Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T19:12:27.822Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

12 - Political Knowledge

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

Cheryl Boudreau
Affiliation:
University of California
Arthur Lupia
Affiliation:
University of Michigan
James N. Druckman
Affiliation:
Northwestern University, Illinois
Donald P. Greene
Affiliation:
Yale University, Connecticut
James H. Kuklinski
Affiliation:
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Arthur Lupia
Affiliation:
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Get access

Summary

In political surveys, many citizens fail to answer, or provide incorrect answers to, fact-based questions about political figures and institutions. A common inference drawn from such failures is that citizens' poor performance on surveys reflects their incompetence in democratically meaningful contexts such as voting booths.

The scholarly home for such findings is the academic literature on political knowledge. A common analytic definition of political knowledge is that it is a measure of a citizen's ability to provide correct answers to a specific set of fact-based questions. Typical political knowledge questions include “What is the political office held by [name of current vice president, British prime minister, or chief justice of the United States]?” and “Which political party has the most seats in the U.S. House of Representatives?” Many people have used responses to survey-based political knowledge questions to criticize the public for its general incompetence.

In recent years, these criticisms have come under increasing scrutiny (e.g., Graber 1984; Popkin 1994). Some scholars raised questions about the practice of basing broad generalizations of citizen competence or knowledge on a relatively small set of idiosyncratic, fact-based survey questions (e.g., Lupia 2006). Others uncovered logical and factual errors in claims about the kinds of political knowledge that are needed to make important political choices competently (e.g., Lupia and McCubbins 1998; Gibson and Caldeira 2009).

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Boudreau, Cheryl. 2009. “Closing the Gap: When Do Cues Eliminate Differences between Sophisticated and Unsophisticated Citizens?” Journal of Politics 71: 964–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, James L., and Caldeira, Gregory A.. 2009. “Knowing the Supreme Court? A Reconsideration of Public Ignorance of the High Court.” Journal of Politics 71: 429–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilens, Martin. 2001. “Political Ignorance and Collective Policy Preferences.” American Political Science Review 95: 379–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, Stephen J. 1996. The Mismeasure of Man. rev. ed. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
Graber, Doris. 1984. Processing the News: How People Tame the Information Tide. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Krosnick, Jon A., Lupia, Arthur, DeBell, Matthew, and Donakowski, Darrell. 2008. “Problems with ANES Questions Measuring Political Knowledge.” Retrieved from www.electionstudies.org/announce/newsltr/20080324PoliticalKnowledgeMemo.pdf (November 5, 2010).
Kuklinski, James H., Quirk, Paul J., Jerit, Jennifer, and Rich, Robert F.. 2001. “The Political Environment and Citizen Competence.” American Journal of Political Science 45: 410–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuklinski, James H., Quirk, Paul J., Jerit, Jennifer, Schwieder, David, and Rich, Robert F.. 2000. “Misinformation and the Currency of Democratic Citizenship.” Journal of Politics 62: 790–816.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lau, Richard R., and Redlawsk, David P.. 1997. “Voting Correctly.” American Political Science Review 91: 585–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lau, Richard R., and Redlawsk, David P.. 2001. “Advantages and Disadvantages of Cognitive Heuristics in Political Decision Making.” American Journal of Political Science 45: 951–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupia, Arthur. 2006. “How Elitism Undermines the Study of Voter Competence.” Critical Review 18: 217–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupia, Arthur, and McCubbins, Mathew D.. 1998. The Democratic Dilemma: Can Citizens Learn What They Need to Know? New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McClone, Matthew S., Aronson, Joshua, and Kobrynowicz, Diane. 2006. “Stereotype Threat and the Gender Gap in Political Knowledge.” Psychology of Women Quarterly 30: 392–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, Melissa, and Orr, Shannon K.. 2008. “Experimenting with a ‘Third Way' in Political Knowledge Estimation.” Public Opinion Quarterly 72: 768–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mondak, Jeffery J. 2001. “Developing Valid Knowledge Scales.” American Journal of Political Science 45: 224–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mondak, Jeffery J., and Anderson, Mary R.. 2004. “The Knowledge Gap: A Reexamination of Gender-Based Differences in Political Knowledge.” Journal of Politics 66: 492–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mondak, Jeffery J., and Davis, Belinda Creel. 2001. “Asked and Answered: Knowledge Levels When We Will Not Take ‘Don't Know’ for an Answer.” Political Behavior 23: 199–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popkin, Samuel L. 1994. The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Prior, Markus, and Lupia, Arthur. 2008. “Money, Time, and Political Knowledge: Distinguishing Quick Recall from Political Learning Skills.” American Journal of Political Science 52: 168–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steele, Claude M., and Aronson, Joshua. 1995. “Stereotype Threat and the Intellectual Test Performance of African-Americans.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 69: 787–811.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sturgis, Patrick, Allum, Nick, and Smith, Patten. 2008. “An Experiment on the Measurement of Political Knowledge in Surveys.” Public Opinion Quarterly 72: 90–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×