Version 2005-Oct-06 Codebook ---------------------------- CODEBOOK INTRODUCTION FILE 2000 PRE-POST STUDY (2000.T) AMERICAN NATIONAL ELECTION STUDIES: 2000 PRE- AND POST-ELECTION STUDY CODEBOOK Center for Political Studies Institute for Social Research The University of Michigan Burns, Nancy, Donald R. Kinder, Steven J. Rosenstone, Virginia Sapiro, and the National Election Studies. NATIONAL ELECTION STUDIES, 2000: PRE-/POST-ELECTION STUDY [dataset]. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, Center for Political Studies [producer and distributor], 2001. These materials are based on work supported by the National Science Foundation under grant numbers SBR-9707741, SBR-9317631, SES-9209410, SES-9009379, SES-8808361, SES-8341310, SES-8207580, and SOC77-08885, as well as the Russell Sage Foundation under grant number 82-00-01, and the University of Michigan. Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in these materials are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the funding agencies. TABLE OF CONTENTS Note: >> sections in the codebook introduction and codebook appendix can be navigated in the machine-readable files by searching ">>". INTRODUCTORY MATERIALS (file anes_2000prepost_int.txt) ---------------------- >> 2000 GENERAL INTRODUCTION >> 2000 STUDY DESCRIPTION >> 2000 STUDY DESIGN, CONTENT AND ADMINISTRATION >> 2000 NATIONAL ELECTION STUDY SAMPLE DESIGN >> STUDY POPULATION >> DUAL FRAME SAMPLE DESIGN >> FTF SAMPLE DESIGN - MULTI-STAGE AREA PROBABILITY >> AREA SAMPLE DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS, SPECIFICATIONS AND OUTCOMES >> 2000 ANES RDD (RANDOM DIGIT DIAL) SAMPLE >> 2000 ANES RDD SAMPLE DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS, SPECIFICATIONS AND OUTCOMES >> 2000 ANES POST-ELECTION STUDY SAMPLE OUTCOMES >> 2000 ANES DATA - WEIGHTED ANALYSIS >> 2000 ANES ANALYSIS WEIGHTS - CONSTRUCTION >> 2000 ANES PROCEDURES FOR SAMPLING ERROR ESTIMATION >> NOTES ON CONFIDENTIAL VARIABLES >> 2000 FILE STRUCTURE AND NOTE ON "DATASET NUMBER" AND "VERSION NUMBER" >> 2000 CODEBOOK INFORMATION >> 2000 PROCESSING INFORMATION >> 2000 VARIABLE DESCRIPTION LIST VARIABLE DOCUMENTATION (file anes_2000prepost_var.txt) ---------------------- V000001 - V000003 Identification and weights V000004 - V000106 Pre administrative, sampling, etc. V000107 - V000262 Post administrative, candidate, etc. V000301 - V001027 PRE: SURVEY VARIABLES V000905 - V001027 PRE: DEMOGRAPHIC VARIABLES V001028 - V001041j Pre interviewer observation V001042 - V001123 Pre randomization description V001201 - V001742 POST: SURVEY VARIABLES V001743a- V001751g Post interviewer observation V001752 - V001810 Post randomization description APPENDICES (file anes_2000prepost_app.text) ---------- MASTER CODES >> NOTES ON SAMPLING VARIABLES >> CENSUS DEFINITIONS >> 2000 TYPE OF RACE >> 2000 CANDIDATE NUMBER >> 2000 ETHNICITY/NATIONALITY >> 2000 ICPSR STATE AND COUNTRY CODES >> 2000 RELIGION >> 2000 OCCUPATION >> 2000 INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (1990 CENSUS) >> 2000 PARTY-CANDIDATE >> 2000 MOST IMPORTANT PROBLEM >> 2000 PARTY DIFFERENCES >> 2000 GENERAL INTRODUCTION AMERICAN NATIONAL ELECTION STUDY, 2000: PRE- AND POST-ELECTION SURVEYS During the early spring of 2001 the National Election Studies staff prepared a comprehensive version of the 2000 American National Election Study. The number of cases in this file, 1807, includes all respondents from the 2000 Pre- and Post-Election surveys. 1881 variables are produced by default using the data definition files provided with the raw data for creation of SAS and SPSS system files. The codebook contains documentation for variables beginning with identification variables which provide the ANES VERSION NUMBER (version number of the data file), ANES DATASET NUMBER (number of this dataset), and ICPSR study number. >> 2000 STUDY DESCRIPTION FOR THE AMERICAN NATIONAL ELECTION STUDY The 2000 American National Election Study was conducted by the Center for Political Studies of the Institute for Social Research, under the general direction of Nancy Burns and Donald R. Kinder. Ashley Grosse was the Director of Studies for the National Election Studies and oversaw the study from early planning stages through release of the 2000 data collection. She was assisted by Laurie Pierson, and Chuck Kierpie. This is the twenty- sixth in a series of studies of American national elections produced by the Center for Political Studies and the Survey Research Center, and it is the twelfth traditional time-series study to be conducted under the auspices of National Science Foundation Grants (SBR-9317631, SES-9209410, SES-9009379, SES-8808361, SES-8341310, SES-8207580, SOC77-08885 and SES 9707741) 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 2000 National Election Study included Larry Bartels, Chair (Princeton University), Nancy Burns, ex officio (University of Michigan), Charles Franklin (University of Wisconsin), John Mark Hansen (University of Chicago), Robert Huckfeldt, (Indiana University), Donald Kinder, ex officio (University of Michigan), Jon A. Krosnick, (Ohio State University), Arthur Lupia (University of California, San Diego), Wendy Rahn (University of Minnesota), Virginia Sapiro (University of Wisconsin), W. Phillips Shively (University of Minnesota), Laura Stoker (University of California, Berkeley). 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. Board member Robert Huckfeldt chaired the Planning Committee for the 2000 National Election Study which included from the Board: Larry Bartels (Princeton University), Nancy Burns (University of Michigan), Charles Franklin, (University of Wisconsin), John Mark Hansen (University of Chicago), Donald Kinder (University of Michigan), Jon A. Krosnick (Ohio State University), Arthur Lupia (University of California, San Diego), Virginia Sapiro (University of Wisconsin), Laura Stoker (University of California, Berkeley), and five other scholars from the community, Steven Ansolabehere (Massachusetts Institute of Technology), Janet Box-Steffensmeier (Ohio State University), Clem Brooks (Indiana University), Darren Davis (Michigan State University), and Donald Green (Yale University), and Ashley Grosse (NES Director of Studies). Two pilot studies were carried out prior to the 2000 Election Study for the purpose of developing new instrumentation and the methodological investigation of concepts previously measured in ANES surveys. The 1998 Pilot Study, one of the most innovative pilots to date, was the first pilot to be fielded during an election season. The timing allowed ANES to test instrumentation that is exclusively related to the electoral context. The pilot study focused on the three high-profile gubernatorial contests in California, Illinois, and Georgia. Several new measures that were piloted include: media usage; social context and communication; need for evaluation; group mobilization; public mood; tone of campaign; awareness of campaign issues; and whether R owns stock. Also, a significant portion of the interview was devoted to the methodological investigation of concepts previously measured in ANES surveys. Among those were: campaign participation; media use; feeling thermometers as measures of awareness; vote intention; and political knowledge. In March of 2000, ANES fielded a Special Topic Pilot Study, funded by the Russell Sage Foundation, to develop and refine a series of new measures on social trust. Additionally, new items were tested in the areas of trust in elections, civic engagement, need for cognition, and social desirability. New measures were developed for domain specific trust involving neighbors and co- workers. Results indicated that these new measures gauge trust reliably, that neighborhood and workplace trust are related to but distinct from general social trust, and they contribute independently to participation in politics. These items were included in the 2000 Election Study. Data from the 1998 and 2000 ANES pilot studies are available through the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (respectively, ICPSR 2693 and ICPSR 2936). Results from these pilot studies were used by the Planning Committee in formulating recommendations to the Board about study content for the 2000 Pre- and Post-Election Survey. Copies of the Pilot Study Reports are available on the ANES Website (www.umich.edu/~nes), or may be obtained by contacting the ANES project staff. NES Project Staff Center for Political Studies Room 4026 Institute for Social Research University of Michigan Ann Arbor MI 48106-1248 nes@umich.edu http://www.umich.edu/~nes >> 2000 STUDY DESIGN, CONTENT AND ADMINISTRATION STUDY DESIGN The 2000 National Election Study entailed both a pre-election interview and a post-election re-interview. A freshly drawn cross section of the electorate was taken to yield 1807 cases. The 65 minute pre election survey went into the field September 5th, nine weeks before election day. The 65 minute post election study, unique to the time series in that no president elect was named for several days, went into the field the day after the election, November 8th, and remained in the field until December 18th. Because of the study's most innovative feature, a carefully designed mode experiment, the data represent two presidential studies in 2000, side by side. The core study preserves our past commitment to probability area sampling and face to face interviewing: 1006 respondents interviewed prior to the election and 694 were re-interviewed face to face after the election. Supporting the core study, we used the efficiencies of RDD sampling and telephone interviewing: 801 respondents were interviewed by phone prior to the election and 862 respondents were interviewed by phone after the election. As such, the experiment will define sharply the differences between the two modes and allow us to learn what a shift to telephone interviewing will mean for the NES time-series. Further details of the administration of the surveys are given in "Study Administration," below. STUDY CONTENT Substantive themes The content for the 2000 Election Study reflects its double duty, both as the traditional presidential election year time-series data collection and as a mode study. Substantive themes represented in the 2000 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 * knowledge of the religious background of the major Presidential and Vice- Presidential candidates * partisanship and evaluations of the political parties * vote choice for President, the U.S. House, and the U.S. Senate, including second choice for President * political participation: turnout in the November general election; other forms of electoral campaign activity * personal and national economic well-being * positions on social welfare issues including: government health insurance; federal budget priorities, the budget surplus, and the role of the government in the provision of jobs and good standard of living * position on campaign finance and preference for divided government * positions on social issues including: gun control, abortion; women's roles; the rights of homosexuals; the death penalty; school vouchers; environmental policy * Clinton legacy * knowledge of George Bush Sr. and his previous administration * fairness in elections; satisfaction with democracy; and the value of voting * racial and ethnic stereotypes; opinions on affirmative action; attitudes towards immigrants * opinions about the nation's most important problem * values and predispositions: moral traditionalism; political efficacy; egalitarianism; humanitarianism individualism; trust in government * social altruism and social connectedness * feeling thermometers on a wide range of political figures and political groups; affinity with various social groups * social networks, shared information and expertise on politics * detailed demographic information and measures of religious affiliation and religiosity. Several new concepts addressed in the 2000 study: SOCIAL TRUST: Over the last decade, research on social trust has exploded. In order to allow ANES to contribute to this research effort, we developed a series of new measures that approach the problem from a new angle. With supplementary funding from the Russell Sage Foundation, we developed measures addressed not to the trustworthiness of people in general, but to the trustworthiness of neighbors and co-workers. Our 2000 Special Topic Pilot Study showed that the new measures gauge trust reliably, that neighborhood and workplace trust are related to but distinct from general social trust, and that they contribute independently to participation in politics. We included these measures in the 2000 NES, again, with support from the Russell Sage Foundation. Together with an expanded set of questions on participation in civic life that are also part of the 2000 study, we expect to see a wide range of exciting new investigations on trust and participation. VOTER TURNOUT: A particularly vexing problem for ANES has been over-reporting of voter turnout. Over the years we have sponsored a series of investigations trying out possible remedies, without much success. But now it seems that we may have a solution in hand, based on the source monitoring theory of recall. The notion here is that some people may remember having voted sometime in the past but confuse the source of that memory, accidentally misassigning it to the most recent election, when it actually derives from a prior election. We are therefore implementing a new item, with expanded response categories to help respondents be more accurate in determining whether they did in fact vote in November of 2000. POLITICAL KNOWLEDGE: The 2000 study also sees a slight change in the way political knowledge is measured. In the past, we have encouraged respondents to say they "don't know" the answer to our information questions, partly to avoid embarrassment. But research shows that this differentially encourages "don't know" responses from some people who may actually know the correct answer but lack the confidence to say so. As a consequence, the standard way of putting these questions may underestimate levels of knowledge. In the 2000 study we are therefore encouraging respondents to take their best guesses when answering the political knowledge questions. SOCIAL NETWORKS: The reality of citizenship is that individuals seldom go it alone when they engage in political activities. Preferences, choices, and levels of engagement are contingent on the location of individuals within particular social settings. The 2000 study incorporates a social network battery. The battery is based entirely on the perceptions of survey respondents regarding the characteristics of their identified discussants. COGNITIVE STYLE: The 2000 ANES includes two brief but reliable measures of cognitive style: need for cognition and need to evaluate. The first differentiates among people in the care they give to thinking through problems; the second differentiates among people in their tendency to evaluate objects as good or bad. Both are associated with extensive literatures in psychology, which led to their audition in the 1998 ANES Pilot Study. Because of their success there in clarifying turnout, knowledge about politics, voter decision-making, and more, they were added to the 2000 NES. SURVEY MODE: Perhaps the most important single feature of the 2000 ANES is a mode experiment, which supplies the ability to compare interviews taken in person (as we've taken them for the past fifty years) with interviews taken over the phone. This carefully designed mode experiment, driven by theoretical and practical interest, allows scholars to test the consequences of survey mode on data quality and reliability. Moreover, it allows the community to asses the impact of what such a change in mode would mean for the ANES times series. The 2000 study incorporates numerous experiments to look at the effects of mode on: 7 pt. scales and branching, response order, don't know filters, and social desirability. Congressional Ballot Cards and Incumbent Bias In 2000, ANES redesigned the Congressional ballot card used in face to face interviewing in an attempt to combat overreport for incumbents. The ballot redesign was based on the research of Box-Steffensmeier, Jacobson, and Grant, (later published in POQ, 2000). Moreover, the change in ballot form was intended to eliminate the measurement error in vote report that has concerned numerous scholars (Wright 1993; Gow and Eubank 1984; Jacobson and Rivers 1993; and Jackson and Carsey 2001). Based on three experiments during the 1996 elections - the Ohio Union Study, the National Black Election Study, and the Texas Post Election Study, ANES concluded that a modification to the 1982 style ballot was in order. The new ballot cards are intended to give respondents two cues in recalling their vote - party identification and name of candidate. Based on the findings of Box-Steffensmeier et al., party is the predominant cue in the revised ballot. To randomly distribute that cue, each respondent had two ballots printed for the interview - one with the Republican listed first, and one with the Democrat listed first. Based on a randomly generated number, interviewers were instructed via CAPI to show the respondent the gold or the blue card. Examples of the redesigned ballot cards are available on the 2000 Election Study Page: http://www.umich.edu/~nes/studyres/nes2000/nes2000.htm. In another effort to combat incumbent bias, the vote report question was placed earlier in the interview than in previous studies to avoid any possible contamination from thermometers, which ask R to rate their member of Congress. Features of a CAI questionnaire Using the capabilities of computer-assisted interviewing (CAI) in the 2000 ANES enabled the introduction of several features that are not feasible using a paper-and-pencil questionnaire. The most significant of these for users of this data are: randomization within batteries or sequences of questions; application of half-sampling to some questions; and random order of presentation of blocks of questions. Randomization within batteries refers to presenting, in a randomly determined order, a series of questions about the same objects (or people). An example would be the questions about the respondent's likes and dislikes of the four main Presidential candidates where the names of Gore, Bush, Buchanan, and Nader were inserted randomly as the first, second, third or fourth person to be asked about in this series. Randomization of names/objects in this way avoids ordering effects that might be obtained if, for example, the candidates were always asked about in the same order in every series of questions where a parallel question is asked about each of the three. Questions where randomization of order within a series was in force are clearly identified in the codebook. Randomization variables, which allow the user to identify the order of presentation, are provided for all instances of randomized presentation. A few questions, primarily open-ended questions, were half-sampled, so that a randomly selected half of respondents were asked the question. Finally, an order experiment, where a sequence of closed-ended questions was asked early in the interview for a random half of respondents and late in the interview for the other half, was included as part of the mode comparison experiment described below. For both of these features, the relevant codebook entries contain explanatory notes. All random selections were programmed into the computer application of the questionnaire and occurred automatically and independently of other circumstances of the interview. CAI eliminates the preparation of a paper and pencil version which would previously have been published in the codebook. Candidate information (names, gender and candidate codes) were "pre-loaded" into the application to be used during the interview. The pre-loaded information is included in the released data. However, since paper candidate lists are no longer utilized as field materials, there is no "Candidate List" appended to this codebook, although the term 'Candidate List' continues to be used in the codebook as a reference to the candidate information available to the interviewer (CAPI preload). STUDY ADMINISTRATION: MODE EXPERIMENT ANES election studies are traditionally based on personal, face to face interviewing rather than telephone interviewing in order to preserve the quality of sampling and survey response. Given questions that have been raised within the research community about the relatively high expense of face-to-face interviewing compared with the more widely used telephone mode, the ANES Board of Overseers authorized a series of efforts to investigate possibilities for maximizing the use of telephone interviewing. The 1996 and 1998 election studies included smaller mode experiments to test the consequences of mode on survey quality and reliability. The design and administration of the mode experiment in 2000 was guided by the work of a blue ribbon committee and the commission of two reports (available at http://www.umich.edu/~nes/) comparing face to face with telephone surveys. The issues included sample coverage, non-response, item non-response, social desirability bias, and satisficing. Several experiments were designed in the 2000 ANES to gather more evidence on those effects. Those experiments are labeled in the question tags by the letter "E". Question wording experiments for mode effects In assessing possible mode effects, the ANES Board of Overseers along with the 2000 Planning committee implemented a number of experiments to analyze response order effects, satisficing, and other possible fatigue effects of phone interviewing. The experiments, placed almost exclusively in the pre-election survey are: G6, G7, G8, G9, G10, H1, H2,H4, H11, H12, L3, L6, M4, P1, and K2 in the post-election survey. Question tags identify experimental questions with the letter "E". The table below specifies the type of experiment, concept and question number, and the altered wording. Concept Experiment =============================== ============================= Liberal/Conservative - G6, G7, G8, G9, G10 Branching vs. scale format ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Where would you place yourself on this scale, or haven't you thought much Do you usually think of yourself as extremely liberal, liberal, slightly liberal, moderate or middle of the road, slightly conservative, conservative or extremely conservative? Do you usually think of yourself as a liberal, a conservative, a moderate or haven't you thought much about this? Strong or not strong? Economy - H1 Response order effects ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ...gotten better, stayed about the same, or gotten worse ...worse, stayed about the same, or gotten better Economic Conditions - H2 Response order effects ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ...or gotten easier for people to find enough work ...or gotten harder for people to find enough work Economic Expectations - H4 Response order effects ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ...to get better, stay about the same, or get worse ...to get worse, stay about the same, or get better Policy Positions on Imports - H11 Don't know effects by mode ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ...placing new limits on imports, or haven't you thought much about this? ...Do you favor or oppose placing new limits on imports? Isolationism - H12 Agree/Disagree format ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ...Do you agree or disagree with this statement ...stay at home or try to solve problems Govt v. Private Health Care - L3 Response order effects ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Some people feel that there should be a govt insurance plan....suppose these people are at one end of the scale, at point 1. Others feel that all medical expenses should be paid by individuals... Affirmative Action - L6 Balancing and mode effects ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Should companies that have discriminated against blacks have to have an affirmative action program? Should companies that have discriminated ... or should companies not have to have an affirmative action program? Tradeoff: Environment v. Jobs - M4 Don't know effects by mode ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Where would you place yourself on this scale, or haven't you thought much about this? Where would you place yourself on this scale, or haven't you thought much? Women's Rights - P1 Don't know effects by mode ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Where would you place yourself on this scale, or haven't you thought much? Where would you place yourself on this scale? Political Knowledge - K2 Don't know effects by mode ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The first name is Trent Lott. What job or political office does he now hold? [DON'T PROBE DON'T KNOWS] The first name is Trent Lott. What job or political office does he now hold? [PROBE DON'T KNOWS WITH, "WELL, WHAT'S YOUR BEST GUESS?] Telephone wording Because the questions asked by ANES over the last fifty years have been administered in person, the question text , that we are careful not to alter, reflects the context of that traditional face to face interview. To understand what such a change in mode would mean to the time series we implemented the RDD study with a questionnaire that reflected the necessary changes in mode. The overlap between those questions is approximately 75%. Where questions were to be read differently, question tags are identified with the letter "T". Pre-election study: administration Interviewing for the pre-election survey began on September 5, 2000 and concluded on November 6, 2000. A total of 1807 interviews were conducted prior to the election - 1006 face to face and 801 by telephone. The average length of interview was 68.1 minutes - 70.5 minutes in face to face interviews and 65.1 minutes in telephone interviews. The overall response rate was 61.2% - 64.8 for the face to face interviewing and 57.2 for the telephone interviewing. In an effort to improve response rates, respondents received a pre- notification packet by two day mail, which included a brochure on the study, and a "Monte Blanc" style pen with the University of Michigan seal, and a letter notifying them we would be contacting them and would offer them payment for their time - 20 dollars. Toward the end of the study, ANES staff became concerned that the production goals would not be met by election day. This concern motivated a number of interventions: refusal conversion training for interviewers having difficulty, refusal conversion packets mailed by two day mail, and interviewer incentives, and increased respondent incentives. Interviewers were given ten dollars for every interview conducted after 10/26/01, and respondent incentives were increased from $20 to $40. To take account of those changes, variable V000139a identifies those cases where interviewers received an incentive per completed case, and variable V00016 identifies those cases where R received the increased incentive. Post-election study: administration In an effort to cut rising costs while in the field, two segment areas of the face to face sample were randomly selected to receive post interviews by telephone. By randomly selecting forty-seven segments for telephone post interviews, 200 cases were removed from the strict mode experiment. Respondents again received a prenotification letter. Respondents were informed that they would receive $20 dollars as payment for their time. Incentives were not increased for those who had received $40 in the pre- election. Interviewing began on November 8, 2000 and concluded on December 18, 2000. A total of 1555 interviews were conducted after the election - 693 face to face and 862 by telephone. The average length of interview was 63.7 minutes - 66.6 minutes in face to face interviews and 61.4 minutes in telephone interviews. The overall response rate was 86% - 86.1 face to face, and 85.8%. The day after the election, it remained unclear who would be President and issues of fairness were increasingly being raised. To take advantage of this historical moment ANES promptly included additional content on the fairness of the election, the importance of one's vote, and whether R was satisfied with democracy. Evaluation of problems in study implementation Two implementation problems arose in the post-election field randomization problem. The first involves randomization and the second involves the mode treatment. On 11/16/00 it was discovered that the seed used to generate randomization in the instrument application was not properly assigned within the CAPI program. Consequently, interviews conducted prior to the correction of this error (or, for interviews started before and completed after correction of this error, portions of interviews) did not have randomization functioning for interview logic. Cases conducted without randomization in the logic were administered as if only 1 choice were available at each point where logic was intended to make a random selection among two or more choices: most of these cases have an identical choice made at each point where randomization was to have been effected. The Form description variables V000127a and V000127b and the randomization variables documented in V001752-V001810 describe the Post randomizations affected. The second problem involves the 200 FTF Pre cases randomly selected to be switched to Phone administration in the Post (see above "Post-election study: assignment to telephone mode"). Post interviews were completed for 168 of these cases. Among these 168 Post interviews, 5 were mistakenly administered by interviewers face-to-face instead of by phone. These 5 cases are flagged in the Post administration variable describing mode (V000126) as code 7; note that in 3 of these 5 cases, the IWR actually identified the case as Phone at the start of the interview (although it was being administered face-to-face), and telephone logic was followed by the CAPI survey instrument as the interview was conducted: telephone versions of questions were produced for the interviewer to administer. In the 4th case, the interviewer identified the case at the start of the interview as a face-to-face interview, and FTF logic was used. RESPONSE RATES The final result codes for the face to face and telephone sample were used to calculate the two response rates below. The pre-election face to face response rate (the ratio of completed interviews to the total number of potential respondents) for the study was 64.8%. The pre-election telephone response rate was 57.2%. The overall re-interview response rate in the post election interviewing was 86% The response rate in the face to face mode was 86.1% and for telephone it was 85.8%. 2000 Election Study: Response Rates Face to Face completed interviews response rate cooperation rate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pre-election 1006 64.8% 86.4% Post-election 693 57.2% 96.9% Telephone ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pre-election 801 57.2% 77.4% Post-election 862 85.8%** 95.5% Summary ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pre-election 1807 61.2% 82.1% Post-election 1555 86.0% 96.1% The field and study staff implemented a number of strategies to bolster response rates, including respondent incentives, interviewer incentives, carefully written appeals to respondents sent express mail, special non-response training for interviewers, and extensive refusal conversion attempts. Most of these strategies were implemented during the pre-election study. The post-election study, which occurred during a unique time for the country, was marked by the willingness of our respondents to be re-interviewed. The overall refusal rate (the proportion of all cases in which a respondent refuses to do an interview to the total eligible respondents contacted) for the post election study was 4%. **The 200 cases from the face to face sample that were assigned for telephone interviewing in the post had a response rate of 84.5% The response rate for all the cases minus the 200 "reassigned mode" cases is 86.3%. >> 2000 NATIONAL ELECTION STUDY SAMPLE DESIGN STUDY POPULATION The study population for the 2000 Pre- and Post-Election Study is defined to include all United States citizens of voting age on or before the 2000 Election Day. Eligible citizens must have resided in housing units 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 7th of November 2000. >> DUAL FRAME SAMPLE DESIGN The 2000 ANES is a dual frame sample with both an area sample and an RDD component. The RDD frame provides coverage of telephone households while the area sample provides full coverage of all U.S. households including those without telephones. Each of these sample designs will be described in the following sections. The 2000 ANES data set contains 1006 area sample cases and 801 telephone sample cases. >> FTF SAMPLE DESIGN - MULTI-STAGE AREA PROBABILITY The area sample is based on a multi-stage area probability sample selected from the Survey Research Center's (SRC) 1990 National Sample design. Identification of the 2000 ANES sample respondents was conducted using a four stage sampling process--a primary stage sampling of U.S. Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) or New England County Metropolitan Areas (NECMAs) and non-MSA 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 1990 SRC National Sample, from which the 2000 ANES sample was drawn, is provided in the SRC publication titled 1990 SRC National Sample: Design and Development. The 2000 ANES sample design called for an entirely new cross-section sample to be drawn from the 1990 SRC National Sample; no panel component was included in 2000. The 1990 SRC National Sample is a multi-stage area probability sample. The 2000 ANES sample was drawn from both the 1990 SRC National Sample strata (MSA PSUs) and the 1980 SRC National Sample strata (non-MSA PSUs). The modification of the 1990 design in which the 1980 strata definitions were used for the non-MSA counties fully represents the non-MSA domain of the 48 contiguous states. This modification was made for cost and interviewing efficiency reasons related to the availability of interviewers in these areas who work on some of SRC's large panel studies. The following sections will focus on the 1990 SRC National Sample design. Selection Stages for the 2000 ANES FTF Sample: 1990 SRC National Sample ------------------------------------------------------------------ Primary Stage Selection The selection of primary stage sampling units (PSUs) for the 1990 SRC National Sample, which depending on the sample stratum are either MSAs, New England County Metropolitan Areas (NECMAs), single counties, independent cities, county equivalents or groupings of small counties, is based on the county-level 1990 Census Reports of Population and Housing (1). Primary stage units were assigned to 108 explicit strata based on MSA/NECMA or non- MSA/NECMA status, PSU size, Census Region and geographic location within region. Twenty-eight of the 108 strata contain only a single self- representing PSU, each of which is included with certainty in the primary stage of sample selection. The remaining 80 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 1990 occupied housing units. The full 1990 SRC National Sample of 108 primary stage selections was designed to be optimal for surveys roughly three to five times the size of the 2000 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 such as a one-half sample or a three-quarter sample partition. Each of the partitions represents a stratified subselection from the full 108 PSU design. The 2000 ANES sample of 44 PSUs is a stratified random subsample of PSUs from the "A" half-sample partition of the 1990 SRC National Sample. Because of the small size of this NES sample, both the number of PSUs (selected primary areas) and the secondary stage units (area segments) in the National half-sample were reduced by subselection for the 2000 ANES sample design. The 18 self- representing areas in the 1990 SRC National half-sample were all retained for the 2000 ANES sample (8 of these remained self-representing in the 2000 ANES and 10 represent not only their own MSA but their "pair" among the twenty additional self-representing primary areas of the full 1990 SRC National Sample design). Nineteen of the 26 nonself-representing half-sample MSAs and 7 of the 14 half-sample non-MSAs were retained by the subselection for the 2000 ANES sample (or 26 of 40 NSR PSUs). Table 1 identifies the 44 PSUs in the 2000 ANES sample by MSA status and Region and also indicates the number of area segments used for the 2000 ANES sample (see next section on second stage selection). Table 1: PSU Name and Number of Area Segments in the 2000 ANES Sample Showing 1990 SRC National-Sample Stratum and MSA Status. ============================================================================== National Sample PSU National Sample PSU Name # of 2000 NES Segments ============================================================================== Eight Largest Self-representing PSUs ------------------------------------ 120 New York, NY MSA 12 190 Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA MSA130 12 130 Chicago, IL MSA 9 121 Philadelphia, PA-NJ MSA 7 131 Detroit, MI MSA 6 150 Washington DC-MD-VA MSA 6 110 Boston, MA NECMA 6 171 Dallas and Ft Worth, TX CMSA 6 Ten Remaining Largest MSA PSUs ------------------------------ 170 Houston, TX MSA 6 191 Seattle-Tacoma, WA CMSA 6 141 St Louis, MO-IL MSA 6 152 Baltimore, MD MSA 6 122 Nassau-Suffolk, NY MSA 6 194 Anaheim-Santa Ana, CA MSA 6 132 Cleveland, OH MSA 6 154 Miami-Hialeah, FL MSA 5(2) 181 Denver, CO MSA 6 196 San Francisco, CA MSA 6 Nonself-representing MSAs: Northeast ------------------------------------- 211 New Haven-Waterbury-Meriden, CT NECMA 6 213 Manchester-Nashua NH NECMA 6 220 Buffalo, NY MSA 6 226 Atlantic City, NJ MSA 6 Nonself-representing MSAs: Midwest ----------------------------------- 230 Milwaukee, WI MSA 6 434 Saginaw, MI MSA 6 239 Steubenville-Wheeling, OH (3) 6 240 Des Moines, IA MSA 6 Nonself-representing MSAs: South --------------------------------- 250 Richmond-Petersburg, VA MSA 6 255 Columbus, GA-AL MSA 6 257 Jacksonville, FL MSA 6 258 Lakeland, FL MSA 6 260 Knoxville TN MSA 6 262 Birmingham, AL MSA 6 273 Waco, TX MSA 6 274 McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX MSA 6 Nonself-representing MSAs: West -------------------------------- 280 Salt Lake City-Ogden etc, UT MSA 6 292 Fresno, CA MSA 6 293 Eugene-Springfield, OR MSA 6 Nonself-representing Non-MSAs: Northeast ----------------------------------------- 464 Gardner, MA 6 Nonself-representing Non-MSAs: Midwest -------------------------------------- 466 Decatur County, IN 6 470 Mower County, MN 6 Nonself-representing Non-MSAs: South ------------------------------------- 474 DeSoto Parish, LA 6 477 Chicot County, AR 6 480 Montgomery County, VA 6 Nonself-representing Non-MSAs: West ------------------------------------ 482 ElDorado County, CA 6 Total Number of Segments 279 (1) Office of Management and Budget (OMB) June 1990 definitions of MSAs, NECMAs, counties, parishes, independent cities. These, of course, differ in some respects from the primary stage unit (PSU) definitions used in the 1980 SRC National Sample so will not be strictly comparable to the 1996 ANES Panel PSUs--particularly in New England where MSAs were used as PSUs in the 1980 National Sample and NECMAs were used as PSUs in the 1990 National Sample. (2) One selected segment (023) was in a former trailer park that had no housing units to be listed in January 1996. All had been destroyed in 1992 by hurricane Andrew and there were no plans to rebuild. (3) In the 1990 SRC National Sample, U.S. Census Region boundaries were maintained for purposed of stratification at the Primary State of selection. Since some MSA definitions cross Region boundaries, such MSAs were split and the MSA counties recombined in ways that maintained the Region boundary. This PSU actually contains the Ohio counties from both the Steubenville-Wierton, OH-WV MSA (Jefferson County, OH) and the Wheeling, WV-OH MSA (Belmont County, OH) and although it is made up of MSA counties -- it is not a cohesive MSA by OMB 1990 definition. Second Stage Selection Area Segments The second stage of the 1990 SRC National Sample, used for the 2000 ANES sample, was selected directly from computerized files that were extracted for the selected PSUs from the 1990 U.S. Census summary file series STF1-B. These files (on CD Rom) contain the 1990 Census total population and housing unit (HU) data at the census block level. The designated second-stage sampling units (SSUs), termed "area segments", are comprised of census blocks in both the metropolitan (MSA) primary areas and in the rural areas of non- MSA primary areas. Each SSU block or block combination was assigned a measure of size equal to the total 1990 occupied housing unit count for the area. SSU block(s) were assigned a minimum measure of 72 1990 total HUs per MSA SSU and a minimum measure of 48 total HUs per non-MSA SSU. Second stage sampling of area segments was performed with probabilities proportionate to the assigned measures of size (PPS). For the 2000 ANES sample the number of area segments used in each PSU varies. In the self-representing (SR) PSUs the number of area segments varies in proportion to the size of the primary stage unit, from a high of 12 area segments in the self-representing New York and Los Angeles MSA PSUs, to a low of 6 area segments in the smaller self-representing PSUs such as Cleveland, Miami-Hialeah or Nassau-Suffolk MSAs. All nonself-representing (NSR) PSUs were represented by 6 area segments each. A total of 279 ANES area segments were selected as shown in Table 1. Third Stage Selection Housing Units For each area segment selected in the second sampling stage, a listing had been 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 2000 ANES sample was systematically selected from the housing unit listings for the sampled area segments. The 2000 ANES sample design was selected from the 1990 SRC National Sample to yield an equal probability sample of 2269 listed housing units. This total included 1972 housing units for the main sample and three reserve replicates of 99 cases each. Table 2 below shows the assumptions that were used to determine the number of sample housing units. The overall probability of selection for 2000 ANES cross-section sample of households was f=0.00002116 or 0.2116 in 10,000. The equal probability sample of households was achieved for the 2000 ANES sample 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 used to select the PSU and area segment (Kish, 1965). Fourth Stage Selection - Respondent Selection Within each sampled 2000 ANES occupied housing unit, the SRC interviewer prepared a complete listing of all eligible household members. Using an objective procedure described by Kish (1949) a single respondent was then selected at random to be interviewed. Regardless of circumstances, no substitutions were permitted for the designated respondent. >> AREA SAMPLE DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS, SPECIFICATIONS AND OUTCOMES The 2000 National Election Study sought a total of 1000 in-person interviews. It was estimated that this would require a ANES sample draw of 1972 housing units. This assumed an occupancy/growth rate of 0.83, an eligibility rate of 0.94 and a response rate of 0.65. These assumptions were based on the 1998 NES field experience. The overall 2000 ANES area sample design specifications, assumptions and outcomes are set out in Table 2, below. A sample of 2269 listed housing units was actually selected for the 2000 ANES study. This allowed for three reserve replicates of 99 cases each. There was no panel component in 2000. A comparison of the 2000 ANES sample outcome figures to the design specifications and assumptions in Table 2 shows that the actual occupancy, eligibility, and response rates were very close to the expected rates. The actual response rate for the Post-Election Telephone sample was 0.86, which was slightly higher than the assumed rate of 0.85. Table 2: 2000 ANES Area Sample Pre and Post-Election Design Specifications and Assumptions Compared to Sample Outcome. ============================================================================== 2000 ANES 2000 ANES 2000 ANES 2000 NES Pre-Election Pre-Election Post-Election Post-Election Design Sample Design Sample Specification Outcome Specification Outcome ============================================================================== Completed 1000 1006 847 693 Interviews Response Rate 0.65 0.64 .85 0.86 Eligible 1538 1564 1000 805 (4) Sample Households Eligibility 0.94 0.95 Rate Occupied 1634 1639 Households Occupancy/ 0.83 0.82 growth Rate Total Sample 1972 1986 Lines (4) Initial sample lines (FTF and Phone) are different from the Pre-Election completed interviews because of the switch in mode for randomly selected sample cases. >> 2000 ANES RDD (RANDOM DIGIT DIAL)SAMPLE The RDD telephone component of the 2000 ANES is a stratified equal probability sample of telephone numbers. The sample is not clustered. The telephone numbers were selected from a commercial listed one hundred series sampling frame consisting of every possible phone number that can be generated by appending the 2-digit numbers 00 - 99 to the set of hundred banks that have at least two listed household telephone numbers. Hundred banks are the first eight digits of a phone number - area code, exchange, and the next two digits. Each hundred bank defines a set of 100 possible phone numbers. Directory listings are used to define the set of listed hundred series. However both listed and unlisted telephone numbers can be selected from the sampling frame. A small amount of noncoverage of telephone numbers results from household numbers that are in hundred banks with 0 or 1 listed residential numbers. These telephone households as well as non-telephone households are covered by the area sample component. An initial sample of 8500 telephone numbers was selected from the listed frame for the coterminous 48 states. These numbers were pre-screened by the vendor to remove most business and non-working phone numbers. After pre-screening, 5760 or 67.8% of the 8500 telephone numbers were returned as potentially working residential numbers. The potentially working phone numbers were matched against a file of directory listings to append address information so that Congressional Districts could be assigned. Before sample selection, the telephone numbers were stratified by the competitiveness of the Congressional race (5 levels), whether or not the race was open, and by Census Division. A half sample was systematically selected from the stratified file. An initial sample of 2349 cases was selected from the random half sample and the remaining telephone numbers were assigned to 5 reserve replicates of 106-107 numbers each. The reserve replicates were available for use in case the working rate or response rate were lower than expected. >> 2000 ANES RDD SAMPLE DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS, SPECIFICATIONS AND OUTCOMES The 2000 National Election Study sought a total of 861 telephone interviews. It was estimated that this would require a ANES sample draw of 2349 telephone numbers assuming a working rate (after pre-screening) of 0.65, an eligibility rate of 0.94, and a response rate of 0.60. The eligibility rate was based on the 1998 ANES experience. Working rate and response rate assumptions were based on the Survey Research Center's recent experience with RDD samples. The overall 2000 ANES RDD sample design specifications, assumptions and outcomes are set out in Table 3, below. A comparison of the 2000 ANES RDD sample design specifications and assumptions to the outcome figures in Table 3 indicates that, although the actual eligibility rate was higher than assumed, both the working rate and response rates were lower than specified in the sample design assumptions. This resulted in fewer interviews being taken in the Pre-Election study. The actual response rate for the Post-Election telephone sample was 0.86, which was higher than the assumed rate of 0.75. Table 3: 2000 ANES Telephone Sample Design Specifications and Assumptions Compared to Sample Outcome. ============================================================================== 2000 ANES 2000 ANES 2000 ANES 2000 NES Pre-Election Pre-Election Post-Election Post-Election Design Sample Design Sample Specification Outcome Specification Outcome ============================================================================== Completed 861 801 645 862 Interviews Response Rate 0.60 0.56 .75 0.86 Eligible 1435 1418 861 1002 (5) Sample Households Eligibility 0.94 0.96 Rate Occupied 1527 1475 Households Working Rate 0.65 0.63 Total Sample 2349 2349 Lines (5) Initial sample lines (FTF and Phone) are different from the Pre-Election completed interviews because of the switch in mode for randomly selected sample cases. >> 2000 ANES POST-ELECTION STUDY SAMPLE OUTCOMES Of the 1807 respondents interviewed in the Pre-Election Study, 1555 completed Post-Election interviews for an overall response rate of 0.86. FTF interviews were attempted with 805 of the 1006 persons interviewed FTF in the Pre-Election study and 693 FTF interviews were obtained for a FTF response rate of 0.86. Approximately 200 FTF cases were transferred to telephone interviewing for the Post-Election study in order to reduce field costs. This was accomplished through a systematic random sample of approximately 20 percent of the area segments. Telephone interviews were attempted with 1002 (201 FTF in the Pre-Election study and 801 Telephone in Pre-Election study) respondents in the Post-Election study. 