<?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 - recent issues</title>
<link>http://poq.oxfordjournals.org</link>
<description>Public Opinion Quarterly - RSS feed of recent issues (covers the latest 3 issues, including the current issue) </description>
<prism:eIssn>1537-5331</prism:eIssn>
<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/73/3/i?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/3/ii?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/3/iii?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/3/439?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/3/462?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/3/484?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/3/497?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/3/521?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/3/537?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/3/551?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/3/566?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/3/578?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/3/590?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/3/592?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/3/595?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/3/599?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/3/602?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/3/603?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/3/606?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/3/607?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/3/608?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/3/609?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/3/610?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/3/629?rss=1" />
  <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:li rdf:resource="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/1/1?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/1/7?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/1/32?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/1/56?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/1/74?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/1/98?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/1/119?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/1/130?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/1/144?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/1/159?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/1/172?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/1/180?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/1/199?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/1/221?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/1/224?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/1/226?rss=1" />
  <rdf:li rdf:resource="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/1/230?rss=1" />
 </rdf:Seq>
</items>
</channel>

<item rdf:about="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/3/i?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Subscriptions]]></title>
<link>http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/3/i?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>Fri, 28 Aug 2009 03:55:26 PDT</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/poq/nfp061</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Subscriptions]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>American Association for Public Opinion Research</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>73</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>i</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-09-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>i</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Subscriptions</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/3/ii?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Editorial Board]]></title>
<link>http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/3/ii?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>Fri, 28 Aug 2009 03:55:26 PDT</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/poq/nfp062</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Editorial Board]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>American Association for Public Opinion Research</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>73</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>ii</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-09-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>ii</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Editorial Board</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/3/iii?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Contents]]></title>
<link>http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/3/iii?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>Fri, 28 Aug 2009 03:55:27 PDT</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/poq/nfp063</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Contents]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>American Association for Public Opinion Research</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>73</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>iv</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-09-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>iii</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>TOC</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/3/439?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Effects of Internet Commerce on Social Trust]]></title>
<link>http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/3/439?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>As of the early 21st century, one of the most popular uses of the internet is for online shopping. In this study I examine how online purchasing affects levels of generalized social trust, a quality widely believed to be central to the health and well-being of contemporary societies. Drawing on two original studies, including an experiment embedded in a representative national survey, and a hybrid laboratory/field experiment, I find consistent evidence that positive e-commerce experiences promote generalized social trust. I discuss the implications of these findings for the role of business in helping to maintain attitudes supportive of democracy.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mutz, D. C.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>Fri, 28 Aug 2009 03:55:27 PDT</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/poq/nfp042</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Effects of Internet Commerce on Social Trust]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>American Association for Public Opinion Research</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>73</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>461</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-09-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>439</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Article</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/3/462?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Measurement of Political Discussion Networks: A Comparison of Two "Name Generator" Procedures]]></title>
<link>http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/3/462?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>Social scientists use two different methods for collecting information on the people with whom individuals discuss politics. Some surveys ask respondents to provide information about the people with whom they discuss "important matters," while other studies ask for information specifically on the individual's political discussants. Drawing on three of the most recently collected sources of data on this subject, we compare social network data that have been collected in these two different ways. The majority of our results show that the network data provided by survey respondents are very similar regardless of which network generator procedure is used. These results suggest that we do not consciously select specific individuals with whom to discuss politics. Instead, the individuals with whom we choose to discuss politics are the same people with whom we discuss other important matters in our lives. This finding has significant methodological and substantive implications for studies of social influence.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Klofstad, C. A., McClurg, S. D., Rolfe, M.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>Fri, 28 Aug 2009 03:55:27 PDT</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/poq/nfp032</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Measurement of Political Discussion Networks: A Comparison of Two "Name Generator" Procedures]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>American Association for Public Opinion Research</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>73</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>483</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-09-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>462</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Article</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/3/484?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Unintended Consequences: The Cost of Purging Business Numbers in RDD Surveys]]></title>
<link>http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/3/484?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>Survey researchers commonly use RDD (random digit dialing) samples that are purged of listed business telephone numbers to increase interviewer productivity by removing numbers that are assumed to be ineligible for household surveys. This study investigates this practice and finds an unintended consequence: an increase in household noncoverage. The data come from national RDD surveys using samples that were not purged of listed business numbers. Phone numbers were flagged as listed businesses or not and respondents were asked about how their phone lines are used. Five percent of respondents were interviewed on lines classified as business numbers that normally would have been purged from the sample. But were these valid household interviews or should they have been excluded? The data show that these are, in fact, primarily households. Ninety-four percent of these numbers rang at residences. Moreover, these phone numbers are used as household rather than business-only lines. Ninety-three percent said any adult in the household can answer the phone line in question. A more important finding is that business-line purging increases noncoverage. Sixty-five percent of those contacted on numbers that normally would have been purged from the sample said they had no other phone lines in the household&mdash;a noncoverage rate of 3.6 percentage points had these numbers been excluded from the sample. The study concludes with an examination of the characteristics of those interviewed on presumed business numbers, and considers the cost/benefit implications of including these numbers in the sample.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Merkle, D. M., Langer, G., Cohen, J., Piekarski, L. B., Benford, R., Lambert, D.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>Fri, 28 Aug 2009 03:55:27 PDT</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/poq/nfp035</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Unintended Consequences: The Cost of Purging Business Numbers in RDD Surveys]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>American Association for Public Opinion Research</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>73</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>496</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-09-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>484</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Article</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/3/497?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Medicaid Underreporting in the CPS: Results from a Record Check Study]]></title>
<link>http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/3/497?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>The use of survey data can be significantly hampered by the occurrence of measurement error, particularly that engendered by respondent misreporting. Previous studies have shown that public program participation tends to be substantially misreported and underestimated. Comparison with administrative records shows such a situation with the reporting of Medicaid enrollment in the U.S. Census Bureau's Current Population Survey (CPS); for 36.2 percent of enrollees, their coverage was not reported in the survey. While false positive reporting also occurs, it is, on a percentage basis, much less frequent. To understand and correct for the false negative reporting, and to develop improvements to surveys to mitigate the occurrence of misreporting, it is useful to understand the factors that relate to it. This research sought to establish the relationship between false negative Medicaid reporting and various factors associated with the coverage (such as recency and intensity), the enrollee (such as demographics and the use of services), and differences in coverage status between the respondent and the person for whom he or she was reporting. Results show that coverage patterns including shared coverage, recency, and intensity of coverage all strongly relate to false negative Medicaid reporting in the CPS. The findings provide important guidance for questionnaire design improvements as well as model-based adjustments to the survey data.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Pascale, J., Roemer, M. I., Resnick, D. M.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>Fri, 28 Aug 2009 03:55:27 PDT</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/poq/nfp028</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Medicaid Underreporting in the CPS: Results from a Record Check Study]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>American Association for Public Opinion Research</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>73</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>520</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-09-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>497</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Article</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/3/521?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Helping Citizens Decide in Referendums: The Moderating Effect of Political Sophistication on the Use of the Information and Choice Questionnaire as a Decision Aid]]></title>
<link>http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/3/521?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>Voters often lack sufficient knowledge to make educated decisions. We investigated how a decision aid-&ndash;the Information and Choice Questionnaire (ICQ)&mdash;helped them make more consistent decisions. The ICQ is designed for large-scale use and provides voters with information about a specific problem before asking them for their opinions. It provides citizens with information summarizing a full range of viable policy options and the probable consequences of each, as provided by experts. We investigated the ICQ in the context of the Dutch 2005 referendum on the European Constitutional Treaty. Respondents (<I>N</I> = 340) constituted a random sample of the Dutch population. We studied the effects of the ICQ on vote preferences and the consistency of voters&rsquo; preferences shortly before the referendum. We were especially interested in the moderating role of political sophistication on the uses and effects of the ICQ. Our study confirmed that many voters had little knowledge about the European Constitution and had inconsistent preferences. The ICQ made their vote preferences more consistent, especially for those participants with lower levels of political sophistication. This suggests that this decision aid can narrow the gap between the politically sophisticated and the politically less sophisticated.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Neijens, P., de Vreese, C.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>Fri, 28 Aug 2009 03:55:27 PDT</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/poq/nfp040</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Helping Citizens Decide in Referendums: The Moderating Effect of Political Sophistication on the Use of the Information and Choice Questionnaire as a Decision Aid]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>American Association for Public Opinion Research</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>73</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>536</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-09-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>521</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Article</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/3/537?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Revisiting Incentive Effects: Evidence from a Random-Sample Mail Survey on Consumer Preferences for Fuel Ethanol]]></title>
