                       AMERICAN NATIONAL ELECTION STUDY, 1992:
                            PRE- AND POST-ELECTION SURVEY
                          [ENHANCED WITH 1990 AND 1991 DATA]


                                     (ICPSR 6067)







                               Principal Investigators


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







                                 First ICPSR Edition
                                    October 1993



                           Inter-university Consortium for
                            Political and Social Research
                                    P.O. Box 1248
                              Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106






                                 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,  1992:  PRE-
                     AND  POST-ELECTION  SURVEY  [ENHANCED WITH 1990
                     AND 1991 DATA] [Computer  file].  Conducted  by
                     University  of  Michigan,  Center for Political
                     Studies. ICPSR ed. Ann Arbor, MI: University of
                     Michigan,  Center  for  Political  Studies, and
                     Inter-university Consortium for  Political  and
                     Social  Research  [producers], 1993. Ann Arbor,
                     MI: Inter-university Consortium  for  Political
                     and Social Research [distributor], 1993.


                    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


INTRODUCTORY MATERIAL
---------------------
>> 1992 GENERAL INTRODUCTION
>> STUDY DESCRIPTION FOR THE 1990 POST-ELECTION SURVEY
>> 1992 SURVEY CONTENT AND ADMINISTRATION
>> SAMPLING ERRORS OF 1990 NES ESTIMATES
>> STUDY DESCRIPTION FOR THE 1990-1991 PANEL STUDY OF THE POLITICAL
      CONSEQUENCES OF WAR
>> ATTENDEES AT THE APRIL 1991 PLANNING MEETING FOR THE 1991 NES PANEL STUDY
>> 1992 STUDY CHARACTERISTICS AND ADMINISTRATION
>> STUDY DESCRIPTION FOR THE AMERICAN  NATIONAL ELECTION STUDY, 1992
>> 1992 STUDY DESIGN, CONTENT AND ADMINISTRATION
>> 1992 Congressional Ballot Cards, Candidate Lists, and Candidate Numbers
>> 1992 SURVEY FORMS:  DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION
>> 1992 SAMPLE DESIGN OF THE 1992 PRE- AND POST-ELECTION STUDY
>> WEIGHTED ANALYSIS OF 1992 NES DATA
>> COMPARING THE 1992 NES TO PREVIOUS NATIONAL ELECTION STUDIES
>> 1992 TECHNICAL REPORTS AND OTHER OCCASIONAL PAPERS
>> NES 1989 PILOT STUDY REPORTS
>> 1991 PILOT STUDY REPORTS
>> 1992 FILE STRUCTURE
>> 1992 CODEBOOK INFORMATION
>> ICPSR PROCESSING INFORMATION, 1992
>> 1992 NOTES
>> 1990-1991 CROSS-REFERENCE LIST
>> VARIABLE DESCRIPTION LIST 1990 POST-ELECTION SURVEY VARIABLES
>> 1990-91 PANEL STUDY OF THE POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES OF WAR VARIABLES
>> 1992 PRE- AND POST-ELECTION VARIABLES SAMPLING INFORMATION

CODEBOOK
--------
       1992 variables

APPENDICES
----------
>> 1980 Census Definitions
>> 1990 Census Definitions
>> 1992 Party-Candidate Master Codes
>> 1992 Campaign Issues Master Code
>> 1992 Candidate Number Codes and Lists
>> 1992 Important Problems Master Code
>> 1992 Party Differences Master Code
>> 1988/1992 Religious Preference Master Codes
>> 1980 Census Occupation Code
>> 1980 Census Industry Code
>> ICPSR Occupation Recodes, 1992
>> 1992 Nationality and Ethnicity Master Code
>> 1992 ICPSR State and Country Codes
>> Cities with Population Of 25,000 and Over, 1992
>> 1991 Study Background Documents
>> 1992 Gulf War Vote
>> 1992 Gulf War Code
>> Campaign Political Advertisments, 1992
>> 1992 Liberal/Conservative Code
>> 1992 Candidate Support Code
>> Type of Race, 1992
>> 1992 Sample Ballot Card
>> 1992 State Primary Ballot Cards







>> 1992 General Introduction

                       AMERICAN NATIONAL ELECTION STUDY, 1992:
                      [PRE- AND POST-ELECTION SURVEYS ENHANCED]
                             WITH DATA FROM 1990 AND 1991

                                     (ICPSR 6067)

             During the summer and early fall of 1993 the National
             Election Studies staff and ICPSR prepared a comprehensive
             version of the 1992 American National Election Study to take
             full advantage of both its cross-sectional and panel
             components.  The number of cases in this file, 2,485,
             includes all respondents from the 1992 Pre- and
             Post-Election surveys.  More than half of these respondents
             or 1,359 individuals also participated in the 1990
             Post-Election survey (ICPSR 9548) or in the 1991 Political
             Consequences of War survey (ICPSR 9673), or both.  This
             collection may therefore be used in the traditional fashion
             to support cross-sectional analysis of the 1992 electorate
             or to support panel analysis to trace political developments
             over the turbulent period from the fall of 1990 through the
             1992 presidential election and its aftermath.  Another way
             to describe this collection is to say that it contains
             "lagged" measures for 1,359 of the 2,485 cases.  The
             codebook contains complete documentation for 2,105 variables
             beginning with three identification variables which provide
             the ICPSR study number, edition number, and part number
             (V1-V3).  It continues with all questions from the 1990
             Post-Election survey (V4-V711, consecutive numbering), the
             1991 Political Consequences of War survey (V2002-V2580, not
             consecutively numbered), and concludes with the 1992 Pre-
             and Post-Election surveys (V3004-V7001, also not
             consecutively numbered).  This file does not contain any
             variables from the 1991 Pilot Study, originally embedded
             within ICPSR Study Number 9673.  On occasion the
             introduction to the codebook refers indirectly to this Pilot
             Study.  Users who wish to analyze the 1991 Pilot Study
             variables should consult Study Number 9673.  USERS SHOULD
             NOTE THAT NO VARIABLE NUMBERS HAVE CHANGED SINCE THESE FILES


             WERE RELEASED AS SEPARATE COLLECTIONS.  Those respondents
             who are members of the cross- section sample have padded
             missing data values for all 1990 and 1991 variables.

             A complete and detailed description of each element in the
             collection follows.  Please note that UNWEIGHTED FREQUENCIES
             AND MARGINALS ONLY appear in the codebook.




>> STUDY DESCRIPTION FOR THE 1990 POST-ELECTION SURVEY

                             (Variables v4 through v711)

             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.



>> 1992 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%


                               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
             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
             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.

                 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.

                        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.

                     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. In 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.



                        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     1.657     1.250

               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

               2040    1.716     1.685     1.561     1.298     1.020





>> STUDY DESCRIPTION FOR THE 1990-1991 PANEL STUDY
   OF THE POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES OF WAR

                           (Variables V2002 through V2580)

             The documentation for variables 2002 through 2580 is a
             subset of the documentation for ICPSR 9673, AMERICAN
             NATIONAL ELECTION STUDY: 1990-1991 PANEL STUDY OF THE
             POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES OF WAR/1991 PILOT STUDY.  There are,
             however, several references in this documentation to Pilot
             Study variables that are not contained in the data for this
             collection.

             This study was initially thought about as the 1991 Pilot
             Study, the next in sequence in a series of NES Pilot Studies
             which have been conducted in the biennial "off-years" since
             1979, and which have become the standard mode by which new
             areas of interest are explored and new instrumentation
             developed.  Pilot Studies typically involve re-interviews
             with a subset of respondents from the most recently
             completed Post-Election study.

             When the Board of Overseers met in early February of 1991,
             to consider responses to this stimulus letter, a consensus
             rapidly developed that with the 1990 National Election
             Studies Post-Election study completed before the outbreak of
             hostilities in the Persian Gulf, NES was particularly well
             positioned to carry out a panel study of the consequences of
             war.  Accordingly, the NES Board of Overseers
             reconceptualized the 1991 study as the second wave of a
             panel study focusing on the political consequences of the
             war, with the first wave of the study being the 1990
             Post-Election Study.  By interviewing respondents before the
             war broke out, a few months after hostilities ended, and
             hopefully again in the weeks after the 1992 elections
             (Additional funding will be sought for a third wave of the
             panel) we have a powerful opportunity to assess the short
             term and the longer term impact of war on national politics
             and public opinion.  As NES Board Chair, Thomas Mann, stated
             in his stimulus letter of February 25, 1991:

                  "...understanding  the public's assessment of  the
                  war  is a  way station on the  road  to  the  more
                  important  objective  of  understanding  how   war
                  shapes  the  future  course of national  politics.
                  The  implications are  many.  The war might affect
                  isolationist  sentiment; the  military's  claim on
                  the federal budget; views  on dissent and protest;
                  patriotism;  the  level of  internal discord;  the
                  relative appeal of  various Democratic challengers
                  in 1992; confidence in  government; alterations in
                  national priorities; racial and  ethnic  conflict;
                  and more. "

             A panel study committee was convened in early April to lay
             out thirty minutes of content for the Consequences of War
             study.  This committee, chaired by David Leege, University
             of Notre Dame,  decided upon a subset of questions from the
             1990 study which needed to be repeated in the 1991 Study.
             These questions are listed below:

                  * Approval ratings of Bush/Senators/Rep./Congress
                  * Thermometers
                  * Party ID
                  * Most important problems facing the country
                  * Differences between the parties
                  * Whether or not the Cold War is ending
                  * Assistance to E. Europe
                  * Was it the right thing to send military to Gulf
                  * Bush handling of Gulf Crisis
                  * Party differences on taxes, the economy, and foreign
                    affairs
                  * Liberal/conservative placements
                  * Personal and National economic well-being
                  * Defense spending placements
                  * Has the U.S. position in the world grown weaker or
                    stronger
                  * Trust in government
                  * Worry about conventional and nuclear war

             The Panel Study Committee crafted for the 1991 Study a
             number of additional items especially relevant to the Gulf
             War conflict:

                  * Foreign policy goals
                  * Congressional term limitations
                  * Did one party support use of force more than the
                    other
                  * Recall of respondent's own position on the war
                    resolution
                  * Respondent's personal feelings during the war
                  * Morality of bombing near civilians
                  * Attention paid to the war
                  * Attention to religious broadcasts
                  * Open-ended questions on good/bad outcomes of the war
                  * Was war worth the costs
                  * Friends or relatives in the Persian Gulf Crisis
                  * Aid to the Kurds
                  * Correct to stop while Saddam still in power
                  * Did Senators and Representative vote for or against
                    war resolution




>> ATTENDEES AT THE APRIL 1991 PLANNING MEETING FOR THE 1991 NES PANEL STUDY


             David Leege(Chair)
                 Notre Dame University

             Stanley Feldman
                 SUNY, Stony Brook

             Morris J. Fiorina
                 Harvard University

             Thomas W. Graham
                 University of California, San Diego

             Thomas M. Ivacko
                 NES Staff, Center for Political Studies,
                 University of Michigan

             Gary Jacobson
                 University of California, San Diego

             Donald Kinder
                 University of Michigan

             Warren Miller
                 Arizona State University

             John Mueller
                 Rochester University

             Doug Rivers
                 Stanford University

             Steven J. Rosenstone
                 University of Michigan

             Santa Traugott
                 NES Staff, Center for Political Studies,
                 University of Michigan

             John Zaller
                 University of California, Los Angeles


             While placing special emphasis on the panel study of the
             political consequences of war, the Board of Overseers
             explicitly did not wish to forego the pilot aspects of the
             off-year study, so a full-fledged pilot study is also
             embedded within the 1990-1991 Panel study.

             Variables related to the 1991 Pilot Study are not included
             in the ICPSR edition of this collection.  Users wishing to
             examine data from the pilot study should consult ICPSR 9673,
             AMERICAN NATIONAL ELECTION STUDY, 1991: 1990-91 PANEL STUDY
             OF THE POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES OF WAR/1991 PILOT STUDY.




>> 1992 STUDY CHARACTERISTICS AND ADMINISTRATION

             The 1990-1991 Panel/1991 Pilot Study was a telephone
             reinterview of respondents to the NES 1990 Post-Election
             Study.  Interviewing for the study was carried out by the
             Telephone Facility of the Survey Research Center, the
             Institute for Social Research.

                  * Field period was June 4, 1991 -- July 31, 1991
                  * Average interview length was 42 minutes
                  * 1385 interviews were taken
                  * Survey cooperation (response rate) was 78%
                    (See below)
                  * An experiment in response incentives was done
                    (See below, Response Incentives)
                  * Three Forms were used (see below, Form Assignment)
                  * The study was CATI -- there is no paper version of
                    the Questionnaire


             RESPONSE RATE CALCULATIONS

             This is a Panel Study, and response rate calculations are
             somewhat different than those for an initial contact study.
             In one sense, there is no "non-sample" since every one of
             the 2000 persons we originally interviewed in 1990 is, by
             definition, eligible for a reinterview. We reinterviewed
             1385 of these 2000 respondents to the 1990 study, for a
             strictly construed reinterview rate of 69.3%. Some of the
             615 respondents who were not reinterviewed are accounted for
             by "panel mortality" -- respondents who move and cannot be
             located, or die.  Some are effectively non- sample for the
             purposes of a telephone reinterview: they are extremely hard
             of hearing, or we cannot reach them by telephone (unlisted
             and refused telephone numbers; no telephone in the home and
             no recontact person with a telephone, et al.)  Those who
             needed to be interviewed in a language other than English
             were also treated as non-sample. Of the 615 respondents we
             did NOT reinterview, 223 are "non-sample."

             392 respondents from the 1990 Study either refused to be
             reinterviewed, or could not cooperate because they were ill
             or for some other reason physically unable to complete a
             telephone interview.  It should be noted that included among
             these 392 respondents are some who did not have a telephone
             and who we attempted to reach by passing messages through a
             recontact person for whom we did have a telephone number.
             (Respondents to NES interviews are routinely asked to give
             us the name of someone who will know how to reach them.)

             Cases such as these are normally not included in the Pilot
             Study samples, but were included for this study in the
             interests of maximizing the number of cases interviewed now
             and available for reinterview in 1992.  A cooperation rate,
             which excludes the 223 unlocatable cases, is calculated at
             78% (1385/1777).

             This cooperation, or response rate, compares very favorably
             with those of past pilot studies, in which respondents
             deemed hard to interview over the telephone and/or without
             telephones in their homes were eliminated in advance from
             the sample.  While we don't know what accounts for "good"
             response rates, we did do some careful advance contacting of
             respondents, to ensure that a) they could be located in June
             and July and b) they would be predisposed to give us a
             reinterview.  A "Thank-You" letter for their participation
             in the 1990 Study was mailed in early March. A respondent
             report (a brief description of some 1990 study results)
             reached them in early May.  Finally, a response incentives
             experiment was performed, which involved still a third
             contact with about 1200 of the 2000 respondents to the 1990
             study.  This experiment is described below.


             RESPONSE INCENTIVES EXPERIMENT

             At the suggestion of the Survey Operations Group in the
             Survey Research Center, the Board of Overseers agreed to
             implement a small response incentives experiment in the
             Pilot Study.  We eliminated from the experiment those who
             did not have good mailing addresses, or who we would
             normally have eliminated from an RDD sample -- i.e., they
             had no phones.

             The remaining respondents were divided into four roughly
             equal groups: those who received no advance communication
             from NES; those who received a letter saying that we would
             be calling for an interview shortly; those who received a
             letter and a pen with a University of Michigan logo and 4)
             those who received an advance letter and $1.

             An analysis of the results will be forthcoming from the
             Survey Operations Group and will be part of the NES 1991
             Pilot Study Reports.  The Pilot Study variables used for
             this experiment are not included in this collection.  Users
             wishing to examine data from the pilot study should consult
             ICPSR 9673, AMERICAN NATIONAL ELECTION STUDY, 1991: 1990-91
             PANEL STUDY OF THE POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES OF WAR/1991 PILOT
             STUDY.

             FORM ASSIGNMENT

             When the Board began planning for this study, we were
             budgeted for about 40 minutes of interview time.  Since we
             needed 30 minutes for the Panel component of the study, and
             had about 30 minutes of suggested new instrumentation, we
             had to divide the pilot study instrumentation into 3 forms
             of 10 minutes apiece.  This form assignment was based on the
             assignment to forms in the 1990 election study, which itself
             had a Form A and a Form B.  Form A, in the 1990 study,
             incorporated batteries of items on "values" --individualism,
             equalitarianism, attitudes toward racial matters, etc.  Form
             B included items relating to partisan differences, and some
             foreign policy questions.  Also, it contained the standard
             "women's role" seven-point scale.

             It was decided by the Pilot Study Committee that analysis of
             Form One items (those relating to attitudes toward
             immigration) on the Pilot required respondents from Form A
             of the 1990 Post Election Study, and that analysis of Form
             Two (gender-related) instrumentation should be done on
             respondents to Form B of the Post-Election Study.
             Accordingly, the form assignment was done such that
             two/thirds of the Form A respondents were assigned to Form
             One in the Pilot Study; two/thirds of the Form B respondents
             were assigned to Form Two; and the remaining one/third in
             each of 1990 Study's Form A and Form B were assigned to the
             Pilot Study Form Three.  The partitioning of the Forms A and
             B into thirds was done randomly, and the initial assignment
             to Form A and Form B in the 1990 study was random.





>> STUDY DESCRIPTION FOR THE AMERICAN NATIONAL ELECTION STUDY, 1992

                           (Variables V3004 through V7001)

             The 1992 American National Election Study 1992 was conducted
             by the Center for Political Studies of the Institute for
             Social Research, under the general direction of Warren E.
             Miller, Donald R. Kinder and Steven J. Rosenstone.  Santa
             Traugott was the Director of Studies for the National
             Election Studies.  Giovanna Morchio was the Study Manager,
             overseeing the study from very early planning stages through
             release of the 1992 data collection.

             This is the twenty-second 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 eighth traditional
             time-series study to be conducted under the auspices of
             National Science Foundation Grants (SOC77-08885,
             SES-8341310, and SES-8808361) providing long-term support
             for the National Election Studies.  Since 1978, the National
             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 1992 National
             Election Study included: Thomas Mann, The Brookings
             Institution (Chair); Stanley Feldman, University of
             Kentucky; Morris Fiorina, Harvard University; Mary Jackman,
             University of California at Davis; Gary C.  Jacobson,
             University of California, San Diego; David Leege, Notre Dame
             University; Douglas Rivers, Stanford University; Virginia
             Sapiro, University of Wisconsin; 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 study planning process, a special planning
             committee was appointed, a pilot study conducted, and
             stimulus letters sent to members of the scholarly community
             soliciting input on study plans.  David Leege chaired the
             1992 Study Planning Committee which included from the board
             Stanley Feldman, Mary Jackman, Douglas Rivers, Virginia
             Sapiro, and three other scholars: Paul Beck, Ohio State
             University; Jack Citrin, University of California at
             Berkeley; and Leonie Huddy, State University of New York at
             Stony Brook.

             A pilot study was carried out in June-July of 1991 for the
             purpose of developing new instrumentation for the 1992
             Election Study.  New items were tested in the area of ethnic
             politics, gender consciousness and social altruism.  It
             should be noted that the 1991 Pilot Study was simultaneously
             the 1990-1991 Panel Study on the Political Consequences of
             War. Data from the 1991 Pilot Study are available through
             the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social
             Research (ICPSR 9673).  Results from the pilot study
             (summarized in "List of 1991 Pilot Study Reports,") were
             used by the Planning Committee in formulating
             recommendations to the Board about study content for the
             1992 Pre- and Post-Election Surveys.  Copies of the Pilot
             Study reports may be obtained by contacting the NES project
             staff, at the addresses given below.

                  NES Project Staff
                  Center for Political Studies
                  Room 4026 Institute for Social Research
                  University of Michigan
                  Ann Arbor MI  48104





>> 1992 STUDY DESIGN, CONTENT AND ADMINISTRATION

             STUDY DESIGN

             The 1992 National Election Study entailed both a
             pre-election interview and a post-election re-interview.
             Approximately half of the 1992 cases are comprised of
             empaneled respondents who were first interviewed in the 1990
             National Election Study and later in the 1991 Political
             Consequences of War Study.  The other half of the cases are
             a freshly drawn cross-section sample. (Details of the sample
             design are given in "Sample Design of the 1992 Pre- and
             Post-Election Study", below.)

             The panel component of the study design provides an
             opportunity to trace how the changing fortunes of the Bush
             presidency, from the high levels of approval at the start of
             the Gulf War, through the decline after the onset of a
             recession, affected voting in the November 1992 presidential
             election.  It also permits analysts to investigate the
             origins of the Clinton and Perot coalitions as well as
             changes in the public's political preferences over the two
             years preceding the 1992 election.

             Altogether, 2485 citizens were interviewed in the 9 weeks
             prior to the November 3, 1992 election.  [Note: The original
             study Staff release of the 1992 National Election Study in
             April, 1993 contained 2,487 cases.  See the note on "A Note
             on Deletion of Cases", below, for further information about
             the two cases deleted from this edition of the collection.]
             To permit analysis of the impact of the unfolding election
             campaign, a random half of the sample was released to the
             field on September 1 and the other half on October 1st. 1359
             of the pre-election interviews were conducted with panel
             respondents; 1126 with cross-section respondents.  In the
             weeks following the election, 2255 pre-election respondents
             were reinterviewed; 1250 panel, 1005 cross-section.  Further
             details of the administration of the surveys are given in
             "Study Administration", below.

             The two components of the study -- the panel and the new
             cross-section -- were designed to be easily used together to
             create a combined nationally representative sample of the
             American electorate.  Several case weights are provided with
             this data set.

              V3008 (which incorporates sampling, nonresponse and
                    post-stratification adjustments) should be used when
                    analyzing the combined sample (the panel and the new
                    cross-section respondents).

              V3009 (which incorporates sampling, nonresponse and
                    post-stratification adjustments) should be used
                    when analyzing the panel respondents alone.

              V7000 (which corrects for panel attrition and the
                    aging of the panel respondents, but does not
                    incorporate sampling, nonresponse and post-
                    stratification adjustments) should be used when
                    comparing either the panel respondents or the
                    combined panel and new cross-section respondents
                    to previous (unweighted)  National Election
                    Studies data collections.

             See "Sample Design of the 1992 Pre- and Post-Election
             Study", below, and the documentation for V3008, V3009, and
             V7000, for further information.

             The frequencies that appear in this codebook are unweighted.


