Search results

This chapter explores public perceptions of health disparities by taking political ideology and political party identification into account and applies theories of cognitive dissonance, cognitive prejudice, and moral prejudice to understand the impact of political ideology on perceptions of health disparities.

A statewide telephone survey asked 1,036 people about health disparities. Eight independent variables – political ideology, political party identification, gender, race, age, community type, income, and education achieved – were entered in an additive stepwise regression containing one of four dependent variables – unfair treatment based on health insurance, unfair treatment based on ability to speak English, minorities unable to get care when needed, and quality of care for minorities.

Political ideology entered all four equations while political party identity entered only two. Liberals were most likely to believe that minorities were unable to get routine care when needed and democrats that ability to speak English meant differential treatment. Respondents with low education were most likely to believe people were treated unfairly based on insurance, while those with lower incomes were more likely to believe that minorities received higher quality of care than whites.

A public opinion survey in one state cannot be generalized for the whole country. The survey was conducted in the spring of 2009 just as the debate over the proposed health care reform legislation was reaching a crescendo, which may explain the importance of political ideology on perceptions of health disparities.

This chapter explicitly examines the effect of political ideology and party identification on perceptions of health disparities by utilizing theories of cognitive and moral prejudice. Political ideology reflecting cognitive and moral prejudice may combine with support for a social movement or political faction that supports or opposes reducing health disparities.

Guided by the Comprehensive Model of Information Seeking (CMIS), this article identifies significant predictors that impact individuals seeking COVID-19 information. People with different political ideologies read contradictory information about the COVID-19 pandemic. However, how political ideology may affect COVID-19 information seeking remains unclear. This study explores the major information channels for individuals with different political ideologies to seek COVID-19 information. It further examines how political ideologies influence CMIS's effectiveness in predicting online health information-seeking.

This study collected 394 completed survey responses from adults living in the United States after the 2020 lockdown. ANOVA analyses revealed the differences in salience, beliefs, information carrier characteristics, utilities and information-seeking actions between Liberals and Conservatives. Regression analyses discovered variables that predict Liberals' and Conservatives' online health information seeking.

Results suggest that the internet is the top channel for COVID-19 information seeking. Compared to Conservatives, Liberals report more COVID-19 information-seeking actions. Liberals also express stronger salience, perceive higher trustworthiness of online COVID-19 information, are more likely to think of seeking online COVID-19 information as useful and helpful and report more substantial efficacy to mitigate the risk. Most CMIS variables predict Liberals' information seeking; however, only salience significantly predicts Conservatives' information seeking.

This article indicates that CMIS should include political ideology to refine its prediction of information seeking. These findings offer practical implications for designing health messages, enhancing information distribution and reducing the public's uncertainty.

The peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon/10.1108/OIR-08-2022-0436.

The majority of research to date has focused on how to leverage the effectiveness of in-game marketing campaigns. However, the author’s understanding of how to segment consumers for game consumption is limited. This research aims to focus on how consumers’ political ideology could influence consumers’ game choices.

This study used one state-level Google trend data and two experiments to show the effect of political ideology on consumers’ game choice.

This study found that liberals prefer non-persistent world games and conservatives prefer persistent world games. These effects occur because consumers’ political ideology alters their motivation to search for new opportunities, and this motivation, in turn, determines their choices. Finally, this study demonstrates the moderating role of brand familiarity in the effect of political ideology on game choice.

This study offers a new angle for game and marketing research about how consumers’ beliefs such as political ideology can change consumers' thoughts and preferences about games.

This study offers new insight into the gaming industry and marketers. They can use political ideology as a new and effective way to segment consumers.

These findings offer important insights into the ubiquitous nature of games in consumers’ everyday lives by detailing how political ideology influences game choice.

This paper fulfills an identified need to study how an important industry such as gaming can be effectively segmented through an important factor such as political ideology.

Acknowledging the importance of work–family practices that extend beyond what is legally mandated and that cover the needs of a diverse workforce, this paper offers a conceptual model that explores the factors that can influence the provision and inclusiveness of work–family policies in organizations.

The conceptual model is based on a thorough literature review of relevant articles in the fields of management and political science.

In line with the upper echelons perspective, chief executive officers’ (CEOs') political ideology is a multidimensional concept, comprising two main dimensions (financial and social) that can influence the provision and inclusiveness of work–family practices. Moreover, the proposed conceptual model considers other important factors, such as the centrality of the CEO's political ideology, as potential moderating factors, as well as the conditional role of institutional pressures. Finally, the proposed model takes into account the important role of line managers/supervisors in the implementation of work–family policies and shows the importance of the provision and inclusiveness of work–family practices for critical organizational outcomes (organizational attraction and turnover).

