scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Author

Robert C. Luskin

Bio: Robert C. Luskin is an academic researcher from University of Texas at Austin. The author has contributed to research in topics: Deliberation & Deliberative democracy. The author has an hindex of 22, co-authored 37 publications receiving 4155 citations.

Papers
More filters
Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This paper developed a nonlinear simultaneous equation model to weigh explanations of three general sorts: the political information to which people are exposed, their ability to assimilate and organize such information, and theirmotivation to do so.
Abstract: Debates over the political sophistication of mass publics smolder on. The more fundamental question, however, is why people become as politically sophisticated or unsophisticated as they do. This paper develops a nonlinear simultaneous equation model to weigh explanations of three general sorts: the politicalinformation to which people are exposed, theirability to assimilate and organize such information, and theirmotivation to do so. The estimates suggest that interest and intelligence, representing motivation and ability, have major effects, but that education and media exposure, the big informational variables, do not. I consider the reasons and sketch some implications for the sophistication of mass publics, for the study of sophistication and other “variables of extent,” and for democratic theory.

831 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A second and generally preferable approach capitalizes on the relationship between constraint and abstraction as discussed by the authors, by gauging a person's use of abstractions-either how abstract they are or how heavily used-we can gauge his or her.
Abstract: ion A second and generally preferable approach capitalizes on the relationship between constraint and abstraction. Constraint, in large degree, is abstraction. Hence by gauging a person's use of abstractions-either how abstract they are or how heavily used-we can gauge his or her This content downloaded from 207.46.13.172 on Tue, 23 Aug 2016 06:12:09 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms MEASURING POLITICAL SOPHISTICATION 877 constraint. Size and range, through correlation with constraint, follow

796 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors present the results of the first Deliberative Poll, in which a national British sample discussed the issue of rising crime and what to do about it.
Abstract: This article presents the results of the first Deliberative Poll, in which a national British sample discussed the issue of rising crime and what to do about it. We describe Deliberative Polling and its rationale, the representativeness of the deliberative sample, the extent to which the participants acquired factual information about the issue and about politics generally, and how much and how they changed their views. We also weigh the extent to which such changes of view hinge on small group influences versus information gains.

546 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The results, responding to defeatist, extenuationist, and alarmist critiques, show that ordinary people can deliberate, that they benefit from doing so, and that the process neither biases nor polarizes their opinions as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: The values of deliberation and political equality have proven hard to achieve simultaneously. Deliberative Polling, which embodies both, provides a useful window on deliberative democracy. The results, responding to ‘defeatist,’ ‘extenuationist,’ and ‘alarmist’ critiques, show that ordinary people can deliberate, that they benefit from doing so, and that the process neither biases nor polarizes their opinions.

546 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The authors show that discouraging DKs does little to affect how much the public knows about politics and that the increase in correct responses for closed-ended items is large but mainly illusory.
Abstract: Does the public know much more about politics than conventionally thought? A number of studies have recently argued, on various grounds, that the “don’t know” (DK) and incorrect responses to traditionally designed and scored survey knowledge items conceal a good deal of knowledge. This paper examines these claims, focusing on the prominent and influential argument that discouraging DKs would reveal a substantially more knowledgeable public. Using two experimental surveys with national random samples, we show that discouraging DKs does little to affect our picture of how much the public knows about politics. For closed-ended items, the increase in correct responses is large but mainly illusory. For open-ended items, it is genuine but minor. We close by examining the other recent evidence for a substantially more knowledgeable public, showing that it too holds little water.

178 citations


Cited by
More filters
Book
20 Dec 2013
TL;DR: The Foundations of Qualitative Research as mentioned in this paper The applications of qualitative methods to social research are discussed in detail in the context of qualitative research in the field of social science research, with a focus on the use of qualitative data.
Abstract: The Foundations of Qualitative Research - Rachel Ormston, Liz Spencer, Matt Barnard, Dawn Snape The Applications of Qualitative Methods to Social Research - Jane Ritchie and Rachel Ormston Design Issues - Jane Lewis and Carol McNaughton Nicholls Ethics of Qualitative Research - Stephen Webster, Jane Lewis and Ashley Brown Designing and Selecting Samples - Jane Ritchie, Jane Lewis, Gilliam Elam, Rosalind Tennant and Nilufer Rahim Designing Fieldwork - Sue Arthur, Martin Mitchell, Jane Lewis and Carol McNaughton Nicholls In-depth Interviews - Alice Yeo, Robin Legard, Jill Keegan, Kit Ward, Carol McNaughton Nicholls and Jane Lewis Focus Groups - Helen Finch, Jane Lewis, and Caroline Turley Observation - Carol McNaughton Nicholls, Lisa Mills and Mehul Kotecha Analysis: Principles and Processes - Liz Spencer, Jane Ritchie, Rachel Ormston, William O'Connor and Matt Barnard Traditions and approaches Analysis in practice - Liz Spencer, Jane Ritchie, William O'Connor, Gareth Morrell and Rachel Ormston Generalisability Writing up qualitative Research - Clarissa White, Kandy Woodfield, Jane Ritchie and Rachel Ormston

9,682 citations

01 Jan 1964
TL;DR: In this paper, the notion of a collective unconscious was introduced as a theory of remembering in social psychology, and a study of remembering as a study in Social Psychology was carried out.
Abstract: Part I. Experimental Studies: 2. Experiment in psychology 3. Experiments on perceiving III Experiments on imaging 4-8. Experiments on remembering: (a) The method of description (b) The method of repeated reproduction (c) The method of picture writing (d) The method of serial reproduction (e) The method of serial reproduction picture material 9. Perceiving, recognizing, remembering 10. A theory of remembering 11. Images and their functions 12. Meaning Part II. Remembering as a Study in Social Psychology: 13. Social psychology 14. Social psychology and the matter of recall 15. Social psychology and the manner of recall 16. Conventionalism 17. The notion of a collective unconscious 18. The basis of social recall 19. A summary and some conclusions.

5,690 citations

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion by John Zaller (1992) as discussed by the authors is a model of mass opinion formation that offers readers an introduction to the prevailing theory of opinion formation.
Abstract: Originally published in Contemporary Psychology: APA Review of Books, 1994, Vol 39(2), 225. Reviews the book, The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion by John Zaller (1992). The author's commendable effort to specify a model of mass opinion formation offers readers an introduction to the prevailing vi

3,150 citations