political ideology research essay

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection

The Role of Political Ideology and Open-Minded Thinking Style in the (in)Accuracy of Factual Beliefs

Małgorzata kossowska.

Faculty of Philosophy, Institute of Psychology, Jagiellonian University, Ingardena 6, 30-060 Kraków, Poland

Paulina Szwed

Gabriela czarnek, associated data.

The data that support the findings of this study are openly available in OSF at https://osf.io/d8yba/ .

Code is available in OSF at https://osf.io/d8yba/ .

The paper investigates the role of political ideology and an open-minded thinking style (i.e., the tendency to reason based on rules of inference rather than intuitive heuristics) with respect to the accuracy of factual beliefs. In line with political asymmetry theory, we assumed that right-wing beliefs, in contrast to left-wing beliefs, are associated with more inaccurate factual beliefs. We also expected that the open-minded thinking style acts as a buffer against inaccurate factual beliefs among people with right-wing (but not left-wing) political affinities. To test these hypotheses, we conducted three studies (total N  = 1120) in which participants holding right- and left-wing beliefs, and displaying differing degrees of the open-minded thinking style (as measured by the Active Open-minded Thinking Style questionnaire), assessed policy-relevant facts congenial to left- as well as right-wing beliefs. The results of the study confirm the hypotheses proposed. The paper’s findings contribute to the ongoing discussion around the ideological underpinnings of (un)biased cognition and the controversies concerning the role of cognitive factors in ideological polarization.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11109-022-09789-z.

In this paper we investigate the open-minded thinking style, i.e., the tendency to reason based on rules of inference (rather than intuitive heuristics) and in a manner which takes different ideas or opinions into consideration (Price et al., 2015 ), with the assumption that this thinking style acts as a buffer against the inaccuracy of factual beliefs among right- (but not left-wing) adherents. Despite several previous studies already having demonstrated that the open-minded thinking style is linked to less biased cognition within the political domain (e.g., Svedholm & Lindeman, 2013 ; Swami et al., 2014 ; Pennycook et al., 2015 ), to the best of our knowledge, none of the previous studies went as far as investigating the actual degree of accuracy of the factual beliefs about key social realities held by their study participants. Instead, they looked at the correlations between (i) individual differences in thinking styles and/or ideology and (ii) factual beliefs about highly controversial issues, such as climate change or gun control. We, however, focus specifically on how far from the verifiable truth peoples’ beliefs are, and whether the degree of disparity between the truth and their beliefs is correlated with their political ideology. Moreover, we analyze beliefs covering a broad range of issues that are current in contemporary social and political discourse. It seems to be especially important in light of the ongoing debate surrounding the cognitive basis of ideological polarization, which is partly fueled by seemingly incongruous findings. While some studies have revealed that cognitive factors (the open-minded thinking style among them), can indeed amplify ideological polarization (Kahan & Corbin, 2016 ; cf. Baron, 2017 ), others have found no effects stemming from these cognitive factors when it comes to judging the quality of evidence (Eichmeier & Stenhouse, 2019 ). The discrepancies between these findings, which are the cause of much contention, may in part be due to the fact that a single topic, or a very few specific, usually highly controversial topics, were broached in these various investigations.

Factual beliefs are, we feel, especially worthy of further research given that inaccurate beliefs with regards to certain facts, i.e., key realities, could contribute to the undermining of proper debate, and may widen disagreement more than is reasonable in relation to many important societal issues. In other words, disagreement on particular policies is likely to be gratuitously exacerbated when people’s beliefs about the facts are dissimilar due to inaccuracies and misperceptions. Therefore, our findings add significantly to the ongoing discussion around the ideological underpinnings of biased versus accurate cognition, and carry implications for the means of reducing the occurrence of such misperceptions. Furthermore, they contribute to the debate about the role of the open-minded thinking style in bridging, as opposed to amplifying, ideological gaps. It is also worth noting that our research was conducted in an European country, thus extending the currently relevant knowledge, which until now has almost solely been based on studies conducted in the US.

Ideology 1 and accuracy in factual beliefs .

A vast body of research has demonstrated that beliefs about politically contentious facts are driven primarily by ideology or partisanship (Kahan, 2017 ; van Bavel & Pereira, 2018 ). For this reason, individuals can be expected to display a strong tendency to conform their understanding of the facts to the stance that prevails within their group, even when it conflicts with the actual facts, or the demands of logic and material self-interest. In addition, policy-relevant facts are usually suffused with culturally divisive meanings such that the pressure to form group-congruent beliefs will frequently supersede the desire to adopt a more factually-accurate stance (Kahan, 2017 ). Assessments that are aligned with one’s political identity constitute a higher priority than achieving objective accuracy since any risk entailed by asserting factual inaccuracies constitutes a negligible cost when compared to the level of risk that a person might otherwise face, e.g., failing to achieve the desired outcome of a public policy debate (van Bavel & Pereira, 2018 ).

​Although some research has shown that when confronted with controversial policy-relevant facts, both right- and left-wing adherents are found to be equally inaccurate in their perceptions, as many remain committed to their initial beliefs (e.g., Lord et al., 1979 , Ditto et al., 2019 ; Ruggeri et al., 2021 , Guay & Johnston, 2022 ), there are ample empirical reasons to question this notion. Firstly, research has demonstrated that this typically occurs when participants are asked to assess facts that favor the participant’s political affinities (Baron & Jost, 2019 ). Secondly, there is a widely held claim that right-wing adherents are more prone to heuristic, simple and rigid information-processing, and less prone to strategic information processing than left-wing supporters, and that this pattern is stable and cross-cultural (Burke et al. 2013 ; Jost, 2017 ; Kossowska & van Hiel, 2003 ; Zmigrod et al., 2021 ). This asymmetry is found to be rooted in differences regarding epistemic needs for certainty and related traits, such as dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity, with those on the right scoring high on these measures when compared to those on the left (Jost, 2017 ). Furthermore, other research has shown that right-wingers are more likely than left-wingers to: prioritize values of conformity and tradition, possess a strong desire to share reality with like-minded others, perceive within-group consensus when making political and non-political judgments, and, finally, be influenced by implicit relational cues and sources perceived to be similar to them. Moreover, they have a greater inclination to maintain homogenous social networks, and favor an ‘echo chamber’ environment that is conducive to the spread of misinformation (Jost et al., 2018 ). Hence, all these tendencies and preferences may lead to individuals who lean right being less open to new information that conflicts with their political identity; in turn, as a consequence, they end up being less accurate in their factual beliefs than their left-leaning counterparts. An additional assertion put forward to further explain these findings is that this asymmetry is linked to a higher sensitivity to partisan cues, leading to an increased salience of political identity among those on the right (vs. the left) (Kahan, 2017 ). Therefore, their cognition is driven more by the need to protect partisan identity than their information-processing preferences.

Taken together, despite the many perspectives in social science indicating that biased information processing ought to be equally prevalent among those on the left and right of the political spectrum, there is a host of empirical evidence that strongly challenges this stance. What is more, advances in the study of the link between ideology and accuracy support our contention that a far more nuanced, context-sensitive examination of this link holds the key to understanding the extent to which such a disparity may exist with respect to the accuracy of both sides’ factual beliefs. To this end, we work on the assumption that right-wingers are indeed to some degree less accurate in their factual beliefs than left-wingers, and, in our approach, expose individuals from both sides to politically topical facts congenial to both left- and right-wing beliefs, which are hotly debated in the country where the study was carried out (Poland). By doing so, we may prompt both left- and right-wing adherents to maintain highly indefensible positions. Furthermore, in this paper, we aim to investigate the boundary conditions of the effects of political ideology on factual beliefs. Here we will posit the notion that an open-minded thinking style can operate as a protective factor against misperceptions and mitigate the negative effects of right-wing ideology (but not its left-wing counterpart) on the accuracy of factual beliefs asserted by participants.

The role of an open-minded thinking style in (un)biased cognition and political beliefs .

The classic work on motivated cognition phenomena indicates that when people are motivated to be accurate, they expend more cognitive effort on issue-related reasoning, attend to relevant information more carefully, and process it more deeply, often using more complex rules (Kruglanski, 1989; Kunda, 1990 ). This motivation spurs people to engage in more complex and normatively “correct” attributional processing, and to avoid any reliance on superficial feedback and perceptually salient cues about one’s opinion (Thompson et al., 1994 ). Measuring degrees of accuracy motivation reveals the link to processes which are involved in social and political cognition (Pennycook et al., 2015 , 2020 ). These effects hold when accuracy motivation was measured as individual differences in the need for cognition, the fear of invalidity, or openness to experience (Pirce et al., 2015). Recently, several researchers have claimed that an active open-minded thinking style may reduce biased cognition (Baron, 2019 , for an overview). This style of thinking is characterized by the tendency to weigh up new evidence that may go against a favorably held belief, by the readiness to spend sufficient time on a problem before quitting, and by the propensity to consider carefully the opinions of others in forming one’s own. Many researchers have suggested that people high in this style actively prevent their thinking from being weighted toward their initial beliefs by devoting increased effort to seeking out and actively considering contrary evidence (Stanovich & West, 1997; Sa, West, & Stanovich, 1999). The key point is that it is not a cognitive ability (such as IQ) that is at work here but rather a thinking style: a tendency to think in a particular manner, i.e., that reflects people’s goal management, epistemic values and epistemic self–regulation (Baron, 2019 ). This notion of a thinking style operates in a similar fashion to that of the concept of accuracy motivation as suggested by Kunda ( 1990 ).

From the research mentioned above, it follows that an active open-minded thinking style, being linked to the tendency to be willing to override prior beliefs and values when assessing facts, may reduce the role that ideology plays in establishing factual beliefs, due to the proactive and fair consideration of evidence that runs counter to one’s prior beliefs. There are, however, some boundary conditions for the effect of an open-minded thinking style on unbiased cognition. For example, high quality evidence alone can change beliefs held by people high on the active open-minded thinking style (low quality evidence can even lead to a boomerang effect, that is, a change in direction away from the standpoint being advocated; e.g., Petty & Cacioppo, 1986 ). Similarly, an active open-minded thinking style causes people to particularly doubt their weakly supported beliefs, rather than any kind of a belief whatsoever. For example, let us consider a person who believes that climate change is caused mainly by human activity, and whose belief is based on the overwhelming data and consensus among the vast majority of the experts. If they were to watch a TV show where a politician denied the role of humans in climate change, it is very unlikely that this person’s beliefs would change, even if they are high on the active open-minded thinking style.

In addition, there is also some evidence to support the idea that this specific thinking style may make people less careful and less accurate, especially when they differ in political beliefs or partisanship (e.g., Kahan, 2017 ). For example, Kahan and Corbin ( 2016 ) showed that people tend to cling more to their prior beliefs, or beliefs congenial to their ideologies, when they are high on the active open-minded thinking style. Thus, it has been suggested that this style exacerbates ideological polarization instead of bridging the gap between adherents of different political positions (but see Stenhouse et al., 2018 ). The authors admitted as much in their paper and encouraged further research in order to understand these findings; this is the aim of the current study. We believe these unexpected effects might be partly accounted for by the specific topic being investigated (i.e., climate change 2 ). Thus, instead of focusing on a single, extremely controversial, and politically polarizing issue, we investigated a broad range of topics regarding key social realities in order to verify the role of active open-minded thinking in the formation of ideological biases.

It is also worth noting that previous studies merely examined the correlations between individual differences (in thinking styles and/or ideology) and beliefs or the factual beliefs held by these individuals. In contrast, we focus specifically on how far from the actual truth peoples’ beliefs are, and whether the degree of disparity between the verifiable facts and their beliefs is correlated with political ideology. As a result, our studies address all of the abovementioned problems.

Taking into consideration all of the above, we make an assumption that the active open-minded thinking style should be related to the espousal of more accurate factual beliefs. However, as there are certain groups of people that, on average, tend to be less accurate (e.g., right-wing vs. left-wing adherents, as demonstrated by several studies), an active open-minded thinking style may act as a buffer against these inaccuracies by encouraging people to cast doubt upon and look for counterevidence to those beliefs that are weakly supported. Hence, we expect that an active open-minded thinking style protects right-wing adherents against inaccuracies (in contrast to their left-wing counterparts).

Overview of the studies .

In three consecutive studies 3 , we tested the hypothesis that ideology predicts the accuracy of factual beliefs. Specifically, we expected that right- (vs. left-) wing ideology would be associated with lower accuracy when assessing policy-relevant facts congenial to left– and right–wing beliefs. However, an open-minded thinking style would then moderate this link between ideology and factual accuracy; in other words, people measuring highly in terms of an open-minded thinking style would be more accurate in their assessments than those measuring at lower levels. This moderation would especially be the case if they held right-wing beliefs, as these are beliefs which cause people to be particularly more prone to forming inaccurate factual beliefs.

We also placed an emphasis on the factual accuracy of those facts especially notable for being associated with politically contentious issues and events in Polish society, for both those on the right and the left. We identified a selection of items regarding issues which were intensely discussed at the time of the studies. Then, in a pilot study ( N  = 123), we tested the importance of the selected issues among left- and right-wing adherents, and the correlations between political beliefs and the perceived importance of the topics. More detailed information about these issues and the results of the pilot study can be found in the Supplementary Materials, accompanied by explanations as to why these topics are so controversial in the contemporary Polish political environment (Section S1).

Seeing as Study 3 was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic, we checked whether this had any influence on the link between ideology and the accuracy of factual beliefs. We theorized that the effects of ideology would be even more pronounced in these circumstances i.e., in conditions of heightened threat. This hypothesis is based on evidence that, during times of social crises (such as pandemics), people’s political identities and their associated beliefs cause them to be even more sensitive to ideological cues (Hart & Nisbet, 2012 ; van Bavel & Pereira, 2018 ; Kahan, 2017 ). In many respects, compared with leftists, rightists tend to be more psychologically and physiologically sensitive to environmental stimuli that are negatively valenced, whether threatening, or merely unexpected and unstructured (Hibbing, 2014 for overview). Hence, we anticipated that this negativity bias would manifest itself in the form of even greater inaccuracy with respect to the factual beliefs held by this group.

In all three studies, we measured the accuracy of factual beliefs by asking participants about various politically contentious facts 4 . In addition, we enquired as to their confidence in their beliefs. In Studies 2 and 3, we measured open-minded thinking style via the Active Open-minded Thinking Style questionnaire (AOT, Haran et al., 2013 ). In all of the studies, we controlled for gender, economic beliefs, and the confidence participants had in their expressed beliefs. In Studies 2 and 3, political knowledge was also measured. In Study 3, additionally, to control for any anxiety related to the coronavirus pandemic, we posed an additional question: To what extent are you afraid of becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2?

To safeguard the quality of the data, participants who completed the survey in too brief a time (< 250 s), indicating inattentiveness and/or carelessness on their part, were excluded from the analysis. The chosen cut-off represents the minimum time a participant would need to spend in order to complete the survey if reading every question carefully. All participants were paid a base rate of approximately $5 (20 PLN) for their participation in the study. Information on the methods for determining sample sizes and partisanship in all of the studies are presented in the Supplementary Materials (Sections S2 and S3). The analyses of the participants’ confidence for all of the studies are also presented in the Supplementary Materials (Section S4).

This program of studies is approved by the Institutional Review Board. All participants gave informed consent to participate in the survey and could halt their participation at any point in time. All materials, scripts and data necessary for the replication of our results are available on the OSF page ( https://osf.io/d8yba/ ).

STUDIES 1–3

As we will present the integrative analysis performed on the data from all three studies, we describe below the samples and methods used across all the studies. The separate analyses of data from particular studies are presented in the Supplementary Materials (Section S5).

The aim of Study 1 is to test the link between ideology and factual accuracy. We hypothesize that right- (vs. left-) wing ideology is associated with greater inaccuracy with regards to factual beliefs.

Participants .

Three hundred and forty one Poles (147 males and 194 females, 3 people did not report gender; M age = 40.21, range: 20–75; SD age = 11.47) were recruited via online social portals (e.g. Facebook, OLX, Gumtree) and were asked to complete the survey online from September 5th to 8th, 2019. The participants’ level of education ranged from vocational ( N  = 71), through high school ( N  = 62), to university graduate level ( N  = 187); some were university students ( N  = 21).

Measures & Procedure

Accuracy of factual beliefs .

Participants were given a list of 7 questions representing policy-relevant facts. A complete list of the items can be found in Table  1 . We requested that the participants respond to each issue, and instructed them that, if they do not know the answer or they are not sure, they should give a rough estimate or a guess.

Items regarding factual beliefs used in Studies 1–3

Note: R – facts congenial to right-wing beliefs; L – facts congenial to left-wing beliefs

Correct answers were based on information from the official resources and are presented in Supplementary Materials (Sect. 1)

The participants’ political beliefs were assessed with the use of the Political Beliefs Questionnaire 5 (Czarnek et al., 2017 ; assessments were ranged between 1 = “Strongly disagree” to 5 = “Strongly agree”; M  = 2.66, SD  = 1.03, Cronbach’s a = 0.84). Based on the design of this tool, the higher the average score, the more right-wing the beliefs espoused.

Participants first responded to the Political Beliefs Questionnaire, then asked to provide assessments of the facts, and next asked about their age, gender, level of education, and partisanship. Lastly, they were thanked and debriefed.

The aim of Study 2 is to replicate the findings from Study 1, and to test the hypothesis that the relationship between ideology and fact assessments is moderated by AOT. Thus, we propose that AOT acts as a buffer against inaccurate factual beliefs.

Our sample consisted of 353 Poles (136 males, 173 females, 44 did not indicate their gender; M age = 41.77, range: 22–73; SD age = 12.06) recruited via Pollster Research Institute using semi-Quota sampling by age, gender, education and political partisanship. The study was conducted online between February 24th and 27th 2020. As in Study 1, to maintain the quality of the data, 41 participants, who completed the survey too rapidly (< 250 s), were excluded, also 8 participants did not finish the study. Thus, the final sample was comprised of 304 participants (125 males, 166 females, 13 did not provide gender; M age = 42.21, range: 22–73; SD age = 12.20). The participants’ level of education again ranged from vocational ( N  = 28), high school ( N  = 77), to university graduate level ( N  = 175); there was a relatively small number of students ( N  = 11).

We used the same methods as in Study 1 to measure the accuracy of factual beliefs (see Table  1 ) and ideological position (Cultural beliefs: M = 2.77, SD = 1.00, Cronbach’s a = 0.88).

To measure open-minded thinking style, we applied the 7-item version of the AOT scale (Haran et al., 2013 ). Participants responded to items, such as “People should take into consideration evidence that goes against their beliefs” or “Changing your mind is a sign of weakness” (reverse-scored) (1 = “Strongly disagree” to 7 = “Strongly agree”; M  = 4.80, SD  = 0.94, Cronbach’s a = 0.78).

The participants started the survey by filling in the Political Beliefs Questionnaire and the AOT scale. After this, they responded to the questions centering on facts. At the end, they were asked about their age, gender, level of education, partisanship, and political knowledge, and then, thanked and debriefed.

The aim of Study 3 was to replicate the results of Studies 1 and 2, in a different socio-political context i.e., one in which the COVID-19 pandemic was taking place. Although the questions about facts were not directly related to COVID-19 in any way, we tested whether the effects of ideology are the same before and during the pandemic, and whether the joint effects of ideology and open-minded thinking style on accuracy are similar before and during this period.

Our sample consisted of 426 Polish participants (173 males, 252 females, and 1 other; M age = 37.39, range: 18–79; SD age = 16.55) recruited via the Pollster Research Institute using semi-Quota sampling by age, gender, education, and political partisanship. The study was conducted online between March 14th and 18th 2020, at the outset of the COVID-19 outbreak in Poland. As in Studies 1 and 2, to ensure the quality of the data, 35 participants, who responded too speedily (< 250 s), were omitted from the analysis. Thus, the final sample comprises 391 Polish participants (161 males, 229 females, and 1 other; M age = 37.86, range: 18–79; SD age = 16.86). The participants’ level of education was at various levels: vocational ( N  = 76), high school ( N  = 93), university degree ( N  = 112), with some being students ( N  = 110).

We used the same methods as in Study 2 to measure the accuracy of factual beliefs (see Table  1 ), ideology (M = 2.63, SD = 1.00, Cronbach’s α = 0.89) and AOT (M = 5.15, SD = 0.99, Cronbach’s α = 0.81 ).

Participants completed an online survey which encompassed the Political Beliefs Questionnaire and AOT scale. Then, they responded to the questions about facts. Finally, they were asked about their age, gender, level of education, partisanship, fear of being infected by SARS-CoV-2, and political knowledge before being thanked and debriefed.

Results of Studies 1–3

We pooled the data from all three studies to address our hypotheses. From each participant’s estimation of facts, we subtracted the correct answer for the given fact, transforming it into an absolute value. Thus, this measure represents the degree of departure from the actuality, irrespective of the direction of the bias, which allows for an averaging of the responses (Study 1: M  = 13.2, SD =  14.7; Study 2: M  = 19.0, SD =  19.9; Study 3: M  = 19.1, SD  = 19.9).

To account for the dependencies existing within the data, we used multilevel models in which responses were nested within participants and within items. The study number was introduced as a fixed effect 6 . Our focal predictor in every model were political beliefs 7 . In the subsequent models, we added interaction with AOT, and with the pre vs. during the pandemic period. In each model, we controlled for gender, age, education, economic beliefs, and confidence in one’s responses. All of these predictors were introduced as fixed effects and scaled between 0 and 1. Continuous predictors, i.e., ideology and AOT, were centered on the grand mean.

Ideology and factual accuracy .

We found that right-wing ideology compared to its left-wing equivalent was associated with increased inaccuracy ( b  = 9.67, SE  = 0.91, t (982.38) = 10.66, p  < 0.001); in other words, beliefs about facts among people espousing right-wing ideology departed more greatly from the actuality than the beliefs held by adherents of the left. The details of the model are presented in Table  2 .

Model summaries for the integrated analysis of misperception

Note: We use the term ideology or right/left wing beliefs referring to cultural beliefs. The higher the score, the more right-wing the beliefs

In addition to this, we examined whether the effects of ideology were uniform across all the questions and found that there was some heterogeneity between the items. Specifically, we compared (i) the model with per-item random intercept with (ii) a model with an additional per-item random slope of ideology. This revealed that the latter model showed better fit. Crucially, although there was a degree of heterogeneity in the effects of political ideology on the accuracy of factual beliefs depending on the item being responded to, the overall main effect of ideology prevailed. In sum, despite ideology being more strongly related to inaccuracy in beliefs about some facts rather than others, overall, right-wing ideology was associated with a greater departure from the truth. Even though taking such an approach (i.e., modelling effects for each item instead of averaging them) is a “harsher” test for the generalizability of our theory, this approach has recently been recommended as it is rather unlikely that the effects of the independent variables are the same across all the items (Yarkoni, 2020 ). Given this heterogeneity between the items, the models presented in the following sections account for per-item random slopes of ideology. The model details are presented in Table  2 8 . Details of random slope analysis is presented in Sect. 7 in Supplementary materials.

The role of open-minded thinking style .

Next, we examined whether an open-minded thinking style moderates the relationship between ideology and the accuracy of factual beliefs by including the interaction between ideology and AOT in the model (we also included a per-item random slope for AOT). It is worth noting here that the analysis was run using the data from Studies 2 and 3 only, as AOT was not measured in Study 1.

The analysis revealed that, overall, higher levels of AOT were related to more accurate factual beliefs. Importantly, we also found a significant 2-way interaction between ideology and AOT. At low levels (-1SD) of AOT, right- (vs. left-wing) ideology was related to a greater degree of inaccuracy in assessments ( b  = 10.17, SE  = 2.87, 95%CI [4.54, 15.80]). However, at higher levels (+ 1SD) levels of AOT, the effects of political ideology were non-significant ( b  = 4.69, SE  = 2.79, 95%CI [-0.77, 10.20]); the differences in the effects of ideology at low and high levels of AOT were significant ( b  = 5.48, SE  = 2.07, z  = 2.64, p  = 0.008). These effects are shown in Fig.  1 , and the details of the models are presented Table  2 .

The effects of the political ideology on inaccuracy of factual beliefs at low and high levels of AOT

The effects of ideology on factual accuracy before and during the pandemic .

Next, we examined whether the effects of ideology were the same or different on comparing the period preceding the COVID-19 pandemic with the time in which the pandemic was prevalent. We added the interaction between ideology and the contextual effects of the pandemic threat (0 = pre-COVID-19 pandemic for Study 1 and 2; 1 = during the COVID-19 pandemic for Study 3) to the model.

The analysis revealed that there was no significant main effect of the pandemic on factual accuracy, i.e., people on average were similarly accurate (or inaccurate, as the case may be) in their assessments before and at the outset of the pandemic. Still, we found that the interaction between ideology and the differing periods (pre vs. during the pandemic) was marginally significant, i.e., the effects of ideology were slightly different in pre-pandemic times as compared to the effects during the pandemic. To be more specific, although right-wing ideology was related to more inaccurate fact assessments both before ( b  = 8.83, SE  = 2.83, 95%CI [3.28, 14.4]) and during the pandemic ( b  = 12.09, SE  = 2.96, 95%CI [6.29, 17.9]), the effects of ideology on accuracy seem to be slightly stronger during the pandemic conditions compared to beforehand ( b  = 3.26, SE  = 1.83, z  = 1.78, p  = 0.075). These effects are shown in Fig.  2 . The details of the analysis are shown in Table  2 .

The effects of the political ideology on inaccuracy of factual beliefs before and during pandemic

The joint effects of ideology and AOT before and during the pandemic .

Finally, we investigated whether the protective role of an open-minded thinking style in the relationship between right-wing ideology and the accuracy of one’s factual beliefs was affected by threat conditions (i.e., pre- vs. mid-pandemic). In order to achieve this, we added a 3-way interaction between ideology, AOT, and pre vs. mid-pandemic times. This was carried out for Studies 2 and 3 only, as Study 1 did not gather AOT scores. The analysis revealed that this interaction was non-significant, suggesting that displaying a higher AOT plays a protective role in reducing the inaccuracy of beliefs about facts for right-wing adherents (who otherwise, if their AOT was lower, would be more likely to assert beliefs that are much at variance with the facts). The details of the model are presented in Table  2 .

General Discussion

Across three studies, we show that right-wing adherents were less accurate than left-wing participants in assessing facts congenial to both, left-and right-wing beliefs. We also show that open-minded thinking style mitigate inaccuracy in factual beliefs among right- (but not left-) leaning participants.

Although, in general, we found support for the ideology asymmetry hypothesis (Jost, 2017 ), we also showed that a more nuanced, context-sensitive investigation is pivotal to understanding the extent to which rightists and leftists differ in their accuracy of factual beliefs. Specifically, we found an overall main effect of ideology on the accuracy of factual beliefs, although there was some degree of heterogeneity in this effect, depending on the item being considered by participants. So, while generally speaking, those on the right were comparatively less accurate in their assessments, they deviated further from the truth when assessing certain facts rather than others. An item-by-item analysis would appear to be insufficient for us to fully understand these effects since all the facts broached in the studies pertain to ‘hot’ topics (congenial to left- and right-wing beliefs) in the current political discourse of Poland (e.g., LGBTQ + rights, immigration, environmental protections, animal rights, the European Union, and modern Polish political and social history). By using facts that are both politically timely and fiercely debated in Poland, we assumed right-wingers would be more induced to create various forms of “identity self-defense”. Apparently, despite being policy-relevant and correlated with other items used in these studies, two of the items (both congenial to left-wing beliefs) in the assessments (namely, “What percentage of Polish society are LGBT?” and “What percentage of seats in the Senate did Solidarity win in the 1989 election?”) were not dissimilar in terms of their responses among right-and left-wing adherents. It is an intriguing effect, indicative of the importance of being systematic in the investigation of item-by-item variation in the relationship between political ideology and the inaccuracy of fact assessment. This approach also allows us to directly test the ideological asymmetry hypotheses. This is because one of the claims is that ​​ideological symmetry can only be observed in circumstances where participants are asked to evaluate information that favors their political affinities (politically-congenial information) or challenges those affinities (politically-uncongenial information) (Baron & Jost, 2019 ).

Moreover, what is worthy of notice here is that we also found that active open-minded thinking may act as a buffer against inaccurate beliefs, and thus mitigate identity protective cognition. Clearly, this is an important finding in that it contributes to the on-going discussion around the necessity to mitigate misperception in general, and among those with right-wing affinities in particular. Threat conditions notwithstanding, it was found that the protective effects of AOT held firm as evidenced by controlling the time period during which the studies were performed, i.e., pre-and mid-pandemic. We expected that the threat would cause the participants’ ideological identity to become more salient and therefore would drive misperception. In line with expectations, the effect of right-wing ideology on factual beliefs was more pronounced.

