I’ve gotten myself into trouble before with sweeping statements like, “Policy doesn’t matter…It’s the emotions, stupid!”
Off-stage or after a classroom lecture, I always end up regretting after I do it because, well, it just sounds wrong—like I’m ignoring all the nuance and context.
So, I’ll revise: “Policy doesn’t matter much, except for a select few. For the rest—it’s the emotions & vibes, stupid!”
We have explored this topic previously, but this additional study adds more nuance.
A bit of warning if you read the paper: Kalmoe’s work is dense with methodological details, nuanced findings, and subtle critiques of prior ideological research. I’ve tried my best to rephrase technical content, but in the process, I may have sacrificed a bit of nuance—especially in the Results and Findings section. As awlays, I urge you to read the source document.
Now, let’s explore the academic research.
Paper Title: “Uses and Abuses of Ideology in Political Psychology”
Link: Available on Wiley Online Library
Peer Review Status: Peer-reviewed
Citation: Kalmoe, Nathan P. 2020. “Uses and Abuses of Ideology in Political Psychology.” Political Psychology 41(4): 771–94.
Introduction
In political psychology, ideology is a prized concept—often touted as the backbone of people’s political beliefs and decisions. But according to Nathan P. Kalmoe’s research, the story is a bit more complicated.
He suggests that only a small group of highly informed people—roughly 20-30%—actually have coherent, stable ideological beliefs.
The rest? They’re mostly ideologically “innocent,” forming opinions that may be more about social identity, emotions, or party loyalty than deeply held beliefs.
Kalmoe’s work challenges the idea that ideology is widespread and meaningful for most people.
And he takes it a step further, critiquing the way we generalize about ideology based on biased samples and common survey practices. So, does ideology actually structure political beliefs? For most people, maybe not.
Methodology
Kalmoe used a mix of large representative surveys, including the American National Election Studies (ANES), covering data across four decades with samples ranging from 13,000 to 37,000 U.S. adults.
He also incorporated panel data to test ideological stability over time. The methodology included assessments of common ideology markers, like political values, self-identification, and policy positions, to see if they cohered into a stable ideological structure across knowledge levels.
This was primarily a survey-based study with panel analysis used to determine how consistent ideological beliefs were for each individual.
Results and Findings
Kalmoe’s findings reveal a split in how ideology functions. Here’s the gist:
- Ideology is coherent only for the knowledgeable few: Roughly 20-30% of Americans hold ideologies that consistently influence their political beliefs and decisions. This group—politically informed and engaged—shows stable, coherent ideological orientations.
- For most, ideology is weak or non-existent: The remaining 70-80% of people don’t structure their political beliefs ideologically. Instead, these folks might identify as conservative or liberal without understanding or consistently aligning with the values or policies associated with those labels. In short, they lack ideological coherence and stability.
- Political knowledge plays a big role: Those with higher political knowledge tend to be the ones with stable ideological beliefs. But Kalmoe finds that many people don’t know enough to connect the dots between their beliefs and an ideological framework, limiting ideology’s role for them.
- Partisanship vs. ideology: While ideology might not be widespread, partisanship sure is. Party identification proved to be a much stronger predictor of people’s views than ideological labels, especially for those with lower political knowledge. In practical terms, people might say they’re conservative but only reliably vote Republican because of party loyalty, not ideology.
Critiques of the Current Research
Kalmoe raises important points about the limitations of traditional research on ideology. He argues that relying on convenience samples (like college students or online panels) can skew our understanding of ideology’s strength in the general public. People in these samples tend to be more politically knowledgeable than the average citizen, inflating estimates of ideological coherence.
Kalmoe also suggests that researchers could do better by consistently including political knowledge measures in their studies to separate ideological findings by knowledge level. This approach would help avoid overstating ideology’s influence among the general population.
Conclusion
Kalmoe’s work calls for a reality check: ideology isn’t as common or influential among the general public (AND PRESS) as some might think.
For most people, politics is less about a cohesive ideology and more about simple identities and loyalties.
His findings point to a need for more careful analysis in political psychology, especially when it comes to understanding how (and if) ideology influences the average voter.
Don’t misunderstand me—policy does matter, particularly to those who are politically knowledgeable and to elected officials. However, when it comes to mass ideology, it’s a different story.
In short, for the “ideologically innocent majority”, policy nor your detailed 10 point plan may indeed not matter much. Instead, it’s more about party loyalty, social identity, and, yes—the emotions & vibes, stupid!
