Objective and Perceived Knowledge

I've written many times about perceived knowledge, the perception that we are informed, and how it is different from -- but related to -- actual or objective knowledge. Indeed the two are often highly correlated, but not perfectly so. My interest has always been in the role the media play in creating the sense of being informed versus actually gaining knowledge.

But let's talk condoms.

There is this study, published in Pediatrics, that examines perceived and objective knowledge about adolescent male condom use. Other than being a neat topic, I found the methodology kinda interesting.

No it's not what you think, so keep reading.

They used a 5-item scale to measure knowledge and a 5-item scale to measure confidence about that knowledge. Is confidence the same as perceived knowledge? That's an interesting question; it's fascinating to tap not only a set of knowledge items but confidence about those very same items. So if you missed a few of the five but were very confident, you are high in perceived knowledge without being high in actual knowledge. Typically we ask a very different kind of question to measure "perceived knowledge," a set that often look very much like internal efficacy. I think the approach here may be much better, given that it's domain specific rather than general, like efficacy.

Why does all of this matter? Simple. I argue that some news programming, especially entertainment-based news programming, can lead to the sense of feeling informed (my empty calorie theory) when you're actually not all that informed, or at least not as much as you believe. Feeling informed, those empty calories, mean you don't eat your spinach (serious news, that sort of thing).

In the abstract of the condom study, the authors report:

However, those with higher perceived knowledge, particularly in the context of low objective knowledge, may be at greater risk for not using condoms. Addressing not only objective but also perceived knowledge may increase the effectiveness of interventions that are designed to increase rates of condom use among male adolescents.

In other words, high perceived knowledge but less actual knowledge is a bad combination. I'd make the same argument across a number of domains, from health to consumption of serious news as part of being a citizen in a democratic society.

Objective and Subjective Knowledge

There's what you know, and what you think you know. And the two are sometimes related.

A recent meta-analysis of 103 consumer research studies found that what they call objective knowledge (or actual knowledge) is strongly correlated with what they call subjective knowledge (or perceived knowledge).

The paper, published in the Journal of Consumer Research, isn't really political. It looks at mostly at commercial products -- though I can make a good argument that politicians are essentially commercial products. Still, I believe there's a lot to be learned in examining non-political research and swiping the theory, moving it over to politics and media.

So what's the takeaway here? The correlation between what people know and what they think they know is higher on products than non-products (such as health or services). People's estimate of their knowledge more matches actual knowledge on "fun" products.

Yeah, yeah ... but what's the takeaway? They ask whether subjective or perceived knowledge can be a surrogate for actual knowledge. You sometimes find perceived knowledge in political studies as a surrogate for those nasty, hard actual knowledge questions. So, can it work? They say maybe, if you're studying "durable and hedonic products, as well as public, luxury, and search goods." I'm not sure how that translates into political candidates or issues. I'm thinking not. Best stick with actual knowledge.

There is an interesting part of this study that I don't quite grasp, something to do with whether you're judging subjective knowledge about yourself or people in general (or at least I think that's what they're trying to say). Incorporating the "self" seems to weaken the relationship. I've got to give this one more thought. Read the link above and if you can figure out a political angle to that, lemme know.

As an aside, I've always preferred perceived knowledge, or PK, as a concept than subjective knowledge. The latter fails to capture the perception involved in estimating one's own opinion, plus PK is a great acronym that takes me back to my early gaming days.