collegiate social network interaction project (c-snip) - research proposal and survey questionnaire...

8/7/2019 Collegiate Social Network Interaction Project (C-SNIP) - research proposal and survey questionnaire draft

1/34

Collegiate Social Network Interaction Project (C-SNIP):Research Proposal and Survey Questionnaire Draft

Casey A. Klofstad

Ph.D. CandidateHarvard University

Department of [email protected]

http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~klofstad

February, 2002


2/34

C-SNIP Research Proposal and Draft QuestionnaireKlofstad, Casey A.

Harvard University, Department of Government

1

This is a work in progress; please do not cite or reference without permission. Comments aregreatly appreciated.


3/34



2

Introduction

Civic participation and social connectedness continue to be topics of regular study in the

social sciences. While debates exist in this literature as to the processes that underlie

participation, a general consensus has been reached on the role of interpersonal interaction. On

the whole, many works conclude that interpersonal interactions and other forms of social

connectedness are causally linked to increased levels of participation in civil society (e.g.

Huckfeldt & Sprague, 1991 and 1995; Huckfeldt, et al., 1995; Kenny, 1992; Lake &

Huckfeldt, 1998; Putnam, 2000; Verba, et al., 1995). However, despite the importance placed

on interpersonal interactions in the existing literature, few works have comprehensively

addressed the impact that an individuals own personal social network has on their level and

style of civic participation. With the goal of remedying this omission in the existing literature, this

dissertation project will address the question of what the relationship between social network

interaction and civic participation is, and how that relationship works. For the purposes of this

study, social network is defined as those individuals that a person has a close, sustained, and

immediate relationship with (e.g. a cadre of individuals that could include friends, relatives, loved

ones, etc.). Civic participation is broadly defined to include a diverse set of activities which

lead the individual to enter and engage with their larger social context (e.g. acts as diverse as

voting, philanthropy, participation in voluntary organizations, and the like).

The Collegiate Social Network Interaction Project (C-SNIP)

The central purpose of this project will be to measure the impact of social networks on

civic participation in a more comprehensive and systematic manner than has been done before.


4/34



3

This new data collection effort will focus on examining the experiences of first year college

students at a variety of institutions that utilize random assignment to student housing. The

methodological and substantive reasons behind focusing on college students will be addressed in

the section on project significance.


5/34



4

This study will have each respondent complete an on-line questionnaire 1 in two time

periods: once at the beginning of the school year before the subject has been affected by their

new social network at school, and a second time close to the end of the school year 2. During

the first wave of the study, the subject will be asked questions that measure various aspects of

their civic participation during high school, as well as questions about themselves (e.g. race,

economic background, etc) 3. During the second wave of the study, the subject will again be

asked the civic participation items from the first questionnaire, except this time about their

experiences and activities in college. These responses will be compared to the base line

responses on high school activity collected during the first wave. Questions about students

social network interactions inside and outside the college community will also be posed. As a

final aspect of the data collection process, groups of subjects will be selected from the sample

of first year students for a series of in-person interviews sometime after the second wave of the

study. These interviews will allow the researcher to obtain even richer data on the nature of

social interactions and their impact on civic participation in the subject pool (Whitt, et al., 1999).

Students will also be asked to volunteer contact information for a longitudinal component of the

project (e.g. the sample may be revisited years from now to see if the impact of college life on

civic participation has held over time).

1 The subject would be sent an email instructing them to go to a specific URL address where thequestionnaire would be available for them to fill out at their leisure. Since internet access isuniversal in most college communities, even for those who do not own computers, this collectionprocedure would not be biased.2 Respondents will not be polled again until close to the end of the school year in order to givethem time to create stable and enjoyable social networks. Students of social and intimaterelationships suggest that it takes close to a whole school year for the average first year student to


6/34



5

Recruitment to participate in each study will be done through email. Each student will be

sent an initial personalized email with a secure Internet web address link to the survey

instrument 4. Additional waves (at least 2) or reminder emails will be sent to respondents who

have not yet completed the interview. The sample will be drawn randomly from each schools

database of student email addresses. Given my intent to yield at least 500 full interviews from

each college, approximately 2500 students will need to be included in each college sample 5.

This figure is based on a conservative estimated response rate of around 20%. The survey

research literature suggests that Internet survey response rates can vary from 20% to over 70%

depending on the content of the survey, the means of recruitment and incentive, and the like

(e.g. Couper, et al., 2001; Crawford, et al., 2001; Lee, 2002; Sills & Song, 2002; Stevenson,

2002) 6.

create such a network as they transition from high school to college life (e.g. Brehm, et al., 2002;Murstein, 1987).3 We ask about high school experiences to act as a base line of comparison to collegeexperiences. If the collegiate social network is having an independent impact on attitudes andbehavior, we should expect to see some change between the high school and college measures(e.g. Silbiger, 1977; Whitt, et al., 1999).4 Security procedures would be taken to guard against duplicate entries. Passwords and loginnames can be embedded in the web site link to the survey. However, respondents may be askedto manually enter a pin number at the front end of the web survey in order to increase security(both in reality, and in the mind of the respondent). Increased security in the mind of therespondent has been shown to increase the quality and candor of web survey responses, withmixed or minimal impact on response rates (e.g. Crawford, et al., 2001; Heerwegh, et al. 2002). Itshould also be noted that these security procedures will NOT make use of the students socialsecurity or student identification number.5

If the student population in question in under 2500, the entire universe of first year students willbe polled.6 Of specific relevance to the current study, survey research professionals at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and The Ohio State University (OSU) report that collegiate response rates toweb surveys run around 40-50% when an incentive is not offered and multiple reminder contactsare used (Stevenson, 2002; Lee, 2002). Specifically, OSU yielded a response rate of 41% among


7/34



6

Some form of incentive will need to be given to the subject pool to insure the highest

possible response rate. An example of such a system would be to enter each responding subject

into a prize drawing after completion of an interview. Another option would be to guarantee a

cash payment for participation.

Project Significance

This new data source will allow for the advancement of knowledge on social networks

and civic participation, and will also serve as an invaluable information source for practitioners in

civil society as well as for scholars who study student populations.

Advancing Knowledge on Networks and Participation Through a Natural Experiment

The amount of analytic purchase to be gained from this new data set would be immense.

Put simply, existing data sets which assess both social networks and civic participation (e.g. the

Beck, et al. 1996 Cross-National Election Studies US data set) have three key problems: a

lack of measures of civic participation, the inability to control for selection bias/reciprocal

causation (aka: the problem on endogeneity), and the inability to show causal relationships with

conviction. In short, research to date has been able to establish a positive relationship between

social network interactions and civic participation (e.g. Klofstad, 2001; Lake & Huckfeldt,

1998). Beyond that, however, we are left with many questions that are unable to be answered

with current data sources and methods of data collection.

first year students during a recent web survey with no incentive, three email recruitment attempts,


8/34



7

The proposed study has the ability to solve, at least in part, for all three of these issues.

First, numerous and diverse measures of civic participation can be included in the questionnaire

schedule. Second, in theory the best way to get around the methodological trap of endogeneity

would be to randomly assign individuals to social networks, and then see what impact that

random assignment has on civic participation. Obviously this is not a realistic solution. However,

study of first year college students that are randomly assigned to housing offers a unique

opportunity for a viable treatment of the problem 7. In short, since first year college students are

creating new social networks from the ground up in a randomly assigned environment, we can

minimize (or at the very least quantify and control for) the problem of endogeneity. Otherwise

stated, we can more easily see and more cleanly measure the impact of network interactions on

civic participation. Finally, the design allows us to study the impact of social interactions over

time. This feature of the design allows us establish causation with greater conviction, by allowing

us to see if patterns of social interaction acquired upon entry into a new social network have an

impact on civic participation.

Contribution to Practitioners

The information gained from this study also has the potential to inform practitioners in

civil society in various ways. First, the results of this study will allow practitioners to see what

and no phone call recruitment attempts (Lee, 2002).7 Adding Dartmouth to the set of cases to study would be invaluable with regard to this issue.Dartmouth uses near-random assignment to housing for their first year student population. In otherwords, these students are placed randomly, for all intents and purposes, into social networks. Asstated above, random assignment would allow for an accurate estimate of the peer effects under


9/34



8

types of civic activities social network interactions have the most impact on. For example,

practitioners in the nonprofit sector can begin to see how mobilization through social networks

might have an impact on germane activities such as philanthropy and volunteerism.

In addition, this study will yield data of specific interest to practitioners on college

campuses. The projects focus on undergraduates will also allow us to see how repertoires of

civic participation are established in early adulthood, and thus how programs on college

campuses which focus on social networks may have a positive impact on such modes of pro-

social behavior. The design will also allow us to see what effect, if any, random assignment to

student housing has on collegiate life.

In short then, by increasing our understanding of how and why social networks impact

participation in civil society, we do more than just increase our knowledge on the subject; we

also learn how best to make use of that resource to strengthen civil society.

New Information for Scholars of Collegiate Life

Finally, while numerous studies of student life and attitudes have been conducted over

the years, the C-SNIP will still be a novel and invaluable source of data for students of

collegiate life. For example, the Higher Education Research Institute studies by UCLA (e.g.

Your First College Year, the College Student Survey, and the Cooperative Institutional

Research Program Freshman Survey) do have data on issues related to this project, such as

measures of civic engagement, political ideology, and the like. The CIRP also includes measures

study (Sacerdote, 2001). Other schools that are being investigated for the presence of random


10/34



9

on high school activities and interests. However, these three surveys fail to examine the state of

college student social networks. The measures of engagement and ideology are also very

limited, and hard to compare to the data collected on high school experiences (e.g. the question

wordings and formats for college and high school are not at all the same). These surveys also do

not take advantage of the causal leverage that institutions that use random housing assignment

offer. Similar arguments can be made with regard to other surveys of student populations 8. In

short, then, existing data sets on college populations are clearly related to the project at hand.

However, the new data collection effort proposed here clearly takes a distinct and novel look at

college populations.

Ties to the Existing Literature

Before proceeding to the presentation of the project timeline, budget, and questionnaire

content, it is necessary to briefly assess how this project fits in with the existing body of work on

social networks and civic participation. While this project takes an innovative approach to the

question, the design and theory are still well grounded in the existing literature.

Is There a Relationship between Social Interaction and Civic Participation?

While the existing literature has not comprehensively examined the relationship between

social network interaction and civic participation, it does offer a vast array of related evidence

assignment include Rice University and Williams College.8 For example, the Harvard University Institute of Politics (IOP) study of Attitudes TowardPublic Politics and Public Service, the National Center for Education Statistics High School andBeyond study, and the Monitoring the Future study put out by the University of Michigan.


11/34



10

that suggests that the relationship is real. One of the more direct tests of this proposition comes

from Lake and Huckfeldt (1998). Even after controlling for a host of probable antecedents

(such as affiliations with voluntary associations), the results of this study suggest that

interpersonal interaction in social networks (operationalized as the amount of political discussion

occurring in those networks) has a significant positive impact on individuals levels of civic

participation.

Similar, though less direct, assessments of this relationship can also be seen in other

existing works. For example, Putnam (2000), through over-time trend analyses, shows that

Americans were on average more civically engaged when they were more integrated into face-

to-face social networks. In a similar manner, Verba, et al. (1995) and Burns, et al. (2001), in

assessments of national public opinion data, suggest that the social ties gained through

participation in such social institutions as the workplace and voluntary associations lead

individuals to higher levels of civic participation. Thus, what the works of Lake & Huckfeldt and

others suggest is that there is likely to be a relationship between social network interactions and

civic participation. This proposition will be tested in full through the proposed dissertation

project.

What Are the Possible Mechanisms behind the Relationship?

In addition to offering evidence of the link between civic participation and social

network interaction, the existing literature offers many ideas on why social network interaction

may foster civic participation. While debates abound, existing findings can be distilled into four

categories of possible causal mechanisms: resource provision, engagement, recruitment, and


12/34



11

normative influence 9. These four factors have traditionally been singled out as antecedents of

civic participation. I argue that these four factors are also likely to be present in social networks,

and will use this project to test that assertion.

Resources

In terms of resources, scholars have shown that individuals are not automatically

equipped to be participants in civil society. Specifically, these works develop the notion that

certain resources, such as information, civic skills and money, act as prerequisites to civic

participation in the United States (Burns, et al., 2001; Schlozman, et al., 1999; Verba, et al,

1995; Putnam, 2000). As an example, consider the case of an individual making a decision on

whether or not to volunteer, and what organization to volunteer for. To make these decisions,

this person needs resources, such as information on the organizations, before any action can be

taken. Without such resources, it is unlikely that the individual will know who to volunteer for,

much less have an interest in volunteering in the first place (Putnam, 2000).

9 These possible antecedents are presented with due respect to Verba, et al. (1995) who presentresources, engagement and recruitment in their unified Civic Voluntarism Model.


13/34



12

While resources such as information can be acquired from a variety of sources, the

existing literature suggests that the costs of resource acquisition are not equal among all possible

sources (e.g. Huckfeldt & Sprague, 1995). For example, our hypothetical volunteer could gain

the resources needed to act from the consumption of mass media content, attending organization

meetings, and the like. However, engaging in such activities can often entail a relatively high

outlay of human and physical capital (e.g. time, attention, and in some cases, money). In

contrast, our hypothetical volunteer could obtain such resources with less expense through

interactions in their existing social network 10. As Huckfeldt and Sprague (1995) suggest, face-

to-face interactions such as these are a lower cost source of information because they allow the

individual to gain information from trusted sources and on issues of specific interest to them.

Otherwise stated, the interactive nature of social networks, in contrast to the one-way flow of

resources from the mass media and other alternative information sources, allows for more

efficient resource acquisition. Thus, as cost-minimizing actors, individuals will "seek to obtain

political [and other] information on the cheap" (Huckfeldt & Sprague, 1995, p. 14) and may

therefore be expected to turn to their social networks as a source for civic participation

resources.

10 It should also be noted that in addition to being low cost, the individual is likely to gain resourcesfrom their social network with greater enjoyment. For example, an individual is more likely toenjoy a discussion with friends than say going to a meeting filled with strangers. In this sense, theimpact of social network interaction on civic participation is a by-product of interactions basedon other goals (e.g. regular conversation with friends, a trip to the neighborhood tavern, or thelike).


14/34



13

Engagement

Consider again the example of the potential volunteer. This individual may have

numerous resources at their disposal, such as time, information on what organization to

volunteer for, and so on. However, if this hypothetical volunteer is not interested in voluntarism,

or feels that their donations of time and effort will not make a difference (low efficacy), they will

not be as likely to act. Otherwise stated, while resources play a significant role in fostering civic

participation, even the most resource-rich individual is unlikely to participate in civil society if

they are not interested in engaging in such activity (e.g. Almond and Verba, 1963; Burns, et al,

2001; Verba, et al., 1995). For example, in their analyses of national public opinion data, both

Burns, et al. (2001) and Verba, et al. (1995) show that interest in politics, political efficacy, and

other indicators of social engagement play a significant role in fostering civic participation,

independent of resources. Thus, the existing literature seems to suggest that when people are

interested in civic activity, they are more likely to act. It therefore may be the case that

interactions in social networks also increase individuals engagement with, and thus participation

in, civic life. For example, talking about civic life in a social network may lead an individual to

become more informed about, and thus more interested in, civic activity.

