connover feldman - origins and meaning of lib cons self id

8/4/2019 Connover Feldman - Origins and Meaning of Lib Cons Self ID

1/30

The Origins and Meaning of Liberal/Conservative Self-IdentificationsAuthor(s): Pamela Johnston Conover and Stanley FeldmanSource: American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 25, No. 4 (Nov., 1981), pp. 617-645Published by: Midwest Political Science AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2110756

Accessed: 27/10/2010 11:10

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mpsa.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Midwest Political Science Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

American Journal of Political Science.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mpsahttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2110756?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mpsahttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mpsahttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2110756?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mpsa


2/30

TheOriginsndMeaning fLiberal/Conservativeelf-Identifications*PamelaJohnstononover,tanleyeldman, niversityfKentucky

Althoughver hepastfew ecades iberal/conservativeelf-identificationsaveoftenplayed part n studies f belief ystems,heyhave seldom een the focus fresearch.Recently,owever,everaltudies ave uggestedhat uch dentificationslay significantrole nvoting ehaviorndpoliticalerception.mplicitn this esearch,owever,re twotenuousssumptions:hatiberal/conservativedentificationsrebipolarnmeaningnd hatunderlyinghisbipolaritys cognitive eaningased on politicalssues. n thispaper,wedevelop model f deologicaldentificationshat mphasizesheirymbolicnd nondimen-sional riginsndnature. ased n the 976 nd1978National lectiontudies,ur mpiricalanalysis eveals trongupport orthe model.Specifically,deologicaldentificationsrefound ohaveargelyymbolic eanings,fact hat elps o explainome f he indingson-cerningherelationshipf the iberal/conservativeontinuumo political erceptionndbehavior.

Over he ast 0years, neofthe nduringuestionsharacterizinghestudyfmass lectoratesasbeenwhetherrnot heres deologicalhink-ingin terms f theliberal/conservativeontinuum.uriously,houghresearchn this uestion as beenboth bundantndcontroversial,thastendedo gnore-or erhapsake or ranted-themeaningf iberal/con-servativeelf-identificationsnd theirmpact npolitical ehavior. ypi-cally,thas beenassumed hat he ogical inks etweendeologicalelf-identifications,n the one hand,and general olitical rientationsndspecificssuepositions,n the ther and, oinfact xist. nlynthepastfewyears averesearchersegun oprobe hewisdom fsuch raditionalreasoning. otably, evitin nd Miller 1979, p. 751) recentlyxplored"theuseofthe ermsliberal' nd conservative'stheyreapplied y iti-zensto describehemselves,hepolitical arties, residentialandidates,andpositionsn issues fpublicpolicy. Along imilarines,Holmand

*The rder fthe uthors' ames s alphabetical.nearlier ersionf his aperwaspre-sentedt the 980 nnualmeetingftheMidwestoliticalcience ssoci'ation,hicago, pril24-26, 980. hedata nalyzednthis aperwere ollectedy heCenter or olitical tudiesandmade vailablehroughhe nter-universityonsortiumor oliticalndSocialResearch,neitherfwhichears ny esponsibilityor henterpretationsresentedere.We would iketo thank obertWeissberg,erbert sher, erbertWeisbergndtwo nonymouseviewersforheironstructiveommentsnthis aper.AmericanJournal f PoliticalScience,Vol. 25,No. 4, November 981? 1981bytheUniversityfTexasPress 0092-5853/81/040617-28$02.15


3/30

6i8 PamelaJohnstononover,tanleyeldmanRobinson1978)havecomparedhe mpact f partisannd ideologicalidentificationsnvoting ehavior. inally, rom cross-nationalerspec-tive,Klingemann1979a,1979b)hasstudied oth heuse and meaningfthe ermsleft" nd"right."Generally,hese esearchersave oncludedhat, lthough anymem-bersofthepublicmay acka completenderstandingf such deologicaltermss traditionallyonceptualized,hese abels nd relatedelf-identifi-cations onethelessave considerablempact npolitical erceptionsndbehavior. hus,these tudies ave succeedednestablishinghepoliticalsignificancef ideologicalabels and identifications.t thesametime,however,hey ave eftndoubt hedynamicsftheprocess nderlyingheinfluencef suchdentifications.nparticular,n order ounderstandhyliberal/conservativedentificationsre as influentials recent esearchershave laimed,t s necessaryo explorehemeaninghey oldformembersofthepublic, taskwhich s undertakenn thispaper. n so doing,weattemptobridgehegapbetweenhemore raditionalesearchnmassbelief ystemsndtherecentwork n thepoliticalmpact fideologicallabels. TheMeaningf deological abels

It s our ontentionhatnorder ounderstandullyhenaturef deo-logical elf-identifications,t sfirstecessaryo uncoverhemeaningfthe"liberal" nd"conservative"abels. n this egard,mplicitn much fthemassbelief ystem'siteratureretwoquestionablessumptions:1) thatthemeaningf deologicalabels sstructuredndimensionalerms;nd 2)that hecontentf suchmeanings largelyssueoriented. learly,heseassumptionsre notunreasonable iven hepredominantirectionfresearchn massbelief ystems.onetheless,heres substantialeason odoubt heiralidity.The tructurefMeaningTraditionally,twas assumed hat hemeaningf ideologicalabelsand self-identificationsouldbe easily ummarizedn terms f a singledimension:he iberal/conservativeontinuum.n recent ears, owever,this iewpointasundergoneomemodification.hedecade f the1970susheredna varietyf"social" issues-abortion, arijuanase, he qualRightsAmendment-whichid not fiteasily ntothe traditionalib-eral/conservativepectrum.ecauseofthis,many esearchersowpositthat hemeaningf deologicalabels ndself-identificationsust e nter-preted ithinhe ontextftwo iberal/conservativeimensions:ne eco-nomic ndonesocial Asher, 980;MillerndMiller, 977;WeisbergndRusk, 970).


4/30

LIBERAL/CONSERVATIVE SELF-IDENTIFICATION 6I9Whetherne ssumeshepresencef a singlerseveraliberal/conser-vative imensionsoesnotfundamentallylter urargument.romourperspective,hat s criticalsthe ssumptionfbipolarityhichscommon

tobothdimensionalnterpretations.hat s,both he ingle- nd two-di-mensional onceptualizationsssumethatwithregard o a particulardimensionfmeaninghe iberal erspectives simplyheopposite f theconservativene. neffect,iberalsnd conservativesre depicteds shar-ing he ameperceptualramework(s);ll that ifferss that heir iew sfrom pposite idesofthefield.Becauseof such haredmeaning,otersought o be able to compare andidates,ssues, nd parties,nd subse-quentlyvaluateuch bjects sing heirwn dentificationsan anchoringpoint.But, ecent orks eveal hatmany oters reunable o make ccu-ratecomparisonsf candidatesnd issues n liberal/conservativeerms(Eriksontal., 1980;LevitinndMiller, 979).Furthermore,his endencyis especiallyronouncedn the aseof ssues,where, asedontraditionalconceptualizations,ne might ogically xpect o find heclearestib-eral/conservativeistinctions.or example, rikson t al. (1980,p. 57)note Harris ollwhich evealedhat nly 0percentfthe lectorateasable to "correctlydentifyhe liberal nd conservativeidesof majorpoliticalssues."Similarly,evitin ndMiller1979)found hat n someissues ven o-calleddeologues addifficultyndistinguishinghe iberalposition romhe onservativene.One interpretationfsuchfindingssthatmostmembersfthe lectoratettributeelativelyittlemeaningotheterms liberal" nd"conservative."nalternatenterpretation,owever,is that esearchersave rredn their asic ssumptionhat hemeaningfideological erms s necessarilytructuredn dimensionalerms.Bothempiricalindingsndtheoreticalrgumentsuggesthat heatternterpre-tationsthemore alid ne.

To beginwith,hose tudiesAsher, 980;WeisbergndRusk,1970)which osit he xistenceftwo iberal/conservativeimensionsaise pos-sibility hich aradoxicallyonflicts ith dimensionalnterpretationfthemeaningf deologicalerms. amely,or omevoters,nedimensionmightesignificantlyore alienthan he therndetermininghemean-ingassociatedwith uchterms. omepeople,for xample,might efineideologicalabels lmost xclusivelyntermsfsocial ssueswhile, tthesame ime, thersmay asetheirnterpretationntirelyn economicssues.'Evenwherewobipolariberal/conservativeimensionsre ssumed,otershouldtillbe able ocompareandidatesndpartiesn thosessues elevanto defininghat imension.Atthe ame ime, owever,ssuminghe resenceftwodimensionsoes njectome ncer-taintynto hevoter's omparisons,ince heymay ecomeonfusedboutwhich imensiontheyredealing ith.


5/30

620 PamelaJohnstononover, tanleyeldmanWere thisto occur, differentroups of people would have fundamentallydifferent,ather han opposingor bipolar, deologicalperspectives.Moregenerally, everal tudieshavefoundthatpeople organize heir eliefs n amultidimensionalashion,with henature nd number fdimensions ftenvarying rom ndividual oindividual Brown, 1970; Conoverand Feldman,1980; Coveyou and Piereson,1977; Herzon, 1980; Jacksonand Marcus,1975; Lane, 1962, 1973; and Marcus et al., 1974). As a critical y-productof such multidimensionality,he salienceofspecific eliefs s likely o varyamong people, thuscreating ifferentrames f reference romwhich heyinterprethe meaning f ideological abels Brown andTaylor, 1973). As aconsequence, the ways in which self-definediberals and conservativesunderstand hose abels maydiffern mportant espects.Several studies support this hypothesis. Warr et al. (1969), forexample,discovered hatthe political udgements f left-wing,enter, ndright-wing ritishrespondentswere based on differentets of cognitivedimensions.Along somewhat imilar ines,Brown ndTaylor 1973) foundthat a groupof students iffered onsiderablynhow they onceptualizedtheterm conservatism." Some focused on the "lack of change" whichthey eltwas inherentnthephilosophy,whileothers oncentrated n whatthey erceived o be the"elitist"aspectofconservatism. ut, perhapsmostrelevant o our arguments Kerlinger's 1967, 1972) theory f "criterialreferents."Kerlinger ositsthat attitudes iffern terms f their"refer-ents,"orfocus;referentshat re "criterial"or central oone attitudemaybe irrelevanto another. Withrespectto the social attitudes omposingpoliticalbelief ystems, erlinger1967, p. 112) suggestshat liberal s notjusttheopposite f conservative";ather hanrepresentingndpoints n thesame continuum, iberalism nd conservatism onstitute elatively istinctattitude ystems ased on differentriterial eferents. erlinger's hesis e-ceived trong upport romhisfactor nalysiswhich evealed hatpredesig-nated "liberal" and "conservative"referents id load on differentimen-sions,and that herewerefewnegative oadings. Takentogether, uch find-ings ndicate distinct ack of bipolarity n the beliefsdefining iberalismand conservatism. hus, based on such evidence t seems quite plausiblethat themeaningof ideological labels is not structuredn bipolar terms.Instead,differenteferentsr conceptsmaybe critical odefining heterms"liberal" and "conservative.'2

2Our xamination f thestructuref themeaning f ideological abels focusesprimarilyon their ggregate r sharedmeaning. n effect,we are suggestinghat hepublicas a whole,does nothave a dimensional onception fthetwo terms.We do not meanto suggest s a gen-eral rule that ndividuals ail to see theseterms s opposites,though n some instances heremaybea lack ofbipolarityt the ndividual evel s well.


6/30

LIBERAL/CONSERVATIVE SELF-IDENTIFICATION 621TheContentfMeaning

The assumption hatthe meaning f ideological abels is bipolar typi-callyhas beenaccompanied bya secondassumption bout the content fthatmeaning. Specifically, s Levitinand Miller 1979) note,it is tradi-tionally ssumedthat ideology s based on issue preferences,nd conse-quentlyhat deological abelsare argelyssue orientedn meaning.Yet,thefindingsf several ecent tudies uggest hat hemasspublicmust ssociateconsiderablenonissue-basedmeaningswith abels like "liberal/conserva-tive" and "left/right,"nd that deological elf-identificationsaynotbedetermined ntirely, r even primarily, y issue stances (Klingemann,1979a,1979b;Levitin ndMiller,1979).Ifnot ssueoriented,henwhat s themeaning ssociatedwith deologi-cal labels? Clearly, o some degree uch meaningmaybe partisannnature,ifnotorigin.Both Levitin ndMiller 1979) andHolm and Robinson 1978)notea substantial elationship etween artisan nd ideological elf-identi-fications; s theformerxplains, when peopledescribe hemselves s hav-ing an ideologicalposition,they lso seemto be saying omething bouttheir ositions n theparties, uite apartfrom heir ssueorpolicy tands"(Levitin nd Miller, 1979,p. 768). But, it is unlikely hat party dentifica-tion accountsfor all the meaning ent deologicalterms, speciallygiven

Levitin nd Miller's (1979) normal-vote nalysiswhich ndicates hat ib-eral/conservativeelf-placements ave an impact on vote choice inde-pendent f thatofpartydentification.n any case, to say simply hatparti-san and ideological abels share ome commonmeaning egsthequestion nthat henature f that haredmeaning emains nspecified. onsequently,wewillreturno thisquestiononce we have explored hemeaning f ideo-logical abels.Our approach to unraveling he meaning ssociatedwith deological

labels beginswith the assumption hat suchterms re powerful, oliticalsymbols o manymembers f thepublic.3As symbols, hemeaningwhichpeople attach to ideological abels, suchas "liberal" and "conservative,"maybe of twotypes: 1) cognitive-the"objective nformationr substan-tive content ssociatedwith the symbol," and (2) evaluative-the affectelicitedby thesymbol Cobb and Elder, 1973, p. 313). Fromthisperspec-tive, hen,much of the previous esearch as focusedon thecognitive on-tentof ideological abels. But, if formany people ideological abels havesparsecognitivemeaning, s research eemsto suggest, henthe symbolicpowerof suchtermsmost ikely temsfrom heir valuative ontent: heirability ogeneratetrong ositive r negative eelings.

3For discussion f thevarious ypes fsymbols, eeEdelman 1977).


7/30

622 PamelaJohnstononover,tanleyeldmanLogically,hen, henext tep sto focus nthe riginsfthe valuativemeaningf deologicalabels.Onesourcemay ctually ethe ognitiveon-tent, oweverittle,hat sassociated ithhe abel. neffect,ot nlymay

issue-orientedactors irectly efine hecognitiveontent f ideologicalterms,ut heylsoindirectlynfluencehe valuation fsuch erms. orexample,n ndividual ay eact ositivelyothe ermliberal"because eorshe ssociates avorablyvaluatedssuepositions ith t.Alternatively,when ognitiveources f meaningre lacking,deological abelsmayderive heir ffect romther, elatedymbols hose wn valuations aybe influencedy long-standingredispositions.o illustrate, eeplyingrainedacialprejudicesmayprompt strong egativeeaction o thesymbol fbusing Sears et al., 1979); subsequently,inkinghat ymbolwithhe liberal" abel hould riggernegativeeactionothe atter.Political ymbols iffer, owever,n their asicnature, nd conse-quentlyome re moreikelyhan thers o berelated oideologicalym-bols such as the terms liberal" and "conservative." obb and Elder(1972, 1973)have argued hatpolitical ymbolsmaypertain o fourdif-ferentorts fpolitical bjects: he oliticalommunity,egimeorms,or-malpolitical ositions,nd situationalettingsnvolvingongovernmentalactors rspecificoliticalssues.Thesevariousypes fsymbolslaydif-ferentolesnsociety;ome erve s a foundationor ocial olidarityhileothers ct as a basis for ocialdifferentiationndconflict. orexample,symbolsfthe ommunityi.e.,democracy,reedom)ndtheregimema-jority ule,due process) endto be sources f consensus nd unitynsociety.n contrast,ertain roups i.e., the BlackPanthers, omen'sliberation)ndpoliticalssues i.e.,busing, nd hewar) re ymbolicfthelines fconflictn society.Withinhis ontext,hetraditionalature fideologicaloncernsuggestshat deologicalabels hould ct s a basisforsocialdifferentiation.hus, nthe bsence fsubstantialognitiveontent,ideologicalymbolsr abels reexpectedoderive heir ffect romheirassociation ith therymbolsf ocial onflictuch svarious roupsndissues.

AModelof deologicalelf-IdentificationHavingdiscarded heassumptionshatthemeaning f ideologicallabels slargelyipolar nd ssue riented, differentodel fthenatureand origins f ideological elf-identificationsaybe outlinedsee Fig-ure1). A criticallementnthismodel s the pecificationftherelation-ship etweendeologicalabels ndself-identifications.asedon our arlier


8/30

LIBERAL/CONSERVATIVE SELF-IDENTIFICATION 623FIGURE1Model1of deological elf-IdentificationEVALUATIONOFSYMBOL A LIBERALS

SYMBOL BX c IDEOLOGICALI\ - g SELF-IDENTIFICATIONISSUE AISSUE B EVALUATIONOFCONSERVATIVES

discussion, e argue hat t s the valuativemeaning f deologicalabelsthat smost losely elated o self-placement.n effect,t s assumedhatidentificationith nideologicalabel s associated ith positivevalua-tion f t. Havingmade his ssumption, eare eftwith hedifficultaskofuntanglinghedirectionf causalityntherelationship.n addressingthisproblem, wo factors overn ur thinking:he presumedack ofbipolaritynthemeaningf deologicalabels nd our onceptualizationfself-identification.presumptionf bipolaritys implicitn anycausalmodelnwhich single actor,uch s ideologicaldentification,s depictedasdeterminingvaluationsfbothiberalsndconservatives.ncontrast,causalorderingnwhich valuations f ideologicalabels nfluenceelf-identificationequires o assumptionboutbipolarityr ts bsence,nd sthus onsistentith ur heoreticalrgument.Ourconceptualizationfself-identificationeadsustothe ame on-clusion. f ideologicalelf-placementsre thoughtf merelys acts ofsocial ategorization,hen onsiderableesearchuggestshat hemore ea-sonable ausalorderings one nwhichelf-placementtimulatespositiveevaluationfthe deologicalabel dentifiedithfor review,ee Hamil-ton,1976). f,onthe ther and, he ctofself-identificationstreateds astatementfgrouponsciousness-a eclarationfgroup oyalty-thenhereverseausalorderingsmore ppropriate;hat s, a positivevaluationfan ideological roup hould nhance dentificationith t Miller t al.,1978).Forour part,we follow he atterineof reasoning y adoptingconceptualizationf ideological dentificationhatclosely arallels hat


9/30

624 PamelaJohnstononover, tanley eldmancommonlyssociatedwithpartydentification.pecifically,ikeLevitinand Miller 1979),we assume hat deological elf-placementeflects"psychologicalttachment"o a particularroup.

