Making Citizens Smart: When Do Institutions Improve Unsophisticated Citizens' Decisions?
Political Behavior, Vol. 31, No. 2, pp. 287-306
39 Pages Posted: 17 Jan 2008 Last revised: 22 Jul 2009
Date Written: 2009
Abstract
Many scholars lament citizens’ lack of political sophistication, while others emphasize that information shortcuts can substitute for sophistication and help citizens with their political choices. In this paper, I use experiments to assess whether and under what conditions institutions can substitute for sophistication and enable even unsophisticated citizens to make informed decisions. The results of my experiments demonstrate that institutions, such as a penalty for lying or a threat of verification, can help both sophisticated and unsophisticated citizens to make informed decisions. Further, my results suggest that institutions may, under certain conditions, level the playing field between sophisticated and unsophisticated citizens.
Keywords: voter, trust, institution, decision-making, sophistication, experiment, learning, penalty
JEL Classification: C90, C91, D72, D80, D81, D83
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?
Recommended Papers
-
Predictably Incoherent Judgments
By Cass R. Sunstein, Daniel Kahneman, ...
-
Patience as a Political Virtue: Delayed Gratification and Turnout
By James H. Fowler and Cindy D. Kam
-
Tom Sawyer and the Construction of Value
By Dan Ariely, George Loewenstein, ...
-
Jurors are Competent Cue-Takers: How Institutions Substitute for Legal Sophistication
-
Nothing But the Truth? Experiments on Adversarial Competition, Expert Testimony, and Decision Making
-
The Blind Leading the Blind: Who Gets Polling Information and Does it Improve Decisions?
-
Indignation: Psychology, Politics, Law
By Daniel Kahneman and Cass R. Sunstein
-
Competition in the Courtroom: When Does Expert Testimony Improve Jurors' Decisions?