Political Behavior

, Volume 39, Issue 3, pp 553–583 | Cite as

Is the Left-Right Scale a Valid Measure of Ideology?

Individual-Level Variation in Associations with “Left” and “Right” and Left-Right Self-Placement
  • Paul C. Bauer
  • Pablo Barberá
  • Kathrin Ackermann
  • Aaron Venetz
Original Paper

Abstract

In order to measure ideology, political scientists heavily rely on the so-called left-right scale. Left and right are, however, abstract political concepts and may trigger different associations among respondents. If these associations vary systematically with other variables this may induce bias in the empirical study of ideology. We illustrate this problem using a unique survey that asked respondents open-ended questions regarding the meanings they attribute to the concepts “left” and “right”. We assess and categorize this textual data using topic modeling techniques. Our analysis shows that variation in respondents’ associations is systematically related to their self-placement on the left-right scale and also to variables such as education and respondents’ cultural background (East vs. West Germany). Our findings indicate that the interpersonal comparability of the left-right scale across individuals is impaired. More generally, our study suggests that we need more research on how respondents interpret various abstract concepts that we regularly use in survey questions.

Keywords

Left-right scale Ideology Left Right Survey measurement Interpersonal comparability Measurement equivalence 

References

  1. Aldrich, J. H., & McKelvey, R. D. (1977). A method of scaling with applications to the 1968 and 1972 presidential elections. American Political Science Review, 71(1), 111–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alwin, D. F., & Krosnick, J. A. (1991). The reliability of survey attitude measurement the influence of question and respondent attributes. Sociological Methods & Research, 20(1), 139–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bafumi, J., & Herron, M. C. (2010). Leapfrog representation and extremism: A study of American voters and their members in congress. American Political Science Review, 104(3), 519–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bakker, R., Edwards, E., Jolly, S., Polk, J., Rovny, J., & Steenbergen, M. (2014a). Anchoring the experts: Using vignettes to compare party ideology across countries. Research & Politics, 1(3), 2053168014553502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bakker, R., Jolly, S., Polk, J., & Poole, K. (2014b). The European common space: Extending the use of anchoring vignettes. The Journal of Politics, 76(4), 1089–1101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barberá, P. (2015). Birds of the same feather tweet together: Bayesian ideal point estimation using twitter data. Political Analysis, 23(1), 76–91.Google Scholar
  7. Bauer-Kaase, P. (2001). Politische ideologie im wandel? eine lngsschnittanalyse der inhalte der poitischen richtungsbegriffe “links” und “rechts”. In H. D. Klingemann & M. Kaase (Eds.), Wahlen und Wahler Analysen aus Anlass der Bundestagswahl 1998 (pp. 207–243). Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag.Google Scholar
  8. Belson, W. A. (1981). The design and understanding of survey questions. Aldershot: Gower.Google Scholar
  9. Blei, D. M., Ng, A. Y., & Jordan, M. I. (2003). Latent dirichlet allocation. The Journal of Machine Learning Research, 3, 993–1022.Google Scholar
  10. Bonica, A. (2013). Ideology and interests in the political marketplace. American Journal of Political Science, 57(2), 294–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brady, H. E. (1985). The perils of survey research: Inter-personally incomparable responses. Political Methodology, 11(3/4), 269–291.Google Scholar
  12. Bratton, M. (2010). Anchoring the ’d-word’ in comparative survey research. Journal of Democracy, 21(4), 106–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bratton, M., Mattes, R. B., & Gyimah-Boadi, E. (2004). Public opinion, democracy, and market reform in Africa. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Braun, M., Behr, D., & Kaczmirek, L. (2013). Assessing cross-national equivalence of measures of xenophobia: Evidence from probing in web surveys. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 25(3), 383–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Donald, E. (1960). The American voter. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  16. Canache, D., Mondak, J. J., & Seligson, M. A. (2001). Meaning and measurement in cross-national research on satisfaction with democracy. Public Opinion Quarterly, 65(4), 506–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Conover, P. J., & Feldman, S. (1981). The origins and meaning of liberal/conservative self-identifications. American Journal of Political Science, 25(4), 617–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Converse, P. E. (1964). The nature of belief system in mass publics. In D. E. Apter (Ed.), Ideology and discontent (pp. 206–261). New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  19. Corbetta, P., Cavazza, N., & Roccato, M. (2009). Between ideology and social representations: Four theses plus (a new) one on the relevance and the meaning of the political left and right. European Journal of Political Research, 48(5), 622–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dalton, R. J., Sin, D. C., & Jou, W. (2007). Understanding democracy: Data from unlikely places. Journal of Democracy, 18(4), 142–156.Google Scholar
  21. Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  22. Dunn, K. (2011). Left-right identification and education in Europe: A contingent relationship. Comparative European Politics, 9(3), 292–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Eisenstein, J., Ahmed, A., & Xing, E. P. (2011). Sparse additive generative models of text. In Proceedings of the 28th international conference on machine learning (ICML-11) (pp. 1041–1048).Google Scholar
  24. Ekehammar, B., Nilsson, I., & Sidanius, J. (1987). Education and ideology: Basic aspects of education related to adolescents’ sociopolitical attitudes. Political Psychology, 8(3), 395–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Everett, J. A. (2013). The 12 item social and economic conservatism scale (secs). PloS One, 8(12), e82131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Fitzgerald, J. (2013). What does ’political’ mean to you? Political Behavior, 35(3), 453–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fitzgerald, R., Widdop, S., Gray, M., & Collins, D. (2011). Identifying sources of error in cross-national questionnaires: Application of an error source typology to cognitive interview data. Journal of Official Statistics, 27(4), 569–599.Google Scholar
  28. Freire, A. (2006). Bringing social identities back in: The social anchors of left-right orientation in western Europe. International Political Science Review, 27(4), 359–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Freire, A., & Belchior, A. M. (2011). What left and right means to Portuguese citizens. Comparative European Politics, 9(2), 145–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Fuchs, D., & Klingemann, H. D. (1989). Das links-rechts-schema als politischer code. ein interkultureller vergleich auf inhaltsanalytischer grundlage. In M. Haller, H. J. Hoffmann-Nowotny, & W. Zapf (Eds.), Kultur und Gesellschaft: Verhandlungen des 24. Deutschen Soziologentags, des 11. Österreichischen Soziologentags und des 8. Kongresses der Schweizerischen Gesellschaft für Soziologie in Zürich 1988 (pp. 484–498). Frankfurt am Main: Campus Verlag.Google Scholar
  31. Fuchs, D., & Klingemann, H. D. (1990). The left-right schema. In M. K. Jennings & J. W. van Deth (Eds.), Continuities in political action: A longitudinal study of political orientations in three western democracies (pp. 203–234). Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  32. Fuhse, J. A. (2004). Links oder rechts oder ganz woanders? zur konstruktion der politischen landschaft. Österreichische Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft, 33(2), 209–226.Google Scholar
  33. Gabennesch, H. (1972). Authoritarianism as world view. American Journal of Sociology, 77(5), 857–875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gerber, A. S., Huber, G. A., Doherty, D., Dowling, C. M., & Ha, S. E. (2010). Personality and political attitudes: Relationships across issue domains and political contexts. American Political Science Review, 104(1), 111–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. GESIS—Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences. (2011). ALLBUS/GGSS 2008 (Allgemeine Bevölkerungsumfrage der Sozialwissenschaften/German general social survey 2008). GESIS data archive, Cologne. ZA4600 data file version 2.0.Google Scholar
  36. GESIS—Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences. (2009). ALLBUS/GGSS 2008 (Allgemeine Bevölkerungsumfrage der Sozialwissenschaften/German General social survey 2008): Open answers to the questions on associations with the terms “left” and “right”. GESIS data archive, Cologne. ZA4605 data file version 1.0. doi:10.4232/1.11485.
  37. Groves, R. M. (1989). Survey errors and survey costs. New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hare, C., Armstrong, D. A., Bakker, R., Carroll, R., & Poole, K. T. (2015). Using Bayesian Aldrich-McKelvey scaling to study citizens’ ideological preferences and perceptions. American Journal of Political Science, 59(3), 759–774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Hochschild, J. L. (1986). What’s fair: American beliefs about distributive justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Hotelling, H. (1929). Stability in competition. The Economic Journal, 39(153), 41–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Huber, J. D. (1989). Values and partisanship in left-right orientations: Measuring ideology. European Journal of Political Research, 17(5), 599–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Inglehart, R., & Klingemann, H. D. (1976). Party identification, ideological preference and left-right dimension among western mass publics. In I. Budge, I. Crewe, & D. J. Farlie (Eds.), Party identification and beyond: Representations of voting and party competition (pp. 243–273). London: Wiley.Google Scholar
