AMERICAN NATIONAL ELECTION STUDY, 1992: PRE- AND POST-ELECTION SURVEY [ENHANCED WITH 1990 AND 1991 DATA] (ICPSR 6067) Principal Investigators Warren E. Miller, Donald R. Kinder, Steven J. Rosenstone, and the National Election Studies First ICPSR Edition October 1993 Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research P.O. Box 1248 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 BIBLIOGRAPHIC CITATION Publications based on ICPSR data collections should acknowledge those sources by means of bibliographic citations. To ensure that such source attributions are captured for social science bibliographic utilities, citations must appear in footnotes or in the reference section of publications. The bibliographic citation for this data collection is: Miller, Warren E., Donald R. Kinder, Steven J. Rosenstone, and the National Election Studies. AMERICAN NATIONAL ELECTION STUDY, 1992: PRE- AND POST-ELECTION SURVEY [ENHANCED WITH 1990 AND 1991 DATA] [Computer file]. Conducted by University of Michigan, Center for Political Studies. ICPSR ed. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, Center for Political Studies, and Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [producers], 1993. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 1993. REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ON USE OF ICPSR RESOURCES To provide funding agencies with essential information about use of archival resources and to facilitate the exchange of information about ICPSR participants' research activities, users of ICPSR data are requested to send to ICPSR bibliographic citations for each completed manuscript or thesis abstract. Please indicate in a cover letter which data were used. DATA DISCLAIMER The original collector of the data, ICPSR, and the relevant funding agency bear no responsibility for uses of this collection or for interpretations or inferences based upon such uses. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTORY MATERIAL --------------------- >> 1992 GENERAL INTRODUCTION >> STUDY DESCRIPTION FOR THE 1990 POST-ELECTION SURVEY >> 1992 SURVEY CONTENT AND ADMINISTRATION >> SAMPLING ERRORS OF 1990 NES ESTIMATES >> STUDY DESCRIPTION FOR THE 1990-1991 PANEL STUDY OF THE POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES OF WAR >> ATTENDEES AT THE APRIL 1991 PLANNING MEETING FOR THE 1991 NES PANEL STUDY >> 1992 STUDY CHARACTERISTICS AND ADMINISTRATION >> STUDY DESCRIPTION FOR THE AMERICAN NATIONAL ELECTION STUDY, 1992 >> 1992 STUDY DESIGN, CONTENT AND ADMINISTRATION >> 1992 Congressional Ballot Cards, Candidate Lists, and Candidate Numbers >> 1992 SURVEY FORMS: DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION >> 1992 SAMPLE DESIGN OF THE 1992 PRE- AND POST-ELECTION STUDY >> WEIGHTED ANALYSIS OF 1992 NES DATA >> COMPARING THE 1992 NES TO PREVIOUS NATIONAL ELECTION STUDIES >> 1992 TECHNICAL REPORTS AND OTHER OCCASIONAL PAPERS >> NES 1989 PILOT STUDY REPORTS >> 1991 PILOT STUDY REPORTS >> 1992 FILE STRUCTURE >> 1992 CODEBOOK INFORMATION >> ICPSR PROCESSING INFORMATION, 1992 >> 1992 NOTES >> 1990-1991 CROSS-REFERENCE LIST >> VARIABLE DESCRIPTION LIST 1990 POST-ELECTION SURVEY VARIABLES >> 1990-91 PANEL STUDY OF THE POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES OF WAR VARIABLES >> 1992 PRE- AND POST-ELECTION VARIABLES SAMPLING INFORMATION CODEBOOK -------- 1992 variables APPENDICES ---------- >> 1980 Census Definitions >> 1990 Census Definitions >> 1992 Party-Candidate Master Codes >> 1992 Campaign Issues Master Code >> 1992 Candidate Number Codes and Lists >> 1992 Important Problems Master Code >> 1992 Party Differences Master Code >> 1988/1992 Religious Preference Master Codes >> 1980 Census Occupation Code >> 1980 Census Industry Code >> ICPSR Occupation Recodes, 1992 >> 1992 Nationality and Ethnicity Master Code >> 1992 ICPSR State and Country Codes >> Cities with Population Of 25,000 and Over, 1992 >> 1991 Study Background Documents >> 1992 Gulf War Vote >> 1992 Gulf War Code >> Campaign Political Advertisments, 1992 >> 1992 Liberal/Conservative Code >> 1992 Candidate Support Code >> Type of Race, 1992 >> 1992 Sample Ballot Card >> 1992 State Primary Ballot Cards >> 1992 General Introduction AMERICAN NATIONAL ELECTION STUDY, 1992: [PRE- AND POST-ELECTION SURVEYS ENHANCED] WITH DATA FROM 1990 AND 1991 (ICPSR 6067) During the summer and early fall of 1993 the National Election Studies staff and ICPSR prepared a comprehensive version of the 1992 American National Election Study to take full advantage of both its cross-sectional and panel components. The number of cases in this file, 2,485, includes all respondents from the 1992 Pre- and Post-Election surveys. More than half of these respondents or 1,359 individuals also participated in the 1990 Post-Election survey (ICPSR 9548) or in the 1991 Political Consequences of War survey (ICPSR 9673), or both. This collection may therefore be used in the traditional fashion to support cross-sectional analysis of the 1992 electorate or to support panel analysis to trace political developments over the turbulent period from the fall of 1990 through the 1992 presidential election and its aftermath. Another way to describe this collection is to say that it contains "lagged" measures for 1,359 of the 2,485 cases. The codebook contains complete documentation for 2,105 variables beginning with three identification variables which provide the ICPSR study number, edition number, and part number (V1-V3). It continues with all questions from the 1990 Post-Election survey (V4-V711, consecutive numbering), the 1991 Political Consequences of War survey (V2002-V2580, not consecutively numbered), and concludes with the 1992 Pre- and Post-Election surveys (V3004-V7001, also not consecutively numbered). This file does not contain any variables from the 1991 Pilot Study, originally embedded within ICPSR Study Number 9673. On occasion the introduction to the codebook refers indirectly to this Pilot Study. Users who wish to analyze the 1991 Pilot Study variables should consult Study Number 9673. USERS SHOULD NOTE THAT NO VARIABLE NUMBERS HAVE CHANGED SINCE THESE FILES WERE RELEASED AS SEPARATE COLLECTIONS. Those respondents who are members of the cross- section sample have padded missing data values for all 1990 and 1991 variables. A complete and detailed description of each element in the collection follows. Please note that UNWEIGHTED FREQUENCIES AND MARGINALS ONLY appear in the codebook. >> STUDY DESCRIPTION FOR THE 1990 POST-ELECTION SURVEY (Variables v4 through v711) The NES/CPS American National Election Study 1990 was conducted by the Center for Political Studies of the Institute for Social Research, under the general direction of principal investigators Warren E. Miller, Donald R. Kinder and Steven J. Rosenstone. Santa Traugott is the Project Manager for the National Election Studies. Giovanna Morchio was the 1990 Election Study manager for NES, overseeing the study from very early planning stages through data release. This is the twenty-first in a series of studies of American national elections produced by the Political Behavior Program of the Survey Research Center and the Center for Political Studies, and it is the seventh such study to be conducted under the auspices of National Science Foundation Grants providing long-term support for the national election studies. Both the 1990 National Election Study and the Vote Validation Study were funded under grant number SES-8808361. Since 1978 the NES election studies have been designed by a National Board of Overseers, the members of which meet several times a year to plan content and administration of the major study components. Board members during the planning of the 1990 National Election Study included: Morris P. Fiorina, Harvard University, Chair; Richard A. Brody, Stanford University; Stanley Feldman, University of Kentucky; Edie N. Goldenberg, University of Michigan; Mary Jackman, University of California at Davis, Gary C. Jacobson, University of California at San Diego; Stanley Kelley, Jr., Princeton University; Thomas Mann, The Brookings Institution; Douglas Rivers, Stanford University; John Zaller, the University of California at Los Angeles; Warren E. Miller, Arizona State University, ex officio; Donald R. Kinder, and Steven J. Rosenstone, University of Michigan, ex officio. As part of the planning process, a special planning committee was appointed, a pilot study conducted, and stimulus letters sent to the members of the scholarly community soliciting input on study plans. The 1990 Study Planning Committee included Kinder and Miller, several Board members (Mann, Co-chair; Brody; Feldman; Jackman; Miller, ex officio; and Rosenstone, ex officio and Co-chair), and four other scholars (Jon Krosnick, Ohio State University; Gregory Markus and Vincent Price, University of Michigan; and David Leege, Notre Dame University). A two-wave pilot study was carried out in July and September of 1989 for the purpose of developing new instrumentation for the 1990 Election Study. New items were tested in the area of religious attitudes and denominational affiliation, media exposure and the type of information recalled, and individualism. A significant portion of the study was devoted to experiments contrasting different instrumentation for issue questions: seven-point scales versus branching response alternatives; "framed" versus "stripped" questions; unipolar versus bipolar scales; and filtered versus unfiltered questions. Data from the 1989 Pilot Study are available through the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR 9295). Results from the pilot study (as summarized in Pilot Study Reports, page xix) were used by the Planning Committee in formulating recommendations to the Board about study content for the 1990 Election Study. The 1991 membership of the NES Board of Overseers is: Stanley Feldman, State University of New York, Stony Brook; Morris J. Fiorina, Harvard University; Mary Jackman, University of California, Davis; Gary Jacobson, University of California, San Diego; David Leege, Notre Dame University; Thomas Mann, The Brookings Institution; Douglas Rivers, Stanford University; John Zaller, University of California, Los Angeles. >> 1992 SURVEY CONTENT AND ADMINISTRATION SURVEY CONTENT The Board of Overseers balanced a number of considerations in selecting content for the Post-Election Survey. There was, as always, the necessity of maintaining continuity with past surveys. All congressional time-series items were evaluated by the Board, and input was solicited from the user community about whether each should be used for the 1990 Study. The items that fall into the time-series, or "core" category, are: campaign attention; likes and dislikes of political parties; likes and dislikes of congressional candidates; contact with Congressperson or candidate; vote for Representative, Senator and Governor; most important problem; campaign activities; system support and efficacy items; feeling thermometer ratings of congressional candidates and groups; retrospective economic evaluations (national and individual); liberal-conservative scale (with proximities); party identification, seven-point issue scales with placements; federal budget preferences; views on abortion; and the standard and extensive battery of demographic questions. A number of questions are new or relatively new to the Study. Some came from the piloting work described above-- e.g., the new measures of denominational affiliation; individualism; and attitudes toward abortion and discrimination against women. Others were designed to reflect topical concerns of the campaign. Items in this category include some foreign policy issue items relating to changes in Eastern Europe and to events in the Persian Gulf; and knowledge of and attitudes about the failures of the savings and loans financial institutions and about the federal budget deficit. SURVEY ADMINISTRATION Two forms were used in order to incorporate the maximum amount of content. (Even so, the average length of the survey interview was 78 minutes.) Half of the study sample was randomly assigned to Form A, and the other half to Form B. More than 75 percent of the questionnaire content was the same in both forms; Form A had additional questions relating to values and individualism; Form B had additional content relating to foreign relations. In addition, there was a question form experiment (branching alternatives vs. a seven-point scale). In the Post-election survey, respondents are asked lengthy series of questions about their particular Congresspersons and Senators. Interviewers must pre-edit questionnaires to fill in the names appropriate for the state and congressional district in which the respondent is living (or was living during the pre-election interview). Interviewers are sent "candidate lists" for each congressional district in the sample segments in which they are interviewing. Each candidate and Senator on that list is assigned a particular number that reflects his or her incumbency status and party. (See Candidate Number Code) Particular questions in the survey require the insertion by the interviewer during pre-editing of the names of candidates with specific numbers. See, for example, Q. B13, the Feeling Thermometer. The Candidate Lists used by the interviewers, which show which candidates are associated with which congressional district and with which numbers they are tagged, can be found in the Appendix (Note 4) of this documentation. NOTES ON CONFIDENTIAL VARIABLES Starting with the 1986 Election Study, occupation code variables have been released in somewhat less detail than in years past. The dataset includes a two-digit code with 71 categories corresponding to Census Bureau occupational groupings. Those who have need of the full occupation code for their research should contact the NES project staff for information about the conditions under which access to these data may be provided. Similarly, the National Election Studies have not included information for census tracts or minor civil divisions since 1978. Permission to use the more detailed geographic information for scholarly research may be obtained from the Board of Overseers. More information about this is available from NES project staff. Coding of the new religious denomination variable is in some cases based on an alphabetic "other, please specify" variable (Variable 541). This variable is restricted for reasons of confidentiality, but access may be provided to legitimate scholars under established NES procedures. OPEN-ENDED MATERIALS Traditionally, the Election Studies have contained several minutes of open-ended responses (for example, the congressional candidates likes and dislikes). These questions are put into Master Codes by the SRC coding section. Other scholars have developed alternative or supplemental coding schemes for the questions (for example, the levels of conceptualization, released as ICPSR #8151). The Board of Overseers wishes to encourage these efforts but in ways that respect the NES and SRC obligation to protect the privacy and anonymity of respondents. Circumstances under which individuals may have access to transcribed versions of these questions have been worked out and those interested should contact the NES project staff for further details. Table 1: Field Administration Information Response Rate: 71.4% Length of Interview: 78.0 min No. of Respondents: 2000 Table 2: Number and Cumulative Percent of Interviews in Two-Week Intervals from Election Day, 1990 Nov. 07-Nov. 17 836 42% Nov. 18-Dec. 01 594 72% Dec. 02-Dec. 22 413 92% Dec. 23-Jan. 05 106 97% Jan. 06-Jan. 26 51 100% SAMPLING INFORMATION[1] STUDY POPULATION The study population for the 1990 NES is defined to include all United States citizens of voting age on or before the 1990 Election Day. Eligible citizens must have resided in housing units, other than on military reservations, in the 48 coterminous states. This definition excludes persons living in Alaska or Hawaii and requires eligible persons to have been both a United States citizen and 18 years of age on or before the 6th of November 1990. MULTI-STAGE AREA PROBABILITY SAMPLE DESIGN The 1990 NES is based on a multi-stage area probability sample selected from the Survey Research Center's (SRC) National Sample design. Identification of the 1990 NES sample respondents was conducted using a four-stage sampling process--a primary stage sampling of U.S. Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSA's) and counties, followed by a second stage sampling of area segments, a third stage sampling of housing units within sampled area segments, and concluding with the random selection of a single respondent from selected housing units. A detailed documentation of the SRC National Sample is provided in the SRC publication titled 1980 SRC NATIONAL SAMPLE: DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT. Primary Stage Selection The selection of primary stage sampling units (PSU's),[2] which depending on the sample stratum are either SMSA's, single counties or groupings of small counties, is based on the county-level 1980 Census Reports of Population and Housing. Primary stage units were assigned to 84 explicit strata based on SMSA/Non-SMSA status, PSU size, and geographic location. Sixteen of the 84 strata contain only a single self-representing PSU, each of which is included with certainty in the primary stage of sample selection. The remaining 68 nonself-representing strata contain more than one PSU. From each of these nonself-representing strata, one PSU was sampled with probability proportionate to its size (PPS) measured in 1980 occupied housing units. The full SRC National Sample of 84 primary stage selections was designed to be optimal for surveys roughly two times the size of the 1990 NES. To permit the flexibility needed for optimal design of smaller survey samples, the primary stage of the SRC National Sample can be readily partitioned into smaller subsamples of PSU's. Each of the partitions represents a stratified subselection from the full 84 PSU design. The sample for the 1990 NES is selected from the "one-half" partition of the 1980 SRC National Sample. The "one-half sample" includes 11 of the 16 self-representing SMSA PSU's and a stratified subsampling of 34 (of the 68) nonself-representing PSU's of the SRC National Sample. Table 3 identifies the PSU's for the 1990 National Election Study by SMSA status and Region. Second Stage Selection of Area Segments The second stage of the 1980 National Sample was selected directly from computerized files that were prepared from the 1980 Census summary tape file series (STF1-B). The designated second-stage sampling units (SSU's), termed "area segments," are comprised of census blocks in the metropolitan primary areas and enumeration districts (ED's) in the rural non-SMSA's and rural areas of SMSA primary areas. Each SSU block, block combination or enumeration district was assigned a measure of size equal to the total 1980 occupied housing unit count for the area (minimum = 50). Second stage sampling of area segments was performed with probabilities proportionate to the assigned measures of size. A three-step process of ordering the SSU's within the primary areas produced an implicit stratification of the area segments in the second stage sampling frame, stratified at the county level by geographic location and population. Area segments were stratified within county at the Minor Civil Division (MCD) level by size and income, and at the block and ED level by location within the MCD or county. (For details, refer to the SRC publication, 1980 NATIONAL SAMPLE: DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT.) Systematic PPS sampling was used to select the area segments from the second stage sampling frame for each county. In the self-representing (SR) PSU's the number of sample area segments varied in proportion to the size of the primary stage unit, from a high of b=18 area segments in the SR New York SMSA to a low of b=7 area segments in the smaller SR PSU's such as San Francisco. A total of b=6 area segments was selected from each of the a=39 nonself-representing (NSR) PSU's (except Houston that had 7 segments selected). A total of 303 segments were selected, 68 in the six self- representing PSU's and 235 in the nonself-representing PSU's. Table 3: PSU'S in the 1990 NES Post-Election Survey by SMSA Status and Region REGION SMSA STATUS Non Self-representing self-representing Non-SMSA's SMSA's SMSA's ------------------------------------------------------------ North- New York, NY-NJ Boston, MA* Schuyler, NY east Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, PA* PA-NJ Buffalo, NY New Haven, CT Atlantic City, NJ Manchester, NH North Chicago, IL St. Louis, MO* Sanilac, MI Central Detroit, MI Milwaukee, WI Phillips, KS Dayton, OH Mower, MN Des Moines, IA Grand Rapids, MI Fort Wayne, IN Steubenville, OH South Houston, TX* Bulloch, GA Baltimore, MD* Hale, TX Birmingham, AL Monroe, AR Columbus, GA-AL Bedford, TN Miami, FL Robeson, NC Lakeland, FL McAllen, TX Wheeling, WV Knoxville, TN Richmond, VA West Los Angeles, CA Seattle, WA ElDorado- San Francisco, CA Denver, WY Albine, CA Anaheim, CA Carbon, WY Fresno, CA Eugene, OR NOTE: The PSU's marked with an asterisk (*) are Self-Representing for sample designs that use the two-thirds or larger portion of the sample. For the half-sample design, only 6 of the 16 Self-Representing areas remain Self-Representing. The other ten Self-Representing PSU's are paired and only five are used in the half-sample design, each representing both itself and the PSU it is paired with. Third Stage Selection of Housing Units For each area segment selected in the second sampling stage, a listing was made of all housing units located within the physical boundaries of the segment. For segments with a very large number of expected housing units, all housing units in a subselected part of the segment were listed. The final equal probability sample of housing units for the 1990 NES was systematically selected from the housing unit listings for the sampled area segments. The overall probability of selection for 1990 NES households was f=.00003761 or .3761 in 10,000. The equal probability sample of households was achieved by using the standard multi-stage sampling technique of setting the sampling rate for selecting housing units within area segments to be inversely proportional to the PPS probabilities (see above) used to select the PSU and area segment. Fourth Stage Respondent Selection Within each sampled housing unit, the SRC interviewer prepared a complete listing of all eligible household members. Using an objective procedure described by Kish[3] (1949), a single respondent was then selected at random to be interviewed. Regardless of circumstances, no substitutions were permitted for the designated respondent. SAMPLE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS The targeted minimum completed interview sample size for the 1990 NES Post-Election Survey was n=1,750 cases. In the original sample size computation, the following assumptions were made: response rate = .68, combined occupancy/eligibility rate = .83. These assumptions were derived from survey experience in the 1986 NES Post Election Survey. Table 4 provides a full description of the original sample design specifications. Table 4: 1990 National Post-Election Survey Original Sample Design Specifications and Assumptions and Actual Sample Design Outcomes Original Specifications Actual and Assumptions Outcome Completed interviews 1,750 2,004 Response Rate .68 .714 Eligible sample households 2,573 2,808 Occupancy/Eligibility Rate* .87 .802 Final sample HU listings 3,256 3,503 Sample growth from update** 1.05 1.068 Sample listings from frame 3,100 3,280 * Expected eligibility (.97) x occupancy (.90) ** Since the updating process produces about a 5% increase in sample lines over the count selected from the National Sample system, the update inflation factor was set at 1.05. SAMPLE DESIGN OUTCOMES In comparing the design stage expectations in the first column of Table 4 with the actual survey outcomes in the second column, it can be seen that the sample growth from the update procedure was slightly higher than expected. Also, the original sample design specifications overestimated the occupancy/eligibility rates and underestimated the response rate for the actual survey. Design stage assumptions for the study response