Pub Date : 2023-07-20eCollection Date: 2023-01-01DOI: 10.1093/poq/nfad028
Dana Garbarski, Jennifer Dykema, Nora Cate Schaeffer, Cameron P Jones, Tiffany S Neman, Dorothy Farrar Edwards
Interviewers' postinterview evaluations of respondents' performance (IEPs) are paradata, used to describe the quality of the data obtained from respondents. IEPs are driven by a combination of factors, including respondents' and interviewers' sociodemographic characteristics and what actually transpires during the interview. However, relatively few studies examine how IEPs are associated with features of the response process, including facets of the interviewer-respondent interaction and patterns of responding that index data quality. We examine whether features of the response process-various respondents' behaviors and response quality indicators-are associated with IEPs in a survey with a diverse set of respondents focused on barriers and facilitators to participating in medical research. We also examine whether there are differences in IEPs across respondents' and interviewers' sociodemographic characteristics. Our results show that both respondents' behaviors and response quality indicators predict IEPs, indicating that IEPs reflect what transpires in the interview. In addition, interviewers appear to approach the task of evaluating respondents with differing frameworks, as evidenced by the variation in IEPs attributable to interviewers and associations between IEPs and interviewers' gender. Further, IEPs were associated with respondents' education and ethnoracial identity, net of respondents' behaviors, response quality indicators, and sociodemographic characteristics of respondents and interviewers. Future research should continue to build on studies that examine the correlates of IEPs to better inform whether, when, and how to use IEPs as paradata about the quality of the data obtained.
{"title":"Factors Associated with Interviewers' Evaluations of Respondents' Performance in Telephone Interviews: Behavior, Response Quality Indicators, and Characteristics of Respondents and Interviewers.","authors":"Dana Garbarski, Jennifer Dykema, Nora Cate Schaeffer, Cameron P Jones, Tiffany S Neman, Dorothy Farrar Edwards","doi":"10.1093/poq/nfad028","DOIUrl":"10.1093/poq/nfad028","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Interviewers' postinterview evaluations of respondents' performance (IEPs) are paradata, used to describe the quality of the data obtained from respondents. IEPs are driven by a combination of factors, including respondents' and interviewers' sociodemographic characteristics and what actually transpires during the interview. However, relatively few studies examine how IEPs are associated with features of the response process, including facets of the interviewer-respondent interaction and patterns of responding that index data quality. We examine whether features of the response process-various respondents' behaviors and response quality indicators-are associated with IEPs in a survey with a diverse set of respondents focused on barriers and facilitators to participating in medical research. We also examine whether there are differences in IEPs across respondents' and interviewers' sociodemographic characteristics. Our results show that both respondents' behaviors and response quality indicators predict IEPs, indicating that IEPs reflect what transpires in the interview. In addition, interviewers appear to approach the task of evaluating respondents with differing frameworks, as evidenced by the variation in IEPs attributable to interviewers and associations between IEPs and interviewers' gender. Further, IEPs were associated with respondents' education and ethnoracial identity, net of respondents' behaviors, response quality indicators, and sociodemographic characteristics of respondents and interviewers. Future research should continue to build on studies that examine the correlates of IEPs to better inform whether, when, and how to use IEPs as paradata about the quality of the data obtained.</p>","PeriodicalId":51359,"journal":{"name":"Public Opinion Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2023-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10496573/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10252679","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Are those things on which Americans most disagree the same things that divide liberals and conservatives or Democrats and Republicans? How has this changed over time? To answer these questions, I use 350 subjective items from five decades of the General Social Survey. Estimating disagreement with ordinal dispersion and using a novel measure of sorting by party and ideological identification, I find an increasing positive association between the two phenomena. In the 1970s, the likelihood that opinion on contentious items divided partisans was low. Since then, this probability has increased. Disagreement has been more consistently associated with higher levels of ideological sorting, though this relationship has also strengthened since the 1980s. I then ask which items and substantive domains have propelled the politicization of disagreement. I decompose the estimated coefficients between disagreement and sorting by item to quantify their contribution in each decade. I find that opinions from two domains play a large role throughout the period: public spending, and sexuality and abortion. Nevertheless, there is a great deal of heterogeneity within domains and over time. Though disagreement between Americans has increasingly sorted, a relatively small number of items drive this relationship in any one decade. Even among voters, a good proportion of disagreement remains unrelated to ideological or partisan divisions.
