Estimating Political Expertise and Fearing the "Passionate Fool"

When we think someone knows what they're talking about, we quite logically pay more attention to what they say. 

Guess someone's expertise correctly and we benefit from good advice.  Guess wrong, we're screwed.  This goes for health information, this goes for car repairs, and according to a new Political Behavior article, this goes for guessing the political expertise of people we speak to most often about politics.

Turns out, we're only so-so at guessing the expertise of others.  According to the author:

This study presents a mixed picture of the public’s ability to identify credible information sources among those with whom they discuss politics. The good news is individuals are able to recognize expertise, but people do make mistakes and systematically overestimate the knowledge of some types of individuals and underestimate it in others.

When someone is passionate about politics we tend to overestimate their actual expertise.  That's an understandable bias on our part.  If someone cares deeply, they must be knowledgeable, right?  Not necessarily. 

We can also be overwhelmed by someone's emotion.  The downside, writes study author John Barry Ryan, is "individuals do run the risk of believing those who are constantly talking, but without any real understanding of the topics about which they speak. It is the passionate fool who may disrupt effective political discussion."

So when it comes to who to trust about politics and public affairs, the message here seems to be to fear the passionate fool.

Full Study Cite:  Ryan, J. B.  (2011).  Accuracy and bias in perceptions of political knowledge.  Political Behavior, 33, 335-356.

What People Think They Know

As interesting as actual knowledge can be as a topic of research (or a blog), even more interesting are perceptions of knowledge -- not only what people know, but what people think they know.  In this case, let's talk global warming/climate change.

The fine folks at Gallup have asked: "Next, thinking about the issue of global warming, how well do you feel you understand this issue -- would you say very well, fairly well, not very well, or not at all?"  The bold face emphasis is mine.  How much do they think they know.  The results?

From 2006 to 2010, the numbers remain largely unchanged, but there is a tick upward in 2010 compared to previous years in what people think they know. See below:

              Understand

              Very Well

2006            21%

2007            22%

2008            21%

2010            26%

Now you might find this bump heartening, but I suggest it's actually a bad thing.  Let me explain.  We've seen a drop in the proportion of people with a clue about science and who doubt global climate change -- sometimes for good reasons, sometimes because for silly partisan ones.  But I suspect this has bumped up the perception that people are knowledgeable when, more likely, they confuse strong feelings about a topic with knowledge about that topic.

I know of what I speak. I've done many studies looking at actual knowledge and how it compares with perceived knowledge.  The two are correlated, but imperfectly.  And often emotion gets in the way and makes people feel informed when, instead, they only think of themselves as informed.  While I don't have data here to explore this further, my educated hunch is this bump in 2010 of perceived knowledge about global climate change masks the role of ideological silliness, partisan pettiness, and a sense of being informed through emotion than really being informed. 

It'd be a fascinating topic.  Hmmmm.  Maybe time to go there.  Off to search for good, solid data.

Actual and Perceived Knowledge

Interest in the difference between what people know (actual knowledge) and what people think they know (perceived knowledge) crosses a number of scholarly disciplines. I've done work on whether listening to talk radio or TV faux news shows increases knowledge or merely the perception that one is informed.

I'm not alone in my fascination with the difference between actual and perceived knowledge.

For example, this study finds elementary school teachers often overestimate what they know about literacy development in children. There's similar work in pharmacy, counseling, and political science (the latter gets into some fascinating gender differences and I hope to write more about this tomorrow).

My point? What people think they know can have a number of consequences, thus should be studied when looking at any type of standard knowledge. What consequences? If a person feels informed, he or she may engage in early closure, not seek out additional information, perhaps reach a faulty conclusion. Persons may fill up on "empty calories" of junk news or entertainment-based news and think themselves informed when perhaps they're not truly informed.

Perceived knowledge can lead to greater feelings of efficacy. That's the good. But if those feelings of efficacy are based on weak, insubstantial actual knowledge, you have to worry about any final judgments -- be it in the classroom with teachers, or in the voting booth by citizens. Or in any number of possible scenarios, from doctors to government workers.

I've always wanted to dig deeper into the theoretical possibilities of actual versus perceived knowledge, perhaps even write a good NSF grant aimed at what the consequences of this are for democracy. Maybe I will. Some day. But I firmly believe that if you're studying knowledge, you need to also study perceived knowledge.