Notes

The theoretical foundation of this study relies on a reconceptualization of the variables used to define individuals’ ideological positions. While political psychology traditionally views ideology as a system of moral, political, and social beliefs that helps people interpret the social world and navigate political conflicts (Jost, 2006), the majority of existing multidimensional models still categorize individuals primarily by the ideas, values, or policies they affirmatively support (Abduljaber, 2018; Feldman & Johnston, 2014; Küçüker, 2007). A major methodological limitation of this approach is its tendency to conflate a lack of support with either neutrality or active opposition. To address this, the current research establishes a strict theoretical distinction between political indifference—where an issue simply lacks salience or fails to act as a mobilizing force—and active rejection, wherein an individual perceives a policy, group, or idea not merely as unfavorable, but as fundamentally unacceptable, threatening, or politically intolerable. Building on this distinction, the study introduces the combined ideological cluster as its core concept. Rather than functioning as pre-existing labels to be predicted, these newly constructed, person-centered classifications map the joint configurations of positive affiliations and active rejections across both stable ideological divisions and contemporary socio-political contexts. The primary argument for why these combined clusters will explain political behavior more effectively than traditional unidimensional or purely support-based categories (Benoit & Laver, 2006; Carney et al., 2008; Knight, 1999) lies in their ability to resolve "false positives." By focusing solely on affirmative values, traditional models often lump together individuals who might share positive views—such as identically supporting robust state intervention—but who clash entirely on what they actively reject. Incorporating active rejection filters out these contradictions, untangling internal ideological conflicts to produce highly cohesive groups whose political behavior is significantly more uniform and predictable.
The second causal mechanism underlying this framework is rooted in the psychological asymmetry between positive and negative information, as negative stimuli consistently exert stronger effects on judgment, evaluation, and behavior (Baumeister et al., 2001; Rozin & Royzman, 2001). While supporting a specific policy creates a baseline of political alignment, it is active rejection that serves as the primary catalyst for political mobilization. In political psychology, defensive reactions and ideological attitudes are closely tied to threat sensitivity, the perception of a dangerous world, and the avoidance of uncertainty (Duckitt, 2001; Jost et al., 2003; Perry et al., 2013). Because political action requires a tangible expenditure of effort, mobilization often stems from negative affect; as the social identity approach highlights, group identity is forged just as much by distinguishing oneself from out-groups as it is by in-group affiliation (Tajfel & Turner, 2004). When a policy or out-group is perceived as a direct threat, the resulting negative emotions serve as a powerful engine for action, a dynamic corroborated by studies on negative partisanship demonstrating that political behavior is heavily driven by animosity toward the opposing side (Abramowitz & Webster, 2016). This joint mechanism is expected to be especially robust in highly polarized environments like Turkey, which is characterized by severe affective divisions (Olcaysoy & Sarıbay, 2012) and voter turnout rates exceeding 80% (YSK, 2023). Guided by these mechanisms, this study proposes that utilizing a latent, person-centered analytical approach integrating both support and rejection will yield empirically distinct political clusters with a significantly higher capacity to predict political behavior than traditional left-right distinctions or exclusively support-based multidimensional categories. Ultimately, when active rejection is properly separated from mere political indifference or low salience, it is expected to emerge as a far stronger predictor of active political participation and mobilization than positive ideological support alone.