<link>http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/3/537?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>This study revisits the issue of monetary incentive effects utilizing data from a mail survey sent to a random sample of adults across the United States regarding preferences for fuel ethanol. The results reported here are consistent with those found in the literature regarding the effect of incentives on response rates: they improved them, with prepaid incentives performing relatively better. We also found that state of residence was significantly correlated with choosing whether to respond to a survey. Regarding the effect of incentives on sample composition, we found that incentives tended to bias the sample in favor of less educated respondents, and tended to attract respondents less familiar with the survey subject. Finally, results indicate that incentives had very little effect on item nonresponse. Instead, item nonresponse was driven by education level, gender, and familiarity with the survey subject. However, combining the findings on sample composition with those of item nonresponse, it appears that the use of incentives <I>indirectly</I> affects item nonresponse by recruiting relatively more respondents that are less educated and/or less familiar with the survey topic, who are then less likely to respond to all questions.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Petrolia, D. R., Bhattacharjee, S.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>Fri, 28 Aug 2009 03:55:27 PDT</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/poq/nfp038</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Revisiting Incentive Effects: Evidence from a Random-Sample Mail Survey on Consumer Preferences for Fuel Ethanol]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>American Association for Public Opinion Research</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>73</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>550</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-09-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>537</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Research Notes</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/3/551?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Process Preferences and Voting in Direct Democratic Elections]]></title>
<link>http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/3/551?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>Direct democracy is extraordinarily popular and has become a pervasive policymaking tool at the state and local level. Repeated surveys have demonstrated that Americans strongly approve of allowing people to vote on citizen-proposed laws, a method currently allowed in about half of all states and in many municipalities across the country. This paper examines both the extent of this support and its implications. Using a battery of questions about the institution as an independent variable, we model the extent to which institutional evaluations of direct democracy influence voting behavior in ballot measure elections. Using data from California in 2005 and 2006, as well as Washington in 2006, we find support for the notion that process evaluations influence choice in ballot initiative elections, regardless of policy content. Those who favor direct democracy are more likely to vote yes, while those who are apprehensive about voting on ballot measures are more likely to vote no.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Dyck, J. J., Baldassare, M.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>Fri, 28 Aug 2009 03:55:27 PDT</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/poq/nfp027</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Process Preferences and Voting in Direct Democratic Elections]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>American Association for Public Opinion Research</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>73</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>565</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-09-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>551</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Research Notes</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/3/566?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Public Attitudes Toward Construction of New Power Plants]]></title>
<link>http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/3/566?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>Increased demand for U.S. electricity generation will require the construction of hundreds of new power plants in the coming decades. We examine attitudinal data from the 2008 MIT Energy Survey to measure public support for and opposition to the local siting of power plants. Substantial majorities of Americans oppose the location of coal, natural gas, and nuclear power plants in their area, although a majority supports local siting of wind facilities. We find that attitudes about plant siting depend heavily on perceptions of the environmental harm and costs of specific facilities; the effects of these attributes are similar across different types of fuel sources, suggesting that there is a common underlying structure to an individual's attitude. That is, people view all power sources in the same framework and differentiate them on perceived endowments, the most important of which is environmental harm.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ansolabehere, S., Konisky, D. M.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>Fri, 28 Aug 2009 03:55:27 PDT</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/poq/nfp041</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Public Attitudes Toward Construction of New Power Plants]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>American Association for Public Opinion Research</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>73</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>577</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-09-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>566</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Research Notes</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/3/578?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Trends--Public Support for Presidential Nomination Reform]]></title>
<link>http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/3/578?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>The presidential nomination calendar has become increasingly front loaded in recent years as more and more states try to squeeze into the earliest possible dates. This front loading has produced conflict between the national parties and the states and culminated in a nomination calendar with little rhyme or reason to its schedule. Thus, various reform proposals have been suggested. This paper reviews public opinion on two avenues. First, it reports on public evaluations of the current system, which is lukewarm, but public dissatisfaction tends to focus on elements other than the calendar. Second, public support for regional primaries, population-based groupings of primaries and a single-day national primary are examined in polls from 1968 to 2007.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Norrander, B.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>Fri, 28 Aug 2009 03:55:27 PDT</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/poq/nfp036</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Trends--Public Support for Presidential Nomination Reform]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>American Association for Public Opinion Research</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>73</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>589</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-09-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>578</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>The Polls</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/3/590?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[John D. Griffin and Brian Newman. Minority Report: Evaluating Political Equality in America]]></title>
<link>http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/3/590?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Burden, B. C.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>Fri, 28 Aug 2009 03:55:27 PDT</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/poq/nfp045</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[John D. Griffin and Brian Newman. Minority Report: Evaluating Political Equality in America]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>American Association for Public Opinion Research</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>73</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>592</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-09-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>590</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Book Reviews</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/3/592?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Mick P. Couper. Designing Effective Web Surveys]]></title>
<link>http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/3/592?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Christian, L. M.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>Fri, 28 Aug 2009 03:55:27 PDT</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/poq/nfp046</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Mick P. Couper. Designing Effective Web Surveys]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>American Association for Public Opinion Research</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>73</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>595</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-09-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>592</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Book Reviews</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/3/595?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Maria Elizabeth Grabe and Erik Page Bucy. Image Bite Politics: News and the Visual Framing of Elections]]></title>
<link>http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/3/595?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jerit, J.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>Fri, 28 Aug 2009 03:55:27 PDT</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/poq/nfp050</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Maria Elizabeth Grabe and Erik Page Bucy. Image Bite Politics: News and the Visual Framing of Elections]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>American Association for Public Opinion Research</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>73</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>598</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-09-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>595</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Book Reviews</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/3/599?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Harry O'Neill, 1929-2008]]></title>
<link>http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/3/599?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Bowers, D., Roberts, G., Schulman, M.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>Fri, 28 Aug 2009 03:55:28 PDT</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/poq/nfp059</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Harry O'Neill, 1929-2008]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>American Association for Public Opinion Research</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>73</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>601</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-09-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>599</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>In Memoriam</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/3/602?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Erratum]]></title>
<link>http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/3/602?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>Fri, 28 Aug 2009 03:55:28 PDT</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/poq/nfp039</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Erratum]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>American Association for Public Opinion Research</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>73</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>602</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-09-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>602</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Erratum</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/3/603?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Proceedings of the Sixty-Fourth Annual Conference of the American Association for Public Opinion Research]]></title>
<link>http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/3/603?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Link, M. W.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>Fri, 28 Aug 2009 03:55:28 PDT</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/poq/nfp058</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Proceedings of the Sixty-Fourth Annual Conference of the American Association for Public Opinion Research]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>American Association for Public Opinion Research</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>73</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>605</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-09-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>603</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>AAPOR Proceedings</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/3/606?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[The American Association for Public Opinion Research Presents the AAPOR AWARD For Exceptionally Distinguished Achievement to Elizabeth A. Martin]]></title>
<link>http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/3/606?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Kulka, R.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>Fri, 28 Aug 2009 03:55:28 PDT</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/poq/nfp054</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[The American Association for Public Opinion Research Presents the AAPOR AWARD For Exceptionally Distinguished Achievement to Elizabeth A. Martin]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>American Association for Public Opinion Research</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>73</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>606</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-09-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>606</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>AAPOR Proceedings</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/3/607?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[The American Association for Public Opinion Research Presents the 2009 WARREN J. MITOFSKY INNOVATORS AWARD to STEPHEN J. BLUMBERG, JULIAN V. LUKE, AND MARCIE L. CYNAMON For Their Work in Providing the Field of Survey Research with Timely Data on Changing Telephony Patterns in the United States]]></title>
<link>http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/3/607?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>Fri, 28 Aug 2009 03:55:28 PDT</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/poq/nfp056</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[The American Association for Public Opinion Research Presents the 2009 WARREN J. MITOFSKY INNOVATORS AWARD to STEPHEN J. BLUMBERG, JULIAN V. LUKE, AND MARCIE L. CYNAMON For Their Work in Providing the Field of Survey Research with Timely Data on Changing Telephony Patterns in the United States]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>American Association for Public Opinion Research</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>73</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>607</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-09-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>607</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>AAPOR Proceedings</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/3/608?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[The American Association for Public Opinion Research Presents the 2009 WARREN J. MITOFSKY INNOVATORS AWARD to VASJA VEHOVAR AND KATJA LOZAR MANFREDA For Their Work Creating and Fostering the WebSM Portal]]></title>
<link>http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/3/608?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>Fri, 28 Aug 2009 03:55:28 PDT</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/poq/nfp057</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[The American Association for Public Opinion Research Presents the 2009 WARREN J. MITOFSKY INNOVATORS AWARD to VASJA VEHOVAR AND KATJA LOZAR MANFREDA For Their Work Creating and Fostering the WebSM Portal]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>American Association for Public Opinion Research</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>73</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>608</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-09-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>608</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>AAPOR Proceedings</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/3/609?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[The American Association for Public Opinion Research Presents the 2009 AAPOR BOOK AWARD to Shanto Iyengar and Donald R. Kinder For News That Matters: Television and American Opinion University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL (1987)]]></title>
<link>http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/3/609?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>Fri, 28 Aug 2009 03:55:28 PDT</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/poq/nfp055</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[The American Association for Public Opinion Research Presents the 2009 AAPOR BOOK AWARD to Shanto Iyengar and Donald R. Kinder For News That Matters: Television and American Opinion University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL (1987)]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>American Association for Public Opinion Research</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>73</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>609</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-09-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>609</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>AAPOR Proceedings</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/3/610?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Presidential Address: Plus Ca Change, Plus C'est La Meme Chose? AAPOR's Standards Code and Procedures]]></title>
<link>http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/3/610?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Kulka, R. A.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>Fri, 28 Aug 2009 03:55:28 PDT</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/poq/nfp053</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Presidential Address: Plus Ca Change, Plus C'est La Meme Chose? AAPOR's Standards Code and Procedures]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>American Association for Public Opinion Research</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>73</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>628</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-09-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>610</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>AAPOR Proceedings</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/3/629?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[American Association for Public Opinion Research Annual Membership Meeting]]></title>
<link>http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/3/629?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Boyle, J.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>Fri, 28 Aug 2009 03:55:28 PDT</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/poq/nfp060</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[American Association for Public Opinion Research Annual Membership Meeting]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>American Association for Public Opinion Research</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>3</prism:number>
<prism:volume>73</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>638</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-09-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>629</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>AAPOR Proceedings</prism:section>
</item>

<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>Fri, 12 Jun 2009 16:46:21 PDT</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>Fri, 12 Jun 2009 16:46:21 PDT</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>Fri, 12 Jun 2009 16:46:21 PDT</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>Fri, 12 Jun 2009 16:46:21 PDT</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>Fri, 12 Jun 2009 16:46:21 PDT</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>Fri, 12 Jun 2009 16:46:21 PDT</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>Fri, 12 Jun 2009 16:46:21 PDT</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>Fri, 12 Jun 2009 16:46:21 PDT</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>Fri, 12 Jun 2009 16:46:21 PDT</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>Fri, 12 Jun 2009 16:46:21 PDT</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>Fri, 12 Jun 2009 16:46:21 PDT</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>Fri, 12 Jun 2009 16:46:21 PDT</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>Fri, 12 Jun 2009 16:46:21 PDT</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>Fri, 12 Jun 2009 16:46:21 PDT</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>Fri, 12 Jun 2009 16:46:21 PDT</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>Fri, 12 Jun 2009 16:46:21 PDT</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>Fri, 12 Jun 2009 16:46:21 PDT</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>

<item rdf:about="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/1/1?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Editors' Note]]></title>
<link>http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/1/1?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Druckman, J. N., Mathiowetz, N. A.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>Mon, 06 Apr 2009 14:17:34 PDT</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/poq/nfp001</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Editors' Note]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>American Association for Public Opinion Research</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>1</prism:number>
<prism:volume>73</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>6</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-03-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>1</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Editors' Note</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/1/7?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Core Networks and Whites' Attitudes Toward Immigrants and Immigration Policy]]></title>
<link>http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/1/7?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>Recent immigration has made the United States significantly more racially and ethnically diverse. These demographic changes prompt questions regarding intergroup conflict. With data from the 2004 General Social Survey and the 2000 Census, I add to this discussion by using multilevel models to evaluate a network perspective in predicting native-born whites&rsquo; attitudes toward immigrants and immigration policy. The results indicate that native-born whites who are embedded in educated core networks with nonwhite alters are likely to hold pro-immigrant attitudes, while those who are embedded in older and tighter core networks are likely to hold anti-immigrant attitudes, controlling for individual- and group-level factors. Personal contacts play an important role in shaping native-born whites&rsquo; opinions of immigrants and immigration policy, regardless of the presence of or interaction with immigrants. At the same time, core networks also condition the effects of group threat and intergroup contact on immigration attitudes, suggesting that the interpersonal environment and the broader social environment interact during opinion formation.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Berg, J. A.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>Mon, 06 Apr 2009 14:17:34 PDT</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/poq/nfp011</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Core Networks and Whites' Attitudes Toward Immigrants and Immigration Policy]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>American Association for Public Opinion Research</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>1</prism:number>
<prism:volume>73</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>31</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-03-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>7</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Article</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/1/32?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Sources of Error in Cognitive Interviews]]></title>
<link>http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/1/32?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>Cognitive interviewing is used to identify problems in questionnaires under development by asking a small number of pretest participants to verbally report their thinking while answering the draft questions. Just as responses in production interviews include measurement error, so the detection of problems in cognitive interviews can include error. In the current study, we examine error in the problem detection of both cognitive interviewers evaluating their own interviews and independent judges listening to the full set of interviews. The cognitive interviewers were instructed to probe for additional information in one of two ways: the <I>Conditional Probe</I> group was instructed to probe only about what respondents had explicitly reported; the <I>Discretionary Probe</I> group was instructed to probe whenever they felt it appropriate. Agreement about problems was surprisingly low overall, but differed by interviewing technique. The Conditional Probe interviewers uncovered fewer potential problems but with higher inter-judge reliability than did the Discretionary Probe interviewers. These differences in reliability were related to the type of probes. When interviewers in either group probed beyond the content of respondents&rsquo; verbal reports, they were prone to believe that the respondent had experienced a problem when the majority of judges did not believe this to be the case (false alarms). Despite generally poor performance at the level of individual verbal reports, judges reached relatively consistent conclusions across the interviews about which questions most needed repair. Some practical measures may improve the conclusions drawn from cognitive interviews but the quality of the findings is limited by the content of the verbal reports.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Conrad, F. G., Blair, J.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>Mon, 06 Apr 2009 14:17:34 PDT</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/poq/nfp013</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Sources of Error in Cognitive Interviews]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>American Association for Public Opinion Research</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>1</prism:number>
<prism:volume>73</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>55</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-03-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>32</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Article</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/1/56?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Use of Expert Ratings as Sampling Strata for a More Cost-Effective Probability Sample of a Rare Population]]></title>
<link>http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/1/56?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>We consider situations in which externally observable characteristics allow experts to quickly categorize individual households as likely or unlikely to contain a member of a rare target population. This classification can form the basis of disproportionate stratified sampling such that households classified as "unlikely" are sampled at a lower rate than those classified as "likely," thereby reducing screening costs. Design weights account for this approach and allow unbiased estimates for the target population. We demonstrate that with sensitivity and specificity of expert classification at least 70 percent, and ideally at least 80 percent, our approach can economically increase effective sample size for a rare population. We develop heuristics for implementing this approach and demonstrate that sensitivity drives design effects and screening costs whereas specificity only drives the latter. We demonstrate that the potential gains from this approach increase as the target population becomes rarer. We further show that for most applications, unlikely strata should be sampled at 1/6 to 1/2 the rate of likely strata. This approach was applied to a survey of Cambodian immigrants in which the 82 percent of households rated "unlikely" were sampled at 1/4 the rate as "likely" households, reducing screening from 9.4 to 4.0 approaches per complete. Sensitivity and specificity were 86 percent and 91 percent, respectively. Weighted estimation had a design effect of 1.26, so screening costs per effective sample size were reduced by 47 percent. We also note that in this instance, expert classification appeared to be uncorrelated with survey outcomes of interest among eligibles.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Elliott, M. N., McCaffrey, D., Perlman, J., Marshall, G. N., Hambarsoomians, K.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>Mon, 06 Apr 2009 14:17:34 PDT</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/poq/nfp009</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Use of Expert Ratings as Sampling Strata for a More Cost-Effective Probability Sample of a Rare Population]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>American Association for Public Opinion Research</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>1</prism:number>
<prism:volume>73</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>73</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-03-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>56</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Article</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/1/74?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Survey Breakoff]]></title>
<link>http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/1/74?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>Survey respondents may start the survey but fail to complete it, resulting in breakoff. This behavior occurs in interviewer-administered surveys but it occurs at high rates in web surveys, necessitating further attention. Breakoff is one of multiple response behaviors, each of which can be affected by unique and common causes. We present a framework within which to study different response behaviors, unit nonresponse, breakoff, item nonresponse, and measurement properties, and the factors affecting them in web surveys. Theories within this framework for explaining breakoff are proposed and tested. Features within the survey that are only seen after starting are predictive of breakoff rate, distinguishing this behavior from unit nonresponse. Education, a proxy for respondent cognitive sophistication, was significantly related to breakoff rates. Furthermore, respondents who broke off did not seem inattentive, supporting further efforts in their retention. Question and questionnaire design characteristics were predictive of survey breakoff, and placed in the context of the survey response process model and respondent burden. Implications for survey design and needs for future work are discussed.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Peytchev, A.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>Mon, 06 Apr 2009 14:17:34 PDT</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/poq/nfp014</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Survey Breakoff]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>American Association for Public Opinion Research</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>1</prism:number>
<prism:volume>73</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>97</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-03-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>74</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Article</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/1/98?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Political Engagement, Mobilization, and Direct Democracy]]></title>
<link>http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/1/98?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>Research has found that states using initiatives and referendums have higher turnout, particularly in midterm elections. Existing research has not examined <I>who</I> is mobilized to vote when issues appear on statewide ballots. Building on work by Campbell (1966. "Surge and Decline: A Study of Electoral Change." In <I>Elections and the Political Order</I>, eds. A. Campbell, P. E. Converse, W. E. Miller, and D. E. Stokes. New York: Wiley), we test whether ballot measures engage and mobilize people who do not fit the profile of regular voters. Using national opinion data from the 2004 and 2006 elections, we find that independents (relative to partisans) exhibited greater awareness of and interest in ballot measures in the midterm election. This pattern is not found in the presidential election, where peripheral voters are likely to be mobilized by the stimulus of the presidential race rather than by ballot measures. Absent salient ballot measures, some episodic independent voters may not be engaged by midterm elections. This suggests that some variation in midterm turnout maybe a function of peripheral voters becoming engaged by ballot measures.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Donovan, T., Tolbert, C. J., Smith, D. A.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>Mon, 06 Apr 2009 14:17:34 PDT</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/poq/nfp017</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Political Engagement, Mobilization, and Direct Democracy]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>American Association for Public Opinion Research</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>1</prism:number>
<prism:volume>73</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>118</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-03-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>98</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Article</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/1/119?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Campaign Dynamics in Battleground and Nonbattleground States]]></title>
<link>http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/1/119?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>Strategic considerations rooted in the Electoral College system of presidential elections compel presidential campaigns to allocate resources disproportionately to competitive states. In contemporary campaigns, this results in a situation in which many voters are entirely unexposed to campaign activities over the duration of the campaign. The implications of lopsided communications that relegate voters in uncompetitive states to bystander status in presidential campaigns are potentially significant and merit greater scrutiny. In this study, I analyze how the dynamics of voter preferences in uncompetitive states compare to those in battleground states. Using data from the 2000 National Annenberg Election Survey, I find that the preferences of voters in battleground states are more variable but more stable than their counterparts in nonbattleground states. As expected, I also find stronger evidence of campaign effects in battleground states.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Panagopoulos, C.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>Mon, 06 Apr 2009 14:17:34 PDT</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/poq/nfp010</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Campaign Dynamics in Battleground and Nonbattleground States]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>American Association for Public Opinion Research</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>1</prism:number>
<prism:volume>73</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>129</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-03-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>119</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Research Notes</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/1/130?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[The Immensely Inflated News Audience: Assessing Bias in Self-Reported News Exposure]]></title>
<link>http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/1/130?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>Many studies of media effects use self-reported news exposure as their key independent variable without establishing its validity. Motivated by anecdotal evidence that people's reports of their own media use can differ considerably from independent assessments, this study examines systematically the accuracy of survey-based self-reports of news exposure. I compare survey estimates to Nielsen estimates, which do not rely on self-reports. Results show severe overreporting of news exposure. Survey estimates of network news exposure follow trends in Nielsen ratings relatively well, but exaggerate exposure by a factor of 3 on average and as much as eightfold for some demographics. It follows that apparent media effects may arise not because of differences in exposure, but because of unknown differences in the accuracy of reporting exposure.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Prior, M.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>Mon, 06 Apr 2009 14:17:34 PDT</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/poq/nfp002</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[The Immensely Inflated News Audience: Assessing Bias in Self-Reported News Exposure]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>American Association for Public Opinion Research</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>1</prism:number>
<prism:volume>73</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>143</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-03-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>130</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Research Notes</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/1/144?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Political Trust, Ideology, and Public Support for Tax Cuts]]></title>
<link>http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/1/144?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>This article analyzes the relationship between political trust, ideology, and public support for tax cutting. Conceptualizing tax cuts as government action under conditions of risk, I argue that political trust should increase rather than decrease public support for tax cutting, particularly among those for whom endorsement of tax cuts entails ideological sacrifice. The results show that political trust increases support for a variety of tax cut initiatives, but only among liberals. The results further suggest that trust is an instrumental resource that can bolster support for a conservative as well as a liberal policy agenda.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Rudolph, T. J.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>Mon, 06 Apr 2009 14:17:34 PDT</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/poq/nfp012</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Political Trust, Ideology, and Public Support for Tax Cuts]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>American Association for Public Opinion Research</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>1</prism:number>
<prism:volume>73</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>158</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-03-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>144</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Research Notes</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/1/159?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Pre-Election Polling: Identifying Likely Voters Using Iterative Expert Data Mining]]></title>
<link>http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/1/159?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>One often-noted difficulty in pre-election polling is the identification of likely voters. Our objective is to build a likely voter model for presidential elections that efficiently balances accuracy and number of questions used. We employ the Iterative Expert Data Mining technique and data from the American National Election Studies to identify a small number of survey questions that can be used to classify likely voters while maintaining or surpassing the accuracy rates of other models. Specifically, we propose two survey items that together correctly classify 78 percent of respondents as voters or nonvoters over a multielection, multidecade period. We argue that our proposed model compares favorably to competing models by capturing the successful elements of those models while ignoring other elements that constrain identification. We end by suggesting that our model offers a new approach to identifying and evaluating likely voters that may maintain or increase accuracy without also increasing cost.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Murray, G. R., Riley, C., Scime, A.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>Mon, 06 Apr 2009 14:17:34 PDT</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/poq/nfp004</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Pre-Election Polling: Identifying Likely Voters Using Iterative Expert Data Mining]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>American Association for Public Opinion Research</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>1</prism:number>
<prism:volume>73</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>171</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-03-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>159</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Research Notes</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/1/172?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Context Effects and Social Change]]></title>
<link>http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/1/172?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>Strack and Martin (1987) have proposed that although probability samples of general populations are needed for studying attitude content, psychological processes such as context and other response effects can be investigated quite well or even better with homogeneous convenience samples. The present paper shows that, in contrast, when social change is included as an essential variable in a study of a well-known context effect, the process itself is weakened and may even disappear. The distinction between content and process is not always tenable in surveys once we include long-term social change as a variable, as we must as the horizon for survey research extends further and further into the future.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Schuman, H.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>Mon, 06 Apr 2009 14:17:34 PDT</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/poq/nfp003</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Context Effects and Social Change]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>American Association for Public Opinion Research</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>1</prism:number>
<prism:volume>73</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>179</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-03-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>172</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Research Notes</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/1/180?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Order Effects in Complex and Simple Tasks]]></title>
<link>http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/1/180?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>There is strong evidence that the order in which response options are presented in surveys significantly affects the answers that respondents provide. According to the theory of survey satisficing, the severity of order effects should increase with task difficulty. However, the tasks provided to respondents in existing studies of response-order effects are generally very simple, making it difficult to evaluate the satisficing hypothesis. Further, evidence from cognitive psychology suggests a completely different mechanism: people are more motivated to persist in completing tasks when they are intricate, challenging, and enriching. I designed survey experiments administered over the Internet consisting of two types of tasks: (1) a complex task in which respondents were asked to rank seven public officials in order of how much they should be blamed for the property damage and loss of life caused by Hurricane Katrina in the city of New Orleans; and (2) a series of simple tasks in which respondents answered items with ordinal response choices on rating scales. I found almost no order effects in the complex task among all educational groups. Conversely, I found significant and substantial order effects in the simple tasks, particularly among low-education respondents. These results suggest that theories of survey satisficing may simplify matters by assuming that satisficing monotonically increases with task difficulty. Moreover, my findings have important implications for questionnaire design, underscoring the importance of randomizing response options.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Malhotra, N.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>Mon, 06 Apr 2009 14:17:35 PDT</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/poq/nfp008</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Order Effects in Complex and Simple Tasks]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>American Association for Public Opinion Research</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>1</prism:number>
<prism:volume>73</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>198</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-03-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>180</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Research Notes</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/1/199?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[The Polls--Trends Confidence in Law Enforcement]]></title>
<link>http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/1/199?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[
<p>Public confidence in law enforcement remains high but showed some signs of slight decline from the late 1990s to the middle of this decade. Confidence in law enforcement fluctuated some in apparent response to the terrorist attacks of September 11 and has not been particularly strong when viewed through a racial lens. In keeping with falling crime rates through the first part of this decade followed by a recent rise, the percentage of the public that believed anticrime spending to be too little declined slightly from the late 1990s to 2005 but rebounded in 2006.</p>
]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Shaw, G. M., Brannan, K. E.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>Mon, 06 Apr 2009 14:17:35 PDT</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/poq/nfp015</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[The Polls--Trends Confidence in Law Enforcement]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>American Association for Public Opinion Research</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>1</prism:number>
<prism:volume>73</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>220</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-03-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>199</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>The Polls-Trends</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/1/221?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Andrew Gelman, David Park, Boris Shor, Joseph Bafumi, and Jeronimo Cortina. Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State: Why Americans Vote the Way They Do]]></title>
<link>http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/1/221?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Lenz, G. S.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>Mon, 06 Apr 2009 14:17:35 PDT</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/poq/nfp005</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Andrew Gelman, David Park, Boris Shor, Joseph Bafumi, and Jeronimo Cortina. Red State, Blue State, Rich State, Poor State: Why Americans Vote the Way They Do]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>American Association for Public Opinion Research</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>1</prism:number>
<prism:volume>73</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>223</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-03-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>221</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Book Reviews</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/1/224?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[D. Sunshine Hillygus and Todd G. Shields. The Persuadable Voter: Wedge Issues in Presidential Campaigns]]></title>
<link>http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/1/224?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Sides, J.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>Mon, 06 Apr 2009 14:17:35 PDT</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/poq/nfp006</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[D. Sunshine Hillygus and Todd G. Shields. The Persuadable Voter: Wedge Issues in Presidential Campaigns]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>American Association for Public Opinion Research</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>1</prism:number>
<prism:volume>73</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>226</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-03-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>224</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Book Reviews</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/1/226?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Larry M. Bartels. Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age]]></title>
<link>http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/1/226?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[Winter, N. J. G.]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>Mon, 06 Apr 2009 14:17:35 PDT</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/poq/nfp007</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Larry M. Bartels. Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>American Association for Public Opinion Research</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>1</prism:number>
<prism:volume>73</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>229</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-03-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>226</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Book Reviews</prism:section>
</item>

<item rdf:about="http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/1/230?rss=1">
<title><![CDATA[Manuscript Referees, 2007-2008]]></title>
<link>http://poq.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/73/1/230?rss=1</link>
<description><![CDATA[]]></description>
<dc:creator><![CDATA[]]></dc:creator>
<dc:date>Mon, 06 Apr 2009 14:17:35 PDT</dc:date>
<dc:identifier>info:doi/10.1093/poq/nfp016</dc:identifier>
<dc:title><![CDATA[Manuscript Referees, 2007-2008]]></dc:title>
<dc:publisher>American Association for Public Opinion Research</dc:publisher>
<prism:number>1</prism:number>
<prism:volume>73</prism:volume>
<prism:endingPage>232</prism:endingPage>
<prism:publicationDate>2009-03-01</prism:publicationDate>
<prism:startingPage>230</prism:startingPage>
<prism:section>Manuscript Referees, 2007-2008</prism:section>
</item>

</rdf:RDF>