Skip to content
Contents
The Public Mind

    Type to search. Planned chapters match by title only.

    Chapter 7.2

    Economic and cultural dimensions

    The correlation between economic and cultural conservatism among American adults rose from +0.10 in the 1984 ANES to +0.51 in 2024, and is +0.23 among adults with the same seven-point party identification.

    DraftFigures and numbers may change as the analysis is rebuilt.what is still being checked

    To confirm before publication: the full question wording of the traditional-values item (VCF0853) against the ANES codebook; the chapter describes it by its Cumulative Data File label.

    Economic and cultural conservatism went together more closely among American adults in 2024 than in 1984, and the correlationCorrelationA number from minus 1 to plus 1 for how closely two measures move together in a straight-line pattern. Zero means no straight-line pattern; a correlation does not say that one measure causes the other. between an index of each rose from +0.10 (95% CI 0.05 to 0.15)+0.10 correlation coefficient, from −1 to +1Estimandweighted Pearson correlation of the economic and cultural conservatism indices (Fisher z interval)Interval95% CI 0.05 to 0.15n1,508Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationadults with at least two of three items answered on each indexPeriod1984SourceANES Cumulative Data File in the 1984 American National Election Studies (ANES) to +0.51 (95% CI 0.48 to 0.55)+0.51 correlation coefficient, from −1 to +1Estimandweighted Pearson correlation of the economic and cultural conservatism indices (Fisher z interval)Interval95% CI 0.48 to 0.55n4,387Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationadults with at least two of three items answered on each indexPeriod2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 2024. In a linear fit, adults one standard deviationStandard deviationA measure of how far values typically fall from their average. A larger standard deviation means the values are more spread out. more conservative on the economic index were on average 0.510.51 standard deviations of the cultural index per standard deviation of the economic indexEstimandweighted least squares slope of the standardized cultural index on the standardized economic index, which equals the correlation (Fisher z interval)Interval95% CI 0.48 to 0.55n4,387Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationadults with at least two of three items answered on each indexPeriod2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File standard deviations more conservative on the cultural index in 2024. If the two kinds of conservatism were one dimension measured without error, the correlation would be one. Correcting the 2024 correlation for measurement error raises it to +0.69 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.74)+0.69 correlation coefficient, from −1 to +1Estimandobserved correlation divided by the square root of the product of the two alphas (bootstrap percentile interval)Interval95% CI 0.65 to 0.74n4,387Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationadults with at least two of three items answered on each indexPeriod2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File, at which the two indices share 48.1%48.1% percent of adults (share of variance)Estimandsquare of the corrected correlation: the share of variance the two error-free indices would have in commonInterval95% CI 42.7% to 54.5%n4,387Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationadults with at least two of three items answered on each indexPeriod2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File of their variance, and among adults with the same seven-point party identification the observed correlation is +0.23 (95% CI 0.19 to 0.27)+0.23 correlation coefficient, from −1 to +1Estimandweighted correlation net of seven-point party identification (Fisher z interval, effective n less six party dummies)Interval95% CI 0.19 to 0.27n4,373Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationadults with at least two of three items answered on each indexPeriod2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File.

    The ANES asked three economic and three cultural questions in most studies from 1984 to 2024, which gives 1515 ANES studiesEstimandcount of studiesWeightsnone (count or constant)Populationstudies with both indicesPeriod1984-2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File studies and 33,25733,257 respondentsEstimandcount of respondents in the analysis sampleWeightsnone (count or constant)Populationadults with at least two of three items answered on each indexPeriod1984-2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File respondents with both indices. This chapter follows the correlation across those studies, asks how much of it remains within party identification and after allowing for measurement error, compares how closely each index goes with liberal-conservative self-placement, and restates the correlation as the share of adults on opposite sides of the medians. The Chapter 7.4, Left and right across countries chapter asks a related question across countries.

    Earlier work on two dimensions

    Studies of the American public describe a structure that differs from the one the parties offer. Feldman and Johnston found that economic and social ideology are the minimum needed to account for domestic policy preferences [1], and Treier and Hillygus found that many adults hold liberal preferences on one dimension and conservative preferences on the other [2]. Carmines, Ensley and Wagner report that the policy preferences of party elites lie on one dimension while those of citizens lie on two, and that adults whose preferences do not match either party's package are more likely to shift party allegiance [3]. Roll-call voting in Congress is described well by one main dimension [4]. A cross-national study of mass publics that includes the United States found that a positive correlation between cultural and economic conservatism was uncommon across nations and that a negative correlation was more common [5].

    How the indices are built

    Each index averages up to three ANES answers. Every answer is converted to a z-score, its distance from the item's average in standard deviations, and oriented so that a higher value is more conservative. A respondent needs at least two of an index's three answers. Figure 1 lists the items, their scales and the direction used, including a feeling thermometerFeeling thermometerA 0 to 100 rating of a group or person, where 0 is the coldest feeling and 100 the warmest. The American National Election Studies ask respondents to rate parties, candidates and social groups this way. rating of gays and lesbians.In the cleaned ANES file the thermometer's top category, which covers a range of degrees near the top of the scale, is stored as the top value. The methods note gives the detail. The direction of each item is read from the value labels of the ANES Cumulative Data File, was not chosen from a correlation with self-placement or with the other index, and the two indices share no answers. The items were not asked in every study, and 44 ANES studiesEstimandcount of studies in which the economic or the cultural index has only two itemsWeightsnone (count or constant)Populationstudies in which an index has two components, not threePeriod1984-2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File studies have an index with only two components; those studies are shaded in the trend figures.An index is a respondent's average z-score over the items answered, and the correlation does not depend on its unit. The party means and the self-placement regression use the index re-standardized over all respondents in the analysis sample, and the cross-pressure band and the 2024 cells use the standard deviation of the index within one study. Each figure says which.

    Figure 1

    Each index averages three ANES items, and a higher value always marks the conservative end

    Items in the economic and cultural conservatism indices: ANES variable, scale as fielded, direction used and studies that asked the item, 1984 to 2024

    IndexItemANES variableScale as fieldedDirection usedStudies asking itNot asked in
    EconomicGovernment guarantee of jobs and a good standard of livingVCF08091 = government sees to jobs and living standards; 7 = each person on their ownKept: a higher code is economic right15none
    EconomicGovernment services and spendingVCF08391 = many fewer services, reduce spending; 7 = many more services, increase spendingReversed: a lower code (fewer services) is economic right15none
    EconomicGovernment or private health insuranceVCF08061 = government insurance plan; 7 = private insurance planKept: a higher code is economic right121986, 1990, 1998
    CulturalLegal status of abortionVCF08381 = never permitted by law; 4 = always a matter of personal choiceReversed: a lower code (more restriction) is cultural right15none
    CulturalFeeling thermometer toward gays and lesbiansVCF02320 = coldest feeling; 100 = warmest feelingReversed: a lower code (colder) is cultural right131986, 1990
    CulturalShould be more emphasis on traditional values (variable label in the Cumulative Data File)VCF08531 = agree strongly; 5 = disagree stronglyReversed: a lower code (agreement) is cultural right141984
    Show data
    Data for Each index averages three ANES items, and a higher value always marks the conservative end
    directionindexmissingscalestudiestopicvcf
    Kept: a higher code is economic rightEconomicnone1 = government sees to jobs and living standards; 7 = each person on their own15Government guarantee of jobs and a good standard of livingVCF0809
    Reversed: a lower code (fewer services) is economic rightEconomicnone1 = many fewer services, reduce spending; 7 = many more services, increase spending15Government services and spendingVCF0839
    Kept: a higher code is economic rightEconomic1986, 1990, 19981 = government insurance plan; 7 = private insurance plan12Government or private health insuranceVCF0806
    Reversed: a lower code (more restriction) is cultural rightCulturalnone1 = never permitted by law; 4 = always a matter of personal choice15Legal status of abortionVCF0838
    Reversed: a lower code (colder) is cultural rightCultural1986, 19900 = coldest feeling; 100 = warmest feeling13Feeling thermometer toward gays and lesbiansVCF0232
    Reversed: a lower code (agreement) is cultural rightCultural19841 = agree strongly; 5 = disagree strongly14Should be more emphasis on traditional values (variable label in the Cumulative Data File)VCF0853
    Read each row for the item, its scale as fielded and whether the stored code is kept or reversed so that a higher value is more conservative. The last two columns show how many of the 15 studies from 1984 to 2024 asked the item and which years are missing. Orientation follows the value labels of the ANES Cumulative Data File, not any correlation.Source: ANES Cumulative Data File, 1984 to 2024; item wording and coding only, no weights needed

    The correlation rose from 2008 to 2020

    The correlation was +0.10+0.10 correlation coefficient, from −1 to +1Estimandweighted Pearson correlation of the economic and cultural conservatism indices (Fisher z interval)Interval95% CI 0.05 to 0.15n1,508Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationadults with at least two of three items answered on each indexPeriod1984SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 1984, in a study where the cultural index has only two components and its items agree less closely than in later studies (see the section on measurement error). From 1992 through 2008 the estimates stayed between +0.12+0.12 correlation coefficient, from −1 to +1Estimandweighted Pearson correlation of the economic and cultural conservatism indices (Fisher z interval)Interval95% CI 0.04 to 0.19n811Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationadults with at least two of three items answered on each indexPeriod2000SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 2000 and +0.23+0.23 correlation coefficient, from −1 to +1Estimandweighted Pearson correlation of the economic and cultural conservatism indices (Fisher z interval)Interval95% CI 0.15 to 0.30n954Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationadults with at least two of three items answered on each indexPeriod2008SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 2008. They then rose to +0.52+0.52 correlation coefficient, from −1 to +1Estimandweighted Pearson correlation of the economic and cultural conservatism indices (Fisher z interval)Interval95% CI 0.49 to 0.54n6,737Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationadults with at least two of three items answered on each indexPeriod2020SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 2020. The intervals for 2008 and 2012 overlap, and so do those for 2012 and 2016, so the rise is best read across the whole period from 2008 to 2020, without a claim about any single step. The 2020 interval lies above the 2008 interval. The 2024 estimate of +0.51+0.51 correlation coefficient, from −1 to +1Estimandweighted Pearson correlation of the economic and cultural conservatism indices (Fisher z interval)Interval95% CI 0.48 to 0.55n4,387Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationadults with at least two of three items answered on each indexPeriod2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File contains the 2020 value, so the series has not risen further since 2020. Figure 2 shows every study. Correlation intervals in this chapter are 95% confidence intervalsConfidence intervalA range around an estimate that would contain the true value in 95% of repeated samples if the sampling model held. The book reports 95% intervals unless it says otherwise. that treat the weightedSurvey weightsNumbers that scale each respondent so the sample matches the population on known traits such as age, race, education and region. A weighted average counts a respondent with a large weight for more than one with a small weight. sample as a simple random sample, which leaves out the ANES sampling design and can move an interval either way.Each interval uses Fisher's z transformation [6] on the Kish effective sample sizeEffective sample sizeThe number of equally weighted respondents that would give the same precision as the weighted sample. It is smaller than the raw count when the weights vary a lot, and it sets how wide the confidence interval is. [7].

    Figure 2

    The correlation between economic and cultural conservatism was at most +0.23 through 2008 and rose to +0.52 by 2020

    Weighted correlation between the economic and cultural conservatism indices by ANES study, 1984 to 2024, adults with at least two of three items on each index; 95% intervals

    Show data
    Data for The correlation between economic and cultural conservatism was at most +0.23 through 2008 and rose to +0.52 by 2020
    StudySeriesCorrelationInterval lowInterval highRespondentsEffective nEconomic itemsCultural items
    1984As observed0.1020.0520.1521,5081,50832
    1986As observed0.0690.0040.13491491422
    1988As observed0.0950.0450.1441,5511,55133
    1990As observed0.033−0.0400.10572972922
    1992As observed0.1560.1130.1982,0051,99633
    1994As observed0.1980.1460.2481,6591,35833
    1996As observed0.1930.1360.2481,4131,13933
    1998As observed0.1620.0970.2251,05589223
    2000As observed0.1170.0410.19281165233
    2004As observed0.1800.1130.2441,00683433
    2008As observed0.2280.1520.30195462033
    2012As observed0.3250.2920.3575,2032,88033
    2016As observed0.3910.3560.4253,3252,29733
    2020As observed0.5170.4930.5406,7373,69633
    2024As observed0.5140.4820.5464,3872,05933
    1984Same party ID (7-pt)0.045−0.0060.0951,4991,49932
    1986Same party ID (7-pt)0.0750.0100.14090790722
    1988Same party ID (7-pt)0.034−0.0160.0841,5421,54233
    1990Same party ID (7-pt)−0.011−0.0840.06272772722
    1992Same party ID (7-pt)0.0660.0220.1101,9971,98833
    1994Same party ID (7-pt)0.1070.0540.1591,6521,35233
    1996Same party ID (7-pt)0.0720.0140.1301,4081,13533
    1998Same party ID (7-pt)0.0900.0240.1551,04788623
    2000Same party ID (7-pt)0.031−0.0460.10980664833
    2004Same party ID (7-pt)0.030−0.0390.09899382233
    2008Same party ID (7-pt)0.0820.0020.16094461533
    2012Same party ID (7-pt)0.1060.0690.1425,1892,87233
    2016Same party ID (7-pt)0.1550.1150.1953,3142,28833
    2020Same party ID (7-pt)0.2270.1970.2586,7253,68933
    2024Same party ID (7-pt)0.2270.1860.2684,3732,05133
    1984As observed0.1020.0520.1521,5081,50832
    1986As observed0.0690.0040.13491491422
    1988As observed0.0950.0450.1441,5511,55133
    1990As observed0.033−0.0400.10572972922
    1992As observed0.1560.1130.1982,0051,99633
    1994As observed0.1980.1460.2481,6591,35833
    1996As observed0.1930.1360.2481,4131,13933
    1998As observed0.1620.0970.2251,05589223
    2000As observed0.1170.0410.19281165233
    2004As observed0.1800.1130.2441,00683433
    2008As observed0.2280.1520.30195462033
    2012As observed0.3250.2920.3575,2032,88033
    2016As observed0.3910.3560.4253,3252,29733
    2020As observed0.5170.4930.5406,7373,69633
    2024As observed0.5140.4820.5464,3872,05933
    1984Same party ID (3 cat.)0.0510.0000.1011,4991,49932
    1986Same party ID (3 cat.)0.0680.0030.13390790722
    1988Same party ID (3 cat.)0.0500.0000.0991,5421,54233
    1990Same party ID (3 cat.)0.003−0.0700.07672772722
    1992Same party ID (3 cat.)0.0700.0260.1141,9971,98833
    1994Same party ID (3 cat.)0.1260.0730.1781,6521,35233
    1996Same party ID (3 cat.)0.0940.0360.1511,4081,13533
    1998Same party ID (3 cat.)0.1010.0360.1661,04788623
    2000Same party ID (3 cat.)0.039−0.0380.11680664833
    2004Same party ID (3 cat.)0.050−0.0190.11899382233
    2008Same party ID (3 cat.)0.1040.0250.18194461533
    2012Same party ID (3 cat.)0.1270.0910.1635,1892,87233
    2016Same party ID (3 cat.)0.1800.1400.2193,3142,28833
    2020Same party ID (3 cat.)0.2410.2110.2726,7253,68933
    2024Same party ID (3 cat.)0.2420.2010.2824,3732,05133
    1984As observed0.1020.0520.1521,5081,50832
    1986As observed0.0690.0040.13491491422
    1988As observed0.0950.0450.1441,5511,55133
    1990As observed0.033−0.0400.10572972922
    1992As observed0.1560.1130.1982,0051,99633
    1994As observed0.1980.1460.2481,6591,35833
    1996As observed0.1930.1360.2481,4131,13933
    1998As observed0.1620.0970.2251,05589223
    2000As observed0.1170.0410.19281165233
    2004As observed0.1800.1130.2441,00683433
    2008As observed0.2280.1520.30195462033
    2012As observed0.3250.2920.3575,2032,88033
    2016As observed0.3910.3560.4253,3252,29733
    2020As observed0.5170.4930.5406,7373,69633
    2024As observed0.5140.4820.5464,3872,05933
    1988Reliability-corrected0.1810.0830.2771,5511,55133
    1992Reliability-corrected0.2730.2010.3492,0051,99633
    1994Reliability-corrected0.3320.2530.4151,6591,35833
    1996Reliability-corrected0.3160.2290.4081,4131,13933
    1998Reliability-corrected0.3170.1910.4541,05589223
    2000Reliability-corrected0.2130.0620.36481165233
    2004Reliability-corrected0.2760.1800.3711,00683433
    2008Reliability-corrected0.3490.2410.46195462033
    2012Reliability-corrected0.4710.4270.5165,2032,88033
    2016Reliability-corrected0.5500.4960.6023,3252,29733
    2020Reliability-corrected0.6800.6480.7106,7373,69633
    2024Reliability-corrected0.6930.6530.7384,3872,05933
    1984As observed0.1020.0520.1521,5081,50832
    1986As observed0.0690.0040.13491491422
    1988As observed0.0950.0450.1441,5511,55133
    1990As observed0.033−0.0400.10572972922
    1992As observed0.1560.1130.1982,0051,99633
    1994As observed0.1980.1460.2481,6591,35833
    1996As observed0.1930.1360.2481,4131,13933
    1998As observed0.1620.0970.2251,05589223
    2000As observed0.1170.0410.19281165233
    2004As observed0.1800.1130.2441,00683433
    2008As observed0.2280.1520.30195462033
    2012As observed0.3250.2920.3575,2032,88033
    2016As observed0.3910.3560.4253,3252,29733
    2020As observed0.5170.4930.5406,7373,69633
    2024As observed0.5140.4820.5464,3872,05933
    1988All six items answered0.1110.0520.1691,1071,10733
    1992All six items answered0.2030.1540.2511,5131,50733
    1994All six items answered0.2430.1870.2971,3841,13233
    1996All six items answered0.2210.1580.2811,13292333
    2000All six items answered0.1540.0680.23763451233
    2004All six items answered0.2090.1350.28080366433
    2008All six items answered0.2610.1760.34274048833
    2012All six items answered0.3700.3350.4034,4222,47233
    2016All six items answered0.4350.3980.4712,7191,89433
    2020All six items answered0.5630.5380.5875,3742,99133
    2024All six items answered0.5600.5260.5923,5161,63533
    2008All respondents0.2280.1520.30195462033
    2012All respondents0.3250.2920.3575,2032,88033
    2016All respondents0.3910.3560.4253,3252,29733
    2024All respondents0.5140.4820.5464,3872,05933
    2008Face-to-face0.2280.1520.30195462033
    2012Face-to-face0.2360.1740.2961,76992633
    2016Face-to-face0.3850.3170.44898864933
    2024Face-to-face0.5420.4730.60587444333
    2012Web0.3680.3290.4063,4341,96333
    2016Web0.3960.3540.4362,3371,64833
    2024Web0.4730.4210.5231,58989533
    The observed correlation stays at or below +0.23 through 2008, rises to +0.52 in 2020 and is +0.51 in 2024. The dashed line compares adults with the same seven-point party identification, runs from +0.04 in 1984 to +0.23 in 2024 and rises over the same years at a lower level. Each point is one ANES study, the bands are 95% intervals and shaded studies have only two items on an index. The toggles show a coarser party control, a correction for unreliable indices, adults who answered all six items and the interview mode.Note: Shaded studies have only two items on one or both indices: the cultural index in 1984, both indices in 1986 and 1990, and the economic index in 1998.Note: The 2002 study has no cultural index, since only the gay and lesbian thermometer was asked, and is omitted.Source: ANES Cumulative Data File, 1984 to 2024; weighted (VCF0009z), and weight_ftf and weight_web in the mode view; intervals are model based

    Two checks support the rise. Adults who answered every item give +0.11+0.11 correlation coefficient, from −1 to +1Estimandweighted correlation among respondents with every itemInterval95% CI 0.05 to 0.17n1,107Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationadults who answered all six itemsPeriod1988SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 1988 and +0.56+0.56 correlation coefficient, from −1 to +1Estimandweighted correlation among respondents with every itemInterval95% CI 0.53 to 0.59n3,516Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationadults who answered all six itemsPeriod2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 2024, and the six-item view of the figure shows the same rise. Interview modeSurvey modeHow respondents were interviewed: in person, by phone, on paper or online. Mode can change answers, so a change in mode can look like a change in opinion. is the second check. Web interviews began in 2012, and the step from +0.23+0.23 correlation coefficient, from −1 to +1Estimandweighted Pearson correlation of the economic and cultural conservatism indices (Fisher z interval)Interval95% CI 0.15 to 0.30n954Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationadults with at least two of three items answered on each indexPeriod2008SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 2008 to +0.32+0.32 correlation coefficient, from −1 to +1Estimandweighted Pearson correlation of the economic and cultural conservatism indices (Fisher z interval)Interval95% CI 0.29 to 0.36n5,203Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationadults with at least two of three items answered on each indexPeriod2012SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 2012 appears only in the web sample (+0.24+0.24 correlation coefficient, from −1 to +1Estimandweighted correlation with the mode-specific weightInterval95% CI 0.17 to 0.30n1,769Weightsweight_ftf or weight_webPopulationadults with at least two of three items answered on each index, interviewed face-to-facePeriod2012SourceANES Cumulative Data File face-to-face, +0.37+0.37 correlation coefficient, from −1 to +1Estimandweighted correlation with the mode-specific weightInterval95% CI 0.33 to 0.41n3,434Weightsweight_ftf or weight_webPopulationadults with at least two of three items answered on each index, interviewed on the webPeriod2012SourceANES Cumulative Data File web), so the step cannot be told apart from the change of mode and the rise is better dated from 2012. In each mode the 2024 correlation is above the 2012 correlation, so the rise after 2012 is present in both, and the pairs for 2016 and 2024 are in the caption of the mode view. The 2020 study has no mode weights, and the step from 2016 to 2020 cannot be split by mode.

    Part of the correlation is between the parties

    Comparing adults with the same party identification removes differences between the parties. Both indices are compared within each of the seven ANES party categories, which run from strong Democrat to strong Republican and keep leanersPartisan leanerA respondent who first says they are independent but, when asked, says they lean toward one party. Most figures group leaners with the party they lean toward, and each chapter says which grouping it uses. apart from weak partisans, and the correlation of what remains is +0.23+0.23 correlation coefficient, from −1 to +1Estimandweighted correlation net of seven-point party identification (Fisher z interval, effective n less six party dummies)Interval95% CI 0.19 to 0.27n4,373Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationadults with at least two of three items answered on each indexPeriod2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 2024 against the observed +0.51+0.51 correlation coefficient, from −1 to +1Estimandweighted Pearson correlation of the economic and cultural conservatism indices (Fisher z interval)Interval95% CI 0.48 to 0.55n4,387Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationadults with at least two of three items answered on each indexPeriod2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File. The same comparison gives +0.04 (95% CI −0.01 to 0.10)+0.04 correlation coefficient, from −1 to +1Estimandweighted correlation net of seven-point party identification (Fisher z interval, effective n less six party dummies)Interval95% CI −0.01 to 0.10n1,499Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationadults with at least two of three items answered on each indexPeriod1984SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 1984, an interval that includes zero, and +0.08+0.08 correlation coefficient, from −1 to +1Estimandweighted correlation net of seven-point party identification (Fisher z interval, effective n less six party dummies)Interval95% CI 0.00 to 0.16n944Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationadults with at least two of three items answered on each indexPeriod2008SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 2008. A three-category control (Democrat, independent and Republican, with leaners counted as partisans) gives +0.24+0.24 correlation coefficient, from −1 to +1Estimandweighted correlation net of three-category party identification (Fisher z interval)Interval95% CI 0.20 to 0.28n4,373Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationadults with at least two of three items answered on each indexPeriod2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 2024, close to the seven-point figure. A correlation remains within party identification, and the estimate rose from 2008 to 2024.

    Part of the observed correlation sits between the parties, which moved apart on both indices. Figure 3 plots the mean of each index for Democrats and Republicans, with leaners counted with their party, and for all adults. The Republican minus Democratic gap on the economic index grew from +0.69+0.69 pooled standard deviations of the index (0 is the mean of all 1984-2024 respondents)Estimanddifference in weighted means of the economic indexInterval95% CI 0.60 to 0.78n1,332Weightsweight (VCF0009z)PopulationRepublicans minus Democrats, leaners includedPeriod1984SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 1984 to +1.29+1.29 pooled standard deviations of the index (0 is the mean of all 1984-2024 respondents)Estimanddifference in weighted means of the economic indexInterval95% CI 1.21 to 1.36n4,138Weightsweight (VCF0009z)PopulationRepublicans minus Democrats, leaners includedPeriod2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 2024, and on the cultural index from +0.30+0.30 pooled standard deviations of the index (0 is the mean of all 1984-2024 respondents)Estimanddifference in weighted means of the cultural indexInterval95% CI 0.20 to 0.40n1,332Weightsweight (VCF0009z)PopulationRepublicans minus Democrats, leaners includedPeriod1984SourceANES Cumulative Data File to +1.27+1.27 pooled standard deviations of the index (0 is the mean of all 1984-2024 respondents)Estimanddifference in weighted means of the cultural indexInterval95% CI 1.20 to 1.34n4,138Weightsweight (VCF0009z)PopulationRepublicans minus Democrats, leaners includedPeriod2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File, in standard deviations of the index over all respondents from 1984 to 2024. The lines are group means for each study on one fixed scale, so they compare groups between studies and do not follow individuals.

    The cultural panel is less steady in 1984, 1986 and 1990, the studies in which the cultural index has only two components, because the item mix changes: 1984 has no traditional-values item, and 1986 and 1990 have no thermometer, and a two-item index is noisier. Built from abortion and the thermometer alone, the items asked in every study except 1986 and 1990, the cultural gap is +0.28+0.28 pooled standard deviations of the two-item cultural index (0 is the mean of all 1984-2024 respondents)Estimanddifference in weighted means of the cultural index built from abortion and the gay and lesbian thermometer only, standardized over 1984-2024Interval95% CI 0.19 to 0.37n1,332Weightsweight (VCF0009z)PopulationRepublicans minus Democrats, leaners includedPeriod1984SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 1984 and +1.11+1.11 pooled standard deviations of the two-item cultural index (0 is the mean of all 1984-2024 respondents)Estimanddifference in weighted means of the cultural index built from abortion and the gay and lesbian thermometer only, standardized over 1984-2024Interval95% CI 1.04 to 1.18n3,903Weightsweight (VCF0009z)PopulationRepublicans minus Democrats, leaners includedPeriod2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 2024, the Republican mean went from +0.61+0.61 pooled standard deviations of the two-item cultural index (0 is the mean of all 1984-2024 respondents)Estimandweighted mean of the cultural index built from abortion and the gay and lesbian thermometer only, standardized over 1984-2024Interval95% CI 0.55 to 0.68n633Weightsweight (VCF0009z)PopulationRepublicans, leaners includedPeriod1984SourceANES Cumulative Data File to +0.31+0.31 pooled standard deviations of the two-item cultural index (0 is the mean of all 1984-2024 respondents)Estimandweighted mean of the cultural index built from abortion and the gay and lesbian thermometer only, standardized over 1984-2024Interval95% CI 0.25 to 0.36n1,809Weightsweight (VCF0009z)PopulationRepublicans, leaners includedPeriod2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File and the Democratic mean from +0.33+0.33 pooled standard deviations of the two-item cultural index (0 is the mean of all 1984-2024 respondents)Estimandweighted mean of the cultural index built from abortion and the gay and lesbian thermometer only, standardized over 1984-2024Interval95% CI 0.27 to 0.40n699Weightsweight (VCF0009z)PopulationDemocrats, leaners includedPeriod1984SourceANES Cumulative Data File to −0.81−0.81 pooled standard deviations of the two-item cultural index (0 is the mean of all 1984-2024 respondents)Estimandweighted mean of the cultural index built from abortion and the gay and lesbian thermometer only, standardized over 1984-2024Interval95% CI −0.85 to −0.76n2,094Weightsweight (VCF0009z)PopulationDemocrats, leaners includedPeriod2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File, so the widening and the fall in both party means do not depend on the third item.

