Suchergebnisse

Media coverage of State of the Union proposals increases public knowledge on presidential policy initiatives, especially among individuals who follow news coverage. These estimates are based on within‐survey/within‐subjects comparisons of answers to factual questions for respondents who are simultaneously unexposed and exposed to media coverage on the same issue. In this powerful but underused design, individuals serve as counterfactuals for themselves, holding constant all relevant observed and unobserved characteristics. The findings are based on statistical analyses of data from four national surveys conducted since the late 1990s covering a range of topics from health care to Social Security reform. Watching or listening to the address directly does not appreciably affect knowledge once control variables are added for whether individuals follow news coverage of the speech, the amount of news coverage, and the interaction of these two factors.

Theorists argue that deliberation promotes enlightenment and consensus, but scholars do not know how deliberation affects policy opinions. Using the deliberative democracy and public opinion literatures as a guide, I develop a theory of opinion updating where citizens who deliberate revise their prior beliefs, particularly when they encounter consensual messages. A key aspect of this model is that opinion strength moderates the deliberative opinion change process. In two separate propensity score analyses using panel survey data from a deliberative forum and cross-sectional surveys, I show how deliberation and discussion both affect opinions toward Social Security reform. However, deliberation differs from ordinary discussion in that participants soften strongly held views, encounter different perspectives, and learn readily. Thus, deliberation increases knowledge and alters opinions, but it does so selectively based on the quality and diversity of the messages as well as the willingness of participants to keep an open mind.

Abstract
Social scientists employ survey methods to explore the contours of human behavior. Today there are more opportunities to collect survey data than at any time in recent history. Yet sample quality varies dramatically due in part to the availability of nonprobability samples (NPSs) from commercial survey organizations. While these kinds of surveys have advantages in terms of cost and accessibility, the proprietary nature of the data can be problematic. In this synthesis, we describe situations in which researchers typically employ NPSs and consider whether these data are fit for purpose. Next, we discuss use cases that are not widespread but may be appropriate for these data. We conclude that potential utility of NPSs will remain out of reach unless scholars confront the tension between the operation of online survey organizations and the goals of transparent research.

Researchers use survey experiments to establish causal effects in descriptively representative samples, but concerns remain regarding the strength of the stimuli and the lack of realism in experimental settings. We explore these issues by comparing three national survey experiments on Medicare and immigration with contemporaneous natural experiments on the same topics. The survey experiments reveal that providing information increases political knowledge and alters attitudes. In contrast, two real-world government announcements had no discernable effects, except among people who were exposed to the same facts publicized in the mass media. Even among this exposed subsample, treatment effects were smaller and sometimes pointed in the opposite direction. Methodologically, our results suggest the need for caution when extrapolating from survey experiments. Substantively, we find that many citizens are able to recall factual information appearing in the news but may not adjust their beliefs and opinions in response to this information.