Version 01 Codebook ------------------- CODEBOOK INTRODUCTION FILE 1990 POST-ELECTION STUDY (1990.TV) AMERICAN NATIONAL ELECTION STUDIES 1990 POST ELECTION STUDY Principal Investigators Warren E. Miller Donald R. Kinder Steven J. Rosenstone and the National Election Studies Center for Political Studies University of Michigan ICPSR ARCHIVE NUMBER 9548 BIBLIOGRAPHIC CITATION Publications based on ICPSR data collections should acknowledge those sources by means of bibliographic citations. To ensure that such source attributions are captured for social science bibliographic utilities, citations must appear in footnotes or in the reference section of publications. The bibliographic citation for this data collection is: Miller, Warren E., Donald R. Kinder, Steven J. Rosenstone, and the National Election Studies. AMERICAN NATIONAL ELECTION STUDY, 1990: POST-ELECTION SURVEY [Computer file]. Conducted by University of Michigan, Center for Political Studies. 2nd ICPSR ed. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [producer and distributor], 1992. REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ON USE OF ICPSR RESOURCES To provide funding agencies with essential information about use of archival resources and to facilitate the exchange of information about ICPSR participants' research activities, users of ICPSR data are requested to send to ICPSR bibliographic citations for each completed manuscript or thesis abstract. Please indicate in a cover letter which data were used. DATA DISCLAIMER The original collector of the data, ICPSR, and the relevant funding agency bear no responsibility for uses of this collection or for interpretations or inferences based upon such uses. TABLE OF CONTENTS Note: >>sections in the codebook introduction and codebook appendix can be navigated in the machine-readable files by searching ">>". INTRODUCTORY MATERIAL (file int1990.cbk) --------------------- >> 1990 STUDY DESCRIPTION >> 1990 SURVEY CONTENT AND ADMINISTRATION >> 1990 SAMPLING INFORMATION >> 1990 VOTE VALIDATION AND ELECTION ADMINISTRATION SURVEY DATA >> 1990 NES STAFF AND TECHNICAL PAPER >> 1990 LIST OF PILOT STUDY REPORTS-1989 >> 1990 CODEBOOK INFORMATION >> 1990 ICPSR PROCESSING INFORMATION >> 1990 VARIABLE DESCRIPTION LIST CODEBOOK -------- 1990 variables APPENDICES (file app1990.cbk) ---------- >> 1980 CENSUS DEFINITIONS >> 1990 PARTY/CANDIDATE MASTER CODE >> 1990 CAMPAIGN ISSUES MASTER CODE >> 1990 CANDIDATE NUMBER CODE AND LIST >> 1990 IMPORTANT PROBLEMS MASTER CODE >> 1990 PARTY DIFFERENCES MASTER CODE >> 1990 RELIGIOUS PREFERENCE MASTER CODE >> 1980 CENSUS OCCUPATION CODE >> 1980 CENSUS INDUSTRY CODE >> 1990 ICPSR OCCUPATION RECODES >> 1990 NATIONALITY AND ETHNIC CODE >> 1990 STATE AND COUNTRY CODE >> CITIES WITH POPULATION OF 25,000 AND OVER, 1990 Study >> 1990 STUDY DESCRIPTION The NES/CPS American National Election Study 1990 was conducted by the Center for Political Studies of the Institute for Social Research, under the general direction of principal investigators Warren E. Miller, Donald R. Kinder and Steven J. Rosenstone. Santa Traugott is the Project Manager for the National Election Studies. Giovanna Morchio was the 1990 Election Study manager for NES, overseeing the study from very early planning stages through data release. This is the twenty-first in a series of studies of American national elections produced by the Political Behavior Program of the Survey Research Center and the Center for Political Studies, and it is the seventh such study to be conducted under the auspices of National Science Foundation Grants providing long-term support for the national election studies. Both the 1990 National Election Study and the Vote Validation Study were funded under grant number SES-8808361. Since 1978 the NES election studies have been designed by a National Board of Overseers, the members of which meet several times a year to plan content and administration of the major study components. Board members during the planning of the 1990 National Election Study included: Morris P. Fiorina, Harvard University, Chair; Richard A. Brody, Stanford University; Stanley Feldman, University of Kentucky; Edie N. Goldenberg, University of Michigan; Mary Jackman, University of California at Davis, Gary C. Jacobson, University of California at San Diego; Stanley Kelley, Jr., Princeton University; Thomas Mann, The Brookings Institution; Douglas Rivers, Stanford University; John Zaller, the University of California at Los Angeles; Warren E. Miller, Arizona State University, ex officio; Donald R. Kinder, and Steven J. Rosenstone, University of Michigan, ex officio. As part of the planning process, a special planning committee was appointed, a pilot study conducted, and stimulus letters sent to the members of the scholarly community soliciting input on study plans. The 1990 Study Planning Committee included Kinder and Miller, several Board members (Mann, Co-chair; Brody; Feldman; Jackman; Miller, ex officio; and Rosenstone, ex officio and Co-chair), and four other scholars (Jon Krosnick, Ohio State University; Gregory Markus and Vincent Price, University of Michigan; and David Leege, Notre Dame University). A two-wave pilot study was carried out in July and September of 1989 for the purpose of developing new instrumentation for the 1990 Election Study. New items were tested in the area of religious attitudes and denominational affiliation, media exposure and the type of information recalled, and individualism. A significant portion of the study was devoted to experiments contrasting different instrumentation for issue questions: seven-point scales versus branching response alternatives; "framed" versus "stripped" questions; unipolar versus bipolar scales; and filtered versus unfiltered questions. Data from the 1989 Pilot Study are available through the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR 9295). Results from the pilot study (as summarized in Pilot Study Reports, page xix) were used by the Planning Committee in formulating recommendations to the Board about study content for the 1990 Election Study. The 1991 membership of the NES Board of Overseers is: Stanley Feldman, State University of New York, Stony Brook; Morris J. Fiorina, Harvard University; Mary Jackman, University of California, Davis; Gary Jacobson, University of California, San Diego; David Leege, Notre Dame University; Thomas Mann, The Brookings Institution; Douglas Rivers, Stanford University; John Zaller, University of California, Los Angeles. >> 1990 SURVEY CONTENT AND ADMINISTRATION SURVEY CONTENT The Board of Overseers balanced a number of considerations in selecting content for the Post-Election Survey. There was, as always, the necessity of maintaining continuity with past surveys. All congressional time-series items were evaluated by the Board, and input was solicited from the user community about whether each should be used for the 1990 Study. The items that fall into the time-series, or "core" category, are: campaign attention; likes and dislikes of political parties; likes and dislikes of congressional candidates; contact with Congressperson or candidate; vote for Representative, Senator and Governor; most important problem; campaign activities; system support and efficacy items; feeling thermometer ratings of congressional candidates and groups; retrospective economic evaluations (national and individual); liberal-conservative scale (with proximities); party identification, seven-point issue scales with placements; federal budget preferences; views on abortion; and the standard and extensive battery of demographic questions. A number of questions are new or relatively new to the Study. Some came from the piloting work described above-- e.g., the new measures of denominational affiliation; individualism; and attitudes toward abortion and discrimination against women. Others were designed to reflect topical concerns of the campaign. Items in this category include some foreign policy issue items relating to changes in Eastern Europe and to events in the Persian Gulf; and knowledge of and attitudes about the failures of the savings and loans financial institutions and about the federal budget deficit. SURVEY ADMINISTRATION Two forms were used in order to incorporate the maximum amount of content. (Even so, the average length of the survey interview was 78 minutes.) Half of the study sample was randomly assigned to Form A, and the other half to Form B. More than 75 percent of the questionnaire content was the same in both forms; Form A had additional questions relating to values and individualism; Form B had additional content relating to foreign relations. In addition, there was a question form experiment (branching alternatives vs. a seven-point scale). In the Post-election survey, respondents are asked lengthy series of questions about their particular Congresspersons and Senators. Interviewers must pre-edit questionnaires to fill in the names appropriate for the state and congressional district in which the respondent is living (or was living during the pre-election interview). Interviewers are sent "candidate lists" for each congressional district in the sample segments in which they are interviewing. Each candidate and Senator on that list is assigned a particular number that reflects his or her incumbency status and party. (See Candidate Number Code) Particular questions in the survey require the insertion by the interviewer during pre-editing of the names of candidates with specific numbers. See, for example, Q. B13, the Feeling Thermometer. The Candidate Lists used by the interviewers, which show which candidates are associated with which congressional district and with which numbers they are tagged, can be found in the Appendix (Note 4) of this documentation. NOTES ON CONFIDENTIAL VARIABLES Starting with the 1986 Election Study, occupation code variables have been released in somewhat less detail than in years past. The dataset includes a two-digit code with 71 categories corresponding to Census Bureau occupational groupings. Those who have need of the full occupation code for their research should contact the NES project staff for information about the conditions under which access to these data may be provided. Similarly, the National Election Studies have not included information for census tracts or minor civil divisions since 1978. Permission to use the more detailed geographic information for scholarly research may be obtained from the Board of Overseers. More information about this is available from NES project staff. Coding of the new religious denomination variable is in some cases based on an alphabetic "other, please specify" variable (Variable 541). This variable is restricted for reasons of confidentiality, but access may be provided to legitimate scholars under established NES procedures. OPEN-ENDED MATERIALS Traditionally, the Election Studies have contained several minutes of open-ended responses (for example, the congressional candidates likes and dislikes). These questions are put into Master Codes by the SRC coding section. Other scholars have developed alternative or supplemental coding schemes for the questions (for example, the levels of conceptualization, released as ICPSR #8151). The Board of Overseers wishes to encourage these efforts but in ways that respect the NES and SRC obligation to protect the privacy and anonymity of respondents. Circumstances under which individuals may have access to transcribed versions of these questions have been worked out and those interested should contact the NES project staff for further details. Table 1 FIELD ADMINISTRATION INFORMATION Response Rate: 71.4% Length of Interview: 78.0 min No. of Respondents: 2000 Table 2 NUMBER AND CUMULATIVE PERCENT OF INTERVIEWS IN TWO-WEEK INTERVALS FROM ELECTION DAY, 1990 Nov. 07-Nov. 17 836 42% Nov. 18-Dec. 01 594 72% Dec. 02-Dec. 22 413 92% Dec. 23-Jan. 05 106 97% Jan. 06-Jan. 26 51 100% >> 1990 SAMPLING INFORMATION [1] STUDY POPULATION The study population for the 1990 NES is defined to include all United States citizens of voting age on or before the 1990 Election Day. Eligible citizens must have resided in housing units, other than on military reservations, in the 48 coterminous states. This definition excludes persons living in Alaska or Hawaii and requires eligible persons to have been both a United States citizen and 18 years of age on or before the 6th of November 1990. MULTI-STAGE AREA PROBABILITY SAMPLE DESIGN The 1990 NES is based on a multi-stage area probability sample selected from the Survey Research Center's (SRC) National Sample design. Identification of the 1990 NES sample respondents was conducted using a four-stage sampling process--a primary stage sampling of U.S. Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSA's) and counties, followed by a second stage sampling of area segments, a third stage sampling of housing units within sampled area segments, and concluding with the random selection of a single respondent from selected housing units. A detailed documentation of the SRC National Sample is provided in the SRC publication titled 1980 SRC NATIONAL SAMPLE: DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT. Primary Stage Selection The selection of primary stage sampling units (PSU's),[2] which depending on the sample stratum are either SMSA's, single counties or groupings of small counties, is based on the county-level 1980 Census Reports of Population and Housing. Primary stage units were assigned to 84 explicit strata based on SMSA/Non-SMSA status, PSU size, and geographic location. Sixteen of the 84 strata contain only a single self-representing PSU, each of which is included with certainty in the primary stage of sample selection. The remaining 68 nonself-representing strata contain more than ------------------ [1] Technical description of the 1990 National Election Study Sample Design prepared by the Sampling Section of the Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, February 1991. [2] In SRC publications and survey materials, the term "primary area" is used interchangeably with the more common "primary stage unit" terminology. ------------------ one PSU. From each of these nonself-representing strata, one PSU was sampled with probability proportionate to its size (PPS) measured in 1980 occupied housing units. The full SRC National Sample of 84 primary stage selections was designed to be optimal for surveys roughly two times the size of the 1990 NES. To permit the flexibility needed for optimal design of smaller survey samples, the primary stage of the SRC National Sample can be readily partitioned into smaller subsamples of PSU's. Each of the partitions represents a stratified subselection from the full 84 PSU design. The sample for the 1990 NES is selected from the "one-half" partition of the 1980 SRC National Sample. The "one-half sample" includes 11 of the 16 self-representing SMSA PSU's and a stratified subsampling of 34 (of the 68) nonself-representing PSU's of the SRC National Sample. Table 3 identifies the PSU's for the 1990 National Election Study by SMSA status and Region. Second Stage Selection of Area Segments The second stage of the 1980 National Sample was selected directly from computerized files that were prepared from the 1980 Census summary tape file series (STF1-B). The designated second-stage sampling units (SSU's), termed "area segments," are comprised of census blocks in the metropolitan primary areas and enumeration districts (ED's) in the rural non-SMSA's and rural areas of SMSA primary areas. Each SSU block, block combination or enumeration district was assigned a measure of size equal to the total 1980 occupied housing unit count for the area (minimum = 50). Second stage sampling of area segments was performed with probabilities proportionate to the assigned measures of size. A three-step process of ordering the SSU's within the primary areas produced an implicit stratification of the area segments in the second stage sampling frame, stratified at the county level by geographic location and population. Area segments were stratified within county at the Minor Civil Division (MCD) level by size and income, and at the block and ED level by location within the MCD or county. (For details, refer to the SRC publication, 1980 NATIONAL SAMPLE: DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT.) Systematic PPS sampling was used to select the area segments from the second stage sampling frame for each county. In the self-representing (SR) PSU's the number of sample area segments varied in proportion to the size of the primary stage unit, from a high of b=18 area segments in the SR New York SMSA to a low of b=7 area segments in the smaller SR PSU's such as San Francisco. A total of b=6 area segments Table 3 PSU'S IN THE 1990 NES POST-ELECTION SURVEY by: SMSA Status and Region REGION SMSA STATUS Non Self-representing self-representing Non-SMSA's SMSA's SMSA's ------------------------------------------------------------ North- New York, NY-NJ Boston, MA* Schuyler, NY east Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, PA* PA-NJ Buffalo, NY New Haven, CT Atlantic City, NJ Manchester, NH North Chicago, IL St. Louis, MO* Sanilac, MI Central Detroit, MI Milwaukee, WI Phillips, KS Dayton, OH Mower, MN Des Moines, IA Grand Rapids, MI Fort Wayne, IN Steubenville, OH South Houston, TX* Bulloch, GA Baltimore, MD* Hale, TX Birmingham, AL Monroe, AR Columbus, GA-AL Bedford, TN Miami, FL Robeson, NC Lakeland, FL McAllen, TX Wheeling, WV Knoxville, TN Richmond, VA West Los Angeles, CA Seattle, WA Eldorado- San Francisco, CA Denver, WY Albine, CA Anaheim, CA Carbon, WY Fresno, CA Eugene, OR ------------------ NOTE: The PSU's marked with an asterisk (*) are Self-Representing for sample designs that use the two-thirds or larger portion of the sample. For the half-sample design, only 6 of the 16 Self-Representing areas remain Self-Representing. The other ten Self-Representing PSU's are paired and only five are used in the half-sample design, each representing both itself and the PSU it is paired with. ------------------- was selected from each of the a=39 nonself-representing (NSR) PSU's (except Houston that had 7 segments selected). A total of 303 segments were selected, 68 in the six self-representing PSU's and 235 in the nonself-representing PSU's. Third Stage Selection of Housing Units For each area segment selected in the second sampling stage, a listing was made of all housing units located within the physical boundaries of the segment. For segments with a very large number of expected housing units, all housing units in a subselected part of the segment were listed. The final equal probability sample of housing units for the 1990 NES was systematically selected from the housing unit listings for the sampled area segments. The overall probability of selection for 1990 NES households was f=.00003761 or .3761 in 10,000. The equal probability sample of households was achieved by using the standard multi-stage sampling technique of setting the sampling rate for selecting housing units within area segments to be inversely proportional to the PPS probabilities (see above) used to select the PSU and area segment. Fourth Stage Respondent Selection Within each sampled housing unit, the SRC interviewer prepared a complete listing of all eligible household members. Using an objective procedure described by Kish[3] (1949), a single respondent was then selected at random to be interviewed. Regardless of circumstances, no substitutions were permitted for the designated respondent. SAMPLE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS The targeted minimum completed interview sample size for the 1990 NES Post-Election Survey was n=1,750 cases. In the original sample size computation, the following assumptions were made: response rate = .68, combined occupancy/eligibility rate = .83. These assumptions were derived from survey experience in the 1986 NES Post Election Survey. Table 4 provides a full description of the original sample design specifications. ------------------ [3] L. Kish, "A Procedure for Objective Respondent Selection Within the Household" JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN STATISTICAL ASSOCIATION 44 (1949): 380-387. Table 4 1990 NATIONAL POST-ELECTION SURVEY ORIGINAL SAMPLE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS AND ACTUAL SAMPLE DESIGN OUTCOMES Original Specifications Actual and Assumptions Outcome Completed interviews 1,750 2,004 Response Rate .68 .714 Eligible sample households 2,573 2,808 Occupancy/Eligibility Rate* .87 .802 Final sample HU listings 3,256 3,503 Sample growth from update** 1.05 1.068 Sample listings from frame 3,100 3,280 ---------------- * Expected eligibility (.97) x occupancy (.90) ** Since the updating process produces about a 5% increase in sample lines over the count selected from the National Sample system, the update inflation factor was set at 1.05. SAMPLE DESIGN OUTCOMES In comparing the design stage expectations in the first column of Table 4 with the actual survey outcomes in the second column, it can be seen that the sample growth from the update procedure was slightly higher than expected. Also, the original sample design specifications overestimated the occupancy/eligibility rates and underestimated the response rate for the actual survey. Design stage assumptions for the study response rate and occupancy/eligibility rate were based on the rates obtained in the 1986 Post-Election Survey. The actual occupancy/eligibility rate for the 1990 NES Post- Election Survey (.802) was somewhat lower than the rate obtained in the 1986 NES Post-Election Survey (.835). The response rate for 1990 (.714) was higher than the 1986 NES Post-Election Survey response rate of .677 or the 1988 NES Pre-election response rate of .705. The original area probability sample for the 1990 NES was selected as a basic sample replicate of 3280 sample HU listings. n the Post-Election surveys the elapsed time between Election Day and the date of interview is a critical design consideration. Since timing is so critical, the option of using a replicated sample approach to control final study sample size has little utility. In order to ensure that no fewer than a minimum of 1750 completed interviews would be obtained within the study time frame, the initial size of the basic sample replicate was increased from the expected 3100 to 3280 listings (approximately a 5% increase). In addition, 6.8% sample growth from SRC's standard sample update procedure increased the size of the final sample to n=3503 housing units listings. Due to the deliberate increase in sample size and higher than expected response rate, the final number of completed interviews (n=2004) was approximately 14.5% higher than the minimum interview target specified for the survey. WEIGHTED ANALYSIS OF 1990 NES DATA The area probability sample design for the 1990 NES results in an equal probability sample of U.S. households. However, within sample households a single adult respondent is chosen at random to be interviewed. Since the number of eligible adults may vary from one household to another, the random selection of a single adult introduces inequality into respondents' selection probabilities. In analysis, a respondent selection weight should be used to compensate for these unequal selection probabilities. The value of the respondent selection weight is exactly equal to the number of eligible adults in the household from which the random respondent was selected. The use of the respondent selection weight is strongly encouraged, despite past evaluations that have shown these weights to have little significant impact on the values of NES estimates of descriptive statistics. The current policy of the National Election Studies is not to include in public use data sets special analysis weights designed to compensate for nonresponse or to post-stratify the sample to known population distribution controls. Analysts interested in developing their own nonresponse or post-stratification adjustment factors must request access to the necessary sample control data from the NES Board. SAMPLING ERRORS OF 1990 NES ESTIMATES Sampling Error Calculation Programs The probability sample design for the 1990 National Election Study permits the calculation of estimates of sampling error for survey statistics. For calculating sampling errors of statistics from complex sample surveys, the OSIRIS statistical analysis and data management software system offers the PSALMS and REPERR programs. PSALMS is a general purpose sampling error program that incorporates the Taylor Series approximation approach to the estimation of variances of ratios (including means, scale variables, indices, proportions) and their differences. REPERR is an OSIRIS program that incorporates algorithms for replicated approaches to variance estimation. Both Balanced Repeated Replication (BRR) and Jackknife Repeated Replication (JRR) are available as program options. The current version of REPERR is best suited for estimating sampling errors and design effects for regression and correlation statistics. Sampling Error Codes and Calculation Model Estimation of variances for complex sample survey estimates requires a computation model. Individual data records must be assigned sampling error codes that reflect the complex structure of the sample and are compatible with the computation algorithms of the various programs. The sampling error codes for the 1990 NES are included as a variable in the ICPSR Public Use data set. The assigned sampling error codes are designed to facilitate sampling error computation according to a paired selection model for both Taylor Series approximation and Replication method programs. Table 5 provides a description of how individual sampling error code values are to be paired for sampling error computations. Thirty (30) pairs or strata of sampling error computation units (SECU's) are defined. Each SECU in a stratum pair includes cases assigned to a single sampling error code value. The exceptions are the second SECU in stratum 27 that is comprised of cases assigned sampling code values 36 and 55 and the second SECU in stratum 29 that is comprised of cases with SECU's 61 and 63. Table 5 1990 NES POST-ELECTION SURVEY PAIRED SELECTION MODEL FOR SAMPLING ERROR COMPUTATIONS Pair (SECU) (SECU) (Stratum) 1 of 2 2 of 2 Codes Codes 1 103 104 2 105 106 3 99 100 4 101 102 5 95 96 6 97 98 7 93 94 8 91 92 9 89 90 10 83 84 11 81 82 12 77 78 13 75 76 14 73 74 15 2 6 16 7 8 17 14 16 18 17 18 19 19 21 20 24 28 21 63 65 22 30 33 23 37 43 24 40 48 25 42 45 26 50 51 27 52 36 + 55 28 57 64 29 60 61 + 63 30 67 68 Generalized Sampling Error Results for the 1990 NES To assist NES data analysts, the OSIRIS PSALMS program was used to compute sampling errors for a wide-ranging set of means and proportions estimated from NES survey data sets. For each estimate, sampling errors were computed for the total sample and for fifteen demographic and political affiliation subclasses of NES samples. The results of these sampling error computations were then summarized and translated into the general usage sampling error table provided in Table 6. Incorporating the pattern of "design effects" observed in the extensive set of example computations, Table 6 provides approximate standard errors for percentage estimates based on the 1990 NES. To use the table, examine the column heading to find the percentage value that best approximates the value of the estimated percentage that is of interest.