Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T12:11:41.464Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

In Defense of Ideology

Reexamining the Role of Ideology in the American Electorate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 April 2023

Elizabeth N. Simas
Affiliation:
University of Houston

Summary

Years of collective political science research has fueled the stereotype of the uninformed or illogical American voter who ardently supports parties or candidates but lacks any cohesive ideological reasons for doing so. Prior works, however, do not tell the whole story nor fully capture the nature of public opinion in today's increasingly polarized political environment. Thus, this Element makes the case for more careful and nuanced assessments of ideological thinking in the American electorate. Using a variety of more contemporary survey and experimental data, it shows that a substantial portion of Americans do hold coherent political beliefs and that these beliefs have important consequences for the American political system. Though partisanship still plays a powerful role, the electorate as this Element presents it is much more ideological than the literature too often assumes.
Get access
Type
Element
Information
Online ISBN: 9781009228169
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication: 11 May 2023

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abramowitz, Alan I. 2011. The Disappearing Center: Engaged Citizens, Polarization, and American Democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Achen, Christopher H. 1975. “Mass Political Attitudes and the Survey Response.” American Political Science Review 69(4): 1218–31.Google Scholar
Aldrich, John H., and Mckelvey, Richard D.. 1977. “A Method of Scaling with Applications to the 1968 and 1972 Presidential Elections.” American Political Science Review 71(1): 111–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aldrich, John H., Niemi, Richard G., Rabinowitz, George, and Rohde, David W.. 1982. “The Measurement of Public Opinion about Public Policy: A Report on Some New Issue Question Formats.” American Journal of Political Science 26(2): 391414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen, and Rivers, Douglas. 2013. “Cooperative Survey Research.” Annual Review of Political Science 16: 307–29.Google Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen, Rodden, Jonathan, and Snyder, James M.. 2008. “The Strength of Issues: Using Multiple Measures to Gauge Preference Stability, Ideological Constraint, and Issue Voting.” American Political Science Review 102(2): 215–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ansolabehere, Stephen, and Schaffner, Brian F.. 2014. “Does Survey Mode Still Matter? Findings from a 2010 Multi-Mode Comparison.” Political Analysis 22(3): 285303.Google Scholar
Bankert, Alexa. 2021. “Negative and Positive Partisanship in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Elections.” Political Behavior 43(4): 1467–85.Google Scholar
Barber, Michael, and Pope, Jeremy C.. 2019. “Does Party Trump Ideology? Disentangling Party and Ideology in America.” American Political Science Review 113(1): 3854.Google Scholar
Boudreau, Cheryl, and Mackenzie, Scott A.. 2014. “Informing the Electorate? How Party Cues and Policy Information Affect Public Opinion about Initiatives.” American Journal of Political Science 58(1): 4862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bullock, John G. 2011. “Elite Influence on Public Opinion in an Informed Electorate.” American Political Science Review 105(3): 496515.Google Scholar
Canes-Wrone, Brandice, Brady, David W., and Cogan, John F.. 2002. “Out of Step, Out of Office: Electoral Accountability and House Members’ Voting.” American Political Science Review 96(1): 127–40.Google Scholar
Chang, Linchiat, and Krosnick, Jon A.. 2009. “National Surveys via RDD Telephone Interviewing versus the Internet: Comparing Sample Representativeness and Response Quality.” Public Opinion Quarterly 73(4): 641–78.Google Scholar
Chong, Dennis, and Mullinix, Kevin J.. 2019. “Information and Issue Constraints on Party Cues.” American Politics Research 47(6): 1209–38.Google Scholar
Claassen, Christopher, Tucker, Patrick, and Smith, Steven S.. 2014. “Ideological Labels in America.” Political Behavior 37(2): 253–78.Google Scholar
Clifford, Scott. 2020. “Compassionate Democrats and Tough Republicans: How Ideology Shapes Partisan Stereotypes.” Political Behavior 42(4): 1269–93.Google Scholar
