The Origins & Meaning of Liberal/Conservative Self-Identifications Revisited

Abstract

This paper examines the permanence of differences in the psychological underpinnings of ideological self-identifications. Previous research has suggested that conservatives differ from liberals insofar as their self-identifications as such are best explained as the product of a negative reaction (both to liberalism generally and to the groups associated with it in particular) rather than a positive embrace. However, this paper demonstrates that the dynamics underlying the formation of ideological self-identifications are not static reflections of inherent differences in liberal and conservative psychologies but rather evolve in response to changes in the political environment. Whereas feelings (positive or negative) toward liberalism played a decisive role in shaping individuals' ideological self-identifications during the New Deal/Great Society era of liberal and Democratic political hegemony, the subsequent resurgence of political conservatism produced a decisive shift in the bases of liberal and conservative self-identifications. In particular, just as conservative self-identifications once primarily represented a reaction against liberalism and its associated symbols, hostility toward conservatism and its associated symbols has in recent years become an increasingly important source of liberal self-identifications.Scholarship in the field of political psychology has suggested that the dynamics underlying the formation of liberal and conservative ideological self-identifications differ significantly. In particular, Conover and Feldman's (1981) analysis of the cognitive and symbolic sources of ideological self-identifications demonstrated that

The long and short of it: The unpredictability of late deciding voters

“…For example, much attention has been devoted to conceptualization and measurement of party identification (e.g., Green et al, 2002;Weinschenk, 2010;Zschirnt, 2011). However, shortterm forces, including a discussion with a friend or coworker (Beck et al, 2002), television ads (Huber and Arceneaux, 2007), or various characteristics of the candidates such as their facial appearance (Ballew and Todorov, 2007) or perceived personality (Kinder, 1986), are nearly infinite in number and are much harder to measure and link to the voting decision (e.g., Miller and Shanks, 1996).…”

Same blueprint, different bricks: reexamining the sources of the gender gap in political ideology

“…An additional advantage of our approach is that, by incorporating values and attachments into our model, we insure that our inferences are less vulnerable to omitted variable bias than other studies of gender and ideology. Following other work on symbolic attachments, Politics, Groups, and Identities we capture them with feeling thermometer items in which individuals rate their warmth toward big business and environmentalists, two groups with traditionally conservative and liberal alignments and reputations (Conover and Feldman 1981;Zschirnt 2011). Core values are measured by agreement with the following statements: (1) the country would be better off if we worried less about how equal people are and (2) the country would have fewer problems if we placed more emphasis on traditional family values.…”

The “L” Word

“…But in symbolic terms, as Ellis and Stimson (2009, 2011) point out, a plurality of Americans claim identification with the conservative label. They may do so for reasons that are wholly unrelated to politics.…”

“…Hussey 2012). What is more, while many Americans hold policy positions that are commonly associated with modern understandings of liberalism (and are, therefore, operationally liberal), in symbolic terms, the electorate is more conservative in nature (Claassen, Tucker, and Smith 2015;Ellis and Stimson 2009, 2011.…”

“…The uneven nature of partisan sorting and the observed divide between operational and symbolic ideology have both been linked to Republican efforts at making "liberal" 648011P RQXXX10.1177 1 University at Buffalo, NY, USA a dirty word (Eisinger, Veenstra, and Koehn 2007;Ellis and Stimson 2009, 2011Kenix 2009;Schiffer 2000;cf. Carmines and Berkman 1994;Fleishman 1986, 529).…”