1

The significance of political awareness: a literature review with meta-analysis

Carl Görtz

University of Örebro

School of Humanities, Education and Social Science, SE-701 82 Örebro, Sweden

carl.gortz@oru.se

Abstract

This article contributes to ongoing discussions about the state and development of the research on

political awareness, by providing an extensive literature review that focuses on how studies have

theoretically used political awareness and the results about the significance of political awareness.

The results of analyzing 70 articles are as follows. 1) A plurality of the research on political awareness

have focusing on political awareness as a moderating variable, followed by both independent and

dependent variable which been used slightly over 20% respectively, and a small number of studies

have also used political awareness as an intervening variable. 2) An overwhelming majority of the

studies report positive and significant results, indicating that political awareness matters –

considering both public opinion and political participation.

Key words: political awareness; literature review; meta-analysis; public opinion; political participation

Introduction

On a normative level, democratic theories assume informed and active citizenry as a key condition

for democratic processes; were citizens involves in political processes accordingly to their

preferences (Dahl 1989; Habermas 1981). While normative theory suggests that a vibrant

democratic society require these civic competences, empirical studies have challenged this

assumption by claiming that members of the public exhibit low levels of such competences

(Converse 1964; Hibbing & Theiss-Morse 2002).

Empirical studies have concluded that citizens show great differences in their political orientation.

One group acts according to the ideals, while others deviates from the ideals of civic competences.

These citizens know quite little about politics and governance, for example how institutions works,

meanings of political and ideological concepts, and lack information about political candidates

(Delli Carpini & Keeter 1996; Grönlund & Milner 2006). At the same time a significant share of

citizens act more according to identities rather than by informed preferences (Achen & Bartles

2

2016). Studies have also claimed that ignorance about politics among citizens is spread in most

industrial democracies (Clark 2017).

In this context of discrepancy between ideal standards and empirical pattern, the concept of

political awareness has become critical in the explanation of the variation of political involvement

and understanding among citizens. Political awareness according to John R. Zaller refers to “the

extent to which an individual pays attention to politics and understands what he or she have

encountered” (1992: 21: italics in the original)1.

Scholars have, for instance, suggested political awareness to be vital for political participation, were

low awareness may work as a barrier for involvement and that the highly aware counterparts of the

public are overrepresented (Amer 2009; Abdo-Katsipis 2017; Jones & Dawson 2008). Others have

instead noted the effects of political awareness on the formation of public opinion. For example,

suggesting that the political aware individuals´ are both more likely to be exposed by political

information, and to connect the information with their own values and ideological positions in a

more accurate way than less aware. Studies have also argued that highly aware hold more persistent

opinions over time and across related issues (Goren 2012; Claassen 2011; Bartle 2000). For these

reasons, studies have also explored how and why political awareness vary across segments of the

public. Various factors have been given to be important for the variation of political awareness, for

instance sociological factors; such as gender, age, and marital status, structural factors; as

education, employment, and income, behavioral factors; for example media consumption, political

interest, and civic duty (Collet & Kato 2014; Parrot 2017; Mondak 1995).

On the one hand the importance of political awareness been emphasized and the research is

blossoming, but on the other hand questions and debates have risen considering the development.

For example, disputes have emerged about how studies have used political awareness theoretically,

i.e. which analytical function political awareness may and should serve. On this topic Highton (2009)

for instance, has blamed scholars of political awareness to be too occupied with outcomes. Arguing

that we already know very well that those who are political aware are advantaged in number of

ways in society relative to the unaware. Proposing that research must seriously switch focus to

causes of political awareness instead. Another recurrent topic for contentious discussion is the

1 Even though Zaller´s definition is highly influential and cited (Bartels 2012), the term political awareness is broad in political science literature. Often used interchangeable with terms like political knowledge, political sophistication, and political literacy (See e.g. Seabrook, Dyck & Lascher 2015; Enns & Kellestedt 2008). Casall & Lo (1997) suggest that these related terms are different names for virtually the same concept, while Rapeli (2013) on the other hand makes an effort to distinguish the conceptual differences between them.

3

empirical role of political awareness, were the empirical results have been subject to different

examination. Considering this topic several scholars have had questioned the empirical significance

of political awareness, by arguing that empirical results are rather mixed than conclusive ((Sciarini

& Kriesi 2003; Dobrzynska & Blais 2008: 272; Koch 2002: 212).

These discussions together accentuates a critical debate about the state and development of the

research on political awareness. With this as a backdrop this article, through analysis of an extensive

pool of literature, seek to contribute with knowledge about this development. Two important

aspects will be at the center of attention, one theoretically and empirically. First we aim to identify

and categorize how studies theoretically used political awareness. Contributing to the ongoing

debate about the theoretical direction of political awareness. For instance, Zaller in his seminal work

(1992) situate political awareness as a crucial moderator in his theory about the formation of public

opinion2. But, analytical function as a moderator is one way of using political awareness

theoretically. As Aneshensel (2013) declares a phenomena may very well serve a variety of functions

depending on how researchers construct theoretical relations, for instance as an independent

variable when political awareness assumes to cause or effect an outcome, or as a dependent

variable when variations of political awareness is situated to be explicated3. Using both a mapping

approach and descriptive statistics we analyze and identify how political awareness been used and

count for recurrent frequencies. Secondly we also aim to assess and summarize the empirical results

brought forward in these studies, to further develop knowledge of how and to what extent political

awareness matters. Utilizing the method of meta-analysis we combine the results from each single

2 According to Zaller (1992) public opinion are clearly distinguished and formed in two steps. The first step implies the receiving stage, if an individual receives a political message or not. The second step is if an individual accept or reject the political information. At the first step, if a message is received or not is depended primary on the individual´s level of political awareness. Highly aware expects to be more attentive to politics and therefore more likely to receive messages than unaware. At the second stage, if a message is accepted or rejected is primary due to the individual´s value orientations (predispositions). If the message is consistent with the individual´s values, he or she is more likely to accept it and vice and verse if the message is perceived to go against her values. But, political awareness according to Zaller plays a moderating role even at this stage, because the highly aware predicts to be more prone to connect their values with received information and form acceptance or rejection of a message on the basis of her predispositions. 3 Aneshensel (2013) discuss theory and empirical studies in general, stating that constructs are foremost used as either Dependent variable: the variable in a relationship whose values are determined by other variable, or independent variable: the variable in a relationship whose values determines the value of the other variable, or moderating variable: variable that alters the effect of an independent variable on a dependent variable, or intervening variable: variable that transmits the effect of an independent variable on a dependent variable. It is affected by the independent variable and affects the dependent variable.

4

study to an aggregate-level. Analyzing articles considering this two folded aim provides a broader

empirical foundation about the state and development of research on political awareness.

The article is structured as follows. In the next section we introduce the methods of conducting the

literature and how to analyzing the items. First in the method section, we present the systematic

steps of selecting relevant literature. Secondly, we bring clarity over the procedure of identifying

and classifying the theoretical use of political awareness. Thirdly, we discuss the meta-analysis, the

statistical approach to combine the results from the literature derived from the review. Then we

present the results from the analyses, first the frequencies of how studies been used political

awareness and in what contexts, after that we introduce the results from the meta-analysis. The last

part is dedicated to concluding remarks and suggestions for future involvement in the field.

Method

The following method section is divided into three parts. The first part presents the procedure of

collecting literature. The second and third part summarizes and describes the analytical frameworks

that were used to analyze and systematize the literature.

Conducting research

The research method to accomplish the collection of literature followed a stepwise approach (e.g.

Petticrew & Roberts 2006; Fink 2014). The outline of the research procedure was as follows:

In the first step we selected the bibliographic database Web of Science, which is a multidisciplinary

database that covers journals from nature science, social science, and arts and humanities. Due to

its range of journals, Web of Science is a commonly used database when conducting research

literature (Fink 2014: 14). In the second step, we used Web of Science to search for literature with

suitable search terms. The specific search terms were “political awareness” OR4 “political aware”.

The initial search acknowledged almost 340 articles. To narrow down the scope, we used in the third

step, four exclusion/ inclusion criteria to select studies:

• Publication language: The selected articles were all written in English. Other languages were excluded.

• Date of publication: All the included articles were published somewhere between January 1, 1990, and January 30, 2018. Articles outside the time-frame were excluded.

• Journals: All selected articles were peer-reviewed and published in a political science journal5.

4 The “OR” sign means that both of the terms independent of each other were included if present. 5 Excluding books, conference paper, and publications from other disciplines and in other languages means that the sample might be limited regarding all the potential work that being done about political awareness. Still,

5

• Content: The candidate articles had either the term “political awareness”, or the term “political aware” in their title or abstract.

Following the inclusion steps, 70 articles were chosen for further analysis. A detailed

summarization of the process is found in figure 1.

Figure 1. Flowchart concerning the search process and the steps of inclusion

Web of Science

Search terms: “Political awareness” OR “political aware”

N=337

Screening process; Filter for included articles

-01/01/1990-30/01/2018

-English language

-Peer-reviewed articles

-Political Science Journals

-Search terms either in abstract or title

Excluded articles according to inclusion/exclusion criteria

N=267

The sum of articles for further investigation

N=70

The total number of 70 articles formed basis for further analysis.

we argue it is fruitful to analyze peer-reviewed articles ended up in Web of Science. Since the leading political science journals appears there among the amount of 170 political science journals. http://mjl.clarivate.com/cgi-bin/jrnlst/jlresults.cgi .

6

Analyzing research

When reviewing and analyzing the collected literature two strategies were used. First, a mapping

approach in order to distinguish and code how studies theoretically been used political awareness.

In addition descriptive statistics were also used to count for frequencies. Secondly, quantitative

meta-analysis was used to combine results and to estimate the significance of political awareness.

The structure of the analyses are described below.

Classifying analytical function

The classification started with reading all articles, then we categorized the content based on each

article´s uses of political awareness. The analysis followed the papers descriptions closely, and the

categorization of analytical function was based on where the authors in hypotheses if stated, or

else in the text situated political awareness. Using Aneshensel´s (2013) definitions6, a basic coding

scheme with four categories was set up. The coding scheme consisted of; independent variable,

dependent variable, intervening variable and moderating variable. Analytical function was coded

as an independent variable if political awareness was situated, in stated hypothesis or elsewhere in

the text, to explain or cause a phenomenon, a situation, or an outcome. Analytical function was

coded as a dependent variable when political awareness was something to be explained. Criteria

for being coded as an intervening variable required uses of political awareness as a phenomenon

which expects to explain a theoretical relationship between other constructs, i.e. as a link which

stipulate how and why there is relationship between them. Lastly, coded as moderating variable if

political awareness expects to conditioning and alter a causal relationship between constructs,

indicating when and under which condition an effect is expected. Articles which did not describe

theoretical function were also noted and counted.

6 For a more detailed discussion of definitions, see footnote 4.

7

Table 1

Coding scheme: Types of analytical function

Type Description

Independent If political awareness were reflected on or stated as a phenomenon which affects an outcome.

Dependent If political awareness were reflected on or stated as a phenomenon to be explained.

Intervening If political awareness were reflected on or stated as a phenomenon which is assumed to explain a causal link between two other phenomena.

Moderating If political awareness were reflected on or stated as a phenomenon which alters an effect of one phenomenon on another phenomenon.

Non analytical function If not analytical function could be identified.

Note: Own modification of Aneshansel (2013)

After the mapping procedure we used descriptive statistics in order to highlight frequencies of each

identified function (results are presented in table 2).

Integrating results: Meta-analysis

When we had identified, distinguished and counted frequencies of political awareness theoretical

function we went on with evaluation of the results by using meta-analysis. Meta-analysis, still quite

rare in the political science literature and mostly used in psychology and medicine (Cancela & Geys

2016: 265)7, is a way of combining results from previous published research on the same topic

(Glass et al 1981). The rationale behind it is that different studies on similar topic may include studies

which support one assumption while others do not, or even support the opposite. By bringing such

studies together and utilizing statistical methods to combine their results we will arrive at better

conclusions of what we do know or do not know about a certain phenomenon (Haidich 2010). To

simplify with a fictive example, a body of research have been occupied with investigation of the

effects of diet-pills on weight loss. The same topic has been carried out by several researchers in

different locations. The results might very well be diverse and sometimes conflicting. By applying

7 Cancela & Geys (2016) mentioned a few exceptions in the political science literature; Ahmadov (2014) collect previous studies on the relationship between oil and democracy, using meta-analysis to re-estimate results, Boulliane (2009) asses results from 38 studies which tests the effects of internet use on political engagement, Doucouliagos & Ulubasuglu (2008) using meta-analysis to assess 84 studies focusing on the impact of democracy on economic growth, while Cancela & Geys (2016) themselves aggregate results from voter turnout studies.

8

meta-analysis in combining the stated results of these studies we probable will get a more accurate

estimate of the relationship between diet-pills and losing weight (Talebi 2013).

However, our meta-analysis to comprehend the assessment of results associated with political

awareness followed the procedure employed by Geys (2006: 640-641)8 and was conducted as

follows. The center of attention were the reported coefficient estimates. Every single coefficient

estimate is from now on referred to as a test, while an article is referred to as a study. The distinction

is important because a study may very well include more than one coefficient estimate of a variable

of interest. The procedure suggested by Geys (2006) was based on a simple coding scheme; a test

of a given hypothesis including political awareness was either characterized as a “success”, a

“failure”, or an “anomaly”. Success; when the association was statistical significant9 and in line with

the hypothesis predicted direction. Failure; when the observed relationship was not significant.

Anomaly; when it was significant, but in opposite direction from the stated hypothesis. First we

coded all the numbers of successful, failure, and anomalous tests in each article. Thereafter, the

recorded tests were used to calculate each study´s success rate; by dividing the number of

“successes” with performed tests. If half or more of the tests supported the hypothesis and was

statistically significant the given study´s modal outcome was coded as “success”, if not, the modal

outcome was coded as “failure”. This coding scheme enabled two important aggregated measures,

studies success rate and test success rate. Calculated as follows:

Studies success rate = modal successes Number of studies

The studies success rate is the aggregated estimation of political awareness combining all studies

together. Using the modal outcome of each study (“success” or “failure”), the calculation was based

on the number of successful studies divided by the total number of studies. Yet, as importantly

points out by Geys (2006), the studies success rate gives equal weight to all studies regardless of

the amount of reported tests. This might imply bias if the distribution of tests varies considerably

among studies. To account for this a second aggregate measure was used and reported, labeled as

test success rate and was calculated as follows:

Tests success rate= Successful tests Number of tests

8 The most commonly used variant of meta-analysis, often described as a “vote-counting” procedure, involving counting statistical significant and positive results (See e.g. Bushman 1994 for a review on vote-counting procedure in meta-analysis). 9 Significant at the .05 level

9

Instead of equal weight to each study this measure gives equal weight to each test. The calculation

was based on the number of successful tests across all studies divided by the total number.

Counting number of tests and studies assumes to give the best prerequisites to estimate results

associated with political awareness, and thereby approximation of its significance.

Results

This section presents a summary over the analysis structured by the two research aims. First, we

introduce the results of the mapping procedure and thereby the theoretical function of political

awareness. Secondly, the results of the meta-analysis are presented.

The analytical function of political awareness: An overview

The analytical function of political awareness were identified 61 times in 60 of the included 70

articles. Scholars have positioned political awareness in all four categories of analytical function.

The analysis showed that the largest number of articles (40%) have focused on political awareness

as a moderating variable, followed by both independent and dependent which were identified in

21,4% of the articles respectively, intervening variable in 4,3%, and analytical function were not

identified in 14,2% (see table 2). The critique against the research on political awareness by Highton

(2009) and others might not be dismissed by this overview. The results indicate that scholars heavily

have focused on possible effects of political awareness (independent and moderating), but at the

same time that doesn´t mean that possible explanations to political awareness being absent

counting articles situating political awareness either as dependent or intervening.

Table 2

Analytical function of political awareness

Function Frequencies N (In number)

Moderating 40 % 28 Independent 21, 4 % 15 Dependent 21,4 % 15 Intervening 4,3 % 3 Analytical function missing 14,2% 10

Note: The total percentage exceeds 100 % because one article used political awareness as two function´s. In total analytical function were identified 61 times in 60 of the included 70 articles.

10

However, turning to each pool of analytical function. As shown, frequencies of situating political

awareness as a moderating variable was almost twice as high compared to independent and

dependent. The overall topic in these studies is how and why people think and feel differently about

politics (understood as public opinion). Broadly speaking these amount of studies explore different

environmental factors which may influence public opinion, and if and how political awareness

moderates the effects of such factors. The analysis show that a considerable proportion of the

articles have had elaborate with the important relationship between political candidates and public

opinion, for instance candidates´ personality (e.g. Roy & Alcantara 2015; Hayes 2010), gender (e.g.

Koch 2002), and nationality (Dragojlovic 2011; 2013). While others have shed light towards

circumstances when politicians´ holds contrasting policy-positions compared to their own party (E.g

Arceneaux 2008; Koch 2001). Moreover, the analysis also show that several articles focusing on

political awareness as a moderator indulge the link concerning media and public opinion. Targeting

issues of media influence from a broad spectra of angles (E.g. Hayes 2009; Hayes & Lawless 2015;

Steiner 2002; Denemark 2002; Gwaisda 2001). A noteworthy proportion have also turned attention

to the relationship between political communication (such as campaigns and debate and public

opinion. For instance, dealing with electoral campaign effects (E.g. Dobrzynska & Blais 2008; Sciarini

& Kriese 2003), and elite communication and rhetoric (E.g. Koch 1998; Cobb & Kuklinski 1997; Drury,

Overby, Ang & Li 2010).

Moving on to the articles focusing on political awareness as an independent variable. As stated

above, studies have theoretically considered political awareness 15 times as an independent

variable. Same quantity as the number of dependent variable. The analysis also show that roughly

half of these studies tries to contribute with information regarding political participation.

Concerning this crucial issue for social sciences as whole, these studies tends to use political

awareness as a possible explanatory factor in a range of different contexts of political activities. For

instance, participation in general elections (E.g. Jones & Dawson 2008; Glansville 1999), or

involvement in campaign activities (Ayers & Hoffsteter 2008). The other half of these studies turning

attention to public opinion. Several number of these studies tend to illuminate how and why

attitudes vary to certain political objects, e.g. support for supreme court-nominations (Gimpel &

Wolpert 1995), confidence in juridical system (Cakir & Sekerciouglu 2016), and trust in parliaments

(Hibbing & Patterson 1994). Furthermore, the analysis also show that the studies occupied with the

relationship between political awareness and public opinion also shed light more narrow to how

opinions and attitudes are structured and organized (E.g. Zinni, Mattei & Rhodebeck 1997; Bartle

2000; Claassen 2011),

11

Further, as shown above, frequencies of using political awareness as a dependent variable were

found in 21, 4% of the included articles. In this literature studies have had focused on numerous

factors as potential explanations to political awareness. The analysis thus show two recurrent key

factors. First, a distinguishable proportion of studies have had focusing on the relationship between

socio-economic features and political awareness, especially education. The amount of studies

addressing the tight link between them revealing almost a consensus. A basic assumption goes; as

education-level increases so does individuals´ political awareness (E.g. Abdo-Katsipis; 2017). While

scholars have focusing on education in general (E.g. Collet & Kato 2017), others have focused on

different types of educational program (Parrot 2017), or the theoretical link between education and

political awareness (Cassel & Lo 1997). But, scholars have also questioned the causal link between

education and political awareness, arguing that political awareness change very little during higher

education such as college (Highton 2009). In addition, the other key factor covered by the analysis

is media. Often addressed as a crucial source to political awareness by providing information to the

public. For instance, media habits in general (E.g. Mondak 1995; Perez-Linan 2002; Collet & Kato

2017), using Twitter, Facebook, reading blogs, and access to different online-innovations (E.g.

Reuter &. Szakonyi 2015; Nisbet & Markowitz 2015; Arias, Garcia & Corpeno 2015).

Finally, as illustrated above the analysis also show that a few numbers of the included studies also

been locating political awareness as an intervening variable. Yet, the exact number of 3 out of 70

studies have all addressed the importance of political awareness as a bridge between education

and political participation. Elaborating with further information towards the well-known relationship

between them (E.g. Jackson 1995; Crooke, Grossman, Larreguy, and Marshall 2016)

In sum, this overview illustrate that studies have situated political awareness in a diverse array of

analytical functions. The dominated theoretical use is thus as a moderating variable. This literature

has primary been focusing on formation and changes in public opinion. Addressing critical

questions including key factors such as political candidates, media, and political campaigns. All in

all with an interest of the potential effects of individual differences in political awareness among

citizens. Next, the frequencies of using political awareness as either an independent or a dependent

variable were the same. The literature focusing on political awareness as an explanatory factor has

drawn attention to primary two subjects, political participation and public opinion. While studies

situated political awareness as a dependent variable have from various angles elaborated with a

range of potential explanations, especially socio-economic factors such as education. Another

recurrent theme is the role of media. Proposed to be a crucial source to political awareness. A few,

12

but still some studies have also focusing on political awareness as an intervening variable. Were all

to which targeting the established relationship between education and political participation.

Adding information about the link between them by the importance of political awareness.

The significance of political awareness: A meta-analysis

As shown in table 3, the results of the meta-analysis are based on 33 articles which reported 189

separate tests in total10. Distributed between moderating variable (21 studies/ 127 tests)11 and

independent variable (12 studies/ 62 tests)12. Looking at the studies success rate, political awareness

as a moderating variable has a success rate of 86% (18 successes versus 3 failures), while as an

independent variable has a success rate of 92% (11 success versus 1 failure). Turning to the test

success rate, based on successful tests minus- failure/ anomalies across all studies. The analysis

show that political awareness as a moderating variable has a success rate of 67% (85 successful

tests compared to 42 failures/ anomalies), whereas as an independent variable demonstrates a

success rate of 69% (45 successful tests against 17 failures/ anomalies). Further, bringing all 33

studies together irrespective of theoretical function, political awareness on the study-level has a

success rate of 88% (29 success versus 4 failures). In addition, looking at all the individual tests the

analysis show that the success rate on test-level is of 69% (130 success versus 59 failures/

anomalies).

Table 3

The significance of political awareness

Variable (constructed theoretical as)

Studies success rate

Test success rate

N (studies)

N (Tests)

Moderating

86 % 67 % 21 127

Independent 92 % 73 % 12 62

Total 88 % 69 % 33 189 Note: Studies success rate is calculated by dividing the number of each successful study with the total number of studies, while Test success rate is calculated by each successful test across all studies divided by the total number of tests. Total = all studies and tests calculated together.

10 The 33 studies share some basic characteristics; all are involved in multivariate regression analyses, they stipulate at least one hypothesis considering political awareness, and includes a variable of it. 11 Note moderating variable only refer to the theoretical-level, and has no mathematical implications. In the actual multivariate analyses political awareness was either used as an independent variable or interaction variable. 12 Studies using political awareness as a dependent variable were excluded from the meta-analysis to spare space. Such a study would require an own article, due to the complexity and amount of explanatory variables included in these studies.

13

The analysis show that an overwhelming majority of the scholars of political awareness have

reported positive and statistical significant results, both considering study-level as well as test-level.

Thus, the results gives a contrasting picture to scholars who have questioned the empirical status

of political awareness (E.g. Goren 2004; Dobrzynska & Blais 2008). In contrast this analysis suggest

a pretty conclusive representation.

Moving on to a short consideration where these results appear. As shown in the previous section a

substantial amount of research have focused on public opinion, addressing numerous critical

questions pertaining formation and changes in opinion among citizens. Including substantial

factors that expects to affect the way in which citizens´ feel and think about politics. For instance,

factors as political candidates, media, and political communication. The idea that political awareness

moderates such effects are supported by the analysis shown above. With a few exceptions, the

empirical results of the 21 studies that expected moderating effects depending on variations of

political awareness have reported positive and statistical significant results in this direction.

Concluding that individual differences in political awareness matters – for the understanding of how

public opinion forms and change. In addition, the results also show that the 12 studies estimating

relationship between political awareness and political participation or public opinion were also

pretty conclusive. Just one out of 12 studies was reported as a failure. Looking at the individual

coefficient estimates, the results show that 45 out of 62 test finds that political awareness has

significantly effects. Hence, this analysis provides a broad empirical foundation for further

discussions about the empirical significance of political awareness.

14

Conclusions

The aim of this present study was to systematic examine existing research on political awareness to

develop further knowledge of a) how studies have theoretical been used political awareness, and

b) the empirical significance of political awareness. For these purposes we first collected an

extensive pool of 70 articles studying political awareness in various different contexts. After that we

used a mapping approach developed from Aneshensel (2013) to confront and classify how studies

have had theoretically positioned political awareness. Lastly, to combine and aggregate empirical

results of the research on political awareness we utilized the method of meta-analysis, using a

simple “vote-counting” procedure developed by Geys (2006) and others. Counting positive and

statistical significant empirical results.

The main conclusions of our analysis are as follows. First, considering analytical function, we found

that 40% of the articles have focused on political awareness as a moderating variable, i.e. a

phenomenon which alters an effect of environmental circumstances. Followed by both independent

and dependent variable, which were identified in 21, 4% of the articles respectively. A small number

of studies had also paid attention to “bridge-effects” of political awareness, situated as an

intervening variable. Secondly, our results through the meta-analysis – based on empirical studies -

suggest the importance of political awareness. We can conclude that a great majority of the

research have reported positive and statistical significant results considering political awareness. In

sum, we found that political awareness strongly affects both public opinion and political

participation.

These tendencies contributes to the debates within the field, first the critique against the research

containing that it is “too” employed with the outcomes can´t be dismissed. An overwhelming

majority are occupied with potential effects of political awareness compared to explanations of why

political awareness vary (independent and moderating compared to dependent and intervening).

Secondly, the results on the other hand cast considerably doubt towards the critique which have

questioned the significance of political awareness. The results shows clearly that political awareness

seems to matter in number of ways.

For future studies. Despite the obvious shortcomings that always follows delimitation of data, this

previous study have left remaining questions. Based on our results we suggest that more, both

theoretical and empirical, research are needed towards understanding how and why political

awareness vary among the public. In addition, while this study took stock for estimated relationships

it would be particularly interesting to take part of studies that also includes the explanatory power

15

of political awareness, to highlight comparisons with other individual-level variables. That is so to

say, more research on political awareness are well needed and welcomed.

16

Appendix A

Summary information of the 70 included articles

Study Analytical function Included in meta-analysis Cakir & Sekercioglu (2016) Independent Yes Arnold (2012) Independent Yes Claassen (2011) Independent Yes Jones & Dawson (2008) Independent No Ayers & Hofstetter (2008) Independent Yes Bartle (2000) Independent Yes Klasjna (2017) Independent No Gattermann, de Vreese & van der Brug (2016)

Independent Yes

Hayes & Guardino (2011) Independent Yes Seo (2011) Independent and

Dependent Yes

Clifford & Murrah (2005) Independent Yes Gimpel & Wolpert (1995) Independent No Hibbing & Patterson (1994) Independent Yes Glansville (1999) Independent Yes Zinni, Frank & Rhodebeck (1997)

Independent Yes

Claassen (2011) Moderating Yes Mader (2017) Moderating Yes Hayes & Lawless (2015) Moderating Yes Adkins, Layman, Campbell & Green (2013)

Moderating No

Anduiza, Gallego & Munoz (2013)

Moderating Yes

Roy & Alcantara (2015) Moderating Yes Dragojlovic (2015) Moderating Yes Dragojlovic (2013) Moderating Yes Dragojlovic (2011) Moderating Yes Stein (2013) Moderating No Drury, Overby, Ang & Yitan (2010)

Moderating Yes

Hayes (2010) Moderating No Hayes (2009) Moderating Yes Parker, Parker & McCann (2008)

Moderating Yes

Ladd (2007) Moderating Yes Gabel & Scheve (2007) Moderating Yes Arceneaux (2008) Moderating Yes Huo (2005) Moderating Yes Dobrzynska & Blais (2008) Moderating Yes Kam (2005) Moderating Yes Denemark (2002) Moderating No Koch (2001) Moderating Yes Koch (2002) Moderating Yes

17

Gwiasda (2001) Moderating Yes Koch (1998) Moderating No Cobb & Kuklinski (1997) Moderating No Sciarini & Kriesi (2003) Moderating Yes Goren (2012) Moderating No Crooke, Grossman & Marshall (2016)

Intervening No

Górecki (2011) Intervening No Jackson (1995) Intervening No Nisbet & Markowitz (2015) Dependent No Reuter & Szakonyi (2015) Dependent No Mondak (1995) Dependent No Abdo-Katsipis (2017) Dependent No Parrott (2017) Dependent No Arias, Garcia & Corpeno (2015)

Dependent No

Seabrook, Dyck & Lascher (2015)

Dependent No

Collet & Kato (2014) Dependent No Highton (2009) Dependent No Bayulgen (2008) Dependent No Nicholson (2003) Dependent No Hewitt (2000) Dependent No Perez-Linan (2002) Dependent No Cassel & Lo (1997) Dependent No De Almeida Teles (2017) No No Mall (2012) No No Berry, Fording, Ringquist, Hanson & Klarner (2012)

No No

Geys, Heinemann & Kalb (2010)

No No

Stucky, Miller & Murphy (2008)

No No

Goot (2006) No No Ringqvist & Dasse, (2004) No No Lia & Hegghammer (2004) No No Tolbert & Smith (2005) No No Welch & Hibbing (1992) No No

18

References

Studies marked * are included in the analyses

*Abdo-Katsipis. Carla B. (2017) “Women, Political Participation, and the Arab Spring: Political

Awareness and Participation in Democratizing Tunisia”. No.4 Vol. 38 Journal of Women, Politics &

Policy

Achen, Christopher, L. & Bartels, Larry, M. (2016) Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not

Produce Responsive Government. Princeton: Princeton University Press

*Adkins, Todd, Layman, Geoffrey, C., Campbell, David, E., & Green, John C. (2013)

“Religious Group Cues and Citizen Policy attitudes in United States.” No. 2 Vol. 6 Politics and religion

Ahmadov, Anar, K. (2014) “Oil, Democracy, and Context: A Meta-Analysis”. No. 9 Vol. 47

Comparative Political Studies

Amer, Moamenla (2009) “Political Awareness and its Implications on Participatory Behaviour – A

Study of Naga Women Voters in Nagaland”. No. 3 Vol. 16 Indian Journal of Gender Studies

*Anduiza, Eva, Gallego, Aina & Munoz, Jordi (2013) “Turning a Blind eye: Experimental Evidence of

Partisan Bias in attitudes toward corruption”. No. 12 Vol. 46 Comparative Political Studies

Aneshensel, Carol, S. (2013) Theory-based data analysis for the social sciences. California: SAGE

publications

*Arceneaux, Kevin (2008) “Can partisan Cues Diminish Democratic Accountability?” No. 2 Vol. 30

Political Behavior

*Arias, Carlos R., Garcia, Jorge & Corpeno, Alejandro (2015) “Population as Auditor of an Election

Process in Honduras: The case of VotoSocial crowdsourcing platform”. No. 2 Vol. 7 Policy & Internet.

*Arnold, Jason, Ross (2012) “Political awareness, corruption perception and democratic

accountability in Latin America”. No. 1 Vol. 47 Acta Politica

*Ayers, John W. & Hofstetter, Richard C. (2008) “American Muslim political participation following

9/11: Religious belief, political resources, social structures, and political awareness”. No. 1 Vol. 1

Politics and Religion

Bartels, Larry, M. (2012) “The Political Education of John Zaller”. No. 4 Vol. 24 Critical review.

19

*Bartle, John (2000) “Political awareness, opinion constraint and the stability of ideological position”.

No, 3 Vol. 48 Political studies

*Bayulgen, Oksan (2008) “Muhammad Yunus, Grameen Bank and the Nobel Peace Prize: What

Political Science Can Contribute to and Learn From the Study of Microcredit”. No. 3 Vol. 10

International Studies Review

*Berry, William, D., Fording, Richard, C., Ringquist, Evan, J., Hanson, Russell, L. & Klarner, Carl (2012)

“A new measure of State Government Ideology, and evidence that both the new measure and an

old measure are valid”. No. 2 Vol. 13 State politics & politics quarterly

Boulianne, Shelley (2009) “Does internet use affect engagement? A meta-analysis of Research”. No.

2 Vol. 26 Political Communication

Bushman, Brad, J. (1994) “Vote-counting procedures in Meta-analysis” in The handbook of research

synthesis, ed. Cooper, Harris & Hedges, Larry, V. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Cancela, Joao & Geys, Benny (2016) “Explaining Voter Turnout: A meta-analysis of national and

subnational elections. No. 2 Vol. 42 Electoral Studies

*Cassel, Carol A. & Lo, Celia, C. (1997) “Theories of Political Literacy”. No. 4 Vol. 19 Political Behavior

*Cakir, Aylin, A. & Sekercioglu, Eser (2016) “Public confidence in judiciary: The interaction between

political awareness and levels of democracy”. No. 4 Vol. 23 Democratization

Clark, Nicholas (2017) “Explaining Political Knowledge: The Role of Procedural Quality in an

informed citizenry”. No. 1 Vol. 69 Political Studies

*Claassen, Ryan L. (2011) “Political awareness and partisan realignment: Are the unaware

unevolved?” No. 4 Vol. 64 Political research quarterly

*Claassen, Ryan L. (2011) “Political awareness and electoral campaigns: Maximum effects for

minimum citizens”. No. 3 Vol. 33 Political Behavior

*Clifford, J., Carrubba & Murrah, Lacey (2005) “Legal integration and Use of the Preliminary Ruling

Process”. No. 2 Vol. 59 International Organization

20

*Cobb, Michael, D. & Kuklinski, James, H. (1997) “Changing minds: Political Arguments and Political

Persuasion”. No. 1 Vol. 41 American Journal of Political Science

*Collet, Christian & Kato, Gento (2014) “Does NHK make you smarter: An examination of Japanese

Political Knowledge and the Potential Influence of TV News”. No. 1 Vol. 15 Japanese Journal of

Political Science

Converse, Philip, E. (1964) “The Nature of Belief System in Mass Publics”, in Ideology and discontent,

ed. Apter, Larry, E. New York: The Free Press of Glenscoe

*Crooke, Kevin, Grossman, Guy & Marshall, John (2016) “Deliberate Disengagement: How Education

Can decrease Political Participation in Electoral Authoritarian Regimes”. No. 3 Vol. 110 American

Political Science Review

Dahl, Robert, A. (1989) Democracy and its critics. New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press

Delli Carpini, Michael, X. & Keeter, Scott (1996) What Americans know about Politics and why it

Matters. Yale: Yale University Press

*Denemark, David (2002) “Television effects and Voter Decision Making in Australia: A Re-

examination of the Converse Model”. No. 4 Vol. 32 British Journal of Political Science

*Dobrzynska, Agneieszka & Blais, André (2008) “Testing Zaller´s Reception and Acceptance Model

in an Intense Election Campaign”. No. 2 Vol. 30 Political Behavior

Doucouliagos, Hristos & Ulubasuglu, Mehmet, A. (2008) “Democracy and Economic Growth: A

Meta-Analysis. No. 1 Vol. 52 American Journal of Political Science

*Dragojlovic, Nicolas, Isak (2011) “Priming and the Obama Effect on Public Evaluations on the

United States.” No. 6 Vol. 32 Political Psychology

*Dragojlovic, Nick (2013) “Leaders without borders: Familiarity as a moderator of Transnational

Source cue effects”. No. 2 Vol. 30 Political Communication

*Dragojlovic, Nick (2015) “Listening to Outsiders: The Impact of Messenger Nationality on

Transnational Persuasion in the United States”. No. 1 Vol. 59 International Studies Quarterly

*Drury, Cooper, A., Overby, Marvin, L,. Ang, Adrian & Yitan, Li (2010) “”Pretty Prudent” or Rhetorically

Responsive? The American Public´s Support for Military Action”. No. 1 Vol. 63 Political Research

Quarterly

21

Enns, Peter, K. & Kellstedt, Paul, M. (2008) “Policy Mood and Political sophistication: Why everybody

moves mood”. No. 4 Vol. 38 British Journal of Political Science

Fink, Arlene (2014) Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper. London:

SAGE Publications

*Gabel, Matthew & Scheve, Kenneth (2007) “Estimating the Effect of Elite communication on Public

opinion using instrumental variables”. No. 4 Vol. 51 American Journal of Political Science

*Gattermann, Katjana, de Vreese, Claes, H. & van der Brug, Wouter (2016) “Evaluations of the

Spitzenkandidaten: The role of Information and News Exposure in Citizens´ preference formation”.

No. 1 Vol. 4 Politics and Governance

Geys, Benny (2006) “Explaining Voter Turnout: A Review of Aggregate-level Research”. No. 4 Vol.

25 Electoral Studies

*Geys, Benny, Heinemann, Friedrich & Kalb, Alexander (2010) “Voter involvement, fiscal autonomy

and public sector efficiency: Evidence from German municipalities”. No. 2 Vol.26 European Journal

of Political Economy

*Gimpel, James, G. & Wolpert, Robin, M. (1995) “Rationalizing support and opposition to supreme

court-nominations – The role of credentials”. No.1 Vol. 28 Polity

*Glansville, Jennifer L. (1999) “Political socialization or selection? Adolescent Extracurricular

Participation and Political Activity in Early Adulthood”. No. 2 Vol. 80 Social science quarterly

Glass, Gene, V., McGaw, Barry, & Smith, Mary, Lee (1981) Meta-analysis in social research. California:

SAGE publications

*Goot, Murray (2006) “The aboriginal franchise and its consequences”. No. 4 Vol. 54 Australian

journal of Politics and History.

*Górecki, Maciej, A., (2011) “Why bother Lying When You Know So few Care? Party contact,

Education and over-reporting Voter Turnout in different Types of Elections”. No. 3 Vol. 34

Scandinavian Political Studies.

*Goren, Paul (2012) “Political values and political awareness”. No. 4 Vol. 24 Critical review

Grönlund, Kimmo & Milner, Henry (2006) “The determinants of Political Knowledge in Comparative

Perspective”. No. 4 Vol. 29 Scandinavian Political Studies

22

*Gwiasda, Gregory W. (2001) Network News Coverage of Campaign Advertisements – Media´s

ability to reinforce Campaign Messages. No. 5 Vol. 29 American Politics Research

Habermas, Jurgen (1984) The theory of communicative action vol. 1. Boston: Beacon Press

Haidich, Anna-Bettina (2010) “Meta-analysis in medical research”. No. 1 Vol. 14 Hippokratia

*Hayes, Danny (2009) “Has television Personalized Voting Behavior?”. No. 2 Vol. 31 Polit Behav

*Hayes, Danny (2010) “Trait Voting in U.S. Senate elections”. No. 6 Vol. 38 American Politics Research

*Hayes, Danny & Guardino, Matt (2011) “The influence of Foreign Voices on U.S Public Opinion”.

No. 4 Vol. 55 American Journal of Political Science

*Hayes, Danny & Lawless, Jennifer L. (2015) “As local news goes, so go citizen engagement: Media,

Knowledge, and participation in US House Election”. No. 2 Vol. 77 The Journal of Politics

*Hewitt, W.E (2000) “The political dimensions of Women´s participation in Brazil´s Base Christian Communities (CEBs)”. No. 3 Vol. 21 Women and Politics

Hibbing, John, R. & Theiss-Morse, Elizabeth (2002) Stealth democracy – Americans´ beliefs how

government should work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

*Hibbing, John, R. & Patterson, Samuel C. (1994) “Public trust in the new Parliaments of central and Eastern Europe”. No. 4 Vol. 42 Political Studies

*Highton, Benjamin (2009) “Revisiting the Relationship between Educational Attainment and

Political Sophistication”. No. 4 Vol. 71 The Journal of Politics

*Huo, Jingjing (2005) “Party dominance in 18 Countries: The role of Party dominance in the

transmission of political ideology”. No. 3 Vol. 38 Canadian journal of Political Science

Imbeau, Louis, M., Pétry, Francois & Lamari, Moktar (2001) “Left-Right ideology and Government

Policies: A meta-analysis”. No. 1 Vol. 40 Journal of Political Research

*Jackson, Robert, A. (1995) “Clarifying the Relationship between Education and Turnout”. No. 5 Vol.

23 American Politics Quarterly

*Jones, Philip & Dawson, Peter (2008) “How much do voters know? An analysis of political

awareness and motivation”. No. 2 Vol, 55 Scottish journal of political economy

*Kam, Cindy, D. (2005) “Who toes the party line? Cues, Values and individual differences”. No. 2 Vol.

27 Political Behavior

23

*Klasjna, Marko (2017) “Uninformed voters and corrupt politicians”. No. 2 Vol. 45 American Politics

Research

*Koch, Jeffrey, W. (1998) “Political rhetoric and political persuasion – The changing structure of

Citizens´ preferences on health insurance during policy debate”. No.2 Vol. 62 Public Opinion

Quarterly

*Koch, Jeffrey, W. (2001) “When parties and candidates collide: Citizen Perception of House

candidates´ positions on abortion”. No. 1 Vol. 65 Public Opinion Quarterly

*Koch, Jeffrey, W. (2002) “Gender stereotypes and Citizens´ Impression of House Candidates´

ideological Orientations”. No. 2 Vol. 46 American Journal of Political Science.

*Ladd, McDonald, Jonathan (2007) “Predispositions and public support for the president during the

war on terrorism”. No. 4 Vol. 71 Public Opinion Quarterly

*Lia, Brynjar & Hegghammer, Thomas (2004) “Jihadi Strategic Studies: The Alleged Al Qaida Policy

Study Preceding the Madrid Bombings”. No. 5 Vol. 27 Studies in Conflict & Terrorism

*Mader, Mathias (2017) “Citizens´ perception of policy objectives and support for military action:

Looking for prudence in Germany”. No. 6 Vol. 61 Journal of conflict resolution

*Mall, Marie (2012) “Citizenship in Pakistan: State, Nation and contemporary faultlines”. No. 1 Vol.

18 Contemporary Politics

*Mondak, Jeffrey J. (1995) “Newspapers and Political Awareness”. No. 2 Vol. 39 American Journal of Political Science

*Nicholson, Stephen, P. (2003) “The Political Environment and Ballot Proposition Awareness”. No. 3 Vol. 47 American Journal of Political Science

*Nisbet, Matthew, C. & Markowitz, Ezra, M. (2015) “Expertize in an era of polarization: Scientists´

political awareness and communication behaviour”. No. 1 Vol. 658 The ANNALS of the American

academy of political and social science

*Parker, Suzanne, L., Parker, R., Glenn & McCann, James A. (2008) “Opinion taking within friendship

networks”. No. 2 Vol. 52 American Journal of Political Science

*Parrott, Emily (2017) “Building Political Participation: The Role of Family Policy and Political Science

Courses”. No. 4 Vol. 13 Journal of political science Education

*Perez-Linan, Anibal (2002) “Television News and political partisanship in Latin America”. No. 3 Vol. 55 Political Research Quarterly

24

Petticrew, Mark & Roberts, Helene (2006) Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical

Guide. Oxford: Blackwell

*Reuter, Ora, J. & Szakonyi, David (2015) “Online social media and political awareness in

Authoritarian regimes”. No. 1 Vol. 45 British Journal of Political Science

*Ringqvist, Evan, J. & Dasse, Carl (2004) “Lies, damned lies, and campaign promises? Environmental

legislation in the 105th congress.” No. 2 Vol. 85 Social Science Quarterly

*Roy, Jason & Alcantara Christopher (2015) “The candidate Effect: Does the local Candidate

Matter?”. No. 2 Vol. 25 Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties

*Sciarini, Pascal & Kriesi, Hanspeter (2003) “Opinion Stability and Change during an Electoral

campaign – Results from 1999´s Swiss Election study”. No. 4 Vol. 15 International Journal of Public

Opinion Research

*Seabrook, Nicholas, R., Dyck, Joshua, J & Lascher, Edward, L. Jr (2015) “Do ballot initiatives increase

general political knowledge?”. No. 2 Vol. 37 Political Behavior

*Seo, Mihye (2011) “Beyond Coethnic Boundaries: Coethnic Residential Context, Communication,

and Asian Political Participation”. No. 3 Vol. 23 International Journal of Public Opinion Research

*Stein, Elizabeth (2013) “The unraveling of Support for Authoritarism: The dynamic Relationship of

media, elites, and Public Opinion in Brazil, 1972-82”. No. 1 Vol. 18 The International Journal of

Press/Politics

*Stucky, Thomas, D., Miller, Geralyn, M. & Murphy, Linda, M. (2008) “Gender, Guns, and Legislating:

An analysis of State Legislative Policy Preference”. No. 4 Vol. 29 Journal of Women, Politics & Policy

Talebi, Maryam (2013) “Study of publication-bias in meta-analysis using trim and fill method”. No.

1 Vol. 4 International Research Journal of Applied and Basic Sciences

*Tolbert, J., Caroline & Smith Daniel, A. (2005) “The educative effects of Ballot Initiatives on voter

Turnout”. No. 2 Vol. 33 American Politics Research

*Welch, Susan & Hibbing, John, R. (1992) “Financial condition, gender, and voting in American

National Elections”. No. 1 Vol. 54 The Journal of Politics

Zaller, John, R. (1992) The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press

25

*Zinni JR, Frank, P., Mattei, Franco & Rhodebeck, Laurie, A. (1997) “The Structure of Political

Attitudes Toward Groups: A Comparison of Experts and Novices”. No. 3 Vol. 50 Political research

Quarterly.