IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0272530.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What is the best proxy for political knowledge in surveys?

Author

Listed:
  • Lauri Rapeli

Abstract

Online surveys are becoming the dominant form for survey data collection. This presents a problem for the measurement of political knowledge, because, according to recent scholarship, unsupervised measurement of political knowledge in web-based surveys suffers from respondent dishonesty. This study examines the validity of five possible survey proxies for political knowledge: self-assessed sophistication, political interest, internal political efficacy, accuracy of party placements on a left-right dimension and political participation. The analysis draws on a 2020 survey data (n = 1,097) and partial replications with identical measures from a 2008 survey data (n = 1,021) from Finland. Through several tests, the five proxies are assessed in terms of convergent validity, criterion validity and predictive validity. Across all tests, political interest performs best on all dimensions of validity and demonstrates largely identical relationships with political knowledge. Although the survey measurement of political interest and political knowledge may partly tap into slightly different constructs, the analysis supports the conclusion that political interest is the most suitable survey proxy for political knowledge from among the five proxy candidates included in the analysis.

Suggested Citation

  • Lauri Rapeli, 2022. "What is the best proxy for political knowledge in surveys?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(8), pages 1-18, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0272530
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0272530
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0272530
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0272530&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0272530?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tsai, Tsung-han & Lin, Chang-chih, 2017. "Modeling Guessing Components in the Measurement of Political Knowledge," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 25(4), pages 483-504, October.
    2. Jessee, Stephen A., 2017. "“Don’t Know” Responses, Personality, and the Measurement of Political Knowledge," Political Science Research and Methods, Cambridge University Press, vol. 5(4), pages 711-731, October.
    3. Niemi, Richard G. & Craig, Stephen C. & Mattei, Franco, 1991. "Measuring Internal Political Efficacy in the 1988 National Election Study," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 85(4), pages 1407-1413, December.
    4. Markus Prior & Arthur Lupia, 2008. "Money, Time, and Political Knowledge: Distinguishing Quick Recall and Political Learning Skills," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 52(1), pages 169-183, January.
    5. Barabas, Jason & Jerit, Jennifer & Pollock, William & Rainey, Carlisle, 2014. "The Question(s) of Political Knowledge," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 108(4), pages 840-855, November.
    6. Andersen, Robert & Tilley, James & Heath, Anthony F., 2005. "Political Knowledge and Enlightened Preferences: Party Choice Through the Electoral Cycle," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 35(2), pages 285-302, April.
    7. Mondak, Jeffery J., 1999. "Reconsidering the Measurement of Political Knowledge," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(1), pages 57-82, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Carsten Jensen & Jens Thomsen, 2014. "Self-reported cheating in web surveys on political knowledge," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 48(6), pages 3343-3354, November.
    2. Daniel Hart & Robert Atkins, 2011. "American Sixteen- and Seventeen-Year-Olds Are Ready to Vote," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 633(1), pages 201-222, January.
    3. Baumberg, Ben, 2016. "Benefit `myths'? The accuracy and inaccuracy of public beliefs about the benefits system," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 103512, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    4. Simon Briole & Marc Gurgand & Éric Maurin & Sandra McNally & Jenifer Ruiz-Valenzuela & Daniel Santín, 2025. "The Making of Civic Virtues: A School-Based Experiment in Three Countries," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 17(3), pages 496-521, August.
    5. Anna Kern, 2017. "The Effect of Direct Democratic Participation on Citizens’ Political Attitudes in Switzerland: The Difference between Availability and Use," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 5(2), pages 16-26.
    6. Simon Richter & Sebastian Stier, 2022. "Learning about the unknown Spitzenkandidaten: The role of media exposure during the 2019 European Parliament elections," European Union Politics, , vol. 23(2), pages 309-329, June.
    7. André Pirralha, 2017. "Political Participation and Wellbeing in the Netherlands: Exploring the Causal Links," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 12(2), pages 327-341, June.
    8. Cato Waeterloos & Peter Conradie & Michel Walrave & Koen Ponnet, 2021. "Digital Issue Movements: Political Repertoires and Drivers of Participation among Belgian Youth in the Context of ‘School Strike for Climate’," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-19, September.
    9. Brad R. Taylor, 2020. "The psychological foundations of rational ignorance: biased heuristics and decision costs," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 31(1), pages 70-88, March.
    10. Katherine Haenschen & Jessica R. Collier & John C. Tedesco, 2024. "The normatively troubling impact of attitudes toward the role of money in politics on external political efficacy," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 105(3), pages 666-681, May.
    11. Arthur Lupia & Adam S. Levine & Jesse O. Menning & Gisela Sin, 2005. "Were Bush Tax Cut Supporters “Simply Ignorant?” A Second Look at Conservatives and Liberals in “Homer Gets a Tax Cut”," Public Economics 0510004, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Bettina Schuck & Jennifer Shore, 2019. "How Intergenerational Mobility Shapes Attitudes toward Work and Welfare," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 682(1), pages 139-154, March.
    13. Bleck, Jaimie & Michelitch, Kristin, 2018. "Is women’s empowerment associated with political knowledge and opinions? Evidence from rural Mali," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 299-323.
    14. Daniel Vogler & Morley Weston & Quirin Ryffel & Adrian Rauchfleisch & Pascal Jürgens & Mark Eisenegger & Lisa Schwaiger & Urs Christen, 2023. "Mobile News Consumption and Its Relation to Young Adults’ Knowledge About and Participation in Referendums," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 11(1), pages 6-18.
    15. Daniel Vogler & Morley Weston & Quirin Ryffel & Adrian Rauchfleisch & Pascal Jürgens & Mark Eisenegger & Lisa Schwaiger & Urs Christen, 2023. "Mobile News Consumption and Its Relation to Young Adults’ Knowledge About and Participation in Referendums," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 11(1), pages 6-18.
    16. Susumu Shikano & Dominic Nyhuis, 2019. "The effect of incumbency on ideological and valence perceptions of parties in multilevel polities," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 181(3), pages 331-349, December.
    17. Quinton Mayne & Brigitte Geißel, 2018. "Don’t Good Democracies Need “Good” Citizens? Citizen Dispositions and the Study of Democratic Quality," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 6(1), pages 33-47.
    18. James Adams & Simon Weschle & Christopher Wlezien, 2021. "Elite Interactions and Voters’ Perceptions of Parties’ Policy Positions," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 65(1), pages 101-114, January.
    19. Sergio Splendore & Diego Garusi & Augusto Valeriani, 2024. "A Deliberative Democracy Framework for Analysing Trust in Journalists: An Application to Italy," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 12.
    20. Breuer, Anita & Asiedu, Edward, 2017. "Can Gender-Targeted Employment Interventions Help Enhance Community Participation? Evidence from Urban Togo," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 96(C), pages 390-407.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0272530. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.