[4] Next, locate the approximate sample size base (denominator for the proportion) in the left-hand row margin of the table. To find the approximate standard error of a percentage estimate, simply cross-reference the appropriate column (percentage) and row (sample size base). Note: the tabulated values represent approximately one standard error for the percentage estimate. To construct an approximate confidence interval, the analyst should apply the appropriate critical point from the "z" distribution (e.g. z=1.96 for a two-sided 95% confidence interval half-width). Furthermore, the approximate standard errors in the table apply only to single point estimates of percentages, not to the difference between two percentage estimates. The generalized variance results presented in Table 6 are a useful tool for initial, cursory examination of the NES survey results. For more in-depth analysis and reporting of critical estimates, analysts are encouraged to compute exact estimates of standard errors using the appropriate choice of a sampling error program and computation model. ------------------ [4] The standard error of a percentage is a symmetric function with its maximum centered at p=50%; i.e., the standards errors of p=40% and p=60% estimates are equal. Table 6 1990 NES POST-ELECTION SURVEY GENERALIZED VARIANCE TABLE APPROXIMATE STANDARD ERRORS FOR PERCENTAGES For percentage estimates near Sample n 50% 40% or 30% or 20% or 10% or 60% 70% 80% 90% The approximate standard error of the percentage is: 100 5.385 5.277 4.933 4.308 3.231 200 3.912 3.824 3.581 3.128 2.343 300 3.278 3.210 3.006 2.260 1.962 400 2.905 2.846 2.661 2.324 1.743 500 2.663 2.603 2.437 2.128 1.593 750 2.294 2.244 2.094 1.830 1.379 1000 2.078 2.039 1.907 1.657 1.250 1500 1.846 1.803 1.688 1.474 1.102 2000 1.722 1.691 1.568 1.368 1.030 >> 1990 VOTE VALIDATION AND ELECTION ADMINISTRATION SURVEY DATA The Vote Validation study was conducted by the National Election Studies in July of 1991 on respondents to the 1990 National Election Study (NES). The vote validation process basically involves sending name and address information for respondents who say they are registered to vote, to a Survey Research Center (SRC) field interviewer. She is instructed to check with the local office at which respondents report being registered for the purpose of locating the registration records of these respondents and ascertaining whether or not the records show that the respondents voted in the most recent general election. This is the eighth time that NES has done a voter validation study. Previous validations were done for the 1964, 1976, 1978, 1980, 1984, 1986, and 1988 Post Election Studies. A. The Election Administration Survey Variables In order to conduct elections honestly, lists of eligible voters are generated by each election office, with each voter assigned to one and only one precinct. Therefore, for the purpose of registration and voting, an individual must be associated with one and only one address, belonging in one and only one electoral jurisdiction. Since NES respondents come from a national area probability sample, a large number of different election offices are included in the validation study, usually over 100. The jurisdiction of these election offices is usually the county but in New England and a few other states, registration and voting records are maintained at a local level, including townships. Because of the diversity in record keeping and access across these many offices, the vote validation data has two conceptual parts. The most obvious part is the result of the record check for individual respondents. The other part may perhaps be labeled "contextual" data, for these variables describe the search procedure and the records themselves. Variables describing the records and the search procedure are included because the relationship between the respondent's report and what is found or not found in official records is not necessarily a straightforward one. One view of the matching process is that the official records are always correct, and that in the event of discrepancy, the respondent must have "misreported" his or her behavior. Another view is that the records themselves are but another form of measurement of a particular behavior, and as such, are subject to measurement error. So, for example, the computerized transcription of poll records, which are the records that have been checked in most offices, could be inaccurate. The situation is made more complex by the fact that there appears to be an irreducible minimum proportion of respondents for whom a record of registration cannot be located at all, and logically, it is difficult if not impossible to say that this negative finding demonstrates beyond doubt that respondents are NOT registered. It is always possible that with a "better" search, a more accurate spelling of the person's name, a correct understanding of where the person is actually registered, the record would have been located. It is important to note also that the search is conducted by human beings, specifically by SRC interviewers, who are trained in survey methods but not in records management, and who may themselves vary in terms of their understanding of the records, their pertinacity, the thoroughness by which every avenue in the records is explored, and so on. In an attempt to understand the role of the interviewer herself in this process, NES RE-validated the 1988 respondents as part of the 1991 vote validation study. The notion was that if there are interviewer effects, these would show up as different interviewers conduct record checks on the same people in the same offices. The re-validation of 1988 respondents will be released in a separate study, but the 1988 vote information was gathered for 1990 respondents as well, and is included in this dataset. In summary, it seemed imperative to give the user information not only about WHAT was found, but what the records themselves and the search was like, so that the user can make some evaluation of whether record-respondent discrepancies cluster in particular patterns of record keeping or search.[5] Information about the records, and the search process, was coded from several sources. First, the SRC interviewer who ------------------ [5] This view has been evolving within NES for some period of time. The following technical reports, papers, and other memoranda trace this development: Traugott, S. (1989) "Validating Self-Reported Vote, 1964-1988"; Presser, S., S. Traugott, and M. Traugott (1990), "Vote 'Over' Reporting in Surveys: The Records or the Respondents"; Presser, S., M. Traugott, and S. Traugott (1991), "Extending Methodological Development of Survey Response Errors for Voting"; and Traugott, S. and G. Morchio (1991), "1990 Vote Validation." Any of these papers or reports are available by contacting NES project staff. ------------------ did the records check administered a brief (10-15 minute) questionnaire to an official in the records office asking specifically about how the records were organized. The purpose of this interaction was for the interviewer to gain information to enable her to conduct the records search efficiently. Second, as the interviewer went on to fill out the forms recording the results of individual record checks, that is, to actually use the records that had been described, her understanding of the records often changed, sometimes by the discovery of additional sources not originally described to her. These discoveries were annotated on the forms themselves, rather than on the office interview. The NES staff reviewed all of the individual record check forms from a particular office in conjunction with the election official's questionnaire. A third source of information, used somewhat tentatively because of the possibility of change in the intervening time, was the previous interviews conducted in the same office. (NES has been in the same sample frame since 1984, and many of these offices have been visited three previous times.) These interviews were used to elucidate points that were not clear. Finally, for between 20-30% of the offices, various points remained unclear and the offices and/or the SRC interviewers were called by the NES staff for further information. All of these sources were used in the coding of the election office variables (900757-900803). The chief focus of the office variables is in what sources were actually used by the interviewer, and how they were used. The data do not describe in detail all of the records that the office keeps. These election administration variables differ in focus from previous codings of office variables, where the interest was in describing the office records themselves, rather than those used. The reason for this is that as staff read through the materials, they were struck by how frequently sources that were theoretically available were not used because they were not readily accessible. For example, the office might have a computerized system for keeping track of registrants. But, it is in another building, and interviewers don't have access to it on anything but printouts. Or, the computer is "down." Often, poll books are stored off-site, and offices are reluctant to retrieve them for inspection, claiming that "everything on them is on the computer." Hence, while the office interview schedule itself is attached as part of the documentation, the user should be aware that the office variables are not a direct transcription from this questionnaire, but rather address the somewhat different question of what sources were actually used. B. Preparation of the Record Check Forms for each Respondent Coversheets are prepared for each respondent who is to be "validated" and one individual record check form is filled out for each coversheet sent to the field. Coversheets are assigned to particular offices. Starting with the validation study conducted in 1984, NES has attempted to locate the registration record only for those respondents who tell staff that they are registered. In thinking about locating those who do claim to be registered, staff know that people are registered at one and, in theory, only one locality, under a specific name.[6] Therefore, staff need to know exactly where a person is registered, and to have a "good-enough" spelling of the person's name so that they can be located. When a registration record can't be found for a person, the conclusion that therefore they are not registered is difficult to defend against the proposition that the respondent is not findable because staff do not have the correct NAME for the respondent or that the respondent is for some reason registered in a different locality than where h/she was interviewed. The best way, perhaps the only way, to defend against this threat to the external validity of the record check, is to reduce the number of persons claiming to be registered for whom staff cannot find a record. That in turn has come to mean in practice: a) questions on the interview schedule about exactly where a person is registered and where h/her polling place is; b) intensive review by staff of this information plus recontact information and of the spelling of a person's name as it was entered when the coversheet was originally logged in; and c) preparation of "coversheets" for each respondent that also include information about whether the person has recently changed their name, has a listed telephone number, family composition and residential mobility. (Interviewers are NOT told whether or not the ------------------ [6] A few respondents told interviewers that they were registered, but were very vague about exactly where, e.g., "in upstate New York where I used to live." No attempt was made to locate records for such respondents. In a few other cases, the interviewers misunderstood instructions about which offices they were to contact to validate the respondent. These cases are treated as "non-validated." ------------------- respondent reported voting.)