Version 01 Codebook
-------------------
CODEBOOK INTRODUCTION FILE
1990 POST-ELECTION STUDY
(1990.TV)














                      AMERICAN NATIONAL ELECTION STUDIES

                             1990 POST ELECTION STUDY

 






                             Principal Investigators

                                Warren E. Miller
                                Donald R. Kinder
                              Steven J. Rosenstone
                        and the National Election Studies

                          Center for Political Studies
                             University of Michigan














                         ICPSR ARCHIVE NUMBER 9548






                             BIBLIOGRAPHIC CITATION


          Publications based  on   ICPSR   data   collections   should
          acknowledge   those  sources  by  means   of   bibliographic
          citations.  To ensure  that  such  source  attributions  are
          captured   for  social  science   bibliographic   utilities,
          citations must appear  in  footnotes  or  in  the  reference
          section of  publications.   The  bibliographic  citation for
          this data collection is:


                Miller, Warren E., Donald R. Kinder, Steven J.
                Rosenstone, and the National Election Studies.
                AMERICAN NATIONAL ELECTION STUDY, 1990:
                POST-ELECTION SURVEY [Computer file]. Conducted
                by University of Michigan, Center for Political
                Studies. 2nd ICPSR ed. Ann Arbor, MI:
                Inter-university Consortium for Political and
                Social Research [producer and distributor], 1992.



                REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ON USE OF ICPSR RESOURCES

          To provide funding agencies with essential information about
          use of archival resources and to facilitate the exchange  of
          information about  ICPSR  participants' research activities,
          users of  ICPSR  data  are  requested  to  send   to   ICPSR
          bibliographic citations  for  each  completed  manuscript or
          thesis abstract.  Please indicate in a  cover  letter  which
          data were used.



                                 DATA DISCLAIMER

          The original collector of the data, ICPSR, and the  relevant
          funding agency  bear  no  responsibility  for  uses  of this
          collection or for interpretations or inferences  based  upon
          such uses.







                   TABLE OF CONTENTS


           Note: >>sections in the codebook introduction and
           codebook appendix can be navigated in the
           machine-readable files by searching ">>".



INTRODUCTORY MATERIAL  (file int1990.cbk)
---------------------
>> 1990 STUDY DESCRIPTION
>> 1990 SURVEY CONTENT AND ADMINISTRATION
>> 1990 SAMPLING INFORMATION
>> 1990 VOTE VALIDATION AND ELECTION ADMINISTRATION SURVEY DATA
>> 1990 NES STAFF AND TECHNICAL PAPER
>> 1990 LIST OF PILOT STUDY REPORTS-1989
>> 1990 CODEBOOK INFORMATION
>> 1990 ICPSR PROCESSING INFORMATION
>> 1990 VARIABLE DESCRIPTION LIST


CODEBOOK
--------
    1990 variables


APPENDICES  (file app1990.cbk)
----------
>> 1980 CENSUS DEFINITIONS
>> 1990 PARTY/CANDIDATE MASTER CODE
>> 1990 CAMPAIGN ISSUES MASTER CODE
>> 1990 CANDIDATE NUMBER CODE AND LIST
>> 1990 IMPORTANT PROBLEMS MASTER CODE
>> 1990 PARTY DIFFERENCES MASTER CODE
>> 1990 RELIGIOUS PREFERENCE MASTER CODE
>> 1980 CENSUS OCCUPATION CODE
>> 1980 CENSUS INDUSTRY CODE
>> 1990 ICPSR OCCUPATION RECODES
>> 1990 NATIONALITY AND ETHNIC CODE
>> 1990 STATE AND COUNTRY CODE
>> CITIES WITH POPULATION OF 25,000 AND OVER, 1990 Study



>> 1990 STUDY DESCRIPTION

          The NES/CPS American National Election Study 1990 was
          conducted by the Center for Political Studies of the
          Institute for Social Research, under the general direction
          of principal investigators Warren E. Miller, Donald R.
          Kinder and Steven J. Rosenstone. Santa Traugott is the
          Project Manager for the National Election Studies.  Giovanna
          Morchio was the 1990 Election Study manager for NES,
          overseeing the study from very early planning stages through
          data release.

          This is the twenty-first in a series of studies of American
          national elections produced by the Political Behavior
          Program of the Survey Research Center and the Center for
          Political Studies, and it is the seventh such study to be
          conducted under the auspices of National Science Foundation
          Grants providing long-term support for the national election
          studies.  Both the 1990 National Election Study and the Vote
          Validation Study were funded under grant number SES-8808361.
          Since 1978 the NES election studies have been designed by a
          National Board of Overseers, the members of which meet
          several times a year to plan content and administration of
          the major study components.

          Board members during the planning of the 1990 National
          Election Study included:  Morris P. Fiorina, Harvard
          University, Chair; Richard A. Brody, Stanford University;
          Stanley Feldman, University of Kentucky; Edie N. Goldenberg,
          University of Michigan; Mary Jackman, University of
          California at Davis, Gary C. Jacobson, University of
          California at San Diego; Stanley Kelley, Jr., Princeton
          University; Thomas Mann, The Brookings Institution; Douglas
          Rivers, Stanford University; John Zaller, the University of
          California at Los Angeles; Warren E. Miller, Arizona State
          University, ex officio; Donald R. Kinder, and Steven J.
          Rosenstone, University of Michigan, ex officio.

          As part of the planning process, a special planning
          committee was appointed, a pilot study conducted, and
          stimulus letters sent to the members of the scholarly
          community soliciting input on study plans.  The 1990 Study
          Planning Committee included Kinder and Miller, several Board
          members (Mann, Co-chair; Brody; Feldman; Jackman; Miller, ex
          officio; and Rosenstone, ex officio and Co-chair), and four
          other scholars (Jon Krosnick, Ohio State University; Gregory
          Markus and Vincent Price, University of Michigan; and David
          Leege, Notre Dame University).

          A two-wave pilot study was carried out in July and September
          of 1989 for the purpose of developing new instrumentation
          for the 1990 Election Study.  New items were tested in the
          area of religious attitudes and denominational
          affiliation, media exposure and the type of information
          recalled, and individualism.  A significant portion of the
          study was devoted to experiments contrasting different
          instrumentation for issue questions:  seven-point scales
          versus branching response alternatives; "framed" versus
          "stripped" questions; unipolar versus bipolar scales; and
          filtered versus unfiltered questions.  Data from the 1989
          Pilot Study are available through the Inter-university
          Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR 9295).
          Results from the pilot study (as summarized in Pilot Study
          Reports, page xix) were used by the Planning Committee in
          formulating recommendations to the Board about study content
          for the 1990 Election Study.

          The 1991 membership of the NES Board of Overseers is:
          Stanley Feldman, State University of New York, Stony Brook;
          Morris J. Fiorina, Harvard University; Mary Jackman,
          University of California, Davis; Gary Jacobson, University
          of California, San Diego; David Leege, Notre Dame
          University; Thomas Mann, The Brookings Institution; Douglas
          Rivers, Stanford University; John Zaller, University of
          California, Los Angeles.





>> 1990 SURVEY CONTENT AND ADMINISTRATION

          SURVEY CONTENT

          The Board of Overseers balanced a number of considerations
          in selecting content for the Post-Election Survey. There
          was, as always, the necessity of maintaining continuity with
          past surveys.  All congressional time-series items were
          evaluated by the Board, and input was solicited from the
          user community about whether each should be used for the
          1990 Study.

          The items that fall into the time-series, or "core"
          category, are:  campaign attention; likes and dislikes of
          political parties; likes and dislikes of congressional
          candidates; contact with Congressperson or candidate; vote
          for Representative, Senator and Governor; most important
          problem; campaign activities; system support and efficacy
          items; feeling thermometer ratings of congressional
          candidates and groups; retrospective economic evaluations
          (national and individual); liberal-conservative scale (with
          proximities); party identification, seven-point issue scales
          with placements; federal budget preferences; views on
          abortion; and the standard and extensive battery of
          demographic questions.

          A number of questions are new or relatively new to the
          Study. Some came from the piloting work described above--
          e.g., the new measures of denominational affiliation;
          individualism; and attitudes toward abortion and
          discrimination against women. Others were designed to
          reflect topical concerns of the campaign.  Items in this
          category include some foreign policy issue items relating to
          changes in Eastern Europe and to events in the Persian Gulf;
          and knowledge of and attitudes about the failures of the
          savings and loans financial institutions and about the
          federal budget deficit.

          SURVEY ADMINISTRATION

          Two forms were used in order to incorporate the maximum
          amount of content.  (Even so, the average length of the
          survey interview was 78 minutes.)  Half of the study sample
          was randomly assigned to Form A, and the other half to Form
          B. More than 75 percent of the questionnaire content was the
          same in both forms; Form A had additional questions relating
          to values and individualism; Form B had additional content
          relating to foreign relations. In addition, there was a
          question form experiment (branching alternatives vs. a
          seven-point scale).

          In the Post-election survey, respondents are asked lengthy
          series of questions about their particular Congresspersons
          and Senators. Interviewers must pre-edit questionnaires to
          fill in the names appropriate for the state and
          congressional district in which the respondent is living (or
          was living during the pre-election interview).  Interviewers
          are sent "candidate lists"  for each congressional district
          in the sample segments in which they are interviewing.  Each
          candidate and Senator on that list is assigned a particular
          number that reflects his or her incumbency status and party.
          (See Candidate Number Code)  Particular
          questions in the survey require the insertion by the
          interviewer during pre-editing of the names of candidates
          with specific numbers.  See, for example, Q. B13, the
          Feeling Thermometer.  The Candidate Lists used by the
          interviewers, which show which candidates are associated
          with which congressional district and with which numbers
          they are tagged, can be found in the Appendix (Note 4) of
          this documentation.

          NOTES ON CONFIDENTIAL VARIABLES

          Starting with the 1986 Election Study, occupation code
          variables have been released in somewhat less detail than in
          years past.  The dataset includes a two-digit code with 71
          categories corresponding to Census Bureau occupational
          groupings.  Those who have need of the full occupation code
          for their research should contact the NES project staff for
          information about the conditions under which access to these
          data may be provided.

          Similarly, the National Election Studies have not included
          information for census tracts or minor civil divisions since
          1978. Permission to use the more detailed geographic
          information for scholarly research may be obtained from the
          Board of Overseers. More information about this is available
          from NES project staff.

          Coding of the new religious denomination variable is in some
          cases based on an alphabetic "other, please specify"
          variable (Variable 541).  This variable is restricted for
          reasons of confidentiality, but access may be provided to
          legitimate scholars under established NES procedures.

          OPEN-ENDED MATERIALS

          Traditionally, the Election Studies have contained several
          minutes of open-ended responses (for example, the
          congressional candidates likes and dislikes).  These
          questions are put into Master Codes by the SRC coding
          section.  Other scholars have developed alternative or
          supplemental coding schemes for the questions (for example,
          the levels of conceptualization, released as ICPSR #8151).
          The Board of Overseers wishes to encourage these efforts but
          in ways that respect the NES and SRC obligation to protect
          the privacy and anonymity of respondents.  Circumstances
          under which individuals may have access to transcribed
          versions of these questions have been worked out and those
          interested should contact the NES project staff for further
          details.



                                     Table 1

                        FIELD ADMINISTRATION INFORMATION


                         Response Rate:            71.4%

                        Length of Interview:     78.0 min

                          No. of Respondents:      2000






                                     Table 2

                 NUMBER AND CUMULATIVE PERCENT OF INTERVIEWS IN
                   TWO-WEEK INTERVALS FROM ELECTION DAY, 1990


                       Nov. 07-Nov. 17       836      42%

                       Nov. 18-Dec. 01       594      72%

                       Dec. 02-Dec. 22       413      92%

                       Dec. 23-Jan. 05       106      97%

                       Jan. 06-Jan. 26        51     100%






>> 1990 SAMPLING INFORMATION [1]

          STUDY POPULATION

          The study population for the 1990 NES is defined to include
          all United States citizens of voting age on or before the
          1990 Election Day.  Eligible citizens must have resided in
          housing units, other than on military reservations, in the
          48 coterminous states.  This definition excludes persons
          living in Alaska or Hawaii and requires eligible persons to
          have been both a United States citizen and 18 years of age
          on or before the 6th of November 1990.

