Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-99c86f546-t82dr Total loading time: 0.769 Render date: 2021-12-02T20:01:47.025Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Does Sophistication Affect Electoral Outcomes?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 August 2016

Abstract

It is widely assumed that a representative democracy requires an enlightened citizenry in order to function properly. The competence of citizens has been studied extensively and the sociodemographic determinants of political sophistication are particularly well known. Much less is known about whether and how citizen competence affects electoral behaviour and outcomes. This article reviews the existing literature on these topics. Despite the widespread consensus that, generally speaking, citizen competence matters for electoral outcomes, the review produced a mixed result: some studies suggest that the political left would benefit from a better-informed electorate, while other studies suggest the opposite. Although the majoritarian electoral context is overrepresented in the evidence, the review shows that at the individual level, political knowledge greatly increases a person’s ability to match personal preferences with the right candidate or party in an election. The article also identifies several gaps in existing knowledge, thereby suggesting future research questions.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s). Published by Government and Opposition Limited and Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Lauri Rapeli is director (acting) of the Social Science Research Institute at Åbo Akademi University. Contact email: lauri.rapeli@abo.fi.

References

(Citations marked with * were included in the reviewed studies).Google Scholar
Althaus, S.L. (1998), ‘Information Effects in Collective Preferences’, American Political Science Review, 92(3): 545558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Althaus, S.L. (2001), ‘Who’s Voted In When the People Tune Out? Information Effects in Congressional Elections’, in R. Hart and Daron Shaw (eds), Communication in U.S. Elections: New Agendas (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield): 3354.Google Scholar
Althaus, S.L. (2006), ‘False Starts, Dead Ends and New Opportunities in Public Opinion Research’, Critical Review, 18(1–3): 75104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Andersen, R., Heath, A. and Sinnott, R. (2002), ‘Political Knowledge and Electoral Choice’, Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 12(1): 1127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Arnold, J.R. (2012), ‘The Electoral Consequences of Voter Ignorance’, Electoral Studies, 31(4): 796815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Baum, M. and Jamison, A. (2006), ‘The Oprah Effect: How Soft News Helps Inattentive Citizens Vote Consistently’, Journal of Politics, 68(4): 946959.Google Scholar
*Bartels, L.M. (1996), ‘Uninformed Votes: Information Effects in Presidential Elections’, American Journal of Political Science, 40(1): 194230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bengtsson, Å. and Christensen, H.S. (2016), ‘Ideals and Actions: Do Citizens’ Patterns of Political Participation Correspond to their Conceptions of Democracy?’, Government and Opposition , 51(2): 234260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, S.E. (1995), ‘Americans’ Knowledge of Ideology 1980–1992’, American Politics Quarterly, 23(3): 259278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berelson, B.R., Lazarsfeld, P.F. and McPhee, W.N. (1954), Voting: A Study of Opinion Formation in a Presidential Campaign (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).Google Scholar
*Bergbower, M. (2014), ‘Campaign Intensity and Voting Correctly in Senate Elections’, Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 24(1): 90114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Bergbower, M., McClurg, S. and Holbrook, T. (2015), ‘Presidential Campaign Spending and Correct Voting from 2000 to 2008’, Social Science Quarterly, 96(5): 11961213.Google Scholar
*Bhatti, Y. (2010), ‘What Would Happen if we Were Better Informed? Simulating Increased Knowledge in European Parliament (EP) Elections’, Representation, 46(4): 391410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Blais, A., Gidengil, E., Fournier, P. and Nevitte, N. (2009), ‘Information, Visibility, and Elections: Why Electoral Outcomes Differ When Voters Are Better Informed’, European Journal of Political Research, 48(2): 256280.Google Scholar
Converse, P.E. (1964), ‘The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics’, in D.E. Apter (ed.), Ideology and Discontent (New York: Free Press): 206211.Google Scholar
*Delli Carpini, M.X. and Keeter, S. (1996), What Americans Know About Politics and Why It Matters (New Haven: Yale University Press).Google Scholar
Dolan, K. (2011), ‘Do Women and Men Know Different Things? Measuring Gender Differences in Political Knowledge’, Journal of Politics, 73(1): 97107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Dow, J.K. (2011), ‘Political Knowledge and Electoral Choice in the 1992–2004 United States Presidential Elections: Are More and Less Informed Citizens Distinguishable?’, Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 21(3): 381405.Google Scholar
Downs, A. (1957), An Economic Theory of Democracy (New York: Harper and Row).Google Scholar
*Dusso, A. (2015), ‘Incorrect Voting in the 2012 U.S. Presidential Election: How Partisan and Economic Cues Fail to Help Low-information Voters’, Electoral Studies, 37(1): 5062.Google Scholar
Erikson, R.S. (2007), ‘Does Public Ignorance Matter?’, Critical Review, 19(1): 2334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Federico, C.M. and Hunt, C.V. (2013), ‘Political Information, Political Involvement, and Reliance on Ideology in Political Evaluation’, Political Behavior, 35(1): 89112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, S. (1989), ‘Measuring Issue Preferences: The Problem of Response Instability’, Political Analysis, 1(1): 2560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Fowler, A. and Margolis, M. (2014), ‘The Political Consequences of Uninformed Voters’, Electoral Studies, 34(1): 100110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fraile, M. (2011), ‘Widening or Reducing the Knowledge Gap? Testing the Media Effects on Political Knowledge in Spain 2004–2006’, International Journal of Press/Politics, 16(2): 163184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilens, M. (2001), ‘Political Ignorance and Collective Policy Preferences’, American Political Science Review, 95(2): 379396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gordon, S. and Segura, G. (1997), ‘Cross-National Variation in the Political Sophistication of Individuals: Capability or Choice?’, Journal of Politics, 59(1): 126147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Hansen, K.M. (2009), ‘Changing Patterns of Information Effects on Party Choice in a Multiparty System’, International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 21(4): 525546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartman, T.K. and Newmark, A.J. (2012), ‘Motivated Reasoning, Political Sophistication, and Associations between President Obama and Islam’, PS: Political Science and Politics, 45(3): 449455.Google Scholar
*Heath, A., Andersen, R. and Sinnott, R. (2003), ‘Do Less Informed Voters Make Mistakes? Political Knowledge and Electoral Choices’, Revue de la Maison Française d’Oxford, 1: 6983.Google Scholar
Henderson, M. (2014), ‘Issue Publics, Campaigns, and Political Knowledge’, Political Behavior, 36(3): 631657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchings, V.L. (2001), ‘Political Context, Issue Salience, and Selective Attentiveness: Constituent Knowledge of the Clarence Thomas Confirmation Vote’, Journal of Politics, 63(3): 846868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, G. and Zeng, L. (2007), ‘When Can History Be Our Guide? The Pitfalls of Counterfactual Inference’, International Studies Quarterly, 51(1): 183210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kunda, Z. (1990), ‘The Case for Motivated Reasoning’, Psychological Bulletin, 108(3): 480498.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
*Lanz, S. and Nai, A. (2014), ‘Vote as you Think: Determinants of Consistent Decision Making in Direct Democracy’, Swiss Political Science Review, 21(1): 119139.Google Scholar
*Lau, R.R. (2013), ‘Correct Voting in the 2008 U.S. Presidential Nominating Elections’, Political Behavior, 35(2): 331355.Google Scholar
*Lau, R.R. and Redlawsk, D.P. (1997), ‘Voting Correctly’, American Political Science Review, 91(3): 585598.Google Scholar
Lau, R.R. and Redlawsk, D.P. (2001), ‘Advantages and Disadvantages of Cognitive Heuristics in Political Decision Making’, American Journal of Political Science, 45(4): 951971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Lau, R.R., Andersen, D.J. and Redlawsk, D.P. (2008), ‘An Exploration of Correct Voting in Recent U.S. Presidential Elections’, American Journal of Political Science, 52(2): 395411.Google Scholar
*Lau, R.R., Patel, P., Fahmy, D.F. and Kaufman, R.R. (2014), ‘Correct Voting Across Thirty-Three Democracies: A Preliminary Analysis’, British Journal of Political Science, 44(2): 239259.Google Scholar
Levendusky, M. (2011), ‘Rethinking the Role of Political Information’, Public Opinion Quarterly, 75(1): 4264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lodge, M., MacGraw, K.M. and Stroh, P. (1989), ‘An Impression-driven Model of Candidate Evaluation’, American Political Science Review, 83(2): 399419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Lupia, A. (1994), ‘Shortcuts Versus Encyclopedias: Information and Voting Behavior in California Insurance Reform Elections’, American Political Science Review, 88(1): 6376.Google Scholar
Lupia, A. (2006), ‘How Elitism Undermines the Study of Voter Competence’, Critical Review, 18(1–3): 217232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupia, A. and MacCubbins, M. (1998), The Democratic Dilemma (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
MacGregor, R.M. (2013), ‘Measuring “Correct Voting” Using Comparative Manifestos Project Data’, Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 23(1): 126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mattila, M. and Raunio, T. (2006), ‘Cautious Voters – Supportive Parties: Opinion Congruence between Voters and Parties on the EU Dimension’, European Union Politics, 7(4): 427449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mattila, M. and Raunio, T. (2012), ‘Drifting Further Apart: National Parties and their Electorates on the EU Dimension’, West European Politics, 35(3): 589606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Milic, T. (2012), ‘Correct Voting in Direct Legislation’, Swiss Political Science Review, 18(4): 399427.Google Scholar
*Nai, A. (2015), ‘The Maze and the Mirror: Voting Correctly in Direct Democracy’, Social Science Quarterly, 96(2): 465486.Google Scholar
