Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Journal of Consumer Psychology 27, 4 (2017) 500 – 501

Research Dialogue
Political ideology drives consumer psychology: Introduction to
research dialogue
Sharon Shavitt
Department of Business Administration, University of Illinois, 350 Wohlers Hall, Champaign, Illinois 61822
Received 3 September 2017; accepted 4 September 2017

Accepted by Sharon Shavitt, Area Editor

How do liberals and conservatives differ? And does this
influence the ways they make consumption decisions? In a
target article that is sweeping in scope, John Jost, one of our
foremost political psychologists, examines evidence for differ-
ences between right-wing or conservative people and left-wing
or liberal people (Jost, 2017 – this issue). Reviewing the
burgeoning literature emerging from his own and others’
programs of research, and incorporating historical, literary, and
philosophical sources, Jost provides a fascinating and scholarly
overview, from which the left-right ideological divide emerges
as a fundamental distinction, spanning a range of personality,
cognitive, motivational, and linguistic differences, as well as
the neurological and physiological processes that underpin
them. What is novel about the body of work that Jost reviews is
the effort to understand how each side thinks – not only about
politics but about anything.
As I write this in summer of 2017, it is hard not to frame the
topic of political ideology within the controversies and tweets
of the moment. The context is fraught with division and unrest,
and understanding the role of political ideology in a range of
judgments and choices seems more urgent than ever. However,
as Jost points out, the left-right divergence, and the demoniza-
tion of each side by the other, has deep historical roots.
Understanding the psychology of liberals and conservatives can
inform a range of managerial decisions in any period.
Liberals are characterized by a desire for equality. They also
tend to be higher than conservatives in, for instance, tolerance
for uncertainty, openness to new experiences, and need for
cognition. Conservatives are characterized by a desire to
uphold traditional institutions and hierarchies. They tend to be
higher than liberals in such traits as conscientiousness,
orderliness, and rigidity (e.g., Carney, Jost, Gosling, & Potter,
2008; Jost, Glaser, Kruglanski, & Sulloway, 2003; Jost,
Sterling, & Stern, 2017). These differences are seen in the
types of products found in the home (Carney et al., 2008) –
e.g., conservatives have more stamps but liberals have more
stamp collections – and give rise to distinct cognitive
processing styles that manifest in receptivity to different types
of arguments (e.g., Jost & Krochik, 2014). Motivational
concerns also vary by ideology, particularly in terms of system
justifying motives (Jost & Banaji, 1994). Conservatives’
greater preferences for maintaining the status quo and
traditional divisions in society translate into a greater tendency
to use stereotypes in making a broad range of judgments (e.g.,
Stern, West, Jost, & Rule, 2013).
Similar ideological patterns have been observed in reactions
to products and advertising campaigns that confirm stereotypes
or support the status quo (e.g., Feygina, Jost, & Goldsmith,
2010; Jost, Langer, & Singh, in press; Jung, Garbarino, Briley,
& Wynhausen, 2017; Shepherd, Chartrand, & Fitzsimons,
2015), although work on such marketing implications has only
recently begun. One implication of this literature is that
conservatives are more likely than liberals to embrace brands,
because brands (at least, well managed ones) provide the
certainty and predictability that conservatives prefer. Conser-
vatives may even be more forgiving of brands under some
conditions: Research on judgments of counterstereotypical
targets (Stern, West, & Rule, 2015) implies that a brand with a
flaw (versus without) may be preferred, as long as the flaw is
congruent with stereotypes of the brand’s country of origin or
user community.
Three sets of expert reviews offer stimulating commentaries
on Jost’s piece, using his coverage as a point of departure to
develop interesting theoretical extensions. Rao (2017 – this
issue) emphasizes that ideological segments are dynamic and,
as one would expect, more nuanced than can be described by a