862 telephone interviews were obtained for a response rate of 0.86. >> 2000 ANES DATA - WEIGHTED ANALYSIS The 2000 ANES data set includes a person-level analysis weight, which incorporates sampling, nonresponse and post-stratification factors. Analysts interested in developing their own nonresponse or stratification adjustment factors must request access to the necessary sample control data from the ANES Board. >> 2000 ANES ANALYSIS WEIGHTS - CONSTRUCTION Household Selection Weight Component ------------------------------------ The joint household selection weight is the same for both the RDD and the area sample. This weight is an inflation factor equal to 34195.298. It is equal to the inverse of the joint probability of selection, which is the sum of the RDD and the area sample probabilities minus their product. It was not possible from the data available to reliably identify the area sample respondents who did not have telephone service. The 2000 CPS March Supplement estimates that 5.5% of U.S. households do not have telephone service. The household selection weight component therefore slightly underestimates respondents who live in households that cannot be reached through the RDD sample frame. Person-Level Sample Selection Weight Component ---------------------------------------------- The dual frame sample design for the 2000 ANES results in a probability sample of U.S. households. Within sample households a single adult respondent is chosen at random to be interviewed. Since the number of eligible adults varies 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 person-level selection weight is the product of the joint household selection weight and the within household selection weight. The within household selection weight is equal to the number of eligible persons in the household and is capped at 3. 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 ANES estimates of descriptive statistics. Nonresponse Adjusted Selection Weight ------------------------------------- The base weight equals the product of the joint selection weight and the household level nonresponse adjustment factors. Nonresponse adjustment factors were constructed at the household level separately for the area sample and the RDD sample. Nonresponse adjustment cells for the 2000 ANES sample were formed by crossing MSA status by the four Census regions (Northeast, Midwest, South, and West). A nonresponse adjustment factor equal to the inverse of the response rate in each cell was applied to the interview cases. Tables 4 and 5 show the response rates and nonresponse adjustment factors for the area and RDD samples. Table 4. Computation of Nonresponse Adjustment Weights -- 2000 ANES Area Sample. ============================================================================== PSU Type Census Region Response Rate Nonresponse (%) Adjustment Factor ============================================================================== MSAs Northeast 55.28 1.809 Midwest 62.86 1.591 South 61.87 1.616 West 67.82 1.474 Non MSAs Northeast 61.54 1.625 Midwest 65.71 1.522 South 79.55 1.257 West 83.33 1.200 Table 5 Computation of Nonresponse Adjustment Weights -- 2000 ANES RDD Sample. ============================================================================== PSU Type Census Region Response Rate Nonresponse (%) Adjustment Factor ============================================================================== MSAs Northeast 43.94 2.276 Midwest 62.08 1.611 South 58.72 1.703 West 53.56 1.867 Non MSAs Northeast 50.00 2.000 Midwest 67.90 1.473 South 62.70 1.595 West 67.86 1.474 Post-stratification factor -------------------------- The 2000 ANES weights are post-stratified to 2000 CPS March Supplement proportions for six (6) ages by four (4) education categories. Table 6 shows the weighted estimates and proportions for the 24 cells for the 2000 CPS and the 2000 NES. The post-stratification adjustment is computed by dividing the CPS weighted total by the 2000 ANES total weighted by the nonresponse adjusted selection weight. The final two columns show the ANES weighted totals using the final post-stratified analysis weight and the resulting percents, which match the CPS percents. Final Analysis Weights ---------------------- The final analysis weight (FINAL_WT) is the product of the household level non-response adjustment factor, the number of eligible persons, and a person- level post-stratification factor. The final analysis weight for the 2000 NES sample (FINAL_WT) is scaled to sum to 1807, the total number of respondents. This weight is trimmed at the 1st and 99th percentiles and then re-scaled to match the 2000 CPS proportions for the 24 age by education cells. Post-Election Attrition Weight ------------------------------ The 1555 Post-Election cases were post-stratified to 2000 CPS March Supplement proportions for six (6) ages by four (4) education categories (the same categories used for post-stratifying the Pre-Election cases). The post- stratification compensates for differential non-response by age group and education level. Response rates for the Post-Election Study ranged from a high of 100 percent for persons 70 or older with a college degree or higher to a low of 76 percent for persons age 30 - 39 who did not graduate from high school. The panel attrition weight for the Post-Election Study, POST_WT, is the product of the Pre-Election FINAL_WT and the post-stratification factor formed by dividing the CPS proportion by the weighted ANES proportion for each of the 24 age by education cells. The weight is scaled to sum to the number of cases, 1555. Table 6: 2000 ANES Sample Weight: Post-stratification Factors. ============================================================================== Age Education n 2000 CPS 2000 Prelim 2000 Post- ANES Final Group Level Est in CPS ANES wtd strat wtd NES 000s (6) % Est in 000s Adjust n wtd centered % ============================================================================== 18-29 > 2000 ANES PROCEDURES FOR SAMPLING ERROR ESTIMATION The 2000 ANES sample design is based on a stratified multi-stage area probability sample of United States households. Although smaller in scale, the ANES sample design is very similar in it basic structure to the multi- stage designs used for major federal survey programs such as the Health Interview Survey (HIS) or the Current Population Survey (CPS). The survey literature refers to the NES, HIS and CPS samples as complex designs, a loosely-used term meant to denote the fact that the sample incorporates special design features such as stratification, clustering and differential selection probabilities (i.e., weighting) that analysts must consider in computing sampling errors for sample estimates of descriptive statistics and model parameters. This section of the 2000 ANES sample design description focuses on sampling error estimation and construction of confidence intervals for survey estimates of descriptive statistics such as means, proportions, ratios, and coefficients for linear and logistic linear regression models. Standard analysis software systems such SAS and SPSS assume simple random sampling (SRS) or equivalently independence of observations in computing standard errors for sample estimates. In general, the SRS assumption results in underestimation of variances of survey estimates of descriptive statistics and model parameters. Confidence intervals based on computed variances that assume independence of observations will be biased (generally too narrow) and design-based inferences will be affected accordingly. Sampling Error Computation Methods and Programs ----------------------------------------------- Over the past 50 years, advances in survey sampling theory have guided the development of a number of methods for correctly estimating variances from complex sample data sets. A number of sampling error programs which implement these complex sample variance estimation methods are available to ANES data analysts. The two most common approaches to the estimation of sampling error for complex sample data are through the use of a Taylor Series Linearization of the estimator (and corresponding approximation to its variance) or through the use of resampling variance estimation procedures such as Balanced Repeated Replication (BRR) or Jackknife Repeated Replication (JRR). New Bootstrap methods for variance estimation can also be included among the resampling approaches. See Rao and Wu (1988). 1. Taylor series linearization method: When survey data are collected using a complex sample design with unequal size clusters, most statistics of interest will not be simple linear functions of the observed data. The linearization approach applies Taylor's method to derive an approximate form of the estimator that is linear in statistics for which variances and covariances can be directly and easily estimated (Woodruff, 1971). SUDAAN and Stata are two commercially available statistical software packages that include procedures that apply the Taylor series method to estimation and inference for complex sample data. SUDAAN (Shah et al., 1996) is a commercially available software system developed and marketed by the Research Triangle Institute of Research Triangle Park, North Carolina (USA). SUDAAN was developed as a stand-alone software system with capabilities for the more important methods for descriptive and multivariate analysis of survey data, including: estimation and inference for means, proportions and rates (PROC DESCRIPT and PROC RATIO); contingency table analysis (PROC CROSSTAB); linear regression (PROC REGRESS); logistic regression (PROC LOGISTIC); log-linear models (PROC CATAN); and survival analysis (PROC SURVIVAL). SUDAAN V7.0 and earlier versions were designed to read directly from ASCII and SAS system data sets. The latest versions of SUDAAN permit procedures to be called directly from the SAS system. Information on SUDAAN is available at the following web site address: http://www.rti.org. Stata (StataCorp, 1997) is a more recent commercial entry to the available software for analysis of complex sample survey data and has a growing body of research users. Stata includes special versions of its standard analysis routines that are designed for the analysis of complex sample survey data. Special survey analysis programs are available for descriptive estimation of means (SVYMEAN), ratios (SVYRATIO), proportions (SVYTOT) and population totals (SVYTOTAL). Stata programs for multivariate analysis of survey data currently include linear regression (SVYREG), logistic regression (SVYLOGIT) and probit regression (SVYPROBT). Information on the Stata analysis software system can be found on the Web at: http://www.stata.com. 2. Resampling methods: BRR, JRR and the bootstrap comprise a second class of nonparametric methods for conducting estimation and inference from complex sample data. As suggested by the generic label for this class of methods, BRR, JRR and the bootstrap utilize replicated subsampling of the sample database to develop sampling variance estimates for linear and nonlinear statistics. WesVar PC (Brick et al., 1996) is a publicly available software system for personal computers that employs replicated variance estimation methods to conduct the more common types of statistical analysis of complex sample survey data. WesVar PC was developed by Westat, Inc. and is distributed along with documentation free of charge to researchers from Westat's Web site: http://www.westat.com/wesvarpc/. WesVar PC includes a Windows-based application generator that enables the analyst to select the form of data input (SAS data file, SPSS for Windows data base, dBase file, ASCII data set) and the computation method (BRR or JRR methods). Analysis programs contained in WesVar PC provide the capability for basic descriptive (means, proportions, totals, cross tabulations) and regression (linear, logistic) analysis of complex sample survey data. WestVar Complex Samples 3.0 is the latest version of WestVar PC that is licensed and distributed by SPSS. Information on the latest developments can be obtained at http://www.spss.com. These new and updated software packages include an expanded set of user friendly, well-documented analysis procedures. Difficulties with sample design specification, data preparation, and data input in the earlier generations of survey analysis software created a barrier to use by analysts who were not survey design specialists. The new software enables the user to input data and output results in a variety of common formats, and the latest versions accommodate direct input of data files from the major analysis software systems. Readers who are interested in a more detailed comparison of these and other survey analysis software alternatives are referred to Cohen (1997). Sampling Error Computation Models --------------------------------- Regardless of whether linearization or a resampling approach is used, estimation of variances for complex sample survey estimates requires the specification of a sampling error computation model. ANES data analysts who are interested in performing sampling error computations should be aware that the estimation programs identified in the preceding section assume a specific sampling error computation model and will require special sampling error codes. Individual records in the analysis data set must be assigned sampling error codes that identify to the programs the complex structure of the sample (stratification, clustering) and are compatible with the computation algorithms of the various programs. To facilitate the computation of sampling error for statistics based on 2000 ANES data, design-specific sampling error codes will be routinely included in all public-use versions of the data set. Although minor recoding may be required to conform to the input requirements of the individual programs, the sampling error codes that are provided should enable analysts to conduct either Taylor Series or Replicated estimation of sampling errors for survey statistics. Table 7 defines the sampling error coding system for 2000 ANES sample cases. Two sampling error code variables are defined for each case based on the sample design primary stage unit (PSU) and area segment in which the sample household is located. Sampling Error Stratum Code (Variable 000097). The Sampling Error Computation Stratum Code is the variable that defines the sampling error computation strata for all sampling error analysis of the ANES data. Each self- representing (SR) design stratum is represented by one sampling error computation stratum. Pairs of similar nonself-representing (NSR) primary stage design strata are "collapsed" (Kalton, 1977) to create NSR sampling error computation strata. Since there was an uneven number of nonself- representing MSA and non-MSA strata used in the 2000 NES, and since it was felt that a nonself-representing MSA PSU should be paired with a non-MSA PSU, one of each of these PSUs stands alone within its Sampling Error Stratum Code. For the 1990 SRC National Sample design controlled selection and a "one-per- stratum" PSU allocation are used to select the primary stage of the 2000 ANES national sample. The purpose in using controlled selection and the "one-per- stratum" sample allocation is to reduce the between-PSU component of sampling variation relative to a "two-per-stratum" primary stage design. Despite the expected improvement in sample precision, a drawback of the "one-per-stratum" design is that two or more sample selection strata must be collapsed or combined to form a sampling error computation stratum. Variances are then estimated under the assumption that a multiple PSU per stratum design was actually used for primary stage selection. The expected consequence of collapsing design strata into sampling error computation strata is the overestimation of the true sampling error; that is, the sampling error computation model defined by the codes contained in Table 7 will yield estimates of sampling errors which in expectation will be slightly greater than the true sampling error of the statistic of interest. SECU - Stratum-specific Sampling Error Computation Unit code (Variable OOOO97) is a half sample code for analysis of sampling error using the BRR method or approximate "two-per-stratum" Taylor Series method (Kish and Hess, 1959). Within the SR sampling error strata, the SECU half sample units are created by dividing sample cases into random halves, SECU=1 and SECU=2. The assignment of cases to half-samples is designed to preserve the stratification and second stage clustering properties of the sample within an SR stratum. Sample cases are assigned to SECU half samples based on the area segment in which they were selected. For this assignment, sample cases were placed in original stratification order (area segment number order) and beginning with a random start entire area segment clusters were systematically assigned to either SECU=1 or SECU=2. In the general case of nonself-representing (NSR) strata, the half sample units are defined according to the PSU to which the respondent was assigned at sample selection (with the exception of the two unpaired NSR strata mentioned above). That is, the half samples for each NSR sampling error computation stratum bear a one-to-one correspondence to the sample design NSR PSUs. The particular sample coding provided on the ANES public use data set is consistent with the "ultimate cluster" approach to complex sample variance estimation (Kish, 1965; Kalton, 1977). Individual stratum, PSU and segment code variables may be needed by ANES analysts interested in components of variance analysis or estimation of hierarchical models in which PSU-level and neighborhood-level effects are explicitly estimated. Table 7 shows the area sample sampling error stratum and SECU codes to be used for the paired selection model for sampling error computations for any 2000 ANES analyses. Strata 01 through 26 reflect the half sample 1990 National Sample design used for the 2000 ANES area sample. It can be seen from this table that the three-digit 2000 SE code is comprised of, first, the two-digit SE Stratum code followed by the one-digit SECU code. The RDD sample cases are assigned to Strata 27 through 66. The RDD sample is a stratified unclustered design. In order to reflect the stratification of the RDD frame, the sample was sorted by area code within metropolitan status within Census Division prior to the assignment of sampling error stratum and SECU codes. The sorted file was then divided into groups of 20 adjacent cases to form the strata. Within each stratum, cases were assigned alternately to each of the pair of SECUs, 10 cases per SECU. This assignment of sampling error stratum and SECU codes allows for design effects to be estimated for the complete ANES data set as well as separately for the RDD and area sample components. Table 7: 2000 ANES Election Study Sampling Error Codes. ============================================================================== SE SECU SE Code PSU Segment #s Total Rs Stratum ============================================================================== 01 1 011 120 015, 031, 047, 063, 079, 099 11 2 012 120 007, 023, 039, 055, 071, 087 11 02 1 021 190 007, 023, 039, 055, 071, 087 11 2 022 190 016, 031, 047, 063, 079, 095 13 03 1 031 130 011, 028, 044, 060 8 2 032 130 004, 020, 036, 052, 068 15 04 1 041 121 002, 018, 034, 050 10 2 042 121 010, 026, 042 6 05 1 051 131 016, 032, 047 11 2 052 131 008, 024, 040 10 06 1 061 150 007, 023, 039 11 2 062 150 015, 031, 047 8 07 1 071 171 010, 026, 042 6 2 072 171 002, 018, 034 7 08 1 081 110 004, 020, 036 6 2 082 110 012, 028, 044 5 09 1 091 170 011, 027, 031, 039 17 2 092 154 003, 007, 011, 015, 019 13 170 007, 019 10 1 101 122 008, 012, 015, 024, 028, 032 18 2 102 152 004, 012, 016, 020, 028, 032 13 11 1 111 141 004, 008, 016, 020, 024, 032 12 2 112 132 001, 005, 009, 013, 017, 021 18 12 1 121 191 001, 005, 009, 017, 021, 025 27 2 122 181 001, 005, 009, 013, 017, 021 20 13 1 131 194 004, 008, 016, 020, 024, 032 17 2 132 196 002, 006, 010, 014, 018, 022 15 14 1 141 220 001, 005, 009, 013, 017, 021 40 2 142 226 002, 006, 010, 014, 018, 022 24 15 1 151 211 004, 007, 011, 015, 020, 023 9 2 152 213 004, 008, 012, 016, 020, 024 17 16 1 161 230 002, 006, 010, 014, 018, 022 45 2 162 434 002, 304, 306, 008, 010, 011 23 17 1 171 239 001, 005, 009, 013, 017, 021 14 2 172 240 002, 006, 010, 014, 018, 022 20 18 1 181 262 002, 006, 010, 014, 018, 022 48 2 182 255 004, 008, 012, 016, 020, 024 17 19 1 191 257 004, 008, 012, 016, 020, 024 23 2 192 258 002, 006, 010, 014, 018, 022 15 20 1 201 273 003, 007, 011, 015, 019, 023 18 2 202 274 002, 006, 010, 014, 018, 022 14 21 1 211 260 003, 007, 011, 015, 019, 023 14 2 212 250 003, 007, 011, 015, 019, 023 21 22 1 221 292 001, 005, 009, 013, 017, 022 20 2 222 293 003, 007, 011, 015, 019, 023 20 23 1 231 464 303, 305, 306, 309, 311, 312 32 2 232 480 301, 302, 303, 305, 306, 307 39 24 1 241 466 301, 302, 304, 305, 306, 308 26 2 242 470 301, 302, 303, 305, 306, 307 43 25 1 251 474 302, 303, 304, 306, 307, 308 40 2 252 477 302, 303, 304, 306, 307, 308 26 26 1 261 280 002, 006, 010, 014, 018, 022 34 2 262 482 301, 303, 304, 305, 307, 308 45 Total: 1006 Generalized Sampling Error Results for the 2000 NES --------------------------------------------------- To assist ANES analysts, the PC SUDAAN program was used to compute sampling errors for a wide-ranging example set of proportions estimated from the 2000 NES election Survey data set. Sampling errors were computed for the complete NES data set as well as separately for the area sample and RDD sample components. For each estimate, sampling errors were computed for the total sample and for fifteen demographic and political affiliation subclasses of the 2000 ANES sample. The results of these sampling error computations were then summarized and translated into the general usage sampling error tables provided in Tables 8 - 10. The mean value of deft, the square root of the design effect, was found to be 1.098 for the combined sample, 1.076 for the area sample component, and 1.049 for the RDD sample component. The design effects were primarily due to weighting effects (Kish, 1965) and did not vary significantly by subclass size. Therefore the generalized variance tables are produced by multiplying the simple random sampling standard error for each proportion and sample size by the average deft for the set of sampling error computations. Incorporating the pattern of "design effects" observed in the extensive set of example computations, Tables 8 - 10 provide approximate standard errors for percentage estimates based on the 2000 NES. To use the tables, examine the column heading to find the percentage value which best approximates the value of the estimated percentage that is of interest. 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 Tables 8 - 10 are a useful tool for initial, cursory examination of the ANES 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 8: Generalized Variance Table. 2000 ANES election Survey - Combined Sample. APPROXIMATE STANDARD ERRORS FOR PERCENTAGES ============================================================================== For percentage estimates near: Sample n 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% or 60% or 70% or 80% or 90% ============================================================================== 100 5.49 5.38 5.03 4.39 3.29 200 3.88 3.80 3.56 3.10 2.33 300 3.17 3.10 2.90 2.54 1.90 400 2.74 2.69 2.52 2.20 1.65 500 2.45 2.40 2.25 1.96 1.47 600 2.24 2.20 2.05 1.79 1.34 700 2.07 2.03 1.90 1.66 1.24 800 1.94 1.90 1.78 1.55 1.16 900 1.83 1.79 1.68 1.46 1.10 1000 1.74 1.70 1.59 1.39 1.04 1100 1.66 1.62 1.52 1.32 0.99 1200 1.58 1.55 1.45 1.27 0.95 1300 1.52 1.49 1.40 1.22 0.91 1400 1.47 1.44 1.34 1.17 0.88 1500 1.42 1.39 1.30 1.13 0.85 1600 1.37 1.34 1.26 1.10 0.82 1700 1.33 1.30 1.22 1.06 0.80 1800 1.29 1.27 1.19 1.04 0.78 Table 9: Generalized Variance Table. 2000 ANES election Survey - Area Sample. APPROXIMATE STANDARD ERRORS FOR PERCENTAGES ============================================================================== For percentage estimates near: Sample n 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% or 60% or 70% or 80% or 90% ============================================================================== 100 5.38 5.27 4.93 4.30 3.23 200 3.80 3.73 3.48 3.04 2.28 300 3.10 3.04 2.85 2.48 1.86 400 2.69 2.63 2.46 2.15 1.61 500 2.40 2.36 2.20 1.92 1.44 600 2.20 2.15 2.01 1.76 1.32 700 2.03 1.99 1.86 1.63 1.22 800 1.90 1.86 1.74 1.52 1.14 900 1.79 1.76 1.64 1.43 1.07 1000 1.70 1.67 1.56 1.36 1.02 Table 10: Generalized Variance Table. 2000 ANES election Survey - RDD Sample. APPROXIMATE STANDARD ERRORS FOR PERCENTAGES ============================================================================== For percentage estimates near: Sample n 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% or 60% or 70% or 80% or 90% ============================================================================== 100 5.24 5.14 4.80 4.19 3.14 200 3.71 3.63 3.40 2.96 2.22 300 3.03 2.96 2.77 2.42 1.82 400 2.62 2.57 2.40 2.10 1.57 500 2.34 2.30 2.15 1.88 1.41 600 2.14 2.10 1.96 1.71 1.28 700 1.98 1.94 1.82 1.58 1.19 800 1.85 1.82 1.70 1.48 1.11 References Alegria, M., Kessler, R., Bijl, R., Lin, E., Heeringa, S.G., Takeuchi, D.T., Kolody, B. (2000). To appear in The Unmet Need for Treatment. Proceedings of a Symposium of the World Psychiatric Association, Sydney, Australia, October, 1997. Binder, D.A. (1983), "On the variances of asymptotically normal estimators from complex surveys," International Statistical Review, Vol. 51, pp. 279- 292. Brick, J.M., Broene, P., James, P., & Severynse, J. (1996). "A User's Guide to WesVar PC." Rockville, MD: Westat, Inc. Cochran, W.G. (1977). Sampling Techniques. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Cohen, S.B. (1997). "An evaluation of alternative PC-based software packages developed for the analysis of complex survey data," The American Statistician, Vol. 51, No. 3, pp. 285-292. Goldstein, H. (1987). Multi-level Models in Educational and Social Research. London: Oxford University Press. Kalton, G. (1977), "Practical methods for estimating survey sampling errors," Bulletin of the International Statistical Institute, Vol. 47, 3, pp. 495-514. Kish, L. (1949). "A procedure for objective respondent selection within the household," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 44, pp. 380-387. Kish, L. (1965), Survey Sampling. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Kish, L., & Frankel, M.R. (1974), "Inference from complex samples," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, B, Vol. 36, pp. 1-37. Kish, L., Groves, R.M., & Krotki, K.P. (1975). "Sampling errors for fertility surveys." Occasional Paper No. 17. Voorburg, Netherlands: World Fertility Survey, International Statistical Institute. Kish, L., & Hess, I. (1959), "On variances of ratios and their differences in multi-stage samples," Journal of the American Statistical Association, 54, pp. 416-446. LePage, R., & Billard, L. (1992), Exploring the Limits of Bootstrap. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Mahalanobis, P.C. (1946), "Recent experiments in statistical sampling at the Indian Statistical Institute," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Vol. 109, pp. 325-378. McCullagh, P.M. & Nelder, J.A. (1989). Generalized Linear Models, 2nd Edition. Chapman and Hall. London. Rao, J.N.K & Wu, C.F.J. (1988.), "Resampling inference with complex sample data," Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83, pp. 231-239. Rosenstone, Steven J., Kinder, Donald R., Miller, Warren E., & the National Election Studies 1994 Sample Design: Technical Memoranda, 1994 Election Study pp. 882-905 in Rosenstone, Steven J., Kinder, Donald R., Miller, Warren E., & the National Election Studies, AMERICAN NATIONAL ELECTION STUDY, 1994: ELECTION SURVEY (ENHANCED WITH 1992 AND 1993 DATA) (Computer file). Conducted by University of Michigan Center for Political Studies. 2nd ICPSR ed. Ann Arbor MI: University of Michigan, Center for Political Studies, and Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (producer), 1995. Ann Arbor MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (distributor), 1995. Rust, K. (1985). "Variance estimation for complex estimators in sample surveys," Journal of Official Statistics, Vol. 1, No. 4. SAS Institute, Inc. (1990). SAS/STAT User's Guide, Version 6, Fourth Ed., Vol. 2. Cary, NC: SAS Institute, Inc. Shah, B.V., Barnwell, B.G., Biegler, G.S. (1996). SUDAAN User's Manual: Software for Statistical Analysis of Correlated Data. Research Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle Institute. Skinner, C.J., Holt, D., & Smith, T.M.F. (1989). Analysis of Complex Surveys. New York: John Wiley & Sons. SPSS, Inc. (1993). SPSS for Windows: BASE System User's Guide, Release 6.0. Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc. Stata Corp. (1997). Stata Statistical Software: Release 5.0. College Station, TX: Stata Corporation. Wolter, K.M. (1985). Introduction to Variance Estimation. New York: Springer-Verlag. Woodruff, R.S. (1971), "A simple method for approximating the variance of a complicated estimate," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 66, pp. 411-414. Yamageuchi, K. (1991). Event History Analysis. Applied Social Research Methods Series, Vol. 28. Newbury Park, CA/London: Sage Publications. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) June 1990 definitions of MSAs, NECMAs, counties, parishes, independent cities. >> NOTES ON CONFIDENTIAL VARIABLES Starting with the 1986 Election Study, ANES has released occupation code variables in somewhat less detail than in years past. The full release of this dataset will 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 ANES 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. Beginning this year, we have omitted county name. This new procedure was implemented to protect the anonymity of respondents living in sparsely populated counties. 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 ANES 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 ANES 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 ANES 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 ANES project staff for further details. >> 2000 FILE STRUCTURE AND NOTE ON "DATASET NUMBER" AND "VERSION NUMBER" The data file for the AMERICAN NATIONAL ELECTION STUDY, 2000: PRE- AND POST- ELECTION STUDY is constructed with a single logical record for each respondent. There are 1881 variables for 1807 respondents. NES "Dataset number" ------------------- In early 1999, each unique dataset in the ANES archive was assigned a "Dataset number". Dataset numbers for datasets from all archived NES studies are included in the ANES "VERSION TABLE" described below. "Versions" of ANES datasets -------------------------- The term "dataset" used by ANES refers to the following associated components: 1- ASCII data file (.dat file) 2- SAS and SPSS data definition files (.sas, .sps files) 3- Codebook files (.cbk file(s)) ^^ Components of the initial release of a dataset will be identified as version 01. According to this system, a corrected component of a specific dataset is called a new "VERSION" of that component and is assigned a new "Version Number." Because the initial release of a dataset is sometimes followed by corrections to one or more components, a labeling method has been implemented to identify the release version of the datset component(s). In practice, the version labeling will allow the analyst to easily verify if he or she has the most up to date component(s) for that dataset. The version number of a particular component file is written as the first information in the machine-readable component file: 1) In the ASCII data file (.dat file), the version number of that data file is written in each record in columns 1-2. 2) In the SAS and SPSS data definition files, the version number of the file** is written in the very first line as a comment similar to the following: * Version 01 SAS DATA DEFINITION FILE ; or: * Version 01 SPSS DATA DEFINITION FILE 3) In the codebook file**, the version number is written as the first line similar to the following: VERSION 01 CODEBOOK NES Dataset "Version Table" -------------------------- The ANES Web site (www.umich.edu/~nes) includes an ANES Dataset "Version Table" which can be used to identify the latest version of component files for released ANES datasets. _______________ ^^NOTE: A codebook usually comprises 3 files, an 'intro' file, variable file, and appendix file **NOTE: Since SAS and SPSS data definition files (.sas and .sps files) are identified together as a single component, a new "version" of either signifies a new "version" of both, even if only one data definition file required correction. The "Note" field in the ANES VERSION TABLE will indicate if only one file has actually been corrected. Similarly, since most codebooks are released as 3 files, a correction to any one of the codebook files results in a new "version" of all 3 codebook files at once. Again, the "Note" field in the ANES VERSION TABLE will indicate if only one codebook file has actually been corrected. (All 3 codebook files will include the version number in the first line of the machine-readable file, as indicated above.) >> 2000 CODEBOOK INFORMATION The following example from the 1948 ANES study provides the standard format for codebook variable documentation. Note that ANES studies which are not part of the Time-Series usually omit marginals and the descriptive content in lines 2-5 (except for variable name). Line 1 ============================== 2 VAR 480026 NAME-NOT AVAILABLE IN ADVANCE RELEASE 3 COLUMNS 61 - 61 4 NUMERIC 5 MD=0 OR GE 8 6 7 Q. 17. (IF R DID NOT VOTE) WERE YOU REGISTERED (ELIGIBLE) 8 TO VOTE. 9 ........................................................... 10 11 82 1. YES 12 149 2. NO 13 14 0 8. DK 15 9 9. NA 16 422 0. INAP., R VOTED Line 2 - VARIABLE NAME. Note that in the codebook the variable name (usually a 'number') does not include the "V" prefix which is used in the release SAS and SPSS data definition files (.sas and .sps files) for all variables including those which do not have 'number' names. For example the variable "VERSION" in the codebook is "VVERSION" in the data definition files. Line 2 - "NAME". This is the variable label used in the SAS and SPSS data definition files (.sas and .sps files). Some codebooks exclude this. Line 3 - COLUMNS. Columns in the ASCII data file (.dat file). Line 4 - CHARACTER OR NUMERIC. If numeric and the variable is a decimal rather than integer variable, the number of decimal places is also indicated (e.g. "NUMERIC DEC 4") Line 5 - Values which are assigned to missing by default in the Study's SAS and SPSS data definition files (.sas and .sps files). Line 7 - Actual question text for survey variables or a description of non-survey variables (for example, congressional district). Survey items usually include the question number (for example "B1a.") from the Study questionnaire; beginning in 1996 non-survey items also have unique item numbers (for example "CSheet.1"). Line 9 - A dashed or dotted line usually separates question text from any other documentation which follows. Line 10- When present, annotation provided by Study staff is presented below the question text/description and preceding code values. Lines 11-16 Code values are listed with descriptive labels. Valid codes (those not having 'missing' status in line 5) are presented first, followed by the values described in line 5. For continuous variables, one line may appear providing the range of possible values. A blank line usually separates the 'valid' and 'missing' values. Lines 11-16 Marginals are usually provided for discrete variables. The counts may be unweighted or weighted; check the study codebook introductory text to determine weight usage. NOTE: marginals may be present as a table following the list of codes. >> 2000 CODEBOOK INFORMATION - EXPERIMENTS Due to the complexity of the dataset, ANES staff have created the table below to assist users in navigating through numerous variables representing different formats. STANDARD FORMAT EXPERIMENTAL FORMAT --------------- ------------------- 1. 7-point scale Branching 2a. Response order a,b,c Response order c,b,a * 2b. Response order a,c,b Response order c,a,b * 2c. Response order 7 pt scale Reversed scale 3a. "Haven't thought" response No response "haven't thought much" 3b. No response "Haven't thought" Response "haven't thought much" 4. Agree/disagree with policy Choose policy / opposing policy 5. Yes/no agree with position Choose position/ statement of opposition 6. No use of probe for DK Use of probe for DK COMBINED PRE STANDARD EXPERIMENTAL EXPER STANDARD AND TOPIC FORMAT FORMAT TYPE EXPERIMENTAL ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Liberal-Conservative Self - FTF V000439 . . V000446a - Phone V000439a . . V000446b - FTF & Phone V000440,441,441a V000442-445 1 V000446,447 Clinton ======================================================== - FTF V000448 . . . - Phone V000448a . . . - FTF & Phone V000449 V000450-453 1 V000454 Gore ======================================================== - FTF V000455,457 . . . - Phone V000455a,458 . . . - FTF & Phone V000456,458a V000459-462,464 1 V000463,464a GW Bush ======================================================== - FTF V000465,467 . . . - Phone V000465a,468 . . . - FTF & Phone V000466,466a V000469-472,474 1 V000473,474a Buchanan ======================================================== - FTF V000475,477 . . . - Phone V000475a,478 . . . - FTF & Phone V000476,476a V000479-482,484 1 V000483,484a ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Econ retrospective V000488a V000488b 2a V000491 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Employment retrosp V000492a V000492b 2b V000495 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Econ prospective V000496a V000496b 2b V000499 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Limit imports V000511a V000511b 3a V000512 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Isolationism V000513a V000513b 4 V000514 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Govt med insurance - FTF V000608a V000608b 2c V000609 - Phone V000610a V000610b 2c V000611-613 - FTF & Phone . . 2c V000614 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Affirmative action V000671a V000671b 5 V000674 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Environment vs jobs - FTF V000707a V000707b 3a V000708 - Phone V000709a V000709b 3a V000711-712 - FTF & Phone . . 3a V000713 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- School vouchers V000741a V000741b 3b V000742,744 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Women's role - FTF V000754a V000754b 3a V000755 - Phone V000756a V000756b 3a V000757-759 - FTF & Phone . . 3a V000760 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMBINED POST STANDARD EXPERIMENTAL EXPER STANDARD AND TOPIC FORMAT FORMAT TYPE EXPERIMENTAL ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Knowledge (office) Trent Lott V001446a V001446b,1448 6 V001447 William Rehnquist V001449a V001449b,1451 6 V001450 Tony Blair V001452a V001452b,1454 6 V001453 Janet Reno V001455a V001455b,1457 6 V001456 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 2000 CODEBOOK INFORMATION - POLICY PLACEMENTS, EXPERIMENTS, AND BUILT VARIABLES Policy placements, traditionally done on 7 point scales, of self and others is particularly complicated with mode, various experiments, and built variables. To assist users, ANES staff have created the table below so that users can quickly identify the variable of interest. TABLE 1 - PRE 7-POINT SCALE/ BRANCHING SERIES SELF-PLACEMENTS ============================================ ALL SERIES exc.Lib-Con (SEE Table 3) ============================================ SERIES: L1 = SPENDING/SERVICES L2 = DEFENSE SPENDING L3 = GOVT/PRIVATE MEDICAL INSURANCE L4 = JOBS/STD LIVING L5 = AID TO BLACKS M4 = ENVIRONMENT VS. JOBS P1 = WOMEN'S ROLE P2 = ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION EXPERIMENTS: L3, M4, P1 self-placements Note: Prefix "V000" omitted in variable numbers listed FTF = 7PT SCALE PHONE = BRANCHING ................. L1 L2 L3 L4 L5 M4 P1 P2 ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ 1a. FTF:standard 545 581 608a 615 641 707a 754a 771 1b. FTF:experimental - - 608b - - 707b 754b - 1c. FTF:combined - - 609 - - 708 755 - 2a. PHONE: version 1 546 582/3 610a 616 642 709a 756a 772 2b. PHONE: version 2 - - 610b - - 709b 756b - 2c. PHONE: combined - - 611 - - 710 757 - 3. PHONE: 'strength' 547/8 584/5 612 617/8 643 711 757 - 4. PHONE: 5pt summary 549 586 613 619 644 712 758 773/4 5. ALL: 5pt summary 550 587 614 620 645 713 760 776 TABLE 2 - PRE 7POINT SCALE/ BRANCHING SERIES CANDIDATE AND PARTY PLACEMENTS ======================================= ALL SERIES exc.Lib-Con (Table 3) ======================================== Note: Prefix "V000" omitted in variable numbers listed FTF = 7PT SCALE PHONE = BRANCHING ................. CLINTON GORE BUSH DEM PTY REP PTY _______ ____ ____ _______ _______ L1 Spending/services 1. FTF 551 557 563 569 575 2. PHONE 552 558 564 570 576 3. PHONE: STRENGTH 553/54 559/60 565/66 571/72 577/78 4. PHONE: 5PT SUMMARY 555 561 567 573 579 5. ALL: 5PT SUMMARY 556 562 568 574 580 L2 Defense spending 1. FTF - 588 593 598 603 2. PHONE - 589 594 599 604 3. PHONE: STRENGTH - 590 595 600 605 4. PHONE: 5PT SUMMARY - 591 596 601 606 5. ALL: 5PT SUMMARY - 592 597 602 607 --no cand/party placements in L3-- L4 Jobs/std living 1. FTF - 588 593 598 603 2. PHONE - 589 594 599 604 3. PHONE: STRENGTH - 590 595 600 605 4. PHONE: 5PT SUMMARY - 591 596 601 606 5. ALL: 5PT SUMMARY - 592 597 602 607 L5 Aid to blacks 1. FTF 646 651 656 661 666 2. PHONE 647 652 657 662 667 3. PHONE: STRENGTH 648 653 658 663 668 4. PHONE: 5PT SUMMARY 649 654 659 664 669 5. ALL: 5PT SUMMARY 650 655 660 665 679 M4 Envir vs. jobs 1. FTF - 714 719 - - 2. PHONE - 715 720 - - 3. PHONE: STRENGTH - 716 721 - - 4. PHONE: 5PT SUMMARY - 717 722 - - 5. ALL: 5PT SUMMARY - 718 723 - - P1 Women's role 1. FTF - 761 766 - - 2. PHONE - 762 767 - - 3. PHONE: STRENGTH - 763 768 - - 4. PHONE: 5PT SUMMARY - 764 769 - - 5. ALL: 5PT SUMMARY - 765 770 - - P2 Envir regulation 1. FTF - 778 785 - - 2. PHONE - 779 786 - - 3. PHONE: STRENGTH - 780/81 787/88 - - 4. PHONE: 5PT SUMMARY - 782 789 - - 5. ALL: 5PT SUMMARY - 783 790 - - 6. ALL: CERTAINTY: - 784 791 - - TABLE 3 - PRE LIBERAL-CONSERVATIVE (G SERIES) ===================== ALL PLACEMENTS ===================== Note: Prefix "V000" omitted in variable numbers listed STANDARD = 7PT SCALE RATING (FTF and/or PHONE) EXPERIMENTAL = BRANCHING SERIES (FTF and/or PHONE) BOTH = STANDARD AND EXPERIMENTAL .................................................. SELF CLINTON GORE BUSH BUCH. ---- ------- ---- ---- ----- 1a. STANDARD FTF 439 448 455 465 475 1b. STANDARD PHONE 439a 448a 455a 465a 475a 2. STANDARD COMBINED FTF & PHONE 440 449 456 466 476 3. STANDARD FTF & PHONE: 'CHOICE' 441 - - - - 4. STANDARD 3PT SUMMARY FTF & PH 441a - - - - 5a. STANDARD CERTAINTY - FTF - - 457 467 477 5b. STANDARD CERTAINTY - PHONE - - 458 468 478 6. STANDARD COMBINED FTF & PHONE - - 458a 468a 478a 7. EXPERIMENT FTF & PHONE 442 450 459 469 479 8. EXPERIMENT FTF & PHONE: FOLLOWUPS 443-5 451/2 460/1 470/1 480/1 9. EXPERIMENT 5PT SUMMARY FTF & PH - 453 462 472 482 10. BOTH 5PT SUMMARY - 454 463 473 483 11. BOTH 7PT SUMMARY: FTF & PH 446 - - - - 11a.BOTH 7PT SUMMARY: FTF ONLY 446a - - - - 11b.BOTH 7PT SUMMARY: PHONE ONLY 446b - - - - 12. BOTH 3PT SUMMARY: FTF & PH 447 - - - - 13. EXPERIMENT FTF & PH - CERTAINTY - - 464 474 484 14. BOTH CERTAINTY SUMMARY - - 464a 474a 484a TABLE 4 - Post 7POINT SCALE/ BRANCHING SERIES ============================== LIBERAL - CONSERVATIVE G1-G10 ============================== ALL 7-POINT SCALES (FTF and PHONE) PLACEMENT 'CHOICE' 3 CATEGORY SUMM CERTAINTY _________ _________ _______________ _________ 1. SELF V001368 V001369 V001370 - 2. CLINTON V001371 - - - 3. GORE V001372 - - V001373 4. GW BUSH V001374 - - V001375 5. BUCHANAN V001376 - - V001377 6. DEM HSE CAND* V001378a,b - - V001379a,b 7. REP HSE CAND* V001380a,b - - V001381a,b 8. DEM PARTY V001382 - - - 9. REP PARTY V001383 - - - 10.REFORM PARTY V001384 - - - * "b" variable for VT01 incumbent ind. Hse candidate ** "b" variable for VA05 incumbent ind. Hse candidate ================================ SERVICES/SPENDING G11, CRIME K12 ================================ FTF = 7PT SCALE PHONE = BRANCHING ................. SELF DEM HSE* REP HSE* ____ _______ _______ G11 Services/spending 1. FTF V001385 V001391a,b V001397a,b 2. PHONE V001386 V001392a,b V001398a,b 3. PHONE FOLLOWUPS V001387-89 V001393a,b-1395a,b V001399a,b-1401a,b 4. FTF & PHONE 7PT SUMM V001390 V001396a,b V001402a,b K12 Crime 1. FTF V001482 2. PHONE V001482a 3. PHONE FOLLOWUPS V001483-85 4. FTF & PHONE 7PT SUMM V001486 * "b" variable for VT01 incumbent ind. Hse candidate ** "b" variable for VA05 incumbent ind. Hse candidate >> 2000 PROCESSING INFORMATION The data collection was processed according to standard 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. Annotation was added by the processors for explanatory purposes. >> 2000 VARIABLE DESCRIPTION LIST F = FACE-TO-FACE S = STANDARD FORMAT R = SCALE RATING OR FOLLOWUP T = TELEPHONE E = EXPERIMENTAL FORMAT B = BRANCHING SERIES Note: The list of 'subsample' variables does not include those corresponding to questions administered to a random selection of cases as part of a split sample; in the latter, no systematic difference by mode or format exists among respondents. FULL SUB-SAMPLE SAMPLE VAR AND VAR TYPE DESCRIPTION ======== ========== ====================================================== IDENTIFICATION AND WEIGHTS ------------------------------------------------------ VVERSION Process.1. ANES VERSION NUMBER OF DATA VDSETNO Process.2. ANES DATASET NUMBER VICPSRNO Process.2a. ICPSR ARCHIVE NUMBER 3131 V000001 Process.4. Case ID V000001a Process.4a. Post ID V000002 Process.5. Sample weight V000002a Process.5a. Post weight V000003 Process.6. Pre only or Pre-and-Post interview PRE ADMINISTRATIVE AND FIELD VARIABLES ------------------------------------------------------ V000004 Pre.Admin.1. Mode of Pre IW V000005a Pre.Admin.2a. Form - E section V000005b Pre.Admin.2b. Form - F6-F9 half sample V000005c Pre.Admin.2c. Form - Q1-Q11 or Q14-15 V000005d Pre.Admin.2d. Form - G section lib-con V000005e Pre.Admin.2e. Form - H1 or H1.E V000005f Pre.Admin.2f. Form - H2 or H2.E V000005g Pre.Admin.2g. Form - H4 or H4.E V000005h Pre.Admin.2h. Form - H11 or H11.E V000005j Pre.Admin.2j. Form - H12 or H12.E V000005k Pre.Admin.2k. Form - L3 medical insur. V000005m Pre.Admin.2m. Form - L6 or L6.E V000005n Pre.Admin.2n. Form - M4 env vs. jobs V000005p Pre.Admin.2p. Form - N1 or N1.E V000005q Pre.Admin.2q. Form - P1 women's role V000006 Pre.Admin.3. Month of IW V000007 Pre.Admin.4. Day of IW V000008 Pre.Admin.5. Month and day (MMDD) V000009 Pre.Admin.6. No. days after election V000010 Pre.Admin.7. IW length V000011 Pre.Admin.8. IW number V000012 Pre.Admin.9. Date of beginning VQ file V000013 Pre.Admin.10. Date of ending VQ file V000014 Pre.Admin.11. Flag- change in VQ V000015 Pre.Admin.12. Advance letter sent? V000016 Pre.Admin.13. Payment amount V000017 Pre.Admin.14. Payment mode V000018 Pre.Admin.15. Payment date V000019 Pre.Admin.16. Tape recorded? V000020 Pre.Admin.17. Verification V000021 Pre.Admin.18. Evaluation V000022 Pre.Admin.19. Conversion indicator V000023 Pre.Admin.20. Persuasion letter V000024 Pre.Admin.21. Date per letter requested V000025 Pre.Admin.22. Date persuasion sent V000026 Pre.Admin.23. Type of persuasion letter V000027 Pre.Admin.24. Telephone calls V000028 Pre.Admin.25. FTF calls V000029 Pre.Admin.26. Final result V000030 Pre.Admin.27. Sample release (all 1) V000031 Pre.Admin.28. Lang of IW (all English) PRE COVERSHEET VARIABLES ------------------------------------------------------ V000032 Pre.CSheet.1. Flag- missing CS V000033 Pre.CSheet.2. Color of coversheet V000034 T Pre.CSheet.3. PH- type phone # V000035 T Pre.CSheet.4. PH- business with residence V000036 T Pre.CSheet.5. PH- bus res has personal# V000037 F Pre.CSheet.6. FTF- HH listing from V000038 Pre.CSheet.7. Selection table V000039 Pre.CSheet.8. Number of elig adults V000040 Pre.CSheet.9. Number inelig adults V000041 Pre.CSheet.10. Household composition V000042 Pre.CSheet.11. R person number V000043 F Pre.CSheet.12. FTF- type structure V000044 F Pre.CSheet.13. FTF- gatekeeper V000045 F Pre.CSheet.14. FTF- type gatekeeper V000046 Pre.CSheet.15. Resistance from contact? V000047 Pre.CSheet.16. Contact resist-waste time V000048 Pre.CSheet.17. Contact resist-too personal V000049 Pre.CSheet.18. Contact resist-confidentiality V000050 Pre.CSheet.19. Contact resist-not interested politics V000051 Pre.CSheet.20. Contact resist-too busy V000052 Pre.CSheet.21. Contact resist-health V000053 Pre.CSheet.22. Contact resist-other V000054 Pre.CSheet.23. R refuse initially? V000055 Pre.CSheet.24. R break appointments V000056 Pre.CSheet.25. Was R contact resister? V000057 Pre.CSheet.26. SUMMARY: did R resist V000058 Pre.CSheet.27. R resist-waste time V000059 Pre.CSheet.28. R resist-too personal V000060 Pre.CSheet.29. R resist-confidentiality V000061 Pre.CSheet.30. R resist-not interested in politics V000062 Pre.CSheet.31. R resist-too busy V000063 Pre.CSheet.32. R resist-health V000064 Pre.CSheet.33. R resist-other V000065 T Pre.CSheet.34. IWR est income (CSMS) V000066 T Pre.CSheet.35. IWR est race (CSMS) V000067 T Pre.CSheet.36. Certainty of race (CSMS) V000068 T Pre.CSheet.37. Hispanic HH? (CSMS) V000069 T Pre.CSheet.38. Certainty if Hisp (CSMS) PRE INTERVIEWER VARIABLES ------------------------------------------------------ V000070 Pre.IWR.1. Interviewer of record V000071 Pre.IWR.2. Supervisor V000072 Pre.IWR.3. Interviewer gender V000073 Pre.IWR.4. Interviewer education V000074 Pre.IWR.5. Interviewer race V000075 Pre.IWR.6. Interviewer ethnicity V000076 Pre.IWR.7. Interviewer languages V000077 Pre.IWR.8. Yrs Interviewer experience V000078 Pre.IWR.9. Interviewer age (bracketed) PRE - SAMPLING INFORMATION ------------------------------------------------------ V000079 Pre.Sample.1. ICPSR state code V000080 Pre.Sample.2. FIPS state code V000081 Pre.Sample.3. 2000 state abbr and CD V000082 Pre.Sample.4. 2000 FIPS state and CD V000083 Pre.Sample.5. Congressional district no. V000084 Pre.Sample.6. ICPSR state and CD V000085 Pre.Sample.7. Did R vote outside IW CD? V000086 Pre.Sample.8. State/CD -vote outside CD V000087 F Pre.Sample.9. FIPS state and county V000087a Pre.Sample.9a. County (alpha) V000088 F Pre.Sample.10. Primary area name V000089 F Pre.Sample.11. Primary area code V000090 F Pre.Sample.12. Segment number (blanked) V000090a F Pre.Sample.13. Segment name (blanked) V000091 F Pre.Sample.14. Number of HH units V000092 F Pre.Sample.15. Census region V000093 F Pre.Sample.16. Belt code V000094 F Pre.Sample.17. Population in 1000s V000095 F Pre.Sample.18. Census size of place V000096 F Pre.Sample.19. Census tract/ed indicator V000097 F Pre.Sample.20. 2000 Sampling Error code V000098 F Pre.Sample.21. 2000 Census NECMA/SMSA V000099 F Pre.Sample.22. 2000 CMSA V000100 F Pre.Sample.23. 2000 Census Tract 1 V000101 F Pre.Sample.24. 2000 Census Tract 2 V000102 F Pre.Sample.25. 2000 Block 1 V000103 F Pre.Sample.26. 2000 Block 2 V000104 F Pre.Sample.27. 2000 MCD V000105 F Pre.Sample.28. 2000 CDP V000106 F Pre.Sample.29. 2000 FIPS place code PRE SUMMARY DESCRIPTIONS/CALCULATIONS ------------------------------------------------------ V000107 Pre.Summary.1. Pre timing - section A V000108 Pre.Summary.2. Pre timing - section B V000109 Pre.Summary.3. Pre timing - section C V000110 Pre.Summary.4. Pre timing - section D V000111 Pre.Summary.5. Pre timing - section E V000112 Pre.Summary.6. Pre timing - section F V000113 Pre.Summary.7. Pre timing - section G V000114 Pre.Summary.8. Pre timing - section H V000115 Pre.Summary.9. Pre timing - section K V000116 Pre.Summary.10. Pre timing - section L V000117 Pre.Summary.11. Pre timing - section M V000118 Pre.Summary.12. Pre timing - section N V000119 Pre.Summary.13. Pre timing - section P V000120 Pre.Summary.14. Pre timing - section Q V000121 Pre.Summary.15. Pre timing - section R V000122 Pre.Summary.16. Pre timing - section S V000123 Pre.Summary.17. Pre timing - section X V000124 Pre.Summary.18. Pre timing - section Y V000125 Pre.Summary.19. Pre timing - section Z POST ADMINISTRATIVE AND FIELD VARIABLES ------------------------------------------------------ V000126 Post.Admin.1. Mode of Interview V000127a Post.Admin.2a. Form desc 1 - H in Post V000127b Post.Admin.2b. Form desc 2 - K format V000128 Post.Admin.3. Mo. IW V000129 Post.Admin.4. Day IW V000130 Post.Admin.5. Month and day (MMDD) V000131 Post.Admin.6. No. days after election V000132 Post.Admin.7. IW bef/aft Gore concession V000133 Post.Admin.8. IW length V000134 Post.Admin.9. IW no. V000135 Post.Admin.10. Date of beg VQ file V000136 Post.Admin.11. Date of end VQ file V000137 Post.Admin.12. Flag- change in VQ V000138 Post.Admin.13. Release V000139 Post.Admin.14. Payment amt V000140 Post.Admin.15. Payment mode V000141 Post.Admin.16. Payment date V000142 Post.Admin.17. Tape recorded V000143 Post.Admin.18. Verification V000144 Post.Admin.19. Evaluation V000145 Post.Admin.20. Conversion ind. V000146 Post.Admin.21. Persuasion letter V000147 Post.Admin.22. Date requested V000148 Post.Admin.23. Date sent V000149 Post.Admin.24. Type letter V000150 Post.Admin.25. Tel calls V000151 Post.Admin.26. FTF calls V000152 Post.Admin.27. Final result V000153 Post.Admin.28. Result date (NI) V000154 Post.Admin. 29. Flag - mode switch V000155 Post.Admin.30. Lang of IW (all English) POST COVERSHEET VARIABLES ------------------------------------------------------ V000156 Post.CSheet.1. Flag- missing CS V000157 Post.CSheet.2. Color of coversheet V000158 Post.CSheet.3. Item 1. R at samp addr V000159 T Post.CSheet.4. Item 2b. PHONE: New phone V000160 F Post.CSheet.5. Item 2b. FTF: Addr status V000161 F Post.CSheet.6. FTF type structure V000162 F Post.CSheet.7. FTF gatekeeper V000163 F Post.CSheet.8. FTF type gatekeeper V000164 Post.CSheet.9. Resist from contact V000165 Post.CSheet.10. Contct resist-waste time V000166 Post.CSheet.11. Contct resist-too personal V000167 Post.CSheet.12. Contct resist-confidentiality V000168 Post.CSheet.13. Contct resist-not interested politics V000169 Post.CSheet.14. Contct resist-too busy V000170 Post.CSheet.15. Contct resist-health V000171 Post.CSheet.16. Contct resist-other V000172 Post.CSheet.17. R refuse initially V000173 Post.CSheet.18. R break appts V000174 Post.CSheet.19. Was R contact resister? V000175 Post.CSheet.20. SUMMARY: did R resist V000176 Post.CSheet.21. R resist- waste time V000177 Post.CSheet.22. R resist- too personal V000178 Post.CSheet.23. R resist- confidentiality V000179 Post.CSheet.24. R resist- not interested in politics V000180 Post.CSheet.25. R resist- too busy V000181 Post.CSheet.26. R resist- health V000182 Post.CSheet.27. R resist- other V000183 Post.CSheet.28. Ever make contact (NI) V000184 Post.CSheet.29. Reason no contact (NI) V000184a F Post-CSheet.30. CSMS estimated income V000184b F Post-CSheet.31. CSMS estimated HH race V000184c F Post-CSheet.32. CSMS est HH race certain V000184d F Post-CSheet.33. CSMS estimated Hispanic V000184e F Post-CSheet.34. CSMS est Hispanic certain POST INTERVIEWER VARIABLES ------------------------------------------------------ V000185 Post.IWR.1. Interviewer of record V000186 Post.IWR.2. Supervisor V000187 Post.IWR.3. Interviewer gender V000188 Post.IWR.4. Interviewer education V000189 Post.IWR.5. Interviewer race V000190 Post.IWR.6. Interviewer ethnicity V000191 Post.IWR.7. Interviewer languages V000192 Post.IWR.8. Yrs Interviewer experience V000193 Post.IWR.9. Interviewer age (bracketed) POST - CANDIDATE AND TYPE RACE INFORMATION ------------------------------------------------------ V000194 Post.Cand.1. House race type V000194a Post.Cand.1a. Retiring House Repr name V000194b Post.Cand.1b. Retiring House Repr code V000194c Post.Cand.1c. Retiring House Repr gender V000194d Post.Cand.1d. Winner of 2000 House election V000194e Post.Cand.1e. Winner of 2000 Senate election V000194f Post.Cand.1f. Competitiveness of CD in 1998 V000194g Post.Cand.1g. Open seat in 2000 election V000195 Post.Cand.2. House Democratic cand name V000196 Post.Cand.3. House Democratic cand code V000197 Post.Cand.4. House Democratic cand gendr V000198 Post.Cand.5. House Republican cand name V000199 Post.Cand.6. House Republican cand code V000200 Post.Cand.7. House Republican cand gendr V000201 Post.Cand.8. House Ind cand name V000202 Post.Cand.9. House Ind cand code V000202a Post.Cand.9a. House Ind cand party V000203 Post.Cand.10. House Ind cand gender V000204 Post.Cand.11. Senate race type V000205 Post.Cand.12. Senate Democr cand name V000206 Post.Cand.13. Senate Democr cand code V000207 Post.Cand.14. Senate Democr cand gender V000208 Post.Cand.15. Senate Repub cand name V000209 Post.Cand.16. Senate Repub cand code V000210 Post.Cand.17. Senate Repub cand gender V000211 Post.Cand.18. Senate Ind 1 cand name V000212 Post.Cand.19. Senate Ind 1 cand code V000212a Post.Cand.19a. Senate Ind 1 cand party V000213 Post.Cand.20. Senate Ind 1 cand gender V000214 Post.Cand.21. Senate Ind 2 cand name V000215 Post.Cand.22. Senate Ind 2 cand code V000215a Post.Cand.22a. Senate Ind 2 cand party V000216 Post.Cand.23. Senate Ind 2 cand gender V000217 Post.Cand.24. Outside Hse Dem cand name V000218 Post.Cand.25. Outside Hse Dem cand code V000219 Post.Cand.26. Outside Hse Dem cand gendr V000220 Post.Cand.27. Outside Hse Rep cand name V000221 Post.Cand.28. Outside Hse Rep cand code V000222 Post.Cand.29. Outside Hse Rep cand gendr V000223 Post.Cand.30. Outside Hse Ind cand name V000224 Post.Cand.31. Outside Hse Ind cand code V000225 Post.Cand.32. Outside Hse Ind cand gendr V000226 Post.Cand.33. Outside Hse race type V000226a Post.Cand.33a. Outside Sen race type V000227 Post.Cand.34. Outside Sen Dem cand name V000228 Post.Cand.35. Outside Sen Dem cand code V000229 Post.Cand.36. Outside Sen Dem cand gendr V000230 Post.Cand.37. Outside Sen Rep cand name V000231 Post.Cand.38. Outside Sen Rep cand code V000232 Post.Cand.39. Outside Sen Rep cand gendr V000233 Post.Cand.40. Outside Sen Ind1 cand name V000234 Post.Cand.41. Outside Sen Ind1 cand code V000235 Post.Cand.42. Outside Sen Ind1 cand gend V000236 Post.Cand.43. Outside Sen Ind2 cand name V000237 Post.Cand.44. Outside Sen Ind2 cand code V000238 Post.Cand.45. Outside Sen Ind2 cand gend POST SUMMARY DESCRIPTIONS/CALCULATIONS ------------------------------------------------------ V000239 Post.Summary.1. Post timing - section A V000240 Post.Summary.2. Post timing - section B V000241 Post.Summary.3. Post timing - section C V000242 Post.Summary.4. Post timing - section D V000243 Post.Summary.5. Post timing - section E V000244 Post.Summary.6. Post timing - section F V000245 Post.Summary.7. Post timing - section G V000246 Post.Summary.8. Post timing - section H V000247 Post.Summary.9. Post timing - section J V000248 Post.Summary.10. Post timing - section K V000249 Post.Summary.11. Post timing - section L V000250 Post.Summary.12. Post timing - section M V000251 Post.Summary.13. Post timing - section N V000252 Post.Summary.14. Post timing - section P V000253 Post.Summary.15. Post timing - section Q V000254 Post.Summary.16. Post timing - section R V000255 Post.Summary.17. Post timing - section S V000256 Post.Summary.18. Post timing - section T V000257 Post.Summary.19. Post timing - section V V000258 Post.Summary.20. Post timing - section Y V000259 Post.Summary.21. Post timing - section Z V000260 Post.Summary.22. Wrong CD admin(preload) V000261 Post.Summary.23. Type error in preload V000262 Post.Summary.24. Flag-Post rand failure A1-A2 - CURRENT CAMPAIGN/ELECTION ------------------------------------------------------ V000301 A1. Attention R paid to campaigns V000302 A2. Does R care about Pres election A3 - LAST PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION ------------------------------------------------------ V000303 A3. Did R vote in 1996 election V000304 A3a. Who did R vote for in 1996 A4-A5 - PRES. CAND LIKES-DISLIKES ------------------------------------------------------ V000305 A4a. Does R like anything about Gore V000306 A4b(1). #1 detail about Gore R likes V000307 A4b(2). #2 detail about Gore R likes V000308 A4b(3). #3 detail about Gore R likes V000309 A4b(4). #4 detail about Gore R likes V000310 A4b(5). #5 detail about Gore R likes V000311 A4c. Does R dislike anything about Gore V000312 A4d(1). #1 detail about Gore R dislikes V000313 A4d(2). #2 detail about Gore R dislikes V000314 A4d(3). #3 detail about Gore R dislikes V000315 A4d(4). #4 detail about Gore R dislikes V000316 A4d(5). #5 detail about Gore R dislikes V000317 A5a. Does R like anything about Bush V000318 A5b(1). #1 detail about Bush R likes V000319 A5b(2). #2 detail about Bush R likes V000320 A5b(3). #3 detail about Bush R likes V000321 A5b(4). #4 detail about Bush R likes V000322 A5b(5). #5 detail about Bush R likes V000323 A5c. Does R dislike anything about Bush V000324 A5d(1). #1 detail about Bush R dislikes V000325 A5d(2). #2 detail about Bush R dislikes V000326 A5d(3). #3 detail about Bush R dislikes V000327 A5d(4). #4 detail about Bush R dislikes V000328 A5d(5). #5 detail about Bush R dislikes A6-A11 - MEDIA ------------------------------------------------------ V000329 A6. Number of days R watched nat'l news V000330 A6a/A6a.T. Attention to national news V000331 A7. Days R watched early local news V000332 A8. Days R watched late local news V000333 A8a/A8a.T. Attention to local news V000334 A9. Does R have cable or satellite tv V000335 A10. Days R read a daily newspaper V000336 A10a. Did R read about campaign in paper V000337 A10b/A10b.T. Attention to newspaper articles V000338 A11. Did R see ads for candidates on tv A12 - PRESIDENTIAL APPROVAL ------------------------------------------------------ V000339 A12. Approve/disappr Clinton job V000340 A12a. Strength of approval/disapproval of Clinton V000341 A12x. Summary app/disapp Clinton job B1-B2 - CANDIDATE RECALL ------------------------------------------------------ V000342 B1. Did R care about House election V000343 B2. Does R remember names of House cands V000344 B2a. #1 recalled name, House cand V000345 B2a1. #1 recall party, House cand V000346 B2ax1. #1 House cand recall-actual party V000347 B2ax2. #1 House cand recall- accuracy V000348 B2b. #2 recalled name, House cand V000349 B2b1. #2 recall party, House cand V000350 B2bx1. #2 House cand recall-actual party V000351 B2bx2. #2 House cand recall- accuracy V000352 B2c. #3 recalled name, House cand V000353 B2c1. #3 recall party, House cand V000354 B2cx1. #3 House cand recall-actual party V000355 B2cx2. #3 House cand recall-accuracy B3 - CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL ------------------------------------------------------ V000356 B3. Congress job approve/dissapr V000357 B3a. Strength of approval/disapproval of Cong V000358 B3x. Summary R approval of US Congress C1-C2 - THERMOMETERS ------------------------------------------------------ V000359 C1a/C1a.T. Thermometer Bill Clinton V000360 C1b/C1b.T. Thermometer Gore V000361 C1c/C1c.T. Thermometer George W Bush V000362 C1d/C1d.T. Thermometer Buchanan V000363 C1e/C1e.T. Thermometer Nader V000364 C1f/C1f.T. Thermometer Mccain V000365 C1g/C1g.T. Thermometer Bradley V000366 C1h/C1h.T. Thermometer Lieberman V000367 C1j/C1j.T. Thermometer Cheney V000368 C1k/C1k.T. Thermometer Hillary Clinton V000369 C2a. Thermometer Dem Party V000370 C2b. Thermometer Rep Party V000371 C2c. Thermometer Reform Party V000372 C2d. Thermometer parties in general D1-D4 - PARTY LIKES-DISLIKES ------------------------------------------------------ V000373 D1. Like anything- Dem Party V000374 D1a(1). #1 like Dem Party V000375 D1a(2). #2 like Dem Party V000376 D1a(3). #3 like Dem Party V000377 D1a(4). #4 like Dem Party V000378 D1a(5). #5 like Dem Party V000379 D2. Dislike anything- Dem Party V000380 D2a(1). #1 dislike Dem Party V000381 D2a(2). #2 dislike Dem Party V000382 D2a(3). #3 dislike Dem Party V000383 D2a(4). #4 dislike Dem Party V000384 D2a(5). #5 dislike Dem Party V000385 D3. Like anything- Rep Party V000386 D3a(1). #1 like Rep Party V000387 D3a(2). #2 like Rep Party V000388 D3a(3). #3 like Rep Party V000389 D3a(4). #4 like Rep Party V000390 D3a(5). #5 like Rep Party V000391 D4. Dislike anything- Rep Party V000392 D4a(1). #1 dislike Rep Party V000393 D4a(2). #2 dislike Rep Party V000394 D4a(3). #3 dislike Rep Party V000395 D4a(4). #4 dislike Rep Party V000396 D4a(5). #5 dislike Rep Party D5 - PARTY CONTROL ------------------------------------------------------ V000397 D5. Preference for divided government E1-E3 - R FINANCIAL SITUATION ------------------------------------------------------ V000398 E1/E1.T. Better/worse off in last year V000399 E1a. How much better off- last year V000400 E1b. How much worse off- last year V000401 E1x. Summary R econ situation last year V000402 E2/E2.T. Did R delay med/dent treatment V000403 E3/E3.T. Expect better/worse in next year V000404 E3a. How much better off- next year V000405 E3b. How much worse off- next year V000406 E3x. Summary R econ situation next year F1-F3 - PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE AFFECTS ------------------------------------------------------ V000407 F1a. Angry- Gore affect V000408 F1aa. Angry- how often Gore affect V000409 F1b. Hopeful- Gore affect V000410 F1bb. Hopeful- how often Gore affect V000411 F1c. Afraid- Gore affect V000412 F1cc. Afraid- how often Gore affect V000413 F1d. Proud- Gore affect V000414 F1dd. Proud- how often Gore affect V000415 F2a. Angry- Bush affect V000416 F2aa. Angry- how often Bush affect V000417 F2b. Hopeful- Bush affect V000418 F2bb. Hopeful- how often Bush affect V000419 F2c. Afraid- Bush affect V000420 F2cc. Afraid- how often Bush affect V000421 F2d. Proud- Bush affect V000422 F2dd. Proud- how often Bush affect V000423 F3a. Angry- Buchanan affect V000424 F3aa. Angry- how often Buchanan affect V000425 F3b. Hopeful- Buchanan affect V000426 F3bb. Hopeful- how often Buchanan affect V000427 F3c. Afraid- Buchanan affect V000428 F3cc. Afraid- how often Buchanan affect V000429 F3d. Proud- Buchanan affect V000430 F3dd. Proud- how often Buchanan affect F6-F9 - MOST IMPORTANT PROBLEM(S) ------------------------------------------------------ V000431 F6(1). #1 most important problem V000432 F6(2). #2 most important problem V000433 F6(3). #3 most important problem V000434 F6(4). #4 most important problem V000435 F6x. Checkpoint for # of mentions V000436 F7. Choice - most important problem V000437 F8. Gov't performance on most imp problem V000438 F9. Party performance on most imp problem G1-G10 - LIBERAL-CONSERVATIVE ------------------------------------------------------ V000439 FSR G1a. Self placement lib-con scale V000439a TSR G1a.T. Self placement lib-con scale phone V000440 SR G1ax. Summary: combined FTF/ph V000441 SR G1b. Had to choose lib-con self-placemt V000441a SR G1bx. Summary: comb FTF/phone-lib-con V000442 EB G6.E. Self placement lib-con branching V000443 EB G6a.E. Had to choose lib-con branching V000444 EB G6b.E. R strong liberal or not V000445 EB G6c.E. R strong conservative or not V000446 G6x1. Summary self plcmnt lib-con scale/brnch V000447 G6x2. Comb.7pt & branching summ ------------------------------------------------------ V000448 FSR G2. Clinton placement lib-con scale FTF V000448a TSR G2.T. Clinton plcmnt lib-con scale phone V000449 SR G2x. Combined FTF/ph Clinton lib-con V000450 EB G7.E. Clinton placement lib-con branch V000451 EB G7a.E. Clinton strong liberal or not V000452 EB G7b.E. Clinton strong conservtive or not V000453 EB G7x1.E. 5-pt br summary Clinton lib-con V000454 G7x2. Comb.7pt/br summ Clinton lib-con ------------------------------------------------------ V000455 FSR G3. Gore placement lib-con scale FTF V000455a TSR G3.T. Gore placement lib-con scale phone V000456 SR G3x. Combined FTF/ph Gore lib-con scale V000457 FSR G3a. Gore-certain lib-con placement FTF V000458 TSR G3a.T. Gore-certain lib-con plcmnt phone V000458a G3ax.T. Comb. Gore-certain lib-con plcmnt V000459 EB G8.E. Gore placement lib-con branch V000460 EB G8a.E. Gore strong liberal or not V000461 EB G8b.E. Gore strong conservative or not V000462 EB G8x1.E. 5-pt br summary Gore lib-con V000463 G8x2. Comb.7pt/br summ Gore lib-con V000464 EB G8c.E. Gore-certain lib-con placement br V000464a G8cx 7pt/branching summary Gore crtn l-c ------------------------------------------------------ V000465 FSR G4. Bush placement lib-con scale FTF V000465a TSR G4.T. Bush placement lib-con scale phone V000466 SR G4x. Combined FTF/ph Bush lib-con scale V000467 FSR G4a. Bush-certain lib-con placement FTF V000468 TSR G4a.T. Bush-certain plcmnt lib-con phone V000468a G4ax.T.Comb. Bush-certain plcmnt lib-con V000469 EB G9.E. Bush placement lib-con branch V000470 EB G9a.E. Bush strong liberal or not V000471 EB G9b.E. Bush strong conservative or not V000472 EB G9x1.E. 5-pt br summary Bush lib-con V000473 G9x2. Comb.7pt/br summ Bush lib-con V000474 EB G9c.E. Bush-certain lib-con placement br V000474a G9cx 7pt/branching summary Bush crtn l-c ------------------------------------------------------ V000475 FSR G5. Buchanan placement lib-con scale FTF V000475a TSR G5.T. Buchan plcmnt lib-con scale phon V000476 SR G5x. Combined FTF/ph Buchan lib-con scl V000477 FSR G5a. Buchan-crtn lib-con plcemnt FTF V000478 TSR G5a.T. Buchan-crtn lib-con plcemnt phone V000478a G5ax.T. Combined Buchan-certainn lib-con plcemnt V000479 EB G10.E. Buchanan placement lib-con branch V000480 EB G10a.E. Buchanan strong liberal or not V000481 EB G10b.E. Buchan strong conserv or not V000482 EB G10x1.E. 5-pt br summary Buchan lib-con V000483 G10x2. Comb.7pt/br summ Buchan lib-con V000484 EB G10c.E. Certain-Buchan plcmnt lib-con br V000484a G10cx. 7pt/branching summ Buchan l-c crt G11 - ANTICIPATED OUTCOME OF NOVEMBER ELECTION ------------------------------------------------------ V000485 G11. Who does R think will be elected V000486 G11a. Race close or not- cand named V000487 G11b. Race close or not- cand not named H1-H4 - NATIONAL ECONOMY ------------------------------------------------------ V000488a S H1. US econ bttr/worse in last year stan V000488b E H1.E. US econ bttr/worse in last year ex V000489 H1a. How much better US econ last year V000490 H1b. How much worse US econ last year V000491 H1x. Summary US econ btr/worse last year V000492a S H2. Esr/hrdr to find work last year stan V000492b E H2.E. Esr/hrdr to find work last year ex V000493 H2a. How much harder to find work lst yr V000494 H2b. How much easier to find work lst yr V000495 H2x. Summary employ opps in last year V000496a S H4. US econ bttr/worse in next year stan V000496b E H4.E. US econ bttr/worse in next year ex V000497 H4a. How much better US econ in nxt year V000498 H4b. How much worse US econ in nxt year V000499 H4x. Summary US econ in next year H5 - APPROVE PRESIDENT HANDLING OF ECONOMY ------------------------------------------------------ V000500 H5. Approve/dissap Clinton w/economy V000501 H5a. How much approve Clinton w/economy V000502 H5b. How much dissprv Clinton w/economy V000503 H5x. Summary Clinton w/economy V000504 H6. Is R invested in stock market H7-H8 - PARTY PERFORMANCE ------------------------------------------------------ V000505 H7. Which party R thinks best to handle econ V000506 H8. Which party R thinks would avoid war H9-H12 - NATION : STRENGTH, IMMIGRATION, IMPORTS, ISOLATION ------------------------------------------------------ V000507 H9. Us position in world weaker/stronger V000508 H10. Increase/decrease immigratration V000509 H10a. Inc/dec immigratn little or a lot V000510 H10x. Summary immigration level V000511a S H11. Favor/oppose import limits stan V000511b E H11.E. Favor/opp import limits ex V000512 H11x. Combined versions import limits V000513a S H12. US better off to stay at home stan V000513b E H12.E. US better off to stay at home ex V000514 H12x. Combined versions isolationism H13 - APPROVE PRESIDENT HANDLING OF FOREIGN RELATIONS ------------------------------------------------------ V000515 H13. Clinton foreign rel approve/disappr V000516 H13a. Strength appove Clinton frgn rel V000517 H13b. Strength dissapr Clinton frgn rel V000518 H13x. Summary Clinton foreign relations K1 - PARTY ID ------------------------------------------------------ V000519 K1. Does R consider self Rep Dem or Ind V000520 K1a. Is R a strong Democrat or not V000521 K1b. Is R a strong Republican or not V000522 K1c. Is R closer to Rep or Dem Party V000523 K1x. Party ID summary K2-K4 - PRES. CANDIDATE TRAITS ------------------------------------------------------ V000524 K2a. Gore trait - moral V000525 K2b. Gore trait - really cares V000526 K2c. Gore trait - knowledgeable V000527 K2d. Gore trait - strong leader V000528 K2e. Gore trait - dishonest V000529 K2f. Gore trait - intelligent V000530 K2g. Gore trait - out of touch V000531 K3a. Bush trait - moral V000532 K3b. Bush trait - really cares V000533 K3c. Bush trait - knowledgeable V000534 K3d. Bush trait - strong leader V000535 K3e. Bush trait - dishonest V000536 K3f. Bush trait - intelligent V000537 K3g. Bush trait - out of touch V000538 K4a. Buchanan trait - moral V000539 K4b. Buchanan trait - really cares V000540 K4c. Buchanan trait- knowledgeable V000541 K4d. Buchanan trait - strong leader V000542 K4e. Buchanan trait - dishonest V000543 K4f. Buchanan trait - intelligent V000544 K4g. Buchanan trait - out of touch L1 - SERVICES/SPENDING TRADEOFF ------------------------------------------------------ V000545 FR L1a. Self plcmnt-services/spend scl FTF V000546 TB L1a.T. Self plcmnt-services/spend scl phone V000547 TB L1a1.T. How much reduce serv/spend phone V000548 TB L1a2.T. How much incr serv/spend phone V000549 TB L1ax1. 