View source for Political spectrum

{{short description|Graphical system to visually classify political positions}}
{{redirect|Political compass|the website|The Political Compass}}{{For|the system of classifying political positions|Left–right political spectrum}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=January 2025}}
{{party politics}}

A '''political spectrum''' is a system to characterize and classify different [[Politics|political positions]] in relation to one another. These positions sit upon one or more [[Geometry|geometric]] [[Coordinate axis|axes]] that represent independent political dimensions.<ref name=":0" /> The expressions '''political compass''' and '''political map''' are used to refer to the political spectrum as well, especially to popular two-dimensional models of it.<ref name=":5">{{Cite journal|last=Petrik|first=Andreas|date=3 December 2010|title=Core Concept "Political Compass". How Kitschelt's Model of Liberal, Socialist, Libertarian and Conservative Orientations Can Fill the Ideology Gap in Civic Education|url=http://www.jsse.org/index.php/jsse/article/view/541/538|journal=Journal of Social Science Education|language=en|pages=4–2010: Social Science Literacy I: In Search for Basic Competences and Basic Concepts for Testing and Diagnosing|doi=10.4119/jsse-541|access-date=27 June 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190622050457/http://www.jsse.org/index.php/jsse/article/view/541/538|archive-date=22 June 2019|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref name=":6">{{Cite journal|last1=Sznajd-Weron|first1=Katarzyna|last2=Sznajd|first2=Józef|date=June 2005|title=Who is left, who is right?|journal=Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications|language=en|volume=351|issue=2–4|pages=593–604|doi=10.1016/j.physa.2004.12.038|bibcode=2005PhyA..351..593S}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Lester|first=J. C.|date=September 1996|title=The Political Compass and Why Libertarianism is not Right-Wing|journal=Journal of Social Philosophy|language=en|volume=27|issue=2|pages=176–186|doi=10.1111/j.1467-9833.1996.tb00245.x|s2cid=144774197 |issn=0047-2786|url=https://philpapers.org/rec/JCLTPC}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Stapleton|first=Julia|date=October 1999|title=Resisting the Centre at the Extremes: 'English' Liberalism in the Political Thought of Interwar Britain|journal=The British Journal of Politics and International Relations|language=en|volume=1|issue=3|pages=270–292|doi=10.1111/1467-856X.00016|s2cid=143494130|issn=1369-1481}}</ref>

Most long-standing spectra include the [[Left–right politics|left–right]] dimension as a measure of social, political and economic [[Social hierarchy|hierarchy]] which originally referred to seating arrangements in the French parliament after the [[French Revolution|Revolution]] (1789–1799), with [[Classical radicalism|radicals]] on [[Left-wing politics|the left]] and [[Aristocracy|aristocrats]] on [[Right-wing politics|the right]].<ref name=":0">{{Cite book|title=Political Ideologies: An Introduction|last=Heywood|first=Andrew|publisher=Macmillan International Higher Education|year=2017|isbn=9781137606044|edition= 6th|location=Basingstoke|pages=14–17|oclc=988218349}}</ref><ref name="Knapp5ed">{{cite book |author1=Knapp, Andrew |author2=Wright, Vincent |title=The Government and Politics of France |date=2006 |publisher=Taylor and Francis |isbn=978-0-203-40260-3 |edition= 5 |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=RF7ncOmei98C |language=en |chapter-format=ebk |chapter=1 French political traditions in a changing context |quote=France invented the terms Left and Right early in the great Revolution of 1789– 94 which first limited the powers of, and then overthrew, the Bourbon monarchy.}}{{dead link|date=October 2019}}</ref> While [[communism]] and [[socialism]] are usually regarded internationally as being on the left, [[conservatism]] and [[Reactionary|reactionism]] are generally regarded as being on the right.<ref name=":0" /> Liberalism can mean different things in different contexts, being sometimes on the left ([[social liberalism]]) and other times on the right ([[conservative liberalism]] or [[classical liberalism]]). Those with an intermediate outlook are sometimes classified as [[Centrism|centrists]]. Politics that rejects the conventional left–right spectrum is often known as [[syncretic politics]].<ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=3ssUAQAAIAAJ|title=Fascism|last=Griffin|first=Roger|publisher=Oxford University Press|year=1995|isbn=978-0-19-289249-2|pages=8,307}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=tP2wXl5nzboC|title=The fascism reader|last=Eatwell|first=Roger|publisher=Routledge|year=2003|isbn=978-0-415-24359-9|editor-last=Kallis|editor-first=Aristotle A.|page=71|chapter=A 'Spectral-Syncretic' Approach to Fascism|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=tP2wXl5nzboC&pg=PA71}}</ref> This form of politics has been criticized as tending to mischaracterize positions that have a logical location on a two-axis spectrum because they seem randomly brought together on a one-axis left–right spectrum.

Some [[Political science|political scientists]] have noted that a single left–right axis is too simplistic and insufficient for describing the existing variation in political beliefs and include other axes to compensate for this problem.<ref name=":0" /><ref name=":4">{{Cite book|title=Government Politics in Australia|last1=Fenna|first1=Alan|last2=Robbins|first2=Jane|last3=Summers|first3=John|publisher=Pearson Higher Education AU|others=Robbins, Jane., Summers, John.|year=2013|isbn=9781486001385|edition= 10th|location=Melbourne|pages=126 f|oclc=1021804010}}</ref> Although the descriptive words at polar opposites may vary, the axes of popular biaxial spectra are usually split between economic issues (on a left–right dimension) and socio-cultural issues (on an authority–liberty dimension).<ref name=":0" /><ref name=":3">{{Cite book|title=Understanding Dogmas and Dreams|last=Love|first=Nancy Sue|publisher=CQ Press|year=2006|isbn=9781483371115|edition= Second|location=Washington, District of Columbia|pages=16|oclc=893684473}}</ref>

== Historical origin of the terms ==
[[File:Estatesgeneral.jpg|thumb|upright=1.35|The 5 May 1789 opening of the [[Estates General of 1789]] in Versailles]]
The terms ''right'' and ''left'' refer to political affiliations originating early in the French Revolutionary era of 1789–1799 and referred originally to the seating arrangements in the [[Glossary of the French Revolution#Governmental structures|various legislative bodies]] of [[France]].<ref name="Knapp5ed"/> As seen from the [[Speaker (politics)|Speaker]]'s seat at the front of the Assembly, the [[aristocracy]] sat on the right (traditionally the seat of honor) and the [[commoner]]s sat on the left, hence the terms [[right-wing politics]] and [[left-wing politics]].<ref name="Knapp5ed"/>

Originally, the defining point on the ideological spectrum was the ''[[Ancien Régime]]'' ("old order"). "The Right" thus implied support for aristocratic or royal interests and the church, while "The Left" implied support for [[republicanism]], [[secularism]] and [[civil liberties]].<ref name="Knapp5ed"/>

== Academic investigation ==

For almost a century, social scientists have considered the problem of how to best describe political variation.

