Abstract
This article considers some of the challenges that attend efforts to assess citizen performance. We begin by demonstrating the often- unarticulated complexity of evaluating performance in any domain. To do this, we identify four distinct conceptual elements that comprise an evaluation—identification of task, selection of criterion, choice of empirical indicator, and explication of standard—and illustrate with an example that is relatively free of ambiguity: performance in basketball. Using this framework, we then review research in three general areas of study: mass belief systems and issue consistency, political knowledge, and the use of political heuristics. We find that no study articulates all four elements (or adequate substitutes associated with an alternative framework). As a result, problems arise. Most significantly, any particular study is likely to use criteria that are unsatisfactory in important respects or to employ empirical indicators that do not validly measure the criteria. Across studies, conclusions often vary as a function of unarticulated differences in assumptions, definitions, and measures. We conclude by drawing a few lessons for future research, while also recognizing the impressive progress that the study of public opinion and citizen competence has made over the last 40 years.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Achen, C.H.(1975). Mass political attitudes and the survey response. American Political Science Review69: 1218–1231.
Bartels, L.M. (1996). Uniformed voters: information effects in presidential elections. American Journal of Political Science40: 194–230.
Brady, H.E., and Sniderman, P.M. (1985). Attitude attribution: a group basis for political reasoning. American Political Science Review79: 1061–1078.
Camerer, C. (1995). Individual decision making. In J.H. Hagel and A.E. Roth (eds.), The Handbook of Experimental Economics, pp. 587–616. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.
Carmines, E.G., and Kuklinski, J.H. (1990). Incentives, opportunities, and the logic of public opinion in American political representation. In J.A. Ferejohn and J.H. Kuklinski (eds.), Information and Democratic Processes, pp. 240–268. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Cobb, M.D., and Kuklinski, J.H. (1997). Changing minds: political arguments and political persuasion. American Journal of Political Science41: 88–121.
Converse, P. (1964). The nature of belief systems i mass publics. In D. Apter (ed.), Ideology and Discontent, pp. 206–261. New York: Free Press.
Dahl, R.A. (1989). Who Governs?Democracy and Power in the American City. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Delli Carpini, M.X., and Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans KnowAbout Politics and Why It Matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Druckman, J.N. (2002). The implications of framing effects for citizen competence. Political Behavior23: 225–256.
Erikson, R. (1979). The SRC panel data and mass political attitudes. British Journal of Political Science9: 89–114.
Jackson, J.E. (1979). Statistical estimation of possible response bias in close-ended issue questions. Political Methodology6: 393–424.
Judd, C., and Milburn, M. (1980). The structure of attitude systems i the general public: comparison of a structural equation model. American Sociological Review45: 627–643.
Kahneman, D., Slovic, P., and Tversky, A., eds.(1982). Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kuklinski, J.K., and Quirk, P.J. (2000). Reconsidering the rational public: Cognition, heuristics, and public opinion. In A. Lupia, M.D. McCubbins, and S.L. Popkin (eds.), Elements of Reason: Cognition, Choice, and the Bounds of Rationality, pp. 153–182. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kuklinski, J.K., Quirk, P.J., Jerit, J., Schwieder, D., and Rich, R.F. (2000). Misinformation and the currency of democratic citizenship. The Journal of Politics62: 790–816.
Lane, R. (1962). Political Ideology. New York: Basic.
Lascher, E.L., and Powers, M.R. (1997). Expert opinion and automobile insurance reform: a empirical assessment. Journal of Insurance Regulation16(2): 197–222.
Lau, R.R., and Redlawsk, D.P. (2001). Advantages and disadvantages of using cognitive heuristics in political decision making. American Journal of Political Science45: 951–971.
Lodge, M.G., and Hamill, R. (1986). A partisan schema for political information processing. American Political Science Review83: 399–419.
Lodge, M., and Taber, C. (2000). Three steps toward a theory of motivated political reasoning. In A. Lupia, M.D. McCubbins, and S.L. Popkin (eds.), Elements of Reason, pp. 183–213. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lupia, A. (1994). Shortcuts versus encyclopedias: information and voting behavior in California insurance reform elections. American Political Science Review88: 63–76.
Lupia, A., and McCubbins, M.D. (1998). The Democratic Dilemma: Can Citizens Learn What They Need to Know?Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Luskin, R. (1987). “Measuring political sophistication. American Journal of Political Science31: 856–99.
Luskin, R. (1990). Explaining political sophistication. Political Behavior12: 331–361.
Luskin, R. (2001). Political psychology, political behavior, and politics: questions of aggregation, causal distance, and taste. In J.H. Kuklinski (ed.), Thinking About Political Psychology, pp. 217–252. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Mondak, J.J. (1993). Source cues and policy approval: the cognitive dynamics of public support for the Reagan agenda. American Journal of Political Science37: 186–212.
Mondak, J.J. (1994). Cognitive heuristics, heuristic processing, and efficiency in political decision-making. In M. Delli Carpini, L. Huddy, and R.Y. Shapiro (eds.), Research in MicroPolitics, vol 4, pp. 84–107. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Mondak, J.J. (2002). Asked and answered: knowledge levels when we will not take “Don 't Know ”for an answer. Political Behavior23: 199–224.
Mutz, D.C. (1998). Impersonal Influence: HowPerceptions of Mass Collectives Affect Political Attitudes. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Nisbett, R., and Ross, L. (1980). Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment. New York: Prentice-Hall.
Piattelli-Palmarini, M. (1994). Inevitable Illusions: HowMistakes of Reason Rule Our Minds. New York: John Wiley.
Popkin, S.L. (1991). The Reasoning Voter. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Ragin, C. (2000). Fuzzy Set Social Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Sniderman, P.M., Brody, R.A., and Tetlock, P.E. (1991). Reasoning and Choice: Explorations in Political Psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sniderman, P.M., and Theriault, S.M. (1999). The dynamics of political argument and the logic of issue framing. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL, April 15–17.
Weissberg, R. (2002). Democratic political competence: clearing the underbrush and a controversial proposal. Political Behavior23: 257–284.
Zaller, J. (1990). Political awareness, elite opinion leadership, and the mass survey response. Social Cognition8: 125–153.
Zaller, J. (1992). The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kuklinski, J.H., Quirk, P.J. Conceptual Foundations of Citizen Competence. Political Behavior 23, 285–311 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015063108221
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015063108221