jost_j_t_kay_a_c_thorisdottir_n_social_and_psychological_bas

This page intentionally left blank

THE STUDY OF IDEOLOGY

Ideology has been described as one of the most elusive constructs in all of the social sciences, largely because it has been enormously difficult for researchers to agree on a compact, yet comprehensive, definition of ideology (e.g., see Gerring, 1997; Jost, Federico, & Napier, 2009; McLellan, 1995; Mullins, 1972). Attempts by social scientists to whittle down the definition of ideology to one or two sentences bring to mind the well-known Indian legend of the blind men describing an elephant. Their descriptions reflected whichever part of the animal they happened to touch (trunk, tusk, tail, etc.) and therefore failed to capture their target in its complex entirety. It is difficult to avoid this fate in trying to capture the multifaceted construct of ideology. Any single definition of ideology is bound to approach the concept from a limited vantage point and to be at least somewhat incomplete (see also Eagleton, 1991).

“Top-Down” and “Bottom-Up” Approaches to the Study of Ideology

The approach we take in this volume is to strive to illuminate a phenomenon (or set of phenomena) that we readily acknowledge as too large and complicated—even sprawling—to describe exhaustively from a single theoretical perspective. This is one reason why the chapters in this volume address the topic of ideology in ways that go well beyond political belief systems as they are conventionally understood in terms of socialism, liberalism, and conservatism. Some of the chapters, for example, address religious ideology, and others address everyday beliefs about fairness and legitimacy that are not as formal and systematic as most definitions of ideology would require. We believe that this highly inclusive approach to ideological (or proto-ideological) subject matter not only gives the reader a more nuanced view of the construct, but it also reflects current research in the field more accurately than a narrow conception would allow.

Even if a perfect definition of ideology eludes scholars and researchers, an imperfect definition can be useful in guiding research and theory. For our present purposes, a relatively simple, practical definition will do (see also Jost, 2006; Jost et al., 2009), such as the two-part definition offered in the fourth edition of the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language:

1.The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture.

2.A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.

This kind of broad definition allows for considerable flexibility in investigating ideology from a social psychological perspective. It also highlights

the fact that ideology can be analyzed in terms of both “top-down” processes, whereby political elites in the media and elsewhere construct and publicly disseminate ideological “bundles,” and “bottom-up” processes arising from the psychological needs and motives of ordinary citizens (Jost et al., 2009). Attention to top-down processes has dominated research in political science, especially research in the rational choice tradition, with relatively little consideration given to the influence of other psychological factors (e.g., Hinich & Munger, 1994; Zaller, 1992). Psychologists have argued that the success of top-down processes is affected also by characteristics of message recipients, especially the extent to which the general public possesses the cognitive abilities and motivations required to accurately grasp and apply the ideological messages proffered by elites (e.g., Federico, 2007; Judd & Krosnick, 1989; McGuire, 1985).

In contrast to the top-down approach, research on bottom-up processes is premised on the notion that a variety of psychological factors, both dispositional and situational, tend to determine ideological proclivities. This idea is clearly on display in the present volume, especially the notion that variability in epistemic, existential, and relational motives generally map onto ideological differences. One example comes from the accumulated body of research documenting correlations between the endorsement of politically conservative opinions and epistemic needs for certainty and structure, existential needs for security and threat management, and relational needs for conformity and solidarity (Jost, Glaser, Kruglanski, & Sulloway, 2003; Jost, Ledgerwood, & Hardin, 2008; Jost, Napier, Thorisdottir, et al., 2007). We assume that a reciprocal, dynamic relationship exists between top-down and bottom-up processes. Several social psychological phenomena—such as stereotyping, persuasion, and the rationalization of hierarchical arrangements among social groups—link the two. Stereotypes and group status differences are well-known to the general public and to political elites, and they are frequently part of the subtext (if not the text) of ideological discourse (e.g., Mendelberg, 2001; Valentino, Hutchings, & White, 2002).

The End of the End of Ideology?