Insummary,he asicpremisenderlyingurmodel s that deologicalself-placements determinedirectlyythe ndividual'svaluationfthetwo major deologicalabelsor groups-liberalsnd conservatives.hisrelativeomparisonfevaluationss ndicatednthemodel yparametersandb. Furthermore,nthe bsence fa bipolar tructurefmeaning,ib-eralswillnotnecessarilyvaluate onservativesegativelyndviceversa.Thus,parametershould pproachero,ratherhan eing tronglyega-tive.The direct elationshipetweendeological elf-placementnd theevaluationf deologicalabels uggestshat hemeaningf uch dentifica-tions erives romhemeaningfthe abels hemselves. ith espectothestructurefmeaning,twasarguedarlierhat,nthe ggregate,iberal ndconservativeabelshavemeanings hich re not tructuredna bipolar rdimensional ashion.nstead, hoseconcepts ssociatedwith positiveevaluationfone erm re ikelyo differonsiderablyromhose entralodeterminingpositivevaluationfthe ther. his ackofbipolarmeaningassumes special ignificancehen onsiderednconjunction ith ndi-vidual elf-identifications.pecifically,t mplies hatndividuals ho abelthemselvess liberals o so forvery ifferenteasonshan hosewhocallthemselvesonservatives,nthe ense hatdifferentonceptsrreferentsarecriticalndeterminingheirositivevaluationsftheirespectivedeo-logicalabels. nessence, hen, t s posited hat iberals nd conservativesview he politicalworldnotfrom ifferentides of the same coin, butrather,fyouwill, rom heperspectivefentirelyifferenturrencies.nthemodel his s ndicatedy he act hat achof he ymbolsnd ssues relinked ithvaluationsfeitheriberalsrconservatives,utnotboth.4Turningothe ontentfmeaning,oth ognitiveactorsndpoliticalsymbolsan nfluencettitudesowardsiberalsndconservatives,ndthusideologicalelf-identifications.n themodel his inkages representedypaths through. Individuals ayvary, owever,nthedegreeo whichthey erive heir valuationsf ideologicalabels from ognitiveourcessuch s issue referencesremotionalources uch spoliticalymbols.orsomemembersftheelectorate,deologicalabelsmayhold substantialcognitive eaning hich omplementshat erived rom ariousymbols,sothat he wo ourcesnteractn a consistentashionoproducehe ffect

4AsKerlinger1967,1972)points ut, bipolar tructurefaggregate eaning ccursonlyn one nstance: hen conservativeeferentsre riterialo iberalsnd iberal eferentsare riterialoconservatives-inoth asesnegatively"Kerlinger,972, . 625).This atternis expectedooccur elativelynfrequentlyndprimarilymong roups fpoliticaldeologues.


10/30

LIBERAL/CONSERVATIVE SELF-IDENTIFICATION 625associated ithhe abel.Alternatively,ackingssue-orientednformationaboutdeologicalabels, therndividualsreexpectedo basetheir valua-tions argely n the ffectiveelationshipfthe abel with ther oliticalsymbols.nboth ases,peoplemay ttach ignificantymbolic eaningoideologicalabels, and although he sources f the meaning iffer,tsimpact nself-identification,nd ubsequentlyehavior, aynot.To summarize,urmodel pecifies set fcausalprocesses nderlyingliberal/conservativeelf-identificationshat oes gainstmuch f the om-monwisdomnthe ubject.Aswithnymodel,t snotpossibleoprovethat thasbeen pecifiedorrectly.nstead, inaludgmentsbout tdependon the theoreticalustificationf theprocesses pecified,he fitof themodel o the ata, ndthe xplanatoryower f hemodel. incewebelievethatwe have stablishedsound heoreticalasisfor hemodel, etus turnnow o an empiricalssessmentf t.

Data andMethodsIn testinghismodel,we had the optionof twodifferentesearchstrategies.yfocusingna relativelymall roup fpeople, hemeaningfideologicalelf-identificationsouldbeexaminedn an individualy ndi-vidualbasis.Alternatively,ecouldtakea larger, epresentativeampleandassess he ommon,r sharedmeaningf deologicalabels.Althoughindividualariationsnmeaningre mportant,ehave hosen he econdroute or everal easons. irst,his ollowshegeneral pproach fthosestudies oted arlierwhich averaisedmany ftheproblems ewish oaddress. econd, incedeologicalabels ike liberal" nd"conservative"are n arge art ocietallyefined,herehould e an mportantomponenttosuch dentificationshatsshared ymany eople.Andfinally,ookingat the ommonmeaningfsuch abelsprovides basisfor ssessingheirabilityoaggregatendividualatternsfbeliefndsymbolism.hus, hisapproach rovides goodfirstest or hemodel ndultimatelybase ineagainst hichroup ifferencesay eassessed.Given his, hedata employednthe est f ourmodel retaken romthe1976National lection tudy onductedythe Center orPoliticalStudies.norder o test hemodel roperly,t snecessaryooperationalizethree ategoriesfvariables:1) ideologicalelf-identification,2) evalua-tions f deologicalabels, nd 3) the ognitivendsymbolicources fthemeaningf deologicalabels. etus considerach f hese.Ideologicalelf-IdentificationIdeological elf-identificationas measuredn terms f a standardCPS question hich ocuses npoliticaliberal/conservativedentification.


11/30

626 PamelaJohnstononover,tanleyeldmanSpecifically,espondentsere sked o placethemselvesn a seven-pointscalewhosevalues anged rom peoplewhosepolitical iews"are"ex-tremelyiberal" n oneend, o "moderate"nthemiddle,o "extremelyconservative"n the thernd.Thehigherhe core,hemore onservativethe elf-identification.Evaluationf deological abelsEvaluationsf the womajordeologicalabels-liberalnd conserva-tive-weremeasuredntermsf"feeling hermometer"atings.n particu-lar,respondentsere sked o rate n a scalefrom to 100degrees owwarm r cold hey elt owardliberals" nd "conservatives";igh coreson each temndicate positivevaluationf he deologicalabel.CognitivendSymbolicources fMeaningIn assessinghe ognitivendsymbolicourcesfthemeaningf deo-logicalabels,wewere acedwith critical easurementilemma: hetherto employlosed-endedropen-endeduestionss thebasisfor urmeas-ures.On theonehand,responseso closed-endeduestions ealingwithpeoples'ssue rientationsndtheirttitudesowardsarious oliticalym-bolscouldbe correlated ith valuationsf deologicalabels n order oidentifyhemeaningfthe abels.While his onstitutesomethingfanindirectpproach,uch losed-endeduestionsre a relativelylear-cut ayofgettingtthe hared,raggregate, eaningf deologicalabels. ncon-trast, pen-endeduestions-suchs those sking espondentshat hetermsliberal" nd"conservative" ean-area muchmore irectmethodofestablishinghemeaningf deologicalabels.However, erbal bilitiesplay large ole ndetermininghetheresponsesosuch uestionsccu-rately eflecthemeaningssociated ithdeologicalabels.Those espond-entswithower evels feducation ay e hamperedy he uestionormatso that heir esponsesrenotgood ndicatorsf therealmeaning hichideologicalabelshold for hem. imilarly,ecause pen-endeduestionsallowfor reaterndividualxpression,heymaketmore ifficulto den-tify atternsfaggregate eaninghan sthe asewith lose-ended eas-ures.All this, aken ogether ith ur nterestn theshared atternsfmeaning,ed us toemploylosed-endeduestionss theprimary eans festablishinghe ognitivendsymbolicources fmeaningf deologicallabels.

Cognitiveources. ur ssessmentfthe ognitiveourcesfmeaningis basedon therespondents'pecificssuepositions.n adoptinghis p-


12/30

LIBERAL/CONSERVATIVE SELF-IDENTIFICATION 627proach,weacknowledgehatmeasuringhemeaningf deologicalabelsnterms f specificssue ositionsecomes roblematicncewe abandon heassumptionhatbelief ystemsrestructurednidimensionallyCoveyouand Piereson, 977;Jackson ndMarcus,1975;Marcus t al., 1974). nparticular,measure f ssue rientationased n a series f ssue ositionsaggregatedccording o their elationshipo a liberal/conservativeon-tinuum uns herisk fpenalizinghose espondentsho, nfact, o notstructureheir ttitudeslong hat imension. onetheless,ivenhat re-vious esearch as stronglymphasizedhe ole f ssues n determininghemeaningf deologicalabels ndthenature f self-identifications,e con-sideredtnecessaryoemploypecificssue ositionsnourmeasurefcog-nitivemeaning,ven houghn doing o somebias mayhavebeen ntro-duced nto ur nalysis.With hat aveat nmind, he espondents'pecificssue ositions ereusedtoconstructhree ummatedating caleswhich epresenthemajordomains fdomesticolicy: conomiconcerns,ocial ssues, ndracialquestionsKnoke, 979). isted elow re he hree cales, he ssues sed ntheironstruction,nd heir eliabilitiescoefficientlpha).

