Hasil Pencarian  ::  Simpan CSV :: Kembali

Abstrak :
[ABSTRAK
Memilih pemimpin politik merupakan salah satu proses pengambilan keputusan yang paling sulit dilakukan. Dalam hal ini, masyarakat dihadapkan pada pengambilan keputusan yang jarang dilakukan (rata-rata satu kali per lima tahun) serta terdapat batasan waktu (waktu pencoblosan) yang sempit untuk dapat menentukan pemimpin berdasarkan informasi terbatas yang didapatkan. Maraknya kasus korupsi dan kasus etik lainnya yang menimpa para pemimpin politik menunjukan bahwa masyarakat masih belum memilih pemimpin yang terbaik. Selain itu, banyak penelitian menyatakan bahwa jalan pintas kognitif digunakan oleh hampir semua pemilih saat pemilihan pemimpin politik (Hafner-Burton dkk 2011; Lau dan Redlawsk, 2001;Steenbergen, Hangarter dan de Vries, 2011). Hal ini dikarenakan, manusia memiliki sumber daya kognitif yang terbatas, di sisi lain sangat sedikit masyarakat yang memiliki waktu dan energi untuk mengembangkan jenis pengetahuan dan minat di bidang politik (Lau & Redlawks, 2013). Oleh karena itu, fokus penelitian intervensi ini yakni untuk meningkatkan kapasitas dari penyelenggara pemilu sebagai pihak yang bertugas dan berperan penting dalam proses pemilihan pemimpin politik. Hasil uji statistik dekriptif menyatakan bahwa political efficacy partisipan pelatihan lebih renda pada saat sebelum intervensi (mean = 3.2, sd = 0.5) dibandingkan dengan setelah intervensi (mean = 1.2, sd = 0.5). Selain itu, penelitian ini menyatakan bahwa partisipan memiliki kecanggihan politik khususnya dalam mengidentifikasi heuristik dan bias dalam proses pemilihan pemimpin politik lebih rendah saat sebelum intervensi (mean = 1.2, sd = 0.5) dibandingkan dengan setelah intervensi (mean = 1.8, sd = 0.3).

---

ABSTRACT Choosing political leaders is one of the most difficult decision-making process. In this case, society is being confronted with a rare decision (on average once every five years) and narrow time limit (time of voting) to be able to determine the leader based on the limited information. Rampant corruption and other ethical cases which affecting political leaders showed that people still not able to choose the best leaders. In addition, many studies suggest that the cognitive shortcuts used by almost all voters during the election of political leaders (Hafner- Burton et al 2011; Lau and Redlawsk, 2001; Steenbergen, Hangarter and de Vries, 2011). This is because humans have limited cognitive resources, on the other hand, only a few people who have enough time and energy to develop the knowledge and interest in politics (Lau & Redlawks, 2013). Therefore, the focus of this intervention study is to increase the capacity of the election organizers as the party in charge and play the important role in the process of selecting political leaders. Descriptive statistical test results stating that the political efficacy of training participants is low before the intervention (mean = 3.2, sd = 0.5) compared to after the intervention (mean = 1.2, sd = 0.5). In addition, this study stated that the participant has the sophistication of politics especially in identifying heuristics and biases in the process of selecting political leaders lower before the intervention (mean = 1.2, sd = 0.5) compared to after the intervention (mean = 1.8, sd = 0.3)., Choosing political leaders is one of the most difficult decision-making process. In this case, society is being confronted with a rare decision (on average once every five years) and narrow time limit (time of voting) to be able to determine the leader based on the limited information. Rampant corruption and other ethical cases which affecting political leaders showed that people still not able to choose the best leaders. In addition, many studies suggest that the cognitive shortcuts used by almost all voters during the election of political leaders (Hafner- Burton et al 2011; Lau and Redlawsk, 2001; Steenbergen, Hangarter and de Vries, 2011). This is because humans have limited cognitive resources, on the other hand, only a few people who have enough time and energy to develop the knowledge and interest in politics (Lau & Redlawks, 2013). Therefore, the focus of this intervention study is to increase the capacity of the election organizers as the party in charge and play the important role in the process of selecting political leaders. Descriptive statistical test results stating that the political efficacy of training participants is low before the intervention (mean = 3.2, sd = 0.5) compared to after the intervention (mean = 1.2, sd = 0.5). In addition, this study stated that the participant has the sophistication of politics especially in identifying heuristics and biases in the process of selecting political leaders lower before the intervention (mean = 1.2, sd = 0.5) compared to after the intervention (mean = 1.8, sd = 0.3).]