Social Justice Research

, Volume 23, Issue 2–3, pp 156–188 | Cite as

More than Ideology: Conservative–Liberal Identity and Receptivity to Political Cues

  • Ariel MalkaEmail author
  • Yphtach Lelkes


To many commentators and social scientists, Americans’ stances on political issues are to an important extent driven by an underlying conservative–liberal ideological dimension. Self-identification as conservative vs. liberal is regarded as a marker of this dimension. However, past research has not thoroughly distinguished between ideological identity (a self-categorization) and ideology (an integrated value system). This research evaluates the thesis that conservative–liberal identity functions as a readiness to adopt beliefs and attitudes about newly politicized issues that one is told are consistent with the socially prescribed meaning of conservatism–liberalism. In Study 1, conservative–liberal identity, measured in 2000, had an independent prospective effect on support for invading Iraq in 2002 and support for the Iraq war in 2004, controlling for substantive ideology, party identity, and demographics. In Study 2, conservative- and liberal-identifiers adopted stances on farm subsidy policy based on randomly varied cues indicating which ideological group supports which stance. This cue-based influence was mediated by adoption of attitude-supportive beliefs. Discussion addresses the joint impact of political discourse and identity-based social influence on the organization of political attitudes.


Conservatism Liberalism Ideology Political attitudes Identity Social influence 


  1. Abramowitz, A. I., & Saunders, K. L. (2006). Exploring the bases of partisanship in the American electorate: Social identity vs. ideology. Political Research Quarterly, 59, 175–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adams, G. D. (1997). Abortion: Evidence of an issue evolution. American Journal of Political Science, 41, 718–737.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alford, J. R., Funk, C. L., & Hibbing, J. R. (2005). Are political orientations genetically transmitted? American Political Science Review, 99, 153–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Allen, V., & Wilder, D. (1977). Social comparison, self-evaluation, and group conformity. In J. M. Sulls & R. L. Miller (Eds.), Social comparison processes: Theoretical and empirical perspectives (pp. 187–206). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  5. Baldassari, D., & Gelman, A. (2008). Partisans without constraint: Political polarization and trends in American public opinion. American Journal of Sociology, 114, 408–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bartels, L. M. (1993). The political impact of media exposure. American Political Science Review, 87, 267–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Garden City, New York: Anchor Books.Google Scholar
  8. Bobbio, N. (1996). Left and right. Cambridge, UK: Polity.Google Scholar
  9. Boninger, D. S., Krosnick, J. A., & Berent, M. K. (1995). Origins of attitude importance: Self-interest, social identification, and value relevance. Journal of Social and Personality Psychology, 68, 61–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brewer, M. D. (2005). The rise of partisanship and the expansion of partisan conflict within the American electorate. Political Research Quarterly, 58, 219–230.Google Scholar
  11. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American voter. Chicago: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  12. Carmines, E. G., & Stimson, J. A. (1989). Issue evolution: Race and the transformation of American politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Carney, D. R., Jost, J. T., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2008). The secret lives of liberals and conservatives: Personality profiles, interaction styles, and the things they leave behind. Political Psychology, 29, 807–840.Google Scholar
  14. Cohen, G. L. (2003). Party over policy: The dominating impact of group influence on political beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 808–822.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Conover, P. J., & Feldman, S. (1981). The origins and meaning of liberal/conservative self-identifications. American Journal of Political Science, 25, 617–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Converse, P. E. (1964). Nature of belief systems in mass publics. In D. Apter (Ed.), Ideology and discontent (pp. 206–261). New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  17. Converse, P. E. (2007). Perspectives on mass belief systems and communication. In R. J. Dalton & H.-D. Klingemann (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political behavior (pp. 144–158). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Converse, P. E., & Markus, G. B. (1979). Plus ca change…: The new CPS election study panel. American Political Science Review, 73, 32–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cooley, C. H. (1902). Human nature and the social order. New York: Scribner’s.Google Scholar
  20. Davies, N. (1996). Europe: A history. New York: Harper Perennial.Google Scholar
  21. Deaux, K. (1992). Personalizing identity and socializing self. In G. Breakwell (Ed.), Social psychology of identity and the self-concept (pp. 9–33). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  22. Deutsch, M., & Gerrard, H. B. (1955). A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgment. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 629–636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Duckitt, J., & Sibley, C. G. (2009). A dual-process motivational model of ideology, politics, and prejudice. Psychological Inquiry, 20, 98–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Duckitt, J., Wagner, C., du Plessis, I., & Birum, I. (2002). The psychological bases of ideology and prejudice: Testing a dual-process model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 75–93.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Eaves, L. J., Eysenck, H. J., & Martin, N. G. (1989). Genes, culture, and personality: An empirical approach. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  26. Ellis, C., & Stimson, J. A. (2007). On symbolic conservatism in America. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, Illinois.Google Scholar