rate and occupancy/eligibility rate were based on the rates obtained in the 1986 Post-Election Survey. The actual occupancy/eligibility rate for the 1990 NES Post- Election Survey (.802) was somewhat lower than the rate obtained in the 1986 NES Post-Election Survey (.835). The response rate for 1990 (.714) was higher than the 1986 NES Post-Election Survey response rate of .677 or the 1988 NES Pre-election response rate of .705. The original area probability sample for the 1990 NES was selected as a basic sample replicate of 3280 sample HU listings. In the Post-Election surveys the elapsed time between Election Day and the date of interview is a critical design consideration. Since timing is so critical, the option of using a replicated sample approach to control final study sample size has little utility. In order to ensure that no fewer than a minimum of 1750 completed interviews would be obtained within the study time frame, the initial size of the basic sample replicate was increased from the expected 3100 to 3280 listings (approximately a 5% increase). In addition, 6.8% sample growth from SRC's standard sample update procedure increased the size of the final sample to n=3503 housing units listings. Due to the deliberate increase in sample size and higher than expected response rate, the final number of completed interviews (n=2004) was approximately 14.5% higher than the minimum interview target specified for the survey. WEIGHTED ANALYSIS OF 1990 NES DATA The area probability sample design for the 1990 NES results in an equal probability sample of U.S. households. However, within sample households a single adult respondent is chosen at random to be interviewed. Since the number of eligible adults may vary from one household to another, the random selection of a single adult introduces inequality into respondents' selection probabilities. In analysis, a respondent selection weight should be used to compensate for these unequal selection probabilities. The value of the respondent selection weight is exactly equal to the number of eligible adults in the household from which the random respondent was selected. The use of the respondent selection weight is strongly encouraged, despite past evaluations that have shown these weights to have little significant impact on the values of NES estimates of descriptive statistics. The current policy of the National Election Studies is not to include in public use data sets special analysis weights designed to compensate for nonresponse or to post-stratify the sample to known population distribution controls. Analysts interested in developing their own nonresponse or post-stratification adjustment factors must request access to the necessary sample control data from the NES Board. >> SAMPLING ERRORS OF 1990 NES ESTIMATES Sampling Error Calculation Programs The probability sample design for the 1990 National Election Study permits the calculation of estimates of sampling error for survey statistics. For calculating sampling errors of statistics from complex sample surveys, the OSIRIS statistical analysis and data management software system offers the PSALMS and REPERR programs. PSALMS is a general purpose sampling error program that incorporates the Taylor Series approximation approach to the estimation of variances of ratios (including means, scale variables, indices, proportions) and their differences. REPERR is an OSIRIS program that incorporates algorithms for replicated approaches to variance estimation. Both Balanced Repeated Replication (BRR) and Jackknife Repeated Replication (JRR) are available as program options. The current version of REPERR is best suited for estimating sampling errors and design effects for regression and correlation statistics. Sampling Error Codes and Calculation Model Estimation of variances for complex sample survey estimates requires a computation model. Individual data records must be assigned sampling error codes that reflect the complex structure of the sample and are compatible with the computation algorithms of the various programs. The sampling error codes for the 1990 NES are included as a variable in the ICPSR Public Use data set. The assigned sampling error codes are designed to facilitate sampling error computation according to a paired selection model for both Taylor Series approximation and Replication method programs. Table 5 provides a description of how individual sampling error code values are to be paired for sampling error computations. Thirty (30) pairs or strata of sampling error computation units (SECU's) are defined. Each SECU in a stratum pair includes cases assigned to a single sampling error code value. The exceptions are the second SECU in stratum 27 that is comprised of cases assigned sampling code values 36 and 55 and the second SECU in stratum 29 that is comprised of cases with SECU's 61 and 63. Table 5: 1990 NES Post-Election Survey Paired Selection Model for Sampling Error Computations Pair (SECU) (SECU) (Stratum) 1 of 2 2 of 2 Codes Codes 1 103 104 2 105 106 3 99 100 4 101 102 5 95 96 6 97 98 7 93 94 8 91 92 9 89 90 10 83 84 11 81 82 12 77 78 13 75 76 14 73 74 15 2 6 16 7 8 17 14 16 18 17 18 19 19 21 20 24 28 21 63 65 22 30 33 23 37 43 24 40 48 25 42 45 26 50 51 27 52 36 + 55 28 57 64 29 60 61 + 63 30 67 68 Generalized Sampling Error Results for the 1990 NES To assist NES data analysts, the OSIRIS PSALMS program was used to compute sampling errors for a wide-ranging set of means and proportions estimated from NES survey data sets. For each estimate, sampling errors were computed for the total sample and for fifteen demographic and political affiliation subclasses of NES samples. The results of these sampling error computations were then summarized and translated into the general usage sampling error table provided in Table 6. Incorporating the pattern of "design effects" observed in the extensive set of example computations, Table 6 provides approximate standard errors for percentage estimates based on the 1990 NES. To use the table, examine the column heading to find the percentage value that best approximates the value of the estimated percentage that is of interest.[4] Next, locate the approximate sample size base (denominator for the proportion) in the left-hand row margin of the table. To find the approximate standard error of a percentage estimate, simply cross-reference the appropriate column (percentage) and row (sample size base). Note: the tabulated values represent approximately one standard error for the percentage estimate. To construct an approximate confidence interval, the analyst should apply the appropriate critical point from the "z" distribution (e.g. z=1.96 for a two-sided 95% confidence interval half-width). Furthermore, the approximate standard errors in the table apply only to single point estimates of percentages, not to the difference between two percentage estimates. The generalized variance results presented in Table 6 are a useful tool for initial, cursory examination of the NES survey results. For more in-depth analysis and reporting of critical estimates, analysts are encouraged to compute exact estimates of standard errors using the appropriate choice of a sampling error program and computation model. Table 6: 1990 NES Post-Election Survey Generalized Variance Table Approximate Standard Errors for Percentages For percentage estimates near Sample n 50% 40% or 30% or 20% or 10% or 60% 70% 80% 90% The approximate standard error of the percentage is: 100 5.385 5.277 4.933 4.308 3.231 200 3.912 3.824 3.581 3.128 2.343 300 3.278 3.210 3.006 2.260 1.962 400 2.905 2.846 2.661 2.324 1.743 500 2.663 2.603 2.437 2.128 1.593 750 2.294 2.244 2.094 1.657 1.250 1000 2.078 2.039 1.907 1.657 1.250 1500 1.846 1.803 1.688 1.474 1.102 2000 1.722 1.691 1.568 1.368 1.030 2040 1.716 1.685 1.561 1.298 1.020 >> STUDY DESCRIPTION FOR THE 1990-1991 PANEL STUDY OF THE POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES OF WAR (Variables V2002 through V2580) The documentation for variables 2002 through 2580 is a subset of the documentation for ICPSR 9673, AMERICAN NATIONAL ELECTION STUDY: 1990-1991 PANEL STUDY OF THE POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES OF WAR/1991 PILOT STUDY. There are, however, several references in this documentation to Pilot Study variables that are not contained in the data for this collection. This study was initially thought about as the 1991 Pilot Study, the next in sequence in a series of NES Pilot Studies which have been conducted in the biennial "off-years" since 1979, and which have become the standard mode by which new areas of interest are explored and new instrumentation developed. Pilot Studies typically involve re-interviews with a subset of respondents from the most recently completed Post-Election study. When the Board of Overseers met in early February of 1991, to consider responses to this stimulus letter, a consensus rapidly developed that with the 1990 National Election Studies Post-Election study completed before the outbreak of hostilities in the Persian Gulf, NES was particularly well positioned to carry out a panel study of the consequences of war. Accordingly, the NES Board of Overseers reconceptualized the 1991 study as the second wave of a panel study focusing on the political consequences of the war, with the first wave of the study being the 1990 Post-Election Study. By interviewing respondents before the war broke out, a few months after hostilities ended, and hopefully again in the weeks after the 1992 elections (Additional funding will be sought for a third wave of the panel) we have a powerful opportunity to assess the short term and the longer term impact of war on national politics and public opinion. As NES Board Chair, Thomas Mann, stated in his stimulus letter of February 25, 1991: "...understanding the public's assessment of the war is a way station on the road to the more important objective of understanding how war shapes the future course of national politics. The implications are many. The war might affect isolationist sentiment; the military's claim on the federal budget; views on dissent and protest; patriotism; the level of internal discord; the relative appeal of various Democratic challengers in 1992; confidence in government; alterations in national priorities; racial and ethnic conflict; and more. " A panel study committee was convened in early April to lay out thirty minutes of content for the Consequences of War study. This committee, chaired by David Leege, University of Notre Dame, decided upon a subset of questions from the 1990 study which needed to be repeated in the 1991 Study. These questions are listed below: * Approval ratings of Bush/Senators/Rep./Congress * Thermometers * Party ID * Most important problems facing the country * Differences between the parties * Whether or not the Cold War is ending * Assistance to E. Europe * Was it the right thing to send military to Gulf * Bush handling of Gulf Crisis * Party differences on taxes, the economy, and foreign affairs * Liberal/conservative placements * Personal and National economic well-being * Defense spending placements * Has the U.S. position in the world grown weaker or stronger * Trust in government * Worry about conventional and nuclear war The Panel Study Committee crafted for the 1991 Study a number of additional items especially relevant to the Gulf War conflict: * Foreign policy goals * Congressional term limitations * Did one party support use of force more than the other * Recall of respondent's own position on the war resolution * Respondent's personal feelings during the war * Morality of bombing near civilians * Attention paid to the war * Attention to religious broadcasts * Open-ended questions on good/bad outcomes of the war * Was war worth the costs * Friends or relatives in the Persian Gulf Crisis * Aid to the Kurds * Correct to stop while Saddam still in power * Did Senators and Representative vote for or against war resolution >> ATTENDEES AT THE APRIL 1991 PLANNING MEETING FOR THE 1991 NES PANEL STUDY David Leege(Chair) Notre Dame University Stanley Feldman SUNY, Stony Brook Morris J. Fiorina Harvard University Thomas W. Graham University of California, San Diego Thomas M. Ivacko NES Staff, Center for Political Studies, University of Michigan Gary Jacobson University of California, San Diego Donald Kinder University of Michigan Warren Miller Arizona State University John Mueller Rochester University Doug Rivers Stanford University Steven J. Rosenstone University of Michigan Santa Traugott NES Staff, Center for Political Studies, University of Michigan John Zaller University of California, Los Angeles While placing special emphasis on the panel study of the political consequences of war, the Board of Overseers explicitly did not wish to forego the pilot aspects of the off-year study, so a full-fledged pilot study is also embedded within the 1990-1991 Panel study. Variables related to the 1991 Pilot Study are not included in the ICPSR edition of this collection. Users wishing to examine data from the pilot study should consult ICPSR 9673, AMERICAN NATIONAL ELECTION STUDY, 1991: 1990-91 PANEL STUDY OF THE POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES OF WAR/1991 PILOT STUDY. >> 1992 STUDY CHARACTERISTICS AND ADMINISTRATION The 1990-1991 Panel/1991 Pilot Study was a telephone reinterview of respondents to the NES 1990 Post-Election Study. Interviewing for the study was carried out by the Telephone Facility of the Survey Research Center, the Institute for Social Research. * Field period was June 4, 1991 -- July 31, 1991 * Average interview length was 42 minutes * 1385 interviews were taken * Survey cooperation (response rate) was 78% (See below) * An experiment in response incentives was done (See below, Response Incentives) * Three Forms were used (see below, Form Assignment) * The study was CATI -- there is no paper version of the Questionnaire RESPONSE RATE CALCULATIONS This is a Panel Study, and response rate calculations are somewhat different than those for an initial contact study. In one sense, there is no "non-sample" since every one of the 2000 persons we originally interviewed in 1990 is, by definition, eligible for a reinterview. We reinterviewed 1385 of these 2000 respondents to the 1990 study, for a strictly construed reinterview rate of 69.3%. Some of the 615 respondents who were not reinterviewed are accounted for by "panel mortality" -- respondents who move and cannot be located, or die. Some are effectively non- sample for the purposes of a telephone reinterview: they are extremely hard of hearing, or we cannot reach them by telephone (unlisted and refused telephone numbers; no telephone in the home and no recontact person with a telephone, et al.) Those who needed to be interviewed in a language other than English were also treated as non-sample. Of the 615 respondents we did NOT reinterview, 223 are "non-sample." 392 respondents from the 1990 Study either refused to be reinterviewed, or could not cooperate because they were ill or for some other reason physically unable to complete a telephone interview. It should be noted that included among these 392 respondents are some who did not have a telephone and who we attempted to reach by passing messages through a recontact person for whom we did have a telephone number. (Respondents to NES interviews are routinely asked to give us the name of someone who will know how to reach them.) Cases such as these are normally not included in the Pilot Study samples, but were included for this study in the interests of maximizing the number of cases interviewed now and available for reinterview in 1992. A cooperation rate, which excludes the 223 unlocatable cases, is calculated at 78% (1385/1777). This cooperation, or response rate, compares very favorably with those of past pilot studies, in which respondents deemed hard to interview over the telephone and/or without telephones in their homes were eliminated in advance from the sample. While we don't know what accounts for "good" response rates, we did do some careful advance contacting of respondents, to ensure that a) they could be located in June and July and b) they would be predisposed to give us a reinterview. A "Thank-You" letter for their participation in the 1990 Study was mailed in early March. A respondent report (a brief description of some 1990 study results) reached them in early May. Finally, a response incentives experiment was performed, which involved still a third contact with about 1200 of the 2000 respondents to the 1990 study. This experiment is described below. RESPONSE INCENTIVES EXPERIMENT At the suggestion of the Survey Operations Group in the Survey Research Center, the Board of Overseers agreed to implement a small response incentives experiment in the Pilot Study. We eliminated from the experiment those who did not have good mailing addresses, or who we would normally have eliminated from an RDD sample -- i.e., they had no phones. The remaining respondents were divided into four roughly equal groups: those who received no advance communication from NES; those who received a letter saying that we would be calling for an interview shortly; those who received a letter and a pen with a University of Michigan logo and 4) those who received an advance letter and $1. An analysis of the results will be forthcoming from the Survey Operations Group and will be part of the NES 1991 Pilot Study Reports. The Pilot Study variables used for this experiment are not included in this collection. Users wishing to examine data from the pilot study should consult ICPSR 9673, AMERICAN NATIONAL ELECTION STUDY, 1991: 1990-91 PANEL STUDY OF THE POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES OF WAR/1991 PILOT STUDY. FORM ASSIGNMENT When the Board began planning for this study, we were budgeted for about 40 minutes of interview time. Since we needed 30 minutes for the Panel component of the study, and had about 30 minutes of suggested new instrumentation, we had to divide the pilot study instrumentation into 3 forms of 10 minutes apiece. This form assignment was based on the assignment to forms in the 1990 election study, which itself had a Form A and a Form B. Form A, in the 1990 study, incorporated batteries of items on "values" --individualism, equalitarianism, attitudes toward racial matters, etc. Form B included items relating to partisan differences, and some foreign policy questions. Also, it contained the standard "women's role" seven-point scale. It was decided by the Pilot Study Committee that analysis of Form One items (those relating to attitudes toward immigration) on the Pilot required respondents from Form A of the 1990 Post Election Study, and that analysis of Form Two (gender-related) instrumentation should be done on respondents to Form B of the Post-Election Study. Accordingly, the form assignment was done such that two/thirds of the Form A respondents were assigned to Form One in the Pilot Study; two/thirds of the Form B respondents were assigned to Form Two; and the remaining one/third in each of 1990 Study's Form A and Form B were assigned to the Pilot Study Form Three. The partitioning of the Forms A and B into thirds was done randomly, and the initial assignment to Form A and Form B in the 1990 study was random. >> STUDY DESCRIPTION FOR THE AMERICAN NATIONAL ELECTION STUDY, 1992 (Variables V3004 through V7001) The 1992 American National Election Study 1992 was conducted by the Center for Political Studies of the Institute for Social Research, under the general direction of Warren E. Miller, Donald R. Kinder and Steven J. Rosenstone. Santa Traugott was the Director of Studies for the National Election Studies. Giovanna Morchio was the Study Manager, overseeing the study from very early planning stages through release of the 1992 data collection. This is the twenty-second in a series of studies of American national elections produced by the Political Behavior Program of the Survey Research Center and the Center for Political Studies, and it is the eighth traditional time-series study to be conducted under the auspices of National Science Foundation Grants (SOC77-08885, SES-8341310, and SES-8808361) providing long-term support for the National Election Studies. Since 1978, the National Election Studies have been designed by a national Board of Overseers, the members of which meet several times a year to plan content and administration of the major study components. Board members during the planning of the 1992 National Election Study included: Thomas Mann, The Brookings Institution (Chair); Stanley Feldman, University of Kentucky; Morris Fiorina, Harvard University; Mary Jackman, University of California at Davis; Gary C. Jacobson, University of California, San Diego; David Leege, Notre Dame University; Douglas Rivers, Stanford University; Virginia Sapiro, University of Wisconsin; John Zaller, the University of California at Los Angeles; Warren E. Miller, Arizona State University, ex officio; Donald R. Kinder and Steven J. Rosenstone, University of Michigan, ex officio. As part of the study planning process, a special planning committee was appointed, a pilot study conducted, and stimulus letters sent to members of the scholarly community soliciting input on study plans. David Leege chaired the 1992 Study Planning Committee which included from the board Stanley Feldman, Mary Jackman, Douglas Rivers, Virginia Sapiro, and three other scholars: Paul Beck, Ohio State University; Jack Citrin, University of California at Berkeley; and Leonie Huddy, State University of New York at Stony Brook. A pilot study was carried out in June-July of 1991 for the purpose of developing new instrumentation for the 1992 Election Study. New items were tested in the area of ethnic politics, gender consciousness and social altruism. It should be noted that the 1991 Pilot Study was simultaneously the 1990-1991 Panel Study on the Political Consequences of War. Data from the 1991 Pilot Study are available through the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR 9673). Results from the pilot study (summarized in "List of 1991 Pilot Study Reports,") were used by the Planning Committee in formulating recommendations to the Board about study content for the 1992 Pre- and Post-Election Surveys. Copies of the Pilot Study reports may be obtained by contacting the NES project staff, at the addresses given below. NES Project Staff Center for Political Studies Room 4026 Institute for Social Research University of Michigan Ann Arbor MI 48104 >> 1992 STUDY DESIGN, CONTENT AND ADMINISTRATION STUDY DESIGN The 1992 National Election Study entailed both a pre-election interview and a post-election re-interview. Approximately half of the 1992 cases are comprised of empaneled respondents who were first interviewed in the 1990 National Election Study and later in the 1991 Political Consequences of War Study. The other half of the cases are a freshly drawn cross-section sample. (Details of the sample design are given in "Sample Design of the 1992 Pre- and Post-Election Study", below.) The panel component of the study design provides an opportunity to trace how the changing fortunes of the Bush presidency, from the high levels of approval at the start of the Gulf War, through the decline after the onset of a recession, affected voting in the November 1992 presidential election. It also permits analysts to investigate the origins of the Clinton and Perot coalitions as well as changes in the public's political preferences over the two years preceding the 1992 election. Altogether, 2485 citizens were interviewed in the 9 weeks prior to the November 3, 1992 election. [Note: The original study Staff release of the 1992 National Election Study in April, 1993 contained 2,487 cases. See the note on "A Note on Deletion of Cases", below, for further information about the two cases deleted from this edition of the collection.] To permit analysis of the impact of the unfolding election campaign, a random half of the sample was released to the field on September 1 and the other half on October 1st. 1359 of the pre-election interviews were conducted with panel respondents; 1126 with cross-section respondents. In the weeks following the election, 2255 pre-election respondents were reinterviewed; 1250 panel, 1005 cross-section. Further details of the administration of the surveys are given in "Study Administration", below. The two components of