This sort of research only makes sense if you use an expansive definition of "liberal" and "conservative". From a historical perspective, it makes hardly any sense at all. For example, Englishmen in 1590 presumably split into "liberal" and "conservative" camps as defined by such research, and yet essentially everyone was ridiculously reactionary by modern standards, in that most people were monarchists who supported the personal rule of a queen. This suggests that the liberal/conservative divide, while real, need not necessarily bleed into politics. It's democracy, of course, that changed the game.