Mass belief systems are fragmented and narrow rather than ideologically coherent

Evidence

In our first reading in this section, Converse cleverly weighs in on the “end of ideology” debate by arguing for the necessity of distinguishing between the belief systems of political elites and ordinary citizens. On the basis of survey data, Converse concludes that only a small percentage of voters (approximately 15%) should be classified as “ideologues” or “near-ideologues” and that more than a third of the population cannot accurately define even such basic political terms as liberal and conservative. This does not mean, however, that the left-right distinction is meaningless or inconsequential. Elite politicians—whose belief systems are far more constrained by social and psychological forces than are the belief systems of mass publics—do use conventional ideological dimensions to organize their political attitudes. — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 1815 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

It seems clear that, however logically coherent a belief system may seem to the holder, the sources of constraint are much less logical in the classical sense than they are psychological—and less psychological than social. — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 1857 (#complicates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Most people lack coherent ideological belief systems.; Belief-system constraints are primarily social, not logical or psychological.; Ordinary citizens genuinely lack organized belief systems, not just the words to describe them (+4 more)

Broader Connections

• Only a small fraction of voters hold coherent ideological belief systems #corroborates (0.95) — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 1815
• Belief system coherence is socially, not logically, driven #complicates (0.72) — John T. Jost and Jim Sidanius, Political Psychology, 1857