[7] C. Special Problems in Assignment of Respondents to Offices For a variety of reasons, 5-10% of those saying that they are registered to vote also tell staff that they are not registered in the jurisdiction in which they were interviewed. In our mobile society, it sometimes takes a while for registration address to catch up with actual living address. Or, as in the case of college students or live-in domestic help, people may have a different perception of where they actually live, where their home is, than is contemplated in the rules of sample selection (does this person spend most nights in a week at this address, etc., etc.) Some people are registered in counties that do not fall in our sample. Appropriate offices for these individuals were identified and the respondent's record check was conducted by an SRC field interviewer calling that office. Usually but not always, the offices so contacted were cooperative, but the user should be aware that this form of checking is necessarily less thorough than that done in person in an election office in which an interview has been conducted. A code of "999" in variable Variable 900714 indicates that the record check was conducted over the telephone. Occasionally, staff sent out a record check form to more than one office for a single individual, when it was difficult to tell in which locale a person was most likely to be registered. If this happened, the differences between the forms were reconciled so that the data contain only one validation record per respondent. D. The Lookup Process If election offices share a common central mission, that of conducting elections without fraud, they also display a bewildering variety of terms for similar procedures, to say nothing of widely different procedures to achieve the same ends. There are places with numerous versions of sophisticated computer tracking, and places with one set of poll ledgers. The supervisors of these offices can be ------------------ [7] In 1990, staff actually sent out records for respondents who had not given their names but who had indicated that they were registered. In many cases, it was possible to find someone of matching age and gender living at the same address at which the respondent was interviewed. If no such match was made, however, the person's validation data was treated as "missing." ------------------- highly professional, or, in one or two cases, obvious political appointees. Some offices boast the latest in computer technology, including digitized signatures and bar codes over which a wand can be passed to register that a person has voted; while others make do with signatures and initials on the original registration card. We have validated in jurisdictions having voters numbering in the millions and thousands of precincts and in places where there is one precinct with several hundred registrants. Each year staff face the difficulty of trying to train survey interviewers how to diagnose the intricacies of records management in the offices they are likely to encounter, so that they can efficiently use ALL the sources potentially available to them in the actual lookup process. In 1984, staff hit upon the strategy of conducting an interview with an election official, prior to actually looking up the records, so that the look-up person would have a detailed idea of what records were available to her. Each time this is done, staff struggle to improve the office questionnaire so that it will better lead the naive interviewer through the maze of different office procedures. Although NES staff is somewhat removed from the complexities of each individual office, they try to write some general instructions to guide the interviewers in the lookup process. For this study, the task of the interviewer was described to them as first FINDING a record that they were reasonably sure was the respondent's; then, ascertaining what the record showed about whether the respondent voted or did not vote in the general elections of 1990 and 1988. It was explained that all offices maintain a list of who is registered in their jurisdiction. From this master list, all offices send to each polling place a list in some form of who is eligible to vote at that voting place. When people vote, some mark is made to indicate that they have done so (to reduce the possibility of fraud, following the time honored rule of one person, one vote.) Information about whether a person did or did not vote may or may not be posted back to the master office list of who is registered. There are many variations on this schemata; for example, some offices divide the master list (which is on cards) into precinct binders and send these out to the polls where they are marked.) Thus, the master list is also the poll book. The general outline, however, is simple. Based on this general outline, and assuming that most offices post vote information back to the registration record, interviewers were to look first at the master registration record for evidence that R had voted. If the record did not show that R voted, they were to look at the original poll books, to the extent they were available, for some further indication of vote. (Historiographers will recognize the distinction between primary and secondary sources, one that has been slow to dawn on staff as survey researchers.) One example will illustrate the importance of primary sources. An interviewer happened to be a registered voter in a county where she was looking up 1990 respondents. She noted that many more respondents appeared to have voted in 1990 than in 1988. She thought this was strange. Accordingly, she looked up her own record for 1988, and found that the computer did not show her as voting, although she had. It didn't show her son or husband as voting either, although they voted with her. The original poll records, however, showed she and her family as voting. It turned out that there had been a sizeable transcription error in this office in 1988. As the NES staff evaluated what was received back from interviewers, both record check forms and election official interviews, it was clear that in many offices original sources were not used, either because they were not made available to the interviewer (sometimes they are destroyed after information has been posted to the computer) or because the interviewer did not press for access to these sources. Also, some interviewers went about their task in a way exactly contrary to instructions, i.e., they looked first at the poll records, and then searched the registration records for people they couldn't locate. The trouble with this strategy is that some nontrivial proportion of people are not registered to vote in the precinct in which they were interviewed; rather they vote somewhere else in the same jurisdiction. Starting with the poll books means considerably more going back and forth between registration records and poll records; in this process, it is much more difficult for the interviewer with a sizeable number of cases in an office to keep track of exactly which sources she has or has not used in a particular case.[8] The post-fieldwork staff evaluation process was extremely time-consuming and inefficient. When NES next undertakes ------------------ [8] In fairness to the interviewers, it should be said that they are entirely dependent on the good will of the people assisting them in any given office. Often, these people had an understandable interest in minimizing the time devoted to helping the interviewers and the interviewers were reluctant to press them with time-consuming requests for original sources. In retrospect, the NES staff needed to do much more to prepare the offices and the interviewers regarding resources needed to complete the lookup task. -------------------- voter validation, hopefully in 1993, they are convinced that the process of training interviewers to work in specific offices will have to be significantly revised, building both on the knowledge gained over the last several vote validations of the way in which registration records are managed and with the assistance of records management specialists. As staff come closer to the real possibility of a 1992 vote validation study, they intend also, to the extent that the budget permits, to seek advice from a planning committee consisting of scholars interested in this topic. E. Contents of the Data Records for 1990 respondents who were not validated have been "padded" with missing data codes. The data contain variables from several sources. These are: 1. Variables from the individual record check form filled out by the interviewer in the election office. (Variables 900712-900755) 2. Summary variables combining self-report and the result of the record check. (Variable 900756) 3. Variables describing the sources used and the search procedure in the election records office in which the respondent's record was looked up. (Variables 900757-900803). F. Vote Validation Study Staff Santa Traugott NES Project Manager Giovanna Morchio Study Manager, NES Fran Eliot Research Assistant, NES Heather Hewett Study Manager, SRC/Field Section >> 1990 NES STAFF AND TECHNICAL PAPERS Brehm, John. (1985a) "Report on Coding of Economic Conditions Series in the 1984 Pre-Post Election Study: A Report to the Board of Overseers, National Election Studies." Working Paper No. 8. Ann Arbor: CPS, June 1985. Brehm, John. (1985b) "Analysis of Result Code Disposition for Continuous Monitoring by Time in Field: Report to the Board of Overseers, National Election Studies." Working Paper No. 7. Ann Arbor: CPS, August 1985. Brehm, John. (1985c) "Question Ordering Effects on Reported Vote Choice." Unpublished Memo, July 1985. Brehm, John. (1987a) "How Representative is the 1986 Post-election Survey?" Memo to Board of Overseers, National Election Studies, May 1987. Brehm, John. (1987b) "Who's Missing? an Analysis of NonResponse in the 1986 Election Study: A Report to the Board of Overseers, National Election Studies." Working Paper No. 10. Ann Arbor: CPS, December 1987. Brehm, John and Santa Traugott. (1986) "Similarity and Representativeness of the 1985 Pilot Half-samples." Memo to the NES 1985 Pilot Study Committee March, 1986. Lake, Celinda. (1983a) "Similarity and Representativeness of 1983 Pilot Samples." Memo to National Election Studies 1984 Planning Committee, September 1983. Lake, Celinda. (1983b) "Comparison of 3-point, 5-point, and 7-point Scales from the CATI Experiment 1982 Election Study." Memo to NES Board of Overseers, November 1983. Lake, Celinda. (1984) "Coding of Independent/Independents and Apoliticals in the Party Identification Summary Code and Apoliticals in the Rolling Cross-Section." Memo to Board of Overseers, National Election Studies. February 1984. Morchio, Giovanna. (1987) "Trends in NES Response Rates." Memo to NES Board of Overseers. Morchio, Giovanna and Maria Sanchez. (1984) "Creation of a Filter Variable to be Used When Analyzing Questions about Congressional Candidates in the 1982 Integrated Personal/ISR CATI/Berkeley CATI Dataset: A Report to the Board of Overseers, National Election Studies." Working Paper No. 1, Ann Arbor: CPS, February 1984. Morchio, Giovanna and Maria Sanchez. (1984) "Comparison of the Michigan Method of District Assignment on the Telephone with the Personal Interview Simulated Data: A Report to the Board of Overseers, National Election Studies." Working Paper No. 2. Ann Arbor: CPS, March 1984. Morchio, Giovanna, Maria Sanchez and Santa Traugott. (1985) "Mode Differences: DK Responses in the 1984 Post-Election Survey: A Report to the Board of Overseers, National Election Studies." Working Paper No. 9. Ann Arbor: CPS, November 1985. Morchio, Giovanna and Santa Traugott. (1986) "Congressional District Assignment in an RDD Sample: Results of 1982 CATI Experiment." Memo to the 1986 Pilot Planning Committee. February 1986. NES Staff. (1984) "Questions and Versions in NES Continuous Monitoring, 1984: A Report to the Board of Overseers, National Election Studies." Working Paper No. 3. Ann Arbor: CPS, August 1984. NES Staff. (1984) "Weekly Field Report for the National Election Studies Continuous Monitoring, Jan. 11-Aug. 3, 1984: A Report to the Board of Overseers, National Election Studies." Working Paper No. 4. Ann Arbor: CPS, August 1984. NES Staff. (1985) "Progress of the Rolling Cross Section." Memo to NES Board of Overseers, February 1985. NES Staff. (undated) "Years of Schooling." Unpublished Staff Memo. NES Staff. (undated) "Newspaper Code." Unpublished Staff Memo. Traugott, Santa. (1984) "Two Versions of the Abortion Question." Unpublished Staff Memo to the NES Board of Overseers, June 1984. Traugott, Santa. (1985) "Sample Weighting in NES Continuous Monitoring, 1984.: A Report to the Board of Overseers, National Election Studies," Working Paper No. 5. Ann Arbor: CPS, April 1985. Traugott, Santa. (1985) "Sample Weighting in NES Pre-Post Election Survey, 1984: A Report to the Board of Overseers, National Election Studies," Working Paper No. 6. Ann Arbor: CPS, April 1985. Traugott, Santa. (1985) "Assessment of Media Measures in RXS." Unpublished Staff Memo, July 1985. Traugott, Santa. (1985) "Assessment of Media Measures in Pre-Post" Unpublished Staff Memo, July 1985. Traugott, Santa. (undated) "The Political Interest Variable on the 1984 Election Study." Unpublished Staff Memo to NES Planning Committee. Traugott, Santa. (1985) "Some Analysis of Hard-to-Reach Rolling Thunder Respondents." Unpublished Staff Memo to NES Board of Overseers, February 1985. >> 1990 LIST OF PILOT STUDY REPORTS-1989 Abelson, Robert. Message on Vote Validation Experiment. Calvo, Maria Antonia and Steven J. Rosenstone. The Re-Framing of the Abortion Debate. Kinder, Donald R. and Thomas Nelson. Experimental Investigations of Opinion Frames and Survey Responses: A Report to the NES Board. Knight, Kathleen. Comparisons of Liberal-Conservative Items in the ANES 1989 Pilot Study. Krosnick, Jon and Matthew K. Berent. Impact of Verbal Labeling on Response Alternatives and Branching on Attitude Measurement Reliability. Leege, David, Ken Wald and Lyman Kellstedt. Religion and Politics. A Report on Measures of Religiosity in the 1989 NES Pilot Study. Markus, Gregory. Measuring Popular Individualism. NES Staff. Possible Bias due to Attrition and Sample Selection in the 1989 Pilot Study. Price, Vincent and John Zaller. Evaluation of Media Exposure Items in 1989. Appendix 1: [Price & Zaller] Measuring individual differences... Appendix 2: [Zaller & Price] In One Ear and Out the Other... Rosenstone, Steven J. and Gregory A. Diamond. Measuring Public Opinion on Political issues. Traugott, Michael. Memo to Pilot Study Committee, including as an Appendix: Understanding Campaign Effects on Candidate Recall and Recognition. Zaller, John. Experimental Tests of the Question Answering Model of the Mass Survey Response. >> 1990 CODEBOOK INFORMATION The following example from the 1948 NES study provides the standard format for codebook variable documentation. Note that NES studies which are not part of the Time-Series usually omit marginals and the descriptive content in lines 2-5 (except for variable name). Line 1 ============================== 2 VAR 480026 NAME-R NOT VT-WAS R REG TO VT 3 COLUMNS 61 - 61 4 NUMERIC 5 MD=0 OR GE 8 6 7 Q. 17. (IF R DID NOT VOTE) WERE YOU REGISTERED (ELIGIBLE) 8 TO VOTE. 9 ........................................................... 