  27. Federico, C. M., & Schneider, M. C. (2007). Political expertise and the use of ideology: Moderating effects of evaluative motivation. Public Opinion Quarterly, 71, 221–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Feldman, S. (2003). Values, ideology, and structure of political attitudes. In D. O. Sears, L. Huddy, & R. Jervis (Eds.), Oxford handbook of political psychology (pp. 477–508). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Festinger, L. (1950). Laboratory experiments: The role of group belongingness. In J. G. Miller (Ed.), Experiments in social process (pp. 31–46). New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  30. Fiorina, M. P., & Abrams, S. J. (2009). Disconnect: The breakdown of representation in contemporary America. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
  31. Fiorina, M. P., Abrams, S. J., & Pope, J. C. (2006). Culture war? The myth of a polarized America. New York: Pearson-Longman.Google Scholar
  32. Fiske, A. P., Kitayama, S., Markus, H. R., & Nisbett, R. E. (1998). The cultural matrix of social psychology. In D. T. Gilbert, S. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 915–981). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  33. Fleming, M. A., & Petty, R. E. (2000). Identity and persuasion: An elaboration likelihood approach. In D. J. Terry & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Attitudes, behavior, and social context: The role of norms and group membership (pp. 171–199). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.Google Scholar
  34. Free, L. A., & Cantril, H. (1967). The political beliefs of Americans. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Gerber, E. R., & Jackson, J. E. (1993). Endogenous preferences and the study of institutions. American Political Science Review, 87, 639–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Gerring, J. (1997). Ideology: A definitional analysis. Political Research Quarterly, 50, 957–994.Google Scholar
  37. Gerring, J. (1998). Party ideologies in America, 1828–1996. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Goren, P., Federico, C. M., & Kittilson, M. C. (2009). Source cues, partisan identities, and political value expression. American Journal of Political Science, 53, 805–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Green, D., Palmquist, B., & Schickler, E. (2002). Partisan hearts and minds: Political parties and the social identities of voters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Hardin, C. D., & Conley, T. D. (2001). A relational approach to cognition: Shared experience and relationship affirmation in social cognition. In G. B. Moskowitz (Ed.), Cognitive social psychology: The Princeton symposium on the legacy and future of social cognition (pp. 3–17). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  41. Hardin, C. D., & Higgins, E. T. (1996). Shared reality: How social verification makes the subjective objective. In E. T. Higgins & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: The interpersonal context (Vol. 3, pp. 28–77). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  42. Hofstadter, R. (1955). The age of reform from Bryan to F.D.R. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  43. Huddy, L. (2001). From social to political identity: A critical examination of social identity theory. Political Psychology, 22, 127–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Insko, C. A., Smith, R. H., Alicke, M. D., Wade, J., & Taylor, J. (1985). Conformity and group size: The concern with being right and the concern with being liked. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 11, 41–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Jacoby, W. G. (1995). The structure of ideological thinking in the American electorate. American Journal of Political Science, 39, 314–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Jennings, K. (1992). Ideological thinking among mass publics and political elites. Public Opinion Quarterly, 56, 419–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Jennings, M. K., Stoker, L., & Bowers, J. (2001). Politics across the generations: Family transmission reexamined. Berkeley, CA: Institute of Governmental Studies. Working Paper 2001-15.Google Scholar
  48. Joseph, C. M., Graham, J., & Haidt, J. (2009). The end of equipotentiality: A moral foundations approach to ideology-attitude links and cognitive complexity. Psychological Inquiry, 20, 172–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Jost, J. T., Federico, C. M., & Napier, J. L. (2009). Political ideology: Its structure, functions, and elective affinities. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 307–337.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 339–375.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Jost, J. T., Nosek, B. A., & Gosling, S. D. (2008). Ideology: Its resurgence in social, personality, and political psychology. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 126–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Judd, C. M., & Krosnick, J. A. (1989). The structural bases of consistency among political attitudes: The effects of political expertise and attitude importance. In A. R. Pratkanis, S. J. Breckler, & A. G. Greenwald (Eds.), Attitude structure and function. Hillsday, NJ: Earlbaum.Google Scholar
  53. Kelman, H. C. (1961). Processes of attitude change. Public Opinion Quarterly, 25, 57–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Krosnick, J. A. (1990). Government policy and citizen passion: A study of issue publics in contemporary America. Political Behavior, 12, 59–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Layman, G. C., & Carsey, T. M. (2002). Party polarization and party structuring of policy attitudes: A comparison of three NES panel studies. Political Behavior, 24, 199–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Layman, G. C., Carsey, T. M., & Horowitz, J. M. (2006). Party polarization in American politics: Characteristics, causes, and consequences. Annual Review of Political Science, 9, 83–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Levitin, T. E., & Miller, W. E. (1979). Ideological interpretations of presidential elections. American Political Science Review, 73, 751–771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Lipset, S. M. (1989). Liberalism, conservatism, and Americanism. Ethics and International Affairs, 3, 205–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 2098–2109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Lupia, A., & McCubbins, M. D. (1998). The democratic dilemma. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Luskin, R. C. (1987). Measuring political sophistication. American Journal of Political Science, 31, 856–899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Mackie, D. M., & Queller, S. (2000). The impact of group membership on persuasion: Revisiting “who says what to whom with what effect?”. In D. J. Terry & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Attitudes, behavior, and social context: The role of norms and group membership (pp. 135–155). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  63. Mackie, D. M., Worth, L. T., & Asuncion, A. G. (1990). Processing of persuasive in-group messages. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 812–822.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. McClosky, H. (1958). Conservatism and personality. American Political Science Review, 52, 27–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Mead, G. H. (1925). The genesis of the self and social control. International Journal of Ethics, 35, 251–273.Google Scholar
