A central challenge for citizens is to understand how their political system works. The classic “Levels of Conceptualization” measure proposed in The American Voter provided an answer for White Americans in the 1950s, but has limited relevance today for citizens of non-European ancestry. Expanding on the work of Campbell et al., this paper develops a measure of Political Conceptualization that combines views about parties and candidates with views on personal identity and ethnic fairness. The measure is based on open-ended responses in a survey of Asian Americans and Latinos. Results show how, across these quite different domains of politics, citizens vary in their Political Conceptualizations from narrow and concrete to broad and abstract. Results highlight the challenge for political organizers in building coalitions among citizens who vary in their understanding of how politics works.
AlvarezR. M.Garcia BedollaL. (2003). The foundations of Latino voter partisanship: Evidence from the 2000 election. Journal of Politics, 65(1), 31–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2508.t01-1-00002
2.
BakkerB.SchumacherG.RooduijnM. (2021). Hot politics? Affective responses to political rhetoric. American Political Science Review, 115(1), 150–164. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055420000519
3.
BarretoM. A.SeguraG. M. (2014). Latino America: How American's most dynamic population is poised to transform the politics of the nation. PublicAffairs.
4.
BentlerP. (2006). EQS 6 structural equations program manual. Multivariate Software, Inc.
5.
BoboL.GilliamF. D. (1990). Race, sociopolitical participation and black empowerment. American Political Science Review, 84(2), 377–393. https://doi.org/10.2307/1963525
6.
BraderT. (2006). Campaigning for hearts and minds. The University of Chicago Press.
7.
CampbellA.ConverseP.MillerW.StokesD. (1960). The American voter. John Wiley & Sons.
8.
CampbellA.ConverseP.MillerW.StokesD. (1966). The American voter. John Wiley & Sons.
9.
CitrinJ.SearsD. O. (2014). American identity and the politics of multiculturalism. Cambridge University Press.
10.
CrockerJ.LuhtanenR. (1990). Collective self-esteem and ingroup bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(1), 60–67. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.58.1.60
DaltonR. J. (2016). Party identification and its implications. In ThompsonW. (Ed.), Oxford research encyclopedia. Oxford University Press.
13.
DamasioA. R. (1994). Descartes’ error: Emotion, reason, and the human brain. Putnam.
14.
DawsonM. C. (2001). Black visions: The roots of contemporary African-American political ideologies. University of Chicago Press.
15.
DownsA. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. Harper.
16.
Garcia BedollaL. (2005). Fluid borders: Latino power, identity, and politics in Los Angeles. University of California Press.
17.
GreenD.PalmquisB.SchicklerE. (2002). Partisan hearts and minds: Political parties and the social identities of voters. Yale University Press.
18.
GreenS. (1999). Understanding party identification: A social identity approach. Political Psychology, 20(2), 393–403. https://doi.org/10.1111/0162-895X.00150
19.
HajnalZ.LeeT. (2011). Why Americans don’t join the party: Race, immigration, and the failure (of political parties) to engage the electorate. Princeton University Press.
20.
HuddyL. (2001). From social to political identity: A critical examination of social identity theory. Political Psychology, 22(1), 127–156. https://doi.org/10.1111/0162-895X.00230
21.
HuddyL.MasonL.AaroeL. (2015). Expressive partisanship: Campaign involvement, political emotion, and partisan identity. American Political Science Review, 109(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055414000604
22.
HuddyL.MasonL.HorwitzS. N. (2016). Political identity convergence: On being Latino, becoming a democrat, and getting active. RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 2(3), 205–228. https://doi.org/10.7758/rsf.2016.2.3.11
23.
JunnJ.MasuokaN. (2008). Identities in context: Politicized racial group consciousness among Asian American and Latino youth. Applied Development Science, 12(2), 93–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888690801997234
24.
LauR. R. (1986). Political schemata, candidate evaluations, and voting behavior. In LauandDR. R.SearsO. (Eds.), Political cognition: The 19th annual carnegie symposium on cognition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associate, Inc.
25.
Lewis-BeckM. S.JacobyW. G.NorpothH.WeisbergH. E. (2008). The American voter revisited. The University of Michigan.
26.
LienP.-t. (1994). Ethnicity and political participation: A comparison between Asian and Mexican Americans. Political Behavior, 16(6), 874–900. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01498879
27.
LienP.-t.ConwayM.WongJ. S. (2003). The contours and sources of ethnic identity choices among Asian Americans. Social Science Quarterly, 84(2), 461–481. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6237.8402015
28.
McCloskyH.ZallerJ. (1984). The American ethos: Public attitudes toward capitalism and democracy. Havard University Press.
NieN.VerbaS.PetrocikJ. R. (1976). The changing American voter. Harvard University Press.
31.
SanchezG. R. (2006). The role of group consciousness in political participation among Latinos in the United States. American Politics Research, 34(4), 427–450. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X05284417
32.
SearsD. O.DanboldF.ZavalaV. (2016). Incorporation of Latino immigrants into the American party system. RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 2(3), 183–204. https://doi.org/10.7758/rsf.2016.2.3.10
33.
SeguraG. M. (2013). Behavorial and attitudinal components of immigrant political incorporation. In HochschildJ.ChattopadhyayJ.GayC.Jones-CorreaM. (Eds.), Outsiders No more? Models of immigrant political incorporation. Oxford University Press.
34.
SidaniusJ.PrattoF. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge University Press.
35.
SimonB.KlandermansB. (2001). Politicized collective identity: A social psychological analysis. American Psychologist, 56(4), 319–331. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.4.319
36.
SmithE. R. A. N. (1980). The levels of conceptualization: False measures of ideological sophistication. American Political Science Review, 74, 685–696. https://doi.org/10.2307/1958150
37.
TajfelH.TurnerJ. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behaviour. In WorchelandS.AustinW. G. (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations. Nelson-Hall.
38.
TateK. (1994). From protest to politics. Russell Sage Foundation.
39.
TurnerJ. C.ReynoldsK. J. (2003). The social identity perspective. In BrownandR.GaertnerS. (Ed.), Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Intergroup processess. Blackwell.
40.
UhlanerC. J.GarciaC. (2005). Learning which party fits: Experience, ethnic identity, and the demographic foundation of Latino party identification. In SeguraandG. M.BowlerS (Eds.), Diversity in democracy: Minority representation in the United States. University of Virginia Press.
41.
WestE. A.IyengarS. (2020). Partisanship as a social identity: Implication for polarization. Political Behavior, 44(1), 807–838. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-020-09637-y
42.
WongJ.RamakrishnanS. K.LeeT.JunnJ. (2011). Asian American political participation: Emerging constituents and their political identities. Russell Sage Foundation.
43.
ZallerJ. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge University Press.
44.
ZhengB. Q. (2019). The patterns of Asian Americans’ partisan choice: Policy preferences and racial consciousness. Social Science Quarterly, 100(5), 1593–1608. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.12652
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