10 11 82 1. YES 12 149 2. NO 13 14 0 8. DK 15 9 9. NA 16 422 0. INAP., R VOTED Line 2 - VARIABLE NAME. Note that in the codebook the variable name (usually a 'number') does not include the "V" prefix which is used in the release SAS and SPSS data definition files (.sas and .sps files) for all variables including those which do not have 'number' names. For example the variable "VERSION" in the codebook is "VVERSION" in the data definition files. Line 2 - "NAME". This is the variable label used in the SAS and SPSS data definition files (.sas and .sps files). Some codebooks exclude this. Line 3 - COLUMNS. Columns in the ASCII data file (.dat file). Line 4 - CHARACTER OR NUMERIC. If numeric and the variable is a decimal rather than integer variable, the numer of decimal places is also indicated (e.g. "NUMERIC DEC 4") Line 5 - Values which are assigned to missing by default in the Study's SAS and and SPSS data definition files (.sas and .sps files). Line 7 - Actual question text for survey variables or a description of non-survey variables (for example, congressional district). Survey items usually include the question number (for example "B1a.") from the Study questionnaire; beginning in 1996 non-survey items also have unique item numbers (for example "CSheet.1"). Line 9 - A dashed or dotted line usually separates question text from any other documentation which follows. Line 10- When present, annotation provided by Study staff is presented below the question text/description and preceding code values. Lines 11-16 Code values are listed with descriptive labels. Valid codes (those not having 'missing' status in line 5) are presented first, followed by the values described in line 5. For continuous variables, one line may appear providing the range of possible values. A blank line usually separates the 'valid' and 'missing' values. Lines 11-16 Marginals are usually provided for discrete variables. The counts may be unweighted or weighted; check the Study codebook introductory text to determine weight usage. >> 1990 ICPSR PROCESSING INFORMATION The data collection was processed according to standard ICPSR processing procedures. The data were checked for illegal or inconsistent code values which, when found, were corrected or recoded to missing data values. Consistency checks were performed. Statements bracketed in "<" and ">" signs in the body of the codebook were added by the processors for explanatory purposes. >> 1990 VARIABLE DESCRIPTION LIST VARIABLE VARIABLE LABEL -------- -------------- VERSION NES VERSION NUMBER DSETNO NES DATASET NUMBER 900001 ICPSR ARCHIVE NUMBER ...... ...there are no variables 900002,900003 900004 Respondent Post-Election Case ID SAMPLING INFORMATION 900005 Primary Area Code 900006 Primary Area Name 900007 Segment Number 900008 Census Region 900009 Postal State Abbreviation and Congressional District Number 900010 FIPS State Code 900011 FIPS State and County Code 900012 ICPSR State Code 900013 Congressional District 900014 ICPSR State and Congressional District Code 900015 Tract/Enumerated District Indicator 900016 1980 Census Tract 900017 1980 Census Enumeration District 900018 1980 Census Place Code 900019 FIPS 1980 SMSA Code 900020 FIPS 1980 SCSA Code 900021 Size of Place of Interview 900022 Actual Population of Place of Interview 900023 1980 Belt Code 900024 1980 Minor Civil Division 900025 Sampling Error Code 900026 Selection Table 900027 Selected R Person Number HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION 900028 Number of persons in household 900029 Number of eligible adults 900030 Number of children under six years old 900031 Number of children six to nine years old 900032 Number of children ten to thirteen years old 900033 Number of children fourteen to seventeen years old 900034 Household composition INTERVIEW/ER INFORMATION 900035 Refusal conversion indicator 900036 Persuasion letter requested 900037 Final call number 900038 Final result code 900039 Was respondent's name obtained 900040 If R is female, has R legally changed her name 900041 Phone number obtained 900042 Should not interview by telephone? 900043 Interviewer's ID number 900044 Interviewer's race 900045 Interviewer's languages 900046 Interviewer's ethnicity 900047 Interviewer's age, bracketed 900048 Interviewer's years of work, bracketed 900049 Interviewer's gender 900050 Interviewer's education, bracketed 900051 Interviewer's interview number 900052 Date of interview - month 900053 Date of interview - day 900054 Total length of interview 900055 Total time to pre-edit 900056 Total time to post-interview edit 900057 Beginning time - local 900058 Type of Congressional race (House of Representatives) 900059 Type of Senate race 900060 Type of Governor race 900061 Form type R'S INTEREST/ATTENTION TO CAMPAIGN/MEDIA 900062 R's interest in the campaign 900063 Did R read about the campaign in any newspapers 900064 How much attention did R give to the campaign in the newspaper 900065 Did R watch any programs about the campaign on TV 900066 How many programs about the campaign did R watch 900067 How much attention did R give to the campaign news on TV 900068 Does R ever discuss politics 900069 How often does R discuss politics 900070 How often did R discuss politics in the past week 900071 How often did R read a daily newspaper in the past week 900072 How many days did R watch TV news in the past week 900073 Interviewer Checkpoint: Form Type WHAT R LIKES/DISLIKES ABOUT DEMOCRATIC PARTY 900074 Whether R likes anything about the democratic party 900075 What R likes about the Democratic party - first mention 900076 What R likes about the Democratic party - second mention 900077 What R likes about the Democratic party - third mention 900078 What R likes about the Democratic party - fourth mention 900079 What R likes about the Democratic party - fifth mention 900080 Whether R dislikes anything about the Democratic party 900081 What R dislikes about the Democratic party - first mention 900082 What R dislikes about the Democratic party - second mention 900083 What R dislikes about the Democratic party - third mention 900084 What R dislikes about the Democratic party - fourth mention 900085 What R dislikes about the Democratic party - fifth mention WHAT R LIKES/DISLIKES ABOUT REPUBLICAN PARTY 900086 Whether R likes anything about the Republican party 900087 What R likes about the Republican party - first mention 900088 What R likes about the Republican party - second mention 900089 What R likes about the Republican party - third mention 900090 What R likes about the Republican party - fourth mention 900091 What R likes about the Republican party - fifth mention 900092 Whether R dislikes anything about the Republican party 900093 What R dislikes about the Republican party - first mention 900094 What R dislikes about the Republican party - second mention 900095 What R dislikes about the Republican party - third mention 900096 What R dislikes about the Republican party - fourth mention 900097 What R dislikes about the Republican party - fifth mention R'S ASSESSMENT OF BUSH PRESIDENCY 900098 R approve/disapprove of Bush's handling of presidency 900099 Strength of R's approval/disapproval of Bush's handling of presidency 900100 R approve/disapprove of Bush's handling of economy 900101 Strength of R's approval/disapproval of Bush's handling of economy 900102 R approve/disapprove of Bush's handling of relations with foreign countries 900103 Strength of R's approval/disapproval of Bush's handling of relations with foreign countries 900104 R approve/disapprove of Bush's handling of pollution and other environmental problems 900105 Strength of R's approval/disapproval of Bush's handling of pollution and other environmental problems CONGRESSIONAL CAMPAIGN 900106 How much did R personally care about the outcome of the U.S. congressional election 900107 Does R remember the congressional candidates 900108 Number of congressional candidate - candidate 1 900109 From which party was the candidate - candidate 1 900110 Collapsed code for congressional candidate - candidate 1 900111 R's knowledge of candidate's name and party - candidate 1 900112 Number of congressional candidate - candidate 2 900113 From which party was the candidate - candidate 2 900114 Collapsed code for congressional candidate - candidate 2 900115 R's knowledge of candidate's name and party - candidate 2 900116 Number of congressional candidate - candidate 3 900117 From which party was the candidate - candidate 3 900118 Collapsed code for congressional candidate - candidate 3 900119 R's knowledge of candidate's name and party - candidate 3 900120 Interviewer Checkpoint: U.S. Senate race in state? SENATE CAMPAIGN 900121 Does R remember the Senate candidates 900122 Number of Senate candidate - candidate 1 900123 From which party was the candidate - candidate 1 900124 Collapsed code for Senate candidate - candidate 1 900125 R's knowledge of candidate's name and party - candidate 1 900126 Number of Senate candidate - candidate 2 900127 From which party was the candidate - candidate 2 900128 Collapsed code for Senate candidate - candidate 2 900129 R's knowledge of candidate's name and party - candidate 2 900130 Number of Senate candidate - candidate 3 900131 From which party was the candidate - candidate 3 900132 Collapsed code for Senate candidate - candidate 3 900133 R's knowledge of candidate's name and party - candidate 3 FEELING THERMOMETER: POLITICAL FIGURES 900134 Feeling thermometer - George Bush 900135 Feeling thermometer - Mario Cuomo 900136 Feeling thermometer - Mikhail Gorbachev 900137 Feeling thermometer - Dan Quayle 900138 Feeling thermometer - Ronald Reagan 900139 Feeling thermometer - Jesse Jackson 900140 Feeling thermometer - Democratic U.S. Senate candidate 900141 Feeling thermometer - Republican U.S. Senate candidate 900142 Feeling thermometer - U.S. Senate incumbent whose term is not up - race in state 900143 Feeling thermometer - U.S. Senate incumbent - no race in state 900144 Feeling thermometer - second U.S. Senate incumbent - no race in state 900145 Feeling thermometer - Democratic U.S. House candidate 900146 Feeling thermometer - Republican U.S. House candidate 900147 Feeling thermometer - Democratic gubernatorial candidate 900148 Feeling thermometer - Republican gubernatorial candidate 900149 Feeling thermometer - Governor or retiring Governor - no race in state 900150 Feeling thermometer - third party gubernatorial candidate (Connecticut only) 900151 Feeling thermometer - Democratic party 900152 Feeling thermometer - Republican party 900153 Feeling thermometer - political parties in general FEELING THERMOMETER: GROUPS IN SOCIETY 900154 Feeling thermometer - supporters of abortion 900155 Feeling thermometer - Blacks 900156 Feeling thermometer - conservatives 900157 Feeling thermometer - labor unions 900158 Feeling thermometer - the women's movement 900159 Feeling thermometer - people on welfare 900160 Feeling thermometer - people seeking to protect the environment 900161 Feeling thermometer - liberals 900162 Feeling thermometer - poor people 900163 Feeling thermometer - opponents of abortion R'S ASSESSMENT OF CONGRESSIONAL PERFORMANCE 900164 Does R approve/disapprove of the way Congress has been handling its job 900165 How strongly does R