Ideologues without Issues: The Polarizing Consequences of Ideological Identities

Abstract

The distinction between a person’s ideological identity and their issue positions has come more clearly into focus in recent research. Scholars have pointed out a significant difference between identity-based and issue-based ideology in the American electorate. However, the affective and social effects of these separate elements of ideology have not been sufficiently explored. Drawing on a national sample collected by SSI and data from the 2016 ANES, this article finds that the identity-based elements of ideology are capable of driving heightened levels of affective polarization against outgroup ideologues, even at low levels of policy attitude extremity or constraint. These findings demonstrate how Americans can use ideological terms to disparage political opponents without necessarily holding constrained sets of policy attitudes.

Ideological diversity, hostility, and discrimination in philosophy

“…For instance, right-leaning individuals' WTD against left-leaning contents or individuals was less pronounced than left-leaning individuals' WTD against right-leaning contents or individuals. Additionally, both groups of participants tended to be more reluctant to defend arguments with right-leaning conclusions than those with left-leaning onesan interesting finding suggesting ideological self-censoring among participants (Bar Tal, 2017;Maroja, 2019). Moreover, while we found that factions within the leftleaning side of the political spectrum are sometimes hostile against each other too, we could not detect a similar phenomenon among right-leaning subjects.…”

“…Moreover, even advocates of misguided minority views might be epistemically beneficial in challenging and/or motivating those holding the accurate views to articulate and keep in sight the reasons for their views (Longino, 2002, p. 131;Peters 2019). An absence of and/or discrimination against misguided minority positions may also increase the probability that subjects come to hold widely shared correct views without being able to properly defend them (Maroja, 2019).…”

Communicating the effectiveness and ineffectiveness of government policies and their impact on public support: a systematic review with meta-analysis

“…It is unsurprising then, that some beliefs and attitudes are harder to change than others, such as those that have strong political implications [29,35,43]. Attitudes towards the implementation of policies are one such area that may be harder to shift, especially given that public support for some policies is increasingly influenced by political identities [44], for example, around climate change, abortion, and gun control. Yet, even so, a large literature in persuasion psychology shows that the framing of information can significantly alter the value and weight people attach to their beliefs about policies and their effectiveness [45].…”

Ideological Asymmetries in Social Psychological Research: Rethinking the Impact of Political Context on Ideological Epistemology

“…These may sometimes align, but they are not the same thing, as it is possible for people to show loyalty to a party in the absence of holding strong ideological principles (Barber & Pope, 2018) or adhere to an ideology in the absence of strong or consistent issue positions (Mason, 2018a). Political coalitions do shift over time as parties become stronger or weaker relative to their opponents, perhaps in part due to differential strength in tribal motivations of group members (which are also shifting across time and political context; see e.g., Wheeler et al, 2020).…”