Fisa de lectura

A Simple Theory of the Survey Response: Answering Questions versus Revealing Preferences
John Zaller; Stanley Feldman
American Journal of Political Science Vol. 36, No. 3. (Aug., 1992), pp. 579-616
Opinion research 2 sources of variance: overtime response instability + tendency to affect the
expression of attitudes
oamenii nu poseda de fapt info stabile despre tema respectiva, cum se presupunea
Noua metoda cetatenii nu poseda preformed attitudes, rather they carry in their heads partially
consistent ideas and they offer the most accesible answers in their memory at that time
Limits of existing theories
1. Response instability
Randomness in answers Convers (1964): people lack meaningfull attitudes; this has been attibuted
to error measurement; dar ar fi prea radica perspectiva asta, si atunci se vorbeste despre lipsa unei
cristalizarii, dar care oricum nu poate fi masurata.
2. Response effects
Systematic variance
Surveys do not simply measure PO, they shape it through the the way they set the context (ex:
avortul precedat de intrebari despre religie)
An alternative model
Cercetarile lui Hoschild -> ambivalence; Individuals posses multiple and often conflicting opinions
toward important issues.
Schema din psih cognitiva
So in modelul propus: people carry multiple considerations = reason for favoring one side of an
issue rather than another
Axiom 1: ambivalence
Cum transforma indivizii aceste consideratii (aprecieri) in close-ended responses? O varianta
Taylor & Fiske (1978) off the top of the head
Axiom 2: response averaging across the considerations which are salient at the mom saliency
<= accesibility axiom
Axiom 3: accesibility it depends on a sampling process
Data
National Election Study
457 pers (May) + 360 pers (June)
Method Form A: intai ii intreba closed-ended q si apoi open-ended despre acelasi aspect
(retrospective)
Form B: prospective (stop and think)

Tests of the Model

1. count the opposing remarks
2. count when people express ambivalence spontaneously
3. count 2-sided comments (although I think x, I favor y)
First deductions from the model
Hastie & Park (1986) people do not construct attitude statements from ideas they can retrieve
from memory as they are questiones; inteads, they recall attitudes formed at an earlier time.
Explaining response instability
People give opposing answers without consciously feeling any ambivalence - if their considerations
have shifted.
The model not only anticipates response intability, but also expects it to have a definite structure.
People should be more stable in responses to close-endes policy items concerning doorsteps issues.
Greater ambivalence would be associated with higher levels of response instability (formula)
limit! coding error (coders disagreed 10 to 15 % on the remarks)
The one wave measure of consistency has no power to predict over-time response instability so:
the conflict for that is in fact a conflict that occurs accros rather within interviews and that the
respondents are often unaware of their conflicts.
Explaining response effects
Order effects = carryover effects
Endorsement effect reference to a political figure systematically alters the public's responses to a
given policy dilemma
=> the mechanism people tend to answer questions at least partly on the basis of the ideas that
have been made momentarily salient to them
Explaining the effects of extra thought
The intent: to improve the reliability of their responses to close-ended items by making them take
into account a wider range of ideas; but testing this is compromised by an artifact: no interest
option in the retrospective condition but not in this one.
Contrary to this model, Tim Wilson et al (1991) has shown that asking people to articulate their
attitudes reduces the predictive reliability, esp of the people less knowledgeable about that subject
(oversampling cognitions at the expense of feelings)
Summary & Discussion
Modelul se bazeaza mai putin pe latura cognitiva a procesarii
Main assumptions:
Effects of ideas recently made salient
Effects of thought
The heart of the argument about ambivalence: it is no need for people to reconcile or even to
recognize their contradictory reactions to events and issues

Many people are equally inconsistent in their reactions to different aspects of the same issue (ex:
abortion) -> individuals tipically do not develop true attitudes
Empirical potential of the model
Schimba termenul de attitude cu cel de consideration ca unitate de analiza
Persuasion by framing