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":"87 Suppl 1","pages":"575-601"},"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":" ","pages":""},"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":" ","pages":""},"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":" ","pages":""},"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":" ","pages":""},"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":" ","pages":""},"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":"1 1","pages":""},"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}
Erik Hermann, M. Morgan, J. Shanahan, Harry Yaojun Yan
Many factors contributed to support for Donald Trump in the 2016 US presidential election, among them media influences. Morgan and Shanahan (2017) found that television viewing was associated with support for Trump, mediated through authoritarianism. In light of the changes in the political and media environments during Trump’s presidency, our study examined whether Morgan and Shanahan’s (2017) findings still held in the 2020 US presidential election. Replicating their findings, we found that authoritarianism still mediates the relationship between television viewing and Trump support. As in the original study, the indirect effect is moderated by political ideology and gender, with stronger indirect effects among liberals and females.
{"title":"Television, Authoritarianism, and Support for Trump: A Replication","authors":"Erik Hermann, M. Morgan, J. Shanahan, Harry Yaojun Yan","doi":"10.1093/poq/nfad015","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfad015","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Many factors contributed to support for Donald Trump in the 2016 US presidential election, among them media influences. Morgan and Shanahan (2017) found that television viewing was associated with support for Trump, mediated through authoritarianism. In light of the changes in the political and media environments during Trump’s presidency, our study examined whether Morgan and Shanahan’s (2017) findings still held in the 2020 US presidential election. Replicating their findings, we found that authoritarianism still mediates the relationship between television viewing and Trump support. As in the original study, the indirect effect is moderated by political ideology and gender, with stronger indirect effects among liberals and females.","PeriodicalId":51359,"journal":{"name":"Public Opinion Quarterly","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2023-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46407503","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}
Racial disparities have persisted in COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and death rates in the United States. Differences in vaccination hesitancy have also emerged by race: communities of color and, particularly, African Americans have been more reluctant to get a vaccine to prevent COVID-19. Can racial descriptive norms provide a tool to increase confidence and reduce hesitancy within the US public? We conducted a survey experiment at the end of January 2021 on a sample of non-Hispanic white and Black American adults. The experiment varied whether information about uptake intent by race was provided, and what racial group was reported to be more likely to get a vaccine if one were available to them today. Our results show that the tendency to conform to one’s racial ingroup can play a key role in improving vaccination attitudes across race. Indeed, whites become significantly more willing to get vaccinated now or in the near future after they learn that a majority of whites intend to do so. Furthermore, both Blacks with high science trust and whites with low science trust are more likely to accept multiple vaccine doses and yearly boosters if their racial ingroup plans on getting vaccinated. Finally, the desire for ingroup conformity leads Blacks with low science trust to be more willing to receive a vaccine when they are provided a choice among vaccine brands.
{"title":"The Impact of Racial Descriptive Norms on Vaccination against COVID-19","authors":"Marzia Oceno, Wei Yen","doi":"10.1093/poq/nfad017","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfad017","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Racial disparities have persisted in COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and death rates in the United States. Differences in vaccination hesitancy have also emerged by race: communities of color and, particularly, African Americans have been more reluctant to get a vaccine to prevent COVID-19. Can racial descriptive norms provide a tool to increase confidence and reduce hesitancy within the US public? We conducted a survey experiment at the end of January 2021 on a sample of non-Hispanic white and Black American adults. The experiment varied whether information about uptake intent by race was provided, and what racial group was reported to be more likely to get a vaccine if one were available to them today. Our results show that the tendency to conform to one’s racial ingroup can play a key role in improving vaccination attitudes across race. Indeed, whites become significantly more willing to get vaccinated now or in the near future after they learn that a majority of whites intend to do so. Furthermore, both Blacks with high science trust and whites with low science trust are more likely to accept multiple vaccine doses and yearly boosters if their racial ingroup plans on getting vaccinated. Finally, the desire for ingroup conformity leads Blacks with low science trust to be more willing to receive a vaccine when they are provided a choice among vaccine brands.","PeriodicalId":51359,"journal":{"name":"Public Opinion Quarterly","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4,"publicationDate":"2023-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"61080611","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}