IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0272530.html

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. Mondak, Jeffery J., 1999. "Reconsidering the Measurement of Political Knowledge," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 8(1), pages 57-82, January.
    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. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Althaus, Scott L., 1998. "Information Effects in Collective Preferences," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 92(3), pages 545-558, September.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Ganzach, Yoav, 2018. "Intelligence and the rationality of political preferences," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 59-70.
    4. Jason Barabas, 1998. "Wage Erosion, Economic Assessments, and Social Welfare Opinions," JCPR Working Papers 56, Northwestern University/University of Chicago Joint Center for Poverty Research.
    5. Lergetporer, Philipp & Schwerdt, Guido & Werner, Katharina & West, Martin R. & Woessmann, Ludger, 2018. "How information affects support for education spending: Evidence from survey experiments in Germany and the United States," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 138-157.
    6. James Tilley & Christopher Wlezien, 2008. "Does Political Information Matter? An Experimental Test Relating to Party Positions on Europe," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 56(1), pages 192-214, March.
    7. Calvin Thigpen & Kelcie Ralph & Nicholas J. Klein & Anne Brown, 2023. "Can information increase support for transportation reform? Results from an experiment," Transportation, Springer, vol. 50(3), pages 893-912, June.
    8. Arjuna SNOEP‐DELLEMAN & Agnes AKKERMAN & Roderick SLUITER & Katerina MANEVSKA, 2024. "You better watch out: How the supervisor response to worker voice affects promotive voice," International Labour Review, International Labour Organization, vol. 163(2), pages 247-269, June.
    9. Bruno S. Frey & Alois Stutzer, "undated". "The Role of Direct Democracy and Federalism in Local Power," IEW - Working Papers 209, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    10. 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.
    11. Matt Guardino & Suzanne Mettler, 2020. "Revealing the “Hidden welfare state†: How policy information influences public attitudes about tax expenditures," Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, Center for Experimental and Behavioral Public Administration, vol. 3(1).
    12. Alexandra Oprea & Daniel J Stephens, 2025. "A minimal standard of democratic competence," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 24(2), pages 169-190, May.
    13. Kim, Jaehoon & Fey, Mark, 2007. "The swing voter's curse with adversarial preferences," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 135(1), pages 236-252, July.
    14. 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.
    15. Reed, Markum, 2015. "Social network influence on consistent choice," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 17(C), pages 28-38.
    16. Nicholas Clark & Timothy Hellwig, 2012. "Information effects and mass support for EU policy control," European Union Politics, , vol. 13(4), pages 535-557, December.
    17. Apolte, Thomas & Müller, Julia, 2022. "The persistence of political myths and ideologies," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    18. 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.
    19. Sora Park & Jee Young Lee & Kieran McGuinness & Rebecca Griffiths & Thu Nguyen, 2023. "News Representation and Sense of Belonging Among Multicultural Audiences," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 11(4), pages 264-273.
    20. 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.

    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.