             STUDY CONTENT; SUBSTANTIVE THEMES

             The content for the 1992 Election Study reflects its double
             duty, both as the traditional presidential election year
             time-series data collection and as a panel study.  The
             substantive themes represented in the 1992 questionnaires
             include:

               *  interest in the political campaigns; concern about
                  the outcome; and attentiveness to the media's coverage
                  of the campaign

               *  information about politics

               *  evaluation of the presidential candidates and placement
                  of presidential candidates on various issue
                  dimensions

               *  partisanship and evaluations of the political parties

               *  knowledge of, contact with, and evaluation of House
                  candidates (including questions on how their
                  Representative voted on the Persian Gulf War
                  resolution and whether he/she was implicated in the
                  House banking scandal) ; opinions on term limitations

               *  political participation:  turnout in the Presidential
                  primaries and in the November general election; other
                  forms of electoral campaign activity

               *  vote choice for President, the U.S. House, and the U.S.
                  Senate, including second choice for President

               *  personal and national economic well-being, with
                  particular attention to the impact of the recession

               *  positions on social welfare issues including:  social
                  security; government health insurance; federal budget
                  priorities, and the role of the government in the
                  provision of jobs and good standard of living

               *  positions on social issues including:  abortion, the
                  death penalty; prayer in the schools; the rights of
                  homosexuals; sexual harassment and women's rights

               *  racial and ethnic stereotypes; opinions on school
                  integration and affirmative action; attitudes towards
                  immigrants (particularly Hispanics and Asians);
                  opinions on immigration policy and bilingual education

               *  opinions about the nation's most important problem and
                  the most important issues discussed during the local
                  congressional campaign

               *  political predispositions:  moral traditionalism;
                  patriotism; political efficacy; egalitarianism;
                  individualism; trust in government; racial prejudice;
                  and feminist consciousness

               *  social altruism and social connectedness

               *  assessments of U.S. involvement in the Persian Gulf War
                  and of U.S. foreign policy goals

               *  feeling thermometers on a wide range of political
                  figures and political groups; affinity with various
                  social groups

               *  detailed demographic information and measures of
                  religious affiliation and religiosity




>> 1992 Congressional Ballot Cards, Candidate Lists, and Candidate Numbers


             In the usual NES Post-Election survey, and for 1992, in the
             Pre-Election survey as well, respondents are asked several
             questions about their particular Congresspersons and
             Senators.  Interviewers pre-edited questionnaires to fill in
             the names appropriate for the state and congressional
             district in which the respondent was living (or was living
             during the pre-election interview).  Each candidate and
             Senator is assigned a unique number that reflects his or her
             incumbency status and party.  (See Candidate
             Number Codes and Lists.)  Particular questions in the survey
             require the insertion by the interviewer during pre-editing
             of the names of candidates.  See, for example, post-election
             question B1, which includes feeling thermometers for the
             various candidates.  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 Appendix 5.

             Asking questions about incumbent candidates is somewhat more
             problematic in a year when redistricting occurred, and for
             the Pre-Election survey there is the additional complication
             that a number of states held their Congressional primaries
             after the Pre-Election field work had started.  Further
             details can be found at the documentation for Pre-Election
             questions J10-J11.


                      Handling of Congressional Incumbency Where
                              Redistricting has Occurred

             Throughout, whenever the word "incumbent" is used, its
             referent is a representative who was a member of the 102nd
             Congress; i.e., the Congress in session prior to the
             November 1992 General Election.  Due to redistricting as a
             result of the 1990 U.S. Census, any given incumbent's
             district for the 103rd Congress may consist of a fairly
             different geographical area from the area covered by the
             district prior to the boundary changes. Therefore, prior to
             1992, the "incumbent" may or may not have been the
             representative for the particular piece of geography (the
             sample segment or census tract) in which the respondent
             lives.  For each sample segment, we have included in the
             dataset its 1992 congressional district number, v3019, and
             its congressional district number in 1990, v3020.  By
             comparing the two, it can be determined whether the
             "incumbent" in question was actually the respondent's
             incumbent prior to the 1992 general election.


               "Lagged" Measures Obtained from 1990 and 1991 Interviews

             Slightly more than half of the respondents in the 1992 study
             were also interviewed in 1990 and 1991. Therefore, all of
             the variables associated with the 1990 Post-Election Study
             (ICPSR 9548) and the 1991 Political Consequences of War
             Study (ICPSR 9673) are available for use as "lagged"
             measures in the current release of this collection.


             STUDY ADMINISTRATION

                         Pre-election Study Release of Sample

             To permit analysis of the impact of the unfolding election
             campaign and to minimize the relationship between interviews
             taken late in the campaign period and the difficulty of
             obtaining an interview, NES divided the Pre-Election study
             sample into two random parts. Administration of the first
             random half occurred between September 1 and September 30;
             the second half between October 1 and October 31st, with the
             first two days of November as "cleanup." The two part
             division applied to both panel and cross-section samples.

             Note that the study period began before Labor Day, the
             traditional start of the Election Studies (and Presidential
             campaigns). The combination of a late date for Labor Day
             (Sept. 7) and an early date for Election Day (Nov. 3rd)
             would have shortened our standard field period by about a
             week, which would have reduced the overall response rate.


                                 Sample "Replicates"

             To more closely tailor the field effort to the actual sample
             performance during this study, both parts of the sample
             (panel and cross-section) were randomly subdivided into five
             replicates, each of which is a proper, random subsample of
             the NES sample.  Replicates 1 and 2 were considered the
             "base sample," certain to be released, with three replicates
             being held in reserve to be released for fieldwork October
             1, 1992, if it was decided they were needed.  Replicates 4
             and 5 were released at that time.


                       Survey Modes:  Design and Implementation

             One of the administrative problems in fielding a panel study
             is that respondents have had an intervening period of time
             in which to relocate, perhaps at some remove from areas
             where field staff is maintained.  Additionally, some of the
             SRC sample primary areas were replaced between 1990 and
             1992, and therefore potentially some of the 1990 Election
             Study respondents lived in areas where SRC interviewers were
             no longer on staff.  We estimated that between 50 and 125
             respondents might have moved to areas in which SRC did not
             have interviewers, or might be living in their 1990
             residence, in a place where SRC no longer maintained
             interviewing capability.  (As it turned out, the total
             number of panel respondents that we interviewed who were
             "out of range" for either of these two reasons was 43.) It
             was our intention to interview as many panel respondents as
             possible, but we did not want to incur the additional costs
             associated with interviewer travel. Therefore, we prepared a
             truncated version of both Pre- and Post-Election Survey
             questionnaires, (the "Short-Form") to be administered over
             the telephone to those panel respondents who had moved out
             of range.

             Interviews, both in the Pre- and in the Post Election
             surveys, were also administered over the telephone to many
             respondents, both panel and cross-section, who did not meet
             the "panel out-of-range" criteria for telephone
             interviewing.  The mis-implementation of the design also
             entailed the inappropriate use of the full-length
             questionnaire. Table 7, below, sums up the situation. In
             total, 86 percent of the interviews (91 percent before the
             election and 81 percent of those conducted after the
             election) were administered as mandated by the study design:
             face-to-face with the full length questionnaires or by phone
             for those panel respondents who moved out of range.


                             A NOTE ON DELETION OF CASES

             In putting together the panel file, study staff examined
             with particular attention the work of one interviewer and
             decided that his entire production for 1990 was suspect. Two
             panel reinterviews in 1992 were thus based on 1990
             interviews which were very likely faked in whole or very
             large part.  The decision was made to eliminate these
             interviews from the 1992 dataset (and also from the panel
             file).  Consequently, the total N for the ICPSR release of
             these data is 2485 as compared with a N of 2487 in the Study
             Staff release of the 1992 Cross-Section data.  The tables
             found in this introduction were produced using the original
             Study Staff release of the data and reflect the original N
             of 2487.



                     Table 7: Mode and Form Administration in the
                           1992 Pre-/Post Election Studies

             Panel Respondents

                 Mode     Questionnaire   Pre-Election     Post-Election

             Face-to-face(A)    Full       1155   84.8%      951   76.%1
             Phone(B)           Short       149   11.0%      186   14.9%
             Phone              Full         57    4.2%      113    9.0%

                                 Subtotal   1361  100.0%     1250  100.0%


             Cross Section Respondents

                 Mode     Questionnaire   Pre-Election     Post-Election

             Face-to-face(C)    Full       1053   93.6%      830   82.6%
             Phone (D)          Short         5     .4%        4     .4%
             Phone              Full         68    6.0%      171   17.0%

                                Subtotal   1126  100.0%     1005  100.0%


             Total Respondents

                 Mode     Questionnaire   Pre-Election     Post-Election

             Face-to-face       Full       2208   88.8%     1781    79.0%
             Phone              Short       154    6.2%      190     8.4%
             Phone              Full        125    5.0%      284    12.6%

                                   Total   2487  100.0%     2255  100.0%

             A.  The 1155 Pre-election respondents in this category
             include 16 Panel interviews taken F-T-F using the Spanish
             version of the questionnaire.

             B.  The Pre-election respondents in this category include 1
             Spanish language panel interview, taken by phone.

             C.  The pre-election total includes 4 Spanish version
             questionnaires taken F-T-F.

             D.  The 5 cases in the Pre-election category consist of 1
             F-T-F and 3 Phone short-form, plus 1 Spanish language
             cross-section case.







>> 1992 SURVEY FORMS:  DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION

             There were two[5] forms of both the Pre- and the Post-
             Election Study questionnaire: a short form, to be
             administered over the phone to panel respondents who were
             "out of range," as described above, and a standard, or
             full-length questionnaire to be administered to everyone
             else.  The questions on the short-form were a subset of
             those on the full length questionnaires whose 70 minutes in
             length was thought to be unacceptably long for a telephone
             interview.

             50 minutes worth of content was selected for the short form,
             both Pre- and Post-Election Surveys.  The criteria for
             inclusion were that the questions were "core," i.e.,
             questions part of the NES time-series, as opposed to
             recently piloted or topical items, or that they related to
             the focus of the 1991 Political Consequences of War Study.
             We decided not to repeat most of the demographics items for
             the approximately 100 panel respondents we expected would be
             interviewed with the short form, relying instead on their
             responses in the 1990 survey.  Additionally, some
             congressional content was deleted, because of the difficulty
             in assigning respondents over the phone to the newly drawn
             congressional districts.

             Because we estimated the number of cases affected to be few
             and randomly scattered across the country, we did not design
             the instrument for the telephone.  Except for the income
             question, we made no adjustments to the questionnaire for
             the difference in mode.  In general, interviewers were
             expected to read response options to the respondent and to
             repeat them as necessary until they were clear to the
             respondent.

             All interviews with a short form questionnaire, except for
             Spanish language, and including "legitimate" or
             "out-of-range" panel respondent interviews, have been
             designated as partial interviews, in the result code
             variables for the Pre- and Post-Election Studies (v3033 and
             v5012).


             EVALUATION OF PROBLEMS IN STUDY IMPLEMENTATION

             The problems mentioned above did not become fully evident
             until coding was virtually completed, in the last week of
             February. At its March 1 meeting, the NES Board of
             Overseers, to whom these problems were reported, instructed
             the Principal Investigators to assess the significance of
             these problems with respect to data quality.  This work was
             carried out by the Principal Investigators and members of
             the Study Staff in consultation with Board members, SRC
             methodologists and Center for Political Studies personnel as
             appropriate. The findings are available in NES Technical
             Report No.  43, available from NES Project Staff.

             As the Technical Report documents in detail, the
             inappropriate use of the telephone and the short-form
             questionnaire thankfully had only a negligible impact on the
             quality of the 1992 data.  When the short-form questionnaire
             was used, it of course generated missing data on those items
             that appeared on the full-length questionnaire but not on
             the short-form. But this resulted in a very slight increase
             (less than .05 percentage points) in the standard errors of
             the affected variables. The pattern of missing data (from
             use of the short-form questionnaire) is unrelated to the
             demographic or political characteristics of respondents.
             Instead, interviewers turned to the short form when it
             appeared they would have difficulty securing an interview
             for other reasons having to do with the field administration
             of the study. The same holds for use of phone instead of
             face-to-face interviewing. Respondents interviewed over the
             phone are politically indistinguishable from those
             interviewed face-to-face. Attributes of the study
             administration, not attributes of the individual
             respondents, are associated with the propensity of
             interviewers to conduct some of their interviews over the
             phone.  Finally, although some survey questions perform
             differently across the two modes of interviewing, the
             distribution of responses and the relationship among
             variables are substantively the same among phone and
             face-to-face respondents.


             RESPONSE RATES

             The Pre-Election study response rate for the cross section
             sample was 74.0%.  Recalculating the response rate to
             eliminate 4 short-form, cross-section interviews (partials)
             results in a response rate of 73.7%[6].  For the panel
             sample, the response (or reinterview) rate is 77.7% when
             partials, or short form interviews, are included, but drops
             to 69.2% when they are excluded.  Post-Election reinterview
             rates are 91.8% for the panel, including partials, and 85.0%
             excluding the partial or short-form interviews.  The
             cross-section Post-Election reinterview rate was 89.3%
             including 4 partials; 88.9% excluding them. These
             calculations do not differentiate between face-to-face and
             telephone modes of interviewing.


             INTERVIEW COMPLETION RATE

             Table 8 lays out the number of interviews taken for each
             week elapsing after the Nov. 3 General Election.  In 1992,
             25.8% of the interviews were completed in the first two
             weeks after the election; 53.1% in the first four weeks. For
             comparison, in 1988, 55% of the interviews were taken in the
             first two weeks after the election, and 82% in the first
             four weeks.


               Table 8: Number of and Cumulative Percent of Interviews
                Taken in the Post-Election Study by Week of Interview

             DATES             NUMBER OF      CUMULATIVE      CUMULATIVE
                              INTERVIEWS     NUMBER OF       PERCENT OF
                                             INTERVIEWS      INTERVIEWS

             Nov. 4-Nov.10        237            237            10.5%
             Nov.11-Nov.17        344            581            25.8
             Nov.18-Nov.24        372            953            42.3
             Nov.25-Dec. 1        245           1198            53.1
             Dec. 2- Dec. 8       348           1546            68.6
             Dec.  9-Dec.15       278           1824            80.9
             Dec.16-Dec.22        175           1999            88.7
             Dec.23-Dec.29         86           2085            92.5
             Dec.30-Jan.  5       125           2210            98.0
             Jan.  6-Jan.13        45           2255           100.0%


             VARIABLES SUPPRESSED FOR REASONS OF CONFIDENTIALITY

             Starting with the 1986 Election Study, NES has released
             occupation code variables in somewhat less detail than in
             years past.  This dataset includes a two-digit code with 71
             categories corresponding to Census Bureau occupational
             groupings.  Those who need the full occupation code for
             their research should contact the NES project staff for
             information about the conditions under which access 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.  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 National Election Studies have contained
             several minutes of open-ended responses (for example, the
             candidate 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 which 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.



>> 1992 SAMPLE DESIGN OF THE 1992 PRE- AND POST-ELECTION STUDY[7]


             STUDY POPULATION

             The study population for the 1992 National Pre/Post Election
             Study (NES) is defined to include all United States citizens
             of voting age on or before the 1992 Election Day. Eligible
             citizens must have resided in housing units, other than on
             military reservations, in the forty-eight coterminous
             states.  This definition excludes persons living in Alaska
             or Hawaii and requires eligible persons to have been both a
             United States citizen and eighteen years of age on or before
             the 3rd of November 1992.


             MULTI-STAGE AREA PROBABILITY SAMPLE DESIGN

             The 1992 NES is based on a multi-stage area probability
             sample selected from the Survey Research Center's (SRC)
             National Sample design.  Identification of the 1992 NES
             sample respondents was conducted using a four stage sampling
             process--a primary stage sampling of U.S. Metropolitan
             Statistical Areas (MSAs) 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 (PSUs), which
             depending on the sample stratum are either MSAs, 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 MSA/Non-MSA 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
             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 to three
             times the size of the 1992 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 PSUs.  Each of the
             partitions represents a stratified subselection from the
             full 84 PSU design.

             Since the 1992 NES desired comparison of data over time from
             1990 NES respondents, as well as an expanded representative
             sample of eligible 1992 respondents, a combined
             panel/cross-section sample was designed for the 1992
             Pre/Post-Election Study.

             The Panel portion of the 1992 sample was selected from the
             original 1990 NES sample which, at the Primary stage had
             been selected from the "one-half" partition of the 1980 SRC
             National Sample.  The"A" one-half sample of the 1980
             National Sample design includes 11 of the 16
             self-representing MSA PSUs and a stratified subsampling of
             34 (of the 68) nonself-representing PSUs of the SRC National
             Sample.  The Panel portion of the 1992 NES is designed to
             allow longitudinal analysis of individual change since the
             panel cases follow the original proportionate distribution
             to the 1990 "A" one-half sample areas.

             The 1992  NES Cross-Section encompasses both the panel cases
             and a new selection of cases from the two-thirds partition
             of the 1980 National Sample (that is the "A" plus the "B1"
             PSUs).  The two-thirds 1980 National Sample design includes
             all 16 self-representing PSUs and 11 additional
             nonself-representing PSUs for a total of 45 (of 68)
             nonself-representing PSUs.  The additional cases were added
             to the 1992 NES to supplement the Panel selections such that
             when the Panel and new Cross-section selections are combined
             for analysis a representative cross-section of the study
             population has been maintained.

             Table 9 identifies the PSUs for the 1992 National Election
             Study by MSA status and Region.  The PSUs in the Panel
             portion of the sample design are shown in standard print on
             this table while those PSUs added for the two-thirds
             Cross-section are shown in italics.




              Table 9:  PSUs in the 1992 NES Pre- and Post-Election
             Survey
                              By: MSA Status and Region.

                       REGION            Self-representing
                                               MSAs

                     Northeast            New York, NY-NJ
                                          Philadelphia, PA-NJ
                                          Boston, MA*
                                          Nassau-Suffolk, NY
                                          Pittsburgh, PA*

                     North                Chicago, IL
                     Central              Detroit, MI
                                          St. Louis, MO*
                                          Minneapolis, MN-WI

                     South                Washington, DC-MD-VA
                                          Dallas-Ft Worth, TX
                                          Houston, TX*
                                          Baltimore, MD*
                                          Atlanta, GA

                     West                 Los Angeles, CA
                                          San Francisco, CA


                       REGION        Nonself-representing
                                               MSAs

                     Northeast            Buffalo, NY
                                          Newark, NJ
                                          Haven, CT
                                          Atlantic City, NJ
                                          Manchester, NH

                     North                Milwaukee, WI
                     Central              Dayton, OH
                                          Kansas City, MO-KS
                                          Des Moines, IA
                                          Grand Rapids, MI
                                          Fort Wayne, IN
                                          Steubenville, OH
                                          Saginaw, MI

                     South                Birmingham, AL
                                          Columbus, GA-AL
                                          Miami, FL

                                         xliv


                                          Jacksonville, FL
                                          Lakeland, FL
                                          McAllen, TX
                                          Waco, TX
                                          Wheeling, WV
                                          Knoxville, TN
                                          Richmond, VA

                     West                 Seattle, WA
                                          Denver, CO
                                          Anaheim, CA
                                          Riverside, CA
                                          Fresno, CA
                                          Eugene, OR
                                          Phoenix, AZ


                       REGION             Non-MSAs

                     Northeast            Schuyler, NY
                                          Gardner, MA

                     North                Sanilac, MI
                     Central              Decatur, IN
                                          Phillips, KS/Saline, NE
                                          Mower, MN

                     South                Bulloch, GA
                                          Sabine, LA
                                          Hale, TX
                                          Monroe, AR/Ashley, AR
                                          Bedford, TN
                                          Montgomery, VA
                                          Robeson, NC

                     West                 ElDorado-Alpine, CA
                                          Carbon, WY

             NOTE: The PSU's marked with an asterisk are
             Self-Representing for sample designs which use the
             two-thirds or larger portion of the sample (i.e., in this
             case, the combined cross-section and panel design).  For the
             half-sample design (i.e., in this case, the panel portion
             alone) 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.


                       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[8] Census summary tape file series (STF1-B).  The
             designated second-stage sampling units (SSUs), termed "area
             segments", are comprised of census blocks in the
             metropolitan primary areas and enumeration districts (EDs)
             in the rural areas of both non-MSA and MSA 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 SSUs 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) PSUs the number of sample area
             segments varied in proportion to the size of the primary
             stage unit, from a high of 12 Cross-section and 12 Panel
             area segments in the SR New York MSA, 6 Cross-section
             segments and 5 Panel segments in the San Francisco MSA, to a
             low of 4 Cross-section and no Panel area segments in the
             smaller SR PSUs such as Minneapolis and Atlanta MSAs.  Most
             Nonself-representing (NSR) half-sample (A) PSUs were
             represented by 2 Cross-section and 6 Panel area segments;
             most of the eleven other (B1) NSR PSUs had 6 Cross-section
             area segments (and, of course, no Panel segments).  A total
             of 487 area segments were selected, 206 Cross-section and
             281 Panel segments, 151 in the sixteen self-representing
             PSUs and 336 in the nonself-representing PSUs as shown in
             Table 10.



              Table 10:  Number of Cross-Section and Panel Area Segments
               in the 1992 NES Sample Showing PSU Name, National-Sample
                        Stratum and Partition, and MSA Status

             1980     1980 National Sample   # of 1992 NES  # of 1992 NES
             N. Samp       PSU Name          Cross-section   Panel Sample
             PSU#                             Sample Segs.    Segments

             Six Largest Self-representing PSUs

               1   A       New York, NY-NJ         12              12
               2   A       Los Angeles, CA         12               9
               3   A       Chicago, IL              8               8
               4   A       Philadelphia, PA-NJ      6               6
               5   A       Detroit, MI              6               6
               6   A       San Francisco, CA        6               5

             Ten Remaining Self-representing PSUs

               7   B1      Washington, DC-MD-VA     6               0
               8   B1      Dallas-Ft Worth, TX      6               0
               9   A       Houston, TX              0               7
              10   A       Boston, MA               0               6
              11   B1      Nassau-Suffolk, NY       4               0
              12   A       St Louis, MO-IL          0               6
              13   A       Pittsburgh, PA           0               6
              14   A       Baltimore, MD            0               6
              15   B1      Minneapolis, MN-WI       4               0
              16   B1      Atlanta, GA              4               0

             Nonself-representing MSAs:  Northeast

              17   A       Buffalo, NY              2               6
              18   B1      Newark, NJ               6               0
              21   A       New Haven, CT            2               6
              23   A       Atlantic City, NJ        2               6
              24   A       Manchester, NH           2               6

             Nonself-representing MSAs:  North Central

              26   A       Milwaukee, WI            2               6
              27   A       Dayton, OH               2               6
              28   B1      Kansas City, MO-KS       6               0
              29   A       Des Moines, IA           2               6
              31   A       Grand Rapids, MI         2               6
              32   A       Fort Wayne, IN           2               6
              33   A       Steubenville, OH-WV      2               6
              34   B1      Saginaw, MI              6               0

             1980     1980 National Sample   # of 1992 NES  # of 1992 NES
             N. Samp       PSU Name          Cross-section   Panel Sample
             PSU#                             Sample Segs.    Segments

             Nonself-representing MSAs:  South

              36   A       Birmingham, AL           2               6
              39   A       Columbus, GA-AL          2               6
              40   A       Miami, FL                2               6
              42   B1      Jacksonville, FL         6               0
              43   A       Lakeland, FL             2               6
              44   A       McAllen, TX              2               6
              45   B1      Waco, TX                 6               0
              47   A       Wheeling, WV-OH          2               6
              49   A       Knoxville, TN            2               6
              50   A       Richmond, VA             2               6

             Nonself-representing MSAs:  West

              53   A       Seattle, WA              2               6
              55   A       Denver, CO               2               6
              56   A       Anaheim, CA              2               6
              57   B1      Riverside-San
                             Bernardino, CA         6               0
              58   A       Fresno, CA               2               6
              59   A       Eugene, OR               2               6
              60   B1      Phoenix, AZ              6               0

             Nonself-representing Non-MSAs:  Northeast

              63   A       Schuyler, NY             2               6
              64   B1      Gardner, MA              6               0

             Nonself-representing Non-MSAs:  North Central

              65   A       Sanilac, MI              2               6
              66   B1      Decatur, IN              6               0
              68   A       Phillips, KS/            **              6
                             Saline, NE             2               **
              70   A       Mower, MN                2               6

             Nonself-representing Non-MSAs:  South

              73   A       Bulloch, GA              2               6
              74   B1      Sabine, LA               5               0
              76   A       Hale, TX                 2               6
              77   A       Monroe, AR/              **              6
                             Ashley, AR             2               **
              78   A       Bedford, TN              2               6



              80   B1      Montgomery, VA           5               0
              81   A       Robeson, NC              2               6

             Nonself-representing Non-MSAs:  West

              82   A       ElDorado-Alpine, CA      2               6
              84   A       Carbon, WY               2               6

                                         Total    206             281


             ** In two Non-SMSA National Sample strata (68 and 77) the
             1980 materials from which the Panel area segments had been
             selected was exhausted (i.e., there were insufficient
             remaining SSUs from which to select new Cross-section area
             segments), so a new Primary selection had to be made from
             those two strata.  Therefore, the Panel area segments for
             stratum 68 are from PSU Phillips County, KS, and the
             Cross-section area segments are from Saline County, NE; the
             Panel area segments for stratum 77 are from PSU Monroe
             County, AR, and the Cross-section area segments are from
             Ashley County, AR.

             Although 281 segments were used in the 1990 NES, only 272
             Panel segments appear in the 1992 NES Panel.  The difference
             is due to some segments used in 1990 not having any
             interviews completed in 1990 and, therefore, not becoming
             part of the 1992 Panel.


                        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 1992 NES
             was systematically selected from the housing unit listings
             for the sampled area segments.

             The overall probability of selection for 1992 NES
             Cross-Section households was f=.00003988 or .3988 in 10,000.
             The equal probability sample of households was achieved for
             the combined Cross-Section/Panel design 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.

             Five 1992 Panel replicates were designated for the entire
             "frame" of households in which a complete interview was
             obtained in the 1990 NES study (2000 - 11 partial interviews
             = 1989 1990 interview HUs).  The original 1990 sample lines
             had been selected from the National Sample ("A" or
             "half-sample" PSUs) to be inversely proportional to the PPS
             probabilities used to select the area segments as described
             in the previous paragraph.

             The new Cross-Section component of the 1992 NES sample
             design was disproportionately allocated to the "B1" PSUs to
             supplement the Panel cases such that when cross-sectional
             analysis was undertaken, combining new cross-section cases
             with panel cases would yield an equal probability sample of
             households.  The distribution of the combined sample would
             be that required by the two-thirds design.


                          Fourth Stage Respondent Selection

             Within each sampled new cross-section housing unit, the SRC
             interviewer prepared a complete listing of all eligible
             household members.  Using an objective procedure described
             by Kish (1949)[9] a single respondent was then selected at
             random to be interviewed.  Regardless of circumstances, no
             substitutions were permitted for the designated respondent.
             This technique had also been used in 1990 to select the
             original Panel respondents.  In 1992 the same Panel
             respondent (R) was sought for interview as had been
             interviewed in 1990.


             SAMPLE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS

             The targeted completed interview sample size for the 1992
             NES Pre/Post-Election Survey was n = 2,057 total cases.  In
             the original sample size computation, the following
             assumptions were made for the cross-section component of the
             sample: response rate for the pre-election interview = .72
             and of these 95% were assumed to be available and
             cooperative for the post-election interview, combined
             occupancy/eligibility rate = .83.  These assumptions were
             derived from survey experience in the 1986 NES Post Election
             Survey[10].  The assumptions made for the panel component
             were: .913 recontact rate and .75 response rate for the
             pre-election interview.  The same .95 response rate for the
             post-election interview was assumed for both the panel and
             the cross-section component.

             To most closely tailor the field effort to the sample field
             experience during this study, both parts of the selected
             sample had five replicates designated.  Replicates 1 and 2
             were considered the "base sample", certain to be released.

             55% of this base was designated as Replicate 1 to be
             released September 1, 1992 and 45% designated as Replicate 2
             to be released October 1, 1992.  The other three replicates
             were designated "Reserve" replicates, one or more to be
             released for field work October 1, 1992 at the discretion of
             NES study staff.  Replicate 3 (Reserve replicate 1) was
             never, in fact, released.  Replicates 4 and 5 (Reserve
             replicates 2 and 3) were released with Base sample replicate
             2 on October 1, 1992. Each replicate is a proper subsample
             of the NES sample.

             A subsampling of one-third of selected addresses was made in
             certain cases when selected lines were determined to be
             within locked buildings, in gated subdivisions or in areas
             which posed a danger to interviewing staff.  This allowed
             concentration of greater field effort in these circumstances
             to obtain at least some interviews.  In cases where this was
             done, appropriate weighting of the results will be used to
             compensate.  (This is not reflected in the following tables
             however).

             Table 11 provides a full description of the original sample
             design specifications applied to the Base Sample and also
             indicates the number of HU listings assigned to each
             replicate. As stated above, Replicates 1 and 2 constitute
             the Base Sample; Replicates 3, 4 and 5 are reserve
             replicates.  Replicate 3 was, in fact, never released for
             field work.



                 Table 11: Original Sample Design Specifications and
                  Assumptions 1992 National Pre/Post-Election Survey

                                              Cross-Section Component
                                                   (Supplemental)

                                                      Original
                                                   Specifications
                                                   and Assumptions

                   Completed Post/ interview            1,000
                      Contact/Response Rate              .95
                   Completed Pre/ interview             1,052
                      Response Rate                      .72
                   Eligible sample households           1,462
                      Occupancy/Eligibility Rate[11]     .83
                      Panel Recontact Rate
                   Sample HU listings
                      Replicates 1 and 2                1,760

                      Replicate 1 (incl above)[12]        961
                      Replicate 2 (incl above)[13]        799

                      Replicate 3 (Reserve)[14]           200
                      Replicate 4 (Reserve)                75
                      Replicate 5 (Reserve)                51

                   Total Sample lines                   2,086


                                              Panel Component     Total

                                                  Original
                                               Specifications
                                               and Assumptions

                   Completed Post/ interview        1,057         2,057
                      Contact/Response Rate          .95
                   Completed Pre/ interview         1,112         2,164
                      Response Rate[15]              .75
                   Eligible sample households       1,483         2,945
                      Occupancy/Eligibility Rate[11]
                      Panel Recontact Rate          .913
                   Sample HU listings
                      Replicates 1 and 2            1,625         3,385

                      Replicate 1 (incl above)[12]    900
                      Replicate 2 (incl above)[13]    725

                                         lii


                      Replicate 3 (Reserve)[14]       208
                      Replicate 4 (Reserve)           104
                      Replicate 5 (Reserve)            52

                   Total Sample lines               1,989[16]


             SAMPLE DESIGN OUTCOMES

             Table 12 compares the original sample design specifications
             and assumptions for the new Cross-Section Component of the
             1992 NES as applied to the Base Sample (as in Table 11) and
             as applied to the actually released sample (Replicates 1, 2,
             4 and 5) to the actual outcome for that component.  Table 13
             makes a similar comparison for the Panel Component of the
             1992 NES Sample and Table 14 presents a summary of the
             figures for the combined Cross-Section/Panel Sample.  The
             response rates which appear in these tables are calculated
             using both complete and partial (short-form) interviews.  An
             alternative response rate which excludes short-form
             interviews is described in "Response Rates", above.



                 Table 12: Original Sample Design Specifications and
                Assumptions and Actual Sample Design Outcomes for the
                     Cross-Section Component of the 1992 National
                               Pre/Post-Election Survey

                                       Original        Original S & A
                                       Specifications  Applied to
                                       & Assumptions   Actual Release
                                       (Reps. 1 & 2)   (Reps. 1,2,4 & 5)

              Completed Post/Interviews       1,000          1,103
                Contact/Response Rate           .95          .95
              Released for Recontact          1,052          1,161
              Completed Pre/ Interviews       1,052          1,161
                Response Rate                   .72          .72
              Eligible Sample Households      1,462          1,613
                Occupancy/Eligibility Rate[17]  .83          .83

              Subsampling for dangerous/
                  locked  areas                  --           --
              Sample HU listings              1,760           1,943
                Sample growth from update[18]   --             1.03
              Selected Sample lines           1,760           1,886


                                              Actual
                                              Outcome

              Completed Post/Interviews       1,005
                Contact/Response Rate          .89
              Released for Recontact          1,126
              Completed Pre/ Interviews       1,126
                Response Rate                  .74
              Eligible Sample Households      1,522
                Occupancy/Eligibility Rate     .80
                                              1,900
                Subsampling for dangerous/
                  locked  areas                .99[19]
              Sample HU listings              1,923
                Sample growth from update     1.02
              Selected Sample lines           1,886



                 Table 13: Original Sample Design Specifications and
              Assumptions and Actual Sample Design Outcomes for the Panel
               Component of the 1992 National Pre/Post-Election Survey

                                         Original        Original S & A
                                         Specifications  Applied to
                                         & Assumptions   Actual Release
                                         (Reps 1 & 2)    (Reps 1,2,4 & 5)

              Completed Post/ Interviews     1,057             1,158
                Contact/Response Rate         .95               .95
              Released for Recontact         1,112             1,219
              Completed Pre/ Interviews      1,112             1,219
                Response Rate                 .75[20]           .75
              Eligible Sample Households     1,483             1,626
                Panel Recontact Rate         .913              .913
              Sample HU listings Released    1,625             1,781

              Total Panel cases              1,989             1,989


                                             Actual
                                             Outcome

              Completed Post/ Interviews      1,250
                Contact/Response Rate          .92
              Released for Recontact          1,361
              Completed Pre/ Interviews       1,361
                Response Rate                  .78
              Eligible Sample Households      1,752
                Panel Recontact Rate           .979
              Sample HU listings Released     1,789

              Total Panel cases               1,989



                 Table 14: Original Sample Design Specifications and
                Assumptions and Actual Sample Design Outcomes for the
                  Combined Cross-Section/Panel Sample. 1992 National
                               Pre/Post-Election Survey

                                         Original       Original S & A
                                       Specifications     Applied to
                                       & Assumptions    Actual Release
                                       (Reps. 1 & 2)   (Reps. 1,2,4 & 5)

              Completed Post/ Interviews    2,057            2,261

              Released for Recontact        2,164            2,380
              Completed Pre/ Interviews     2,164            2,380

              Eligible Sample Households    2,945            3,239

              Total Sample HU listings      3,385[21]        3,724

                Growth from update of
                  Cross-Section component                    1.015
              Selected Sample lines                          3,667


                                           Actual
                                           Outcome

              Completed Post/ Interviews    2,255

              Released for Recontact        2,487
              Completed Pre/ Interviews     2,487

              Eligible Sample Households    3,274

              Total Sample HU listings      3,712

             In comparing the second column of Table 12 with the third
             column, it can be seen that, for the 1992 Cross-Section
             component, the sample growth from the update procedure was
             slightly less than expected; this was perhaps due to the
             fact that many of the new cross-section segments had been
             listed within the year previous to field dates for the 1992
             NES study.  The original sample design specifications also
             overestimated the actual occupancy/eligibility rates
             resulting in 91 fewer eligible HUs than estimated.  However,
             since the actual response rate was higher than estimated,
             completed pre-election interviews fell only 35 short of the
             number estimated.  The assumptions for response rate and
             occupancy/eligibility rate were based on the 1986 NES field
             experience for a probability sample based on the entire
             two-thirds design of the National Sample.

             The actual response rate for the 1992 cross-section
             component (.74), as well as the occupancy/eligibility rate
             very likely reflects the disproportionate allocation of the
             new cross-section segments in the B1 areas of the National
             Sample which may well have different occupancy/eligibility
             and response rates than any overall past NES rates on which
             the original assumptions were based.

             The number of Post-election interviews obtained, 1,005, was
             closer to the target of 1000 interviews projected for the
             Base Sample alone than the 1,103 projected for the actual
             1,886 sample lines released.

             For the Panel Component (see Table 13), both the Panel
             recontact rate and the response rate exceeded assumptions
             resulting in 142 more pre-election interviews than expected.
             A lower than assumed response rate for the post-election
             interview reduced the excess to 92 more post-election
             interviews than projected for the release of the Panel base
             sample plus replicates 4 and 5 (reserve replicates 2 and 3).

             The figures for the combined cross-section sample shown in
             Table 14 show completed pre-election interviews of 107 over
             expected.  Due to lower than assumed response rate for the
             post-election interview, combined with lower cross-section
             and higher panel overall response and occupancy/eligibility
             rates, the final total number of post election interviews
             was 6 fewer than the projected outcome for the sample lines
             released.




>> WEIGHTED ANALYSIS OF 1992 NES DATA

             The area probability sample design for the 1992 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 which have shown these weights to have little
             significant impact on the values of NES estimates of
             descriptive statistics.

             The Sampling Section has provided two final person level
             analysis weights which will incorporate sampling,
             nonresponse and post-stratification factors.  One weight
             variable (#3009) is for use with Panel cases only; the other
             weight variable (#3008) is for the 1992 NES Cross-section
             (which includes both panel and new cross-section cases.)
             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.


                           CONSTRUCTION OF ANALYSIS WEIGHTS

             Nonresponse adjustment factors were constructed at the
             household level separately for Panel and new Cross-Section
             component cases.  Nonresponse adjustment cells were formed
             by crossing PSU type (Self-representing, Nonself-
             representing MSA or non-MSA) by the nine Census divisions
             (New England, Middle Atlantic, East North Central, West
             North Central, South Atlantic, East South Central, West
             South Central, Mountain, and Pacific).  A nonresponse factor
             equal to the inverse of the response rate in each cell was
             applied to the interview cases.  In order to have a minimum
             of approximately 25 cases in each nonresponse adjustment
             cell, some cells were collapsed across Census divisions in
             the same Census region.

             An intermediate weight was constructed by multiplying the
             probability of selection of the household by the nonresponse
             adjustment factor by the number of eligible persons in the
             household[22].  This intermediate weight was used to produce
             a weighted sex by age category by Census Region table.  The
             age categories used were: 18-44, 45-64, and 65+.
             Post-stratification factors were constructed to match the
             sample proportions in the 24 sex by age by Region cells to
             the July 1991 Census population totals (United States
             Department of Commerce News Public Information Office Press
             Release - CB92-93).

             The two final analysis weights were each centered to a mean
             of 1.0 so that the sum of the weights equals the number of
             respondents (1,359 for the 1990-92 Panel and 2,485 for the
             1992 Cross-section).




>> COMPARING THE 1992 NES TO PREVIOUS NATIONAL ELECTION STUDIES


             Earlier National Election Studies data collections did not
             include weights to adjust for nonresponse and the unequal
             probability of selection at the household level. Thus,
             weighting the 1992 NES data by V3009 (for analysis of the
             Panel cases) or by V3008 (for combined analysis of the panel
             and new cross-section cases) produces estimates that are not
             strictly comparable to those obtained from previous National
             Election Studies that were not weighted to incorporate
             sampling, nonresponses and post-stratification factors.

             Analysis comparing data from the 1992 NES data to previous
             NES data collections should employ V7000.

             Because approximately half of the respondents to the 1992
             NES were part of a panel first interviewed in 1990, to be
             comparable with previous NES cross-section data collections,
             the combined 1992 panel and new cross-section data must be
             weighted to correct for panel attrition and the aging of the
             panel respondents.  Panel attrition is not uniform across
             demographic groups.  Some respondents (the mobile and those
             with the least amount of formal education) are more
             susceptible to panel attrition.  By definition, panel
             respondents are two years older than the cross-section
             respondents.  And by definition, there are almost no 18 or
             19 year-olds among the panel respondents interviewed in 1992
             (because an 18 year-old in 1992 would have been 16 years-old
             in 1990 and ineligible for the 1990 study).  Weighting of
             the panel respondents is necessary to ensure comparability
             with past NES data collections.

             V7000 corrects the combined panel and cross-section cases
             for the panel attrition and aging that occurred among the
             panel respondents.  This weight should be used when
             comparing estimates made on the 1992 NES data to estimates
             made on previous (unweighted) NES data collections.  V7000
             does not appear in the April 1993 CPS Early Release Version
             of the 1992 National Election Study.


             CONSTRUCTION OF V7000

             To construct this weight, panel respondents were classified
             by age (17-24, 25-39, 40- 64, 65-74, 75 and over), education
             (less than high school, high school diploma, and more than
             high school education), and mobility (whether or not the
             respondent had moved between 1990 and 1992).

             Cross-classification of these three variables produced a
             30-celled table (5 x 3 x 2) for each of the following: (1)
             1990 panel respondents who comprised the panel portion of
             the sample "universe" for the 1992 study (N=1769); and (2)
             panel respondents interviewed in 1992 (N=1359). The weight
             was constructed by dividing the value of each cell in the
             1990 table (1) by the value of the corresponding cell in the
             1992 table (2).  (For example, 10.9 percent of the 1,769
             1990 panel respondents were age 40-64/had more than high
             school education/ had not moved. In 1992, respondents in the
             cell defined by these same categories comprised 11.8 percent
             of the 1359 panel respondents interviewed.  The case weight
             for this group of respondents is 10.9/11.8 = .9237.)  In
             order to have a minimum of approximately 25 cases in each
             cell, some cells were collapsed.

             This procedure centers the weight variable V7000 so that it
             has a mean of 1.0 and the sum of the weights (2488) is
             approximately equal to the actual number of combined panel
             and cross-section respondents (2,485).  Respondents who are
             part of the new cross-section have the value "1.0000" on
             V7000.

                        SAMPLING ERRORS OF 1992 NES ESTIMATES

             SAMPLING ERROR CALCULATION PROGRAMS

             The probability sample design for the 1992 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 which 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 which 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 which reflect the complex
             structure of the sample and are compatible with the
             computation algorithms of the various programs.  The
             sampling error codes for the 1992 NES are included as
             variables #3068 and #3069 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.

             For the Panel Component segments, two sampling error (SE)
             codes have been included for analysis of 1992 data.  For
             longitudinal analysis of Panel data alone, the original 1990
             SE code should be used since this reflects the half-sample
             design of the 1990 NES sample.  For any cross-sectional
             analysis, where Panel data is combined with new
             cross-section data, the 1992 SE code must be used.  Table 15
             provides a description of how individual sampling error code
             values for Panel only data are to be paired for sampling
             error computations.  Thirty (30) pairs or strata of sampling
             error computation units (SECUs) 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 which is comprised of cases assigned sampling
             code values 36 AND 55 and the second SECU in stratum 29
             which is comprised of cases with SECUs 61 AND 63.


                 Table 15: 1992 Pre/Post-Election Survey: Panel-Only
                  Analysis Paired Selection Model for Sampling Error
              Computations (1990 Sampling Error Codes - Variable #3069)

                         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               11                  29
                         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



             Table 16 shows the Strata and SECU codes to be used for the
             paired selection model for sampling error computations for
             any 1992 cross-sectional analyses using the combined
             cross-section/panel data.  The 42 strata reflect the
             expanded 2/3rds National Sample design used in 1992.


               Table 16:  1992 Pre/Post-Election Survey:  Cross-Section
                Analysis[23] Paired Selection Model for Sampling Error
              Computations (1992 Sampling Error Coded - Variable #3068)

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

                          1              1        2
                          2              1        2
                          3              1        2
                          4              1        2
                          5              1        2
                          6              1        2
                          7              1        2
                          8              1        2
                          9              1        2
                         10              1        2
                         11              1        2
                         12              1        2
                         13              1        2
                         14              1        2
                         15              1        2
                         16              1        2
                         17              1        2
                         18              1        2
                         19              1        2
                         20              1        2
                         21              1        2
                         22              1        2
                         23              1        2
                         24              1        2
                         25              1        2
                         26              1        2
                         27              1        2
                         28              1        2
                         29              1        2
                         30              1        2
                         31              1        2
                         32              1        2
                         33              1        2
                         34              1        2
                         35              1        2
                         36              1        2
                         37              1        2
                         38              1        2
                         39              1        2
                         40              1        2
                         41              1        2
                         42              1        2


             It can be seen from this table that the three-digit 1992 SE
             code is comprised of: first the two-digit SE Stratum code
             followed by the one-digit SECU code.


                 Generalized Sampling Error Results for the 1992 NES

             To assist NES analysts, the OSIRIS PSALMS program was used
             to compute sampling errors for a wide-ranging example set of
             means and proportions estimated from the 1988 NES
             Pre-election Survey data set[24].  For each estimate,
             sampling errors were computed for the total sample and for
             fifteen demographic and political affiliation subclasses of
             the 1988 NES Pre-Election Survey sample.  The results of
             these sampling error computations were then summarized and
             translated into the general usage sampling error table
             provided in Table 17.

             Incorporating the pattern of "design effects" observed in
             the extensive set of example computations, Table 17 provides
             approximate standard errors for percentage estimates based
             on the 1988 NES.  To use the table, examine the column
             heading to find the percentage value which best approximates
             the value of the estimated percentage that is of
             interest[25].  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 17 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.


                        Table 17:  Generalized Variance Table.
                            1992 NES Pre-Election Survey.

                     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     1.657     1.250

              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

              2500         1.637   1.604     1.506     1.310     0.982









>> 1992 TECHNICAL REPORTS AND OTHER OCCASIONAL PAPERS

             1.      Sanchez, Maria. (July 1982) "7-Point Scales."

             2.      Shanks, J. Merrill, Maria Sanchez, and Betsy Morton.
                     (March 1983).  "Alternative Approaches to Survey
                     Data Collection for the National Election Studies."

             3.      Lake, Celinda. (September 1983) "Similarity and
                     Representativeness of 1983 Pilot Samples."

             4.      Lake, Celinda. (November 1983) "Comparison of
                     3-point, 5-point, and 7-point Scales from the
                     CATI Experiment 1982 Election Study."

             5.      NES Staff. (December 1983) "1980 Precinct Data
                     Returns Project."

             6.      Lake, Celinda. (February 1984) "Coding of
                     Independent/Independents and Apoliticals in the
                     Party Identification Summary Code and Apoliticals
                     in the Rolling Cross-Section."

             7.      Morchio, Giovanna and Maria Sanchez.  (February
                     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."

             8.      Morchio, Giovanna and Maria Sanchez. (March 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."

             9.      Traugott, Santa. (June 1984) "Two Versions of the
                     Abortion Question."

             10.     Sanchez, Maria.(July 1984) "Branching versus 7-point
                     scale measurements." .

             11.     NES Staff. (August 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."

             12.     NES Staff. (August 1984)  "Questions and Versions in
                     NES Continuous Monitoring, 1984: A Report to the
                     Board of Overseers, National Election Studies."

             13.     NES Staff. (n.d) "Years of Schooling."

             14.     NES Staff. (n.d)  "Newspaper Code."

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

             16.     Sanchez, Maria and Giovanna Morchio. (n.d.) Probing
                     Don't Know Answers -- Do We Always Want to Do This?"

             17.     NES Staff. (February 1985) "Progress of the Rolling
                     Cross Section."

             18.     Traugott, Santa. (February 1985) "Production for the
                     Pre-Post"

             19.     Traugott, Santa. (February 1985) "Some Analysis of
                     Hard-to-Reach Rolling Thunder Respondents."

             20.     Traugott, Santa. (April 1985)  "Sample Weighting in
                     NES Continuous Monitoring, 1984: A Report to the
                     Board of Overseers, National Election Studies."

             21.     Traugott, Santa. (April 1985). "Sample Weighting in
                     NES Pre-Post Election Survey, 1984: A Report to the
                     Board of Overseers, National Election Studies."

             22.     Brehm, John. (June 1985) "Report on Coding of
                     Economic Conditions Series in the 1984 Pre-Post
                     Election Study"

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

             24.     Traugott, Santa. (July 1985) "Assessment of Media
                     Measures in RXS."

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

             26.     Brehm, John. (August 1985). "Analysis of Result Code
                     Disposition for Continuous Monitoring by Time in
                     Field: Report to the Board of Overseers, National
                     Election Studies."

             27.     Morchio, Giovanna, Maria Sanchez and Santa Traugott.
                     (November 1985). "Mode Differences: DK Responses in
                     the 1984 Post-Election Survey: A Report to the Board
                     of Overseers, National Election Studies."

             28.     Morchio, Giovanna and Santa Traugott.  (February
                     1986) "Congressional District Assignment in an RDD
                     Sample: Results of 1982 CATI Experiment."

             29.     Brehm, John and Santa Traugott. (March 1986)
                     "Similarity and Representativeness of the 1985 Pilot
                     Half-samples."

             30.     Gronke, Paul. (September 1986) "NES Question C2: R's
                     Party Registration."

             31.     Brehm, John. (March 1987) "How Representative is the
                     1986 Post-Election Survey?"

             32.     Morchio, Giovanna.  (May 1987) "Trends in NES
                     Response Rates."

             33.     Brehm, John. (December 1987) "Who's Missing? an
                     Analysis of NonResponse in the 1986 Election Study:
                     A Report to the Board of Overseers, National
                     Election Studies."

             34.     Traugott, Santa. (August 1989) "Validating
                     Self-Reported Vote: 1964-1988."

             35.     NES Staff. (February 1990) "Possible Bias Due to
                     Attrition and Sample Selection in the 1989 Pilot."

             36.     Traugott, Santa and Giovanna Morchio. (March
                     1990) "Assessment of Bias Due to Attrition and
                     Sample Selection in the NES 1989 Pilot Study."

             37.     Downes-Le Guin, Theodore. (May 1990) "Nonresponse in
                     the 1988 National Election Studies"

             38.     Gronke, Paul. (May 1990) "Assessing the Sample
                     Quality of the 1988 Senate Election Study: A
                     response to Wright."

             39.     Presser, Stanley, Michael W. Traugott and Santa
                     Traugott. (November 1990).  "Vote 'Over' Reporting
                     in Surveys: The Records or the Respondents?"

             40.     Bloom, Joel.  (March 1991)  "Sources of Pro-
                     incumbent Bias in NES Survey Estimates for U.S.
                     House Races since 1978: A Second Look."

             41.     Mayer, Russell.  (November 1991) "Identifying Bias
                     in Voting Models."

             42.     Traugott, Michael W., Santa Traugott and Stanley
                     Presser. (May 1992) "Revalidation of Self-Reported
                     Vote."

             43.     Rosenstone, Steven J., Margaret Petrella and Donald
                     R. Kinder.  (June 1993) "The Consequences of
                     Substituting Telephone for Face-to-Face Interviewing
                     in the 1992 National Election Study."





>> NES 1989 PILOT STUDY REPORTS

             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.

             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.





>> 1991 PILOT STUDY REPORTS

             Beebe, Tim.  The Effects of Pre-Notification and Incentive
                on Panel Attrition.  Undated.

             Brady, Henry E.  Report on Feeling Thermometer for
                "Moderates."  January 13, 1992.

             Citrin, Jack, Donald P. Green, Beth Reingold and David O.

             Conover, Pamela J., and Virginia Sapiro.  Gender
                Consciousness and Gender Politics in the 1991 Pilot
                Study: A Report to the ANES Board of Overseers.  January,
                1992.

             Delli Carpini, Michael X., and Scott Keeter.  An Analysis
                of Information Items on the 1990 and 1991 NES Surveys: A
                Report to the Board of Overseers for the National
                Election Studies.  January 14, 1992.

             Highton, Benjamin, and Raymond E. Wolfinger.  Estimating
                the Size of Minority Groups.  January 13, 1992.

             Huddy, Leonie.  Analysis of Old-Age Policy Items in the
                1991 Pilot Study.  Undated.

             Huddy, Leonie.  Addendum.  February 2, 1992.

             Knack, Stephen.  Social Connectedness and Voter
                Participation: Evidence from the 1991 NES Pilot Study.
                January 1992.

             Knack, Stephen.  Social Altruism and Voter Turnout:
             Evidence
                from the 1991 NES Pilot Study.  January, 1992.

             Knack, Stephen.  Performance and Recommendations Summary for
                1991 NES Pilot Variables #2828-2847.  January 24, 1992.

             Knack, Stephen.  Deterring Voter Registration Through Juror
                Source Practices: Evidence from the 1991 NES Pilot Study.
                January, 1992.

             Oliver, Eric, and Raymond E. Wolfinger.  Jury Duty as a
                Deterrent to Voter Registration.  January 22, 1992.

             Sears.  A Report on Measures of American Identity and New
                "Ethnic" Issues in the 1991 NES Pilot Study. Undated.

             Zaller, John.  Report on 1991 Pilot Items on Environment.
                February 2, 1992.




>> 1992 FILE STRUCTURE

             The AMERICAN NATIONAL ELECTION STUDY, 1992 PRE- AND
             POST-ELECTION SURVEY [ENHANCED WITH DATA FROM 1990 AND 1991]
             are available from ICPSR in logical record length (LRECL)
             format.  The data are sorted in ascending order by
             respondent number, and contains 2,105 variables for 2,485
             respondents.

             A machine-readable codebook, which provides complete
             formatting and other information for all variables
             accompanies the data.  In addition, a set of SAS and SPSS
             control statements has been prepared for this collection.
             The control statements contain formatting information as
             well as variable labels, value labels and missing data
             specifications for all variables in the collection.

             An OSIRIS dictionary and dictionary-codebook are also
             available.  The OSIRIS dictionary provides formatting and
             other information for each variable in the logical record
             data file.  Either the dictionary or dictionary-codebook
             file can be used in conjunction with the OSIRIS package of
             computer programs, or to interface with other software
             packages such as SPSS or SAS.

             The data can also be accessed directly through software
             packages that do not use SAS or SPSS control statements by
             specifying the record locations of the desired variables.
             The record locations for all variables are provided in the
             codebook.




>> 1992 CODEBOOK INFORMATION

             The example below is a reproduction of information appearing
             in the machine-readable codebook for a typical variable.
             The numbers in brackets do not appear but are references to
             the descriptions that follow this example.

             ............................................................

             [1] VAR 0020  [2] FIPS SCSA CODE                    [3] MD=0
                 REF 0020     [4] LOC   76 WIDTH  2
                                                [5]

                [6] FIPS (CENSUS) 1980 STANDARD CONSOLIDATED STATISTICAL
                    AREA CODES
                    -----------------------------------------------------

                [7] The six largest SCSA's are marked with **.

                [8]

                   [9] [10]  [11]

                    31  07.  Boston-Lawrence-Lowell, MA-NH
                    44  14.  Chicago-Gary-Kenosha, IL-IN-WI**
                    34  32.  Dayton-Springfield, OH
                    18  35.  Detroit-Ann Arbor, MI**
                    27  42.  Houston-Galveston, TX
                    47  49.  Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA**
                    10  56.  Miami-Fort Lauderdale, FL
                    45  63.  Milwaukee-Racine, WI
                    37  70.  New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-CT**
                    24  77.  Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton,
                             PA-DE-NJ-MD**
                    14  84.  San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA**
                    14  91.  Seattle-Tacoma, WA
                  2120  00.  INAP; location not in SCSA

             ........................................................


              [1]  Indicates the variable and reference numbers.
                   A variable number and a reference number are
                   assigned to each variable in the data collection.
                   In the present codebook, which documents the
                   archived data collection, these numbers are
                   identical.

              [2]  Indicates the abbreviated variable name (maximum
                   of 24 characters) used to identify the variable for
                   the user.  An expanded version of the variable name
                   can be found in the variable description list.

              [3]  Indicates the code values of missing data.  In
                   this example, code values equal to 0 are missing data
                   (MD=0).  Alternative statements for other variables
                   are "MD=0 or GE 8," or "NO MISSING DATA CODES."
                   Most analysis software packages require that certain
                   types of data that the user desires to be excluded
                   from analysis be designated as "MISSING DATA," e.g.,
                   inappropriate, unascertained, unascertainable, or
                   ambiguous data categories.  Although these codes are
                   defined as missing data categories, this does not
                   mean that the user should not or cannot use them in a
                   substantive role if so desired.

              [4]  Indicates the starting location and width of this
                   variable when the data are stored on a magnetic tape
                   in LRECL format.  If the variable is of a multiple-
                   response type, the width referenced is that of a
                   single response.  In this example the variable named
                   "FIPS SCSA CODE" is 2 columns wide and is located
                   in the 76th and 77th columns within the record.

              [5]  A variable containing data with implied decimals
                   is denoted by the message "IMP DEC= 0", where 0 is
                   the number of decimal places implied in the variable.

              [6]  This is the full text (question) supplied by the
                   investigator to describe the variable.  The question
                   text, and the numbers and letters that may precede
                   it, reflect the original wording of the questionnaire
                   item.

              [7]  Indicates an additional comment or explanation
                   appended to the variable description.

              [8]  Various processor comments may appear in this
                   position, such as:  "Actual number is coded",
                   "FORM A ONLY" or "BUILT from 633".

              [9]  Indicates the frequency of occurrence of each code
                   value for this variable.  Frequencies inserted in
                   this codebook are not weighted.

             [10]  Indicates the code values occurring in the data for
                   this variable.

             [11]  Indicates the textual definitions of the codes.
                   Abbreviations commonly used in the code definitions
                   are "DK" (Do Not Know), "NA" (Not Ascertained), and
                   "INAP" (Inappropriate).  In this example, responses to
                   FIPS SCSA Code were coded "INAP" for those respondents
                   whose location of interview was not in an SCSA.





>> ICPSR PROCESSING INFORMATION, 1992

             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.

             ICPSR has added frequencies to the codebook text for most
             variables in which the entire coding scheme is listed in the
             codebook, and a frequency addendum is provided for those
             variables with an extensive coding scheme.





>> 1992 NOTES

             [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.

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

             [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.

             [5] There were actually three forms of both questionnaires,
             since they were translated in Spanish.  The Spanish language
             questionnaires are also "short-form" since only core items
             were translated.  They are not, however, treated as
             "short-form" for "partials" for the purpose of this
             discussion.

             [6] The denominator for the calculations in this paragraph
             are as given in Tables 14 and 15 this Introduction.
             Information about the numerators appears in Table 7.

             [7] Text prepared by the Sampling Section of the Survey
             Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University
             of Michigan,  March, 1993.

             [8] While the Panel segments were selected from the 1980
             STF1B file, most of the Cross-section segments were selected
             from the nearly equivalent 1990 Census file (PL94-171 file
             on CD ROM) which contains the block-level 1990 Census
             housing unit (HU) data.  At the time of selection the 1990
             STF1B file was not available.  Therefore, the PL94-171 file
             was used, which had "total HU's" (rather than "occupied
             HU's") per block; for these Cross-section segments, linkage
             was designed to achieve a minimum measure of 72 TOTAL HU's
             per SSU.  Also, since in 1990 all areas had been divided
             into Census Tracts and blocks, no Enumeration Districts were
             involved as SSU's.  In other respects the second stage
             selection was the same for both sets of area segments.

             [9] See Note 3.

             [10] The 1986 NES was the most recent NES sample using the
             two-thirds National Sample.  Response rate in 1986 was .701
             and occupancy eligibility rate was .835.

             [11] Based on field experience in 1986 NES study.

             [12] About 55% of the base sample was assigned to the first
             release, September 1, 1992.

             [13] Released to field October 1, 1992.

             [14] All "reserve" replicates were to have coversheets sent
             to the field October 1, 1992, in sealed envelopes which were
             not to be opened by the interviewers until notified of their
             "release".  As it happened, it was decided to release
             Replicates 4 and 5 on October 1, 1992.  Replicate 3 was
             never released. (However, a few cases from Replicate 3 were
             released by mistake; these cases can be identified by using
             variables 3023 and 3024.)

             [15] An overall Panel response rate of 75% was assumed.
             Based on recontact response to the 1991 Persian Gulf Study:
             1385 cases at 87% response rate = 1205 cases, and 615 cases
             at 50% response rate = 308 cases.  Therefore, Overall:
             1513/2000 = .756

             [16] See Note 12.

             [17] Based on 1986 NES field experience using the two-thirds
             National Sample (.835).

             [18] No provision of update growth was applied in early
             estimates.  Since the updating process was applied to the
             cross-section component of the 1992 NES Sample, and since it
             typically produces about 3% increase in sample lines over
             the count selected from the National Sample system, the
             update inflation factor was set at 1.03 for the
             cross-section component.

             [19] One percent of the sample was lost due to subsampling
             in three locked and two dangerous areas.

             [20] An overall Panel response rate of 75% was assumed,
             based on previous recontact experience (response to the 1991
             Persian Gulf Study): 1385 cases at 87% response rate = 1205
             cases, and 615 cases at 50% response rate = 308 cases.
             Overall: 1513/2000 = .756

             [21] This figure was left without applying the usual growth
             factor for updating to the cross-section component of the
             sample, since this was the table presented (see Table 11) in
             the original planning for the study.  The equivalent figure
             for the actually released Replicates 1,2,4 and 5) was taken
             with the growth factor of 1.03 applied to the cross-section
             component only.

             [22] In constructing the analysis weight, a maximum of three
             eligible adults was allowed.

             [23] For cross-sectional analysis of the 1992 NES data the
             combined cross-section and panel data must be used.  Cross-
             section component data cannot be used alone.

             [24] The design effects from the 1988 NES are expected to be
             similar to those for the 1992 NES. Sampling errors for the
             1992 NES have not yet been run.

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







>> 1990-1991 CROSS-REFERENCE LIST


             1991    1990
             Var#    Q #     QUESTION DESCRIPTION

                  Approve/Disapprove of Bush on: Presidency; Economy;
                  Foreign Relations

             2112    B5      Approve or disapprove of Bush's presidency
             2115    B5a/b   Summary Variable
             2116    B6      Approve or disapprove of Bush's handling of
                             economy
             2119    B6a/b   Summary Variable
             2120    B7      Approve or disapprove of Bush's handling of
                             foreign countries
             2123    B7a/b   Summary Variable

                  Thermometers and Probes

             2203    B13b    Mario Cuomo
             2205    B13a    George Bush
             2211    B13f    Jesse Jackson
             2212    B13d    Dan Quayle
             2217    B13o/p  R's Congressperson
             2218    B13g-n  R's Senator #1
             2219    B13g-n  R's Senator #2

             2220    B14f    Thermometer rating of Conservatives
             2222    B14a    The Democratic Party
             2226    B14m    Liberals
             2228    B14b    The Republican Party
             2232    B14e    Blacks
             2239    B14h    Women's movement
             2242    B14k*   People working to protect the environment
                             * See wording change ('working' vs.
                             'seeking')

             1991    1990
             Var#    Q #     QUESTION DESCRIPTION

                  Approve/Disapprove of the Way Congress is handling
                  its job

             2300    B15     Approve or disapprove of way U.S. Congress
                             is handling job
             2303    B15a/b  Summary Variable

                  Differences Between the Parties

             2304    F14     Important differences in what Republicans
                              and Democrats stand for 2305- Coded
                             Differences from v2304 2316

                  Approve/Disapprove of Representative and Senators

             2317    H8      Approve or disapprove of the way
                             Representative has been handling his/her
                             job
             2320    H8a/b   Summary Variable

                  Party ID

             2329    E7      R thinks of self as Republican, Democrat,
                             Independent or other
             2230    E7a     Strong Republican or not very strong
                             Republican
             2231    E7b     Strong Democrat or not very strong Democrat

             2232    E7c     R closer to Republican Party or the
                             Democratic Party
             2333    E7x     Party ID Summary

                  Most Important Problems Facing the Country

             2334-   F2      What R thinks are most important problems
             2337            facing this country
             2238    F4      Single most important problem the country
                             faces

             1991    1990
             Var#    Q #     QUESTION DESCRIPTION

                  Foreign Policy

             2400    F17     Is Cold War between U.S. and Soviet Union
                             coming to an end
             2401    F18     U.S. to give economic assistance to
                             countries in Eastern Europe somewhat,
                             not very, never)
             2408    F21     Does R think right thing to send U.S.
                             military forces to Persian Gulf or should
                             we have stayed out

                  Approve/Disapprove of Bush Handling of Persian Gulf
                  Crisis

             2410    F23*    Approve or disapprove of Bush's handling of
                             Persian Gulf crisis
                             *See wording change ('is' vs. 'has')
             2413    F23a/b  Summary Variable

                  Differences Between the Parties

             2414    H3      Democrats or Republicans more likely to
                             raise taxes, if any difference
             2415    H4a     Democrats or Republicans better at handling
                             nation's economy, if any difference
             2416    H4d     Democrats or Republicans better at handling
                             foreign affairs, if any difference

                  Liberal/Conservative Scales

             2450    H9a     Seven-point scale from extremely liberal to
                             extremely conservative; how does R place
                             themself on scale
             2451    H9aa    R considers self liberal or conservative
             2452    H9b     Using scale, how does R rate President Bush
             2453    H9g     Democratic Party
             2454    H9h     Republican Party


             1991    1990
             Var#    Q #     QUESTION DESCRIPTION

                  Economic Well-being

             2455    J1      R and family better off, worse off or same
                             financially than year ago
             2458    J1a/b   Summary Variable
             2459    J4      Economy as a whole gotten better, stayed
                             same or gotten worse
             2462    J4a/b   Summary Variable

                  Defense Spending Scale

             2475    L1a     Scale indicating reaction to increase in
                             defense spending (between 1-7) R's feeling
             2476    L1b     On scale, R's rating of George Bush on
                             defense spending
             2477    L1e     Democratic Party
             2478    L1f     Republican Party

                  Which Party Will Keep Us Out of Future Wars Better

             2481    N1      Keeping out of future wars handled better
                             by Republicans, Democrats or about the same

                  U.S. Position in the World

             2482    N2      During past year, U.S. position in world
                             grown weaker, same, or grown stronger

                  Need of Strong U.S. Military

             2483    N4      How important for U.S. to have strong
                             military force to deal with enemies

                  Worried about Conventional War

             2484    N5      R how worried about country getting into
                             conventional war without use of nuclear
                             weapons

             1991    1990
             Var#    Q #     QUESTION DESCRIPTION

                  Isolationist Sentiment

             2485    N6      Agree or disagree: "This country would be
                             better off if we just stayed home and did
                             not concern ourselves with problems in
                             other parts of the world.

                  Worried About Nuclear War

             2486    N7      R how worried about country getting into
                             nuclear war at this time

                  Trust in Government

             2487    P2      R's ideas about government in Washington in
                             general; how much of the time does R trust
                             government to do what is right
             2488    P4      Government run for benefit of few big
                             interests or for the benefit of all the
                             people
             2489    P6b     R's agreement/disagreement to: "People like
                             me don't have any say about what the
                             government does."

                  R For/Against Preferential Hiring/Promotion of Blacks

             2558    L8      Is R for or against preferential hiring and
                             promotion of blacks
             2561    L8a/b   Summary Variable




>> VARIABLE DESCRIPTION LIST 1990 POST-ELECTION SURVEY VARIABLES


                                   ICPSR VARIABLES

              900001 ICPSR Study Number
              900002 ICPSR Edition Number
              900003 ICPSR Part Number

              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



             9000259 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 candidate 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





>> 1990-91 PANEL STUDY OF THE POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES OF WAR VARIABLES


           912002  1991 Case ID
           912003  Time Zone
           912004  Daylight Savings Time Indicator

           912006  Form # of 1991 Questionnaire
           912007  Status of Case
           912008  Result Code
           912009  Incentive Offered

           912011  Total Calls Counter

           912018  Interview Length in Minutes

           912026  1990 Case ID Repeated
           912028  Alpha Date Last Called

           912030  Interview Time Start
           912031  Interview Time End
           912032  Interview Date Start
           912033  Interview Date End

           912050  Interviewer ID
           912051  Interviewer Birth Month
           912052  Interviewer Birth Year
           912053  Interviewer Sex
           912054  Interviewer Education Level
           912055  Interviewer Race
           912056  Interviewer Hire Month
           912057  Interviewer Hire Year
           912058  Interviewer Languages Spoken
           912059  Interviewer Ethnicity

           912068  Respondent Birth Month
           912069  Respondent Birth Day
           912070  Respondent Birth Year


             Good And Bad Point About Bush That Would Make Respondent
             Vote For/Against Him

           912100  Anything that would make you vote for Bush in 1992
           912101  What would make you vote for Bush <1st mention>
           912102  What would make you vote for Bush <2nd mention>
           912103  What would make you vote for Bush <3rd mention>
           912104  What would make you vote for Bush <4th mention>
           912105  What would make you vote for Bush <5th mention>

           912106  Anything to make you vote against Bush in 1992
           912107  What would make you vote against Bush <1st mention>
           912108  What would make you vote against Bush <2nd mention>
           912109  What would make you vote against Bush <3rd mention>
           912110  What would make you vote against Bush <4th mention>
           912111  What would make you vote against Bush <5th mention>


             Approve/Disapprove of Bush on: Presidency; Economy;
             Foreign Relations

           912112  Approve or disapprove of Bush's presidency
           912113  Approve strongly or not strongly
           912114  Disapprove strongly or not strongly
           912115  Summary Variable
           912116  Approve or disapprove of Bush's handling of economy
           912117  Approve strongly or not strongly
           912118  Disapprove strongly or not strongly
           912119  Summary Variable
           912120  Approve or disapprove of Bush's handling of foreign
                    countries
           912121  Approve strongly or not strongly
           912122  Disapprove strongly or not strongly
           912123  Summary Variable


                               Thermometers and Probes

             Feeling Thermometers:

           912200  Norman Schwartzkopf
           912201  Richard Cheney
           912202  Lloyd Bentsen
           912203  Mario Cuomo
           912204  Bill Clinton
           912205  George Bush
           912206  James Baker
           912207  Al Gore
           912208  Richard Gephardt
           912209  L. Douglas Wilder
           912210  Saddam Hussein
           912211  Jesse Jackson
           912212  Dan Quayle
           912213  Paul Tsongas
           912214  Jay Rockefeller
           912215  Bob Kerrey
           912216  Colin Powell
           912217  Respondent's Congressperson
           912218  Respondent's Senator #1
           912219  Respondent's Senator #2
           912220  Conservatives
           912221  Palestinians
           912222  The Democratic Party
           912223  Japan
           912224  Moderates
           912225  Israel
           912226  Liberals
           912227  Anti-war Protesters
           912228  The Republican Party
           912229  Immigrants from foreign countries
           912230  Environmentalists
           912231  Whites
           912232  Blacks
           912233  Hispanics
           912234  Illegal Aliens
           912235  Asian-Americans
           912236  Mexican-Americans
           912237  Cuban-Americans
           912238  Puerto Ricans
           912239  Women's movement
           912240  Feminists
           912241  Housewives
           912242  People working to protect the environment
           912243  People who oppose the use of nuclear power
           912244  The elderly


             Feeling Thermometer Probes:

           912245  Probe, Norman Schwartzkopf
           912246  Probe, Richard Cheney
           912247  Probe, Lloyd Bentsen
           912248  Probe, Mario Cuomo
           912249  Probe, Bill Clinton
           912250  Probe, George Bush
           912251  Probe, James Baker
           912252  Probe, Al Gore
           912253  Probe, Richard Gephardt
           912254  Probe, L. Douglas Wilder
           912255  Probe, Saddam Hussein
           912256  Probe, Jesse Jackson
           912257  Probe, Dan Quayle
           912258  Probe, Paul Tsongas
           912259  Probe, Jay Rockefeller
           912260  Probe, Bob Kerrey
           912261  Probe, Colin Powell
           912262  Probe, Respondent's Congressperson
           912263  Probe, Respondent's Senator #1
           912264  Probe, Respondent's Senator #2


             Approve/Disapprove of the Way Congess is handling its job

           912300  Approve or disapprove of way U.S. Congress is
                    handling job
           912301  Approve strongly or not strongly
           912302  Disapprove strongly or not strongly
           912303  Summary Variable


                           DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE PARTIES

           912304  Important differences in what Republicans and
                    Democrats stand for
           912305  Republican and Democratic differences <1st mention>
           912306  Republican and Democratic differences <2nd mention>
           912307  Republican and Democratic differences <3rd mention>
           912308  Republican and Democratic differences <4th mention>
           912309  Republican and Democratic differences <5th mention>
           912310  Republican and Democratic differences <6th mention>
           912311  Republican and Democratic differences <7th mention>
           912312  Republican and Democratic differences <8th mention>
           912313  Republican and Democratic differences <9th mention>
           912314  Republican and Democratic differences <10th mention>
           912315  Republican and Democratic differences <11th mention>
           912316  Republican and Democratic differences <12th mention>


                  Approve/Disapprove of Representative and Senators

           912317  Approve or disapprove of the way Representative has
                    been handling his/her job
           912318  Approve strongly or not strongly
           912319  Disapprove strongly or not strongly
           912320  Summary Variable
           912321  Approve or disapprove of way Senator #1 has been
                    handling his/her job
           912322  Approve strongly or not strongly
           912323  Disapprove strongly or not strongly
           912324  Summary Variable

           912325  Approve or disapprove of way Senator #2 has been
                    handling his/her job
           912326  Approve strongly or not strongly
           912327  Disapprove strongly or not strongly
           912328  Summary Variable


                                       PARTY ID

           912329  Respondent thinks of self as Republican, Democrat,
                    Independent or other
           912230  Strong Republican or not very strong Republican
           912231  Strong Democrat or not very strong Democrat
           912232  Respondent closer to Republican Party or the
                    Democratic Party
           912333  Party ID Summary


             Most Important Problems Facing the Country

           912334  What Respondent thinks are most important problems
                    facing this country
           912335  Most important problem country faces <1st mention>
           912336  Most important problem country faces <2nd mention>
           912337  Most important problem country faces <3rd mention>
           912338  Single most important problem the country faces


                                    FOREIGN POLICY

           912400  Is Cold War between U.S. and Soviet Union coming to
                    an end
           912401  U.S. to give economic assistance to countries in
                    Eastern Europe
           912402  How willing U.S. in future to use military force to
                    solve international problems
           912403  Rating foreign policy goals
           912404  Preventing spread of nuclear weapons
           912405  Reducing environmental pollution around the world
           912406  Protecting weaker nations against foreign aggression
           912407  Helping bring democratic form of government to other
                    nations
           912408  Does Respondent think right thing to send U.S.
                    military forces to Persian Gulf
           912409  How important is issue to Respondent personally


              Approve/Disapprove of Bush Handling of Persian Gulf Crisis

           912410  Approve or disapprove of Bush's handling of Persian
                    Gulf crisis
           912411  Approve strongly or not strongly
           912412  Disapprove strongly or not strongly
           912413  Summary Variable


                           Differences Between the Parties

           912414  Democrats or Republicans more likely to raise taxes
           912415  Democrats or Republicans better at handling nation's
                    economy
           912416  Democrats or Republicans better at handling foreign
                    affairs


                                      Patriotism

           912417  Feelings when respondent sees American flag flying
           912418  How strong is respondent's love for country


                             Liberal/Conservative Scales

           912450  Seven-point liberal/conservative scale
           912451  Respondent considers self liberal or conservative
           912452  How does Respondent rate President Bush on scale
           912453  How does Respondent rate Democratic Party on scale
           912454  How does Respondent rate Republican Party on scale


                                 Economic Well-being

           912455  Respondent and family better off, worse off or same
                    financially than year ago
           912456  Much better off or somewhat better
           912457  Much worse off or somewhat worse
           912458  Summary Variable
           912459  Economy as a whole gotten better, stayed same or
                    gotten worse
           912460  Much better or somewhat better
           912461  Much worse or somewhat worse
           912462  Summary Variable


                                DEFENSE SPENDING SCALE

           912475  Scale indicating reaction to increase in defense
                    spending
           912476  Rating of George Bush on defense spending
           912477  Rating of Democratic Party on defense spending
           912478  Rating of Republican Party on spending


                  Who Would Respondent Vote For in House Race Today

           912479  House of Representatives election held today,
                    Respondent would vote for Democratic candidate or
                    Republican candidate


                            CONGRESSIONAL TERM LIMITATION

           912480  Respondent favors or opposes proposed law limiting
                    members of Congress to no more than 12 years service


                  Which Party Will Keep Us Out of Future Wars Better

           912481  Keeping out of future wars handled better by
                    Republicans or Democrats


                              U.S. POSITION IN THE WORLD

           912482  During past year, U.S. position in world grown weaker


                             Need of Strong U.S. Military

           912483  How important for U.S. to have strong military force

                            Worried about Conventional War

           912484  Respondent worried about country getting into
                    conventional war


                                Isolationist Sentiment

           912485  Agree or disagree: "This country would be better off
                    if we just stayed home and did not concern ourselves
                    with problems in other parts of the world.


                              Worried About Nuclear War

           912486  Respondent worried about country getting into nuclear
                    war at this time


                                 Trust in Government

           912487  How much of the time does Respondent trust government
                    to do what is right
           912488  Government run for benefit of few big interests
           912489  Respondent's agreement/disagreement: "People like me
                    don't have any say about what the government does."


               Respondent's Position and Recall of Congressperson's and
                        Parties Positions on Use of Force Vote

           912500  Prior to war in Persian Gulf, Respondent in favor of
                    continuing to rely on sanctions or in favor of
                    authorizing President to use military force
           912501  Does Respondent remember how representative in U.S.
                    House of Reps voted on use of force in Persian Gulf
           912502  Did he/she vote for or against use of force
           912503  Would Respondent guess whether voted for or against
                    use of force
           912504  Summary Variable

           912505  Does Respondent remember how Senator #1 voted on use
                    of force in Gulf
           912506  Did he/she vote for or against use of force
           912507  Guess he/she vote for or against use of force
           912508  Summary Variable
           912509  Does Respondent remember how Senator #2 voted on use
                    of force in Gulf
           912510  Did he/she vote for or against the use of force
           912511  Would Respondent guess whether voted for or against
                    use of force
           912512  Summary Variable

           912513  Before war actually started, does Respondent think
                    one political party more in favor of military force
           912514  Which party supported use of force
           912515  Summary Variable


                    Respondent's Recall of Feelings During the War

           912516  During the war, did Respondent feel proud
           912517  Feel strongly or not so strongly
           912518  During the war, did Respondent ever feel upset
           912519  Feel strongly or not so strongly
           912520  During the war, did Respondent ever feel sympathy for
                    the Iraqi people
           912521  Feel strongly or not so strongly
           912522  During the war, was Respondent worried the fighting
                    might spread
           912523  Feel strongly or not so strongly
           912524  During the war, did Respondent ever feel angry at
                    Saddam Hussein
           912525  Feel strongly or not so strongly
           912526  During the war, did Respondent ever feel disgusted at
                    the killing
           912527  Feel strongly or not so strongly
           912528  During the war, did Respondent ever feel afraid for
                    American troops
           912529  Feel strongly or not so strongly


                                Attention Paid To War

           912530  How much attention did Respondent pay to news about
                    Gulf war

                    Did One Party Support War More Than The Other
                                   After War Began

           912531  After fighting started, did Respondent think one
                    party supported war more or about equal
           912532  Which party supported the war more
           912533  Summary Variable


                     Anything Good/Bad For U.S. Come From the War

           912534  Does Respondent think anything good came out of Gulf
                    War for the U.S.
           912535  Good that came out of Gulf War <1st mention>
           912536  Good that came out of Gulf War <2nd mention>
           912537  Good that came out of Gulf War <3rd mention>
           912538  Good that came out of Gulf War <4th mention>
           912539  Good that came out of Gulf War <5th mention>

           912540  Other than losing lives, does Respondent think
                    anything bad came out of war for U.S.
           912541  Bad that came out of Gulf War <1st mention>
           912542  Bad that came out of Gulf War <2nd mention>
           912543  Bad that came out of Gulf War <3rd mention>
           912544  Bad that came out of Gulf War <4th mention>
           912545  Bad that came out of Gulf War <5th mention>

           912546  All things considered, was worth the cost or not


                        Worried about Another Middle East War

           912547  How worried Respondent that another war will break
                    out in the Middle East in the next few years


                          Morality of Bombing Near Civilians

           912548  Should there be no bombing of targets near where
                    civilians live
           912549  Feel strongly or not so strongly about this
           912550  Summary Variable

               Any Friends/Relatives Who Served in the Persian Gulf War

           912551  Does Respondent have any relatives or close friends
                    called up to serve in Persian Gulf War
           912552  Personnel's relationship to respondent <1st person>
           912553  Personnel's relationship to respondent <2nd person>
           912554  Personnel's relationship to respondent <3rd person>
           912555  Personnel's relationship to respondent <4th person>


                  Was U.S. Right to Stop While Saddam Still in Power

           912556  Does Respondent feel U.S. and allies should have
                    continued fighting until Saddam Hussein was driven
                    from power or right to stop with liberation of Kuwait


                    Did U.S. Handle the Kurdish Problem Correctly

           912557  Did the U.S. do enough/helped quickly enough
                    to help the Kurdish people in Iraq


                         Respondent For/Against Preferential
                              Hiring/Promotion of Blacks

           912558  Is Respondent for or against preferential hiring and
                    promotion of blacks
           912559  Favor preference in hiring and promotion
           912560  Oppose preference in hiring and promotion
           912561  Summary Variable

           912562  Democratic party: preferential hiring and promotion
                    of blacks
           912563  Republican party: preferential hiring and promotion
                    of blacks


                   Respondent's Attention to Religious Programming

           912580  How many times in last week did Respondent watch
                    religious program on TV or listen on radio other than
                    services of local churches





>> 1992 PRE- AND POST-ELECTION VARIABLES SAMPLING INFORMATION


           923004  1992 Pre-Election Study Case ID
           923005  1992 Panel or Cross-Section Indicator
           923006  1990 Post Election Study Case ID
           923007  Panel Status For The 1991 Panel/Pilot
                   Study
           923008  Full Sample Weight
           923009  Panel Only Weight
           923010  Pre-Post Indicator: 1992 Election Study
           923011  Pre-Election Form-Sample Indicator
           923012  Primary Area Code (3 digits)
           923013  PRIMARY AREA NAME
           923014  Census Region
           923015  State Abbreviation
           923016  ICPSR State and 1992 Congressional District
           923017  ICPSR State Code
           923018  FIPS State Code
           923019  1992 Congressional District Number (2 digits)
           923020  1990 Congressional District Number
           923021  Type of Race:  House of Representatives
           923022  Type of Race: Senate


                               PRE-ELECTION INFORMATION

           923023  Pre-Election Sample Releases and Replicates
           923024  Pre-Election Sample Release -- Summary
           923025  A0. Pre-Election: Beginning Time (local)--Exact Time
                   Now
           923026  Pre-Election: Date of Interview:  MONTH
           923027  Pre-Election: Date Interview:  Day
           923028  Pre-Election: Interviewer's Interview Number
           923029  Pre-Election: Interview Length in Minutes
           923030  Pre-Election: Post-Edit Length, in Minutes
           923031  Pre-Election: Mode of Interview: Telephone or Personal
           923032  Pre-Election: Total Number of Calls to Obtain
                   Interview
           923033  Pre-Election: Result Code
           923034  Reasons for using telephone questionnaire
           923035  Was Name Obtained
           923036  R's Address
           923037  Address Different From Sample Label
           923038  Phone Number Obtained
           923039  Is Number Listed in the Phone Directory
           923040  Is Phone Listed in R's Name
           923041  Does R Have Other Residence
           923042  Contact Information
           923043  Reason for not Interviewing by Phone
           923044  Type of Structure in Which R Lives
           923045  Is Cooperation Needed to Gain Access to Housing Unit
           923046  Instructions for Gaining Access to Housing Unit

                             R's Resistance to Interview

           923047  Refusal Conversion Indicator
           923048  Persuasion Letter Requested
           923049  Type of Incentive Sent to Selected Household
           923050  Amount of Payment Offered to R
           923051  Amount of Payment Made to R
           923052  Did R Refuse Interview Initially
           923053  Did R Break Any Appointment
           923054  Reason for Resistance to Interview: Waste of Time
           923055  Reason for Resistance to Interview:  Very Ill
           923056  Reason for Resistance to Interview:  'Too Busy'
           923057  Reason for Resistance to Interview: Stressful Family
                   Situation
           923058  Reason for Resistance to Interview: Confidentiality
           923059  Reason for Resistance to Interview: Invasion of
                   Privacy
           923060  Reason for Resistance to Interview: Other

                                 Geographic Variables

           923061  FIPS State and County Codes
           923062  Tract/Enumeration District Indicator
           923063  FIPS 1980 SMSA Code
           923064  FIPS 1990 CMSA Codes
           923065  Size of Place of Interview - 1990
           923066  Actual Population of Interview Location - 1990
           923067  1990 Belt Code

                                  Sampling Variables

           923068  Sampling Error Code - Combined Panel/Cross-Section
           923069  Sampling Error Code - Panel Only
           923070  Cross-Section: Number of Household Units
           923071  Panel Only: R Found Not Living at Sample Label Address
           923072  Cross-Section: Household Listing
           923073  Cross-Section: Selection Table
           923074  Cross-Section: Person Number Selected As R
           923075  Cross-Section: Number of Persons in Household

           923076  Cross Section: Number of Politically Eligible Adults
                   in HH
           923077  Cross Section: Household Composition Code
           923078  Household Description for Panel and Cross-Section
           923079  Cross-Section: Number of Children Under 6 Years Old in
                   HH
           923080  Cross-Section: Number of Children 6-9 Years Old in HH
           923081  Cross-Section: Number of Children 10-13 Years Old in
                   HH
           923082  Cross-Section: Number of Children 14-17 Years Old in
                   HH

                                Interviewer Variables

           923083  Interviewer's ID Number
           923084  Supervisor ID Number
           923085  Interviewer's Race
           923086  Interviewer's Ethnicity
           923087  Interviewer's Age Bracketed
           923088  Interviewer's Years of Experience
           923089  Interviewer's Gender
           923090  Interviewer's Education
           923101  Interest in the Campaign


                                 INTERVIEW QUESTIONS

           923102  Prediction of Winner in Presidential Election
           923103  Does R Think Presidential Race Will Be Close
           923104  Which Presidential Candidate Does R Think Will Carry
                   State
           923105  Does R Think the Presidential Race Will Be Close in
                   State
           923106  Does R Care Which Party Wins the Presidential Election
           923107  Did R Vote in 1988 Presidential Election
           923108  Vote for President in 1988


                                  BUSH AS CANDIDATE

           923109  Is There Anything About Bush That Would Make R Vote
                   For Him
           923110  Reasons Would Vote For Bush - First Mention
           923111  Reasons Would Vote For Bush - Second Mention
           923112  Reasons Would Vote For Bush - Third Mention
           923113  Reasons Would Vote For Bush - Fourth Mention
           923114  Reasons Would Vote For Bush - Fifth Mention

           923115  Is There Anything About Bush That Would Make R Vote
                   Against Him
           923116  Reasons Would Vote Against Bush - First Mention
           923117  Reasons Would Vote Against Bush - Second Mention
           923118  Reasons Would Vote Against Bush - Third Mention
           923119  Reasons Would Vote Against Bush - Fourth Mention
           923120  Reasons Would Vote Against Bush - Fifth Mention
           923121  Is There Anything About Clinton That Would Make R Vote
                   For Him


                                 CLINTON AS CANDIDATE

           923122  Reasons Would Vote For Clinton - First Mention
           923123  Reasons Would Vote For Clinton - Second Mention
           923124  Reasons Would Vote For Clinton - Third Mention
           923125  Reasons Would Vote For Clinton - Fourth Mention
           923126  Reasons Would Vote For Clinton - Fifth Mention
           923127  Is There Anything About Clinton That Would Make R Vote
                   Against Him
           923128  Reasons Would Vote Against Clinton - First Mention
           923129  Reasons Would Vote Against Clinton - Second Mention
           923130  Reasons Would Vote Against Clinton - Third Mention
           923131  Reasons Would Vote Against Clinton - Fourth Mention
           923132  Reasons Would Vote Against Clinton - Fifth Mention
           923133  Is There Anything About Perot That Would Make R Vote
                   For Him


                                  PEROT AS CANDIDATE

           923134  Reasons Would Vote For Perot - First Mention
           923135  Reasons Would Vote For Perot - Second Mention
           923136  Reasons Would Vote For Perot - Third Mention
           923137  Reasons Would Vote For Perot - Fourth Mention
           923138  Reasons Would Vote For Perot - Fifth Mention
           923139  Is There Anything About Perot That Would Make R Vote
                   Against Him
           923140  Reasons Would Vote Against Perot - First Mention
           923141  Reasons Would Vote Against Perot - Second Mention
           923142  Reasons Would Vote Against Perot - Third Mention
           923143  Reasons Would Vote Against Perot - Fourth Mention
           923144  Reasons Would Vote Against Perot - Fifth Mention

                           R'S ATTENTION TO CAMPAIGN/MEDIA

           923145  Satisfaction With Presidential Candidates
           923201  How Often Did R Watch News on TV in the Past Week
           923202  How Much Attention Did R Give to the Presidential
                   Campaign News on TV
           923203  How Often Did R Read a Daily Newspaper in the Past
                   Week
           923204  Did R Read About the Campaign in Any Newspaper
           923205  How Much Attention Did R Give to Campaign News in the
                   Newspaper
           923206  Did R Read About the Campaign in Any Magazines
           923207  How Much Attention Did R Give to the Campaign News in
                   Magazines
           923208  Did R Listen to Campaign Speeches or Discussions on
                   the Radio
           923209  How Many Campaign Speeches/Discussions Did R Listen to
                   on the Radio
           923210  Did R Listen/Watch Call-In Radio/TV Talk Shows
           923211  Does R Recall Seeing Any Presidential Campaign
                   Advertisements on TV
           923212  Remembered About Campaign Ads on TV - First Mention
           923213  Remembered About Campaign Ads on TV - Second Mention
           923214  Remembered About Campaign Ads on TV - Third Mention
           923215  Remembered About Campaign Ads on TV - Fourth Mention
           923216  Remembered About Campaign Ads on TV - Fifth Mention


                         R'S PARTICIPATION IN PRIMARY/CAUCUS

           923301  Did R Vote in Caucus/Primary Election
           923302  Did R Vote in Republican or Democratic Primary/Caucus
           923303  Which Republican Did R Vote For in State
                   Primary/Caucus
           923304  Which Democratic Did R Vote For in State
                   Primary/Caucus


                                 FEELING THERMOMETERS

           923305  Feeling Thermometer - George Bush
           923306  Feeling Thermometer - Bill Clinton
           923307  Feeling Thermometer - Ross Perot
           923308  Feeling Thermometer - Dan Quayle
           923309  Feeling Thermometer - Albert Gore
           923310  Feeling Thermometer - Anita Hill
           923311  Feeling Thermometer - Tom Foley
           923312  Feeling Thermometer - Barbara Bush
           923313  Feeling Thermometer - Hillary Clinton
           923314  Feeling Thermometer - Clarence Thomas
           923315  Feeling Thermometer - Pat Buchanan
           923316  Feeling Thermometer - Jesse Jackson
           923317  Feeling Thermometer - Democratic Party
           923318  Feeling Thermometer - Republican Party


                  R'S ASSESSMENT OF BUSH AS PRESIDENT (PRE-ELECTION)

           923319  Approves/Disapproves of Bush's Handling of His Job as
                   President
           923320  How Strongly Approve/Disapprove of Bush's Handling of
                   His Job
           923321  Approves/Disapproves of Bush's Handling of Foreign
                   Relations
           923322  How Strongly Approve/Disapprove of Bush's Foreign
                   Relations
           923323  Approve/Disapprove of Bush's Handling of the Economy
           923324  How Strongly Approve/Disapprove of Bush's Handling of
                   Economy
           923325  Approve/Disapprove of Bush's Handling of Persian Gulf
                   Crisis
           923326  How Strongly Approve/Disapprove of Bush's Handling of
                   Gulf


                       R'S OPINION ABOUT CANDIDATES AND PARTIES

                  Candidate Best Able to Handle...

           923327  ...The Nation's Economy
           923328  ...Foreign Affairs
           923329  ...Poverty
           923330  ...Pollution and the Environment
           923331  ...Health Care
           923332  ...the Budget Deficit


                      R'S LIKES/DISLIKES ABOUT DEMOCRATIC PARTY

           923401  Whether R Likes Anything About the Democratic Party
           923402  Likes About the Democratic Party - First Mention
           923403  Likes About the Democratic Party - Second Mention
           923404  Likes About the Democratic Party - Third Mention
           923405  Likes About the Democratic Party - Fourth Mention
           923406  Likes About the Democratic Party - Fifth Mention
           923407  Whether R Dislikes Anything About the Democratic Party
           923408  Dislikes About the Democratic Party - First Mention
           923409  Dislikes About the Democratic Party - Second Mention
           923410  Dislikes About the Democratic Party - Third Mention
           923411  Dislikes About the Democratic Party - Fourth Mention
           923412  Dislikes About the Democratic Party - Fifth Mention


                      R'S LIKES/DISLIKES ABOUT REPUBLICAN PARTY

           923413  Whether R Likes Anything About the Republican Party
           923414  Likes About the Republican Party - First Mention
           923415  Likes About the Republican Party - Second Mention
           923416  Likes About the Republican Party - Third Mention
           923417  Likes About the Republican Party - Fourth Mention
           923418  Likes About the Republican Party - Fifth Mention
           923419  Whether R Dislikes Anything About the Republican Party
           923420  Dislikes About the Republican Party - First Mention
           923421  Dislikes About the Republican Party - Second Mention
           923422  Dislikes About the Republican Party - Third Mention
           923423  Dislikes About the Republican Party - Fourth Mention
           923424  Dislikes About the Republican Party - Fifth Mention


                           R'S PERSONAL FINANCIAL SITUATION

           923425  Better/Worse Off Financially Than a Year Ago
           923426  How Much Better/Worse Off Financially Than a Year Ago
           923427  Better/Worse Off Financially a Year From Now
           923428  Much or Somewhat Better/Worse Off a Year From Now
           923429  Income Stayed At/Above/Below the Cost of Living
           923430  Income Gone Up/Fallen Behind the Cost of Living
           923431  Federal Economic Policy Has Affected R Financially
           923432  How Much Federal Economic Policy Has Affected R
                   Financially
           923433  Been Able to Buy/Had to Put Off Buying Things During
                   Past Year
           923434  Put Off Medical/Dental Treatment Due to Lack of Money
           923435  Borrow Money to Make Ends Meet
           923436  Dip Into Savings to Make Ends Meet
           923437  Look for Job, Work 2nd Job/More Hours to Make Ends
                   Meet
           923438  Able to Save Any Money Over the Past Year
           923439  Fallen Behind in Rent/House Payments This Past Year

                               R Has Received Payments

           923440  Receive Payments From Social Security
           923441  Receive Payments From Food Stamps
           923442  Receive Payments From Medicare
           923443  Receive Payments From Medicaid
           923444  Receive Payments From Unemployment Compensation
           923445  Receive Payments From AFDC
           923446  Receive Payments From Veterans Benefits
           923447  Receive Payments From Government Retirement Pensions
           923448  Receive Payments From Disability Payments
           923449  Receive Payments From Workman's Compensation
           923450  Presidential Candidate Most Likely to Raise Taxes


                          R'S FEELINGS ABOUT CANDIDATE: BUSH

           923501  Whether Bush Makes R Angry
           923502  Whether Bush Makes R Hopeful
           923503  Whether Bush Makes R Afraid
           923504  Whether Bush Makes R Proud


                        R'S FEELINGS ABOUT CANDIDATE: CLINTON

           923505  Whether Clinton Makes R Angry
           923506  Whether Clinton Makes R Hopeful
           923507  Whether Clinton Makes R Afraid
           923508  Whether Clinton Makes R Proud


                                IDEOLOGICAL PLACEMENT

           923509  Ideological Placement
           923510  Interviewer Checkpoint: Ideological Placement
           923511  Ideological Placement if Moderate/Middle of Road
           923512  Ideological Placement if DK/Haven't Thought Much
           923513  Summary: Ideological Placement
           923514  Ideological Placement - Bush
           923515  Ideological Placement - Clinton
           923516  Ideological Placement - Ross Perot
           923517  Ideological Placement - The Republican Party
           923518  Ideological Placement - The Democratic Party
           923519  Whether Political Candidates Should Display Higher
                   Moral Standards


                   Qualities of a True American:

           923520  Getting Ahead Through Own Effort
           923521  Believing in God
           923522  Treating People of All Races Equally
           923523  Speaking English


                       R'S OPINION ON NATIONAL ISSUES/PROBLEMS

           923524  Racial/Ethnic Groups Should Maintain Distinct
                   Cultures
           923525  Those Who Avoided Vietnam Should Have Served Despite
                   Beliefs
           923526  Things in This Country Are Going in the Right
                   Direction
           923527  Level of Unemployment Has Gotten Better/Worse in Past
                   Year


                          R'S OPINION ON ECONOMIC CONDITIONS

           923528  How Much Better/Worse is the Level of Unemployment
           923529  Inflation Has Gotten Better/Worse in the Past Year
           923530  How Much Better/Worse is Inflation
           923531  Nation's Economy Has Gotten Better/Worse in Past Year
           923532  How Much Better/Worse is the Nation's Economy
           923533  Economy Has Gotten Better/Worse in Last Few Months
           923534  How Much Better/Worse is Economy in Past Few Months
           923535  Economy Has Gotten Better/Worse Compared to Four Years
                   Ago
           923536  How much Better/Worse is Economy Compared to Four
                   Years Ago
           923537  Economy Will Get Better/Worse in Next 12 Months
           923538  America's Ability to Compete in World Economy Gotten
                   Better/Worse
           923539  How Much Better/Worse is America's Ability to Compete
                   in World Economy
           923540  Standard of Living Will be Better/Worse 20 Years From
                   Now
           923541  Federal Economic Policies Have Made Economy
                   Better/Worse
           923542  How Much Better/Worse Have Federal Economic Policies
                   Made Economy
           923543  Economic Conditions in State Have Gotten Better/Worse
           923544  How Much Better/Worse Are Economic Conditions in State

                           R'S OPINION ON POLITICAL PARTIES

                   Which Party Would Do a Better Job...

           923545  ...Handling Economy
           923546  ...Handling Foreign Affairs
           923547  ...Solving Problem of Poverty
           923548  ...Making Health Care More Affordable
           923549  ...Cut Social Security Benefits

                   Taxes and the Deficit

           923550  Which Party is More Likely to - Raise Taxes
           923551  Who is More to Blame for Federal Budget Deficit


                            R'S OPINION ON MILITARY ISSUES

           923601  Unites States' World Position Has Grown
                   Weaker/Stronger
           923602  Party Best Able to Keep United States Out of War
           923603  Should U.S. Maintain Military Power Through High
                   Defense Spending
           923604  U.S. Should Not Concern Itself With Problems in Other
                   Parts of World
           923605  How Willing Should U.S. be to Use Force to Solve Intl.
                   Problems
           923606  How Worried is R About U.S. Getting into a Nuclear War
           923607  How Worried is R About U.S. Getting into Conventional
                   War
           923608  Did U.S. Do the Right Thing in Sending Military Forces
                   to Persian Gulf
           923609  Was One Party Was More in Favor of Military Force in
                   Persian Gulf
           923610  Which Party Supported Use of Force in Persian Gulf
                   More

                   Incumbent's Support of Persian Gulf War

           923611  INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: Candidate Named

           923612  Remembers How Incumbent Voted on Use of Force in
                   Persian Gulf
           923613  Did Incumbent Vote For/Against Use of Force
           923614  Would R Have Guessed Incumbent Would Vote For/Against
                   Use of Force

           923615  Approve/Disapprove of Bush's Handing of War in Persian
                   Gulf
           923616  Approve/Disapprove of Bush's Handling of Gulf War

                   Effects of Persian Gulf War

           923617  Did Anything Good Come Out of the Persian Gulf War for
                   the U.S.
           923618  Good Effects of the Persian Gulf War - First Mention
           923619  Good Effects of the Persian Gulf War - Second Mention
           923620  Good Effects of the Persian Gulf War - Third Mention
           923621  Good Effects of the Persian Gulf War - Fourth Mention
           923622  Good Effects of the Persian Gulf War - Fifth Mention
           923623  Did Anything Bad Come Out of the War for the U.S.
                   Besides Losing Lives
           923624  Bad Effects of Persian Gulf War - First Mention
           923625  Bad Effects of Persian Gulf War - Second Mention
           923626  Bad Effects of Persian Gulf War - Third Mention
           923627  Bad Effects of Persian Gulf War - Fourth Mention
           923628  Bad Effects of Persian Gulf War - Fifth Mention
           923629  Was the War Worth the Cost
           923630  Should the War Have Continued After Kuwait Was
                   Liberated


                                 PARTY IDENTIFICATION

           923631  Party Identification
           923632  Strength of Party Identification
           923633  Is R Closer to Republican/Democratic Party
           923634  Summary: Party Identification


                         QUALITIES DESCRIBING CANDIDATE: BUSH

           923635  How Well Does "Intelligent" Describe Bush
           923636  How Well Does "Compassionate" Describe Bush
           923637  How Well Does "Moral" Describe Bush
           923638  How Well Does "Inspiring" Describe Bush
           923639  How Well Does "Provides Strong Leadership" Describe
                   Bush
           923640  How Well Does "Really Cares About People Like You"
                   Describe Bush
           923641  How Well Does "Knowledgeable" Describe Bush
           923642  How Well Does "Honest" Describe Bush
           923643  How Well Does "Gets Things Done" Describe Bush

                       QUALITIES DESCRIBING CANDIDATE: CLINTON

           923644  How Well Does "Intelligent" Describe Clinton
           923645  How Well Does "Compassionate" Describe Clinton
           923646  How Well Does "Moral" Describe Clinton
           923647  How Well Does "Inspiring" Describe Clinton
           923648  How Well Does "Provides Strong Leadership" Describe
                   Clinton
           923649  How Well Does "Really Cares About People Like You"
                   Describe Clinton
           923650  How Well Does "Knowledgeable" Describe Clinton
           923651  How Well Does "Honest" Describe Clinton
           923652  How Well Does "Gets Things Done" Describe Clinton


                         GOVERNMENT SERVICES/SPENDING SCALES:

           923701  Respondent
           923702  George Bush
           923703  Bill Clinton
           923704  The Republican Party
           923705  The Democratic Party
           923706  The Federal Government


                               DEFENSE SPENDING SCALES:

           923707  Respondent
           923708  George Bush
           923709  Bill Clinton
           923710  The Republican Party
           923711  The Democratic Party
           923712  The Federal Government


                           HEALTH CARE AND HEALTH INSURANCE

           923713  Can R Afford Health Care
           923714  Does R Have Health Insurance
           923715  Satisfaction With Quality of Available Health Care
           923717  Should Government Require Parental Leave

                                JOB ASSURANCE SCALES:

           923718  Respondent
           923719  George Bush
           923720  Bill Clinton
           923721  The Republican Party
           923722  The Democratic Party
           923723  The Federal Government

           923724  Governmental Support of Social and Economic
                   Position of Blacks


                INCREASE/DECREASE SPENDING ON FEDERAL BUDGET PROGRAMS
                            (See also Variables 3811-3819)

           923725  Increase/Decrease Federal Spending on Food Stamps
           923726  Increase/Decrease Federal Spending on Welfare
           923727  Increase/Decrease Federal Spending on AIDS Research
           923728  Increase/Decrease Federal Spending on Financial Aid
                   For Students
           923729  Increase/Decrease Federal Spending on Programs That
                   Assist Blacks
           923730  Increase/Decrease Federal Spending on Solving Problem
                   of Homeless
           923731  Increase/Decrease Federal Spending on Programs That
                   Assist Blacks


                                  VIEWS ON ABORTION

           923732  Respondent's Position on Abortion
           923733  Respondent's View of Bush's Position on Abortion
           923734  Respondent's View of Clinton's Position on Abortion
           923735  Would Respondent Favor/Oppose Parental Consent Law for
                   Teenage Abortions
           923736  How Strongly Does Respondent Favor/Oppose Parental
                   Consent Law for Abortions
           923737  Would Respondent Favor/Oppose Government Funding for
                   Abortions
           923738  How Strongly Does Respondent Favor/Oppose Government
                   Funding for Abortions
           923739  Spousal Notification Law for Married Women Seeking
                   Abortion
           923740  How Strongly Does Respondent Favor/Oppose Spousal
                   Notification Law


                              VIEWS ON SEXUAL HARASSMENT

           923741  Respondent's View of Seriousness of Sexual Harassment
                   in the Work Place
           923742  Has Respondent or Anyone Respondent Knows Been Subject
                   to Sexual Harassment in Workplace
           923743  Status of Protection for Women From Sexual Harassment
                   in Workplace
           923744  Is Respondent More Inclined to Believe the Woman/Man
                   in Sexual Harassment


                          CONGRESSIONAL ISSUES AND PROBLEMS

           923745  Should Gov't Provide Child Care Assistance to Low/Mid
                   Income Parents
           923746  Dealing With Urban Unrest/Rioting Scale - R
           923747  Does Respondent Favor/Oppose Term Limits For Congress
           923748  Has Respondent Heard/Read About Problems in Savings
                   and Loan Business
           923749  Respondent's View of Who is to Blame for Problems of
                   Savings and Loan Business
           923801  Women's Rights Scale - R
           923802  Does Respondent Favor/Oppose New Limits on Foreign
                   Imports
           923803  Respondent's View of Japanese Business Competition and
                   U.S. Response


                       RESPONDENTS PLANS FOR NOVEMBER ELECTION

           923804  Does Respondent Expect to Vote in November
           923805  Who Will Respondent Vote for in the Presidential
                   Election
           923806  How Strong is Respondent's Preference for Presidential
                   Candidate
           923807  If "No" in v 3804: Who Would Respondent Vote for in
                   the Presidential Election
           923808  If "No" in v 3804: Strength of Respondent's Preference
                   for President
           923809  INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: Respondent Volunteered Ross
                   Perot in V 3807
           923810  Was Perot Ever Respondent's First Choice for President

                INCREASE/DECREASE SPENDING ON FEDERAL BUDGET PROGRAMS
                            (See also Variables 3725-3731)

           923811  Increase/Decrease Spending on Social Security
           923812  Increase/Decrease Spending on Science and Technology
           923813  Increase/Decrease Spending on Child Care
           923814  Increase/Decrease Spending on Dealing with Crime
           923815  Increase/Decrease Spending on Improving and Protecting
                   the Environment
           923816  Increase/Decrease Spending on Government Assistance
                   to the Unemployed
           923817  Increase/Decrease Spending on Poor people
           923818  Increase/Decrease Spending on Public schools
           923819  Increase/Decrease Spending on Aid to Big Cities


                        R'S RELIGIOUS PREFERENCE AND PRACTICE

           923820  Is Religion an Important Part of Respondent's Life
           923821  Amount of Guidance in Daily Living Provided by
                   Respondent's Religion
           923822  How Often Does Respondent Pray
           923823  How Often Does Respondent Read the Bible
           923824  Respondent's View of the Bible
           923825  How Often Does Respondent Watch/Listen to Religious
                   Programs
           923826  Does Respondent Attend Religious Services Apart From
                   Weddings/Baptisms/Funerals
           923827  Does Respondent Consider Self Part of a Particular
                   Church or Denomination
           923828  How Often Does Respondent Attend Religious Services
           923829  Does Respondent Attend Religious Services More Than
                   Once a Week

                   Denomination/Affiliation

           923830  Does Respondent Consider Self Protestant/Roman
                   Catholic/Jewish
           923831  Respondent's Church/Denomination
           923832  Respondent's Specific Denominational Affiliation -
                   Baptist
           923833  Is Respondent's Church Affiliated With Larger Baptist
                   Group/Strictly Local
           923834  Respondent's Specific Denominational Affiliation -
                   Lutheran
           923835  Respondent's Specific Denominational Affiliation -
                   Methodist

           923836  Respondent's Specific Denominational Affiliation -
                   Presbyterian
           923837  Respondent's Specific Denominational Affiliation -
                   Reformed
           923838  Respondent's Specific Denominational Affiliation -
                   Brethren
           923839  Respondent's Specific Denominational Affiliation -
                   Christian
           923840  Respondent's Specific Denominational Affiliation -
                   Church/Churches of Christ
           923841  Respondent's Specific Denominational Affiliation -
                   Church of God
           923842  Respondent's Specific Denominational Affiliation -
                   Holiness/Pentecostal
           923843  Respondent's Specific Denominational Affiliation -
                   Other
           923844  Is "Other" Group Mentioned in V 3844 Christian
           923845  If Jewish:  Is Respondent Orthodox/Conservative/Reform
           923846  Description of Respondent's Kind of Christianity
           923847  Is Respondent a Born-Again Christian
           923848  Is Respondent Officially a Member of a Place of
                   Worship
           923849  Does Respondent Participate in Religious Group
                   Outside of Place of Worship
           923850  Respondent's Religious Affiliation - Summary


                                 PERSONAL INFORMATION

           923901  Respondent's Date of Birth - Month
           923902  Respondent's Date of Birth - Year
           923903  Respondent's Recoded Age
           923904  Respondent's Marital Status


                                    R'S EDUCATION

           923905  Years of Education Completed - R
           923906  Did Respondent Get High School Diploma/Pass
                   Equivalency Test
           923907  Highest Degree Earned - R
           923908  Summary: R's Education

                             EDUCATION OF SPOUSE/PARTNER

           923909  INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: Respondent Married/Living with
                   Partner

           923910  Years of Education Completed - Respondent's
                   Spouse/Partner
           923911  Did Respondent's Spouse/Partner Get High School
                   Diploma/Pass Equivalency Test
           923912  Highest Degree Earned - Respondent's Spouse/Partner
           923913  Summary: Spouse's Education


                                R'S OCCUPATION SECTION

           923914  Respondent's Working Status
           923915  Summary: Respondent's Working Status
           923916  If Unemployed: Has Respondent Ever Worked for Pay
           923917  If Retired: When Did Respondent Retire
           923918  If Disabled: Has Respondent Ever Worked for Pay
           923919  If Homemaker/Student: Is Respondent Doing Any Work for
                   Pay at Present
           923920  If Unemployed Homemaker/Student: Has Respondent Worked
                   for Pay in Last 6 Months
           923921  If Working/Temporarily Laid Off: Respondent's
                   Occupation
           923922  Collapsed 1980 Occupation Code
           923923  Prestige Score
           923924  Respondent's Industry/Business
           923925  Is Respondent Self-Employed/Works for Someone Else
           923926  Is Respondent Employed by Federal/State/Local
                   Government
           923927  Number of Hours Worked Per Week by R
           923928  Is Respondent Satisfied with Number of Hours Worked
           923929  How Worried is Respondent About Losing Job


                    OCCUPATION - R WORKING OR TEMPORARILY LAID OFF

           923930  INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: Respondent is
                   Working/Temporarily Laid Off
           923931  Was Respondent Out of Work/Laid Off During Last 6
                   Months
           923932  Has Respondent Had Pay Cut/Reduction in Work Hours in
                   Past 6 Months
           923933  Respondent's Last Occupation - Collapsed Census
                   Occupation Code


           923934  Collapsed 1980 Occupation Code
           923935  Prestige Score
           923936  Respondent's Last Occupation - Census Industry Code
           923937  Was Respondent Self-Employed/Worked for Someone Else
           923938  Was Respondent Employed by Federal/State/Local
                   Government
           923939  Has Respondent Had a Job in the Past 6 Months
           923940  Number of Hours Per Week Respondent Worked


                    OCCUPATION - R UNEMPLOYED, RETIRED OR DISABLED

           923941  INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: Employment Status

           923942  Is Respondent Doing Any Work for Pay at the Present
                   Time
           923943  Is Respondent Looking for Work at the Present Time
           923944  How Worried is Respondent About Not Being Able to Find
                   a Job


                           R'S OCCUPATIONAL DATA - STACKED

           923945  Respondent's Last Occupation - Census Occupation Code
           923946  Respondent's Last Occupation - Collapsed 1980
                   Occupation Code
           923947  Respondent's Last Occupation - Prestige Score
           923948  Respondent's Last Occupation - Census Industry Code
           923949  Was Respondent Self-Employed/Worked for Someone Else
           923950  Was Respondent Employed by Federal/State/Local
                   Government
           923951  Number of Hours Respondent Worked in Average Week
           923952  Is Respondent Looking for Work at the Present Time
           923953  How Worried is Respondent About Not Being Able to Find
                   a Job
           923954  Respondent's Present/Last Occupation - Census
                   Occupation Code
           923955  Respondent's Current/Former Occupation - Collapsed
                   Code
           923956  Respondent's Current/Former/Occupation - Census
                   Industry Code
           923957  Was Respondent Self-Employed/Worked for Someone Else
           923958  Is/Was Respondent Employed by Federal/State/Local
                   Government
           923959  Number of Hours Respondent Works/Worked on Job in
                   Average Week

           923960  How Worried is Respondent About Losing Job/Not Being
                   able to Find a Job
           923961  Has Respondent (If Unemployed/Disabled) Had a Job in
                   the Last 6 Months
           923962  Is Respondent (If Unemployed/Retired/Disabled) Looking
                   for Work at Present Time
           923963  Has Respondent (If Unemployed/Permanently Disabled)
                   Ever Done Any Work For Pay


                             OCCUPATION OF SPOUSE/PARTNER

           924001  INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: Respondent's Marital Status

           924002  Is Respondent's Spouse/Partner Working Now
           924003  Summary: Working Status of Respondent's Spouse/Partner
           924004  Has Spouse/Partner (If Unemployed) Ever Worked for Pay
           924005  When Did Respondent's Spouse/Partner Retire
           924006  Has Respondent's Spouse/Partner (If Disabled) Ever
                   Done Any Work for Pay
           924007  Is Respondent's Spouse/Partner (If Homemaker/Student)
                   Doing Any Work for Pay
           924008  Has Respondent's Spouse/Partner Done Any Work in Last
                   6 Months for Pay
           924009  Present Occupation of Respondent's Spouse/Partner -
                   Census Occupation code
           924010  Collapsed 1980 Occupation Code - Respondent's
                   Spouse/Partner
           924011  Prestige Score - Respondent's Spouse/Partner
           924012  Census Industry Code - Respondent's Spouse/Partner
           924013  Respondent's Spouse/Partner was Self-Employed/Worked
                   for Someone Else
           924014  Is Respondent's Spouse/Partner Employed by
                   Federal/State/Local Government
           924015  Number of Hours Worked by Respondent's Spouse/Partner
                   in Average Week
           924016  Does Respondent's Spouse/Partner Work More/Fewer Hours
                   Than He/She Wants
           924017  How Worried is Respondent's Spouse/Partner About
                   Losing His/Her Job

                      OCCUPATION - SPOUSE/PARTNER WORKING NOW OR
                                 TEMPORARILY LAID OFF

           924018  INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: Employment Status of
                   Respondent's Spouse/Partner

           924019  Has Respondent's Spouse/Partner Been Out of Work/Laid
                   Off in Last 6 Months
           924020  Has Respondent's Spouse/Partner Had Reduction in
                   Hours/Pay in Last Six Months
           924021  Census Occupation Code - Respondent's Spouse/Partner
           924022  Collapsed Census Occupation Code - Respondent's
                   Spouse/Partner
           924023  Prestige Score - Respondent's Spouse/Partner
           924024  Census Industry Code - Respondent's  Spouse/Partner
           924025  Respondent's Spouse/Partner Worked for Someone
                   Else/Was Self-Employed
           924026  Was Respondent's Spouse/Partner Employed by
                   Federal/State/Local Government
           924027  Has Respondent's Spouse/Partner had a Job in the Last
                   6 Months
           924028  Number of Works Worked By Respondent's Spouse/Partner
                   in Average Week


                   OCCUPATION - SPOUSE/PARTNER UNEMPLOYED, RETIRED
                                     OR DISABLED

           924029  INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: Employment Status of
                   Respondent's Spouse/Partner

           924030  Is Respondent's Spouse/Partner Doing Any Work for Pay
                   as the Present Time
           924031  Is Respondent's Spouse/Partner Looking for Work at the
                   Present Time
           924032  How Worried is Respondent's Spouse/Partner About
                   Losing His/Her Job
           924033  Census Occupation Code - Respondent's Spouse/Partner
           924034  Collapsed Census Occupation Code - Respondent's
                   Spouse/Partner
           924035  Prestige Score - Respondent's Spouse/Partner
           924036  Census Industry Code - Respondent's Spouse/Partner
           924037  Respondent's Spouse/Partner Worked for Someone
                   Else/Was Unemployed
           924038  Was Respondent's Spouse/Partner Employed by
                   Federal/State/Local Government
           924039  Number of Hours Worked by Respondent's Spouse/Partner
                   in Average Week

           924040  Is Respondent's Spouse/Partner Looking for Work at the
                   Present Time
           924041  How Worried is Respondent's Spouse/Partner About Not
                   Being Able to find a Job


                     SPOUSE/PARTNER'S OCCUPATIONAL DATA - STACKED

           924042  Census Occupation Code - Respondent's Spouse/Partner
           924043  Collapsed Census Occupation Code - Respondent's
                   Spouse/Partner
           924044  Census Industry Code - Respondent's Spouse/Partner
           924045  Respondent's Spouse/Partner Works/Worked for Someone
                   Else or Is/Was Unemployed
           924046  Was Respondent's Spouse/Partner Employed by
                   Federal/State/Local Government
           924047  Number of Hours Worked by Respondent's Spouse/Partner
                   in Average Week
           924048  How Worried is Respondent's Spouse/Partner About
                   Losing His/Her Job
           924049  Has Respondent's Spouse/Partner Had a Job in the Past
                   6 Months
           924050  Is Respondent's Spouse/Partner Looking For Work at the
                   Present Time
           924051  Has Respondent's Spouse/Partner Ever Done Any Work For
                   Pay


                                   UNION MEMBERSHIP

           924101  Does Anyone in Respondent's Household Belong to a
                   Labor Union
           924102  Who in Respondent's Household Belongs to a Labor Union


                                   HOUSEHOLD INCOME

           924103  INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: Respondent Only HH Member Age
                   14 or Older

           924104  Respondent's Family Income Before Taxes
           924105  Respondent's Income Before Taxes

                   Short Form Variables

           924106  INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: Respondent Only HH
                   Member Age 14 or Older

           924107  Respondent's Family Income Before Taxes
           924108  Family Income Category
           924109  Was Respondent's Income Before Taxes Above/Below
                   $24,999
           924110  Respondent's Income


                                  R'S CLASS IDENTITY

           924111  Does Respondent Think of Self as Belonging to a Social
                   Class
           924112  Does Respondent Think of Self as Middle Class or
                   Working Class
           924113  If Middle Class: Is Respondent Average/Upper Middle
                   Class
           924114  Summary: Respondent's Social Class
           924115  Does Respondent Feel Closer to Middle/Working Class


                              R'S ETHNIC GROUP IDENTITY

           924116  Respondent's Main Ethnic/Nationality Group (Other Than
                   American) - 1st Mention
           924117  Respondent's Main Ethnic/Nationality Group (Other Than
                   American) - 2nd Mention

           924118  INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT:  Number of Groups Mentioned

           924119  Ethnic/National Group R Identifies Most Closely
           924120  Both Parents Born in This Country

           924121  INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: Hispanic Group Mentioned/Not
                   Mentioned

           924122  Is R of Spanish/Hispanic Origin/Descent
           924123  Category Best Describing Hispanic Origin

                                    R'S BACKGROUND

           924124  Birthplace
           924125  Where R Grew Up
           924126  Occupation of Father - Collapsed Occupation Code
           924127  Did Mother Have a Job
           924128  Occupation of Mother - Collapsed Occupation Code
           924129  Type of Community R Grew Up In
           924130  How Long R Has Lived in Present
                   City/Town/Township/County
           924131  Where Lived Previously - City
           924132  Where Lived Previously - State/Country
           924133  Distance to Previous Residence


                         RESIDENCE AND HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION

           924134  How Long R Has Lived at Current Residence
           924135  Does R/Family Own/Rent Home
           924136  Does R Have Any Children
           924137  Number of Children Under Age 6
           924138  Number of Children Under Age 6 Living With R
           924139  Number of Children Between 6-18 Years Old
           924140  Number of Children Between Age 6-18 Living With R
           924141  Responsible for Raising Any Other Children
           924142  How Many Additional Children Live With R
           924143  Ending Time of Interview


                         CONDITIONS OF PRE-ELECTION INTERVIEW

           924201  Sex
           924202  Race
           924203  Other Persons Present at Interview
           924204  Cooperation
           924205  Level of Information About Politics/Public Affairs
           924206  Intelligence
           924207  Level of Suspicion About the Study Before Interview
           924208  Interest in the Interview
           924209  Sincerity of Answers
           924210  Did R Report Income Correctly
           924211  Estimate of Family Income by Interviewer
           924212  Interview in English/Translated into Another Language
           924213  What Language Was Interview Translated Into
           924214  Reaction to Interview - 1st Mention
           924215  Reaction to Interview - 2nd Mention
           924216  Reaction to Interview - 3rd Mention
           924217  Reaction to Interview - 4th Mention
           924218  Reaction to Interview - 5th Mention
           924219  Reaction to Interview - 6th Mention
           924220  Reaction to Interview - 7th Mention
           924221  Reaction to Interview - 8th Mention
           924222  Reaction to Interview - 9th Mention
           924223  Reaction to Interview - 10th Mention


                     PROBE INDICATORS FOR PRE-ELECTION INTERVIEW

           924224  George Bush
           924225  Bill Clinton
           924226  Ross Perot
           924227  Dan Quayle
           924228  Albert Gore
           924229  Anita Hill
           924230  Tom Foley
           924231  Barbara Bush
           924232  Hillary Clinton
           924233  Clarence Thomas
           924234  Pat Buchanan
           924235  Jesse Jackson
           924236  The Democratic Party
           924237  The Republican Party


POST-ELECTION SURVEY 1992 POST-ELECTION INFORMATION

           925001  Case ID Number
           925002  Sample-Form Indicator
           925003  Mode of Interview - Telephone/Personal
           925004  Beginning Time of Interview
           925005  Date of Interview - Month
           925006  Date of Interview - Day
           925007  Interviewer's Interview Number
           925008  Interview Length in Minutes
           925009  Length of Pre-Edit
           925010  Length of Post-Edit in Minutes
           925011  Total Number of Calls
           925012  Result Code

                                 SAMPLING INFORMATION

           925013  Short/Panel-Form Only: Reasons for Using Short-Form
           925014  Is R Living at Sample Address
           925015  Recontact: Was Name Obtained
           925016  Recontact: Interviewer Checkpoint: Address Obtained
           925017  Recontact: If Address Different From Sample Label
           925018  Recontact: Was Phone Number Obtained
           925019  Recontact: Is Phone Listed in Current Directory
           925020  Recontact: Is Phone Listed in Name
           925021  Recontact: Does R Have Another Residence
           925022  Recontact: Name/Phone of Contact Person for R
           925023  Refusal Conversion Indicator
           925024  Persuasion Letter Requested
           925025  R Payment Offered - Amount
           925026  R Payment Paid - Amount
           925027  Contact Description: Did R Refuse Initially
           925028  Contact Description: Did R Break Any Appointments

             R's Resistance to Interview

           925029  Waste of Time
           925030  Very Ill
           925031  Too Busy
           925032  Stressful Family Situation
           925033  Confidentiality
           925034  Invasion of Privacy
           925035  Other Reason

             Interviewer Information

           925036  Interviewer's ID Number
           925037  Supervisor's ID Number
           925038  Interviewer's Race
           925039  Interviewer's Ethnicity
           925040  Interviewer's Age Bracketed
           925041  Interviewer's Yrs of Experience - Up to Sept 1, 1992
           925042  Interviewer's Gender
           925043  Interviewer's Education


                                 Geographic Variables

           925101  ICPSR State/Congressional District - R Voting Outside
                   Sample Address
           925102  Interest in Political Campaigns
           925103  Did R Watch Programs About Campaign on TV

           925104  Number of Campaign Programs R Watched on TV
           925105  Does R Ever Discuss Politics With Family/Friends
           925106  How Often R Discusses Politics With Family/Friends
           925107  Number of Days in Past Week That R Talked Politics
                   With Family/Friends
           925108  How Much R Cared About Outcome of U.S. House Elections
           925109  Does R Remember Names of Candidates for U.S. House of
                   Representatives


                                    HOUSE CAMPAIGN

           925110  Number of House Candidate - 1st Mention
           925111  Party of House Candidate - 1st Mention
           925112  Collapsed Code: House Candidate - 1st Mention
           925113  Knowledge of Names/Parties: House Candidate - 1st
                   Mention

           925114  Number of House Candidate - 2nd Mention
           925115  Party of House Candidate - 2nd Mention
           925116  Collapsed Code: House Candidate - 2nd Mention
           925117  Knowledge of Names/Parties: House Candidate - 2nd
                   Mention

           925118  Number of House Candidate - 3rd Mention
           925119  Party of House Candidate - 3rd Mention
           925120  Collapsed Code: House Candidate - 3rd Mention
           925121  Knowledge of Names/Parties: House Candidate - 3rd
                   Mention


                                   SENATE CAMPAIGN

           925201  INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: U.S. Senate Race in State

           925202  Does R Remember Names of Candidates for U.S. Senate

           925203  Number of Senate Candidate - 1st Mention
           925204  Party of Senate Candidate - 1st Mention
           925205  Collapsed Code: Senate Candidate - 1st Mention
           925206  Knowledge of Names/Parties: Senate Candidate - 1st
                   Mention

           925207  Number of Senate Candidate - 2nd Mention
           925208  Party of Senate Candidate - 2nd Mention
           925209  Collapsed Code: Senate Candidate - 2nd Mention
           925210  Knowledge of Names/Parties: Senate Candidate - 2nd
                   Mention

           925211  Number of Senate Candidate - 3rd Mention
           925212  Party of Senate Candidate - 3rd Mention
           925213  Collapsed Code: Senate Candidate - 3rd Mention
           925214  Knowledge of Names/Parties: Senate Candidate - 3rd
                   Mention

                                California Senate Race

           925215  Does R Remember Names of Candidates in California
                   Senate Race

           925216  Number of Senate Candidate: California - 1st Mention
           925217  Party of Senate Candidate: California - 1st Mention
           925218  Collapsed Code: Senate Candidate - 1st Mention,
                   California
           925219  Knowledge of Names/Parties: Senate Candidate, CA - 1st
                   Mention

           925220  Number of Senate Candidate: California - 2nd Mention
           925221  Party of Senate Candidate: California - 2nd Mention
           925222  Collapsed Code: Senate Candidate - 2nd Mention,
                   California
           925223  Knowledge of Names/Parties: Senate Candidate, CA - 2nd
                   Mention

           925224  Number of Senate Candidate: California - 3rd Mention
           925225  Party of Senate Candidate: California - 3rd Mention
           925226  Collapsed Code: Senate Candidate - 3rd Mention,
                   California
           925227  Knowledge of Names/Parties: Senate Candidate, CA - 3rd
                   Mention

           925228  Number of Senate Candidate: California - 4th Mention
           925229  Party of Senate Candidate: California - 4th Mention
           925230  Collapsed Code: Senate Candidate - 4th Mention,
                   California
           925231  Knowledge of Names/Parties: Senate Candidate, CA - 4th
                   Mention


                  FEELING THERMOMETERS: POLITICAL FIGURES AND GROUPS

           925301  Feeling Thermometer - George Bush
           925302  Feeling Thermometer - Bill Clinton
           925303  Feeling Thermometer - Ross Perot
           925304  Feeling Thermometer - Democratic U.S. Senate Candidate
           925305  Feeling Thermometer - Republican U.S. Senate Candidate
           925306  Feeling Thermometer - Democratic U.S. Senate
                   Candidate, California
           925307  Feeling Thermometer - Republican U.S. Senate
                   Candidate, California
           925308  Feeling Thermometer - Dem/Rep Senator: Term not up in
                   state with race
           925309  Feeling Thermometer - Senator #1
           925310  Feeling Thermometer - Senator #2
           925311  Feeling Thermometer - Democratic House Candidate
           925312  Feeling Thermometer - Republican House Candidate
           925313  Feeling Thermometer - Retiring Democratic
                   Representative
           925314  Feeling Thermometer - Third Party/Independent House
                   Candidate
           925315  Feeling Thermometer - James Stockdale


                             FEELING THERMOMETERS: GROUPS

           925316  Feeling Thermometer - Labor Unions
           925317  Feeling Thermometer - Feminists
           925318  Feeling Thermometer - People On Welfare
           925319  Feeling Thermometer - Conservatives
           925320  Feeling Thermometer - Poor People
           925321  Feeling Thermometer - Catholics
           925322  Feeling Thermometer - Big Business
           925323  Feeling Thermometer - Blacks
           925324  Feeling Thermometer - The Women's Movement
           925325  Feeling Thermometer - The Federal Government in
                   Washington
           925326  Feeling Thermometer - Liberals
           925327  Feeling Thermometer - Hispanic-Americans
           925328  Feeling Thermometer - The Military
           925329  Feeling Thermometer - Environmentalists
           925330  Feeling Thermometer - Lawyers
           925331  Feeling Thermometer - Illegal Immigrants
           925332  Feeling Thermometer - Southerners
           925333  Feeling Thermometer - Whites
           925334  Feeling Thermometer - Jews
           925335  Feeling Thermometer - Gay Men and Lesbians
           925336  Feeling Thermometer - Immigrants
           925337  Feeling Thermometer - Congress
           925338  Feeling Thermometer - Christian Fundamentalists
           925339  Feeling Thermometer - Asian-Americans
           925340  Feeling Thermometer - The Police

                    R'S LIKES/DISLIKES OF CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATES

           925401  Whether R Liked Anything About Democratic Candidate
                   for U.S. House
           925402  What R Likes About Democratic Candidate for U.S.
                   House - 1st Mention
           925403  What R Likes About Democratic Candidate for U.S.
                   House - 2nd Mention
           925404  What R Likes About Democratic Candidate for U.S.
                   House - 3rd Mention
           925405  What R Likes About Democratic Candidate for U.S.
                   House - 4th Mention
           925406  What R Likes About Democratic Candidate for U.S.
                   House - 5th Mention

           925407  Whether R Disliked Anything About Democratic Candidate
                   for U.S. House
           925408  What R Dislikes About Democratic Candidate for U.S.
                   House - 1st Mention
           925409  What R Dislikes About Democratic Candidate for U.S.
                   House - 2nd Mention
           925410  What R Dislikes About Democratic Candidate for U.S.
                   House - 3rd Mention
           925411  What R Dislikes About Democratic Candidate for U.S.
                   House - 4th Mention
           925412  What R Dislikes About Democratic Candidate for U.S.
                   House - 5th Mention

           925413  Whether R Liked Anything About Republican Candidate
                   for U.S. House
           925414  What R Likes About Republican Candidate for U.S.
                   House - 1st Mention
           925415  What R Likes About Republican Candidate for U.S.
                   House - 2nd Mention
           925416  What R Likes About Republican Candidate for U.S.
                   House - 3rd Mention
           925417  What R Likes About Republican Candidate for U.S.
                   House - 4th Mention
           925418  What R Likes About Republican Candidate for U.S.
                   House - 5th Mention

           925419  Whether R Disliked Republican Candidate for U.S. House
           925420  What R Dislikes About Republican Candidate for U.S.
                   House - 1st Mention
           925421  What R Dislikes About Republican Candidate for U.S.
                   House - 2nd Mention

           925422  What R Dislikes About Republican Candidate for U.S.
                   House - 3rd Mention
           925423  What R Dislikes About Republican Candidate for U.S.
                   House - 4th Mention
           925424  What R Dislikes About Republican Candidate for U.S.
                   House - 5th Mention


                          IMPORTANT ISSUES - HOUSE CAMPAIGN

           925425  Most Important Issue - 1st Mention
           925426  Most Important Issue - 2nd Mention
           925427  Most Important Issue - 3rd Mention

           925428  INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: Whether R Mentioned Issues

           925429  Most Important Issue to R in U.S. House Campaign

           925430  INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: Type of Race/Number of
                   Candidates

           925431  Did R Prefer One of the Candidates Because of This
                   Issue
           925432  Candidate R Preferred for U.S. House
           925433  Party of U.S. House Candidate Named in V 5432

           925434  INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: Type of Race/Number of
                   Candidates

           925435  Whether Either U.S. House Candidate Was An Incumbent
           925436  Candidate Number Code - U.S. House Incumbent
           925437  Party of U.S. House Incumbent
           925438  If Only 1 House Candidate: Was Candidate Incumbent
           925439  If Only 1 House Candidate: Candidate Number Code
           925440  Only 1 House Candidate: Party of Candidate

           925501  INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: Democratic Candidate


                     PERSONAL CONTACT WITH DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES

           925502  R Had Contact With Democratic House Candidate
           925503  R Met Democratic House Candidate Personally
           925504  R Attended Meeting Where Democratic House Candidate
                   Spoke
           925505  R Talked With U.S. House Candidate's Staff/Office
           925506  R Received Mail from Democratic House Candidate

           925507  R Read About Democratic House Candidate in
                   Newspaper/Magazine
           925508  R Heard Democratic House Candidate on Radio
           925509  R Saw Democratic House Candidate on TV
           925510  R Had Contact With Democratic House Candidate in Other
                   Ways
           925511  Does R Know Anyone Who Had Contact With Democratic
                   House Candidate


                     PERSONAL CONTACT WITH REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES

           925512  INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: Republican Candidate

           925513  R Had Contact With Republican House Candidate
           925514  R Met Republican House Candidate Personally
           925515  R Attended Meeting Where Republican House Candidate
                   Spoke
           925516  R Talked to Republican House Candidate's Staff/Office
           925517  R Received Mail From Republican House Candidate
           925518  R Read About Republican House Candidate in
                   Newspaper/Magazine
           925519  R Heard Republican House Candidate on Radio
           925520  R Saw Republican House Candidate on TV
           925521  R Had Contact With Republican House Candidate in Other
                   Ways
           925522  Does R Know Anyone Who Has Had Contact With Republican
                   House Candidate


                                VOTING SECTION: VOTERS

           925601  Did R Vote in Elections in November
           925602  Was R Registered to Vote in November Election
           925603  Is R Registered to Vote at Current Address
           925604  County/State of Voter Registration