the study -- the panel and the new cross-section -- were designed to be easily used together to create a combined nationally representative sample of the American electorate. Several case weights are provided with this data set. V3008 (which incorporates sampling, nonresponse and post-stratification adjustments) should be used when analyzing the combined sample (the panel and the new cross-section respondents). V3009 (which incorporates sampling, nonresponse and post-stratification adjustments) should be used when analyzing the panel respondents alone. V7000 (which corrects for panel attrition and the aging of the panel respondents, but does not incorporate sampling, nonresponse and post- stratification adjustments) should be used when comparing either the panel respondents or the combined panel and new cross-section respondents to previous (unweighted) National Election Studies data collections. See "Sample Design of the 1992 Pre- and Post-Election Study", below, and the documentation for V3008, V3009, and V7000, for further information. The frequencies that appear in this codebook are unweighted. STUDY CONTENT; SUBSTANTIVE THEMES The content for the 1992 Election Study reflects its double duty, both as the traditional presidential election year time-series data collection and as a panel study. The substantive themes represented in the 1992 questionnaires include: * interest in the political campaigns; concern about the outcome; and attentiveness to the media's coverage of the campaign * information about politics * evaluation of the presidential candidates and placement of presidential candidates on various issue dimensions * partisanship and evaluations of the political parties * knowledge of, contact with, and evaluation of House candidates (including questions on how their Representative voted on the Persian Gulf War resolution and whether he/she was implicated in the House banking scandal) ; opinions on term limitations * political participation: turnout in the Presidential primaries and in the November general election; other forms of electoral campaign activity * vote choice for President, the U.S. House, and the U.S. Senate, including second choice for President * personal and national economic well-being, with particular attention to the impact of the recession * positions on social welfare issues including: social security; government health insurance; federal budget priorities, and the role of the government in the provision of jobs and good standard of living * positions on social issues including: abortion, the death penalty; prayer in the schools; the rights of homosexuals; sexual harassment and women's rights * racial and ethnic stereotypes; opinions on school integration and affirmative action; attitudes towards immigrants (particularly Hispanics and Asians); opinions on immigration policy and bilingual education * opinions about the nation's most important problem and the most important issues discussed during the local congressional campaign * political predispositions: moral traditionalism; patriotism; political efficacy; egalitarianism; individualism; trust in government; racial prejudice; and feminist consciousness * social altruism and social connectedness * assessments of U.S. involvement in the Persian Gulf War and of U.S. foreign policy goals * feeling thermometers on a wide range of political figures and political groups; affinity with various social groups * detailed demographic information and measures of religious affiliation and religiosity >> 1992 Congressional Ballot Cards, Candidate Lists, and Candidate Numbers In the usual NES Post-Election survey, and for 1992, in the Pre-Election survey as well, respondents are asked several questions about their particular Congresspersons and Senators. Interviewers pre-edited questionnaires to fill in the names appropriate for the state and congressional district in which the respondent was living (or was living during the pre-election interview). Each candidate and Senator is assigned a unique number that reflects his or her incumbency status and party. (See Candidate Number Codes and Lists.) Particular questions in the survey require the insertion by the interviewer during pre-editing of the names of candidates. See, for example, post-election question B1, which includes feeling thermometers for the various candidates. The Candidate Lists used by the interviewers, which show which candidates are associated with which congressional district and with which numbers they are tagged, can be found in Appendix 5. Asking questions about incumbent candidates is somewhat more problematic in a year when redistricting occurred, and for the Pre-Election survey there is the additional complication that a number of states held their Congressional primaries after the Pre-Election field work had started. Further details can be found at the documentation for Pre-Election questions J10-J11. Handling of Congressional Incumbency Where Redistricting has Occurred Throughout, whenever the word "incumbent" is used, its referent is a representative who was a member of the 102nd Congress; i.e., the Congress in session prior to the November 1992 General Election. Due to redistricting as a result of the 1990 U.S. Census, any given incumbent's district for the 103rd Congress may consist of a fairly different geographical area from the area covered by the district prior to the boundary changes. Therefore, prior to 1992, the "incumbent" may or may not have been the representative for the particular piece of geography (the sample segment or census tract) in which the respondent lives. For each sample segment, we have included in the dataset its 1992 congressional district number, v3019, and its congressional district number in 1990, v3020. By comparing the two, it can be determined whether the "incumbent" in question was actually the respondent's incumbent prior to the 1992 general election. "Lagged" Measures Obtained from 1990 and 1991 Interviews Slightly more than half of the respondents in the 1992 study were also interviewed in 1990 and 1991. Therefore, all of the variables associated with the 1990 Post-Election Study (ICPSR 9548) and the 1991 Political Consequences of War Study (ICPSR 9673) are available for use as "lagged" measures in the current release of this collection. STUDY ADMINISTRATION Pre-election Study Release of Sample To permit analysis of the impact of the unfolding election campaign and to minimize the relationship between interviews taken late in the campaign period and the difficulty of obtaining an interview, NES divided the Pre-Election study sample into two random parts. Administration of the first random half occurred between September 1 and September 30; the second half between October 1 and October 31st, with the first two days of November as "cleanup." The two part division applied to both panel and cross-section samples. Note that the study period began before Labor Day, the traditional start of the Election Studies (and Presidential campaigns). The combination of a late date for Labor Day (Sept. 7) and an early date for Election Day (Nov. 3rd) would have shortened our standard field period by about a week, which would have reduced the overall response rate. Sample "Replicates" To more closely tailor the field effort to the actual sample performance during this study, both parts of the sample (panel and cross-section) were randomly subdivided into five replicates, each of which is a proper, random subsample of the NES sample. Replicates 1 and 2 were considered the "base sample," certain to be released, with three replicates being held in reserve to be released for fieldwork October 1, 1992, if it was decided they were needed. Replicates 4 and 5 were released at that time. Survey Modes: Design and Implementation One of the administrative problems in fielding a panel study is that respondents have had an intervening period of time in which to relocate, perhaps at some remove from areas where field staff is maintained. Additionally, some of the SRC sample primary areas were replaced between 1990 and 1992, and therefore potentially some of the 1990 Election Study respondents lived in areas where SRC interviewers were no longer on staff. We estimated that between 50 and 125 respondents might have moved to areas in which SRC did not have interviewers, or might be living in their 1990 residence, in a place where SRC no longer maintained interviewing capability. (As it turned out, the total number of panel respondents that we interviewed who were "out of range" for either of these two reasons was 43.) It was our intention to interview as many panel respondents as possible, but we did not want to incur the additional costs associated with interviewer travel. Therefore, we prepared a truncated version of both Pre- and Post-Election Survey questionnaires, (the "Short-Form") to be administered over the telephone to those panel respondents who had moved out of range. Interviews, both in the Pre- and in the Post Election surveys, were also administered over the telephone to many respondents, both panel and cross-section, who did not meet the "panel out-of-range" criteria for telephone interviewing. The mis-implementation of the design also entailed the inappropriate use of the full-length questionnaire. Table 7, below, sums up the situation. In total, 86 percent of the interviews (91 percent before the election and 81 percent of those conducted after the election) were administered as mandated by the study design: face-to-face with the full length questionnaires or by phone for those panel respondents who moved out of range. A NOTE ON DELETION OF CASES In putting together the panel file, study staff examined with particular attention the work of one interviewer and decided that his entire production for 1990 was suspect. Two panel reinterviews in 1992 were thus based on 1990 interviews which were very likely faked in whole or very large part. The decision was made to eliminate these interviews from the 1992 dataset (and also from the panel file). Consequently, the total N for the ICPSR release of these data is 2485 as compared with a N of 2487 in the Study Staff release of the 1992 Cross-Section data. The tables found in this introduction were produced using the original Study Staff release of the data and reflect the original N of 2487. Table 7: Mode and Form Administration in the 1992 Pre-/Post Election Studies Panel Respondents Mode Questionnaire Pre-Election Post-Election Face-to-face(A) Full 1155 84.8% 951 76.%1 Phone(B) Short 149 11.0% 186 14.9% Phone Full 57 4.2% 113 9.0% Subtotal 1361 100.0% 1250 100.0% Cross Section Respondents Mode Questionnaire Pre-Election Post-Election Face-to-face(C) Full 1053 93.6% 830 82.6% Phone (D) Short 5 .4% 4 .4% Phone Full 68 6.0% 171 17.0% Subtotal 1126 100.0% 1005 100.0% Total Respondents Mode Questionnaire Pre-Election Post-Election Face-to-face Full 2208 88.8% 1781 79.0% Phone Short 154 6.2% 190 8.4% Phone Full 125 5.0% 284 12.6% Total 2487 100.0% 2255 100.0% A. The 1155 Pre-election respondents in this category include 16 Panel interviews taken F-T-F using the Spanish version of the questionnaire. B. The Pre-election respondents in this category include 1 Spanish language panel interview, taken by phone. C. The pre-election total includes 4 Spanish version questionnaires taken F-T-F. D. The 5 cases in the Pre-election category consist of 1 F-T-F and 3 Phone short-form, plus 1 Spanish language cross-section case. >> 1992 SURVEY FORMS: DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION There were two[5] forms of both the Pre- and the Post- Election Study questionnaire: a short form, to be administered over the phone to panel respondents who were "out of range," as described above, and a standard, or full-length questionnaire to be administered to everyone else. The questions on the short-form were a subset of those on the full length questionnaires whose 70 minutes in length was thought to be unacceptably long for a telephone interview. 50 minutes worth of content was selected for the short form, both Pre- and Post-Election Surveys. The criteria for inclusion were that the questions were "core," i.e., questions part of the NES time-series, as opposed to recently piloted or topical items, or that they related to the focus of the 1991 Political Consequences of War Study. We decided not to repeat most of the demographics items for the approximately 100 panel respondents we expected would be interviewed with the short form, relying instead on their responses in the 1990 survey. Additionally, some congressional content was deleted, because of the difficulty in assigning respondents over the phone to the newly drawn congressional districts. Because we estimated the number of cases affected to be few and randomly scattered across the country, we did not design the instrument for the telephone. Except for the income question, we made no adjustments to the questionnaire for the difference in mode. In general, interviewers were expected to read response options to the respondent and to repeat them as necessary until they were clear to the respondent. All interviews with a short form questionnaire, except for Spanish language, and including "legitimate" or "out-of-range" panel respondent interviews, have been designated as partial interviews, in the result code variables for the Pre- and Post-Election Studies (v3033 and v5012). EVALUATION OF PROBLEMS IN STUDY IMPLEMENTATION The problems mentioned above did not become fully evident until coding was virtually completed, in the last week of February. At its March 1 meeting, the NES Board of Overseers, to whom these problems were reported, instructed the Principal Investigators to assess the significance of these problems with respect to data quality. This work was carried out by the Principal Investigators and members of the Study Staff in consultation with Board members, SRC methodologists and Center for Political Studies personnel as appropriate. The findings are available in NES Technical Report No. 43, available from NES Project Staff. As the Technical Report documents in detail, the inappropriate use of the telephone and the short-form questionnaire thankfully had only a negligible impact on the quality of the 1992 data. When the short-form questionnaire was used, it of course generated missing data on those items that appeared on the full-length questionnaire but not on the short-form. But this resulted in a very slight increase (less than .05 percentage points) in the standard errors of the affected variables. The pattern of missing data (from use of the short-form questionnaire) is unrelated to the demographic or political characteristics of respondents. Instead, interviewers turned to the short form when it appeared they would have difficulty securing an interview for other reasons having to do with the field administration of the study. The same holds for use of phone instead of face-to-face interviewing. Respondents interviewed over the phone are politically indistinguishable from those interviewed face-to-face. Attributes of the study administration, not attributes of the individual respondents, are associated with the propensity of interviewers to conduct some of their interviews over the phone. Finally, although some survey questions perform differently across the two modes of interviewing, the distribution of responses and the relationship among variables are substantively the same among phone and face-to-face respondents. RESPONSE RATES The Pre-Election study response rate for the cross section sample was 74.0%. Recalculating the response rate to eliminate 4 short-form, cross-section interviews (partials) results in a response rate of 73.7%[6]. For the panel sample, the response (or reinterview) rate is 77.7% when partials, or short form interviews, are included, but drops to 69.2% when they are excluded. Post-Election reinterview rates are 91.8% for the panel, including partials, and 85.0% excluding the partial or short-form interviews. The cross-section Post-Election reinterview rate was 89.3% including 4 partials; 88.9% excluding them. These calculations do not differentiate between face-to-face and telephone modes of interviewing. INTERVIEW COMPLETION RATE Table 8 lays out the number of interviews taken for each week elapsing after the Nov. 3 General Election. In 1992, 25.8% of the interviews were completed in the first two weeks after the election; 53.1% in the first four weeks. For comparison, in 1988, 55% of the interviews were taken in the first two weeks after the election, and 82% in the first four weeks. Table 8: Number of and Cumulative Percent of Interviews Taken in the Post-Election Study by Week of Interview DATES NUMBER OF CUMULATIVE CUMULATIVE INTERVIEWS NUMBER OF PERCENT OF INTERVIEWS INTERVIEWS Nov. 4-Nov.10 237 237 10.5% Nov.11-Nov.17 344 581 25.8 Nov.18-Nov.24 372 953 42.3 Nov.25-Dec. 1 245 1198 53.1 Dec. 2- Dec. 8 348 1546 68.6 Dec. 9-Dec.15 278 1824 80.9 Dec.16-Dec.22 175 1999 88.7 Dec.23-Dec.29 86 2085 92.5 Dec.30-Jan. 5 125 2210 98.0 Jan. 6-Jan.13 45 2255 100.0% VARIABLES SUPPRESSED FOR REASONS OF CONFIDENTIALITY Starting with the 1986 Election Study, NES has released occupation code variables in somewhat less detail than in years past. This dataset includes a two-digit code with 71 categories corresponding to Census Bureau occupational groupings. Those who need the full occupation code for their research should contact the NES project staff for information about the conditions under which access may be provided. Similarly, the National Election Studies have not included information for census tracts or minor civil divisions since 1978. Permission to use the more detailed geographic information for scholarly research may be obtained from the Board of Overseers. More information about this is available from NES project staff. Coding of the new religious denomination variable is in some cases based on an alphabetic "other, please specify" variable. This variable is restricted for reasons of confidentiality, but access may be provided to legitimate scholars under established NES procedures. OPEN-ENDED MATERIALS Traditionally, the National Election Studies have contained several minutes of open-ended responses (for example, the candidate likes and dislikes). These questions are put into Master Codes by the SRC coding section. Other scholars have developed alternative or supplemental coding schemes for the questions (for example, the levels of conceptualization, released as ICPSR 8151). The Board of Overseers wishes to encourage these efforts but in ways which respect the NES and SRC obligation to protect the privacy and anonymity of respondents. Circumstances under which individuals may have access to transcribed versions of these questions have been worked out and those interested should contact the NES project staff for further details. >> 1992 SAMPLE DESIGN OF THE 1992 PRE- AND POST-ELECTION STUDY[7] STUDY POPULATION The study population for the 1992 National Pre/Post Election Study (NES) is defined to include all United States citizens of voting age on or before the 1992 Election Day. Eligible citizens must have resided in housing units, other than on military reservations, in the forty-eight coterminous states. This definition excludes persons living in Alaska or Hawaii and requires eligible persons to have been both a United States citizen and eighteen years of age on or before the 3rd of November 1992. MULTI-STAGE AREA PROBABILITY SAMPLE DESIGN The 1992 NES is based on a multi-stage area probability sample selected from the Survey Research Center's (SRC) National Sample design. Identification of the 1992 NES sample respondents was conducted using a four stage sampling process--a primary stage sampling of U.S. Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) and counties, followed by a second stage sampling of area segments, a third stage sampling of housing units within sampled area segments and concluding with the random selection of a single respondent from selected housing units. A detailed documentation of the SRC National Sample is provided in the SRC publication titled, 1980 SRC National Sample: Design and Development. Primary Stage Selection The selection of primary stage sampling units (PSUs), which depending on the sample stratum are either MSAs, single counties or groupings of small counties, is based on the county-level 1980 Census Reports of Population and Housing. Primary stage units were assigned to 84 explicit strata based on MSA/Non-MSA status, PSU size, and geographic location. Sixteen of the 84 strata contain only a single self-representing PSU, each of which is included with certainty in the primary stage of sample selection. The remaining 68 nonself-representing strata contain more than one PSU. From each of these nonself-representing strata, one PSU was sampled with probability proportionate to its size (PPS) measured in 1980 occupied housing units. The full SRC National Sample of 84 primary stage selections was designed to be optimal for surveys roughly two to three times the size of the 1992 NES. To permit the flexibility needed for optimal design of smaller survey samples, the primary stage of the SRC National Sample can be readily partitioned into smaller subsamples of PSUs. Each of the partitions represents a stratified subselection from the full 84 PSU design. Since the 1992 NES desired comparison of data over time from 1990 NES respondents, as well as an expanded representative sample of eligible 1992 respondents, a combined panel/cross-section sample was designed for the 1992 Pre/Post-Election Study. The Panel portion of the 1992 sample was selected from the original 1990 NES sample which, at the Primary stage had been selected from the "one-half" partition of the 1980 SRC National Sample. The"A" one-half sample of the 1980 National Sample design includes 11 of the 16 self-representing MSA PSUs and a stratified subsampling of 34 (of the 68) nonself-representing PSUs of the SRC National Sample. The Panel portion of the 1992 NES is designed to allow longitudinal analysis of individual change since the panel cases follow the original proportionate distribution to the 1990 "A" one-half sample areas. The 1992 NES Cross-Section encompasses both the panel cases and a new selection of cases from the two-thirds partition of the 1980 National Sample (that is the "A" plus the "B1" PSUs). The two-thirds 1980 National Sample design includes all 16 self-representing PSUs and 11 additional nonself-representing PSUs for a total of 45 (of 68) nonself-representing PSUs. The additional cases were added to the 1992 NES to supplement the Panel selections such that when the Panel and new Cross-section selections are combined for analysis a representative cross-section of the study population has been maintained. Table 9 identifies the PSUs for the 1992 National Election Study by MSA status and Region. The PSUs in the Panel portion of the sample design are shown in standard print on this table while those PSUs added for the two-thirds Cross-section are shown in italics. Table 9: PSUs in the 1992 NES Pre- and Post-Election Survey By: MSA Status and Region. REGION Self-representing MSAs Northeast New York, NY-NJ Philadelphia, PA-NJ Boston, MA* Nassau-Suffolk, NY Pittsburgh, PA* North Chicago, IL Central Detroit, MI St. Louis, MO* Minneapolis, MN-WI South Washington, DC-MD-VA Dallas-Ft Worth, TX Houston, TX* Baltimore, MD* Atlanta, GA West Los Angeles, CA San Francisco, CA REGION Nonself-representing MSAs Northeast Buffalo, NY Newark, NJ Haven, CT Atlantic City, NJ Manchester, NH North Milwaukee, WI Central Dayton, OH Kansas City, MO-KS Des Moines, IA Grand Rapids, MI Fort Wayne, IN Steubenville, OH Saginaw, MI South Birmingham, AL Columbus, GA-AL Miami, FL xliv Jacksonville, FL Lakeland, FL McAllen, TX Waco, TX Wheeling, WV Knoxville, TN Richmond, VA West Seattle, WA Denver, CO Anaheim, CA Riverside, CA Fresno, CA Eugene, OR Phoenix, AZ REGION Non-MSAs Northeast Schuyler, NY Gardner, MA North Sanilac, MI Central Decatur, IN Phillips, KS/Saline, NE Mower, MN South Bulloch, GA Sabine, LA Hale, TX Monroe, AR/Ashley, AR Bedford, TN Montgomery, VA Robeson, NC West ElDorado-Alpine, CA Carbon, WY NOTE: The PSU's marked with an asterisk are Self-Representing for sample designs which use the two-thirds or larger portion of the sample (i.e., in this case, the combined cross-section and panel design). For the half-sample design (i.e., in