5-pt br summary of self on serv/spend V000550 L1ax2. Comb.7pt/br summ of self on serv/spend ------------------------------------------------------ V000551 FR L1b. Clinton- serv/spend scale FTF V000552 TB L1b.T. Clinton- serve/spend scale phone V000553 TB L1b1.T. Clinton- how much red srv/spd ph V000554 TB L1b2.T. Clinton- how much inc srv/spd ph V000555 TB L1bx1. 5-pt br summary Clinton srv/spnd V000556 L1bx2. Comb.7pt/br summ Clinton srv/spnd ------------------------------------------------------ V000557 FR L1c. Gore- serv/spend scale FTF V000558 TB L1c.T. Gore- serv/spend scale phone V000559 TB L1c1.T. Gore- how much red serv/spend ph V000560 TB L1c2.T. Gore- how much inc serv/spend ph V000561 TB L1cx1. 5-pt br summary Gore serv/spend V000562 L1cx2. Comb.7pt/br summ Gore serv/spend ------------------------------------------------------ V000563 FR L1d. Bush- serv/spend scale FTF V000564 TB L1d.T. Bush- serv/spend scale phone V000565 TB L1d1.T. Bush- how much reduce serv/spend ph V000566 TB L1d2.T. Bush- how much increase serv/spend ph V000567 TB L1dx1. 5-pt br summary Bush serv/spend V000568 L1dx2. Comb.7pt/br summ Bush serv/spend ------------------------------------------------------ V000569 FR L1e. Dem Party- serv/spend scale FTF V000570 TB L1e.T. Dem Party- serv/spend scale phone V000571 TB L1e1.T. Dem Party-how much red srv/sp ph V000572 TB L1e2.T. Dem Party-how much inc srv/sp ph V000573 TB L1ex1. 5-pt br summary Dem Party srv/spd V000574 L1ex2. Comb.7pt/br summ Dem Party srv/sp ------------------------------------------------------ V000575 FR L1f. Rep Party- serv/spend scale FTF V000576 TB L1f.T. Rep Party- serv/spend scale phone V000577 TB L1f1.T. Rep Party-how much red srv/sp ph V000578 TB L1f2.T. Rep Party-how much inc srv/sp ph V000579 TB L1fx1. 5-pt br summary Rep Party srv/spd V000580 L1fx2. Comb.7pt/br summ Rep Party srv/sp L2 - DEFENSE SPENDING ------------------------------------------------------ V000581 FR L2a. Self plcemnt-def spending scale FTF V000582 TB L2a.T. Self plcemnt-def spending scale phone V000583 TB L2a1.T. Govt inc/dec def spending phone V000584 TB L2a1a.T. How much reduce def spending ph V000585 TB L2a1b.T. How much incres def spending ph V000586 TB L2ax1. 5-pt br summary defense spending V000587 L2ax2. Comb.7pt/br summ defense spending ------------------------------------------------------ V000588 FR L2b. Gore- defense spending scale FTF V000589 TB L2b.T. Gore- defense spending scale ph V000590 TB L2b1.T. Gore-how much red/inc def spn ph V000591 TB L2bx1. 5-pt br summary Gore def spend V000592 L2bx2. Comb.7pt/br summ Gore def spend ------------------------------------------------------ V000593 FR L2c. Bush- defense spending scale FTF V000594 TB L2c.T. Bush- defense spending scale ph V000595 TB L2c1.T. Bush-how much red/inc def spd ph V000596 TB L2cx1. 5-pt br summary Bush def spend V000597 L2cx2. Comb.7pt/br summ Bush def spend ------------------------------------------------------ V000598 FR L2d. Dem Party-def spending scale FTF V000599 TB L2d.T. Dem Party-def spend scale phone V000600 TB L2d1.T. Dem Party-how much red/inc ds ph V000601 TB L2dx1. 5-pt br summary Dem Party def sp V000602 L2dx2. Comb.7pt/br summ Dem Party def sp ------------------------------------------------------ V000603 FR L2e. Rep Party-def spending scale FTF V000604 TB L2e.T. Rep Party-def spend scale phone V000605 TB L2e1.T. Rep Party-how much inc/red ds ph V000606 TB L2ex1. 5-pt br summary Rep Party def sp V000607 L2ex2. Comb.7pt/br summ Rep Party def sp L3 - GOVERNMENT MEDICAL INSURANCE ------------------------------------------------------ V000608 L3(1). Ckpt: FTF/ph, reg/exp. V000608a FSR L3a. Self placement-private or govt insur V000608b FER L3a.E. Self placement-insur scale FTF ex V000609 FR L3ax. Comb. FTF versions R insurnc scale V000610a TSB L3a.T. Self placement-insur scale phone stan V000610b TEB L3a.TE. Self placement-insur scale phone ex V000611 TB L3ax.TE. Comb. Ph versions R insur scale V000612 TB L3a1/a2.T. Strength of insurance plan V000613 TB L3x1. 5-pt br summary R on pri/govt insurance V000614 L3x2. Comb.7pt/br summ of R on pri/govt insurance L4 - GUARANTEED JOB/STANDARD OF LIVING ------------------------------------------------------ V000615 FR L4a. R plcmnt-guar job/std liv scl FTF V000616 TB L4a.T. R plcmnt-guar job/std liv scl ph V000617 TB L4a1.T. How much should gov guar jobs V000618 TB L4a2t. How much should ppl get by on own V000619 TB L4x1. 5-pt br summary guaranteed jobs V000620 L4x2. Comb.7pt/br summ guaranteed jobs ------------------------------------------------------ V000621 FR L4b. Gore-guar job/std liv scl FTF V000622 TB L4b.T. Gore-guar job/std liv scl phone V000623 TB L4b1/b2.T. Gore-strength of guar job V000624 TB L4bx1. 5-pt br summary Gore guar job V000625 L4bx2. Comb.7pt/br summ Gore guar job ------------------------------------------------------ V000626 FR L4c. Bush-guar job/std liv scl FTF V000627 TB L4c.T. Bush-guar job/std liv scl phone V000628 TB L4c1/c2.T. Bush-strength guar job V000629 TB L4cx1. 5-pt br summary Bush guar job V000630 L4cx2. Comb.7pt/br summ Bush guar job ------------------------------------------------------ V000631 FR L4d. Dem Party-guar job/std liv scl FTF V000632 TB L4d.T. Dem Party-guar job/std liv scl ph V000633 TB L4d1/d2.T. Dem Party-strength guar job V000634 TB L4dx1. 5-pt br summary Dem Party guar jb V000635 L4dx2. Comb.7pt/br summ Dem Party gua jb ------------------------------------------------------ V000636 FR L4e. Rep Party-guar job/std liv FTF V000637 TB L4e.T. Rep Party-guar job/std liv phone V000638 TB L4e1/e2.T. Rep Party-strength guar job V000639 TB L4ex1. 5-pt br summ Rep Party guar job V000640 L4ex2. Comb.7pt/br summ Rep Party guar job L5 - AID TO BLACKS ------------------------------------------------------ V000641 FR L5a. R plcmnt-aid to blacks scale FTF V000642 TB L5a.T. R plcmnt-aid to blacks scale phone V000643 TB L5a1/a2.T. R-strength aid to blacks V000644 TB L5ax1. 5-pt br summary R aid to blacks V000645 L5ax2. Comb.7pt/br summ R aid to blacks ------------------------------------------------------ V000646 FR L5b. Clinton plcmnt-aid to blacks scale FTF V000647 TB L5b.T. Clinton-aid to blacks scale phone V000648 TB L5b1/b2.T. Clinton-strength aid to blacks V000649 TB L5bx1. 5-pt br summary Clinton aid to blacks V000650 L5bx2. Comb.7pt/br summ Clinton aid to blacks ------------------------------------------------------ V000651 FR L5c. Gore plcmnt-aid to blacks scale FTF V000652 TB L5c.T. Gore-aid to blacks scale phone V000653 TB L5c1/c2.T. Gore-strength aid to blacks V000654 TB L5cx1. 5-pt br summary Gore aid to blks V000655 L5cx2. Comb.7pt/br summ Gore aid to blks ------------------------------------------------------ V000656 FR L5d. Bush plcmnt-aid to blacks scale FTF V000657 TB L5d.T. Bush-aid to blacks scale phone V000658 TB L5d1/d2.T. Bush-strength aid to blacks V000659 TB L5dx1. 5-pt br summary Bush aid to blks V000660 L5dx2. Comb.7pt/br summ Bush aid to blks ------------------------------------------------------ V000661 FR L5e. Dem Party plcmnt-aid to blks scale FTF V000662 TB L5e.T. Dem Party-aid to blks scale phone V000663 TB L5e1/e2.T. Dem Party-strgth aid to blks V000664 TB L5ex1. 5-pt br summary Dem Party aid blks V000665 L5ex2. Comb.7pt/br summ Dem Party aid blks ------------------------------------------------------ V000666 FR L5f. Rep Party plcmnt-aid to blks scale FTF V000667 TB L5f.T. Rep Party-aid to blks scale phone V000668 TB L5f1/f2.T. Rep Party-strgth aid to blks V000669 TB L5fx1. 5-pt br summary Rep Party aid blks V000670 L5fx2. Comb.7pt/br summ Rep Party aid blks L6 - AFFIRMATIVE ACTION ------------------------------------------------------ V000671a S L6. Appr/disappr affirmative action stan V000671b E L6.E. Appr/disappr affirmative action ex V000672 L6a. Strength for affirmative action V000673 L6b. Strength against affirmative action V000674 L6x. Summary affirmative action (Standard & Experm) V000674a L6x1.Summary -strength of feeling affirmative action L7-L9 - FEDERAL BUDGET ------------------------------------------------------ V000675 L7a. Inc/dec build and repair highways V000676 L7b. Inc/dec welfare programs V000677 L7c. Inc/dec spending on aids research V000678 L7d. Inc/dec foreign aid V000679 L7e. Inc/dec food stamps V000680 L7f. Inc/dec aid to poor people V000681 L7g. Inc/dec Social Security V000682 L7h. Inc/dec environmental protection V000683 L7j. Inc/dec public schools V000684 L7k. Inc/dec dealing with crime V000685 L7m. Inc/dec child care V000686 L7n. Inc/dec against illegal immigrants V000687 L7p. Inc/dec aid to blacks V000688 L8. App/dis using surplus for tax cuts V000689 L8a/b. Strength app/dis tax cuts V000690 L8x. Summary tax cuts from surplus V000691 L9. App/dis surplus for Soc Sec medicare V000692 L9a/b. Strength app/dis Soc Sec medicare V000693 L9x. Summary surplus for Soc Sec medcare M1-M3 - ABORTION ------------------------------------------------------ V000694 M1/M1.T. Abortion self-placement V000695 M1a. Importance of abortion to R V000696 M1b/M1b.T. Gore-abortion scale V000697 M1b1. Gore-certain abortion placement V000698 M1c/M1c.T. Bush-abortion scale V000699 M1c1. Bush-certain abortion placement V000700 M2. App/dis abortion parental consent V000701 M2a. Strength abortion parental consent V000702 M2x. Summary abortion parental consent V000703 M3. Fav/oppose prtl-birth abortion ban V000704 M3a/b. Strength fav/opp p-b abortion ban V000705 M3x. Summary partial-birth abortion ban M4 - PROTECT ENVIRONMENT ------------------------------------------------------ V000706 M4. Ckpt: FTF/ph, reg/exp. V000707a FSR M4a. R-jobs/envir scale FTF stan V000707b FER M4a.E. R-jobs/envir scale FTF ex V000708 FR M4ax. Comb. FTF versions jobs/envir V000709a TSB M4a.T. R-jobs/envir br phone stan V000709b TEB M4a.TE. R-jobs/envir phone ex V000710 TB M4ax.T. Comb. Ph versions jobs/envir V000711 TB M4a1/a2.T. Strength jobs/envir V000712 TB M4a1x1. 5-pt br summary jobs/envir V000713 M4a1x2. Comb.7pt/br summ jobs/envir ------------------------------------------------------ V000714 FR M4b. Gore-jobs/envir scale FTF V000715 TB M4b.T. Gore-jobs/envir scale phone V000716 TB M4b1/b2.T. Gore-strength jobs/envir V000717 TB M4bx1. 5-pt br summary jobs/envir V000718 M4bx2. Comb.7pt/br summ Gore jobs/envir ------------------------------------------------------ V000719 FR M4c. Bush-jobs/envir scale FTF V000720 TB M4c.T. Bush-jobs/envir scale phone V000721 TB M4c1/c2.T. Bush-strength jobs/envir V000722 TB M4cx1. 5-pt br summary Bush jobs/envir V000723 M4cx2. Comb.7pt/br summ Bush jobs/envir M5 - HOMOSEXUALS IN THE ARMED FORCES ------------------------------------------------------ V000724 M5. Fav/oppose homosexuals in military V000725 M5a. Strngth fav homosexuals in military V000726 M5b. Strngth opp homosexuals in military V000727 M5x. Summary homosexuals in military M6 - GUN CONTROL ------------------------------------------------------ V000728 M6a. R-gun control scale V000729 M6a1. R-strength more gun control V000730 M6a2. R-strength less gun control V000731 M6ax. Summary gun control V000732 M6a3. R-importance of gun control V000733 M6b. Gore plcmnt-gun control scale V000734 M6b1/b2. Gore-strength more/less gun ctl V000735 M6bx. Summary Gore gun control V000736 M6b3. Gore-certain gun control placement V000737 M6c. Bush plcmnt-gun control scale V000738 M6c1/c2. Bush-strength more/less gun ctl V000739 M6cx. Summary Bush gun control V000740 M6c3. Bush-certain gun control placement N1 - SCHOOL VOUCHERS ------------------------------------------------------ V000741a S N1. Fav/opp school voucher program stan V000741b E N1.E. Fav/opp school voucher program ex V000742 N1x. Combined versions school vouchers V000743 N1a/b. Strength fav/opp school vouchers V000744 N1ax. Summary school vouchers N2 - ENGLISH AS OFFICIAL LANGUAGE ------------------------------------------------------ V000745 N2. R fav/opp English official language N3 - SCHOOL INTEGRATION ------------------------------------------------------ V000746 N3. R interest in school integration V000747 N3a. Fav/opp gov help school integration N4 - ADOPTION BY HOMOSEXUALS ------------------------------------------------------ V000748 N4. Fav/opp h-sexual couples adopt chldn N5 - DEATH PENALTY ------------------------------------------------------ V000749 N5. Fav/opp death penalty V000750 N5a. How much favor death penalty V000751 N5b. How much oppose death penalty V000752 N5x. Summary R position on death penalty P1 - WOMEN'S ROLE ------------------------------------------------------ V000753 P1. Ckpt: FTF/ph, reg/exp. V000754a FSR P1a. R plcmnt equal role scale FTF V000754b FER P1a.E. R plcmnt equal role scale V000755 FR P1ax. Comb. FTF versions R equal role sc V000756a TSB P1a.T. R equal role branch stan V000756b TEB P1a.TE. R equal role branch ex V000757 TB P1ax.T. Comb. Ph. Versions R eql role br V000758 TB P1a1/a2.T. R strength equal roles V000759 TB P1a1x1. 5-pt br summary R equal role V000760 P1a1x2. Comb.7pt/br summ R equal role ------------------------------------------------------ V000761 FR P1b. Gore-equal role scale FTF V000762 TB P1b.T. Gore-equal role scale phone V000763 TB P1b1/b2.T. Gore-strength equal role V000764 TB P1bx1. 5-pt br summary Gore equal role V000765 P1bx2. Comb.7pt/br summ Gore equal role ------------------------------------------------------ V000766 FR P1c. Bush-equal role scale FTF V000767 TB P1c.T. Bush-equal role scale phone V000768 TB P1c1/c2.T. Bush-strength equal role V000769 TB P1cx1. 5-pt br summary Bush equal role V000770 P1cx2. Comb.7pt/br summ Bush equal role P2 - ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION ------------------------------------------------------ V000771 FR P2a. self placmnt-envir regulation scale V000772 TB P2a.T. R-envir regulation branch V000773 TB P2a1.T. How much tougher regulation V000774 TB P2a2.T. How much are regulatns a burden V000775 TB P2ax1. 5-pt br summary R envir regul V000776 P2ax2. Comb.7pt/br summ R envir regul V000777 P2aa. How important is envir regulation ------------------------------------------------------ V000778 FR P2b. Gore placmnt-envir regulation scale V000779 TB P2b.T. Gore-envir regulation branch V000780 TB P2b1.T. Gore-strength tougher regulation V000781 TB P2b2.T. Gore-strength regulation burden V000782 TB P2bx1. 5-pt br summary Gore envir regul V000783 P2bx2. Comb.7pt/br summ Gore envir regul V000784 P2bb. Gore-certain envir regulation ------------------------------------------------------ V000785 FR P2c. Bush placemnt-envir regulation scale V000786 TB P2c.T. Bush-envir regulation branch V000787 TB P2c1.T. Bush-strength tougher regulation V000788 TB P2c2.T. Bush-strength regulation burden V000789 TB P2cx1. 5-pt br summary Bush envir regul V000790 P2cx2. Comb.7pt/br summ Bush envir regul V000791 P2cc. Bush-certain envir regulation P3 - TURNOUT/VOTE INTENT ----------------------------------------------------- V000792 P3. R expect to vote in Nov election V000793 P3a. Who will R vote for President V000794 P3b. Strength of preference for candidate V000795 P3c. If R voted, who would R vote for President V000796 P3d. Strength of preference for candidate P4-P5 - ANTICIPATED PARTY CONTROL AFTER ELECTION ---------------------------------------------------- V000797 P4. Which party will control the House V000798 P5. Which party will control the Senate P6-P7 - FAIR AND PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT FOR BLACKS ---------------------------------------------------- V000799 P6. Interest in fair treatment in jobs V000800 P6a. Govt should ensure Blacks equ trtment in jobs V000801 P6a1. Strength blacks equal trtmnt jobs V000802 P6x. Summary blacks equal treatment jobs V000803 P7. Preferences for blacks in jobs V000804 P7a. Strength for preference blks jobs V000805 P7b. Strength against preference blks jobs V000806 P7x. Summary preference for blacks jobs Q1-Q11 - CLINTON LEGACY (Rs were asked Clinton Legacy in either pre or post). For full sample see variables 1529a, 1595a, 1599a, 1603a, 1608a, 1612a 1616a, 1620a, 1624a, & 1628a.) ---------------------------------------------------- V000807 Q1. Budget deficit lg/sm since 1992 V000808 Q1a. Deficit much/somewhat smaller V000809 Q1b. Deficit much/somewhat larger V000810 Q1x. Summary budget deficit since 1992 V000811 Q2. Spending on poor inc/dec since 1992 V000812 Q2a. How much inc/dec aid to poor V000813 Q2x. Summary assistance to poor V000814 Q3. Economy better/worse compared to 1992 V000815 Q3a. Economy much/somewhat better V000816 Q3b. Economy much/somewhat worse V000817 Q3x. Summary economy since 1992 V000818 Q4. Clinton made economy better/worse V000819 Q4a. Clinton made econ much/somewhat better V000820 Q4b. Clinton made econ much/somewhat worse V000821 Q4x. Summary Clinton effect on US econ V000822 Q5. Clinton admin hurt/help R personally V000823 Q6. U.S. more/less secure since 1992 V000824 Q6a. U.S. much more secure from enemies V000825 Q6b. U.S much less secure from enemies V000826 Q6x. Summary US secure from for enemies V000827 Q7. Clinton made U.S. more/less secure V000828 Q7a. Clinton made U.S. much/smwhat more secure V000829 Q7b. Clinton made U.S. much/smwhat less secure V000830 Q7x. Summ- Clinton impact on U.S. security V000831 Q8. U.S. crime rate better/worse since 1992 V000832 Q8a. U.S. crime rate much or smwhat better V000833 Q8b. U.S. crime rate much or smwhat worse V000834 Q8x. Summary - U.S. crime rate since 1992 V000835 Q9. Clinton made crime rate better/worse V000836 Q9a. Clinton made crime rate much/smwhat btr V000837 Q9b. Clinton made crime rate much/smwhat wrse V000838 Q9x. Summary - Clinton impact on crime rate V000839 Q10. Moral climate btr/worse since 1992 V000840 Q10a.Moral climate much/smwhat better V000841 Q10b.Moral climate much/smwhat worse V000842 Q10x. Summary moral climate since 1992 V000843 Q11. Clinton made moral climate btr/worse V000844 Q11a.Clinton made moral climate much/swht btr V000845 Q11b.Clinton made moral climate much/swht wrse V000846 Q11x. Summary - Clinton impact on moral climate Q14 - CLINTON AFFECTS (Rs were asked Clinton Affects in either pre or post. For full sample see variables 1629a, 1630a, 1631a, 1632a, 1633a, 1634a 1635a, 1636a.) ---------------------------------------------------- V000847 Q14a. Angry- Clinton affect V000848 Q14a1. Angry- how oft Clinton affect V000849 Q14b. Hopeful- Clinton affect V000850 Q14b1. Hopeful- how oft Clinton affect V000851 Q14c. Afraid- Clinton affect V000852 Q14c1. Afraid- how often Clinton affect V000853 Q14d. Proud- Clinton affect V000854 Q14d1. Proud- how oft Clinton affect Q15 - CLINTON TRAITS ---------------------------------------------------- V000855 Q15a/Q15a.T. Clinton trait-moral V000856 Q15b/Q15b.T. Clinton trait-really cares V000857 Q15c/Q15c.T. Clinton trait-knowledgeable V000858 Q15d/Q15d.T. Clinton trait-strong leader V000859 Q15e/Q15e.T. Clitnon trait-dishonest V000860 Q15f/Q15f.T. Clinton trait-intelligent V000861 Q15g/Q15g.T. Clinton trait-out of touch R1-R3 - OPINIONS AND COMPLEX DECISIONS ---------------------------------------------------- V000862 R1. How opinionated is R V000863 R1a. Fewer or more opinions than avg V000864 R1a1. How much more opinions than avg V000865 R1a2. More much fewer opinions than avg V000866 R1x. Summary degree R opinionated V000867 R2. Does R like respnsbty for thinking V000868 R2a. How much like respnbty for thinking V000869 R2b. How much dislike rsbty for thinking V000870 R2x. Summary like/dislike thinking V000871 R3. Like simple or complex problems S1-S5 - RELIGIOSITY ---------------------------------------------------- V000872 S1. Is religion important to R V000873 S2. How much guidance from religion V000874 S3/S3.T. How often does R pray V000875 S4/S4.T. How often does R read the bible V000876 S5/S5.T. Bible is word of God or men X1-X9 - RELIGIOUS IDENTIFICATION ---------------------------------------------------- V000877 X1. Attend religious services V000878 X1a. Part of a church or denomination V000879 X2. Attend religious services how often V000880 X2a. Attend relig serv > once/week V000881 X3. Attend church checkpoint V000882 X3a. Attend protestant/Cath/Jewish/other V000883 X3b. Belong protestant/Cath/Jewish/other V000884 X4. Denomination/other specify V000885 X4(1). (blanked) denomination other V000886 X4a. Baptist group V000887 X4b. Independent Baptist group V000888 X4c. Lutheran group V000889 X4d. Methodist group V000890 X4e. Presbyterian group V000891 X4f. Reformed group V000892 X4g. Brethren group V000893 X4h. Christian group V000894 X4i. Church of Christ group V000895 X4j. Church of God group V000896 X4k. (blanked) holiness/pentacostal V000897 X4a-j. (blanked) other V000898 X4m. (blanked) other group/denomination V000899 X4m1. Is other group christian V000900 X6a. Attend Jewish group V000901 X6b. Jewish denomination V000902 X7. Member place of worship V000903 X8. Born-again christian V000904 X9x. Religion summary Y1-Y31A - DEMOGRAPHICS ---------------------------------------------------- V000905 Y1(1). Month of birth V000906 Y1(2). Day of birth (blanked) V000907 Y1(3). Year of birth V000908 Y1x. Respondent age V000909 Y2. Marital status V000910 Y3. Highest grade completed V000911 Y3a. Diploma/GED V000912 Y3b. Highest degree earned V000913 Y3x. R educ summary V000914 Y4. Highest grade of partner V000915 Y4a. Partner diploma/GED V000916 Y4b. Partner highest degree V000917 Y4x. Sp educ. Summary V000918 Y6(1). Assigned employment status V000919 Y6(2). 2 digit employment status V000920 Y6(3). 1 digit employment status V000921 Y9. R unemp: ever worked for pay V000922 Y10a(1). 2-digit occup V000922a Y10a(2). 3-digit occup (blanked) V000923 Y10a(3). 1-digit occup summary V000924 Y10a(4). Prestige code (blanked) V000925 Y10b. R unemp: past industry code V000926 Y10c. R unemp: past self employed V000927 Y10d. R unemp: past employed by govt V000928 Y10e. R unemp: work last 6 months V000929 Y10f. R unemp: hrs/wk 6 months V000930 Y10g. R unemp: looking for work now V000931 Y10h. R unemp: worry about find job V000932 Y11(1). Retired: month of retirement V000933 Y11(2). Retired: year of retirement V000934 Y12a(1). 2-digit occup retired V000934a Y12a(2). 3-digit occup (blanked) retired V000935 Y12a(3). 1-digit occup summary retired V000936 Y12a(4). Prestige code (blanked) retired V000937 Y12b. R ret: industry code V000938 Y12c. R ret: self employed V000939 Y12d. R ret: employed by govt V000940 Y12e. R ret: work last 6 months V000941 Y12f. R ret: hours/wk work 6 months V000942 Y12g. R ret: working for pay V000943 Y12h. R ret: looking for work now V000944 Y12j. R ret: worry about finding job V000945 Y13. R disabled: ever worked for pay V000946 Y14a(1). 2-digit occup disabled V000946a Y14a(2). 3-digit occup (blanked) disable V000947 Y14a(3). 1-digit occup summary disabled V000948 Y14a(4). Prestige code (blanked) disable V000949 Y14b. R dis: industry code V000950 Y14c. R dis: self employed V000951 Y14d. R dis: work for govt V000952 Y14e. R dis: work last 6 months V000953 Y14f. R dis: hours/wk work 6 mnths V000954 Y14g. R dis: working for pay now V000955 Y14h. R dis: looking for work now V000956 Y14j. R dis: worry about finding job V000957 Y15. Homemaker/student: work for pay V000958 Y15a. Hmk/stu: work last 6 mon V000959 Y16a(1). 2-digit occup hmk/stu V000959a Y16a(2). 3-digit occup (blanked) hmk/stu V000960 Y16a(3). 1-digit occup summary hmk/stu V000961 Y16a(4). Prestige code (blanked) hmk/stu V000962 Y16b. Hmk/stu: industry code V000963 Y16c. Hmk/stu: self employed V000964 Y16d. Hmk/stu: worked for govt V000965 Y16f. Hmk/stu: hrs/wk wrk last 6 months V000966 Y16h. Hmk/stu: looking for work V000967 Y16j. Hmk/stu: worry about finding job V000968 Y7a(1). 2-digit occup R work now V000968a Y7a(2). 3-digit occup (blanked) R wk now V000969 Y7a(3). 1-digit occup summary R work now V000970 Y7a(4). Prestige code (blanked) R wk now V000971 Y7b. Work now/TLO: industry code V000972 Y7c. Work now/TLO: self employed V000973 Y7d. Work now/TLO: work for govt V000974 Y7e. Work now/TLO: hours work V000975 Y7f. Work now/TLO: work hours right V000976 Y7g. Work now/TLO: worry lose job V000977 Y7h. Work now: out work/layoff last 6mo V000978 Y7j. Work now: reduction in hrs/pay V000979 Y17(1). Stacked - 2 digit occup V000979a Y17(1a). Stacked - 3 dig occup (blanked) V000980 Y17(2). Stacked - 1 digit occup V000981 Y17(3). Stacked - occ prestige (blanked) V000982 Y17(4). Stacked - industry V000983 Y17(5). Stacked - work for self V000984 Y17(6). Stacked - employed by govt V000985 Y17(7). Stacked - hours per week V000986 Y17(8). Stacked - worr abt los/find job V000987 Y17(9). Stacked - job in past 6 mos. V000988 Y17(10). Stacked - looking for work V000989 Y17(11). Stacked - ever work for pay V000990 Y25. Anyone in HH belong to union V000991a Y25a1. Who belongs to union #1 V000991b Y25a2. Who belongs to union #2 V000991c Y25a3. Who belongs to union #3 V000992 Y26. IWR chkpt: # of Persons age 14+ V000993 Y27/Y27.T. HH income - others in HH 14+ V000994 Y27x. HH income -all HHs V000995 Y27a/Y27a.T. R income - others in HH 14+ V000996 Y28/Y28.T. R income - only HH member 14+ V000997 Y28x. R income -all HHs V000998 Y29. Ever think of self as wrk/mid class V000999 Y29a. Which one (workng or middle class) V001000 Y29b. If had to choose class V001001 Y29c. Middle class- avg or upper V001002 Y29d. Middle class - feel close to class V001003 Y29e. Working class - avg or upper V001004 Y29f. Working class -feel close to class V001005 Y29x. Soc.class summary V001006a Y30(1). Racial group #1 self-description V001006b Y30(2). Racial group #2 self-description V001006c Y30(3). Racial group #3 self-description V001007 Y30a. Both parents born in U.S.? V001008 Y30b(1). Ethnic/nationality group #1 V001009 Y30b(2). Ethnic/nationality group #2 V001010 Y30bx. IWR ckpt: >2 ethnic mentions? V001010a Y30bx2. Number of ethnic groups mentioned V001011 Y30c. Choice of ethnic/nationality group V001012 Y30x/Y31. Spanish or Hispanic descent V001013 Y31a/Y31a.T. Category of Hispanic descnt Z1-Z9 - ADDITIONAL DEMOGRAPHICS ---------------------------------------------------- V001014 Z1. Where R grew up-ICPSR st/cntry code V001015 F Z2. FTF- urbanicity where grew up V001016 TB Z2.T. Phone -urbanicity where grew up V001017 T Z2a. Phone -urbanicity where grew up V001018 T Z2b. Phone - urbanicity where grew up V001019 Z2x. Comb. Summary where R grew up V001020a Z3(1). Mos. -how long lived in community V001020b Z3(2). Yrs. -how long lived in community V001020c Z3x. Summ. - how long lived in community V001021a Z4(1)/Z4(1).T. Mos.-length resid in home V001021b Z4(2)/Z4(1).T. Yrs.-length resid in home V001021c Z4x. Summ. - length residence in home V001022 Z5. Does R family own/rent home V001023 Z8. Does R have children V001024 Z8a. How many children R has under 18 V001025 Z8b. R's children under 18 living w/R V001026a Z8c(1). Mention 1 minor child age V001026b Z8c(2). Mention 2 minor child age V001026c Z8c(3). Mention 3 minor child age V001026d Z8c(4). Mention 4 minor child age V001026e Z8c(5). Mention 5 minor child age V001026f Z8c(6). Mention 6 minor child age V001026g Z8c(7). Mention 7 minor child age V001026h Z8c(8). Mention 8 minor child age V001027 Z9. How many miles R drives per day ZZ1-ZZ11 - PRE INTERVIEWER OBSERVATION ---------------------------------------------------- V001028 ZZ0. Education estimate if missed in IW V001029 ZZ1. IWR obs: R gender V001030 F ZZ2. FTF IWR obs: R race V001031a F ZZ3(1). FTF: #1 others present during IW V001031b F ZZ3(2). FTF: #2 others present during IW V001031c F ZZ3(3). FTF: #3 others present during IW V001031d F ZZ3(4). FTF: #4 others present during IW V001031e F ZZ3(5). FTF: #5 others present during IW V001032 ZZ4. IWR obs: R cooperation V001033 ZZ5. IWR obs: R informed about politics V001034 ZZ6. IWR obs: R intelligence V001035 ZZ7. IWR obs: R suspicious V001036 ZZ8. IWR obs: R interest in IW V001037 ZZ9. IWR obs: R sincerity V001038 ZZ9a. IWR: obs: insincere in what part(blanked) V001039 F ZZ10. IWR obs: R report income correctly V001040 F ZZ10a. IWR obs: est income -surv inc off V001041a ZZ11(1). Mention 1 - R reaction to IW V001041b ZZ11(2). Mention 2 - R reaction to IW V001041c ZZ11(3). Mention 3 - R reaction to IW V001041d ZZ11(4). Mention 4 - R reaction to IW V001041e ZZ11(5). Mention 5 - R reaction to IW V001041f ZZ11(6). Mention 6 - R reaction to IW V001041g ZZ11(7). Mention 7 - R reaction to IW V001041h ZZ11(8). Mention 8 - R reaction to IW V001041j ZZ11(9). Mention 9 - R reaction to IW PRE RANDOMIZATION DESCRIPTIONS ---------------------------------------------------- V001042 Pre.Rand.A4/A5. Order-Gore,GWB lik/dis V001043 Pre.Rand.C1b. Pos-Gore in therms V001044 Pre.Rand.C1c. Pos-GW Bush in therms V001045 Pre.Rand.C1d. Pos-Buchanan in therms V001046 Pre.Rand.C1e. Pos-Nader in thermoms V001047 Pre.Rand.C1f/g. Pos-Mccain, Bradley ther V001048 Pre.Rand.C1h/k. Pos-Cheney,Liebermn ther V001049 Pre.Rand.C2. Order-parties in therms V001050 Pre.Rand.D1/D3. Order-parties in lik/dis V001051 Pre.Rand.F1-F3. Order-Gore, GWB, Buchn V001052 Pre.Rand.F1a. Pos-angry -Gore affects V001053 Pre.Rand.F1b. Pos-hopeful -Gore affects V001054 Pre.Rand.F1c. Pos-afraid -Gore affects V001055 Pre.Rand.F1d. Pos-proud -Gore affects V001056 Pre.Rand.F2a. Pos-angry -GW Bush affects V001057 Pre.Rand.F2b. Pos-hopeful -GWB affects V001058 Pre.Rand.F2c. Pos-afraid -GWB affects V001059 Pre.Rand.F2d. Pos-proud -GWB affects V001060 Pre.Rand.F3a. Pos-angry -Buchnn affects V001061 Pre.Rand.F3b. Pos-hopeful -Buchnn affcts V001062 Pre.Rand.F3c. Pos-afraid -Buchnn affcts V001063 Pre.Rand.F3d. Pos-proud -Buchnn affcts V001064 Pre.Rand.G3-G5. Ord-Gore,GWB,Buch lib/con V001065 Pre.Rand.G8-G10.E. Ord-Gore,GWB,Buch lib/c V001066 Pre.Rand.K2-K4. Ord-Gore,GWB,Buch traits V001067 Pre.Rand.K2a. Order-moral -Gore traits V001068 Pre.Rand.K2b. Order-cares -Gore traits V001069 Pre.Rand.K2c. Order-knowldg -Gore traits V001070 Pre.Rand.K2d. Order-leader -Gore traits V001071 Pre.Rand.K2e. Order-dishon -Gore traits V001072 Pre.Rand.K2f. Order-intell -Gore traits V001073 Pre.Rand.K2g. Ord-out touch -Gore traits V001074 Pre.Rand.K3a. Order-moral -GWB traits V001075 Pre.Rand.K3b. Order-cares -GWB traits V001076 Pre.Rand.K3c. Order-knowldg -GWB traits V001077 Pre.Rand.K3d. Order-leader -GWB traits V001078 Pre.Rand.K3e. Order-dishon -GWB traits V001079 Pre.Rand.K3f. Order-intell -GWB traits V001080 Pre.Rand.K3g. Ord-out touch -GWB traits V001081 Pre.Rand.K4a. Ord-moral -Buchanan traits V001082 Pre.Rand.K4b. Ord-cares -Buchanan traits V001083 Pre.Rand.K4c. Ord-knowl -Buchanan traits V001084 Pre.Rand.K4d. Ord-leader -Buchann traits V001085 Pre.Rand.K4e. Ord-dishon -Buchann traits V001086 Pre.Rand.K4f. Ord-intell -Buchann traits V001087 Pre.Rand.K4g. Ord-out touch-Buchnn traits V001088 Pre.Rand.L1c/L1d. Order-Gore,GWB serv/sp V001089 Pre.Rand.L1e/L1f. Order-Gore,GWB serv/sp V001090 Pre.Rand.L2b/L2c. Order-Gore,GWB def sp V001091 Pre.Rand.L2d/L2e. Order-parties defse sp V001092 Pre.Rand.L4b/L4c. Order-Gore,GWB guarjob V001093 Pre.Rand.L4d/L4e. Order-parties guar job V001094 Pre.Rand.L5c/L5d. Ord-Gore,GWB aid blcks V001095 Pre.Rand.L5e/L5f. Order-parties aid blks V001096 Pre.Rand.L7b. Order-welfare -fed spendng V001097 Pre.Rand.L7c. Order-aids resch-fed spend V001098 Pre.Rand.L7d. Order-forgn aid -fed spend V001099 Pre.Rand.L7e. Order-food stps -fed spend V001100 Pre.Rand.L7f. Order-aid poor -fed spend V001101 Pre.Rand.L7g. Order-soc sec -fed spend V001102 Pre.Rand.L7h. Ord-env protect -fed spend V001103 Pre.Rand.L7j. Ord-publ schls -fed spend V001104 Pre.Rand.L7k. Ord-deal w/crime-fed spend V001105 Pre.Rand.L7m. Order-child care-fed spend V001106 Pre.Rand.L7n. Order-border sec-fed spend V001107 Pre.Rand.L7p. Order-aid blacks-fed spend V001108 Pre.Rand.M1b/M1c. Ord-Gore-GWB abortion V001109 Pre.Rand.M4b/M4c. Ord-Gore-envir/jobs V001110 Pre.Rand.M6b/M6c. Ord-Gore-gun restrictn V001111 Pre.Rand.P1b/P1c. Ord-Gore-women's role V001112 Pre.Rand.P2b/P2c. Ord-Gore-envir reg V001113 Pre.Rand.Q14a. Ord-angry-Clinton affcts V001114 Pre.Rand.Q14b. Ord-hopeful-Clinton affcts V001115 Pre.Rand.Q14c. Ord-afraid -Clinton affcts V001116 Pre.Rand.Q14d. Ord-proud-Clinton affcts V001117 Pre.Rand.Q15a. Ord-moral-Clinton traits V001118 Pre.Rand.Q15b. Ord-cares-Clinton traits V001119 Pre.Rand.Q15c. Ord-knowl-Clinton traits V001120 Pre.Rand.Q15d. Ord-leader-Clinton traits V001121 Pre.Rand.Q15e. Ord-dishon-Clinton traits V001122 Pre.Rand.Q15f. Ord-intell-Clinton traits V001123 Pre.Rand.Q15g. Ord-out touch-Clint trait A1-A4 - CURRENT CAMPAIGN AND POLITICS ---------------------------------------------------- V001201 A1. R interest in campaigns V001202 A2. R watched programs about campaign V001203 A2a. How many programs R watched about campaign V001204 A3. Does R ever discuss politics V001205 A3a. How often does R discuss politics V001206 A4. Does R recall names of House candidates V001207 A4a1. Hse name recall 1 - cand code V001208 A4b1. Hse party recall 1 V001209 A4(1)x1. Actual party of recall 1 V001210 A4(2)x2. Accuracy of recall 1 V001211 A4a2. Hse name recall 2 - cand code V001212 A4b2. Hse party recall 2 V001213 A4(2)x1. Actual party of recall 2 V001214 A4(2)x2. Accuracy of recall 2 V001215 A4a3. Hse name recall 3 - cand code V001216 A4b3. Hse party recall 3 V001217 A4(3)x1. Actual party of recall 3 V001218 A4(3)x2. Accuracy of recall 3 B1-B12 - PARTICIPATION, CONTRIBUTIONS ---------------------------------------------------- V001219 B1. Party talked to R about campaign V001220 B1a. Party that spoke to R about campgn V001221 B1b. Anyone else talk to R about cands V001222 B1c. Party send R mail about campaign V001223 B1c1. Party that sent mail about campaign V001224 B1d. Anyone else send mail about campaign V001225 B2. Did R try to influence vote of others V001226 B3. Did R display button/sticker/sign V001227 B4. Did R go to meetings/rallies etc. V001228 B5. Did R do any other campaign work V001229 B6. Did R contribute to candidate V001230 B6a. Party of candidate - R contribution V001231 B7. Did R give money to party V001232 B7a. Party - R contribution V001233 B8. Did R give to group for/against candidate V001234 B9. Did anyone talk to R about registering or voting V001235 B10. Did moral/relig groups discuss cmpaign w/R V001236 B11. Clergy provide election information V001237 B12. Did clergy encourage R to vote for cand or prty V001238 B12a1. Clergy endorsement 1 V001239 B12a2. Clergy endorsement 2 V001240 B12a3. Clergy endorsement 3 C1-C4 - TURNOUT, REGISTRATION ---------------------------------------------------- V001241 C1. Did R vote V001242 C2. Was R registered V001243 C3. Registered in county of IW? V001244 C3a1. State of registration V001244a C3a2. County of registration (blank) V001245 C4. Did R vote on election day or before V001246 C4a. How long before election did R vote V001247 C4b. Did R vote in person or absentee C5-C8- VOTE FOR PRESIDENT ---------------------------------------------------- V001248 C5. Did R vote for President? V001249 C6. R vote cast for President V001250 C6a. How strong R support Pres cand V001251 C7. Timing of Pres vote decision V001252a C8(1). If R cld have cast more than one vote -1st V001252b C8(2). If R cld have cast more than one vote -2nd V001252c C8(3). If R cld have cast more than one vote -3rd VOTE FOR CONGRESS ---------------------------------------------------- V001253a C9(1). Hse ckpt: vote in/out county V001253b C9(2). Hse ckpt: order of Dem/Rep names V001254 C9a/C11a.T. In-county: vote for House? V001255 C9b(1)/C11bx1.T. In-county House vote V001256 C9b/(2)/C11bx2.T. In-Hse vote-cand code V001257 C9b(3)/C11bx.T. In-House vote - party V001258 C10a/C12a.T. Out-county: vote for House? V001259 C10b1/C12b1.T. Out- House vote - cand code V001260 C10b2/C12b2.T. Out- House vote - party V001261 C10c/C12c.T. Out- party ment of Hse vote V001262 C10x1/C12x1.T. Summ- Hose vote cand code V001263 C10x2/C12x2.T. Summary- House vote party VOTE FOR SENATE ---------------------------------------------------- V001264 C13(1). Sen ckpt: vote in/out county V001265 C13(2). Sen ckpt: order of Dem/Rep names V001266 C13a/C15a.T. In-county: vote for Senate? V001267 C13b1/C15bx1.T. In county - Senate vote V001268 C13b2/C15bx2.T. In county -Sen vote - cand code V001269 C13b3/C15bx3.T. In county- Sen vote - party V001270 C14a/C16a.T. Out-county:vote for Senate? V001271 C14b1/C16b1.T. Out of county - Sen vote -cand code V001272 C14b2/C16b2.T. Out of county - Senate vote party V001273 C14c/C16c.T. Out of county- party of Sen vote V001274 C14x1/C16x1.T. Summ- Sen vote - cand code V001275 C14x2/C16x2.T. Summary- Sen vote - party NONVOTER PREFERENCES FOR HOUSE, SENATE ---------------------------------------------------- V001276 C17. Nonvoter - prefer any Pres cand? V001277 C17a. Nonvoter- Pres cand preferred V001278 C17b. Nonvoter-strength Pres cand pref V001279 C18/C18.T. Nonvoter-prefer Hse cand? V001280 C18a/C18a.T. Nonvoter-Hse cand pref V001281 C18a1/C18a1.T.Nonvotr-Hse cand pref code V001282 C18a2/C18a2.T.Nonvoter-Hse cand pref pty V001283 C19a/C19.T. Nonvoter-pref Senate cand? V001284 C19b/C19a.T. Nonvoter-Sen cand pref V001285 C19b1/C19a1.T. Nonvotr-Sen cand pref code V001286 C19b2/C19a2.T. Nonvoter-Sen cand pref pty V001287 (Blank) V001288 (Blank) V001289 (Blank) V001290 (Blank) C20 - FAIRNESS OF PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION ---------------------------------------------------- V001291 C20. How fair was November election D1-D2 - THERMOMETERS ---------------------------------------------------- V001292 D1a/D1a.T. Thermometer Clinton V001293 D1b/D1b.T. Thermometer Gore V001294 D1c/D1c.T. Thermometer GW Bush V001295 D1d/D1d.T. Thermometer Nader V001296 D1e/D1e.T. Thermometer Jesse Jackson V001297 D1f/D1f.T. Thermometer former Pres Bush V001298 D1g/D1g.T. Thermometer Dem House cand V001299 D1h/D1h.T. Thermometer Rep House cand V001300 D1j/D1j.T. Thermometer retiring Hse rep V001300a D1jx. Checkpt:Hse retiree also Sen cand? V001301 D1k/D1k.T. Thermometer Dem Senate cand V001302 D1m/D1m.T. Thermometer Rep Senate cand V001303 D1n/D1n.T. Thermometer Ind House cand V001303a D1nx. Checkpoint: VT01 or VA05 V001304 D2a. Thermometer supreme court V001305 D2b. Thermometer Congress V001306 D2c. Thermometer military V001307 D2d. Thermometer federal govt in Wash DC V001308 D2e. Thermometer blacks V001309 D2f. Thermometer whites V001310 D2g. Thermometer conservatives V001311 D2h. Thermometer liberals V001312 D2j. Thermometer labor unions V001313 D2k. Thermometer big business V001314 D2m. Thermometer poor people V001315 D2n. Thermometer people on welfare V001316 D2p. Thermometer Hispanics V001317 D2q. Thermometer Chrstn Fundamentalists V001318 D2r. Thermometer women's movement V001319 D2s. Thermometer older people V001320 D2t. Thermometer environmentalists V001321 D2u. Thermometer homosexuals V001322 D2v. Thermometer Christian Coalition V001323 D2w. Thermometer Catholics V001324 D2x. Thermometer Jews V001325 D2xx. Thermometer Protestants V001326 D2y. Thermometer feminists V001327 D2z. Thermometer Asian-americans E1-E4 - HOUSE CANDIDATE LIKES/DISLIKES ---------------------------------------------------- V001328 E1. Like anything- Dem House cand V001329 E1a(1). #1 like Dem House candidate V001330 E1a(2). #2 like Dem House candidate V001331 E1a(3). #3 like Dem House candidate V001332 E1a(4). #4 like Dem House candidate V001333 E1a(5). #5 like Dem House candidate V001334 E2. Dislike anything- Dem House cand V001335 E2a(1). #1 dislike Dem House candidate V001336 E2a(2). #2 dislike Dem House candidate V001337 E2a(3). #3 dislike Dem House candidate V001338 E2a(4). #4 dislike Dem House candidate V001339 E2a(5). #5 dislike Dem House candidate V001340 E3. Like anything- Repub House cand V001341 E3a(1). #1 like Repub House candidate V001342 E3a(2). #2 like Repub House candidate V001343 E3a(3). #3 like Repub House candidate V001344 E3a(4). #4 like Repub House candidate V001345 E3a(5). #5 like Repub House candidate V001346 E4. Dislike anything- Repub House cand V001347 E4a(1). #1 dislike Repub House candidate V001348 E4a(2). #2 dislike repun House candidate V001349 E4a(3). #3 dislike Repub House candidate V001350 E4a(4). #4 dislike Repub House candidate V001351 E4a(5). #5 dislike Repub House candidate E5-E7 - POLITICAL KNOWLEDGE (HOUSE AND SENATE) ---------------------------------------------------- V001352 E5. Checkpt: number of Hse cands V001353a E5a(1). 2 cands- either cand incumbent V001353b E5a(2). Cand iden as incum- 2 cand race V001354 E5b(1). 1 cand- is candidate incumbent V001355 E5b(2). Cand iden as incum- 1 cand race V001356 E6. Party control House before election V001357 E7. Party control Senate before election F1-F4 - MEMBER OF CONGRESS ---------------------------------------------------- V001358 F1. Appr/dissapr House incumbent V001359 F1a. Strength approve House incumbent V001360 F1b. Strength disappr House incumbent V001361 F1x. Summary- approve/disapp Hse incumb V001362 F2. Special action by incumbent V001363 F3. R know #yrs Hse incumbent has serv V001364 F3a. #yrs House incumbent has been in of V001365 F3b. Incumbent more/less 12 yrs in offic V001366 F4. House incumb kept in touch w/distric F5 - FOLLOW PUBLIC AFFAIRS ---------------------------------------------------- V001367 F5. R follows govt and public affairs G1-G10 - LIBERAL-CONSERVATIVE PLACEMENT SELF, CLINTON, GORE, BUCHANAN AND PARTIES ---------------------------------------------------- V001368 G1a/G1a.T. R placement lib-con scale V001369 G1b. Had to choose lib-con self-placemt V001370 G1x. 3-category lib-con summary V001371 G2/G2.T. Clinton placement lib-con scale V001372 G3/G3.T. Gore placement lib-con scale V001373 G3a/G3a.T. Gore-certain lib-con placemnt V001374 G4/G4.T. Bush placement lib-con scale V001375 G4a/G4a.T. Bush-certain lib-con placemnt V001376 G5/G5.T. Buchanan placemnt lib-con scale V001377 G5a/G5a.T. Buchanan-certain lib-con V001378 G6. Ckpt: number of cands/VT01/VA05 V001378a G6.(1)/G6(1).T. Dem Hse cand placemt-lib V001378b G6.(2)/G6(2).T. #1 incum Ind cand place V001379a G6a1/G6a1.T. Dem Hse cand-crtn lib-con V001379b G6a2/G6a2.T. #1 incum Ind cand-crtn lib V001380a G7.(1)/G7(1).T. Rep Hse cand placmnt-lib V001380b G7.(2)/G7(2).T. #2 incum Ind cand-lib V001381a G7a1/G7a1.T. Rep Hse cand-certn lib-con V001381b G7a2/G7a2.T. #2 incum Ind cand lib-con V001382 G8/G8.T. Dem Party placemnt lib-con scale V001383 G9/G9.T. Repub Party placement lib-con V001384 G10/G10.T. Reform Party placemnt lib-con G11 - SERVICES/SPENDING TRADEOFF ---------------------------------------------------- V001385 FR G11a. R placement- services/spend scale V001386 TB G11a.T. R placemnt-services/spend branch V001387 TB G11a1.T. How much reduce services/spend V001388 TB G11a2.T. How much increase servics/spend V001389 TB G11a3.T. If serv/spend changed, would favor inc/dec V001390 B G11ax1. Summary R serv/spend scale- branching V001390 BR G11ax2. Summary R serv/spend scale- branch & scale ----------------------------------------------------- V001391 G11b. Ckpt: number of cands/VT01/VA05 V001391a FR G11b(1.) Dem Hse candidate on services/spending V001391b FR G11b(2). #1 Ind incumbent Hse cand on services/spend V001392a TB G11b(1).T. Dem Hse cand on services/spending V001392b TB G11b(2).T. #1 Ind incumbent Hse cand on serv/spend V001393a TB G11b1(1).T. Dem cand- how much reduce services/spend V001393b TB G11b1(2).T. #2 Ind incumbnt Hse cand- how much red V001394a TB G11b2(1).T. Dem Hse cand-how much incrsease ser/sp V001394b TB G11b2(2).T. #1 Ind incumbent Hse cand- how much incr V001395a TB G11b3(1).T. Dem Hse cnd- if serv/spnd chnged, inc/dec V001395b TB G11b3(2).T. #1 Ind inc Hse cand- if chnged, incr/decr V001396 B G11bx1. Summary Dem cand serv/spend - branching V001396a BR G11bx2. Summary Dem cand serv/spend -branch & scale ----------------------------------------------------- V001397a FR G11c(1). Repub House candidate on services/spend V001397b FR G11c(2). #2 Ind inc Hse cand on services/spending V001398a TB G11c(1).T. Rep Hse cand on services/spending V001398b TB G11c(2).T. #2 Ind incumbent Hse cand on services/spnd V001399a TB G11c1(1).T. Rep Hse cand- how much reduce services/sp V001399b TB G11c1(2).T. #2 Ind incumbent Hse cand- how much reduc V001400a TB G11c2(1).T. Rep Hse cand-how much incrsease serv/spd V001400b TB G11c2(2).T. #2 Ind incumbent Hse cand- how much incre V001401a TB G11c3(1).T. Rep Hse cand- if serv/spend chngd, inc/de V001401b TB G11c3(2).T. #2 Ind incumbt Hse cand- if srv/spd chang V001402 G11cx1. Summary Rep cand serv/spend plcmt -branching V001402a G11cx2. Summary Rep cand serv/spend -branch & scale G12 - ABORTION ---------------------------------------------------- V001403 G12/G12.T. R placement- abortion scale V001404 G12a. How important is abortion issue to R V001405 G12b. Checkpoint: number of cands/VT01/VA05 V001405a G12b(1)/G12b(1).T. Dem Hse cand placmt on abortion V001405b G12b(2)/G12b(2).T. #1 Ind inc cand plac on abort V001406a G12b1(1)/G12b1(1).T. Dem Hse cand-cetainty of plcmt V001406b G12b1(2)/G12b1(2).T. #1 Ind inc cnd-certainty of plc V001407a G12c(1)/G12c(1).T. Rep Hse cand placmt on abortion V001407b G12c(2)/G12c(2).T. #2 Ind inc cand placmt on abort V001408a G12c1(1)/G12c1(1).T. Rep Hse cand-certainty of plct V001408b G12c1(2)/G12c1(2).T. #2 Ind inc cnd-certainty of plc G13 - PARTY ID WITHOUT INDEPENDENT MENTION ---------------------------------------------------- V001409 G13. R thinks of themself as Republican or Democrat H1-H3 - R'S FINANCIAL SITUATION ---------------------------------------------------- V001410 H1. R better/worse off in last year financially V001411a H1a. How much better off in last yer financially V001411b H1b. How much worse off last year financially V001412 H1x1. Summary of R's financial situation in last year V001412a H1x2. Pre & Post Summary of R's financial situation V001413 H2. Put off medical or dental treatmnt in last year V001413a H2x. Pre & post- Put off medical or dental treatmnt V001415 H3a. How much better off next year financially V001416 H3b. How much worse off next year financially V001417 H3x. Summary: R financial expectations in next year V001417a H3x. Pre & post Summary: R financial expectations H4 - FEAR OF BEING ASSAULT VICTIM ---------------------------------------------------- V001418 H4. How afraid is R of assault in next year J1- JURY DUTY ---------------------------------------------------- V001419 J1. R's attitude about serving on jury duty J2 - GOVERNMENT ROLE AND SELF-RELIANCE ---------------------------------------------------- V001420 J2a. Less govt, or more things government should do V001421 J2b. Strong govt to handle cmplx prbls or free mrket V001422 J2c. Reason govt is bigger- meddlesome or big