Skip to main content
Disciplines
Automotive Business IT + Informatics Construction + Real Estate Electrical Engineering + Electronics Energy + Sustainability Insurance + Risk Finance + Banking Management + Leadership Marketing + Sales Mechanical Engineering + Materials
Events
DE
EN
Books
Journals
Topic Page
Marketing
Start single access now
Access for companies
EXTENDED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Political Behavior
Published in: Political Behavior 1/2020

08-09-2018 | Original Paper

Self-Awareness of Political Knowledge

Author: Matthew H. Graham

Published in: Political Behavior | Issue 1/2020

Log in

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Despite widespread concern over false beliefs about politically-relevant facts, little is known about how strongly Americans believe their answers to poll questions. I propose a conceptual framework for characterizing survey responses about facts: self-awareness, or how well people can assess their own knowledge. I measure self-awareness of political knowledge by eliciting respondent certainty about answers to 24 factual questions about politics. Even on “unfavorable” facts that are inconvenient to the respondent’s political party, more-certain respondents are more likely to answer correctly. Because people are somewhat aware of their ignorance, respondents usually describe their incorrect responses as low-certainty guesses, not high-certainty beliefs. Where misperceptions exist, they tend to be bipartisan: Democrats and Republicans perform poorly on the same questions and explain their answers using similar points of reference.
previous article Why are African American Governors and U.S. Senators so Rare? Exploring White Voters’ Responses to African American Statewide Candidates

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Footnotes
1
Graham (2018) develops this argument in detail.
 
2
The Cambridge English Dictionary defines a belief as “the feeling of being certain that something exists or is true.” Merriam-Webster’s defines a belief as “a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing.”
 
3
On the efficacy of anti-cheating pledges, see Clifford and Jerit (2016).
 
4
This is true because calibration captures both the slope and the intercept shift away from the perfect use of the scale. Online Appendix B contrives a degenerate case with high calibration and negative slope.
 
5
Online Appendix A presents question-level equivalents of this figure. For simplicity, the figure pools across the partisan cues treatments.
 
6
This difference is statistically significant at the 0.05 level pooling across party cue conditions (\(\beta =0.031\), 95% bootstrapped CI = (0.001, 0.061)) but not separately (without cues: \(\beta = 0.031\)\((-\,0.003, -\,0.069)\), with cues: \(\beta = 0.030\)\((-\,0.022, 0.079)\)). Computing the same estimates with robust standard errors yields nearly identical confidence intervals and the same pattern of statistical significance.
 
7
Note that because these statistics are computed at the question level, within- and between-person slope both reduce to overall slope, and the high/low statistic is undefined because each respondent names only one certainty level.
 
8
On the two stock market questions, 8.4% of respondents used “television”, “watch”, or a variant of “T.V.”, compared with 3.7% of respondents on other questions. In a bivariate OLS regression, this difference of 4.7 percentage points had a robust standard error of 1.2 percentage points.
 
9
About 8.5% of party cues respondents used the word “Obama,” “Trump,” or a male pronoun, compared with 4.7% of respondents who did not see party cues. In a bivariate OLS regression, the 3.8 percentage point difference had a robust standard error of 0.7 percentage points.
 
10
To test this, I ran the following OLS regression using the subset of data in which Democrats and Republicans answered partisan questions: \(\text {correct}_{ik} \sim \beta _0 + \beta _1 \text {stereotype}_{ik} + \beta _2 \text {favorable}_{ik} + \beta _3 \text {stereotype}_{ik} * \text {favorable}_{ik}\). All variables are indicators. The estimated relationship is almost exactly zero for the unfavorable party (\(\beta _1=0.001\), cluster-robust se \(=0.028\)) and a slightly negative but statistically insignificant relationship for the favorable party (\(\beta _3=-\,0.032\), cluster-robust se \(=0.040\)). Because \(\beta _1\) is near-zero, \(\beta _3\) is a close proxy for the favorable party’s main effect.
 
