Asymmetries in ideologies : a question of measurements?

Differences in psychological needs and interests have been connected to the endorsement of different belief systems (Jost, Federico & Napier, 2009, p. 314). In 2017, Jost summarized findings connecting existential, relational and epistemic needs to ideology (Jost, 2017, p. 167). This thesis reevaluates the reported results concerning their assessment of ideology, differentiating between indirect and direct measures, symbolic and operational as well as economic and social ideology. Further, additional information on direct measures was derived from the source samples indicated in Jost, 2017. A total of 295 effect sizes was analyzed. Overall, Josts (2017) results were reproducible, with the averages reported in it and the results found never deviating more than r = .10 from each other and straying r ≤ .05 in nearly 89%. Next, separate analyses were conducted to assess the impact of scale-type on the results. Indirect and direct averages differed around r(8) = .12 (.35 < r < .03) from each other, the symbolic and operational averages deviated r(9) = .07 (0 < r < .28) and social and economic ideology differed on average the most with around r(8) = .19 (0 < r < .36). As the sample size for social and economic ideology was rather small, an overall average across the epistemic needs was assessed as well, supporting the previously established impact of measures with the average magnitude sizes deviating r = .21 from each other. All in all, the findings support a more detailed differentiation on measures of ideology in regard of asymmetric psychological predispositions, with averages of different measures only coinciding in three cases and deviating r ≥ .05 in 16 out of 25 cases.


Citation style:
Could not load citation form.


Use and reproduction: