Click below to go to:

POLITICAL SCIENCE 625 (27646)

M 7-9:40 SH 348
R. Hofstetter NH-119MT6-7 594-6804 (6-7 pm)
rhofstet@mail.sdsu.edu X /A>

SEMINAR: POLITICAL BEHAVIOR

GOALS:

This course introduces students to basic concepts, theories, and methods employed in the study of political behavior. The course focuses on a subset of the political behavior literature, concerning mass media and selected policy attitudes. Students will execute a small survey project, prepare a report based on the project, and also write a research paper based on a major survey of San Diego adults.

PREREQUISITE:

Completion of POLS 515 or consent of professor.

MATERIALS:

Required:
Erikson, Robert S., & Tedin, Kent L. (most recent edition). American Public Opinion: Its Origins, Content, and Impact. Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 5th ed.

OUTLINE:

This course is divided into three parts: During part one, approximately five weeks, the focus is on reading, discussion of literature including student presentation of article reviews, and survey design. During part two, approximately five weeks, the focus is on fieldwork including execution of a survey project, and on analysis. The concern is methodological and logistical during this period so reading assignments are very light and class activity involves discussing practical problems rather than the formal literature. During part three, also approximately five weeks, the focus is on the analysis of data, paper writing, and the presentation of the data based paper to the class.

REQUIREMENTS:

Students will complete reading, class presentations, and homework in a manner which maintains pace with the topics being discussed and the lectures. Requirements include attending all lectures and discussions, participating in all formal and informal class activities, making brief presentations on published articles to class, completing survey project as assigned, and writing a term paper based on analysis of survey data and presenting it to the class. No student will pass this class in the absence of completing each of his/her assignments, including the survey project. Formal presentations of published research studies will summarize the theory(ies) being tested, general empirical approach to testing, and general findings.

No examinations or quizzes will be given. Grades will be based entirely on the quality of the survey project report, the term paper submitted at the next to last class meeting of the semester, the quality of work in surveying, article presentations, and, to a lesser extent, on participation during class discussions/lectures. Knowledge of micro-computer operation and analysis procedures may be obtained by taking the SSRL SPSSPC+ Workshops for those who have not completed POLS 515 and/or POLS 516. Limited additional consulting, documentation, and machine access is available at the Social Science Research Laboratory and a number of other computer facilities on campus. Students should procure several floppy disks.
GRADING:
Survey Project 35%
Term Paper 35%
Class Presentations 30%


Course Outline

The course is divided into three segments: 1) Reading and discussion of literature and design; 2)Fieldwork and analysis; and 3) Presentation of term papers.
Week 1Introduction to Political Behavior.January 23.
Last day to add or drop February 7.
i. Review Xeroxed "Empirical Analysis Paper," pp. 1-3.
Week 2Opinion and Ideology.January 30.
Last day to add or drop February 2.
i. Erikson & Tedin, Chapters 1-5.
ii. Supplemental Readings:
Sidney Verba (1996). "The Citizen Respondent: Sample Surveys and American Democracy." American Political Science Review, Vol. 90, no. 1, pp. 1-7.
Christopher M. Federico and Jim Sidanius. (2002). "Sophistication and the Antecedents of Whites' Radial Polity Attitudes: Racism, Ideology, and Affirmative Action in America." Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 66, No. 2, 2002, pp. 145-176.
Dennis R. Hoover, Michael D. Martinez, Samul H. Reimer, Kenneth D. Wald, "Evangelicalism Meets the Continental Divide: Moral and Economic Conservatism in the United States and Canada," Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 55, No. 2, (2002), pp. 351-374.
Virginia A. Chanley, Thomas J. Rudolph, and Wendy M. Rahn, "The Origins and Consequences of Public Trust in Government: A Time Series Analysis," Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 646, No. 3, 2000, pp. 239-256.
Susan E. Howell and William P. McLean, "Performance and Race in Evaluating Minority Mayors," Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 65, No. 3, 1999, pp. 321-343.
Marc J. Hetherington. (1998). "The Political Relevance of Political Trust." American Political Science Review, Vol. 92, no. 4, pp. 791-808.
Thomas C. Wilson. (1994). "Trends in Tolerance toward Rightist and Leftist Groups, 1976-1988." Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 58, no. 4, pp. 539-556.
David O. Sears & Nicholas A. Valentino. (1997). "Politics Matters: Political Events as Catalysts for Preadult Socialization." American Political Science Review, Vol. 91, no. 1, pp. 45-65.
Frank P. Zinni, Jr., Franco Mattei, & Laurie A. Rhodebeck. (1997). "The Structure of Attitudes toward Groups: A Comparison of Experts and Novices." Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 50, no. 3, pp. 595-626.
James H. Kuklinski, Paul M. Sniderman, Kathleen Knight, Thomas Piazza, Philip E. Tetlock, Gordon R. Lawrence, & Barbara Mellers. (1997). "Racial Prejudice and Attitudes toward Affirmative Action." American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 402-419.
Kevin B. Smith & Kenneth J. Meier. (1995). "Public Choice in Education: Markets and the Demand for Quality Education." Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 461-478.
Michael L. Roberts, Peggy A. Hite, & Cassie F. Bradley. (1994). "Understanding Attitudes toward Progressive Taxation." Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 58, no. 2, pp. 165-190.
David O. Sears, Colette Van Laar, Mary Carrillo, & Rick Kosterman. (1997). "Is it Really Racism? The Origins of White Americans' Opposition to Race-Targeted Policies." Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 61, no. 1, pp. 16-53.
John R. Hibbing and Elizabeth Theiss-Morse, "Process Preferences and American Politics: What People Want Government to Be," American Political Science Review, Vol. 95, no. 1, pp. 145-154.
James L. Gibson and Amanda Gouws. (2000). "Social Identities and Political Intolerance: Linkages Within the South African Mass Public" American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 44, no. 2, pp. 278-292.
Kenneth W. Terhune, "Nationalism among Foreign and American Students: An Exploratory Study," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 8, No. 3, (September, 1964), pp.
Paul Goren (2002). "Character Weakness, Partisan Bias, and Presidential Evaluation," American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 46, no. 3, pp. 627-641.
Michael Shamir and John Sullivan, "The Political Context of Tolerance: The United States and Israel," American Political Science Review, Vol. 77, no. 4, pp.
M. Peffley and P. Knigge, and J. Hurwitz. (2001). "A Multiple Values Model of Political Tolerance," Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 54, pp. 379-406.
Jack Citrin and Enrst B. Haas. (1994). "Is American Nationalism Changing? Implications for Foreign Policy," International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 38, pp.
William D. Berrry, Evan J. Ringquist, Richard C. fording and Russell L. Hanson, "Measuring Citizens and Government Ideology in the United States, 1960-93," American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 42, No. 1, pp. 327-348.
John A. Clark. (1991). "I'd Rather Switch than Fight: Lifelong Democrats and Converts to Republicanism among Campaign Activists," American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 35, pp. 577-597.
John L. Sullivan and George E. Marcus. (1998). "A Note on Trends in Political ‘Tolerance'," Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 52, No. 1, pp. 26-32.
Robert Lerner, Althea K. Nagai, and Stanley Rothman, "Marginality and Liberalism among Jewish Elites," Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 53, No. 3, (Autumn, 1989), pp.
Week 3Opinion and Action. February 6.
i. Erikson & Tedin, Chapters 6, 7, 9.
Last day to add or drop February 7.
ii. Supplemental Readings:
Sidney Verba, Kay Lehman Schlozman, Henry Brady, & Norman Nie. (1993). "Citizen Activity: Who Participates? What do they Say?" American Political Science Review, Vol. 87, no. 2, pp. 303-318.
Joseph Gershtenson, "Partisanship and Participation in Political Campaign Activities, 1952-1996," Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 55, No. 3, (2002), pp. 687-714.
Adrian D. Pantoja, Ricardo Ramirez, and Gary M. Segura, "Citizens by Choice, Voters by Necessity: Patterns of Political Mobilization by Naturalized Latinos," Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 54, No. 4, (2001), pp. 729-750.
Allan Cigler and Mark R. Joslyn, "The Extensiveness of Group Membership and Social Capital: The Impact of Political Tolerance Attitudes," Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 55, No. 1, (2002), pp. 7-26.
Michael A. Jones-Correa and David L. Leal, "Political Participation: Does Religion Matter?" Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 54, No. 4, (2001), pp. 751-770.
James L. Gibson. (1992). "The Political Consequences of Intolerance: Cultural Conformity and Political Freedom." American Political Science Review, Vol. 86, no. 2, pp. 338-356.
C. Richard Hofstetter and William A. Schultze. (1989). "Some Observations about Participation and Attitudes among Single Women: Inferences Concerning Political Translation," Women and Politics, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 83-105.
Claudine Gay (2002). "Spirals of Trust? The Effects of Descriptive Representation on the Relationship between Citizens and Their Government," American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 717-732.
Martin Gillins. (1996). "'Race Coding' and White Opposition to Welfare." American Political Science Review, Vol. 90, no. 3, pp. 593-604.
C. Richard Hofstetter, Thomas G. Sticht, and Carolyn Huie Hofstetter. (1999). "Knowledge, Literacy, and Power." Communication Research, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 58-80.
Laura Stoker & M. Kent Jennings. (1995). "Life-Cycle Transitions and Political Participation: The Case of Marriage." American Political Science Review, Vol. 89, no. 2, pp. 421-436.
Allyson L. Holbrook, Jon A. Krosnick, Penny S. Visser, Wendi L. Gardner, and John T. Cacioppo (2001). "Attitudes toward Presidential Candidates and Political Parties: Initial Optimism, Inertial First Impressions, and a Focus on Flaws," American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 930-950.
Richard J. Ellis & Fred Thompson. (1997). "Culture and the Environment in the Pacific Northwest." American Political Science Review, Vol. 91, no. 4, pp. 885-897.
Kira Sanbonmatsu (2002). "Gender Stereotypes and Vote Choice," American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 46, no. 1, pp. 20-34.
Barbara Norrander. (1999). "The Evolution of the Gender Gap," Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 63, No. 4, pp. 566-576.
Carol Kennedy Chaney, R. Michael Alvarez, & Jonathon Nagler. (1998). "Explaining the Gender Gap in U.S. Presidential Elections: 1980-1992." Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 311-340.
Jeffrey Koch. (1998). "The Perot Candidacy and Attitudes toward Government and Politics." Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 141-153.
David G. Lawrence. (1994). "Ideological Extremity, Issue Distance, and Voter Defection." Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 397-422.
James A. McCann. (1997). "Electoral Choices and Core Value Change: The 1992 Presidential Campaign." American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 564-583.
Michael L. Gross. (1995). "Moral Judgement, Organizational Incentives and Collective Action: Participation in Abortion Politics." Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 507-534.
Eileen McDonagh (2002). "Political Citizenship and Democratization: The Gender Paradox," American Political Science Review, Vol. 96, no. 3, pp. 535-552.
Alan D. Monroe. (1998). "Public Opinion and Public Policy, 1980-1993." Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 62, no. 1, pp. 6-28.
Geoffrey C. Layman and Thomas M. Carsey. (1998). "Why Do Party Activists Convert? An Analysis of Individual-Level Change on the Abortion Laws." Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 51, No. 3, pp. 723-750.
Daron Shaw, Rodolfo O. de la Garza, and Jongho Lee. (2000). "Examining Latino Turnout in 1996: A Three-State, Validated Survey Approach." American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 44, No. 2, pp. 338-346.
C. Richard Hofstetter. (1998). "Political Talk Radio, Situational Involvement, and Political Mobilization." Social Science Quarterly, Vol. 79, No. 2, pp. 273-286.
Andrea Louise Campbell (2002). "Self-Interest, Social Security, and the Distinctive Participation Patterns of Senior Citizens," American Political Science Review, Vol. 96, no. 3, pp. 565-574.
Alan S. Gerber and Donald P. Green. (2000). "The Effects of Canvassing, Telephone Calls, and Direct Mail on Voter Turnout: A Field Experiment," American Political Science Review, Vol. 94, no. 3, pp. 653-663.
Benjamin Highton and Raymond E. Wolfinger. (2001). "The First Seven Years of the Political Life Cycle," American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 45, No. 1, pp. 202-209.
James L. Gibson. (2001). "Social Networks, Civil Society, and the Prospects for Consolidating Russia's Democratic Transition," American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 45, No. 1, pp. 51-68.
Ted Brader and Joshua A. Tucker. (2001). "The Emergence of Mass Partisanship in Russia, 1993-1996," American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 45, No. 1, pp. 51-68.
Diana C. Mutz (2002). "The Consequences of Cross-Cutting Networks for Political Participation," American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 46, no. 4, pp. 838-855.
Jan E. Leighley. (1995). "Attitudes, Opportunities and Incentives: A Field Essay on Political Participation." Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 48, no. 1, pp. 181-210.
David G. Lawrence. (1994). "Ideological Extremity, Issue Distance, and Voter Defection." Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 397-422.
James A. McCann. (1997). "Electoral Choices and Core Value Change: The 1992 Presidential Campaign." American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 564- 583.
Michael L. Gross. (1995). "Moral Judgement, Organizational Incentives and Collective Action: Participation in Abortion Politics." Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 507-534.
Alan D. Monroe. (1998). "Public Opinion and Public Policy, 1980-1993." Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 62, no. 1, pp. 6-28.
Geoffrey C. Layman and Thomas M. Carsey. (1998). "Why Do Party Activists Convert? An Anlaysis of Individual-Level Change on the Abortion Laws," Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 51, No. 3, pp. 723- 750.
C. Richard Hofstetter. (1998). "Political Talk Radio, Situational Involvement, and Political Mobilization." Social Science Quarterly, Vol. 79, No. 2, pp. 273-286.
Daron Shaw, Rodolfo O. de la Garza, and Jongho Lee. (2000). "Examining Latino Turnout in 1996: A Three-State, Validated Survey Approach." American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 44, No. 2, pp. 338-346.
Week 5Opinion and Communication Media. February 9
i. Erikson & Tedin, Chapters 8, 11, 12.
ii. Supplemental Readings:
Larry M. Bartels. "Messages Received: The Political Impact of Media." American Political Science Review, Vol. 87, no. 2, pp. 267-285.
Anibal Perez-Linan, "Television News and Political Partisanship in Latin America," Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 55, No. 3, (2002), pp.571-588.
Lonna Rae Atkeson and Randall W. Partin, "Candidate Advertisements, Media Coverage, and Citizen Attitudes: The Agendas and Roles of Senators and Governors in a Federal System," Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 54, No. 4, (2001), pp.795-813.
Stephen Ansolabehere, Shanto Iyengar, Adam Simon, & Nicholas Valentino. (1994). "Does Attach Advertising Demobilize the Electorate?" American Political Science Review, Vol. 88, no. 4, pp. 829-838.
Thomas E. Nelson, Rosalee A. Clawson, & Zoe M. Oxley. (1997). "Media Framing of a Civil Liberties Conflict and Its Effect on Tolerance." American Political Science Review, Vol. 91, no. 3, pp. 553-566.
Richard R. Lau and Gerald M. Pomper (2002). "Effectiveness of Negative Campaigning in U.S. Senate Elections," American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 46, no.1, pp. 47-66.
Bruce Bimber. (2001). "Information and Political Engagement in America: The Search for Effects of Information Technology at the Individual Level." Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 53-67.
Benjamin I. Page & Jason Tannenbaum. (1996). "Populistic Deliberation and Talk Radio." Journal of Communication, Vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 33-54.
C. Richard Hofstetter & Christopher L. Gianos. (1997). "Political Talk Radio: Actions Speak Louder than Words." Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, Vol. 41, No. 4, pp. 501-515.
Lee Sigelman, Susan Welch, Timothy Bledsoe, & Michael Combs. (1997). "Police Brutality and Public Perceptions of Racial Dis crimination: A Tale of Two Beatings." Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 777-791.
