意识形态思维:左右标签作为政策捷径的有限作用。

IF 4.6 1区 社会学 Q1 COMMUNICATION
Public Opinion Quarterly Pub Date : 2026-03-29 eCollection Date: 2026-01-01 DOI:10.1093/poq/nfag015
Sarah Lachance, Clareta Treger
{"title":"意识形态思维:左右标签作为政策捷径的有限作用。","authors":"Sarah Lachance, Clareta Treger","doi":"10.1093/poq/nfag015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>How do voters use left-right ideological labels as shortcuts for policy positions in evaluating electoral candidates? We offer a distinction between maximal and minimal forms of ideological thinking. While maximal thinking implies that voters rely on ideological proximity as a proxy for policy congruence with candidates, minimal thinking requires only that voters use ideological labels to infer candidates' positions-even if their own ideological identification is inconsistent with policy preferences. Drawing on original experimental data from Canada (<i>N</i> = 1,087)-a multiparty system with a fluid ideological landscape-we find that voters' ideological self-placement is often misaligned with their policy positions, especially among right-leaning individuals. However, voters still use ideological proximity to infer candidates' policy stances in the absence of policy information, supporting the Minimal Theory. These findings contribute to theories of political decision-making beyond the United States and have implications for substantive representation in systems with centrist or ideologically flexible parties.</p>","PeriodicalId":51359,"journal":{"name":"Public Opinion Quarterly","volume":"90 3","pages":"730-757"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2026-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13287524/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Thinking Ideologically: The Limited Role of Left and Right Labels as Policy Shortcuts.\",\"authors\":\"Sarah Lachance, Clareta Treger\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/poq/nfag015\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>How do voters use left-right ideological labels as shortcuts for policy positions in evaluating electoral candidates? We offer a distinction between maximal and minimal forms of ideological thinking. While maximal thinking implies that voters rely on ideological proximity as a proxy for policy congruence with candidates, minimal thinking requires only that voters use ideological labels to infer candidates' positions-even if their own ideological identification is inconsistent with policy preferences. Drawing on original experimental data from Canada (<i>N</i> = 1,087)-a multiparty system with a fluid ideological landscape-we find that voters' ideological self-placement is often misaligned with their policy positions, especially among right-leaning individuals. However, voters still use ideological proximity to infer candidates' policy stances in the absence of policy information, supporting the Minimal Theory. These findings contribute to theories of political decision-making beyond the United States and have implications for substantive representation in systems with centrist or ideologically flexible parties.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51359,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Public Opinion Quarterly\",\"volume\":\"90 3\",\"pages\":\"730-757\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2026-03-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13287524/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Public Opinion Quarterly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfag015\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2026/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Opinion Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfag015","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

选民如何利用左右意识形态标签作为评估候选人政策立场的捷径?我们提出了意识形态思维的最大形式和最小形式之间的区别。最大限度的思考意味着选民依靠意识形态上的接近度作为与候选人政策一致性的代理,而最小限度的思考只要求选民使用意识形态标签来推断候选人的立场——即使他们自己的意识形态认同与政策偏好不一致。根据来自加拿大的原始实验数据(N = 1087)——一个意识形态多变的多党制国家——我们发现,选民的意识形态自我定位往往与他们的政策立场不一致,尤其是在右倾个人中。然而,在缺乏政策信息的情况下,选民仍然使用意识形态接近来推断候选人的政策立场,这支持了最小理论。这些发现有助于美国以外的政治决策理论,并对中间派或意识形态灵活的政党的制度中的实质性代表权产生影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Thinking Ideologically: The Limited Role of Left and Right Labels as Policy Shortcuts.

How do voters use left-right ideological labels as shortcuts for policy positions in evaluating electoral candidates? We offer a distinction between maximal and minimal forms of ideological thinking. While maximal thinking implies that voters rely on ideological proximity as a proxy for policy congruence with candidates, minimal thinking requires only that voters use ideological labels to infer candidates' positions-even if their own ideological identification is inconsistent with policy preferences. Drawing on original experimental data from Canada (N = 1,087)-a multiparty system with a fluid ideological landscape-we find that voters' ideological self-placement is often misaligned with their policy positions, especially among right-leaning individuals. However, voters still use ideological proximity to infer candidates' policy stances in the absence of policy information, supporting the Minimal Theory. These findings contribute to theories of political decision-making beyond the United States and have implications for substantive representation in systems with centrist or ideologically flexible parties.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
2.90%
发文量
51
期刊介绍: Published since 1937, Public Opinion Quarterly is among the most frequently cited journals of its kind. Such interdisciplinary leadership benefits academicians and all social science researchers by providing a trusted source for a wide range of high quality research. POQ selectively publishes important theoretical contributions to opinion and communication research, analyses of current public opinion, and investigations of methodological issues involved in survey validity—including questionnaire construction, interviewing and interviewers, sampling strategy, and mode of administration. The theoretical and methodological advances detailed in pages of POQ ensure its importance as a research resource.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书