B.J.Pol.S., Page 1 of 24 Copyright © Cambridge University Press, 2017 doi:10.1017/S0007123417000369 Does Political Sophistication Minimize Value Conflict? Evidence from a Heteroskedastic Graded IRT Model of Opinions toward Climate Change PAUL M. KELLSTEDT, MARK D. RAMIREZ, ARNOLD VEDLITZ AND SAMMY ZAHRAN* When citizens hold multiple values relevant to their policy opinions, they might experience value conflict, value reconciliation or make a value trade-off. Yet, it is unclear which individuals are able to manage their multiple values in these ways. We posit a sophistication-interaction theory of value pluralism where the most politically sophisticated individuals are able to reconcile the existence of multiple values, thus increasing the stability of their policy opinions. We test this hypothesis using a series of heteroskedastic graded item response theory models of public opinion toward policies related to climate change. We find that people structure their policy preferences toward climate change policies in values toward the environment and the economy, but only the most sophisticated citizens are able to reconcile the potential conflict between these values. Key words: public opinion; climate change; value conflict; political sophistication; item response theory A fundamental tenet of democratic theory is that citizens possess meaningful beliefs. Even democratic theories that posit a minimalist role for the public maintain some expectation that citizens are able to elect representatives based on mutual interests and preferences. 1 There is some doubt that citizens meet these expectations. Research shows the political preferences of the public are often unstable. 2 One reason for the instability is that citizens form their opinions using multiple core values that sometimes come into conflict. 3 For instance, citizens have been shown to experience opinion instability in response to conflict between values of feminism and religiosity when formulating their opinions toward abortion, 4 morality and egalitarianism regarding opinions toward GLBT (gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender) rights, 5 and individualism and humanitarianism regarding opinions toward welfare. 6 * Department of Political Science, Texas A&M University (kellstedt@tamu.edu); School of Politics and Global Studies, Arizona State University (mark.ramirez@asu.edu); Bush School of Government and Public Service, Texas A&M University (avedlitz@tamu.edu); Department of Economics, Colorado State University (szahran@colostate. edu). This material is based upon research conducted by the Institute for Science, Technology, and Public Policy at Texas A&M University and supported under award NA03OAR4310164 by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), US Department of Commerce. The statements, findings, conclusions and recommen- dations are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or Department of Commerce. Corresponding author: Paul M. Kellstedt, Department of Political Science, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-4348, USA. Email: kellstedt@tamu.edu. Data replication sets are available in Harvard Dataverse at: https://dx.doi.org/doi:10.7910/DVN/SRC9HN and online appendices at https://doi.org/doi: 10.1017/S0007123417000369. 1 E.g. Schumpeter 1950. 2 Converse 1964; Delli-Carpini and Keeter 1996; Kuklinski et al. 1998. 3 Alvarez and Brehm 2002; Craig, Kane, and Martinez 2002; Feldman and Zaller 1992; Grant and Rudolph 2003; Hochschild 1981. 4 Alvarez and Brehm 2002, 68–88. 5 Craig et al. 2005. 6 Feldman and Zaller 1992.