    Figure 3

    The Republican minus Democratic gap grew from +0.69 to +1.29 on the economic index and from +0.30 to +1.27 on the cultural index

    Mean of each index by party identification, leaners counted with their party, and for all adults, in standard deviations of the pooled 1984 to 2024 sample, by ANES study; 95% intervals

    Mean of the index (pooled standard deviations)

    Economic indexCultural index
    Show data
    Data for The Republican minus Democratic gap grew from +0.69 to +1.29 on the economic index and from +0.30 to +1.27 on the cultural index
    StudyIndexGroupMeanInterval lowInterval highRespondentsEffective nItems in the index
    1984Economic indexAll adults0.080.030.121,5081,5083
    1986Economic indexAll adults0.01−0.050.079149142
    1988Economic indexAll adults0.060.020.111,5511,5513
    1990Economic indexAll adults−0.05−0.120.017297292
    1992Economic indexAll adults−0.05−0.08−0.012,0051,9963
    1994Economic indexAll adults0.140.090.191,6591,3583
    1996Economic indexAll adults0.140.090.201,4131,1393
    1998Economic indexAll adults−0.07−0.130.001,0558922
    2000Economic indexAll adults0.01−0.060.078116523
    2004Economic indexAll adults−0.11−0.17−0.051,0068343
    2008Economic indexAll adults−0.06−0.140.019546203
    2012Economic indexAll adults0.200.160.235,2032,8803
    2016Economic indexAll adults0.090.050.133,3252,2973
    2020Economic indexAll adults−0.11−0.15−0.086,7373,6963
    2024Economic indexAll adults−0.20−0.25−0.164,3872,0593
    1984Economic indexDemocrats−0.24−0.30−0.186996993
    1986Economic indexDemocrats−0.26−0.34−0.174594592
    1988Economic indexDemocrats−0.26−0.32−0.197317313
    1990Economic indexDemocrats−0.32−0.41−0.223683682
    1992Economic indexDemocrats−0.35−0.40−0.319759713
    1994Economic indexDemocrats−0.21−0.27−0.157686213
    1996Economic indexDemocrats−0.20−0.26−0.147345933
    1998Economic indexDemocrats−0.33−0.42−0.255444642
    2000Economic indexDemocrats−0.27−0.36−0.194143313
    2004Economic indexDemocrats−0.50−0.58−0.434763893
    2008Economic indexDemocrats−0.51−0.59−0.425533383
    2012Economic indexDemocrats−0.33−0.37−0.302,7221,3973
    2016Economic indexDemocrats−0.45−0.50−0.401,5401,0393
    2020Economic indexDemocrats−0.85−0.89−0.813,2091,6723
    2024Economic indexDemocrats−0.80−0.85−0.752,1961,0223
    1984Economic indexRepublicans0.450.390.516336333
    1986Economic indexRepublicans0.400.310.493343342
    1988Economic indexRepublicans0.430.370.496646643
    1990Economic indexRepublicans0.280.180.382912912
    1992Economic indexRepublicans0.380.320.437907873
    1994Economic indexRepublicans0.590.520.667266053
    1996Economic indexRepublicans0.640.560.715614543
    1998Economic indexRepublicans0.370.270.473953332
    2000Economic indexRepublicans0.480.390.573042543
    2004Economic indexRepublicans0.350.260.444253613
    2008Economic indexRepublicans0.520.400.642822143
    2012Economic indexRepublicans0.850.810.901,8021,0973
    2016Economic indexRepublicans0.770.720.831,3899833
    2020Economic indexRepublicans0.720.670.762,8131,6423
    2024Economic indexRepublicans0.490.430.551,9429203
    1984Cultural indexAll adults0.480.440.531,5081,5082
    1986Cultural indexAll adults0.200.140.269149142
    1988Cultural indexAll adults0.510.470.551,5511,5513
    1990Cultural indexAll adults0.210.150.277297292
    1992Cultural indexAll adults0.280.240.312,0051,9963
    1994Cultural indexAll adults0.460.410.501,6591,3583
    1996Cultural indexAll adults0.350.300.401,4131,1393
    1998Cultural indexAll adults0.230.170.281,0558923
    2000Cultural indexAll adults0.290.230.368116523
    2004Cultural indexAll adults0.170.110.241,0068343
    2008Cultural indexAll adults0.090.020.169546203
    2012Cultural indexAll adults−0.01−0.050.025,2032,8803
    2016Cultural indexAll adults−0.23−0.27−0.193,3252,2973
    2020Cultural indexAll adults−0.33−0.36−0.296,7373,6963
    2024Cultural indexAll adults−0.33−0.38−0.294,3872,0593
    1984Cultural indexDemocrats0.330.270.406996992
    1986Cultural indexDemocrats0.190.100.284594592
    1988Cultural indexDemocrats0.420.360.487317313
    1990Cultural indexDemocrats0.100.010.193683682
    1992Cultural indexDemocrats0.090.030.149759713
    1994Cultural indexDemocrats0.270.190.347686213
    1996Cultural indexDemocrats0.180.100.257345933
    1998Cultural indexDemocrats0.03−0.050.125444643
    2000Cultural indexDemocrats0.130.030.224143313
    2004Cultural indexDemocrats−0.10−0.20−0.014763893
    2008Cultural indexDemocrats−0.17−0.27−0.075533383
    2012Cultural indexDemocrats−0.41−0.46−0.372,7221,3973
    2016Cultural indexDemocrats−0.69−0.74−0.631,5401,0393
    2020Cultural indexDemocrats−0.89−0.93−0.853,2091,6723
    2024Cultural indexDemocrats−0.93−0.99−0.882,1961,0223
    1984Cultural indexRepublicans0.630.560.716336332
    1986Cultural indexRepublicans0.190.100.293343342
    1988Cultural indexRepublicans0.630.580.696646643
    1990Cultural indexRepublicans0.290.190.392912912
    1992Cultural indexRepublicans0.520.470.587907873
    1994Cultural indexRepublicans0.650.590.727266053
    1996Cultural indexRepublicans0.610.540.695614543
    1998Cultural indexRepublicans0.480.390.563953333
    2000Cultural indexRepublicans0.510.410.603042543
    2004Cultural indexRepublicans0.490.400.574253613
    2008Cultural indexRepublicans0.410.290.522822143
    2012Cultural indexRepublicans0.410.360.461,8021,0973
    2016Cultural indexRepublicans0.300.250.351,3899833
    2020Cultural indexRepublicans0.300.260.342,8131,6423
    2024Cultural indexRepublicans0.330.280.381,9429203
    The gap between the Republican and Democratic lines widens on both panels, mostly because the Democratic line falls. The Republican minus Democratic gap on the economic index went from +0.69 in 1984 to +1.29 in 2024 and on the cultural index from +0.30 to +1.27. The grey dashed line is the mean of all adults. On the cultural panel it also falls, from +0.48 to −0.33, and so does the Republican line, so part of each party's fall is a shift of the whole sample. Positive values are more conservative than the average of all respondents from 1984 to 2024.Note: A party-by-study cell needs at least 100 respondents and an effective sample of 100; pure independents fall below that in most studies and are counted only in the line for all adults.Note: Shaded studies have only two items on one or both indices: the cultural index in 1984, both indices in 1986 and 1990, and the economic index in 1998. The cultural panel is noisier in those studies because an index of two items has lower alpha.Source: ANES Cumulative Data File, 1984 to 2024; weighted (VCF0009z); intervals are model based

    The movement was mostly on the Democratic side. Democrats went from −0.24−0.24 pooled standard deviations of the index (0 is the mean of all 1984-2024 respondents)Estimandweighted mean of the economic indexInterval95% CI −0.30 to −0.18n699Weightsweight (VCF0009z)PopulationDemocrats, leaners includedPeriod1984SourceANES Cumulative Data File to −0.80−0.80 pooled standard deviations of the index (0 is the mean of all 1984-2024 respondents)Estimandweighted mean of the economic indexInterval95% CI −0.85 to −0.75n2,196Weightsweight (VCF0009z)PopulationDemocrats, leaners includedPeriod2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File on the economic index and from +0.33+0.33 pooled standard deviations of the index (0 is the mean of all 1984-2024 respondents)Estimandweighted mean of the cultural indexInterval95% CI 0.27 to 0.40n699Weightsweight (VCF0009z)PopulationDemocrats, leaners includedPeriod1984SourceANES Cumulative Data File to −0.93−0.93 pooled standard deviations of the index (0 is the mean of all 1984-2024 respondents)Estimandweighted mean of the cultural indexInterval95% CI −0.99 to −0.88n2,196Weightsweight (VCF0009z)PopulationDemocrats, leaners includedPeriod2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File on the cultural index. Republicans went from +0.45+0.45 pooled standard deviations of the index (0 is the mean of all 1984-2024 respondents)Estimandweighted mean of the economic indexInterval95% CI 0.39 to 0.51n633Weightsweight (VCF0009z)PopulationRepublicans, leaners includedPeriod1984SourceANES Cumulative Data File to +0.49+0.49 pooled standard deviations of the index (0 is the mean of all 1984-2024 respondents)Estimandweighted mean of the economic indexInterval95% CI 0.43 to 0.55n1,942Weightsweight (VCF0009z)PopulationRepublicans, leaners includedPeriod2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File on the economic index and from +0.63+0.63 pooled standard deviations of the index (0 is the mean of all 1984-2024 respondents)Estimandweighted mean of the cultural indexInterval95% CI 0.56 to 0.71n633Weightsweight (VCF0009z)PopulationRepublicans, leaners includedPeriod1984SourceANES Cumulative Data File to +0.33+0.33 pooled standard deviations of the index (0 is the mean of all 1984-2024 respondents)Estimandweighted mean of the cultural indexInterval95% CI 0.28 to 0.38n1,942Weightsweight (VCF0009z)PopulationRepublicans, leaners includedPeriod2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File on the cultural index, so the Republican mean on the cultural index also fell. The mean of all adults on the cultural index fell as well, from +0.48+0.48 pooled standard deviations of the index (0 is the mean of all 1984-2024 respondents)Estimandweighted mean of the cultural indexInterval95% CI 0.44 to 0.53n1,508Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationall adults in the analysis sample, independents without a lean includedPeriod1984SourceANES Cumulative Data File to −0.33−0.33 pooled standard deviations of the index (0 is the mean of all 1984-2024 respondents)Estimandweighted mean of the cultural indexInterval95% CI −0.38 to −0.29n4,387Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationall adults in the analysis sample, independents without a lean includedPeriod2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File, so part of each party's cultural change is a shift of the whole sample and the gap measures the distance between the parties. When two groups differ on both indices, a correlation appears in the pooled sample even if the indices are unrelated inside each group. That is party sortingParty sortingThe alignment of party with other traits, such as ideology, religion, race and place, so that people who share a party also tend to share those traits. for these two indices, and the Chapter 1.1, Party and ideology chapter follows it for ideology more broadly. Comparing within party identification is a descriptive comparison: adults may take positions from the party they support, or support the party that matches their positions, and these data cannot separate the two.

    Correcting for measurement error

    Indices built from a few answers measure their topic with error, and error in either index lowers the observed correlation. The standard summary of how closely the items of one index agree is Cronbach's alpha [8], which runs from zero, when the items are unrelated, to one, when they agree perfectly. Figure 4 gives alpha for each study. The economic index went from 0.600.60 standardized Cronbach alpha, from 0 to 1 (higher is more consistent)Estimandstandardized alpha from the weighted mean inter-item correlation (bootstrap percentile interval)Interval95% CI 0.53 to 0.66n629Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationadults who answered every item of the economic indexPeriod1984SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 1984 to a peak of 0.830.83 standardized Cronbach alpha, from 0 to 1 (higher is more consistent)Estimandstandardized alpha from the weighted mean inter-item correlation (bootstrap percentile interval)Interval95% CI 0.82 to 0.84n5,691Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationadults who answered every item of the economic indexPeriod2020SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 2020 and 0.790.79 standardized Cronbach alpha, from 0 to 1 (higher is more consistent)Estimandstandardized alpha from the weighted mean inter-item correlation (bootstrap percentile interval)Interval95% CI 0.77 to 0.81n3,743Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationadults who answered every item of the economic indexPeriod2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 2024, and the cultural index from 0.440.44 standardized Cronbach alpha, from 0 to 1 (higher is more consistent)Estimandstandardized alpha from the weighted mean inter-item correlation (bootstrap percentile interval)Interval95% CI 0.38 to 0.49n1,462Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationadults who answered every item of the cultural indexPeriod1988SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 1988, the first study in which the cultural index has three components, to 0.690.69 standardized Cronbach alpha, from 0 to 1 (higher is more consistent)Estimandstandardized alpha from the weighted mean inter-item correlation (bootstrap percentile interval)Interval95% CI 0.67 to 0.72n4,109Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationadults who answered every item of the cultural indexPeriod2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 2024. The cultural index has the lower alpha in 1414 ANES studiesEstimandcount of studies in which the cultural index has the lower alphaWeightsnone (count or constant)Populationstudies with both indicesPeriod1984-2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File of the 1515 ANES studiesEstimandcount of studiesWeightsnone (count or constant)Populationstudies with both indicesPeriod1984-2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File studies, the exception being 1998, and each index has its lowest alpha in a study where it has only two components. Alpha is computed only on adults who answered every item of an index. The correlation also uses adults with two of three answers, who are measured less reliably than alpha suggests: on the economic index they are 58.3%58.3% percent of adultsEstimandweighted share whose economic index averages two answers instead of threeInterval95% CI 55.8% to 60.8%n1,508Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationadults with at least two of three items answered on each indexPeriod1984SourceANES Cumulative Data File of the 1984 sample, because the health-insurance item was answered by only part of that sample, and 15.4%15.4% percent of adultsEstimandweighted share whose economic index averages two answers instead of threeInterval95% CI 13.8% to 16.9%n4,387Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationadults with at least two of three items answered on each indexPeriod2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File of the 2024 sample.

    Figure 4

    Items in each index agree more in recent studies, and the cultural items agree less than the economic items in 14 of 15 studies

    Standardized Cronbach alpha of each index by ANES study, adults who answered every item of the index that year, 1984 to 2024; 95% intervals from resampling respondents

    Show data
    Data for Items in each index agree more in recent studies, and the cultural items agree less than the economic items in 14 of 15 studies
    StudyIndexAlphaInterval lowInterval highRespondents with every itemItems in the index
    1984Economic index0.600.530.666293
    1986Economic index0.430.330.519142
    1988Economic index0.620.570.661,1713
    1990Economic index0.470.370.567292
    1992Economic index0.620.590.661,5883
    1994Economic index0.670.630.711,4513
    1996Economic index0.660.620.711,1853
    1998Economic index0.470.370.551,0552
    2000Economic index0.600.530.666753
    2004Economic index0.690.640.738323
    2008Economic index0.730.680.777653
    2012Economic index0.760.740.784,4863
    2016Economic index0.790.770.812,7723
    2020Economic index0.830.820.845,6913
    2024Economic index0.790.770.813,7433
    1984Cultural index0.350.280.411,5082
    1986Cultural index0.370.290.449142
    1988Cultural index0.440.380.491,4623
    1990Cultural index0.170.040.297292
    1992Cultural index0.520.480.561,9003
    1994Cultural index0.530.480.571,5823
    1996Cultural index0.560.510.601,3463
    1998Cultural index0.560.510.609893
    2000Cultural index0.500.430.577593
    2004Cultural index0.610.570.669713
    2008Cultural index0.580.520.649243
    2012Cultural index0.620.600.655,1183
    2016Cultural index0.640.610.673,2513
    2020Cultural index0.690.680.716,3543
    2024Cultural index0.690.670.724,1093
    Alpha is higher in recent studies for both indices: the economic index went from 0.60 in 1984 to a peak of 0.83 in 2020 and 0.79 in 2024, and the cultural index from 0.44 in 1988, the first study with three cultural items, to 0.69 in 2024. Alpha runs from zero, when the items are unrelated, to one, when they agree perfectly. Values are lower in the shaded studies, where an index has only two items.Note: Alpha uses adults who answered every item of the index that year.Note: Shaded studies have only two items on one or both indices: the cultural index in 1984, both indices in 1986 and 1990, and the economic index in 1998.Source: ANES Cumulative Data File, 1984 to 2024; weighted (VCF0009z); intervals are model based

    Alpha rises when the items of an index measure the same thing with less noise, and it also rises when opinions on the items become more consistent across adults. A rise in alpha can therefore come from a fall in error, from a rise in the consistency of opinion, or from both, and the corrected series below inherits that mix.

    Dividing the observed correlation by the square root of the product of the two alphas gives the correlation the indices would show if their items were error-free, a correction proposed by Spearman [9]. In 2024 it gives +0.69+0.69 correlation coefficient, from −1 to +1Estimandobserved correlation divided by the square root of the product of the two alphas (bootstrap percentile interval)Interval95% CI 0.65 to 0.74n4,387Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationadults with at least two of three items answered on each indexPeriod2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File, against +0.35+0.35 correlation coefficient, from −1 to +1Estimandobserved correlation divided by the square root of the product of the two alphas (bootstrap percentile interval)Interval95% CI 0.24 to 0.46n954Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationadults with at least two of three items answered on each indexPeriod2008SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 2008 and +0.18+0.18 correlation coefficient, from −1 to +1Estimandobserved correlation divided by the square root of the product of the two alphas (bootstrap percentile interval)Interval95% CI 0.08 to 0.28n1,551Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationadults with at least two of three items answered on each indexPeriod1988SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 1988. The corrected view of Figure 2 draws it only where both alphas are at least 0.40.4 standardized Cronbach alpha, from 0 to 1 (higher is more consistent)Estimandsmallest alpha at which the corrected correlation is shownWeightsnone (count or constant)Populationindices whose correlation is correctedPeriod1984-2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File, which leaves out 1984, 1986 and 1990, studies in which the cultural index has only two components and a lower alpha. The corrected series rises as well and lies above the observed series in every study where it is drawn, and even the corrected indices leave the rest of the variation in each attitude unshared.

    Self-placement follows the economic and cultural indices about equally

    The seven-point liberal-conservative scale, on which adults place themselves, is a label and not a bundle of positions. Regressing self-placement on both indices at once shows how closely each goes with the label when the other is held fixed. For 1984 to 1996, adults one standard deviation apart on the economic index differ by 0.500.50 points on the 1 to 7 self-placement scale per pooled standard deviation of the indexEstimandweighted least squares coefficient on the economic index with study fixed effects (HC3 interval)Interval95% CI 0.47 to 0.54n7,815Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationadults with both indices and a 7-point self-placementPeriod1984-1996SourceANES Cumulative Data File points on the scale, and adults one standard deviation apart on the cultural index by 0.530.53 points on the 1 to 7 self-placement scale per pooled standard deviation of the indexEstimandweighted least squares coefficient on the cultural index with study fixed effects (HC3 interval)Interval95% CI 0.49 to 0.56n7,815Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationadults with both indices and a 7-point self-placementPeriod1984-1996SourceANES Cumulative Data File points, with the other index held fixed. For 2012 to 2024 the coefficients are 0.660.66 points on the 1 to 7 self-placement scale per pooled standard deviation of the indexEstimandweighted least squares coefficient on the economic index with study fixed effects (HC3 interval)Interval95% CI 0.64 to 0.69n17,452Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationadults with both indices and a 7-point self-placementPeriod2012-2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File and 0.670.67 points on the 1 to 7 self-placement scale per pooled standard deviation of the indexEstimandweighted least squares coefficient on the cultural index with study fixed effects (HC3 interval)Interval95% CI 0.65 to 0.70n17,452Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationadults with both indices and a 7-point self-placementPeriod2012-2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File. The cultural minus economic difference is +0.02 (95% CI −0.03 to 0.08)+0.02 points on the 1 to 7 self-placement scale per pooled standard deviation of the indexEstimandcultural coefficient minus economic coefficient (HC3 interval)Interval95% CI −0.03 to 0.08n7,815Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationadults with both indices and a 7-point self-placementPeriod1984-1996SourceANES Cumulative Data File in the early period and +0.01 (95% CI −0.04 to 0.06)+0.01 points on the 1 to 7 self-placement scale per pooled standard deviation of the indexEstimandcultural coefficient minus economic coefficient (HC3 interval)Interval95% CI −0.04 to 0.06n17,452Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationadults with both indices and a 7-point self-placementPeriod2012-2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File in the recent one, both intervals include zero, and neither extends beyond 0.080.08 points on the 1 to 7 self-placement scale per pooled standard deviation of the indexEstimandlargest absolute end of the two intervals for the cultural minus economic coefficientWeightsnone (count or constant)Populationadults with both indices and a 7-point self-placementPeriod1984-1996 and 2012-2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File points in either direction (Figure 5). Both coefficients are larger in the recent period, and the intervals for the two periods do not overlap. The studies from 1998 to 2008 are left out so that the two periods do not touch. The data do not separate the two indices in how closely each goes with the label.

