[ABSTRAK
Memilih pemimpin politik merupakan salah satu proses pengambilan keputusan yang palingsulit dilakukan. Dalam hal ini, masyarakat dihadapkan pada pengambilan keputusan yangjarang dilakukan (rata-rata satu kali per lima tahun) serta terdapat batasan waktu (waktupencoblosan) yang sempit untuk dapat menentukan pemimpin berdasarkan informasi terbatasyang didapatkan. Maraknya kasus korupsi dan kasus etik lainnya yang menimpa parapemimpin politik menunjukan bahwa masyarakat masih belum memilih pemimpin yangterbaik. Selain itu, banyak penelitian menyatakan bahwa jalan pintas kognitif digunakan olehhampir semua pemilih saat pemilihan pemimpin politik (Hafner-Burton dkk 2011; Lau danRedlawsk, 2001;Steenbergen, Hangarter dan de Vries, 2011). Hal ini dikarenakan, manusiamemiliki sumber daya kognitif yang terbatas, di sisi lain sangat sedikit masyarakat yangmemiliki waktu dan energi untuk mengembangkan jenis pengetahuan dan minat di bidangpolitik (Lau & Redlawks, 2013). Oleh karena itu, fokus penelitian intervensi ini yakni untukmeningkatkan kapasitas dari penyelenggara pemilu sebagai pihak yang bertugas dan berperanpenting dalam proses pemilihan pemimpin politik. Hasil uji statistik dekriptif menyatakanbahwa 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 dalammengidentifikasi heuristik dan bias dalam proses pemilihan pemimpin politik lebih rendah saatsebelum intervensi (mean = 1.2, sd = 0.5) dibandingkan dengan setelah intervensi (mean = 1.8,sd = 0.3).
ABSTRACTChoosing 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 narrowtime 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 thatpeople still not able to choose the best leaders. In addition, many studies suggest that thecognitive 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). Thisis because humans have limited cognitive resources, on the other hand, only a few people whohave 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 ofthe election organizers as the party in charge and play the important role in the process ofselecting political leaders. Descriptive statistical test results stating that the political efficacyof training participants is low before the intervention (mean = 3.2, sd = 0.5) compared to afterthe intervention (mean = 1.2, sd = 0.5). In addition, this study stated that the participant has thesophistication of politics especially in identifying heuristics and biases in the process ofselecting political leaders lower before the intervention (mean = 1.2, sd = 0.5) compared toafter 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 narrowtime 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 thatpeople still not able to choose the best leaders. In addition, many studies suggest that thecognitive 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). Thisis because humans have limited cognitive resources, on the other hand, only a few people whohave 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 ofthe election organizers as the party in charge and play the important role in the process ofselecting political leaders. Descriptive statistical test results stating that the political efficacyof training participants is low before the intervention (mean = 3.2, sd = 0.5) compared to afterthe intervention (mean = 1.2, sd = 0.5). In addition, this study stated that the participant has thesophistication of politics especially in identifying heuristics and biases in the process ofselecting political leaders lower before the intervention (mean = 1.2, sd = 0.5) compared toafter the intervention (mean = 1.8, sd = 0.3).] |
T45377-Yusnan Solihin.pdf :: Unduh