Core of the theory
Murray Edelman (1964) pointed out that politics moves people's emotions and meanings through symbols, not only through the distribution of material benefits. Sears and colleagues carried this into opinion research, arguing that through political socialization people acquire strong, stable affective predispositions toward symbols such as parties, ideology, nation and racial groups, and respond according to them when new policies are linked to those symbols. From this perspective, policy attitudes express identity and values more than calculation.
Comparison with self-interest
Sears et al. (1980) showed that on issues such as unemployment, health insurance, busing and crime, personal stakes barely predicted policy attitudes, while symbolic predispositions such as party identification, ideology and racial attitudes predicted them strongly. Kinder and Sears (1981) applied this to race policy, arguing that White opposition was better explained by symbolic racism than by personal threat. Sears and Citrin (1985) found California's tax revolt also deeply tied to symbolic attitudes.
Limits and conditions
Green and Gerken (1989) showed that when stakes are large, clear and direct, self-interest does predict attitudes, as when smokers strongly opposed cigarette taxes and smoking restrictions. Chong et al. (2001) found experimentally that framing questions to highlight costs and benefits increases the influence of self-interest. Sears and Funk (1991) synthesized this work, concluding that self-interest is generally weak but operates under certain conditions. Alongside research on motivated reasoning and identity politics, the theory is used to explain the non-material foundations of political attitudes.
FAQ
- What is symbolic politics theory in simple terms?
- It says people judge policies more by "does this fit my side and my values" than by "does this benefit me."
- Does self-interest not matter at all?
- It does when stakes are large, clear and direct.
Sources reviewed: 2026-10-26
References
- Edelman, M. (1964). The symbolic uses of politics. University of Illinois Press. Classic on the symbolic side of politics.
- Sears, D. O., Lau, R. R., Tyler, T. R., & Allen, H. M., Jr. (1980). Self-interest vs. symbolic politics in policy attitudes and presidential voting. American Political Science Review, 74(3), 670–684. Key evidence: symbolic attitudes beat self-interest.
- Kinder, D. R., & Sears, D. O. (1981). Prejudice and politics: Symbolic racism versus racial threats to the good life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40(3), 414–431. Applies the framework to racial attitudes.
- Sears, D. O., & Citrin, J. (1985). Tax revolt: Something for nothing in California (Enlarged ed.). Harvard University Press. Book applying the theory to California's tax revolt.
- Green, D. P., & Gerken, A. E. (1989). Self-interest and public opinion toward smoking restrictions and cigarette taxes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 53(1), 1–16. When self-interest does matter (smokers).
- Chong, D., Citrin, J., & Conley, P. (2001). When self-interest matters. Political Psychology, 22(3), 541–570. Experimental conditions for self-interest effects.
- Sears, D. O., & Funk, C. L. (1991). The role of self-interest in social and political attitudes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 24, 1–91. Comprehensive review of self-interest research.