Literature
Ahler, D. J., & Sood, G. (2018). The parties in our heads: Misperceptions about party composition and their consequences. The Journal of Politics, 80(3), 694–981.CrossRef
Alvarez, R. M., & Franklin, C. H. (1994). Uncertainty and political perceptions. The Journal of Politics, 56(3), 671.CrossRef
Bartels, L. M. (2002). Beyond the running tally: Partisan bias in political perceptions. Political Behavior, 24(2), 117–150.CrossRef
Berelson, B., Lazarsfeld, P., & McPhee, W. (1954). Voting. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Berinsky, A. J. (2015). Rumors and health care reform: Experiments in political misinformation. British Journal of Political Science, 47(2), 241–262.CrossRef
Berinsky, A. J. (2018). Telling the truth about believing the lies? Evidence for the limited prevalence of expressive survey responding. The Journal of Politics, 80(1), 211–224.CrossRef
Bullock, J. G., Gerber, A. S., Hill, S. J., & Huber, G. A. (2015). Partisan bias in factual beliefs about politics. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 10, 1–60.CrossRef
Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American Voter. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Caplan, B. (2001). Rational ignorance versus rational irrationality. Kyklos, 54(1), 3–26.CrossRef
Clifford, S., & Jerit, J. (2016). Cheating on political knowledge questions in online surveys: An assessment of the problem and solutions. Public Opinion Quarterly, 80(4), 858–887.CrossRef
Converse, P. E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In D. Apter (Ed.), Ideology and discontent. New York: Free Press.
Coppock, A., & McClellan, O. A. (2017). Validating the demographic, political, psychological, and experimental results obtained from a new source of online survey respondents. Unpublished Manuscript.
Delli Carpini, M. X., & Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper and Row.
Evans, G., & Andersen, R. (2006). The political conditioning of economic perceptions. Journal of Politics, 68(1), 194–207.CrossRef
Evans, G., & Pickup, M. (2010). Reversing the causal arrow: The political conditioning of economic perceptions in the 2000–2004 U.S. presidential election cycle. The Journal of Politics, 72(04), 1236–1251.CrossRef
Flynn, D. J., Nyhan, B., & Reifler, J. (2017). The nature and origins of misperceptions: Understanding false and unsupported beliefs about politics. Political Psychology, 38(682758), 127–150.CrossRef
Gaines, B. J., Kuklinski, J. H., Quirk, P. J., Peyton, B., & Verkuilen, J. (2007). Same facts, different interpretations: Partisan motivation and opinion on Iraq. The Journal of Politics, 69, 957–974.CrossRef
Gerber, A. S., & Green, D. (2012). Field experiments. New York: W.W. Norton.
Gilens, M. (1999). Why Americans hate welfare: Race, media, and the politics of antipoverty policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRef
Graham, M. H. (2018). Defining factual beliefs. Unpublished manuscript.
Guess, A. (2016). Media choice and moderation: Evidence from online tracking data. Unpublished Manuscript.
Guess, A., & Coppock, A. (2018). Does counter-attitudinal information cause backlash? Results from three large survey experiments. British Journal of Political Science, forthcoming.
Hill, S. J. (2017). Learning together slowly: Bayesian learning about political facts. The Journal of Politics, 79(4), 1403–1418.CrossRef
Hopkins, D. J., Sides, & J. Citrin, J. (2018). The muted consequences of correct information about immigration. The Journal of Politics, forthcoming.
Jerit, J., & Barabas, J. (2012). Partisan perceptual bias and the information environment. The Journal of Politics, 74(3), 672–684.CrossRef
Jessee, S. A. (2015). Don’t know responses, personality, and the measurement of political knowledge. Political Science Research and Methods, 5(4), 711–731.CrossRef
Kahan, D. M. (2016). The politically motivated reasoning paradigm, Part I. emerging. Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences.
Koriat, A., Lichtenstein, S., & Fischhoff, B. (1980). Reasons for confidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6(2), 107–118.
Kuklinski, J. H., Quirk, P. J., Jerit, J., Schwieder, D., & Rich, R. F. (2000). Misinformation and the currency of democratic citizenship. The Journal of Politics, 62(3), 790–816.CrossRef
