Political Sophistication

A Politico-Psychological Analysis

Author

The Psychology of Political Behavior Studies (PPBS)

Report generated

March 6, 2026

1 Study Characteristics

1.1 Items: Political Sophistication

1.2 Samples

N=1500

To conduct a exploratory and a confirmatory large surveys during the general election, we hired a professional survey firm (SSI, a US-based market research company that recruits participants from a panel of 7,139,027 American citizens; more information can be found at www.surveysampling.com (now https://www.dynata.com/) to recruit a nationally representative sample of 1,500 Americans (50.7% women) who completed study materials during the general election from August 16-September 9, 2016. (Information about sampling and exclusion criteria is included in the Supplement). The age distribution was as follows: 18-24 (12.9%), 25-34 (17.6%), 35-44 (17.5%), 45-54 (19.5%), 55-65 (15.6%) and older than 65 (16.9%). The ethnic breakdown was: White/European American (82.5%), Black/African American (7.7%), Latino (5.9%) and “Other” (4.0%). Concerning religion, 67.6% identified as Christian, 17.1% as religiously affiliated but not Christian, and 15.3% as Atheist/Agnostic. With respect to education 35.1% indicated “high school only or lower,” 31.4 % indicated “some college,” and 33.6% indicated having received a “Bachelor” or “Graduate” degree. 2424 participants were directed to the survey,1885 of which finished the survey (attrition rate 22%).

We followed recommendations to minimize the problem of careless responding in online studies. Specifically, we employed 10 random attention questions and time controls to check for data quality. There were 385 participants who failed more than one attention check or finished the survey in under ~22 minutes and were therefore excluded from the sample. For the 1500 participants who successfully finished the survey, completion time was 67 minutes on average (MD: 51min).

N=2119

Also through SSI we also recruited 2,119 American adults (21.5% women), who completed study materials from August 20-September 13, 2016. (Information about sampling and exclusion criteria is included in the Supplement). Age was distributed as follows: 18-24 (9.1%), 25-34 (13.8%), 35-44 (11.4%), 45-54 (2.7%), 55-65(3.6%), 65 and older (59.3%). The ethnic breakdown was: White/European American (85.9%), Black/African American (5.1%), Latino (4.1%), and “Other” (5.0%). In terms of religion, 70.7% identified as Christian, 15.7% as religiously affiliated but not Christian, and 13.7% as Atheist/Agnostic. With respect to educational status, 16.2% chose “high school or lower,” 40.4% reported “some college” and 43.4% had attained a “Bachelor” or “Graduate” degree. The median income category was $50,000-$74,999. 3425 participants were directed to the survey, 2,262 of which finished the survey (attrition rate 22 %).

We followed recommendations to minimize the problem of careless responding in online studies (Meade & Craig, 2012). Specifically, we employed 10 random attention questions and time controls to check for data quality. There were 543 participants who failed more than one attention check or finished the survey in under ~22 minutes and were therefore excluded from the sample. For the 2,119 participants who successfully finished the survey, completion time was 92 minutes on average (MD: 57min).

2 Descriptives

2.1 Means, SD, Range, & SE

Table 1: Descriptives
Descriptives for Political Sophistication
vars n mean sd median min max range se
PolSoph 1 1500 5.97 2.67 6 0 10 10 0.07

2.2 Proportions

Figure 1: Proportion of each response categories for Political Sophistication Items

2.3 Distributions

Figure 2: Distribution of reponses for Political Sophistication Items

3 Demographics

3.1 Social Class

Figure 3: Political Sophisticationas grouped by SES


Figure 4: Raincloud Plots showing Political Sophistication grouped by Social Class


Note on the Raincloud Plots

  • Statistical summary (top): Welch’s t-test (or ANOVA) results, effect size, confidence intervals, p-values, and sample sizes are shown above each plot.
  • Bayesian analysis (bottom): Log Bayes factor and credible intervals are reported below each plot.


Table 2: Political Sophistication as grouped by SES
Political Sophistication as grouped by SES
SES N Mean SD
Poor 38 -0.41 1.09
Lower Middle Class 298 -0.31 1.01
Middle Middle Class 679 -0.10 1.00
Upper Middle Class 395 0.27 0.88
Rich 90 0.73 0.72


3.2 Gender

Figure 5: Political Sophisticationas grouped by Gender


Figure 6: Raincloud Plots showing Political Sophistication grouped by Gender


Table 3: Political Sophistication as grouped by Gender
Political Sophistication as grouped by Gender
Gender N Mean SD
Female 760 -0.23 1.01
Male 740 0.24 0.94

3.3 Age

Figure 7: Political Sophistication as grouped by Age


Figure 8: Raincloud Plots showing Political Sophistication grouped by Age


Table 4: Political Sophistication as grouped by Age
Political Sophistication as grouped by Age
Age N Mean SD
18-24 years 193 -0.30 1.00
25-34 years 264 -0.30 0.99
35-44 years 263 -0.07 1.00
45-54 years 292 -0.01 1.01
55-64 years 234 0.25 0.88
65+ 254 0.38 0.91

3.4 Education

Table 5: Political Sophistication as grouped by Education


Figure 9: Raincloud Plots showing Political Sophistication grouped by Education


Table 6: Political Sophistication as grouped by Education
Education N Mean SD
Less than High School 51 -0.54 1.16
High School 475 -0.27 0.99
Some College 471 -0.07 0.99
Bachelor 310 0.29 0.90
Graduate 193 0.51 0.81


3.5 Income Levels

Figure 10: Political Sophistication as grouped by Income Levels


Figure 11: Raincloud Plots showing Political Sophistication grouped by Income Levels


Table 7: Political Sophistication as grouped by Income Levels
Political Sophistication as grouped by Income Levels
Income Levels N Mean SD
Less than $15,000 178 -0.33 1.01
$15,000-$24,999 180 -0.21 1.04
$25,000-$34,999 176 -0.18 1.00
$35,000-$49,999 227 -0.09 1.03
$50,000-$74,999 292 0.06 0.95
$75,000-$99,999 192 0.11 0.95
$100,000-$149,999 160 0.40 0.85
$150,000 + 95 0.51 0.87

3.6 Ethnicity

Figure 12: Political Sophistication as grouped by Ethnicity

Note on the Okabe-Ito color palette The Okabe-Ito color palette (seen above) is a set of colorblind-friendly categorical colors available in R. We are using this palette for graphs with non-ordered variables (e.g., groups, categories) for accessibility.

Figure 13: Raincloud Plots showing Political Sophistication grouped by Ethnicity


Table 8: Political Sophistication as grouped by Ethnicity
Political Sophistication as grouped by Ethnicity
Ethnicity N Mean SD
Caucasian/European origin 1237 0.05 0.99
Black/African American 115 -0.21 1.01
Latino 88 -0.18 1.04
Asian/Pacific Islander 29 -0.34 1.09
Native American 13 -0.56 0.80
Other 18 -0.20 0.90

3.7 Occupation

Figure 14: Political Sophistication as grouped by Occupation


Figure 15: Raincloud Plots showing Political Sophistication grouped by Occupation


Table 9: Political Sophistication as grouped by Occupation
Political Sophistication as grouped by Occupation
Occupation N Mean SD
Employed 768 0.01 0.99
Retired 268 0.31 0.90
Unemployed 146 -0.16 1.08
Parent 104 -0.35 1.00
Disabled 98 -0.12 1.06
Student 85 -0.09 0.93
Full-time caregiver 31 -0.45 0.96

3.8 Area

Figure 16: Political Sophistication as grouped by Area


Figure 17: Raincloud Plots showing Political Sophistication grouped by Area


Table 10: Political Sophistication as grouped by Area
Political Sophistication as grouped by Area
Area N Mean SD
Urban 955 0.00 1.01
Rural 545 0.01 0.98


3.9 Religious Affiliation

Figure 18: Political Sophistication as grouped by Religious Affiliation


Figure 19: Raincloud Plots showing Political Sophistication grouped by Religious Affiliation


Table 11: Political Sophistication as grouped by Religion
Political Sophistication as grouped by Religious Affiliation
Religious Affiliation N Mean SD
Christian 1014 0.02 0.98
Jewish 52 0.40 1.00
Muslim 9 0.34 0.91
Atheist/Agnostic 230 0.17 0.96
No religion 195 -0.40 1.06



4 Political Behavior

4.1 Political Orientation

Figure 20: Correlation Matrix - Political Orientation



Figure 21: Political Orientation



Table 12: Models of Political Orientation (SPRI) & Political Sophistication
  Political Orientation Social Political Orientation Economic Political Orientation Composite Political Orientation
Predictors Estimates CI p Estimates CI p Estimates CI p Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 5.31 5.18 – 5.43 <0.001 4.93 4.79 – 5.07 <0.001 5.48 5.35 – 5.61 <0.001 5.24 5.12 – 5.36 <0.001
Political Sophistication 0.11 -0.01 – 0.24 0.075 0.05 -0.09 – 0.19 0.452 0.33 0.20 – 0.46 <0.001 0.17 0.04 – 0.29 0.008
Observations 1500 1500 1500 1500
R2 / R2 adjusted 0.002 / 0.001 0.000 / -0.000 0.016 / 0.015 0.005 / 0.004



Table 13: Models of Ideo_SP_JJ and SRPI_CM, and Political Sophistication Age + Inc + Religiosity + Edu
  Political Orientation Social Political Orientation Economic Political Orientation Composite Political Orientation
Predictors Estimates CI p Estimates CI p Estimates CI p Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 2.51 2.07 – 2.94 <0.001 2.02 1.55 – 2.49 <0.001 2.16 1.67 – 2.65 <0.001 2.23 1.80 – 2.65 <0.001
PolSoph 0.01 -0.03 – 0.05 0.608 0.01 -0.04 – 0.06 0.661 0.07 0.02 – 0.12 0.005 0.03 -0.01 – 0.07 0.153
Age 0.23 0.16 – 0.30 <0.001 0.23 0.16 – 0.31 <0.001 0.23 0.15 – 0.31 <0.001 0.23 0.16 – 0.30 <0.001
Income 0.09 0.03 – 0.15 0.003 0.01 -0.06 – 0.07 0.871 0.13 0.06 – 0.20 <0.001 0.08 0.02 – 0.14 0.011
Religiosity 0.38 0.34 – 0.42 <0.001 0.50 0.46 – 0.54 <0.001 0.31 0.26 – 0.35 <0.001 0.40 0.36 – 0.43 <0.001
Education -0.15 -0.27 – -0.03 0.013 -0.19 -0.32 – -0.06 0.003 -0.02 -0.15 – 0.11 0.758 -0.12 -0.23 – -0.01 0.039
Observations 1500 1500 1500 1500
R2 / R2 adjusted 0.243 / 0.241 0.301 / 0.298 0.171 / 0.168 0.266 / 0.263

4.2 Religiosity



Figure 22: Religiosity



4.3 Religiosity & Political Orientation

Figure 23: Religiosity - Correlation Matrix



4.4 Candidate Preferences



Figure 24: Candidate Preferences



Table 14: Candidate Preferences (centered)
Candidate Preferences and Political Sophistication [centered]
Candidate Preference N Mean SD
Donald Trump 444 0.09 0.96
Hillary Clinton 371 -0.11 1.02
Bernie Sanders 362 -0.17 1.02
Ted Cruz 122 0.13 0.95
Jeb Bush 83 0.27 0.94
Gary Johnson 68 0.23 0.98
Rand Paul 44 0.15 1.01



Table 15: Candidate Preferences (raw means)
Candidate Preferences and Political Sophistication [raw means]
Candidate Preferences N Mean SD
Donald Trump 444 0.09 0.96
Hillary Clinton 371 -0.11 1.02
Bernie Sanders 362 -0.17 1.02
Ted Cruz 122 0.13 0.95
Jeb Bush 83 0.27 0.94
Gary Johnson 68 0.23 0.98
Rand Paul 44 0.15 1.01



4.5 Party Preferences


Figure 25: Party Preferences



Table 16: Party Preferences (centered)
Party Preferences and Political Sophistication [centered]
Party Preference N Mean SD
Don't know 90 -0.70 0.86
None 120 -0.26 1.02
Democratic Party 560 -0.07 1.02
Republican Party 508 0.09 0.96
Green Party 40 0.22 0.91
Libertarian Party 100 0.29 0.91
Constitution Party 14 0.52 0.86
Tea Party 68 0.61 0.83



Table 17: Party Preferences (raw means)
Party Preferences and Political Sophistication [raw means]
Party Preferences N Mean SD
Don't know 90 -0.70 0.86
None 120 -0.26 1.02
Democratic Party 560 -0.07 1.02
Republican Party 508 0.09 0.96
Green Party 40 0.22 0.91
Libertarian Party 100 0.29 0.91
Constitution Party 14 0.52 0.86
Tea Party 68 0.61 0.83



4.6 Voting Preferences

Table 18: Voting Preferences
  2016 [Trump vs. Clinton] 2016 [Trump vs. Clinton] + Supporters 2012 [Romney vs. Obama] 2008 [McCain vs. Obama]
Predictors Odds Ratios CI p Odds Ratios CI p Odds Ratios CI p Odds Ratios CI p
(Intercept) 1.59 1.18 – 2.17 0.003 1.54 1.15 – 2.07 0.004 2.36 1.76 – 3.17 <0.001 2.46 1.82 – 3.34 <0.001
Political Sophistication 0.93 0.89 – 0.97 0.002 0.93 0.89 – 0.97 0.002 0.89 0.85 – 0.93 <0.001 0.89 0.85 – 0.93 <0.001
Observations 1103 1148 1236 1206
R2 Tjur 0.009 0.008 0.022 0.022



Figure 26: Logistic Regression, Political Sophistication & Voting Preferences

4.7 Party Identity



Figure 27: Party Identity



Figure 28: Party Identity and Voting



Table 19: Party Identity & Voting
Donald Trump Hilary Clinton
Strong Republican 282 7
Republican 166 24
Leaning Republican 58 7
Independent 17 16
Leaning Democrat 10 65
Democrat 27 129
Strong Democrat 4 323

4.8 Voting & Party Identity

Figure 29: Predicted, Voting & Party Identity



Table 20: Supporters
  2016 [Clinton vs. Trump] 2016 [Trump vs. Clinton] + Supporters
Predictors Odds Ratios CI p Odds Ratios CI p
(Intercept) 17.19 9.21 – 33.63 <0.001 15.11 8.50 – 27.99 <0.001
Party Identity (dichotomous) 0.01 0.00 – 0.01 <0.001
Party Identity (dichotomous) 0.97 0.88 – 1.06 0.464 0.96 0.88 – 1.04 0.341
Political Sophistication 0.01 0.00 – 0.01 <0.001
Observations 1103 1148
R2 Tjur 0.747 0.720



4.9 Likeability

4.10 Trump’s Likebility


Figure 30: Trump’s Likeability



4.11 Clinton’s Likebility


Figure 31: Clinton’s Likeability



4.12 Johnson’s Likeability


Figure 32: Johnson’s Likeability


5 Politico-Psychological correlates of Political Sophistication



5.1 Ideologies and Partisanship


Figure 33: Correlates of Political Sophistication



5.2 Populism, Nationalism, Nativism, and Patriotism


Figure 34: Correlates - Populism



5.3 Political Psychology


Figure 35: Correlates - Political Psychology



5.4 Social Justice Concerns, Empathy, and Prejudice


Figure 36: Correlates - Social Concerns



5.5 Values


Figure 37: Correlates - Values



5.6 Pot-Pourri


Figure 38: Correlates - Constructs



5.7 Positive and Negative correlates of Political Sophistication


Figure 39: Correlates - Positive & significant associations



Figure 40: Correlates - Negative & significant associations

5.8 Section Summary


Table 21: Table of models 1
  Political Sophistication Political Sophistication Political Sophistication Political Sophistication Political Sophistication
Predictors Estimates CI p Estimates CI p Estimates CI p Estimates CI p Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 6.52 6.15 – 6.90 <0.001 6.65 6.15 – 7.14 <0.001 4.87 4.34 – 5.41 <0.001 5.26 4.62 – 5.91 <0.001 4.76 4.21 – 5.31 <0.001
Social Dominance Orientation -0.15 -0.24 – -0.05 0.002
Right-Wing Authoritarianism -0.13 -0.22 – -0.04 0.006
System Justification 0.22 0.11 – 0.32 <0.001
Economic System Justification 0.15 0.02 – 0.28 0.028
Gender-specific System Justification 0.22 0.12 – 0.32 <0.001
Observations 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500
R2 / R2 adjusted 0.006 / 0.006 0.005 / 0.004 0.011 / 0.011 0.003 / 0.003 0.013 / 0.012


Table 22: Table of models 2
  Political Sophistication Political Sophistication Political Sophistication Political Sophistication Political Sophistication
Predictors Estimates CI p Estimates CI p Estimates CI p Estimates CI p Estimates CI p
(Intercept) 7.45 6.79 – 8.10 <0.001 8.05 5.93 – 10.18 <0.001 4.87 4.34 – 5.41 <0.001 5.26 4.62 – 5.91 <0.001 4.76 4.21 – 5.31 <0.001
SDO7_Dominance -0.79 -1.01 – -0.57 <0.001
SDO7_AntiEgal 0.05 -0.14 – 0.23 0.621
SDO7_Dominance:SDO7_AntiEgal 0.07 0.02 – 0.12 0.004
RWA_Agression -0.05 -0.54 – 0.44 0.842
RWA_Conventionalism -0.01 -0.58 – 0.55 0.960
RWA_Submission -0.05 -0.68 – 0.57 0.865
RWA_Agression:RWA_Conventionalism -0.03 -0.13 – 0.07 0.610
RWA_Agression:RWA_Submission -0.09 -0.20 – 0.03 0.159
RWA_Conventionalism:RWA_Submission -0.07 -0.19 – 0.05 0.282
RWA_Agression:RWA_Conventionalism:RWA_Submission 0.02 0.00 – 0.04 0.037
SJ_Gen 0.22 0.11 – 0.32 <0.001
SJ_Eco 0.15 0.02 – 0.28 0.028
SJ_Gender 0.22 0.12 – 0.32 <0.001
Observations 1500 1500 1500 1500 1500
R2 / R2 adjusted 0.060 / 0.058 0.044 / 0.039 0.011 / 0.011 0.003 / 0.003 0.013 / 0.012


Figure 41: Interaction with facets of SDO


Table 23: Linear Regression
Observations 1500
Dependent variable Political Sophistication
Type OLS linear regression
F(1,1498) 9.59
R² 0.01
Adj. R² 0.01
Est. S.E. t val. p
(Intercept) 6.52 0.19 33.98 0.00
SDO -0.15 0.05 -3.10 0.00
Standard errors: OLS