Recruitment

Continuing with the running example of a hypothetical volunteer, imagine that this

individual now has a great deal of interest and resources at their disposal. Despite these

advantages, it may still be the case that this person will not enter civic life unless asked to do so

by someone else (Burns, et al, 2001; Gerber & Green, 2000; Rosenstone and Hansen, 1993;


15/34



14

Verba, et al., 1995;). In both Burns, et al. (2001) and Verba, et al. (1995), examination of

national public opinion data shows that even after controlling for interest and resources, being

exposed to requests for civic participation through social institutions (e.g. the workplace,

voluntary associations, and the like) plays a significant role in fostering participation. Rosenstone

and Hansen (1993) make a similar argument, showing that reductions in mass-based recruitment

practices by the two major political parties in the United States has played a significant role in

reducing overall levels of civic participation, especially voting. Gerber and Green (2000) present

similar findings in an experimental study of recruitment. The authors find that being exposed to

requests to vote increased the likelihood that an individual would vote. Specifically, the data

suggest that face-to-face requests (operationalized as traditional door-to-door canvassing) are

more effective at eliciting participation than less immediate forms of recruitment (e.g. phone calls

or direct mail) 11. The authors speculate that face-to-face contact was more successful because it

is interactive, more real (e.g. not overly scripted), and more personal. Thus, these works

suggest that recruitment has a role to play in fostering participation. Specifically, it appears that

face-to-face forms of recruitment, such as those we might expect to see in an individuals own

social network, are more effective than less immediate forms.

Normative Influence

As a final possible causal mechanism behind the relationship between social networks

11 Godwin and Mitchell (1984) make a similar argument. The authors show that individualsrecruited to join environmental groups were more likely to maintain memberships over time if theywere recruited through a social network, rather than through a direct mailing.


16/34



15

and civic participation, it is helpful to examine works which show that normative influence can

have a powerful impact on individuals behavior (e.g. Crandall, 1988; Festinger, et al., 1950;

Latane' & Wolf, 1981; Michener & DeLamater, 1999; Putnam, 2000; Schachter, 1959).

Consider our hypothetical volunteer one last time, now fully advantaged with resources, interest

and recruitment. This individual is likely to participate in civil society, yet may be even more

likely to participate if civic and other pro-social norms are transmitted and adhered to by them.

The works of Robert Putnam clearly highlight the importance of normative influence to civic

participation. For example, in his assessment of social capital in the United States, Putnam

(2000) argues that Americans were far more likely to be civically active when norms of social

trust and reciprocity were more prevalent in society. Such norms, he argues, lead individuals to

be more integrated into events and issues outside of their own personal sphere, while also

facilitating collective action. Otherwise stated, such norms lead the individual to develop and act

on a civic-minded identity 12.

While normative influence may have an impact on civic participation in general, it is

necessary to ask if such influence is present in social networks. Numerous works from social

psychology suggest that it is. Latane' and Wolf's (1981) Social Impact Theory suggests that

normative influence is stronger when the influencing force is immediate (close and sustained). In

a similar vein, Festinger, et al. (1950) show, in their examination of the group process in a

Massachusetts Institute of Technology student housing unit, that the greater the frequency of

interpersonal interaction, the easier group bonds develop. In assessing the effects of these types

12 My thanks to Professor Marshall Ganz, Harvard University, for this term.


17/34



16

of bonds, the authors take the argument further in contending that "[c]ertainly it is through the

small face-to-face groups that many attitudes and ideologies which affect our behavior are

transmitted" (p. 163). Thus what these findings suggest is that because social networks are

immediate, they can be expected to have some amount of normative influence on their members.

If this influence is to civic participation, then social network interactions may have a positive

impact on civic participation through the mechanism of normative influence 13.

Other Potential Mitigating Factors

In addition to the four potential causal mechanisms listed above, other related factors

should also be considered. Specifically, the political socialization (politicization and political

learning through social agents like the family, the school, and the peer group) literature suggests

that three sets of mitigating factors need to be considered in studying peer effects: person

attributes, peer group attributes, and issue attributes (e.g. Dawson, et al., 1977; Silbiger, 1977).

Obviously, these three types of factors can be interrelated. However, for the sake of simplicity,

let us consider a few potential influences on peer effects, factor by factor 14.

13 It should also be noted that in addition to having a direct effect on civic participation, normativeinfluence may also have an interactive impact on the three other possible antecedents. Forexample, it may be the case that even if a resource like information is provided through socialnetwork interaction, the individual may not necessarily feel obliged to use that information in civicactivity. In other words, the individual has to somehow be vested in the source of the information

in order to act with that resource (e.g. they may need to feel that the source would bedisappointed in them if they did not use the information in a civic activity).14 These points on peer effects are of specific importance to the current research project. In short,the existing socialization literature suggests that peer groups have more influence when otherpotential agents are less immediate or salient. We can expect this to be the case as first yearstudents make the transition away from familial influence.


18/34



17

In terms of person traits, the existing literature suggests that certain people will be more

likely to be susceptible to peer effects than others. For example, people of lower

socioeconomic class may be more likely to admire (or at least be embarrassed by their own

roots) and thus emulate the norms, attitudes, and actions of peers from upper class households.

Peer group traits are also necessary to consider. For example, the more socially (or otherwise)

attractive the peer group is, the more likely the individual is to want to be a part of the group.

Thus, the individual is more likely to adhere to the groups norms in order to be accepted

socially. The same case can be made for enduring/sustained, small, and homogeneous social

networks. Finally, the issues or object of learning (Silbiger, 1977) in question must also be

assessed. For example, novel issues or events are more likely to evoke peer effects because the

individual has no prior experiences or scripts (Pillemer, 1986) from which to draw from and

assess the issue/event. Lacking a script to follow, the individual can be expected to draw from

the behaviors and norms of their immediate social network in determining their own attitudes

and modes of behavior.