Clifford, Scott, Jewell, Ryan M., and Waggoner, Philip D.. 2015. “Are Samples Drawn from Mechanical Turk Valid for Research on Political Ideology?Research and Politics 2(4).Google Scholar
Collitt, Samuel, and Highton, Benjamin. 2021. “The Policy Polarization of Party Activists in the United States.” American Politics Research 49(4): 386–99.Google Scholar
Converse, Philip. 1964. “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics.” In Ideology and Discontent, ed. Apter, David. Gelncoe: The Free Press, 206–61.Google Scholar
Converse, Philip 2006. “Democratic Theory and Electoral Reality.” Critical Review 18(1–3): 297329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Converse, Philip, and Pierce, Roy. 1986. Political Representation in France. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coppock, Alexander, and Green, Donald. 2022. “Do Belief Systems Exhibit Dynamic Constraint?Journal of Politics 84(2): 725–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coppock, Alexander, and McClellan, Oliver A.. 2019. “Validating the Demographic, Political, Psychological, and Experimental Results Obtained from a New Source of Online Survey Respondents.” Research & Politics 6(1): 205316801882217.Google Scholar
Cortina, Jose M. 1993. “What Is Coefficient Alpha? An Examination of Theory and Applications.” Journal of Applied Psychology 78(1): 98104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costa, Mia. 2021. “Ideology, Not Affect: What Americans Want from Political Representation.” American Journal of Political Science 65(2): 342–58.Google Scholar
Devine, Christopher J. 2015. “Ideological Social Identity: Psychological Attachment to Ideological In-Groups as a Political Phenomenon and a Behavioral Influence.” Political Behavior 37(3): 509–35.Google Scholar
Dias, Nicholas, and Lelkes, Yphtach. 2022. “The Nature of Affective Polarization: Disentangling Policy Disagreement from Partisan Identity.” American Journal of Political Science 66(3): 775–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dillman, Don A., Phelps, Glenn, Tortora, Robert et al. 2009. “Response Rate and Measurement Differences in Mixed-Mode Surveys Using Mail, Telephone, Interactive Voice Response (IVR) and the Internet.” Social Science Research 38(1): 118.Google Scholar
Druckman, James N. Samara Klar, Yanna Krupnikov, Matthew Levendusky, and John Barry Ryan. 2022. “(Mis-)Estimating Affective Polarization.” The Journal of Politics, 84(2):1106–1117.Google Scholar
Ellis, Christopher, and Stimson, James. 2012. The Journal of Politics 84(2): 1106–17. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Endres, Kyle, D. Hillygus, Sunshine, DeBell, Matthew, and Iyengar, Shanto. 2023. “A Randomized Experiment Evaluating Survey Mode Effects for Video Interviewing.” Political Science Research and Methods 11(1): 144–59.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P., Abrams, Samuel J., and Pope, Jeremy C.. 2011. Culture War: The Myth of a Polarized America. 3rd ed. New York: Pearson.Google Scholar
Fowler, Anthony, Hill, Seth J., Lewis, Jeffrey B. et al. 2022. “Moderates.” American Political Science Review: 118.Google Scholar
Freeder, Sean, Lenz, Gabriel S., and Turney, Shad. 2019. “The Importance of Knowing ‘What Goes with What’: Reinterpreting the Evidence on Policy Attitude Stability.” Journal of Politics 81(1): 274–90.Google Scholar
Gerring, John. 1997. “Ideology: A Definitional Analysis.” Political Research Quarterly 50(4): 957–94.Google Scholar
Goggin, Stephen N., Henderson, John A., and Theodoridis, Alexander G.. 2020. “What Goes with Red and Blue? Mapping Partisan and Ideological Associations in the Minds of Voters.” Political Behavior 42(4): 9851013.Google Scholar
Gooch, Andrew, and Vavreck, Lynn. 2019. “How Face-to-Face Interviews and Cognitive Skill Affect Item Non-Response: A Randomized Experiment Assigning Mode of Interview.” Political Science Research and Methods 7(1): 143–62.Google Scholar
Groenendyk, Eric, Kimbrough, Erik O., and Pickup, Mark. 2022. “How Norms Shape the Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics.” American Journal of Political Science.Google Scholar
Guggenheim, Lauren, McClain, Colleen, Nardis, Yioryos, and Brader, Ted. 2019. Comparing Face-to-Face and Web Modes in the ANES 2016 Time Series Study. https://electionstudies.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/ANES2016_ModeReport.pdf.Google Scholar