    Two cautions apply to that reading. An index with lower alpha carries more measurement error, which lowers its coefficient, and the cultural index has the lower alpha, so equal coefficients are consistent with a cultural attitude that goes with the label somewhat more closely than the economic attitude does. Alpha also rose for both indices between the two periods, so part of the rise in both coefficients may be less measurement error, as the section on measurement error describes.The regression includes a fixed effectFixed effectsRegression terms that give each group, such as each country or each year, its own baseline. The other coefficients then compare respondents within the same group. for each study and uses HC3 robust standard errorsHC3 robust standard errorsA way of computing standard errors that stays valid when the spread of the outcome differs across respondents, with a correction for small samples. The book uses it for regressions that have no clusters.. The Chapter 7.1, The conservative label (planned) chapter separates the label from policy preferences.

    Figure 5

    Self-placed conservatism follows the economic and cultural indices about equally, and both coefficients grew

    Coefficient on each index in a regression of 7-point liberal-conservative self-placement on both indices (in pooled standard deviations) with study fixed effects, 1984 to 1996 and 2012 to 2024; 95% intervals

    • 1984 to 1996
    • 2012 to 2024

    Points on the seven-point self-placement scale per standard deviation

    Show data
    Data for Self-placed conservatism follows the economic and cultural indices about equally, and both coefficients grew
    earlyearly_hiearly_loindexn_earlyn_recentrecentrecent_hirecent_lo
    0.5020.5360.467Economic index7,81517,4520.6640.6900.638
    0.5260.5580.495Cultural index7,81517,4520.6730.6980.647
    Both coefficients rose, the economic one by 0.16 and the cultural one by 0.15 points per standard deviation, and the two rows sit almost on top of each other, with a cultural minus economic difference of +0.02 in the early period and +0.01 in the recent one. Both difference intervals include zero and neither extends beyond 0.08 in either direction. Each dot is the difference in self-placement, on the seven-point scale, between two adults one standard deviation apart on one index and equal on the other. The studies from 1998 to 2008 are left out so that the two periods do not touch.Source: ANES Cumulative Data File, 1984 to 1996 and 2012 to 2024; weighted (VCF0009z); HC3 intervals

    Adults on opposite sides of the medians

    A correlation can be restated as a count of people. Splitting each index at its weighted median within a study puts equal numbers of adults on each side of each index. An adult is cross-pressured when right of the median on one index and left of it on the other, that is, conservative on one index and liberal on the other. That share was 46.2% (95% CI 43.8% to 48.6%)46.2% percent of adultsEstimandweighted share on opposite sides of the two weighted medians (economic right and cultural left, or the reverse)Interval95% CI 43.8% to 48.6%n1,508Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationadults with at least two of three items answered on each indexPeriod1984SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 1984 and 30.0% (95% CI 28.0% to 31.9%)30.0% percent of adultsEstimandweighted share on opposite sides of the two weighted medians (economic right and cultural left, or the reverse)Interval95% CI 28.0% to 31.9%n4,387Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationadults with at least two of three items answered on each indexPeriod2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 2024 (Figure 6), and it moves with the correlation.

    For two bell-shaped indices with the observed correlation, the share on opposite sides of the medians would be 46.8%46.8% percent of adultsEstimandshare on opposite sides of the medians implied by the correlation if the two indices were bivariate normalWeightsnone (count or constant)Populationadults with at least two of three items answered on each indexPeriod1984SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 1984 and 32.8%32.8% percent of adultsEstimandshare on opposite sides of the medians implied by the correlation if the two indices were bivariate normalWeightsnone (count or constant)Populationadults with at least two of three items answered on each indexPeriod2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 2024.A bell-shaped (normal) pair with a given correlation is the reference case in which the correlation alone fixes how the two indices are spread jointly. The methods note gives the formula. The observed share is within 3.33.3 percentage pointsEstimandlargest absolute difference between the observed split share and the share implied by the correlation, over all studiesWeightsnone (count or constant)Populationadults with at least two of three items answered on each indexPeriod1984-2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File points of the implied value in every study, so a median split gives little evidence beyond the correlation itself. The difference has the same sign from 2008: the observed share is 2.12.1 percentage pointsEstimandsmallest amount by which the observed split share falls below the share implied by the correlation, over the studies from 2008Weightsnone (count or constant)Populationadults with at least two of three items answered on each indexPeriod2008-2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File to 3.33.3 percentage pointsEstimandlargest amount by which the observed split share falls below the share implied by the correlation, over the studies from 2008Weightsnone (count or constant)Populationadults with at least two of three items answered on each indexPeriod2008-2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File points below the implied share in each study from 2008, and in 2012, 2016, 2020 and 2024 the implied share lies above the observed 95% interval. More adults sit on the same side of both medians than the correlation implies, which is the same feature as the excess in the corner cells shown below.

    Figure 6

    The share of adults on opposite sides of the medians fell from 46.2% to 30.0% and stays within 3.3 points of the share the correlation implies

    Weighted share of adults by ANES study, 1984 to 2024; 95% intervals

    • Opposite sides of the medians
    • Strongly cross-pressured
    • Implied by the correlation
    Show data
    Data for The share of adults on opposite sides of the medians fell from 46.2% to 30.0% and stays within 3.3 points of the share the correlation implies
    conf_highconf_lowestimatenseriesyear
    48.6243.8246.221,508Opposite sides of the medians1984
    50.1944.1447.17914Opposite sides of the medians1986
    49.4844.5447.011,551Opposite sides of the medians1988
    54.0747.2250.65729Opposite sides of the medians1990
    46.1941.8444.012,005Opposite sides of the medians1992
    45.5840.3642.971,659Opposite sides of the medians1994
    45.8540.1142.981,413Opposite sides of the medians1996
    51.2544.8048.021,055Opposite sides of the medians1998
    51.6044.0047.80811Opposite sides of the medians2000
    48.1741.4744.821,006Opposite sides of the medians2004
    44.4336.7540.59954Opposite sides of the medians2008
    38.8035.3537.085,203Opposite sides of the medians2012
    36.7632.9234.843,325Opposite sides of the medians2016
    30.8427.9529.396,737Opposite sides of the medians2020
    31.9228.0029.964,387Opposite sides of the medians2024
    20.1216.2218.171,508Strongly cross-pressured1984
    19.7414.8317.29914Strongly cross-pressured1986
    19.7715.9517.861,551Strongly cross-pressured1988
    22.2116.4719.34729Strongly cross-pressured1990
    18.4015.1316.772,005Strongly cross-pressured1992
    16.0912.3714.231,659Strongly cross-pressured1994
    15.9611.9313.951,413Strongly cross-pressured1996
    16.7412.1214.431,055Strongly cross-pressured1998
    19.3013.6016.45811Strongly cross-pressured2000
    19.1114.0616.581,006Strongly cross-pressured2004
    17.0211.5114.27954Strongly cross-pressured2008
    13.1010.7311.925,203Strongly cross-pressured2012
    11.098.659.873,325Strongly cross-pressured2016
    7.355.756.556,737Strongly cross-pressured2020
    7.695.546.624,387Strongly cross-pressured2024
    n/an/a46.75n/aImplied by the correlation1984
    n/an/a47.79n/aImplied by the correlation1986
    n/an/a46.99n/aImplied by the correlation1988
    n/an/a48.96n/aImplied by the correlation1990
    n/an/a45.02n/aImplied by the correlation1992
    n/an/a43.66n/aImplied by the correlation1994
    n/an/a43.83n/aImplied by the correlation1996
    n/an/a44.83n/aImplied by the correlation1998
    n/an/a46.26n/aImplied by the correlation2000
    n/an/a44.25n/aImplied by the correlation2004
    n/an/a42.69n/aImplied by the correlation2008
    n/an/a39.47n/aImplied by the correlation2012
    n/an/a37.21n/aImplied by the correlation2016
    n/an/a32.71n/aImplied by the correlation2020
    n/an/a32.80n/aImplied by the correlation2024
    The share of adults on opposite sides of the medians falls from 46.2% in 1984 to 30.0% in 2024 and stays within 3.3 points of the dashed line, the 46.8% in 1984 and 32.8% in 2024 that the correlation implies for two bell-shaped indices. From 2008 the observed share is 2.1 to 3.3 points below the implied share. The lower line counts only adults at least 0.5 standard deviations from each median, 18.2% in 1984 and 6.6% in 2024.Note: Each index is split at its weighted median within the study, so each index divides adults into two equal groups. The implied share is the value for two normally distributed (bell-shaped) indices with the observed correlation. It has no interval because it is a function of the correlation.Note: Strongly cross-pressured means at least 0.5 standard deviations right of the median on one index and at least that far left of it on the other, in standard deviations of the index within the study. A band of 0.25 gives 27.5% in 1984 and 15.9% in 2024, and a band of 0.75 gives 10.3% and 3.2%.Source: ANES Cumulative Data File, 1984 to 2024; weighted (VCF0009z); intervals are model based

    A median split also counts as cross-pressured an adult who is barely across a median, which overstates how many hold strong views in opposite directions. A stricter definition puts a tolerance band around each median: an adult is strongly cross-pressured when the adult is at least 0.50.5 standard deviations of the index within one studyEstimandhalf-width of the tolerance bandWeightsnone (count or constant)Populationtolerance band around each medianPeriod1984-2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File standard deviations right of the median on one index and at least that far left of it on the other. That share was 18.2%18.2% percent of adultsEstimandweighted share at least 0.5 standard deviations from the median on both indices and on opposite sidesInterval95% CI 16.2% to 20.1%n1,508Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationadults with at least two of three items answered on each indexPeriod1984SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 1984 and 6.6%6.6% percent of adultsEstimandweighted share at least 0.5 standard deviations from the median on both indices and on opposite sidesInterval95% CI 5.5% to 7.7%n4,387Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationadults with at least two of three items answered on each indexPeriod2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File in 2024, and a narrower band and a wider band give the same fall (see the notes under the figure). In 2024 70.0%70.0% percent of adultsEstimandweighted share on the same side of both mediansInterval95% CI 68.1% to 72.0%n4,387Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationadults with at least two of three items answered on each indexPeriod2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File of adults are on the same side of both medians. A median split also makes the two split groups equal in size, and the two consistent groups equal in size, so shares from the split cannot show whether cross-pressure runs more toward economic left with cultural right or the reverse.