{"title":"Disagreement Does Not Always Mean Division: Evidence from Five Decades of American Public Opinion","authors":"Stuart Perrett","doi":"10.1093/poq/nfad020","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfad020","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Are those things on which Americans most disagree the same things that divide liberals and conservatives or Democrats and Republicans? How has this changed over time? To answer these questions, I use 350 subjective items from five decades of the General Social Survey. Estimating disagreement with ordinal dispersion and using a novel measure of sorting by party and ideological identification, I find an increasing positive association between the two phenomena. In the 1970s, the likelihood that opinion on contentious items divided partisans was low. Since then, this probability has increased. Disagreement has been more consistently associated with higher levels of ideological sorting, though this relationship has also strengthened since the 1980s. I then ask which items and substantive domains have propelled the politicization of disagreement. I decompose the estimated coefficients between disagreement and sorting by item to quantify their contribution in each decade. I find that opinions from two domains play a large role throughout the period: public spending, and sexuality and abortion. Nevertheless, there is a great deal of heterogeneity within domains and over time. Though disagreement between Americans has increasingly sorted, a relatively small number of items drive this relationship in any one decade. Even among voters, a good proportion of disagreement remains unrelated to ideological or partisan divisions.","PeriodicalId":51359,"journal":{"name":"Public Opinion Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2023-06-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47908538","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2023-06-08eCollection Date: 2023-01-01DOI: 10.1093/poq/nfad018
Brady T West, Rebecca R Andridge
Among the numerous explanations that have been offered for recent errors in pre-election polls, selection bias due to non-ignorable partisan nonresponse bias, where the probability of responding to a poll is a function of the candidate preference that a poll is attempting to measure (even after conditioning on other relevant covariates used for weighting adjustments), has received relatively less focus in the academic literature. Under this type of selection mechanism, estimates of candidate preferences based on individual or aggregated polls may be subject to significant bias, even after standard weighting adjustments. Until recently, methods for measuring and adjusting for this type of non-ignorable selection bias have been unavailable. Fortunately, recent developments in the methodological literature have provided political researchers with easy-to-use measures of non-ignorable selection bias. In this study, we apply a new measure that has been developed specifically for estimated proportions to this challenging problem. We analyze data from 18 different pre-election polls: 9 different telephone polls conducted in 8 different states prior to the US presidential election in 2020, and nine different pre-election polls conducted either online or via telephone in Great Britain prior to the 2015 general election. We rigorously evaluate the ability of this new measure to detect and adjust for selection bias in estimates of the proportion of likely voters that will vote for a specific candidate, using official outcomes from each election as benchmarks and alternative data sources for estimating key characteristics of the likely voter populations in each context.
{"title":"Evaluating Pre-election Polling Estimates Using a New Measure of Non-ignorable Selection Bias.","authors":"Brady T West, Rebecca R Andridge","doi":"10.1093/poq/nfad018","DOIUrl":"10.1093/poq/nfad018","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Among the numerous explanations that have been offered for recent errors in pre-election polls, selection bias due to non-ignorable partisan nonresponse bias, where the probability of responding to a poll is a function of the candidate preference that a poll is attempting to measure (even after conditioning on other relevant covariates used for weighting adjustments), has received relatively less focus in the academic literature. Under this type of selection mechanism, estimates of candidate preferences based on individual or aggregated polls may be subject to significant bias, even after standard weighting adjustments. Until recently, methods for measuring and adjusting for this type of non-ignorable selection bias have been unavailable. Fortunately, recent developments in the methodological literature have provided political researchers with easy-to-use measures of non-ignorable selection bias. In this study, we apply a new measure that has been developed specifically for estimated proportions to this challenging problem. We analyze data from 18 different pre-election polls: 9 different telephone polls conducted in 8 different states prior to the US presidential election in 2020, and nine different pre-election polls conducted either online or via telephone in Great Britain prior to the 2015 general election. We rigorously evaluate the ability of this new measure to detect and adjust for selection bias in estimates of the proportion of likely voters that will vote for a specific candidate, using official outcomes from each election as benchmarks and alternative data sources for estimating key characteristics of the likely voter populations in each context.</p>","PeriodicalId":51359,"journal":{"name":"Public Opinion Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2023-06-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10496568/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"10252236","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Lewis A. Friedland, Dhavan V. Shah, Michael W. Wagner, Katherine J. Cramer, Chris Wells, and Jon Pevehouse. Battleground: Asymmetric Communication Ecologies and the Erosion of Civil Society in Wisconsin","authors":"B. K. Munis","doi":"10.1093/poq/nfad022","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfad022","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51359,"journal":{"name":"Public Opinion Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2023-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45520163","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Thomas R. Marshall. American Public Opinion and the Supreme Court, 1930–2020: A Representative Institution","authors":"Christopher D. Kromphardt","doi":"10.1093/poq/nfad024","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfad024","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51359,"journal":{"name":"Public Opinion Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2023-05-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46707954","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"M. V. Hood III and Seth C. McKee. Rural Republican Realignment in the Modern South: The Untold Story","authors":"Zoe Nemerever","doi":"10.1093/poq/nfad023","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfad023","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51359,"journal":{"name":"Public Opinion Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2023-05-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41657711","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This study examines whether rising polarization in Americans’ partisan judgments has positive implications for political participation. Drawing on cross-sectional and panel survey data, we find evidence that polarized judgments are related to pre-election intent to vote, as well as to post-election self-reported voter turnout. Polarized evaluations also predict greater reporting of participation in campaign activities beyond voting. Polarization in candidate evaluations consistently has more of an impact than affective polarization. However, our results suggest that polarization in evaluations of both parties and candidates includes an expressive component that does not necessarily translate into political action. Roughly one-quarter to one-third of the actual change in turnout can potentially be attributed to polarization in evaluations of Republican and Democratic presidential candidates.
