iSideWith Political Quiz
How the Scales are Structured
Who Usually Takes This Test?
See How You Compare
Below is a preview of how scores are typically distributed across each scale.
Example Questions From the Test
- The cause may matter, but political action should remain within established channels and avoid disruption.
- Limited disruption can be understandable, though organizers should quickly return to permitted forms of protest.
- Significant disruption can be justified when ordinary channels have repeatedly failed.
- Sustained nonviolent disruption is often necessary to force attention to entrenched injustice.
- Loosen building rules and rely mainly on private construction to increase supply.
- Ease building restrictions while offering limited assistance to households under pressure.
- Combine private development with subsidies, tenant protections, and nonprofit housing.
- Make major public investment in permanently affordable housing a central response.
- Reduce barriers and let people choose among mostly private plans.
- Offer targeted public help while keeping private coverage central.
- Guarantee a public option alongside private plans.
- Provide comprehensive coverage through a primarily public system.
iSideWith Political Quiz - Description and methodology of the test
Readers who want to examine public policy, institutions, and international responsibility can use the Iside With Political Quiz as a structured self-reflection exercise. It compares concrete civic trade-offs and reports how your political views take shape rather than assigning a party label. The result highlights recurring priorities and areas where your outlook is conditional or mixed.
What This Assessment Explores
These scenarios compare national autonomy with international coordination, shared provision with individual choice, and institutional continuity with structural reform. The result is intended for readers exploring civic priorities without being assigned a single partisan identity.
The result dimensions are:
- International Cooperation (0-15) measures national control versus coordination: Autonomy leaning (0-5) favors domestic discretion; Conditional cooperation (6-10) supports coordination with safeguards; Cooperation leaning (11-15) favors shared rules.
- Public Provision (0-15) measures individual choice versus shared systems: Individual-choice leaning (0-5) favors personal control; Mixed approach (6-10) combines public and private options; Public-provision leaning (11-15) favors common guarantees.
- Reform Orientation (0-15) measures continuity versus change: Preservation leaning (0-5) values established procedures; Selective reform (6-10) supports adjustment; Transformation leaning (11-15) favors deeper restructuring.
The profile summarizes your position on each dimension and shows how your political preferences fall between the stated poles.
Methodology and Scientific Basis
Kriesi et al. (2008) examine globalization, national control, and international coordination, while Jost, Federico, and Napier (2009) describe ideology as organized preferences rather than a single opinion. The questionnaire is conceptually consistent with these theoretical and empirical sources, but those publications do not validate this online questionnaire.
Each item presents a policy situation and four ordered responses. The options move through trade-offs such as private provision versus public guarantees, voluntary versus binding cooperation, and gradual versus structural change.
The result reports one 0-15 score for each dimension and assigns it to the catalogue’s stated band. These bands are catalogue-defined summaries of the position represented by each score.
Roosma, Gelissen, and van Oorschot (2013) address welfare preferences relevant to shared provision, while Gravelle, Reifler, and Scotto (2017) examine international and alliance attitudes. Choose the closest response; the result treats political ideology as a set of dimensions rather than one identity. Self-reported answers can shift with events, wording, social pressure, and self-awareness; interpret the profile as structured reflection rather than a measure of political identity.
- Kriesi, Hanspeter, Edgar Grande, Romain Lachat, Martin Dolezal, Simon Bornschier, and Timotheos Frey. West European Politics in the Age of Globalization. Cambridge University Press, 2008. 10.1017/CBO9780511790720
- Jost, John T., Christopher M. Federico, and Jaime L. Napier. Political Ideology: Its Structure, Functions, and Elective Affinities. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 307-337, 2009. 10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163600
- Roosma, Femke, John Gelissen, and Wim van Oorschot. The Multidimensionality of Welfare State Attitudes: A European Cross-National Study. Social Indicators Research, 113(1), 235-255, 2013. 10.1007/s11205-012-0099-4
- Gravelle, Timothy B., Jason Reifler, and Thomas J. Scotto. The Structure of Foreign Policy Attitudes in Transatlantic Perspective: Comparing the United States, United Kingdom, France and Germany. European Journal of Political Research, 56(4), 757-776, 2017. 10.1111/1475-6765.12197
Updated: