socio-psychological factors affecting predictions of elections

American Association for Public Opinion Research

Socio-Psychological Factors Affecting Predictions of ElectionsAuthor(s): Edward A. SuchmanSource: The Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 16, No. 3 (Autumn, 1952), pp. 436-438Published by: Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Association for Public OpinionResearchStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2745786 .

Accessed: 20/12/2014 12:45

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

American Association for Public Opinion Research and Oxford University Press are collaborating with JSTORto digitize, preserve and extend access to The Public Opinion Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 128.235.251.160 on Sat, 20 Dec 2014 12:45:30 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oup

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aapor

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aapor

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2745786?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


PUBLIC OPINION QUARTERLY, FALL 1952 PUBLIC OPINION QUARTERLY, FALL 1952

by the pre-code to assimilate answers into the pattern, i.e., the pattern biased their interpretation of what the respondent said.3 While a similar influence might be operative in office coding its magnitude would probably be less than in the field.

We repeat that a single question pro- vides hardly a sufficient base for any generalizations, either on optimum size of pre-test for building a field classifica- tion scheme or on the over-all relative merits of field and office coding. But perhaps it has been sufficient excuse to raise and illustrate some issues. We

by the pre-code to assimilate answers into the pattern, i.e., the pattern biased their interpretation of what the respondent said.3 While a similar influence might be operative in office coding its magnitude would probably be less than in the field.

We repeat that a single question pro- vides hardly a sufficient base for any generalizations, either on optimum size of pre-test for building a field classifica- tion scheme or on the over-all relative merits of field and office coding. But perhaps it has been sufficient excuse to raise and illustrate some issues. We

propose to continue the experimenta- tion with field coding as opportunity offers, using a variety of different ques- tions, a variety of client-need situations, and a variety of instructions to inter- viewers anent the coding they are asked to do. Coding, either in the office or the field, is an expensive procedure and anything that can be done to reduce costs without sacrificing the needed ac- curacy is certainly worth attempting.

3 Stember and Hyman discuss this type of bias at some length, expecting to find much more evidence of its influence than they actually did in their data.

propose to continue the experimenta- tion with field coding as opportunity offers, using a variety of different ques- tions, a variety of client-need situations, and a variety of instructions to inter- viewers anent the coding they are asked to do. Coding, either in the office or the field, is an expensive procedure and anything that can be done to reduce costs without sacrificing the needed ac- curacy is certainly worth attempting.

3 Stember and Hyman discuss this type of bias at some length, expecting to find much more evidence of its influence than they actually did in their data.

SOCIO-PSYCHOLOGICAL FACTORS AFFECTING

PREDICTIONS OF ELECTIONS

By EDWARD A. SUCHMAN

Cornell University

SOCIO-PSYCHOLOGICAL FACTORS AFFECTING

PREDICTIONS OF ELECTIONS

By EDWARD A. SUCHMAN

Cornell University

The failure of public opinion polls to predict the I948 presidential election resulted in a tremendous amount of post-election activity in an attempt to determine what went wrong. It would seem only logical that the pollsters in 1952 would carefully reexamine the analyses made after the I948 election and benefit from them. In some cases, such as sampling and interviewing pro- cedures, these benefits should result in improved techniques of collecting data. In many other instances, however, the main benefits of an analysis of the pre- vious election derive from an increased awareness of those social and psychological factors which affect any prediction of future behavior based on present intentions.

After the I948 election, the writer

The failure of public opinion polls to predict the I948 presidential election resulted in a tremendous amount of post-election activity in an attempt to determine what went wrong. It would seem only logical that the pollsters in 1952 would carefully reexamine the analyses made after the I948 election and benefit from them. In some cases, such as sampling and interviewing pro- cedures, these benefits should result in improved techniques of collecting data. In many other instances, however, the main benefits of an analysis of the pre- vious election derive from an increased awareness of those social and psychological factors which affect any prediction of future behavior based on present intentions.

After the I948 election, the writer

prepared the following list of factors which could affect the relationship between actual vote and verbal expression of voting plans. All of these factors, of course, will be at work in the 1952 election. They are offered at the present time as one more caution that the pollsters must show that they have learned from their mistakes in I948.

The listing is divided into four major categories of factors relating to voting behavior. We can examine each of these factors to see to what extent it relates to the respondent's statement as to how he is going to vote and to his actual vote at the polls. The definition of the problem, therefore, is not one of determining why someone voted for candidate X, but of finding out why he said he would vote for candidate Y and then

prepared the following list of factors which could affect the relationship between actual vote and verbal expression of voting plans. All of these factors, of course, will be at work in the 1952 election. They are offered at the present time as one more caution that the pollsters must show that they have learned from their mistakes in I948.

The listing is divided into four major categories of factors relating to voting behavior. We can examine each of these factors to see to what extent it relates to the respondent's statement as to how he is going to vote and to his actual vote at the polls. The definition of the problem, therefore, is not one of determining why someone voted for candidate X, but of finding out why he said he would vote for candidate Y and then

436 436



LIVING RESEARCH

actually voted for candidate X, or did not vote at all. Generally stated, the problem is one of determining the prob- ability that verbal intention to vote for X will be followed by an actual vote for X at the polls.

The following factors are listed in such a way as to indicate when the lowest validity will be present. In this form, they may be viewed as danger signals in prediction. No attempt will be made to develop any of the hy- potheses beyond their simple statement.

Factors Relating to the Voter in Rela- tion to the Specific Campaign

I. Interest in the campaign-the less interest, the greater the possibility of a change between the vote intention and vote behavior and the more difficult the prediction.

2.Identification with one side-the less identification with one party or candidate, the more difficult the prediction.

3.Certainty of conviction-the less certain the voter, the more difficult the prediction.

4.Time of decision-the later the time of final decision, the more difficult the prediction.

5. Ease of decision-the more trouble one has making up one's mind, the more difficult the prediction.

6.Information of voter-the less in- formed the voter, the more difficult the prediction.

7. Degree of concern-the more con- cerned the individual is with the campaign, the more difficult the prediction.

Personality Factors Relating to the Voter

I. Attributive thinking-the less the

voter sees choice decisions in terms of black and white, the more difficult the prediction.

2. Verbal skills-the less able the voter is to express his feelings and thoughts, the more difficult the prediction.

3. Thought action patterns-the less accustomed the voter is to making decisions and then acting upon them, the more difficult the prediction.

4. Stability of personality-the more neurotic the voter, especially if the candidates, issues, or conduct of the campaign are related to the cause of the disorder, the more difficult the prediction.

Factors Relating to Pressures upon the Voter

I. Exposure to propaganda-assum- ing that self-selection operates to limit exposure to one's own candidate, the less exposure the more difficult the prediction.

2.Cross pressures-the more cross pressures the voter is subject to, the more difficult the prediction.

3. Party machines-the more active the party machine is in relation to the voter, the more difficult the prediction.

4. Reward or punishment-the more extraneous rewards or punishments included in the situation, the more difficult the prediction.

Factors Relating to the Campaign Itself

I. The candidates-the more similar the candidates are to each other, the more difficult the prediction. Also, the less typical the candidate

437



PUBLIC OPINION QUARTERLY, FALL 1952 PUBLIC OPINION QUARTERLY, FALL 1952

is of the Republican or Democratic stereotype, the more difficult the prediction.

2.The issues-the more similar the stand taken by the candidates on important issues, the more difficult the prediction. Also, the less typical the stand taken is of the usual Re- publican or Democratic lines, the more difficult the prediction.

3. The conduct of the campaign-the more similar the way in which the candidates conduct their cam-

is of the Republican or Democratic stereotype, the more difficult the prediction.

2.The issues-the more similar the stand taken by the candidates on important issues, the more difficult the prediction. Also, the less typical the stand taken is of the usual Re- publican or Democratic lines, the more difficult the prediction.

3. The conduct of the campaign-the more similar the way in which the candidates conduct their cam-

paigns, the more difficult the prediction.

Factors Relating to National and Inter- national Affairs

I. Important crises-the more critical the national or international situation, the more difficult the prediction.

2. Economic state-if the campaign takes place during the height of prosperity or depression, the more difficult the prediction.

paigns, the more difficult the prediction.

Factors Relating to National and Inter- national Affairs

I. Important crises-the more critical the national or international situation, the more difficult the prediction.

2. Economic state-if the campaign takes place during the height of prosperity or depression, the more difficult the prediction.

CLASSIFYING COMMUNICATIONS

By JAY W. STEIN

Columbia University

CLASSIFYING COMMUNICATIONS

By JAY W. STEIN

Columbia University

As a new and complex field of knowledge develops into an accepted aca- demic discipline, the pressing concern for classifying and arranging its multi- tude of varying components frequently rises first in the library. For, somewhat unlike the discriminating mind of the subject specialist, the mind of the librarian can cast no piece of knowledge out of the picture if there is the slight- est possibility of someone's needing it. So it was with the field of Public Com- munications at Columbia University, when the assemblying of a sizeable col- lection of materials (including the per- sonal library of Professor Paul Lazars- feld) at the Library of the School of Library Service demanded immediate attention, if it was to be systematically and readily available to numerous researchers in many established fields. The findings of communications ex- perts had to be integrated with the techniques of the librarian and the needs of the reader.

As a new and complex field of knowledge develops into an accepted aca- demic discipline, the pressing concern for classifying and arranging its multi- tude of varying components frequently rises first in the library. For, somewhat unlike the discriminating mind of the subject specialist, the mind of the librarian can cast no piece of knowledge out of the picture if there is the slight- est possibility of someone's needing it. So it was with the field of Public Com- munications at Columbia University, when the assemblying of a sizeable col- lection of materials (including the per- sonal library of Professor Paul Lazars- feld) at the Library of the School of Library Service demanded immediate attention, if it was to be systematically and readily available to numerous researchers in many established fields. The findings of communications ex- perts had to be integrated with the techniques of the librarian and the needs of the reader.

It was the privilege of this writer to work out an adequate scheme, with the wise counsel of Professors Robert D. Leigh and Alice I. Bryan, who regularly give the course in Public Communications at Columbia Univer- sity's School of Library Service. The first edition was published as A classi- fication for communications materials in March I952 and is available from the School of Library Service, Colum- bia University, New York 27.

In constructing a preliminary scheme, it was necessary to unite the provocative concepts of many communications writ- ings with the physical arrangement and location of tangible and over-lapping pieces of published or recorded mate- rial. The resultant framework con- sisted of three major groups: I. General, II. Structure, process and regulation, III. Media and channels. These were divided into such general topics as bibliography, history and geography; communicator, content and regulation;

It was the privilege of this writer to work out an adequate scheme, with the wise counsel of Professors Robert D. Leigh and Alice I. Bryan, who regularly give the course in Public Communications at Columbia Univer- sity's School of Library Service. The first edition was published as A classi- fication for communications materials in March I952 and is available from the School of Library Service, Colum- bia University, New York 27.

In constructing a preliminary scheme, it was necessary to unite the provocative concepts of many communications writ- ings with the physical arrangement and location of tangible and over-lapping pieces of published or recorded mate- rial. The resultant framework con- sisted of three major groups: I. General, II. Structure, process and regulation, III. Media and channels. These were divided into such general topics as bibliography, history and geography; communicator, content and regulation;

438 438



socio-psychological factors affecting predictions of elections

Documents