Suchergebnisse

An island-wide fertility survey in Taiwan, 1973, of 5,588 married women aged 20-40 included 6 items on attitude toward abortion which engendered a substantial number of "don't know" (DK) responses. These provide the data for a study of the DK response as a function of item ambiguity (the fault is with the item) or response uncertainty (the individual cannot discriminate on which side of the cut point between alternatives he is). There are 3 analyses: (1) the cumulative scale patterns associated with Guttman scalogram analysis using individuals who made no DK response to any item, (2) a proximity scale analysis using only individuals who made at least 1 DK response, & (3) analysis which demonstrates that the DK response is a transitional response between the "pro-" & the "anti"-attitudes when item ambiguity is eliminated. It is clear that both item ambiguity & response uncertainty are major factors in generating DK responses. DK responses due to the former reduce the quality of a scale; those due to the latter are scale dependent responses & hence informative, & can be given intermediate scale values. Item ambiguity can be reduced by preliminary scalogram analysis; response uncertainty can be reduced by using fewer alternatives to items, which also simplifies the weighting of DK responses in scoring response patterns. 6 Tables, 2 Figures. AA.

It seems to be generaally agreed that Franklin D. Roosevelt is very unpopular with the wealthier groups in society and that he is held to be a very warm friend of the poor. Indeed, it is sometimes asserted that no president since Jefferson has so divided the voters along economic lines as has Roosevelt. Popular opinion on this subject, as on many others, is likely to be exaggerated. In any case, it is well to check by measurement the idea that the rich are against Roosevelt and the poor are for him. This has been done in some of the sample polls. For instance, Fortune finds that the prosperous present about 15 to 20 per cent more opposition to Roosevelt than is found among the poor. Similarly, the Gallup polls have found over twice as much opposition to Roosevelt among the upper third of the population as among the lower third. Where these surveys of opinion on Roosevelt have been presented by social classes, there has been shown, in accordance with popular opinion, this division between the rich and the poor in their attitude toward Roosevelt. But the percentage difference is not quite so large as might be expected.This difference between the rich and the poor in attitude toward Roosevelt became accentuated around the middle of his first term. It is interesting to inquire into the extent to which those of the lower income groups voted for Roosevelt in 1932 and in 1936.