this case, the panel portion alone) only 6 of the 16 Self-Representing areas remain Self-Representing. The other ten Self-Representing PSU's are paired and only five are used in the half-sample design, each representing both itself and the PSU it is paired with. Second Stage Selection of Area Segments The second stage of the 1980 National Sample was selected directly from computerized files that were prepared from the 1980[8] Census summary tape file series (STF1-B). The designated second-stage sampling units (SSUs), termed "area segments", are comprised of census blocks in the metropolitan primary areas and enumeration districts (EDs) in the rural areas of both non-MSA and MSA primary areas. Each SSU block, block combination or enumeration district was assigned a measure of size equal to the total 1980 occupied housing unit count for the area (minimum = 50). Second stage sampling of area segments was performed with probabilities proportionate to the assigned measures of size. A three-step process of ordering the SSUs within the primary areas produced an implicit stratification of the area segments in the second stage sampling frame, stratified at the county level by geographic location and population. Area segments were stratified within county at the Minor Civil Division (MCD) level by size and income, and at the block and ED level by location within the MCD or county. (For details, refer to the SRC publication, 1980 NATIONAL SAMPLE: DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT.) Systematic PPS sampling was used to select the area segments from the second stage sampling frame for each county. In the self-representing (SR) PSUs the number of sample area segments varied in proportion to the size of the primary stage unit, from a high of 12 Cross-section and 12 Panel area segments in the SR New York MSA, 6 Cross-section segments and 5 Panel segments in the San Francisco MSA, to a low of 4 Cross-section and no Panel area segments in the smaller SR PSUs such as Minneapolis and Atlanta MSAs. Most Nonself-representing (NSR) half-sample (A) PSUs were represented by 2 Cross-section and 6 Panel area segments; most of the eleven other (B1) NSR PSUs had 6 Cross-section area segments (and, of course, no Panel segments). A total of 487 area segments were selected, 206 Cross-section and 281 Panel segments, 151 in the sixteen self-representing PSUs and 336 in the nonself-representing PSUs as shown in Table 10. Table 10: Number of Cross-Section and Panel Area Segments in the 1992 NES Sample Showing PSU Name, National-Sample Stratum and Partition, and MSA Status 1980 1980 National Sample # of 1992 NES # of 1992 NES N. Samp PSU Name Cross-section Panel Sample PSU# Sample Segs. Segments Six Largest Self-representing PSUs 1 A New York, NY-NJ 12 12 2 A Los Angeles, CA 12 9 3 A Chicago, IL 8 8 4 A Philadelphia, PA-NJ 6 6 5 A Detroit, MI 6 6 6 A San Francisco, CA 6 5 Ten Remaining Self-representing PSUs 7 B1 Washington, DC-MD-VA 6 0 8 B1 Dallas-Ft Worth, TX 6 0 9 A Houston, TX 0 7 10 A Boston, MA 0 6 11 B1 Nassau-Suffolk, NY 4 0 12 A St Louis, MO-IL 0 6 13 A Pittsburgh, PA 0 6 14 A Baltimore, MD 0 6 15 B1 Minneapolis, MN-WI 4 0 16 B1 Atlanta, GA 4 0 Nonself-representing MSAs: Northeast 17 A Buffalo, NY 2 6 18 B1 Newark, NJ 6 0 21 A New Haven, CT 2 6 23 A Atlantic City, NJ 2 6 24 A Manchester, NH 2 6 Nonself-representing MSAs: North Central 26 A Milwaukee, WI 2 6 27 A Dayton, OH 2 6 28 B1 Kansas City, MO-KS 6 0 29 A Des Moines, IA 2 6 31 A Grand Rapids, MI 2 6 32 A Fort Wayne, IN 2 6 33 A Steubenville, OH-WV 2 6 34 B1 Saginaw, MI 6 0 1980 1980 National Sample # of 1992 NES # of 1992 NES N. Samp PSU Name Cross-section Panel Sample PSU# Sample Segs. Segments Nonself-representing MSAs: South 36 A Birmingham, AL 2 6 39 A Columbus, GA-AL 2 6 40 A Miami, FL 2 6 42 B1 Jacksonville, FL 6 0 43 A Lakeland, FL 2 6 44 A McAllen, TX 2 6 45 B1 Waco, TX 6 0 47 A Wheeling, WV-OH 2 6 49 A Knoxville, TN 2 6 50 A Richmond, VA 2 6 Nonself-representing MSAs: West 53 A Seattle, WA 2 6 55 A Denver, CO 2 6 56 A Anaheim, CA 2 6 57 B1 Riverside-San Bernardino, CA 6 0 58 A Fresno, CA 2 6 59 A Eugene, OR 2 6 60 B1 Phoenix, AZ 6 0 Nonself-representing Non-MSAs: Northeast 63 A Schuyler, NY 2 6 64 B1 Gardner, MA 6 0 Nonself-representing Non-MSAs: North Central 65 A Sanilac, MI 2 6 66 B1 Decatur, IN 6 0 68 A Phillips, KS/ ** 6 Saline, NE 2 ** 70 A Mower, MN 2 6 Nonself-representing Non-MSAs: South 73 A Bulloch, GA 2 6 74 B1 Sabine, LA 5 0 76 A Hale, TX 2 6 77 A Monroe, AR/ ** 6 Ashley, AR 2 ** 78 A Bedford, TN 2 6 80 B1 Montgomery, VA 5 0 81 A Robeson, NC 2 6 Nonself-representing Non-MSAs: West 82 A ElDorado-Alpine, CA 2 6 84 A Carbon, WY 2 6 Total 206 281 ** In two Non-SMSA National Sample strata (68 and 77) the 1980 materials from which the Panel area segments had been selected was exhausted (i.e., there were insufficient remaining SSUs from which to select new Cross-section area segments), so a new Primary selection had to be made from those two strata. Therefore, the Panel area segments for stratum 68 are from PSU Phillips County, KS, and the Cross-section area segments are from Saline County, NE; the Panel area segments for stratum 77 are from PSU Monroe County, AR, and the Cross-section area segments are from Ashley County, AR. Although 281 segments were used in the 1990 NES, only 272 Panel segments appear in the 1992 NES Panel. The difference is due to some segments used in 1990 not having any interviews completed in 1990 and, therefore, not becoming part of the 1992 Panel. Third Stage Selection of Housing Units For each area segment selected in the second sampling stage, a listing was made of all housing units located within the physical boundaries of the segment. For segments with a very large number of expected housing units, all housing units in a subselected part of the segment were listed. The final equal probability sample of housing units for the 1992 NES was systematically selected from the housing unit listings for the sampled area segments. The overall probability of selection for 1992 NES Cross-Section households was f=.00003988 or .3988 in 10,000. The equal probability sample of households was achieved for the combined Cross-Section/Panel design by using the standard multi-stage sampling technique of setting the sampling rate for selecting housing units within area segments to be inversely proportional to the PPS probabilities (see above) used to select the PSU and area segment. Five 1992 Panel replicates were designated for the entire "frame" of households in which a complete interview was obtained in the 1990 NES study (2000 - 11 partial interviews = 1989 1990 interview HUs). The original 1990 sample lines had been selected from the National Sample ("A" or "half-sample" PSUs) to be inversely proportional to the PPS probabilities used to select the area segments as described in the previous paragraph. The new Cross-Section component of the 1992 NES sample design was disproportionately allocated to the "B1" PSUs to supplement the Panel cases such that when cross-sectional analysis was undertaken, combining new cross-section cases with panel cases would yield an equal probability sample of households. The distribution of the combined sample would be that required by the two-thirds design. Fourth Stage Respondent Selection Within each sampled new cross-section housing unit, the SRC interviewer prepared a complete listing of all eligible household members. Using an objective procedure described by Kish (1949)[9] a single respondent was then selected at random to be interviewed. Regardless of circumstances, no substitutions were permitted for the designated respondent. This technique had also been used in 1990 to select the original Panel respondents. In 1992 the same Panel respondent (R) was sought for interview as had been interviewed in 1990. SAMPLE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS The targeted completed interview sample size for the 1992 NES Pre/Post-Election Survey was n = 2,057 total cases. In the original sample size computation, the following assumptions were made for the cross-section component of the sample: response rate for the pre-election interview = .72 and of these 95% were assumed to be available and cooperative for the post-election interview, combined occupancy/eligibility rate = .83. These assumptions were derived from survey experience in the 1986 NES Post Election Survey[10]. The assumptions made for the panel component were: .913 recontact rate and .75 response rate for the pre-election interview. The same .95 response rate for the post-election interview was assumed for both the panel and the cross-section component. To most closely tailor the field effort to the sample field experience during this study, both parts of the selected sample had five replicates designated. Replicates 1 and 2 were considered the "base sample", certain to be released. 55% of this base was designated as Replicate 1 to be released September 1, 1992 and 45% designated as Replicate 2 to be released October 1, 1992. The other three replicates were designated "Reserve" replicates, one or more to be released for field work October 1, 1992 at the discretion of NES study staff. Replicate 3 (Reserve replicate 1) was never, in fact, released. Replicates 4 and 5 (Reserve replicates 2 and 3) were released with Base sample replicate 2 on October 1, 1992. Each replicate is a proper subsample of the NES sample. A subsampling of one-third of selected addresses was made in certain cases when selected lines were determined to be within locked buildings, in gated subdivisions or in areas which posed a danger to interviewing staff. This allowed concentration of greater field effort in these circumstances to obtain at least some interviews. In cases where this was done, appropriate weighting of the results will be used to compensate. (This is not reflected in the following tables however). Table 11 provides a full description of the original sample design specifications applied to the Base Sample and also indicates the number of HU listings assigned to each replicate. As stated above, Replicates 1 and 2 constitute the Base Sample; Replicates 3, 4 and 5 are reserve replicates. Replicate 3 was, in fact, never released for field work. Table 11: Original Sample Design Specifications and Assumptions 1992 National Pre/Post-Election Survey Cross-Section Component (Supplemental) Original Specifications and Assumptions Completed Post/ interview 1,000 Contact/Response Rate .95 Completed Pre/ interview 1,052 Response Rate .72 Eligible sample households 1,462 Occupancy/Eligibility Rate[11] .83 Panel Recontact Rate Sample HU listings Replicates 1 and 2 1,760 Replicate 1 (incl above)[12] 961 Replicate 2 (incl above)[13] 799 Replicate 3 (Reserve)[14] 200 Replicate 4 (Reserve) 75 Replicate 5 (Reserve) 51 Total Sample lines 2,086 Panel Component Total Original Specifications and Assumptions Completed Post/ interview 1,057 2,057 Contact/Response Rate .95 Completed Pre/ interview 1,112 2,164 Response Rate[15] .75 Eligible sample households 1,483 2,945 Occupancy/Eligibility Rate[11] Panel Recontact Rate .913 Sample HU listings Replicates 1 and 2 1,625 3,385 Replicate 1 (incl above)[12] 900 Replicate 2 (incl above)[13] 725 lii Replicate 3 (Reserve)[14] 208 Replicate 4 (Reserve) 104 Replicate 5 (Reserve) 52 Total Sample lines 1,989[16] SAMPLE DESIGN OUTCOMES Table 12 compares the original sample design specifications and assumptions for the new Cross-Section Component of the 1992 NES as applied to the Base Sample (as in Table 11) and as applied to the actually released sample (Replicates 1, 2, 4 and 5) to the actual outcome for that component. Table 13 makes a similar comparison for the Panel Component of the 1992 NES Sample and Table 14 presents a summary of the figures for the combined Cross-Section/Panel Sample. The response rates which appear in these tables are calculated using both complete and partial (short-form) interviews. An alternative response rate which excludes short-form interviews is described in "Response Rates", above. Table 12: Original Sample Design Specifications and Assumptions and Actual Sample Design Outcomes for the Cross-Section Component of the 1992 National Pre/Post-Election Survey Original Original S & A Specifications Applied to & Assumptions Actual Release (Reps. 1 & 2) (Reps. 1,2,4 & 5) Completed Post/Interviews 1,000 1,103 Contact/Response Rate .95 .95 Released for Recontact 1,052 1,161 Completed Pre/ Interviews 1,052 1,161 Response Rate .72 .72 Eligible Sample Households 1,462 1,613 Occupancy/Eligibility Rate[17] .83 .83 Subsampling for dangerous/ locked areas -- -- Sample HU listings 1,760 1,943 Sample growth from update[18] -- 1.03 Selected Sample lines 1,760 1,886 Actual Outcome Completed Post/Interviews 1,005 Contact/Response Rate .89 Released for Recontact 1,126 Completed Pre/ Interviews 1,126 Response Rate .74 Eligible Sample Households 1,522 Occupancy/Eligibility Rate .80 1,900 Subsampling for dangerous/ locked areas .99[19] Sample HU listings 1,923 Sample growth from update 1.02 Selected Sample lines 1,886 Table 13: Original Sample Design Specifications and Assumptions and Actual Sample Design Outcomes for the Panel Component of the 1992 National Pre/Post-Election Survey Original Original S & A Specifications Applied to & Assumptions Actual Release (Reps 1 & 2) (Reps 1,2,4 & 5) Completed Post/ Interviews 1,057 1,158 Contact/Response Rate .95 .95 Released for Recontact 1,112 1,219 Completed Pre/ Interviews 1,112 1,219 Response Rate .75[20] .75 Eligible Sample Households 1,483 1,626 Panel Recontact Rate .913 .913 Sample HU listings Released 1,625 1,781 Total Panel cases 1,989 1,989 Actual Outcome Completed Post/ Interviews 1,250 Contact/Response Rate .92 Released for Recontact 1,361 Completed Pre/ Interviews 1,361 Response Rate .78 Eligible Sample Households 1,752 Panel Recontact Rate .979 Sample HU listings Released 1,789 Total Panel cases 1,989 Table 14: Original Sample Design Specifications and Assumptions and Actual Sample Design Outcomes for the Combined Cross-Section/Panel Sample. 1992 National Pre/Post-Election Survey Original Original S & A Specifications Applied to & Assumptions Actual Release (Reps. 1 & 2) (Reps. 1,2,4 & 5) Completed Post/ Interviews 2,057 2,261 Released for Recontact 2,164 2,380 Completed Pre/ Interviews 2,164 2,380 Eligible Sample Households 2,945 3,239 Total Sample HU listings 3,385[21] 3,724 Growth from update of Cross-Section component 1.015 Selected Sample lines 3,667 Actual Outcome Completed Post/ Interviews 2,255 Released for Recontact 2,487 Completed Pre/ Interviews 2,487 Eligible Sample Households 3,274 Total Sample HU listings 3,712 In comparing the second column of Table 12 with the third column, it can be seen that, for the 1992 Cross-Section component, the sample growth from the update procedure was slightly less than expected; this was perhaps due to the fact that many of the new cross-section segments had been listed within the year previous to field dates for the 1992 NES study. The original sample design specifications also overestimated the actual occupancy/eligibility rates resulting in 91 fewer eligible HUs than estimated. However, since the actual response rate was higher than estimated, completed pre-election interviews fell only 35 short of the number estimated. The assumptions for response rate and occupancy/eligibility rate were based on the 1986 NES field experience for a probability sample based on the entire two-thirds design of the National Sample. The actual response rate for the 1992 cross-section component (.74), as well as the occupancy/eligibility rate very likely reflects the disproportionate allocation of the new cross-section segments in the B1 areas of the National Sample which may well have different occupancy/eligibility and response rates than any overall past NES rates on which the original assumptions were based. The number of Post-election interviews obtained, 1,005, was closer to the target of 1000 interviews projected for the Base Sample alone than the 1,103 projected for the actual 1,886 sample lines released. For the Panel Component (see Table 13), both the Panel recontact rate and the response rate exceeded assumptions resulting in 142 more pre-election interviews than expected. A lower than assumed response rate for the post-election interview reduced the excess to 92 more post-election interviews than projected for the release of the Panel base sample plus replicates 4 and 5 (reserve replicates 2 and 3). The figures for the combined cross-section sample shown in Table 14 show completed pre-election interviews of 107 over expected. Due to lower than assumed response rate for the post-election interview, combined with lower cross-section and higher panel overall response and occupancy/eligibility rates, the final total number of post election interviews was 6 fewer than the projected outcome for the sample lines released. >> WEIGHTED ANALYSIS OF 1992 NES DATA The area probability sample design for the 1992 NES results in an equal probability sample of U.S. households. However, within sample households a single adult respondent is chosen at random to be interviewed. Since the number of eligible adults may vary from one household to another, the random selection of a single adult introduces inequality into respondents' selection probabilities. In analysis, a respondent selection weight should be used to compensate for these unequal selection probabilities. The value of the respondent selection weight is exactly equal to the number of eligible adults in the household from which the random respondent was selected. The use of the respondent selection weight is strongly encouraged, despite past evaluations which have shown these weights to have little significant impact on the values of NES estimates of descriptive statistics. The Sampling Section has provided two final person level analysis weights which will incorporate sampling, nonresponse and post-stratification factors. One weight variable (#3009) is for use with Panel cases only; the other weight variable (#3008) is for the 1992 NES Cross-section (which includes both panel and new cross-section cases.) Analysts interested in developing their own nonresponse or post-stratification adjustment factors must request access to the necessary sample control data from the NES Board. CONSTRUCTION OF ANALYSIS WEIGHTS Nonresponse adjustment factors were constructed at the household level separately for Panel and new Cross-Section component cases. Nonresponse adjustment cells were formed by crossing PSU type (Self-representing, Nonself- representing MSA or non-MSA) by the nine Census divisions (New England, Middle Atlantic, East North Central, West North Central, South Atlantic, East South Central, West South Central, Mountain, and Pacific). A nonresponse factor equal to the inverse of the response rate in each cell was applied to the interview cases. In order to have a minimum of approximately 25 cases in each nonresponse adjustment cell, some cells were collapsed across Census divisions in the same Census region. An intermediate weight was constructed by multiplying the probability of selection of the household by the nonresponse adjustment factor by the number of eligible persons in the household[22]. This intermediate weight was used to produce a weighted sex by age category by Census Region table. The age categories used were: 18-44, 45-64, and 65+. Post-stratification factors were constructed to match the sample proportions in the 24 sex by age by Region cells to the July 1991 Census population totals (United States Department of Commerce News Public Information Office Press Release - CB92-93). The two final analysis weights were each centered to a mean of 1.0 so that the sum of the weights equals the number of respondents (1,359 for the 1990-92 Panel and 2,485 for the 1992 Cross-section). >> COMPARING THE 1992 NES TO PREVIOUS NATIONAL ELECTION STUDIES Earlier National Election Studies data collections did not include weights to adjust for nonresponse and the unequal probability of selection at the household level. Thus, weighting the 1992 NES data by V3009 (for analysis of the Panel cases) or by V3008 (for combined analysis of the panel and new cross-section cases) produces estimates that are not strictly comparable to those obtained from previous National Election Studies that were not weighted to incorporate sampling, nonresponses and post-stratification factors. Analysis comparing data from the 1992 NES data to previous NES data collections should employ V7000. Because approximately half of the respondents to the 1992 NES were part of a panel first interviewed in 1990, to be comparable with previous NES cross-section data collections, the combined 1992 panel and new cross-section data must be weighted to correct for panel attrition and the aging of the panel respondents. Panel attrition is not uniform across demographic groups. Some respondents (the mobile and those with the least amount of formal education) are more susceptible to panel attrition. By definition, panel respondents are two years older than the cross-section respondents. And by definition, there are almost no 18 or 19 year-olds among the panel respondents interviewed in 1992 (because an 18 year-old in 1992 would have been 16 years-old in 1990 and ineligible for the 1990 study). Weighting of the panel respondents is necessary to ensure comparability with past NES data collections. V7000 corrects the combined panel and cross-section cases for the panel attrition and aging that occurred among the panel respondents. This weight should be used when comparing estimates made on the 1992 NES data to estimates made on previous (unweighted) NES data collections. V7000 does not appear in the April 1993 CPS Early Release Version of the 1992 National Election Study. CONSTRUCTION OF V7000 To construct this weight, panel respondents were classified by age (17-24, 25-39, 40- 64, 65-74, 75 and over), education (less than high school, high school diploma, and more than high school education), and mobility (whether or not the respondent had moved between 1990 and 1992). Cross-classification of these three variables produced a 30-celled table (5 x 3 x 2) for each of the following: (1) 1990 panel respondents who comprised the panel portion of the sample "universe" for the 1992 study (N=1769); and (2) panel respondents interviewed in 1992 (N=1359). The weight was constructed by dividing the value of each cell in the 1990 table (1) by the value of the corresponding cell in the 1992 table (2). (For example, 10.9 percent of the 1,769 1990 panel respondents were age 40-64/had more than high school education/ had not moved. In 1992, respondents in the cell defined by these same categories comprised 11.8 percent of the 1359 panel respondents interviewed. The case weight for this group of respondents is 10.9/11.8 = .9237.) In order to have a minimum of approximately 25 cases in each cell, some cells were collapsed. This procedure centers the weight variable V7000 so that it has a mean of 1.0 and the sum of the weights (2488) is approximately equal to the actual number of combined panel and cross-section respondents (2,485). Respondents who are part of the new cross-section have the value "1.0000" on V7000. SAMPLING ERRORS OF 1992 NES ESTIMATES SAMPLING ERROR CALCULATION PROGRAMS The probability sample design for the 1992 National Election Study permits the calculation of estimates of sampling error for survey statistics. For calculating sampling errors of statistics from complex sample surveys, the OSIRIS statistical analysis and data management software system offers the PSALMS and REPERR programs. PSALMS is a general purpose sampling error program which incorporates the Taylor Series approximation approach to the estimation of variances of ratios (including means, scale variables, indices, proportions) and their differences. REPERR is an OSIRIS program which incorporates algorithms for replicated approaches to variance estimation. Both Balanced Repeated Replication (BRR) and Jackknife Repeated Replication (JRR) are available as program options. The current version of REPERR is best suited for estimating sampling errors and design effects for regression and correlation statistics. Sampling Error Codes and Calculation Model Estimation of variances for complex sample survey estimates requires a computation model. Individual data records must be assigned sampling error codes