A Typology of Ideological Attitudes Towards Social Solidarity and Social Control

Abstract

Research on ideological attitudes has identified two main dimensions that refer to two fundamental features of group organization: social solidarity and social control. In response to prior research that has studied their relationship mainly from a correlational perspective, this paper introduces a social reality model based on psychological functionality of ideological attitudes. Social position variables (education, income and material vulnerability) and insecurity variables (fear of crime and distrust) are used to predict the interplay between ideological attitudes towards social solidarity and social control. Using K-means cluster analysis, a typology with four patterns of support for solidarity and control ('socials', 'repressives', 'minimalists' and 'social-repressives') was created, on the basis of representative survey data for the UK, France and Germany (N = 7034). Results from logistic regression analyses show that the proposed social reality model explains membership in typology categories, with similar results across the three countries. Overall, the model underscores the social origins of ideological attitudes as functional responses to perceived social reality. The paper illustrates how the social psychological study of ideological attitudes may be enriched by a typological approach that examines patterns of attitudes rather than single dimensions.

The Social and Political Dimensions of Solidarity in Italy

“…Indeed, as regards refugees support, the libertarian-authoritarian index is still significant, whereas the left-right self-placement is no longer significant compared to previous separated model for political variables (Model B). Ideological orientations in terms of left and right are not important predictors of solidarity practices in Italy for any of our target groups, contrary to our expectations based on previous literature (Likki and Staerklé 2014). Conversely, according to our expectations, political values in terms of authoritarian and libertarian attitudes foster solidarity actions towards a specific target group like refugees.…”

“…Second, much research has focused on public support of redistributive policies (Alesina and Giuliano 2011;Amat and Wibbels 2009;Fong 2001;Rehm 2009), but less knowledge was available in regard to interpersonal forms of solidarity. Furthermore, previous studies have not addressed solidarity-related issues in a systematic manner, focusing only on specific explanatory factors: some have focused on social capital (Putnam et al 2003;Jenkins 1983), others on social beliefs like perceptions of deservingness (Oorschot 2000(Oorschot , 2006, others on religiosity (Abela 2004;Stegmueller et al 2012;Lichterman 2015), others on political preferences (Likki and Staerklé 2014), and so on. This study has permitted to fill this gap, providing a comprehensive explanation of social, political, and attitudinal triggers of solidarity practices towards specific groups of needy people.…”

“…Indeed, we aim to identify the interrelation between political orientations on the one side and solidarity practices on the other. In this regard, studies agree on the fact that solidarity is also highly patterned by political preferences and ideological orientations (Blekesaune and Quadagno 2003;Amat and Wibbels 2009;Likki and Staerklé 2014). Among political factors, it is also important to consider political involvement in terms of interest in politics and party attachment because they are often associated with civic engagement (Scrivens and Smith 2013).…”

Solidarity in Europe–European Solidarity: An Introduction

“…Scholarly writing seems to support some of the research assumptions presented before, by showing how political behavior is patterned by social inequalities and forms of social exclusion (Brady et al 1995;Kronauer 1998;Grasso 2013;Dunn et al 2014;Giugni and Grasso 2015a;Grasso et al 2017b). Moreover, studies agree on the fact that solidarity is also highly patterned by political preferences and orientation, for example, along the left-right scale (Likki and Staerklé 2014). Social movement analysis adds relevant knowledge by pointing to the importance of mobilization processes lead by existing organizations and groups, with the latter considered as collective means of mobilizing, organizing, and perpetuating (transnational) solidarity in terms of binding norms, commitments, and behaviors (Smith 1997;Balme and Chabanet 2008;della Porta and Caiani 2011;Baglioni and Giugni 2014;Giugni and Grasso 2015b).…”

“…Fourth, we aim to identify the interrelation between political orientations and behaviors on the one side, and solidarity dispositions and practices on the other. In particular, we try to assess whether relevant factors investigated at the national level, for example, levels of political participation, political preferences, and ideological orientations (e.g., Blekesaune and Quadagno 2003;Amat and Wibbels 2009;Likki and Staerklé 2014;Giugni and Grasso 2017), also differentiate citizens with regard to solidarity. Finally, we wanted to identify the role of ideational and cognitive factors, too, assuming that the collective identities and the attachment to groups and communities might condition levels of solidarity (Luttmer 2001;Komter 2005) as much as religion and religiosity (Stegmueller et al 2012;Lichterman 2015), moral norms, and visions of a desirable social order (Stets and McCaffree 2014).…”