prblms V001423 J2d. Better cooperative or self-reliant J3-J10 - MEDIA/INTERNET EXPOSURE AND INFORMATION ---------------------------------------------------- V001424 J3. # times R watched jeopardy V001425 J4. # times R watched wheel of fortune V001426 J5. # times R watched morning news V001427 J6. # times R watched daytime talk show V001428 J7. Network news program R watches most V001429 J8. How much can you trust the media V001430 J9. Does R listen to political talk radio V001431 J9a. How often does R listen to talk radio V001432 J9b. How closely does R listen to talk radio V001433 J10. Does R have Internet or WWW access V001434 J10a. Has R seen election info on Internet J11- DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PARTIES ---------------------------------------------------- V001435 J11. Important differences b/w Reps/Dems V001436a J11a1(1). #1 difference b/w Reps/Dems V001436b J11a1(2). #1 party refnce b/w Reps/Dems V001436c J11a2(1). #2 difference b/w Reps/Dems V001436d J11a2(2). #2 party refnce b/w Reps/Dems V001436e J11a3(1). #3 difference b/w Reps/Dems V001436f J11a3(2). #3 party refnce b/w Reps/Dems V001436g J11a4(1). #4 difference b/w Reps/Dems V001436h J11a4(2). #4 party refnce b/w Reps/Dems V001436j J11a5(1). #5 difference b/w Reps/Dems V001436k J11a5(2). #5 party refnce b/w Reps/Dems V001436m J11a6(1). #6 difference b/w Reps/Dems V001436n J11a6(2). #6 party refnce b/w Reps/Dems K1- GROUP INFLUENCE: TOO MUCH, TOO LITTLE, RIGHT AMT ---------------------------------------------------- V001437 K1a. Whites influence V001438 K1b. Blacks influence V001439 K1c. Hispanics influence V001440 K1d. Asian-Americans influence V001441 K1e. Jews influence V001442 K1f. Protestants influence V001443 K1g. Catholics influence V001444 K1h. Men influence V001445 K1j. Women influence K2 - OFFICE RECOGNITION OF POLITICAL FIGURES ------------------------------------------------------ V001446a S K2a. Identify Trent Lott -standard V001446b E K2a.E. Identify Trent Lott -experimental V001447 K2ax. Summary identify Trent Lott V001448 E K2a1.E. Identify Trent Lott- DK probe used -------------------------------------------------------- V001449a S K2b. Identify William Rehnquist -standard V001449b E K2b.E. Identify William Rehnquist -experimental V001450 K2bx. Summary identify William Rehnquist V001451 E K2b1.E. Identify William Rehnquist - DK probe used ------------------------------------------------------- V001452a S K2c. Identify Tony Blair -standard V001452b E K2c.E. Identify Tony Blair-experimental V001453 K2cx. Summary identify Tony Blair V001454 E K2c1.E. Identify Tony Blair - DK probe used ------------------------------------------------------ V001455a S K2d. Identify Janet Reno -standard V001455b E K2d.E. Identify Janet Reno -experimental V001456 K2dx. Summary identify Janet Reno V001457 E K2d1.E. Identify Janet Reno -DK probe used K3-K4 - KNOWLEDGE ABOUT PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES ---------------------------------------------------- V001458 K3a. In what state does Bush live V001459 K3a1. Respondent was probed for DK answer V001460 K3b. What is Bush's religion V001461 K3b1. Respondent was probed for DK answer V001462 K4a. What state is Gore from V001463 K4a1. Respondent was probed for DK answer V001464 K4b. What is Gore's religion V001465 K4b1. Respondent was probed for DK answer K5-K6 - KNOWLEDGE ABOUT VICE-PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES ---------------------------------------------------- V001466 K5a. In what state does Cheney live V001467 K5a1. Respondent was probed for DK answer V001468 K5b. What is Cheney's religion V001469 K5b1. Respondent was probed for DK answer V001470 K6a. In what state does Lieberman live V001471 K6a1. Respondent was probed for DK answer V001472 K6b. What is Lieberman's religion V001473 K6b1. Respondent was probed for DK answer K7 - INVOLVEMENT IN VOLUNTEER WORK ---------------------------------------------------- V001474 K7. Volunteer work in last year K8-K10 - TRUST IN PEOPLE ---------------------------------------------------- V001475 K8. Are people trustworthy V001476 K9. People take advantage or act fairly V001477 K10. People helpful or selfish K11 - DISCRIMINATION AGAINST HOMOSEXUALS ---------------------------------------------------- V001478 K11. Fav/opp laws protect against job discrm homosexu V001479 K11a. How much favor law protecting homosexuals V001480 K11b. How much oppose law protecting homosexuals V001481 K11x. Summary protctng homosxls against job discrim K12 - WAYS TO REDUCE CRIME ---------------------------------------------------- V001482 FR K12a. R placmnt crime -address social prblms/punish V001482a TB K12a.T. R placmnt crime -address social prbl/punish V001483 TB K12a1.T. How much btr is approach -adressing social V001484 TB K12a2.T. How much btr is approach -punishing crimls V001485 TB K12a3.T. If had to choose, which approach is better V001486 B K12ax. Summary branch- R plcmnt on approach V001486a BR K12ax. Summary brh & scale- R plcmt on approach K13-K14 -WORRY ABOUT WAR ---------------------------------------------------- V001487 K13. How worried is R about nuclear war V001488 K14. How worried is R about conventional war K15-K16 - CAMPAIGN FINANCE ---------------------------------------------------- V001489 K15a. Campn fin- protect govt from infl or individ V001490 K16. How should the financing of campaigns change (there are no items Ll-L4) L5-L7 - INVOLVEMENT WITH COMMUNITY OR ISSUE ---------------------------------------------------- V001491 L5. Worked on community issue in last year V001492 L6. Contacted public official to express in last year V001493 L7. Attend commun meeting about issue in last year L8 - ORGANIZATIONAL INVOLVEMENT AND INFLUENCE ---------------------------------------------------- V001494 L8. Is R a member of any organizations V001495 L8a. How many organizations is R currently a member V001496 L8b. 1 org-how many hours per week spent for org V001497 L8c. 1 org-do orgs try to influence government V001498 L8d. 1 org-does org try to influence schools V001499 L8bb. 2+ org-how many hours per week spent for org V001500 L8cc. 2+ org-does org try to inflnce government V001501 L8dd. 2+ org-does org try to inflnce schools V001502 L8x1. Summary hours per week spent for org V001503 L8x2. Summary org influence schools V001504 L8x3. Summary org influence government V001505 L9. Contributed to church or charity in last year L10 - PROTEST ---------------------------------------------------- V001506 L10. Taken part in Protest or march in last year V001507 L10a. How many times protested/marched M3 - POSITION OF BLACKS IN SOCIETY (there are no items m1-m2) ---------------------------------------------------- V001508 M3a/M3a.T. Blks should overcome prejudice w/o favors V001509 M3b/M3b.T. Blacks have gotten less than they deserve V001510 M3c/M3c.T. If blks wld try harder they cld be welloff V001511 M3d/M3d.T. Past discrim impacts blks today N1 - POWER OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ---------------------------------------------------- V001512 N1. R have opinion on strength of federal govt V001513 N1a. Govt is getting too powerful or not too strong V001514 N1a1. Should govt become more powerful V001515 N1b. Which party favors a strong federal govt N2- POLITICAL EFFICACY OF THE RESPONDENT ---------------------------------------------------- V001516 N2a/N2a.T. Does R have good undrstdg of pol issues V001517 N2b/N2b.T. R well-qulfd to participate in politics V001518 N2c/N2c.T. Could do good job in public office V001519 N2d/N2d.T. Better informed about govt than most V001520 N3. Does R believe their vote matters P1 - EGALITARIANISM ---------------------------------------------------- V001521 P1a/P1a.T. Society needs to give everyone equal oppr V001522 P1b/P1b.T. We've pushed equal rights too far V001523 P1c/P1c.T. We don't give everyone equal chance V001524 P1d/P1d.T. Better if we worried less about equality V001525 P1e/P1e.T. OK if some people have more chances than V001526 P1f/P1f.T. We'd have fewr probs if people treated eq Q1 - EXTERNAL POLITICAL EFFICACY ---------------------------------------------------- V001527 Q1a/Q1a.T. Public officials don't care V001528 Q1b/Q1b.T. People dont have say in govt V001529 Q1c/Q1c.T. Politics too complicated Q2 - MORAL TRADITIONALISM ---------------------------------------------------- V001530 Q2a/Q2a.T. New morals are causing society breakdown V001531 Q2b/Q2b.T. Should adjust views to chgd moral behav V001532 Q2c/Q2c.T. Less prblms if emphasize trad family ties V001533 Q2d/Q2d.T. Should tolerate other's morality Q3-Q6 - TRUST IN GOVERNMENT / MASS SUPPORT ---------------------------------------------------- V001534 Q3a. How much can govt be trusted V001535 Q4. How much of taxes does govt waste V001536 Q5. Govt run by big intersts or for benefit of all V001537 Q6. How many in govt are crooked Q7-Q8 - GOVERNMENT RESPONSIVENESS ---------------------------------------------------- V001538 Q7. Elections make govt pay attention V001539 Q8. Attn govt pays to people when making decisions R1- GROUPS R FEELS CLOSE TO ---------------------------------------------------- V001540 F R1a. Close to whites FTF V001540a T R1a.T. Close to whites phone V001541 R1ax. Summary close to whites V001542 F R1b. Close to poor people FTF V001542a T R1b.T. Close to poor people phone V001543 R1bx. Summary close to poor people V001544 F R1c. Close to Asian Americans FTF V001544a T R1c.T. Close to Asian americans phone V001545 R1cx. Summary close to Asian Americans V001546 F R1d. Close to liberals FTF V001546a T R1d.T. Close to liberals phone V001547 R1dx. Summary close to liberals V001548 F R1e. Close to elderly FTF V001548a T R1e.T. Close to elderly phone V001549 R1ex. Summary close to elderly V001550 F R1f. Close to blacks FTF V001550a T R1f.T. Close to blacks phone V001551 R1fx. Summary close to blacks V001552 F R1g. Close to labor unions FTF V001552a T R1g.T. Close to labor unions phone V001553 R1gx. Summary close to labor unions V001554 F R1h. Close to feminists FTF V001554a T R1h.T. Close to feminists phone V001555 R1hx. Summary close to feminists V001556 F R1j. Close to southerners FTF V001556a T R1j.T. Close to southerners phone V001557 R1jx. Summary close to southerners V001558 F R1k. Close to business people FTF V001558a T R1k.T. Close to business people phone V001559 R1kx. Summary close to business people V001560 F R1m. Close to young people FTF V001560a T R1m.T. Close to young people phone V001561 R1mx. Summary close to young people V001562 F R1n. Close to conservatives FTF V001562a T R1n.T. Close to conservatives phone V001563 R1nx. Summary close to conservatives V001564 F R1p. Close to Hispanic-Americans FTF V001564a T R1p.T. Close to Hispanic-Americans ph V001565 R1px. Summary close to Hispanic-Amrcs V001566 F R1q. Close to women FTF V001566a T R1q.T. Close to women phone V001567 R1qx. Summary close to women V001568 F R1r. Close to working-class FTF V001568a T R1r.T. Close to working-class phone V001569 R1rx. Summary close to working-class V001570 F R1s .Close to middle-class FTF V001570a T R1s.T. Close to middle-class phone V001571 R1sx. Summary close to middle-class V001572 F R1t. Close to men FTF V001572a T R1t.T. Close to men phone V001573 R1tx. Summary close to men R2-R4 - CHARACTERISTICS OF RACIAL GROUPS ---------------------------------------------------- V001574 R2a/R2a.T. Hardworking- whites V001575 R2b/R2b.T. Hardworking- blacks V001576 R2c/R2c.T. Hardworking- Hispanic-America V001577 R2d/R2d.T. Hardworking- Asian-American V001578 R3a/R3a.T. Intelligence- whites V001579 R3b/R3b.T. Intelligence- blacks V001580 R3c/R3c.T. Intelligence- Hispanic-Americ V001581 R3d/R3d.T. Intelligence- Asian-American V001582 R4a/R4a.T. Trustworthy- whites V001583 R4b/R4b.T. Trustworthy- blacks V001584 R4c/R4c.T. Trustworthy- Hispanic-America V001585 R4d/R4d.T. Trustworthy- Asian-American R5- QUALITIES TO ENCOURAGE IN CHILDREN ---------------------------------------------------- V001586 R5a. Independence or respect for elders V001587 R5b. Obedience or self-reliance V001588 R5c. Curiosity or good manners V001589 R5d. Considerate or well behaved S1-S11 - CLINTON LEGACY (Rs were asked Clinton Legacy in either pre or post. See summary variables "..x1" for full sample) ---------------------------------------------------- V001590 S1. Budget deficit lar/smal since 1992 V001591 S1a. Deficit much/somewhat smaller V001591a S1b. Deficit much/somewhat larger V001592 S1x. Summary - budget deficit since 92 V001592a S1x1. Summary pre & post - budget deficit V001593 S2. Spending on poor inc/dec since 92 V001594 S2a. Spend poor a lot/somwhat more/less V001595 S2x. Summary - spending on poor since 92 V001595a S2x1. Summary pre & post - spending on poor V001596 S3. Economy better/worse since 1992 V001597 S3a. Economy much/somewhat better V001598 S3b. Economy much/somewhat worse V001599 S3x. Summary - economy since 1992 V001599a S3x1. Summary pre & post - econ since 92 V001600 S4. Clinton made economy better/worse since 92 V001601 S4a. Clinton made econ much/somewhat better V001602 S4b. Clinton made econ much/somewhat worse V001603 S4x. Summary - Clinton made econ better/worse V001603a S4x1. Summary pre & post - Clinton made econ V001604 S5. Clinton admin hurt/help R personally V001604 S5. Summary pre & post Clinton admin hurt/help V001605 S6. U.S. more/less secure since 1992 V001606 S6a. U.S. much/somewhat more secure V001607 S6b. U.S. much/somewhat less secure V001608 S6x. Summary - U.S. security V001608a S6x1. Summary pre & post - U.S. security V001609 S7. Clinton made U.S. more/less secure V001610 S7a. Clinton made much/smwht more secure V001611 S7b. Clinton made much/smwhat less secur V001612 S7x. Summ-Clinton impact on U.S. security V001612a S7x1. Summ pre & post- Clinton impact on secur V001613 S8. U.S. crime rate better/wors since 92 V001614 S8a. U.S. crime rate much/smwht better V001615 S8b. U.S. crime rate much/smwht worse V001616 S8x. Summary - U.S. crime rate V001616a S8x1. Summary pre & post - U.S. crime rate V001617 S9. Clinton made crime rate better/worse V001618 S9a. Clinton made crime rate much/smwht bettr V001619 S9b. Clinton made crime rate much/smwht worse V001620 S9x. Summ-Clinton impact on crime rate V001620a S9x1.Summ pre & post - Clinton impact on crime V001621 S10. Moral climate better/worse since 92 V001622 S10a.Moral climate much/smwht better V001623 S10b. Moral climate much/smwht worse V001624 S10x. Summary - moral climate since 92 V001624a S10x1. Summ pre & post - moral climate since 92 V001625 S11. Clinton made moral climate better/worse V001626 S11a. Clinton made moral clim mch/s better V001627 S11b. Clinton made moral clim mch/s worse V001628 S11x. Summ-Clinton impact on moral climate V001628a S11x1.Summ pre & post- Clinton impact on moral climate S14 - CLINTON AFFECTS (Rs were asked Clinton Affects & traits in either pre or post. See summary variables for full sample) ---------------------------------------------------- V001629 S14a. Clinton makes R angry V001629a S14ax. Summ pre & post Clinton - angry V001630 S14a1. How often Clinton makes R angry V001630a S14a1x. Summ pre & post - how often angry V001631 S14b. Clinton makes R hopeful V001631a S14bx. Summ pre & post Clinton -hopeful V001632 S14b1. How often Clinton make R hopeful V001632a S14b1x. Summ pre & post - how often hopeful V001633 S14c. Clinton makes R afraid V001633a S14cx. Summ pre & post Clinton - afraid V001634 S15c1. How often Clinton makes R afraid V001634a S14c1x. Summ pre & post - how often afraid V001635 S14d. Clinton makes R proud V001635a S14dx. Summ pre & post Clinton - proud V001636 S14d1. How often Clinton makes R proud V001636a S14d1x. Summ pre & post - how often proud S15 - CLINTON TRAITS ---------------------------------------------------- V001637 S15a. Clinton trait - moral V001637a S15ax. Summ pre & post-Clinton trait - moral V001638 S15b. Clinton trait-cares about people V001638a S15bx. Summ pre & post-Clinton trait-cares V001639 S15c. Clinton trait - knowledgeable V001639a S15cx. Summ pre & post-Clinton knowledgeable V001640 S15d. Clinton trait-strong leadership V001640a S15dx. Summ pre & post-Clinton leadership V001641 S15e. Clinton trait - dishonest V001641a S15ex. Summ pre & post-Clinton dishonest V001642 S15f. Clinton trait - intelligent V001642a S15fx. Summ pre & post-Clinton-intelligent V001643 S15g. Clinton trait - out of touch V001643a S15gx. Summ pre & post-Clinton out of touch T1-T4 - CAMPAIGN MEDIA EXPOSURE ---------------------------------------------------- V001644 T1. Did R watch a Pres debate on tv V001645 T1a. Did R watch an entire or just part of debate V001646 T2. Did R listen to campaign speeches or diss on radio V001647 T2a. How much did R listen to radio speeches & diss V001648 T3/T3.T. How much attention to Pres campaign news V001649 T4/T4.T. How much attention to Cong campaign news T5 - OPINION ABOUT TWO PARTY SYSTEM ---------------------------------------------------- V001650 T5/T5.T. Two parties, no labels, or new party T6 - DEMOCRACY IN THE UNITED STATES ---------------------------------------------------- V001651 T6. Is R satisfied with US Democracy V1-V4 - BUSH LEGACY ---------------------------------------------------- V001652 V1. Bush effect on US economy V001653 V1a. How much better Bush made economy V001654 V1b. How much worse Bush made economy V001655 V1x. Summary: Bush effect on economy V001656 V2. Bush made US more secure V001657 V2a. Bush made US how much more secure V001658 V2b. Bush made US how much less secure V001659 V2x. Summary: Bush effect on security V001660 V3. Bush effect on US crime rate V001661 V3a. Bush made crime rate how mch better V001662 V3b. Bush made crime rate how much worse V001663 V3x. Summary: Bush effect on crime V001664 V4. Bush effect on moral climate V001665 V4a. Bush moral climate how much better V001666 V4b. Bush moral climate how much worse V001667 V4x. Summary: Bush effect on moral climate V5 - TRAITS - FORMER PRESIDENT BUSH ---------------------------------------------------- V001668 V5a. Bush trait - moral V001669 V5b. Bush trait - cares about people V001670 V5c. Bush trait - knowledgeable V001671 V5d. Bush trait - strong leadership V001672 V5e. Bush trait - dishonest V001673 V5f. Bush trait - intelligent V001674 V5g. Bush trait - out of touch Y5-Y17 - CHARACTERISTICS OF WORK COLLEAGUES ---------------------------------------------------- (there are no items y1-y4) V001675 Y5. Is R currently working V001676a Y6a. Why is R not working, reason 1 V001676b Y6b. Why is R not working, reason 2 V001676c Y6c. Why is R not working, reason 3 V001677 Y7. Workers: How satisfied is R with work V001678 Y7a. WRKS: Does R spend work time with people V001679 Y8. WRKS: Rs coworkers looking out for themselves V001680 Y8a. WRKS: Do Rs coworkers try to take advantage V001681 Y8b. WRKS: Do Rs coworkers treat others with respect V001682 Y8c. WRKS: Does honest describe Rs coworkers V001683 Y8d. WRKS:Racial diversity of Rs coworkers V001684 Y10. Laid off:Does R spend days alone/with others V001685 Y11. LOff: Rs coworkers just looking out for selves V001686 Y11a. LOff: Do Rs coworkers try to take advantage V001687 Y11b. LOff:Do Rs coworkers treat others with respect V001688 Y11c. LOFF: Does honest describe Rs coworkers V001689 Y15. Retired:Does R spend days alone/with others V001690 Y16. RET:Rs coworker look out for themselves V001691 Y16a. RET:Did Rs coworkers try to take advantage V001692 Y16b. RET:Were Rs coworkers respectful V001693 Y16c. RET: Does honest describe Rs coworkers V001694 Y17x. Summary: R work with others V001695 Y18x. Summary: co-workers look out for selves V001696 Y18ax. Summary: co-workers try to take advantage V001697 Y18bx. Summary: co-workers treat others w/respect V001698 Y18cx. Summary: co-workers honest Z1-Z24 - POLITICAL DISCUSSION IN SOCIAL NETWORK ---------------------------------------------------- V001699 Z1. Person R discusses politics with: name 1 V001700 Z3. Person R discusses politics with: name 2 V001701 Z5. Person R discusses politics with: name 3 V001702 Z7. Person R discusses politics with: name 4 V001703 Z9. Is name 1 relative V001704 Z9a. Is name 1 male or female V001705 Z9b. Is name 1 coworker V001706 Z9c. Does name 1 go to church with R V001707 Z9d. Is name 1 a neighbor V001708 Z10. How often does R discuss politics w/name 1 V001709 Z11. How much does name 1 know about politics V001710 Z12. How name 1 voted in election ---------------------------------------------------- V001711 Z13. Is name 2 relative V001712 Z13a. Is name 2 male or female V001713 Z13b. Is name 2 coworker V001714 Z13c. Does name 2 go to church with R V001715 Z13d. Is name 2 a neighbor V001716 Z14. How often does R discuss politics w/name 2 V001717 Z15. How much does name 2 know about politics V001718 Z16. How name 2 voted in election --------------------------------------------------- V001719 Z17. Is name 3 relative V001720 Z17a. Is name 3 male or female V001721 Z17b. Is name 3 coworker V001722 Z17c. Does name 3 go to church with R V001723 Z17d. Is name 3 a neighbor V001724 Z18. How often does R discuss politics w/name 3 V001725 Z19. How much does name 3 know about politics V001726 Z20. How name 3 voted in election -------------------------------------------------- V001727 Z21. Is name 4 relative V001728 Z21a. Is name 4 male or female V001729 Z21b. Is name 4 coworker V001730 Z21c. Does name 4 go to church with R V001731 Z21d. Is name 4 a neighbor V001732 Z22. How often does R discuss politics w/name 4 V001733 Z23. How much does name 4 know about politics V001734 Z24. How name 4 voted in election Z25-Z29 - R'S NEIGHBORHOOD ---------------------------------------------------- V001735 Z25. Has R worked with neighbor on common issue/year V001736 Z26. How satisfied is R with neighbrhood V001737 Z27. Are neighbors just looking out for themselves V001738 Z27a. Do neighbors try to take advantage of others V001739 Z27b. Do neighbors treat others w/respect V001740 Z27c. Does honest describe neighbors V001741 Z27d. What is the racial diversity of neighborhood Z28 - R'S SATISFACTION WITH LIFE ---------------------------------------------------- V001742 Z28. How satisfying is Rs life ZZ1-ZZ8 - INTERVIEWER OBSERVATION ---------------------------------------------------- V001743a F ZZ1(1). Others present for interview V001743b F ZZ1(2). Others present for interview V001743c F ZZ1(3). Others present for interview V001744 ZZ2. Rs cooperation V001745 ZZ3. Rs knowledge of politics V001746 ZZ4. Rs apparent intelligence V001747 ZZ5. How suspicious did R seem V001748 ZZ6. How great Rs interest in IW V001749 ZZ7. How sincere did R seem V001750 ZZ7a. Areas IWR doubted sincerity V001751a ZZ11(1). Rs reaction to IW V001751b ZZ11(2). Rs reaction to IW V001751c ZZ11(3). Rs reaction to IW V001751d ZZ11(4). Rs reaction to IW V001751e ZZ11(5). Rs reaction to IW V001751f ZZ11(6). Rs reaction to IW V001751g ZZ11(7). Rs reaction to IW POST RANDOMIZATION DESCRIPTIONS ---------------------------------------------------- V001752 Post-Rand.C9(2). V001753 Post-Rand.D2b-D2d. V001754 Post-Rand.D2g. V001755 Post-Rand.D2h. V001756 Post-Rand.D2j. V001757 Post-Rand.D2k. V001758 Post-Rand.D2m. V001759 Post-Rand.D2n. V001760 Post-Rand.D3a. V001761 Post-Rand.D3b. V001762 Post-Rand.D3c. V001763 Post-Rand.D3d. V001764 Post-Rand.D3e. V001765 Post-Rand.D3f. V001766 Post-Rand.D3g. V001767 Post-Rand.D3h. V001768 Post-Rand.D3j. V001769 Post-Rand.D3k. V001770 Post-Rand.D3m. V001771 Post-Rand.D3n. V001772 Post-Rand.D3p. V001773 Post-Rand.D3q. V001774 Post-Rand.D3r. V001775 Post-Rand.D3s. V001776 Post-Rand.D3t. V001777 Post-Rand.D3u. V001778 Post-Rand.D3v. V001779 Post-Rand.D3w. V001780 Post-Rand.D3x. V001781 Post-Rand.D3xx. V001782 Post-Rand.D3y. V001783 Post-Rand.D3z. V001784 Post-Rand.E1/E3. V001785 Post-Rand.G3-G5. V001786 Post-Rand.G6-G7. V001787 Post-Rand.G8-G10. V001788 Post-Rand.G11b/c. V001789 Post-Rand.G12b/c. V001790 Post-Rand.R2b-R2d. V001791 Post-Rand.R3b-R3d. V001792 Post-Rand.R4b-R4d. V001793 Post-Rand.S14a. V001794 Post-Rand.S14b. V001795 Post-Rand.S14c. V001796 Post-Rand.S14d. V001797 Post-Rand.S15a. V001798 Post-Rand.S15b. V001799 Post-Rand.S15c. V001800 Post-Rand.S15d. V001801 Post-Rand.S15e. V001802 Post-Rand.S15f. V001803 Post-Rand.S15g. V001804 Post-Rand.V5a. V001805 Post-Rand.V5b. V001806 Post-Rand.V5c. V001807 Post-Rand.V5d. V001808 Post-Rand.V5e. V001809 Post-Rand.V5f. V001810 Post-Rand.V5g.