IL: Economic ssues-healthnsurance,uaranteedobs and standardof iving,nd axation olicy.54).I2: Racial ssues-busing, chooldesegregation,nd aid to minorities(.68).I3: Social ssues-marijuanase, bortion,RA, and exroles .62).Inconstructinghe cales, ll the ssueswere irst ut n standardizedorm(mean= 0; standard eviation 1) andthen ummedo producen over-allscore or he espondentn that cale. neachcase,high cores ndicatemore onservativessue ositions.Symbolicources.As noted arlier, o thedegree hat valuationsfideologicalabels rebasedupon heirssociation ith ther olitical ym-bols,these re ikelyo be symbolsf social differentiationndconflictratherhan onsensus. onsequently,nmeasuringhe ymbolicources fideologicalmeaning e focused pon nongovernmentalctors rgroupsthat might onstituteymbolic epresentationsf various leavages nAmerican ociety. Specifically,he respondents' eeling-thermometer

5The xactquestionwording f the tems mployedn constructinghe ssue scales savail-able in theCPS 1976National ElectionsStudyCodebook. The questionnumbers re as fol-lows: RACIAL ISSUES, 3257, 3211, 3264; SOCIAL ISSUES, 3772, 3787, 3799, 3796; andECONOMIC ISSUES, 3273, 3241, and3779.


13/30

628 PamelaJohnstononover, tanleyeldmanratingsf27 differentroupsnsociety ere actornalyzed.6his nalysisproducedixfactors ith igenvaluesreaterhan ne. The nterpretationof these actors as basedonthe ssumptionhat actoroadings f 5 orgreater ere ubstantivelyignificant.ased on this riteria,ix additivescaleswere ormedrom he eeling-thermometeratings; ositivecores neach cale ndicate ositiveeelingsowardshe roupsomposingt.7Asindicatedn Table 1,eachofthe ix cales scomposed f a distinctclusterf groupswhichymbolicallyepresent ajor leavagesn society.Thefirstcalerepresentshe status uo" and scomposed fmainstreamgroups raditionallyssociatedwith he "protestantthic"and "middleAmerica." he second caledealswith he radical eft":groups ymbolicofrevolutionaryr rapid hange uch s "blackmilitants"nd "radicalstudents." he third cale s symbolicf "capitalism."The "reformistleft" srepresentedy hefourthcalewhich oncernsroups r minoritiesrelated omoderateocialchange. he symbolic eaning ssociatedwiththe"disadvantaged" egmentsf society s captured ythe fifth calewhichpertains o relativelyowerless roups uch as the "poor" and"olderpeople." Finally, he astscaledealswith ymbolsf "socialcon-trol" uch s the olice ndmilitary.t s mportantorecognizehat,akentogether,hese cales ymbolicallyap thevarious imensionsfmeaningtraditionallyssociated ith he iberal/conservativeontinuumConverse,1964; nd Klingemann,979a).Yet, at the ame ime, hese cales lsoactas a symbolic epresentationf some of the newsocial issues,whichemergedn the ate 1960s, enteredround he gents f social ontrolndthe volutionf countercultureMiller ndLevitin,976).

FindingsSelf-Identificationndthe valuationf deologicalabelsFirst, urmodel uggestshatdeologicalelf-placementhould eflectevaluations f thetwomajor deological roups-liberalsnd conserva-tives. urfindingsonfirmhis elationships indicatedy heformftheregressionquation:

Self-Identification.309 valuationsfconservatives.422evaluationsf iberals(coefficientsrebetaweights)6Specifically,principalomponentsnalysis ithblique otation asconducted.on-sequently,he actors hichmergedre orrelatedo some xtent.'For eachof the ixfactors,hefeeling-thermometeratingsf the pecific roups om-posingtwereummedo formsinglecale appinghat imensionf ymbolic eaning.


14/30

LIBERAL/CONSERVATIVE SELF-IDENTIFICATION 629TABLE 1SixSymbolic eaningcales ndTheir omponents

S,: STATUS QUO S2: RADICAL LEFTProtestants Radical tudentsWorking en Women's iberationWhites Marijuana sersMen BlackMilitantsMiddle-Classeople (reliability .73)(reliability .89)S3: CAPITALISM S4: REFORMIST LEFT

BigBusiness BlacksRepublicans ChicanosBusinessmen People nWelfare(reliability .77) JewsCivilRights eaders(reliability .77)S5: DISADVANTAGED S6:SOCIAL CONTROLPoorPeople PoliceOlder eople MilitaryWomen (reliability .69)Young eople(reliability .74)

Allreliabilitiesre coefficientlpha.Taken ogether,valuationsf iberals ndconservativesxplain 6percentof thevariancen deologicalelf-placementmultipleearson'sR = .60).Furthermore,t is interestingo notethat valuations f liberals ave asomewhattrongermpactnself-identificationhan o evaluationsfcon-servatives.hispattern ay eflecthenaturefthepoliticalnvironmentover hepast20years.Until uite ecently,he NewLeft" nd the ocialissueswhich tchampionedended o dominateolitical iscoursentheUnited tates.As a consequence,he"liberal" abelmayhavebecomemore alient nd reactionso tmore motionallyharged hannthe aseof the"conservative"abel, thus ccountingortherelativelytrongerimpactfthe liberal" abelon self-identification.owever, ith he ur-rentmergencefthe NewRight" ndthe oncomitantscendancyfthe"conservative"abel,evaluationsf conservativesaycome to have astrongermpactnself-identificationsnfutureears.Thefindinghatdeologicalelf-identifications stronglynfluencedyevaluationsf iberals nd conservativesakes nadded ignificancehenconsiderednconjunctionith he ollowinginding:houghvaluationsf

Used to

evaluate

liberals

(and "EconomicIssues" scale)

Used to eval conservatives

and "Racial Issues"


15/30

630 PamelaJohnstononover, tanleyeldmanliberals nd conservativesre both tronglyelatedo self-identification,they aveonly weaknegative elationshipith ne another; earson'sequals .17for hose espondentsavingn deologicalelf-identification.8This findinguns ounter o the rgumenthat he ggregate eaning fideologicalabels s bipolarn ts tructure.nstead,tsuggestshat valua-tions f deologicalymbolsre relativelyndependent.nessence, posi-tive valuation f liberals oesnotguarantee negativettitudeowardsconservatives,houghtdoesnotprecludeteither.nmore eneral erms,this indingarallels pattern ncoveredn the tudy f attitudesowardspolitical arties. everal esearchersMaggiottondPiereson, 977;Weis-berg, 980)havefound hat valuationsf Democratsnd Republicansrerelativelyndependentf one another. akentogether,hese wo setsoffindingsuggest hat he dimensional odels o typicaln thestudy fpoliticalttitudeseapproached ith ome aution.Next, ur model osits otonly hat valuationsf deologicalabelsinfluenceelf-identification,utalso that heymediate he mpact f allotherourcesfmeaning. o test his rgument,woregressionsere un.In the irst,deologicalelf-placementasregressedn the hreessue-posi-tionscales economic, acial, nd social)and thesix symbolic-meaningscales.nthe econd egression,deologicalelf-placementasregressednthethreessue-positioncales, he sixsymbolic-meaningcales, nd theevaluationsfthe wo deologicalabels see Table2). A comparisonfthetworegressionseveals hat,with nlyoneexception,ll thosevariableshaving significantmpactnthefirst egressionad no nfluencence ib-eraland conservativevaluations ere nteredntotheregression;nlyevaluationsf iberalsndconservatives,ndeconomicssues emainedig-nificantn the econd egression.urthermore,lthough conomicssuescontinuedo have ome irectffectnself-identification,t s mportantonotethat valuations f liberals nd conservativesad a much trongerimpact. hus, lthoughhere emains weakvestige f what ncemighthavebeen strong irectink etween ewDeal economicssues nd deo-logical dentification,y nd arge urpredictionsborne ut;both ogni-tive ndsymbolicources f meaningnfluencedeological elf-placementprimarilyhroughheir ontributiono theevaluativemeaningssociatedwithdeologicalabels.

8Somemight uestion hetherhis indings an artifactfthe positivityias" oftenassociated ith he hermometeratingsf ocial roupsMiller t l., 1978). his s not ikely.Theprimarympact f ny ositivityias hould e to simplyhifthemean f he istributionof theevaluationsp thefeelinghermometerndto reduce herange, utnotto funda-mentallylter he hape f thedistribution.onsequently,he ransformationroduced ypositivityias hould ot ffecthe ovariancefthe valuations ith ther ariables.nourparticularase, hisnterpretationsstrengthenedy he act hat, houghheres some osi-tivityias nthe atingsf iberalsndconservatives,heres also substantialariancenbothsets f valuations.


16/30

LIBERAL/CONSERVATIVE SELF-IDENTIFICATION 63ITABLE2RegressionsfLiberal/Conservativeelf-Placementsn theIssue-Positioncales, he ymbolic-Meaningariables,andEvaluationsfLiberals ndConservativesa

Independentariables Regression RegressionI. Symbolic-Meaning ariablesS1:Status uo -.019 -.0004) -.018 -.0008)S2:Radical eft -.113 -.0027)* -.037 -.0009)S3: Capitalism .252 .0079)* .067 .0027)S4: Reformisteft -.232 (.0052)* -.071 (-.0018)

S5:Disadvantaged .009 .0003) .009 .0003)S6:SocialControl .095 .0042) .076 .0034)II. Issue-Position calesI,: Economic .189 .131)* .099 .069)*I2: Racial .019 .011) -.006 -.003)I3: Social .152 .070)* .085 .031)III. EvaluationsOfConservatives .259 .019)*OfLiberals -.385 -.027)*(R = .56) (R = .65)aUnparenthesized ntries re beta weights;parenthesizedntries re unstandardized e-gression oefficients.*p < .05level.Thus, othis oint everal eyfindingsave upportedurargumentthat valuationsf iberalsndconservativesre hemostmmediateeter-minantsf ideologicalelf-identification.espite his, n orderforourinterpretationobe fullyonvincinge must onsiderwomajor lterna-tives o ourmodel,bothof which eriouslyuestionhevalidityf ourcausalorderingftheevaluation fideologicalabels ndself-identifica-tion.As illustratednFigure , thefirstlternative,odel , reversesurcausalorderingo that elf-identificationsdepicteds influencingvalua-tions atherhan iceversa.Anotherlternativeonceptualizationsrepre-sented ymodel3 which s based on theassumptionhat valuations fboth he"liberal" and "conservative"abels, s well s ideologicalelf-

placement,re imply ultiplendicatorsfthe ameunderlyingonstruct,ratherhanmeasures fdifferentonstructs,s we have ssumed. uchamodelwould emost onsistentithhemeasurementtrategydopted yLevitinndMiller1979) ntheirecentxaminationf deologicaldentifi-cations.Both fthese lternativeonceptualizationseadto certainredictions


17/30

632FIGURE2Alternativeodels f deologicalelf-Identification

MODEL 2

EVALUATIONSSYMBOL A OF LIBERALSSYMBOL B - IDEOLOGICAL

""SELF-IDENTIFICATIONISSUE AISSUE B EVALUATIONSOF CONSERVATIVES

MODEL 3

SYMBOLA SYMBOLB ISSUEA ISSUEB

LIBERAL-CONSERVATIVEORIENTATION

a / {b c

X1: SELF- X2:EVALUATION X3:EVALUATIONIDENTIFICATION OF LIBERALS OF CONSERVATIVES


18/30

LIBERAL/CONSERVATIVE SELF-IDENTIFICATION 633which an be tested. n particular, odel predictshat nce deologicalself-placement-thenterveningariable-isheldconstant hen hesym-bolicvariablesndthe ssue cales hould ave ittle r no directmpactnevaluationsf iberalsndconservatives.hispredictionastestedn thefollowingworegressionscoefficientsrebetaweightsnd starredoeffi-cientsre ignificant):EvaluationsfLiberals .07S1 .21*S2 .09S3+ .17*S4 .01S5+ .09S6- .15*Il + .04I2- .06I3- .33* Self-placement R = .69)EvaluationsfConservatives .1 *SI + .06S2+ .42*S3 .02S4+ .02S5+ .14*S6 + .OOII + .17*I2- .03I3+ .22* Self-placementR = .71)As the estimateshow, lthough elf-placementid havean impact nevaluations,hemodel s clearlymisspecifiednthisform; oth he ym-bolicvariablesndthe ssue caleshad a substantialirectmpact n theevaluationsvenwithelf-placementncludednthe egression.hus, asedonthis est,model is not sstronglyupporteds the riginal odel.9Ourtestofthethirdmodelfocuses n therelationshipetweenhetheoreticalonstructf a general iberal/conservativerientationnd itsthree ypothesizedndicators-self-placement,ndevaluationsf iberalsand conservatives.n thismodel, here re three nknowns:he pistemiccorrelationsa, b,and ) which epresenthe elationshipsetweenhe heo-retical onstructnd ts ndicators. here re also three nown uantities:the bservedorrelationsr,2, l3, ndr23) mong hendicators.ince hereare hree nknownndthree nownuantities,hemodel s ust dentified.Consequently,lthough ecansolvefor he hreepistemicorrelations,theres no excess nformationotest or oodnessf fit. nstead, heonlyweak onditionhatmust e met n order or hemodel o hold s that heestimatesf , b andcnot xceed 1, since hey re ffectivelyorrelations(Duncan,1972).0 But, s thefollowingstimatesemonstrate,hemodel

9Based n suchfindings,omemightosit fourth odel nwhichelf-identificationinfluencesvaluations hichn turn eterminessuepositionsndthe valuationfpoliticalsymbols.heoretically,hismodel eems oustobequiteweak ince tremovesromonten-tion he ogical eterminantsf elf-identification,nd incetdoes ittleo specifyhemannerinwhichuch dentificationsriginate.'"Inorder oestimateheparameters,achcorrelations firstxpressedn termsfthethree arameters:l2 = ab, rl3 = ac, and r23 = bc. These three quationscan thenbe solvedfor ach nknown, ith he ollowingesults:

a= 3r b=73 /r2For he alculationsotedn he ext: l2= -.53,r,3 .47 nd 23 -.17.


19/30

634 PamelaJohnstononover,tanleyeldmanfails even this relatively imple test: a = 1.21, b = -.44, and c = .39.Since he stimateor arameterexceedsne,model cannot e acceptedin tspresentorm.nessence,elf-identificationndevaluationsf iberalsand conservativesannot e consideredo be indicatorsf the ame heo-reticalonstruct.Thus, n their resentorms either odel normodel fits hedataverywell. Sucha relativelyoor showing yboth of these lternativemodels olstersurconfidencen ourown onceptualizationfthenatureof therelationshipetweenvaluationsf deologicalabels ndself-iden-tification.onetheless,he hoice etweenhese ariousmodels ltimatelymust e madeon theoreticalrounds; o amount f empiricalestinganestablishhe ppropriateausalorderingnthe bsence fa sound heoreti-cal basis Duncan, 975). romuch theoreticalerspective,ny pecifica-tion of thecausal relationshipetweendeological elf-placementndevaluations ust e consistentith ne'sunderstandingf thenature fthose valuationsndtheir eterminants.n this egard,ur onceptualiza-tiondiffersriticallyrom healternative odelsn ourtreatmentf thequestionfbipolarity.ecausewe posit lackof bipolaritynthemeaningof deologicalabels,we necessarily usthypothesizetructurallyistinctdeterminantsf theevaluationsf such abels. n contrast,heother womodels ssume ipolarityndthereforere theoreticallyompatible iththe dea of structurallydenticaleterminants.his uggestshat ur udg-ment s to the ppropriateausalorderingetweendeologicalelf-identifi-cation nd evaluationshouldnotbedivorced rom urassessmentfthevalidityf ourbroaderheoreticalramework,articularlyur argumentconcerningipolarity.herefore,henext teps to examinehe ourcesfthe valuationsf deologicalerms.Sources fthe valuationf deologicalabels

As noted arlier,wogeneralypesffactorsre onsideredspossiblesources f an individual'sttitudesowardsiberals nd conservatives:specificssuepositionsnd other oliticalymbols.o test he elativeon-tributionfeachofthese ypes ffactors,valuationsf iberalsndcon-servativesere eparatelyegressedn the hreessue-positioncales ndthe ix ymbolic-meaningcales.TheresultsrepresentednTable3.Consideringirst hecontent f meaning, ymbolic actors learlyplayed moremportantole han ssue ositionsndetermininghe valua-tion f deologicalabels.Attitudesowardsiberalsndconservativesereeach ignificantlynfluencedyfour ariables; et,nboth asesonly neofthesewasan ssue-positioncale.Furthermore,or othiberalsndcon-servativeshemostimportanteterminantseresymbolicn nature.Specifically,ositivettitudesowardsiberals ere rimarilyfunctionfpositive eelingsowards hesymbols f the radical nd reformisteft.


