Who Sees Corruption? The Bases of Mass Perceptions of Political Corruption in Latin America

The capacity of citizens to see political corruption where it exists and to link such perceptions to evaluations of public officials constitutes an important test of political accountability. Although past research has established that perceived corruption influences political judgments, much less is known regarding the critical prefatory matter of who sees corruption. This article develops a multifaceted theoretical framework regarding the possible bases of perceived corruption. Experiential factors - personal experience and vicarious experience with bribery - mark the starting point for our account. We then incorporate psychological dispositions that may colour judgments about corruption and that may strengthen or weaken the links between experiences and perceptions. Expectations derived from this framework are tested in a series of multi-level models, with data from over 30,000 survey respondents from 17 nations and 84 regions in the Americas

Replication data for: Reconsidering the Measurement of Political Knowledge

Political knowledge has emerged as one of the central variables in political behavior research, with numerous scholars devoting considerable effort to explaining variance in citizens' levels of knowledge and to understanding the consequences of this variance for representation. Although such substantive matters continue to receive exhaustive study, questions of measurement also warrant attention. I demonstrate that conventional measures of political knowledge—constructed by summing a respondent's correct answers on a battery of factual items—are of uncertain validity. Rather than collapsing incorrect and "don't know" responses into a single absence-of-knowledge category, I introduce estimation procedures that allow these effects to vary. Grouped-data multinomial logistic regression results demonstrate that incorrect answers and don't knows perform dissimilarly, a finding that suggests deficiencies in the construct validity of conventional knowledge measures. The likely cause of the problem is traced to two sources: knowledge may not be discrete, meaning that a simple count of correct answers provides an imprecise measure; and, as demonstrated by the wealth of research conducted in the field of educational testing and psychology since the 1930s, measurement procedures used in political science potentially result in "knowledge" scales contaminated by systematic personality effects

Does Familiarity Breed Contempt? The Impact Of Information On Mass Attitudes Toward Congress

Two features of citizen response to Congress can be taken as grounds for concern. First, Americans know relatively little about Congress, and especially about congressional procedures and policy output. Second, Congress typically emerges as the least respected political institution. Although these matters are troubling when viewed individually, more disturbing is the dilemma posed when knowledge and attitudes toward Congress are viewed in tandem. It appears that citizens who know Congress the best like Congress the least. Consequently, a sophisticated polity and a well-respected legislature seem fundamentally incompatible. This article seeks to resolve this dilemma, contending that there is nothing about knowledge per se that leads citizens to view Congress unfavorably. Rather, differences in knowledge levels alter the considerations citizens bring to bear when evaluating Congress, with the best-informed individuals constructing judgments on the basis of the most relevant Congress-specific criteria while less knowledgeable citizens employ readily available but more peripheral criteria. © 2007 Midwest Political Science Association

The Participatory Personality: Evidence from Latin America

To a substantial extent, political participation arises as a result of individuals’ interactions with aspects of the social and political environment. The resources people amass, the social connections they develop and the messages they receive combine to influence their propensity towards political action. However, building on recent research on personality and political behaviour,1 we posit that attention to these factors alone yields an incomplete account of the origins of participation. Our claim is that by their nature, some people are open to new experiences and others are not, some are responsible, some are outgoing and so on. These factors constitute fundamental elements of personality. We contend that enduring psychological differences – differences in personality – influence patterns of political participation