The proposed conceptual model offers a more in-depth understanding of the factors that influence the provision and inclusiveness of work–family policies.

In today’s world of heightened sociopolitical issues, consumer political ideologies may determine the nature of consumer-brand relationships. Consumers seek out self-affirming agents (e.g. friends, family and community) to bolster their beliefs, which help develop their sense of self. Increasingly, they also choose brands that fit into and support their worldview alongside other agents. Yet, little is known about the role of consumer political ideologies in shaping consumer behavior and consumer-brand relationships. This study aims to address this gap by exploring alternative political ideologies for market segmentation and brand attachment analysis.

This research uses an online survey for data collection that generated 819 usable responses. Respondents answered questions about their political orientations and then rated their attachment to 66 unique brands. This research uses cluster analysis to establish market segments using libertarian, authoritarian, conservative and liberal political ideologies, then between-group analyzes are used to determine significant differences in brand attachment.

Analysis reveals three clusters of consumers termed, conservative-libertarian, liberal-authoritarian and moderates. In 53% of the brands evaluated, the market segments’ degree of brand attachment differed significantly. Meanwhile, moderates demonstrate an overall stronger average brand attachment than the other market segments.

Findings suggest that shared political ideology provides a viable means to segment a market adding to the psychographic tools already available to brand managers. Findings also suggest that consumer political ideologies help inform brand attachment levels.

Given the ability to segment a market on political ideology, it is found that different segments demonstrate varying levels of brand attachment. In practical terms, using political ideology as a segmenting tool helps define a market segment and has a differentiable effect on attraction toward the brand. Thus, political ideology may be considered as brands position themselves and engage in corporate sociopolitical activism.

This research provides unique insights into consumer political ideology as an alternative segmentation tool and its role in understanding brand attachment.

The purpose of this paper is to identify the link between political ideology and the management of tourism in countries. The authors stipulate that the predominant political ideology in the country influences the nature and logic of state interventions in the tourism industry.

The paper elaborates several case studies from various countries – Bulgaria, Cyprus, Scandinavia, Russia, USA, China, Japan, Indonesia, and North Korea.

Countries with predominant (neo)liberal ideology do not typically interfere in tourism regulation, while nationalism leads governments to stimulate inbound and domestic tourism. Communist ideological approaches tend to be burdensome, inhibiting growth while stressing the promotion of the socialist achievements of a country. Countries that are traditionally thought of as social democratic have been evolving in recent years to regulate tourism in ways that are more liberal in nature than social democratic.

Political ideologies shape the acceptability of government support for private tourist companies, legislation in field of tourism, limitation/stimulation of inbound/outbound tourist flows. For the future the authors expect greater politicisation of tourism, active tourism “wars” between countries, greater control of governments on populations, thriving nationalism, “aggressive” environmentalism.

This is one of the first papers to discuss the impact of the political ideology on the management of tourism at the national level.

Through activism, brands participate in the sociopolitical controversies that shape society today. Based on social identity theory, this study aims to examine the moderating effects of consumer–brand identification (CBI) and political ideology in explaining consumer responses to brand activism. Furthermore, the role of perceived marginalization that can arise in the case of consumer–brand disagreement is explored.

The hypothesized effects were tested in three experiments. Study 1 (n = 262) and Study 2 (n = 322) used a moderation analysis, which was supplemented by a mixed design analysis with repeated measures in Study 1. In Study 3 (n = 383), the mediating effect of perceived marginalization by the brand was tested using a moderated mediation model.

The results show that strong CBI as well as a conservative ideology buffer the negative effects of consumer–brand disagreement on brand attitude and word-of-mouth intentions. In the case of agreement with a brand’s stance, no direct or interactive effects of brand activism on consumer responses occur. Perceived marginalization by a brand mediates the effects of brand activism.

This study extends the “love is blind” versus “love becomes hate” debate to the realm of brand activism and finds evidence for the former effect. It also contributes to the research on political consumption by highlighting the role of political ideology as an important boundary condition for brand activism. Perceived marginalization is identified as a relevant risk for activist brands.

Despite consumers being essential stakeholders in the exponential growth of the sharing economy, consumers’ attitudes towards their rights and responsibilities are relatively unknown. This study aims to test a novel hypothesised model mapping consumers’ attitudes towards their consumer rights and responsibilities with that of their political ideology (liberalism, conservatism and libertarianism) and moral foundations (avoiding harm/fairness, in-group/loyalty, authority/respect and purity/sanctity).