=== Leonard W. Ferguson ===
In 1950, Leonard W. Ferguson analyzed political values using ten scales measuring attitudes toward: [[birth control]], [[capital punishment]], [[censorship]], [[communism]], [[evolution]], [[law]], [[patriotism]], [[theism]], treatment of [[criminals]] and [[war]]. Submitting the results to [[factor analysis]], he was able to identify three factors, which he named [[Religion|religionism]], [[humanitarianism]] and [[nationalism]]. He defined religionism as [[belief in God]] and negative attitudes toward [[evolution]] and [[birth control]]; humanitarianism as being related to attitudes opposing war, capital punishment and harsh [[Criminal justice|treatment of criminals]]; and nationalism as describing variation in opinions on censorship, law, patriotism and communism.

This system was derived empirically, as rather than devising a political model on purely theoretical grounds and testing it, Ferguson's research was exploratory. As a result of this method, care must be taken in the interpretation of Ferguson's three factors, as factor analysis will output an abstract factor whether an objectively real factor exists or not.<ref>SAS(R) 3.11 Users Guide, [http://support.sas.com/documentation/cdl/en/stsug/62259/HTML/default/viewer.htm#ugmultfactor.htm Multivariate Analysis: Factor Analysis]</ref> Although replication of the nationalism factor was inconsistent, the finding of religionism and humanitarianism had a number of replications by Ferguson and others.<ref>{{cite journal |author=Ferguson, L.W. |title=The Stability of the Primary Social Attitudes: I. Religionism and Humanitarianism |journal=Journal of Psychology |volume=12 |issue=2 |pages=283–8 |year=1941 |doi=10.1080/00223980.1941.9917075 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |author=Kirkpatrick, C. |title=Religion and humanitarianism: a study of institutional implications |journal= Psychological Monographs: General and Applied|volume=63 |issue=9 |pages=i-23 |year=1949 |doi=10.1037/h0093615 }}</ref>

=== Hans Eysenck ===
[[File:Political spectrum Eysenck.png|thumb|Diagram of the political spectrum according to Hans Eysenck]]
Shortly afterward, [[Hans Eysenck]] began researching political attitudes in the [[United Kingdom]]. He believed that there was something essentially similar about the fascism of the National Socialists ([[Nazism|Nazis]]) on the one hand and the communists on the other, despite their opposite positions on the [[Left–right politics|left–right axis]]. As Hans Eysenck described in his 1956 book ''Sense and Nonsense in Psychology'',<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ditext.com/eysenck/politics.html|title=politics|access-date=5 May 2016}}</ref> Eysenck compiled a list of political statements found in newspapers and political tracts and asked subjects to rate their agreement or disagreement with each. Submitting this value questionnaire to the same process of [[factor analysis]] used by Ferguson, Eysenck drew out two factors, which he named "Radicalism" (R-factor) and "Tender-Mindedness" (T-factor).

Such analysis produces a factor whether or not it corresponds to a real-world phenomenon and so caution must be exercised in its interpretation. While Eysenck's R-factor is easily identified as the classical "left–right" dimension, the T-factor (representing a factor drawn at right angles to the R-factor) is less intuitive, as high-scorers favored [[pacifism]], [[racial equality]], [[religious education]] and restrictions on [[abortion]], while low-scorers had attitudes more friendly to [[militarism]], harsh [[punishment]], easier [[divorce]] laws and [[Triangular theory of love|companionate]] marriage.

According to social scientist Bojan Todosijevic, radicalism was defined as positively viewing evolution theory, strikes, welfare state, mixed [[marriage]]s, student protests, law reform, women's liberation, United Nations, nudist camps, pop-music, modern art, immigration, abolishing private property, and rejection of patriotism. Conservatism was defined as positively viewing white superiority, birching, death penalty, antisemitism, opposition to nationalization of property, and birth control. Tender-mindedness was defined by moral training, inborn conscience, Bible truth, chastity, self-denial, pacifism, anti-discrimination, being against the death penalty and harsh treatment of criminals. Tough-mindedness was defined by compulsory sterilization, euthanasia, easier divorce laws, racism, antisemitism, compulsory military training, wife swapping, casual living, death penalty, and harsh treatment of criminals.
<ref>{{cite book |last1=Todosijevic |first1=Bojan |title=Political Attitudes and Mentalities. Eastern European Political Cultures: Modeling Studies |date=2013 |publisher=ArsDocendi-Bucharet University Press |pages=23–52 |url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279512916}}</ref>

Despite the difference in [[methodology]], [[location (geography)|location]] and [[theory]], the results attained by Eysenck and Ferguson matched. Simply rotating Eysenck's two factors 45 degrees renders the same factors of religionism and humanitarianism identified by Ferguson in America.<ref name="Eysenck">{{cite book |author=Eysenck, H.J. |title=Sense and nonsense in psychology |url=https://archive.org/details/sensenonsenseinp00eyse |url-access=registration |publisher=Penguin Books |location=London |year=1956 }}</ref>

Eysenck's dimensions of R and T were found by factor analyses of values in [[Germany]] and [[Sweden]],<ref>{{cite journal |author=Eysenck, H.J. |title=Primary social attitudes: A comparison of attitude patterns in England, Germany, and Sweden |journal=Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology |volume=48 |issue=4 |pages=563–8 |year=1953 |doi=10.1037/h0054347 |pmid=13108438 }}</ref> [[France]]<ref name="Eysenck" /> and [[Japan]].<ref>{{cite book |author=Dator, J.A. |chapter=Measuring attitudes across cultures: A factor analysis of the replies of Japanese judges to Eysenck's inventory of conservative-progressive ideology |editor1-last=Schubert |editor2-first=David Joseph |editor2-last=Danelski |title=Comparative judicial behavior: cross-cultural studies of political decision-making in the East and West |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Yz5BAAAAIAAJ |year=1969 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-631779-3 |editor1-first=Glendon A.}}</ref>

One interesting result Eysenck noted in his 1956 work was that in the [[United States]] and the United Kingdom, most of the political variance was subsumed by the left/right axis, while in France the T-axis was larger and in the [[Middle East]] the only dimension to be found was the T-axis: "Among mid-Eastern Arabs it has been found that while the tough-minded/tender-minded dimension is still clearly expressed in the relationships observed between different attitudes, there is nothing that corresponds to the [[Political radicalism|radical]]-[[conservative]] continuum".<ref name="Eysenck" />