Navarro, V., Muntaner, C., Borrell, C., Benach, J., Quiroga, Á., Rodríguez-Sanz, M., Vergés, N. and Pasarín, M.I. (2006), ‘Politics and Health Outcomes’, Lancet, 368(9540): 10331037.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Norris, P. (2000), A Virtuous Circle: Political Communication in Postindustrial Societies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Oscarsson, H. (2007), ‘A Matter of Fact? Knowledge Effects on the Vote in Swedish General Elections 1985–2002’, Scandinavian Political Studies, 30(3): 301322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Oscarsson, H. and Holmberg, S. (2013), Nya Svenska Väljare [New Swedish Voters] (Stockholm: Norstedts Juridik).Google Scholar
Page, B. and Shapiro, R. (1992), The Rational Public: Fifty Years of Trends in Americans’ Policy Preferences (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pérez, E.O. (2015), ‘Mind the Gap: Why Large Group Deficits in Political Knowledge Emerge – And What to Do About Them’, Political Behavior, 37(4): 933954.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierce, D.R. (2015), ‘Uninformed Votes? Reappraising Information Effects and Presidential Preferences’, Political Behavior, 37(3): 537565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popkin, S.L. (1991), The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).Google Scholar
Prior, M. (2014), ‘Visual Political Knowledge: A Different Road to Competence?’, Journal of Politics, 76(1): 4157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prior, M. and Lupia, A. (2008), ‘Money, Time, and Political Knowledge: Distinguishing Quick Recall and Political Learning Skills’, American Journal of Political Science, 52(1): 169183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rabinowitz, G. and Macdonald, S.E. (1989), ‘A Directional Theory of Issue Voting’, American Political Science Review, 83(1): 93121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rapeli, L. (2013), The Conception of Citizen Knowledge in Democratic Theory (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan).Google Scholar
Rapeli, L. (2014), ‘Comparing Local, National and EU Knowledge: The Ignorant Public Reassessed’, Scandinavian Political Studies, 37(4): 428446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Richey, S. (2008), ‘The Social Basis of Voting Correctly’, Political Communication, 25(4): 366376.Google Scholar
*Roy, J. (2011), ‘Information Heterogeneity, Complexity and the Vote Calculus’, Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 21(1): 2956.Google Scholar
*Ryan, J.B. (2011), ‘Social Networks as a Shortcut to Correct Voting’, American Journal of Political Science, 55(4): 752765.Google Scholar
Sciarini, P. and Kriesi, H. (2003), ‘Opinion Stability and Change During an Electoral Campaign: Results From the 1999 Swiss Election Panel Study’, International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 15(4): 431453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sekhon, J. (2004), The Varying Role of Voter Information Across Democratic Societies, APSA Political Methodology Section working paper.Google Scholar
Sides, J. and Karch, A. (2008), ‘Messages that Mobilize? Issue Publics and the Content of Campaign Advertising’, Journal of Politics, 70(2): 466476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smets, K. and van Ham, C. (2013), ‘The Embarrassment of Riches? A Meta-Analysis of Individual Level Research on Voter Turnout’, Electoral Studies, 32(2): 344359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Sokhey, A.E. and McClurg, S.D. (2012), ‘Social Networks and Correct Voting’, Journal of Politics, 74(3): 751764.Google Scholar
Stolle, D. and Gidengil, E. (2010), ‘What Do Women Really Know? A Gendered Analysis of Varieties of Political Knowledge’, Perspectives on Politics, 8(1): 93109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sturgis, P. (2003), ‘Knowledge and Collective Preferences: A Comparison of Two Approaches to Estimating the Opinions of a Better Informed Public’, Sociological Methods and Research, 31(4): 453485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomassen, J. (2012), ‘The Blind Corner of Political Representation’, Representation, 48(1): 1327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Toká, G. (2008), ‘Citizen Information, Election Outcomes and Good Governance’, Electoral Studies, 27(1): 3144.Google Scholar
*Toká, G. and Popescu, M. (2007), ‘Inequalities of Political Influence In New Democracies’, International Journal of Sociology, 37(4): 6793.Google Scholar
van der Brug, W. and van Spanje, J. (2009), ‘Immigration, Europe and the New Cultural Cleavage’, European Journal of Political Research, 48(3): 309334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verba, S., Burns, N. and Schlozman, K.L. (1997), ‘Knowing and Caring about Politics: Gender and Political Engagement’, Journal of Politics, 59(3): 10511072.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Visser, P.S., Holbrook, A. and Krosnick, J. (2008), ‘Knowledge and Attitudes’, in W. Donsbach and M. Traugott (eds), Handbook of Public Opinion Research (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage): 127140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
*Weisberg, H.F. and Nawara, S.P. (2010), ‘How Sophistication Affected the 2000 Presidential Vote: Traditional Sophistication Measures Versus Conceptualization’, Political Behavior, 32(4): 547565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weissberg, R. (1974), Political Learning, Political Choice, and Democratic Citizenship (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall).Google Scholar
Zaller, J.R. (1992), The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Does Sophistication Affect Electoral Outcomes?
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Does Sophistication Affect Electoral Outcomes?
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Does Sophistication Affect Electoral Outcomes?
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *