People Don't Know about _____

If you spend more time than you should (like me) scouring the Internet for studies about what people know, then you come across a standard survey result.  The form goes something like this:  it's a survey by some special interest or industry group that finds people are generally uninformed about (coincidentally) their topic or special interest -- and therefore action must be taken.

Here's one that fits the model nicely.

A recent poll finds that many Americans feel that life insurance rates are much higher than they actually are.

After conducting a survey of more than 2,000 people, the nonprofit LIFE Foundation and LIMRA found that the average conusmer (sic) thought that a healthy 30-year old consumer would pay $400 per year for a $250,000 20-year term life insurance policy.

While each case is different, the groups said that the actual cost is closer to $150 annually. Younger consumers - who likely qualify for the lowest rates - had even more inflated price expectations.

The foundation is, obviously, tied to life insurance.

I'm not saying there's anything necessarily wrong with this.  Who better to point out how little people know about your topic than yourself?  It's just amusing because I run across so many of these.  On the good side, it keeps survey firms employed.

Spying on Your Kids

This is a bit off topic for me, but this story discusses the results of a survey of just how many parents spy on their kids' Facebook pages.  Survey says ... 60 percent (U.S.).  Globally, the average is about 44 percent.  Also, a lot more American parents are "connected" to their childrens' social networks than parents in other countries.

And no, I'm not.  I can't even see my daughter's FB wall.  I'm not "friends" with my son, either, but at least I can see his FB wall if I really want to spy on him.

Oh, and for fun, a map below of the percentage of people by state who use Facebook.

When Amateurs Read Survey Results

Here's the lede of a story posted today on The Daily Caller:

Yet another new survey shows that Republican supporters know more about politics and political history than Democrats.

Well, yes.  Surveys tend to show this, always have.  But if you statistically control for education, these differences tend to disappear.  So while the "story" above does correctly quote the Pew report, it conveniently leaves out this graf:

The partisan gaps in knowledge are at least partly a consequence of demographic differences. On average, Republicans are older and more affluent than either Democrats or independents, and both of these are associated with knowledge about the parties’ positions and leaders.

In other words, amateurs when it comes to reading and understanding surveys, and especially survey methodology, should ask a pro before writing bullshit.

And my favorite graf:

The Pew survey adds to a wave of surveys and studies showing that GOP-sympathizers are better informed, more intellectually consistent, more open-minded, more empathetic and more receptive to criticism than their fellow Americans who support the Democratic Party.

As someone steeped in this literature, a whole chunk of this paragraph above leaves me scratching my head and wondering where the hell these studies are, because I've not seen them.  Not saying it's not true -- I suspect some of it may indeed be the case, but I know the selective exposure literature, for example, demonstrates that conservatives in particular are less open-minded.  It's a traditional, consistent finding.  Again, when a partisan hackery tries to take advantage of social science.

Oh, and the original story didn't include an actual link to the Pew study.  Here it is.

Survey says ...

A quick compilation of studies and surveys on what people know that made the news in the last couple of days:

• Lots of people are using mobile bankers, but more are worried about security of their financial data.

• It's National Infertility Awareness Week, or so says this story, which of course points out our lack of awareness of it being National Infertility Awareness Week.

• College students may not know much about history, but they also don't know much about their own credit cards.

• Also, Latinos don't know much about Jews, according to this new survey.

People Are (not) Supid

Often people write the column or blog post that I wish I'd written.  Matt Corley did just that last month in The American Prospect, but I'm slow to stumble across it. 

His piece, Most Voters Aren't Stupid, touches on a common theme here and I strongly recommend his column not necessarily because I agree with everything he says, but for his lucid discussion of some of the pitfalls and problems that arise when we discuss what people know.

Let's start with his last graf:

Low levels of public political knowledge are an empirical fact, and journalists like John King shouldn’t shy away from acknowledging that—but, they need to be careful. Calling the public stupid isn’t only inaccurate—it’s counterproductive. Plenty of people are happy to paint themselves as the defenders of the American voter by responding to claims about voter ignorance with populist indignation.  In the end, it’s stupid to call voters dumb, but it’s ignorant to claim they’re well-informed. 

One of the conclusions he reaches, and one I agree with, is that people are "smart" about the topics they follow or interest them.  This harkens back to points argued far better by Doris Graber or, even better, V.O. Key, who famously said "The voters are not fools."  Yeah, there are "stupid" people out there, but they're stupid about everything.

Perhaps the main reason survey after survey finds the American electorate relatively uniformed is because the American electorate is relatively uninformed -- about the topics we ask about. 

Who writes the questions?  Political scientists, Pew Center survey managers, journalists, lots of folks with a PhD (um, like me) who are also news junkies and have a good idea what people should know, in a perfect world, about current affairs.  Certainly a good argument can be made for why people should be able to identify members of the Supreme Court, or recognize the president's latest economic proposal, or be aware of the latest development in the Middle East.  But as Marcus Prior so aptly pointed out, choice has allowed many -- who never really cared about public affairs -- to flee the news for more entertaining content.  Graber, in particular, used in-depth interviews to demonstrate people are informed -- about the topics that matter to them, which often differ from the topics we prefer to ask about.

In-depth interviewing?  Hard.  Survey questions?  Easy.  And cheaper.  And more generalizable to the population as a whole.  It's a methodological balancing act.

Plus let's not underestimate the importance of pseudo-news, faux news, partisan hackery (which sums up cable "news" to a large extent).  Much more colorful to be true, much for fun and a fitting example of my empty calorie news hypothesis that as people fill up more and more on the more entertaining versions of news, they're less likely to consume real news.  The result?  People appear, if not stupid, a lot less informed in our traditional surveys than we'd like.  

A Journalist Goes Academic

In a rush this morning, but as an avid consumer of academic research I point to this fun Atlantic piece about the papers at a political science convention.  It's low-hanging fruit to make fun of academic titles, but this piece does a lot more than that, and even finds work with consideration.

Taxing the Rich?

No surprise:  Obama supporters want higher taxes on the rich.

Big surprise: Even a sizable majority of Mitt Romney supporters like the idea.

To do the math, 93 percent of Obama supporters support raising taxes on the rich, while 66 percent of Romney supporters think that's also a pretty good idea, at least based on this survey.  We have a consensus!  Except that this is about the only issue in which Obama and Romney supporters agree, according to the press release, at least when it comes to tax policy.  No doubt the results of this national survey will find their way into the Obama campaign's talking points.