1 / 15

Measuring a whole concept with only one item?

This presentation discusses the limitations of the Left-Right semantic differential scale in measuring political ideology, exploring alternative measurements and suggesting future research directions. The study highlights the need for caution in using the existing scale and emphasizes the importance of capturing both the institutional and personal levels of ideological thinking.

brindas
Télécharger la présentation

Measuring a whole concept with only one item?

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Measuring a whole concept with only one item? A criticism toward the Left-Right semantic differential scale Ágnes Szabó, Balázs Fehér, Nóra Miklós, Ádám Szabó, Judit Fodor Political Ideology Lab, ELTE Political Networking Conference for the Post-Communist Region, 25-27.11.2011.

  2. How can Left-Right orientation be measured? Limitations of Left-Right semantic differential scale Exploring the nature of the measurement What comes to mind during self-placement on the semantic differential scale? Foci of the presentation

  3. Measuring Left-Right orientation • Left-Right semantic differential scale • Kroh (2007): • Length of the scale • Middle point • Yuca (2004): international comparison • Developing vs. developed countries • Enyedi (2004): partypreference

  4. Frequency of answer refusal Problems surrounding the middle Fejlesztendő készségek jellemzői Three questions arise Extreme responses

  5. Method & Sample

  6. 1. Complex, can not be formulated 7. Societal issues 8. Classic Left-Right related values 9. Against Left-Right related values 10. Radical-moderate dimension 11. No answer 12. Space and time 2. Not a relevant dimension 3. Party-preference 4. Affective attitude 5. Ideologies, theoretical contents 6. Economical issues Category-system

  7. Classical values related to the Left (43%) Other (societal and economical issues, time and space …) Classical values related to the Right (33%) Ideological and theoretical contents (25%) Other (not relevant, complex …) „6” „2” • Classical Left-Right related values mixed! (22%) • Against Right (17%) • Space and time, affective attitude (13%) • Classical Left-Right related values mixed! (31%) • Not radical! (13%) • Party preference, ideological contents (15%) N=24 (13) N=39 (20) Results#1 „7” „1” N=7 (6) N=12 (6)

  8. „5” „3” • Classical Left-Right related values mixed! (18%) • Against Right (14%) • Not a relevant dimension (18%) • Economical issues (12%) • Classical Left-Right related values mixed! (33%) • Not a relevant dimension (24%) • Affective attitude (10%) • Societal issues (10%) N=54 (32) N=45 (23) „4” • Not a relevant dimension! (46%, N=33) • + Complex (7%, N=5) • Classical Classic Left-Right related values mixed! (14%) • Radical-moderate dimension (9%, N=6) N=77 (44) Results #2

  9. Results1 Summary of criticism • The only existing measurement  validation? • What do they have in mind? (ideological content, personal liking, general values, …) • Party preferences = real ideological views? • Comparability? • Mixed with R-M and C-L dimensions • Respondents of one certain value: not a coherent group! Limitation and (minor) conclusion: • Representativeness of our respondent pool • Only one accepted measurement: limits Political Science!

  10. Results1 General conclusions • Key - two main levels of ideological content: institutional and personal! • what voters believe regarding political parties and the makers of politics; • what they individually think of the content and the meaning of ideologies (such as: state intervention, religion, for/against the previous system, equality). • The nature of their relationship: overlapping, cross-influencing • Capture • self-placement scale: institutional level of ideological thinking • personal level: ?

  11. Results1 Solutions and suggestions for future research • Keep the self-placement scale, but with extra caution • New measurements in order to • provide an alternative • capture the individual level • improve validity • be used more as dependent variables • More qualitative analysis! • Our own scale (Fehér et al 2011): 45 items • Future of criticism: • debate • improvement: more valid results + interpretation!

  12. Thank you very much for your attention! Political Ideology Lab Ágnes SZABÓ: szabo.agnes@ppk.elte.hu Balázs FEHÉR: balkave@ppk.elte.hu

  13. Figure II. Distribution of Left-Right semantic differential scale

  14. Table II. Frequency of main categories

  15. Left-Right is not a simple dimension - Clusters Characteristics of Clusters related to the Factors Religion 1,30 1,2 Economic Policy 0,9 0,97 Tolerance 0,6 0,64 0,64 0,3 Z-value 0,09 0,0 -0,05 -0,08 -0,34 -0,3 -0,42 -0,6 -0,69 -0,80 -0,85 -0,9 Classic Right- Ambivalent Intolerant-not Classic Left- Orientation religious Orientation

More Related