Kull, S., Ramsay, C., & Lewis, E. (2003). Misperceptions, the media, and the Iraq War. Political Science Quarterly, 118(4), 569–598.CrossRef
Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480–498.CrossRef
Leeper, T. J., & Slothuus, R. (2014). Political parties, motivated reasoning, and public opinion formation. Political Psychology, 35(Suppl. 1), 129–156.CrossRef
Lichtenstein, S., & Fischhoff, B. (1977). Do those who know more also know more about how much they know? Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 20(2), 159–183.CrossRef
Luna, K., & Martín-Luengo, B. (2012). Confidence accuracy calibration with general knowledge and eyewitness memory cued recall questions. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 295, 289–295.CrossRef
Luskin, R. C., & Bullock, J. G. (2011). Don’t know” means don’t know”: DK responses and the public’s level of political knowledge. Journal of Politics, 73, 547–557.CrossRef
Nadeau, R., Niemi, R. G., & Levine, J. (1993). Innumeracy about minority populations. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 57(3), 332–347.CrossRef
Nyhan, B. (2010). Why the “death panel” myth wouldn’t die: Misinformation in the health care reform debate. The Forum,8(1), Article 5.
Nyhan, B., Reifler, J., & Ubel, P. A. (2013). The hazards of correcting myths about health care reform. Medical Care, 51(2), 127–132.CrossRef
Ortoleva, B. P., & Snowberg, E. (2015). Overconfidence in political behavior. American Economic Review, 105(2), 504–535.CrossRef
Oskamp, S. (1962). The relationship of clinical experience and training methods to several criteria of clinical prediction. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 76(28), 1–27.CrossRef
Pasek, J., Sood, G., & Krosnick, J. A. (2015). Misinformed about the affordable care act? Leveraging certainty to assess the prevalence of misperceptions. Journal of Communication, 65(4), 660–673.CrossRef
Petrocik, J. R. (1996). Issue ownership in presidential elections. American Journal of Political Science, 40(3), 825–850.CrossRef
Prasad, M., Perrin, A. J., Bezila, K., Hoffman, S. G., Kindleberger, K., & Manturuk, K. (2009). ‘There must be a reason’: Osama, Saddam, and inferred justification. Sociological Inquiry, 79(2), 142–162.CrossRef
Prior, M., Sood, G., & Khanna, K. (2015). You cannot be serious. The impact of accuracy incentives on partisan bias in reports of economic perceptions. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 10(July), 489–518.CrossRef
Shapiro, R. Y., & Bloch-Elkon, Y. (2008). Do the facts speak for themselves? Critical Review, 20, 115–139.CrossRef
Stalnaker, R. (1984). Inquiry. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Stanig, P. (2013). Political polarization in retrospective economic evaluations during recessions and recoveries. Electoral Studies, 32(4), 729–745.CrossRef
Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 755–769.CrossRef
Weatherson, B. (2005). Can we do without pragmatic encroachment? Philosophical Perspectives, 19(1), 417–443.
Weber, N., & Brewer, N. (2003). The effect of judgment type and confidence scale on confidence-accuracy calibration in face recognition. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(3), 490–499.CrossRef
Zaller, J. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Self-Awareness of Political Knowledge
Author
Matthew H. Graham
Publication date
08-09-2018
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Political Behavior / Issue 1/2020
Print ISSN: 0190-9320
Electronic ISSN: 1573-6687
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-018-9499-8

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

Political Behavior 1/2020 Go to the issue

Original Paper

More Important, but for What Exactly? The Insignificant Role of Subjective Issue Importance in Vote Decisions

Original Paper

Beyond Keeping the Peace: Can Peacekeepers Reduce Ethnic Divisions After Violence?

Original Paper

Fired Up, Ready to Go: The Impact of Age, Campaign Enthusiasm, and Civic Duty on African American Voting

Correction

Correction to: The Effect of Language on Political Appeal: Results from a Survey Experiment in Thailand

Original Paper

Why are African American Governors and U.S. Senators so Rare? Exploring White Voters’ Responses to African American Statewide Candidates

Original Paper

Can Politicians Exploit Ethnic Grievances? An Experimental Study of Land Appeals in Kenya