Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mpsa.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Midwest Political Science Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
American Journal of Political Science.
http://www.jstor.org
A SimpleTheoryoftheSurveyResponse:Answering
QuestionsversusRevealingPreferences*
ofCalifornia,Los Angeles
JohnZaller,University
StanleyFeldman,StateUniversity
ofNewYorkat StonyBrook
Table 1. ResponseStabilityoverRepeatedInterviews:
TWoExamples
June 1980:
Cooperate 25% 8 8 2
Middle 7 4 5 1
Tougher 5 5 17 2
Unsure 4 2 3 4
N = (338) (153) (266) (74)
Level of GovernmentServices
(Corner Percentaging)
Attitudesin January1980
Cut Middle Keep Same Unsure
June 1980:
Cut 24% 6 5 6
Middle 8 4 2 2
Keep Same 5 4 15 3
Unsure 8 2 3 6
N = (362) (122) (208) (138)
2Theempiricalwarrant
forthisaxiomis extremely
strong(see Barghet al. 1986;Higginsand
King 1981;BodenhausenandWyer1987).
A THEORY OF SURVEY RESPONSE 587
Data
Sincewe base muchofouranalysison datafromthe1987PilotStudyofthe
NationalElectionStudies(NES), it is worthpausingbriefly to describethis
study.The surveyattempted to measure,interalia, the"considerations" thatun-
derliepeople'sresponsesto standardclosed-ended surveyitems.The studywas
conducted in twowavesa monthapart;457 personswereinterviewed in theMay
waveand 360 in theJunewave. All hadpreviously participatedin the1986Na-
tionalElectionStudy.Othertechnicaldetailsof thestudyare availablethrough
theNES attheUniversity ofMichigan.
The basicmethodwas to ask peoplea closed-ended policyitemandthento
ask themto talkin theirownwordsabouttheissuesitraised.The closed-ended
itemsweretelephoneversionsofthestandard NES itemsonjob guarantees, aid
to blacks,and government servicesand spending.In formA, respondents were
asked the open-endedprobesimmediately afteransweringthe givenclosed-
endedpolicyitem.Theexactformofthe"retrospective" open-ended probeswas:
3Thisaptdesignationis theinvention
ofKathleenKnight.
4Fortheaid to blacksitem,therewereup to six probes:threequestions,each followedby a
queryfor"anyothers?"As manyas fourremarks werecoded in connection witheach of thesesix
probes.On theotheritems,thereweretwoinitialprobes,eachwithfollow-up probes.
5Personalcommunication fromStevePinney,whosupervisedourprojectat ISR.
A THEORY OF SURVEY RESPONSE 589
tion"fromanother.Whentworemarks haveclearlyopposingthrusts,thisis no
problem.Butpeoplesometimes offera seriesof remarks
on thesamesideofan
issue.Do suchremarks represent orjustelaborations
separateconsiderations, on
a singleidea? Even a personlistening to theinterviews
as theyoccurred,as we
did,wouldsometimes be uncertain;codersworking froman imperfecttranscript
wouldexperience greateruncertainty.
Even in retrospect,we are notsurehow theseproblemscould have been
ameliorated
significantly in thecontextof a masssurvey. We thusfeelthePilot
Studydataarethebestthatarereadilyattainable fordirectly
examiningtheidea-
tionalunderpinnings of massattitudes, butwe admitthattheyare,nonetheless,
farfromperfect.
TestsoftheModel
Axiom
CheckoftheAmbivalence
Preliminary
We beginassessmentof themodelby makinga plausibility checkof the
holdmultiple,
axiomthatclaimsthatmostindividuals ideason most
conflicting
issues.Ourdatagiveus threewaysto measuretheextentof ambivalencein the
public,as follows:
1. A countofthenumberofopposingremarks byeachpersonthatcan be
pairedagainstone anotherIf,forexample,a respondent makestwocomments
witha liberalthrustand twowitha conservative hisscoreon theconflict
thrust,
scale is two.Ifhe makesthree(ormore)on one sideoftheissueandonlytwoon
theother,theconflictscoreis stilltwo,sincethenumber ofopposingcomments
thatcan be pairedremainstwo.