    In 2024, more adults sit in the corners than expected

    Figure 7 divides the 4,3874,387 respondentsEstimandcount of respondentsWeightsnone (count or constant)Populationadults with at least two of three items answered on each indexPeriod2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File adults with both indices in 2024 into cells 0.50.5 standard deviations of the index within one studyEstimandhalf-width of the tolerance bandWeightsnone (count or constant)Populationtolerance band around each medianPeriod1984-2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File standard deviations wide on each index, measured from each index's median, with open-ended outer bins that collect every adult beyond 1.01.0 standard deviations of the index within one studyEstimanddistance from the median at which the open outer bins beginWeightsnone (count or constant)Populationoutermost bins of the 2024 joint distributionPeriod2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File standard deviations. The corner cell for adults more than 1.01.0 standard deviations of the index within one studyEstimanddistance from the median at which the open outer bins beginWeightsnone (count or constant)Populationoutermost bins of the 2024 joint distributionPeriod2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File standard deviations left of the median on both indices holds 8.2%8.2% percent of adultsEstimandweighted share of adults in one cell of the joint distribution (Wilson interval)Interval95% CI 7.1% to 9.5%n353Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationadults with at least two of three items answered on each indexPeriod2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File of adults, and the corner cell for adults at least that far right on both holds 8.5%8.5% percent of adultsEstimandweighted share of adults in one cell of the joint distribution (Wilson interval)Interval95% CI 7.3% to 9.8%n416Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationadults with at least two of three items answered on each indexPeriod2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File. Two bell-shaped indices with the observed correlation would put 6.4%6.4% percent of adultsEstimandshare in each corner cell (both indices beyond one standard deviation on the same side) for two normally distributed indices centred at the medians with the observed correlationWeightsnone (count or constant)Populationadults with at least two of three items answered on each indexPeriod2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File of adults in each corner, and the 95% intervals of both observed corners lie above that reference. The reference uses the same open bins, so the bin width does not explain the difference.

    Figure 7

    In 2024 the two corner cells with both indices far left or far right hold more adults than the correlation implies

    Share of adults in each cell (columns: economic index; rows: cultural index), in standard deviations from each index's 2024 median, ANES 2024; 95% intervals

    0.0%9.0%
    No estimate
    Heat map of 2024 adults by economic index in columns and cultural index in rows. Shading is deepest in the top-right and bottom-left corner cells, where adults are far right or far left on both indices, with 8.5% and 8.2%. The top-left corner, where an adult is far left on the economic index and far right on the cultural index, is light at 1.4%. The bottom-right corner, far right on the economic index and far left on the cultural index, has no estimate because it has too few respondents.
    Culturalbelow −1−1 to −0.5−0.5 to 00 to 0.50.5 to 1above 1
    above 11.4%, interval 1.0% to 2.0%, n = 471.0%, interval 0.7% to 1.5%, n = 391.9%, interval 1.4% to 2.6%, n = 702.5%, interval 1.9% to 3.2%, n = 1163.6%, interval 2.9% to 4.5%, n = 1448.5%, interval 7.3% to 9.8%, n = 416
    0.5 to 10.9%, interval 0.6% to 1.4%, n = 371.2%, interval 0.8% to 1.8%, n = 491.7%, interval 1.2% to 2.4%, n = 643.3%, interval 2.6% to 4.1%, n = 1142.0%, interval 1.5% to 2.7%, n = 934.0%, interval 3.2% to 4.9%, n = 213
    0 to 0.52.2%, interval 1.6% to 2.9%, n = 963.0%, interval 2.4% to 3.8%, n = 1183.3%, interval 2.6% to 4.1%, n = 1414.8%, interval 3.9% to 5.8%, n = 2054.1%, interval 3.3% to 5.0%, n = 1584.0%, interval 3.3% to 5.0%, n = 200
    −0.5 to 03.0%, interval 2.4% to 3.9%, n = 1272.4%, interval 1.9% to 3.2%, n = 1053.4%, interval 2.7% to 4.2%, n = 1503.4%, interval 2.7% to 4.3%, n = 1551.8%, interval 1.3% to 2.4%, n = 711.8%, interval 1.3% to 2.5%, n = 78
    −1 to −0.52.7%, interval 2.1% to 3.5%, n = 1022.3%, interval 1.8% to 3.1%, n = 1122.1%, interval 1.6% to 2.8%, n = 912.5%, interval 1.9% to 3.2%, n = 1210.8%, interval 0.5% to 1.3%, n = 350.7%, interval 0.4% to 1.2%, n = 31
    below −18.2%, interval 7.1% to 9.5%, n = 3535.4%, interval 4.5% to 6.5%, n = 2443.6%, interval 2.8% to 4.5%, n = 1481.9%, interval 1.4% to 2.6%, n = 106No estimateNo estimate
    Show data
    Data for In 2024 the two corner cells with both indices far left or far right hold more adults than the correlation implies
    Cultural index (SD from median)Economic index (SD from median)Share of adults (%)Interval lowInterval highNormal reference (%)Observed minus reference (points)Respondents
    below −1below −18.27.19.56.4+1.8353
    below −1−1 to −0.55.44.56.53.5+1.9244
    below −1−0.5 to 03.62.84.53.0+0.6148
    below −10 to 0.51.91.42.61.80.0106
    −1 to −0.5below −12.72.13.53.5−0.8102
    −1 to −0.5−1 to −0.52.31.83.13.1−0.8112
    −1 to −0.5−0.5 to 02.11.62.83.4−1.391
    −1 to −0.50 to 0.52.51.93.22.6−0.2121
    −1 to −0.50.5 to 10.80.51.31.5−0.635
    −1 to −0.5above 10.70.41.20.8−0.131
    −0.5 to 0below −13.02.43.93.0+0.1127
    −0.5 to 0−1 to −0.52.41.93.23.4−0.9105
    −0.5 to 0−0.5 to 03.42.74.24.3−1.0150
    −0.5 to 00 to 0.53.42.74.34.0−0.6155
    −0.5 to 00.5 to 11.81.32.42.6−0.971
    −0.5 to 0above 11.81.32.51.80.078
    0 to 0.5below −12.21.62.91.8+0.496
    0 to 0.5−1 to −0.53.02.43.82.6+0.4118
    0 to 0.5−0.5 to 03.32.64.14.0−0.7141
    0 to 0.50 to 0.54.83.95.84.3+0.5205
    0 to 0.50.5 to 14.13.35.03.4+0.7158
    0 to 0.5above 14.03.35.03.0+1.1200
    0.5 to 1below −10.90.61.40.8+0.137
    0.5 to 1−1 to −0.51.20.81.81.5−0.249
    0.5 to 1−0.5 to 01.71.22.42.6−0.964
    0.5 to 10 to 0.53.32.64.13.4−0.1114
    0.5 to 10.5 to 12.01.52.73.1−1.193
    0.5 to 1above 14.03.24.93.5+0.5213
    above 1below −11.41.02.00.3+1.147
    above 1−1 to −0.51.00.71.50.8+0.239
    above 1−0.5 to 01.91.42.61.8+0.170
    above 10 to 0.52.51.93.23.0−0.5116
    above 10.5 to 13.62.94.53.5+0.1144
    above 1above 18.57.39.86.4+2.1416
    Two corners are dark, adults far left on both indices at the bottom left and far right on both at the top right, and the corner for economic left and cultural right at the top left is light. Each cell is the share of 2024 adults, and the second view shows each share minus the share for two bell-shaped indices with the observed correlation.Note: Columns run from the most liberal economic bin on the left to the most conservative on the right, and rows from the most conservative cultural bin at the top to the most liberal at the bottom. The middle cut of each axis is the median. The outer bins are open-ended and collect every adult beyond 1.0 standard deviations, so they are larger than the interior bins, which are 0.5 standard deviations wide. The normal reference uses the same bins.Note: Cells with fewer than 30 respondents are left blank: 2 cells, holding 0.5% of adults. Both are in the bottom-right corner region, where the cultural index is far left and the economic index is right of the median.Note: Bins are measured from the 2024 weighted median of each index, in units of that index's 2024 standard deviation.Source: ANES Cumulative Data File, 2024; weighted (VCF0009z); intervals are model based

    The off-diagonal corners hold adults far to opposite sides of the two medians. The corner for economic left and cultural right holds 1.4%1.4% percent of adultsEstimandweighted share of adults below the economic median by more than one standard deviation and above the cultural median by at least one (Wilson interval)Interval95% CI 1.0% to 2.0%n47Weightsweight (VCF0009z)Populationadults with at least two of three items answered on each indexPeriod2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File of adults, against 0.3%0.3% percent of adultsEstimandshare in each off-diagonal corner cell (beyond one standard deviation on opposite sides) for two normally distributed indices centred at the medians with the observed correlationWeightsnone (count or constant)Populationadults with at least two of three items answered on each indexPeriod2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File in the normal reference. 22 cellsEstimandcount of cells left blank for fewer than 30 respondentsWeightsnone (count or constant)Populationcells of the 2024 joint distributionPeriod2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File cells have fewer than 3030 respondentsEstimandsmallest cell that is shownWeightsnone (count or constant)Populationcells of the 2024 joint distributionPeriod2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File respondents and are left blank, and both lie where the cultural index is far left and the economic index is right of the median. Together they hold 0.5%0.5% percent of adultsEstimandweighted share of adults in the blank cellsWeightsnone (count or constant)Populationadults with at least two of three items answered on each indexPeriod2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File of adults, less than the economic-left, cultural-right corner alone, so adults far to opposite sides are more often economic left with cultural right than the reverse in 2024.