==== Relationship between Eysenck's political views and political research ====
Eysenck's political views related to his research: Eysenck was an outspoken opponent of what he perceived as the [[authoritarian]] abuses of the left and right, and accordingly he believed that with this T axis he had found the link between [[Nazism]] and [[communism]]. According to Eysenck, members of both [[ideologies]] were tough-minded. Central to Eysenck's thesis was the claim that tender-minded ideologies were [[Democratic ideologies|democratic]] and friendly to [[human freedom]]s, while tough-minded ideologies were [[aggressive]] and authoritarian, a claim that is open to political criticism. In this context, Eysenck carried out studies on Nazism and communist groups, claiming to find members of both groups to be more "dominant" and more "aggressive" than control groups.<ref name="Eysenck" />

Eysenck left [[Nazi Germany]] to live in Britain and was not shy in attacking [[Stalinism]], citing the [[antisemitic]] prejudices of the Russian government, the luxurious lifestyles of the [[Soviet Union]] leadership and the [[Orwellian]] "[[doublethink]]" of East Germany's naming itself the [[German Democratic Republic]] despite being "one of the most [[Dictatorship|undemocratic]] regimes in the world today".<ref>Eysenck, H.J. (1981). "Left-Wing Authoritarianism: Myth or Reality?, by Hans J. Eysenck" ''Political Psychology''</ref> While Eysenck was an opponent of Nazism, his relationship with [[fascist]] organizations was more complex. Eysenck himself lent theoretical support to the English [[National Party (UK, 1976)|National Party]], which also opposed [[Hitler]]ite Nazism, and was interviewed in the first issue of their journal ''The Beacon'' in relation to his controversial views on relative intelligence between different races.<ref>"An Interview with Prof. Hans Eysenck", ''Beacon'' February 1977</ref><ref>Stephen Rose, "Racism" ''Nature'' 14 September 1978, volume 275, page 86</ref> At one point during the interview, Eysenck was asked whether or not he was of Jewish origin before the interviewer proceeded.<ref>Billig, Michael. (1979) "Psychology, Racism and Fascism", Chapter 6, footnote #70. Published by A.F. & R. Publications.</ref> His political allegiances were called into question by other researchers, notably [[Steven Rose]], who alleged that his scientific research was used for political purposes.<ref>Stephen Rose, "Racism Refuted", ''Nature'' 24 August 1978, volume 274, page 738</ref><ref>Stephen Rose, "Racism", ''Nature'' 14 September 1978, volume 275, page 86</ref>

==== Subsequent criticism of Eysenck's research ====
Eysenck's conception of tough-mindedness has been criticized for a number of reasons.
* Virtually no values were found to load only on the tough/tender dimension.
* The interpretation of tough-mindedness as a manifestation of "authoritarian" versus tender-minded "democratic" values was incompatible with the [[Frankfurt School]]'s [[single-axis model]], which conceptualized authoritarianism as being a fundamental manifestation of conservatism and many researchers took issue with the idea of "left-wing authoritarianism".<ref>{{cite journal |author=Stone, W.F. |title=The myth of left-wing authoritarianism |journal=Political Psychology |volume=2 |issue=3/4 |pages=3–19 |year=1980 |jstor=3790998 |doi=10.2307/3790998}}</ref>
* The theory which Eysenck developed to explain individual variation in the observed dimensions, relating tough-mindedness to [[extroversion]] and [[psychoticism]], returned ambiguous research results.<ref>{{cite journal |author1=Ray, J.J. |author2=Bozek, R.S. |title=Authoritarianism and Eysenck's P-scale |journal=Journal of Social Psychology |volume=113 |issue=2 |pages=231–4 |year=1981 |doi=10.1080/00224545.1981.9924374 }}</ref>
* Eysenck's finding that Nazis and communists were more tough-minded than members of mainstream political movements was criticized on technical grounds by [[Milton Rokeach]].<ref>{{cite journal |author1=Rokeach, Milton |author2=Hanley, Charles |title=Eysenck's Tender-Mindedness Dimension: A critique |journal=Psychological Bulletin |volume=53 |issue=2 |pages=169–176 |date=March 1956 |doi=10.1037/h0045968 |pmid=13297921}}</ref>
* Eysenck's method of analysis involves the finding of an abstract dimension (a factor) that explains the spread of a given set of data (in this case, scores on a political survey). This abstract dimension may or may not correspond to a real material phenomenon and obvious problems arise when it is applied to human psychology. The second factor in such an analysis (such as Eysenck's T-factor) is the second best explanation for the spread of the data, which is by definition drawn at right angles to the first factor. While the first factor, which describes the bulk of the variation in a set of data, is more likely to represent something objectively real, subsequent factors become more and more abstract. Thus one would expect to find a factor that roughly corresponds to "left" and "right", as this is the dominant framing for politics in our society, but the basis of Eysenck's "tough/tender-minded" thesis (the second, T-factor) may well represent nothing beyond an abstract mathematical construct. Such a construct would be expected to appear in factor analysis whether or not it corresponded to something real, thus rendering Eysenck's thesis [[Falsifiability|unfalsifiable]] through factor analysis.<ref>Wiggins, J.S. (1973) Personality and Prediction: Principles of Personality Assessment. Addison-Wesley</ref><ref>Lykken, D. T. (1971) Multiple factor analysis and personality research. ''Journal of Experimental Research in Personality'' 5: 161–170.</ref><ref>Ray JJ (1973) Factor analysis and attitude scales. ''The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology'' 9(3):11–12.</ref>

=== Milton Rokeach ===
Dissatisfied with Hans J. Eysenck's work, [[Milton Rokeach]] developed his own two-axis model of political values in 1973, basing this on the ideas of [[Freedom (political)|freedom]] and [[Social equality|equality]], which he described in his book, ''The Nature of Human Values''.<ref name="Rokeach">{{cite book|first=Milton|last=Rokeach|title=The nature of human values|url=https://archive.org/details/natureofhumanval00roke|url-access=registration|year=1973|publisher=Free Press}}</ref>

Rokeach claimed that the defining difference between the left and right was that the left stressed the importance of equality more than the right. Despite his criticisms of Eysenck's tough–tender axis, Rokeach also postulated a basic similarity between [[communism]] and [[Nazism]], claiming that these groups would not value freedom as greatly as more conventional [[Social democracy|social democrats]], [[Democratic socialism|democratic socialists]] and [[Capitalism|capitalists]] would and he wrote that "the two value model presented here most resembles Eysenck's hypothesis".<ref name="Rokeach"/>

To test this model, Rokeach and his colleagues used [[content analysis]] on works exemplifying Nazism (written by [[Adolf Hitler]]), communism (written by [[Vladimir Lenin]]), capitalism (by [[Barry Goldwater]]) and [[socialism]] (written by various authors). This method has been criticized for its reliance on the experimenter's familiarity with the content under analysis and its dependence on the researcher's particular political outlooks.

Multiple raters made frequency counts of sentences containing [[synonyms]] for a number of values identified by Rokeach—including freedom and equality—and Rokeach analyzed these results by comparing the relative frequency rankings of all the values for each of the four texts:
* Socialists (socialism) — freedom ranked 1st, equality ranked 2nd
* Hitler (Nazism) – freedom ranked 16th, equality ranked 17th
* Goldwater (capitalism) — freedom ranked 1st, equality ranked 16th
* Lenin (communism) — freedom ranked 17th, equality ranked 1st

Later studies using samples of American [[ideologue]]s<ref>{{cite journal|author1=Rous, G.L.|author2=Lee, D.E.|title=Freedom and Equality: Two values of political orientation|journal=Journal of Communication|volume=28|pages=45–51|date=Winter 1978|doi=10.1111/j.1460-2466.1978.tb01561.x}}</ref> and [[United States presidential inauguration|American presidential inaugural address]]es attempted to apply this model.<ref>{{cite journal|author1=Mahoney, J.|author2=Coogle, C.L.|author3=Banks, P.D.|title=Values in presidential inaugural addresses: A test of Rokeach's two-factor theory of political ideology|journal=Psychological Reports|volume=55|pages=683–6|year=1984|url=http://ammonsscientific.com/link.php?N=7553|doi=10.2466/pr0.1984.55.3.683|issue=3|s2cid=145103089|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130514224946/https://ammonsscientific.com/link.php?N=7553|archive-date=14 May 2013|url-access=subscription}}</ref>

=== Later research ===
In further research,<ref>{{cite journal|author=Eysenck, Hans|title=The structure of social attitudes|journal=Psychological Reports|volume=39|pages=463–6|year=1976|url=http://ammonsscientific.com/link.php?N=20755|doi=10.2466/pr0.1976.39.2.463|issue=2|s2cid=145323731|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130514221552/https://ammonsscientific.com/link.php?N=20755|archive-date=14 May 2013|url-access=subscription}}{{Expression of Concern|doi=10.1177/0033294120901991|pmid=32037970|http://retractionwatch.com/2020/02/12/journals-retract-three-papers-by-hans-eysenck-flag-18-some-60-years-old/ ''Retraction Watch''}}</ref> Eysenck refined his [[methodology]] to include more questions on [[Economics|economic issues]]. Doing this, he revealed a split in the left–right axis between [[social policy]] and [[economic policy]], with a previously undiscovered dimension of socialism-capitalism (S-factor).

While factorially distinct from Eysenck's previous R factor, the S-factor did positively [[correlate]] with the R-factor, indicating that a basic left–right or right–left tendency underlies both [[value (ethics)|social values]] and [[value system|economic values]], although S tapped more into items discussing [[economic inequality]] and [[big business]], while R relates more to the treatment of criminals and to [[Human sexuality|sexual]] issues and [[military]] issues.

Another replication came from [[Ronald Inglehart]]'s research into national [[opinions]] based on the [[World Values Survey]], although Inglehart's research described the values of [[Country|countries]] rather than [[individuals]] or [[Group (sociology)|groups]] of individuals within [[nations]]. Inglehart's two-factor solution took the form of Ferguson's original religionism and humanitarianism dimensions; Inglehart labelled them "secularism–traditionalism", which covered issues of tradition and religion, like patriotism, [[abortion]], [[euthanasia]] and the importance of [[Obedience (human behavior)|obeying]] the law and [[authority figure]]s, and "survivalism – self expression", which measured issues like everyday conduct and dress, acceptance of [[Diversity (politics)|diversity]] (including [[Alien (law)|foreigners]]) and [[innovation]] and [[Attitude (psychology)|attitudes]] towards people with specific controversial [[Lifestyle (sociology)|lifestyles]] such as [[homosexuality]] and [[vegetarianism]], as well as willingness to engage in political [[activism]]. See<ref name="worldvaluessurvey.org">{{cite web|url=http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/wvs/articles/folder_published/article_base_54|title=The WVS Cultural Map of the World|author1=Inglehart, Ronald|author2=Welzel, Christian|publisher=World Values Survey|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111031062726/http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/wvs/articles/folder_published/article_base_54|archive-date=31 October 2011|url-status=dead|access-date=18 December 2013}}</ref> for Inglehart's national chart.

Though not directly related to Eysenck's research, evidence suggests there may be as many as 6 dimensions of political opinions in the United States and 10 dimensions in the United Kingdom. This conclusion was based on two large datasets and uses a Bayesian approach rather than the traditional factor analysis method.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Lewenberg |first1=Yoad |title=Political dimensionality estimation using a probabilistic graphic model |journal=Proceedings of the Thirty-Second Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence |date=June 2016 |pages=447–456}}</ref>

== Other double-axis models ==
=== Greenberg and Jonas: left–right, ideological rigidity ===
In a 2003 ''[[Psychological Bulletin]]'' paper,<ref>{{cite journal |author1=Greenberg, J. |author2=Jonas, E. |author2-link=Eva Jonas |title=Psychological Motives and Political Orientation—The Left, the Right, and the Rigid: Comment on Jost et al. (2003) |journal=[[Psychological Bulletin]] |volume=129 |issue=3 |pages=376–382 |year=2003 |doi=10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.376 |pmid=12784935 |url=http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/resources_files/ConsevatismAsMotivatedSocialCognition_Critique.pdf |author1-link=Jeff Greenberg (professor) |citeseerx=10.1.1.396.6599 |access-date=24 April 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080407130351/http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/resources_files/ConsevatismAsMotivatedSocialCognition_Critique.pdf |archive-date=7 April 2008 |url-status=dead }}</ref> [[Jeff Greenberg (professor)|Jeff Greenberg]] and [[Eva Jonas]] posit a model comprising the standard left–right axis and an axis representing ideological rigidity. For Greenberg and Jonas, ideological rigidity has "much in common with the related concepts of dogmatism and authoritarianism" and is characterized by "believing in strong leaders and submission, preferring one's own in-group, ethnocentrism and nationalism, aggression against dissidents, and control with the help of police and military". Greenberg and Jonas posit that high ideological rigidity can be motivated by "particularly strong needs to reduce fear and uncertainty" and is a primary shared characteristic of "people who subscribe to any extreme government or ideology, whether it is right-wing or left-wing".

=== Inglehart: traditionalist–secular and self expressionist–survivalist ===
[[File:Inglehart Values Map.svg|thumb|A recreation of the [[Ronald Inglehart|Inglehart]]–[[Christian Welzel|Welzel]] cultural map of the world based on the [[World Values Survey]] More recent versions can be found on the WVS website: [https://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/WVSContents.jsp?CMSID=Findings] ]]
In its 4 January 2003 issue, ''[[The Economist]]'' discussed a chart,<ref name="worldvaluessurvey.org"/> proposed by [[Ronald Inglehart]] and supported by the [[World Values Survey]] (associated with the [[University of Michigan]]), to plot cultural ideology onto two dimensions. On the y-axis it covered issues of tradition and religion, like [[patriotism]], [[abortion]], [[euthanasia]] and the importance of [[Obedience (human behavior)|obeying]] the law and authority figures. At the bottom of the chart is the traditionalist position on issues like these (with loyalty to country and family and respect for life considered important), while at the top is the secular position. The x-axis deals with self-expression, issues like everyday conduct and dress, acceptance of [[Diversity (politics)|diversity]] (including foreigners) and [[innovation]], and attitudes towards people with specific controversial lifestyles such as [[vegetarianism]], as well as willingness to engage in political [[activism]]. At the right of the chart is the open [[Self-expression Values|self-expressionist]] position, while at the left is its opposite position, which Inglehart calls survivalist. This chart not only has the power to map the values of individuals, but also to compare the values of people in different countries. Placed on this chart, European Union countries in continental Europe come out on the top right, Anglophone countries on the middle right, Latin American countries on the bottom right, African, Middle Eastern and South Asian countries on the bottom left and ex-Communist countries on the top left.

=== Pournelle: liberty–control, irrationalism–rationalism ===
{{main|Pournelle chart}}
This very distinct two-axis model was created by [[Jerry Pournelle]] in 1963 for his doctoral dissertation in political science. The [[Pournelle chart]] has [[liberty]] on one axis, with those on the left seeking freedom from control or protections for [[Deviance (sociology)|social deviance]] and those on the right emphasizing state authority or protections for [[Norm (sociology)|norm]] enforcement (farthest right being state worship, farthest left being the idea of a state as the "ultimate evil").  The other axis is [[rationalism]], defined here as the belief in planned social progress, with those higher up believing that there are problems with society that can be rationally solved and those lower down skeptical of such approaches.

=== Mitchell: ''Eight Ways to Run the Country'' ===
[[File:Mitchell's Eight Political Americans.png|thumb|Mitchell's Eight Political Americans]]
[[File:Mitchell's Eight Ways.png|thumb|Mitchell's Eight Ways]]In 2006, [[Brian Patrick Mitchell]] identified four main political traditions in Anglo-American history based on their regard for ''kratos'' (defined as the use of force) and ''[[archē]]'' or "archy" (defined as the recognition of rank).<ref>{{cite book |first=Brian Patrick |last=Mitchell |title=Eight ways to run the country: a new and revealing look at left and right |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Hg0epWuFdRcC |year=2007 |publisher=Greenwood Publishing |isbn=978-0-275-99358-0}}</ref> Mitchell grounded the distinction of archy and kratos in the West's historical experience of church and state, crediting the collapse of the Christian consensus on church and state with the appearance of four main divergent traditions in Western political thought:
* [[Republicanism|Republican]] [[constitutionalism]] = pro archy, anti kratos
* [[Libertarianism|Libertarian]] [[individualism]] = anti archy, anti kratos
* [[Democracy|Democratic]] [[progressivism]] = anti archy, pro kratos
* [[Plutocratic]] [[nationalism]] = pro archy, pro kratos

Mitchell charts these traditions graphically using a vertical axis as a scale of kratos/[[akrateia]] and a horizontal axis as a scale of archy/[[anarchy]]. He places democratic progressivism in the lower left, plutocratic nationalism in the lower right, republican constitutionalism in the upper right, and libertarian individualism in the upper left. The political left is therefore distinguished by its rejection of archy, while the political right is distinguished by its acceptance of archy. For Mitchell, anarchy is not the absence of government but the rejection of rank. Thus there can be both anti-government [[anarchists]] (Mitchell's "libertarian individualists") and pro-government anarchists (Mitchell's "democratic progressives", who favor the use of government force against social hierarchies such as [[patriarchy]]). Mitchell also distinguishes between [[Left anarchism|left-wing anarchists]] and [[Anarcho-capitalism|right-wing anarchists]], whom Mitchell renames "akratists" for their opposition to the government's use of force.

From the four main political traditions, Mitchell identifies eight distinct political perspectives diverging from a populist center. Four of these perspectives (Progressive, Individualist, Paleoconservative, and Neoconservative) fit squarely within the four traditions; four others (Paleolibertarian, Theoconservative, Communitarian, and Radical) fit between the traditions, being defined by their singular focus on rank or force.

=== Nolan: economic freedom, personal freedom ===
{{main|Nolan Chart}}
[[File:Nolan chart normal.svg|thumb|[[Nolan Chart]]]]
The [[Nolan Chart]] was created by libertarian [[David Nolan (Libertarian Party)|David Nolan]]. This chart shows what he considers as "[[economic freedom]]" (issues like taxation, free trade and free enterprise) on the horizontal axis and what he considers as "personal freedom" (issues like [[drug legalization]], [[abortion]] and the [[Conscription|draft]]) on the vertical axis. This puts [[Left-wing politics|left-winger]]s in the left quadrant, [[libertarianism|libertarian]]s in the top, [[centrism|centrist]]s in the middle, [[Right-wing politics|right-winger]]s in the right and what Nolan originally named [[populism|populists]] in the bottom.  Several popular online tests, where individuals can self-identify their political values, utilize the same two axes as the Nolan Chart, including [[The Political Compass]], iSideWith.com and MapMyPolitics.org.