Patrick J. Kenney & Tom W. Rice. (1994). "The Psychology of Political Momentum." Political Research Quarterly, Vol.47, no.4, pp. 923-938.
C. Richard Hofstetter, Mark C. Donovan, Melville R. Klauber, Alexandra Cole, Carolyn J. Huie, & Toshiyuki Yuasa. (1994). "Political Talk Radio: A Stereotype Reconsidered." Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 467-480.
Craig Leonard Brians & Martin P. Wattenberg. (1996). "Campaign Issue Knowledge and Salience: Comparing Reception from TV Commercials, TV News, and Newspapers." American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 40, no. 1, pp. 172-193
C. Richard Hofstetter and David Barker, with James T. Smith, Gina M. Zari, and Thomas A. Ingrassia. (1999). "Information, Misinformation, and Political Talk Radio." Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 52, No. 2, pp. 353-369.
John R. Hibbing & Elizabeth Theiss-Morse. (1998). "The Media's Role in Public Negativity toward Congress: Distinguishingy Emotional Reactions and Cognitive Evaluations." American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 475-498.
Kim Fridkin Kahn and Patrick J. Kenney (2002. "The Slant of the News: How Editorial Endorsements Influence Campaign Coverage and Citizens' Views of Candidates," American Political Science Review, Vol. 96, no. 2, pp. 381-394.
W. Russell Neuman. (1990). "The Threshold of Public Attention." Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 54, no. 2, pp. 159-176.
Stephen Ansolabehere & Shanto Iyengar. (1994). "Riding the Wave and Claiming Ownership over Issues: The Joint Effects of Advertising and News Coverage in Campaigns." Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 58, no. 3, pp. 335-357.
Tara M. Emmers-Sommer and Mike Allen. (1999). "Surveying the Effect of Media Effects: A Meta-Analytic Summary of the Media Effects Research in Human Communication Research." Human Communication Research, Vol. 25, No. 4, pp. 478- 497.
Juliette H. Walma Van Der Molen and Tom H. A. Van Der Voort. (2000). "The Impact of Television, Print, and Audio on children's Recall of the News." Human Communication Research, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 3-26
William J. Schenck-Hamlin, David E. Procter, and Deborah J. Rumsey. (2000). "The Influence of Negative Advertising Frames on Political Cynicism and Political Accountability," Human Communication Research, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 53-74.
C. Richard Hofstetter and David Barker, with James T. Smith, Gina M. Zari, and Thomas A. Ingrassia. (1999). "Information, Misinformation, and Political Talk Radio." Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 52, No. 2, pp. 353-369.
Paul M. Kellstedt. (2000). "Media Framing and the Dynamics of Racial Policy Preferences." American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 44, pp. 245-260.
Juliette H. Walma Van Der Molen and Tom H. A. Van Der Voort. (2000). "The Impact of Television, Print, and Audio on children's Recall of the News." Human Communication Research, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 3-26
William J. Schenck-Hamlin, David E. Procter, and Deborah J. Rumsey. (2000). "The Influence of Negative Advertising Frames on Political Cynicism and Political Accountability," Human Communication Research, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 53-74.
Joanne M. Miller and Jon A. Krosnick. (2000). "News Media Impact on the Ingredients of Presidential Evaluations: Politically Knowledgeable Citizens are Guided by a Trusted Source." American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 44, pp. 301-315.
Diana C. Mutz and Paul S. Martin. (2001). "Facilitating Communication across Lines of Political Difference: The Role of Mass Media," American Political Science Review, Vol. 95, no. 1, pp. 97-114.
Robert Huckfeldt, John Sprague, and Jeffrey Levine. (2000). "The Dynamics of Collective Deliberation in the 1996 Election: Campaign Effects on Accessibility, Certainty, and Accuracy," American Political Science Review, Vol. 94, no. 3, pp. 641-651.
David C. Barker. (1998). "Rush to action: Political talk radio and health care (Un) reform," Political Communication. Vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 83-98.
David C. Barker. (1999). Rushed decisions: Political talk radio and vote choice, 1994-1996," Journal of Politics. Vol. 61, no. 2, pp. 527-539.
Week 6Opinion and Information Processing.February 16
i. Supplemental Readings:
James A. Stimson, Michael B. Mackuen, & Robert S. Erikson. (1995). "Dynamic Representation." American Political Science Review, Vol. 89, pp. 543-565.
Bruce Bimber, "Information and Political Engagement in America: The Search for Effects of Information Technology at the Individual Level," Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 54, No. 1, (2001), pp.53-67.
David E. Campbell, "The Young and the Realigning: A Test of the Socialization Theory of Realignment," Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 66, No. 2, 2002, pp. 209-234.
Nicholas A. Valentino, "Crime News and the Priming of Racial Attitudes During the Evaluations of the President," Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 63, No. 3, 1999, pp. 293-320.
Jeffrey W. Koch, "When Parties and Candidates Collide: Citizen Perception of House Candidates' Positions on Abortion," Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 65, No. 1, 1999, pp. 1-21.
Richard R. Lau & David P. Redlawsk. (1997). "Voting Correctly." American Political Science Review, Vol. 91, no. 3, pp. 585-598.
Milton Lodge & Marco R. Steenbergen, with Shawn Brau. (1995). "The Responsive Voter: Campaign Information and the Dynamics of Candidate Evaluation." American Political Science Review, Vol. 89, no. 2, pp.309-326.
Jacob Shamir & Michal Shamir. (1997). "Pluralistic Ignorance across Issues and over Time." Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 61, no. 2, pp. 227-260.
M. Kent Jennings. (1996). "Political Knowledge over Time and across Generations." Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 60, no. 2, pp. 228-252.
C. Richard Hofstetter and David Barker, with James T. Smith, Gina M. Zari, and Thomas A. Ingrassia. (1999). "Information, Misinformation, and Political Talk Radio." Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 52, No. 2, pp. 353-369.
James L. Gibson (2001). "Social Networks, Civil Society, and the Prospects for Consolidating Russia's Democratic Transition." American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 45, No. 1, pp. 51-68.
Week 7Design. February 23
i. Erikson & Tedin, Chapter 2.
Week 8Survey Project. Introduction to Interviewing. March 1
i. Reading # 5. (Xerox) "Interviewing Instructions." March 11
Week 9Survey Project Discussion March 8
Week 10Holiday--Spring Vacation March 15
Week 11Data Reduction and Processing.March 22
SSRL Workshop for SPSS Windows.
Week 12Data Reduction and Analysis. SSRL Workshop for SPSS Windows March 29
Week 13Analysis for Paper Discussion.April 5
Brief Analysis Report Due
Week 14Analysis for Paper Discussion.April 12
Week 15Paper Presentations. Submit finished research papers for a grade.April 19
Week 16Paper Presentations. Submit finished research papers for a grade.April 26
Week 17Paper Presentations.May 3

Return to top.
 

Analysis Assignments:

Two types of papers will be written for this course: 1) A brief report of analysis of your survey project; and 2) an analysis of survey data that were collected from a random-digit-dial sample of a cross-section of the adult San Diego public last year in my classes.

Brief Survey Report:

Students will design questionnaires and interview schedule and complete interviews with 20 different persons of their own choosing ("convenience" sample). The questionnaire should be designed to answer a specific research question that interests students and can be related explicitly to readings in this course. After administration, students will enter questionnaires into an SPSS data file and store the file on a floppy disk. Data will be analyzed using SPSS or a similar computer statistical package, and the results written in a brief report not to exceed six double-spaced pages. The brief report should summarize data from your survey project. It should include an explication of your main hypothesis, description of subjects interviewed, description of the measures employed, and presentation of data from a computer analysis of your data. The paper will be typed in double-spaced format, and will include a very brief introduction, method section, presentation of data and explication, and discussion section, and will be limited to six pages. The completed questionnaires should be appended to the paper.

Return to top.
 

Data Analysis Papers:

The more extensive analysis of survey data from San Diego will involve a computer analysis of the survey data collected by students during spring, 2000, in San Diego and constitutes the term paper for this class. The analysis will be based on an appropriately formulated hypothesis drawn from assigned readings and other relevant readings in professional social science journals in the library. Data will be presented from an original analysis in an appropriate format and interpreted in relation to the hypothesis. The paper will be typed in double-spaced format, and will include an introduction, method section, presentation of data and explication, and discussion section. Each mss. will be no more than 15 pages in length. This paper should include:

a. An introduction that presents a brief statement of the problem. This statement will link the hypothesis to research that other people have published, and will establish a clear trail of logic leading to the hypothesis to be tested.

b. A method section that describes the source of the data (e.g., a random-digit-dial sample survey of adults taken in San Diego during spring, 2000, with a response rate of approximately 50 percent), and the nature of measures used (e.g., exact wording of questions and response distributions for each measure).

c. A findings section that includes a restatement of the hypothesis, presentation of the data, and explication of the data in terms of the hypothesis. An additional variable should be introduced as a control variable, the analysis replicated, and results re-interpreted.

d. A discussion that briefly summarizes what has been done, the logic of the study, the results, and a statement of where further research will be fruitful.

e. A reference section that includes all cited literature in a professionally appropriate format.

It is not possible to receive a passing grade in this class in the absence of a term paper following the requirements: Papers will also be graded for content and also for proper grammar and expression and for the use of an appropriate style (including citation of sources). Late papers will not be accepted.

Return to top.
 

Review of Published Articles:

Students will complete two professional article reviews during the initial five weeks of the class. Each review will involve a summary of an article published in a professional journal from the list of articles in the supplemental readings portion in the syllabus. Students will present reviews orally to the class and distribute copies of their paper summarizing the review. Papers should not be read, but presentations may utilize brief notes. Presentations will be limited to no more than 12 minutes, and written papers limited to four typed double spaced pages . Reviews will include:

a. Brief summary of the theory structuring the research. What is the paper about? What is believed to cause what? What are the major concepts? How are the concepts defined? What are the main hypotheses tested in the research?

b. Summary of the data and measurements on which analyses are drawn. What is the nature of the data? How and when were the data collected? What are the operational definitions of key concepts/variables?

c. Describe briefly the nature of the data analysis. In general, how was analysis conducted?

d. What are the major conclusions of the research? What conclusions do you draw from the analysis about the theory on which the research was based? What criticisms of the research do you have?

Return to top.
 

Interviewing:

Interviewing is a professional activity that encompasses heavy responsibilities. It is most important to remember that the survey in which you are participating is an extremely serious matter being used to take systematic observations from which to build knowledge that will help people live healthier lives as well as to inform government agencies about health issues being studied in the survey. The overall results will depend on the quality of your work. Several types of interview are commonly used, including:

1) Unstructured interviews: Interviews in which the person asking questions has a general idea of topics to be covered by questions but adapts the specific questions asked depending on what the respondent says and is free to word questions in ways that the interviewer believes will best indicate the information that is wanted. Examples: Journalistic interviews, some kinds of psychiatric interviews, many exploratory interviews.

2) Structured interviews: Interviews in which the wording and order of questions to be asked is completely determined. Interviewers have little or no latitude to alter wording or question order. Examples: Public opinion polls, many scientific surveys, standardized testing.

3) Partially structured interviews: Combination of unstructured and structured interviews.

The Introduction.

The interview that most polling firms conduct is called completely structured, since you are to read all questions as written and in the order written. Such interviews are designed to insure comparability among the responses to different interviewers by different respondents. Words which appear in normal print are to be read as written. Words which appear entirely in CAPITAL LETTERS or BOLDED LETTERS are instructions to interviews and should not be read to respondents.

If a respondent cannot understand a word or phrase, then repeat the sentence. If the sentence is still not understood, an interviewer may modify the wording to aid respondent in answering, but must make note of the changed wording in the margin of the survey adjacent to the item changed.

The first portion of the interview, the introduction, is designed to initiate an interview with the appropriate respondent in a household contacted through the sampling procedure being used. The introduction is to be delivered as worded and functions to:

1) Introduce the interviewer,

2) Introduce the institution,

3) Give a very briefly introduces the survey purpose,

4) Explain that the survey is confidential and that responses will be used only in statistical analyses of groups of respondents,

5) Select the appropriate respondent to be interviewed in the household,

6) And gain passive informed consent to conduct the interview.

According to the sampling procedure used, interviewers are guided to the correct respondent, for instance, the adult (person 18 years or older) in the household with the most recent birthday. The interviewer then either proceeds as rapidly as possible to do the interview once the targeted respondent is contacted or finds out when the targeted respondent will be available for an interview. In the latter case, the interviewer will arrange a specific date and time to contact the targeted respondent.

Representative Objectives, Comments, and Suggested Responses.

Many questions arise concerning the survey when household contacts are initiated. Representative questions and possible answers include:

"Where did you get this number?" Your number was generated by computer using a scientifically developed procedure to represent all Californians with residential telephones.

"Why are you doing this survey?" We are trying to find out what people in this area really think about a number of important political issues so that we can provide information that may improve our ability to teach students what is going on in the state.

"Who do you represent?" I am an interviewer in a class at San Diego State University. We are trying to find out about citizens' political and social opinions and you can help me a great deal.

"What are you going to do with what I say?" Your response will be changed to numbers and put into a computer along with all other persons so that no one will be able to match your answers with you personally. We will then do statistical analyses to see what general trends exist in the state on our questions.

"I don't know anything about issues (or anything else)!" That is all right. Everyone's views are important to us even if they have no opinion on some issues, since it is important for us to know how many people do not have opinions on some issues.

"Who is going to see what I say?" No one except staff persons on the project. Your identity will be kept in the strictest confidence so that no one will ever match what you tell us with you personally.

"Why do you need my views?" OR "I just do not want to participate!" It is very important for the scientific validity of the survey that we get responses from all subjects. Our sample is accurate only if all people surveyed agree to be interviewed for the short time it will take. Other people have been very helpful, and I certainly need your help for the success of our class project.

"Who is paying you to do this?" No one, I am a student doing a class assignment at San Diego State University.

"What are you selling?" Nothing! This is a SDSU research project, and your help will make this a more successful project and help us to provide more accurate information about Californians' political views.

"I cannot continue!" "I have to go now!" The survey just will take a few more minutes of your time. It will be most helpful to give me a few more minutes of your time. We have finished most of the interview; it will take just a few more minutes. I'd really appreciate your help for just a few more minutes. IF ALL ELSE FAILS, My instructions permit me to finish this at another time. What would be the best time for you? When may I finish this up? (Make a specific appointment to call back and to complete the interview.)

In general, the more interviewers emphasize positive symbols, the higher the rate of cooperation likely. Positive symbols include: "science," "San Diego State University," "help to improve the what we teach students about people in California," "help the state of California do a better job in making laws to protect the our nation,""do a favor for me," and "help me personally to do well in my job."

The Body of the Survey.

The first few questions are extremely important since most respondents will agree to complete interviews once they have been asked several questions. The first few questions reinforces the legitimacy of the survey and raises the interest of respondents. Thus, once interviewers get the correct respondent, they should move directly and quickly to ask the rest of the questions.

In telephone interviewing, it is also important to move deliberately and quickly through all questions (without over-pressuring the respondents). Do not allow respondents to wander or to become overly verbose. Focus questions, if necessary with probes (neutral questions to focus attention on what you want to find out). If necessary, wait until a respondent takes a breath and then quickly re-ask a question or move on to the next question.

Be sure to follow the proper sequencing of questions in the survey (the order in which items appear on the protocol). Surveys will sometimes use filter questions to guide the sequence in which questions are to be asked. For instance, if a respondent says that he/she has never smoked cigarettes the interviewer will be instructed not to ask whether that respondent has quit smoking or whether that respondent feels that he/she is able to quit smoking. The latter questions are not relevant to persons who have never smoked and may lead to irritation and loss of rapport during the rest of the interview. In contrast, all respondents will be asked how many of their friends smoke cigarettes since both smokers and non-smokers may have friends who smoke.

Occasionally a respondent may not want to respond to an item. Interviewers must judge whether to repeat the question or not in order to finish the protocol. It is more important to obtain responses to all the questions in the remainder of the survey than to lose an interview. If a respondent appears to be on the verge of terminating over an item, move directly on to the next question in the protocol and complete the survey. When all of the items have been asked at the end of the interview, just say something like the following: "Now I need to check to see whether I have correctly asked you all of the questions on the survey. Oh, yes! Here is an item." Then repeat the question as if no problem had existed, thank the respondent, and terminate the interview normally. In many cases, the respondent will provide an answer to the omitted question.

There are two kinds of questions in most surveys:

1) Closed-ended questions: Questions that include the proper responses for the question. Example: "Would you say you agree strongly, agree, disagree, or disagree strongly that smoking cigarettes is bad for your health?"

2) Open-ended questions: Questions that do not enumerate the proper responses for the question. Example: "What would you say are the most important health problems facing most people of Korean descent in California today?"

Closed-ended questions are items with all responses read to the respondents or for which responses are provided but not read. Simply ask the item, and mark the appropriate response by circling it. If respondents do not give the correct type of answer, then repeat the question along with response categories, pause, and wait for the response. If the respondent cannot give the correct type of response, note what was said in the margin of the protocol and go on to the next item without circling one of the categories. It is the interviewer's responsibility to insure that coders understand unambiguously what the specific response is to all questions!

Open-ended questions are free response items, questions that are asked and respondents give spontaneous answers. They are typically questions followed by a blank for writing the response. Note that the response is to be written, with the meaning preserved to your best ability. Usually you should write exactly what the respondent says. Responses, however, may occasionally require paraphrasing what the respondent actually said when responses are long or complex. It is the interviewer's responsibility to annotate the questions in margins so that complete and accurate meaning of responses is preserved. Annotation should be checked and clarified as soon as interviewing is complete.

Probes are quite commonly employed in order to clarify the meaning of responses to open-ended questions, obtain more complete information, and to obtain second and third responses to the same question where requested. A probe is a neutrally worded prompt designed to elicit further responses. Probes might include: "Can you tell me more about that?" "Is there anything else?" "Anything else?" "What else?" A brief, silent pause also frequently worked to elicit further response.

Matrix or battery questions involve a series of closed-ended questions using the same responses and asked sequentially. An introduction includes a general question, followed by the response categories, followed finally by items. Sometimes the response categories are forgotten so that interviewers must repeat them. Repeating the response categories is an appropriate prompt whenever required. Most respondents learn appropriate responses in battery formatted sets of questions after the first one or two items.

Forms and Materials.

Immediately when an interview is completed and calling terminated, interviewers should check every item to make sure that each is marked appropriately. Be especially careful to insure that:

1) One and only one response is marked for each item,

2) Written information is easily legible,

3) No item has been omitted (if a question has been omitted, call back the respondent immediately, apologize, ask the question, and thank the respondent). Of course, if a respondent has refused to answer a question after appropriate follow up, the interviewer should mark "NA" for no answer and not re-contact the respondent.

4) All questions have a response marked appropriately.

The disposition of each and every call is to be recorded using codes at the bottom of calling sheets in the row corresponding to the number called (SEE ATTACHED BLANK CALLING SHEET). One mark must be made for each call to each number. If an interview is completed on the first call, for instance, then mark"CO" under the heading "Initial Call" for the number. If no one answers on the initial call, the number is busy on the second call, and the interview is actually completed on the third call, then the call sheet would be marked: NA, BU, and CO under the columns labeled "initial call," First Call back," and "Second Call back," respectively. Once completed, the calling sheets will provide the history of interviewing attempts for each number in the sample. Outcomes and codes include:

NK: Ineligible. No eligible persons are in the household,

CO: Interview completed,

REF: Interview refused, respondent hangs up without replying,

LA: Cannot determine language, but not English,

MA: Answering machine. Leave a message with your name, number, and time for respondent to contact interviewer, but interviewer should also call back at next available chance (since most respondents will not return calls),

BU: Line is busy,

CB: Call back,

APT: Appointment to call back,

NA: No answer, refused to answer question,

DIS: Number disconnected, or

IN: Ineligible number (Business or Institution), not a residence.

Interviewers should cycle through numbers from the top of each calling sheet to the bottom, dialing one number at a time and moving on to the next as an interview is completed, refused, a busy signal received, a machine answers, an ineligible number is contacted (e.g., a business), a household with no eligible persons has been called, or some other disposition has been made for the number. Note in small print beside the code, the day and time of the call. After the end of the list is reached, simply cycle through the list a second time, on a different day and time of day, calling each number again. Do not redial numbers at which respondents have refused, are numbers not belonging to residences, or numbers which do not exist (but nonetheless ring).

The best interviewer will be used as a "conversion interviewer." This person will re-contact respondents who refuse to be interviewed initially following a two week interval. The conversion interviewer will make a specific attempt to complete an interview for those marked REF.

It is imperative that no materials are lost during the interviewing process. All interview protocols, uncompleted as well as completed, calling lists, instructions, and any other materials associated with the survey should be returned to the supervisor as soon as possible. All items belong to the project and are to be returned at the end of interviewing.

Return to top.
 

Supervision:

The field supervisor is the key person during the fieldwork phase of a survey project. The supervisor is responsible for getting the interviewing done and done correctly. The supervisor is also responsible for seeing that pertinent information is communicated to the principal investigator by e-mail and/or telephone as appropriate.

More specifically, the field supervisor:

Oversees the processing of the sample of telephone numbers is drawn and follows the sampling frame,

Hires, fires, and trains interviewers,

Oversees the quality of interviewers' work, and provides appropriate correction of errors in interviewing in real time (as errors occur),

Completes a daily work report for each interviewer who works that day that summarizes the number of interview attempts, completions, and non-completions (and the type of non-completion) for that interviewer.

Completes a weekly work report for the project that week that summarizes the number of interview attempts, completions, and non-completions (and the type of non-completion) for the project that week.

Edits all interviews for errors (including items which are not marked, items that have more than one response marked, illegible markings, and other irregularities. These errors are to be corrected in consultation with the interviewer at the earliest possible time.

Oversees the entry and verification of responses into computer files,

Oversees the production of all forms, including the interview schedules, calling sheets, recording the disposition of numbers during interviewing, and interviewer performance records,

Insures that interviews are conducted in a timely fashion and that all project deadlines are met,

Reports progress of survey fieldwork each Thursday on a weekly basis the principal investigator by e-mail,

Reports problems to the principal investigator by e-mail and/or telephone as problems arise,

Transmits cumulative data files as interviews are converted to machine readable form by e-mail to the principal investigator each Thursday on a weekly basis.

Return to top.
 

The Sample:

Social scientists design probability samples so that a small number of people can be used to represent the characteristics of very large, socially significant well defined populations accurately. Probability samples are the only type of samples that permit the computation of error in estimating population parameters (characteristics of the population) from sample statistics (characteristics of the sample). No other type of sample justifies statistical testing of hypotheses!

1) A probability sample involves the selection of a specific number of people so that the probability that any single individual being included in the sample is known or can be computed with precision.

2) A simple random sample is a probability sample in which the probabilities of selecting any individual in the population is the same.

The probabilistic character of sampling depends on following a set of procedures strictly. The procedures involve selection of cases in a mathematically random way. If the procedures are not followed, then the sample is not a probability sample and statistical inference is not possible. For probability sampling the following are required:

1) Must have a well defined population. This requires precise knowledge of the population from which the sample is to be taken, including precise definition of ages, locations (adults 18 or older), relationships (anyone who resides regularly in the household), immigration status (Korean nationals, not foreigners), and types of dwelling units (private homes and apartments that have residential telephones, but not institutional residents) in Seoul.

2) Must have a well defined procedure for selection. Procedure includes two selection processes: 1) Random selection of telephone numbers from listings in Seoul telephone directory; 2) random selection of persons within households. Imperative to interview the person who is selected by the procedure. No substitutions allowed.

3) Must have high completion rates for interview attempts. Great effort must be expended to complete interviews with all eligible persons contacted.

4) Must present standard stimuli. Interview is completely structured and items are to be read verbatim and in order given in the survey (with very few exceptions). Any exceptions must be documented thoroughly and may result in disallowance of the interview in the study.

We use a form of probability sampling in this study in Seoul called random-digit-dialing (RDD). RDD begins with a random selection of 5,000 telephone numbers in Seoul from the best available listing of telephone subscribers for the city. Selection of telephone numbers and development of the final sample involves three steps:

1) Select pages in telephone directory from which numbers are to be drawn, called targeted pages.

2) Select a cluster of numbers from each selected page in telephone directory, called targeted numbers.

3)Add a constant to the last portion of the listed telephone number and record the final result on the calling sheet.

Targeted pages are selected by first determining the page numbers of the first and last pages of residential listings in the best available telephone directory for Seoul. We will then generate 1,000 random numbers between the first and last pages by computer. Numbers are to be read row by row beginning at the top of the page from left to right. The first number selects the first page to be included in the sample, the second number selects the second page to be included in the sample, etc.

For example, look at the below table of "Selected Random Numbers, 1-975." Random numbers between 1 and 975 were generated to match a recent San Diego telephone directory with residential listings on pages 1-975. Note that the table presents 10 rows of 15 random numbers each. The first random number is 134 so that the first page in the directory selected will be page 134. The second random number specifies that page 358 will be selected, the third number specifies that page 201 will be selected, the third number that page 7 will be selected, etc.

Return to top.
 

Example IRB Human Subjects Approval Application:

Misogyny and Political Talk Radio

C. Richard Hofstetter

Department of Political Science

594-6244

1. Study Abstract: This is a survey study of a cross-section of the adult public residing in San Diego that can be reached by residential telephone (96% of all residences). About 500 adults selected randomly are to be interviewed by telephone about their attitudes and use concerning intergroup relations and misogynous attitudes using a standard interview format. The interviewing will be conducted by students in the investigator's classes following training in survey methodology as an integral part of their classroom instruction involving the theory and methods of political behavior research. Potential risks to respondents involve minor irritation with question content as is normally encountered in literally all survey research. Risk beyond that does not exist, since all names and telephone numbers will be used to validate that interviewing was actually conducted as stated by students and then will be destroyed. In no case will telephone numbers, names, or addresses be attached to data files so that the identity of all respondents is absolutely protected. All student interviewers will be given instruction in the methods of survey interviewing so as to minimize irritation and in the ethics of survey research to maintain confidentiality.

2. The purpose of the survey is, first, to provide training in the methods of survey data collection in a political behavior class, second, to provide data for student theses and term papers, and, third, for possible publication with students. Human behavior is the focus of the study, and it cannot be done without asking people questions about their views and behaviors. The main hypothesis of the study is that exposure to some of the more flamboyant political talk show content is related to the reinforcement and, possibly, the development of misogynous attitudes in the American political system.

3. Respondents (subjects) will be recruited using normal survey methodology. A random digit dial sample of San Diego residents will be computed. Adults within households who assent to cooperate with the study will be interviewed by telephone by students under the supervision of a graduate student. Persons 18 or over who can speak English well enough to participate in the interview process and who assent to participate will be included. No special groups are included for study. I know of no specific problems involving subjects for the study, since subjects are free to terminate the interview at any time or to refuse to participate initially. Only numbers (no names, telephone numbers, or other identifying information will be entered in data files and all other information identifying respondents will be destroyed once interviewing has been validated. A limited number of paper and pencil questionnaires may be mailed out to respondents who agree to participate in a follow up survey. As soon as data have been entered into a computer, all identifying information will be destroyed.

4. Respondents will be recruited from the adult public in San Diego in households that can be reached by residential telephone. Specific adults will be selected within households using the "most recent birthday" criterion. Subjects will be asked a series of questions and responses recorded. No experimental procedures are involved. The only experimental aspect of this study is the gathering of information for the purpose of analysis. No special procedures will be used, and nearly all interviews will be completed in between 15-25 minutes, depending on rapidity of subject response and skill of interviewer. The study will be in San Diego. The questionnaire draft is attached. No deception is involved in any way in the study.

5. Benefits to subjects. Most subjects find participation in legitimate surveys of this kind to be entertaining and interesting. General knowledge may be learned regarding intergroup relations in a democracy, but the main gain is to educate students in classes about the nature and measurement of public opinion.

6. Minor psychological irritations as noted.

7. Precautions involve training and supervising interviewers. I also separate identifying information from interviews, attach ID numbers to forms, and destroy the former as soon as interviews are validated. All data are coded in numeric form so that no alphabetical codes are entered in the data set. No names, addresses, or telephone numbers are entered into the data set.

8. No compensation of subjects will be used in this study.

9. I am a full professor, step IV, who has been conducted surveys since 1966. I have over 150 refereed publications most of which involve survey research in one form or another.

Return to top.