    The normal reference does not separate the way the two indices go together from the shape of each index. The indices average a few bounded, discrete answers, so their own distributions are not exactly bell-shaped, and the excess in the corners may come from that shape as much as from the joint pattern. The excess describes one study and is not evidence of polarization. The Chapter 7.3, Class, church and the two axes (planned) chapter takes up how income, education and church attendance sort the two axes.

    What these data cannot show

    The correlation is between two indices built in advance from a fixed set of items, so these data cannot show how many dimensions the public holds. A factor model or an item-response model fitted to a wider set of questions could find a different number, and a different choice of items would change the level of the correlation. The chapter also leaves out issues that fall outside both indices, such as immigration and race, which may form a third dimension.

    The corrected correlation assumes that the errors in the two indices are unrelated to each other and that alpha measures reliability, which holds only if the items of an index measure the same attitude. It is an upper bound for the correlation between the underlying attitudes only if errors are also unrelated across the items of one index. A shared response format or response style would raise alpha, make the correction too small and remove the bound, and the corrected series inherits the ambiguity in what a rise in alpha means. The interval for the corrected value comes from resampling respondents within a study and is wide in the early studies, where the indices have two components and low alpha.

    Each study interviews different adults, so the series cannot show whether individuals' attitudes moved together or whether the population changed as cohorts replaced one another. The comparison within party identification uses party identification measured in the same interview and shaped by the same attitudes, so it does not measure an effect of party. Interview mode changed over the period, and the interview-mode comparison covers only 44 ANES studiesEstimandcount of studies with weight_ftf and weight_webWeightsnone (count or constant)Populationstudies with mode-specific weights (face-to-face and web)Period1984-2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File studies. The intervals are model based and ignore the ANES clustering and stratification. The 2002 study has no cultural index, and 44 ANES studiesEstimandcount of studies in which the economic or the cultural index has only two itemsWeightsnone (count or constant)Populationstudies in which an index has two components, not threePeriod1984-2024SourceANES Cumulative Data File studies have two components in one or both indices.

    A comparison with the Cooperative Election Study is not included. Its economic index contains only health-care questions and its cultural index mixes abortion, guns, immigration and the environment, so a higher correlation there would confound item content with survey. A matched comparison needs an index built from the same kinds of questions in both surveys.

    A rising correlation fits an account in which the public has moved toward the alignment that the parties present, and the party gaps in Figure 3 are consistent with it, but nothing in these data tests that account.


    Data sources

    • ANES Cumulative Data FileANES Time Series Cumulative Data File, studies 1984 to 2024: jobs (VCF0809), services and spending (VCF0839), health insurance (VCF0806), abortion (VCF0838), gay and lesbian thermometer (VCF0232), traditional values (VCF0853), party identification (VCF0301), liberal-conservative self-placement (VCF0803)Years: 1948-2024 (33 study years; even years only after 2004; no 2006, 2010 or 2014 study) · Weights: weight (VCF0009z); weight_ftf and weight_web for the interview-mode comparison · License: Free download after accepting the ANES terms of use; cite the release.

    All data sources

    Methods

    Sample: respondents in the ANES Cumulative Data File with a positive weight and at least two of three items on each index, 15 studies from 1984 to 2024 (33,257 respondents). The 2002 study has no cultural index, since only the gay and lesbian thermometer was asked. Indices: each item is oriented so that a higher value is more conservative (the direction comes from the value labels of the Cumulative Data File, see the items table, never from a correlation), converted to a z-score with the weighted mean and standard deviation over all ANES years in which it was asked, and averaged over the items the respondent answered (the share of adults whose index averages two answers is the weighted share of a study's respondents who answered two of the three items). The economic index uses guaranteed jobs (VCF0809), services and spending (VCF0839) and health insurance (VCF0806); the cultural index uses abortion (VCF0838), the gay and lesbian thermometer (VCF0232) and the traditional-values item (VCF0853). The cleaned ANES file stores the Cumulative Data File thermometer code 97 (97 to 100 degrees) as 100. An index is the mean of the standardized items a respondent answered; the correlation does not depend on its unit, and each figure names its own yardstick: the party means and the self-placement regression use the index re-standardized to mean 0 and standard deviation 1 over all respondents in the analysis sample, and the cross-pressure band and the 2024 joint distribution use the standard deviation of the index within the study. Estimand: the survey-weighted Pearson correlation of the two indices within each study, weight VCF0009z. Net of party: both indices are residualized on the party identification categories within the study (weighted group means; three categories, and seven points with leaners kept apart, VCF0301) and the residuals are correlated; the Fisher z interval uses the Kish effective sample size less the number of party dummies. Reliability: standardized Cronbach alpha from the weighted mean inter-item correlation among respondents who answered every item of the index in that study (respondents with two of three items enter the correlation but not alpha, so alpha overstates their reliability); the corrected correlation divides the observed correlation by the square root of the product of the two alphas and is shown where both alphas are at least 0.4; intervals for alpha and the corrected correlation are 95% percentile intervals from 1000 bootstrap resamples of respondents within each study (each resample draws respondents with replacement and recomputes the estimate; seed 12345 plus the study year). Cross-pressure: an adult is cross-pressured when right of the median on one index and left of it on the other; each index is split at its weighted median within the study, respondents tied at the median are divided so that each side holds exactly half of the weighted population, and the tolerance band is 0.5 standard deviations of the index within the study around the median; the implied share is 50% minus arcsin(r) divided by pi, the value for two normally distributed (bell-shaped) indices with correlation r. Party means use party identification with leaners counted with their party and are expressed in standard deviations of the pooled analysis sample; the line for all adults is the weighted mean of every respondent in the analysis sample, independents without a lean included; the common-item check on the cultural party means and gap uses abortion and the thermometer only, which were asked in every study except 1986 and 1990. The reference for each cell of the 2024 joint distribution is the share of a bivariate normal distribution with the observed correlation, centred at the medians, inside the same bin; the second view of the figure subtracts it from the observed share and from both ends of the observed interval. Self-placement: weighted least squares of seven-point liberal-conservative self-placement (VCF0803) on both standardized indices with study fixed effects and HC3 errors, for 1984 to 1996 and 2012 to 2024; the rise in a coefficient between the two periods is the difference of the two coefficients with a normal interval from the two HC3 standard errors, treating the periods as independent samples. The slope of the standardized cultural index on the standardized economic index equals their correlation. Interview mode: face-to-face and web estimates use weight_ftf and weight_web, which exist for 2008, 2012, 2016 and 2024; web interviews began in 2012 and the 2020 study mixes modes without mode weights. Intervals: 95% Fisher z intervals on the Kish effective sample size, normal intervals for shares (Wilson intervals for cells of the joint distribution); all are model based and ignore clustering and stratification. Suppression: a study-level cell needs at least 150 respondents and an effective sample of 100; a party-by-study cell needs 100 and 100; a cell of the joint distribution needs 30 respondents.

    References

    1. Feldman, Stanley; Johnston, Christopher (2014). Understanding the Determinants of Political Ideology: Implications of Structural Complexity. Political Psychology 35(3): 337-358. doi:10.1111/pops.12055
    2. Treier, Shawn; Hillygus, D. Sunshine (2009). The Nature of Political Ideology in the Contemporary Electorate. Public Opinion Quarterly 73(4): 679-703. academic.oup.com/poq/article-abstract/73/4/679/1829142
    3. Carmines, Edward G.; Ensley, Michael J.; Wagner, Michael W. (2012). Who Fits the Left-Right Divide? Partisan Polarization in the American Electorate. American Behavioral Scientist 56(12): 1631-1653. doi:10.1177/0002764212463353
    4. Poole, Keith T.; Rosenthal, Howard (2007). Ideology and Congress: A Political Economic History of Roll Call Voting. Transaction Publishers (second edition).
    5. Malka, Ariel; Lelkes, Yphtach; Soto, Christopher J. (2019). Are Cultural and Economic Conservatism Positively Correlated? A Large-Scale Cross-National Test. British Journal of Political Science 49(3): 1045-1069. www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-political-science/article/are-cultural-and-economic-conservatism-positively-correlated-a-largescale-crossnational-test/83AFEDEA5E004CF23631C5388E7C9F67
    6. Fisher, Ronald A. (1921). On the Probable Error of a Coefficient of Correlation Deduced from a Small Sample. Metron 1(4): 3-32.
    7. Kish, Leslie (1965). Survey Sampling. John Wiley and Sons.
    8. Cronbach, Lee J. (1951). Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests. Psychometrika 16(3): 297-334. doi:10.1007/BF02310555
    9. Spearman, Charles (1904). The Proof and Measurement of Association between Two Things. American Journal of Psychology 15(1): 72-101. doi:10.2307/1412159

    How to cite

    @misc{singh2026economicandculturaldimensions,
      author = {Singh, Vishal},
      title = {Economic and cultural dimensions},
      year = {2026},
      url = {https://vishalsingh.org/politics/economic-and-cultural-dimensions},
      note = {In The Public Mind. Published 30 September 2026.}
    }

    Reading paths