a left-right spectrum, should provide a means of communication between elites and masses. After years of leftist party rule, have Brazilian voters internalized ideological divisions? Longitudinal surveys conducted from 2002 to 2006 reveal high nonresponse and instability in ideological self-identification. We find that the capacity to think ideologically is in part a function of political and social context. This capacity has real political consequences. A Heckman selection model reveals that those who refuse to take an ideological position or who exhibit high instability in self-identification tend to be latent rightists and to choose rightist presidential candidates. Moreover, they interpret the ideological spectrum differently from those who are more consistent in ideological self-placement. We thus make two contributions, showing how contextual factors influence ideological thinking and how low levels of ideological thinking affect the measurement of Brazilian public opinion.

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 · 10.1177/1866802x1000200301

Cites

1 of 1 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?

  • Brazilians lack a basic understanding of left and right and show low levels of issue constraint.

    “Similarly, Brazilians are said to lack a basic understanding of left and right and to show low levels of issue constraint (Ames and Smith 2010; Kearney and Machado 2018).”

    From Them’ without ‘us’: Negative identities and affective polarization in Brazil (2022) · cites this paper as Ames and Smith 2010

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

Authors
Ames, B., & Smith, A. E.
Affiliations
University of Pittsburgh (US)
Venue
Journal of Politics in Latin America
Published
2010-12
Volume
2
Issue
3
Pages
3-38
ISSN
  • 1866-802X (ISSN-L)
  • 1868-4890
OpenAlex
W2156045482
Cited by
68
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 3
FWCI
20.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Politics in Latin America (publishedVersion, cc-by-nd)
  • Americanae (AECID Library) (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • Social Science Open Access Repository (GESIS – Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Dynamics in Latin America
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Politics and Society in Latin America
Keywords
ideological self-identification, left-right ideology, nonresponse, measurement instability, political context, social environment, public opinion measurement, Brazilian voters

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