which reflect the complex structure of the sample and are compatible with the computation algorithms of the various programs. The sampling error codes for the 1992 NES are included as variables #3068 and #3069 in the ICPSR Public Use data set. The assigned sampling error codes are designed to facilitate sampling error computation according to a paired selection model for both Taylor Series approximation and Replication method programs. For the Panel Component segments, two sampling error (SE) codes have been included for analysis of 1992 data. For longitudinal analysis of Panel data alone, the original 1990 SE code should be used since this reflects the half-sample design of the 1990 NES sample. For any cross-sectional analysis, where Panel data is combined with new cross-section data, the 1992 SE code must be used. Table 15 provides a description of how individual sampling error code values for Panel only data are to be paired for sampling error computations. Thirty (30) pairs or strata of sampling error computation units (SECUs) are defined. Each SECU in a stratum pair includes cases assigned to a single sampling error code value. The exceptions are the second SECU in stratum 27 which is comprised of cases assigned sampling code values 36 AND 55 and the second SECU in stratum 29 which is comprised of cases with SECUs 61 AND 63. Table 15: 1992 Pre/Post-Election Survey: Panel-Only Analysis Paired Selection Model for Sampling Error Computations (1990 Sampling Error Codes - Variable #3069) Pair (SECU) (SECU) (Stratum) 1 of 2 2 of 2 Codes Codes 1 103 104 2 105 106 3 99 100 4 101 102 5 95 96 6 97 98 7 93 94 8 91 92 9 89 90 10 83 84 11 81 82 12 77 78 13 75 76 14 73 74 15 2 6 16 7 8 17 14 16 18 17 18 19 19 21 20 24 28 21 11 29 22 30 33 23 37 43 24 40 48 25 42 45 26 50 51 27 52 36 + 55 28 57 64 29 60 61 + 63 30 67 68 Table 16 shows the Strata and SECU codes to be used for the paired selection model for sampling error computations for any 1992 cross-sectional analyses using the combined cross-section/panel data. The 42 strata reflect the expanded 2/3rds National Sample design used in 1992. Table 16: 1992 Pre/Post-Election Survey: Cross-Section Analysis[23] Paired Selection Model for Sampling Error Computations (1992 Sampling Error Coded - Variable #3068) Pair (SECU) (SECU) (SE Stratum) 1 of 2 2 of 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 3 1 2 4 1 2 5 1 2 6 1 2 7 1 2 8 1 2 9 1 2 10 1 2 11 1 2 12 1 2 13 1 2 14 1 2 15 1 2 16 1 2 17 1 2 18 1 2 19 1 2 20 1 2 21 1 2 22 1 2 23 1 2 24 1 2 25 1 2 26 1 2 27 1 2 28 1 2 29 1 2 30 1 2 31 1 2 32 1 2 33 1 2 34 1 2 35 1 2 36 1 2 37 1 2 38 1 2 39 1 2 40 1 2 41 1 2 42 1 2 It can be seen from this table that the three-digit 1992 SE code is comprised of: first the two-digit SE Stratum code followed by the one-digit SECU code. Generalized Sampling Error Results for the 1992 NES To assist NES analysts, the OSIRIS PSALMS program was used to compute sampling errors for a wide-ranging example set of means and proportions estimated from the 1988 NES Pre-election Survey data set[24]. For each estimate, sampling errors were computed for the total sample and for fifteen demographic and political affiliation subclasses of the 1988 NES Pre-Election Survey sample. The results of these sampling error computations were then summarized and translated into the general usage sampling error table provided in Table 17. Incorporating the pattern of "design effects" observed in the extensive set of example computations, Table 17 provides approximate standard errors for percentage estimates based on the 1988 NES. To use the table, examine the column heading to find the percentage value which best approximates the value of the estimated percentage that is of interest[25]. Next, locate the approximate sample size base (denominator for the proportion) in the left-hand row margin of the table. To find the approximate standard error of a percentage estimate, simply cross-reference the appropriate column (percentage) and row (sample size base). Note: the tabulated values represent approximately one standard error for the percentage estimate. To construct an approximate confidence interval, the analyst should apply the appropriate critical point from the "z" distribution (e.g. z=1.96 for a two-sided 95% confidence interval half-width). Furthermore, the approximate standard errors in the table apply only to single point estimates of percentages not to the difference between two percentage estimates. The generalized variance results presented in Table 17 are a useful tool for initial, cursory examination of the NES survey results. For more in depth analysis and reporting of critical estimates, analysts are encouraged to compute exact estimates of standard errors using the appropriate choice of a sampling error program and computation model. Table 17: Generalized Variance Table. 1992 NES Pre-Election Survey. APPROXIMATE STANDARD ERRORS FOR PERCENTAGES For percentage estimates near. Sample n 50% 40% or 30% or 20% or 10% or 60% 70% 80% 90% The approximate standard error of the percentage is: 100 5.385 5.277 4.933 4.308 3.231 200 3.912 3.824 3.581 3.128 2.343 300 3.278 3.210 3.006 2.260 1.962 400 2.905 2.846 2.661 2.324 1.743 500 2.663 2.603 2.437 2.128 1.593 750 2.294 2.244 2.094 1.657 1.250 1000 2.078 2.039 1.907 1.657 1.250 1500 1.846 1.803 1.688 1.474 1.102 2000 1.722 1.691 1.568 1.368 1.030 2500 1.637 1.604 1.506 1.310 0.982 >> 1992 TECHNICAL REPORTS AND OTHER OCCASIONAL PAPERS 1. Sanchez, Maria. (July 1982) "7-Point Scales." 2. Shanks, J. Merrill, Maria Sanchez, and Betsy Morton. (March 1983). "Alternative Approaches to Survey Data Collection for the National Election Studies." 3. Lake, Celinda. (September 1983) "Similarity and Representativeness of 1983 Pilot Samples." 4. Lake, Celinda. (November 1983) "Comparison of 3-point, 5-point, and 7-point Scales from the CATI Experiment 1982 Election Study." 5. NES Staff. (December 1983) "1980 Precinct Data Returns Project." 6. Lake, Celinda. (February 1984) "Coding of Independent/Independents and Apoliticals in the Party Identification Summary Code and Apoliticals in the Rolling Cross-Section." 7. Morchio, Giovanna and Maria Sanchez. (February 1984) "Creation of a Filter Variable to be Used When Analyzing Questions about Congressional Candidates in the 1982 Integrated Personal/ISR CATI/Berkeley CATI Dataset: A Report to the Board of Overseers, National Election Studies." 8. Morchio, Giovanna and Maria Sanchez. (March 1984) "Comparison of the Michigan Method of District Assignment on the Telephone with the Personal Interview Simulated Data: A Report to the Board of Overseers, National Election Studies." 9. Traugott, Santa. (June 1984) "Two Versions of the Abortion Question." 10. Sanchez, Maria.(July 1984) "Branching versus 7-point scale measurements." . 11. NES Staff. (August 1984) "Weekly Field Report for the National Election Studies Continuous Monitoring, Jan. 11 - Aug. 3, 1984: A Report to the Board of Overseers, National Election Studies." 12. NES Staff. (August 1984) "Questions and Versions in NES Continuous Monitoring, 1984: A Report to the Board of Overseers, National Election Studies." 13. NES Staff. (n.d) "Years of Schooling." 14. NES Staff. (n.d) "Newspaper Code." 15. Traugott, Santa. (n.d.) "The Political Interest Variable on the 1984 Election Study." Unpublished Staff Memo to NES Planning Committee. 16. Sanchez, Maria and Giovanna Morchio. (n.d.) Probing Don't Know Answers -- Do We Always Want to Do This?" 17. NES Staff. (February 1985) "Progress of the Rolling Cross Section." 18. Traugott, Santa. (February 1985) "Production for the Pre-Post" 19. Traugott, Santa. (February 1985) "Some Analysis of Hard-to-Reach Rolling Thunder Respondents." 20. Traugott, Santa. (April 1985) "Sample Weighting in NES Continuous Monitoring, 1984: A Report to the Board of Overseers, National Election Studies." 21. Traugott, Santa. (April 1985). "Sample Weighting in NES Pre-Post Election Survey, 1984: A Report to the Board of Overseers, National Election Studies." 22. Brehm, John. (June 1985) "Report on Coding of Economic Conditions Series in the 1984 Pre-Post Election Study" 23. Brehm, John. (July 1985). "Question Ordering Effects on Reported Vote Choice. 24. Traugott, Santa. (July 1985) "Assessment of Media Measures in RXS." 25. Traugott, Santa. (July 1985) "Assessment of Media Measures in Pre-Post" 26. Brehm, John. (August 1985). "Analysis of Result Code Disposition for Continuous Monitoring by Time in Field: Report to the Board of Overseers, National Election Studies." 27. Morchio, Giovanna, Maria Sanchez and Santa Traugott. (November 1985). "Mode Differences: DK Responses in the 1984 Post-Election Survey: A Report to the Board of Overseers, National Election Studies." 28. Morchio, Giovanna and Santa Traugott. (February 1986) "Congressional District Assignment in an RDD Sample: Results of 1982 CATI Experiment." 29. Brehm, John and Santa Traugott. (March 1986) "Similarity and Representativeness of the 1985 Pilot Half-samples." 30. Gronke, Paul. (September 1986) "NES Question C2: R's Party Registration." 31. Brehm, John. (March 1987) "How Representative is the 1986 Post-Election Survey?" 32. Morchio, Giovanna. (May 1987) "Trends in NES Response Rates." 33. Brehm, John. (December 1987) "Who's Missing? an Analysis of NonResponse in the 1986 Election Study: A Report to the Board of Overseers, National Election Studies." 34. Traugott, Santa. (August 1989) "Validating Self-Reported Vote: 1964-1988." 35. NES Staff. (February 1990) "Possible Bias Due to Attrition and Sample Selection in the 1989 Pilot." 36. Traugott, Santa and Giovanna Morchio. (March 1990) "Assessment of Bias Due to Attrition and Sample Selection in the NES 1989 Pilot Study." 37. Downes-Le Guin, Theodore. (May 1990) "Nonresponse in the 1988 National Election Studies" 38. Gronke, Paul. (May 1990) "Assessing the Sample Quality of the 1988 Senate Election Study: A response to Wright." 39. Presser, Stanley, Michael W. Traugott and Santa Traugott. (November 1990). "Vote 'Over' Reporting in Surveys: The Records or the Respondents?" 40. Bloom, Joel. (March 1991) "Sources of Pro- incumbent Bias in NES Survey Estimates for U.S. House Races since 1978: A Second Look." 41. Mayer, Russell. (November 1991) "Identifying Bias in Voting Models." 42. Traugott, Michael W., Santa Traugott and Stanley Presser. (May 1992) "Revalidation of Self-Reported Vote." 43. Rosenstone, Steven J., Margaret Petrella and Donald R. Kinder. (June 1993) "The Consequences of Substituting Telephone for Face-to-Face Interviewing in the 1992 National Election Study." >> NES 1989 PILOT STUDY REPORTS Abelson, Robert. Message on Vote Validation Experiment. Calvo, Maria Antonia and Steven J. Rosenstone. The Re-Framing of the Abortion Debate. Kinder, Donald R. and Thomas Nelson. Experimental Investigations of Opinion Frames and Survey Responses: A Report to the NES Board. Knight, Kathleen. Comparisons of Liberal-Conservative Items in the ANES 1989 Pilot Study. Krosnick, Jon and Matthew K. Berent. Impact of Verbal Labeling on Response Alternatives and Branching on Attitude Measurement Reliability. Leege, David, Ken Wald and Lyman Kellstedt. Religion and Politics. A Report on Measures of Religiosity in the 1989 NES Pilot Study. Markus, Gregory. Measuring Popular Individualism. Price, Vincent and John Zaller. Evaluation of Media Exposure Items in 1989. Appendix 1: [Price & Zaller] Measuring individual differences... Appendix 2: [Zaller & Price] In One Ear and Out the Other... Rosenstone, Steven J. and Gregory A. Diamond. Measuring Public Opinion on Political issues. Traugott, Michael. Memo to Pilot Study Committee, including as an Appendix: Understanding Campaign Effects on Candidate Recall and Recognition. Zaller, John. Experimental Tests of the Question Answering Model of the Mass Survey Response. >> 1991 PILOT STUDY REPORTS Beebe, Tim. The Effects of Pre-Notification and Incentive on Panel Attrition. Undated. Brady, Henry E. Report on Feeling Thermometer for "Moderates." January 13, 1992. Citrin, Jack, Donald P. Green, Beth Reingold and David O. Conover, Pamela J., and Virginia Sapiro. Gender Consciousness and Gender Politics in the 1991 Pilot Study: A Report to the ANES Board of Overseers. January, 1992. Delli Carpini, Michael X., and Scott Keeter. An Analysis of Information Items on the 1990 and 1991 NES Surveys: A Report to the Board of Overseers for the National Election Studies. January 14, 1992. Highton, Benjamin, and Raymond E. Wolfinger. Estimating the Size of Minority Groups. January 13, 1992. Huddy, Leonie. Analysis of Old-Age Policy Items in the 1991 Pilot Study. Undated. Huddy, Leonie. Addendum. February 2, 1992. Knack, Stephen. Social Connectedness and Voter Participation: Evidence from the 1991 NES Pilot Study. January 1992. Knack, Stephen. Social Altruism and Voter Turnout: Evidence from the 1991 NES Pilot Study. January, 1992. Knack, Stephen. Performance and Recommendations Summary for 1991 NES Pilot Variables #2828-2847. January 24, 1992. Knack, Stephen. Deterring Voter Registration Through Juror Source Practices: Evidence from the 1991 NES Pilot Study. January, 1992. Oliver, Eric, and Raymond E. Wolfinger. Jury Duty as a Deterrent to Voter Registration. January 22, 1992. Sears. A Report on Measures of American Identity and New "Ethnic" Issues in the 1991 NES Pilot Study. Undated. Zaller, John. Report on 1991 Pilot Items on Environment. February 2, 1992. >> 1992 FILE STRUCTURE The AMERICAN NATIONAL ELECTION STUDY, 1992 PRE- AND POST-ELECTION SURVEY [ENHANCED WITH DATA FROM 1990 AND 1991] are available from ICPSR in logical record length (LRECL) format. The data are sorted in ascending order by respondent number, and contains 2,105 variables for 2,485 respondents. A machine-readable codebook, which provides complete formatting and other information for all variables accompanies the data. In addition, a set of SAS and SPSS control statements has been prepared for this collection. The control statements contain formatting information as well as variable labels, value labels and missing data specifications for all variables in the collection. An OSIRIS dictionary and dictionary-codebook are also available. The OSIRIS dictionary provides formatting and other information for each variable in the logical record data file. Either the dictionary or dictionary-codebook file can be used in conjunction with the OSIRIS package of computer programs, or to interface with other software packages such as SPSS or SAS. The data can also be accessed directly through software packages that do not use SAS or SPSS control statements by specifying the record locations of the desired variables. The record locations for all variables are provided in the codebook. >> 1992 CODEBOOK INFORMATION The example below is a reproduction of information appearing in the machine-readable codebook for a typical variable. The numbers in brackets do not appear but are references to the descriptions that follow this example. ............................................................ [1] VAR 0020 [2] FIPS SCSA CODE [3] MD=0 REF 0020 [4] LOC 76 WIDTH 2 [5] [6] FIPS (CENSUS) 1980 STANDARD CONSOLIDATED STATISTICAL AREA CODES ----------------------------------------------------- [7] The six largest SCSA's are marked with **. [8] [9] [10] [11] 31 07. Boston-Lawrence-Lowell, MA-NH 44 14. Chicago-Gary-Kenosha, IL-IN-WI** 34 32. Dayton-Springfield, OH 18 35. Detroit-Ann Arbor, MI** 27 42. Houston-Galveston, TX 47 49. Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA** 10 56. Miami-Fort Lauderdale, FL 45 63. Milwaukee-Racine, WI 37 70. New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-CT** 24 77. Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton, PA-DE-NJ-MD** 14 84. San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA** 14 91. Seattle-Tacoma, WA 2120 00. INAP; location not in SCSA ........................................................ [1] Indicates the variable and reference numbers. A variable number and a reference number are assigned to each variable in the data collection. In the present codebook, which documents the archived data collection, these numbers are identical. [2] Indicates the abbreviated variable name (maximum of 24 characters) used to identify the variable for the user. An expanded version of the variable name can be found in the variable description list. [3] Indicates the code values of missing data. In this example, code values equal to 0 are missing data (MD=0). Alternative statements for other variables are "MD=0 or GE 8," or "NO MISSING DATA CODES." Most analysis software packages require that certain types of data that the user desires to be excluded from analysis be designated as "MISSING DATA," e.g., inappropriate, unascertained, unascertainable, or ambiguous data categories. Although these codes are defined as missing data categories, this does not mean that the user should not or cannot use them in a substantive role if so desired. [4] Indicates the starting location and width of this variable when the data are stored on a magnetic tape in LRECL format. If the variable is of a multiple- response type, the width referenced is that of a single response. In this example the variable named "FIPS SCSA CODE" is 2 columns wide and is located in the 76th and 77th columns within the record. [5] A variable containing data with implied decimals is denoted by the message "IMP DEC= 0", where 0 is the number of decimal places implied in the variable. [6] This is the full text (question) supplied by the investigator to describe the variable. The question text, and the numbers and letters that may precede it, reflect the original wording of the questionnaire item. [7] Indicates an additional comment or explanation appended to the variable description. [8] Various processor comments may appear in this position, such as: "Actual number is coded", "FORM A ONLY" or "BUILT from 633". [9] Indicates the frequency of occurrence of each code value for this variable. Frequencies inserted in this codebook are not weighted. [10] Indicates the code values occurring in the data for this variable. [11] Indicates the textual definitions of the codes. Abbreviations commonly used in the code definitions are "DK" (Do Not Know), "NA" (Not Ascertained), and "INAP" (Inappropriate). In this example, responses to FIPS SCSA Code were coded "INAP" for those respondents whose location of interview was not in an SCSA. >> ICPSR PROCESSING INFORMATION, 1992 The data collection was processed according to standard ICPSR processing procedures. The data were checked for illegal or inconsistent code values which, when found, were corrected or recoded to missing data values. Consistency checks were performed. Statements bracketed in "<" and ">" signs in the body of the codebook were added by the processors for explanatory purposes. ICPSR has added frequencies to the codebook text for most variables in which the entire coding scheme is listed in the codebook, and a frequency addendum is provided for those variables with an extensive coding scheme. >> 1992 NOTES [1] Technical description of the 1990 National Election Study Sample Design prepared by the Sampling Section of the Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, February 1991. [2] In SRC publications and survey materials, the term "primary area" is used interchangeably with the more common "primary stage unit" terminology. [3] L. Kish, "A Procedure for Objective Respondent Selection Within the Household" JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN STATISTICAL ASSOCIATION 44 (1949): 380-387. [4] The standard error of a percentage is a symmetric function with its maximum centered at p=50%; i.e., the standards errors of p=40% and p=60% estimates are equal. [5] There were actually three forms of both questionnaires, since they were translated in Spanish. The Spanish language questionnaires are also "short-form" since only core items were translated. They are not, however, treated as "short-form" for "partials" for the purpose of this discussion. [6] The denominator for the calculations in this paragraph are as given in Tables 14 and 15 this Introduction. Information about the numerators appears in Table 7. [7] Text prepared by the Sampling Section of the Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, March, 1993. [8] While the Panel segments were selected from the 1980 STF1B file, most of the Cross-section segments were selected from the nearly equivalent 1990 Census file (PL94-171 file on CD ROM) which contains the block-level 1990 Census housing unit (HU) data. At the time of selection the 1990 STF1B file was not available. Therefore, the PL94-171 file was used, which had "total HU's" (rather than "occupied HU's") per block; for these Cross-section segments, linkage was designed to achieve a minimum measure of 72 TOTAL HU's per SSU. Also, since in 1990 all areas had been divided into Census Tracts and blocks, no Enumeration Districts were involved as SSU's. In other respects the second stage selection was the same for both sets of area segments. [9] See Note 3. [10] The 1986 NES was the most recent NES sample using the two-thirds National Sample. Response rate in 1986 was .701 and occupancy eligibility rate was .835. [11] Based on field experience in 1986 NES study. [12] About 55% of the base sample was assigned to the first release, September 1, 1992. [13] Released to field October 1, 1992. [14] All "reserve" replicates were to have coversheets sent to the field October 1, 1992, in sealed envelopes which were not to be opened by the interviewers until notified of their "release". As it happened, it was decided to release Replicates 4 and 5 on October 1, 1992. Replicate 3 was never released. (However, a few cases from Replicate 3 were released by mistake; these cases can be identified by using variables 3023 and 3024.) [15] An overall Panel response rate of 75% was assumed. Based on recontact response to the 1991 Persian Gulf Study: 1385 cases at 87% response rate = 1205 cases, and 615 cases at 50% response rate = 308 cases. Therefore, Overall: 1513/2000 = .756 [16] See Note 12. [17] Based on 1986 NES field experience using the two-thirds National Sample (.835). [18] No provision of update growth was applied in early estimates. Since the updating process was applied to the cross-section component of the 1992 NES Sample, and since it typically produces about 3% increase in sample lines over the count selected from the National Sample system, the update inflation factor was set at 1.03 for the cross-section component. [19] One percent of the sample was lost due to subsampling in three locked and two dangerous areas. [20] An overall Panel response rate of 75% was assumed, based on previous recontact experience (response to the 1991 Persian Gulf Study): 1385 cases at 87% response rate = 1205 cases, and 615 cases at 50% response rate = 308 cases. Overall: 1513/2000 = .756 [21] This figure was left without applying the usual growth factor for updating to the cross-section component of the sample, since this was the table presented (see Table 11) in the original planning for the study. The equivalent figure for the actually released Replicates 1,2,4 and 5) was taken with the growth factor of 1.03 applied to the cross-section component only. [22] In constructing the analysis weight, a maximum of three eligible adults was allowed. [23] For cross-sectional analysis of the 1992 NES data the combined cross-section and panel data must be used. Cross- section component data cannot be used alone. [24] The design effects from the 1988 NES are expected to be similar to those for the 1992 NES. Sampling errors for the 1992 NES have not yet been run. [25] The standard error of a percentage is a symmetric function with its maximum centered at p=50%; i.e., the standard error of p=40% and p=60% estimates are equal. >> 1990-1991 CROSS-REFERENCE LIST 1991 1990 Var# Q # QUESTION DESCRIPTION Approve/Disapprove of Bush on: Presidency; Economy; Foreign Relations 2112 B5 Approve or disapprove of Bush's presidency 2115 B5a/b Summary Variable 2116 B6 Approve or disapprove of Bush's handling of economy 2119 B6a/b Summary Variable 2120 B7 Approve or disapprove of Bush's handling of foreign countries 2123 B7a/b Summary Variable Thermometers and Probes 2203 B13b Mario Cuomo 2205 B13a George Bush 2211 B13f Jesse Jackson 2212 B13d Dan Quayle 2217 B13o/p R's Congressperson 2218 B13g-n R's Senator #1 2219 B13g-n R's Senator #2 2220 B14f Thermometer rating of Conservatives 2222 B14a The Democratic Party 2226 B14m Liberals 2228 B14b The Republican Party 2232 B14e Blacks 2239 B14h Women's movement 2242 B14k* People working to protect the environment * See wording change ('working' vs. 