  43. Jaccard, J., & Jacoby, J. (2010). Theory construction and model-building skills: A practical guide for social scientists. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  44. Jahn, D. (2011). Conceptualizing left and right in comparative politics towards a deductive approach. Party Politics, 17(6), 745–765.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Jessee, S. A. (2009). Spatial voting in the 2004 presidential election. American Political Science Review, 103(01), 59–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kaiser, F. M., & Lilly, J. R. (1975). Political attitudes among students: A small college experience. Adolescence, 10(38), 287–295.Google Scholar
  47. King, G., & Wand, J. (2007). Comparing incomparable survey responses: Evaluating and selecting anchoring vignettes. Political Analysis, 15(1), 46–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. King, G., Murray, C. J., Salomon, J. A., & Tandon, A. (2004a). Enhancing the validity and cross-cultural comparability of measurement in survey research. American Political Science Review, 98(1), 191–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. King, G., Murray, C. J. L., Salomon, J. A., & Tandon, A. (2004b). Enhancing the validity and cross-cultural comparability of measurement in survey research. The American Political Science Review, 98(1), 191–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kitschelt, H. (2004). Diversification and reconfiguration of party systems in postindustrial democracies. Bonn: Internationale Politikanalyse, Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung.Google Scholar
  51. Kitschelt, H., & Hellemans, S. (1990). The left-right semantics and the new politics cleavage. Comparative Political Studies, 23(2), 210–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Klingemann, H. D. (1972). Testing the left-right continuum on a sample of German voters. Comparative Political Studies, 5(1), 93–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Klingemann, H. D. (1979). Measuring ideological conceptualizations. In S. H. Barnes, M. Kaase, K. R. Allerback, H. D. Klingemann, A. Marsh, & L. Rosenmayr (Eds.), Political action: Mass participation in five western democracies (pp. 215–254). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  54. Klingemann, H. D., & Wright, W. E. (1973). Dimensions of political belief systems: Levels of conceptualization as a variable. Some results for USA and FRG 1968/69. Comparative Political Studies, 5, 93–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Knutsen, O. (1995). Value orientations, political conflicts and left-right identification: A comparative study. European Journal of Political Research, 28(1), 63–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Kosinski, M., Stillwell, D., & Graepel, T. (2013). Private traits and attributes are predictable from digital records of human behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 110(15), 5802–5805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Krosnick, J. A. (1991). Response strategies for coping with the cognitive demands of attitude measures in surveys. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5(3), 213–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Leonisio, R., & Strijbis, O. (2014). Beyond self-placement: Why nationalism is a better predictor of electoral behaviour in the Basque Country. Revista Española de Investigaciones Sociológicas, 146, 47–68.Google Scholar
  59. McClintock, C. G., & Turner, H. A. (1962). The impact of college upon political knowledge, participation, and values. Human Relations, 15(2), 163–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Meisenberg, G., & Williams, A. (2008). Are acquiescent and extreme response styles related to low intelligence and education? Personality and Individual Differences, 44(7), 1539–1550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Morton, R., Tyran, J. R., & Wengström, E. (2011). Income and ideology: How personality traits, cognitive abilities, and education shape political attitudes. University of Copenhagen Department of Economics Discussion Paper.Google Scholar
  62. Neundorf, A. (2009). Growing up on different sides of the wall-a quasi-experimental test: Applying the left-right dimension to the German mass public. German Politics, 18(2), 201–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Neundorf, A. (2011). Die links-rechts-dimension auf dem prüfstand: Ideologisches wählen in ost-und westdeutschland 1990–2008. Politische Vierteljahresschrift, 45, 227–250.Google Scholar