20/30

LIBERAL/CONSERVATIVE SELF-IDENTIFICATION 635TABLE3RegressionfEvaluationsfLiberals ndConservativesnIssuePositionsnd he ymbolic-Meaningariablesa

Evaluation f Evaluation fIndependentariables Liberals ConservativesI. Symbolic-Meaning ariablesS,: Status uo .078 .019) .125 .032)*S2: Radical eft .305 .073)* -.022 -.008)S3:Capitalism -.154 -.063)* .473 .169)*

S4: Reformisteft .246 .080)* .015 .004)S5: Disadvantaged -.037 (-.013) .051 .016)S6: Social Control .052 .028) .192 .088)*

II. Issue PositionsI,: Economic -.132 -1.28)* .042 .326)12:Racial .029 .207) .167 1.00)*13: ocial -.075 -.337) .016 .083)(R = .61) (R = .69)aUnparenthesized ntries re beta weights;parenthesized ntries re unstandardized e-

gression oefficients.*p < .05 level.Negative entimentsowards he symbol f capitalismnd a traditionalliberal erspectiven economicssueswere lso significant,hough essimportant,eterminantsfattitudesowardsiberals.ncontrast,ositiveevaluationsf conservativeseremostheavilynfluencedya positiveaffect owards hesymbol f capitalism.n addition, positive ffecttowards he status uo and social control ymbols,nd a conservativestance n racial ssues lso contributedoa positivevaluationfconserva-tives.Even though ssue positions ad relativelyittledirect mpact nevaluationsf iberals ndconservatives,t could till earguedhat ssueshave ome ndirectnfluenceis-a-visolitical ymbols.rom urperspec-tive, uch causalorderingstheoreticallyuspect. onetheless,etestedthis ossibilityyregressingachofthe ix ymbolic eaningcales nthethreessue-positioncales.Theresults f these egressionsndicated hatissuepositions adrelativelyittlenfluencenthe ffect ttached o thevariousymbols. n average, he ssue cales ccountedor nly bout11percentfthevariancen attitudesowardshe ymbols.his uggestshatan individual'sttachmento politicalymbolss derived rimarilyromother, onissue-orientedources. hus, s predicted,deologicalelf-iden-tificationsre argely productfsymbolicffectndonly lightlyeflect


21/30

636 PamelaJohnstononover, tanleyeldmanspecificssuepositions, finding hich tronglyonfirms evitin ndMiller's1979)suspicionhat ssuepositionsreof imitedmportancendeterminingiberal/conservativeelf-placements.

Turning ow to a considerationf the structuref the meaning funderlyinghe valuationf deologicalymbols, efindmple upport orourhypothesishat he tructuresnotbipolar. pecifically,ith nly neexception,ifferenteferentsere entral o defininghemeaningfthetermsiberal ndconservative.he one haredeferent,he ymbolfcapi-talism,was associated ositively ith valuations f conservativesndnegativelyith hose f iberalsseeTable3). But,while he apitalismym-bol wasthemost ritical eterminantfattitudesowardsonservatives,twas one of the east mportanteterminantsf evaluationsf liberals.Thus,for hemost art, he ggregateatternfmeaningssociated ithideological ermswas not bipolar.Rather, he twolabelsderivedheirmeaningargely rom ifferentources,rimarilyf symbolicature.The mplicationsf suchfindingsor urunderstandingf deologicalself-identificationsrediagrammaticallyutlinednthepathmodel howninFigure3.11While ourfindings y no means render he iberal/conserva-tive lassificationeaningless,hey o fundamentallyhallengehe radi-tional nderstandingfthis istinction.nparticular,urfindingsndicatethat hemeaningfideologicalabels s largelyymbolicncontent ndnondimensionalnstructure.urthermore,ur findingf a predominantlackofbipolaritylso allows s todiscount urtherhe iabilityfthe lter-nativemodels onsiderednthe ast ection,ince eitherfthosemodels stheoreticallyonsistent ith uch a pattern. hus, nstead f all peopleviewinghepolitical orld rom he ameperspective,urmodel uggeststhatndividualsary nthe ffectndsalience hich heyttach o politicalsymbols,ndthis sreflectednhow heyabel hemselvesdeologically.orthemost art,t s ikely hat onservativesdentifyhemselvess conserva-tives or uite ifferenteasons haniberalsabel hemselvesiberals.Meaning f deologicalabelsEventhough irect pen-endeduestionswere ejecteds a wayofinitiallydentifyinghemeaningf deologicalabels, heyrenonethelessusefulnfurtherestingheviabilityf ourmodel.fconservativesnd ib-erals eallyoview oliticsrom ifferenterspectiveshere hould e someevidence f this n theirelf-definitionsfideologicalabels.To test hispossibility,eexaminedhe esponsesivenothefollowingwo uestionsin he1978CPS National lectiontudy:

"Thefull onrecursiveathmodelwas ested; nly ignificantathsrereported.


22/30

637FIGURE 3PathModelRelatingymbolic eaning ariablesnd ssuePositionstoEvaluationsfLiberalsndConservatives,nd deologicalSelf-Placement

II: ECONOMICISSUES -.130S2: RADICAL .31 EVALUATIONLEFT OF.25 LIBERALS -.42S4: REFORMIST j Z(R .61)\"LEFT -15

IDEOLOGICALS3: CAPITALISM SELF-PLACEMENT.47 (R =.60)S6: SOCIAL

CONTROL .1 EVALUATION 3.13 OFSi: STATUS CONSERVATIVESQUO .17 (R = .69)12:RACIALISSUES

NOTE:Coefficientsre tandardizedegressioneights;llare ignificantt the05 evel.Onlysignificantathsre hown.The orrelationsmong he even xogenousariablesre:S2 S3 S4 S6 I, I2Si .14 .43 .42 .46 .00 .07

S2 .03 .47 -.08 -.21 -.31S3 .22 .44 .23 .13S4 .25 -.30 -.48S6 .09 .18I, .39


23/30

638 PamelaJohnstononover, tanleyeldmanPeoplehave ifferenthingsnmindwhen hey ay hatomeone's olitical iews re ib-eral r conservative....What orts fthingsoyouhave n mindwhen ou ay hatsomeone'soliticaliews re iberal? nd,what oyouhave nmindwhen ou ay hatsomeone's olitical iews re onservative?For eachquestion, p to threenswers ere odedfor very espondent.The original oding cheme orthese nswerswas reduced o 13 cate-gories."2hen,for ach ofthetwoquestions, 3dummyariableswerecreated hichorrespondedo the13coding ategories;hese 6variableswere oded"1" if therespondentsedthecategorynany ofhis orherthree esponses,nd"O" otherwise.he percentagef allrespondents,fself-identifiediberals, ndofself-identifiedonservativessing achcate-gory spresentedn Table 4; since omerespondentsavemore hanoneanswero each uestion,he olumnotals xceed 00percent.To begin, hepercentagefrespondentssing arious ategoriesro-vides newayof assessing hetherrnotthe ggregate eaningf deo-logical erms as a bipolar tructure.s shownnTable4, the deologicallabelshad ome haredmeaning or iberals ndconservatives.othgroupstendedo define oth abelswith eferenceo"change," fiscal olicies,"and "New Deal policies."At the ametime, owever,iberalsnd conser-vatives learly mphasized ifferentategoriesn their efinitions;here

were ignificantifferencesetweenhe wogroups n their se ofallbut'2We ound hat 1.2percentf allthe esponsesn the liberal" uestionnd93.9per-cent f all the esponsesn the conservative"uestion ere odeablewithinhese 3cate-gories. herest f he esponsesereitherninterpretablerwere erynfrequentlyited ea-sons. hefollowingonstitutesrepresentativeamplef he PS codes or ach ategory:(1)CHANGE-acceptance/resistanceo change, ew deas; low/rashesponseso prob-lems; autious,rresponsible;(2) RECENTSOCIAL SSUES-abortion; irthontrol; omen's ights;RA;(3)EQUALITY-equal rights;litist;pecial rivileges;(4)CONCERNWITHPROBLEMS-sensitiveo social roblems,eform;nterested/notinterestedn mprovingonditions;(5) GROUP REFERENCES-all people,workingeople, ommoneople,middlelass;(6) FISCALPOLICIES-governmentpending;oo much pending;ightconomicoli-cies; oundmoney;(7) SOCIALISM/CAPITALISM-socialistic, elfaretate; ree nterprise,apitalism;bigbusiness;ich eople;(8) NEWDEAL ISSUES-minimum age; ocial ecurity;ealthnsurance;ontrol futilities;ocialwelfare;overtyrograms;(9) FOREIGNPOLICY/NATIONALSECURITY-peace/war; nternationalist/isola-tionist;ationalefense;(10)BIGGOVERNMENT-centralizedovernment;ocalgovernment;ocal nitiative;(11)LAWANDORDER-hard ine/softine n aw ndorder;(12) DEOLOGICALTERMS-radical; xtreme;eactionary;ar ight;nd(13)MINORITYGROUPS-minorities,lack, acist,ivil ights.


24/30

TABLE 4Frequency istribution f theSelf-DefinedMeaningof deo

Meaning f"Liberal" MCategory All Liberals Conservatives AllChange 34.9% 52.307o** 23.5% 43.2Recent ocial Issues 7.6 12.7** 6.3 3.0Equality 4.1 7.5** 2.1 1.6ConcernwithProblems 4.4 7.5** 3.4 3.1GroupReferences 4.8 6.6* 3.7 3.9FiscalPolicies 22.7 9.3 33.5** 28.2Socialism/Capitalism 9.4 7.5 14.7** 11.9New Deal Issues 14.4 10.9 22.1** 5.5ForeignPolicy 4.0 2.3 7.1** 6.3BigGovernment 5.6 5.4 7.6 4.6Law & Order 3.3 2.3 5.3* 2.2Ideolo. Terms 2.9 1.1 3.1* 2.7Minority roups 7.3 7.9 8.5 1.7N = 1673 442 620 1673

aEntriesrethepercentagefrespondentsentioninghat ategory;ercentagesotal ospondentsavemorehan ne nswerothe uestion.** = Thedifferenceetweeniberalsnd onservativesssignificanttthe 01 evel, or hat at* - Thedifferenceetweeniberalsnd onservativesssignificantt the 05 evel, or hat ate


25/30

640 PamelaJohnstononover,tanleyeldmanonecategoryfmeaning-minorityroups. hus, s expected,iberalsndconservativesidhavedistincterspectivesn politics hich ere eflectedin he tructuref hemeaningheyentdeologicalabels.

Furthermore,he ontentfthemeaningf deologicalabels evealedby his nalysisccords icely ithur arliernalysis. irst,ntheirefini-tion f deologicalabels, iberalsmaderelativelyreaterseoffour ate-gories: change,""recentocial ssues,""equality," nd "concernwithproblems." specially oteworthys thefindinghat he iberal iewpointwas dominatedy a concern ith hange; roportionatelywice s manyliberals s conservativesadereferenceo "change"and "recent ocialissues" uch s abortionndERA. This squite onsistentith ur arlierfindinghat positiveeactiono iberals asa functionf anattachmentto thegroups ssociatedwith apid nd moderate hangensociety-thesymbolsf theradical ndreformisteft.Atthe ame ime,iberalsmadesomeuse ofthevarious conomicategories-"fiscalolicies," social-ism/capitalism,"nd "NewDeal issues"-thus, upportingurclaim hatthe ymbolfcapitalismlso nfluenceshe valuationsf iberals. ut, t scriticalo note hat iberalsmade elativelyuch essuse ofsuch ategoriesthan onservatives:findinghat onfirmsur arlieronclusionhat api-talism s considerably ore mportantn defininghe conservative,sopposed o iberal, erspective.Turningo theconservatives,efind hat heymaderelativelyorereferenceso fourcategories f meaning: fiscal policies," "social-ism/capitalism,"NewDeal issues," nd"foreignolicy." n particular,the onservativeiewpointasheavilynfluencedy strongocus neco-nomicmatters; roportionatelyhree imes s many onservativess lib-eralsmadereferenceo "fiscalpolicies," ndtwice smany onservativesmentionedNewDeal issues" uch s minimumages ndsocial ecurity.This sconsistentith urfindinghat n attachmento the ymbolfcapi-talisms themost riticalactornproducingositivevaluationsfconser-vatives. imilarly,he onservatives'elativelyreaterseof the foreignpolicy" nd"law and order" ategoriesupportsur contentionhat hesymbolsfsocial ontrol-themilitarynd thepolice-arerelativelyoreimportantndefininghe onservative,s comparedo the iberal, erspec-tive. nsummary,urexaminationf iberals'ndconservatives'elf-defi-nitionf the womajor deologicalabels tronglyupportshe onclusionofour arliernalysis.orthemost art,iberalsndconservativeso havedistinctolitical erspectiveshich renotsimplymirrormages f oneanother. ConclusionsIn summary,nthreemportantespects,urdata analysis aspro-vided upportor ur pecificationftheprocessesnderlyinghedevelop-ment f deologicalelf-identifications.irst, lthoughheremaybe some


26/30

LIBERAL/CONSERVATIVE SELF-IDENTIFICATION 64Ireciprocalffectsetweenhe wo, hedata sconsistentith ur ssump-tion hat ausality uns rimarilyromvaluationsf deologicalabels oself-identification.ot onlydo such valuations avea strongmpact nself-identification,ut they lso mediate lmost ll of the mpactwhichissues ndsymbols ave on such dentifications.urthermore,eitherfthe womajor lternative odels fthe elationshipetweenelf-identifica-tions ndevaluationsitshedatavery ell, or reeither fthemheoreti-cally onsistent ith lack ofbipolarity.econd, ndrelatedo our firstpoint, hree ey indingsun ontraryothe raditionalipolar onceptionof deologicaldentifications:he bsence f ny trong egativeorrelationbetweenvaluationsf iberalsndconservatives;herelationshipsf dif-ferentymbolsnd ssue tancesothose valuations;ndthedifferentm-phasiswhichiberals ndconservativeslaced nvariousategoriesntheirdefinitionsfideological erms. inally, uranalysisndicateshat deo-logical abels, nd consequentlyelf-identifications,ave argelyymbolic,nonissue-orientedeaningothemasspublic.In additiono confirmingurmodel, uch indingsave thermplica-tionsas well.Methodologically,ur findingsuggesthatLevitin ndMiller's1979)approach omeasuringdeologicaldentificationss simul-taneously stepnthe ightndwrong irections.ecall, atherhan ely-ing solely n self-placementn the iberal/conservativeontinuum,heycombine othevaluations f liberals nd conservatives,nd feelingsfclosenessowardshese roupswith elf-placementsnorder oarrivetameasure f ideologicaldentification.ucha measurementtrategys animprovementver revious nes nthat tdraws ttentionoandtakes ntoaccount hestrong valuativemeaningwhich urfindingsuggests soimportanto understandingdeological elf-identification.t the sametime, owever, ewould rgue hat heirombinationfevaluationsndself-placementnto singlemeasures basedon anerroneousssumption:namely,hat hese ariablesre ndicatorsf he ame nderlyingonstruct.From urperspective,more ppropriate easurementechnique ould eonewhichmaintainseparatemeasuresfevaluationsndself-placement,andthen xamines, atherhan ssumes,herelationshipetween ariouscombinationsfthe wo.Thus,with espectomeasurementtrategiesurworkmplies oth hat valuations fideologicalabels re mportantounderstandingelf-identifications,nd that t scriticalo maintain con-ceptual istinctionetweenhe wo.

Several thermethodologicalmplicationstem rom urfindinghatthemeaningfideologicalabels s largelyased on symbolsather hanissues. pecifically,his indinguggestshat he ommonmethod fusingthe iberalndconservativeabels s stimuliomeasuredeologicalr ssue-orientedhinking aybemisleading.orthe amereason,we should lsobe cautious f interpretationsfpolitical hangewhich ely n shiftsn


27/30

642 PamelaJohnstononover, tanleyeldmanideologicaldentificationss an empiricalndicatorfchangesnbasic ssuepositions. ur findingsmply hatmajor hiftsn thedistributionfthepublic's deologicaldentificationsre ndicativeffundamentallterationsin the symbolicmeaning f politics, ather hanmajorchanges n issueorientations.Our model nd findingslso have everal heoreticalmplications.nparticular,ne of themajor uzzlesuggestedyboth heLevitinndMiller(1979) nd Holm nd Robinson1978) tudiess why deologicaldentifica-tions ave uch n mpact n vote hoice, ven houghmost oters ncoun-ter great ealofdifficultyn abeling hich ide fan ssue s conservativeandwhichs iberal. his s, perhaps,venmore uriousn a "nonideologi-cal" electionike 1976 n which oters erceived ore f a differencee-tween ord and Cartern their deological dentificationshanon anyspecificssuepositionPage, 1978, . 98). From urperspective,he ym-bolicmeaning nderlyingiberal/conservativedentificationss thekey ounderstandinghesephenomenon.pecifically,ven when nformationabout andidates'ssuepositionss absent r very ostlyPage, 1978), hesymbolicues ssociated ith arious roups nd "easy ssues" CarminesandStimson,980) houldtill e available. o thedegreeuch ymbolsrelinked o ideological dentifications,otersmayreadilymake nferencesaboutthecandidates hich ubsequentlynfluenceheir valuationsndultimatelyheir ote hoice.Thus, s traditionallyrgued nd empiricallyconfirmed,deologicaldentificationshould ctas cuesor referenceointsinthe valuation f candidates. ut,contraryo traditionalxpectations,the basis forthesecomparisonss largely ymbolic, ather han ssueoriented,nd therefore, ayoccur nthe bsence fany rue deologicalconflictrdebate etweenhe andidates.Similarly,urfindingselp o unravelhenaturefthe haredmean-ing binding ogetherdeological nd party dentifications.ecallthatLevitinndMiller1979) uggestedhat uchdentificationshare onsider-ablemeaning hich,oa large xtent,maynotbe issuebased.Given urunderstandingfthenaturef deologicaldentifications,e cannowpositthat uch haredmeaningsprimarilyymbolicncontent.neffect,othparty nd ideologicaldentificationsay representymboliciesto thepoliticalworldwhich verlap n theirmeaning. ome insightnto thespecificature f this verlapsgained yreviewinghe ymbolicetermi-nants fevaluationsf iberalsndconservatives.pecifically,valuationsofRepublicans ere componentfthe apitalismcale-thesymbol av-ing hegreatestmpact nevaluationsfconservatives.his uggestshatpositivevaluationsf the onservativeabel rerelatedopositivevalua-tions fRepublicans,nd thus heremay esome endencyor elf-identi-fiedRepublicanso alsoidentifyhemselvess conservatives.tthe ame


28/30

LIBERAL/CONSERVATIVE SELF-IDENTIFICATION 643time, valuationsfDemocratsidnotfit nto ny four ymbolic-mean-ing cales.Consequently,ith o directymbolicink etweenvaluationsofDemocratsndevaluationsfeitheriberals rconservatives,nemightexpect reaterariationn the deologicaldentificationsfDemocrats.nfact, his s precisely hatLevitin nd Miller1979) found: RepublicansweremorehomogeneoushanDemocratsn their deological elf-place-ment, nd theywere lsomuchmore ften nqualifiedntheirdeologicalcommitments"p. 757). Thus,based on our preliminaryindings, ewould rgue hatparty nd ideological dentificationshare commonmeaning hich entersround he ymbolfcapitalism.Finally, necriticismfourempiricalnalysiss likelyobe that heresultsretime ound: he ymbolic eaningssociated ith he liberal"and"conservative"ermssa consequencenly fthe ecentonflictsndeventsfthe 1960s.But, closer ook at ourempiricalnalysis evealsbasisfor rawing ore eneral onclusionsoncerninghemeaningftheseterms.henaturefthemajor ymboliceferentshat efinedach abel-the eformistndradicaleft oriberals,ndcapitalism,ocial ontrol,ndthe tatus uo for onservatives-indicateshat he ore ymbolic eaningofthese abels evolvesround lementsf"change s.thepreservationftraditionalalues." ngeneral,iberals eem ofavorhangendprogresseven tthe xpensefgovernmentnvolvement;onservatives,nthe therhand,wish o preserveraditionalrrangementsarticularlyhose hreat-enedbygovernmentnvolvement.his nterpretations somewhatroaderthan onverse's1963) spend-save"haracterizationfthe ifferencese-tween iberalsndconservatives,lthoughhere recertainlylementsfsuch distinctionnouranalysis. imilarly,obinson nd Holm's 1980)recent escriptionfliberalss being pro-change" ndconservativess"antigovernment"scompatible ithhe road ines four wn haracteri-zation.Given his nterpretationfthefundamentalifferencesetweenib-erals ndconservatives,tcanbe arguedhat tanyonepointntime hemajor ymbolsf change nd progressecome ssociated ithvaluationsof iberals, hilehe ymbolsssociated ithhe reservationftraditionalvalues eterminevaluationsfconservatives.fthis s nfact he ase, henliberal/conservativedentificationshould lways eflectnsymbolicermsthedominantleavagesn society. hiswould ccount or he observedchangesnthemeaningfthese erms ver imeEriksontal., 1980); sthe leavagesvolvendchange o do the ymboliceferentsssociated itheachterm.deologicalelf-identifications,herefore, ay erve n impor-tantfunction orthepublicbyproviding symbolicramework hichsimplifiesocietal onflicts.urthermore,hese oremeaningsfchangeand thepreservationftraditionalaluesdo captureymbolicallyhegen-


29/30

644 PamelaJohnstononover, tanley eldmaneral,more deological efinitionsypicallyssociatedwith hese erms.Thus,our analysis uggestshat hepublic's sageof deologicalabels smore simplificationhan distortionfreality,ndthatdeologicalden-tificationsonstitute orea symbolichanissue-orientedinkto thepolitical orld.Manuscriptubmitted4August 980Finalmanuscripteceived2December980

REFERENCESAsher,Herbert . 1980.Presidential lections nd American olitics,2nded. Homewood, ll.:DorseyPress.Brown, Steven R. 1970. Consistency nd the persistence f ideology: some experimentalresults. ublic OpinionQuarterly, 4 Spring1970):60-68.Brown,StevenR., and RichardW. Taylor. 1973. Frames of referencend the observation fbehavior. ocial Science Quarterly, 4 June1973):29-40.. 1972. Perspectivesn conceptformation. ocial ScienceQuarterly, 2 (March 1972):852-860.Carmines, dward G., and JamesA. Stimson. 1980. The two facesofissue voting.AmericanPoliticalScienceReview,74 (March 1980):78-91.Cobb, RogerW., andCharlesD. Elder. 1973.Thepolitical ses of symbolism. merican oli-ticsQuarterly, July 973): 305-339.. 1972. ndividual rientationsn the tudy f political ymbolism.ocial Science Quar-terly, 3 1972): 79-90.Conover, Pamela Johnston, nd Stanley Feldman. 1980. Belief system rganization n theAmericanelectorate. n JohnPierce and John L. Sullivan, eds., The electorate econ-sidered.Beverly ills, Calif.: Sage.Converse,Philip E. 1964. The nature f belief ystems n mass publics. n David Apter, d.,Ideology nd discontent. ew York: Free Press.Coveyou, Michael R., and JamesPiereson. 1977. Ideological perceptionsnd political udg-

ment: Some problemsof concept and measurement. oliticalMethodology,4 (Winter1977): 77-102.Duncan, Otis D. 1975. Introduction o structural quation models. New York: AcademicPress.. 1972. Unmeasured variables in linear models for panel analysis. In Herbert L.Costner, d., Sociologicalmethodology. an Francisco:Jossey-Bass.Edelman,Murray. 964.The ymbolic sesofpolitics.Urbana:Universityf llinoisPress.Erikson,Robert ., Norman R. Luttbeg, nd KentL. Tedin. 1980. American ublic opinion:Its origins, ontent nd impact.New York: Wiley.Hamilton, David L. 1976. Cognitivebiases in the perception f social groups. In John S.Carroll and John W. Payne, eds., Cognitionand social behavior. Potomac, Md.:Erhlbaum.Herzon, FrederickD. 1980. Ideology, constraint, nd public opinion:The case of lawyers.AmericanJournal fPoliticalScience,24 (May 1980):232-258.Hicks, Jack M., and JohnH. Wright.1970. Convergent-discriminantalidation and factoranalysisof five scales of liberalism-conservatism.ournalof Personality nd SocialPsychology, 4 February 970): 114-120.


30/30

LIBERAL/CONSERVATIVE SELF-IDENTIFICATION 645Holm, JohnD., and JohnP. Robinson. 1978. Ideological identificationnd theAmericanvoter. ublic OpinionQuarterly,2 (Summer1978):235-246.Jackson,Thomas H., and George Marcus. 1975. Politicalcompetence nd ideological con-straint. ocial ScienceResearch, (June1975):93-111.Kerlinger,red N. 1972. The structurend content f social attitude eferents: preliminarystudy.ducationalndPsychologicaleasurement,2 1972): 13-630.. 1967. Social attitudes nd their riterial eferents: structuralheory. sychologicalReview,74 March 1967): 110-122.Klingemann, ans D. 1979a. Measuringdeologicalconceptualizations.n Samuel H. Barneset l., eds., oliticalction:Massparticipationn ivewesternemocracies.everly ills,Calif.: Sage.. 1979b. Ideological conceptualization nd politicalaction. In Samuel Barnes et al.,eds., Political ction:Mass participationn fivewestern emocracies. everly ills,Calif.: Sage.Knoke, David. 1979. Stratificationnd the dimensions f Americanpoliticalorientations.AmericanJournal f Political Science,23 (November 979): 772-791.Lane, Robert E. 1973. Patternsof politicalbelief. In JeanneKnutson, ed., Handbook ofpoliticalpsychology.an Francisco,Calif.: Jossey-Bass.. 1962.Political deology.New York: Free Press.Levitin, eresa E., andWarren . Miller. 1979. deological nterpretationsfpresidential lec-tions.American oliticalScienceReview,73 September 979):751-771.Luttbeg,Norman. 1968. The structurefbeliefs mong eaders nd thepublic.PublicOpinionQuarterly, 2 Fall 1968): 398-409.Maggiotto,Michael A., and JamesE. Piereson. 1977. Partisan dentificationnd electoral

choice: The hostility ypothesis. mericanJournalof Political Science,21 (November1977): 745-768.Marcus, George, David Tabb, and JohnL. Sullivan.1974.The application f individual if-ferences calingto the measurementf political deology.AmericanJournal fPoliticalScience,18 May 1974): 405-420.Miller,Arthur, atriciaGurin, nd Gerald Gurin. 1978.Electoral mplications f group den-tification nd consciousness: he reintroductionf a concept.Paper delivered t the 1978annual meeting f theAmerican oliticalScienceAssociation,NewYork, August 1-Sep-tember , 1978.Miller,ArthurH., and WarrenE. Miller. 1977.Partisanship nd performance:Rational"choice in the 1976 presidential lection.Paper presented t the annual meeting f theAmerican oliticalScienceAssociation,1977,Washington, .C.Miller,Warren ., and Teresa E. Levitin.1976. Leadership nd change:Presidential lectionsfrom1952-1976. Cambridge,.Mass.:Winthrop.Page,Benjamin. 1978.Choices nd echoesnpresidentiallections: ationalman ndelec-toraldemocracy. hicago: UniversityfChicagoPress.Robinson,John, ndJohnHolm. 1980. deologicalvoting s alive and well.PublicOpinion,3(April/May 980): 52-58.Sears, David O., Carl P. Hensler, nd Leslie K. Speer. 1979. Whites'opposition o "busing":Self-interestr symbolicpolitics?American Political ScienceReview,73 (June 1979):369-384.Warr,PeterB., H. M. Schroder, nd S. Blackman.1969. The structuref political udgment.British ournalfSocial ndClinical sychology, February969): 2-43.Weisberg,HerbertF. 1980. A multidimensional onceptualization f party dentification.PoliticalBehavior, (No. 1, 1980): 33-60., and Jerrold . Rusk. 1970. Dimensions f candidate valuation.AmericanPolitical

connover feldman - origins and meaning of lib cons self id

Documents