Political Behavior, Vol. 23, No. 3, September 2001 ( 2002) CONCEPTUAL FOUNDATIONS OF CITIZEN COMPETENCE James H. Kuklinski and Paul J. Quirk This article considers some of the challenges that attend efforts to assess citizen per- formance. We begin by demonstrating the often- unarticulated complexity of evaluat- ing performance in any domain. To do this, we identify four distinct conceptual ele- ments that comprise an evaluation—identification of task, selection of criterion, choice of empirical indicator, and explication of standard—and illustrate with an ex- amplethatisrelativelyfreeofambiguity:performanceinbasketball.Usingthisframe- work, we then review research in three general areas of study: mass belief systems and issue consistency, political knowledge, and the use of political heuristics. We find that no study articulates all four elements (or adequate substitutes associated with an alternative framework). As a result, problems arise. Most significantly, any particular studyislikelytousecriteriathatareunsatisfactoryinimportantrespectsortoemploy empirical indicators that do not validly measure the criteria. Across studies, conclu- sions often vary as a function of unarticulated differences in assumptions, definitions, and measures. We conclude by drawing a few lessons for future research, while also recognizing the impressive progress that the study of public opinion and citizen com- petence has made over the last 40 years. Key words: citizens; performance; competence; public opinion. The stuff of politics is contestable. There is no single right way to vote, no single right position on issues, no single right set of beliefs. From the stand- point of studying citizen performance, this observation is bad news. It means that scholars cannot evaluate the quality of decisions in a straightforward fash- ion. Assessing performance would be simple if liberal or conservative decisions were always the right decisions or if a select group of individuals who were known to “get it right” always agreed. For scholars who study such things, unfortunately, neither is the case. James H. Kuklinski, Department of Political Science and Institute of Government and Public Affairs, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign (kuklinsk@uiuc.edu); Paul J. Quirk, Depart- ment of Political Science and Institute of Government and Public Affairs, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign (p-quirk@uiuc.edu). 285 0190-9320/01/0900-0285/0  2002 Plenum Publishing Corporation