<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1"?>

<rdf:RDF
 xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
 xmlns="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/"
 xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/"
 xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
 xmlns:syn="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
 xmlns:prism="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/prism/"
 xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
>

<channel rdf:about="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org">
<title>Public Opinion Quarterly - current issue</title>
<link>http://poq.oxfordjournals.org</link>
<description>Public Opinion Quarterly - RSS feed of current issue</description>
<prism:eIssn>1537-5331</prism:eIssn>
<prism:coverDisplayDate>Summer 2009</prism:coverDisplayDate>
<prism:publicationName>Public Opinion Quarterly</prism:publicationName>
<prism:issn>0033-362X</prism:issn>
<items>
 <rdf:Seq>
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/2/i?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/2/ii?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/2/iii?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/2/233?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/2/255?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/2/281?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/2/304?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/2/325?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/2/338?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/2/349?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/2/361?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/2/368?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/2/379?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/2/385?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/2/404?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/2/432?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/2/436?rss=1" />
 </rdf:Seq>
</items>
</channel>

<item rdf:about="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/2/i?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Subscriptions]]></title>
<link>http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/2/i?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-06-12</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/poq/nfp047</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Subscriptions]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>American Association for Public Opinion Research</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>73</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>i</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>i</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Subscriptions</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/2/ii?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Editorial Board]]></title>
<link>http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/2/ii?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-06-12</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/poq/nfp048</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Editorial Board]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>American Association for Public Opinion Research</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>73</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>ii</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>ii</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Editorial Board</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/2/iii?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Contents]]></title>
<link>http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/2/iii?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-06-12</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/poq/nfp049</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Contents]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>American Association for Public Opinion Research</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>73</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>iv</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>iii</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>TOC</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/2/233?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Predictors of Public Support for Gender-Related Affirmative Action: Interests, Gender Attitudes, and Stratification Beliefs]]></title>
<link>http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/2/233?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>Drawing on data from the General Social Survey during the period from 1996 through 2006, we explore predictors of support for gender-related affirmative action in the United States. Following the literature on race-based affirmative action, we identify three main domains of predictors, each of which also resonates well with themes within scholarship on gender: interests; gender-related attitudes; and general stratification beliefs. In multivariate analyses, at least some predictors within each domain are significant. We conclude that like support for race-based affirmative action, support for gender-based affirmative action is based on a combination of interests, gender attitudes, and general stratification beliefs, but that gender attitudes are less important in shaping such support than racial beliefs are in shaping support for race-based affirmative action. The implications of these findings for the literature on race-related affirmative action as well as for the literature on gender-related attitudes are considered.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Kane, E. W., Whipkey, K. J.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-06-12</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/poq/nfp019</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Predictors of Public Support for Gender-Related Affirmative Action: Interests, Gender Attitudes, and Stratification Beliefs]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>American Association for Public Opinion Research</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>73</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>254</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>233</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Article</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/2/255?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Impact of T-ACASI on Survey Measurements of Subjective Phenomena]]></title>
<link>http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/2/255?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>Numerous studies have shown that audio-computer-assisted self-interviewing (audio-CASI) and telephone audio-CASI (T-ACASI) technologies yield increased reporting of sensitive and stigmatized objective phenomena such as sexual and drug use behaviors. Little attention has been given, however, to the impact of these technologies on the measurement of subjective phenomena (attitudes, opinions, feelings, etc.). This article reports results for the seven subjective measurements included in the National STD and Behavior Measurement Experiment (NSBME). NSBME drew probability samples of USA and Baltimore adults (<I>N</I>s = 1,543 and 744, respectively) and randomized these respondents to be interviewed by T-ACASI or telephone interviewer-administered questioning (T-IAQ). Response distributions for all subjective measurements obtained by T-ACASI diverge from those obtained by human telephone interviewers. For six of our seven ordinal-scaled measurements, this divergence involved shifting responses directionally along the ordinal scale, as opposed to a nondirectional redistribution among response categories. When interviewed by T-ACASI, respondents were more supportive of traditional gender roles and corporal punishment, less supportive of integrated neighborhoods and same-gender sex, and more likely to agree that occasional marijuana use is harmless and to describe themselves as attractive. The majority of these results suggest that telephone survey respondents may provide more "tolerant" and "socially liberal" responses to human interviewers than to a T-ACASI computer. Similarly, although the evidence is not entirely consistent, the impact of T-ACASI appears to increase with the social vulnerability of the population surveyed.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Harmon, T., Turner, C. F., Rogers, S. M., Eggleston, E., Roman, A. M., Villarroel, M. A., Chromy, J. R., Ganapathi, L., Li, S.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-06-12</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/poq/nfp020</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Impact of T-ACASI on Survey Measurements of Subjective Phenomena]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>American Association for Public Opinion Research</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>73</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>280</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>255</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Article</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/2/281?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Taking the Audio Out of Audio-CASI]]></title>
<link>http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/2/281?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>Audio computer-assisted self-interviewing (audio-CASI or ACASI) has been widely adopted around the world as a method for eliciting more candid responses to sensitive questions in surveys. While few studies have explored the added advantages audio may bring over text-CASI, those that have (e.g., Tourangeau and Smith, 1996, <I>Public Opinion Quarterly</I> 60(2):275&ndash;304) found large effects for self administration over interviewer administration, but only modest additional gains from the audio enhancement. In this paper, we explore the use of audio-CASI versus text-CASI in a national survey of fertility-related issues in the United States (the National Survey of Family Growth). In the pretest, male and female respondents were randomly assigned to audio-CASI (<I>n</I> = 299) or text-CASI (<I>n</I> = 312). We compare the distributions of substantive responses between modes and examine a variety of paradata (e.g., keystroke files, time stamps) to examine the use of the CASI instruments. The main study, which interviewed 7,643 women and 4,928 men aged 15&ndash;44 in 2002&ndash;03, used audio-CASI only, but again we have a variety of paradata and interviewer debriefing items to examine the extent to which subjects made use of the audio enhancements to CASI. Our results indicate that most respondents make limited use of the audio features of audio-CASI and accordingly the gains produced by this technology are modest relative to text-CASI.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Couper, M. P., Tourangeau, R., Marvin, T.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-06-12</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/poq/nfp025</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Taking the Audio Out of Audio-CASI]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>American Association for Public Opinion Research</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>73</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>303</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>281</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Article</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/2/304?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Optimal Design of Branching Questions to Measure Bipolar Constructs]]></title>
<link>http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/2/304?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>Scholars routinely employ rating scales to measure attitudes and other bipolar constructs via questionnaires, and prior research indicates that this is best done using sequences of branching questions in order to maximize measurement reliability and validity. To identify the optimal design of branching questions, this study analyzed data from several national surveys using various modes of interviewing. We compared two branching techniques and different ways of using responses to build rating scales. Three general conclusions received empirical support: (1) after an initial three-option question assessing direction (e.g., like, dislike, neither), respondents who select one of the endpoints should be asked to choose among three levels of extremity, (2) respondents who initially select a midpoint with a precise label should not be asked whether they lean one way or the other, and (3) bipolar rating scales with seven points yield measurement accuracy superior to that of three-, five-, and nine-point scales.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Malhotra, N., Krosnick, J. A., Thomas, R. K.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-06-12</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/poq/nfp023</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Optimal Design of Branching Questions to Measure Bipolar Constructs]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>American Association for Public Opinion Research</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>73</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>324</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>304</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Article</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/2/325?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Open-Ended Questions in Web Surveys: Can Increasing the Size of Answer Boxes and Providing Extra Verbal Instructions Improve Response Quality?]]></title>
<link>http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/2/325?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>Previous research has revealed techniques to improve response quality in open-ended questions in both paper and interviewer-administered survey modes. The purpose of this paper is to test the effectiveness of similar techniques in web surveys. Using data from a series of three random sample web surveys of Washington State University undergraduates, we examine the effects of visual and verbal answer-box manipulations (i.e., altering the size of the answer box and including an explanation that answers could exceed the size of the box) and the inclusion of clarifying and motivating introductions in the question stem. We gauge response quality by the amount and type of information contained in responses as well as response time and item nonresponse. The results indicate that increasing the size of the answer box has little effect on early responders to the survey but substantially improved response quality among late responders. Including any sort of explanation or introduction that made response quality and length salient also improved response quality for both early and late responders. In addition to discussing these techniques, we also address the potential of the web survey mode to revitalize the use of open-ended questions in self-administered surveys.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Smyth, J. D., Dillman, D. A., Christian, L. M., Mcbride, M.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-06-12</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/poq/nfp029</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Open-Ended Questions in Web Surveys: Can Increasing the Size of Answer Boxes and Providing Extra Verbal Instructions Improve Response Quality?]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>American Association for Public Opinion Research</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>73</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>337</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>325</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Article</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/2/338?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[The Framing of the Survey Request and Panel Attrition]]></title>
<link>http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/2/338?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>Every survey begins with a request to the sample members to take part. How that request is framed can have a variety of consequences, including its intended (positive) effect on the cooperation rate. Survey appeals tend to emphasize the benefits of participation, but there is reason to think that emphasizing the negative consequences of nonparticipation may sometimes be a more effective method of inducing cooperation. We carried out an experiment in which respondents in a random digit dialing (RDD) sample were asked to complete a second telephone interview. For approximately half of the respondents, we emphasized the benefits of their completing the follow-up interview; for the others, we emphasized the loss involved if they chose not to complete the follow-up. Based on Kahneman and Tversky's prospect theory, we predicted that the loss framing would be more effective than the gain framing. In line with our prediction, 87.5 percent of those who got the "loss" framing of the request completed the second interview versus 77.9 percent of those who got the "gain" framing. Multivariate models of the response rate to the second interview (conditional on completion of the first) suggest that the framing effect is fairly robust across subgroups of the sample.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Tourangeau, R., Ye, C.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-06-12</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/poq/nfp021</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[The Framing of the Survey Request and Panel Attrition]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>American Association for Public Opinion Research</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>73</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>348</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>338</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Research Notes</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/2/349?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Effects of Questionnaire Length on Participation and Indicators of Response Quality in a Web Survey]]></title>
<link>http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/2/349?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>This paper investigates how expected and actual questionnaire length affects cooperation rates and a variety of indicators of data quality in web surveys. We hypothesized that the expected length of a web-based questionnaire is negatively related to the initial willingness to participate. Moreover, the serial position of questions was predicted to influence four indicators of data quality. We hypothesized that questions asked later in a web-based questionnaire will, compared to those asked earlier, be associated with (a) shorter response times, (b) higher item-nonresponse rates, (c) shorter answers to open-ended questions, and (d) less variability to items arranged in grids. To test these assumptions, we manipulated the stated length (10, 20, and 30 minutes) and the position of questions in an online questionnaire consisting of randomly ordered blocks of thematically related questions. As expected, the longer the stated length, the fewer respondents started and completed the questionnaire. In addition, answers to questions positioned later in the questionnaire were faster, shorter, and more uniform than answers to questions positioned near the beginning.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Galesic, M., Bosnjak, M.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-06-12</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/poq/nfp031</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Effects of Questionnaire Length on Participation and Indicators of Response Quality in a Web Survey]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>American Association for Public Opinion Research</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>73</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>360</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>349</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Research Notes</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/2/361?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Can A Deadline and Compressed Mailing Schedule Improve Mail Response in the Decennial Census?]]></title>
<link>http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/2/361?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>This study reports results of a national mailout&ndash;mailback experiment that evaluated the effects of a deadline and compressed mailing schedule on response to census mail questionnaires. The experiment finds that providing a deadline and shorter interval (by one week) in which to complete the census form leads to a significantly higher rate of response (by 2.0 percentage points). Data quality was not impaired and in some cases showed significant improvements in the experimental panel (lower item nonresponse for one item and slight improvements in coverage). These results contrast with previous studies suggesting that a due date is not effective for improving response in mail surveys, and imply that a deadline would lead to significant cost savings in the decennial census.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Martin, E.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-06-12</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/poq/nfp018</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Can A Deadline and Compressed Mailing Schedule Improve Mail Response in the Decennial Census?]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>American Association for Public Opinion Research</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>73</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>367</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>361</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Research Notes</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/2/368?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Improving Mail Survey Response Rates Using Chocolate and Replacement Questionnaires]]></title>
<link>http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/2/368?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>This study examined the effectiveness of two procedures aimed at improving response rates for mail surveys: an incentive sent with either the first mail-out or first follow-up, and the inclusion of a replacement questionnaire, with or without an incentive, with either the first or second follow-up. The survey involved a sample of 1,600 New Zealand residents aged 18 years or older, randomly selected from the 2005 Electoral Roll and randomly assigned to one of four treatment groups. The response rates after two follow-ups ranged from 62.3 to 66.5 percent. Using a chocolate as an incentive with the first mail-out was effective in generating a significantly higher initial response than the control; however, after two follow-up mail-outs, differences were not significant. Sending a replacement questionnaire plus a chocolate with the first follow-up generated a significantly higher response rate than merely sending a letter, and the effect of this procedure persisted through to the end of the survey. Overall, these results provide further compelling evidence of the importance of using follow-up mail-outs for improving mail survey response rates.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Brennan, M., Charbonneau, J.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-06-12</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/poq/nfp030</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Improving Mail Survey Response Rates Using Chocolate and Replacement Questionnaires]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>American Association for Public Opinion Research</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>73</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>378</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>368</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Research Notes</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/2/379?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[The Draft Lottery and Attitudes Towards the Vietnam War]]></title>
<link>http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/2/379?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>The most striking and theoretically anomalous finding of previous research on self-interest and attitudes is the absence of a self-interest motive in support for the Vietnam War. This research note reconsiders this result using a panel survey of university students collected before and after the first Vietnam draft lottery. These data are unique because they allow the unbiased estimation of the effect of self-interest on attitudes toward the war. I find that, contrary to previous results, self-interest had a substantial impact on support for the war.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bergan, D. E.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-06-12</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/poq/nfp024</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[The Draft Lottery and Attitudes Towards the Vietnam War]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>American Association for Public Opinion Research</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>73</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>384</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>379</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Research Notes</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/2/385?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Strategies for Surveys of American Indians]]></title>
<link>http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/2/385?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>Although past researchers have sometimes labeled American Indians "hard-to-reach," a review of the literature identifies several available strategies for improving sampling and response rates for surveys of this population. After discussing various approaches to defining who is American Indian, this article summarizes the literature on challenges in conducting research in American Indian populations. The literature strongly points to the need for full and active partnerships between American Indian communities and outside researchers in order to ensure that the communities are respected, protected, and benefit from the research. Full and active partnerships also are needed to improve the quality of data collected in American Indian communities. Successful strategies used in U.S. Census Bureau enumeration efforts exemplify the recommendations for participatory research with American Indian communities.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Lavelle, B., Larsen, M. D., Gundersen, C.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-06-12</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/poq/nfp026</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Strategies for Surveys of American Indians]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>American Association for Public Opinion Research</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>73</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>403</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>385</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Research Synthesis</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/2/404?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Trends--Tolerance in the United States]]></title>
<link>http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/2/404?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>Recent survey data illustrate growing tolerance of various traditionally unpopular groups and their rights to teach, speak publicly, live near us as neighbors, and have their books reside in public libraries. Gay and lesbian people perhaps have enjoyed the largest shift in tolerance during the past decade and a half, though other groups have come to enjoy greater acceptance as well. This article presents trend data regarding public attitudes toward feminists, Jews, atheists, persons with strong religious beliefs, immigrants, Muslims, militarists, and AIDS sufferers since 1990. Groups that have recently experienced poorer acceptance include Muslims since 9/11 and immigrants more broadly over the past decade. Most other groups asked about in surveys have come to enjoy more acceptance. Despite the broad patterns of growing tolerance toward people who are unlike most respondents, it remains quite possible that Americans have shifted their intolerance toward other least-liked groups.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Schafer, C. E., Shaw, G. M.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-06-12</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/poq/nfp022</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Trends--Tolerance in the United States]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>American Association for Public Opinion Research</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>73</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>431</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>404</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>The Polls</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/2/432?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[David W. Moore. The Opinion Makers: An Insider Exposes the Truth behind the Polls]]></title>
<link>http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/2/432?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Traugott, M. W.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-06-12</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/poq/nfp034</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[David W. Moore. The Opinion Makers: An Insider Exposes the Truth behind the Polls]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>American Association for Public Opinion Research</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>73</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>436</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>432</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Book Reviews</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/2/436?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[W. Lance Bennett, Regina G. Lawrence, and Steven Livingston. When the Press Fails: Political Power and the News Media from Iraq to Katrina]]></title>
<link>http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/2/436?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Sheafer, T.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>2009-06-12</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/poq/nfp033</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[W. Lance Bennett, Regina G. Lawrence, and Steven Livingston. When the Press Fails: Political Power and the News Media from Iraq to Katrina]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>American Association for Public Opinion Research</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>2</prism:number>
<prism:volume>73</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>438</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-06-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>436</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Book Reviews</prism:section>
</item>

</rdf:RDF>