Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-8r8nv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T17:50:56.100Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Measuring Issue Preferences: The Problem of Response Instability

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2017

Stanley Feldman
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The problem of response instability in survey measures of policy positions has been studied for over 20 years without any apparent resolution. Two major interpretations remain: Philip Converse's nonattitudes model and a measurement error model. One reason why neither interpretation has as yet been rejected or well supported is that previous analyses have depended on three-wave panel data that do not contain sufficient information to assess the goodness-of-fit of the models and also provide unreliable estimates of the error variance for the issue questions. Using five-wave panel data, this article first re-estimates the measurement models for the issue positions to assess goodness-of-fit and then estimates models of response instability to help establish its determinants. Evidence consistent with both interpretations of response instability is found. It thus appears as if neither model can adequately deal with the empirical characteristics of opinion questions in panel data. In the conclusion, a third interpretation of the response instability problem is offered that better accounts for the empirical findings and is more consistent with our understanding of public opinion.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Political Analysis , Volume 1 , 1989 , pp. 25 - 60
Copyright
Copyright © by the University of Michigan 1990 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Achen, C. H. 1975. “Mass Political Attitudes and the Survey Response.” American Political Science Review 69: 1218–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Achen, C. H. 1983. “Toward Theories of Political Data.” In Political Science: The State of the Discipline, ed. Finifter, A. W. Washington, D.C.: American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
Bentler, P. M. 1985. Theory and Implementation of EQS: A Structural Equations Program. Los Angeles: BMDP Statistical Software.Google Scholar
Bentler, P. M., and Bonett, D. G. 1980. “Significance Tests and Goodness of Fit in the Analysis of Covariance Structures.” Psychological Bulletin 88: 588–606.Google Scholar
Brown, S. R. 1970. “Consistency and the Persistence of Ideology: Some Experimental Results.” Public Opinion Quarterly 34: 60–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camp, C. C., Lachman, J. L., and Lachman, R. 1980. “Evidence for Direct-Access and Inferential Retrieval in Question-Answering.” Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 19: 583–96.Google Scholar
Converse, P. E. 1964. “The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics.” In Ideology and Discontent, ed. Apter, D. E. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Converse, P. E. 1970. “Attitudes and Non-Attitudes: Continuation of a Dialogue.” In The Quantitative Analysis of Social Problems, ed. Tufte, E. R. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Converse, P. E. 1975. “Public Opinion and Voting Behavior.” In Handbook of Political Science, Greenstein, F. and Polsby, N., vol. 4. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
Converse, P. E., and Markus, G. B. 1979. “Plus ca Change … The New CPS Election Study Panel.” American Political Science Review 73: 32–49.Google Scholar
Dean, G., and Moran, T. W. 1977. “Measuring Mass Political Attitudes: Change and Unreliabilty.” Political Methodology 4: 383–414.Google Scholar
Erikson, R. S. 1978. “Analyzing One-Variable Three-Wave Panel Data: A Comparison of Two Models.” Political Methodology 5: 151–61.Google Scholar
Erikson, R. S. 1979. “The SRC Panel Data and Mass Political Attitudes.” British Journal of Political Science 9: 89–114.Google Scholar
Hargens, L. L., Reskin, B. F., and Allison, P. D. 1976. “Problems in Estimating Measurement Error from Panel Data.” Sociological Methods and Research 4: 439–58.Google Scholar
Hastie, R., and Park, B. 1986. “The relationship between Memory and Judgment Depends on Whether the Task is Memory-Based or On-Line.” Psychological Review 93: 258–68.Google Scholar
Heise, D. R. 1969. “Separating Reliability and Stability in Test-Retest Correlations.” American Sociological Review 34: 93–101.Google Scholar
Hunter, J. E., and Coggin, T. D. 1976. “Communication.” American Political Science Review 70: 1226–29.Google Scholar
Jackson, J. E. 1983. “The Systematic Beliefs of the Mass Public: Estimating Policy Preferences with Survey Data.” Journal of Politics 45: 840–65.Google Scholar
Jogodzinski, W., Kuhnel, S. M., and Schmidt, P. 1987. “Is there a ‘Socratic Effect’ in Nonexperimental Panel Studies?” Sociological Methods and Research 15: 259–302.Google Scholar
Kinder, D. R. 1983. “Diversity and Complexity in American Public Opinion.” In Political Science: The State of the Discipline, ed. Finifter, A. W. Washington, D.C.: American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
Krosnick, J. A. 1984. “Attitude Extremity, Stability, and Self-Report Accuracy: The Effects of Attitude Centrality.” Presented at the American Association for Public Opinion Research Annual Meeting, Delavan, Wis.Google Scholar
Lodge, M., McGraw, K. M., and Stroh, P. 1987. “First Impressions Count: An Information-Processing Account of Candidate Evaluation.” Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
Norpoth, H., and Lodge, M. 1985. “The Difference between Attitudes and Nonattitudes in the Mass Public: Just Measurement?” American Journal of Political Science 29: 291–307.Google Scholar
Page, B. I., and Shapiro, R. Y. 1982. “Changes in Americans’ Policy Preferences, 1935-1979.” Public Opinion Quarterly 46: 24–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, T. E. 1980. The Mass Media Election. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Pierce, J. C., and Rose, D. P. 1974. “Nonattitudes and American Public Opinion: The Examination of a Thesis.” American Political Science Review 68: 626–49.Google Scholar
Raaijmakers, J. G., and Shiffrin, R. M. 1981. “Search of Associative Memory.” Psychological Review 88: 93–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schuman, H., and Presser, S., 1981. Questions and Answers: Experiments on Question Form, Wording, and Context in Attitude Surveys. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Smith, T. W. 1984. “Nonattitudes: A Review and Evaluation.” In Surveying Subjective Phenomena, vol. 2, ed. Turner, C. F. and Martin, E. New York: Russel Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Werts, C. E., Joreskog, K. G., and Linn, R. L. 1971. “Comment of ‘The Estimation of Measurement Error in Panel Data.’” American Sociological Review 36: 110–13.Google Scholar
Wiley, D. E., and Wiley, J. A. 1970. “The Estimation of Measurement Error in Panel Data.” American Sociological Review 35: 112–16.Google Scholar
Wiley, J. A., and Wiley, M. G. 1974. “A Note on Correlated Errors in Repeated Measurements.” Sociological Methods and Research 3: 172–88.Google Scholar
Wyer, R. S., and Hartwick, J. 1980. “The Role of Information Retrieval and Conditional Inference Processes in Belief Formation and Change.” In Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, ed. Berkowitz, L., vol. 13. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Zaller, J. 1986. “The Measurement of Political Information on NES surveys, 1964-84.” Presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Zaller, J., and Feldman, S. 1988. “Answering Questions vs. Revealing Preferences: A Simple Theory of the Survey Response.” Presented at the annual meeting of the Political Methodology Group, Los Angeles.Google Scholar