A regularity in the U.S. American politics is that liberals have more policy consensus than do conservatives, and both ideological groups have more consensus than moderates. One explanation for this is that conservatives’ local conformity paradoxically results in less consensus than liberals at the national level. If so, then the liberal consensus effect should also be observed in other countries. We test this using data from Europe. In the European Social Survey (country N = 38, participant N = 376,129), we find that on average leftists have more consensus than do rightists; however, we do not find this using the Eurobarometer (country N = 18, participant N = 375,830). In both data sources, we also observe variation in ideological differences between countries. These results suggest that there is a liberal/leftist consensus effect on average, that can be found in Europe and the United States, but there are also exceptions.
BarberáP.JostJ. T.NaglerJ.TuckerJ. A.BonneauR. (2015). Tweeting from left to right: Is online political communication more than an echo chamber?Psychological Science, 26, 1531–1542.
2.
BauerP. C.BarberáP.AckermannK.VenetzA. (2017). Is the left-right scale a valid measure of ideology?Political Behavior, 39, 553–583.
3.
BlancharJ. C.AlonzoM.AyohC.BlainK.EspinozaL.EstradaM.GillenJ.MarquezA.MiaoJ.OverbeckV.SloskyC.SrivatsanS.TalleyE.TuckerJ. (2021). A replication of Stern, West, and Schmitt (2014) indicates less false consensus among liberals than conservatives, but no false uniqueness. Social Psychology, 52, 197–202.
4.
BolgerN.ZeeK. S.Rossignac-MilonM.HassinR. R. (2019). Causal processes in psychology are heterogeneous. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148, 601–618.
5.
BoutylineA.WillerR. (2017). The social structure of political echo chambers: Variation in ideological homophily in online networks. Political Psychology, 38, 551–569.
6.
BrandtM. J.SleegersW. (2021). Evaluating belief system networks as a theory of political belief system dynamics. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 25, 159–185.
7.
BrandtM. J.Turner-ZwinkelsF. M.KarapirinlerB.Van LeeuwenF.BenderM.van OschY.AdamsB. (2021). The association between threat and politics depends on the type of threat, the political domain, and the country. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 47, 324–343.
8.
CapraraG. V.VecchioneM. (2018). On the left and right ideological divide: Historical accounts and contemporary perspectives. Political Psychology, 39, 49–83.
9.
ChirumboloA.AreniA.SensalesG. (2004). Need for cognitive closure and politics: Voting, political attitudes and attributional style. International Journal of Psychology, 39, 245–253.
10.
ConverseP. E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In ApterD. E. (Ed.), Ideology and discontent (pp. 206–261). The Free Press.
11.
EllisC.StimsonJ. A. (2012). Ideology in America. Cambridge University Press.
12.
European Social Survey. (2002). European Social Survey Round 1 data (Edition 6.6) [Data set]. Norwegian Centre for Research Data. https://doi.org/10.21338/NSD-ESS1-2002
13.
European Social Survey. (2004). European Social Survey Round 2 data (Edition 3.6) [Data set]. Norwegian Centre for Research Data. https://doi.org/10.21338/NSD-ESS2-2004
14.
European Social Survey. (2006). European Social Survey Round 3 data (Edition 3.7) [Data set]. Norwegian Centre for Research Data. https://doi.org/10.21338/NSD-ESS3-2006
15.
European Social Survey. (2008). European Social Survey Round 4 data (Edition 4.5) [Data set]. Norwegian Centre for Research Data. https://doi.org/10.21338/NSD-ESS4-2008
16.
European Social Survey. (2010). European Social Survey Round 5 data (Edition 3.4) [Data set]. Norwegian Centre for Research Data. https://doi.org/10.21338/NSD-ESS5-2010
17.
European Social Survey. (2012). European Social Survey Round 6 data (Edition 2.4) [Data set]. Norwegian Centre for Research Data. https://doi.org/10.21338/NSD-ESS6-2012
18.
European Social Survey. (2014). European Social Survey Round 7 data (Edition 2.2) [Data set]. Norwegian Centre for Research Data. https://doi.org/10.21338/NSD-ESS7-2014
19.
European Social Survey. (2016). European Social Survey Round 8 data (Edition 2.2) [Data set]. Norwegian Centre for Research Data. https://doi.org/10.21338/NSD-ESS8-2016
20.
European Social Survey. (2018). European Social Survey Round 9 data (Edition 3.1) [Data set]. Norwegian Centre for Research Data. https://doi.org/10.21338/NSD-ESS9-2018
21.
FeldmanS.JohnstonC. (2014). Understanding the determinants of political ideology: Implications of structural complexity. Political Psychology, 35, 337–358.
22.
GidronN. (in press). Many ways to be right: Cross-pressured voters in Western Europe. British Journal of Political Science.
23.
GrahamJ.HaidtJ.NosekB. A. (2009). Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 1029–1046.
24.
HanelP. H.ZarzecznaN.HaddockG. (2019). Sharing the same political ideology yet endorsing different values: Left- and right-wing political supporters are more heterogeneous than moderates. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 10, 874–882.
25.
HenrichJ.BoydR. (1998). The evolution of conformist transmission and the emergence of between-group differences. Evolution and Human Behavior, 19, 215–241.
26.
JohnstonC. D.LavineH. G.FedericoC. M. (2017). Open versus closed: Personality, identity, and the politics of redistribution. Cambridge University Press.
27.
JostJ. T.KrochikM.GaucherD.HennesE. P. (2009). Can a psychological theory of ideological differences explain contextual variability in the contents of political attitudes?Psychological Inquiry, 20, 183–188.
28.
JostJ. T.LedgerwoodA.HardinC. D. (2008). Shared reality, system justification, and the relational basis of ideological beliefs. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 171–186.
29.
JostJ. T.SterlingJ.SternC. (2017). Getting closure on conservatism, or the politics of epistemic and existential motivation. In KopetzC.FishbachA. (Eds.), The motivation-cognition interface, from the lab to the real world: A festschrift in honor of Arie W. Kruglanski. Routledge.
30.
KennyD. A.KashyD. A.CookW. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. Guilford Press.
31.
KnutsenO. R. (1998). Expert judgements of the left-right location of political parties: A comparative longitudinal study. West European Politics, 21, 63–94.
32.
KossowskaM.van HielA. V. (2003). The relationship between need for closure and conservative beliefs in Western and Eastern Europe. Political Psychology, 24, 501–518.
33.
LuptonR. N.MyersW. M.ThorntonJ. R. (2017). Party animals: Asymmetric ideological constraint among democratic and Republican party activists. Political Research Quarterly, 70, 889–904.
34.
MalkaA.SotoC. J.InzlichtM.LelkesY. (2014). Do needs for security and certainty predict cultural and economic conservatism? A cross-national analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106, 1031–1051.
35.
MasonL. (2018). Losing common ground: Social sorting and polarization. The Forum, 16, 47–66.
36.
OndishP.SternC. (2018). Liberals possess more national consensus on political attitudes in the United States: An examination across 40 years. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9, 935–943.
37.
PanJ.XuY. (2018). China’s ideological spectrum. The Journal of Politics, 80, 254–273.
38.
PuthillamA.KapoorH.KarandikarS. (2021). Beyond left and fight: A scale to measure political ideology in India. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/fg387
39.
SchmittH.ScholzE. (2005). The Mannheim Eurobarometer trend file, 1970-2002 (ICPSR 4357; Version V1) [Data set]. ICPSR. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR04357.v1
40.
StennerK. (2005). The authoritarian dynamic. Cambridge University Press.
41.
SternC.WestT. V.SchmittP. G. (2014). The liberal illusion of uniqueness. Psychological Science, 25, 137–144.
42.
ThorisdottirH.JostJ. T.LiviatanI.ShroutP. E. (2007). Psychological needs and values underlying left-right political orientation: Cross-national evidence from Eastern and Western Europe. Public Opinion Quarterly, 71, 175–203.
43.
Van HielA. (2012). A psycho-political profile of party activists and left-wing and right-wing extremists. European Journal of Political Research, 51, 166–203.
44.
WhitsettD. D.ShodaY. (2014). An approach to test for individual differences in the effects of situations without using moderator variables. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 50, 94–104.
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.
