Studying Political Behavior: A Comparison of Internet and Telephone Surveys Laura B. Stephenson and Jean Cre Te

International Journal of Public Opinion Research Vol. 23 No.
1
ß The Author 2010. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The World Association
for Public Opinion Research. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1093/ijpor/edq025 Advance Access publication 10 December 2010
Studying Political Behavior: A Comparison of
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijpor/article/23/1/24/788078 by Universidad de Valparaiso user on 08 March 2022

Internet and Telephone Surveys
Laura B. Stephenson1 and Jean Crête2

1
Department of Political Science, University of Western Ontario, and 2Laval University,
Department of Political Science, Canada
Abstract
Despite the promise of Internet surveys, there are significant concerns about the
representativeness of the sample and survey instrument effects. This article seeks to
address these questions by examining the differences and similarities between parallel
Internet and telephone surveys conducted in Quebec after the provincial election in
2007. Our results indicate that the responses obtained in each mode differ somewhat
from each other but that few inferential differences would occur if conclusions were
drawn from the analysis of one dataset or the other. We urge researchers to consider
the Internet as a viable mode of data collection, in that the consequences of mode
effects appear to be minimal.
Conducting surveys is integral to the study of political behavior. Telephone

survey methodologies made survey research more accessible by providing a
less expensive and quicker alternative to face-to-face interviews. In recent
years, however, telephone survey research has become more difficult, as re-
sponse rates have fallen and technological advances have made it possible for
individuals to avoid calls. The Internet has emerged as a potential alternative
to the telephone for conducting survey research. Several polling firms (such as
Zogby, Ipsos, Environics, and Léger Marketing) conduct online research pro-
jects, and the methodology has been used for the British Election Study and
American Election Study. Despite its popularity, however, there has yet to be
a definitive acceptance of Internet methodology as a tool of political behavior
research.
The British Election Study team has been testing the usefulness of the
Internet survey mode in comparison to face-to-face interview methods since
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Laura B. Stephenson, Department of

Political Science, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada. E-mail: lstephe8@uwo.ca
STUDYING POLITICAL BEHAVIOR 25
2001 (Sanders, Clarke, Stewart & Whiteley, 2002, 2007). In their 2007 article,
they urge other researchers to investigate the usefulness of Internet surveys in
other national contexts. This article takes up the challenge, and extends the
study of Internet survey methodology in an important way—to consider how
well such surveys compare with telephone surveys. Given that many surveys

are conducted over the telephone, understanding how the two methodologies
compare is crucial for understanding the value of Internet surveys. There are
many reasons to think that neither the telephone nor Internet mode is perfect
(Green & Krosnick, 2001; Malhotra & Krosnick, 2007), nor fully comparable
to face-to-face interviews. However, the speed and flexibility that are possible
with either telephone or Internet surveys have proven to be especially useful
for certain studies of public opinion and elections, such as rolling cross-section
surveys, and so both methodologies are valuable for researchers. To date,
however, we simply do not know the comparability of the two methods.
Although the debate has been quite active for some time in the United
States (see, e.g., Couper, 2000 and Tourangeau, 2004) few studies have com-
pared the use of Internet and telephone surveys outside the United States.
Thus, this article not only expands the geographic range in the study of
Internet surveys but also examines a different, but highly relevant,
comparison.
Despite the promise of Internet surveys, many researchers have significant
and legitimate concerns about the representativeness of the sample and survey
instrument effects. This article seeks to address these questions by examining
the differences and similarities between parallel Internet and telephone surveys
conducted in Quebec after the 2007 provincial election. As a political science
methodology, the utility of Internet survey research has yet to be tested as a
replacement for other tools. Thus, this project represents a significant advance
for political science research into comparative politics, as well as a general
contribution about the comparability of telephone and Internet surveys of
public opinion.
T h e Ch a l l e n g e
Brady (2000) argues that like ‘‘telescopes in astronomy, microscopes in biol-
ogy, and seismic, weather, and environmental sensors in the geo-sciences,
surveys have features that make them a fundamental data collection method
for the social sciences’’ (p. 47). Survey research is not a simple undertaking,
however. Face-to-face interview surveys, the most traditional mode of survey-
ing, are particularly onerous with respect to both the time and money involved
in the research. Telephone survey methodologies are a quicker, less expensive,
and acceptable alternative, although they do not yield data that is perfectly
comparable to face-to-face interviews (Holbrook, Green & Krosnick, 2003).
26 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC OPINION RESEARCH
However, using the telephone allowed for technological advances such as the
rolling cross section method, which enables researchers to interview a number
of individuals at time points throughout a campaign; the information gathered
from this design opens up the possibility of evaluating campaign effects and
the impact of various political events (Brady, Johnston, & Sides, 2006). The

advent of computer-assisted telephone interview (CATI) technology further
increased the value of this survey mode by making research techniques such as
question rotation and question filtering possible, just as computer-assisted
personal interviewing (CAPI) did for the traditional face-to-face interview
method.
Even though telephone survey research is widely used, it is not without
flaws. The benefits of the method come at the cost of visual interviewing
techniques that computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI) permits, or
even the showing of question cards which is common in traditional
face-to-face surveys. Telephone surveys have also been affected by lower re-
sponse rates (Brehm, 1993; Tuckel & O’Neill, 2002) and new technologies that
enable people to avoid surveyors by screening and/or blocking calls, or having
unlisted numbers (Alvarez, Sherman, & Van Beselaere, 2003; Tourangeau,
2004). Alvarez et al. (2003) suggest that the recruitment difficulties that
plaque telephone surveys ‘‘impl[y] that many RDD telephone surveys might
be more error laden than is assumed by practitioners’’ (p. 28). As a response to
this, and with the advent of new technology, the Internet has become an
attractive alternative for researchers. Online samples have been used for
many different purposes, from consumer studies (Braunsberger, Wybenga, &
Gates, 2007) to election campaign polling (Healey & Hoek, 2000; Gibson &
McAllister, 2008) to citizen surveys (Van Ryzin, 2008) to health studies
(Spijkerman, Knibbe, Knoops, Van de Mheen, & Van den Eijnden, 2009).
Internet surveys allow rapid data collection (Kennedy, Kuh, & Carini, 2000;
Kaplowitz, Hadlock, & Levine, 2004; Fleming & Bowden, 2009) similar to
telephone methodology, are relatively inexpensive to administer (Sanders,
Clarke, Stewart, & Whiteley, 2007), and offer greater flexibility than telephone
surveys with respect to the types of questions and information that can be
included in the survey instrument (Berrens, Bohara, Jenkins-Smith, Silva, &
Weimer, 2003). All of the techniques that were made possible with CATI
technology remain possible with Internet surveys, and the visual nature of
Internet surveys keeps open the range of possibilities for survey question
design used with CAPI. This aspect of Internet surveys is especially attractive
for experiments relating to methodological issues of survey design.
Internet surveys also have other advantages to recommend them. Koch
and Emrey (2001) find that purposive sampling of marginalized populations
may be facilitated by the Internet, in that voluntary respondents to an online
invitation to complete a survey were, demographically speaking, almost
indistinguishable from the national sample of the marginalized group.
Furthermore, when surveying elusive groups, Internet surveys offer research-
ers the ability to ask sensitive questions, which are more likely to be answered
on the Internet rather than over the telephone (Coomber, 1997; Kreuter,
Presser, & Tourangeau, 2008). For example, Link and Mokdad (2005,

p. 241) found that in a comparison of Web and telephone surveys, a higher
percentage of Web respondents reported heavy drinking. This relates to the
findings of Berrens et al. (2003), who find that extreme positions are more
likely to be taken in online surveys. Braunsberger et al. (2007) also suggest that
Internet surveys produce more reliable data than telephone surveys. Other
researchers have noted that for certain purposes, such as experimental surveys,
Internet surveys are appropriate because ‘‘[t]rue probability samples may not be
necessary to make valid inferences about relationships’’ (Berrens et al., 2003,
p. 2). Finally, Internet surveys eliminate the possibility of interviewer effects
(Braunsberger et al., 2007) and data entry errors (Fleming & Bowden, 2009).
While the methodology is attractive for researchers, whether Internet sur-
veys should be considered general substitutes for telephone surveys has yet to
be established. The main issues to be addressed are the representativeness of
Internet samples as compared to telephone samples, survey instrument effects,
and the consequences of these effects for research conclusions. The concern
about representativeness is fairly well-established in the literature (for an ex-
ception, see Bason, 2000). Couper (2000) and Spijkerman et al. (2009) caution
that Internet surveys are vulnerable to coverage and sampling errors, and
Smith (2001) argues that even the most representative Internet samples will
still produce differences from traditional RDD telephone surveys. Concerns
about coverage have decreased over the past decade as the percentage of
homes with Internet access has grown substantially. Industry Canada’s website
reports that since 1999, Internet penetration in industrialized nations has
begun to approach telephony penetration. Using 2007 data, the report indi-
cates that penetration in Canada was 65.9% and penetration in the United
States was 71.7% (http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf09054
.html). However, other issues of representativeness remain. For example,
Roster, Rogers, Albaum, and Klein (2004) found that telephone respondents
were likely to be older than Internet respondents, and concerns about the
demographic distribution of Internet use are well-documented in Couper
(2000). It has also been argued that online samples are less representative
because respondents are volunteers, who are likely to take part in a survey
(or be part of an ongoing survey panel) because of a higher level of interest
(Malhotra & Krosnick, 2007). Panel volunteers also tend to be more frequent
Internet users than the general population (Vehovar, Lozar Manfreda &
Batagelj, 2000). There is an additional concern that taking part in many sur-
veys over time as part of a panel may adversely affect the quality of responses
(Van Ryzin, 2008), although there is some research to indicate that the re-
sponses of frequent panelists are more in line with actual behaviors (Coen,
Lorch, & Piekarski, 2005).
Many scholars have tried to address the representativeness of Internet
surveys with weighting procedures. Taylor (1999/2000) finds that while