'seeking') 1991 1990 Var# Q # QUESTION DESCRIPTION Approve/Disapprove of the Way Congress is handling its job 2300 B15 Approve or disapprove of way U.S. Congress is handling job 2303 B15a/b Summary Variable Differences Between the Parties 2304 F14 Important differences in what Republicans and Democrats stand for 2305- Coded Differences from v2304 2316 Approve/Disapprove of Representative and Senators 2317 H8 Approve or disapprove of the way Representative has been handling his/her job 2320 H8a/b Summary Variable Party ID 2329 E7 R thinks of self as Republican, Democrat, Independent or other 2230 E7a Strong Republican or not very strong Republican 2231 E7b Strong Democrat or not very strong Democrat 2232 E7c R closer to Republican Party or the Democratic Party 2333 E7x Party ID Summary Most Important Problems Facing the Country 2334- F2 What R thinks are most important problems 2337 facing this country 2238 F4 Single most important problem the country faces 1991 1990 Var# Q # QUESTION DESCRIPTION Foreign Policy 2400 F17 Is Cold War between U.S. and Soviet Union coming to an end 2401 F18 U.S. to give economic assistance to countries in Eastern Europe somewhat, not very, never) 2408 F21 Does R think right thing to send U.S. military forces to Persian Gulf or should we have stayed out Approve/Disapprove of Bush Handling of Persian Gulf Crisis 2410 F23* Approve or disapprove of Bush's handling of Persian Gulf crisis *See wording change ('is' vs. 'has') 2413 F23a/b Summary Variable Differences Between the Parties 2414 H3 Democrats or Republicans more likely to raise taxes, if any difference 2415 H4a Democrats or Republicans better at handling nation's economy, if any difference 2416 H4d Democrats or Republicans better at handling foreign affairs, if any difference Liberal/Conservative Scales 2450 H9a Seven-point scale from extremely liberal to extremely conservative; how does R place themself on scale 2451 H9aa R considers self liberal or conservative 2452 H9b Using scale, how does R rate President Bush 2453 H9g Democratic Party 2454 H9h Republican Party 1991 1990 Var# Q # QUESTION DESCRIPTION Economic Well-being 2455 J1 R and family better off, worse off or same financially than year ago 2458 J1a/b Summary Variable 2459 J4 Economy as a whole gotten better, stayed same or gotten worse 2462 J4a/b Summary Variable Defense Spending Scale 2475 L1a Scale indicating reaction to increase in defense spending (between 1-7) R's feeling 2476 L1b On scale, R's rating of George Bush on defense spending 2477 L1e Democratic Party 2478 L1f Republican Party Which Party Will Keep Us Out of Future Wars Better 2481 N1 Keeping out of future wars handled better by Republicans, Democrats or about the same U.S. Position in the World 2482 N2 During past year, U.S. position in world grown weaker, same, or grown stronger Need of Strong U.S. Military 2483 N4 How important for U.S. to have strong military force to deal with enemies Worried about Conventional War 2484 N5 R how worried about country getting into conventional war without use of nuclear weapons 1991 1990 Var# Q # QUESTION DESCRIPTION Isolationist Sentiment 2485 N6 Agree or disagree: "This country would be better off if we just stayed home and did not concern ourselves with problems in other parts of the world. Worried About Nuclear War 2486 N7 R how worried about country getting into nuclear war at this time Trust in Government 2487 P2 R's ideas about government in Washington in general; how much of the time does R trust government to do what is right 2488 P4 Government run for benefit of few big interests or for the benefit of all the people 2489 P6b R's agreement/disagreement to: "People like me don't have any say about what the government does." R For/Against Preferential Hiring/Promotion of Blacks 2558 L8 Is R for or against preferential hiring and promotion of blacks 2561 L8a/b Summary Variable >> VARIABLE DESCRIPTION LIST 1990 POST-ELECTION SURVEY VARIABLES ICPSR VARIABLES 900001 ICPSR Study Number 900002 ICPSR Edition Number 900003 ICPSR Part Number 900004 Respondent Post-Election Case ID SAMPLING INFORMATION 900005 Primary Area Code 900006 Primary Area Name 900007 Segment Number 900008 Census Region 900009 Postal State Abbreviation and Congressional District Number 900010 FIPS State Code 900011 FIPS State and County Code 900012 ICPSR State Code 900013 Congressional District 900014 ICPSR State and Congressional District Code 900015 Tract/Enumerated District Indicator 900016 1980 Census Tract 900017 1980 Census Enumeration District 900018 1980 Census Place Code 900019 FIPS 1980 SMSA Code 900020 FIPS 1980 SCSA Code 900021 Size of Place of Interview 900022 Actual Population of Place of Interview 900023 1980 Belt Code 900024 1980 Minor Civil Division 900025 Sampling Error Code 900026 Selection Table 900027 Selected R Person Number HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION 900028 Number of persons in household 900029 Number of eligible adults 900030 Number of children under six years old 900031 Number of children six to nine years old 900032 Number of children ten to thirteen years old 900033 Number of children fourteen to seventeen years old 900034 Household composition INTERVIEW/ER INFORMATION 900035 Refusal conversion indicator 900036 Persuasion letter requested 900037 Final call number 900038 Final result code 900039 Was respondent's name obtained 900040 If R is female, has R legally changed her name 900041 Phone number obtained 900042 Should not interview by telephone? 900043 Interviewer's ID number 900044 Interviewer's race 900045 Interviewer's languages 900046 Interviewer's ethnicity 900047 Interviewer's age, bracketed 900048 Interviewer's years of work, bracketed 900049 Interviewer's gender 900050 Interviewer's education, bracketed 900051 Interviewer's interview number 900052 Date of interview - month 900053 Date of interview - day 900054 Total length of interview 900055 Total time to pre-edit 900056 Total time to post-interview edit 900057 Beginning time - local 900058 Type of Congressional race (House of Representatives) 900059 Type of Senate race 900060 Type of Governor race 900061 Form type R'S INTEREST/ATTENTION TO CAMPAIGN/MEDIA 900062 R's interest in the campaign 900063 Did R read about the campaign in any newspapers 900064 How much attention did R give to the campaign in the newspaper 900065 Did R watch any programs about the campaign on TV 900066 How many programs about the campaign did R watch 900067 How much attention did R give to the campaign news on TV 900068 Does R ever discuss politics 900069 How often does R discuss politics 900070 How often did R discuss politics in the past week 900071 How often did R read a daily newspaper in the past week 900072 How many days did R watch TV news in the past week 900073 Interviewer Checkpoint: Form Type WHAT R LIKES/DISLIKES ABOUT DEMOCRATIC PARTY 900074 Whether R likes anything about the democratic party 900075 What R likes about the Democratic party - first mention 900076 What R likes about the Democratic party - second mention 900077 What R likes about the Democratic party - third mention 900078 What R likes about the Democratic party - fourth mention 900079 What R likes about the Democratic party - fifth mention 900080 Whether R dislikes anything about the Democratic party 900081 What R dislikes about the Democratic party - first mention 900082 What R dislikes about the Democratic party - second mention 900083 What R dislikes about the Democratic party - third mention 900084 What R dislikes about the Democratic party - fourth mention 900085 What R dislikes about the Democratic party - fifth mention WHAT R LIKES/DISLIKES ABOUT REPUBLICAN PARTY 900086 Whether R likes anything about the Republican party 900087 What R likes about the Republican party - first mention 900088 What R likes about the Republican party - second mention 900089 What R likes about the Republican party - third mention 900090 What R likes about the Republican party - fourth mention 900091 What R likes about the Republican party - fifth mention 900092 Whether R dislikes anything about the Republican party 900093 What R dislikes about the Republican party - first mention 900094 What R dislikes about the Republican party - second mention 900095 What R dislikes about the Republican party - third mention 900096 What R dislikes about the Republican party - fourth mention 900097 What R dislikes about the Republican party - fifth mention R'S ASSESSMENT OF BUSH PRESIDENCY 900098 R approve/disapprove of Bush's handling of presidency 900099 Strength of R's approval/disapproval of Bush's handling of presidency 900100 R approve/disapprove of Bush's handling of economy 900101 Strength of R's approval/disapproval of Bush's handling of economy 900102 R approve/disapprove of Bush's handling of relations with foreign countries 900103 Strength of R's approval/disapproval of Bush's handling of relations with foreign countries 900104 R approve/disapprove of Bush's handling of pollution and other environmental problems 900105 Strength of R's approval/disapproval of Bush's handling of pollution and other environmental problems CONGRESSIONAL CAMPAIGN 900106 How much did R personally care about the outcome of the U.S. congressional election 900107 Does R remember the congressional candidates 900108 Number of congressional candidate - candidate 1 900109 From which party was the candidate - candidate 1 900110 Collapsed code for congressional candidate - candidate 1 900111 R's knowledge of candidate's name and party - candidate 1 900112 Number of congressional candidate - candidate 2 900113 From which party was the candidate - candidate 2 900114 Collapsed code for congressional candidate - candidate 2 900115 R's knowledge of candidate's name and party - candidate 2 900116 Number of congressional candidate - candidate 3 900117 From which party was the candidate - candidate 3 900118 Collapsed code for congressional candidate - candidate 3 900119 R's knowledge of candidate's name and party - candidate 3 900120 Interviewer Checkpoint: U.S. Senate race in state? SENATE CAMPAIGN 900121 Does R remember the Senate candidates 900122 Number of Senate candidate - candidate 1 900123 From which party was the candidate - candidate 1 900124 Collapsed code for Senate candidate - candidate 1 900125 R's knowledge of candidate's name and party - candidate 1 900126 Number of Senate candidate - candidate 2 900127 From which party was the candidate - candidate 2 900128 Collapsed code for Senate candidate - candidate 2 900129 R's knowledge of candidate's name and party - candidate 2 900130 Number of Senate candidate - candidate 3 900131 From which party was the candidate - candidate 3 900132 Collapsed code for Senate candidate - candidate 3 900133 R's knowledge of candidate's name and party - candidate 3 FEELING THERMOMETER: POLITICAL FIGURES 900134 Feeling thermometer - George Bush 900135 Feeling thermometer - Mario Cuomo 900136 Feeling thermometer - Mikhail Gorbachev 900137 Feeling thermometer - Dan Quayle 900138 Feeling thermometer - Ronald Reagan 900139 Feeling thermometer - Jesse Jackson 900140 Feeling thermometer - Democratic U.S. Senate candidate 900141 Feeling thermometer - Republican U.S. Senate candidate 900142 Feeling thermometer - U.S. Senate incumbent whose term is not up - race in state 900143 Feeling thermometer - U.S. Senate incumbent - no race in state 900144 Feeling thermometer - second U.S. Senate incumbent - no race in state 900145 Feeling thermometer - Democratic U.S. House candidate 900146 Feeling thermometer - Republican U.S. House candidate 900147 Feeling thermometer - Democratic gubernatorial candidate 900148 Feeling thermometer - Republican gubernatorial candidate 900149 Feeling thermometer - Governor or retiring Governor - no race in state 900150 Feeling thermometer - third party gubernatorial candidate (Connecticut only) 900151 Feeling thermometer - Democratic party 900152 Feeling thermometer - Republican party 900153 Feeling thermometer - political parties in general FEELING THERMOMETER: GROUPS IN SOCIETY 900154 Feeling thermometer - supporters of abortion 900155 Feeling thermometer - Blacks 900156 Feeling thermometer - conservatives 900157 Feeling thermometer - labor unions 900158 Feeling thermometer - the women's movement 900159 Feeling thermometer - people on welfare 900160 Feeling thermometer - people seeking to protect the environment 900161 Feeling thermometer - liberals 900162 Feeling thermometer - poor people 900163 Feeling thermometer - opponents of abortion R'S ASSESSMENT OF CONGRESSIONAL PERFORMANCE 900164 Does R approve/disapprove of the way Congress has been handling its job 900165 How strongly does R approve/disapprove of Congress' handling of its job R'S VOTE: 1988 900166 Did R vote in 1988 election 900167 Who did R vote for in 1988 presidential election PROBE INDICATORS 900168 Was question B13a probed by interviewer 900169 Was question B13b probed by interviewer 900170 Was question B13c probed by interviewer 900171 Was question B13d probed by interviewer 900172 Was question B13e probed by interviewer 900173 Was question B13f probed by interviewer 900174 Was question B13g probed by interviewer 900175 Was question B13h probed by interviewer 900176 Was question B13k probed by interviewer 900177 Was question B13m probed by interviewer 900178 Was question B13n probed by interviewer 900179 Was question B13o probed by interviewer 900180 Was question B13p probed by interviewer 900181 Was question B13q probed by interviewer 900182 Was question B13r probed by interviewer 900183 Was question B13t probed by interviewer 900184 Was question B13u probed by interviewer 900185 Was question B14a probed by interviewer 900186 Was question B14b probed by interviewer 900187 Was question B14c probed by interviewer 900188 Was question B14d probed by interviewer 900189 Was question B14e probed by interviewer 900190 Was question B14f probed by interviewer 900191 Was question B14g probed by interviewer 900192 Was question B14h probed by interviewer 900193 Was question B14j probed by interviewer 900194 Was question B14k probed by interviewer 900195 Was question B14m probed by interviewer 900196 Was question B14n probed by interviewer 900197 Was question B14o probed by interviewer R'S LIKES/DISLIKES HOUSE CANDIDATE: DEMOCRATIC 900198 Is there anything R likes about Democratic candidate for House of Representatives 900199 What R likes about House Democratic candidate - first mention 900200 What R likes about House Democratic candidate - second mention 900201 What R likes about House Democratic candidate - third mention 900202 What R likes about House Democratic candidate - fourth mention 900203 What R likes about House Democratic candidate - fifth mention 900204 Is there anything R dislikes about Democratic candidate for House of Representatives 900205 What R dislikes about House Democratic candidate - first mention 900206 What R dislikes about House Democratic candidate - second mention 900207 What R dislikes about House Democratic candidate - third mention 900208 What R dislikes about House Democratic candidate - fourth mention 900209 What R dislikes about House Democratic candidate - fifth mention R'S LIKES/DISLIKES HOUSE CANDIDATE: REPUBLICAN 900210 Is there anything R likes about Republican candidate for House of Representatives 900211 What R likes about House Republican candidate - first mention 900212 What R likes about House Republican candidate - second mention 900213 What R likes about House Republican candidate - third mention 900214 What R likes about House Republican candidate - fourth mention 900215 What R likes about House Republican candidate - fifth mention 900216 Is there anything R dislikes about Republican candidate for House of Representatives 900217 What R dislikes about House Republican candidate - first mention 900218 What R dislikes about House Republican candidate - second mention 900219 What R dislikes about House Republican candidate - third mention 900220 What R dislikes about House Republican candidate - fourth mention 900221 What R dislikes about House Republican candidate - fifth mention 900222 Interviewer Checkpoint: Type of race - one or two candidates IMPORTANT ISSUES: HOUSE CAMPAIGN 900223 Important issues to R in campaign for House of Representatives - first mention 900224 Important issues to R in campaign for House of Representatives - second mention 900225 Important issues to R in campaign for House of Representatives - third mention 900226 Interviewer Checkpoint: Has R mentioned issues 900227 Issue most important to R in campaign 900228 Did R prefer one of the candidates because of this issue 900229 Candidate R preferred 900230 Party of candidate named R'S KNOWLEDGE OF HOUSE INCUMBENT 900231 Two House candidates running: was either candidate already in House of Representatives 900232 Two House candidates running: which candidate was already in House of Representatives 900233 Two House candidates running: party of candidate already in House of Representatives 900234 One House candidate running: was candidate already in House of Representatives 900235 One House candidate running: candidate number code 900236 One House candidate running: party of candidate 900237 Interviewer Checkpoint: Districts in which House incumbent ran R'S CONTACT WITH HOUSE INCUMBENT 900238 Did R have any contact with incumbent 900239 Did R meet incumbent personally 900240 Did R attend meeting/gathering where incumbent spoke 900241 Did R talk with incumbent's staff/office 900242 Did R receive something in mail from incumbent 900243 Did R read about incumbent in newspaper/magazine 900244 Did R hear incumbent on radio 900245 Did R see incumbent on television 900246 R had contact with incumbent in other ways 900247 Does R know anyone who had contact with incumbent 900248 Interviewer Checkpoint: District in which House incumbent had opposition R'S CONTACT WITH HOUSE CHALLENGER 900249 Did R have any contact with candidate 900250 Did R meet candidate personally 900251 Did R attend meeting/gathering where candidate spoke 900252 Did R talk with candidate's staff/office 900253 Did R receive something in mail from candidate 900254 Did R read about candidate in newspaper/magazine 900255 Did R hear candidate on radio 900256 Did R see candidate on television 900257 R had contact with candidate in other ways 900258 Does R know anyone who had contact with candidate R'S CONTACT WITH DEMOCRATIC HOUSE CANDIDATE, NO INCUMBENT 9000259 Did R have any contact with candidate 900260 Did R meet candidate personally 900261 Did R attend meeting/gathering where candidate spoke 900262 Did R talk with candidate's staff/office 900263 Did R receive something in mail from candidate 900264 Did R read about candidate in newspaper/magazine 900265 Did R hear candidate on radio 900266 Did R see candidate on television 900267 R had contact with candidate in other ways 900268 Does R know anyone who had contact with candidate R'S CONTACT WITH REPUBLICAN HOUSE CANDIDATE, NO INCUMBENT 900269 Did R have any contact with candidate 900270 Did R meet candidate personally 900271 Did R attend meeting/gathering where candidate spoke 900272 Did R talk with candidate's staff/office 900273 Did R receive something in mail from candidate 900274 Did R read about candidate in newspaper/magazine 900275 Did R hear candidate on radio 900276 Did R see candidate on television 900277 R had contact with candidate in other ways 900278 Does R know anyone who had contact with candidate VOTING SECTION: VOTERS 900279 Did R vote in 1990 election 900280 Was R registered to vote in this election 900281 Is R registered to vote at current address 900282 In what county and state is R registered 900283 Interviewer Checkpoint: Did R vote in 1990 election 900284 Did R vote in person or by absentee ballot 900285 Where R has voted 900286 Interviewer Checkpoint: Is R registered to vote in county/state of interview 900287 Did R vote for House of Representatives candidate 900288 For which House of Representatives candidate did R vote 900289 R's vote for House candidate - party 900290 Was R's preference strong for House candidate 900291 Interviewer Checkpoint: Was there a Senate race in R's state 900292 Did R vote for a Senate candidate 900293 For which Senate candidate did R vote 900294 R's vote for Senate candidate - party 900295 Was R's preference strong for Senate candidate 900296 Interviewer Checkpoint: Was there a gubernatorial race in R's state 900297 Did R vote for gubernatorial candidate 900298 For which gubernatorial candidate did R vote 900299 R's vote for gubernatorial candidate - party VOTING SECTION: NON-VOTERS 900300 Did R prefer one candidate for U.S. House 900301 Whom did R prefer for U.S. House 900302 R's preference for House candidate - party NON-CAMPAIGN CONTACT WITH HOUSE INCUMBENT 900303 Did R or family member ever contact U.S. House incumbent/office 900304 Reason for contact with House incumbent - to express opinion 900305 Reason for contact with House incumbent - to seek information 900306 Reason for contact with House incumbent - to seek help with problem 900307 Did R get response from House incumbent 900308 How satisfied was R with response from incumbent 900309 Does R know anyone else who had contact with U.S. House incumbent 900310 Did person/group get response from House incumbent 900311 How satisfied was person/group with response from incumbent 900312 How helpful would House incumbent be with another problem R'S ASSESSMENT OF HOUSE INCUMBENT 900313 How well does U.S. representative keep in touch with district 900314 Does R remember a bill representative voted on 900315 Does R agree/disagree with way representative voted 900316 Anything special done by House incumbent for district/ people R'S PARTY IDENTIFICATION 900317 R's party identification 900318 Strength of R's party identification 900319 R closer to Republican/Democratic party 900320 Summary: R's party identification IMPORTANT NATIONAL PROBLEMS 900321 How often does R follow government/public affairs 900322 What is most important national problem - 1st mention 900323 What is most important national problem - 2nd mention 900324 What is most important national problem - 3rd mention 900325 Interviewer Checkpoint: Has R mentioned any problems 900326 What is the single most important national problem 900327 Interviewer Checkpoint: Form A or B INDIVIDUALISM 900328 Fitting in with people vs. acting according to your own standards 900329 Taking care of yourself vs. caring more about society 900330 Raising children to be independent-minded vs. obedient 900331 Strong government vs. free market in handling economic problems 900332 Being poor due to not working hard enough vs. circumstances beyond control 900333 Less government vs. more government 900334 Cooperation vs. self-reliance 900335 The main reason government has become bigger PARTY DIFFERENCES 900336 Does R see important differences between parties 900337 Important party differences: party preference - first mention 900338 Party difference content - first mention 900339 Important party differences: party preference - second mention 900340 Party difference content - second mention 900341 Important party differences: party preference - third mention 900342 Party difference content - third mention 900343 Important party differences: party preference - fourth mention 900344 Party difference content - fourth mention 900345 Important party differences: party preference - fifth mention 900346 Party difference content - fifth mention 900347 Important party differences: party preference - sixth mention 900348 Party difference content - sixth mention 900349 Does R think one party more conservative at national level 900350 Which party does R think is more conservative EASTERN EUROPE 900351 How much has R heard about changes in Soviet Union/ eastern Europe 900352 Does R think the cold war is coming to an end 900353 Should U.S. give economic assistance to east European countries that have turned toward democracy NATIONAL SECURITY 900354 Is Soviet Union or Japan bigger threat to national security of U.S. FEDERAL BUDGET DEFICIT 900355 Does R approve/disapprove of efforts to reduce federal deficit 900356 Did democrats/Republicans work hardest to reduce deficit PERSIAN GULF 900357 Was sending U.S. troops to