Until fairly recently, research on political ideology had fallen out of favor among many social scientists. Some very prominent sociologists and political scientists in the 1950s and 1960s declared that ideology was neither relevant nor helpful in explaining ordinary citizens’ social and political behavior (e.g., Bell, 1960/1988; Converse, 1964; Lipset, 1960; Shils, 1955/1968). Their basic argument was that most people were not cognitively sophisticated or politically motivated enough to structure their attitudes according to abstract philosophical conceptions associated with the left–right dimension.

The “end-of-ideologists” also disputed observations made by Adorno and colleagues (1950) and others that psychological differences are at the heart of ideological differences between liberals and conservatives (for a critical discussion of these arguments, see Jost, 2006).

Although several researchers did investigate the determinants of ideology from a bottom-up (psychological) perspective during the 1980s— focusing on variables such as cognitive style (Sidanius, 1985, 1988; Tetlock, 1983, 1984), authoritarianism (Altemeyer, 1981, 1988), and the effects of threat on political preferences (Doty, Peterson, & Winter, 1991)—these constituted relatively independent strands of research. It took several years before these insights were integrated into a broader theoretical framework (e.g., Altemeyer, 1998; Duckitt, 2001; Jost et al., 2003). It now seems clear to many observers that the current historical period is a particularly ideological one, especially in the United States (Abramowitz & Saunders, 2008; Barker & Tinnick, 2006; Jost, 2006; Layman & Carsey, 2002; Stimson, 2004), and research on the social and psychological bases of ideology has begun in earnest again. As Jost, Nosek, and Gosling (2008) noted, a significant resurgence of interest has occurred among researchers in the social, cognitive, and motivational underpinnings of political orientation (e.g., see Block & Block, 2006; Caprara & Zimbardo, 2004; Haidt & Graham, 2007; Jost et al., 2003, 2007; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999; Skitka et al., 2002; Tetlock, 2007; van Hiel & Mervielde, 2004; Willer, 2004). Social and behavioral scientists are now much more likely to acknowledge that the abilities, needs, values, and motivations of individuals influence the contents of political belief systems from the bottom up (Bizer et al., 2004; Duckitt, 2001; Federico, 2007; Federico & Schneider, 2007; Feldman, 2003; Jost et al., 2007; Lavine, Lodge, & Freitas, 2005; Weber & Federico, 2007).

Many researchers working on the psychological basis of ideology recognize that—as Converse (1964) and others famously argued—the political opinions of ordinary citizens are generally not tightly constrained by pressures for consistency and logic, but this does not mean that they are unconstrained by other psychological forces (for a recent review, see Jost et al., 2009). So, although it would be a mistake to equate ideological thinking with political sophistication and rationality, mounting psychological evidence suggests that political scientists and others must attend to the social and psychological bases of ideology in order to gain a fuller understanding of citizens’ political preferences (Jost, 2006). In other words, bottom-up processes do reliably predict ideological opinions and voting preferences. Jost and colleagues (2003) showed, for example, that psychological needs to manage uncertainty and threat consistently give rise to politically conservative (more than liberal or moderate) opinions. They argued that a special affinity exists

between the contents of conservative ideology, which they identified as resistance to change and acceptance of inequality, and heightened epistemic and existential needs to ward off uncertainty and minimize perceptions of threat (see also Jost et al., 2007, 2009).

Present Contributions to Understanding

the Social and Psychological Bases of Ideology

The contributors to this volume, who come from such diverse fields as psychology, political science, sociology, law, and organizational behavior, all seek to advance our understanding of these and other social psychological functions served by ideological belief systems. Several of the chapters advance the general hypothesis that people are motivated to uphold certain beliefs and ideologies at least in part because they serve salient psychological needs that are rooted in personality differences (see especially chapters by Duckitt & Sibley; Federico & Goren; Feygina & Tyler; Hafer & Choma; Haidt & Graham) or evoked by situational conditions (Anson, Pyszczynski, Solomon, & Greenberg; Kay & Zanna; O’Brien & Major; van den Bos; Willer). Although different authors may choose to emphasize either relatively stable, internal dispositions of individual actors or external circumstances, such as the social situation, for the sake of focusing their arguments, any complete explanation of human behavior must incorporate both dispositional and situational factors (Lewin, 1936; Ross & Nisbett, 1991).

Several of the chapters in this volume are innovative in their theoretical and methodological incorporation of implicit, unconscious, cognitive and motivational processes that seem to affect ideological dynamics (Ferguson, Carter, & Hassin; Nosek, Banaji, & Jost; Uhlmann, Poehlman, & Bargh). It seems quite likely that research on implicit processes will eventually exert considerable influence in political psychology, just as it has transformed work in cognitive and social psychology. It is worth noting, however, that Mitchell and Tetlock (this volume) register skepticism about certain “subterranean” explanations for the apparent alignment of psychological characteristics and ideological outcomes, and other authors stress cognitive factors, such as information processing (Eidelman & Crandall) and perspective-taking (Eibach & Libby), rather than motivational factors in explaining ideologically significant outcomes.

Finally, several contributions to this volume draw on the effects of societal level variables on individuals and groups and therefore represent neither purely top-down nor bottom-up approaches but rather seek to understand their dynamic interplay. There are chapters, for instance, on the relationship between ideological stances and gender stereotyping (Cikara, Lee, Fiske, & Glick), regional culture and political preferences (Rentfrow, Jost, Gosling, & Potter), and the ideological effects of belonging to a domi-

nant social group (Starzyk, Blatz, & Ross; see also Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). Thus, recent work on political psychology not only reflects a resurgence of interest in bottom-up cognitive and motivational processes but also offers the promise of integration across levels of analysis in understanding the antecedents, contents, and consequences of ideology (see also Doise, 2004; Stangor & Jost, 1997).

SYSTEM JUSTIFICATION THEORY

To the extent that people adopt a particular ideology at least in part because it serves their psychological needs, they may use ideology to make sense of and manage their social world. In other words, ideology serves as a particularly useful framework for forming “attitudes and values about the proper goals of society and how they should be achieved” (Tedin, 1987, p. 65). As we have already suggested, people adopt ideological belief systems at least in part to help them understand, predict, and perhaps even rationalize current societal arrangements (or alternatives to those arrangements).

Many have observed that the vast majority of people, including rich and poor, are reluctant to express dissatisfaction or outrage at the substantial, even stark differences in wealth, status, and power that occur both within and across societies (Hochschild, 1981; Jackman, 1994; Jost, Blount, Pfeffer, & Hunyady, 2003; Kluegel & Smith, 1986). Contentment on the part of the wellheeled is not particularly surprising because the current societal order serves their self-interest rather well. The same cannot be said for the underprivileged. Why they not only tolerate but even defend and justify disparities of income and other resources as fair, legitimate, necessary, and inevitable, is an apparent enigma (e.g., see Frank, 2004). System justification theory (SJT) tackles this issue and proposes that people are motivated to justify the system in which they live because it serves a palliative function (Jost & Banaji, 1994; Jost & Hunyady, 2002, 2005). That is, the theory posits a general tendency to defend, legitimize, and bolster the social and political systems on which people are psychologically dependent (see also Jost, Banaji, & Nosek, 2004; Kay & Zanna, this volume).

Although it was originally formulated to explain the relatively perplexing phenomena of outgroup favoritism and the internalization of inferiority among low-status group members (Jost & Banaji, 1994), SJT now seeks more broadly to understand the myriad causes and consequences of everyday ideology, especially the motivated (but not necessarily conscious) defense of all types of socio-political systems. According to researchers in this tradition, any large or small social system that subsumes individuals and/or groups can engender a powerful psychological attachment (e.g., Blasi & Jost, 2006). Such systems can be relatively tangible, such as the families, institutions,

and organizations within which people live their daily lives, or they can be more abstract and intangible, such as the unwritten but clearly recognizable rules and norms that prescribe appropriate social behavior, including guidelines for appropriate interpersonal and intergroup encounters. Accordingly, research on SJT has shown that whether the system is operationalized as society as a whole, the government, the economic system, specific institutions such as one’s university, or even the network of social norms, people will engage in various psychological processes—including social stereotyping and various forms of motivated social perception and judgment—aimed at defending the legitimacy of the social systems (e.g., Jost, Banaji, & Nosek, 2004; Jost & Hunyady, 2002, 2005; Jost & Kay, 2005; Kay, Jimenez, & Jost, 2002; Kay & Jost, 2003; Kay, Jost, & Young, 2005; Kay, Gaucher, Napier, Callan, & Laurin, 2008; Lau, Kay, & Spencer, 2008).

The system justification motive likely evolved as a psychologically adaptive mechanism, helping people to cope with the existential and epistemic threats posed by imposing and frequently illegitimate, unfair, and/or unstable social systems (Kay et al., 2008; see also, Jost & Hunyady, 2005). However, as is the case with many ordinarily adaptive psychological processes (e.g., categorization and the attainment of cognitive efficiency), the system justification motive also frequently leads to undesirable outcomes. To the extent that a given social system entails either significant inequalities or injus- tices—which almost all social systems do, at least to some extent (Dumont, 1970; Sidanius & Pratto, 1999)—the system justification motive instigates cognitive and motivational processes that maintain (and even reinforce) these aspects of the system and inhibits attempts at redress (e.g., Wakslak, Jost, Tyler, & Chen, 2007). This brings us to the nature of the relationship between system justification and politically conservative ideology.

The Relationship Between System Justification

and Political Conservatism

Jost and Hunyady (2005) treated political conservatism as one especially popular form of system justification in Western capitalist societies. On this formulation, system justification is a broader and more inclusive term than what is typically meant by political conservatism. However, if one accepts the bipartite definition of conservatism in terms of preservation of tradition (or resistance to social change) and acceptance of inequality in both social and economic spheres (Jost et al., 2003), it is clear that a system-justifying attitude in a capitalist system would be predominantly conservative in both respects (Jost et al., 2008).

Like other psychological perspectives, SJT is largely a bottom-up theory. It does not seek to explain the origins of the structural details of the social order

(why the system is the way that it is). Rather, the theory addresses the implicit and explicit attitudes and beliefs held by individuals and groups about the societal structure (including both normative and descriptive beliefs), as well as the motivation evident in all people (to differing degrees) to support the status quo and defend and protect the social systems that affect them. In other words, SJT is a quintessentially social psychological theory that focuses on individual and group processes but with broad implications for other levels of analysis, including the societal level of analysis (Doise, 2004; Stangor & Jost, 1997). The scope of the theory extends well beyond political ideologies, because it is not restricted to attitudes concerning political institutions.

System justification is, therefore, neither synonymous with political conservatism nor a mere by-product of it, although some have implied that this may be the case (Huddy, 2004; see also Anson et al., this volume). System justification processes do, however, contribute to ideological outcomes and are more likely to give rise to certain ideologies than others, as pointed out by Jost and Hunyady (2005). When the motivation to justify the system is heightened, people will be more likely to embrace ideologies that emphasize the value of the status quo. In contemporary Western societies, this alignment tends to occur more readily with respect to political conservatism than to its counterpart, liberalism (see also Jost et al., 2003, 2008, 2009).

What Lies Ahead?

By now, psychologists have fairly thoroughly mapped how differences in individual personality characteristics go hand in hand with particular political and ideological stances. For example, conscientiousness, rule-following, reluctance to embrace new experiences, and preferences for order, structure, and closure have all been linked to various indicators of political conservatism (see Jost et al., 2003, for a review). In contrast to the many decades of research on individual differences, relatively few experimental studies exist in this area. This could stem from a longstanding theoretical assumption, namely that explanations for differences in political preferences will ultimately be traced to formative experiences in childhood or even to genetic predispositions (Adorno et al., 1950; Alford, Funk, & Hibbing, 2005; Altemeyer, 1988, 1996; Block & Block, 2005; Stenner, 2005; Sulloway, 1996). At the same time, it is primarily through experimental approaches that we can hope to illuminate the underlying cognitive and motivational processes that give rise to ideological outcomes. In other words, researchers need to design experiments that capture the rich interconnectedness of the individual and the situation as it pertains to political ideology (cf. Ross & Nisbett, 1991).

Jost and colleagues (2003) commented on the relative dearth of experimental evidence in the literature and expressed hope that theoretical integration