== Spatial model ==
{{see also|Issue voting|Issue voting#Models of issue voting|l2=Models of issue voting}}
The [[spatial model of voting]] plots voters and candidates in a multi-dimensional space where each dimension represents a single political issue<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal|last1=Davis|first1=Otto A.|last2=Hinich|first2=Melvin J.|last3=Ordeshook|first3=Peter C.|date=1 January 1970|title=An Expository Development of a Mathematical Model of the Electoral Process|journal=The American Political Science Review|volume=64|issue=2|pages=426–448|doi=10.2307/1953842|jstor=1953842|s2cid=1161006|quote=Since our model is multi-dimensional, we can incorporate all criteria which we normally associate with a citizen's voting decision process — issues, style, partisan identification, and the like.}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Stoetzer|first1=Lukas F.|last2=Zittlau|first2=Steffen|date=1 July 2015|title=Multidimensional Spatial Voting with Non-separable Preferences|journal=Political Analysis|volume=23|issue=3|pages=415–428|doi=10.1093/pan/mpv013|issn=1047-1987|quote=The spatial model of voting is ''the'' work horse for theories and empirical models in many fields of political science research, such as the equilibrium analysis in mass elections ... the estimation of legislators' ideal points ... and the study of voting behavior. ... Its generalization to the multidimensional policy space, the Weighted Euclidean Distance (WED) model ... forms the stable theoretical foundation upon which nearly all present variations, extensions, and applications of multidimensional spatial voting rest.}}</ref> sub-component of an issue,{{efn|If voter preferences have more than one peak along a dimension, it needs to be decomposed into multiple dimensions that each only have a single peak.  "We can satisfy our assumption about the form of the loss function if we increase the dimensionality of the analysis — by decomposing one dimension into two or more"}} or candidate attribute.<ref>{{Cite web|last1=Tideman|first1=T|last2=Plassmann|first2=Florenz|date=June 2008|title=The Source of Election Results: An Empirical Analysis of Statistical Models of Voter Behavior|url=https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228920943|quote=Assume that voters care about the "attributes" of candidates. These attributes form a multi-dimensional "attribute space."}}</ref>   Voters are then modeled as having an "ideal point" in this space and voting for the nearest candidates to that point. The dimensions of this model can also be assigned to non-political properties of the candidates, such as perceived corruption, health, etc.<ref name=":1" />

Most of the other spectra in this article can then be considered [[Projection (mathematics)|projections]] of this multi-dimensional space onto a smaller number of dimensions.<ref name=":2">{{Cite journal|last1=Alós-Ferrer|first1=Carlos|last2=Granić|first2=Đura-Georg|date=1 September 2015|title=Political space representations with approval data|journal=Electoral Studies|volume=39|pages=56–71|doi=10.1016/j.electstud.2015.04.003|quote=The analysis reveals that the underlying political landscapes ... are inherently multidimensional and cannot be reduced to a single left-right dimension, or even to a two-dimensional space. ...  From this representation, lower-dimensional projections can be considered which help with the visualization of the political space as resulting from an aggregation of voters' preferences. ... Even though the method aims to obtain a representation with as few dimensions as possible, we still obtain representations with four dimensions or more.|hdl=1765/111247|url=http://repub.eur.nl/pub/111247|hdl-access=free}}</ref> For example, a study of German voters found that at least four dimensions were required to adequately represent all political parties.<ref name=":2" />

== Other proposed dimensions ==
{{More citations needed section|date=November 2024}}
[[File:Political Compass standard model.svg|thumb|Two-axis political compass chart with a horizontal socio-economic axis and a vertical socio-cultural axis and ideologically representative [[political colour]]s, an example for a frequently used model of the political spectrum<ref name=":0"/><ref name=":5" /><ref name=":6" /><ref name=":4" /><ref name=":3"/>]]
[[File:3-axis-model-of-political-ideologies-with-both-moderate-and-radical-versions-and-policies-goals.png|thumb|Three axis model of political ideologies with both moderate and radical versions and the goals of their policies]]
[[File:Political_spectrum_(3D).png|thumb|Another three dimensional model with the three main axes of political ideologies:<br/>&emsp;[[Collectivism]] ⬌ [[Individualism]];<br/>&emsp;[[Progressivism]] ⬌ [[Conservatism]];<br/>&emsp;[[Totalitarianism]] ⬌ [[Libertarianism]]]]
[[File:Ideomap3b-sm.jpg|thumb|An economic group diagram based on [[The Political Compass]]]]
In 1998, political author [[Virginia Postrel]], in her book ''[[The Future and Its Enemies]]'', offered another single-axis spectrum that measures views of the future, contrasting stasists, who allegedly fear the future and wish to control it, and dynamists, who want the future to unfold naturally and without attempts to plan and control. The distinction corresponds to the [[utopian]] versus [[dystopian]] spectrum used in some theoretical assessments of liberalism, and the book's title is borrowed from the work of the anti-utopian [[classical liberalism|classic-liberal]] theorist [[Karl Popper]].