          MULTI-STAGE AREA PROBABILITY SAMPLE DESIGN

          The 1990 NES is based on a multi-stage area probability
          sample selected from the Survey Research Center's (SRC)
          National Sample design.  Identification of the 1990 NES
          sample respondents was conducted using a four-stage sampling
          process--a primary stage sampling of U.S. Standard
          Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSA's) and counties,
          followed by a second stage sampling of area segments, a
          third stage sampling of housing units within sampled area
          segments, and concluding with the random selection of a
          single respondent from selected housing units.  A detailed
          documentation of the SRC National Sample is provided in the
          SRC publication titled 1980 SRC NATIONAL SAMPLE: DESIGN AND
          DEVELOPMENT.

          Primary Stage Selection

          The selection of primary stage sampling units (PSU's),[2]
          which depending on the sample stratum are either SMSA's,
          single counties or groupings of small counties, is based on
          the county-level 1980 Census Reports of Population and
          Housing. Primary stage units were assigned to 84 explicit
          strata based on SMSA/Non-SMSA status, PSU size, and
          geographic location. Sixteen of the 84 strata contain only a
          single self-representing PSU, each of which is included with
          certainty in the primary stage of sample selection.  The
          remaining 68 nonself-representing strata contain more than

          ------------------

          [1] Technical description of the 1990 National Election
          Study Sample Design prepared by the Sampling Section of the
          Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research,
          University of Michigan, February 1991.

          [2] In SRC publications and survey materials, the term
          "primary area" is used interchangeably with the more common
          "primary stage unit" terminology.

           ------------------

          one PSU.  From each of these nonself-representing strata,
          one PSU was sampled with probability proportionate to its
          size (PPS) measured in 1980 occupied housing units. The full
          SRC National Sample of 84 primary stage selections was
          designed to be optimal for surveys roughly two times the
          size of the 1990 NES.  To permit the flexibility needed for
          optimal design of smaller survey samples, the primary stage
          of the SRC National Sample can be readily partitioned into
          smaller subsamples of PSU's.  Each of the partitions
          represents a stratified subselection from the full 84 PSU
          design.

          The sample for the 1990 NES is selected from the "one-half"
          partition of the 1980 SRC National Sample.  The "one-half
          sample" includes 11 of the 16 self-representing SMSA PSU's
          and a stratified subsampling of 34 (of the 68)
          nonself-representing PSU's of the SRC National Sample.
          Table 3 identifies the PSU's for the 1990 National Election
          Study by SMSA status and Region.

          Second Stage Selection of Area Segments

          The second stage of the 1980 National Sample was selected
          directly from computerized files that were prepared from the
          1980 Census summary tape file series (STF1-B).  The
          designated second-stage sampling units (SSU's), termed "area
          segments," are comprised of census blocks in the
          metropolitan primary areas and enumeration districts (ED's)
          in the rural non-SMSA's and rural areas of SMSA primary
          areas.  Each SSU block, block combination or enumeration
          district was assigned a measure of size equal to the total
          1980 occupied housing unit count for the area (minimum =
          50).  Second stage sampling of area segments was performed
          with probabilities proportionate to the assigned measures of
          size.

          A three-step process of ordering the SSU's within the
          primary areas produced an implicit stratification of the
          area segments in the second stage sampling frame, stratified
          at the county level by geographic location and population.
          Area segments were stratified within county at the Minor
          Civil Division (MCD) level by size and income, and at the
          block and ED level by location within the MCD or county.
          (For details, refer to the SRC publication, 1980 NATIONAL
          SAMPLE: DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT.)

          Systematic PPS sampling was used to select the area segments
          from the second stage sampling frame for each county.  In
          the self-representing (SR) PSU's the number of sample area
          segments varied in proportion to the size of the primary
          stage unit, from a high of b=18 area segments in the SR New
          York SMSA to a low of b=7 area segments in the smaller SR
          PSU's such as San Francisco. A total of b=6 area segments




                                     Table 3

                   PSU'S IN THE 1990 NES POST-ELECTION SURVEY
                           by: SMSA Status and Region

          REGION                        SMSA STATUS

                                            Non
                 Self-representing   self-representing   Non-SMSA's
                       SMSA's              SMSA's
          ------------------------------------------------------------

          North-    New York, NY-NJ   Boston, MA*       Schuyler, NY
           east     Philadelphia,     Pittsburgh, PA*
                           PA-NJ      Buffalo, NY
                                      New Haven, CT
                                      Atlantic City, NJ
                                      Manchester, NH

          North     Chicago, IL       St. Louis, MO*     Sanilac, MI
          Central   Detroit, MI       Milwaukee, WI      Phillips, KS
                                      Dayton, OH         Mower, MN
                                      Des Moines, IA
                                      Grand Rapids, MI
                                      Fort Wayne, IN
                                      Steubenville, OH

          South                       Houston, TX*       Bulloch, GA
                                      Baltimore, MD*     Hale, TX
                                      Birmingham, AL     Monroe, AR
                                      Columbus, GA-AL    Bedford, TN
                                      Miami, FL          Robeson, NC
                                      Lakeland, FL
                                      McAllen, TX
                                      Wheeling, WV
                                      Knoxville, TN
                                      Richmond, VA

          West    Los Angeles, CA     Seattle, WA        Eldorado-
                  San Francisco, CA   Denver, WY           Albine, CA
                                      Anaheim, CA        Carbon, WY
                                      Fresno, CA
                                      Eugene, OR

          ------------------

          NOTE:  The PSU's marked with an asterisk (*) are
          Self-Representing for sample designs that use the two-thirds
          or larger portion of the sample.  For the half-sample
          design, only 6 of the 16 Self-Representing areas remain
          Self-Representing.  The other ten Self-Representing PSU's
          are paired and only five are used in the half-sample design,
          each representing both itself and the PSU it is paired with.

          -------------------

          was selected from each of the a=39 nonself-representing
          (NSR) PSU's (except Houston that had 7 segments selected). A
          total of 303 segments were selected, 68 in the six
          self-representing PSU's and 235 in the nonself-representing
          PSU's.

          Third Stage Selection of Housing Units

          For each area segment selected in the second sampling stage,
          a listing was made of all housing units located within the
          physical boundaries of the segment. For segments with a very
          large number of expected housing units, all housing units in
          a subselected part of the segment were listed.  The final
          equal probability sample of housing units for the 1990 NES
          was systematically selected from the housing unit listings
          for the sampled area segments.

          The overall probability of selection for 1990 NES households
          was f=.00003761 or .3761 in 10,000.  The equal probability
          sample of households was achieved by using the standard
          multi-stage sampling technique of setting the sampling rate
          for selecting housing units within area segments to be
          inversely proportional to the PPS probabilities (see above)
          used to select the PSU and area segment.

          Fourth Stage Respondent Selection

          Within each sampled housing unit, the SRC interviewer
          prepared a complete listing of all eligible household
          members.  Using an objective procedure described by Kish[3]
          (1949), a single respondent was then selected at random to
          be interviewed.  Regardless of circumstances, no
          substitutions were permitted for the designated respondent.

          SAMPLE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS

          The targeted minimum completed interview sample size for the
          1990 NES Post-Election Survey was n=1,750 cases.  In the
          original sample size computation, the following assumptions
          were made: response rate = .68, combined
          occupancy/eligibility rate = .83.  These assumptions were
          derived from survey experience in the 1986 NES Post Election
          Survey.  Table 4 provides a full description of the original
          sample design specifications.




          ------------------

          [3] L. Kish, "A Procedure for Objective Respondent Selection
          Within the Household" JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN STATISTICAL
          ASSOCIATION 44 (1949): 380-387.



                                     Table 4

                       1990 NATIONAL POST-ELECTION SURVEY
              ORIGINAL SAMPLE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS
                        AND ACTUAL SAMPLE DESIGN OUTCOMES


                                           Original
                                        Specifications     Actual
                                        and Assumptions    Outcome


          Completed interviews               1,750          2,004

             Response Rate                     .68           .714

          Eligible sample households         2,573          2,808

             Occupancy/Eligibility Rate*       .87           .802

          Final sample HU listings           3,256          3,503

             Sample growth from update**      1.05          1.068

          Sample listings from frame         3,100          3,280


          ----------------

          * Expected eligibility (.97) x occupancy (.90)

          ** Since the updating process produces about a 5% increase
          in sample lines over the count selected from the National
          Sample system, the update inflation factor was set at 1.05.




           SAMPLE DESIGN OUTCOMES

          In comparing the design stage expectations in the first
          column of Table 4 with the actual survey outcomes in the
          second column, it can be seen that the sample growth from
          the update procedure was slightly higher than expected.
          Also, the original sample design specifications
          overestimated the occupancy/eligibility rates and
          underestimated the response rate for the actual survey.
          Design stage assumptions for the study response rate and
          occupancy/eligibility rate were based on the rates obtained
          in the 1986 Post-Election Survey.

          The actual occupancy/eligibility rate for the 1990 NES Post-
          Election Survey (.802) was somewhat lower than the rate
          obtained in the 1986 NES Post-Election Survey (.835). The
          response rate for 1990 (.714) was higher than the 1986 NES
          Post-Election Survey response rate of .677 or the 1988 NES
          Pre-election response rate of .705.

          The original area probability sample for the 1990 NES was
          selected as a basic sample replicate of 3280 sample HU
          listings. n the Post-Election surveys the elapsed time
          between Election Day and the date of interview is a critical
          design consideration.  Since timing is so critical, the
          option of using a replicated sample approach to control
          final study sample size has little utility.  In order to
          ensure that no fewer than a minimum of 1750 completed
          interviews would be obtained within the study time frame,
          the initial size of the basic sample replicate was increased
          from the expected 3100 to 3280 listings (approximately a 5%
          increase). In addition, 6.8% sample growth from SRC's
          standard sample update procedure increased the size of the
          final sample to n=3503 housing units listings.  Due to the
          deliberate increase in sample size and higher than expected
          response rate, the final number of completed interviews
          (n=2004) was approximately 14.5% higher than the minimum
          interview target specified for the survey.

          WEIGHTED ANALYSIS OF 1990 NES DATA

          The area probability sample design for the 1990 NES results
          in an equal probability sample of U.S. households.  However,
          within sample households a single adult respondent is chosen
          at random to be interviewed.  Since the number of eligible
          adults may vary from one household to another, the random
          selection of a single adult introduces inequality into
          respondents' selection probabilities.  In analysis, a
          respondent selection weight should be used to compensate for
          these unequal selection probabilities.  The value of the
          respondent selection weight is exactly equal to the number
          of eligible adults in the household from which the random
          respondent was selected. The use of the respondent selection
          weight is strongly encouraged, despite past evaluations that
          have shown these weights to have little significant impact
          on the values of NES estimates of descriptive statistics.

          The current policy of the National Election Studies is not
          to include in public use data sets special analysis weights
          designed to compensate for  nonresponse or to post-stratify
          the sample to known population distribution controls.
          Analysts interested in developing their own nonresponse or
          post-stratification adjustment factors must request access
          to the necessary sample control data from the NES Board.


          SAMPLING ERRORS OF 1990 NES ESTIMATES

          Sampling Error Calculation Programs

          The probability sample design for the 1990 National Election
          Study permits the calculation of estimates of sampling error
          for survey statistics.  For calculating sampling errors of
          statistics from complex sample surveys, the OSIRIS
          statistical analysis and data management software system
          offers the PSALMS and REPERR programs. PSALMS is a general
          purpose sampling error program that incorporates the Taylor
          Series approximation approach to the estimation of variances
          of ratios (including means, scale variables, indices,
          proportions) and their differences.  REPERR is an OSIRIS
          program that incorporates algorithms for replicated
          approaches to variance estimation. Both Balanced Repeated
          Replication (BRR) and Jackknife Repeated Replication (JRR)
          are available as program options. The current version of
          REPERR is best suited for estimating sampling errors and
          design effects for regression and correlation statistics.

          Sampling Error Codes and Calculation Model

          Estimation of variances for complex sample survey estimates
          requires a computation model. Individual data records must
          be assigned sampling error codes that reflect the complex
          structure of the sample and are compatible with the
          computation algorithms of the various programs.  The
          sampling error codes for the 1990 NES are included as a
          variable in the ICPSR Public Use data set.  The assigned
          sampling error codes are designed to facilitate sampling
          error computation according to a paired selection model for
          both Taylor Series approximation and Replication method
          programs.

          Table 5 provides a description of how individual sampling
          error code values are to be paired for sampling error
          computations.  Thirty (30) pairs or strata of sampling error
          computation units (SECU's) are defined.  Each SECU in a
          stratum pair includes cases assigned to a single sampling
          error code value.  The exceptions are the second SECU in
          stratum 27 that is comprised of cases assigned sampling code
          values 36 and 55 and the second SECU in stratum 29 that is
          comprised of cases with SECU's 61 and 63.



                                     Table 5

                          1990 NES POST-ELECTION SURVEY
             PAIRED SELECTION MODEL FOR SAMPLING ERROR COMPUTATIONS


                       Pair         (SECU)         (SECU)
                     (Stratum)      1 of 2         2 of 2
                                     Codes          Codes

                         1            103            104
                         2            105            106
                         3             99            100
                         4            101            102
                         5             95             96
                         6             97             98
                         7             93             94
                         8             91             92
                         9             89             90
                        10             83             84
                        11             81             82
                        12             77             78
                        13             75             76
                        14             73             74
                        15              2              6
                        16              7              8
                        17             14             16
                        18             17             18
                        19             19             21
                        20             24             28
                        21             63             65
                        22             30             33
                        23             37             43
                        24             40             48
                        25             42             45
                        26             50             51
                        27             52          36 + 55
                        28             57             64
                        29             60          61 + 63
                        30             67             68




          Generalized Sampling Error Results for the 1990 NES
          To assist NES data analysts, the OSIRIS PSALMS program was
          used to compute sampling errors for a wide-ranging set of
          means and proportions estimated from NES survey data sets.
          For each estimate, sampling errors were computed for the
          total sample and for fifteen demographic and political
          affiliation subclasses of NES samples.  The results of these
          sampling error computations were then summarized and
          translated into the general usage sampling error table
          provided in Table 6.

          Incorporating the pattern of "design effects" observed in
          the extensive set of example computations, Table 6 provides
          approximate standard errors for percentage estimates based
          on the 1990 NES.  To use the table, examine the column
          heading to find the percentage value that best approximates
          the value of the estimated percentage that is of
          interest.[4] Next, locate the approximate sample size base
          (denominator for the proportion) in the left-hand row margin
          of the table. To find the approximate standard error of a
          percentage estimate, simply cross-reference the appropriate
          column (percentage) and row (sample size base).  Note: the
          tabulated values represent approximately one standard error
          for the percentage estimate.  To construct an approximate
          confidence interval, the analyst should apply the
          appropriate critical point from the "z" distribution (e.g.
          z=1.96 for a two-sided 95% confidence interval half-width).
          Furthermore, the approximate standard errors in the table
          apply only to single point estimates of percentages, not to
          the difference between two percentage estimates.

          The generalized variance results presented in Table 6 are a
          useful tool for initial, cursory examination of the NES
          survey results.  For more in-depth analysis and reporting of
          critical estimates, analysts are encouraged to compute exact
          estimates of standard errors using the appropriate choice of
          a sampling error program and computation model.


          ------------------

          [4] The standard error of a percentage is a symmetric
          function with its maximum centered at p=50%; i.e., the
          standards errors of p=40% and p=60% estimates are equal.



                                     Table 6

                          1990 NES POST-ELECTION SURVEY
                           GENERALIZED VARIANCE TABLE
                   APPROXIMATE STANDARD ERRORS FOR PERCENTAGES


                          For percentage estimates near

          Sample n   50%      40% or    30% or    20% or    10% or
                               60%       70%       80%       90%

              The approximate standard error of the percentage is:


             100    5.385     5.277     4.933     4.308     3.231

             200    3.912     3.824     3.581     3.128     2.343

             300    3.278     3.210     3.006     2.260     1.962

             400    2.905     2.846     2.661     2.324     1.743

             500    2.663     2.603     2.437     2.128     1.593

             750    2.294     2.244     2.094     1.830     1.379

            1000    2.078     2.039     1.907     1.657     1.250

            1500    1.846     1.803     1.688     1.474     1.102

            2000    1.722     1.691     1.568     1.368     1.030






>> 1990 VOTE VALIDATION AND ELECTION ADMINISTRATION SURVEY DATA

          The Vote Validation study was conducted by the National
          Election Studies in July of 1991 on respondents to the 1990
          National Election Study (NES).  The vote validation process
          basically involves sending name and address information for
          respondents who say they are registered to vote, to a Survey
          Research Center (SRC) field interviewer.  She is instructed
          to check with the local office at which respondents report
          being registered for the purpose of locating the
          registration records of these respondents and ascertaining
          whether or not the records show that the respondents voted
          in the most recent general election.  This is the eighth
          time that NES has done a voter validation study.  Previous
          validations were done for the 1964, 1976, 1978, 1980, 1984,
          1986, and 1988 Post Election Studies.

          A.  The Election Administration Survey Variables

          In order to conduct elections honestly, lists of eligible
          voters are generated by each election office, with each
          voter assigned to one and only one precinct.  Therefore, for
          the purpose of registration and voting, an individual must
          be associated with one and only one address, belonging in
          one and only one electoral jurisdiction.

          Since NES respondents come from a national area probability
          sample, a large number of different election offices are
          included in the validation study, usually over 100.  The
          jurisdiction of these election offices is usually the county
          but in New England and a few other states, registration and
          voting records are maintained at a local level, including
          townships.

          Because of the diversity in record keeping and access across
          these many offices, the vote validation data has two
          conceptual parts.  The most obvious part is the result of
          the record check for individual respondents.  The other part
          may perhaps be labeled "contextual" data, for these
          variables describe the search procedure and the records
          themselves.

          Variables describing the records and the search procedure
          are included because the relationship between the
          respondent's report and what is found or not found in
          official records is not necessarily a straightforward one.
          One view of the matching process is that the official
          records are always correct, and that in the event of
          discrepancy, the respondent must have "misreported" his or
          her behavior.  Another view is that the records themselves
          are but another form of measurement of a particular
          behavior, and as such, are subject to measurement error. So,
          for example, the computerized transcription of poll records,
          which are the records that have been checked in most
          offices, could be inaccurate.  The situation is made more
          complex by the fact that there appears to be an irreducible
          minimum proportion of respondents for whom a record of
          registration cannot be located at all, and logically, it is
          difficult if not impossible to say that this negative
          finding demonstrates beyond doubt that respondents are NOT
          registered.  It is always possible that with a "better"
          search, a more accurate spelling of the person's name, a
          correct understanding of where the person is actually
          registered, the record would have been located.

          It is important to note also that the search is conducted by
          human beings, specifically by SRC interviewers, who are
          trained in survey methods but not in records management, and
          who may themselves vary in terms of their understanding of
          the records, their pertinacity, the thoroughness by which
          every avenue in the records is explored, and so on.   In an
          attempt to understand the role of the interviewer herself in
          this process, NES RE-validated the 1988 respondents as part
          of the 1991 vote validation study.  The notion was that if
          there are interviewer effects, these would show up as
          different interviewers conduct record checks on the same
          people in the same offices.  The re-validation of 1988
          respondents will be released in a separate study, but the
          1988 vote information was gathered for 1990 respondents as
          well, and is included in this dataset.

          In summary, it seemed imperative to give the user
          information not only about WHAT was found, but what the
          records themselves and the search was like, so that the user
          can make some evaluation of whether record-respondent
          discrepancies cluster in particular patterns of record
          keeping or search.[5]

          Information about the records, and the search process, was
          coded from several sources.  First, the SRC interviewer who

          ------------------

          [5] This view has been evolving within NES for some period
          of time.  The following technical reports, papers, and other
          memoranda trace this development:  Traugott, S. (1989)
          "Validating Self-Reported Vote, 1964-1988"; Presser, S., S.
          Traugott, and M. Traugott (1990), "Vote 'Over' Reporting in
          Surveys: The Records or the Respondents"; Presser, S., M.
          Traugott, and S. Traugott (1991), "Extending Methodological
          Development of Survey Response Errors for Voting"; and
          Traugott, S. and G. Morchio (1991), "1990 Vote Validation."
          Any of these papers or reports are available by contacting
          NES project staff.

          ------------------

          did the records check administered a brief (10-15 minute)
          questionnaire to an official in the records office asking
          specifically about how the records were organized.  The
          purpose of this interaction was for the interviewer to gain
          information to enable her to conduct the records search
          efficiently.

          Second, as the interviewer went on to fill out the forms
          recording the results of individual record checks, that is,
          to actually use the records that had been described, her
          understanding of the records often changed, sometimes by the
          discovery of additional sources not originally described to
          her.  These discoveries were annotated on the forms
          themselves, rather than on the office interview.  The NES
          staff reviewed all of the individual record check forms from
          a particular office in conjunction with the election
          official's questionnaire.

          A third source of information, used somewhat tentatively
          because of the possibility of change in the intervening
          time, was the previous interviews conducted in the same
          office.  (NES has been in the same sample frame since 1984,
          and many of these offices have been visited three previous
          times.) These interviews were used to elucidate points that
          were not clear.  Finally, for between 20-30% of the offices,
          various points remained unclear and the offices and/or the
          SRC interviewers were called by the NES staff for further
          information.

          All of these sources were used in the coding of the election
          office variables (900757-900803).  The chief focus of the office
          variables is in what sources were actually used by the
          interviewer, and how they were used.  The data do not
          describe in detail all of the records that the office keeps.
          These election administration variables differ in focus from
          previous codings of office variables, where the interest was
          in describing the office records themselves, rather than
          those used.  The reason for this is that as staff read
          through the materials, they were struck by how frequently
          sources that were theoretically available were not used
          because they were not readily accessible.  For example, the
          office might have a computerized system for keeping track of
          registrants.  But, it is in another building, and
          interviewers don't have access to it on anything but
          printouts.  Or, the computer is "down." Often, poll books
          are stored off-site, and offices are reluctant to retrieve
          them for inspection, claiming that "everything on them is on
          the computer." Hence, while the office interview schedule
          itself is attached as part of the documentation, the user
          should be aware that the office variables are not a direct
          transcription from this questionnaire, but rather address
          the somewhat different question of what sources were
          actually used.

          B.  Preparation of the Record Check Forms for each
              Respondent

          Coversheets are prepared for each respondent who is to be
          "validated" and one individual record check form is filled
          out for each coversheet sent to the field.  Coversheets are
          assigned to particular offices.  Starting with the
          validation study conducted in 1984, NES has attempted to
          locate the registration record only for those respondents
          who tell staff that they are registered.  In thinking about
          locating those who do claim to be registered, staff know
          that people are registered at one and, in theory, only one
          locality, under a specific name.[6]

          Therefore, staff need to know exactly where a person is
          registered, and to have a "good-enough" spelling of the
          person's name so that they can be located.  When a
          registration record can't be found for a person, the
          conclusion that therefore they are not registered is
          difficult to defend against the proposition that the
          respondent is not findable because staff do not have the
          correct NAME for the respondent or that the respondent is
          for some reason registered in a different locality than
          where h/she was interviewed.

          The best way, perhaps the only way, to defend against this
          threat to the external validity of the record check, is to
          reduce the number of persons claiming to be registered for
          whom staff cannot find a record.  That in turn has come to
          mean in practice: a) questions on the interview schedule
          about exactly where a person is registered and where h/her
          polling place is; b) intensive review by staff of this
          information plus recontact information and of the spelling
          of a person's name as it was entered when the coversheet was
          originally logged in; and c) preparation of "coversheets"
          for each respondent that also include information about
          whether the person has recently changed their name, has a
          listed telephone number, family composition and residential
          mobility.  (Interviewers are NOT told whether or not the


          ------------------

          [6] A few respondents told interviewers that they were
          registered, but were very vague about exactly where, e.g.,
          "in upstate New York where I used to live."  No attempt was
          made to locate records for such respondents. In a few other
          cases, the interviewers misunderstood instructions about
          which offices they were to contact to validate the
          respondent.  These cases are treated as "non-validated."

          -------------------


          respondent reported voting.)[7]

          C.  Special Problems in Assignment of Respondents to Offices

          For a variety of reasons, 5-10% of those saying that they
          are registered to vote also tell staff that they are not
          registered in the jurisdiction in which they were
          interviewed. In our mobile society, it sometimes takes a
          while for registration address to catch up with actual
          living address. Or, as in the case of college students or
          live-in domestic help, people may have a different
          perception of where they actually live, where their home is,
          than is contemplated in the rules of sample selection (does
          this person spend most nights in a week at this address,
          etc., etc.)  Some people are registered in counties that do
          not fall in our sample. Appropriate offices for these
          individuals were identified and the respondent's record
          check was conducted by an SRC field interviewer calling that
          office.  Usually but not always, the offices so contacted
          were cooperative, but the user should be aware that this
          form of checking is necessarily less thorough than that done
          in person in an election office in which an interview has
          been conducted.  A code of "999" in variable Variable 900714
          indicates that the record check was conducted over the
          telephone.

          Occasionally, staff sent out a record check form to more
          than one office for a single individual, when it was
          difficult to tell in which locale a person was most likely
          to be registered.  If this happened, the differences between
          the forms were reconciled so that the data contain only one
          validation record per respondent.

          D.  The Lookup Process

          If election offices share a common central mission, that of
          conducting elections without fraud, they also display a
          bewildering variety of terms for similar procedures, to say
          nothing of widely different procedures to achieve the same
          ends.  There are places with numerous versions of
          sophisticated computer tracking, and places with one set of
          poll ledgers.  The supervisors of these offices can be

          ------------------

          [7] In 1990, staff actually sent out records for
          respondents who had not given their names but who had
          indicated that they were registered.  In many cases, it was
          possible to find someone of matching age and gender living
          at the same address at which the respondent was
          interviewed.  If no such match was made, however, the
          person's validation data was treated as "missing."

          -------------------


          highly professional, or, in one or two cases, obvious
          political appointees.  Some offices boast the latest in
          computer technology, including digitized signatures and bar
          codes over which a wand can be passed to register that a
          person has voted; while others make do with signatures and
          initials on the original registration card.  We have
          validated in jurisdictions having voters numbering in the
          millions and thousands of precincts and in places where
          there is one precinct with several hundred registrants.

          Each year staff face the difficulty of trying to train
          survey interviewers how to diagnose the intricacies of
          records management in the offices they are likely to
          encounter, so that they can efficiently use ALL the sources
          potentially available to them in the actual lookup process.
          In 1984, staff hit upon the strategy of conducting an
          interview with an election official, prior to actually
          looking up the records, so that the look-up person would
          have a detailed idea of what records were available to her.
          Each time this is done, staff struggle to improve the
          office questionnaire so that it will better lead the naive
          interviewer through the maze of different office procedures.

          Although NES staff is somewhat removed from the complexities
          of each individual office, they try to write some general
          instructions to guide the interviewers in the lookup
          process.  For this study, the task of the interviewer was
          described to them as first FINDING a record that they were
          reasonably sure was the respondent's; then, ascertaining
          what the record showed about whether the respondent voted or
          did not vote in the general elections of 1990 and 1988.  It
          was explained that all offices maintain a list of who is
          registered in their jurisdiction.  From this master list,
          all offices send to each polling place a list in some form
          of who is eligible to vote at that voting place.  When
          people vote, some mark is made to indicate that they have
          done so (to reduce the possibility of fraud, following the
          time honored rule of one person, one vote.) Information
          about whether a person did or did not vote may or may not be
          posted back to the master office list of who is registered.
          There are many variations on this schemata; for example,
          some offices divide the master list (which is on cards) into
          precinct binders and send these out to the polls where they
          are marked.)  Thus, the master list is also the poll book.
          The general outline, however, is simple.

          Based on this general outline, and assuming that most
          offices post vote information back to the registration
          record, interviewers were to look first at the master
          registration record for evidence that R had voted.  If the
          record did not show that R voted, they were to look at the
          original poll books, to the extent they were available, for
          some further indication of vote.  (Historiographers will
          recognize the distinction between primary and secondary
          sources, one that has been slow to dawn on staff as survey
          researchers.)  One example will illustrate the importance of
          primary sources.  An interviewer happened to be a registered
          voter in a county where she was looking up 1990 respondents.
          She noted that many more respondents appeared to have voted
          in 1990 than in 1988.  She thought this was strange.
          Accordingly, she looked up her own record for 1988, and
          found that the computer did not show her as voting, although
          she had.  It didn't show her son or husband as voting
          either, although they voted with her.  The original poll
          records, however, showed she and her family as voting.  It
          turned out that there had been a sizeable transcription
          error in this office in 1988.

          As the NES staff evaluated what was received back from
          interviewers, both record check forms and election official
          interviews, it was clear that in many offices original
          sources were not used, either because they were not made
          available to the interviewer (sometimes they are destroyed
          after information has been posted to the computer) or
          because the interviewer did not press for access to these
          sources.  Also, some interviewers went about their task in a
          way exactly contrary to instructions, i.e., they looked
          first at the poll records, and then searched the
          registration records for people they couldn't locate.  The
          trouble with this strategy is that some nontrivial
          proportion of people are not registered to vote in the
          precinct in which they were interviewed; rather they vote
          somewhere else in the same jurisdiction.  Starting with the
          poll books means considerably more going back and forth
          between registration records and poll records; in this
          process, it is much more difficult for the interviewer with
          a sizeable number of cases in an office to keep track of
          exactly which sources she has or has not used in a
          particular case.[8]

          The post-fieldwork staff evaluation process was extremely
          time-consuming and inefficient.  When NES next undertakes

          ------------------

          [8] In fairness to the interviewers, it should be said that
          they are entirely dependent on the good will of the people
          assisting them in any given office.  Often, these people
          had an understandable interest in minimizing the time
          devoted to helping the interviewers and the interviewers
          were reluctant to press them with time-consuming requests
          for original sources.  In retrospect, the NES staff needed
          to do much more to prepare the offices and the interviewers
          regarding resources needed to complete the lookup task.

          --------------------

          voter validation, hopefully in 1993, they are convinced that
          the process of training interviewers to work in specific
          offices will have to be significantly revised, building both
          on the knowledge gained over the last several vote
          validations of the way in which registration records are
          managed and with the assistance of records management
          specialists.  As staff come closer to the real possibility
          of a 1992 vote validation study, they intend also, to the
          extent that the budget permits, to seek advice from a
          planning committee consisting of scholars interested in this
          topic.

          E.  Contents of the Data

          Records for 1990 respondents who were not validated have
          been "padded" with missing data codes.

          The data contain variables from several sources.  These are:

              1.  Variables from the individual record check form
                  filled out by the interviewer in the election
                  office.  (Variables 900712-900755)

              2.  Summary variables combining self-report and the
                  result of the record check.  (Variable 900756)

              3.  Variables describing the sources used and the
                  search procedure in the election records office
                  in which the respondent's record was looked up.
                  (Variables 900757-900803).

          F.  Vote Validation Study Staff

          Santa Traugott        NES Project Manager
          Giovanna Morchio      Study Manager, NES
          Fran Eliot            Research Assistant, NES
          Heather Hewett        Study Manager, SRC/Field Section





>> 1990 NES STAFF AND TECHNICAL PAPERS


          Brehm, John. (1985a) "Report on Coding of Economic
             Conditions Series in the 1984 Pre-Post Election Study: A
             Report to the Board of Overseers, National Election
             Studies."  Working Paper No. 8. Ann Arbor: CPS, June
             1985.

          Brehm, John. (1985b) "Analysis of Result Code Disposition
             for Continuous Monitoring by Time in Field: Report to the
             Board of Overseers, National Election Studies." Working
             Paper No. 7.  Ann Arbor: CPS, August 1985.

          Brehm, John. (1985c) "Question Ordering Effects on Reported
             Vote Choice." Unpublished Memo, July 1985.

          Brehm, John. (1987a) "How Representative is the 1986
             Post-election Survey?" Memo to Board of Overseers,
             National Election Studies, May 1987.

          Brehm, John. (1987b) "Who's Missing? an Analysis of
             NonResponse in the 1986 Election Study: A Report to the
             Board of Overseers, National Election Studies."  Working
             Paper No. 10. Ann Arbor: CPS, December 1987.

          Brehm, John and Santa Traugott. (1986) "Similarity and
             Representativeness of the 1985 Pilot Half-samples." Memo
             to the NES 1985 Pilot Study Committee March, 1986.

          Lake, Celinda. (1983a) "Similarity and Representativeness of
             1983 Pilot Samples." Memo to National Election Studies
             1984 Planning Committee, September 1983.

          Lake, Celinda. (1983b) "Comparison of 3-point, 5-point, and
             7-point Scales from the CATI Experiment 1982 Election
             Study." Memo to NES Board of Overseers, November 1983.

          Lake, Celinda. (1984) "Coding of Independent/Independents
             and Apoliticals in the Party Identification Summary Code
             and Apoliticals in the Rolling Cross-Section."  Memo to
             Board of Overseers, National Election Studies. February
             1984.

          Morchio, Giovanna. (1987) "Trends in NES Response Rates."
             Memo to NES Board of Overseers.

          Morchio, Giovanna and Maria Sanchez. (1984) "Creation of a
             Filter Variable to be Used When Analyzing Questions about
             Congressional Candidates in the 1982 Integrated
             Personal/ISR CATI/Berkeley CATI Dataset:  A Report to the
             Board of Overseers, National Election Studies." Working
             Paper No. 1, Ann Arbor: CPS, February 1984.

          Morchio, Giovanna and Maria Sanchez. (1984) "Comparison of
             the Michigan Method of District Assignment on the
             Telephone with the Personal Interview Simulated Data:
             A Report to the Board of Overseers, National Election
             Studies." Working Paper No. 2.  Ann Arbor: CPS, March
             1984.

          Morchio, Giovanna, Maria Sanchez and Santa Traugott. (1985)
             "Mode Differences: DK Responses in the 1984 Post-Election
             Survey: A Report to the Board of Overseers, National
             Election  Studies." Working Paper No. 9.  Ann Arbor: CPS,
             November 1985.

          Morchio, Giovanna and Santa Traugott. (1986)
             "Congressional District Assignment in an RDD Sample:
             Results of 1982 CATI Experiment." Memo to the 1986 Pilot
             Planning Committee.  February 1986.

          NES Staff. (1984)  "Questions and Versions in NES
             Continuous Monitoring, 1984: A Report to the Board of
             Overseers, National Election Studies."  Working Paper No.
             3.  Ann Arbor: CPS, August 1984.

          NES Staff. (1984) "Weekly Field Report for the National
             Election  Studies Continuous Monitoring, Jan. 11-Aug. 3,
             1984: A Report to the Board of Overseers, National
             Election Studies."  Working Paper No. 4.  Ann Arbor: CPS,
             August 1984.

          NES Staff. (1985) "Progress of the Rolling Cross Section."
             Memo to NES Board of Overseers, February 1985.

          NES Staff. (undated) "Years of Schooling." Unpublished Staff
             Memo.

          NES Staff. (undated)  "Newspaper Code." Unpublished Staff
             Memo.

          Traugott, Santa. (1984) "Two Versions of the Abortion
             Question." Unpublished Staff Memo to the NES Board of
             Overseers, June 1984.

          Traugott, Santa. (1985) "Sample Weighting in NES Continuous
             Monitoring, 1984.: A Report to the Board of Overseers,
             National Election Studies," Working Paper No. 5.  Ann
             Arbor: CPS, April 1985.

          Traugott, Santa. (1985) "Sample Weighting in NES Pre-Post
             Election Survey, 1984: A Report to the Board of
             Overseers, National Election Studies," Working Paper
             No. 6.  Ann Arbor: CPS, April 1985.

          Traugott, Santa. (1985) "Assessment of Media Measures in
             RXS." Unpublished Staff Memo, July 1985.

          Traugott, Santa. (1985) "Assessment of Media Measures in
             Pre-Post" Unpublished Staff Memo, July 1985.

          Traugott, Santa. (undated) "The Political Interest Variable
             on the 1984 Election Study." Unpublished Staff Memo to
             NES Planning Committee.

          Traugott, Santa. (1985) "Some Analysis of Hard-to-Reach
             Rolling Thunder Respondents." Unpublished Staff Memo to
             NES Board of Overseers, February 1985.>> 1990 LIST OF PILOT STUDY REPORTS-1989


          Abelson, Robert. Message on Vote Validation Experiment.

          Calvo, Maria Antonia and Steven J. Rosenstone. The
             Re-Framing of the Abortion Debate.

          Kinder, Donald R. and Thomas Nelson. Experimental
             Investigations of Opinion Frames and Survey Responses: A
             Report to the NES Board.

          Knight, Kathleen. Comparisons of Liberal-Conservative Items
             in the ANES 1989 Pilot Study.

          Krosnick, Jon and Matthew K. Berent. Impact of Verbal
             Labeling on Response Alternatives and Branching on
             Attitude Measurement Reliability.

          Leege, David, Ken Wald and Lyman Kellstedt. Religion and
             Politics. A Report on Measures of Religiosity in the 1989
             NES Pilot Study.

          Markus, Gregory. Measuring Popular Individualism.

          NES Staff. Possible Bias due to Attrition and Sample
             Selection in the 1989 Pilot Study.

          Price, Vincent and John Zaller. Evaluation of Media Exposure
             Items in 1989.
             Appendix 1: [Price & Zaller] Measuring individual
               differences...
             Appendix 2: [Zaller & Price] In One Ear and Out the
               Other...

          Rosenstone, Steven J. and Gregory A. Diamond. Measuring
             Public Opinion on Political issues.

          Traugott, Michael. Memo to Pilot Study Committee, including
             as an Appendix: Understanding Campaign Effects on
             Candidate Recall and Recognition.

          Zaller, John. Experimental Tests of the Question Answering
             Model of the Mass Survey Response.





>> 1990 CODEBOOK INFORMATION

The following example from the 1948 NES study provides the standard 
format for codebook variable documentation. 

Note that NES studies which are not part of the Time-Series usually
omit marginals and the descriptive content in lines 2-5 (except for
variable name).


Line

1  ==============================                                              
2  VAR 480026    NAME-R NOT VT-WAS R REG TO VT                                 
3                COLUMNS 61   - 61                                             
4                NUMERIC                                                       
5                MD=0 OR GE 8                                                  
6                                                                              
7                  Q. 17.  (IF R DID NOT VOTE)  WERE YOU REGISTERED (ELIGIBLE)
8                  TO VOTE.                                                   
9                  ...........................................................
10                                                                            
11            82       1.  YES                                                
12           149       2.  NO                                                 
13                                                                             
14             0       8.  DK                                                 
15             9       9.  NA                                                 
16           422       0.  INAP., R VOTED                                     
                                                                            


Line 2 - VARIABLE NAME.  Note that in the codebook the variable name
         (usually a 'number') does not include the "V" prefix which is 
         used in the release SAS and SPSS data definition files
         (.sas and .sps files) for all variables including those
         which do not have 'number' names.  For example the variable
         "VERSION" in the codebook is "VVERSION" in the data definition
         files.

Line 2 - "NAME".  This is the variable label used in the SAS and SPSS
         data definition files (.sas and .sps files).  Some codebooks 
         exclude this.

Line 3 - COLUMNS.  Columns in the ASCII data file (.dat file).

Line 4 - CHARACTER OR NUMERIC.  If numeric and the variable is a decimal
         rather than integer variable, the numer of decimal places is 
         also indicated (e.g. "NUMERIC  DEC 4")

Line 5 - Values which are assigned to missing by default in the Study's
         SAS and and SPSS data definition files (.sas and .sps files).

Line 7 - Actual question text for survey variables or a description of 
         non-survey variables (for example, congressional district).
         Survey items usually include the question number (for example
         "B1a.") from the Study questionnaire; beginning in 1996 
         non-survey items also have unique item numbers (for example
         "CSheet.1").

Line 9 - A dashed or dotted line usually separates question text from
         any other documentation which follows.

Line 10- When present, annotation provided by Study staff is presented
         below the question text/description and preceding code values.

Lines 11-16
         Code values are listed with descriptive labels.  Valid codes
         (those not having 'missing' status in line 5) are presented
         first, followed by the values described in line 5.  For
         continuous variables, one line may appear providing the range
         of possible values.  A blank line usually separates the 'valid'
         and 'missing' values.

Lines 11-16
         Marginals are usually provided for discrete variables.  The
         counts may be unweighted or weighted; check the Study codebook
         introductory text to determine weight usage.

>> 1990 ICPSR PROCESSING INFORMATION

          The data collection was processed according to standard
          ICPSR processing procedures.  The data were checked for
          illegal or inconsistent code values which, when found, were
          corrected or recoded to missing data values. Consistency
          checks were performed.  Statements bracketed in "<" and ">"
          signs in the body of the codebook were added by the
          processors for explanatory purposes.





>> 1990 VARIABLE DESCRIPTION LIST



       VARIABLE  VARIABLE LABEL
       --------  --------------

         VERSION NES VERSION NUMBER
          DSETNO NES DATASET NUMBER
          900001 ICPSR ARCHIVE NUMBER
          ...... ...there are no variables 900002,900003
          900004 Respondent Post-Election Case ID


                              SAMPLING INFORMATION

          900005 Primary Area Code
          900006 Primary Area Name
          900007 Segment Number
          900008 Census Region
          900009 Postal State Abbreviation and Congressional District
              Number
          900010 FIPS State Code
          900011 FIPS State and County Code
          900012 ICPSR State Code
          900013 Congressional District
          900014 ICPSR State and Congressional District Code
          900015 Tract/Enumerated District Indicator
          900016 1980 Census Tract
          900017 1980 Census Enumeration District
          900018 1980 Census Place Code
          900019 FIPS 1980 SMSA Code
          900020 FIPS 1980 SCSA Code
          900021 Size of Place of Interview
          900022 Actual Population of Place of Interview
          900023 1980 Belt Code
          900024 1980 Minor Civil Division
          900025 Sampling Error Code
          900026 Selection Table
          900027 Selected R Person Number


                              HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION

          900028 Number of persons in household
          900029 Number of eligible adults
          900030 Number of children under six years old
          900031 Number of children six to nine years old
          900032 Number of children ten to thirteen years old
          900033 Number of children fourteen to seventeen years old
          900034 Household composition


                            INTERVIEW/ER INFORMATION

          900035 Refusal conversion indicator
          900036 Persuasion letter requested
          900037 Final call number
          900038 Final result code
          900039 Was respondent's name obtained
          900040 If R is female, has R legally changed her name
          900041 Phone number obtained
          900042 Should not interview by telephone?
          900043 Interviewer's ID number
          900044 Interviewer's race
          900045 Interviewer's languages
          900046 Interviewer's ethnicity
          900047 Interviewer's age, bracketed
          900048 Interviewer's years of work, bracketed
          900049 Interviewer's gender
          900050 Interviewer's education, bracketed
          900051 Interviewer's interview number
          900052 Date of interview - month
          900053 Date of interview - day
          900054 Total length of interview
          900055 Total time to pre-edit
          900056 Total time to post-interview edit
          900057 Beginning time - local

          900058 Type of Congressional race (House of Representatives)
          900059 Type of Senate race
          900060 Type of Governor race
          900061 Form type


                    R'S INTEREST/ATTENTION TO CAMPAIGN/MEDIA

          900062 R's interest in the campaign
          900063 Did R read about the campaign in any newspapers
          900064 How much attention did R give to the campaign in the
              newspaper
          900065 Did R watch any programs about the campaign on TV
          900066 How many programs about the campaign did R watch
          900067 How much attention did R give to the campaign news on
              TV
          900068 Does R ever discuss politics
          900069 How often does R discuss politics
          900070 How often did R discuss politics in the past week
          900071 How often did R read a daily newspaper in the past week
          900072 How many days did R watch TV news in the past week

          900073 Interviewer Checkpoint: Form Type



                  WHAT R LIKES/DISLIKES ABOUT DEMOCRATIC PARTY

          900074 Whether R likes anything about the democratic party
          900075 What R likes about the Democratic party - first mention
          900076 What R likes about the Democratic party - second mention
          900077 What R likes about the Democratic party - third mention
          900078 What R likes about the Democratic party - fourth mention
          900079 What R likes about the Democratic party - fifth mention
          900080 Whether R dislikes anything about the Democratic party
          900081 What R dislikes about the Democratic party - first
              mention
          900082 What R dislikes about the Democratic party - second
              mention
          900083 What R dislikes about the Democratic party - third
              mention
          900084 What R dislikes about the Democratic party - fourth
              mention
          900085 What R dislikes about the Democratic party - fifth
              mention


                  WHAT R LIKES/DISLIKES ABOUT REPUBLICAN PARTY

          900086 Whether R likes anything about the Republican party
          900087 What R likes about the Republican party - first mention
          900088 What R likes about the Republican party - second mention
          900089 What R likes about the Republican party - third mention
          900090 What R likes about the Republican party - fourth mention
          900091 What R likes about the Republican party - fifth mention
          900092 Whether R dislikes anything about the Republican party
          900093 What R dislikes about the Republican party - first
              mention
          900094 What R dislikes about the Republican party - second
              mention
          900095 What R dislikes about the Republican party - third
              mention
          900096 What R dislikes about the Republican party - fourth
              mention
          900097 What R dislikes about the Republican party - fifth
              mention


                        R'S ASSESSMENT OF BUSH PRESIDENCY

          900098 R approve/disapprove of Bush's handling of presidency
          900099 Strength of R's approval/disapproval of Bush's handling
              of presidency
          900100 R approve/disapprove of Bush's handling of economy
          900101 Strength of R's approval/disapproval of Bush's handling
              of economy
          900102 R approve/disapprove of Bush's handling of relations
              with foreign countries
          900103 Strength of R's approval/disapproval of Bush's handling
              of relations with foreign countries
          900104 R approve/disapprove of Bush's handling of pollution
              and other environmental problems
          900105 Strength of R's approval/disapproval of Bush's handling
              of pollution and other environmental problems


                             CONGRESSIONAL CAMPAIGN

          900106 How much did R personally care about the outcome of
              the U.S. congressional election
          900107 Does R remember the congressional candidates
          900108 Number of congressional candidate - candidate 1
          900109 From which party was the candidate - candidate 1
          900110 Collapsed code for congressional candidate - candidate 1
          900111 R's knowledge of candidate's name and party -
              candidate 1
          900112 Number of congressional candidate - candidate 2
          900113 From which party was the candidate - candidate 2
          900114 Collapsed code for congressional candidate -
              candidate 2
          900115 R's knowledge of candidate's name and party -
              candidate 2
          900116 Number of congressional candidate - candidate 3
          900117 From which party was the candidate - candidate 3
          900118 Collapsed code for congressional candidate -
              candidate 3
          900119 R's knowledge of candidate's name and party -
              candidate 3

          900120 Interviewer Checkpoint: U.S. Senate race in state?


                                 SENATE CAMPAIGN

          900121 Does R remember the Senate candidates
          900122 Number of Senate candidate - candidate 1
          900123 From which party was the candidate - candidate 1
          900124 Collapsed code for Senate candidate - candidate 1
          900125 R's knowledge of candidate's name and party -
              candidate 1
          900126 Number of Senate candidate - candidate 2
          900127 From which party was the candidate - candidate 2
          900128 Collapsed code for Senate candidate - candidate 2
          900129 R's knowledge of candidate's name and party -
              candidate 2
          900130 Number of Senate candidate - candidate 3
          900131 From which party was the candidate - candidate 3
          900132 Collapsed code for Senate candidate - candidate 3
          900133 R's knowledge of candidate's name and party -
              candidate 3


                     FEELING THERMOMETER:  POLITICAL FIGURES

          900134 Feeling thermometer - George Bush
          900135 Feeling thermometer - Mario Cuomo
          900136 Feeling thermometer - Mikhail Gorbachev
          900137 Feeling thermometer - Dan Quayle
          900138 Feeling thermometer - Ronald Reagan
          900139 Feeling thermometer - Jesse Jackson
          900140 Feeling thermometer - Democratic U.S. Senate candidate
          900141 Feeling thermometer - Republican U.S. Senate candidate
          900142 Feeling thermometer - U.S. Senate incumbent whose
              term is not up - race in state
          900143 Feeling thermometer - U.S. Senate incumbent - no race
              in state
          900144 Feeling thermometer - second U.S. Senate incumbent -
              no race in state
          900145 Feeling thermometer - Democratic U.S. House candidate
          900146 Feeling thermometer - Republican U.S. House candidate
          900147 Feeling thermometer - Democratic gubernatorial candidate
          900148 Feeling thermometer - Republican gubernatorial candidate
          900149 Feeling thermometer - Governor or retiring Governor -
              no race in state
          900150 Feeling thermometer - third party gubernatorial
              candidate (Connecticut only)
          900151 Feeling thermometer - Democratic party
          900152 Feeling thermometer - Republican party
          900153 Feeling thermometer - political parties in general


                     FEELING THERMOMETER:  GROUPS IN SOCIETY

          900154 Feeling thermometer - supporters of abortion
          900155 Feeling thermometer - Blacks
          900156 Feeling thermometer - conservatives
          900157 Feeling thermometer - labor unions
          900158 Feeling thermometer - the women's movement
          900159 Feeling thermometer - people on welfare
          900160 Feeling thermometer - people seeking to protect the
              environment
          900161 Feeling thermometer - liberals
          900162 Feeling thermometer - poor people
          900163 Feeling thermometer - opponents of abortion


                   R'S ASSESSMENT OF CONGRESSIONAL PERFORMANCE

          900164 Does R approve/disapprove of the way Congress has been
              handling its job
          900165 How strongly does R approve/disapprove of Congress'
              handling of its job


                                 R'S VOTE:  1988

          900166 Did R vote in 1988 election
          900167 Who did R vote for in 1988 presidential election


                                PROBE INDICATORS

          900168 Was question B13a probed by interviewer
          900169 Was question B13b probed by interviewer
          900170 Was question B13c probed by interviewer
          900171 Was question B13d probed by interviewer
          900172 Was question B13e probed by interviewer
          900173 Was question B13f probed by interviewer
          900174 Was question B13g probed by interviewer
          900175 Was question B13h probed by interviewer
          900176 Was question B13k probed by interviewer
          900177 Was question B13m probed by interviewer
          900178 Was question B13n probed by interviewer
          900179 Was question B13o probed by interviewer
          900180 Was question B13p probed by interviewer
          900181 Was question B13q probed by interviewer
          900182 Was question B13r probed by interviewer
          900183 Was question B13t probed by interviewer
          900184 Was question B13u probed by interviewer
          900185 Was question B14a probed by interviewer
          900186 Was question B14b probed by interviewer
          900187 Was question B14c probed by interviewer
          900188 Was question B14d probed by interviewer
          900189 Was question B14e probed by interviewer
          900190 Was question B14f probed by interviewer
          900191 Was question B14g probed by interviewer
          900192 Was question B14h probed by interviewer
          900193 Was question B14j probed by interviewer
          900194 Was question B14k probed by interviewer
          900195 Was question B14m probed by interviewer
          900196 Was question B14n probed by interviewer
          900197 Was question B14o probed by interviewer


                 R'S LIKES/DISLIKES HOUSE CANDIDATE:  DEMOCRATIC

          900198 Is there anything R likes about Democratic candidate
              for House of Representatives
          900199 What R likes about House Democratic candidate -
              first mention
          900200 What R likes about House Democratic candidate -
              second mention
          900201 What R likes about House Democratic candidate -
              third mention
          900202 What R likes about House Democratic candidate -
              fourth mention
          900203 What R likes about House Democratic candidate -
              fifth mention
          900204 Is there anything R dislikes about Democratic
              candidate for House of Representatives
          900205 What R dislikes about House Democratic candidate -
              first mention
          900206 What R dislikes about House Democratic candidate -
              second mention
          900207 What R dislikes about House Democratic candidate -
              third mention
          900208 What R dislikes about House Democratic candidate -
              fourth mention
          900209 What R dislikes about House Democratic candidate -
              fifth mention


                 R'S LIKES/DISLIKES HOUSE CANDIDATE:  REPUBLICAN

          900210 Is there anything R likes about Republican candidate
              for House of Representatives
          900211 What R likes about House Republican candidate -
              first mention
          900212 What R likes about House Republican candidate -
              second mention
          900213 What R likes about House Republican candidate -
              third mention
          900214 What R likes about House Republican candidate -
              fourth mention
          900215 What R likes about House Republican candidate -
              fifth mention
          900216 Is there anything R dislikes about Republican
              candidate for House of Representatives
          900217 What R dislikes about House Republican candidate -
              first mention
          900218 What R dislikes about House Republican candidate -
              second mention
          900219 What R dislikes about House Republican candidate -
              third mention
          900220 What R dislikes about House Republican candidate -
              fourth mention
          900221 What R dislikes about House Republican candidate -
              fifth mention

          900222 Interviewer Checkpoint: Type of race - one or two
              candidates


                        IMPORTANT ISSUES:  HOUSE CAMPAIGN

          900223 Important issues to R in campaign for House of
              Representatives - first mention
          900224 Important issues to R in campaign for House of
              Representatives - second mention
          900225 Important issues to R in campaign for House of
              Representatives - third mention

          900226 Interviewer Checkpoint: Has R mentioned issues

          900227 Issue most important to R in campaign
          900228 Did R prefer one of the candidates because of this issue
          900229 Candidate R preferred
          900230 Party of candidate named


                        R'S KNOWLEDGE OF HOUSE INCUMBENT

          900231 Two House candidates running: was either candidate
              already in House of Representatives
          900232 Two House candidates running: which candidate was
              already in House of Representatives
          900233 Two House candidates running: party of candidate
              already in House of Representatives
          900234 One House candidate running: was candidate already
              in House of Representatives
          900235 One House candidate running: candidate number code
          900236 One House candidate running: party of candidate

          900237 Interviewer Checkpoint: Districts in which House
              incumbent ran


                        R'S CONTACT WITH HOUSE INCUMBENT

          900238 Did R have any contact with incumbent
          900239 Did R meet incumbent personally
          900240 Did R attend meeting/gathering where incumbent spoke
          900241 Did R talk with incumbent's staff/office
          900242 Did R receive something in mail from incumbent
          900243 Did R read about incumbent in newspaper/magazine
          900244 Did R hear incumbent on radio
          900245 Did R see incumbent on television
          900246 R had contact with incumbent in other ways
          900247 Does R know anyone who had contact with incumbent

          900248 Interviewer Checkpoint: District in which House
              incumbent had opposition


                        R'S CONTACT WITH HOUSE CHALLENGER

          900249 Did R have any contact with candidate
          900250 Did R meet candidate personally
          900251 Did R attend meeting/gathering where candidate spoke
          900252 Did R talk with candidate's staff/office
          900253 Did R receive something in mail from candidate
          900254 Did R read about candidate in newspaper/magazine
          900255 Did R hear candidate on radio
          900256 Did R see candidate on television
          900257 R had contact with candidate in other ways
          900258 Does R know anyone who had contact with candidate


            R'S CONTACT WITH DEMOCRATIC HOUSE CANDIDATE, NO INCUMBENT

          900259 Did R have any contact with candidate
          900260 Did R meet candidate personally
          900261 Did R attend meeting/gathering where candidate spoke
          900262 Did R talk with candidate's staff/office
          900263 Did R receive something in mail from candidate
          900264 Did R read about candidate in newspaper/magazine
          900265 Did R hear candidate on radio
          900266 Did R see candiate on television
          900267 R had contact with candidate in other ways
          900268 Does R know anyone who had contact with candidate


            R'S CONTACT WITH REPUBLICAN HOUSE CANDIDATE, NO INCUMBENT

          900269 Did R have any contact with candidate
          900270 Did R meet candidate personally
          900271 Did R attend meeting/gathering where candidate spoke
          900272 Did R talk with candidate's staff/office
          900273 Did R receive something in mail from candidate
          900274 Did R read about candidate in newspaper/magazine
          900275 Did R hear candidate on radio
          900276 Did R see candidate on television
          900277 R had contact with candidate in other ways
          900278 Does R know anyone who had contact with candidate

                             VOTING SECTION:  VOTERS

          900279 Did R vote in 1990 election
          900280 Was R registered to vote in this election
          900281 Is R registered to vote at current address
          900282 In what county and state is R registered

          900283 Interviewer Checkpoint: Did R vote in 1990 election

          900284 Did R vote in person or by absentee ballot
          900285 Where R has voted

          900286 Interviewer Checkpoint: Is R registered to vote
              in county/state of interview

          900287 Did R vote for House of Representatives candidate
          900288 For which House of Representatives candidate did R
              vote
          900289 R's vote for House candidate - party
          900290 Was R's preference strong for House candidate

          900291 Interviewer Checkpoint: Was there a Senate race in R's
              state

          900292 Did R vote for a Senate candidate
          900293 For which Senate candidate did R vote
          900294 R's vote for Senate candidate - party
          900295 Was R's preference strong for Senate candidate

          900296 Interviewer Checkpoint: Was there a gubernatorial
              race in R's state

          900297 Did R vote for gubernatorial candidate
          900298 For which gubernatorial candidate did R vote
          900299 R's vote for gubernatorial candidate - party


                           VOTING SECTION:  NON-VOTERS

          900300 Did R prefer one candidate for U.S. House
          900301 Whom did R prefer for U.S. House
          900302 R's preference for House candidate - party


                    NON-CAMPAIGN CONTACT WITH HOUSE INCUMBENT

          900303 Did R or family member ever contact U.S. House
              incumbent/office
          900304 Reason for contact with House incumbent - to express
              opinion
          900305 Reason for contact with House incumbent - to seek
              information
          900306 Reason for contact with House incumbent - to seek
              help with problem
          900307 Did R get response from House incumbent
          900308 How satisfied was R with response from incumbent
          900309 Does R know anyone else who had contact with U.S.
              House incumbent
          900310 Did person/group get response from House incumbent
          900311 How satisfied was person/group with response from
              incumbent
          900312 How helpful would House incumbent be with another
              problem


                        R'S ASSESSMENT OF HOUSE INCUMBENT

          900313 How well does U.S. representative keep in touch with
              district
          900314 Does R remember a bill representative voted on
          900315 Does R agree/disagree with way representative voted
          900316 Anything special done by House incumbent for district/
              people


                            R'S PARTY IDENTIFICATION

          900317 R's party identification
          900318 Strength of R's party identification
          900319 R closer to Republican/Democratic party
          900320 Summary: R's party identification


                           IMPORTANT NATIONAL PROBLEMS

          900321 How often does R follow government/public affairs
          900322 What is most important national problem -
              1st mention
          900323 What is most important national problem -
              2nd mention
          900324 What is most important national problem -
              3rd mention

          900325 Interviewer Checkpoint: Has R mentioned any problems

          900326 What is the single most important national problem

          900327 Interviewer Checkpoint: Form A or B

                                  INDIVIDUALISM

          900328 Fitting in with people vs. acting according to your
              own standards
          900329 Taking care of yourself vs. caring more about society
          900330 Raising children to be independent-minded vs. obedient
          900331 Strong government vs. free market in handling economic
              problems
          900332 Being poor due to not working hard enough vs.
              circumstances beyond control
          900333 Less government vs. more government
          900334 Cooperation vs. self-reliance
          900335 The main reason government has become bigger


                                PARTY DIFFERENCES

          900336 Does R see important differences between parties
          900337 Important party differences: party preference -
              first mention
          900338 Party difference content - first mention
          900339 Important party differences: party preference -
              second mention
          900340 Party difference content - second mention
          900341 Important party differences: party preference -
              third mention
          900342 Party difference content - third mention
          900343 Important party differences: party preference -
              fourth mention
          900344 Party difference content - fourth mention
          900345 Important party differences: party preference -
              fifth mention
          900346 Party difference content - fifth mention
          900347 Important party differences: party preference -
              sixth mention
          900348 Party difference content - sixth mention
          900349 Does R think one party more conservative at national
              level
          900350 Which party does R think is more conservative


                                 EASTERN EUROPE

          900351 How much has R heard about changes in Soviet Union/
              eastern Europe
          900352 Does R think the cold war is coming to an end
          900353 Should U.S. give economic assistance to east European
              countries that have turned toward democracy

                                NATIONAL SECURITY

          900354 Is Soviet Union or Japan bigger threat to national
              security of U.S.


                             FEDERAL BUDGET DEFICIT

          900355 Does R approve/disapprove of efforts to reduce federal
              deficit
          900356 Did democrats/Republicans work hardest to reduce deficit


                                  PERSIAN GULF

          900357 Was sending U.S. troops to Persian Gulf right
          900358 What should U.S. do now in Persian Gulf
          900359 Does R approve/disapprove of Bush's handling of Persian
              Gulf crisis
          900360 How strongly does R approve/disapprove of Bush's
              handling of Persian Gulf crisis


                    PARTY CONTACTS WITH R DURING THE CAMPAIGN

          900361 Did a political party worker contact R during
              campaign
          900362 Which party(s) contacted R during campaign
          900363 Did anyone else contact R during campaign
          900364 Which candidate did the contact ask R to support -
              1st mention
          900365 Which candidate did the contact ask R to support -
              2nd mention


                            R'S POLITICAL ACTIVITIES

          900366 Did R try to influence other's vote choice
          900367 Did R wear a button, put a sticker on the car, or
              put up a sign
          900368 Did R attend any political meetings or rallies
          900369 Did R work for party or candidate
          900370 Did R use $1 political contribution option on
              federal income tax return
          900371 Did R contribute money to an individual candidate
          900372 R gave money to candidate from which party
          900373 Did R give money to specific political party
          900374 Which party did R give money to
          900375 Did R give money to any other group supporting/opposing
              candidates
          900376 Was R contacted about registering or voting


              INCREASE/DECREASE SPENDING ON FEDERAL BUDGET PROGRAMS

          900377 Increase/decrease spending on protection of the
              environment
          900378 Increase/decrease spending on foreign aid
          900379 Increase/decrease spending on fighting the disease
              AIDS
          900380 Increase/decrease spending on social security
          900381 Increase/decrease spending for the war on drugs
          900382 Increase/decrease spending on food stamps
          900383 Increase/decrease spending on public schools
          900384 Increase/decrease spending on the homeless
          900385 Increase/decrease spending on childcare
          900386 Increase/decrease spending on programs that assist
              Blacks
          900387 Increase/decrease spending on the space program


           WHICH PARTY WOULD DO A BETTER JOB HANDLING VARIOUS PROBLEMS

          900388 Which party is more likely to cut social security
          900389 Which party is more likely to raise taxes
          900390 Which party would do better job of handling the
              economy
          900391 Which party would do better job of handling the
              environment
          900392 Which party would do better job of dealing with crime
          900393 Which party would do better job of handling foreign
              affairs
          900394 Which party would do better job of cleaning up savings
              and loan business


                      R'S RECOGNITION OF POLITICAL FIGURES

          900395 Does R know what job/office Dan Quayle holds
          900396 Does R know what job/office George Mitchell holds
          900397 Does R know what job/office William Rehnquist holds
          900398 Does R know what job/office Mikhail Gorbachev holds
          900399 Does R know what job/office Margaret Thatcher holds
          900400 Does R know what job/office Nelson Mandela holds
          900401 Does R know what job/office Tom Foley holds


                R'S KNOWLEDGE OF PARTY REPRESENTATION IN CONGRESS

          900402 Does R know which party had the most members in the
              House of Representatives before the election
          900403 Does R know which party had the most members in the
              Senate before the election

                 R'S ASSESSMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE'S PERFORMANCE

          900404 R's approval/disapproval of representative's handling of
              job
          900405 Strength of R's approval/disapproval of representative's
              handling of job


                     POSITIONS ON LIBERAL/CONSERVATIVE SCALE

          900406 Liberal/conservative scale-R
          900407 If R had to choose, would R consider self a liberal/
              conservative
          900408 Liberal/conservative scale-Bush
          900409 Liberal/conservative scale-Democratic House candidate
          900410 Liberal/conservative scale-Republican House candidate
          900411 Liberal/conservative scale-Democratic Senate candidate
          900412 Liberal/conservative scale-Republican Senate candidate
          900413 Liberal/conservative scale-Democratic party
          900414 Liberal/conservative scale-Republican party
          900415 liberal/conservative scale-the federal government


                        R'S PERSONAL FINANCIAL SITUATION

          900416 Does R feel better/worse off financially than a
              year ago
          900417 How much better/worse off does R feel financially
          900418 Has federal economic policy made a difference on R's
              financial position
          900419 How much better/worse has it made R financially
          900420 Will R be better/worse off financially a year from now
          900421 Will R be much or somewhat better/worse off financially
              a year from now


                         R'S OPINION OF NATIONAL ECONOMY

          900422 Does R think the nation's economy has gotten better/
              worse/stayed the same in the past year
          900423 How much better/worse is the nation's economy
          900424 Does R see the economy getting better/worse/staying
              about the same in the next year

          900425 Interviewer Checkpoint: Form A or B


                           EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES/RIGHTS

          900426 Society should ensure equal opportunity to succeed
          900427 We have gone too far in pushing equal rights
          900428 A problem in this country is that we don't give
              everyone an equal chance
          900429 We should worry less about equality
          900430 It is not a problem if people have unequal chances
          900431 We would have fewer problems if people were treated
              more equally


                LIMITS ON IMPORTS/SANCTIONS AGAINST SOUTH AFRICA

          900432 Increase/decrease limits on foreign imports scale-R
              (Form A)
          900433 Increase/decrease sanctions against South Africa scale-R
              (Form A)
          900434 Does R favor increasing/decreasing limits on foreign
              imports (Form B)
          900435 How much does R favor increasing/decreasing limits
              on foreign imports (Form B)
          900436 Does R favor increasing/decreasing sanctions against
              South Africa (Form B)
          900437 How much does R favor increasing/decreasing sanctions
              against South Africa (Form B)


                               WOMEN RIGHTS SCALE

          900438 Women's rights scale-R


                             DEFENSE SPENDING SCALE

          900439 Defense spending scale-R
          900440 Defense spending scale-Bush
          900441 Defense spending scale-Democratic House candidate
          900442 Defense spending scale-Republican House candidate
          900443 Defense spending scale-Democratic party
          900444 Defense spending scale-Republican party
          900445 Defense spending scale-federal government


                       GUARANTEED STANDARD OF LIVING SCALE

          900446 Guaranteed standard of living/job scale-R


                      SOCIO/ECONOMIC STATUS OF BLACKS SCALE

          900447 Social/economic status of Blacks scale-R
          900448 Social/economic status of Blacks scale-Bush
          900449 Social/economic status of Blacks scale-Democratic party
          900450 Social/economic status of Blacks scale-Republican party
          900451 Social/economic status of Blacks scale-federal
              government


                       GOVERNMENT SERVICES/SPENDING SCALE

          900452 Government services/spending scale-R
          900453 Government services/spending scale-Bush
          900454 Government services/spending scale-Democratic House
              candidate
          900455 Government services/spending scale-Republican House
              candidate
          900456 Government services/spending scale-Democratic party
          900457 Government services/spending scale-Republican party
          900458 Government services/spending scale-the federal
              government


                        JOB DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN

          900459 Does R favor/oppose laws to protect women against job
              discrimination
          900460 How strongly does R favor/oppose laws protecting women
              against job discrimination
          900461 How much job discrimination do women face

          900462 Interviewer Checkpoint: Form A or B


                  PREFERENTIAL HIRING/STUDENT QUOTAS FOR BLACKS

          900463 R is for/against preferential hiring and promotion
              of Blacks
          900464 How strongly does R favor/oppose preferential hiring and
              promotion of Blacks
          900465 R is for/against quotas to admit Black students
          900466 How strongly does R favor/oppose quotas


                                  SCHOOL PRAYER

          900467 R's opinion on school prayer
          900468 How strongly does R favor their opinion on school prayer


                         DESEGREGATION OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS

          900469 Does R have opinion on government's involvement in
              desegregation of public schools
          900470 R's opinion on government's involvement in desegregation
              of public schools


                      BURNING/DESTROYING THE AMERICAN FLAG

          900471 Should burning/destroying the American flag as political
              protest be legal/illegal
          900472 Favor/oppose constitutional amendment outlawing
              destruction of flag for political reasons


                    PROBLEMS IN THE SAVINGS AND LOAN INDUSTRY

          900473 Has R heard/read about problems in savings and loan
              business
          900474 Who is more to blame for problems of savings and loan
              business
          900475 Is Reagan/Bush/Congress more to blame for savings and
              loan problems
          900476 Is Democratic/Republican party more to blame for savings
              and loan problems


                                  DEATH PENALTY

          900477 Does R favor/oppose the death penalty
          900478 How strongly does R favor/oppose the death penalty


                                    ABORTION

          900479 R's position on abortion
          900480 Does R favor/oppose parental consent law
          900481 How strongly does R favor/oppose parental consent law
          900482 Does R favor/oppose government-funded abortion
          900483 How strongly does R favor/oppose government-funded
              abortion


                                  TAX INCREASE

          900484 Would R support/oppose tax increase to reduce federal
              budget deficit
          900485 How strongly does R support/oppose tax increase to
              reduce federal budget deficit
          900486 Would R support/oppose tax increase to clean up
              nation's air and water
          900487 How strongly does R support/oppose tax increase to
              clean up nation's air and water

                        GOVERNMENT CHILD CARE ASSISTANCE

          900488 Should government provide child care assistance to low
              and middle income working parents
          900489 Would R favor/oppose law requiring national service of
              all young adults


                                 PEACE DIVIDEND

          900490 How peace dividend should be used


                           STRICT POLLUTION STANDARDS

          900491 Should government force compliance with strict pollution
              standards


                              JAPANESE COMPETITION

          900492 Do Japanese companies compete unfairly or is U.S.
              blaming Japan for its own economic problems


                        WHICH PARTY KEEP U.S. OUT OF WAR

          900493 Which party could better handle keeping the U.S. out of
              war


                            STRENGTH OF U.S. POSITION

          900494 Has the United States' position grown
              stronger/weaker/stayed the same in the past year

          900495 Interviewer Checkpoint: Form A or B


                IMPORTANCE OF STRONG MILITARY/CONCERNS ABOUT WAR

          900496 How important is a strong military force for
              dealing with our enemies
          900497 How worried is R about the U.S. getting into a
              conventional war
          900498 Does R agree/disagree U.S. should stay out of
              problems in other parts of the world
          900499 How worried is R about the U.S. getting into a
              nuclear war

                                  MORAL VALUES

          900500 Newer lifestyles are contributing to societal
              breakdown
          900501 We should adjust moral behavior to changes in the
              world
          900502 There would be fewer problems if more emphasis was
              placed on traditional family ties
          900503 We should be more tolerant of people with different
              moral standards


                    R'S FEELINGS ABOUT GOVERNMENT IN GENERAL

          900504 How much of the time does R think he/she can
              trust government
          900505 How much does the government waste our tax dollars
          900506 Is government run by a few big interests or for the
              benefit of all
          900507 How many people in government does R think are
              crooked
          900508 How much attention does R feel government pays to
              what people think
          900509 People like me don't have any say about government
          900510 Politics are so complicated a person like me can't
              understand what's going on


                           IMPORTANCE OF RELIGION TO R

          900511 Is religion an important part of R's life
          900512 How much guidance does religion provide in R's life
          900513 How often does R pray
          900514 How often does R read the bible

          900515 Interviewer Checkpoint: Form A or B

          900516 R's view of the bible
          900517 R's feelings about the bible


                         CIVIL RIGHTS/POSITION OF BLACKS

          900518 Does R think civil rights leaders are pushing too
              fast/slow
          900519 How much change does R think there has been in the
              position of Blacks
          900520 Blacks have gotten less than they deserve over the
              past few years
          900521 Blacks should overcome prejudice without any
              special favors

          900522 If Blacks would try harder they could be just as
              well off as whites
          900523 Generations of slavery and discrimination make it
              difficult for Blacks to move up


                      R'S RELIGIOUS PREFERENCE AND PRACTICE

          900524 Does R ever attend religious services
          900525 Does R consider self as part of a particular church
              or denomination
          900526 How often does R attend religious services
          900527 Does R go to religious services once a week or more
              often
          900528 R's religious preference
          900529 R's religious denomination
          900530 R's religious group association - Baptist
          900531 R's religious group association - larger Baptist or
              local
          900532 R's religious group association - Lutheran
          900533 R's religious group association - Methodist
          900534 R's religious group association - Presbyterian
          900535 R's religious group association - Reformed
          900536 R's religious group association - Brethren
          900537 R's religious group association - "Christian"
          900538 R's religious group association - Church of Christ
          900539 R's religious group association - Church of God
          900540 R's religious group association - "other" responses
          900541 R's religious group association - miscellaneous
              denomination
          900542 Is R's "other" religious denomination Christian?
          900543 Does R attend/consider self Orthodox, Conservative,
              Reform or other Jew
          900544 What best describes R's christianity
          900545 Does R consider self a born-again Christian
          900546 Religious affiliation summary


                          PERSONAL INFORMATION ABOUT R

          900547 R's gender
          900548 R's age from household listing
          900549 R's race
          900550 R's date of birth - month
          900551 R's date of birth - year
          900552 R's recoded age
          900553 R's marital status
          900554 Highest grade of school completed by R
          900555 Does R have a high school diploma
          900556 R's highest college degree
          900557 Summary: R's education
          900558 Interviewer Checkpoint: R is married or living with
              partner

                          EDUCATION LEVEL OF R'S SPOUSE

          900559 Highest grade of school completed by spouse/partner
          900560 Does spouse/partner have high school diploma
          900561 Spouse/partner's highest college degree
          900562 Summary: spouse/partner's education

          900563 Interviewer Checkpoint: R is male and married/partnered


                          R'S WIFE/PARTNER WORK STATUS

          900564 Is R's wife/partner working now


                             R'S OCCUPATION SECTION

          900565 R's present employment status
          900566 Summary: R's working status
          900567 Has R (unemployed) ever worked for pay
          900568 When did R retire
          900569 Has R (disabled) ever worked for pay
          900570 Is R (homemaker/student) working now
          900571 Has R (homemaker/student) worked in last six months

                        R Working or Temporarily Laid Off

          900572 R's present occupation - census occupation code
          900573 R's present occupation - collapsed census occupation
              code
          900574 R's present occupation - census industry code
          900575 Is R self-employed
          900576 Is R employed by federal/state/local government
          900577 Number of hours per week R works
          900578 Is R satisfied with number of hours worked
          900579 How worried is R about job security

          900580 Interviewer Checkpoint: Is R working now

          900581 Was R out of work within the last six months
          900582 Has R had to take a pay cut/reduce hours within the last
              six months



                       R Unemployed, Retired, or Disabled

          900583 R's last occupation - census occupation code
          900584 R's last occupation - collapsed census occupation
          900585 R's last occupation - census industry code
          900586 Was R self-employed on last regular job
          900587 Was R employed by federal/state/local government
          900588 Did R work within the last six months
          900589 Number of hours worked per week on last job

          900590 Interviewer Checkpoint: Is R unemployed

          900591 Is R doing any work for pay at the present time
          900592 Is R looking for work at the present time
          900593 How worried is R about not being able to find a job

                             R Homemaker or Student

          900594 R's last occupation - census occupation code
          900595 R's last occupation - collapsed census occupation code
          900596 R's last occupation - census industry code
          900597 Was R self-employed on last regular job
          900598 Was R employed by federal/state/local government
          900599 Number of hours worked per week on last job
          900600 Is R looking for work at the present time
          900601 How worried is R about not being able to find a job


                         R'S OCCUPATIONAL DATA - STACKED

          900602 R's present/last occupation - census occupation code
          900603 R's present/last occupation - collapsed census
              occupation code
          900604 R's present/last occupation - census industry code
          900605 Is/was R self-employed on current/last regular job
          900606 Is/was R employed by federal/state/local government
          900607 Number of House work/ed per week on current/last job
          900608 Is R worried about job security
          900609 Did R (unemployed/retired/disabled) work within the last
              six months
          900610 Is R (unemployed/retired/disabled) looking for work at
              the present time
          900611 Has R (unemployed/disabled) ever worked for pay

          900612 Interviewer Checkpoint: Is R married and female

                      R'S HUSBAND/PARTNER OCCUPATIONAL DATA

          900613 Husband/partner's present employment status
          900614 Summary: husband/partner's working status
          900615 Has husband/partner (unemployed) ever done any work for
              pay
          900616 When did husband/partner retire
          900617 Has husband/partner (disabled) ever done any work for
              pay
          900618 Is husband/partner (homemaker/student) doing any work
              for pay at the present time
          900619 Has husband/partner (homemaker/student) worked for pay
              in the last six months

                 Husband/Partner Working or Temporarily Laid Off

          900620 Husband/partner's present occupation - census occupation
              code
          900621 Husband/partner's present occupation - collapsed
              census occupation code
          900622 Husband/partner's present occupation - census industry
              code
          900623 Is husband/partner self-employed
          900624 Is husband/partner employed by federal/state/local
              government
          900625 Number of hours per week husband/partner works
          900626 Is husband/partner satisfied with number of hours worked
          900627 How worried is husband/partner about job security

          900628 Interviewer Checkpoint: Is husband/partner working now

          900629 Was husband/partner out of work within the last six
              months
          900630 Has husband/partner had to take a pay cut/reduce
              hours within the last six months

                Husband/Partner Unemployed, Retired, or Disabled

          900631 Husband/partner's last occupation - census occupation
              code
          900632 Husband/partner's last occupation - collapsed
              census occupation code
          900633 Husband/partner's last occupation - census industry code
          900634 Was husband/partner self-employed on last job
          900635 Was husband/partner employed by federal/state/local
              government on last job
          900636 Was husband/partner employed in the last six months
          900637 Number of hours per week husband/partner worked on last
              job

          900638 Interviewer Checkpoint: Is husband/partner unemployed

          900639 Is husband/partner doing any work for pay at the present
              time
          900640 Is husband/partner looking for work at the present time
          900641 How worried is husband/partner about not being able to
              find a job

                      Husband/Partner Homemaker or Student

          900642 Husband/partner's last regular occupation - census
              occupation code
          900643 Husband/partner's last regular occupation - collapsed
              census occupation code
          900644 Husband/partner's last regular occupation - census
              industry code
          900645 Was husband/partner self-employed on last regular job
          900646 Was husband/partner employed by federal/state/local
              government on last regular job
          900647 Number of hours per week husband/partner worked on
              last regular job
          900648 Is husband/partner looking for work at the present time
          900649 How worried is husband/partner about not being able to
              find a job


                  HUSBAND/PARTNER'S OCCUPATIONAL DATA - STACKED

          900650 H/p's present/last occupation - census occupation code
          900651 H/p's present/last occupation - collapsed census
              occupation code
          900652 H/p's present/last occupation - census industry code
          900653 Is/was h/p self-employed on current/last regular job
          900654 Is/was h/p employed by federal/state/local government
          900655 Number of House work/ed per week on current/last job
          900656 Is h/p worried about job security
          900657 Did h/p (unemployed/retired/disabled) work within the
              last six months
          900658 Is h/p (unemployed/retired/disabled) looking for work at
              the present time
          900659 Has h/p (unemployed/disabled) ever worked for pay


                              LABOR UNION POSITION

          900660 Does anyone in R's Household belong to a labor union
          900661 Who belongs to a labor union

          900662 Interviewer Checkpoint: Is R only family member age
              14 or older

                           R'S INCOME AND SOCIAL CLASS

          900663 Family/household income before taxes
          900664 R's income before taxes
          900665 Does R think of self as belonging to a social class
          900666 Does R think of self as middle or working class
          900667 Does R think of self as average or upper middle/working
          900668 Summary: R's social class
          900669 Does R feel close to middle/working class


                               R'S ETHNIC IDENTITY

          900670 What does R consider his/her main ethnic group (other
              than American) - first mention
          900671 What does R consider his/her main ethnic group (other
              than American) - second mention

          900672 Interviewer Checkpoint: R mentioned more than one group

          900673 With which group does R most closely identify
          900674 Were R's parents born in this country

          900675 Interviewer Checkpoint: Did R mention some hispanic
              group

          900676 Is R of spanish or hispanic origin/descent
          900677 Category that best describes R's hispanic origin


                             R'S COMMUNITY/RESIDENCE

          900678 R's birthplace
          900679 Where did R grow up
          900680 Community type R grew up in
          900681 How long has R lived in present city/town/township/
              county
          900682 Where did R live before - city
          900683 Where did R live before - state or country
          900684 How long has R lived in this house/condo/apartment
          900685 Does R/R's family own or rent R's home


                           CONDITIONS OF THE INTERVIEW

          900686 Others present at interview
          900687 R's cooperation
          900688 R's level of information about politics/public affairs
          900689 R's apparent intelligence
          900690 Was R suspicious before interview
          900691 R's interest in the interview
          900692 R's sincerity
          900693 Did R report income correctly
          900694 Interviewer's estimate of R's family income
          900695 Was interview conducted in english
          900696 Language in which interview was conducted (if other than
              english)


                          R'S REACTION TO THE INTERVIEW

          900697 R's reaction to interview: negative - general
          900698 Negative - too long
          900699 Negative - too complicated
          900700 Negative - boring/tedious/repetitious
          900701 R wanted to stop before completion
          900702 R was ill/deaf/tired, interview was hard for R
          900703 R was confused by questions, interview was hard for R
          900704 Doubts over lack of knowledge/suitability for interview
          900705 Doubts over lack of political knowledge
          900706 R was agitated or stressed by interview process
          900707 R angry at interview content
          900708 R concerned about sampling purposes or bias
          900709 R could not read respondent booklet
          900710 R appeared to enjoy interview
          900711 Neutral or no


                                 VOTE VALIDATION

          900712 Vote validation filter variable
          900713 Interview ID
          900714 Election Office Number

                Location and Verification of Registration Record

          900715 Was a registration record found for respondent
          900716 How well does R's name on coversheet match the name on
              the registration record
          900717 Does birth date match
          900718 Month of birth on registration record
          900719 Year of birth on registration record
          900720 Is birthday on record within 10 years of coversheet date
          900721 Is address on registration record same as that on
              coversheet

          900722 Interviewer Checkpoint: Household composition

          900723 Using registration record, did R vote in November 1988
          900724 Using registration record, did R vote in November 1990
          900725 Is coversheet polling place recognizable to office as
              their jurisdiction
          900726 Is polling place given by R right for address on
              coversheet
          900727 Can a record be found when the correct records/precinct
              for this polling place are checked
          900728 Check local phone book to match surname with coversheet
              address
          900729 Does surname spelling match that on coversheet
          900730 Recheck registration records for name as spelled in
              telephone book
          900731 Does address on record match that on coversheet
          900732 Check with office: is one address a mailing address

          900733 Was the registration record found in current &/or
              active file
          900734 Month R registered
          900735 Year R registered

          900736 Was record located in purged/deceased/cancelled
              /to be processed/inactive file
          900737 Month record was purged
          900738 Year record was purged
          900739 Month R registered
          900740 Year R registered

                                   Did R Vote

          900741 Interviewer Checkpoint: Vote information on
              registration records

          900742 Does registration record indicate R voted November 1990
          900743 Month R last voted
          900744 Day R last voted
          900745 Year R last voted
          900746 Are there any records with 1990 voting information other
              than registration records
          900747 Do voting records indicate R voted in November 1990

          900748 Interviewer Checkpoint: Registration record found for R

          900749 Does registration record indicate R voted November 1988
          900750 Are there any records with voting information other
              than registration records
          900751 Do voting records indicate R voted in November 1988

            Using Voter Records to Determine if a Registered R Voted

          900752 Do any voting records indicate R voted in November 1990
          900753 Do any voting records indicate R voted in November 1988
          900754 1990 vote summary
          900755 1988 vote summary
          900756 Summary: assignment of R to vote/non-vote

                     ELECTION ADMINISTRATION (OFFICE) SURVEY

          900757 Month of record check
          900758 Day of record check
          900759 Number of precincts in office jurisdiction
          900760 Length of record check task
          900761 Number of forms assigned to this office

                         Search for Registration Records

          900762 How are registration records stored
          900763 Were files used to ascertain whether R was registered
          900764 How were the records used or accessed
          900765 Did interviewer or someone else operate crt
          900766 Was name of registrant sufficient to access a record
          900767 Can specific address identify who is registered
          900768 Is precinct number recorded

             Printouts of Machine-readable Master Registration File

          900769 Printout 1: Order of the listing
          900770 Printout 1: Is precinct number listed
          900771 Printout 1: Did interviewer or someone else source the
                          listing
          900772 Printout 2: Order of the listing
          900773 Printout 2: Is precinct number listed
          900774 Printout 2: Did interviewer or someone else source the
                          listing

                                 Card Index File

          900775 Order of the file
          900776 Is precinct number listed
          900777 Did interviewer or someone else source the file

                    Sources Used to Ascertain Whether R Voted

          900778 Were primary or secondary sources used to determine if
              registrant voted in 1988
          900779 Were poll books used as main or supplemental source in
              1988
          900780 Were primary or secondary sources used to determine if
              registrant voted in 1990
          900781 Were poll books used as main or supplemental source in
              1990
          900782 Did interviewer herself do actual poll book lookups
          900783 Were secondary sources used to ascertain if registrant
              voted
          900784 What kind of secondary sources were used

          900785 Who is responsible for transcription of information
              from polling place onto computer file

          900786 Is entry process complete for 1990 election

          900787 Does office purge for non-voting
          900788 Standard procedure to see if voters live at
              registration address
          900789 Check for everyone and/or non-voters
          900790 Time interval for check
          900791 How far back were purged records available
          900792 Month records last purged for non-voting
          900793 Year records last purged for non-voting
          900794 Name sufficient to access purged record
          900795 Can specific address identify who was registered
          900796 Precinct number recorded
          900797 Vote history recorded
          900798 Were purged registration records used

                                Interviewer Notes

          900799 How helpful was person operating the computer
          900800 Does interviewer think she would have found more
              herself
          900801 How helpful was person doing non-computer search
          900802 Does interviewer think she would have found more
              herself
          900803 Interviewer rating of office's records


      DATA NOTE:

           The original release of 1990 data included 2,000 cases,
           and the ICPSR 1990 printed codebook was produced with
           marginals for 2,000 cases.  However, it was determined
           later that the interview production of one 1990
           interviewer was highly suspect.  As a result of a review
           of cases, it was decided that there was a high
           probability that 20 interviews were either faked or
           conducted with ineligible respondents.  THESE 20 CASES
           HAVE BEEN DELETED FROM THE RAW DATA, SO THAT THERE ARE
           NOW 1,980 CASES FOR THE 1990 NES.
           [Deleted case IDs are:  0193,0370,0943,0946,1156,1566,
            1567,1569,1635,1636,1637,1937,1990,1993,1994,1995,1996,
            1997,1998,2000]