Self-reported political ideology

Abstract

American politics scholarship has relied extensively on self-reported measures of ideology. We evaluate these widely used measures through an original national survey. Descriptively, we show that Americans’ understandings of “liberal” and “conservative” are weakly aligned with conventional definitions of these terms and that such understandings are heterogeneous across social groups, casting doubt on the construct validity and measurement equivalence of ideological self-placements. Experimentally, we randomly assign one of three measures of ideology to each respondent: (1) the standard ANES question, (2) a version that adds definitions of “liberal” and “conservative,” and (3) a version that keeps these definitions but removes ideological labels from the question. We find that the third measure, which helps to isolate symbolic ideology from operational ideology, shifts self-reported ideology in important ways: Democrats become more conservative, and Republicans more liberal. These findings offer first-cut experimental evidence on the limitations of self-reported ideology as a measure of operational ideology, and contribute to ongoing debates about the use of ideological self-placements in American politics.

Establishing the Construct and Predictive Validity of Brief Measures of Affective Polarization

“…Overall, in line with other recent studies (e.g., Ansolabehere et al, 2008;Bakker & Lelkes, 2018;Clayton et al, 2023;Marcus et al, 2017;Yeung & Quek, 2024), our research highlights the necessity of validating key constructs in our research. This is vital to ensure the reliability and validity of research findings required to further our understanding of complex political phenomena.…”