demographic and propensity weighting significantly improve the comparability
of telephone and Internet responses to political and attitudinal questions, the
corrective is not perfect. The inability of weights to correct for sample dif-
ferences is also found by Healey and Hoek (2000), who compared Internet,
phone, and mail surveys. Schonlau et al. (2004) obtained similar results, but
maintain that propensity weighting and post-stratification are promising stra-
tegies for overcoming differences. Berrens et al. (2003) argue that with appro-
priate weighting, each of the survey formats would lead to the same inferences
on relational questions of interest to political scientists. Alvarez et al. (2003)
echo this opinion, and note that the focus of social scientists should be on the
relationships among variables. Thus, the effectiveness of weights in addressing
issues of representativeness has yet to be resolved.1
A second concern about Internet surveys is that the data may be biased
due to mode effects. Tourangeau (2004) notes that responses to survey ques-
tions are likely to differ by mode depending on the perceived level of privacy,
legitimacy, and the cognitive burden of the question. Researchers looking into
Internet mode effects have found several, but many of them recommend the
method. Chang and Krosnick (2010) present evidence in favor of the use of
Internet surveys by noting that computer surveys are less likely to be influ-
enced by social desirability effects (answering based upon social norms) and
satisfying (providing non-differentiating answers in order to minimize the
cognitive effort and the time spent considering an answer) than oral inter-
views. Fricker, Galesic, Tourangeau, and Yan (2005), comparing telephone
and Internet surveys, found that online respondents took longer to complete
knowledge questions and answered a higher percentage correctly, recorded less
non-response (due to prompting) and reported more consistent attitude re-
sponses (which they attribute to the visual component of Internet surveys). In
addition, Roster et al. (2004) found that Internet survey responses were more
likely to be negative or neutral than telephone responses, and that more ex-
treme responses were reported. These findings are supported by the work of
1
Survey firms have addressed these issues by refining their sampling methodology to make their Internet
sample comparably representative to more traditional (face-to-face or telephone) sampling frames. In the
United States, Knowledge Networks created a pool of internet respondents by making initial RDD tele-
phone contact and then providing an internet connection to the household, which enables the company to
overcome the obvious bias of resources and increases representativeness (Smith, 2001). Other companies,
such as Harris Interactive and YouGov, use a mix of weighting and recruitment strategies to attempt to
overcome the biases inherent in internet sampling. In Canada, Leger Marketing use a mix of online invi-
tations and specific recruitment through telephone sampling to build a panel that is representative of the
Canadian population.
Kreuter et al. (2008), who find that web surveys produce more accurate re-
sponses than telephone surveys, as individuals are less affected by social de-
sirability. As well, studies of the use of computers for survey administration
(an essential aspect of Internet surveys) have shown that computers reduce the
cognitive demands on respondents, thus mitigating some skill-level effects

(Chang & Krosnick, 2010), and have been found to reduce the number of
completion mistakes, blank items, and answer refusals (Kiesler & Sproull,
1986; see Fricker et al., 2005 for results with Internet surveys). Nantel and
Lafrance (2006) go so far as to suggest that preliminary evidence indicates that
web surveys are in fact superior to telephone surveys, in that they provide
almost identical responses to many issues and differences, when found, can be
explained by a lack of pressure to respond to answers when ‘‘don’t know’’ or
‘‘I do not wish to answer’’ is preferred.
The most important question for researchers of political and electoral
behavior, however, is whether these differences translate into substantive dif-
ferences in terms of inferences. If the sample populations differ, but produce
the same results, then the Internet may well be a viable alternative to the
telephone for survey researchers. To the best of our knowledge, no
telephone-Internet comparisons have been conducted with respect to electoral
behavior. However, two published studies have compared Internet and
face-to-face surveys in terms of election research, with contradictory results.
Sanders and his colleagues included an Internet component on the 2005
British Election Study, and in their 2007 paper they present evidence that
indicates substantive mode differences that have minimal consequences. In a
side-by-side comparison with face-to-face interviews, they find that there are
significant differences in the responses to questions in each survey, but very
few significant mode effects in turnout and vote choice models. Malhotra and
Krosnick (2007) examine this research question in the American context. They
utilize four different surveys to investigate the differences between face-to-face
and Internet studies—the 2000 American National Election Study (ANES), a
2000 Harris Interactive study, the 2004 ANES, and a 2004 YouGov Internet
study. They find, similar to Sanders et al. (2007), that there are distinct differ-
ences in the samples in each year in terms of attitudes and characteristics. In
contrast to Sanders et al., however, they find that there are significant inferential
effects with respect to turnout and vote choice. They caution against using
Internet samples, suggesting both that the sampling methodology (using volun-
teers) leads to lower accuracy than probability samples and that there are possible
mode effects which could affect findings and generalizations about a population.
Thus, while some evidence suggests that Internet surveys can be very
effective and appropriate survey tools, issues of representativeness still cause
many to be cautious about using Web surveys. Without a better understanding
of its comparability to the widely accepted telephone mode, researchers may
continue to be reluctant to use the methodology. This article makes a contri-

bution to the literature by providing just such an analysis.
Hypotheses

Given the extant literature, we begin our analysis with two broad, competing
hypotheses. The first is that Internet surveys yield results that are comparable
to telephone surveys for political and electoral behavior research. The second
is that the differences between the two modes of survey research make the
Internet an inappropriate alternative to telephone methodologies. To assess
these two hypotheses, we consider two aspects of the data. First, how com-
parable are the responses in the two survey modes, and does weighting im-
prove the comparability of the results? We expect that there will be some
demographic differences between the Internet and telephone survey samples,
but in light of the contradictory claims about the effect of weighting we have
no specific expectations whether weighting the data improves the comparabil-
ity to the general population. Second, given that we are interested in the
utility of Internet surveys for political research, we consider whether the dif-
ferences between the results (if they exist) translate into substantive differ-
ences in research conclusions. Building on the studies mentioned above, there
is reason to expect that either hypothesis might be supported.
Data
The data used in this article were collected by Leger Marketing immediately
after the 2007 Quebec provincial election. The respondents were adults
(18 years of age and older) who were able to answer the survey in either
French or English. The telephone survey was administered, using CATI, to
a sample of 1003 respondents between 4 and 15 April. The probabilistic
sample was proportionally stratified by region (Quebec is divided into five
regions, Montreal CMA, Quebec CMA, West, Centre and East) and there was
random selection of households within each region. The identical survey was
administered over the Internet to a sample of 1172 respondents between 5 and
11 April. The Internet sample was drawn from a panel of more than 150,000
volunteers who are representative of the Quebec population. Individuals were
recruited through omnibus surveys and email solicitations that were randomly
sent to individuals identified through phone directories and the main Canadian
Internet providers (prior to anti-spam rules). The sample that was drawn for
this survey was, similar to the telephone survey, stratified by region (propor-
tionally) and individuals were selected randomly within each stratum. The
Internet sample is therefore a probabilistic sample of the entire Internet panel.
Given the care taken in developing it, Leger’s online panel can be considered
high quality among Internet panels, and thus likely to produce reliable data. In
terms of expense, the Internet survey cost approximately two-thirds of the
amount for the telephone survey.
The response rate for the telephone survey was 50.9% (AAPOR RR1).
The response rate for the Internet survey was much lower, 23.5% (AAPOR

RR1; 5000 initial emails were sent). We are mindful that this may affect
representativeness, as it indicates substantial self-selection into the survey.
In terms of item nonresponse, we found that in general there were more
refusals and reported ‘‘don’t know’’ answers (substantive nonresponse) in
the Internet study, consistent with the findings of Braunsberger et al.
(2007) and Roster et al. (2004). In very few cases, nonresponse was higher
in the telephone survey than the Internet survey—two of the 65 questions
analyzed in terms of refusals and seven of the 65 questions when considering
‘‘don’t know’’ responses. When considering both actual and substantive non-
response, only 12 of the 65 questions considered had no significant differences
across mode at p < .05 (see Table A1). To maximize our use of the data, in all
of our analyses missing data were assigned mean or neutral values. In our
conclusion, we consider how nonresponse may have affected our results.
This study is ideal to research the comparability of Internet and telephone
surveys for political and electoral behavior research for two reasons. First, the
survey was administered, in both modes, by the same firm. The sampling
techniques applied by Leger are similar for telephone and Internet studies, in
that they are both stratified by region and are designed to be representative of
the population of Quebec. Second, the surveys that were administered to the
telephone and Internet samples were identical. Each questionnaire asked the
same questions, including basic demographics, issue importance, partisanship,
attitudes toward parties and leaders, and policy preferences. The questionnaire
was designed by Éric Bélanger, Richard Nadeau, Brian Tanguay, and the
authors as part of a larger study. Because the questionnaires were identical,
the difficulties of finding comparable questions and dealing with potential
question wording effects were alleviated.
Results
To get a complete picture of how Internet and telephone surveys compare, we
analyze the data in several different ways. First, we report the differences in
marginal distributions, and the significance of any differences. We then turn
to understanding the substantive effects of the mode variation. We first con-
sider bivariate relationships between voting for the incumbent party compared
to all others (incumbent voting) and demographic, issue, and evaluation vari-
ables. Finally, we estimate an incumbent voting model that takes into account
such independent variables, as a more realistic demonstration of the effects
likely to be found by researchers. Only those who reported voting were

included in these analyses. As with other studies (Malhotra & Krosnick,
2007; Sanders et al., 2007) we look at weighted and unweighted data, using
the demographic weights supplied by Leger. The weights were calculated by
the survey firm. Within each region, a weight was created based on age,

gender, and language (mother tongue), using the latest census data.
Marginal Distributions
The first point of comparison between telephone and Internet surveys is how
closely the results resemble each other. Tables 1 and 2 report the mean or
marginal values of several demographic and political variables in each sample,
with and without weighting. Consider first the demographic variables in
Table 1. In the unweighted sample, only two of the six demographic variables
(gender and income) do not vary significantly between the two samples. In the
weighted sample, the differences in age and language are corrected, although
the Internet sample continues to have a higher mean level of education and
lower church attendance.
Turning to the political variables, the comparability across the two samples
seems stronger, although not perfect. Even in the weighted sample, the pro-
portion of individuals who identify with the provincial Action Démocratique
du Québec (ADQ) remain significantly different between the two samples, as
do the proportions of those that report voting for the federal New Democratic
Party (NDP) and Green Party (PV).
Turning to Table 2, what is immediately clear is that many real differ-
ences exist between the results from each sample. Using the unweighted data,
only 12 of the 52 variables reported show no significant difference between the
two samples; with weighted data, that number increases only slightly, to 16 of
52. In both analyses, fewer than half of the variables are indistinguishable from
each other. Similar to the expectations of Berrens et al. (2003), and unlike the
findings of Taylor (2000), weighting does little to increase comparability be-
tween the samples on attitudinal variables.
Of course, the point of conducting a survey is to gather data that repre-
sents the true values of the variables in the target population. Given that we
can access data about turnout and vote choice from official results (Directeur
general des elections du Québec [DGEQ], 2008), we can see how closely our
survey sample results resemble the general population of Quebec (Table 3).
For the most part, our survey results for these political variables are undif-
ferentiated by mode, whether the data is weighted or unweighted. There are
only two measures for which the telephone sample differs significantly from
the Internet sample—turnout and the proportion of votes for the Parti qué-
bécois (PQ), calculated with weighted data. In this case, weights actually
worsen the comparability of the sample.
Table 1
Comparisons Between Quebec Internet and Telephone Samples, Demographics, Provincial PID and Federal Vote, Weighted and Unweighted Data
Unweighted Weighted
Phone Web Difference Phone Web Difference
Mean values
Age (18–88) 48.94 (15.32) 46.72 (15.56) 2.22*** 45.35 (0.66) 44.48 (0.52) 0.87
Education (2–11) 7.14 (2.09) 7.34 (1.88) 0.20* 7.04 (0.08) 7.41 (0.07) 0.37***
Income (0–10) 5.32 (2.85) 5.13 (2.68) 0.19 5.14 (0.12) 5.23 (0.11) 0.09
Marginal values (%)
Language spoken at home: French 90.93 86.95 3.98** 84.94 83.40 1.54
Gender: male 44.57 41.81 2.76 48.16 48.24 0.08
Church attendance (once a month or more) 25.22 15.19 10.03*** 26.82 16.61 10.21***
Provincial partisan identification (%)
PLQ 21.44 23.89 2.45 22.64 24.45 1.81
PQ 30.11 29.18 0.93 31.41 27.97 3.44
ADQ 26.62 18.17 8.45*** 24.51 16.61 7.90***
QS 4.89 3.07 1.82* 4.82 3.43 1.39
Green 2.89 3.16 0.27 3.16 4.19 1.03
Federal vote choice (%)
Liberal 18.05 16.30 1.75 20.68 17.41 3.27
STUDYING POLITICAL BEHAVIOR
Conservative 22.73 20.82 1.91 18.81 17.57 1.24

NDP 4.69 7.17 2.48* 4.08 7.23 3.15**
BQ 28.22 33.62 5.40** 29.96 34.18 4.22
Green 2.39 3.67 1.28 1.81 4.58 2.77**
Note: Phone sample size, n ¼ 1003; web sample size, n ¼ 1172. Standard deviations/linearized standard errors are shown in parentheses.
*p .05, **p .01, ***p .001.
33

Table 2
Comparisons Between Quebec Internet and Telephone Samples, Political Variables and Attitudes, Weighted and Unweighted Data
34
Unweighted Weighted
Feeling thermometers (mean values)
PLQ 43.95 (26.84) 40.18 (28.47) 3.77** 44.32 (1.06) 39.52 (1.05) 4.80***
PQ 46.78 (27.29) 40.16 (31.36) 6.62*** 48.38 (1.06) 40.44 (1.15) 7.94***
ADQ 55.04 (25.80) 50.84 (28.14) 4.20*** 54.30 (1.03) 51.02 (1.08) 3.28*
QS (Quebec solidaire) 34.78 (25.78) 28.74 (24.85) 6.04*** 36.60 (1.04) 28.79 (0.91) 7.81***
PV 39.59 (25.99) 38.71 (25.96) 0.88 41.60 (1.03) 39.49 (0.99) 2.11
Charest (PLQ leader) 40.16 (27.70) 35.85 (28.40) 4.31*** 39.79 (1.10) 35.54 (1.04) 4.25**
Boisclair (PQ leader) 42.38 (25.65) 34.33 (27.51) 8.05*** 43.29 (1.01) 34.54 (0.97) 8.75***
Dumont (ADQ leader) 58.39 (25.58) 53.51 (28.70) 4.88*** 57.35 (1.05) 53.84 (1.07) 3.51*
David (QS leader) 39.95 (23.99) 34.69 (22.62) 5.26*** 40.13 (0.91) 34.98 (0.80) 5.15***
McKay (PV leader) 36.22 (20.06) 33.92 (17.62) 2.30** 36.34 (0.80) 34.46 (0.70) 1.88
Labor Unions 45.03 (28.61) 41.33 (29.09) 3.70** 46.81 (1.07) 40.28 (1.08) 6.53***
Business 65.26 (20.07) 64.16 (20.84) 1.10 65.20 (0.78) 64.47 (0.79) 0.73
Political interest (mean values)
Interest in election (0–10) 7.28 (2.35) 7.56 (2.52) 0.28** 7.22 (0.09) 7.47 (0.09) 0.25
Interest in politics (0–10) 6.64 (2.29) 6.40 (2.64) 0.24* 6.60 (0.090) 6.32 (0.10) 0.28*
Campaign issues (%)
Healthcare: very important 69.49 58.70 10.79*** 71.06 59.78 11.28***
Education: very important 65.30 44.97 20.33*** 66.76 46.97 19.79***
Unemployment: very important 26.42 14.59 11.83*** 26.45 15.99 10.46***
Environment: very important 58.33 38.91 19.42*** 60.70 40.70 20.00***
Fiscal Imbalance: very important 32.70 21.25 11.45*** 31.23 21.63 9.60***
Tax cuts: very important 22.83 17.83 5.00** 26.37 20.24 6.13**
Quebec’s political status: very important 30.41 26.54 3.87* 32.00 26.45 5.55*
Poverty: very important 46.16 23.21 22.95*** 47.65 24.42 23.23***
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC OPINION RESEARCH
Family aid: very important 44.37 25.68 18.69*** 46.51 28.28 18.23***
Reasonable accommodations: very important 26.52 21.16 5.36** 27.09 22.52 4.57
Retrospective Quebec economy: worse 24.93 30.46 5.53** 25.51 31.76 6.25**
(continued)
Table 2
Continued
Unweighted Weighted
Feelings about secession (percent)
Vote if Referendum Today: Yes 40.78 34.30 6.48** 40.12 34.78 5.34*
In favor of PQ referendum soon after election 21.54 23.04 1.50 23.42 23.29 0.13
(Very or somewhat)
Federalist 25.12 32.85 7.73*** 25.37 33.68 8.31***
Sovereigntist 23.73 28.58 4.85** 22.90 27.58 4.68*
Support for political institutions (%)
Interest groups best for change 61.02 33.36 27.66*** 59.30 33.44 25.86***
Without parties, cannot be true democracy (agree 78.17 71.59 6.58*** 77.43 70.22 7.21**
strongly or somewhat)
All provincial parties are basically the same; there 46.16 43.94 2.22 46.56 44.88 1.68
isn’t really a choice (agree strongly or somewhat)
Fixed election dates 65.50 62.37 3.13 62.99 62.39 0.60
In favor of proportional representation 72.98 61.52 11.46*** 72.86 60.92 11.94***
Acceptable that parties win majority of seats without 32.40 24.66 7.74*** 32.94 23.41 9.53***
majority of votes
Provincial government should have more power and 72.68 69.11 3.57 68.59 67.47 1.12
resources in the future
Role of government: agree strongly or somewhat (%)
Good to privatize Hydro Quebec (State electricity 32.90 22.70 10.20*** 33.89 22.88 11.01***
provider)
Need more private sector involvement in healthcare 61.81 59.30 2.51 59.83 59.77 0.06
Without government action, there would be a lot 73.28 65.96 7.32*** 72.86 64.41 8.45***
more poverty in society
Without government action, the environment would 69.39 66.38 3.01 69.39 64.26 5.13*
be a lot less protected
When business makes a lot of money, 19.24 24.32 5.08** 21.65 25.67 4.02
35
everyone benefits, including the poor

