What is the evidence that people are poorly informed about politics? Do low levels of information compromise people’s ability to form reasoned opinions about political issues?

· Introduction

Political information is described as the currency of citizenship, especially in modern democratic politics (Delli Carpini & Keeter, 1996; p. 8). That is, the presence of an informed citizenry within a given political system is synonymous to democracy — a system of government that encourages citizens’ political participation and representation. Hence, political information provides citizens with the ability to participate more in politics. Consequently, Gilens (2001; p. 379) suggests that a “disengaged and ill-informed citizenry signifies a failure of democracy.”

In fact, some scholars have opined that the provision of information is important while fielding opinion surveys on political issues. Often, to get people’s opinion on certain political issues, the government provides the citizens with information. But does this mean people are often sufficiently informed about politics? Because it is one thing for people to have information and another, to be well informed about politics or political issues. Studies have shown that even when people are informed about certain issues or policies, they often do not have complete or enough information.

Similarly, Delli Carpini and Keeter (1996) posit that in practice, majority of people lack basic or sufficient political information. They further expressed, that this singular fact hinders citizens from making sound judgements or forming reasoned opinions about political issues. This means that poorly informed citizens with low levels of information about politics are unable to make quality decisions about political issues or policies.

However, how can we then ascertain that people are in fact not sufficiently informed? What evidence do we have to make this assertion? In order to provide answers to these questions, this essay taps into empirical studies on political information and public opinion, as well as citizens’ level of awareness — to measure how informed people are on political issues, and whether people are in fact poorly informed. It also tries to explain how information is sacrosanct to making reasoned opinions on political issues; the essay, therefore explores and examines the role of information in shaping public opinion.

· Are people poorly informed and what happens when they are?

Scholars such as Bartels (1996), Schueler and West (2016) established that citizens are often ill-informed about political issues. In fact, Butt (2004; p. 3) and Althaus (1998; p. 545) argued that information, as a significant resource to political participation in democratic governance, is not evenly distributed. Also, people don’t glean information equally; signifying a gap between the informed and less-informed, even as information becomes imperative for a responsive and participatory democratic governance. Thus, poorly informed citizens become less able to participate effectively in political issues. They tend to have less consistent opinions or attitudes towards politics or political issues, and they are more influenced by group identification than self-awareness or self-knowledge; that is, they follow the opinions and decisions of those they consider knowledgeable in a group setting or follow “familiar partisan positions”, rather than relying on the little information they have in order to make certain political choices (Henderson, 2013; p. 2). As a result, less informed people are disadvantaged from the ability to engage the systematic processor of decision making to make careful and reasoned opinions, as well as choices on political issues.

Additionally, Henderson argues that “information helps voters link their opinions on policy issues to their decision at the ballot box” (2013; p. 1). Hence, more informed people, unlike the less informed have consistent opinions on issues, which enable them to make a connection to their decisions or political preferences using the systematic processor of decision making. As a result, Butt (2004; p. 3) revealed that poorly informed people are disadvantaged by their lack of information to participate effectively in electoral processes or democratic politics in general.

· Evidence that people are poorly informed

A lot of studies have proven that citizens are in fact poorly informed about politics. In a 1994 Deliberative Poll conducted in Manchester, England to test people’s level of information about politics, Luskin et al. (2002) discovered that people lack the required information to make quality decisions on certain political issues. The survey showed that when the respondents were provided with factual information about certain political issues, their opinions and support for the policies changed a great deal. The surveyed issues were based on the British political system as well as legal laws. To conduct the poll, they gathered a set of people to give opinions on the policy items at first, and after some weeks invited them again; this time providing them with factual information, making them engage in group discussions and deliberations, as well as the opportunity to ask some politicians questions on different policy items. They, however, discovered that out of the 52 policy items that were surveyed, 35 (67.3%) indicated a significant statistical change in the respondents’ choices. This shows that the people were low in information at the first survey, while at the second survey when they were given information and made to participate in learning activities, their level of information increased and they were able to make careful and calculated choices; such that, their opinions and choices changed a great deal from the initial survey.