The question arises, however, whether it is actually AOT itself (and not ideology) which is the primary factor here. It is worth noting that although right-wingers are higher in AOT than left-wingers, we control for these differences by including the main effects while testing the interaction: ideology x AOT. A future study could manipulate the moderator (AOT) to test whether a high AOT score does indeed reduce inaccuracy among right - but not left-wingers. This is entirely feasible as AOT is considered a thinking style, operating in a similar mode to accuracy motivation, which can be categorized as a disposition but also as a situationally-manipulated mindset. What is more, we assumed that high AOT acts as a buffer against inaccuracy more among those who have a tendency to be inaccurate (i.e., right-wingers), rather than among those who are more accurate in their factual beliefs (i.e., left-wingers). For future research, it would be ideal to have a control group (e.g., non-political identifiers) to test if AOT acts as a buffer against inaccuracy solely for those on the right, or else for those on the left, but to a lesser extent. In addition, to test if AOT could also modify the effects of left-wing ideology and (in)accuracy, it would be important to determine the contexts that are conducive to left-wing adherents becoming more biased in their assessments than their right-wing counterparts (e.g., scientific facts about the relationship between IQ and genes or GMO). This test would enable us to understand whether the effects of AOT on the link between ideology and (in)accuracy is typical only for right-wingers or depends on the pre-existing ideological beliefs bias, or their degree of extremity.

The finding that active open-minded thinking style moderates the link between ideology and fact assessment means that AOT is a significant factor that mitigates misperception among those on the right, but not those on the left. This is a finding of some importance, leading us to consider the idea that interventions eliciting this open-minded mode of thinking might potentially be effective in reducing cognitive bias. This might be performed via the induction of accuracy motivation, priming respondents to engage in this thinking style, or by evoking the desire to be more informed before making an estimate or prediction. Perhaps interventions that are directed at encouraging people to be more thoughtful and attentive to information already acquired may further improve their estimation performance.

Our results also contribute to the ongoing discussion about the role of the open-minded thinking style and political polarization. Although some studies have found no effects brought about by an active open-minded thinking style when it comes to judging the quality of evidence (Eichmeier & Stenhouse, 2019 ), others have revealed that this thinking style can, in fact, amplify ideological polarization (Kahan & Corbin, 2016 ; cf. Baron, 2017 ). Crucially, however, these studies focused only on one highly controversial topic, namely global warming, in which conservatives are more predisposed to reject the scientific consensus position than liberals are. In contrast, we examined a wider spectrum of issues representing the gamut of contemporary political debates in Poland, focusing on topics congenial to left- as well as right-wing beliefs. The sheer number of topics used in the studies also serves to increase the precision of results and their reliability. This is one of the possible reasons why our findings revealed the role of an open thinking style in bridging (as opposed to amplifying) ideological gaps. This finding is in line with the very definition of an active open-minded thinking style (e.g., Baron, 2019 ).

Our studies were conducted in a European country, and thus extend the currently relevant knowledge, which until now has almost solely been based on studies conducted in the US. We think that these results could be generalized to contexts other than a Polish/European one as they reveal that right-(vs. left) wingers are less accurate in factual beliefs congenial to both those on the left and the right. Nevertheless, the context naturally matters a great deal; hence, the stimuli used to trigger responses from the participants are very much context-specific, and cannot be transposed over to studies conducted in dissimilar socio-political contexts.

The studies have some limitations, the most obvious one being related to the selection of items which were inherent to the very particular political context in which the study was conducted. Thus, on the one hand, our studies are ecologically valid, i.e., they refer to topics congenial to left- and right-wing beliefs, being under discussion at the time of the study; on the other hand, alternative topic areas, including non-political ones, should be taken into account to fully understand the accuracy of factual beliefs. We also believe that further research might investigate the role of accuracy motivation more closely by adding manipulation, or other measures (e.g., analytical thinking, need for cognition or openness to experience), in order to validate the current findings. Although we gauged the participants’ level of political knowledge, we did not directly measure how much individuals seek out and process divergent (i.e., counter-attitudinal) information on these topics; thus, we cannot be certain as to the reason for the impact of AOT on the relationship between ideology and factual beliefs. This should be the subject of further investigation.

To summarize, in these studies, by focusing on the boundary conditions of the accuracy of policy-relevant facts assessment, our results substantially augment the debate on the ideological sources of misperception in the political domain. Our hypothesis that right-wing ideology is related to lower accuracy in assessments of social key realities found considerable support in the data. Nevertheless, we believe that the results would need to be replicated in other societies that are differently ideologically constituted, and which are characterized by dissimilar degrees of polarization and/or partisanship.

Electronic Supplementary Material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Authors’ contributions

Authors’ contribution: MK developed rationale for the studies, MK, PS, GC equally contributed to the study concept and study design. PS and GS contributed to data collection, and analyses. MK wrote the manuscript. PS and GC critically read the manuscript and provided comments that helped improve its final version. All three authors approved the final version of the manuscript for submission

The research was supported by RIKSBANKENS JUBILEUMSFOND (#M18-0310:1; 2019–2024).

Availability of data and material

Code availability, declarations.

Authors declare no conflict of interest to declare that are relevant to the content of this article.

1 Although the differentiation between the two strands of political beliefs (cultural and economic) seems to better explain ideology in modern societies (e.g., Feldman & Johnston, 2014 ; Malka et al., 2014), in this paper, we focus solely on the cultural dimension of political beliefs. This is because they seem to be the primary dimension of political ideology, and are also more predictive of value conflicts and attitudes toward various groups than economic beliefs (e.g., Crawford et al., 2017); another reason for this is because, importantly, in the Polish context, the ‘culture war’ seems to be focused around issues related to cultural or moral issues (e.g., abortion, LGBTQ + rights) rather than economic ones (Czarnek et al., 2019 ). Since we do actually acknowledge the importance both of these dimensions, we control for economic beliefs in all our analyses. However, for the sake of simplicity and comprehensibility, across the manuscript, we use the term “ideology” when refer to cultural political beliefs.

2 Kahan also showed that AOT magnifies ideological polarization in gun control views (Kahan, 2017 ).

3 We also ran another study, but the sample was heavily unbalanced. The details are in Supplementary Materials (Sect. 9).

4 Although this paper focuses on factual beliefs, we also investigate how participants respond when requested to estimate undetermined facts (see results in Supplementary Materials Section S6). All items are presented in Supplementary Materials (Sect. 1).

5 This scale comprises also of Economic Beliefs subscales. The correlations between Cultural and Economic Beliefs in all studies were small and negative ( rs  = − 0.25; − 0.24; − 0.29 for Study, 1, 2, 3 respectively).

6 Because there were only three studies, we could not add study number random effects (Stegmueller, 2013 ). Apart from model describe in text we fit more complicated one which had worse fit (see Supplementary Materials Section S8). We used R (R Core Team, 2017) and RStudio (RStudio, 2016 ) with the lmer (Bates et al., 2015 ), lmerTest (Kuznetsova et al., 2017 ), tidyverse (Wickham, 2017 ), emmeans (Lenth, 2019 ), effects (Fox & Weisberg, 2018 ), multcomp (Hothorn et al., 2008 ), ggeffects (Lüdecke, 2018a ), and sjPlot (Lüdecke, 2018b ) packages to clean, analyze, and present the data.

7 We also checked the models with economic beliefs as a predictor (controlling for ideological beliefs); it transpired that economic beliefs fail to produce the main effects (see the main effect reported in Table  2 ). Furthermore, adding random slope of economic beliefs, the models did not converge. Nevertheless, we control for the economic beliefs (fixed effect) across all the reported models.

8 The distribution of the accuracy scores proved to be rather skewed (with the majority of the responses being somewhat close to the truth, and a smaller percentage deviating very much from the actual facts). Thus, we repeated the analysis using log-transformed scores and found that the effects were similar across the models. One exception worth noting was that the interaction between ideology and AOT was p  = 0.07 (however, it was significant in the model that also took into consideration the difference in time periods i.e. pre vs. during the pandemic). The details are presented in Supplementary Section S8.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

• Baron J. Actively open-minded thinking in politics. Cognition. 2019; 188 :8–18. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2018.10.004. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Baron J. Comment on Kahan and Corbin: Can polarization increase with actively open-minded thinking? Research & Politics. 2017; 4 (1):2053168016688122. doi: 10.1177/2053168016688122. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Baron J, Jost JT. False Equivalence: Are Liberals and Conservatives in the United States Equally Biased? Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2019; 14 :292–303. doi: 10.1177/1745691618788876. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software , 67 . 10.18637/jss.v067.i01
• Burke B, Kosloff S, Landau M. Death goes to the polls: A meta-analysis of mortality salience effects on political attitudes. Political Psychology. 2013; 34 :183–200. doi: 10.1111/pops.12005. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Czarnek G, Dragon P, Szwed P, Wojciszke B. Kwestionariusz przekonań politycznych: Własności psychometryczne [Political Beliefs Questionnaire: Psychometrical properties] Psychologia Społeczna. 2017; 41 :205–222. [ Google Scholar ]
• Czarnek G, Szwed P, Kossowska M. Right- and left-wing prejudice toward dissimilar groups in cultural and economic domains. European Journal of Social Psychology. 2019; 49 :807–823. doi: 10.1002/ejsp.2548. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ditto PH, Liu BS, Clark CJ, Wojcik SP, Chen EE, Grady RH, Zinger JF. At Least Bias Is Bipartisan: A Meta-Analytic Comparison of Partisan Bias in Liberals and Conservatives. Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2019; 14 :273–291. doi: 10.1177/1745691617746796. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Eichmeier A, Stenhouse N. Differences that don’t make much difference: Party asymmetry in open-minded cognitive styles has little relationship to information processing behavior. Research & Politics. 2019; 6 (3):2053168019872045. doi: 10.1177/2053168019872045. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Feldman S, Johnston C. Understanding Political Ideology. Political Psychology. 2014; 35 :337–358. doi: 10.1111/pops.12055. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Fox, J., & Weisberg, S. (2018). Visualizing Fit and Lack of Fit in Complex Regression Models with Predictor Effect Plots and Partial Residuals. Journal of Statistical Software , 87(9), 1-27. 10.18637/jss.v087.i09
• Guay B, Johnston CD. Ideological Asymmetries and the Determinants of Politically Motivated Reasoning. American Journal of Political Science. 2022 doi: 10.1111/ajps.12624. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Haran U, Ritov I, Mellers BA. The Role of Actively Open-Minded Thinking in Information Acquisition, Accuracy, and Calibration. Judgment and Decision Making. 2013; 8 :188–201. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hart P, Nisbet E. Boomerang effects in science communication: How motivated reasoning and identity cues amplify opinion polarization about climate mitigation policies. Communication Research. 2012; 39 :701–723. doi: 10.1177/0093650211416646. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hibbing J, Smith K, Alford J. Negativity bias and political preferences: A response to commentators. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 2014; 37 :333–350. doi: 10.1017/S0140525X1300280X. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hothorn T, Bretz F, Westfall P. Simultaneous Inference in General Parametric Models. Biometrical Journal. 2008; 50 :346–363. doi: 10.1002/bimj.200810425. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jost JT. Ideological Asymmetries and the Essence of Political Psychology. Political Psychology. 2017; 38 :167–208. doi: 10.1111/pops.12407. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Jost JT, van der Linden S, Panagopoulos C, Hardin CD. Ideological asymmetries in conformity, desire for shared reality, and the spread of misinformation. Current Opinion in Psychology. 2018; 23 :77–83. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.01.003. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kahan, D. (2017). Misconceptions, Misinformation, and the Logic of Identity-Protective Cognition. Cultural Cognition Project Working Paper Series No. 164
• Kahan DM, Corbin J. Reply to Baron. SSRN Electronic Journal. 2017 doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2898954. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kahan DM, Corbin JC. A note on the perverse effects of actively open-minded thinking on climate-change polarization. Research & Politics. 2016; 3 (4):2053168016676705. doi: 10.1177/2053168016676705. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kossowska M, Hiel AV. The relationship between need for closure and conservative beliefs in Eestern and Eastern Europe. Political Psychology. 2003; 24 :501–518. doi: 10.1111/0162-895X.00338. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kunda Z. The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin. 1990; 108 :480–498. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2017). lmerTest Package: Tests in Linear Mixed Effects Models. Journal of Statistical Software , 82 . 10.18637/jss.v082.i13
• Lenth, R. (2019). emmeans: Estimated Marginal Means, aka Least-Squares Means. R package version 1.3.2. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans
• Lord CG, Ross L, Lepper MR. Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1979; 37 :2098–2109. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.37.11.2098. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lüdecke D. ggeffects: Tidy Data Frames of Marginal Effects from Regression Models. Journal of Open Source Software. 2018; 3 :772. doi: 10.21105/joss.00772. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lüdecke, D. (2018b). sjPlot—Data Visualization for Statistics in Social Science. 10.5281/ZENODO.1308157
• Pennycook G, Fugelsang J, Koehler D. Everyday consequences of analytic thinking. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 2015; 24 :425–432. doi: 10.1177/0963721415604610. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pennycook G, McPhetres J, Zhang Y, Lu J, Rand D. Fighting COVID-19 misinformation on social media: Experimental evidence for a scalable accuracy-nudge intervention. Psychological Science. 2020; 31 :770–780. doi: 10.1177/0956797620939054. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion. In R. E. Petty & J. T. Cacioppo (Eds.), Communication and Persuasion: Central and Peripheral Routes to Attitude Change (pp. 1–24). Springer. 10.1007/978-1-4612-4964-1_1
• Price E, Ottati V, Wilson C, Kim S. Open-minded cognition. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2015; 41 :1488–1504. doi: 10.1177/0146167215600528. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• R Core Team (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/
• RStudio Team. RStudio . RStudio: Integrated Development for R . Boston, MA: Inc.; 2016. [ Google Scholar ]
• Ruggeri, K., Većkalov, B., Bojanić, L., Andersen, T. L., Ashcroft-Jones, S., Ayacaxli, N. … Folke, T. (2021). The general fault in our fault lines.Nature Human Behaviour,1–11 [ PubMed ]
• Stegmueller D. How Many Countries for Multilevel Modeling? A Comparison of Frequentist and Bayesian Approaches? American Journal of Political Science. 2013; 57 :748–761. doi: 10.1111/ajps.12001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Stenhouse N, Myers TA, Vraga EK, Kotcher JE, Beall L, Maibach EW. The potential role of actively open-minded thinking in preventing motivated reasoning about controversial science. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 2018; 57 :17–24. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2018.06.001. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Svedholm AM, Lindeman M. The separate roles of the reflective mind and involuntary inhibitory control in gatekeeping paranormal beliefs and the underlying intuitive confusions. British Journal of Psychology. 2013; 104 :303–319. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8295.2012.02118.x. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Swami V, Voracek M, Stieger S, Tran US, Furnham A. Analytic thinking reduces belief in conspiracy theories. Cognition. 2014; 133 (3):572–585. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2014.08.006. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Thompson EP, Roman RJ, Moskowitz GB, Chaiken S, Bargh JA. Accuracy motivation attenuates covert priming: The systematic reprocessing of social information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1994; 66 :474–489. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.66.3.474. [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• van Bavel J, Pereira A. The Partisan Brain: An Identity-Based Model of Political Belief. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2018; 22 :213–224. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2018.01.004. [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wickham, H. (2017). tidyverse: Easily Install and Load the ‘Tidyverse’. R package version 1.2.1. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=tidyverse
• Yarkoni, T. (2020). The generalizability crisis. Behavioral and Brain Sciences , 45, 1–37. doi:10.1017/S0140525X20001685 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ]
• Zmigrod, L., Eisenberg, I., Bisset, P., Robbins, T., & Poldrack, R. (2021). The cognitive and perceptual correlates of ideological attitudes: a data-driven approach.Philosophical Transaction of Royal Society, B 376 2020042420200424 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ]
• 10.1098/rstb.2020.0424

Read our research on: Gun Policy | International Conflict | Election 2024

Regions & Countries

Beyond red vs. blue: the political typology.