Other proposed axes include:
* Focus of political concern: [[communitarianism]] vs. [[individualism]]. These labels are preferred<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Horrell|first1=David|title=Paul Among Liberals and Communitarians|journal=Pacifica|date=2005|volume=18|issue=1|pages=33–52|doi=10.1177/1030570X0501800103|hdl=10036/35872|s2cid=141074567|hdl-access=free}}</ref> to the loaded language of "[[totalitarianism]]" (anti-freedom) vs. "[[libertarianism]]" (pro-freedom), because one can have a political focus on the community without being totalitarian and undemocratic. [[Council communism]] is a [[political philosophy]] that would be counted as [[communitarian]] on this axis, but is not totalitarian or undemocratic.
* Responses to conflict: according to the political philosopher Charles Blattberg, in his essay ''Political Philosophies and Political Ideologies'', those who would respond to conflict with conversation should be considered as on the left, with negotiation as in the centre, and with force as on the right.<ref>{{cite book |last=Blattberg |first=Charles |author-link= Charles Blattberg |chapter= Political Philosophies and Political Ideologies |ssrn= 1755117 |title= Patriotic Elaborations: Essays in Practical Philosophy |publisher= McGill-Queen's University Press |year=2009 }}</ref>
* Role of the religion: [[clericalism]] vs. [[anti-clericalism]]. This axis is less significant in the [[United States]] (where views of the role of [[religion]] tend to be subsumed into the general left–right axis) than in [[Europe]] (where clericalism versus anti-clericalism is much less correlated with the left–right spectrum).
* Urban vs. rural: this axis is significant today in the [[politics of Europe]], [[Politics of Australia|Australia]] and [[Politics of Canada|Canada]]. The [[Urban area|urban]] vs. [[rural]] axis was equally prominent in the [[United States]]' political past, but its importance is debatable at present.{{Dubious|date=November 2024|reason=Urban/rural polarization has never been stronger in the US than in the 2020s.}} In the late 18th century and early 19th century in the United States, it would have been described as the conflict between [[Alexander Hamilton|Hamiltonian]] [[Federalist Party (United States)|Federalists]] and [[Jeffersonian democracy|Jeffersonian Republicans]].
* Foreign policy: [[interventionism (politics)|interventionism]] (the nation should exert power abroad to implement its policy) vs. [[non-interventionism]] (the nation should keep to its own affairs). Similarly, [[multilateralism]] (coordination of policies with other countries) vs. [[isolationism]] and [[unilateralism]].
*[[Geopolitics]]: relations with individual states or groups of states may also be vital to [[party politics]]. During the [[Cold War]], parties often had to choose a position on a scale between pro-American and pro-Soviet Union, although this could at times closely match a left–right spectrum. At other times in history relations with other powerful states has been important. In early [[Canadian history]] relations with Britain were a central theme, although this was not "[[foreign policy]]" but a debate over the proper place of [[Canada]] within the [[British Empire]].
* International action: [[multilateralism]] (states should cooperate and compromise) versus [[unilateralism]] (states have a strong, even unconditional, right to make their own decisions).
* Political violence: [[pacifism]] (political views should not be imposed by violent force) vs. militancy (violence is a legitimate or necessary means of political expression). In [[North America]], particularly in the United States, holders of these views are often referred to as "[[War doves|doves]]" and "[[War hawk|hawks]]", respectively.{{Clarification needed|reason=These terms relate to war and foreign policy, but "political violence" generally connotes the violent pursuit of domestic political objectives, such as assassinating a politician or assaulting a rival group of protestors.|date=November 2024}}
* Foreign trade: [[globalization]] (world economic markets should become integrated and interdependent) vs. [[autarky]] (the nation or polity should strive for economic independence). During the early history of the [[Commonwealth of Australia]], this was the major political continuum. At that time it was called [[free trade]] vs. [[protectionism]].
* Trade politics: free trade (businesses should be able trade across borders without regulations) vs. [[fair trade]] (international trade should be regulated on behalf of social justice).
* Diversity: [[multiculturalism]] (the nation should represent a diversity of cultural ideas) vs. [[Assimilation (sociology)|assimilationism]] or [[nationalism]] (the nation should primarily represent, or forge, a majority culture).
* Participation: [[democracy]] (rule of majority or [[consensus democracy|consensus]]) vs. [[aristocracy]] (rule by the enlightened, elitism) vs. [[tyranny]] (total degradation of aristocracy). Ancient Greek philosophers such as [[Plato]] and [[Aristotle]] recognized tyranny as a state in which the tyrant is ruled by utter [[Stoic passions|passion]], and not reason like the [[philosopher]], resulting in the tyrant pursuing his own desires rather than the common good.
* Freedom: [[positive liberty]] (having rights which impose an obligation on others) vs. [[negative liberty]] (having rights which prohibit interference by others).
* Social power: [[totalitarianism]] vs. [[anarchism]] (control vs. no control) Analyzes the fundamental political interaction among people, and between individuals and their environment. Often posits the existence of a moderate system as existing between the two extremes.
* Change: [[Political radicalism|radical]] [[Revolutionary|revolutionaries]] (who believe in rapid change in support of an ideology) vs. [[Progressivism|progressives]] (who believe in advancing change to the status quo) vs. [[liberalism|liberals]] (who passively accept change) vs. [[conservatism|conservatives]] (who believe in moderating change to preserve the status quo) vs. radical [[Reactionary|reactionaries]] (who believe in changing things to a previous state, i.e. status quo ante).
**[[Political moderate|Political moderates]] oppose radical (revolutionary or reactionary) policies, but they may have progressive, conservative, or liberal tendencies.
* Origin of state authority: [[popular sovereignty]] (the state as a creation of the people, with enumerated, delegated powers) vs. various forms of [[Autocracy|absolutism]] and [[organic state]] philosophy (the state as an original and essential authority) vs. the view held in [[anarcho-primitivism]] that "civilization originates in conquest abroad and repression at home".<ref>Diamond, Stanley, ''In Search Of The Primitive: A Critique Of Civilization'', (New Brunswick: Transaction Books, 1981), p. 1.</ref>
* Levels of sovereignty: [[Political unitarism|unitarism]] vs. [[federalism]] vs. [[separatism]]; or [[centralism]] vs. [[regionalism (politics)|regionalism]]. Especially important in societies where strong regional or ethnic identities are political issues.
**[[European integration]] (in Europe): [[Euroscepticism]] vs. [[European federalism]]; [[nation state]] vs. [[multinational state]].
**[[Globalization]]: [[nationalism]] or [[patriotism]] vs. [[cosmopolitanism]] or [[Internationalism (politics)|internationalism]]; [[sovereignty]] vs. [[global governance]].
* Openness: closed ([[cultural conservative|culturally conservative]] and [[protectionism|protectionist]]) vs. open ([[social liberalism|socially liberal]] and [[globalism|globalist]]). Popularised as a concept by [[Tony Blair]] in 2007 and increasingly dominant in 21st century European and North American politics.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21702750-farewell-left-versus-right-contest-matters-now-open-against-closed-new|title=The new political divide|date=30 July 2016|access-date=24 April 2017|newspaper=The Economist}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.aei.org/publication/politics-closed-party-vs-open-party/|title=The Closed Party vs. the Open Party|first=James|last=Pethokoukis|date=1 July 2016|access-date=24 April 2017|website=American Enterprise Institute}}</ref>
* [[Propertarianism]]: Support or opposition to "sticky" private property.
* Priority: the good of the state ([[patriotism]]) vs. the good of the population as a whole ([[utilitarianism]]) vs. the good of certain individuals (often occurs in [[Autocracy|autocratic regimes]]).
* Technology: technological progress or acceleration (e.g. [[transhumanism]]) vs. technological regress or deceleration (e.g. [[anarcho-primitivism]]).
** [[FM-2030]] coined the terms "up-wing" (looking to the sky and the future, e.g. [[space colonization]]) and "down-wing" (looking to the Earth and the past).<ref>{{Cite web |title=The Frozen Father of Modern Transhumanism |url=https://www.vice.com/en/article/the-frozen-father-of-moden-transhumanism/ |access-date=2 November 2024 |website=Vice |date=14 October 2015 |language=en |archive-date=20 January 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230120132314/https://www.vice.com/en/article/4x3kjj/the-frozen-father-of-moden-transhumanism |url-status=live }}</ref>

== Political spectrum–based forecasts ==
As shown by Russian political scientist Stepan S. Sulakshin,<ref>{{cite journal |author=Sulakshin, S. |title=A Quantitative Political Spectrum and Forecasting of Social Evolution |journal=International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences |volume=5 |issue=4 |pages=55–66 |year=2010 |url=http://iji.cgpublisher.com/product/pub.88/prod.1091 |doi=10.18848/1833-1882/CGP/v05i04/51654 |access-date=4 May 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110818085927/http://iji.cgpublisher.com/product/pub.88/prod.1091 |archive-date=18 August 2011 |url-status=dead |url-access=subscription }}</ref> political spectra can be used as a forecasting tool. Sulakshin offered mathematical evidence that stable development (positive dynamics of the vast number of statistic indices) depends on the width of the political spectrum: if it is too narrow or too wide, stagnation or political disasters will result. Sulakshin also showed that in the short run the political spectrum determines the statistic indices dynamic and not vice versa.