In short, while the investigation proposed here takes a novel look at social networks

and civic participation, the theory and method of the project is firmly anchored on evidence

from the existing literature. While the literature has not comprehensively unpacked the impact

that peers can have on participation, what evidence we do have suggest that the relationship is

real and points us in the direction of why the relationship works as it does.


19/34



18

Project Timeline

Beginning-Summer 2002 : During this time I plan on finding and gaining consent to conduct

the study from the colleges that will be included in the survey project 15. The web survey will also

be created and tested.

Fall Term 2002-3 : At this time I hope to administer Wave One of the survey to the first year

students.

Spring Term 2002-3 : If Wave One of the survey can be put into the field during the fall of

2002, Wave Two will be administered during the Spring Term (sometime between Spring

Break and Finals Week).

2004 and Beyond : During this time I plan on conducting in-person interviews with a portion of

the sample, if it is decided that more detailed ethnographic data is needed to complete the

research.

Proposed Project Budget

The following budget is based on implementation of the project at five schools.

Survey Development and Administration (University of Wisconsin Survey Center)Labor $ 8,406Fringe $ 2,736Supplies $ 1,627

15 This process has already been begun with the University of Wisconsin-Madison and DartmouthUniversity.


20/34



19

Sub-total $12,769Overhead (45.50%) $ 5,810SUB TOTAL $18,579

Incentive CostsInternet Survey Wave 1 $1000Internet Survey Wave 2 $1000In-Person Interviews $1000SUB TOTAL $3000

Travel ExpensesConference Travel to Present Results $1000Travel and Accommodations for Conducting $3000

In-Person Interviews with StudentsSUB TOTAL $4000

Research ExpensesCopying and Printing $200

TOTAL DIRECT COSTS $25779

Indirect Costs10% Cap on Overhead from Pew $2577.90

Charitable Trusts

GRAND TOTAL $28357

Sample Recruitment EmailsWave One Initial InvitationSUBJECT: Harvard University Student Survey

Dear [fill in the name]:

You have been selected to participate in an on-line survey project being conducted by Harvard

University. You will be entered in a drawing to win a [some sort of product] as a token of ourappreciation for participating in this important research project. The survey will only take about[# minutes] to complete.

We are interested in learning about how students like you are making the transition from highschool to college. We need your answers to make our survey representative of all students.


21/34



20

This study will take place in two parts. Today, we will ask you to fill out a short survey aboutyourself and your experiences in high school. Later on in the school year, we will contact youagain to ask you about your experiences during the first year of college. After completing eachsurvey, you will be entered into a new prize drawing.

Your participation in this study is completely voluntary, and completely confidential.

To start this first survey, just go to [URL HERE].

If you have any questions about the survey, or are having trouble signing onto the web page,please contact us.

Thank you, in advance, for your participation in this important research project.

Sincerely,

Casey A. KlofstadHarvard [email protected]

Wave One Reminder EmailSUBJECT: Harvard University Student Survey


A few days ago we sent you an email asking you to participate in an important on-line surveyabout your experiences during high school. You will be entered into a prize drawing to win a[some product] if you complete this survey. The survey will only take about [# minutes] tocomplete.

To start this survey, just go to [URL HERE].




Sincerely,


22/34



21


Wave Two Initial InvitationSUBJECT: Harvard University Student Survey


You have been selected to participate in an on-line survey project being conducted by HarvardUniversity. You will be entered in a drawing to win a [some sort of product] as a token of ourappreciation for participating in this important research project. The survey will only take about[# minutes] to complete.

We are interested in learning about how students like you are making the transition from highschool to college. We need your answers to make our survey representative of all students.

You may remember filling out a survey for us at the start of the school year about yourexperiences during high school. Today, we will ask you to fill out another short survey aboutyour experiences during the first year of college. After completing this survey, you will beentered into a prize drawing.


To start this first survey, just go to [URL HERE].



Sincerely,


Wave Two Reminder EmailSUBJECT: Harvard University Student Survey


23/34


24/34



23

This project consists of two parts. The questionnaire you will fill out today is part one.The second part is another questionnaire you will be asked to fill out towards the end of theschool year. It is vital to this research that you fill out BOTH surveys. You will be reminded byemail when it is time to fill out the second survey. If you complete the second interview a fewmonths from now, you will be entered into another prize drawing.

Your participation in this study is voluntary. Your responses are also completelyconfidential. Any personal information about you will not be presented to the public. You shouldalso remember that this is not a test; there are no right or wrong answers. We are onlyinterested in how you feel you should answer the questions.

Again, thank you for taking the time to help with this important research. Yourparticipation is greatly appreciated.

Civic Participation Battery

[To improve ease entry of this data, some of these questions may be arrayed on one webscreen with radio buttons or check boxes for responses (Couper, et al., 2001)]

OrganizationsFirst we have some questions about various types of organizations you might have belonged toduring high school.

On a scale of 0 to 5, where 0 means not at all active, and 5 means very active,how active were you in student government (for example, student council) during high school?

On a scale of 0 to 5, where 0 means not at all active, and 5 means very active,how active were you in organizations that took stands on political or social issues (for example,Young Republicans or Democrats, an organization interested in protecting the environment, orthe like) during high school?

On a scale of 0 to 5, where 0 means not at all active, and 5 means very active,how active were you in organized sports (either intramural or competitive) during high school?

On a scale of 0 to 5, where 0 means not at all active, and 5 means very active,how active were you in religious or faith-based organizations or clubs during high school?

On a scale of 0 to 5, where 0 means not at all active, and 5 means very active,how active were you in forensics, debate, or other speech clubs or teams during high school?

On a scale of 0 to 5, where 0 means not at all active, and 5 means very active,how active were you in the publication of student newspapers or other similar activities (forexample, the yearbook) during high school?


25/34



24

On a scale of 0 to 5, where 0 means not at all active, and 5 means very active,how active were you in ethnic or racial organizations or clubs during high school?

On a scale of 0 to 5, where 0 means not at all active, and 5 means very active,how active were you in academic clubs or honor societies (for example, the science club, theNational honor Society, and the like) during high school? [Should these two types be broken upinto 2 questions?]

On a scale of 0 to 5, where 0 means not at all active, and 5 means very active,how active were you in visual arts clubs (for example, the art club) during high school?

On a scale of 0 to 5, where 0 means not at all active, and 5 means very active,how active were you in performance art groups (for example, the school band, drama club,singing groups, and the like) during high school?

On a scale of 0 to 5, where 0 means not at all active, and 5 means very active,how active were you in organized social groups (for example, fraternities or sororities) duringhigh school?

[What other organizations should I ask about? What other types of civic activity items could Iadd that would be germane to both college and high school? What about vocationalorganizations?]

Organization Leadership[for each type of organization listed as > 0, the respondent will be asked the following]

While you were active in [fill], did you ever serve as an officer, or in any othertype of leadership role?

Activities and InterestsNext we have some questions about various interests and activities of you might have had duringhigh school.

On a scale of 0 to 7, where 0 means not at all, and 7 means every day, howoften on average did you read or watch the news to learn about politics and current affairs

during high school?

How many times did you initiate any contacts with an elected official (either inperson or by phone or letter) about problems or issues with which you were concerned duringhigh school?

How many times did you take part in a protest, march, or demonstration onsome national, state, or local issue during high school?


26/34



25

How many times did you work as a volunteer for a candidate running in anational, state, local, or school election during high school?

What type of election(s) did you volunteer for (check all that apply)?

On a scale of 0 to 5, where 0 means not at all active, and 5 means very active,how active were you in charitable or voluntary service activities (that is, working in someway tohelp others without pay and NOT for course or graduation credit) during high school? [Doesthe not for course credit part of the question need to be broken out into a separate item?]

On a scale of 0 to 5, where 0 means not at all interested, and 5 means veryinterested, how interested were you in politics and current affairs during high school?

[This next item, QC7, allow us to control for the potential that course work will have an impact

on civic participation]

Of the classes you took in high school, which subject did you enjoy the most?[In the second wave of the study, this question will ask about the respondents intendedmajor/concentration.]

[Items QC8-10 allow us to gauge how much time the respondent may have to devote to civicactivities]

On average, how many hours per day did you work during high school?

On average, how many hours per day did you spend studying during highschool?

On average, how many hours free time per day did you have during highschool?

On average, how many times a month did you attend religious services duringhigh school?

Did you ever do any tutoring, either at your own school or at another school,during high school?

[I might need to add more questions here to control of alternative hypotheses. Such things tocontrol for might be internal and external efficacy, political attributes like ideology andpartisanship, and the like. What other types of controls might I need to include in order toaccount for alternatives to the network effect hypothesis?]


27/34



26

Network Familiarity BatteryNext we have a few questions about the people you live with in your dorm.

Did you know your roommate(s) before coming to college?

How many people that live on your hall did you know before you came tocollege, many some, or none at all?

How many of the other people that live in your dorm did you know before youcame to college, many some, or none at all?

Demographic BatteryNext we have some questions about you and your family.

Which of these categories best describes your racial or ethnic

background (check all that may apply)?

Does your mother work in a paid job?

What is your mothers occupation? [open-ended field, or check box with manoptions?]

Does your father work in a paid job?

What is your fathers occupation? [open-ended field, or check box with man

options?]

What is your parents approximate combined income for a whole year(your best guess is fine)? [Should this be an open-ended item, or a series of categories, orwhat?]

Thinking about your parents educational background, what is thehighest academic degree held by your mother?

What is the highest academic degree held by your father?

Are you an American citizen?

If you are not an American citizen, what is your country of citizenship?

On a scale of 0 to 5, where 0 means not at all, and 5 means very often,how often did you discuss political matters or issues at home during high school?


28/34



27

Thinking about the interests and activities of your parents, how activewould you say your parents are in politics and community affairs; very, somewhat, or not at all?

About how many people live in the area where you went to high school?

About how many people were in your graduating high school class?

What state did you go to high school in?

[Should I ask more demographic questions about the parents (e.g. ideology)?]

Exit ScriptThose are all the questions we have for you at this time. For completing this survey you will beentered into a prize drawing. We will be contacting you by email again towards the end of theschool year to fill out the remainder of the questionnaire.

Again, thank you for participating in this important research project.

[end survey timer]

Wave Two QuestionnaireIntroduction

[begin survey timer]

Because you are a first year student at [fill in the name] University, you have beenselected to participate in an on-line survey research project. This project is being conducted bya researcher at Harvard University in order to learn more about how people like you make thetransition from high school to college. As a token of thanks for taking time to participate in thisimportant research project after you complete this questionnaire you will be entered into a prizedrawing.

This project consists of two parts. The questionnaire you will fill out today is part two. Itis vital to this research that you fill out this second survey.

While your participation in this project is very important, you should know that yourparticipation is voluntary. Your responses are also completely confidential. Any personalinformation about you will not be presented to the public. You should also remember that this isnot a test; there are no right or wrong answers. We are only interested in how you feel youshould answer the questions.

Again, thank you for taking the time to help with this important research.


29/34



28

Civic Participation Battery[This section will be a replication of the civic participation battery administered in Wave One,except this time the questions will be asked about activities and experiences in college.]

Social Network BatteryNext we are going to ask you a few questions about the people in your dorm.

First, we have some questions about your roommate(s)

How many roommates do you have?

Does your roommate(s) have a similar racial or ethnic background as you?

How similar is your roommate(s) family to yours, very somewhat, or not at allsimilar?

How close of a friend would you say your roommate is, very, somewhat, or notat all close?

Is your roommate(s) younger, older, or about the same age as you?

Next, we have some questions about the people that live on your hall/floor.

About how many people live on your floor (your best guess is fine)? [I might beable to kick this out if I get the data from the college]

How similar are the people that live on your floor to you in terms of race orethnicity, very, somewhat, or not at all similar?

How similar are the people that live on your floor to you in terms of familybackground, very, somewhat, or not at all similar?

How friendly are you with the people that live on your floor, very somewhat, ornot at all friendly?

How similar are the people that live on your floor to you in terms of age, very,somewhat, or not at all similar?

[What about gender mix?]

Next, we have some questions about the rest of the people that live in your dorm.


30/34



29

About how many people live in your dorm (your best guess is fine)? [I might beable to kick this out if I get the data from the college]

How similar are the other people that live in your dorm to you in terms of raceor ethnicity, very, somewhat, or not at all similar?

How similar are the other people that live in your dorm to you in terms of familybackground, very, somewhat, or not at all similar?

How friendly are you with the other people that live in your dorm, verysomewhat, or not at all friendly?

How similar are the other people that live in your dorm to you in terms of age,very, somewhat, or not at all similar?

[What about gender mix?]

Network Causal Mechanism Battery[This battery will be asked three times with the prompts your roommate(s), the people thatlive on your floor, and the other people that live in your dorm.]

[These questions focus on resources.] When you talk with [fill], do you discuss topics like politics and current eventsoften, sometimes, rarely, or never?

When you discuss political and current events with [fill], do you disagree often,sometimes, rarely, or never?

Generally speaking, how much do you think [fill] knows about politics andcurrent events? Would you say a great deal, an average amount, or not much at all?

Thinking about your own beliefs and convictions about politics and currentaffairs (for example, which political party you support), would you say [fill] is very, somewhat,or not at all similar to you politically? [Is this redundant with ?]

Thinking about the time you spend with [fill], has [fill] ever given you anyinformation about how to become more politically or socially active, either on or off campus?

[This question focuses on engagement.] Have your discussions and interactions with [fill] led you to become moreinterested in political and social issues, either on or off campus?


31/34



30

[This question focus on recruitment.] Has [fill] ever asked you personally to participate in a political or social event ororganization, either on or off campus?

[These questions focus on normative influence.] How disappointed do you think [fill] would be if they thought that you were notvery interested or active in political or social matters, either on or off campus?

How much would it matter to you if [fill] was ever disappointed in orembarrassed by you, very, somewhat, or not at all?

How much do you feel you can trust [fill]; very, somewhat, or not at all?

How likely would [fill] be to remember your birthday, ever if you didnt remindthem about it before hand; very, somewhat, or not at all?

How interested do you think [fill] is in politics and current events; very,somewhat, or not at all?

How active do you think [fill] is in politics and current events, either on campusor in the community; very, somewhat, or not at all?

[Do I need more items here that probe some of the social capital issues, like trust andreciprocity? Also, would it be better to phrase the normative influence questions in a positivelight? For example, should I use language such as proud or happy instead of

disappointed.]

Alternative Causal Mechanism Battery[This section seeks to account for causal mechanisms outside the social network]

Are you on a fellowship or scholarship that requires you to participate in collegeor community activities/organizations?

[I need to think about more possible items to include here.]

Longitudinal Study Recruitment Battery We may also want to contact you farther into the future, say five or tenyears from now, to ask you some more questions. The easiest way to do this is if you give usthe name, address and phone number of a contact person who is not likely to move from theircurrent residence, and is likely to know where you live even years from now (like a parent orolder sibling). If you are willing to have us contact you again sometime farther into the future,please fill out the information below for your contact person. This information will be keptcompletely confidential, and will not be released to the public.


32/34



31

[Insert fields here for contact information and a check box for the relationship between thesubject and the contact (e.g. parent, sibling, friend, etc.).]

Exit ScriptWe may also contact you in the near future to ask some more questions. This contact will be aconfidential short interview, either over the phone or in person. Your participation in thisinterview would be completely voluntary, and you would be compensated for your time.

Those are all the questions we have your you at this time. For completing this survey you will beentered into a prize drawing.

Again, thank you for participating in this important research project.

[end survey timer]

REFERENCESAlmond, Gabriel A., and Sidney Verba. 1963. The Civic Culture . Princeton, NJ: Princeton

University Press.