approve/disapprove of Congress' handling of its job R'S VOTE: 1988 900166 Did R vote in 1988 election 900167 Who did R vote for in 1988 presidential election PROBE INDICATORS 900168 Was question B13a probed by interviewer 900169 Was question B13b probed by interviewer 900170 Was question B13c probed by interviewer 900171 Was question B13d probed by interviewer 900172 Was question B13e probed by interviewer 900173 Was question B13f probed by interviewer 900174 Was question B13g probed by interviewer 900175 Was question B13h probed by interviewer 900176 Was question B13k probed by interviewer 900177 Was question B13m probed by interviewer 900178 Was question B13n probed by interviewer 900179 Was question B13o probed by interviewer 900180 Was question B13p probed by interviewer 900181 Was question B13q probed by interviewer 900182 Was question B13r probed by interviewer 900183 Was question B13t probed by interviewer 900184 Was question B13u probed by interviewer 900185 Was question B14a probed by interviewer 900186 Was question B14b probed by interviewer 900187 Was question B14c probed by interviewer 900188 Was question B14d probed by interviewer 900189 Was question B14e probed by interviewer 900190 Was question B14f probed by interviewer 900191 Was question B14g probed by interviewer 900192 Was question B14h probed by interviewer 900193 Was question B14j probed by interviewer 900194 Was question B14k probed by interviewer 900195 Was question B14m probed by interviewer 900196 Was question B14n probed by interviewer 900197 Was question B14o probed by interviewer R'S LIKES/DISLIKES HOUSE CANDIDATE: DEMOCRATIC 900198 Is there anything R likes about Democratic candidate for House of Representatives 900199 What R likes about House Democratic candidate - first mention 900200 What R likes about House Democratic candidate - second mention 900201 What R likes about House Democratic candidate - third mention 900202 What R likes about House Democratic candidate - fourth mention 900203 What R likes about House Democratic candidate - fifth mention 900204 Is there anything R dislikes about Democratic candidate for House of Representatives 900205 What R dislikes about House Democratic candidate - first mention 900206 What R dislikes about House Democratic candidate - second mention 900207 What R dislikes about House Democratic candidate - third mention 900208 What R dislikes about House Democratic candidate - fourth mention 900209 What R dislikes about House Democratic candidate - fifth mention R'S LIKES/DISLIKES HOUSE CANDIDATE: REPUBLICAN 900210 Is there anything R likes about Republican candidate for House of Representatives 900211 What R likes about House Republican candidate - first mention 900212 What R likes about House Republican candidate - second mention 900213 What R likes about House Republican candidate - third mention 900214 What R likes about House Republican candidate - fourth mention 900215 What R likes about House Republican candidate - fifth mention 900216 Is there anything R dislikes about Republican candidate for House of Representatives 900217 What R dislikes about House Republican candidate - first mention 900218 What R dislikes about House Republican candidate - second mention 900219 What R dislikes about House Republican candidate - third mention 900220 What R dislikes about House Republican candidate - fourth mention 900221 What R dislikes about House Republican candidate - fifth mention 900222 Interviewer Checkpoint: Type of race - one or two candidates IMPORTANT ISSUES: HOUSE CAMPAIGN 900223 Important issues to R in campaign for House of Representatives - first mention 900224 Important issues to R in campaign for House of Representatives - second mention 900225 Important issues to R in campaign for House of Representatives - third mention 900226 Interviewer Checkpoint: Has R mentioned issues 900227 Issue most important to R in campaign 900228 Did R prefer one of the candidates because of this issue 900229 Candidate R preferred 900230 Party of candidate named R'S KNOWLEDGE OF HOUSE INCUMBENT 900231 Two House candidates running: was either candidate already in House of Representatives 900232 Two House candidates running: which candidate was already in House of Representatives 900233 Two House candidates running: party of candidate already in House of Representatives 900234 One House candidate running: was candidate already in House of Representatives 900235 One House candidate running: candidate number code 900236 One House candidate running: party of candidate 900237 Interviewer Checkpoint: Districts in which House incumbent ran R'S CONTACT WITH HOUSE INCUMBENT 900238 Did R have any contact with incumbent 900239 Did R meet incumbent personally 900240 Did R attend meeting/gathering where incumbent spoke 900241 Did R talk with incumbent's staff/office 900242 Did R receive something in mail from incumbent 900243 Did R read about incumbent in newspaper/magazine 900244 Did R hear incumbent on radio 900245 Did R see incumbent on television 900246 R had contact with incumbent in other ways 900247 Does R know anyone who had contact with incumbent 900248 Interviewer Checkpoint: District in which House incumbent had opposition R'S CONTACT WITH HOUSE CHALLENGER 900249 Did R have any contact with candidate 900250 Did R meet candidate personally 900251 Did R attend meeting/gathering where candidate spoke 900252 Did R talk with candidate's staff/office 900253 Did R receive something in mail from candidate 900254 Did R read about candidate in newspaper/magazine 900255 Did R hear candidate on radio 900256 Did R see candidate on television 900257 R had contact with candidate in other ways 900258 Does R know anyone who had contact with candidate R'S CONTACT WITH DEMOCRATIC HOUSE CANDIDATE, NO INCUMBENT 900259 Did R have any contact with candidate 900260 Did R meet candidate personally 900261 Did R attend meeting/gathering where candidate spoke 900262 Did R talk with candidate's staff/office 900263 Did R receive something in mail from candidate 900264 Did R read about candidate in newspaper/magazine 900265 Did R hear candidate on radio 900266 Did R see candiate on television 900267 R had contact with candidate in other ways 900268 Does R know anyone who had contact with candidate R'S CONTACT WITH REPUBLICAN HOUSE CANDIDATE, NO INCUMBENT 900269 Did R have any contact with candidate 900270 Did R meet candidate personally 900271 Did R attend meeting/gathering where candidate spoke 900272 Did R talk with candidate's staff/office 900273 Did R receive something in mail from candidate 900274 Did R read about candidate in newspaper/magazine 900275 Did R hear candidate on radio 900276 Did R see candidate on television 900277 R had contact with candidate in other ways 900278 Does R know anyone who had contact with candidate VOTING SECTION: VOTERS 900279 Did R vote in 1990 election 900280 Was R registered to vote in this election 900281 Is R registered to vote at current address 900282 In what county and state is R registered 900283 Interviewer Checkpoint: Did R vote in 1990 election 900284 Did R vote in person or by absentee ballot 900285 Where R has voted 900286 Interviewer Checkpoint: Is R registered to vote in county/state of interview 900287 Did R vote for House of Representatives candidate 900288 For which House of Representatives candidate did R vote 900289 R's vote for House candidate - party 900290 Was R's preference strong for House candidate 900291 Interviewer Checkpoint: Was there a Senate race in R's state 900292 Did R vote for a Senate candidate 900293 For which Senate candidate did R vote 900294 R's vote for Senate candidate - party 900295 Was R's preference strong for Senate candidate 900296 Interviewer Checkpoint: Was there a gubernatorial race in R's state 900297 Did R vote for gubernatorial candidate 900298 For which gubernatorial candidate did R vote 900299 R's vote for gubernatorial candidate - party VOTING SECTION: NON-VOTERS 900300 Did R prefer one candidate for U.S. House 900301 Whom did R prefer for U.S. House 900302 R's preference for House candidate - party NON-CAMPAIGN CONTACT WITH HOUSE INCUMBENT 900303 Did R or family member ever contact U.S. House incumbent/office 900304 Reason for contact with House incumbent - to express opinion 900305 Reason for contact with House incumbent - to seek information 900306 Reason for contact with House incumbent - to seek help with problem 900307 Did R get response from House incumbent 900308 How satisfied was R with response from incumbent 900309 Does R know anyone else who had contact with U.S. House incumbent 900310 Did person/group get response from House incumbent 900311 How satisfied was person/group with response from incumbent 900312 How helpful would House incumbent be with another problem R'S ASSESSMENT OF HOUSE INCUMBENT 900313 How well does U.S. representative keep in touch with district 900314 Does R remember a bill representative voted on 900315 Does R agree/disagree with way representative voted 900316 Anything special done by House incumbent for district/ people R'S PARTY IDENTIFICATION 900317 R's party identification 900318 Strength of R's party identification 900319 R closer to Republican/Democratic party 900320 Summary: R's party identification IMPORTANT NATIONAL PROBLEMS 900321 How often does R follow government/public affairs 900322 What is most important national problem - 1st mention 900323 What is most important national problem - 2nd mention 900324 What is most important national problem - 3rd mention 900325 Interviewer Checkpoint: Has R mentioned any problems 900326 What is the single most important national problem 900327 Interviewer Checkpoint: Form A or B INDIVIDUALISM 900328 Fitting in with people vs. acting according to your own standards 900329 Taking care of yourself vs. caring more about society 900330 Raising children to be independent-minded vs. obedient 900331 Strong government vs. free market in handling economic problems 900332 Being poor due to not working hard enough vs. circumstances beyond control 900333 Less government vs. more government 900334 Cooperation vs. self-reliance 900335 The main reason government has become bigger PARTY DIFFERENCES 900336 Does R see important differences between parties 900337 Important party differences: party preference - first mention 900338 Party difference content - first mention 900339 Important party differences: party preference - second mention 900340 Party difference content - second mention 900341 Important party differences: party preference - third mention 900342 Party difference content - third mention 900343 Important party differences: party preference - fourth mention 900344 Party difference content - fourth mention 900345 Important party differences: party preference - fifth mention 900346 Party difference content - fifth mention 900347 Important party differences: party preference - sixth mention 900348 Party difference content - sixth mention 900349 Does R think one party more conservative at national level 900350 Which party does R think is more conservative EASTERN EUROPE 900351 How much has R heard about changes in Soviet Union/ eastern Europe 900352 Does R think the cold war is coming to an end 900353 Should U.S. give economic assistance to east European countries that have turned toward democracy NATIONAL SECURITY 900354 Is Soviet Union or Japan bigger threat to national security of U.S. FEDERAL BUDGET DEFICIT 900355 Does R approve/disapprove of efforts to reduce federal deficit 900356 Did democrats/Republicans work hardest to reduce deficit PERSIAN GULF 900357 Was sending U.S. troops to Persian Gulf right 900358 What should U.S. do now in Persian Gulf 900359 Does R approve/disapprove of Bush's handling of Persian Gulf crisis 900360 How strongly does R approve/disapprove of Bush's handling of Persian Gulf crisis PARTY CONTACTS WITH R DURING THE CAMPAIGN 900361 Did a political party worker contact R during campaign 900362 Which party(s) contacted R during campaign 900363 Did anyone else contact R during campaign 900364 Which candidate did the contact ask R to support - 1st mention 900365 Which candidate did the contact ask R to support - 2nd mention R'S POLITICAL ACTIVITIES 900366 Did R try to influence other's vote choice 900367 Did R wear a button, put a sticker on the car, or put up a sign 900368 Did R attend any political meetings or rallies 900369 Did R work for party or candidate 900370 Did R use $1 political contribution option on federal income tax return 900371 Did R contribute money to an individual candidate 900372 R gave money to candidate from which party 900373 Did R give money to specific political party 900374 Which party did R give money to 900375 Did R give money to any other group supporting/opposing candidates 900376 Was R contacted about registering or voting INCREASE/DECREASE SPENDING ON FEDERAL BUDGET PROGRAMS 900377 Increase/decrease spending on protection of the environment 900378 Increase/decrease spending on foreign aid 900379 Increase/decrease spending on fighting the disease AIDS 900380 Increase/decrease spending on social security 900381 Increase/decrease spending for the war on drugs 900382 Increase/decrease spending on food stamps 900383 Increase/decrease spending on public schools 900384 