From 2018... The Polarizing Consequences of Ideological Identities: When we are discussing ideology—a presumably issue-based concept—we are not entirely discussing issues, but our social attachments to ideological labels

From 2018... Ideologues without Issues: The Polarizing Consequences of Ideological Identities. Lilliana Mason. Public Opinion Quarterly, Volume 82, Issue S1, 2018, Pages 866–887, Mar 21 2018. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfy005. A correction has been published: Public Opinion Quarterly, Volume 82, Issue 4, Winter 2018, Page 793, https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfz005 (published mangled the page numbers)

Abstract: The distinction between a person’s ideological identity and their issue positions has come more clearly into focus in recent research. Scholars have pointed out a significant difference between identity-based and issue-based ideology in the American electorate. However, the affective and social effects of these separate elements of ideology have not been sufficiently explored. Drawing on a national sample collected by SSI and data from the 2016 ANES, this article finds that the identity-based elements of ideology are capable of driving heightened levels of affective polarization against outgroup ideologues, even at low levels of policy attitude extremity or constraint. These findings demonstrate how Americans can use ideological terms to disparage political opponents without necessarily holding constrained sets of policy attitudes.

Conclusion

In the context of the 2016 election, many pundits have expressed confusion over the appeal of a candidate whose policy plans seemed, at best, ideologically conflicted. How could self-identified “conservatives” find appeal in a candidate who did not hold consistently right-leaning policy positions? The data presented here show that, in fact, this should be easy to explain. The power behind the labels “liberal” and “conservative” to predict strong preferences for the ideological ingroup is based largely in the social identification with those groups, not in the organization of attitudes associated with the labels.

That is, even when we are discussing ideology—a presumably issue-based concept—we are not entirely discussing issues. And when we wish to know how “ideological” our increasing affective polarization truly is, the answer is that the ideological roots of that polarization are largely based in our social attachments to ideological labels, not only to thoughtful collections of opinions.

There is a difference between ideological labels and ideological issue positions. Identity-based ideology encompasses more than just a list of policy attitudes. As a result of this, there is a distinct difference in the effects of the two elements of ideology. Identity-based ideology can drive affective ideological polarization even when individuals are naïve about policy. The passion and prejudice with which we approach politics is driven not only by what we think, but also powerfully by who we think we are.