  64. Piurko, Y., Schwartz, S. H., & Davidov, E. (2011). Basic personal values and the meaning of left-right political orientations in 20 countries. Political Psychology, 32(4), 537–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Poole, K. T. (1998). Recovering a basic space from a set of issue scales. American Journal of Political Science, 42(3), 954–993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Poole, K. T., & Rosenthal, H. (2007). Ideology and congress. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  67. Raschke, J. (1998). Die erfindung von links/rechts als politisches richtungsschema. In M. T. Greven, H. Münkler, & R. Schmalz-Bruns (Eds.), Bürgersinn und Kritik (pp. 185–206). Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
  68. Roberts, M. E., Stewart, B. M., & Tingley, D. (2014). stm: R package for structural topic models. R package version 0.6.1.Google Scholar
  69. Roberts, M. E., Stewart, B. M., Tingley, D., Lucas, C., Leder-Luis, J., Gadarian, S. K., et al. (2014b). Structural topic models for open-ended survey responses. American Journal of Political Science, 58, 1064–1082.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Rosenberg, M. (1956). Misanthropy and political ideology. American Sociological Review, 21(6), 690–695.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Rudi, T. (2010). Die links-rechts-dimension in mittel-und osteuropa: “super-issue” oder bedeutungslos? In T. Faas, K. Arzheimer & R. Siegried (Eds.), (pp. 169–189). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften: Information-Wahrnehmung-Emotion.Google Scholar
  72. Schmitt, H., & van der Eijk, C. (2009). On the changing and variable meaning of left and right. In Working paper.Google Scholar
  73. Scholz, E., & Züll, C. (2012). Item non-response in open-ended questions: Who does not answer on the meaning of left and right? Social Science Research, 41(6), 1415–1428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Stokes, D. E. (1963). Spatial models of party competition. The American Political Science Review, 57(2), 368–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Sturgis, P., & Smith, P. (2010). Assessing the validity of generalized trust questions: What kind of trust are we measuring? International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 22(1), 74–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Taddy, M. (2013). Multinomial inverse regression for text analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 108(503), 755–770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Tourangeau, R., Rips, L. J., & Rasinski, K. (2000). The psychology of survey response. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Uslaner, E. M. (2002). The moral foundations of trust. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Vries, C. E. D., Hakhverdian, A., & Lancee, B. (2013). The dynamics of voters’ left/right identification: The role of economic and cultural attitudes. Political Science Research and Methods, 1(2), 223–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Weber, W. (2011). Testing for measurement equivalence of individuals’ left-right orientation. Survey Research Methods, 5(1), 1–10.Google Scholar
  81. Weil, F. D. (1985). The variable effects of education on liberal attitudes: A comparative-historical analysis of anti-semitism using public opinion survey data. American Sociological Review, 50, 458–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Zaller, J. R. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Zechmeister, E. (2006). What’s left and who’s right? A q-method study of individual and contextual influences on the meaning of ideological labels. Political Behavior, 28(2), 151–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Zechmeister, E., & Corral, M. (2010). The varying economic meaning of ’left’ and ’right’ in Latin America. AmericasBarometer Insights Series, 38, 1–10.Google Scholar
  85. Züll, C., & Scholz, E. (2012). Assoziationen mit den politischen Richtungsbegriff en “links” und “rechts” im internationalen Vergleich: Kategorienschema für die Codierung offener Angaben. GESIS.Google Scholar
  86. Züll, C., Scholz, E., & Schmitt, H. (2010). Kategorienschema für die Vercodung von Assoziationen mit den politischen Richtungsbegriffen“ links” und“ rechts”. GESIS.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul C. Bauer
    • 1
  • Pablo Barberá
    • 2
  • Kathrin Ackermann
    • 3
  • Aaron Venetz
    • 4
  1. 1.European University InstituteSan Domenico di FiesoleItaly
  2. 2.University of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  3. 3.University of BernBernSwitzerland
  4. 4.Gfs.bernBernSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations