"[
ABSTRAKMemilih 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).
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).]"