           925605  INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: R Voted/Did Not Vote

           925606  R Voted In Person/By Absentee Ballot
           925607  Where Did R Go to Vote in the November Election
           925608  Did R Vote for a Candidate for President
           925609  Who Did R Vote for in the Presidential Election
           925610  Strength of Preference for Presidential Candidate
           925611  How Long Before Election Did R Decide How to Vote

                                  PRESIDENTIAL VOTE

           925612  INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: Presidential Vote

             Voted for George Bush:

           925613  Did R Ever Think of Voting for Clinton/Perot
           925614  Which Candidate (Clinton/Perot) Did R Think of Voting
                   for

             Voted for Bill Clinton:

           925615  Did R Ever Think of Voting for Bush/Perot
           925616  Which Candidate (Bush/Perot) Did R Think of Voting for

             Voted for Ross Perot:

           925617  Did R Ever Think of Voting for Clinton/Bush
           925618  Which Candidate (Clinton/Bush) Did R Think of Voting
                   for

           925619  Consideration of Other Candidates - Summary

           925620  INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: VOTING RESPONDENT; Registered
                   In/Outside State of IW

           925621  Did R Vote For U.S. House Candidate
           925622  Who R Voted For in U.S. House Election
           925623  Candidate Named - U.S. House of Representatives
           925624  Strength of Preference for U.S. House Candidate


                                  STATE SENATE RACES

           925625  INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: Senate Race in State

           925626  Did R Vote for U.S. Senate Candidate
           925627  Who R Voted For in U.S. Senate Election
           925628  Candidate Named - U.S. Senate
           925629  U.S. Senate Candidate R Voted For

           925630  Candidate Named - U.S. Senate, California
           925631  2nd U.S. Senate Candidate R Voted For - California
           925632  2nd Candidate Named - U.S. Senate, California

           925633  Did R Prefer One Candidate for President
           925634  Presidential Candidate R Preferred
           925635  Strength of Preference for Presidential Candidate

           925636  Did R Prefer One Candidate for U.S. House
           925637  U.S. House Candidate Preferred by R
           925638  Candidate Named - U.S. House


                                 SPOUSE/PARTNER VOTED

           925639  INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: Martial Status

           925640  Did Spouse/Partner Vote in November Election


                          CONTACT WITH U.S. HOUSE INCUMBENT

           925701  Did R/Family Contact U.S. House Incumbent/Office
           925702  Reason for Contact With House Incumbent - Express
                   Opinion
           925703  Reason for Contact With House Incumbent - Seek
                   Information
           925704  Reason for Contact With House Incumbent - Seek Help On
                   a Problem
           925705  Did R Get Response From House Incumbent/Office
           925706  Level of Satisfaction With Response From House
                   Incumbent
           925707  Does R Know Anyone Else Who Contacted House
                   Incumbent/Office
           925708  Did Those Who Contacted House Incumbent Get a Response
           925709  Level of Satisfaction of Those Who Contacted House
                   Incumbent
           925710  Approval Rating of House Incumbent
           925711  Strength of Approval Rating of House Incumbent
           925712  Helpfulness of House With Another Problem
           925713  Anything Special Done by House Incumbent for District
           925714  Is House Incumbent Keeping in Touch with R's District
           925715  Has R Heard/Read About U.S. Representatives Writing
                   Bad Checks
           925716  Opinion on Bad Checks Written by U.S. Representatives

                             PROBLEMS WITH THE HOUSE BANK

           925717  INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: Candidate List Includes House
                   Incumbent

           925718  Did House Incumbent Write Any Bad Checks
           925719  Did House Incumbent Write A Lot/A Few Bad Checks
           925720  Does R Think That Reps Who Wrote Bad Checks Broke Any
                   Laws


                             IMPORTANT NATIONAL PROBLEMS

           925721  How Often R Follows Government/Public Affairs
           925722  Most Important Problem - 1st Mention
           925723  Most Important Problem - 2nd Mention
           925724  Most Important Problem - 3rd Mention

           925725  INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: Important Problem

           925726  The Single Most Important Problem the Country Faces
           925727  How Good A Job Government is Doing With This Problem
           925728  Political Party Most Likely to Get Gov't to Do Better
                   Job on Problem


                       R'S OPINION ON VARIOUS POLITICAL ISSUES
                            (See also Variables 5922-5938)

           925729  Opinion on Less/More Government
           925730  Government/Free Market Should Handle Economic Problems
           925731  Reason Government Has Become Bigger Over the Years
           925732  Better When One Party Controls Both Presidency and
                   Congress


                      PARTY CONTACTS WITH R DURING THE CAMPAIGN

           925801  Political Party Contact R to Talk About Campaign
           925802  Which Party Contacted R to Talk About Campaign
           925803  Anyone Else Contact R About Supporting Specific
                   Candidates
           925804  Which Candidate Was R Asked to Support - 1st Mention
           925805  Which Candidate Was R Asked to Support - 2nd Mention
           925806  Which Candidate Was R Asked to Support - 3rd Mention

                               R'S POLITICAL ACTIVITIES

           925807  Did R Try to Influence Someone Else's Vote
           925808  Was R Contacted in Order to Influence His/Her Vote
           925809  Did R Wear Button/Use Car Sticker/Place Sign in Window
                   During Campaign
           925810  Did R Attend Political Meetings/Rallies to Support a
                   Candidate
           925811  Was R Invited to Political Rallies/Meetings to Support
                   a Candidate
           925812  Did R Do Any Other Work for One of the
                   Parties/Candidates
           925813  Was R Asked to do Work for Candidate/Party


                             R'S POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS

           925814  Did R Use $ 1 Political Contribution Option on Federal
                   Tax Return
           925815  Did R Give Money to a Candidate Running for Public
                   Office
           925816  Party of Candidate to Whom R Made Contribution
           925817  Did R Give money to a Political Party During Election
                   Year
           925818  Political Party to Which R Gave Money
           925819  Did R Give Money to Other Group That Supported/Opposed
                   Candidates
           925820  Did Anyone Talk to R About Registering to Vote/Voting
           925821  Did R Receive Requests Through Mail for Political
                   Contributions
           925822  How Many Mail Requests for Political Contributions Did
                   R Receive
           925823  Did R Contribute Because of Mail Received
           925824  Did R Receive Telephone Requests for Political
                   Contributions
           925825  How Many Telephone Requests for Political
                   Contributions Did R Receive
           925826  Did R Contribute Because of Telephone Calls
           925827  Was R Contacted in Person for Political Contributions
           925828  Did R Receive Quite a Few Personal Contacts for
                   Contributions
           925829  Did R Contribute Because of Personal Contacts

                                  PARTY DIFFERENCES

           925901  Does R See Important Differences Between Parties
           925902  Important Differences: Party Reference - 1st Mention
           925903  Party Difference Content Code - 1st Mention
           925904  Important Differences: Party Reference - 2nd Mention
           925905  Party Difference Content Code - 2nd Mention
           925906  Important Differences: Party Reference - 3rd Mention
           925907  Party Difference Content Code - 3rd Mention
           925908  Important Differences: Party Reference - 4th Mention
           925909  Party Difference Content Code - 4th Mention
           925910  Important Differences: Party Reference - 5th Mention
           925911  Party Difference Content Code - 5th Mention
           925912  Important Differences: Party Reference - 6th Mention
           925913  Party Difference Content Code - 6th Mention
           925914  Whether One Party is More Conservative at the National
                   Level
           925915  Party R Thinks is More Conservative


                                 POLITICAL KNOWLEDGE

           925916  Job/Political Office Held by Dan Quayle
           925917  Job/Political Office Held by William Rehnquist
           925918  Job/Political Office Held by Boris Yeltsin
           925919  Job/Political Office Held by Tom Foley
           925920  Who Has Final Responsibility to Decide
                   Constitutionality of Law
           925921  Who Nominates Judges to the Federal Courts


                     OPINIONS ON VARIOUS SOCIAL/POLITICAL ISSUES
                            (See also Variables 5729-5732)

           925922  Is R Willing to Pay More Tax to Increase Gov't.
                   Spending

                                     Homosexuals

           925923  Does R Favor/Oppose Laws Against Job Discrimination of
                   Homosexuals
           925924  Strength of Favor/Opposition to Homosexual Job
                   Discrimination Laws
           925925  Should Homosexuals Be Allowed to Serve in U.S.  Armed
                   Forces
           925926  Strength of Opinion on Homosexuals Serving in U.S.
                   Armed Forces

           925927  Should Homosexual Couples Be Legally Permitted to
                   Adopt Children
           925928  Strength of Opinion on Homosexual Couples Adopting
                   Children

                                     Civil Rights

           925929  Are Civil Rights Leaders Pushing Too Fast/Going Too
                   Slowly/About Right
           925930  Amount of Change in Position of Black People in Past
                   Few Years

                                    School Prayer

           925931  Does R Favor One Side in Debate Re: Gov't.
                   Integration of Schools
           925932  Opinion on Gov't.  Integration of Schools

                                    Death Penalty

           925933  Does R Favor/Oppose Death Penalty For Persons
                   Convicted of Murder
           925934  Strength of Favor/Opposition to Death Penalty for
                   Murder

                                  Affirmative Action

           925935  Is R For/Against Preferential Hiring/Promotion of
                   Blacks
           925936  Strength of Opinion on Preferential Hiring/Promotion
                   of Blacks
           925937  Does R Take a Side Re: Gov't.  Ensuring Fair Treatment
           925938  Should Gov't. See to it That Blacks Get Fair Treatment

           925939  INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: Panel/Cross-Section R

             Importance of Foreign Policy Goals:

           925940  Securing Adequate Energy Supplies
           925941  Preventing Spread of Nuclear Weapons
           925942  Reducing Environmental Pollution
           925943  Protecting Weaker Nations
           925944  Bringing Democracy to Other Nations

           925945  Opinion on Issue of School Prayer
           925946  Strength of Opinion on School Prayer

           925947  Is R For/Against Quotas to Admit Black Students
           925948  Strength of Opinion on Quotas

           925949  Approval Rating of U.S. Congress
           925950  Strength of Approval/Disapproval of U.S. Congress
           925951  Which Party Had Most Members in House Before Election
           925952  Which Party Had Most Members in Senate Before Election


                                    WOMEN'S ISSUES

           926001  Attention R Pays to Women's Issues in the News
           926002  Does R Think of Self as a Feminist
           926003  Is R a Strong Feminist
           926004  Best Way for Women to Improve Their Position
           926005  Sense of Pride in the Accomplishments of Women
           926006  Angry About the Way Women are Treated in Society
           926007  Power and Influence of Women Compared to Men
           926008  Power and Influence Women Ought to Have Compared to
                   Men
           926009  Women's Power/Influence Compared to Men
           926010  Power/Influence of Men and Women in Most Families
           926011  Men or Women Should Have More Power/Influence in Most
                   Families
           926012  How Strongly R Feels About Men's /Women's
                   Power/Influence in Families


                                    NATIONAL GOALS

           926013  Most Desirable Goal for a Nation
           926014  Second Choice for Most Desirable National Goal
           926015  Power of the Government in Washington
           926016  Gov't. is Getting Too Powerful/Not Getting Too Strong
           926017  Gov't. Should Become More Powerful/Stay the Way it is
           926018  Party Most Likely to Favor a Powerful Government in
                   Washington


                           DESIRABLE QUALITIES FOR CHILDREN

           926019  Independence or Respect for Others
           926020  Obedience or Self-Reliance
           926021  Curiosity or Good Manners
           926022  Being Considerate or Well Behaved

           926023  Gov't. Funds to Support Public/Private/Parochial
                   Schools

                                 R AGREES/DISAGREES:

           926024  Society Should Ensure Equal Opportunity to Succeed
           926025  Gone Too Far in Pushing Equal Rights in U.S.
           926026  U.S. Better Off if Worried Less About Equality
           926027  Not Problem if Some Have More of a Chance in Life
           926028  Fewer Problems in U.S. if People Treated Equally
           926029  Big Problem in U.S. With Not Giving Equal Chances
           926101  Should not Vote if You Don't Care About Outcome
           926102  People Like R Have No Say About What Gov't. Does
           926103  Public Officials Don't Care What R Thinks
           926104  Politics/Government Too Complicated to Understand
           926105  Understands Important Political Issues Facing U.S.
           926106  Well-Qualified to Participate in Politics
           926107  Could Do as Good a Job in Public Office as Others
           926108  Better Informed About Politics/Gov't. Than Most


             R'S DEFINITION OF LIBERAL AND CONSERVATIVE

           926109  What "Liberal" Means to R - 1st Mention
           926110  What "Liberal" Means to R - 2nd Mention
           926111  What "Liberal" Means to R - 3rd Mention

           926112  What "Conservative" Means to R - 1st Mention
           926113  What "Conservative" Means to R - 2nd Mention
           926114  What "Conservative" Means to R - 3rd Mention


                                 R AGREES/DISAGREES:

           926115  Adjust Morals to Changing World
           926116  Tolerate Different Moral Standards
           926117  Fewer Problems in U.S. if Emphasis on Family Ties
           926118  New Lifestyles Contribute to Breakdown of Society
           926119  Sex With Someone Other Than Spouse Always Wrong

           926120  Much of the Time Gov't. Can Be Trusted to Do What
                   is Right
           926121  Does Government Waste Tax Money
           926122  Gov't. Run by Big Interests or For Benefit of all
                   People
           926123  Many of the People Running the Government are Crooked
           926124  Do Elections Make Gov't. Pay Attention to What People
                   Think
           926125  Amount of Attention Gov't. Pays to What People Think
                   When Deciding

                                 R AGREES/DISAGREES:

           926126  Blacks Should Work Way Up Without Special Favors
           926127  Blacks Have Gotten Less Than They Deserve
           926128  If Blacks Tried Harder Could Be Well Off as Whites
           926129  Difficult for Blacks to Work Out of Lower Class


                                      PATRIOTISM

           926130  How Does R Feel When He/She Sees the American Flag
                   Flying
           926131  How Strong is Love for Country


                        SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE BENEFITS

           926132  Are Social Security Benefits Too Low/About Right/Too
                   High
           926133  Are Social Security Benefits Much Too Low/High,
                   Somewhat Too Low/High
           926134  Does R Favor/Oppose Taxes on Social Security Benefits
           926135  Strength of Favor/Opposition Re: Taxing Social
                   Security Benefits
           926136  Does R Favor/Oppose Expanding Medicare to Pay for
                   Nursing Home Care
           926137  Does R Favor/Oppose Expanding Medicare Strongly/Not so
                   Strongly


                          VOLUNTEERISM AND COMMUNITY SERVICE

           926138  Was R Able to Devote Any Time to Volunteer Work in
                   Last 12 Months
           926139  Would R Say Most People Can be Trusted or You Can't be
                   Too Careful
           926140  Would R Say People Are Helpful or That They Look Out
                   For Themselves
           926141  Does R Have Neighbors That He/She Knows and Talks to
                   Regularly
           926142  How Many Neighbors Does R Talk to Regularly
           926143  Would R be Happy to Serve/Rather Not Serve on a Jury
           926144  Has R Worked on Some Community Problem in Last 12
                   Months
           926145  Was R Able to Contribute Money to Church/Charity in
                   Last 12 Months

                                 ECONOMIC PROJECTIONS

           926146  Will R Be Better/Worse Off/Same Financially 1 Year
                   From Now
           926147  Will R Be Much/Somewhat Better/Worse Off Financially 1
                   Year From Now
           926148  Does R Think National Economy Will Get
                   Better/Worse/Stay Same
           926149  Will National Economy Be Much/Somewhat Better/Worse
           926150  Will What R Pays in Taxes Over Next Year Go
                   Up/Down/Stay Same
           926151  Will What R Pays in Taxes Go Up a Lot/a Little
           926152  Does R Think There Will Be More/Less/Same Unemployment
                   in 12 Months


                                 GROUP IDENTIFICATION

           926201  Group R Feels Close To - Poor People
           926202  Group R Feels Close To - Asian Americans
           926203  Group R Feels Close To - Liberals
           926204  Group R Feels Close To - The Elderly
           926205  Group R Feels Close To - Blacks
           926206  Group R Feels Close To - Labor Unions
           926207  Group R Feels Close To - Feminists
           926208  Group R Feels Close To - Southerners
           926209  Group R Feels Close To - Business People
           926210  Group R Feels Close To - Young People
           926211  Group R Feels Close To - Conservatives
           926212  Group R Feels Close To - Hispanic-Americans
           926213  Group R Feels Close To - Women
           926214  Group R Feels Close To - Working-Class People
           926215  Group R Feels Close To - Whites
           926216  Group R Feels Close To - Middle-Class People

           926217  INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: Mention of Group

           926218 Single Group R Feels Closest to
           926219  Organization/Activity Representing Interests of
                   Group(1)
           926220  Organization/Activity Representing Interests of
                   Group(2)

                                  Work Ethic Scales

           926221  Work Ethic Scale - Whites
           926222  Work Ethic Scale - Blacks
           926223  Work Ethic Scale - Asian Americans
           926224  Work Ethic Scale - Hispanic Americans

                                 Intelligence Scales

           926225  Intelligence Scale - Whites
           926226  Intelligence Scale - Blacks
           926227  Intelligence Scale - Asian Americans
           926228  Intelligence Scale - Hispanic Americans

                                  Disposition Scales

           926229  Disposition Scale - Whites
           926230  Disposition Scale - Blacks
           926231  Disposition Scale - Asian Americans
           926232  Disposition Scale - Hispanic Americans

                         English as Official Language of U.S.

           926233  Does R Favor/Oppose Law Making English Official
                   Language of U.S.
           926234  How to Teach Children Who Don't Speak English When
                   Entering School
           926235 Foreign Immigrants Permitted to U.S. Increase/Decrease

                             Effect of Hispanics on U.S.:

           926236  Improve Culture With New Ideas/Customs
           926237  Higher Taxes Due to Demand for Services
           926238  Jobs Taken Away From People Already Here
           926239  Improve Culture With New Ideas/Customs
           926240  Higher Taxes Due to Demand for Services
           926241  Take Away Jobs From People Already Here

           926242  Should Foreign Immigrants Be Immediately Eligible for
                   Gov't. Services

                         PARTY IDENTIFICATION OF R'S PARENTS

           926243  Was R's Father/Stepfather Democrat/Republican/
                   Independent/Other
           926244  Was R's Mother/Stepmother Democrat/Republican/
                   Independent/Other


                         POST INTERVIEW DESCRIPTION VARIABLES

           926245  Ending Time of Interview
           926246  Sex
           926247  Race
           926248  Other Persons Present at Interview
           926249  Cooperation
           926250  General Level of Information About Politics/Public
                   Affairs
           926251  Was Interview Conducted Entirely in English
           926252  Language in Which Interview Was Conducted Other Than
                   English


                                  PROBE INDICATORS:

           926301  George Bush
           926302  Bill Clinton
           926303  Ross Perot
           926304  NAME # 11, 13 or 15: Democratic Senate Candidate
           926305  Name # 12, 14 or 16: Republican Senate Candidate
           926306  Name # 11a: California Democratic Senate Candidate
           926307  Name # 14a: California Republican Senate Candidate
           926308  Name # 19, 29: Democratic/Republican Senator
           926309  Name, Senator #1: Probe Indicator
           926310  Name, Senator #2: Probe Indicator
           926311  Name #31, 33 or 35: Democratic House Candidate
           926312  Name #32, 34 or 36: Republican House Candidate
           926313  Name #41, 42: Democratic/Republican Rep. Retiring
           926314  Name #30: 3rd Party/Independent House Candidate
           926315  James Stockdale

           927000  Time Series Weight Variable
           927001  Incumbent Candidate R's Representative in
                   Last Congress

     ERRATA IN DATA - 1992 Congressional Districts
     Late in 1994 it became apparent that in some cases of the 1992 NES
     Study an incorrect congressional district number had been
     assigned.  These errors affect all questions related to House race
     which are administered according to assigned-CD candidate names.
     Below is a listing of affected 1992 (pre) case IDs with correct
     congressional districts, however no data have been changed in the
     1992 data as a result.  Data users can delete these cases from
     affected vars if desired.  NES plans in 1995 to produce a
     technical report examining the 1992 incidence of CD misassignment
     and its possible effects on 1992 NES data.

     92 PRE    OLD       CORRECT   CORRECT
     ID        ST/CD     ST/CD     TYPERACE
     0001      3405      3406      12
     0006      4404      4406      21
     0007      4404      4406      21
     0008      3405      3404      12
     0056      2103      2101      12
     0059      2103      2101      12
     0071      3405      3404/3406 12/12
     0124      1205      1209      12
     0137      3306      3305      12
     0167      3306      3305      12
     0180      3306      3305      12
     0188      4707      4708      12
     0211      2103      2101      12
     0212      4404      4406      21
     0233      1319      1317      12
     0249      2310      2312      12
     0304      7144      7148      21
     0332      2310      2312      12
     0345      4707      4708      12
     0355      1319      1317      12
     0376      3405      3404/3406 12/12
     0381      1319      1317      12
     0383      7144      7148      21
     0428      4707      4708      12
     0441      1302      1301      12
     0442      1302      1301      12
     0452      3405      3404      12
     0508      3405      3404      12
     0524      4404      4406      21
     0587      4707      4708      12
     0703      3405      3404      12
     0709      3306      3305      12
     0710      3306      3305      12
     0746      1205      1209      12
     0753      7144      7148      21
     0757      7144      7148      21
     0770      1205      1209      12
     0781      4707      4708      12
     0808      7144      7148      21
     0828      2310      2312      12
     0865      3405      3404      12
     0866      1319      1317      12
     0867      1319      1317      12
     0879      3306      3305      12
     0932      2310      2312      12
     0938      7144      7148      21
     0943      2103      2101      12
     0945      4404      4406      21
     0986      1205      1209      12
     0992      1205      1209      12
     1007      1319      1317      12
     1013      1319      1317      12
     1045      4707      4708      12
     1058      7144      7148      21
     1059      7144      7148      21
     1065      1302      1301      12
     1068      1302      1301      12
     1085      7144      7148      21
     1087      7144      7148      21
     1092      7144      7148      21
     1096      3306      3305      12
     1119      7144      7148      21
     1122      7144      7148      21
     1123      7144      7148      21
     1124      7144      7148      21
     1125      7144      7148      21
     2322      4707      4708      12
     2358      4707      4708      12
     2468      4707      4708      12
     2496      4707      4708      12
     2595      4707      4708      12