In a recent nationwide Zogby Interactive survey, respondents were asked, “Have you already or do you plan to be vaccinated against the H1N1 swine flu virus this year?” About 30% of the sample chose “I have already been vaccinated” or “Yes, I plan to be vaccinated.” A majority (62%) of the sample claimed to have no plan to be vaccinated. Another 8% chose “not sure.”
When the results are broken down by ideology, we find that liberals are most likely to plan on receiving the vaccine. About 48% of liberals are either already vaccinated or plan to be vaccinated, compared to 36% of moderates and 18% of conservatives and libertarians.
Have you been vaccinated against the H1N1 swine flu? If not, do you plan to be vaccinated? What do you think accounts for the ideological differences when it comes to flu vaccination?
We at Zogby have noticed that it is not uncommon for political analysts to treat moderate and independent voters as equivalent. However, in our recent Huffington Post article, we show that these two groups, while overlapping, are not the same. And in the case where main parties are strategizing to attract more voters, this distinction can be important.
Moderates are an ideological group that sits in the middle of ideological continuum between conservatives and liberals. On the other hand, independents are a group of people that doesn’t belong to the two main parties. Many of them are ideologically moderate, but important numbers of them aren’t, and the overall ideology of independents is tilted towards the right.
This fact is relevant for the discussion of whether Republican Party should become more or less conservative. On one hand, its members clearly want it to be more conservative, and this could attract some independent conservatives. On the other hand, if it moves too far, it will alienate independent moderates, a crucial swing-vote.
So the answer is, in a sense, that it should be both. This might sound impossible, but look at the Democrats! They have managed to capture both moderates and liberals. Such a large coalition is not always the easiest thing to manage but it is the only way for either party to be in power.
The November election is fast approaching and multiple races are gaining steam. One of those battles is a special election in our own neighborhood, New York’s 23th Congressional District, where a three-way race features Democrat Bill Owens, a Republican Dede Scozzafava, and one Doug Hoffman, who failed to secure Republican nomination and is now running as a Conservative Party candidate. However, this congressional race raises a lot of passion all over the country as well, with prominent Republicans, such as Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin taking opposing sides, and many notable commentators weighing in.
According to some commentators, the race is important because it might be a sign of things to come in the next election. The congressional seat in question has been in Republican hands for over a hundred years. If it turned blue, it would, at the very least, diminish some Democratic anxieties regarding the next election. However, many commentators also see the race as a gauge of the strength of conflicting strategic and ideological currents within Republican Party, with one side arguing for moderation and a move to the center, and the other side arguing for less compromise on principles and more ideological clarity. However, the interpretation of this election as a clash of visions has also been challenged.
Are you following this race? Do you think it will be a reliable sign of the things to come in 2010? Which strategy do you think would bring Republicans more power: moving towards the center or articulating a clearer ideology at the cost of moving away from the center? Do you think the importance of that narrative has been exaggerated?
We recently included several winning Top Question Tuesday selections on an interactive poll. Stay tuned to this blog as we’ll be releasing the results over the next several weeks!
One question asked whether respondents agreed or disagreed that anonymous internet bloggers should be required to reveal their identity if they post defamatory or untrue statements about another person on a website. Overall, 64% of the sample agreed that bloggers should be required to reveal their identity, while 24% disagreed and 12% were not sure.
Interesting patterns were found when examining the results by age group, ideology, and a few other demographics. Young people between 18 and 29 were the least likely to agree, with 36% of this group agreeing that bloggers should be required to reveal their identity if they post defamatory material. In comparison, 63% of those between 30 and 49, 75% of those between 50 and 64, and 83% of those over 65 agreed. The area where respondents lived also had an effect, with 75% of those living in small cities and 70% of those living in suburbs agreeing, compared to 56% of those living in large cities and 62% of those living in rural areas. Examining results by ideology yielded particularly interesting results , with 71% of moderates agreeing, 63% of both liberals and conservatives agreeing, and 58% of progressives and 52% of very conservatives also agreeing. Income, education, and gender had negligible effects.
Do you agree or disagree that anonymous bloggers should sometimes be required to reveal their identity? Why would moderates be more likely to agree while those at either ideological end of the spectrum are less likely to agree?
As President’s Obama poll numbers have dropped, there has been a surge of interest in the composition of the American ideological landscape. Some commentators have said, and some data supports this view, that the average American leans to the right rather than left.
The results of our recent Zogby Interactive survey support this view. When we asked a sample of 2500 adults to position themselves on a 1-9 ideological scale, where 1 referred to extremely liberal and 9 to an extremely conservative position, the average was 5.50 and the median was 6. 3. Democrats, who made up 38% of thes sample put themselves at 3.59 on average. Republicans, who comprised 31% of the sample, at 7.51. The average independent voter – a block that made up 28% of the sample – was at 5.85. All of this suggests that America leans to the right.
Do you think that as younger generations come of voting age, there will be a change? Where would you position yourself?
We recently included several winning Top Question Tuesday survey questions on a recent interactive survey. Stay tuned to the blog as we’ll be reporting the results of these questions here over the next several weeks!
One question included on this survey asked where people believed ideology originates. When asked whether a better predictor of people’s ideology and voting habts was their parents and immediate family or encounters with other people and ideas outside of their immediate family, 48% of those surveyed believe that ideology of parents and immediate family while 42% believed it came from encounters with people and ideas outside of immediate family.
