Liberal and conservative labels function mainly as symbols, not issue positions

Evidence

Although over the past few decades liberal/conservative self-identifications have often played a part in studies of belief systems, they have seldom been the focus of research. Recently, however, several studies have suggested that such identifications play a significant role in voting behavior and political perception. Implicit in this research, however, are two tenuous assumptions: that liberal/conservative identifications are bipolar in meaning and that underlying this bipolarity is cognitive meaning based on political issues. In this paper, we develop a model of ideological identifications that emphasizes their symbolic and nondimensional origins and nature. Based on the 1976 and 1978 National Election Studies, our empirical analysis reveals strong support for the model. Specifically, ideological identifications are found to have largely symbolic meanings, a fact that helps to explain some of the findings concerning the relationship of the liberal/conservative continuum to political perception and behavior. — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 1983 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

In summary, in three important respects, our data analysis has provided support for our specification of the processes underlying the development of ideological selfidentifications. First, although there may be some reciprocal effects between the two, the data are consistent with our assumption that causality runs primarily from evaluations of ideological labels to self-identification. Not only do such evaluations have a strong impact on selfidentification, but they also mediate almost all of the impact which issues and symbols have on such identifications. Furthermore, neither of the two major alternative models of the relationship between self-identifications and evaluations fits the data very well, nor are either of them theoretically consistent with a lack of bipolarity. Second, and related to our first point, three key findings run contrary to the traditional bipolar conception of ideological identifications: the absence of any strong negative correlation between evaluations of liberals and conservatives; the relationships of different symbols and issue stances to those evaluations; and the different emphasis which liberals and conservatives placed on various categories in their definitions of ideological terms. Finally, our analysis indicates that ideological labels, and consequently self-identifications, have largely symbolic, nonissue-oriented meaning to the mass public. — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 2080 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Liberal and conservative labels derive meaning from different symbolic sources; Ideological self-identification is driven by symbolic label evaluations, not issue positions. — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 2080; Evaluations of ideological labels rest on symbols more than issue positions (+6 more)

Broader Connections

• Liberal and conservative self-identification is largely symbolic rather than issue-based #corroborates (0.97) — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 1983
• Ideological self-identification is driven by symbolic label evaluations, not issue positions. #corroborates (0.95) — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 2080
• Evaluations of ideological labels rest on symbols more than issue positions #corroborates (0.93)