Persian Gulf right 900358 What should U.S. do now in Persian Gulf 900359 Does R approve/disapprove of Bush's handling of Persian Gulf crisis 900360 How strongly does R approve/disapprove of Bush's handling of Persian Gulf crisis PARTY CONTACTS WITH R DURING THE CAMPAIGN 900361 Did a political party worker contact R during campaign 900362 Which party(s) contacted R during campaign 900363 Did anyone else contact R during campaign 900364 Which candidate did the contact ask R to support - 1st mention 900365 Which candidate did the contact ask R to support - 2nd mention R'S POLITICAL ACTIVITIES 900366 Did R try to influence other's vote choice 900367 Did R wear a button, put a sticker on the car, or put up a sign 900368 Did R attend any political meetings or rallies 900369 Did R work for party or candidate 900370 Did R use $1 political contribution option on federal income tax return 900371 Did R contribute money to an individual candidate 900372 R gave money to candidate from which party 900373 Did R give money to specific political party 900374 Which party did R give money to 900375 Did R give money to any other group supporting/opposing candidates 900376 Was R contacted about registering or voting INCREASE/DECREASE SPENDING ON FEDERAL BUDGET PROGRAMS 900377 Increase/decrease spending on protection of the environment 900378 Increase/decrease spending on foreign aid 900379 Increase/decrease spending on fighting the disease AIDS 900380 Increase/decrease spending on social security 900381 Increase/decrease spending for the war on drugs 900382 Increase/decrease spending on food stamps 900383 Increase/decrease spending on public schools 900384 Increase/decrease spending on the homeless 900385 Increase/decrease spending on childcare 900386 Increase/decrease spending on programs that assist Blacks 900387 Increase/decrease spending on the space program WHICH PARTY WOULD DO A BETTER JOB HANDLING VARIOUS PROBLEMS 900388 Which party is more likely to cut social security 900389 Which party is more likely to raise taxes 900390 Which party would do better job of handling the economy 900391 Which party would do better job of handling the environment 900392 Which party would do better job of dealing with crime 900393 Which party would do better job of handling foreign affairs 900394 Which party would do better job of cleaning up savings and loan business R'S RECOGNITION OF POLITICAL FIGURES 900395 Does R know what job/office Dan Quayle holds 900396 Does R know what job/office George Mitchell holds 900397 Does R know what job/office William Rehnquist holds 900398 Does R know what job/office Mikhail Gorbachev holds 900399 Does R know what job/office Margaret Thatcher holds 900400 Does R know what job/office Nelson Mandela holds 900401 Does R know what job/office Tom Foley holds R'S KNOWLEDGE OF PARTY REPRESENTATION IN CONGRESS 900402 Does R know which party had the most members in the House of Representatives before the election 900403 Does R know which party had the most members in the Senate before the election R'S ASSESSMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE'S PERFORMANCE 900404 R's approval/disapproval of representative's handling of job 900405 Strength of R's approval/disapproval of representative's handling of job POSITIONS ON LIBERAL/CONSERVATIVE SCALE 900406 Liberal/conservative scale-R 900407 If R had to choose, would R consider self a liberal/ conservative 900408 Liberal/conservative scale-Bush 900409 Liberal/conservative scale-Democratic House candidate 900410 Liberal/conservative scale-Republican House candidate 900411 Liberal/conservative scale-Democratic Senate candidate 900412 Liberal/conservative scale-Republican Senate candidate 900413 Liberal/conservative scale-Democratic party 900414 Liberal/conservative scale-Republican party 900415 liberal/conservative scale-the federal government R'S PERSONAL FINANCIAL SITUATION 900416 Does R feel better/worse off financially than a year ago 900417 How much better/worse off does R feel financially 900418 Has federal economic policy made a difference on R's financial position 900419 How much better/worse has it made R financially 900420 Will R be better/worse off financially a year from now 900421 Will R be much or somewhat better/worse off financially a year from now R'S OPINION OF NATIONAL ECONOMY 900422 Does R think the nation's economy has gotten better/ worse/stayed the same in the past year 900423 How much better/worse is the nation's economy 900424 Does R see the economy getting better/worse/staying about the same in the next year 900425 Interviewer Checkpoint: Form A or B EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES/RIGHTS 900426 Society should ensure equal opportunity to succeed 900427 We have gone too far in pushing equal rights 900428 A problem in this country is that we don't give everyone an equal chance 900429 We should worry less about equality 900430 It is not a problem if people have unequal chances 900431 We would have fewer problems if people were treated more equally LIMITS ON IMPORTS/SANCTIONS AGAINST SOUTH AFRICA 900432 Increase/decrease limits on foreign imports scale-R (Form A) 900433 Increase/decrease sanctions against South Africa scale-R (Form A) 900434 Does R favor increasing/decreasing limits on foreign imports (Form B) 900435 How much does R favor increasing/decreasing limits on foreign imports (Form B) 900436 Does R favor increasing/decreasing sanctions against South Africa (Form B) 900437 How much does R favor increasing/decreasing sanctions against South Africa (Form B) WOMEN RIGHTS SCALE 900438 Women's rights scale-R DEFENSE SPENDING SCALE 900439 Defense spending scale-R 900440 Defense spending scale-Bush 900441 Defense spending scale-Democratic House candidate 900442 Defense spending scale-Republican House candidate 900443 Defense spending scale-Democratic party 900444 Defense spending scale-Republican party 900445 Defense spending scale-federal government GUARANTEED STANDARD OF LIVING SCALE 900446 Guaranteed standard of living/job scale-R SOCIO/ECONOMIC STATUS OF BLACKS SCALE 900447 Social/economic status of Blacks scale-R 900448 Social/economic status of Blacks scale-Bush 900449 Social/economic status of Blacks scale-Democratic party 900450 Social/economic status of Blacks scale-Republican party 900451 Social/economic status of Blacks scale-federal government GOVERNMENT SERVICES/SPENDING SCALE 900452 Government services/spending scale-R 900453 Government services/spending scale-Bush 900454 Government services/spending scale-Democratic House candidate 900455 Government services/spending scale-Republican House candidate 900456 Government services/spending scale-Democratic party 900457 Government services/spending scale-Republican party 900458 Government services/spending scale-the federal government JOB DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN 900459 Does R favor/oppose laws to protect women against job discrimination 900460 How strongly does R favor/oppose laws protecting women against job discrimination 900461 How much job discrimination do women face 900462 Interviewer Checkpoint: Form A or B PREFERENTIAL HIRING/STUDENT QUOTAS FOR BLACKS 900463 R is for/against preferential hiring and promotion of Blacks 900464 How strongly does R favor/oppose preferential hiring and promotion of Blacks 900465 R is for/against quotas to admit Black students 900466 How strongly does R favor/oppose quotas SCHOOL PRAYER 900467 R's opinion on school prayer 900468 How strongly does R favor their opinion on school prayer DESEGREGATION OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS 900469 Does R have opinion on government's involvement in desegregation of public schools 900470 R's opinion on government's involvement in desegregation of public schools BURNING/DESTROYING THE AMERICAN FLAG 900471 Should burning/destroying the American flag as political protest be legal/illegal 900472 Favor/oppose constitutional amendment outlawing destruction of flag for political reasons PROBLEMS IN THE SAVINGS AND LOAN INDUSTRY 900473 Has R heard/read about problems in savings and loan business 900474 Who is more to blame for problems of savings and loan business 900475 Is Reagan/Bush/Congress more to blame for savings and loan problems 900476 Is Democratic/Republican party more to blame for savings and loan problems DEATH PENALTY 900477 Does R favor/oppose the death penalty 900478 How strongly does R favor/oppose the death penalty ABORTION 900479 R's position on abortion 900480 Does R favor/oppose parental consent law 900481 How strongly does R favor/oppose parental consent law 900482 Does R favor/oppose government-funded abortion 900483 How strongly does R favor/oppose government-funded abortion TAX INCREASE 900484 Would R support/oppose tax increase to reduce federal budget deficit 900485 How strongly does R support/oppose tax increase to reduce federal budget deficit 900486 Would R support/oppose tax increase to clean up nation's air and water 900487 How strongly does R support/oppose tax increase to clean up nation's air and water GOVERNMENT CHILD CARE ASSISTANCE 900488 Should government provide child care assistance to low and middle income working parents 900489 Would R favor/oppose law requiring national service of all young adults PEACE DIVIDEND 900490 How peace dividend should be used STRICT POLLUTION STANDARDS 900491 Should government force compliance with strict pollution standards JAPANESE COMPETITION 900492 Do Japanese companies compete unfairly or is U.S. blaming Japan for its own economic problems WHICH PARTY KEEP U.S. OUT OF WAR 900493 Which party could better handle keeping the U.S. out of war STRENGTH OF U.S. POSITION 900494 Has the United States' position grown stronger/weaker/stayed the same in the past year 900495 Interviewer Checkpoint: Form A or B IMPORTANCE OF STRONG MILITARY/CONCERNS ABOUT WAR 900496 How important is a strong military force for dealing with our enemies 900497 How worried is R about the U.S. getting into a conventional war 900498 Does R agree/disagree U.S. should stay out of problems in other parts of the world 900499 How worried is R about the U.S. getting into a nuclear war MORAL VALUES 900500 Newer lifestyles are contributing to societal breakdown 900501 We should adjust moral behavior to changes in the world 900502 There would be fewer problems if more emphasis was placed on traditional family ties 900503 We should be more tolerant of people with different moral standards R'S FEELINGS ABOUT GOVERNMENT IN GENERAL 900504 How much of the time does R think he/she can trust government 900505 How much does the government waste our tax dollars 900506 Is government run by a few big interests or for the benefit of all 900507 How many people in government does R think are crooked 900508 How much attention does R feel government pays to what people think 900509 People like me don't have any say about government 900510 Politics are so complicated a person like me can't understand what's going on IMPORTANCE OF RELIGION TO R 900511 Is religion an important part of R's life 900512 How much guidance does religion provide in R's life 900513 How often does R pray 900514 How often does R read the bible 900515 Interviewer Checkpoint: Form A or B 900516 R's view of the bible 900517 R's feelings about the bible CIVIL RIGHTS/POSITION OF BLACKS 900518 Does R think civil rights leaders are pushing too fast/slow 900519 How much change does R think there has been in the position of Blacks 900520 Blacks have gotten less than they deserve over the past few years 900521 Blacks should overcome prejudice without any special favors 900522 If Blacks would try harder they could be just as well off as whites 900523 Generations of slavery and discrimination make it difficult for Blacks to move up R'S RELIGIOUS PREFERENCE AND PRACTICE 900524 Does R ever attend religious services 900525 Does R consider self as part of a particular church or denomination 900526 How often does R attend religious services 900527 Does R go to religious services once a week or more often 900528 R's religious preference 900529 R's religious denomination 900530 R's religious group association - Baptist 900531 R's religious group association - larger Baptist or local 900532 R's religious group association - Lutheran 900533 R's religious group association - Methodist 900534 R's religious group association - Presbyterian 900535 R's religious group association - Reformed 900536 R's religious group association - Brethren 900537 R's religious group association - "Christian" 900538 R's religious group association - Church of Christ 900539 R's religious group association - Church of God 900540 R's religious group association - "other" responses 900541 R's religious group association - miscellaneous denomination 900542 Is R's "other" religious denomination Christian? 900543 Does R attend/consider self Orthodox, Conservative, Reform or other Jew 900544 What best describes R's Christianity 900545 Does R consider self a born-again Christian 900546 Religious affiliation summary PERSONAL INFORMATION ABOUT R 900547 R's gender 900548 R's age from household listing 900549 R's race 900550 R's date of birth - month 900551 R's date of birth - year 900552 R's recoded age 900553 R's marital status 900554 Highest grade of school completed by R 900555 Does R have a high school diploma 900556 R's highest college degree 900557 Summary: R's education 900558 Interviewer Checkpoint: R is married or living with partner EDUCATION LEVEL OF R'S SPOUSE 900559 Highest grade of school completed by spouse/partner 900560 Does spouse/partner have high school diploma 900561 Spouse/partner's highest college degree 900562 Summary: spouse/partner's education 900563 Interviewer Checkpoint: R is male and married/partnered R'S WIFE/PARTNER WORK STATUS 900564 Is R's wife/partner working now R'S OCCUPATION SECTION 900565 R's present employment status 900566 Summary: R's working status 900567 Has R (unemployed) ever worked for pay 900568 When did R retire 900569 Has R (disabled) ever worked for pay 900570 Is R (homemaker/student) working now 900571 Has R (homemaker/student) worked in last six months R Working or Temporarily Laid Off 900572 R's present occupation - census occupation code 900573 R's present occupation - collapsed census occupation code 900574 R's present occupation - census industry code 900575 Is R self-employed 900576 Is R employed by federal/state/local government 900577 Number of hours per week R works 900578 Is R satisfied with number of hours worked 900579 How worried is R about job security 900580 Interviewer Checkpoint: Is R working now 900581 Was R out of work within the last six months 900582 Has R had to take a pay cut/reduce hours within the last six months R Unemployed, Retired, or Disabled 900583 R's last occupation - census occupation code 900584 R's last occupation - collapsed census occupation 900585 R's last occupation - census industry code 900586 Was R self-employed on last regular job 900587 Was R employed by federal/state/local government 900588 Did R work within the last six months 900589 Number of hours worked per week on last job 900590 Interviewer Checkpoint: Is R unemployed 900591 Is R doing any work for pay at the present time 900592 Is R looking for work at the present time 900593 How worried is R about not being able to find a job R Homemaker or Student 900594 R's last occupation - census occupation code 900595 R's last occupation - collapsed census occupation code 900596 R's last occupation - census industry code 900597 Was R self-employed on last regular job 900598 Was R employed by federal/state/local government 900599 Number of hours worked per week on last job 900600 Is R looking for work at the present time 900601 How worried is R about not being able to find a job R'S OCCUPATIONAL DATA - STACKED 900602 R's present/last occupation - census occupation code 900603 R's present/last occupation - collapsed census occupation code 900604 R's present/last occupation - census industry code 900605 Is/was R self-employed on current/last regular job 900606 Is/was R employed by federal/state/local government 900607 Number of House work/ed per week on current/last job 900608 Is R worried about job security 900609 Did R (unemployed/retired/disabled) work within the last six months 900610 Is R (unemployed/retired/disabled) looking for work at the present time 900611 Has R (unemployed/disabled) ever worked for pay 900612 Interviewer Checkpoint: Is R married and female R'S HUSBAND/PARTNER OCCUPATIONAL DATA 900613 Husband/partner's present employment status 900614 Summary: husband/partner's working status 900615 Has husband/partner (unemployed) ever done any work for pay 900616 When did husband/partner retire 900617 Has husband/partner (disabled) ever done any work for pay 900618 Is husband/partner (homemaker/student) doing any work for pay at the present time 900619 Has husband/partner (homemaker/student) worked for pay in the last six months Husband/Partner Working or Temporarily Laid Off 900620 Husband/partner's present occupation - census occupation code 900621 Husband/partner's present occupation - collapsed census occupation code 900622 Husband/partner's present occupation - census industry code 900623 Is husband/partner self-employed 900624 Is husband/partner employed by federal/state/local government 900625 Number of hours per week husband/partner works 900626 Is husband/partner satisfied with number of hours worked 900627 How worried is husband/partner about job security 900628 Interviewer Checkpoint: Is husband/partner working now 900629 Was husband/partner out of work within the last six months 900630 Has husband/partner had to take a pay cut/reduce hours within the last six months Husband/Partner Unemployed, Retired, or Disabled 900631 Husband/partner's last occupation - census occupation code 900632 Husband/partner's last occupation - collapsed census occupation code 900633 Husband/partner's last occupation - census industry code 900634 Was husband/partner self-employed on last job 900635 Was husband/partner employed by federal/state/local government on last job 900636 Was husband/partner employed in the last six months 900637 Number of hours per week husband/partner worked on last job 900638 Interviewer Checkpoint: Is husband/partner unemployed 900639 Is husband/partner doing any work for pay at the present time 900640 Is husband/partner looking for work at the present time 900641 How worried is husband/partner about not being able to find a job Husband/Partner Homemaker or Student 900642 Husband/partner's last regular occupation - census occupation code 900643 Husband/partner's last regular occupation - collapsed census occupation code 900644 Husband/partner's last regular occupation - census industry code 900645 Was husband/partner self-employed on last regular job 900646 Was husband/partner employed by federal/state/local government on last regular job 900647 Number of hours per week husband/partner worked on last regular job 900648 Is husband/partner looking for work at the present time 900649 How worried is husband/partner about not being able to find a job HUSBAND/PARTNER'S OCCUPATIONAL DATA - STACKED 900650 H/p's present/last occupation - census occupation code 900651 H/p's present/last occupation - collapsed census occupation code 900652 H/p's present/last occupation - census industry code 900653 Is/was h/p self-employed on current/last regular job 900654 Is/was h/p employed by federal/state/local government 900655 Number of House work/ed per week on current/last job 900656 Is h/p worried about job security 900657 Did h/p (unemployed/retired/disabled) work within the last six months 900658 Is h/p (unemployed/retired/disabled) looking for work at the present time 900659 Has h/p (unemployed/disabled) ever worked for pay LABOR UNION POSITION 900660 Does anyone in R's Household belong to a labor union 900661 Who belongs to a labor union 900662 Interviewer Checkpoint: Is R only family member age 14 or older R'S INCOME AND SOCIAL CLASS 900663 Family/household income before taxes 900664 R's income before taxes 900665 Does R think of self as belonging to a social class 900666 Does R think of self as middle or working class 900667 Does R think of self as average or upper middle/working 900668 Summary: R's social class 900669 Does R feel close to middle/working class R'S ETHNIC IDENTITY 900670 What does R consider his/her main ethnic group (other than American) - first mention 900671 What does R consider his/her main ethnic group (other than American) - second mention 900672 Interviewer Checkpoint: R mentioned more than one group 900673 With which group does R most closely identify 900674 Were R's parents born in this country 900675 Interviewer Checkpoint: Did R mention some hispanic group 900676 Is R of Spanish or hispanic origin/descent 900677 Category that best describes R's hispanic origin R'S COMMUNITY/RESIDENCE 900678 R's birthplace 900679 Where did R grow up 900680 Community type R grew up in 900681 How long has R lived in present city/town/township/ county 900682 Where did R live before - city 900683 Where did R live before - state or country 900684 How long has R lived in this house/condo/apartment 900685 Does R/R's family own or rent R's home CONDITIONS OF THE INTERVIEW 900686 Others present at interview 900687 R's cooperation 900688 R's level of information about politics/public affairs 900689 R's apparent intelligence 900690 Was R suspicious before interview 900691 R's interest in the interview 900692 R's sincerity 900693 Did R report income correctly 900694 Interviewer's estimate of R's family income 900695 Was interview conducted in English 900696 Language in which interview was conducted (if other than English) R'S REACTION TO THE INTERVIEW 900697 R's reaction to interview: negative - general 900698 Negative - too long 900699 Negative - too complicated 900700 Negative - boring/tedious/repetitious 900701 R wanted to stop before completion 900702 R was ill/deaf/tired, interview was hard for R 900703 R was confused by questions, interview was hard for R 900704 Doubts over lack of knowledge/suitability for interview 900705 Doubts over lack of political knowledge 900706 R was agitated or stressed by interview process 900707 R angry at interview content 900708 R concerned about sampling purposes or bias 900709 R could not read respondent booklet 900710 R appeared to enjoy interview 900711 Neutral or no >> 1990-91 PANEL STUDY OF THE POLITICAL CONSEQUENCES OF WAR VARIABLES 912002 1991 Case ID 912003 Time Zone 912004 Daylight Savings Time Indicator 912006 Form # of 1991 Questionnaire 912007 Status of Case 912008 Result Code 912009 Incentive Offered 912011 Total Calls Counter 912018 Interview Length in Minutes 912026 1990 Case ID Repeated 912028 Alpha Date Last Called 912030 Interview Time Start 912031 Interview Time End 912032 Interview Date Start 912033 Interview Date End 912050 Interviewer ID 912051 Interviewer Birth Month 912052 Interviewer Birth Year 912053 Interviewer Sex 912054 Interviewer Education Level 912055 Interviewer Race 912056 Interviewer Hire Month 912057 Interviewer Hire Year 912058 Interviewer Languages Spoken 912059 Interviewer Ethnicity 912068 Respondent Birth Month 912069 Respondent Birth Day 912070 Respondent Birth Year Good And Bad Point About Bush That Would Make Respondent Vote For/Against Him 912100 Anything that would make you vote for Bush in 1992 912101 What would make you vote for Bush <1st mention> 912102 What would make you vote for Bush <2nd mention> 912103 What would make you vote for Bush <3rd mention> 912104 What would make you vote for Bush <4th mention> 912105 What would make you vote for Bush <5th mention> 912106 Anything to make you vote against Bush in 1992 912107 What would make you vote against Bush <1st mention> 912108 What would make you vote against Bush <2nd mention> 912109 What would make you vote against Bush <3rd mention> 912110 What would make you vote against Bush <4th mention> 912111 What would make you vote against Bush <5th mention> Approve/Disapprove of Bush on: Presidency; Economy; Foreign Relations 912112 Approve or disapprove of Bush's presidency 912113 Approve strongly or not strongly 912114 Disapprove strongly or not strongly 912115 Summary Variable 912116 Approve or disapprove of Bush's handling of economy 912117 Approve strongly or not strongly 912118 Disapprove strongly or not strongly 912119 Summary Variable 912120 Approve or disapprove of Bush's handling of foreign countries 912121 Approve