Groups that were more likely to believe ideology of parents and immediate family was the stronger predictor include First Globals™ (those 18-29, at 55%), those with a college degree or higher (49%), those who live in the suburbs (49%), those who are married (49%), those who are conservative (51%) and very conservative (56%), and Republicans (53%).
Conversely, those more likely to believe that encounters with other people and ideas outside of the immediate family are the stronger predictor of ideology and voting habits include those over 65 (48%), those in civil unions or domestic partnerships (48%), progressives (47%), liberals (45%), moderates (47%), Democrats (45%) and independents (44%).
Do you believe that immediate family or other influences play a stronger role in where our ideology and voting patterns originate? Why?
Welcome to this week’s edition of Top Question Tuesday. Last week’s winning question asked about what predicts political ideology. We’ll put this question on an upcoming interactive survey and blog about the results soon.
This week’s user-submitted survey questions are below. The questions are shortened to save space on our blog post, but these are the basic ideas. Take a look though and then vote for which question you’d most like to see on the next Zogby Interactive survey. As a reminder, if you’d like to submit a question to be considered for a Zogby survey, use the “contact us” box on the right of the page. And if you’d like to join Zogby’s interactive panel to answer questions similar to these, click here.
1. Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree or strongly disagree with the statement that “there is no such thing as a free lunch”?
2. Are you more likely to read news stories from sources that agree with your political views, from sources that disagree with your political views, or from sources that are neutral?
3. Some people criticize fast food as being unhealthy and contributing to obesity. Do you believe that the type of food (such as fast food) or amount of food that contributes more to obesity?
Some psychologists believe that people gravitate to different ideologies because they hold different values and tastes. According to this general view, liberals and conservatives want different things, and, as a result, they are inevitably drawn towards different visions of society that is promoted by politicians of different parties. These different visions are not rationally chosen but are to a significant extent based on emotions and perhaps even innate preferences. Just a few days ago, for example, we discussed the possibility that conservatives are more easily disgusted than liberals.
Some of us at Zogby believe that this approach to ideology might be incomplete. Recently, we surveyed almost 5000 Americans to see what they believe about basic economic mechanisms. Though our questions were non-ideological, we found great differences among people of different ideologies regarding their economic beliefs – things that they believe to be the case, not that they would prefer to be the case. In fact, we found the correlation between economic beliefs and ideology to be almost three times stronger than between ideology and disgust, suggesting a significant role for knowledge and reasoning in ideological positioning. We presented these findings at the recent American Psychological Society Convention in San Francisco.
What is your view of the role of factual disagreements in ideology? Do you believe differing ideologies primarily result from our differing values or from our different beliefs about the world?
In his New York Times column today, Nicholas Kristof explores how psychological factors seem to pre-determine whether you are liberal or conservative. Kristof writes:
Studies suggest that conservatives are more often distressed by actions that seem disrespectful of authority, such as slapping Dad. Liberals don’t worry as long as Dad has given permission.
Likewise, conservatives are more likely than liberals to sense contamination or perceive disgust. People who would be disgusted to find that they had accidentally sipped from an acquaintance’s drink are more likely to identify as conservatives.
The upshot is that liberals and conservatives don’t just think differently, they also feel differently. This may even be a result, in part, of divergent neural responses.
The point about authority and ideology doesn’t break new ground, but the notion of disgust being tied to ideology is interesting. Kristof links to www.yourmorals.org, which provides psychological tests that measure a number of attitudes, including your tolerance for things disgusting. You can see your score relative to the norm as determined by others who took the test. Another test on the site measures political ideology.
I took the “disgust” test and found I am more easily disgusted than the norm. A firewall issue blocked me from taking the ideology test. However, I know my political beliefs, and they don’t correlate with my score on the disgust scale. Maybe that is because I am conservative in my lifestyle and behavior, but liberal politically.
How much credence do you put in psychological factors as an indicator of political beliefs? If we are hard-wired to be conservatives or liberals, is it possible to change people’s minds?
Welcome to this week’s edition of Top Question Tuesday. Last week’s winning question asked about whether you believe your political ideology has become more liberal, has become more conservative, or has not changed over your lifetime. We’ll put this question on an upcoming interactive survey and blog about the results soon.
This week’s user-submitted survey questions are below. The questions are shortened to save space on our blog post, but these are the basic ideas. Take a look though and then vote for which question you’d most like to see on the next Zogby Interactive survey. As a reminder, if you’d like to submit a question to be considered for a Zogby survey, use the “contact us” box on the right of the page. And if you’d like to join Zogby’s interactive panel to answer questions similar to these, click here.
1. In general, which do you think is a better predictor of people’s ideology and voting habits: the ideology of their parents and immediate family, or encounters with other people and ideas outside of their immediate family?
2. How concerned would you be if funding decreased for your local public library?
3. Where do you get most of your information and news about national and government issues – print newspapers, online newspapers, television, radio, magazines, other internet news sites, blogs, or someplace else?
The Zogby Report on the Transformation of the American Dream
Available Now
Order your copy today from one of these retailers:
Amazon.com, Barnes & Noble, Indie Bound, Powell’s, Borders, Random House
John Zogby invites you to be part of the The Way We’ll Be
Notes
"Unless otherwise noted, all data used on this blog comes from various surveys conducted by Zogby International. Please contact us with any additional questions relating to survey data and methodology."
Loading ...