Even in an increasingly Red vs. Blue nation, the public’s political attitudes and values come in many shades and hues.

Partisan polarization – the vast and growing gap between Republicans and Democrats – is a defining feature of politics today. But beyond the ideological wings, which make up a minority of the public, the political landscape includes a center that is large and diverse, unified by frustration with politics and little else. As a result, both parties face formidable challenges in reaching beyond their bases to appeal to the middle of the electorate and build sustainable coalitions.

The latest Pew Research Center political typology, which sorts voters into cohesive groups based on their attitudes and values, provides a field guide for this constantly changing landscape.

The new typology has eight groups: Three are strongly ideological, highly politically engaged and overwhelmingly partisan – two on the right and one on the left. Steadfast Conservatives are staunch critics of government and the social safety net and are very socially conservative. Business Conservatives share Steadfast Conservatives’ preference for limited government, but differ in their support for Wall Street and business, as well as immigration reform. And Business Conservatives are far more moderate on social issues than are Steadfast Conservatives. At the other end of the spectrum, Solid Liberals express liberal attitudes across almost every realm – government, the economy and business and foreign policy, as well as on race, homosexuality and abortion – and are reliable and loyal Democratic voters.

Taken together, these three groups form the electoral base of the Democratic and Republican Parties, and their influence on American politics is strong. While Solid Liberals, Steadfast Conservatives and Business Conservatives collectively make up only 36% of the American public, they represent 43% of registered voters and fully 57% of the more politically engaged segment of the American public: those who regularly vote and routinely follow government and public affairs.

The other typology groups are less partisan, less predictable and have little in common with each other or the groups at either end of the political spectrum. The one thing they do share is that they are less engaged politically than the groups on the right or left.

Young Outsiders lean Republican but do not have a strong allegiance to the Republican Party; in fact they tend to dislike both political parties. On many issues, from their support for environmental regulation to their liberal views on social issues, they diverge from traditional GOP orthodoxy. Yet in their support for limited government, Young Outsiders are firmly in the Republicans’ camp.

Hard-Pressed Skeptics have been battered by the struggling economy, and their difficult financial circumstances have left them resentful of both government and business. Despite their criticism of government performance, they back more generous government support for the poor and needy. Most Hard-Pressed Skeptics say they voted for Obama in 2012, though fewer than half approve of his job performance today.

The Next Generation Left are young, relatively affluent and very liberal on social issues like same-sex marriage and abortion. But they have reservations about the cost of social programs. And while most of the Next Generation Left support affirmative action, they decisively reject the idea that racial discrimination is the main reason why many blacks are unable to get ahead.

The Faith and Family Left lean Democratic, based on their confidence in government and support for federal programs to address the nation’s problems. But this very religious, racially and ethnically diverse group is uncomfortable with the pace of societal change, including the acceptance of homosexuality and non-traditional family structures.

And finally, an eighth group, the Bystanders , representing 10% of the public, are on the sidelines of the political process. They are not registered to vote and pay very little attention to politics.

What is the Typology?

The Political Typology sorts people into groups based on their attitudes and values, not their partisan labels. It is based on the largest political survey ever undertaken by the Pew Research Center, which also was the data source for our June 12 report Political Polarization in the American Public . The survey was conducted among 10,013 adults from January to March of this year. The report also includes data from follow-up interviews with many of the initial survey’s respondents as part of the Pew Research Center’s newly-created American Trends Panel.

Earlier this year, the Pew Research Center conducted a survey of 10,013 adults nationwide as part of a broad investigation of political changes in the nation. The first report on this data focused on political polarization and used 10 survey questions on political values to gauge how ideologically consistent Americans have become on a traditional left-right index.

The Political Typology represents an entirely different approach to analyzing the American public’s values. It looks at a broader range of questions (23 questions) and instead of focusing on a single left-right dimension it uses a cluster analysis to find groups of Americans with similar views across multiple dimensions. While more complex, the typology reveals fissures on the right and left that are not evident in a simpler left-right array. Moreover, it sheds light on the diversity of values represented in the “center.”

The two approaches complement one another: Most of the Solid Liberals are consistently liberal in their values, and the Steadfast Conservatives and Business Conservatives combined make up nearly all of the consistent conservatives. See Section 1 for a further discussion of how these two approaches relate to each other.

The polarization study found that more Americans today hold consistently liberal or consistently conservative values across a wide range of issues, that Democrats and Republicans are further apart ideologically and that more partisans express deeply negative views of the other political party, with many going so far as to see the other side as a “threat to the nation’s well-being.”

Even so, most Americans do not view politics through uniformly liberal or conservative lenses, and more tend to stand apart from partisan antipathy than engage in it. But the typology shows that the center is hardly unified. Rather, it is a combination of groups, each with their own mix of political values, often held just as strongly as those on the left and the right, but just not organized in consistently liberal or conservative terms. Taken together, this “center” looks like it is halfway between the partisan wings. But when disaggregated, it becomes clear that there are many distinct voices in the center, often with as little in common with each other as with those who are on the left and the right.

The Pew Research Center’s Political Typology, launched 27 years ago , is an effort to look beyond “Red vs. Blue” in American politics, understanding that there are multiple dimensions to American political thinking, and that many people hold different combinations of values than the predominantly liberal and conservative platforms offered by the two political parties.

Electoral Implications

The new study highlights the challenges that both parties face heading into the 2014 and 2016 elections. Each can count on strong support from the three staunchly partisan groups; Steadfast Conservatives and Business Conservatives on the right, and Solid Liberals on the left. In all three groups, 2014 midterm preferences are comparable to the overwhelming support these groups gave their party’s presidential candidate in 2012.

The middle groups in the typology are less predictable. To be sure, the Faith and Family Left and the Next Generation Left favor Democratic congressional candidates this year by roughly two-to-one margins. But they supported Barack Obama by wider margins in 2012, and their 2014 turnout is suspect. One early indicator of voter turnout is attention to government and public affairs, and fewer than half in these groups are following politics, compared with broad majorities in the more ideological groups.

And the Hard-Pressed Skeptics – who say they supported Obama over Romney by a 65%-25% margin two years ago – are more closely divided in 2014. As they look toward this year’s midterms, 51% plan to vote for the Democrat in their congressional district, while 37% plan to vote Republican. And the Republican-leaning Young Outsiders intend to vote Republican this fall by a somewhat larger margin (20 points) than they did in 2012 (11 points). Yet these groups also are less certain to turn out this fall compared with the more partisan bases.

Divisions on the Right

The typology study may have even greater relevance for understanding 2016, both for the nomination contests and the general election. In both parties’ electoral coalitions, there are fissures on some of the most important dimensions in American politics.

On the right, coalitional politics are focused on the Steadfast Conservatives and Business Conservatives, both of whom lean Republican by overwhelming margins. Combined they make up about a quarter (27%) of all registered voters.

Both groups are overwhelmingly white and mostly male; Steadfast Conservatives are older on average (67% age 50 and older) than Business Conservatives (53%). And while they represent two clearly different wings of the party – one more downscale and pessimistic, one more wealthy and optimistic – both are reliable GOP voting blocs.

Steadfast Conservatives and Business Conservatives agree that government should be smaller and play less of a role in the economy. They are unified in their intense opposition to President Obama – fully 94% of Steadfast Conservatives and 96% of Business Conservatives disapprove of his job performance. Notably, nearly identical shares of both groups agree with the Tea Party (55% of Business Conservatives, 53% of Steadfast Conservatives).

But these conservative groups differ in three important ways on policy debates that currently divide Republican leaders in Washington.

First, Steadfast Conservatives take very conservative views on key social issues like homosexuality and immigration, while Business Conservatives are less conservative – if not actually progressive – on these issues. Nearly three-quarters of Steadfast Conservatives (74%) believe that homosexuality should be discouraged by society. Among Business Conservatives, just 31% think homosexuality should be discouraged; 58% believe it should be accepted.

Business Conservatives have generally positive attitudes toward immigrants and 72% favor a “path to citizenship” for those in the U.S. illegally, if they meet certain conditions. Steadfast Conservatives are more critical of immigrants; 50% support a path to citizenship, the lowest share of any typology group.

Second, just as Steadfast Conservatives are opposed to big government, they also are skeptical of big business. They believe that large corporations have too much power, and nearly half (48%) say the economic system unfairly favors powerful interests. By contrast, as their name suggests, Business Conservatives are far more positive about the free market, and overwhelmingly regard business – and Wall Street – positively.

Finally, these two conservative groups differ over foreign policy. Steadfast Conservatives have doubts about U.S. international engagement – and view free trade agreements as a bad thing for the U.S. – while Business Conservatives are more supportive of the U.S. taking an active role in world affairs and free trade.

Divisions on the Left

Solid Liberals, who constitute 15% of the public and 17% of registered voters, are the anchor of the Democratic Party’s electoral coalition – the most avid and loyal voters, holding liberal views across nearly all issues.

But the party must rely on support from the other Democratically-oriented groups in the typology – the Faith and Family Left and Next Generation Left – to be successful. While each of these groups leans Democratic by wide margins, they diverge from across-the-board liberal thinking in a number of critical ways that have implications for their loyalty and turnout.

The Faith and Family Left is by far the most racially and ethnically diverse group in the typology: In fact, just 41% are white non-Hispanic; 30% are black, 19% are Hispanic and 8% are other or mixed race. The Faith and Family Left also is less affluent and less educated than the other Democratically-oriented groups, and is older as well.

They also have strong religious convictions, which distinguishes them from Solid Liberals and the Next Generation Left. Fully 91% say “it is necessary to believe in God in order to be moral and have good values.” No more than about one-in-ten in the other Democratically-oriented groups agree. And the Faith and Family Left have much more conservative positions on social issues. Just 37% favor same-sex marriage, less than half the share of the other two groups on the left.

The Faith and Family Left support activist government and a strong social safety net, though by less overwhelming margins than Solid Liberals. And while the Faith and Family Left support affirmative action programs, just 31% believe that “racial discrimination is the main reason many black people can’t get ahead these days.” Among the much less racially diverse Solid Liberals, 80% think racial discrimination is the main barrier to black progress.

The Next Generation Left is the youngest of the typology groups. Roughly half (52%) are younger than 40, and this segment characterizes the liberal leanings of the Millennial (and younger Gen X) cohorts: The Next Generation Left embrace diversity, are generally positive about what government can do and are relatively upbeat about their own – and the nation’s – future.

Yet in critical ways, the Next Generation Left have clear differences with Solid Liberals. While supportive of government, they have a fairly individualistic take on opportunity and self-achievement. As a result, they balk at the costs of expanding the social safety net – just 39% say the government should do more to help needy Americans even if it means going deeper into debt.

In addition, the Next Generation Left are less skeptical about business than the other Democratically-oriented groups. While they are no more likely than Solid Liberals to have investments in the stock market, a majority of the Next Generation Left (56%) say that Wall Street does more to help the economy than hurt it, compared with 36% of Solid Liberals.

A Pair of Political ‘Wild Cards’: Young Outsiders, Hard-Pressed Skeptics

The wild cards in the new political typology are the Young Outsiders and the Hard-Pressed Skeptics. Both groups have weak partisan leanings, which are reflected in their early preferences in this fall’s midterms: Young Outsiders favor the Republican candidate, or lean Republican, by a 53% to 33% margin; Hard-Pressed Skeptics plan to vote Democratic by 51% to 37%.

Whether many will show up at the polls is an open question: They are less likely than the core partisan typology groups to say they always vote.

Nonetheless, Young Outsiders may present an attractive opportunity for the GOP. They are younger and more diverse than Republicans generally. Nearly half are under 40, compared with just 33% among all Republicans. Yet Young Outsiders do not feel very favorably toward the GOP; in fact, nearly as many have a favorable opinion of the Democratic Party (34%) as the Republican Party (39%).

Young Outsiders share Republicans’ deep opposition to increased government spending on social programs. About three-quarters of Young Outsiders (76%) say the government can’t afford to spend more to help the needy.

However, the Young Outsiders’ generational imprint on issues like homosexuality, diversity and the environment make the Republican Party an uncomfortable fit. In views of societal acceptance of homosexuality, for instance, Young Outsiders have more liberal views than the public overall, and are much more liberal than Republicans.

Similarly, Hard-Pressed Skeptics have ambivalent views of the Democratic Party and disagree with Democrats on major issues as often, if not more, as they agree. Hard-Pressed Skeptics face the most difficult financial circumstances of any of the typology groups, More than half (56%) have family incomes of less than $30,000 a year and 67% say they often don’t have enough money to make ends meet.

In 2012, Hard-Pressed Skeptics say they voted for Obama over Mitt Romney by more than two-to-one (65% to 25%), but today just 44% approve of the way Obama is handling his job as president; 48% disapprove.

Hard-Pressed Skeptics are not in sync with mainstream Democratic thinking in views of Obama’s major policy initiatives – just 40% approve of the Affordable Care Act. And they take more conservative views on social issues, such as homosexuality and abortion, than do rank-and-file Democrats generally.

