Left, right and the Italian voter
In: Comparative political studies: CPS, Band 4, S. 157-175
ISSN: 0010-4140
In: Comparative political studies: CPS, Band 4, S. 157-175
ISSN: 0010-4140
In: World Marxist review: problems of peace and socialism, Band 19, S. 66-74
ISSN: 0043-8642
In: The Progressive, Band 34, S. 13-16
ISSN: 0033-0736
In: The Western political quarterly: official journal of Western Political Science Association, Band 26, S. 263-279
ISSN: 0043-4078
In: Journal of political ideologies, Band 16, Heft 2, S. 123-144
ISSN: 1469-9613
In: Political psychology: journal of the International Society of Political Psychology, Band 35, Heft 6, S. 841-851
ISSN: 1467-9221
Research recently published in Political Psychology suggested that political intolerance is more strongly predicted by political conservatism than liberalism. Our findings challenge that conclusion. Participants provided intolerance judgments of several targets and the political objective of these targets (left-wing vs. right-wing) was varied between subjects. Across seven judgments, conservatism predicted intolerance of left-wing targets, while liberalism predicted intolerance of right-wing targets. These relationships were fully mediated by perceived threat from targets. Moreover, participants were biased against directly opposing political targets: conservatives were more intolerant of a left-wing target than the opposing right-wing target (e.g., pro-gay vs. anti-gay rights activists), while liberals were more intolerant of a right-wing target than the opposing left-wing target. These findings are discussed within the context of the existing political intolerance and motivated reasoning literatures. Adapted from the source document.
In: Political psychology: journal of the International Society of Political Psychology, Band 35, Heft 6, S. 841-851
ISSN: 1467-9221
Research recently published in Political Psychology suggested that political intolerance is more strongly predicted by political conservatism than liberalism. Our findings challenge that conclusion. Participants provided intolerance judgments of several targets and the political objective of these targets (left‐wing vs. right‐wing) was varied between subjects. Across seven judgments, conservatism predicted intolerance of left‐wing targets, while liberalism predicted intolerance of right‐wing targets. These relationships were fully mediated by perceived threat from targets. Moreover, participants were biased against directly opposing political targets: conservatives were more intolerant of a left‐wing target than the opposing right‐wing target (e.g., pro‐gay vs. anti‐gay rights activists), while liberals were more intolerant of a right‐wing target than the opposing left‐wing target. These findings are discussed within the context of the existing political intolerance and motivated reasoning literatures.
In: Australian journal of political science: journal of the Australasian Political Studies Association, Band 36, Heft 3, S. 616-617
ISSN: 1036-1146
In: U.S. news & world report, Band 64, S. 44-45
ISSN: 0041-5537
In: European journal of political research: official journal of the European Consortium for Political Research, Band 31, Heft 1-2, S. 147-157
ISSN: 1475-6765
Abstract Although left‐right scales are an inherent feature of much cross‐national research, they have necessarily been created on a somewhat ad hoc basis, since the empirical foundation for valid cross‐national scales rarely exists. This paper seeks to provide such a foundation by using judgements of party ideological position which are both explicit and non‐idiosyncratic across a wide range of countries. These judgements derive from a so‐called 'expert' survey of leading political scientists in Western Europe, the USA, and elsewhere. It is our hope that the scales which we derive in this way may prove useful in a wide variety of contexts of comparative research.
In: Political psychology: journal of the International Society of Political Psychology, Band 43, Heft 3, S. 457-488
ISSN: 1467-9221
A robust empirical literature suggests that the development of one's political ideology is the product of an "elective affinity" between the discursive, socially constructed elements of ideological belief systems and the psychological constraints, motives, and interests of those who are drawn to those belief systems. However, most studies which support this elective affinity theory have been conducted in the West. In the present study, we tested the theory in China to see whether elective affinities between psychological traits and political ideology are more likely to be universal. Across a nationally representative sample (N = 509), we found initial support for the characterization of the left‐right divide in China, albeit in reverse. Namely, the "liberal Right in China mostly evinces traits of the psychological Left in the West (e.g., lower intolerance of ambiguity), while the "conservative Left" mostly evinces traits of the psychological right in the West (e.g., higher system justification). Epistemic motives were most reliably related to political ideology, while existential and relational motives were more mixed; economic and political aspects of ideology were more closely linked to psychological traits than social/cultural aspects. The present findings provide an extension of existing theory and opportunities for further development.
In: Journal of political ideologies, Band 16, Heft 2, S. 123-145
ISSN: 1356-9317
In: European journal of political research: official journal of the European Consortium for Political Research, Band 31, Heft 1, S. 147-157
ISSN: 1475-6765
Nomination:'Some expert judgments ' live on by Mogens N. Pedersen, p.147 Reflections: Revisiting expert judgements by Peter Mair & Francis G. Castles, p.150
In: European journal of political research: official journal of the European Consortium for Political Research, Band 31, Heft 1-2, S. 147-157
ISSN: 0304-4130
THE AUTHOR ASSESSES THE CONTRIBUTION MADE TO POLITICAL SCIENCE SCHOLARSHIP BY "LEFT-RIGHT POLITICAL SCALES: SOME EXPERT JUDGMENTS," WRITTEN BY FRANCIS CASTLES AND PETER MAIR. IN THEIR ESSAY, CASTLES AND MAIR PROVIDED THE EMPIRICAL FOUNDATION FOR CROSS-NATIONAL LEFT-RIGHT POLITICAL SCALES.
In: NBER Working Paper No. w19498
SSRN