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jcps.2017.09.001
1057-7408/© 2017 Society for Consumer Psychology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
 S. Shavitt / Journal of Consumer Psychology 27, 4 (2017) 500–501
binary left-right distinction. His commentary highlights not
only the importance of understanding “the middle” – those
individuals who are not ideological purists but are often
undecided or changeable – but also offers a careful delineation
of the subgroups that comprise it. In describing the unique
psychological characteristics of the “undecided”, the “unin-
formed”, and the “uninvolved”, Rao offers a series of testable
hypotheses and actionable messaging strategies for reaching
each of these target groups.
(Oyserman and Schwarz, (2017 – this issue) address the
dynamic nature of ideological identity by focusing on the
power of the immediate context to define what “liberal” or
“conservative” means in the moment. They show that, like
other types of identity, a given ideological lens matters more
when it is made salient, and that its meaning can be
contextually constructed. These situational contingencies can
shift conservative versus liberal consumers’ interest in, for
instance, environmentally friendly products.
(Krishna and Sokolova, (2017 – this issue) address the
interplay between ideological differences and partisanship – the
strength of identification with political parties. They synthesize
a range of evidence for the conditions under which partisan
cues impact judgments, concluding that both heuristic and
effortful cognitive processes can underlie this impact. They also
propose a model of the interaction between ideology, party, and
systematic processing in driving voter choice, offering a useful
framework to guide future research.
In his thoughtful and scholarly response, Jost (2017 – this
issue) highlights how his perspective addresses both situational
(top-down) and personality (bottom-up) processes, embracing
the dynamic nature of ideological identity. And he provides
further evidence, including some previously unpublished data,
on ideological differences in the processes highlighted in the
commentaries, including emotion, social identification, parti-
sanship, and motivated reasoning.
References
Carney, D. R., Jost, J. T., Gosling, S. D., & Potter, J. (2008). The secret lives of
liberals and conservatives: Personality profiles, interaction styles, and the
things they leave behind. Political Psychology, 29, 807–840.
501
Jost, J. T. (2017). The marketplace of ideology: “Elective affinities” in political
psychology and their implications for consumer behavior. Journal of
Consumer Psychology, 27(4), 502–520 (this issue).
Jost, J. T., & Banaji, M. R. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system‐
justification and the production of false consciousness. British journal of
social psychology, 33(1), 1–27.
Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003). Political
conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129,
339–375.
Jost, J. T., & Krochik, M. (2014). Ideological differences in epistemic
motivation: Implications for attitude structure, depth of information
processing, susceptibility to persuasion, and stereotyping. Advances in
Motivation Science, 1, 181–231.
Jost, J. T., Langer, M., & Singh, V. (2017). The politics of buying, boycotting,
complaining, and disputing: An extension of the research program by Jung,
Garbarino Briley, & Wynhausen. Journal of Consumer Research, 44(3),
503–510.
Jost, J. T., Sterling, J., & Stern, C. (2017). Getting closure on conservatism, or
the politics of epistemic and existential motivation. In C. Kopetz, & A.
Fishbach (Eds.), The motivation-cognition interface; From the lab to the
real world: A Festschrift in honor of Arie W. Kruglanski. New York:
Psychology Press.
Jung, K., Garbarino, E., Briley, D., & Wynhausen, J. (2017). Blue and red
voices: Effects of political ideology on consumers’ complaining and
disputing behavior. Journal of Consumer Research Retrieved from: http://
dx.doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucx037.
Krishna, A., & Sokolova, T. (2017). A focus on partisanship: How it impacts
voting 3 behaviors and political attitudes. Journal of Consumer Psychology,
27(4), 537–545 (this issue).
Oyserman, D., & Schwarz, N. (2017). Conservatism as a situated identity:
Implications for consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology,
27(4), 532–536 (this issue).
Rao, A. R. (2017). Red, blue and purple states of mind: Segmenting the political
marketplace. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 27(4), 521–531 (this issue).
Shepherd, S., Chartrand, T. L., & Fitzsimons, G. J. (2015). When brands reflect
our ideal world: The values and brand preferences of consumers who
support versus reject society's dominant ideology. Journal of Consumer
Research, 42, 76–92.
Stern, C., West, T. V., Jost, J. T., & Rule, N. O. (2013). The politics of gaydar:
Ideological differences in the use of gendered cues in categorizing sexual
orientation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 520–541.
Stern, C., West, T. V., & Rule, N. O. (2015). Conservatives negatively evaluate
counterstereotypical people to maintain a sense of certainty. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences, 112, 15337–15342.