Increase/decrease spending on the homeless 900385 Increase/decrease spending on childcare 900386 Increase/decrease spending on programs that assist Blacks 900387 Increase/decrease spending on the space program WHICH PARTY WOULD DO A BETTER JOB HANDLING VARIOUS PROBLEMS 900388 Which party is more likely to cut social security 900389 Which party is more likely to raise taxes 900390 Which party would do better job of handling the economy 900391 Which party would do better job of handling the environment 900392 Which party would do better job of dealing with crime 900393 Which party would do better job of handling foreign affairs 900394 Which party would do better job of cleaning up savings and loan business R'S RECOGNITION OF POLITICAL FIGURES 900395 Does R know what job/office Dan Quayle holds 900396 Does R know what job/office George Mitchell holds 900397 Does R know what job/office William Rehnquist holds 900398 Does R know what job/office Mikhail Gorbachev holds 900399 Does R know what job/office Margaret Thatcher holds 900400 Does R know what job/office Nelson Mandela holds 900401 Does R know what job/office Tom Foley holds R'S KNOWLEDGE OF PARTY REPRESENTATION IN CONGRESS 900402 Does R know which party had the most members in the House of Representatives before the election 900403 Does R know which party had the most members in the Senate before the election R'S ASSESSMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE'S PERFORMANCE 900404 R's approval/disapproval of representative's handling of job 900405 Strength of R's approval/disapproval of representative's handling of job POSITIONS ON LIBERAL/CONSERVATIVE SCALE 900406 Liberal/conservative scale-R 900407 If R had to choose, would R consider self a liberal/ conservative 900408 Liberal/conservative scale-Bush 900409 Liberal/conservative scale-Democratic House candidate 900410 Liberal/conservative scale-Republican House candidate 900411 Liberal/conservative scale-Democratic Senate candidate 900412 Liberal/conservative scale-Republican Senate candidate 900413 Liberal/conservative scale-Democratic party 900414 Liberal/conservative scale-Republican party 900415 liberal/conservative scale-the federal government R'S PERSONAL FINANCIAL SITUATION 900416 Does R feel better/worse off financially than a year ago 900417 How much better/worse off does R feel financially 900418 Has federal economic policy made a difference on R's financial position 900419 How much better/worse has it made R financially 900420 Will R be better/worse off financially a year from now 900421 Will R be much or somewhat better/worse off financially a year from now R'S OPINION OF NATIONAL ECONOMY 900422 Does R think the nation's economy has gotten better/ worse/stayed the same in the past year 900423 How much better/worse is the nation's economy 900424 Does R see the economy getting better/worse/staying about the same in the next year 900425 Interviewer Checkpoint: Form A or B EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES/RIGHTS 900426 Society should ensure equal opportunity to succeed 900427 We have gone too far in pushing equal rights 900428 A problem in this country is that we don't give everyone an equal chance 900429 We should worry less about equality 900430 It is not a problem if people have unequal chances 900431 We would have fewer problems if people were treated more equally LIMITS ON IMPORTS/SANCTIONS AGAINST SOUTH AFRICA 900432 Increase/decrease limits on foreign imports scale-R (Form A) 900433 Increase/decrease sanctions against South Africa scale-R (Form A) 900434 Does R favor increasing/decreasing limits on foreign imports (Form B) 900435 How much does R favor increasing/decreasing limits on foreign imports (Form B) 900436 Does R favor increasing/decreasing sanctions against South Africa (Form B) 900437 How much does R favor increasing/decreasing sanctions against South Africa (Form B) WOMEN RIGHTS SCALE 900438 Women's rights scale-R DEFENSE SPENDING SCALE 900439 Defense spending scale-R 900440 Defense spending scale-Bush 900441 Defense spending scale-Democratic House candidate 900442 Defense spending scale-Republican House candidate 900443 Defense spending scale-Democratic party 900444 Defense spending scale-Republican party 900445 Defense spending scale-federal government GUARANTEED STANDARD OF LIVING SCALE 900446 Guaranteed standard of living/job scale-R SOCIO/ECONOMIC STATUS OF BLACKS SCALE 900447 Social/economic status of Blacks scale-R 900448 Social/economic status of Blacks scale-Bush 900449 Social/economic status of Blacks scale-Democratic party 900450 Social/economic status of Blacks scale-Republican party 900451 Social/economic status of Blacks scale-federal government GOVERNMENT SERVICES/SPENDING SCALE 900452 Government services/spending scale-R 900453 Government services/spending scale-Bush 900454 Government services/spending scale-Democratic House candidate 900455 Government services/spending scale-Republican House candidate 900456 Government services/spending scale-Democratic party 900457 Government services/spending scale-Republican party 900458 Government services/spending scale-the federal government JOB DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN 900459 Does R favor/oppose laws to protect women against job discrimination 900460 How strongly does R favor/oppose laws protecting women against job discrimination 900461 How much job discrimination do women face 900462 Interviewer Checkpoint: Form A or B PREFERENTIAL HIRING/STUDENT QUOTAS FOR BLACKS 900463 R is for/against preferential hiring and promotion of Blacks 900464 How strongly does R favor/oppose preferential hiring and promotion of Blacks 900465 R is for/against quotas to admit Black students 900466 How strongly does R favor/oppose quotas SCHOOL PRAYER 900467 R's opinion on school prayer 900468 How strongly does R favor their opinion on school prayer DESEGREGATION OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS 900469 Does R have opinion on government's involvement in desegregation of public schools 900470 R's opinion on government's involvement in desegregation of public schools BURNING/DESTROYING THE AMERICAN FLAG 900471 Should burning/destroying the American flag as political protest be legal/illegal 900472 Favor/oppose constitutional amendment outlawing destruction of flag for political reasons PROBLEMS IN THE SAVINGS AND LOAN INDUSTRY 900473 Has R heard/read about problems in savings and loan business 900474 Who is more to blame for problems of savings and loan business 900475 Is Reagan/Bush/Congress more to blame for savings and loan problems 900476 Is Democratic/Republican party more to blame for savings and loan problems DEATH PENALTY 900477 Does R favor/oppose the death penalty 900478 How strongly does R favor/oppose the death penalty ABORTION 900479 R's position on abortion 900480 Does R favor/oppose parental consent law 900481 How strongly does R favor/oppose parental consent law 900482 Does R favor/oppose government-funded abortion 900483 How strongly does R favor/oppose government-funded abortion TAX INCREASE 900484 Would R support/oppose tax increase to reduce federal budget deficit 900485 How strongly does R support/oppose tax increase to reduce federal budget deficit 900486 Would R support/oppose tax increase to clean up nation's air and water 900487 How strongly does R support/oppose tax increase to clean up nation's air and water GOVERNMENT CHILD CARE ASSISTANCE 900488 Should government provide child care assistance to low and middle income working parents 900489 Would R favor/oppose law requiring national service of all young adults PEACE DIVIDEND 900490 How peace dividend should be used STRICT POLLUTION STANDARDS 900491 Should government force compliance with strict pollution standards JAPANESE COMPETITION 900492 Do Japanese companies compete unfairly or is U.S. blaming Japan for its own economic problems WHICH PARTY KEEP U.S. OUT OF WAR 900493 Which party could better handle keeping the U.S. out of war STRENGTH OF U.S. POSITION 900494 Has the United States' position grown stronger/weaker/stayed the same in the past year 900495 Interviewer Checkpoint: Form A or B IMPORTANCE OF STRONG MILITARY/CONCERNS ABOUT WAR 900496 How important is a strong military force for dealing with our enemies 900497 How worried is R about the U.S. getting into a conventional war 900498 Does R agree/disagree U.S. should stay out of problems in other parts of the world 900499 How worried is R about the U.S. getting into a nuclear war MORAL VALUES 900500 Newer lifestyles are contributing to societal breakdown 900501 We should adjust moral behavior to changes in the world 900502 There would be fewer problems if more emphasis was placed on traditional family ties 900503 We should be more tolerant of people with different moral standards R'S FEELINGS ABOUT GOVERNMENT IN GENERAL 900504 How much of the time does R think he/she can trust government 900505 How much does the government waste our tax dollars 900506 Is government run by a few big interests or for the benefit of all 900507 How many people in government does R think are crooked 900508 How much attention does R feel government pays to what people think 900509 People like me don't have any say about government 900510 Politics are so complicated a person like me can't understand what's going on IMPORTANCE OF RELIGION TO R 900511 Is religion an important part of R's life 900512 How much guidance does religion provide in R's life 900513 How often does R pray 900514 How often does R read the bible 900515 Interviewer Checkpoint: Form A or B 900516 R's view of the bible 900517 R's feelings about the bible CIVIL RIGHTS/POSITION OF BLACKS 900518 Does R think civil rights leaders are pushing too fast/slow 900519 How much change does R think there has been in the position of Blacks 900520 Blacks have gotten less than they deserve over the past few years 900521 Blacks should overcome prejudice without any special favors 900522 If Blacks would try harder they could be just as well off as whites 900523 Generations of slavery and discrimination make it difficult for Blacks to move up R'S RELIGIOUS PREFERENCE AND PRACTICE 900524 Does R ever attend religious services 900525 Does R consider self as part of a particular church or denomination 900526 How often does R attend religious services 900527 Does R go to religious services once a week or more often 900528 R's religious preference 900529 R's religious denomination 900530 R's religious group association - Baptist 900531 R's religious group association - larger Baptist or local 900532 R's religious group association - Lutheran 900533 R's religious group association - Methodist 900534 R's religious group association - Presbyterian 900535 R's religious group association - Reformed 900536 R's religious group association - Brethren 900537 R's religious group association - "Christian" 900538 R's religious group association - Church of Christ 900539 R's religious group association - Church of God 900540 R's religious group association - "other" responses 900541 R's religious group association - miscellaneous denomination 900542 Is R's "other" religious denomination Christian? 900543 Does R attend/consider self Orthodox, Conservative, Reform or other Jew 900544 What best describes R's christianity 900545 Does R consider self a born-again Christian 900546 Religious affiliation summary PERSONAL INFORMATION ABOUT R 900547 R's gender 900548 R's age from household listing 900549 R's race 900550 R's date of birth - month 900551 R's date of birth - year 900552 R's recoded age 900553 R's marital status 900554 Highest grade of school completed by R 900555 Does R have a high school diploma 900556 R's highest college degree 900557 Summary: R's education 900558 Interviewer Checkpoint: R is married or living with partner EDUCATION LEVEL OF R'S SPOUSE 900559 Highest grade of school completed by spouse/partner 900560 Does spouse/partner have high school diploma 900561 Spouse/partner's highest college degree 900562 Summary: spouse/partner's education 900563 Interviewer Checkpoint: R is male and married/partnered R'S WIFE/PARTNER WORK STATUS 900564 Is R's wife/partner working now R'S OCCUPATION SECTION 900565 R's present employment status 900566 Summary: R's working status 900567 Has R (unemployed) ever worked for pay 900568 When did R retire 900569 Has R (disabled) ever worked for pay 900570 Is R (homemaker/student) working now 900571 Has R (homemaker/student) worked in last six months R Working or Temporarily Laid Off 900572 R's present occupation - census occupation code 900573 R's present occupation - collapsed census occupation code 900574 R's present occupation - census industry code 900575 Is R self-employed 900576 Is R employed by federal/state/local government 900577 Number of hours per week R works 900578 Is R satisfied with number of hours worked 900579 How worried is R about job security 900580 Interviewer Checkpoint: Is R working now 900581 Was R out of work within the last six months 900582 Has R had to take a pay cut/reduce hours within the last six months R Unemployed, Retired, or Disabled 900583 R's last occupation - census occupation code 900584 R's last occupation - collapsed census occupation 900585 R's last occupation - census industry code 900586 Was R self-employed on last regular job 900587 Was R employed by federal/state/local government 900588 Did R work within the last six months 900589 Number of hours worked per week on last job 900590 Interviewer Checkpoint: Is R unemployed 900591 Is R doing any work for pay at the present time 900592 Is R looking for work at the present time 900593 How worried is R about not being able to find a job R Homemaker or Student 900594 R's last occupation - census occupation code 900595 R's last occupation - collapsed census occupation code 900596 R's last occupation - census industry code 900597 Was R self-employed on last regular job 900598 Was R employed by federal/state/local government 900599 Number of hours worked per week on last job 900600 Is R looking for work at the present time 900601 How worried is R about not being able to find a job R'S OCCUPATIONAL DATA - STACKED 900602 R's present/last occupation - census occupation code 900603 R's present/last occupation - collapsed census occupation code 900604 R's present/last occupation - census industry code 900605 Is/was R self-employed on current/last regular job 900606 Is/was R employed by federal/state/local government 900607 Number of House work/ed per week on current/last job 900608 Is R worried about job security 900609 Did R (unemployed/retired/disabled) work within the last six months 900610 Is R (unemployed/retired/disabled) looking for work at the present time 900611 Has R (unemployed/disabled) ever worked for pay 900612 Interviewer Checkpoint: Is R married and female R'S HUSBAND/PARTNER OCCUPATIONAL DATA 900613 Husband/partner's present employment status 900614 Summary: husband/partner's working status 900615 Has husband/partner (unemployed) ever done any work for pay 900616 When did husband/partner retire 900617 Has husband/partner (disabled) ever done any work for pay 900618 Is husband/partner (homemaker/student) doing any work for pay at the present time 900619 Has husband/partner (homemaker/student) worked for pay in the last six months Husband/Partner Working or Temporarily Laid Off 900620 Husband/partner's present occupation - census occupation code 900621 Husband/partner's present occupation - collapsed census occupation code 900622 Husband/partner's present occupation - census industry code 900623 Is husband/partner self-employed 900624 Is husband/partner employed by federal/state/local government 900625 Number of hours per week husband/partner works 900626 Is husband/partner satisfied with number of hours worked 900627 How worried is husband/partner about job security 900628 Interviewer Checkpoint: Is husband/partner working now 900629 Was husband/partner out of work within the last six months 900630 Has husband/partner had to take a pay cut/reduce hours within the last six months Husband/Partner Unemployed, Retired, or Disabled 900631 Husband/partner's last occupation - census occupation code 900632 Husband/partner's last occupation - collapsed census occupation code 900633 Husband/partner's last occupation - census industry code 900634 Was husband/partner self-employed on last job 900635 Was husband/partner employed by federal/state/local government on last job 900636 Was husband/partner employed in the last six months 900637 Number of hours per week husband/partner worked on last job 900638 Interviewer Checkpoint: Is husband/partner unemployed 900639 Is husband/partner doing any work for pay at the present time 900640 Is husband/partner looking for work at the present time 900641 How worried is husband/partner about not being able to find a job Husband/Partner Homemaker or Student 900642 Husband/partner's last regular occupation - census occupation code 900643 Husband/partner's last regular occupation - collapsed census occupation code 900644 Husband/partner's last regular occupation - census industry code 900645 Was husband/partner self-employed on last regular job 900646 Was husband/partner employed by federal/state/local government on last regular job 900647 Number of hours per week husband/partner worked on last regular job 900648 Is husband/partner looking for work at the present time 900649 How worried is husband/partner about not being able to find a job HUSBAND/PARTNER'S OCCUPATIONAL DATA - STACKED 900650 H/p's present/last occupation - census occupation code 900651 H/p's present/last occupation - collapsed census occupation code 900652 H/p's present/last occupation - census industry code 900653 Is/was h/p self-employed on current/last regular job 900654 Is/was h/p employed by federal/state/local government 900655 Number of House work/ed per week on current/last job 900656 Is h/p worried about job security 900657 Did h/p (unemployed/retired/disabled) work within the last six months 900658 Is h/p (unemployed/retired/disabled) looking for work at the present time 900659 Has h/p (unemployed/disabled) ever worked for pay LABOR UNION POSITION 900660 Does anyone in R's Household belong to a labor union 900661 Who belongs to a labor union 900662 Interviewer Checkpoint: Is R only family member age 14 or older R'S INCOME AND SOCIAL CLASS 900663 Family/household income before taxes 900664 R's income before taxes 900665 Does R think of self as belonging to a social class 900666 Does R think of self as middle or working class 900667 Does R think of self as average or upper middle/working 900668 Summary: R's social class 900669 Does R feel close to middle/working class R'S ETHNIC IDENTITY 900670 What does R consider his/her main ethnic group (other than American) - first mention 900671 What does R consider his/her main ethnic group (other than American) - second mention 900672 Interviewer Checkpoint: R mentioned more than one group 900673 With which group does R most closely identify 900674 Were R's parents born in this country 900675 Interviewer Checkpoint: Did R mention some hispanic group 900676 Is R of spanish or hispanic origin/descent 900677 Category that best describes R's hispanic origin R'S COMMUNITY/RESIDENCE 900678 R's birthplace 900679 Where did R grow up 900680 Community type R grew up in 900681 How long has R lived in present city/town/township/ county 900682 Where did R live before - city 900683 Where did R live before - state or country 900684 How long has R lived in this house/condo/apartment 900685 Does R/R's family own or rent R's home CONDITIONS OF THE INTERVIEW 900686 Others present at interview 900687 R's cooperation 900688 R's level of information about politics/public affairs 900689 R's apparent intelligence 900690 Was R suspicious before interview 900691 R's interest in the interview 900692 R's sincerity 900693 Did R report income correctly 900694 Interviewer's estimate of R's family income 900695 Was interview conducted in english 900696 Language in which interview was conducted (if other than english) R'S REACTION TO THE INTERVIEW 900697 R's reaction to interview: negative - general 900698 Negative - too long 900699 Negative - too complicated 900700 Negative - boring/tedious/repetitious 900701 R wanted to stop before completion 900702 R was ill/deaf/tired, interview was hard for R 900703 R was confused by questions, interview was hard for R 900704 Doubts over lack of knowledge/suitability for interview 900705 Doubts over lack of political knowledge 900706 R was agitated or stressed by interview process 900707 R angry at interview content 900708 R concerned about sampling purposes or bias 900709 R could not read respondent booklet 900710 R appeared to enjoy interview 900711 Neutral or no VOTE VALIDATION 900712 Vote validation filter variable 900713 Interview ID 900714 Election Office Number Location and Verification of Registration Record 900715 Was a registration record found for respondent 900716 How well does R's name on coversheet match the name on the registration record 900717 Does birth date match 900718 Month of birth on registration record 900719 Year of birth on registration record 900720 Is birthday on record within 10 years of coversheet date 900721 Is address on registration record same as that on coversheet 900722 Interviewer Checkpoint: Household composition 900723 Using registration record, did R vote in November 1988 900724 Using registration record, did R vote in November 1990 900725 Is coversheet polling place recognizable to office as their jurisdiction 900726 Is polling place given by R right for address on coversheet 900727 Can a record be found when the correct records/precinct for this polling place are checked 900728 Check local phone book to match surname with coversheet address 900729 Does surname spelling match that on coversheet 900730 Recheck registration records for name as spelled in telephone book 900731 Does address on record match that on coversheet 900732 Check with office: is one address a mailing address 900733 Was the registration record found in current &/or active file 900734 Month R registered 900735 Year R registered 900736 Was record located in purged/deceased/cancelled /to be processed/inactive file 900737 Month record was purged 900738 Year record was purged 900739 Month R registered 900740 Year R registered Did R Vote 900741 Interviewer Checkpoint: Vote information on registration records 900742 Does registration record indicate R voted November 1990 900743 Month R last voted 900744 Day R last voted 900745 Year R last voted 900746 Are there any records with 1990 voting information other than registration records 900747 Do voting records indicate R voted in November 1990 900748 Interviewer Checkpoint: Registration record found for R 900749 Does registration record indicate R voted November 1988 900750 Are there any records with voting information other than registration records 900751 Do voting records indicate R voted in November 1988 Using Voter Records to Determine if a Registered R Voted 900752 Do any voting records indicate R voted in November 1990 900753 Do any voting records indicate R voted in November 1988 900754 1990 vote summary 900755 1988 vote summary 900756 Summary: assignment of R to vote/non-vote ELECTION ADMINISTRATION (OFFICE) SURVEY 900757 Month of record check 900758 Day of record check 900759 Number of precincts in office jurisdiction 900760 Length of record check task 900761 Number of forms assigned to this office Search for Registration Records 900762 How are registration records stored 900763 Were files used to ascertain whether R was registered 900764 How were the records used or accessed 900765 Did interviewer or someone else operate crt 900766 Was name of registrant sufficient to access a record 900767 Can specific address identify who is registered 900768 Is precinct number recorded Printouts of Machine-readable Master Registration File 900769 Printout 1: Order of the listing 900770 Printout 1: Is precinct number listed 900771 Printout 1: Did interviewer or someone else source the listing 900772 Printout 2: Order of the listing 900773 Printout 2: Is precinct number listed 900774 Printout 2: Did interviewer or someone else source the listing Card Index File 900775 Order of the file 900776 Is precinct number listed 900777 Did interviewer or someone else source the file Sources Used to Ascertain Whether R Voted 900778 Were primary or secondary sources used to determine if registrant voted in 1988 900779 Were poll books used as main or supplemental source in 1988 900780 Were primary or secondary sources used to determine if registrant voted in 1990 900781 Were poll books used as main or supplemental source in 1990 900782 Did interviewer herself do actual poll book lookups 900783 Were secondary sources used to ascertain if registrant voted 900784 What kind of secondary sources were used 900785 Who is responsible for transcription of information from polling place onto computer file 900786 Is entry process complete for 1990 election 900787 Does office purge for non-voting 900788 Standard procedure to see if voters live at registration address 900789 Check for everyone and/or non-voters 900790 Time interval for check 900791 How far back were purged records available 900792 Month records last purged for non-voting 900793 Year records last purged for non-voting 900794 Name sufficient to access purged record 900795 Can specific address identify who was registered 900796 Precinct number recorded 900797 Vote history recorded 900798 Were purged registration records used Interviewer Notes 900799 How helpful was person operating the computer 900800 Does interviewer think she would have found more herself 900801 How helpful was person doing non-computer search 900802 Does interviewer think she would have found more herself 900803 Interviewer rating of office's records DATA NOTE: The original release of 1990 data included 2,000 cases, and the ICPSR 1990 printed codebook was produced with marginals for 2,000 cases. However, it was determined later that the interview production of one 1990 interviewer was highly suspect. As a result of a review of cases, it was decided that there was a high probability that 20 interviews were either faked or conducted with ineligible respondents. THESE 20 CASES HAVE BEEN DELETED FROM THE RAW DATA, SO THAT THERE ARE NOW 1,980 CASES FOR THE 1990 NES. [Deleted case IDs are: 0193,0370,0943,0946,1156,1566, 1567,1569,1635,1636,1637,1937,1990,1993,1994,1995,1996, 1997,1998,2000]