(continued)
36
Table 2
Continued
Unweighted Weighted
Attitudes (%)
I don’t think the government cares much what 69.09 71.16 2.07 68.69 71.85 3.16
people like me think (Agree strongly or somewhat)
Those elected to the Parliament soon lose touch with 80.26 81.14 0.88 78.88 80.06 1.18
the people (Agree strongly or somewhat)
How much do you trust government to do what is 2.49 0.51 1.98*** 3.04 0.48 2.56***
right? (Almost always)
Government wastes a lot of the money we 71.09 68.77 2.32 68.64 69.65 1.01
pay in taxes
Quite a few of the people running the government 12.06 20.99 8.93*** 13.73 24.24 10.51***
are a little crooked
Government run by big interests looking out for 58.82 59.64 0.82 59.43 61.25 1.82
themselves
Satisfaction with democracy (very or fairly satisfied) 66.70 55.03 11.67*** 65.54 53.88 11.66***
Favor same-sex marriage (0–1) 58.92 54.44 4.48* 57.26 53.48 3.78
Society would be better if more people went to 35.09 27.13 7.96*** 36.37 28.62 7.75**
church (agree strongly or somewhat)
Fewer problems if families stronger (agree strongly 80.46 72.27 8.19*** 82.17 72.80 9.37***
or somewhat)
We have gone too far in accommodating cultural 75.77 82.34 6.57*** 76.43 82.48 6.05**
minorities in Quebec (agree strongly or somewhat)
Note: Phone sample size, n ¼ 1003; web sample size, n ¼ 1172. Standard deviations/linearized standard errors are shown in parentheses.
*p .05, **p .01, ***p .001.

Table 3
Comparison of Quebec Telephone and Internet Survey Results to Actual 2007 Quebec
Provincial Election Results
Unweighted Weighted

Variable Actual values Phone Web Phone Web
Vote (turnout) 71.23 90.53* 91.98* 88.38* 91.22*
PLQ vote 33.08 20.70* 23.28* 21.64* 23.01*
PQ vote 28.35 26.98 25.60* 29.24 24.88*
ADQ vote 30.84 29.41 29.31 26.22* 28.50
QS vote 3.64 3.96 3.62 4.19 4.12
PV vote 3.85 4.30 5.75* 4.25 6.69*
Note: All values are percentages of individuals who reported voting in the election. Phone sample, n ¼ 908;
web sample, n ¼ 1078). Values marked with asterisks are significantly different from the actual values
(p .05). Comparing the two samples, the only significant differences are between the phone and web
results for turnout and PQ vote in the weighted samples.
Source: DGEQ 2008.
Note, though, that several values are significantly different from the real
values obtained during the election. Turnout was highly overestimated (almost
20 points higher) in each sample, and the vote results tend to be underre-
ported, at least for the three major parties, with the exception of the PQ vote
in the weighted telephone survey sample. Underreported levels of vote sup-
port for these parties may reflect an uneven distribution of non-response to
the question (Table A1 indicates that the total actual and substantive non-
response for the question was 13% for the telephone survey and 12% for the
Internet survey). In terms of comparability, the unweighted telephone data
produces the results most similar to the actual vote results, differing only in
terms of turnout and Liberal (Quebec Liberal Party—PLQ) support. In the
unweighted Internet sample, the differences in turnout and PLQ vote support
are joined by significant differences in PQ and PV support levels (lower and
higher, respectively) compared to the actual population. Applying weights
worsens the comparability of the telephone results to the actual results (the
ADQ vote percentage becomes significant different), and does not mitigate any
of the differences for the Internet sample.
Overall, our samples seem to be more like each other than the real popu-
lation they are trying to measure. The (often marginal) differences between
the two samples has a real effect, though, as there are fewer differences be-
tween the telephone data and actual results. These results suggest that
Internet surveys are somewhat worse than telephone surveys for gathering
accurate vote results. Given that very few significant mode differences were
found, however, we suggest that the advantage of telephone surveys may be
more minimal than it appears. What remains to be seen is whether these
differences translate into significant differences in inferential models of
political behavior. Answering this question will indicate whether researchers

should consider the Internet an appropriate venue for conducting survey re-
search into political behavior.

Vote Behavior
To understand how the differences in responses can impact our understanding
of a political event, we considered voting for the incumbent party—in 2007,
the PLQ was the incumbent in Quebec. We estimated voting behavior in two
ways. First, following the method of Malhotra and Krosnick (2007), we esti-
mated a series of bivariate logit regressions with incumbent vote choice as the
dependent variable, using unweighted and weighted data. The independent
variables used are those that could reasonably be included in a vote model—
demographics, partisanship, issues, economic evaluations, and candidate, and
party evaluations (commonly called feeling thermometers). In each logit
regression, we included a dummy variable for mode (taking the value of 1
for Internet) and an interaction term between the independent variable and the
Internet dummy variable. The benefit of this approach is that it avoids the
issue of multicollinearity between the independent variables and provides a
clear indication of how a single variable effect is affected by mode. The sig-
nificance of the interaction term in each regression indicates whether or not
there is a real difference in the relationship between the variable and incum-
bent vote choice if the response comes from an Internet survey rather than a
telephone survey.2 The results are reported in Tables 4 (unweighted) and 5
(weighted). The first column reports the effect of each variable using the
telephone data; the second column reports the effect of a mode dummy vari-
able (1 ¼ Internet); and the third column reports the interactive effect of
Internet mode and the variable on incumbent vote choice.
Turning first to the unweighted data results, less than a third (six) of
the 23 interaction terms are significant. There is no significant difference in
how partisanship influences incumbent voting between the two samples.
Among the issue variables, only opinions on the importance of reasonable
accommodation and support for sovereignty vary between modes. The final
column of the table indicates the conditional effect of the independent variable
2
While we believe that bivariate regressions are the most appropriate test to use here, we did run simple
models that included a full range of interaction effects (results not reported here). In the unweighted
sample, only one interaction term (Feeling thermometer for Charest * Internet mode) was significant
(p .05). Statistical tests also indicated that the set of interaction terms did not add explanatory power
to the model. The weighted sample results were similar in that only two interaction terms were significant
(Feeling thermometer for Charest * Internet mode and French language at home * Internet mode), although
an adjusted Wald test indicated that the set of interaction terms did contribute significantly (p ¼ .0147) to
the model. However, we should note that with weighted data the Wald test tends to be a more liberal test of
significance.
Table 4
Bivariate Logit Results for Incumbent Vote (DV), Unweighted Quebec Data (N ¼ 1986)
Variable Main effect Web dummy Interaction R2 Conditional effect
Partisanship
PLQ 4.097 (0.239)*** 0.021 (0.226) 0.261 (0.327) .4787 4.358 (0.206)***
PQ 2.532 (0.350)*** 0.188 (0.118) 0.753 (0.546) .1282 3.285 (0.419)***
ADQ 2.161 (0.335)*** 0.062 (0.115) 0.793 (0.610) .0768 2.954 (0.511)***
Campaign issues
Healthcare 0.396 (0.136)** 0.298 (0.302) 0.060 (0.169) .0120 0.336 (0.101)***
Unemployment 0.019 (0.062) 0.153 (0.113) 0.059 (0.084) .0019 0.079 (0.057)
Fiscal imbalance 0.095 (0.068) 0.259 (0.128)* 0.151 (0.091) .0023 0.056 (0.061)
Tax cuts 0.137 (0.058)* 0.130 (0.112) 0.145 (0.079) .0173 0.282 (0.053)***
Quebec 0.013 (0.057) 0.163 (0.113) 0.036 (0.075) .0010 0.024 (0.049)
Reasonable accommodation 0.015 (0.055) 0.166 (0.110) 0.156 (0.074)* .0047 0.142 (0.050)**
Support for sovereignty 2.071 (0.239)*** 0.209 (0.124) 1.784 (0.516)*** .1652 3.855 (0.457)***
Quebec economy 1.211 (0.148)*** 0.213 (0.118) 0.246 (0.199) .1064 1.457 (0.133)***
Feeling thermometers
PLQ 0.065 (0.005)*** 0.161 (0.472) 0.008 (0.007) .3200 0.074 (0.005)***
PQ 0.031 (0.003)*** 0.110 (0.184) 0.010 (0.005)** .1477 0.040 (0.003)***
ADQ 0.012 (0.003)*** 0.097 (0.228) 0.000 (0.004) .0196 0.012 (0.003)***
Charest 0.047 (0.004)*** 0.384 (0.359) 0.015 (0.006)* .2583 0.062 (0.004)***
Boisclair 0.022 (0.003)*** 0.117 (0.181) 0.007 (0.005) .0700 0.029 (0.003)***
Dumont 0.010 (0.003)** 0.130 (0.241) 0.000 (0.004) .0132 0.010 (0.002)***
Demographics
Age 0.038 (0.006)*** 1.039 (0.416)* 0.016 (0.008)* .0340 0.023 (0.005)***
Male 0.154 (0.166) 0.053 (0.145) 0.223 (0.220) .0014 0.069 (0.145)
Education 0.003 (0.039) 0.566 (0.419) 0.097 (0.055) .0041 0.100 (0.039)**
Income 0.027 (0.029) 0.592 (0.243)* 0.137 (0.040)*** .0093 0.110 (0.027)***
French spoken at home 1.499 (0.255)*** 0.445 (0.300) 0.448 (0.324) .0627 1.947 (0.200)***
Interest in politics 0.087 (0.040)* 0.616 (0.355) 0.067 (0.049) .0035 0.020 (0.029)
39
Note: Standard errors are shown in parentheses.

*p .05, **p .01, ***p .001.
Table 5
40
Bivariate Logit Results for Incumbent Vote (DV), Weighted Quebec Data (N ¼ 1986)
Variable Main effect Web dummy Interaction R2 Conditional effect
Partisanship
PLQ PID 4.124 (0.284)*** 0.060 (0.275) 0.063 (0.402) .4689 4.187 (0.284)***
PQ PID 2.492 (0.382)*** 0.045 (0.147) 0.738 (0.611) .1270 3.230 (0.477)***
ADQ PID 2.200 (0.371)*** 0.004 (0.143) 1.207 (0.718) .0750 3.407 (0.615)***
Campaign issues
Healthcare 0.171 (0.192) 0.185 (0.415) 0.055 (0.237) .0024 0.115 (0.140)
Unemployment 0.012 (0.077) 0.095 (0.141) 0.059 (0.109) .0006 0.046 (0.077)
Fiscal imbalance 0.080 (0.086) 0.212 (0.162) 0.225 (0.115) .0038 0.145 (0.077)
Tax cuts 0.064 (0.067) 0.043 (0.139) 0.176 (0.097) .0111 0.241 (0.070)***
Quebec 0.013 (0.075) 0.098 (0.142) 0.059 (0.101) .0007 0.046 (0.067)
Reasonable accommodation 0.078 (0.068) 0.119 (0.136) 0.273 (0.094)** .0083 0.195 (0.065)**
Support for sovereignty 2.194 (0.284)*** 0.122 (0.155) 1.100 (0.606) .1593 3.293 (0.535)***
Quebec economy 1.161 (0.177)*** 0.147 (0.146) 0.174 (0.259) .0916 1.335 (0.189)***
Feeling thermometers
PLQ 0.065 (0.007)*** 0.210 (0.635) 0.009 (0.010) .3287 0.075 (0.007)***
PQ 0.030 (0.004)*** 0.010 (0.224) 0.011 (0.006) .1499 0.041 (0.004)***
ADQ 0.011 (0.003)*** 0.189 (0.263) 0.004 (0.004) .0217 0.014 (0.003)***
Charest 0.041 (0.006)*** 0.679 (0.455) 0.019 (0.008)* .2364 0.059 (0.005)***
Boisclair 0.023 (0.004)*** 0.065 (0.219) 0.009 (0.005) .0767 0.031 (0.004)***
Dumont 0.008 (0.003)* 0.238 (0.281) 0.004 (0.004) .0148 0.012 (0.003)***
Demographics
Age 0.032 (0.008)*** 0.727 (0.534) 0.013 (0.010) .0278 0.020 (0.006)***
Male 0.222 (0.205) 0.072 (0.178) 0.318 (0.272) .0013 0.096 (0.180)
Education 0.009 (0.053) 0.871 (0.537) 0.126 (0.073) .0059 0.134 (0.050)**
Income 0.064 (0.037) 0.764 (0.299)* 0.157 (0.050)** .0088 0.093 (0.033)**
French spoken at home 1.653 (0.300)*** 0.050 (0.370) 0.116 (0.398) .0641 1.537 (0.261)***
Interest in Politics 0.111 (0.052)* 0.687 (0.458) 0.087 (0.064) .0045 0.024 (0.038)
Note: Linearized standard errors in parentheses.
*p .05, **p .01, ***p .001.
on voting when the mode of delivery is the Internet. For the reasonable
accommodation issue, the effect is in the opposite direction to the main
effect (the impact of the independent variable on incumbent voting in the
telephone survey) and it is significant, meaning that the effect changes from
no significant effect in the telephone sample (with a small, positive coefficient)

to a negative and significant effect. For the sovereignty issue, the effect on
incumbent voting remains negative and significant, although it increases in
magnitude. Two other sets of variables influence voting differently depending
on mode. First, among the logit regressions for feelings toward parties and
leaders (feeling thermometers), two of the six interaction terms are significant
(PQ, Charest); in each case the effect is reinforcing. Second, two demograph-
ics have different effects depending on mode. The interaction with the age
variable is significant, although the final effect remains in a positive direction
(but smaller in magnitude). The effect for the income variable is more dra-
matic, in that the effect for the Internet interaction is positive and significant
(as compared to a negative and insignificant effect for the telephone sample),
yielding a positive conditional effect.
The mode effects evident with the weighted data are fewer, as only three
interaction terms are significant. Weighting thus appears to make a significant
difference in how well the two samples compare. Of the significant interaction
effects, only one is reinforcing—for feelings about Charest. The effects of
attitudes about the issue of reasonable accommodation and the influence of
income on voting are contradictory in each sample, in that the interaction
terms are in the opposite direction to the main effects and lead to significant,
negative conditional effects. However, in both of these cases the main effect
(for the telephone survey) is insignificant, suggesting that inferences would
change from no effect to a negative one, rather than from a significant positive
effect to a significant negative one.
The above results suggest that the inferences made using either telephone
or Internet samples would not differ too dramatically when weights are
applied. However, voting behavior researchers are more likely to conduct a
single logistic regression with multiple independent variables rather than a
series of bivariate logistic regressions. Thus, our second test of the effect of
an Internet survey on our understanding of voting behavior is to compare the
conclusions that would be reached when each sample was used. We again used
incumbent voting as the dependent variable; the independent variables
included partisanship, issues, economic evaluation, and candidate evaluations.
For controls, we included political interest, age, gender, education, income,
and language. Because most election analyses focus on weighted data, and
weighting improved the comparability of the samples in the bivariate analyses,
we used only the weighted data and ran separate logit regressions to analyze
both mode samples.
Table 6
Logit Results for Incumbent Vote (DV), Weighted Quebec Data
Telephone Internet
Variable Coefficient Linearized Coefficient Linearized

standard error standard error
PLQ PID 2.603*** 0.428 2.301*** 0.418
PQ PID 0.305 0.545 0.084 0.680
ADQ PID 0.387 0.530 1.700* 0.831
Healthcare 0.178 0.153 0.067 0.165
Unemployment 0.109 0.157 0.045 0.147
Fiscal imbalance 0.217 0.123 0.066 0.132
Tax cuts 0.253* 0.123 0.109 0.126
Quebec 0.194 0.106 0.033 0.109
Reasonable accommodation 0.011 0.116 0.137 0.113
Support for sovereignty 0.355 0.484 1.252* 0.515
Quebec economy 0.489 0.264 0.097 0.257
Feeling therm.—PLQ 0.054*** 0.013 0.044*** 0.011
Feeling therm.—PQ 0.024** 0.008 0.013 0.010
Feeling therm.—ADQ 0.006 0.015 0.033* 0.015
Feeling therm.—Charest 0.018 0.010 0.016 0.009
Feeling therm.—Boisclair 0.006 0.010 0.010 0.010
Feeling therm.—Dumont 0.007 0.014 0.004 0.013
Age 0.016 0.010 0.009 0.012
Male 0.499 0.328 0.252 0.321
Education 0.134 0.092 0.113 0.077
Income 0.119* 0.056 0.020 0.054
French spoken at home 0.556 0.419 0.737 0.416
Interest in politics 0.068 0.085 0.082 0.061
Constant 3.784*** 1.087 3.843*** 1.105
N 908 1078
R2 .5614 .6264
Log pseudolikelihood 208.02665 217.24074
*p .05, **p .01, ***p .001.
The results in Table 6 indicate how assessments of the 2007 Quebec

election could be influenced by the mode of data collection. Using weighted
telephone data, a researcher would conclude that five factors in the model
influenced voting for the incumbent PLQ in 2007: partisanship, the issue of
tax cuts, feeling thermometers towards the PLQ and PQ, and income. Using
the Internet data, a slightly different picture would emerge: partisanship still
matters, but now for both PLQ partisans (in favor) and ADQ partisans
(against); being a sovereigntist is an important factor; and feelings about the
PLQ and ADQ matter. The analysis of the Internet sample has more explana-
tory power—the pseudo R2 is .63, compared with .56 for the telephone
sample. The Internet sample analysis seems to provide a slightly more
nuanced understanding of incumbent voting, but the results do not suggest
dramatic differences. In each case where a significant effect appears in the
results from one sample and not the other, except for income, the coefficient is
in the same direction. This suggests that although differences exist between
the two sets of results, they are not totally incompatible.

Overall, the results from our vote choice models provide a cautious en-
dorsement for Internet surveys as appropriate alternatives to telephone sur-
veys. There are significant differences in the responses to the various survey
questions, but few of those differences would translate into different conclu-
sions about the election. Weighting the data did not eliminate the differences
but it did improve their frequency, suggesting that weighting Internet survey
data is an important practice. Most importantly for political behavior research-
ers, all of the differences between the samples did not manifest as differences
in our vote choice models, indicating that conclusions that would be reached
through an analysis of Internet survey data would not be thoroughly flawed in
comparison to telephone data.
Conclusions
The purpose of this study was to determine whether Internet surveys should
be considered viable substitutes for telephone surveys, and thus legitimate
tools for research into political behavior. The results presented above suggest
that surveys conducted online should not be seen as perfect substitutes, but
that they should be considered a viable alternative.
As in other studies, our results indicate that the responses gathered using
the two modes differ. Applying weights to improve the representativeness of
the sample did not correct all the differences in demographics, attitudes, and
evaluations. It is possible that the greater item nonresponse to the Internet
survey may have had the effect of further restricting the representativeness of
the sample, contributing to these differences. When we compared the results
to actual voting data, we found that the vote choice variables did not vary
substantially between the two surveys, but both sets of results differed in some
ways from the actual results of the Quebec election.
Of particular interest is whether the differences have substantive conse-
quences for the conclusions that are likely to be drawn from analyses. Only
3 of the 23 variables tested affected voting differently depending on mode in
our bivariate vote models (with weighted data). Of those differences, only two
indicated contrary effects. A multiple variable analysis, the form of analysis
most likely to be used to understand Quebec voting behavior, revealed that
there were differences in the issues, partisan attachments, evaluations, and
demographics that predicted vote choice, although in only one case was a
significant effect contrary to the results from the other mode. This suggests
that, despite the differences between the samples, similar conclusions would be
reached with each dataset.
It is unclear whether similar descriptive and substantive differences
would be found between two telephone samples, or two Internet samples,
or whether larger samples would reveal fewer effects. Furthermore, we

cannot untangle mode and sampling effects in our results. What our results
can comment on, however, is how analyses conducted with a telephone sam-
ple and an Internet sample would compare. Our results indicate that the
samples differ from each other, but that the substantive impact of the differ-
ences is not overwhelming, similar to the findings of Sanders et al. (2007)
when comparing Internet surveys with face-to-face surveys. Most of the sig-
nificant differences that we find in our analyses do not translate into differ-
ences in the direction of an independent variable’s influence in regression
models. For our purposes, this finding is most important, as it suggests that
researchers using surveys conducted in either mode would reach essentially
the same conclusions about voters.
In conclusion, we believe that the potential for using Internet surveys to
study political behavior remains high. Our results suggest that the compar-
ability of results found using data from telephone and Internet surveys for
political behavior research is relatively strong, even though the results are
unlikely to be identical to those achieved with telephone data. Internet surveys
are valuable methodological tools because they allow researchers to utilize
many of the visual techniques of traditional face-to-face interviewing as well
as the techniques made possible through computer-assisted personal interview-
ing (such as question filters and question rotations) and tele-interviewing, that
is interviewing at a distance. Thus, we encourage researchers to consider using
the Internet as an alternative to telephone surveys when conducting their
research.
A c k n o w l e d g m ents
We would like to acknowledge the contributions of Éric Bélanger, Richard
Nadeau and Brian Tanguay to the survey examined in this study. We would
also like to thank Mike McGregor for research assistance. Funding for this
research was provided by the Institute for Research on Public Policy, the
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and Laval
University.
F un d i n g
Institute for Research on Public Policy; Laval University; Social Sciences and
Humanities Research Council of Canada.
Appendix
S u r v e y Qu e s t i o n W o r d i n g
Campaign issues (healthcare, education, unemployment, environment, fiscal
imbalance, tax cuts, Quebec’s political status, poverty, family aid, reasonable

accommodations): ‘‘How important was the issue of X for you in this election?
Was it . . . very important, somewhat important, not very important, or not
important at all?’’ For descriptive variables, coded so that variables indicate
if ‘‘very important’’. For vote regressions, coded 2 to 2, with higher values
indicating more importance (missing coded to neutral category).
Turnout: ‘‘Did you vote in the provincial election?’’ Coded to create a dummy
variable that indicates turnout.
Provincial vote: ‘‘Which party did you vote for? The Liberal Party, Parti
Québécois, ADQ, Québec solidaire, the Green Party or another party?’’ For
analysis of missing values, root question used. Otherwise, coded to create
variables to indicate voters that reported voting for each party.
Interest in election: ‘‘Using a scale from zero to ten, where zero means no
interest at all and ten means a great deal of interest, how interested were
you in this provincial election?’’ Missing variables recoded to mean.
Interest in politics: ‘‘And your interest in politics generally? Using the same
scale (from 0 to 10), how interested are you in politics generally? Zero means
no interest at all and ten means a great deal of interest.’’ Missing variables
recoded to mean.
Referendum vote: Yes: ‘‘If a referendum were held today on the same question
as that asked in 1995, that is sovereignty with an offer of partnership with the
rest of Canada, would you vote yes or would you vote no?’’ Coded to create a
dummy variable that indicates yes responses.
PQ referendum: ‘‘The Parti québécois committed itself during the campaign to
holding a referendum as soon as possible after its election. Personally, are you
in favor of this idea or not? Are you very favorable, somewhat favorable,
somewhat unfavorable, very unfavorable?’’ Coded to create a dummy variable
that indicates very or somewhat favorable.
Government cares: I don’t think the government cares much what people like
me think: ‘‘Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or
strongly disagree with the following statements. I don’t think the government
cares much what people like me think.’’ Coded to create a dummy variable
that indicates agrees strongly or somewhat.
Elected officials: ‘‘Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree,
or strongly disagree with the following statements. Those elected to the
Parliament soon lose touch with the people.’’ Coded to create a dummy vari-
able that indicates agrees strongly or somewhat.
Trust government: ‘‘How much do you trust the government to do what is right?
Do you trust it almost always, most of the time, only some of the time, or almost

never?’’ Coded to create a dummy variable that indicates almost always.
Government wastes money: ‘‘Do you think that people in the government: waste
a lot of the money we pay in taxes, waste some of it, don’t waste very much of
it?’’ Coded to create a dummy variable that indicates the first response.
Government crooked: ‘‘Do you think that: quite a few of the people running the
government are a little crooked, not very many are crooked, hardly any of
them are crooked?’’ Coded to create a dummy variable that indicates the first
response.
Government run by big interests: ‘‘Would you say the government is pretty
much run by a few big interests looking out for themselves or that it is run
for the benefit of all the people?’’ Coded to create a dummy variable that
indicates run by a few big interests.
Satisfaction with democracy: ‘‘On the whole, are you satisfied with the way
democracy works in Quebec? Are you very satisfied, fairly satisfied, not very
satisfied, or not satisfied at all’’ Coded to create a dummy variable that indi-
cates very or fairly satisfied.
Feeling thermometers (parties): ‘‘And now, how do you feel about the political
parties? Using a scale from zero to one hundred, zero means you really dislike
the party and one hundred means you really like the party. How do you feel
about X?’’ Missing values recoded to mean.
Fixed election dates: ‘‘Do you think that there should be a fixed date for
provincial elections in Quebec?’’ Coded to create a dummy variable that in-
dicates positive responses.
Electoral system: ‘‘Under our present system, a party can win a majority of
seats without winning a majority of votes. Do you find this. . . acceptable
or unacceptable?’’ Coded to create a dummy variable that indicates
acceptable.
Favour PR: ‘‘Recently, the government of Quebec has started looking at the
possibility of modifying the province’s electoral system by adding to it some
elements of proportional representation. Are you in favor of such a reform or
not?’’ Coded to create a dummy variable that indicates favor.
Interest groups: ‘‘What do you think is a more effective way to work for change
nowadays: joining a political party or an interest group?’’ Coded to create a
dummy variable that indicates interest groups are best for change.
Political parties: ‘‘Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree,
or strongly disagree with the following statements? Without political parties,
there cannot be true democracy.’’ Coded to create a dummy variable that
indicates agree strongly or somewhat.

Parties the same: ‘‘Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree,
or strongly disagree with the following statements? All provincial parties are
basically the same; there isn’t really a choice.’’ Coded to create a dummy
variable that indicates agree strongly or somewhat.
Feeling thermometers (party leaders): ‘‘Now the party leaders. On the same
scale, where zero means you really dislike the leader and one hundred
means you really like the leader. How do you feel about X?’’ Missing
values recoded to mean.
Retrospective Quebec economy: worse: ‘‘Over the past year, has Quebec’s econ-
omy: gotten better, gotten worse, or stayed about the same?’’ For descriptive
variables, coded to create a dummy variable for those who responded worse.
For vote regressions, coded 1 to 1, with higher values indicating gotten
better (missing coded to neutral category).
Federalist/Sovereigntist: ‘‘Do you consider yourself to be mainly a federalist,
mainly a sovereigntist, someone who is in between the two, or someone who is
neither one nor the other?’’ Coded to create dummy variables to indicate those
who answered mainly a federalist or mainly a sovereigntist.
Provincial power: ‘‘In your opinion, in the future. . .should the provincial gov-
ernment have more power and resources, the federal government have more
power and resources, or should things stay as they are?’’ Coded to create
dummy variable to indicate those who said the provincial government
should have more power and resources.
Privatize Hydro Quebec: ‘‘Please indicate if you strongly agree, somewhat
agree, somewhat disagree or strongly disagree with the following
statement. All things considered, it would be a good thing to privatize
Hydro-Québec.’’ Coded to create a dummy variable that indicates agree
strongly or somewhat.
Private sector healthcare: ‘‘Please indicate if you strongly agree, somewhat
agree, somewhat disagree or strongly disagree with the following statement.
In order to improve Quebec’s health care system we should increase the
private sector’s involvement.’’ Coded to create a dummy variable that indicates
agree strongly or somewhat.
Poverty in society: ‘‘Please indicate if you strongly agree, somewhat agree,
somewhat disagree or strongly disagree with the following statement.
Without government action, there would be a lot more poverty in our
society.’’ Coded to create a dummy variable that indicates agree strongly or

somewhat.
Environment protection: ‘‘Please indicate if you strongly agree, somewhat agree,
somewhat disagree or strongly disagree with the following statement. Without

government action, the environment would be a lot less protected.’’ Coded to
create a dummy variable that indicates agree strongly or somewhat.
Business benefits all: ‘‘Please indicate if you strongly agree, somewhat agree,
somewhat disagree or strongly disagree with the following statement. When
businesses make a lot of money, everyone benefits, including the poor.’’ Coded
to create a dummy variable that indicates agree strongly or somewhat.
Feeling thermometers (labor unions, business): ‘‘Use a scale from zero to one
hundred where zero means you really dislike X and one hundred means you
really like them. On a scale from zero to a hundred, how do you feel about X
in general?’’ Missing values recoded to mean.
Favor same-sex marriage: ‘‘Do you favor or oppose same-sex marriage, or do
you have no opinion on this?’’ Coded to create a dummy variable that indi-
cates support.
Church in society: ‘‘Please indicate if you strongly agree, somewhat agree,
somewhat disagree or strongly disagree with each of the following statements.
Our society would be better off if people attended church or other religious
services more regularly.’’ Coded to create a dummy variable that indicates
Strong families: ‘‘Please indicate if you strongly agree, somewhat agree, some-
what disagree or strongly disagree with each of the following statements.
Quebec would have many fewer problems if they were more emphasis on
traditional family values.’’ Coded to create a dummy variable that indicates
Accommodating minorities: ‘‘Please indicate if you strongly agree, somewhat
agree, somewhat disagree or strongly disagree with each of the following
statements. In recent years, we have gone too far in accommodating cultural
minorities in Quebec.’’ Coded to create a dummy variable that indicates agree
strongly or somewhat.
Provincial PID: ‘‘In provincial politics, do you usually identify yourself
with . . . the Liberal Party, the Parti québécois, the ADQ, Québec solidaire,
the Green Party, another party, or no party?’’ Responses used to create par-
tisanship dummy variables for each party.
Federal vote: ‘‘At the last federal election in January 2006, for which party did you
vote?’’ Responses used to create dummy variables for supporters of each party.
Age: ‘‘First, in what year were you born?’’ Coded to create a variable that
indicates age in years. Missing values recoded to mean.
Gender: Male: (not asked in telephone survey) ‘‘What is your gender?’’ Coded
to create a dummy variable for male.

Education: ‘‘What is the highest level of education that you have completed?’’
(11 point scale) Missing values recoded to mean.
Income: ‘‘And now your total household income before taxes for 2006. That
includes income from all sources such as savings, pensions, rent, as well as
wages. Was it. . .’’ (Response categories begin with under $20,000 and increase
by $10,000 increments) Missing values recoded to mean.
Language spoken at home: French: ‘‘What language do you speak most often at
home?’’ Coded to create dummy variable to indicate French language speakers.
Church attendance: ‘‘Not counting weddings and funerals, how often do you
attend services at your place of worship: every week, twice a month, once a
month, once or twice a year, or hardly ever?’’ Coded to create a dummy
variable to indicate once a month or more.
Support for sovereignty: ‘‘If a referendum were held today on the same question
as that asked in 1995, that is sovereignty with an offer of partnership with the
rest of Canada, would you vote YES or would you vote NO?’’ and ‘‘Even if
you haven’t yet made up your mind, if a referendum were held today on this
issue, would you be inclined to vote yes or to vote no?’’ Coded to create a
dummy variable to indicate support or inclined support for sovereignty.
Employment status: ‘‘Are you currently self employed, working for pay, retired,
unemployed or looking for work, a student, caring for a family, or something
else?’’
Party leader evaluations used in Table A1: ‘‘Which party leader do you think is
more competent?’’ ‘‘Which party leader do you think is more honest?’’
‘‘Which party leader do you think is closer to the people?’’ (Names not
read in telephone survey).
Table A1
50
Item Nonresponse: Percentage of Sample that Refused or Provided a Nonsubstantive Response (Don’t Know)
Question Mode
Phone Internet
Demographics
Age 0.50 2.99
Education 0.50 1.02
Income 12.46 14.42
Language spoken at home 0.50 0.17
Gender 0.00 0.00
Church attendance 1.00 1.96
Political interest, identity and activity
Interest in election 0.40 1.02
Interest in politics 0.20 0.68
Provincial PID 3.29 6.23
Federal vote choice 11.17 8.45
Employment status 0.60 1.02
Turnout 0.00 1.11
Provincial Party votea 13.19 11.76
Feelings toward parties, leaders and groups
PLQ 1.40 8.02
PQ 1.50 8.19
ADQ 2.69 9.81
QS 16.15 33.02
PV 11.27 29.44
Charest (PLQ leader) 1.50 8.11
Boisclair (PQ leader) 2.09 9.90
Dumont (ADQ leader) 1.60 8.62
David (QS leader) 24.33 47.61

McKay (PV leader) 37.59 62.03
Unions 0.80 7.42
(continued)
Table A1
Continued
Question Mode
Phone Internet
Labor Business 2.09 9.47
Which party leader do you think is more competent? 5.68 13.99
Which party leader do you think is most honest? 7.48 15.78
Which party leader do you think is closer to the people? 3.69 11.60
Campaign issues
Importance of healthcare in the election 0.00 0.68
Importance of education in the election 0.10 1.11
Importance of unemployment in the election 0.70 2.05
Importance of the environment in the election 0.00 1.19
Importance of the fiscal imbalance in the election 2.39 3.84
Importance of tax cuts in the election 0.50 2.05
Importance of Quebec’s political status in the election 2.19 3.33
Importance of poverty in the election 0.30 1.79
Importance of family aid in the election 0.30 1.79
Importance of reasonable accommodations in the election 2.39 3.24
Retrospective Quebec economy 1.10 6.57
Feelings about secession
Vote if referendum today 5.78 13.05
In favor of PQ referendum soon after election 1.79 5.89

Federalist/Sovereignist 0.80 4.61
Support for political institutions (specific)
Interest groups best for change 4.09 14.76
Without parties, cannot be true democracy (agree strongly or somewhat) 1.99 10.32
All provincial parties are basically the same; there isn’t really a choice 0.60 3.75
(agree strongly or somewhat)
Fixed election dates 3.49 11.60
51
(continued)

Table A1
52
Continued
Question Mode
Phone Internet
In favor of proportional representation 9.37 24.83
Acceptable that parties win majority of seats without majority of votes 3.49 15.70
Provincial government should have more power and resources in the future 2.29 13.40
Role of government
Good to privatize Hydro Quebec 6.08 18.17
Need more private sector involvement in healthcare 1.30 6.48
Without government action, there would be a lot more poverty in society 1.79 9.47
Without government action, the environment would be a lot less protected 1.40 7.59
When business makes a lot of money, everyone benefits, including the poor 0.50 3.84
Attitudes
I don’t think the government cares much what people like me think 1.60 2.82
Those elected to the Parliament soon lose touch with the people 1.50 3.50
How much do you trust government to do what is right? 0.20 1.62
Government wastes a lot of the money we pay in taxes 0.90 2.13
Quite a few of the people running the government are a little crooked 1.50 4.61
Government run by big interests looking out for themselves 3.79 15.87
Satisfaction with democracy 0.70 2.73
Favor same-sex marriage 13.86 17.83
Society would be better if more people went to church 2.09 15.02
Fewer problems if families stronger 1.50 6.14
We have gone too far in accommodating cultural minorities in Quebec 1.50 3.75
Note. Italics indicate insignificant differences.

a
Question was only asked of those who reported voting (phone n ¼ 910, internet n ¼ 1080).

R ef e r e nc e s
Alvarez, R. M., Sherman, R. P., & Van Beselaere, C. (2003). Subject acquisition for
Web-based surveys. Political Analysis, 11, 23–43.
Bason, J. J. (2000). Comparison of telephone, mail, Web, and IVR surveys of drug and
alcohol use among University of Georgia students. Paper presented at the Annual

Meeting of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, Portland,
Oregon.
Berrens, R. P., Bohara, A. K., Jenkins-Smith, H., Silva, C., & Weimer, D. L. (2003).
The advent of Internet surveys for political research: a comparison of telephone and
Internet samples. Political Analysis, 11, 1–22.
Brady, H. (2000). Contributions of survey research to political science. PS: Political
Science and Politics, 33, 47–57.
Brady, H., Johnston, R., & Sides, J. (2006). The study of political campaigns. In
H. Brady & R. Johnston (Eds.), Capturing campaign effects (pp. 1–26). Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Press.
Braunsberger, K., Wybenga, H., & Gates, R. (2007). A comparison of reliability between
telephone and Web-based surveys. Journal of Business Research, 60, 758–764.
Brehm, J. (1993). The phantom respondents: Opinion surveys and political representation.
Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Coen, T., Lorch, J., & Piekarski, L. (2005). The effects of survey frequency on
panelists’ responses. ESOMAR White Paper, Retrieved October 2009 from www.
websm.org/uploadi/editor/1143806339whitepaper6.pdf.
Chang, L., & Krosnick, J. A. (2010). Comparing oral interviewing with self-
administered computerized questionnaires: an experiment. Public Opinion
Quarterly, 74, 154–167.
Coomber, R. (1997). Using the Internet for survey research. Sociological Research
Online, 2. Retrieved from http://www.socresonline.org.uk/2/2/2.html.
Couper, M. P. (2000). Web surveys: a review of issues and approaches. Public Opinion
Quarterly, 64, 464–494.
Directeur general des elections du Québec (2008). Rapport des résultats officiels du
scrutin - Élections générales du 26 mars 2007. Québec: Directeur général des élections
du Québec.
Fleming, C. M., & Bowden, M. (2009). Web-based surveys as an alternative to
traditional mail methods. Journal of Environmental Management, 90, 284–292.
Fricker, S., Galesic, M., Tourangeau, R., & Yan, R. (2005). An experimental com-
parison of Web and telephone surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 69, 370–392.
Green, M. C., & Krosnick, J. A. (2001). Comparing telephone and face-to-face inter-
viewing in terms of data quality: The 1982 National Election Studies Method
Comparison Project. In M. L. Cynamon & R. A. Kulka (Eds.), Health survey
research methods (pp. 115–121). Hyattsville, MD: Department of Health and
Human Services, DHHS Publication No. (PHS) 01-1013.
Gibson, R., & McAllister, I. (2008). Designing online election surveys: lessons from
the 2004 Australian election. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, 18,
387–400.
Healey, B., & Hoek, J. (2000, November). Using the Web to predict elections: a com-
parison of survey modes and poll estimates. Paper presented at the Australian and New
Zealand Marketing Academy Conference, Griffith University, Gold Coast,
Australia.
Holbrook, A. L., Green, M. C., & Krosnick, J. A. (2003). Telephone versus

face-to-face interviewing of national probability samples with long questionnaires.
Public Opinion Quarterly, 67, 79–125.
Kaplowitz, M. D., Hadlock, T. D., & Levine, R. (2004). A comparison of Web and
mail survey response rates. Public Opinion Quarterly, 68, 94–101.
Kennedy, J. M., Kuh, G. D., & Carini, R. (2000). Web and mail surveys: preliminary
results of comparisons based on a large-scale project. Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, Portland,
Oregon.
Kiesler, S., & Sproull, L. S. (1986). Response effects in the electronic survey. Public
Opinion Quarterly, 50, 402–413.
Koch, N. S., & Emrey, J. A. (2001). The Internet and opinion measurement: sur-
veying marginalized populations. Social Science Quarterly, 82, 131–138.
Kreuter, K., Presser, S., & Tourangeau, R. (2008). Social Desirability Bias in CATI,
IVR and Web Surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72, 847–865.
Malhotra, N., & Krosnick, J. A. (2007). The effect of survey mode and sampling on
inferences about political attitudes and behavior: comparing the 2000 and 2004
ANES to Internet surveys with nonprobability samples. Political Analysis, 15,
286–323.
Link, M. W., & Mokdad, A. H. (2005). Effects of survey mode on self-report of adult
alcohol consumption: A comparison of mail, web and telephone surveys. Journal of
Studies on Alcohol, 66, 239–245.
Nantel, J., & Lafrance, S. (2006). Further evidences about the differences between response
characteristics from Web and telephone surveys: could it be that information gathered
from Web surveys is more valid? Unpublished manuscript.
Roster, C. A., Rogers, R. D., Albaum, G., & Klein, D. (2004). A comparison of
response characteristics from Web and telephone surveys. International Journal of
Market Research, 46, 359–373.
Sanders, D., Clarke, H. D., Stewart, M. C., & Whiteley, P. (2002, August). The 2001
British Election Study Internet Poll: a methodological experiment. Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston Marriott
Copley Place, Sheraton Boston & Hynes Convention Center, Boston,
Massachusetts.
Sanders, D., Clarke, H. D., Stewart, M. C., & Whiteley, P. (2007). Does mode matter
for modeling political choice? Evidence from the 2005 British election survey.
Political Analysis, 15, 257–285.
Schonlau, M., Zapert, K, Simon, L. P., Sanstad, K. H., Marcus, S. M., Adams, J.,
et al. (2004). A comparison between responses from a propensity-weighted Web
survey and an identical RDD survey. Social Science Computer Review, 22, 128–138.
Smith, T. W. (2001). Are representative Internet surveys possible? Symposium 2001 –
Achieving data quality in a statistical agency: a methodological perspective, Retrieved
September 2006 from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/11-522-x/2001001/session18/
6291-eng.pdf. Proceedings of Statistics Canada Symposium.
Spijkerman, R., Knibbe, R., Knoops, K., Van de Mheen, D., & Van den Eijnden, R.
(2009). The utility of online panel surveys versus computer-assisted interviews in
obtaining substance-use prevalence estimates in the Netherlands. Addiction, 104,

1641–1645.
Taylor, H. (1999/2000). Does Internet research work? Comparing online survey re-
sults with telephone survey. International Journal of Market Research, 42, 51–63.
Tourangeau, R. (2004). Survey research and societal change. Annual Review of
Psychology, 55, 775–801.
Tuckel, P., & O’Neill, H. (2002). The vanishing respondent in telephone surveys.
Journal of Advertising Research, 42, 26–48.
Van Ryzin, G. G. (2008). Validity of an on-line panel approach to citizen surveys.
Public Performance & Management Review, 32, 236–262.
Vehovar, V., Lozar Manfreda, K., & Batagelj, Z. (1999). Web surveys: Can the
weighting solve the problem? Proceedings of the Survey Research Methods Section,
American Statistical Association, Retrieved October 2009 from www.amstat.org/
sections/srms/proceedings/.
B i o g r ap h i c a l No t e s
Laura B. Stephenson (PhD, Duke) is an associate professor of Political Science at the
University of Western Ontario. Her research interests cover a range of comparative
and Canadian voting behaviour issues, as well as parties and elections.
Jean Crête (D.Phil., Oxford) is Professor of Political Science at Laval University. He
has specialized in the analysis of public policies and voting behavior. His current
research interest focuses on the use of the Internet for service delivery and data
collection. He is also interested in the study of policy instruments in the field of
the environment.

Studying Political Behavior: A Comparison of Internet and Telephone Surveys Laura B. Stephenson and Jean Cre Te

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Studying Political Behavior: A Comparison of Internet and Telephone Surveys Laura B. Stephenson and Jean Cre Te

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Public Opinion Research Vol. 23 No.

Studying Political Behavior: A Comparison of

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijpor/article/23/1/24/788078 by Universidad de Valparaiso user on 08 March 2022

Laura B. Stephenson1 and Jean Crête2

Conducting surveys is integral to the study of political behavior. Telephone

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Laura B. Stephenson, Department of

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijpor/article/23/1/24/788078 by Universidad de Valparaiso user on 08 March 2022

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijpor/article/23/1/24/788078 by Universidad de Valparaiso user on 08 March 2022

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijpor/article/23/1/24/788078 by Universidad de Valparaiso user on 08 March 2022

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijpor/article/23/1/24/788078 by Universidad de Valparaiso user on 08 March 2022

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijpor/article/23/1/24/788078 by Universidad de Valparaiso user on 08 March 2022

continue to be reluctant to use the methodology. This article makes a contri-

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijpor/article/23/1/24/788078 by Universidad de Valparaiso user on 08 March 2022

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijpor/article/23/1/24/788078 by Universidad de Valparaiso user on 08 March 2022

likely to be found by researchers. Only those who reported voting were

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijpor/article/23/1/24/788078 by Universidad de Valparaiso user on 08 March 2022

Conservative 22.73 20.82 1.91 18.81 17.57 1.24

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijpor/article/23/1/24/788078 by Universidad de Valparaiso user on 08 March 2022

everyone benefits, including the poor

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijpor/article/23/1/24/788078 by Universidad de Valparaiso user on 08 March 2022

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijpor/article/23/1/24/788078 by Universidad de Valparaiso user on 08 March 2022

political behavior. Answering this question will indicate whether researchers

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijpor/article/23/1/24/788078 by Universidad de Valparaiso user on 08 March 2022

Note: Standard errors are shown in parentheses.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijpor/article/23/1/24/788078 by Universidad de Valparaiso user on 08 March 2022

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijpor/article/23/1/24/788078 by Universidad de Valparaiso user on 08 March 2022

The results in Table 6 indicate how assessments of the 2007 Quebec

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijpor/article/23/1/24/788078 by Universidad de Valparaiso user on 08 March 2022

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijpor/article/23/1/24/788078 by Universidad de Valparaiso user on 08 March 2022

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijpor/article/23/1/24/788078 by Universidad de Valparaiso user on 08 March 2022

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijpor/article/23/1/24/788078 by Universidad de Valparaiso user on 08 March 2022

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijpor/article/23/1/24/788078 by Universidad de Valparaiso user on 08 March 2022

society.’’ Coded to create a dummy variable that indicates agree strongly or

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijpor/article/23/1/24/788078 by Universidad de Valparaiso user on 08 March 2022

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijpor/article/23/1/24/788078 by Universidad de Valparaiso user on 08 March 2022

David (QS leader) 24.33 47.61

In favor of PQ referendum soon after election 1.79 5.89

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijpor/article/23/1/24/788078 by Universidad de Valparaiso user on 08 March 2022

Note. Italics indicate insignificant differences.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijpor/article/23/1/24/788078 by Universidad de Valparaiso user on 08 March 2022

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijpor/article/23/1/24/788078 by Universidad de Valparaiso user on 08 March 2022

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijpor/article/23/1/24/788078 by Universidad de Valparaiso user on 08 March 2022

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijpor/article/23/1/24/788078 by Universidad de Valparaiso user on 08 March 2022

You might also like