Additionally, Gilens (2001; p. 380) revealed that “in 1998, only 28% of Americans knew that the crime rate was falling, despite seven consecutive years of declines.” Thus, about 72 per cent of the population were poorly informed about the rate of crime in the US. In the same way, Bartels (2005; p. 21) discovered that the opinions of most respondents in the 2001 NES survey on President Bush’s tax proposal were poorly informed. For example, while the tax policy was widely criticized for giving the rich too much of tax breaks, and nothing or little to those at the lower rank of the social ladder (the middle class and working poor), the survey revealed substantial public support for the proposal which will allow rich people pay less in federal income taxes than they should. However, according to Bartels (2005; p. 20) about “40 per cent of the respondents in the NES survey admitted that the 2001 tax cut was something they “haven’t thought about.” This signals an inconsistency in their opinions because of them being poorly informed about the proposition. To further support the evidence that people are in fact poorly-informed about political issues, Bartels (2005; p. 20) revealed that in a “2003 survey of American’s view on taxes”, 34% per cent of respondents when asked if they were paying more in “federal income tax or social security and Medicare” responded that they didn’t know, while a majority of the respondents who gave a definite answer were wrong. What is more, when they were asked if they were eligible for “Earned Income Tax Credit”, 28% of the respondents said they didn’t know (Bartels, 2005; p. 20). Thus, this just shows us that many citizens are poorly informed about politics and don’t know how policies (such as tax) works. In fact, Bartels (2005; p. 21) concluded that citizens are “unclear about many basic facts in the realm of tax policy, and a fair amount of what they “know” is patently false…the most important features of that opinion, in my account, are that it was ill-informed.”

Furthermore, in a survey on support for abortion rights, Delli Carpini & Keeter (1996) discovered that women, when given information increased their support for it in a significant manner. Signifying that, prior to when the women were provided with information about the costs and benefits of abortion rights, they were poorly informed about it; thus, the information helped in changing their support for it upward.

· Why information matter

Often the role citizens play in a democratic polity, in determining the outcome of certain political issues increases their incentives to acquire more knowledge — in order to have consistent preferences and make calculated decisions. Scholars have argued that people’s attitudes or opinions on political issues are influenced by how informed they are. In fact, studies have shown that the level of people’s political information influences the nature of their political choices or opinions on policies (Sarah Butt, 2004). Similarly, Schueler and West (2015; p. 90) argue that informational effects drive changes in opinions. Luskin et al. (2002; p. 467) also expressed that increased information alter people’s opinion on issues. This suggests that public opinion on political issues could be altered by the provision of information to the citizens.

Furthermore, some scholars have discovered that lack of information may distort the outcome of public opinion compare to if people were better informed. To corroborate this line of thought, Schueler and West (2015; p. 91) expressed that “when public information is imperfect, polls and voting behavior may not accurately reflect what public opinion would be if citizens were fully informed.” As a result, more informed people can hold more consistent views than the less informed. While on the contrary, as observed in Bishop’s “The Illusion of Public Opinion” (2005; p. 22), those with low levels of information change their opinions on political issues from “interview to interview based on random reaction to the questions”; signifying lack of consistency in their opinions. Butt (2004; p. 3) also noted that “political knowledge affects the nature of people’s political opinions with more highly knowledgeable individuals holding sets of opinions that tend to be both more internally consistent and more stable over time.” Bartels (2005; p. 24) also discovered that “well-informed citizens in the NES survey had systematically different views about the extent and implications of economic inequality in American society”. In fact, we could argue that the level of information influences individual’s vote choices and nature of opinion; low levels of information have the propensity to hinder the ability of citizens to make reasoned opinions or be able to translate their opinions or attitudes into effective political choices.

According to studies on human decision-making process, people’s choices or opinions on political issues are based on a costs and benefits evaluation of the issues, especially those that have direct influence on their personal life. This suggests that people can make calculated choices when they are aware and better informed about the impact of the political issue or policy on them. For example, in the 2001 NES survey on Bush’s Tax Cut, Bartels (2005; p. 24) discovered that “better informed respondents were also somewhat more likely to say the tax cut issue was important to them personally.” Hence, less informed people were disadvantaged from making costs and benefits evaluation of the issues. Because they cannot ascertain the impact on their personal lives and as a result, their ability to make reasoned political opinions and decisions were compromised.

However, while some studies have posited that people can overcome their lack or low level of information through cues and partisan ideologies, Dusso (2015), on the contrary, argues that people who are poorly informed are more liable to vote incorrectly — even against their interests and beliefs — irrespective of the effect of cues or partisan ideologies. Employing a new approach to measure incorrect voting in elections, Dusso discovers that “when choosing between candidates, strong partisans and those who believe that the economy is doing better for them, but who also have poor knowledge of candidates’ policy positions, are much more likely to vote for the ‘wrong’ candidate” (Dusso, 2015). The fact is that decision processes such as cues or partisan goals are not systematic, but automatic. Thus, decisions taken, using cues end up becoming abrupt, unlike systematic decision processor — such as factual information which allows people to take decisions carefully and in a reasoned manner. Also, according to studies, people’s attitudes or opinions on political issues are hinged on self-interests and values (beliefs). However, taking a cue from Dusso’s observation, it means that people with low level of information find difficulty in linking their decisions to their interests and beliefs regardless of the use of partisan ideologies and cues. Hence, when people are highly informed they can better connect their political choices or opinions to their interests and beliefs; the implication of this is that those who are fully informed are enabled to make calculated decisions and sound judgements. In addition, Althaus (1998; p. 547) in line with Dusso’s findings also posits that “the well informed are likely to have more accurate beliefs than the ill-informed, they are more likely to express policy preferences consistent with their political predispositions.” Therefore, in summary, the interests and beliefs of respondents who are well informed are apt to be more accurately reflected in their political opinions or choices — because such high level of information enables them to hold political views or make policy decisions that are consistent. “Political knowledge seems to increase citizens’ ability to consistently connect their policy views to their evaluations of public officials and political parties, as well as to their political behavior” (Michael and Carpini, 2005; p. 11). As such, people who have low information about certain political issues end up not being able to marry their policy preferences to how they assess the policies of political parties or politicians. On the other hand, more informed people will be able to link their policy preferences with their evaluation of public officials and their policies. “For example, more-informed citizens are more likely to identify with the political party, approve of the performance of officeholders, and vote for candidates whose policy stands are most consistent with their own views” (Carpini and X., 2005; p. 11).

To further highlight how better-informed citizens form crystalized and reasoned opinions than those who are less informed, Bartels in his work on Bush tax policy, reckoned that “the political preferences of well-informed citizens differ from those of less informed citizens” (Bartels 2005; p. 23). Bartels further argued that highly informed people are more apt to have clear preferences on political issues and are more likely to track the policies and decisions of their representatives (2002; p.18). Therefore, according to Bartels, information in the hands of the citizens enable them to make informed decisions — that is, citizens tend to make rational choices when they are better informed on what the political issue or policy is about. For example, in the experimental survey of support for abortion rights in the US, one discovers that when women were provided with factual information about its costs and benefits, they increased their support for it than men. Abortion right is a hotly debated issue that affects women than men. However, there was an upward increase for support of abortion rights, especially among women when they were given information. Hence, the women were able to use the knowledge gleaned from the information they received about its costs and benefits to connect their interests and beliefs to their support for abortion rights. We can, thus, also argue that people make rational decisions, when an issue or policy being considered has a direct impact on them and they are aware — like the case of the abortion rights. As a result, when you provide people with information, they become more apt to make better-informed decisions — more importantly, if the issue has a direct implication on them — than those who lack information or have low levels of information. Because people are better to make connections to decisions when they have sufficient information than when they are not informed at all or less informed.

