Search results

The new edition of this popular textbook provides a comprehensive, accessible introduction to public opinion in the United States and describes how public opinion data are collected, how they are used, and the role they play in the U.S. political system. Bardes and Oldendick introduce students to the history of polling and explain the factors a good consumer of polls should know in order to evaluate public opinion data. Public Opinion: Measuring the American Mind is the only text to devote significant space to the history

Willingness to support funding for government programs, particularly social programs, has been a key difference between Democrats and Republicans since the New Deal era. In recent years, considerable research has pointed to increasing differences between partisans. The current research uses General Social Survey data from 1973 to 2014 to examine the extent to which differences between Democrats and Republicans on spending issues have increased over time, have been consistent across domains, or have fluctuated differentially during this period. The results demonstrate that while Democrats and Republicans have distinct and opposing views on questions of government spending, partisan differences in support for spending are not uniform across issue areas, with larger differences on social welfare issues than on issues that are seen as redistributive, but not entitlements. The changes in liberalism that have occurred among partisans on these issues vary across domains and fluctuate at various points during this 40-year period.

Explores the relationship between call screening & nonresponse in public opinion research, drawing on 1998 telephone interview data from 2,458 adults in SC, of whom 26.7% had Caller-ID & 64.9% had a telephone answering machine. Respondents (Rs) who were younger, higher educated, & had one or more children in the household were more likely to screen calls. The sociodemographic characteristics of Caller-ID vs answering machines are compared, arguing that the use of the former has expanded the threat of nonresponse across demographic groups; ie, sample representativeness might be compromised. Call-screening behavior is examined in terms of what Rs respond to when receiving an incoming call, drawing on an investigation of how survey calls were listed on their Caller-ID services. Findings suggest Rs are more wary of calls listed as "unknown" or "out of area." The impact of call screening on efforts to complete an interview is addressed, focusing on potential nonresponse indicators as gleaned from call histories: number of attempts made, number of days on which calls were made, & likelihood of refusal. Results are mixed, indicating an increase in self-reported call screening, but also a larger role of social factors vs call screening behavior in the growing nonresponse problem. 4 Tables, 7 References. J. Lindroth

How images of racial minority groups influence Whites' attitudes; US. Concerns attitudes towards Blacks, Asians, and Hispanics.

Since the Vietnam War, public preferences on foreign policy issues have played a greater role in the US political process. Yet comparatively little is known about the manner in which attitudes on international affairs are formed & how they are related to political cognitions. Data from 2 studies of foreign policy opinion conducted by the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations in 1974 & 1978 are used to examine the question of how mass & elite opinion differs in a number of policy domains & determine whether these distinctions changed over the 4 years. The 1974 study consisted of personal interviews with a random national sample of 1,513 mass Rs & 328 elites; in 1978, 1,546 individuals from the general public & 366 elites were interviewed. Comparisons of % differences on identical questions between groups & between years are employed in analyzing these data. In general, there are patterns of difference in the foreign policy beliefs of the elites & the mass public, the most striking being in their "internationalist" view of the US role in world affairs, with smaller distinctions in the domains of Americanism, human rights, detente, world problems, & international organizations. 9 Tables. AA.

Previous experiments have shown that reported interest in politics varies according to the order & content in which questions are asked. The degree to which this problem can be reduced by appropriate test design is explored. Telephone interviews were conducted with 1,511 households in the Cincinnati, Ohio, area with 3 different spacings of questions; subsequently, similar interviews were completed with 1,517 households in the same area following a similar design. It was found that the use of buffering questions does not reduce the impact of difficult questions on the question of how informed a R feels about politics. It also appears that first asking how informed a R feels about politics may increase the likelihood of claims to have definite knowledge on specific questions asked subsequently. Item separation is found to have no effect in reducing these problems. 3 Tables, 11 References. W. H. Stoddard.

Previous studies have shown that a substantial number of people will offer opinions on fictitious topics in the context of a survey interview. The results of a split-ballot experiment (& a replication) with three fictitious public affairs issues suggest that people give opinions on such matters in large part because of the pressure to answer survey questions that is created by the way in which the questions are asked & by the manner in which "don't know" responses are handled by the interviewer. Findings of the telephone interview surveys (N not given) also indicate that there may be little or no relationship between an individual's willingness to admit ignorance & his or her inclination to volunteer opinions on fictitious issues, as measured by at least one item from the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. In addition, the data demonstrate that blacks & less well-educated Rs are more likely than their counterparts to offer opinions on fictitious issues. 1 Appendix, 9 References. AA