2. A countofthetimespeople spontaneously expressambivalenceor diffi-
cultyin makingup theirminds.A specialcode was createdto capturesuchre-
marks;itreadsas follows:"Mentionindicatesambivalence,conflict (e.g., 'I see
meritin both sides'; 'That's a toughquestion'; 'Depends'; 'Both are valid
points')."
3. A countofthenumberoftimespeople make"two-sided comments." In-
cludedin theframeof reference codes are special"starcodes" thatindicatea
thrust
directional tothecomment butalso ambivalencewithrespecttothatdirec-
tion.Starcodes applyto cases in whichrespondents had a preferencebutwere
clearlypayingsomeattention totheothersideoftheissue.Instructions tocoders
foruse ofstarcodesreadas follows:
A star code is used onlyforcases in whichthereis a singlethoughtor
comment thatencompassestwoopposingelements(e.g., "Although I think
favorY" Starcodesareusedforcomments
X, I nevertheless inwhichR sees
twosidesto an issue.
590 JohnZallerand StanleyFeldman
Probes
Retrospective Stop-and-ThinkProbes
Considerations
Conflicting Considerations
Conflicting
Jobs Services Aid to Blacks Jobs Services Aid to Blacks
Count
0 73.9%a 57.8 73.4 36.9% 30.7 29.0
1 22.6 33.6 22.6 27.3 29.0 21.6
2 3.5 5.2 4.0 22.2 21.6 25.0
3+ 0.0 3.4 0.0 13.1 18.7 24.4
of Ambivalence
Expressions ofAmbivalence
Expressions
Two-SidedRemarks(StarCodes) Two-SidedRemarks(StarCodes)
TotalIndications TotalIndications
Note:aMeasuresaredescribedin text.
Source: 1987NES PilotStudy.
Level ofPoliticalAwareness
Low Medium High
Correlations
withRemarksMade Justafter
Answering Closed-EndedQuestion
Jobguarantees .79 .70 .79
(126) (123) (105)
services
Government .79 .70 .78
(137) (105) (106)
Aid to blacks .67 .83 .83
(144) (114) (112)
ExplainingResponseInstability
Responseinstability overrepeatedinterviews is, as we haveindicated, one
of themostimportant and disturbingempiricalregularities associatedwiththe
mass surveyresponse.In thissection,we attempt to use ourmodelto explain
We beginwithsimpleillustrations
thisinstability. of ourapproachandthenpro-
ceedto moresystematic analysis.
Whenasked in the May interview abouttheproperlevel of government
services,one respondent, identifiedas a teacher,emphatically favoredhigher
levelsof servicesand spending.The country was facingan educationalcrisis,
theteachersaid, and moreexpenditures foreducationweredrastically needed.
Anycuts in federalservicesor spendingwouldinevitably reducethealready
inadequatefundsavailableforeducation.Justa monthlater,however, thesame
individualfavoredcutsin government spending.Government was too big and
had to be cut back. Therewas no reference to theeducationalcrisisthathad
preoccupied thisindividualjusta fewweeksearlier. 10
Researchershave long knownthatdifferent people can answeridentical
questionsas iftheyconcerneddifferent topics.Whatthevignette of thevacillat-
ingteachershowsis thatthesamepersoncan answerthesamequestionat differ-
enttimesas if it involveddifferent topics.This can happen,accordingto the
model,becausetheconsiderations thatdetermine people'ssurveyanswersvary
acrossinterviews. Thus,peoplecan give strongly felt,contradictorysurveyre-
sponseswithout eitherchangingtheirmixoffeelingson theissueor consciously
experiencing anyambivalenceor conflict-iftheparticular considerationsthat
determine theirsurveyresponseshaveshifted.
Our data werecollectedwitha specificview to detecting and measuring
suchshifts.Table5 presentsclosed-endedsummaries of thesedataforfourre-
spondents." Notethatthesedataare fromthestop-and-think side,in whichre-
spondents wereencouragedto thinkaboutissuessomewhat morefullythanthey
ordinarilywould.
Considerrespondent reactionto a guaranteed
A. His first standardofliving
was thatit was inconsistentwithAmericanideals;he was also bothered by the
unfairnessof supporting thosewhorefuseto work.Yethe worriedaboutletting
individualsget ahead on theirown, sayingthatsome peopleneed specialhelp
and thatsocietyhas an obligationto help theneedy.In thesecondinterview,
however, therewas no signof thisambivalence.Respondent A gavesix reasons
whyindividuals oughtto getaheadon theirown,including a restatementof his
Couldyoutellme whatkindsofthingscometomindwhenyouthink
about...
FirstWave SecondWave
... government mak- eachper-
... letting ... government mak- ... letting
eachper-
ingsurethatevery son getahead on ingsurethateach son getahead on
personhas a good theirown? personhas a good theirown?
standardofliving? standardofliving?
A:
Respondent on FixedResponse)
(StableConservative
110. Idea is un- 180. Some people 158. Tax burdentoo 140. Individualism/
American needhelp(Lib.) great(Con.) workethic
(Con.) (Con.)
161. Dutyto helpthe 110. Idea is un- 133. Equal opportu-
needy(Lib.) American nityexistsfor
(Con.) all (Con.)
136. Unfairifsome 346. Program/food 344. Program/educa-
don'twork stamps(Con.) tion(Con.)
(Con.)
145. All shouldmake
italonebut
someneedhelp
(ETU)
B:
Respondent on FixedResponse)
(StableConservative
158. Tax burdentoo 344. Program/educa- 344. Program/educa- 140. Individualism/
great(Con.) tion(Lib.) tion(Lib.) workethic
(Con.)
156. Gov't. redtape 344. Program/educa- 219. Groupref.to people
142. Shiftless
(Con.) tion(Lib.) middleclass deservefate
(Con.) (Con.)
144. Valueofcom- 110. Idea is un- 152. Limitedgov't. 147. Motivationto
petition American (Con.) work(Con.)
(Con.)
140. Individualism/
workethic
(Con.)
C:
Respondent (Unstable,Conservative
to Liberal)
140. Individualism/ 140. Individualism/ 151. Gov't. mustin- 140. Individualism
workethic workethic sureequal opp. workethic
(Con.) (Con.) (Lib.) (Con.)
161. Dutyto helpthe
needy(Lib.)
D:
Respondent (Unstable,Liberalto Conservative)
344. Program/educa- 140. Individualism/ 150. Idea of welfare 111. Fairnessof
tion(Lib.) workethic state(Lib.) Amer.system
(ETU) (Con.)
596 JohnZallerand StanleyFeldman
Table5 (continued)
Couldyoutellmewhatkindsofthingscometo mindwhenyouthink
about.
FirstWave SecondWave
... government mak- . . . letting
eachper- . . . government
mak- . . . letting
eachper-
ingsurethatevery son getahead on ingsurethateach songetahead on
personhas a good theirown? personhas a good theirown?
standardofliving? standardofliving?
RetrospectiveConsiderations
Consistency
ofconsiderations: N N N
.00 .50 (7) .59 (11) .57 (7)
.01 to .50 .80 (20) .70 (25) .71 (19)
.51 to .99 .77 (15) .78 (16) .80 (15)
1.00 .91 (63) .87 (54) .96 (71)
(p < .01) (p < .02) (p < .01)
Stop-and-ThinkConsiderations
Consistency
ofconsiderations: N N N
.00 .63a (16) .54 (14) .57 (14)
.01 to .50 .68 (74) .77 (63) .83 (66)
.51 to .99 .73 (37) .80 (50) .84 (44)
1.00 .88 (45) .73 (37) .88 (41)
(p < .02) (p < .07) (p < .01)
on whether
'6Thereis disagreement theseeffects
haveartificially of"pocket-
estimates
inflated
bookvoting"in NES surveys(see Lewis-Beck1985;Lau, Sears,andJessor1990),butno disagree-
mentthatframing effects do so.
could,inprinciple,
A THEORY OF SURVEY RESPONSE 603
thegrainoftheanticipatedstop-and-thinkeffect,makingitmoredifficulttodem-
onstratetheeffect,
particularly
forless-awarerespondents.
We developedtwotestsof theexpectation of increasedresponsereliability
in thestop-and-think test,we expecteda measureofsocial
condition.In thefirst
welfareideology(see appendix)to be morestrongly correlatedwiththetarget
items(jobs, governmentservices,andaid toblacks)inthestop-and-think condi-
condition.
tionthanintheretrospective Weusedthefollowing interactive
regres-
sionmodeltotestthisexpectation, whereFormrefers toquestionform:
Item= bo + b, x Form+ b2 x Ideo. + b3 x Form x Ideo.
