Suchergebnisse

Earlier studies of response bias in interviewing have emphasized distortions produced by the R's desire to please the interviewer. Here, the focus is on alternative response strategies, in which the R attempts to make his opinion prevail by influencing the interviewer. 2 field exp's demonstrate this proposition. In the 1st, when R's were informed that the interviewer was a member of the firefighters union, they expressed greater disapproval of firefighters strikes-although they attempted to 'ingratiate' themselves with the interviewer by giving favorable general opinions of firefighters. In the 2nd exp, parents were more likely to give extreme responses to a question about possible gov'al control of TV violence, when they thought the interviewer represented a gov'al body that might exercise such control. These 'distorted' opinions are not invalid, but indicate the need for careful interpretation of interview data, & suggest that a person's opinions occupy a range of possible responses under various soc conditions. AA.

The interaction is significant: Source expertness raises opinion change for the concept-oriented and inhibits it for those low in concept-orientation. The union of present-state and historical variables is supported.

Compares television and the newspaper as sources of political information and discusses campaign advertising as a source of issue information; US.

"The major early studies by Paul Lazarsfeld and his colleagues in the 1940s were based upon a number of assumptions that are not very appropriate today. Subsequent research has largely consisted of variations on those early studies, rather than a full reconceptualization of the problem posed by the burgeoning role of mass media in politics. Using a panel design, Lazarsfeld and his colleagues found relatively few people switching from one candidate to another, and switching was particularly rare among those who followed politics closely in the media. This lack of evidence, coupled with the prevalent image of social science as searching for 'theories of middle range', yielded a conclusion that mass media have only 'limited effects' in politics. Election research shifted in the 1950s and 1960s to national surveys conducted at the University of Michigan. Synchronous correlational designs replaced panels as the dominant model, and the role of mass media was severly downgraded to a few items asking whether the person had read or heard about the election campaign on TV or radio, or in a newspaper or magazine. The 1970s brought a flowering of new conceptual topics, although the basic marketing model continued to structure most studies. Cognitive dependent variables, based on the assumption that the media are responsible for enlightenment of the electorate, began to overshadow attitudinal measures and the simple act of voting. But the basis model for election studies has never been abandoned. The research field today remains very much the product of its historical roots." (author's abstract)

In contrast to prior dichotomizations between 'early' & 'late' deciders in election campaigns, examined separately is a third group, voters who make their final choices during the campaign. In a 4-wave statewide panel survey of Wisc residents (number of cases = 164) during the fall 1976 presidential campaign, 30% of voters decided before the campaign, 40% during it, & 30% were still not certain in the final preelection wave of interviewing. Those who decided during the campaign differed from other voters, being much less affected by prior party identification & more by specific attributes of the candidates. During the campaign these voters increased their attention to media coverage, especially the Ford-Carter debates & other television news. Precampaign deciders were well educated, highly partisan, discussed the election extensively, & voted mainly on the basis of party identification. Last-minute deciders had little exposure to the campaign; they also voted mainly in accordance with their preexisting party affiliations, although these predispositions were weak. The findings suggest greater potential media influence during a campaign than indicated by prior research-especially studies in the 1940s, when party identification was stronger & television not yet a major factor. 4 Tables. Modified AA.