However, while some studies on political information and its effects have argued that even with information, some people end up making irrational decisions and making up illogical opinions. But, scholars such as Delli Carpini and Keeter (1996), Gilens (2001) and Bartels (2002) exposed that the reason why citizens may make unsound judgements or irrational decisions is often due to the fact that they don’t have much information or they are being misinformed. That, it is people’s low level of information that affects their ability to form reasoned opinions about political issues; as I noted above, it is one thing to have information and another to be highly informed about issues. Similarly, others argue that what might really hinder people is not using the information they have at all; that people sometimes show resistance to information. Having said that, it will suffice to mention that when highly informed citizens engage the information they have, they are more apt to form reasoned opinions and end up making sound judgements. According to Taber and Lodge (2006; p. 755), “normative models of human decision making imply or posit a two-step updating process, beginning with the collection of belief-relevant evidence, followed by the integration of new information with the prior to producing an updated judgment.” Thus, people ought to integrate their newly received information in order to make reasoned judgements. For example, the case of the abortion rights; the women were able to integrate the new information they received about the pros and cons of abortion rights with their prior information in order to increase their support for it. It could be rightly inferred that prior to the new information they received, the women couldn’t form reasoned opinions and make sound political decisions about abortion rights as they were apparently less informed about the costs and benefits. But, with the new information, their level of information increased, and they were able to form reasoned opinions and make decisions that correlate with their interests and beliefs.

Conclusion

Research has shown us that the level of information matters in shaping the outcome of people’s political decisions and choices. However, while the provision of information and the presence of an informed citizenry is imperative in democratic governance, a lot of studies have demonstrated that people are mostly poorly informed about politics. Thus, the economics of information is not even and people don’t glean information the same way; which creates an imbalance in people’s level of information, and as a result, compromises the ability of poorly informed people to make sound political choices as they would if they were well-informed.

References

Aaron Dusso, 2015 “Partisan and economic cues fail to help low-information voters choose the correct presidential candidate.” https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2015/04/23/partisan-and-economic-cues-fail-to-help-low-information-voters-choose-the-correct-presidential-candidate/

Beth E. Schueler and Martin R. West, 2016. “How Information Affects Citizen Support for

Public School Funding.” Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 80, №1, Spring 2016, Pp. 90–113.

Charles S. Taber and Milton Lodge, 2006. “Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs.” American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 50, №3, Pp. 755–769.

Delli Carpini and Keeter, 1996. “What Americans Know about Politics and Why it Matters.” From Democratic Theory to Democratic Practice: The Case for an Informed. pp. 22–61.

Delli Carpini and Michael X., 2005. “An Overview of the State of Citizens’ Knowledge About Politics.” In M. S. McKinney, L. L. Kaid, D. G. Bystrom, & D. B. Carlin (Eds.), Communicating politics: Engaging the public in democratic life (pp. 27–40). New York: Peter Lang. Retrieved from http://repository.upenn.edu/asc_papers/53

George Bishop, 2005. “The Illusion of Public Opinion.” Illusory Opinions on Public Affairs. Pp.19–45

Larry M. Bartels, 2002. “Economic Inequality and Political Representation.” Pp. 1–49.

Larry M. Bartels, 2005. “Homer Gets a Tax Cut: Inequality and Public Policy in the American Mind.” Perspectives on Politics Vol. 3/№1. Pp. 15–31.

Martin Gilens, 2001. “Political Ignorance and Collective Policy Preferences.” The American Political Science Review, Vol. 95, №2. (Jun. 2001), Pp. 379–396.

Michael Henderson, 2013. “Issue Publics, Campaigns, and Political Knowledge.” Political Behavior, Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013, DOI 10.1007/s11109–013–9243–3 Pp. 1–27.

Patrick Sturgis and Patten Smith, 2010. “Fictitious Issues Revisited: Political Interest, Knowledge and the Generation of Nonattitudes.” Political Studies: 2010 VOL 58, Pp. 66–84.

Philip E. Converse, 1964. “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics.” Apter, Ideology and Discontent, Pp. 206–261.

Robert C. Luskin, James S. Fishkin and Roger Jowell, 2002. “Considered Opinions: Deliberative Polling in Britain.” B.J.Pol.S. 32, Pp. 455–487.

Sarah Butt, 2004. “Political Knowledge and Routes to Party Choice in the British General Election of 2001.” British Elections & Parties Review, 14:1, Pp. 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/1368988042000258754

Scott L. Althaus, 1998. “Information Effects in Collective Preferences.” The American Political Science Review, Vol. 92, №3 (Sep. 1998), Pp. 545–558.