Beck, Paul, Russell J. Dalton, and Robert Huckfeldt. 1992. Cross-National ElectionStudies: United States Study . Inter-University Consortium for Political and SocialResearch, Study #6541.

Brehm, Sharon S., Rowland S. Miller, Daniel Perlman, and Susan M. Campbell. 2002. Intimate Relationships, 3 rd Edition . New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Burns, Nancy, Kay Lehman Schlozman, and Sidney Verba. 2001. The Private Roots of Public Action . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Couper, Mick P., Michael W. Traugott, and Mark J. Lamias. 2001. Web Survey Designand Administration. Public Opinion Quarterly 65(2):230-253.

Crandall, Christian S. 1988. Social Contagion of Binge Eating. In Social Psychology

Readings: A Century of Research , eds. Amy G. Halberstadt, and Steve L. Ellyson.New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Crawford, Scott D., Mick P. Couper, and Mark J. Lamias. 2001. Web Surveys:Perceptions of Burden. Social Science Computer Review 19(2):146-162.

Dawson, Richard E., Kenneth Prewitt, and Karen S. Dawson. 1977. PoliticalSocialization, Second Edition . Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Co.


33/34



32

Festinger, Leon, Stanley Schachter, and Kurt Back, with chapters by Catherine Bauer and

Robert Woods Kennedy. 1950. Social Pressures in Informal Groups: A Study of Human Factors in Housing . New York, NY: Harper & Brothers.

Gerber, Alan and Donald Green. 2000. The Effects of Personal Canvassing, TelephoneCalls, and Direct Mail on Voter Turnout: A Field Experiment. American PoliticalScience Review 94:641-652.

Heerwegh, Dirk, and Geert Loosveldt. 2002. Web Surveys: The Effects of ControllingSurvey Access using PIN Numbers. Social Science Computer Review 20(1):10-21.

Huckfeldt, Robert and John Sprague. 1991. Discussant Effects on Vote Choice:Intimacy, Structure, and Interdependence. The Journal of Politics 53:122-158.

Huckfeldt, Robert and John Sprague. 1995. Citizens, Politics, and SocialCommunication: Information and Influence in an Election Campaign . Cambridge,England: Cambridge University Press.

Huckfeldt, Robert, Paul Allen Beck, Russell J. Dalton, and Jeffrey Levine. 1995.Political Environments, Cohesive Social Groups, and the Communication of Public Opinion. American Journal of Political Science 39:1025-1054.

Kenny, Christopher. 1992. Political Participation and Effects for the Social

Environment. American Journal of Political Science 36:259-267.

Klofstad, Casey A. 2001. Social Networks, Social Inequality: The Varied Impact of Political Talk on Civic Participation. San Francisco, CA: Paper presented at theAmerican Political Science Association National Meeting.

Lake, R.L. and Robert Huckfeldt. 1998. Social Capital, Social Networks, and PoliticalParticipation. Political Psychology 19:567-583.

Latane', Bibb and S. Wolf. 1981. The Social Impact of Majorities and Minorities.

Psychological Review 88:438-453.

Lee, Robert. 2002. Personal Communication (via email). February 15. Columbus, OH:Ohio State University Center for Survey Research.

Michener, H. Andrew. and John D. DeLamater. 1999. Social Psychology .New York, NY: Harcourt Brace.


34/34


Harvard University, Department of Government Murstein, Bernard I. 1987. Feedback: A Clarification and Extension of the SVR

Theory of Dyadic Paring. Journal of Marriage and Family 49:929-933.

Pillemer, David B., Elizabeth D. Rhinehart, and Sheldon H. White. 1986. Memories of Life Transitions: The First Year in College. Human Learning 5:109-123.

Putnam, Robert. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of AmericanCommunity . New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Rosenstone, Steven & Hansen, John Mark. 1993. Mobilization, Participation, and Democracy in America . New York, NY: Macmillian.

Sacerdote, Bruce. 2001. Peer Effects with Random Assignment: Results forDartmouth Roommates. The Quarterly Journal of Economics May:681-704.

Schachter, Stanley. 1959. The Psychology of Affiliation: Experimental Studies of theSources of Gregariousness . Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Schlozman, Kay Lehman, Sidney Verba, and Henry E. Brady. 1999. Civic Participationand the Equality Problem. In Civic Participation in American Democracy , eds.Theda Skocpol and Morris P. Fiorina. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Silbiger, Sara L. 1977. Peers and Political Socialization. In The Handbook of PoliticalSocialization , ed. Stanley Allen Renshon. New York, NY: The Free Press.

Sills, Stephen J., and Chunyan Song (2002). Innovations in Survey Research: AnApplication of Web-Based Surveys. Social Science Computer Review 20(1):22-30.

Stevenson, John. 2002. Personal Communication (via email). February 15. Madison, WI:University of Wisconsin Survey Center.

Verba, Sidney, Kay Lehman Schlozman, and Henry E. Brady. 1995. Voice and Equality:Civic Voluntarism in American Politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard.

Whitt, Elizabeth J., Marcia Edison, Ernest T. Pascarella, Amaury Nora, and Patrick T.Terenzini. 1999. Interactions With Peers and Objective and Self-ReportedCognitive Outcomes Across 3 Years of College. Journal of College Student

Development 40(1): 61-78.

collegiate social network interaction project (c-snip) - research proposal and survey questionnaire...

Documents