== Biological variables ==
{{main|Biology and political orientation}}
A number of studies have found that [[biology]] can be linked with political orientation.<ref name=Jost2001>{{cite journal|last=Jost|first=John T.|author2=Amodio, David M.|title=Political ideology as motivated social cognition: Behavioral and neuroscientific evidence|journal=Motivation and Emotion|date=13 November 2011|volume=36|issue=1|pages=55–64|doi=10.1007/s11031-011-9260-7|s2cid=10675844|url=http://www.psych.nyu.edu/jost/Jost-Amodio-2012.pdf}}</ref> Many of the studies linking biology to politics remain controversial and unreplicated, although the overall body of evidence is growing.<ref>{{Cite journal |title=Biology and ideology: The anatomy of politics |last=Buchen |first=Lizzie |date=25 October 2012 |journal=Nature |volume=490 |issue=7421 |pages=466–468 |language=en |doi=10.1038/490466a |pmid = 23099382|bibcode=2012Natur.490..466B |doi-access=free }}</ref>

Studies have found that subjects with [[conservative]] political views have larger [[amygdala]]e and are more prone to feeling [[disgust]].<ref name=RK>{{cite journal|title=Political Orientations Are Correlated with Brain Structure in Young Adults |author=R. Kanai|journal=Curr Biol|date=5 April 2011|pmid=21474316|doi=10.1016/j.cub.2011.03.017|volume=21|issue=8|pages=677–80|pmc=3092984|bibcode=2011CBio...21..677K |display-authors=etal}}</ref><ref name=YI>{{cite journal|title= Conservatives are more easily disgusted than liberals. |url=http://yoelinbar.net/papers/disgust_conservatism.pdf | author=Y. Inbar |journal= Cognition and Emotion |date=2008|volume=23|issue=4 |pages=714–725 |doi=10.1080/02699930802110007|display-authors=etal|citeseerx=10.1.1.372.3053 |s2cid=7411404 }}</ref> [[Liberalism|Liberals]] have larger volume of grey matter in the [[anterior cingulate cortex]] and are better at detecting errors in recurring patterns. The anterior cingulate cortex is used when dealing with conflicting information. A study conducted by researchers from the [[University of California, Los Angeles]] (UCLA) and [[New York University]] (NYU) had participants sort through a deck of cards. The letter M was four times more likely to be in the deck than the letter W. Participants had to press a button every time an M came up in the deck. Liberals were shown to make fewer errors in mistaking the W for the M. This behavioral study supported the notion that liberals are better with dealing with conflicting information.<ref name=RK/><ref>{{cite web|url=http://psychcentral.com/news/2007/09/10/brains-of-liberals-conservatives-may-work-differently/1691.html|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161013125516/http://psychcentral.com/news/2007/09/10/brains-of-liberals-conservatives-may-work-differently/1691.html|archive-date=13 October 2016|title=Brains of Liberals, Conservatives May Work Differently|publisher=Psych Central|date=20 October 2007|access-date=29 June 2020|url-status=dead}}</ref> Conservatives have a stronger [[sympathetic nervous system]] response to threatening images and are more likely to interpret ambiguous facial expressions as threatening.<ref name=Jost2001/><ref name=JV>{{cite journal|title= Political leanings vary with facial expression processing and psychosocial functioning. | author=J. Vigil |journal= Group Processes & Intergroup Relations |date=2010|volume=13|issue=5 |pages=547–558 |doi=10.1177/1368430209356930| s2cid=59571553 |display-authors=etal}}</ref> In general, conservatives are more likely to report larger social networks, more happiness and better self-esteem than liberals. Liberals are more likely to report greater emotional distress, relationship dissatisfaction and experiential hardship and are more open to experience and tolerate uncertainty and disorder better.<ref name=JV/><ref name=JJ1>{{cite journal|title=The end of the end of ideology. |url=http://www.psych.nyu.edu/jost/Jost%282006%29The-End-of-the-End-of-Ideology.pdf | author=J. Jost |journal= American Psychologist|date=2006|volume=61|issue=7|pages=651–670 |doi=10.1037/0003-066x.61.7.651|display-authors=etal |pmid=17032067}}</ref><ref name=JJ2>{{cite journal|title= Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. |url=http://contracabal.com/PDF/Jost-1.pdf | author=J. Jost |journal= Psychological Bulletin |date=2003|volume=129|issue=3|pages=339–375 |doi=10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.339 |pmid=12784934|s2cid=1778256 |display-authors=etal}}</ref>

[[Genopolitics|Genetic factors]] account for at least some of the variation of political views.<ref>{{cite news | url=https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/21/science/21gene.html?pagewanted=all | title=Some Politics May Be Etched in the Genes | newspaper=[[The New York Times]] | date=21 June 2005 | access-date=25 September 2012 | author=Carey, Benedict}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal | last1 = Alford | first1 = J. R. | last2 = Funk | first2 = C. L. | last3 = Hibbing | first3 = J. R. | title = Are Political Orientations Genetically Transmitted? | doi = 10.1017/S0003055405051579 | journal = American Political Science Review | volume = 99 | issue = 2 | pages = 153–167 | year = 2005 | citeseerx = 10.1.1.622.476 | s2cid = 3820911 }}</ref> From the perspective of [[evolutionary psychology]], conflicts regarding [[redistribution of wealth]] may have been common in the ancestral environment and humans may have developed psychological mechanisms for judging their own chances of succeeding in such conflicts. These mechanisms affect political views.<ref name=AEP>Michael Bang Petersen. The evolutionary psychology of Mass Politics. In {{Cite book | last1 = Roberts | first1 = S. C. | editor1-last = Roberts | doi = 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199586073.001.0001 | editor1-first = S. Craig | title = Applied Evolutionary Psychology | year = 2011 | publisher = Oxford University Press| isbn = 9780199586073 }}</ref>

== See also ==
{{col-begin|width=100%}}{{col-break}}
*[[Political faction]]
* [[Cleavage (politics)]]
* [[Horseshoe theory]]
* [[Index of politics articles]]
* [[Left–right politics]]
{{col-break}}
* ''[[NationStates]]''
* [[Overton window]]
* [[The Political Compass]]
* [[Psephology]]
* [[Roemer model of political competition]]
{{col-end}}

== References ==
===Notes===
{{notelist}}
===Citations===
{{reflist}}

== External links ==
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20131019112321/http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/wvs/articles/folder_published/article_base_54 World Values Survey, The WVS Cultural Map of the World (archived page)]

{{political spectrum}}
{{Portal bar|Philosopy|Politics}}
[[Category:Political spectrum| ]]
[[Category:Political science terminology]]