{"title":"The Effects of Polarized Evaluations on Political Participation: Does Hating the Other Side Motivate Voters?","authors":"Chloe Ahn, Diana C. Mutz","doi":"10.1093/poq/nfad012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfad012","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This study examines whether rising polarization in Americans’ partisan judgments has positive implications for political participation. Drawing on cross-sectional and panel survey data, we find evidence that polarized judgments are related to pre-election intent to vote, as well as to post-election self-reported voter turnout. Polarized evaluations also predict greater reporting of participation in campaign activities beyond voting. Polarization in candidate evaluations consistently has more of an impact than affective polarization. However, our results suggest that polarization in evaluations of both parties and candidates includes an expressive component that does not necessarily translate into political action. Roughly one-quarter to one-third of the actual change in turnout can potentially be attributed to polarization in evaluations of Republican and Democratic presidential candidates.","PeriodicalId":51359,"journal":{"name":"Public Opinion Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2023-05-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43343733","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Scholarship evaluating public support for redistribution has emphasized that stereotypical perceptions of low-income people inform citizens’ willingness to redistribute wealth to the poor. Less understood, however, is the extent to which stereotypical perceptions of high-income people lead to greater willingness to raise taxes on high-income individuals. These perceptions likely involve resource-based considerations (i.e., what rich people have). However, following recent scholarship, perceptions of the wealthy may also involve more fundamental, trait-based considerations (i.e., who the rich are as people). In this Research Note, we isolate causal effects, utilizing conjoint experiments, of both resource-based and character-based attributes of the rich on support for taxing wealthy people. We find evidence that two character traits—avarice and elitism—significantly increase support for raising taxes on wealthy individuals, and this pattern appears to be the case even among groups generally opposed to redistribution (e.g., Republicans and conservatives). We conclude that, while resource-based considerations remain important, the scholarly literature on redistribution may also benefit from a deeper understanding of the trait-based foundations of public attitudes toward taxing the wealthy.
{"title":"What They Have but Also Who They Are: Avarice, Elitism, and Public Support for Taxing the Rich","authors":"John V. Kane, Benjamin J. Newman","doi":"10.1093/poq/nfad016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfad016","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Scholarship evaluating public support for redistribution has emphasized that stereotypical perceptions of low-income people inform citizens’ willingness to redistribute wealth to the poor. Less understood, however, is the extent to which stereotypical perceptions of high-income people lead to greater willingness to raise taxes on high-income individuals. These perceptions likely involve resource-based considerations (i.e., what rich people have). However, following recent scholarship, perceptions of the wealthy may also involve more fundamental, trait-based considerations (i.e., who the rich are as people). In this Research Note, we isolate causal effects, utilizing conjoint experiments, of both resource-based and character-based attributes of the rich on support for taxing wealthy people. We find evidence that two character traits—avarice and elitism—significantly increase support for raising taxes on wealthy individuals, and this pattern appears to be the case even among groups generally opposed to redistribution (e.g., Republicans and conservatives). We conclude that, while resource-based considerations remain important, the scholarly literature on redistribution may also benefit from a deeper understanding of the trait-based foundations of public attitudes toward taxing the wealthy.","PeriodicalId":51359,"journal":{"name":"Public Opinion Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2023-05-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45390479","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
American public opinion on abortion has been investigated a multitude of times since the Supreme Court’s 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade. In this trends article, we review public attitudes in five areas: (1) support or opposition to Roe v. Wade, (2) basic attitudes toward abortion, (3) attitudes toward abortion under different conditions, (4) attachments to the pro-choice versus pro-life labels, and (5) abortion attitudes in the 50 states. Initial public reaction to the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision overturning Roe is also covered.
{"title":"Trends in Abortion Attitudes: From Roe to Dobbs","authors":"B. Norrander, C. Wilcox","doi":"10.1093/poq/nfad014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfad014","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 American public opinion on abortion has been investigated a multitude of times since the Supreme Court’s 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade. In this trends article, we review public attitudes in five areas: (1) support or opposition to Roe v. Wade, (2) basic attitudes toward abortion, (3) attitudes toward abortion under different conditions, (4) attachments to the pro-choice versus pro-life labels, and (5) abortion attitudes in the 50 states. Initial public reaction to the 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision overturning Roe is also covered.","PeriodicalId":51359,"journal":{"name":"Public Opinion Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2023-05-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"61080602","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}