  66. Miller, A. G., McHoskey, J. W., Bane, C. M., & Dowd, T. G. (1993). The attitude polarization phenomenon: Role of response measure, attitude extremity, and behavioral consequences of reported attitude change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 561–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Mondak, J. J., & Halperin, K. D. (2008). A framework for the study of personality and political behavior. British Journal of Political Science, 38, 335–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Moscovici, S. (1980). Toward a theory of conversion behavior. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 13, pp. 209–239). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  69. Niemi, R. G., & Jennings, M. K. (1991). Issues and inheritance in the formation of party identification. American Journal of Political Science, 35, 970–988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Olson, J. M., Vernon, P. A., Jang, K. L., & Harris, J. A. (1991). The heritability of attitudes: A study of twins. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 845–860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Peffley, M. A., & Hurwitz, J. (1985). A hierarchical model of attitude constraint. American Journal of Political Science, 29, 871–890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (19th ed., pp. 123–205). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  73. Poole, K., & Rosenthal, H. (1997). Congress: A political-economic history of roll call voting. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  74. Rahn, W. M. (1993). The role of partisan stereotypes in information processing about political candidates. American Journal of Political Science, 37, 472–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Reid, A., & Deaux, K. (1996). Relationship between social and personal identities: Segregation or integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 1084–1091.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Sears, D. O. (1975). Political socialization. In F. I. Greenstein & N. W. Polsby (Eds.), Handbook of political science (Vol 2). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  77. Shafer, B. E., & Claggett, W. J. M. (1995). The two majorities: The issue context of American politics. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  78. Shapiro, R. Y., & Bloch-Elkon, Y. (2007). Ideological partisanship and American public opinion toward foreign policy. In M. H. Halperin, J. Laurenti, P. Rundlet, & S. P. Boyer (Eds.), Power and superpower: Global leadership and exceptionalism in the 21st century (pp. 49–68). New York: Century Foundation Press.Google Scholar
  79. Shils, E. A. (1954). Authoritarianism: “Right” and “left”. In R. Christie & M. Jahoda (Eds.), Studies in the scope and method of “The Authoritarian Personality” (pp. 24–49). Glencoe, IL: Free Press.Google Scholar
  80. Sniderman, P. M., Brody, R. A., & Tetlock, P. E. (1991). Reasoning and choice: Explorations in political psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Sniderman, P. M., & Bullock, J. (2004). A consistency theory of public opinion and political choice: The hypothesis of menu dependence. In W. E. Saris & P. M. Sniderman (Eds.), Studies in public opinion: Attitudes, nonattitudes, measurement error, and change (pp. 337–357). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  82. Stenner, K. (2005). The authoritarian dynamic. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Stenner, K. (2009). Three kinds of ‘conservatism’. Psychological Inquiry, 20, 142–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Stimson, J. A. (1975). Belief systems: Constraint, complexity, and the 1972 election. American Journal of Political Science, 19, 393–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Stimson, J. A. (2004). Tides of consent: How public opinion shapes American politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  86. Stryker, S. (1980). Symbolic interactionism. Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin/Cummings.Google Scholar
  87. Sugar, J. A., Viney, W., & Rohe, J. (1992). A comparison of contemporary and historical conservatism. Journal of General Psychology, 119, 89–97.Google Scholar
  88. Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 755–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of inter-group behavior. In S. Worchel & L. W. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.Google Scholar
  90. Terry, D. J., Hogg, M. A., & White, K. M. (2000). Attitude-behavior relations: Social identity and group membership. In D. J. Terry & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Attitudes, behavior, and social context: The role of norms and group membership (pp. 67–93). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.Google Scholar
  91. The National Election Studies ( The National Election Study 2000–2002–2004 Full Panel File [dataset]. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, Center for Political Studies [producer and distributor].
  92. Turner, J. C. (1991). Social influence. Belmont, CA: Thomas Brooks/Cole Publishing.Google Scholar
  93. Turner, J. C., Oakes, P. J., Haslam, S. A., & McGarty, C. (1994). Self and collective: Cognition and social context. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 454–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Verhulst, B., Hatemi, P. K., & Martin, N. G. (2010). The nature of the relationship between personality traits and political attitudes. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 306–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Wilson, G. D., & Patterson, J. R. (1968). A new measure of conservatism. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 7, 264–269.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  96. Zaller, J. R. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Yeshiva CollegeYeshiva UniversityNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Stanford UniversityPalo AltoUSA

Personalised recommendations