So why do Hard-Pressed Skeptics remain in the Democrats’ camp, however marginally? In part, it may be because of their strong support for increased government social spending. Even though they take a dim view of government performance, 66% of Hard-Pressed Skeptics say the government should do more for the needy even if it means adding to the debt. That is little different from the 61% of all Democrats who favor more aid for the needy.

And while Hard-Pressed Skeptics are not enthusiastic about the Democratic Party, in some ways they are even more critical of the GOP. For instance, about half of Hard-Pressed Skeptics (53%) believe that the Democratic Party cares about the middle class. But just 26% say the same about the Republican Party.

The More Things Change…

The Pew Research Center created its first political typology in 1987 , when President Ronald Reagan was reeling from the Iran-Contra affair and the front-runners for the upcoming presidential election were Sen. Gary Hart for the Democrats and Vice President George H.W. Bush for the GOP.

Much has changed in politics over the past 27 years, of course. But some of the same fissures we identified in that first typology are still evident today. Today, Business Conservatives hold much more liberal positions on homosexuality and morality than do the other largely Republican group, Steadfast Conservatives . In 1987, Enterprise Republicans were much more tolerant than Moral Republicans on many of the social policy issues of the time, such as whether or not school boards should have the right to fire homosexual teachers.

On the left today, the majority-non-white Faith and Family Left is highly religious and has much more conservative attitudes about the acceptability of homosexuality and abortion than do the Next Generation Left or Solid Liberals . But this same fissure existed in the late 1980s between what we then described as the Partisan Poor and Passive Poor and the more upscale 60s Democrats and Seculars .

Every Typology study between 1987 and 2014 has found a very downbeat, financially stressed group who is skeptical of government, yet supports the programs that assist people facing economic disadvantages. Over time, we have referred to them as the Disaffected , the Embittered or today the Hard-Pressed Skeptics , and their political leanings have varied with administrations, issues and economic conditions.

But not all has been constant in the Political Typology, reflecting changing generational, demographic and political contexts. An anchor of the Democratic Party in 1987 was the New Dealers , representing the generation raised during economic strife and World War II. With the New Deal generation largely gone, the Democratic coalition now leans heavily on the Next Generation Left , who are more socially liberal than their predecessors, but also somewhat more economically conservative.

And the appearance of the Young Outsiders is a new group in the political landscape. Previous typology studies have found right-leaning groups, such as the Pro Government Conservatives in 2005, who proved critical to George W. Bush’s reelection. Drawn to the GOP coalition by the party’s positions on security issues and morality, they otherwise supported a more expansive view of government and social programs. The Young Outsiders today are very different, as they share the GOP base’s deep skepticism of government programs, but favor a more limited foreign policy, and hold decidedly liberal social views.

About the Study

This is the second report of a multi-part series on political polarization based on a national survey of 10,013 adults nationwide, conducted January 23-March 16, 2014 by the Pew Research Center and funded in part through grants from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and supported by the generosity of Don C. and Jeane M. Bertsch.

The first report, released June 12 , focused on the nature, scope and trajectory of political polarization in the American public, and how it interrelates with government, society and people’s personal lives.

This report uses cluster analysis to sort people into cohesive groups , based on their responses to 23 questions covering an array of political attitudes and values. First developed in 1987, the Pew Research Center’s Political Typology has provided a portrait of the electorate at various points across five presidencies; the last typology study was released in May 2011 .

Over the course of 2014, the project will further explore the various factors that contribute to – or stem from – political polarization. A September report will examine how political polarization is linked to people’s information environments: Their news sources, social media habits and interpersonal communication networks. Other reports will look at how political polarization relates to where people live, their political environments, how they view themselves and others around them, their socioeconomic circumstances, generational changes and broader sociological and psychological personality traits.

About the Data

The data in this report are based on three independent survey administrations with the same randomly selected, nationally representative group of respondents. The first is the center’s largest survey on domestic politics to date: the 2014 Political Polarization and Typology Survey, a national telephone survey of 10,013 adults, on landlines and cell phones, from January through March of this year. The other two surveys involved impaneling subsets of these respondents into the newly created American Trends Panel and following up with them via surveys conducted by web, mail and telephone. The surveys are described in detail in the About the Surveys section of the report.

Sign up for our Politics newsletter

Sent weekly on Wednesday

Report Materials

Table of contents, how the political typology groups compare, political typology quiz, understanding pew research center’s political typology, political typology reveals deep fissures on the right and left, most popular.

About Pew Research Center Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Free Political Ideologies Essay Examples & Topics

A political ideology essay can be a struggle to write. It is especially the case if you are not a big fan of politics. So, let’s begin with the basic terms. You will definitely need them to complete such an assignment.

First and foremost, ideology is a set of collectively held ideas and beliefs. They explain a particular pattern of political, social, or economic relationships, agreements, etc.

Political ideology is a collection of ideas and political views on a social movement, class, or group of people. Nowadays, citizens of the USA usually relate themselves to either liberal, progressive, moderate, or conservative ideologies. Each of the political movements is based on a specific set of principles.

In this article, our team has analyzed key political ideologies in the United States. Moreover, we prepared some useful writing tips on how to structure your paper. Below, you will find political ideology essay examples written by fellow students.

Key Political Ideologies in the USA

Need to write a political ideologies essay? Then, you should know the key principles of these two concepts: conservatism and liberalism. In this section, you’ll get an explanation of the essential political ideologies of the USA.

Conservatism is a political ideology that stands for preserving traditional values. Its proponents aim to promote personal responsibility. They also argue for these aspects:

• the limited role of the government,
• free trade,
• individual freedom,
• and a strong national defense.

Liberalism is the second major political ideology in the USA. It highlights the idea of empowering the government with the purpose of achieving equal opportunities for all members of society. In other words, the government’s key aim is to solve community issues and protect human rights.

For a better understanding, we’ve decided to compare conservative and liberal political ideas. You can explore them in your essay about political ideology.

To see the differences, you should consider four key areas:

• Political ideas. In terms of politics, conservators are considered right-wing and anti-federalists. Naturally, liberalists are left-wing and federalists. Moreover, conservatism stands for a free market. In contrast, the proponents of liberalism aim to get free services (e.g., health care services) from the government.
• Economic Ideas. According to the principles of conservatism, taxation and government spending should decrease. People with high incomes should have an incentive to invest. In contrast, liberals claim that taxes can increase if it benefits society.
• Social Ideas. Conservatism has tighter social principles than liberalism. Its proponents fight against gay marriages and abortions. In contrast, liberals consider that each person has a right to marry or have an abortion. Plus, they oppose the death penalty that some conservatives accept. The proponents of conservatism stand for the legalization of guns. Meanwhile, liberals believe that gun usage should be restricted.
• Personal Responsibility Ideas. In conservatism, laws are enacted to reflect the interest of society as a whole. Liberals believe that legislation is intended to protect every person for an equal society. According to conservatives, everyone is responsible for solving their own problems. Liberals, however, rely on the government when it comes to solving some major issues.

How to Write a Political Ideology Essay

In a political ideologies essay, you can elaborate on a huge number of concepts, events, figures, etc. You may be assigned to compare and contrast some political movements or examine a famous manifesto. Here, we have explained how to how to write an ideology essay on situations from the past.

To compose an essay about political ideologies, you should try the following steps:

• Find or formulate a topic .

For your paper, select a topic that would create a space for substantive research. Keep in mind that you’ll have to describe the political ideology you’ve chosen. Thus, find something that is interesting for you and fits the assignment requirements. Our topic generator can help you with that.

• Conduct research.

Conduct preliminary research to have a general understanding of your topic. First, explore different political ideologies that fit your assignment. Get to know related personalities, examine various political parties and communities, etc. Only with a clear vision of the political ideas will you come up with a sufficient thesis statement.

• Develop a thesis.

Writing an effective thesis statement is the most significant part of the entire writing process. It’s the central point of your paper. Make sure it is stated clearly and concisely – you can let our thesis generator formulate one for you. Include your thesis statement at the end of the introduction. Here, the readers will quickly identify it.

• Organize your thoughts and arguments.

After you come up with your thesis statement, start structuring your ideas. Develop several arguments and devote a separate paragraph for each of them. Ensure your points are logical and relevant. Add solid supportive evidence (evidence, examples, etc.). As you’ve dealt with your arguments, write an introduction and conclusion to your paper.

• Pick quotes to use as your examples.

For political ideologies essay, quotes are the best examples! There is a great variety of sources. You can check the Constitution, remarks of famous politicians, doctrines, official documents. Just make sure the source is trustworthy. And don’t forget to cite your quotes appropriately.

• Write and proofread.

Never underestimate the power of proofreading! Ideally, do it twice. For the first time, pay attention to spelling, grammar, and punctuation. For the second time, concentrate on the structure:

• Are your arguments presented logically?
• Does the introduction correspond to the conclusion?
• Are your ideas clear and coherent?

Thanks for reading the article! Below you will find political ideology essay examples. They will help you explore the structure and format of such papers.

216 Best Essay Examples on Political Ideologies

What is politics, nationalism versus capitalism: compare & contrast.

• Words: 1979

Was Mao Zedong Correct to Argue “Political Power Grows out of the Barrel of a Gun”?

• Words: 2209

Hegemony and Ideology

• Words: 1714

Benito Mussolini’s Fascist Doctrine

Features of nationalism: types and stereotypes, affect of mccarthyism on society, democracy in modern world.

• Words: 2052

Isolationism or Internationalism in Foreign Policy?

“development as freedom” by amartya sen.

• Words: 1646

Lenin’s “What Is to Be Done?” Pamphlet Analysis

• Words: 3552

Communism and Totalitarianism: Political Ideologies Comparison

• Words: 1576

Mueller’s “The Banality of ‘Ethnic War’”

• Words: 3388

Inter-Jurisdictional Conflict Management

Karl marx theory and the russian revolution, human freedom: liberalism vs anarchism.

• Words: 1782

Israeli Apartheid Ideology Towards Palestinians

• Words: 3035

Realism in International Relations and History

• Words: 1110

Federalism Advantages and Disadvantages

Autocracy lesson in “the wave” film, conceptualization of politics.

• Words: 1023

Political Ideologies: A Comparative Analysis

Exploring democracy: comparison of two articles, manifest destiny and its ideological origins.

• Words: 1104

Exploring the Differences Between Globalism and Nationalism

Reconciling the tension between equality and meritocracy, indirect democracy: representative democracy, power-sharing systems and grant types in the u.s. federal system, types of democracy known to modern society, conservatism in the political currents of the 20th and 21st centuries.

• Words: 1505

The Ideas of Marxism: Marxism, Religion and Emancipatory Politics

Aspects of the zionist movement, “beyond the “add and stir” approach” article by wallace, aspects of classical liberalism, discussion of marxism impact on news, democracy and its crucial features, liberalism and conservatism in the us, the influence of personality and intelligence on political attitudes.

• Words: 2068

The Concept of the Bureaucracy

Aspects of democratic regimes, characteristics of american democracy, multiculturalism: welcome to my country.

• Words: 1212

McCarthyism and Anti-Communist Campaigns

Dimensions of insecurity: mena.

• Words: 1750

Plato’s Views on Democracy

The left-right spectrum overview.

• Words: 1726

Populism Discourse and Social Equality

• Words: 1200

Fascist Elements in Dictatorial Ideas of Mussolini and Hitler

Is there an ethical case for capitalism, political science: james daniel jordan, the islam ideology and politics, islam and politics: qaddafi’s ideology, imperialism and nationalism in middle eastern politics.

• Words: 1425

Political Identity and Governance: Hong Kong

• Words: 1078

Theories of Global Politics. Democracy Effectiveness

• Words: 2012

Comparison of the US Parties

Education in marxism: the communist manifesto, china’s nationalism: main aspects.

• Words: 1377

Analysis and Comparison of Determinism, Compatibilism and Libertarianism, Free Will

• Words: 1670

Democracy in Asia India and the Price of Peaceful Change

• Words: 1347

World History in The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx

• Words: 2218

Marxist Theory of History and of Culture in Politics

• Words: 1492

Politics – Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow

James mayall’s book “world politics: progress and its limits”.

• Words: 1072

Political Subcultures Classification and Comparison

Factors influencing the success of insurgencies.

• Words: 1935

Anti-Capitalism: Social Phenomenon

10th amendment & federalism.

• Words: 1694

Imperialism as a Policy and an Ideology

• Words: 1139

End of Communism in Eastern Europe

• Words: 1188

Response to Statement of Sir Winston Churchill

• Words: 1401

Is the Constitution Supportive of Today’s Democracy?

• Words: 1150

Defining Politics, in the Contexts of the Canadian Society

• Words: 3911

Reasons for the Collapse of Communism

• Words: 1080

Benjamin’s Concept of Democracy Against Bennett’s Propositions on News and Democracy

• Words: 1967

Origin and History of the Democratic Party and the Federal Constitution

• Words: 2886

Political Cleavages and French Political Quarrels

Obama and sarkozy: political views and personalities.

• Words: 1416

Why Manifest Destiny Is Another Form of Imperialism

The jewish state: the struggle for israel’s soul.

• Words: 1732

The Labor Unions Effects on U.S. Economic Development

How useful is the concept of ‘hegemony’ for understanding international politics.

• Words: 3022

The Crises of Democracy, Society, and Environment

• Words: 3061

The Republican Party: History, Key Players and Fundamental Beliefs

• Words: 5693

Democracy Is the Best Form of Government for All the World’s Inhabitants

Elitism vs. egalitarianism, democrats vs. republicans: who is superior.

• Words: 1836

Constitutionalism & Absolutism

Absolute and constitutional monarchy, why anarchy cannot be transcended.

• Words: 1658

Authoritarian Versus Totalitarian State

• Words: 1626

Capitalism and Industrialization in the “Communist Manifesto” by Marx

How best to ensure us-style global capitalism.

• Words: 4511

Will China Become Democratic in Near Future?

Problematic aspects of the usa foreign policy, modern conservatism political ideology, peculiar properties of neo-conservatism.

• Words: 2929

Populist Politics in Latin America

Boltanski and chapello: new spirit of capitalism analysis.

• Words: 1341

Nationalism: Theories and Classification

• Words: 2447

Communism in the Soviet Union

• Words: 1727

Post-Communist Russian Politics

• Words: 1980

The Role of Education in Democracy

Descriptive meaning of democracy.

• Words: 2051

Henry David Thoreau vs. Richard Brautigan

Utopian society: national socialism and libertarian democracy.

• Words: 1237

Communism of Karl Marx and the Soviet Union

• Words: 3312

The Nature of Democracy in the Period 1871-1914

• Words: 1209

Elitism and Democracy Relations

Democratization of china: history.

• Words: 1656

Effects of Fall of Communism in Russia

Different aspects of socialism and communism.

• Words: 2101

The Ideologies of Western Civilization

Imperial state in china and confucianism as an ideology.

• Words: 1561

Liberal Definition of Freedom

Lenin’s ‘the state and revolution’.

• Words: 1062

Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto Analysis

Liberalism and nationalism in western civilization, a re-thinking on our way of thinking by karl marx.

• Words: 2063

Rousseau’s and Marx’s Works Problems: Discussion

• Words: 1905

Politics, Power, and Ideology in Higher Education

• Reference work entry
• First Online: 01 January 2020
• pp 2292–2296
• Cite this reference work entry

• Rosemary Deem 3  

55 Accesses

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Durable hardcover edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Altbach, P. 2015. Knowledge and education as international commodities. International Higher Education. E-journal 50. https://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/ihe/article/view/7997 . https://doi.org/10.6017/ihe.2008.50.7997

Althusser, L. 1977. Ideology and ideological state apparatuses (notes towards an investigation). In Lenin and philosophy and other essays , ed. L. Althusser. London: New Left Books.

Google Scholar  

Bachrach, P., and M.S. Baratz. 1962. Two faces of power. The American Political Science Review 56 (4): 947–952.

Barnett, R. 2003. Beyond all reason: Living with ideology in the university . Buckingham: Open University Press.

Berger, D., and C. Wild. 2016. The teaching excellence framework: Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here. Higher Education Review 48 (3): 5–22.

Bleiklie, I. 2012. Collegiality and hierarchy: Coordinating principles in higher education. In The global university , ed. A. Nelson and I. Wei, 85–104. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Bosch, T. 2016. Twitter activism and youth in South Africa: The case of #RhodesMustFall. Information Communication and Society 20 (2): 221–232.

Brookes, R., et al. 2015. Students’ unions, consumerism and the neo-liberal university. British Journal of Sociology of Education 37: 1211.

Budd, R. 2016. Undergraduate orientations towards higher education in Germany and England: Problematizing the notion of ‘student as customer’. Higher Education 73 (1): 23–37.

Dahl, R. 1961. Who governs? Democracy and power in an American city . New Haven: Yale University Press.

Danowitz, M.A. 2016. Power, jobs and bodies: The experiences of becoming a gender scholar in doctoral education. Studies in Higher Education 41 (5): 847–858.

Deem, R. 2016. Recent research evaluations in the UK and Portugal: Methodologies, processes, controversies and consequences. In Global challenges, National Initiatives, and institutional responses – The transformation of higher education , ed. C. Sarrico, P. Teixeira, A. Magalhaes, et al., 159–186. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Deem, R., and K.J. Brehony. 2005. Management as ideology: The case of ‘new managerialism’ in higher education. Oxford Review of Education 31 (2): 213–231.

Deem, R., et al. 2007. Knowledge, higher education and the new managerialism: The changing management of UK universities . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Department for Business Innovation and Skills. 2016. Success as a knowledge economy: Teaching excellence, social mobility and student choice (government white paper) . London: Department for Business Innovation and Skills. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/higher-education-success-as-a-knowledge-economy-white-paper .

DiMaggio, P.J., and W.W. Powell. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review 48 (2): 147–160.

Forbes-Mewett, H., and C. Nyland. 2013. Funding international student support services: Tension and power in the university. Higher Education 65 (2): 181–192.

Gewirtz, S., et al. 1995. Markets, choice and equity in education . Buckingham: Open University Press.

Goodman, R., et al., eds. 2013. Higher education and the state: Changing relationships in Europe and East Asia . Symposium Books: Oxford.

Gornitzka, A., and I.M. Larsen. 2004. Towards professionalisation? Restructuring of administrative work force in universities. Higher Education 47: 455–471.

Grant, J. 2016. Sausages, evidence and policy making: The role for universities. Unpublished plenary, society for research into higher education annual conference , Newport.

Gross, N., and S. Simmons, eds. 2014. Professors and their politics . Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.

Grossberg, L., and J.D. Slack. 1985. An introduction to Stuart Hall’s essay. Critical Studies in Mass Communication 2 (Spring): 87–90.

Gumport, P. 2000. Academic restructuring: Organizational change and institutional imperatives. Higher Education 39 (1): 67–91.

Harris, S. 2007. The governance of education: How neo-liberalism is transforming policy and practice . London: Continuum Press.

Hüther, O., and G. Krucken. 2014. Incentives and power: An organizational perspective. In Incentives and performance , ed. I.M. Welpe, J. Wollershei, S. Ringelhan, and M. Osterloh, 69–86. Dordrecht: Springer.

Lukes, S. 1974. Power: A radical view . London: Macmillan.

Magalhães, A., et al. 2016. The changing role of external stakeholders: From imaginary friends to effective actors or non-interfering friends. Studies in Higher Education 19: 1.

McFee, M., and K. Zeppel. 2015. Gender equality in the age of academic capitalism: Cassandra and Pollyanna interpret university restructuring. Social Politics 22: 561.

McHaig, C. 2016. The retreat from widening participation? The National Scholarship Programme and new access agreements in English higher education. Studies in Higher Education 41 (2): 215–230.

Meyer, J.W., and B. Rowan. 1977. Institutionalised organisations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology 83: 340–363.

Meyer, J.W., and B. Rowan. 1988. The structure of educational organisations. In Culture and power in educational organisations , ed. A. Westoby. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Sadan, E. 2004. Empowerment and community planning: Theory and practice of people-focused social solutions (trans: Richard Flantz). Israel. http://www.mpow.org/elisheva_sadan_empowerment_intro.pdf .

Sarrico, C., and A.I. Melo. 2014. Performance management systems and their influence on the governance structures of Portuguese universities: A case study. In Incentives and performance: Governance of research organisations , ed. I.M. Welpe, J. Wollersheim, S. Ringelhan, and M. Osterloh, 413–430. Dordrecht/New York/London: Springer.

Soares, J. 2007. The power of privilege: Yale and America’s elite colleges . Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Storey, J. 2015. Cultural theory and popular culture: An introduction . 7th ed. Abingdon/New York: Routledge.

Toliver, S.D., et al. 2015. Intra-racial dynamics of black faculty and black students: Barriers to success in the academy In predominantly white institution. European Scientific Journal 1:33–40.

Trowler, P., et al., eds. 2012. Tribes and territories in the 21st-century: Rethinking the significance of disciplines in higher education . Routledge: London.

Veiga, A., et al. 2015. From collegial governance to Boardism: Reconfiguring governance in higher education. In The Palgrave international handbook of higher education policy and governance , ed. J. Huisman, H. De Boer, D. Dill, and M. Souto-Otero, 398–416. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Weber, M. 1965. Politics as a vocation . Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

Whitchurch, C. 2012. Reconstructing identities in higher education: The rise of third space professionals . New York: Routledge.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Royal Holloway University of London, London, UK

Rosemary Deem

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rosemary Deem .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

CIPES - Centre for Research in Higher Education Policies and Faculty of Economics - U., Porto, Portugal

Pedro Nuno Teixeira

Department of Education, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea (Republic of)

Jung Cheol Shin

Section Editor information

CIPES, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal

Alberto Amaral

Faculty of Psychology and Education Sciences, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal

António Magalhães

Centre for Research in Higher Education Policies (CIPES), Porto, Portugal

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature B.V.

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Deem, R. (2020). Politics, Power, and Ideology in Higher Education. In: Teixeira, P.N., Shin, J.C. (eds) The International Encyclopedia of Higher Education Systems and Institutions. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8905-9_132

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-8905-9_132

Published : 19 August 2020

Publisher Name : Springer, Dordrecht

Print ISBN : 978-94-017-8904-2

Online ISBN : 978-94-017-8905-9

eBook Packages : Education Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Education

Share this entry

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

11.4 Political Ideologies

Learning objectives.

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

• Identify key ideologies or theories in political philosophy, such as conservatism, liberalism, egalitarianism, socialism, and anarchism.
• Discuss distributive justice within political ideologies.
• Demonstrate how alienation continues to be a problem for workers in modern industrial societies.

When Bernie Sanders, the American senator from Vermont, ran for president of the United States in 2016 as a democratic socialist, he set off an intense debate in the country. What exactly was democratic socialism? This was a debate about political ideologies, or people’s beliefs about how a society should be run. Ideology can shape policies and laws, as the individuals holding office and positions of authority and the people who elect them are often influenced by ideological beliefs. This section looks at some key ideologies that have influenced how people think about their rights and the responsibilities of government.

Distributive Justice

One of the important differences among the ideologies examined below is how they approach the question of distributive justice . Distributive justice can be seen as a moral framework made up of principles that seek to ensure the greatest amount of fairness with respect to distributions of wealth, goods, and services (Olsaretti 2018). However, there is much debate surrounding what amounts to fairness. Is a just society one that provides for its members, allocating resources based on need, or is it one that allows for the greatest amount of personal freedom, even if that means that some members are radically better off than others? Furthermore, given that individuals begin at varying positions of social and economic status, should a society focus on meeting the needs of its disadvantaged members even if that results in an unequal distribution of goods, or should there be as little governmental interference as possible?

It is tempting to see distributive justice as a theoretical moral concern. However, views on what constitute basic needs, what resources should be considered public versus private, and whether or not there should be restrictions on the free market have real, practical ramifications when considered by governing bodies. Given this, it is important to keep in mind the role that principles of distributive justice play in the ideologies discussed below.

Conservatism

Conservativism is a political theory that favors institutions and practices that have demonstrated their value over time and provided sufficient evidence that they are worth preserving and promoting. Conservatism sees the role of government as serving society rather than controlling it and advocates gradual change in the social order, if and when necessary.

Edmund Burke and the French Revolution

Modern conservatism begins with the 18th-century Irish political theorist Edmund Burke (1729–1797), who opposed the French Revolution and whose Reflections on the French Revolution (1790) served as an inspiration for the development of a conservative political philosophy (Viereck et al. 2021). Shocked by the violence of the French Revolution, Burke advocated against radical revolution that destroyed functioning institutions that, though flawed, served a purpose. However, Burke supported the American Revolution because the colonists had already established political institutions, such as courts and administrations, and were taking the next gradual step: asking Britain to let them run these institutions on their own.

Fundamental Principles

Conservatives such as Burke are not opposed to reform, but they are wary of challenges to existing systems that have generally held up well. They believe that any sudden change is likely to lead to instability and greater insecurity. Moreover, conservatives are not against redistribution of resources, especially when it serves to alleviate severe poverty. However, they believe that such actions are best carried out at a local level (as opposed to a state or national level) by those who understand the needs of the individual community. Finally, conservatives are staunch supporters of property rights and oppose any system of reform that challenges them. Property rights serve as a check on governmental power and are seen as an essential part of a stable society (Moseley n.d.). As such, conservatism aligns with some principles of liberalism.

Conservatism maintains that human nature is fundamentally flawed and that we are driven more by selfish desires than by empathy and concern for others. Therefore, it is the job of social institutions such as church and school to teach self-discipline, and it is the job of the government to protect the established, fundamental values of society. Along with this rather Hobbesian view of humankind and belief in the preservation of historical traditions, conservatives believe that weaknesses in institutions and morals will become apparent over time and that they will either be forced to evolve, be discarded, or be gradually reformed (Moseley n.d.).

Liberalism in political philosophy does not have the same meaning as the word liberal in popular American discourse. For Americans, liberal means someone who believes in representative democracy and is politically left of center. For example, liberals generally favor regulating the activities of corporations and providing social welfare programs for the working and middle classes. Liberalism as a political philosophy, however, has quite a different emphasis.

Fundamental Principle of Liberty

British philosopher John Stuart Mill (1806–1873) expresses the fundamental principles of liberalism in his work On Liberty (1859), arguing for limited government on the grounds of utility. His interest is in “Civil, or Social Liberty: the nature and limits of the power which can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual” (Mill [1869] 2018). In this regard, he defends “one very simple principle,” which is the minimizing of government interference in people’s lives:

The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. . . . The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. (Mill [1869] 2018)

In Mill’s view, real freedom is when people are able to pursue their own individual idea of “the good” in a manner they see fit. Mill’s claim is at the heart of most variants of liberalism.

Positive and Negative Liberty

We are at liberty when we are neither constrained to act nor obligated to refrain from acting in a certain way. At least since Isaiah Berlin’s (1905–1997) “Two Concepts of Liberty” (1958), this sort of liberty has been called negative liberty . Berlin, a British political theorist, suggests that negative liberty is “the area within which a man can act unobstructed by others” (Berlin 1969, 122). Negative liberty in the political realm often refers to the absence of government control over the lives of individuals, or in what we are reasonably able to do without interference. Conversely, Berlin thinks of positive liberty as “the wish on the part of the individual to be his own master” (131). We want our life decisions to depend on ourselves and not on external forces. “I wish to be the instrument of my own, not of other men’s, acts of will,” says Berlin (131). The ability to participate in democratic institutions, for example, is a form of positive liberty.

The Welfare State and Social Justice

Some theorists hold that negative liberty has limits when it comes to how much liberty, in practice, a person has at their disposal. The theory of justice that sees individuals as having claims on resources and care from others is often called welfare liberalism . Such theorists are not in favor of limited government and believe that the well-being of citizens must be a vital component of our agreement to obey a government. American philosopher John Rawls (1921–2002) famously makes this argument in his seminal book A Theory of Justice (1971), in which he attempts to articulate an account of fairness that satisfies our intuition that human freedom and social welfare are both important.

Rawls begins with the idea that society is a system of cooperation for mutual advantage. Given the fact of today’s pluralistic societies, people reasonably disagree about many important issues, which means we must find a way to live peaceably together with our differences and collectively determine our political institutions. In addition, Rawls believes that there are deep inequalities embedded in any basic social structure, which result from the fact that we are all born into different positions and have different expectations of life, largely determined by the political, economic, and social circumstances that attend those positions. Therefore, Rawls says, we must find a way to distance ourselves from our own particular concepts of such ideas as justice, the good, and religion and begin with relatively uncontroversial facts about human psychology and economics. We should then imagine ourselves in an “original position” behind the “ veil of ignorance ”; that is, we should imagine we do not know any facts about our personal circumstances, such as our economic status, our access to education and health services, or whether we have any talents or abilities that would be beneficial to us (Rawls 1999, 11). We also remain ignorant of any social factors such as our gender, race, class, and so forth. Because Rawls assumes that no one wants to live in a society in which they are disadvantaged, operating from this position offers the greatest chance of arranging a society in a way that is as fair and equitable as possible. For instance, we would not support a system that forbade all left-handed individuals from voting because we ourselves might fall into that group.

Rawls argues that two major principles should govern society. First, the “liberty principle” states that each person has an equal right to the same basic, adequate liberties. Basic liberties are liberties such as freedom of speech, freedom to hold property, and freedom of assembly. Second, the “difference principle” states that any social and economic inequalities must satisfy two conditions: (1) they must be attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of “fair equality of opportunity,” and (2) they must be to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of society. Note that Rawls is not advocating for an equal distribution of goods or advantages; rather, he says that any distribution of goods or power that is not equal can further disadvantage already disadvantaged individuals. His goal is to create a society that seeks to address inherent structural inequalities as well as possible (Rawls 1999, 13).

Egalitarianism

Rawls’s theory of justice has much in common with egalitarian theories. The term egalitarianism refers to a broad family of views that gives primary place to equality. The root egal (from the French) means “equal.” Egalitarian theories assert that all individuals should enjoy equal status and moral worth and that any legitimate system of government should reflect this value. More specifically, egalitarian theories do not argue that all individuals should be treated exactly the same; rather, they insist that individuals are all deserving of rights, including civil, social, and political rights.

Some theorists argue that equality of opportunity for welfare, meaning equality of opportunity to obtain resources, is the most important type of equality. In addition to resources, equality of opportunity includes a consideration of how individuals have acquired certain advantages. For example, nepotism (giving opportunities based on familial connections) and biases based on personal traits such as gender or race interfere with an individual’s ability to compete for resources. Any society that seeks a truly level playing field needs to contend with these issues.

One way to examine equality is to look at what individuals are able to do. The Indian economist Amartya Sen popularized a framework now known as the capability approach , which emphasizes the importance of providing resources to match individual need. This approach creates opportunities for each person to pursue what they need to live a flourishing life. An example of the capability approach is basic income, in which a city, state, or country might combat poverty by awarding everyone below a certain income level $1,000 per month.

The capability approach advocates “treating each person as an end” and “focus[ing] on choice and freedom rather than achievements” (Robeyns and Byskov 2021). According to American philosopher Martha Nussbaum (b. 1947), the capability approach would improve both justice outcomes and quality of life. She argues that a certain number of resources are necessary to enjoy a basic set of positive capabilities that all humans possess. Thus, each individual should be provided with those resources so that their life is not “so impoverished that it is not worthy of the dignity of a human being” (Nussbaum 2000, 72). What is beneficial about the capability approach is that it recognizes and respects the diverse needs of individuals based on different experiences and circumstances.

Listen to philosopher Martha Nussbaum discuss how the capabilities approach aids in creating a positive quality of life.

Martha Nussbaum

Rather than look to the individual, the often confused triad of socialism, Marxism, and communism examines inequality from an economic perspective. While socialism and communism both seek to address inequalities in goods and resources, socialism says that goods and resources should be owned and managed by the public and allocated based on the needs of the community rather than controlled solely by the state. A socialist system allows for the ownership of private property while relegating most control over basic resources to the government. Sometimes, as with democratic socialism, this is done through the democratic process, with the result that public resources, such as national parks, libraries, and welfare services, are controlled by a government of elected representatives.

Concepts of Socialism

Critique of capital.

While what are commonly called “Marxist ideals” did not originate solely with Karl Marx , he is responsible for coauthoring perhaps the most famous treatise criticizing capitalism, The Communist Manifesto (1848), and laying out a vision of a yet-unrealized true communist society. As such, it is important to examine his ideas in more detail.

Marx is critical of the private accumulation of capital , which he defines as money and commodities. Stockpiling of capital allows for private accumulation of power. Marx holds that the value of an object is determined by the socially necessary amount of labor used in the production of that object. In a capitalist system, labor is also a commodity, and the worker exchanges their work for a subsistence wage. In Marx’s view, workers’ labor in fact creates surplus value, for which they are not paid and which is claimed by the capitalist. Thus, the worker does not receive full value for their labor.

Marx identifies several kinds of alienation that result from the commodification of labor. To illustrate this, imagine some factory workers who have recently moved to a large city. Prior to the move, they lived in a small village, where they worked as furniture makers. They were responsible for each stage of the production, from imagining the design to obtaining the materials and creating the product. They sold the product and kept the profits of their labor. Now, however, they work on an assembly line, where they are responsible for producing a small part of an overall product. They are alienated both from the product and from their own productive nature because they have no hand in the product’s design and are involved in only a small part of its construction. They begin to see their labor, and by extension themselves, as a commodity to be sold.

The result of selling their labor is that they begin to see others as commodities as well. They begin to identify people not by who they are but by what they have accumulated and their worth as a product. In this way, they become alienated from themselves and from others, seeing them always as potential competition. For Marx, this leads to a sense of despair that is filled with material goods, thus solidifying the worker in their dependence on the capitalist system.

While the idea of negative liberty decries unnecessary government intervention in people’s lives, anarchism literally means “no ruler” or “no government.” The absence of a political authority conjures an image of the state of nature imagined by Thomas Hobbes—that is, a state of chaos. Anarchists, however, believe that disorder comes from government. According to this view, rational individuals mostly desire to live peaceful lives, free of government intervention, and this desire naturally leads them to create societies and institutions built on the principles of self-governance.

Motivations for Anarchism

One defense of anarchism is that governments do things that would be impermissible for private individuals. French philosopher Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809–1865) observes that governments monitor citizens’ activities and attempt to control their behavior through force. The more technology governments have, the greater their attempts to control people. Proudhon ([1849] 2012) observes that such treatment is against human dignity.

Proudhonian anarchists are aware of the argument that people may have consented to give up some of their power to the government (as people do in a representative democracy, for example), which means that they must accept the treatment they receive. Yet Proudhon would deny that there is any example in history of a just government. Lysander Spooner (1808–1887), the 19th-century anarchist, says that all governments have come into existence through force and maintain their existence through force (Spooner 1870). Thus, some defend anarchism on the grounds that governments violate human rights.

Limits of Anarchism

Criticisms of anarchy are often twofold. The first is that without an organized police force, society would be unable to control outbreaks of violence. A related concern is that without a judicial system to arbitrate disputes and mete out justice, any resolution would be arbitrary. Anarchists, on the other hand, claim that most incidents of violence are the result of socioeconomic imbalances that would be resolved if the government were dismantled. Social anarchism, for instance, points to community involvement and mutual exchange of goods and services as a solution (Fiala 2021).

Yet some people associate anarchism with political violence, and in fact, some anarchists see violence as an unavoidable result of clashes with a violent and oppressive government. One of the most famous anarchists, Emma Goldman (1869–1940), wrote in her essay “The Psychology of Political Violence,” “Such acts are the violent recoil from violence, whether aggressive or repressive; they are the last desperate struggle of outraged and exasperated human nature for breathing space and life” (1917). However, many anarchists favor nonviolent tactics and civil disobedience, such as protests and the creation of autonomous zones, as opposed to political violence (Fiala 2018).

Anarchism and Feminism

Within anarchism, anarcha-feminism seeks to fight against gendered concepts that create inequity. Traditional gender roles only serve to cement unequal power distribution and further the class divide. Particularly, traditional concepts of women’s role in the domestic sphere mirror the depersonalization of the worker, with the woman seen as an extension of the home and domestic labor, rather than an independent autonomous person. It is worth noting that anarcha-feminism is in direct opposition to Proudhon, who believed that family was an essential aspect of society and that the traditional role of women within the family was necessary for its success (Proudhon 1875).

The author and poet bell hooks believes that the concerns driving anarchism can provide a motivation for current social action. She notes that the gaps between the rich and the poor are widening in the United States and that because of the “feminization of poverty” (by which she means the inequality in living standards due to gender pay disparity), a grassroots radical feminist movement is needed “that can build on the strength of the past, including the positive gains generated by reforms, while offering meaningful interrogation of existing feminist theory that was simply wrongminded while offering us new strategies” (hooks 2000, 43). She sees such a “visionary movement” (43) as grounded in the real-life conditions experienced by working-class and impoverished women.

Feminists historically have had to fight to make space for themselves within anarchist movements. The Spanish female collective Mujeres Libres formed during the Spanish Civil War (1936–1939) in reaction to what they saw as a dismissal of women’s issues by the anarchist movement. Members of Mujeres Libres sought to support female activists and improve the lives of working-class women through literacy drives, employment programs, and child care facilities in both neighborhoods and factories (Ackelsberg 1985). These and other initiatives that focused on creating opportunities for women helped develop a sense of social engagement and foster a desire for social change.

Table 11.2 summarizes the political ideologies discussed in this chapter.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

This book may not be used in the training of large language models or otherwise be ingested into large language models or generative AI offerings without OpenStax's permission.

Want to cite, share, or modify this book? This book uses the Creative Commons Attribution License and you must attribute OpenStax.

Access for free at https://openstax.org/books/introduction-philosophy/pages/1-introduction

• Authors: Nathan Smith
• Publisher/website: OpenStax
• Book title: Introduction to Philosophy
• Publication date: Jun 15, 2022
• Location: Houston, Texas
• Book URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-philosophy/pages/1-introduction
• Section URL: https://openstax.org/books/introduction-philosophy/pages/11-4-political-ideologies

© Dec 19, 2023 OpenStax. Textbook content produced by OpenStax is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License . The OpenStax name, OpenStax logo, OpenStax book covers, OpenStax CNX name, and OpenStax CNX logo are not subject to the Creative Commons license and may not be reproduced without the prior and express written consent of Rice University.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

•  We're Hiring!
•  Help Center

Political Ideology

• Most Cited Papers
• Most Downloaded Papers
• Newest Papers
• Save to Library
• Last »
• Ideology Follow Following
• History of Political Thought Follow Following
• Political Theory Follow Following
• Political Science Follow Following
• Political Philosophy Follow Following
• Political Extremism/Radicalism/Populism Follow Following
• Political Parties Follow Following
• Nationalism Follow Following
• Liberalism Follow Following
• Republicanism Follow Following

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• Academia.edu Publishing
•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

Political Philosophy Research Paper Topics

This page provides a comprehensive list of political philosophy research paper topics that aim to guide students through the vast expanse of ideas, theories, and debates that have influenced political thought over the ages. Political philosophy, with its emphasis on societal structures, rights, justice, and governance, offers a rich tapestry of subjects for academic exploration. Navigating these topics is crucial for understanding the foundational principles that have dictated and continue to shape political systems worldwide.

100 Political Philosophy Research Paper Topics

Political philosophy holds an esteemed position in the vast realm of philosophical inquiry, examining the fundamental nature of governance, rights, freedom, and societal structures. As societies evolve, so too does the need for a deepened understanding of the principles that guide them. Diving into political philosophy research paper topics is more than an academic exercise; it’s an exploration into the fabric of our collective societal heritage and a forecast of future trajectories.

Academic Writing, Editing, Proofreading, And Problem Solving Services

Get 10% off with 24start discount code.

• Origin and evolution of political thought.
• Natural rights and their influence on politics.
• The role of reason in political decision-making.
• The concept of the common good.
• Pluralism and its implications.
• Classical vs. modern political philosophies.
• The notion of political obligation.
• Autonomy and its role in politics.
• Political philosophy and the question of human nature.
• Liberty, equality, and their tensions.
• Rousseau’s Social Contract and the general will.
• Locke’s Two Treatises of Government and property rights.
• Hobbes’ Leviathan and the necessity of a strong sovereign.
• Rawls’ theory of justice and the veil of ignorance.
• Scanlon’s contractualism.
• Gauthier’s Morals by Agreement.
• Contemporary criticisms of social contract theories.
• The role of trust in social contracts.
• Feminist perspectives on the social contract.
• The social contract and non-Western philosophies.
• Classical principles of Athenian democracy.
• Modern representative democracies.
• Merits and criticisms of autocratic governance.
• The rise and implications of technocratic governance.
• Participatory vs. deliberative democracy.
• The challenges of direct democracy.
• Monarchies and their evolving roles.
• Theocracy and its place in modern politics.
• Tribal and indigenous governance structures.
• Supranational entities and global governance.
• The philosophical foundations of human rights.
• Balancing individual freedom and collective responsibility.
• Limitations and responsibilities of free speech.
• Rights to privacy in the digital age.
• Economic rights and their implications.
• Rights of marginalized and indigenous groups.
• Environmental rights and intergenerational justice.
• Philosophical debates on freedom vs. security.
• The right to revolt and civil disobedience.
• Duties and the scope of global responsibilities.
• Socratic views on governance and society.
• Medieval political thought and the divine right.
• Enlightenment thinkers and the rise of republicanism.
• Fascist and Nazi political philosophies.
• Post-colonial political thought.
• Marxism and its global implications.
• Feminist political philosophies through history.
• Confucianism and East Asian political thought.
• African Ubuntu philosophy and politics.
• The political thought of the American Founding Fathers.
• Rawls’ Theory of Justice.
• Nozick’s Anarchy, State, and Utopia.
• Distributive vs. commutative justice.
• The gendered perspective on justice.
• Restorative and retributive justice.
• The philosophy of social and economic equality.
• Capability approach to justice.
• The philosophical foundations of affirmative action.
• Intersecting oppressions and justice.
• The role of luck in justice and fairness debates.
• Classical conceptions of political power.
• Weber’s tripartite classification of authority.
• The problem of political obligation.
• Foucault’s power/knowledge thesis.
• Challenges to political legitimacy.
• The philosophical underpinnings of civil resistance.
• Power dynamics in international relations.
• The concept of soft power.
• Critical theory and power structures.
• The philosophy behind sovereign immunity.
• Just War theory and its critiques.
• Philosophical perspectives on nuclear deterrence.
• Humanitarian interventions and their ethical implications.
• Realism vs. liberalism in international politics.
• Kant’s Perpetual Peace and modern peace theories.
• The politics and philosophy of global institutions.
• Philosophical underpinnings of international law.
• Terrorism, radicalism, and their challenges to political philosophy.
• The ethics of drone warfare.
• Philosophical discussions on global migration and borders.
• Philosophical defenses and critiques of capitalism.
• Marxist theory and its contemporary relevance.
• The evolution and varieties of socialism.
• Anarchist philosophies and critiques of the state.
• Fascism and its ideological roots.
• Libertarianism: principles and criticisms.
• Environmental political philosophies.
• Feminist political ideologies.
• Postmodern political thought.
• The future of neoliberalism.
• Contemporary Issues and Challenges in Political Philosophy.
• The philosophical implications of populism.
• Identity politics and its critiques.
• Political philosophy in the age of information.
• Climate change and political responsibilities.
• Bioethics, technology, and governance.
• Challenges and opportunities of globalism.
• Philosophical perspectives on nationalism.
• The future of democracy in a digital age.
• The rights and roles of AI in politics.
• The political implications of post-truth.

As we delve into the labyrinth of political philosophy research paper topics, we find ourselves confronted with a vast array of ideas, theories, and questions that have shaped societies for millennia. The dynamic interplay of power, rights, governance, and ethics remains as relevant today as it did in the days of Plato and Aristotle. Engaging with these topics is more than an academic endeavor—it’s a journey into the heart of what it means to be human, to be a citizen, and to be a part of the ever-evolving story of civilization. The timeless value of political philosophy serves as a testament to its enduring influence and the essential role it plays in our collective narrative.

The Range of Political Philosophy Research Paper Topics

Introduction

The annals of Western thought have been significantly shaped by the enduring influence of political philosophy. From the early musings of Socratic dialogues to the nuanced debates in contemporary think tanks, political philosophy provides a compass by which societies navigate the turbulent waters of governance, rights, and justice.

Overview of the Historical Evolution of Political Philosophy

Political philosophy, as a distinct discipline, has its roots in ancient civilizations. Early Greek thinkers, notably Plato and Aristotle, laid the groundwork for many debates that persist today. Their considerations of the ideal state, justice, and the nature of leadership set the stage for millennia of discourse. This classical foundation was built upon during the Roman era by philosophers like Cicero and later during the Enlightenment by figures such as Locke, Rousseau, and Montesquieu. Their discussions on social contracts, individual rights, and the separation of powers have left an indelible mark on Western political systems.

The 19th and 20th centuries ushered in a plethora of new ideologies, spurred by industrialization, wars, and revolutions. Thinkers like Marx and Engels critiqued capitalism and introduced revolutionary socialist ideals. Concurrently, the horrors of war led to reflections on nationalism, imperialism, and the ethics of conflict, with philosophers like Hannah Arendt dissecting the roots of totalitarianism and the banality of evil.

Relevance of Political Philosophy Research Paper Topics

A venture into political philosophy research paper topics offers a unique prism through which one can comprehend the evolution and diversity of human governance. Every political system, from monarchies to democracies, springs from a foundational philosophical rationale. For instance, understanding the American Revolution and its aftermath is enriched by a grasp of Lockean principles of life, liberty, and property. Similarly, dissecting the rise and fall of Soviet communism is more insightful when one considers Marxist-Leninist tenets.

Moreover, as globalization melds East and West, there’s an increasing importance in understanding non-Western political philosophies. Confucianism’s influence on East Asian governance models, or the Ubuntu philosophy’s impact on African communal values, are testament to the vast expanse of political philosophical thought.

Contemporary Significance and Challenges Addressed by Political Philosophy

Today, the world is no less complex than it was for our philosophical forebears. We grapple with issues of globalism vs. nationalism, the role of AI in governance, and the sociopolitical ramifications of climate change. These challenges necessitate a philosophical lens. For instance, debates on global migration are enriched by applying Rawlsian principles of justice. Similarly, the ethical implications of surveillance in our digital age can be assessed through Foucauldian concepts of power dynamics.

Political philosophy research paper topics also offer avenues to dissect newer ideologies and movements. The rise of populism in various parts of the world, debates surrounding identity politics, and the philosophical underpinnings of the alt-right or antifa movements provide rich grounds for exploration.

The Role of Political Philosophy in Shaping Public Opinion, Policy-making, and Societal Norms

While often regarded as a high-brow academic pursuit, political philosophy is intrinsically tied to the pulse of the street. The philosophical convictions of thinkers often trickle down to shape public opinion and, by extension, influence policy-making. For instance, the principles articulated in John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty inform contemporary discussions on free speech and societal limits.

Additionally, societal norms, like our collective views on privacy, freedom, or equality, are continually shaped by ongoing philosophical discourses. The feminist philosophical movement, for example, has had tangible impacts, reshaping societal norms and pushing for policy changes in areas like workplace rights, reproductive health, and representation.

As the global landscape undergoes rapid and unpredictable shifts, the significance of political philosophy research paper topics becomes ever more pronounced. These topics, rooted in age-old debates yet adaptable to contemporary quandaries, provide invaluable tools for dissecting, understanding, and ultimately shaping the world around us. In a globalized, digitized age, political philosophy remains a beacon, illuminating the path for governance, societal values, and human rights. Its timeless relevance stands as a testament to the depth and breadth of issues it addresses, guiding societies past, present, and future.

Custom Writing Services by iResearchNet

Diving deep into the intricacies of political philosophy demands meticulous research, keen analytical skills, and a nuanced writing touch. Recognizing these requirements, iResearchNet has emerged as a leading authority, offering unparalleled expertise in crafting political philosophy research papers that resonate with clarity, depth, and academic rigor.

• Expert Degree-Holding Writers: At the heart of iResearchNet’s prowess lies a team of seasoned writers, each holding advanced degrees in philosophy and its related disciplines. Their rich academic background ensures that each research paper is an exemplar of scholarly excellence.
• Custom Written Works: Eschewing cookie-cutter templates, iResearchNet takes pride in delivering unique papers tailored to each student’s specific requirements and academic level.
• In-depth Research: A hallmark of any commendable research paper is the depth of investigation. iResearchNet’s writers delve into reputable sources, ensuring every paper is informed by authoritative voices in the field of political philosophy.
• Custom Formatting: Recognizing the varied formatting demands of different institutions, iResearchNet offers custom formatting options across popular styles including APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, and Harvard.
• Top Quality: Quality is the bedrock of iResearchNet’s services. Each paper undergoes rigorous quality checks, ensuring it meets the highest academic standards and is free from errors or inconsistencies.
• Customized Solutions: Whether it’s a specific philosophical perspective, a unique thesis argument, or integrating certain key texts, iResearchNet provides bespoke solutions tailored to meet each student’s unique needs.
• Flexible Pricing: High-quality doesn’t necessarily equate to high prices. iResearchNet offers a range of flexible pricing options designed to cater to students’ diverse budgetary needs without compromising on quality.
• Short Deadlines: Procrastinated a bit too long? iResearchNet understands. That’s why they offer expedited writing services, capable of delivering top-tier papers in as little as three hours.
• Timely Delivery: Punctuality is a virtue that iResearchNet holds in high regard. They ensure that every paper is delivered well within the stipulated deadline, granting students ample time for review.
• 24/7 Support: Questions, concerns, or last-minute instructions? iResearchNet’s dedicated support team is available round the clock, ready to assist at any hour.
• Absolute Privacy: iResearchNet champions the importance of privacy. Clients can rest assured that their personal and transactional information remains confidential, protected by robust data security measures.
• Easy Order Tracking: Gone are the days of anxious waiting. With iResearchNet’s intuitive order tracking system, students can effortlessly monitor the progress of their papers in real-time.
• Money-Back Guarantee: Confidence in the quality of service translates to a robust money-back guarantee. If, for any reason, a paper doesn’t meet the client’s expectations, iResearchNet stands ready to offer a full refund.

As you stand at the precipice of your academic journey into political philosophy, wouldn’t you want the best tools at your disposal? iResearchNet beckons. Harness their unmatched services and ensure your political philosophy research paper topics are explored with the depth, precision, and scholarly flair they deserve.

Treading the pathways of political philosophy can be daunting. However, with iResearchNet by your side, you’re not alone. Their unique blend of expertise, dedication, and academic excellence ensures that your foray into the realm of political philosophy is both rewarding and enlightening. iResearchNet is more than just a writing service; it’s a trusted academic companion for all your endeavors in political philosophy.

Unlock New Horizons with iResearchNet!

Navigating the vast seas of political philosophy can be both an exhilarating and challenging endeavor. It’s a domain where thought meets action, theory intertwines with practice, and age-old wisdom interacts with contemporary quandaries. At such pivotal moments, having a guiding hand can make all the difference, transforming an arduous journey into a voyage of discovery.

iResearchNet stands out as that beacon of guidance. With their unmatched depth and expertise in political philosophy, they offer students not just a paper, but a map to intellectual treasures. Their team’s profound knowledge ensures that every topic is explored from multiple angles, fostering a comprehensive understanding and igniting a passion for the subject.

But the magic of iResearchNet doesn’t just end with exceptional research papers. It’s the assurance of having a steadfast partner, one that understands the nuances of political philosophy, and is committed to helping you achieve academic excellence. Their dedicated team works tirelessly, ensuring that every student’s voice is heard, every query addressed, and every academic ambition nurtured.

As you stand on the cusp of new academic endeavors, remember that with iResearchNet, you’re not merely submitting a paper; you’re embarking on a transformative journey in the world of political philosophy. A journey where every challenge becomes an opportunity, every question leads to deeper understanding, and every research topic transforms into a stepping stone towards academic greatness.

So, why wait? Seize this unparalleled chance for in-depth exploration. Let iResearchNet be your compass in the enthralling world of political philosophy, guiding you towards horizons yet uncharted and potentials yet unlocked. Your quest for knowledge deserves nothing but the best, and with iResearchNet, that’s precisely what you get. Dive in, explore, and let the journey begin!

ORDER HIGH QUALITY CUSTOM PAPER

Home — Essay Samples — Government & Politics — Politics — Political Ideology

Essays on Political Ideology

Choosing political ideology essay topics.

When it comes to writing an essay on political ideology, choosing the right topic is crucial. Political ideology is a vast and complex subject, encompassing a wide range of theories, beliefs, and practices. Therefore, selecting a well-defined and thought-provoking essay topic is essential to ensure that you have enough material to work with and that your essay is engaging for the reader.

The Importance of the Topic

Political ideology is the driving force behind political movements, policies, and governance. Exploring different ideologies and their impact on society can provide valuable insights into the way our political systems operate and the power dynamics at play. By choosing the right essay topic, you can delve deep into the intricacies of political ideology, analyze its implications, and gain a better understanding of the world around you.

Choosing a Topic

When selecting a political ideology essay topic, it's important to consider your interests, the scope of the assignment, and the availability of research material. You should also take into account the relevance and timeliness of the topic, as well as its potential to spark meaningful discussions and debates. Additionally, it's essential to choose a topic that aligns with your academic level and the requirements of the assignment.

Recommended Essay Topics

Ideological foundations.

• An analysis of the origins and evolution of liberalism
• The core tenets of conservatism and their impact on modern politics
• The rise of socialism as a response to industrialization and inequality

Political Movements

• The impact of the civil rights movement on the ideology of racial equality
• The role of feminism in shaping political ideology and gender equality
• The influence of environmentalism on political agendas and policies

Global Ideological Conflicts

• The ideological divide between the East and the West during the Cold War
• The clash of ideologies in the Middle East and its implications for global politics
• The ideological underpinnings of nationalism and its resurgence in the 21st century

Ideology and Governance

• The impact of neoliberalism on economic policies and globalization
• The role of religious ideology in shaping laws and governance in theocratic states
• The influence of populist ideology on contemporary political movements

Ideology and Social Justice

• The intersection of race and ideology in the fight for racial justice
• The role of class ideology in perpetuating or challenging economic inequality
• The impact of ideological polarization on social cohesion and political discourse

Choosing the right political ideology essay topic is essential for producing a compelling and insightful piece of writing. By considering your interests, the scope of the assignment, and the relevance of the topic, you can select a topic that will allow you to explore the complexities of political ideology and contribute to meaningful discussions in the field. Whether you're interested in the foundational principles of ideologies, their impact on governance and society, or their role in shaping social justice movements, there are numerous topics to explore and analyze in your essay.

The Bernie Bomb Analysis

Communism and fascism: comparison, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

Political Ideology and Police Reform

Defining political ideology and its usage in politics, a comparison of political philosophy and political ideology , personal political ideology of republican party, let us write you an essay from scratch.

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

My Political Ideology in Terms of Texas Political Culture

The spectre of populism in politics, buddhism in the mauaryan empire, fear: the foundation of every government's power, get a personalized essay in under 3 hours.

Expert-written essays crafted with your exact needs in mind

Pros and Cons of Partisan Elections

The challenges postcolonial theory poses to mainstream understandings of international relations dominated by western political thought, the collision of cultures, my modest proposal: introduction of anarchism, the indispensable opposition analysis, pro life: political opinions and ideology, key similarities between democratic vs. authoritarian govts, realism vs liberalism: analysis of different sides of the spectrum, ideological criticism of marxist ideology and meta ideology, political parties: positions and significance, theme of fear in animal farm, the first amendment: safeguarding democracy, protecting liberties, relevant topics.

• Political Corruption
• Anti Federalist
• Democratic Party
• Nation Building
• Public Service
• Interest Groups
• Political Socialization
• Political Party

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

You can Choose category

Political Science Essay Examples

Draw inspiration from your predecessors. Browse our free database of political science essays and research reports.

The complexity of our essay examples varies, but all have been checked for accuracy. Our database items have been written by the school, college, and university students.

Comprehensive database

The essay collection covers all political science topics and study fields.

Regular updates

If you haven't found the necessary example, repeat your search in several days.

Make your writing sparkle

We are glad to meet you on Politzilla.com, where you can learn from perfectly written political science essay examples. Besides, our resource features several helpful educational tools, lists of exam answers, homework solutions, professional academic assistance, and an extended multinational community.

This database will give you a second wind in creativity, enhance your writing skills, and facilitate the entire process of studying.

Most Searched Essay Topics

4,000 words

Latest Inquiries

Us foreign policy between 1930 and 1950, the nagorno-karabakh conflict: analysis, israel’s possession of nuclear weapon: pros and cons, effectiveness of body-worn cameras in law enforcement, american political candidates’ social media over time, the “third parties” article by kimmel & kalambakal, realism and liberalism theories of international relations, community policing in the united states, strategic significance of hr policies”, geronimo: obama’s legal authority, the celebrity political culture in the us, utilitarianism in guin’s “the ones who walk away from omelas”, joint operational training with partner forces, community-based correction facilities, operation anaconda in afghanistan: adaptation in battle, china’s politics and nationalism, aspects of the norwegian process party, gambling legalization in texas, paper classifier.

We have grouped our enormous database by categories of papers to make the sample search easier and more efficient.

Our Clients Ask

How did you collect such a vast database, is the service 100% free, or will you ask me to pay for a subscription, what if i’d like to donate my writing, if there is no sample on the topic i need, can i ask for a custom-made one, what is the plagiarism level in your database papers, do you check the papers students donate.