Two survey studies were conducted with consumers of the Uber ride share service; the first being to test measures of political ideology and consumer rights/responsibilities. These measures were then taken into the second study along with the Moral Foundations Questionnaire. The hypothesised model was tested using structural equation modelling.

The findings suggest that political ideology associates with similarities and differences in how consumers perceive their rights and responsibilities in the sharing economy, including mutual self-regulation. Support for these findings is established by identifying links with specific moral foundations.

This study considers a single participant in the sharing economy.

This article aims to examine the influence of chief executive officer (CEO) internal political beliefs on labor relations. Prior research has paid little attention to channels through which the internal personal value system of managers enhances or deteriorates firm value. The authors provide evidence consistent with CEOs adopting labor policies impacting incumbent management–labor relationships based upon their political ideologies.

The research design tests the impact of CEO political ideology on labor relation using an individual CEO’s personal information and firm affiliation, employee lawsuit information, financial contributions to candidates and committees, and firm financial information. The authors compiled a sample of 4,354 unique CEOs from 2,558 US firms that are covered by ExecuComp and used 18,404 firm-year observations for the study’s analysis. A Heckman two-stage estimation process is used to address a potential sample selection bias and match the requirements of exclusion and relevance criteria.

Findings indicate that firms led by Republican-leaning CEOs are more likely to be sued by their employees, especially for violating union rights. Moreover, the findings of the study uncovered that Republican-leaning CEOs have fewer cases dismissed or withdrawn compared to Democrat-leaning CEOs and are also less likely to settle court cases prior to trial. Results indicate that Republican-leaning CEOs are associated with more substantial decreases in firm value compared to Democrat-leaning CEOs when facing labor allegations. The authors further show that firm value is lower for all firms facing litigation, with the magnitude of the decrease being more pronounced for firms with Republican CEOs.

Firm affiliations are identified using ExecuComp, employee lawsuit information from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), financial contributions to candidates and committees from the Federal Election Committee (FEC) website, and financial information from Compustat. To the extent that these websites are inaccurate, such as financial contributions being underreported, the findings reported here may understate the relationships reported in this article.

The authors capture CEO political ideology using political contributions. There may be other means, such as physical space and personal effort, by which one could also estimate the party and intensity of CEO political ideology. This information is unavailable.

While presidential politics has four-year cycles, managerial finance is a daily activity. While political affiliation is most clearly measurable through monetary contributions, one can see implications of manager political leaning through their relationship with labor throughout the election cycle.

The analyses of this study indicate that labor unions are more likely to sponsor lawsuits and stronger allegations in firms with Republican CEOs and show that withdrawal, settlement or dismissal rates are lower when firms are managed by Republican managers, resulting in higher subsequent legal costs and potentially damaged employee morale. Also, this paper investigates whether lawsuits have a greater negative consequence on firm value when the firm is run by a Republican CEO. The authors find that lawsuits significantly lower Tobin's Q for Republican-led firms compared to companies with Democratic and apolitical CEOs. The authors further show that firm value is lower for all firms facing litigation, with the magnitude of the decrease being more pronounced for firms with Republican CEOs.

The purpose of this paper is to present a “manifesto” exploring a methodological approach to legal analysis, relying upon a morphological understanding of ideology.

The authors explore ideology within law and legal culture. They examine one such ideology – rule of law – and consider how this can shape judicial decision-making. They suggest techniques by which such influences can be identified.

The authors make four findings. First, following Freeden, ideology can be understood as a ubiquitous form of political thinking which seeks to fix the meanings of essentially contested concepts. Second, ideology in this sense forms an important part, but is distinguishable from the wider notion of legal culture. Considering ideology in law as a sub-system of legal culture can therefore be fruitful in providing a rich understanding of interpretive disagreements among the judiciary. Third, rule of law as an ideal is itself ideological, as it comprises contested concepts such as certainty, equality, stability and legality. It can be considered to constitute an internal ideology of law and it can be analysed how the concepts are de-contested in individual decisions. Finally, understanding this can help in the analysis of judgments in areas with high levels of administrative discretion and political contestation, such as planning and environmental law, as it helps us to understand how any particular judge sees the role of the court in its wider political context.

The originality of the authors’ approach lies in the drawing together of methodological techniques and understandings of ideology in, and in relation to, law.