Political Behavior

, Volume 33, Issue 2, pp 335–356 | Cite as

Accuracy and Bias in Perceptions of Political Knowledge

Original Paper
First Online:

Abstract

Learning through social communication is promoted when citizens are able to identify which of their associates is likely to possess the necessary political information. This paper examines the factors that influence individuals’ evaluations of political expertise. Actual political expertise plays a large role in perceived expertise, but mistakes are made. These are largely the result of assuming that those engaged in politics must also be knowledgeable about politics. This paper uses the 1996 Indianapolis-St. Louis Study and the 2000 National Election Study to identify factors that bias levels of perceived political knowledge. The paper concludes by demonstrating that perceived expertise plays a larger role than actual expertise in the social influence process.

Keywords

Political expertise Political discussion Social networks 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Achen, C. H. (1986). The statistical analysis of quasi-experiments. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  2. Ahn, T. K., Huckfeldt, R., Mayer, A. K., & Ryan, J. B. (2008). Political experts and the collective enhancement of civic capacity. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
  3. Ahn, T. K., Huckfeldt, R., & Ryan, J. B. (2010). Communication, influence, and informational asymmetries among voters. Political Psychology. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9221.2010.00783.x.
  4. Bartels, L. M. (2002). Beyond the running tally: Partisan bias in political perceptions. Political Behavior, 24(2), 117–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chaffee, S., & Frank, S. (1996). How Americans get political information: Print versus broadcast news. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 546, 48–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Delli Carpini, M. X., & Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper Row.Google Scholar
  8. Fiorina, M. P. (1990). Information and rationality in elections. In J. A. Ferejohn & J. H. Kuklinski (Eds.), Information and democratic processes (pp. 329–342). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  9. Fiske, S. T., & Pavelchak, M. A. (1986). Category-based versus piecemeal-based affective responses: Developments in schema-triggered affect. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivations, cognition: Foundations of social behavior (pp. 167–203). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  10. Huckfeldt, R. (2001). The social communication of political expertise. American Journal of Political Science, 45(2), 425–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Huckfeldt, R., Levine, J., Morgan, W., & Sprague, J. (1998). Election campaigns, social communication, and the accessibility of perceived discussant preference. Political Behavior, 20(4), 263–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Huckfeldt, R., & Sprague, J. (1991). Discussant effects on vote choice: Intimacy, structure and interdependence. American Political Science Review, 53(1), 122–158.Google Scholar
  13. Huckfeldt, R., & Sprague, J. (1995). Citizens, politics, and social communication: Information and influence in an election campaign. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kenny, C., & Jenner, E. (2008). Direction versus proximity in the social influence process. Political Behavior, 30(1), 73–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Klofstad, C., McClurg, S. D., & Rolfe, M. (2006). Family members, friends and neighbors: Differences in personal political networks. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
  16. Klofstad, C., McClurg, S. D., & Rolfe, M. (2009). Measurement of political discussion networks: A comparison of two ‘name generator’ procedures. Public Opinion Quarterly, 73(3), 462–483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kuklinski, J. H., & Quirk, P. J. (2000). Reconsidering the rational public: Cognition, heuristics, and mass opinion. In A. Lupia, M. D. McCubbins, & S. L. Popkin (Eds.), Elements of reason: Cognition, choice, the bounds of rationality. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Kuklinski, J. H., Quirk, P. J., Jerit, J., Schwieder, D., & Rich, R. F. (2000). Misinformation and the currency of democratic citizenship. Journal of Politics, 62(3), 790–816.Google Scholar
  19. Lau, R. R., Andersen, D. J., & Redlawsk, D. P. (2008). An exploration of correct voting in recent U.S. presidential elections. American Journal of Political Science, 52(2), 395–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lau, R. R., & Redlawsk, D. P. (2001). Advantages and disadvantages of cognitive heuristics in political decision making. American Journal of Political Science, 45(4), 951–971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lau, R. R., & Redlawsk, D. P. (2006). How voters decide: Information processing during election campaigns. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lazarsfeld, P. F., Berelson, B., & Gaudet, H. (1948). The people’s choice: How a voter makes up his mind in a presidential campaign. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Lippmann, W. (1922). Public opinion. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  24. Lodge, M., & Taber, C. (2000). Three steps toward a theory of motivated political reasoning. In A. Lupia, M. D. McCubbins, & S. L. Popkin (Eds.), Elements of reason: Cognition, choice, and the bounds of rationality. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Lupia, A. (2006). How elitism undermines the study of voter competence. Critical Review, 18, 217–232.Google Scholar
  26. Lupia, A., & McCubbins, M. D. (1998). The democratic dilemma: Can citizens learn what they need to know? New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Luskin, R. C. (1990). Explaining political sophistication. Political Behavior, 12(4), 331–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McClurg, S. D., & Wade, M. (2006). “He said, she said: The interpersonal foundations of the gender gap.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
  29. Mendez, J., & Osborn, T. (2005). Gender crossfire? The political discussion of women and men. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
  30. Mendez, J. M., & Osborn, T. (2010). Gender and the perception of knowledge in political discussion. Political Research Quarterly, 63(2), 269–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mondak, J. J. (1995). Media exposure and political discussion in U.S. elections. Journal of Politics, 57(1), 62–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mondak, J. J., & Anderson, M. R. (2004). The knowledge gap: A reexamination of gender-based differences in political knowledge. Journal of Politics, 66(2), 492–512.Google Scholar
  33. Murphy, N. A., Hall, J. A., & Colvin, C. R. (2003). Accurate intelligence assessments in social interactions: Mediators and gender effects. Journal of Personality, 71(3), 465–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Paulhus, D. L., & Morgan, K. L. (1997). Perceptions of intelligence in leaderless groups: The dynamic effects of shyness and acquaintance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(3), 581–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Price, V., & Zaller, J. (1993). Who gets the news? Alternative measures of news reception and their implications for research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 57(2), 133–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Richey, S. (2008). The autoregressive influence of social network political knowledge on voting behaviour. British Journal of Political Science, 38(3), 527–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ryan, J. B. (2010). The effects of network expertise and biases on vote choice. Political Communication, 27(1), 44–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sokhey, A. E., & McClurg, S. D. (2008). Social networks and correct voting. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago. Google Scholar
  39. Zebrowitz, L. A., Hall, J. A., Murphy, N. A., & Rhodes, G. (2002). Looking smart and looking good: Facial cues to intelligence and their origins. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(2), 238–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceFlorida State UniversityTallahasseeUSA

Personalised recommendations