Hare, Christopher, Armstrong, David A., Bakker, Ryan, Carroll, Royce, and Poole, Keith T.. 2015. “Using Bayesian Aldrich-McKelvey Scaling to Study Citizens’ Ideological Preferences and Perceptions.” American Journal of Political Science 59(3): 759–74.Google Scholar
Hare, Christopher, and Poole, Keith T.. 2014. “The Polarization of Contemporary American Politics.” Polity 46(3): 411–29.Google Scholar
Hetherington, Marc J. 2001. “Resurgent Mass Partisanship: The Role of Elite Polarization.” American Political Science Review 95(3): 619–31.Google Scholar
Iyengar, Shanto, Sood, Gaurav, and Lelkes, Yphtach. 2012. “Affect, Not Ideology: A Social Identity Perspective on Polarization.” Public Opinion Quarterly 76(3): 405–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iyengar, Shanto, and Westwood, Sean J.. 2015. “Fear and Loathing across Party Lines: New Evidence on Group Polarization.” American Journal of Political Science 59(3): 690707.Google Scholar
Jennings, M. Kent. 1992. “Ideological Thinking among Mass Publics and Political Elites.” Public Opinion Quarterly 56(4): 419–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joesten, Danielle A., and Stone, Walter J.. 2014. “Reassessing Proximity Voting: Expertise, Party, and Choice in Congressional Elections.” Journal of Politics 76(3): 740–53.Google Scholar
Keith, Bruce E., Magleby, David B., Nelson, Candice J., Orr, Elizabeth A., and Westlye, Mark C.. 1992. The Myth of the Independent Voter. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Kinder, Donald R., and Kalmoe, Nathan P.. 2017. Neither Liberal or Conservative: Ideological Innocence in the American Public. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Klar, Samara, and Krupnikov, Yanna. 2016. Independent Politics: How American Disdain for Parties Leads to Politica Inaction. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Klar, Samara, Krupnikov, Yanna, and Ryan, John Barry. 2018. “Affective Polarization or Partisan Disdain? Untangling a Dislike for the Opposing Party from a Dislike of Partisanship.” Public Opinion Quarterly 82(2): 379–90.Google Scholar
Krosnick, Jon A. 1991. “Response Strategies for Coping with the Cognitive Demands of Attitude Measures in Surveys.” Applied Cognitive Psychology 5(3): 213–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krosnick, Jon A., and Berent, Matthew K.. 1993. “Comparisons of Party Identification and Policy Preferences: The Impact of Survey Question Format.” American Journal of Political Science 37(3): 941–64.Google Scholar
Krupnikov, Yanna, and Levine, Adam Seth. 2014. “Cross-Sample Comparisons and External Validity.” Journal of Experimental Political Science 1(1): 5980.Google Scholar
Lavine, Howard, and Gschwend, Thomas. 2007. “Issues, Party and Character: The Moderating Role of Ideological Thinking on Candidate Evaluation.” British Journal of Political Science 37(1): 139–63.Google Scholar
Lelkes, Yphtach. 2021. “Policy over Party: Comparing the Effects of Candidate Ideology and Party on Affective Polarization.” Political Science Research and Methods 9(1): 189–96.Google Scholar
Lelkes, Yphtach, and Westwood, Sean J.. 2017. “The Limits of Partisan Prejudice.” Journal of Politics 79(2): 485501.Google Scholar
Lenz, Gabriel S. 2012. Follow the Leader? How Voters Respond to Politicians’ Policies and Performance. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Levendusky, Matthew S. 2010. “Clearer Cues, More Consistent Voters: A Benefit of Elite Polarization.” Political Behavior 32(1): 111–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Malhotra, Neil, Krosnick, Jon A., and Thomas, Randall K.. 2009. “Optimal Design of Branching Questions to Measure Bipolar Constructs.” Public Opinion Quarterly 73(2): 304–24.Google Scholar
Malka, Ariel and Lelkes, Yphtach. 2010. “More than Ideology: Conservative-Liberal Identity and Receptivity to Political Cues.” Social Justice Research, 23: 156188.Google Scholar
Mason, Lilliana. 2018. “Ideologues without Issues: The Polarizing Consequences of Ideological Identities.” Public Opinion Quarterly 82(S1): 280301.Google Scholar
Mullinix, Kevin J. 2016. “Partisanship and Preference Formation: Competing Motivations, Elite Polarization, and Issue Importance.” Political Behavior 38(2): 383411.Google Scholar
Mummolo, Jonathan, Peterson, Erik, and Westwood, Sean. 2019. “The Limits of Partisan Loyalty.” Political Behavior 43: 949–72.Google Scholar
Nicholson, Stephen P. 2012. “Polarizing Cues.” American Journal of Political Science 56(1): 5266.Google Scholar
Orr, Lilla V., and Huber, Gregory A.. 2020. “The Policy Basis of Measured Partisan Animosity in the United States.” American Journal of Political Science 64(3): 569–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ozer, Adam. 2020. “Well, You’re the Expert: How Signals of Source Expertise Help Mitigate Partisan Bias.” Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties.Google Scholar
Peffley, Mark A., and Hurwitz, Jon. 1985. “A Hierarchical Model of Attitude Constraint.” American Journal of Political Science 29(4): 871–90.Google Scholar
Poole, Keith, and Rosenthal, Howard. 1997. Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Popp, Elizabeth, and Rudolph, Thomas J.. 2011. “A Tale of Two Ideologies: Explaining Public Support for Economic Interventions.” Journal of Politics 73(3): 808–20.Google Scholar
Rogowski, Jon C., and Sutherland, Joseph L.. 2016. “How Ideology Fuels Affective Polarization.” Political Behavior 38(2): 485508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sartori, Giovanni. 1969. “Politics, Ideology, and Belief Systems.” American Political Science Review 63(2): 398411.Google Scholar
Shor, Boris, and Rogowski, Jon C.. 2018. “Ideology and the U.S. Congressional Vote.” Political Science Research and Methods 6(2): 323–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simas, Elizabeth N. 2013. “Proximity Voting in the 2010 U.S. House Elections.” Electoral Studies 32(4): 708–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simas, Elizabeth N. 2018. “Ideology through the Partisan Lens: Applying Anchoring Vignettes to U.S. Survey Research.” International Journal of Public Opinion Research 30(3): 343–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, Brianna, Clifford, Scott, and Jerit, Jennifer. 2020. “TRENDS: How Internet Search Undermines the Validity of Political Knowledge Measures.” Political Research Quarterly 73(1): 141–55.Google Scholar
Stone, Walter J. 2017. Candidates and Voters: Ideology, Valence, and Representation in U.S. Elections. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sturgis, Patrick, Roberts, Caroline, and Smith, Patten. 2014. “Middle Alternatives Revisited: How the neither/nor Response Acts as a Way of Saying ‘I Don’t Know’?Sociological Methods and Research 43(1): 1538.Google Scholar
Tausanovitch, Chris, and Warshaw, Christopher. 2018. “Does the Ideological Proximity between Candidates and Voters Affect Voting in U.S. House Elections?Political Behavior 40: 223–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomz, Michael, and van Houweling, Robert P.. 2008. “Candidate Positioning and Voter Choice.” American Political Science Review 102(3): 303–18.Google Scholar
Tomz, Michael, and Sniderman, Paul. 2005. Brand Names and Organization of Mass Belief System. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=c751bd7df5019b0b135f2e306391e495ac0ad13a.Google Scholar
Treier, Shawn, and Sunshine Hillygus, D.. 2009. “The Nature of Political Ideology in the Contemporary Electorate.” Public Opinion Quarterly 73(4): 679703.Google Scholar
Wand, Jonathan. 2013. “Credible Comparisons Using Interpersonally Incomparable Data: Nonparametric Scales with Anchoring Vignettes.” American Journal of Political Science 57(1): 249–62.Google Scholar
Webster, Steven W., and Abramowitz, Alan I.. 2017. “The Ideological Foundations of Affective Polarization in the U.S. Electorate.” American Politics Research 45(4): 621–47.Google Scholar
Westfall, Jacob, Leaf, Van Boven, Chambers, John R., and Judd, Charles M.. 2015. “Perceiving Political Polarization in the United States.” Perspectives on Psychological Science 10(2): 145–58.Google Scholar
Zaller, John. 1985. Analysis of Information Items in the 1985 ANES Pilot Study. https://electionstudies.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/nes002261.pdf.Google Scholar
Zingher, Joshua N., and Flynn, Michael E.. 2018. “From on High: The Effect of Elite Polarization on Mass Attitudes and Behaviors, 1972–2012.” British Journal of Political Science 48(1): 2345.Google Scholar

Save element to Kindle

To save this element to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

In Defense of Ideology
Available formats
×

Save element to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

In Defense of Ideology
Available formats
×

Save element to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

In Defense of Ideology
Available formats
×