Whenwe estimated thismodelforrespondents whoscoredintheupper40%
of ourmeasureof politicalawareness,we foundthatthecriticalcoefficient, b3,
ranin theexpecteddirection forall threeitems,butachievedstatistical
signifi-
cancein onlyone case. To increasethestatistical poweroftheinteraction testin
our smallsample-the numberof cases in each testaveragedabout 140-we
reestimated themodelundertheconstraint thatall coefficients
be equal across
thethreeitems.The results,shownin thetoppanelofTable7, confirmed expec-
tations:theeffect of ideologyis twiceas largein thestop-and-thinkcondition, a
differencethatis statistically
significant.
We also estimated themodel,underthesame constraints, forrespondents
scoringin thebottom40% oftheawarenessmeasure.Herewe foundthat,as also
on
Table 7. The EffectofStop-and-Think
IdeologicalConsistency
Retrospective Stop-and-Think
Low Awareness
Jobguarantees .68 .45
(40) (62)
Government
services .56 .43
(41) (58)
aid
Minority .79 .53
(53) (57)
MiddleAwareness
Jobguarantees .64 .41
(29) (60)
services
Government .48 .38
(31) (51)
aid
Minority .81 .51
(33) (58)
HighAwareness
Jobguarantees .70 .55
(39) (51)
services
Government .61 .58
(37) (48)
aid
Minority .70 .86
(32) (45)
studiesshowingthatthought
'8Thereare,in fact,psychological manipulations thatstresseither
theaffective aspectsofsituations
orcognitive producepredictably
different
effects,
disrupting attitude
reports in somesituationsbutnotothers(see MillarandTesser1986). Forfurther
discussionofthese
issuesas theyrelatetothemodel,see Zaller(forthcoming,chap.5).
A THEORY OF SURVEY RESPONSE 607
Manuscriptsubmitted2 August1991
received4 December1991
Final manuscript
APPENDIX
Attitude
Items
Jobguarantees.Some people thinkthatthegovernment in Washingtonshouldsee to it that
of living.Othersthinkthatgovernment
everypersonhas a job and a good standard shouldjust let
eachpersongetaheadon theirown.
Beforetellingmehowyoufeelaboutthis,couldyoutellmewhatkindsofthings cometomind
whenyouthinkaboutgovernment makingsurethateverypersonhas a goodstandardofliving?(Any
others)
Now,whatkindsof thingscometo mindwhenyouthinkaboutletting eachpersongetahead
on theirown?(Anyothers)
A THEORY OF SURVEY RESPONSE 613
IdeologyScale
Social Welfare
The social welfareideologyscale consistsof 14 itemsconcerningindividualismandequality,
plus two measuresof ideologicalself-designation,as follows:v620 to v622, v624, v626, v701 to
v706,v2176,v2178,v2179,plusv722andvI 010.
REFERENCES
Achen,Christopher. 1975. "Mass PoliticalAttitudes and theSurveyResponse."AmericanPolitical
ScienceReview69:1218-31.
. 1983. "TowardTheoriesofData." Presented at theannualconvention oftheAmerican Polit-
ical ScienceAssociation,Chicago.
Anderson, Norman.1974. "Information Theory:A BriefSurvey."InAdvancesinMathe-
Integration
maticalPsychology, vol. 2, ed. David Krantzetal.
Bargh,John,R. N. Bond,W. J.Lombardy, andM. E. Tofa. 1986. "TheAdditiveNatureofChronic
and Temporary ConstructAccessibility." Journalof Personality and Social Psychology50:
869-78.
Bennett,Lance W. 1980. Public Opinion in AmericanPolitics. New York: HarcourtBrace
Jovanovich.
Bishop, George. 1990. "PoliticalInvolvement and ResponseEffects."Public OpinionQuarterly
53:209-18.
Bishop,George,RobertW. Oldendick,andA. J.Tuchfarber. 1984."WhatMustMy Interest inPoli-
ticsBe IfI JustToldYou 'I Don't Know'?"PublicOpinionQuarterly 48:510-19.
Bodenhauser, GallenV., andRobertS. Wyer.1987. "Social Cognition andSocial Reality."In Social
Information Processingand SurveyMethodology, ed. Hans J.Hippler,NorbertSchwarz,and
SeymourSudman.New York:Springer-Verlag.
614 JohnZallerand StanleyFeldman