strongly or not strongly 912122 Disapprove strongly or not strongly 912123 Summary Variable Thermometers and Probes Feeling Thermometers: 912200 Norman Schwartzkopf 912201 Richard Cheney 912202 Lloyd Bentsen 912203 Mario Cuomo 912204 Bill Clinton 912205 George Bush 912206 James Baker 912207 Al Gore 912208 Richard Gephardt 912209 L. Douglas Wilder 912210 Saddam Hussein 912211 Jesse Jackson 912212 Dan Quayle 912213 Paul Tsongas 912214 Jay Rockefeller 912215 Bob Kerrey 912216 Colin Powell 912217 Respondent's Congressperson 912218 Respondent's Senator #1 912219 Respondent's Senator #2 912220 Conservatives 912221 Palestinians 912222 The Democratic Party 912223 Japan 912224 Moderates 912225 Israel 912226 Liberals 912227 Anti-war Protesters 912228 The Republican Party 912229 Immigrants from foreign countries 912230 Environmentalists 912231 Whites 912232 Blacks 912233 Hispanics 912234 Illegal Aliens 912235 Asian-Americans 912236 Mexican-Americans 912237 Cuban-Americans 912238 Puerto Ricans 912239 Women's movement 912240 Feminists 912241 Housewives 912242 People working to protect the environment 912243 People who oppose the use of nuclear power 912244 The elderly Feeling Thermometer Probes: 912245 Probe, Norman Schwartzkopf 912246 Probe, Richard Cheney 912247 Probe, Lloyd Bentsen 912248 Probe, Mario Cuomo 912249 Probe, Bill Clinton 912250 Probe, George Bush 912251 Probe, James Baker 912252 Probe, Al Gore 912253 Probe, Richard Gephardt 912254 Probe, L. Douglas Wilder 912255 Probe, Saddam Hussein 912256 Probe, Jesse Jackson 912257 Probe, Dan Quayle 912258 Probe, Paul Tsongas 912259 Probe, Jay Rockefeller 912260 Probe, Bob Kerrey 912261 Probe, Colin Powell 912262 Probe, Respondent's Congressperson 912263 Probe, Respondent's Senator #1 912264 Probe, Respondent's Senator #2 Approve/Disapprove of the Way Congess is handling its job 912300 Approve or disapprove of way U.S. Congress is handling job 912301 Approve strongly or not strongly 912302 Disapprove strongly or not strongly 912303 Summary Variable DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE PARTIES 912304 Important differences in what Republicans and Democrats stand for 912305 Republican and Democratic differences <1st mention> 912306 Republican and Democratic differences <2nd mention> 912307 Republican and Democratic differences <3rd mention> 912308 Republican and Democratic differences <4th mention> 912309 Republican and Democratic differences <5th mention> 912310 Republican and Democratic differences <6th mention> 912311 Republican and Democratic differences <7th mention> 912312 Republican and Democratic differences <8th mention> 912313 Republican and Democratic differences <9th mention> 912314 Republican and Democratic differences <10th mention> 912315 Republican and Democratic differences <11th mention> 912316 Republican and Democratic differences <12th mention> Approve/Disapprove of Representative and Senators 912317 Approve or disapprove of the way Representative has been handling his/her job 912318 Approve strongly or not strongly 912319 Disapprove strongly or not strongly 912320 Summary Variable 912321 Approve or disapprove of way Senator #1 has been handling his/her job 912322 Approve strongly or not strongly 912323 Disapprove strongly or not strongly 912324 Summary Variable 912325 Approve or disapprove of way Senator #2 has been handling his/her job 912326 Approve strongly or not strongly 912327 Disapprove strongly or not strongly 912328 Summary Variable PARTY ID 912329 Respondent thinks of self as Republican, Democrat, Independent or other 912230 Strong Republican or not very strong Republican 912231 Strong Democrat or not very strong Democrat 912232 Respondent closer to Republican Party or the Democratic Party 912333 Party ID Summary Most Important Problems Facing the Country 912334 What Respondent thinks are most important problems facing this country 912335 Most important problem country faces <1st mention> 912336 Most important problem country faces <2nd mention> 912337 Most important problem country faces <3rd mention> 912338 Single most important problem the country faces FOREIGN POLICY 912400 Is Cold War between U.S. and Soviet Union coming to an end 912401 U.S. to give economic assistance to countries in Eastern Europe 912402 How willing U.S. in future to use military force to solve international problems 912403 Rating foreign policy goals 912404 Preventing spread of nuclear weapons 912405 Reducing environmental pollution around the world 912406 Protecting weaker nations against foreign aggression 912407 Helping bring democratic form of government to other nations 912408 Does Respondent think right thing to send U.S. military forces to Persian Gulf 912409 How important is issue to Respondent personally Approve/Disapprove of Bush Handling of Persian Gulf Crisis 912410 Approve or disapprove of Bush's handling of Persian Gulf crisis 912411 Approve strongly or not strongly 912412 Disapprove strongly or not strongly 912413 Summary Variable Differences Between the Parties 912414 Democrats or Republicans more likely to raise taxes 912415 Democrats or Republicans better at handling nation's economy 912416 Democrats or Republicans better at handling foreign affairs Patriotism 912417 Feelings when respondent sees American flag flying 912418 How strong is respondent's love for country Liberal/Conservative Scales 912450 Seven-point liberal/conservative scale 912451 Respondent considers self liberal or conservative 912452 How does Respondent rate President Bush on scale 912453 How does Respondent rate Democratic Party on scale 912454 How does Respondent rate Republican Party on scale Economic Well-being 912455 Respondent and family better off, worse off or same financially than year ago 912456 Much better off or somewhat better 912457 Much worse off or somewhat worse 912458 Summary Variable 912459 Economy as a whole gotten better, stayed same or gotten worse 912460 Much better or somewhat better 912461 Much worse or somewhat worse 912462 Summary Variable DEFENSE SPENDING SCALE 912475 Scale indicating reaction to increase in defense spending 912476 Rating of George Bush on defense spending 912477 Rating of Democratic Party on defense spending 912478 Rating of Republican Party on spending Who Would Respondent Vote For in House Race Today 912479 House of Representatives election held today, Respondent would vote for Democratic candidate or Republican candidate CONGRESSIONAL TERM LIMITATION 912480 Respondent favors or opposes proposed law limiting members of Congress to no more than 12 years service Which Party Will Keep Us Out of Future Wars Better 912481 Keeping out of future wars handled better by Republicans or Democrats U.S. POSITION IN THE WORLD 912482 During past year, U.S. position in world grown weaker Need of Strong U.S. Military 912483 How important for U.S. to have strong military force Worried about Conventional War 912484 Respondent worried about country getting into conventional war Isolationist Sentiment 912485 Agree or disagree: "This country would be better off if we just stayed home and did not concern ourselves with problems in other parts of the world. Worried About Nuclear War 912486 Respondent worried about country getting into nuclear war at this time Trust in Government 912487 How much of the time does Respondent trust government to do what is right 912488 Government run for benefit of few big interests 912489 Respondent's agreement/disagreement: "People like me don't have any say about what the government does." Respondent's Position and Recall of Congressperson's and Parties Positions on Use of Force Vote 912500 Prior to war in Persian Gulf, Respondent in favor of continuing to rely on sanctions or in favor of authorizing President to use military force 912501 Does Respondent remember how representative in U.S. House of Reps voted on use of force in Persian Gulf 912502 Did he/she vote for or against use of force 912503 Would Respondent guess whether voted for or against use of force 912504 Summary Variable 912505 Does Respondent remember how Senator #1 voted on use of force in Gulf 912506 Did he/she vote for or against use of force 912507 Guess he/she vote for or against use of force 912508 Summary Variable 912509 Does Respondent remember how Senator #2 voted on use of force in Gulf 912510 Did he/she vote for or against the use of force 912511 Would Respondent guess whether voted for or against use of force 912512 Summary Variable 912513 Before war actually started, does Respondent think one political party more in favor of military force 912514 Which party supported use of force 912515 Summary Variable Respondent's Recall of Feelings During the War 912516 During the war, did Respondent feel proud 912517 Feel strongly or not so strongly 912518 During the war, did Respondent ever feel upset 912519 Feel strongly or not so strongly 912520 During the war, did Respondent ever feel sympathy for the Iraqi people 912521 Feel strongly or not so strongly 912522 During the war, was Respondent worried the fighting might spread 912523 Feel strongly or not so strongly 912524 During the war, did Respondent ever feel angry at Saddam Hussein 912525 Feel strongly or not so strongly 912526 During the war, did Respondent ever feel disgusted at the killing 912527 Feel strongly or not so strongly 912528 During the war, did Respondent ever feel afraid for American troops 912529 Feel strongly or not so strongly Attention Paid To War 912530 How much attention did Respondent pay to news about Gulf war Did One Party Support War More Than The Other After War Began 912531 After fighting started, did Respondent think one party supported war more or about equal 912532 Which party supported the war more 912533 Summary Variable Anything Good/Bad For U.S. Come From the War 912534 Does Respondent think anything good came out of Gulf War for the U.S. 912535 Good that came out of Gulf War <1st mention> 912536 Good that came out of Gulf War <2nd mention> 912537 Good that came out of Gulf War <3rd mention> 912538 Good that came out of Gulf War <4th mention> 912539 Good that came out of Gulf War <5th mention> 912540 Other than losing lives, does Respondent think anything bad came out of war for U.S. 912541 Bad that came out of Gulf War <1st mention> 912542 Bad that came out of Gulf War <2nd mention> 912543 Bad that came out of Gulf War <3rd mention> 912544 Bad that came out of Gulf War <4th mention> 912545 Bad that came out of Gulf War <5th mention> 912546 All things considered, was worth the cost or not Worried about Another Middle East War 912547 How worried Respondent that another war will break out in the Middle East in the next few years Morality of Bombing Near Civilians 912548 Should there be no bombing of targets near where civilians live 912549 Feel strongly or not so strongly about this 912550 Summary Variable Any Friends/Relatives Who Served in the Persian Gulf War 912551 Does Respondent have any relatives or close friends called up to serve in Persian Gulf War 912552 Personnel's relationship to respondent <1st person> 912553 Personnel's relationship to respondent <2nd person> 912554 Personnel's relationship to respondent <3rd person> 912555 Personnel's relationship to respondent <4th person> Was U.S. Right to Stop While Saddam Still in Power 912556 Does Respondent feel U.S. and allies should have continued fighting until Saddam Hussein was driven from power or right to stop with liberation of Kuwait Did U.S. Handle the Kurdish Problem Correctly 912557 Did the U.S. do enough/helped quickly enough to help the Kurdish people in Iraq Respondent For/Against Preferential Hiring/Promotion of Blacks 912558 Is Respondent for or against preferential hiring and promotion of blacks 912559 Favor preference in hiring and promotion 912560 Oppose preference in hiring and promotion 912561 Summary Variable 912562 Democratic party: preferential hiring and promotion of blacks 912563 Republican party: preferential hiring and promotion of blacks Respondent's Attention to Religious Programming 912580 How many times in last week did Respondent watch religious program on TV or listen on radio other than services of local churches >> 1992 PRE- AND POST-ELECTION VARIABLES SAMPLING INFORMATION 923004 1992 Pre-Election Study Case ID 923005 1992 Panel or Cross-Section Indicator 923006 1990 Post Election Study Case ID 923007 Panel Status For The 1991 Panel/Pilot Study 923008 Full Sample Weight 923009 Panel Only Weight 923010 Pre-Post Indicator: 1992 Election Study 923011 Pre-Election Form-Sample Indicator 923012 Primary Area Code (3 digits) 923013 PRIMARY AREA NAME 923014 Census Region 923015 State Abbreviation 923016 ICPSR State and 1992 Congressional District 923017 ICPSR State Code 923018 FIPS State Code 923019 1992 Congressional District Number (2 digits) 923020 1990 Congressional District Number 923021 Type of Race: House of Representatives 923022 Type of Race: Senate PRE-ELECTION INFORMATION 923023 Pre-Election Sample Releases and Replicates 923024 Pre-Election Sample Release -- Summary 923025 A0. Pre-Election: Beginning Time (local)--Exact Time Now 923026 Pre-Election: Date of Interview: MONTH 923027 Pre-Election: Date Interview: Day 923028 Pre-Election: Interviewer's Interview Number 923029 Pre-Election: Interview Length in Minutes 923030 Pre-Election: Post-Edit Length, in Minutes 923031 Pre-Election: Mode of Interview: Telephone or Personal 923032 Pre-Election: Total Number of Calls to Obtain Interview 923033 Pre-Election: Result Code 923034 Reasons for using telephone questionnaire 923035 Was Name Obtained 923036 R's Address 923037 Address Different From Sample Label 923038 Phone Number Obtained 923039 Is Number Listed in the Phone Directory 923040 Is Phone Listed in R's Name 923041 Does R Have Other Residence 923042 Contact Information 923043 Reason for not Interviewing by Phone 923044 Type of Structure in Which R Lives 923045 Is Cooperation Needed to Gain Access to Housing Unit 923046 Instructions for Gaining Access to Housing Unit R's Resistance to Interview 923047 Refusal Conversion Indicator 923048 Persuasion Letter Requested 923049 Type of Incentive Sent to Selected Household 923050 Amount of Payment Offered to R 923051 Amount of Payment Made to R 923052 Did R Refuse Interview Initially 923053 Did R Break Any Appointment 923054 Reason for Resistance to Interview: Waste of Time 923055 Reason for Resistance to Interview: Very Ill 923056 Reason for Resistance to Interview: 'Too Busy' 923057 Reason for Resistance to Interview: Stressful Family Situation 923058 Reason for Resistance to Interview: Confidentiality 923059 Reason for Resistance to Interview: Invasion of Privacy 923060 Reason for Resistance to Interview: Other Geographic Variables 923061 FIPS State and County Codes 923062 Tract/Enumeration District Indicator 923063 FIPS 1980 SMSA Code 923064 FIPS 1990 CMSA Codes 923065 Size of Place of Interview - 1990 923066 Actual Population of Interview Location - 1990 923067 1990 Belt Code Sampling Variables 923068 Sampling Error Code - Combined Panel/Cross-Section 923069 Sampling Error Code - Panel Only 923070 Cross-Section: Number of Household Units 923071 Panel Only: R Found Not Living at Sample Label Address 923072 Cross-Section: Household Listing 923073 Cross-Section: Selection Table 923074 Cross-Section: Person Number Selected As R 923075 Cross-Section: Number of Persons in Household 923076 Cross Section: Number of Politically Eligible Adults in HH 923077 Cross Section: Household Composition Code 923078 Household Description for Panel and Cross-Section 923079 Cross-Section: Number of Children Under 6 Years Old in HH 923080 Cross-Section: Number of Children 6-9 Years Old in HH 923081 Cross-Section: Number of Children 10-13 Years Old in HH 923082 Cross-Section: Number of Children 14-17 Years Old in HH Interviewer Variables 923083 Interviewer's ID Number 923084 Supervisor ID Number 923085 Interviewer's Race 923086 Interviewer's Ethnicity 923087 Interviewer's Age Bracketed 923088 Interviewer's Years of Experience 923089 Interviewer's Gender 923090 Interviewer's Education 923101 Interest in the Campaign INTERVIEW QUESTIONS 923102 Prediction of Winner in Presidential Election 923103 Does R Think Presidential Race Will Be Close 923104 Which Presidential Candidate Does R Think Will Carry State 923105 Does R Think the Presidential Race Will Be Close in State 923106 Does R Care Which Party Wins the Presidential Election 923107 Did R Vote in 1988 Presidential Election 923108 Vote for President in 1988 BUSH AS CANDIDATE 923109 Is There Anything About Bush That Would Make R Vote For Him 923110 Reasons Would Vote For Bush - First Mention 923111 Reasons Would Vote For Bush - Second Mention 923112 Reasons Would Vote For Bush - Third Mention 923113 Reasons Would Vote For Bush - Fourth Mention 923114 Reasons Would Vote For Bush - Fifth Mention 923115 Is There Anything About Bush That Would Make R Vote Against Him 923116 Reasons Would Vote Against Bush - First Mention 923117 Reasons Would Vote Against Bush - Second Mention 923118 Reasons Would Vote Against Bush - Third Mention 923119 Reasons Would Vote Against Bush - Fourth Mention 923120 Reasons Would Vote Against Bush - Fifth Mention 923121 Is There Anything About Clinton That Would Make R Vote For Him CLINTON AS CANDIDATE 923122 Reasons Would Vote For Clinton - First Mention 923123 Reasons Would Vote For Clinton - Second Mention 923124 Reasons Would Vote For Clinton - Third Mention 923125 Reasons Would Vote For Clinton - Fourth Mention 923126 Reasons Would Vote For Clinton - Fifth Mention 923127 Is There Anything About Clinton That Would Make R Vote Against Him 923128 Reasons Would Vote Against Clinton - First Mention 923129 Reasons Would Vote Against Clinton - Second Mention 923130 Reasons Would Vote Against Clinton - Third Mention 923131 Reasons Would Vote Against Clinton - Fourth Mention 923132 Reasons Would Vote Against Clinton - Fifth Mention 923133 Is There Anything About Perot That Would Make R Vote For Him PEROT AS CANDIDATE 923134 Reasons Would Vote For Perot - First Mention 923135 Reasons Would Vote For Perot - Second Mention 923136 Reasons Would Vote For Perot - Third Mention 923137 Reasons Would Vote For Perot - Fourth Mention 923138 Reasons Would Vote For Perot - Fifth Mention 923139 Is There Anything About Perot That Would Make R Vote Against Him 923140 Reasons Would Vote Against Perot - First Mention 923141 Reasons Would Vote Against Perot - Second Mention 923142 Reasons Would Vote Against Perot - Third Mention 923143 Reasons Would Vote Against Perot - Fourth Mention 923144 Reasons Would Vote Against Perot - Fifth Mention R'S ATTENTION TO CAMPAIGN/MEDIA 923145 Satisfaction With Presidential Candidates 923201 How Often Did R Watch News on TV in the Past Week 923202 How Much Attention Did R Give to the Presidential Campaign News on TV 923203 How Often Did R Read a Daily Newspaper in the Past Week 923204 Did R Read About the Campaign in Any Newspaper 923205 How Much Attention Did R Give to Campaign News in the Newspaper 923206 Did R Read About the Campaign in Any Magazines 923207 How Much Attention Did R Give to the Campaign News in Magazines 923208 Did R Listen to Campaign Speeches or Discussions on the Radio 923209 How Many Campaign Speeches/Discussions Did R Listen to on the Radio 923210 Did R Listen/Watch Call-In Radio/TV Talk Shows 923211 Does R Recall Seeing Any Presidential Campaign Advertisements on TV 923212 Remembered About Campaign Ads on TV - First Mention 923213 Remembered About Campaign Ads on TV - Second Mention 923214 Remembered About Campaign Ads on TV - Third Mention 923215 Remembered About Campaign Ads on TV - Fourth Mention 923216 Remembered About Campaign Ads on TV - Fifth Mention R'S PARTICIPATION IN PRIMARY/CAUCUS 923301 Did R Vote in Caucus/Primary Election 923302 Did R Vote in Republican or Democratic Primary/Caucus 923303 Which Republican Did R Vote For in State Primary/Caucus 923304 Which Democratic Did R Vote For in State Primary/Caucus FEELING THERMOMETERS 923305 Feeling Thermometer - George Bush 923306 Feeling Thermometer - Bill Clinton 923307 Feeling Thermometer - Ross Perot 923308 Feeling Thermometer - Dan Quayle 923309 Feeling Thermometer - Albert Gore 923310 Feeling Thermometer - Anita Hill 923311 Feeling Thermometer - Tom Foley 923312 Feeling Thermometer - Barbara Bush 923313 Feeling Thermometer - Hillary Clinton 923314 Feeling Thermometer - Clarence Thomas 923315 Feeling Thermometer - Pat Buchanan 923316 Feeling Thermometer - Jesse Jackson 923317 Feeling Thermometer - Democratic Party 923318 Feeling Thermometer - Republican Party R'S ASSESSMENT OF BUSH AS PRESIDENT (PRE-ELECTION) 923319 Approves/Disapproves of Bush's Handling of His Job as President 923320 How Strongly Approve/Disapprove of Bush's Handling of His Job 923321 Approves/Disapproves of Bush's Handling of Foreign Relations 923322 How Strongly Approve/Disapprove of Bush's Foreign Relations 923323 Approve/Disapprove of Bush's Handling of the Economy 923324 How Strongly Approve/Disapprove of Bush's Handling of Economy 923325 Approve/Disapprove of Bush's Handling of Persian Gulf Crisis 923326 How Strongly Approve/Disapprove of Bush's Handling of Gulf R'S OPINION ABOUT CANDIDATES AND PARTIES Candidate Best Able to Handle... 923327 ...The Nation's Economy 923328 ...Foreign Affairs 923329 ...Poverty 923330 ...Pollution and the Environment 923331 ...Health Care 923332 ...the Budget Deficit R'S LIKES/DISLIKES ABOUT DEMOCRATIC PARTY 923401 Whether R Likes Anything About the Democratic Party 923402 Likes About the Democratic Party - First Mention 923403 Likes About the Democratic Party - Second Mention 923404 Likes About the Democratic Party - Third Mention 923405 Likes About the Democratic Party - Fourth Mention 923406 Likes About the Democratic Party - Fifth Mention 923407 Whether R Dislikes Anything About the Democratic Party 923408 Dislikes About the Democratic Party - First Mention 923409 Dislikes About the Democratic Party - Second Mention 923410 Dislikes About the Democratic Party - Third Mention 923411 Dislikes About the Democratic Party - Fourth Mention 923412 Dislikes About the Democratic Party - Fifth Mention R'S LIKES/DISLIKES ABOUT REPUBLICAN PARTY 923413 Whether R Likes Anything About the Republican Party 923414 Likes About the Republican Party - First Mention 923415 Likes About the Republican Party - Second Mention 923416 Likes About the Republican Party - Third Mention 923417 Likes About the Republican Party - Fourth Mention 923418 Likes About the Republican Party - Fifth Mention 923419 Whether R Dislikes Anything About the Republican Party 923420 Dislikes About the Republican Party - First Mention 923421 Dislikes About the Republican Party - Second Mention 923422 Dislikes About the Republican Party - Third Mention 923423 Dislikes About the Republican Party - Fourth Mention 923424 Dislikes About the Republican Party - Fifth Mention R'S PERSONAL FINANCIAL SITUATION 923425 Better/Worse Off Financially Than a Year Ago 923426 How Much Better/Worse Off Financially Than a Year Ago 923427 Better/Worse Off Financially a Year From Now 923428 Much or Somewhat Better/Worse Off a Year From Now 923429 Income Stayed At/Above/Below the Cost of Living 923430 Income Gone Up/Fallen Behind the Cost of Living 923431 Federal Economic Policy Has Affected R Financially 923432 How Much Federal Economic Policy Has Affected R Financially 923433 Been Able to Buy/Had to Put Off Buying Things During Past Year 923434 Put Off Medical/Dental Treatment Due to Lack of Money 923435 Borrow Money to Make Ends Meet 923436 Dip Into Savings to Make Ends Meet 923437 Look for Job, Work 2nd Job/More Hours to Make Ends Meet 923438 Able to Save Any Money Over the Past Year 923439 Fallen Behind in Rent/House Payments This Past Year R Has Received Payments 923440 Receive Payments From Social Security 923441 Receive Payments From Food Stamps 923442 Receive Payments From Medicare 923443 Receive Payments From Medicaid 923444 Receive Payments From Unemployment Compensation 923445 Receive Payments From AFDC 923446 Receive Payments From Veterans Benefits 923447 Receive Payments From Government Retirement Pensions 923448 Receive Payments From Disability Payments 923449 Receive Payments From Workman's Compensation 923450 Presidential Candidate Most Likely to Raise Taxes R'S FEELINGS ABOUT CANDIDATE: BUSH 923501 Whether Bush Makes R Angry 923502 Whether Bush Makes R Hopeful 923503 Whether Bush Makes R Afraid 923504 Whether Bush Makes R Proud R'S FEELINGS ABOUT CANDIDATE: CLINTON 923505 Whether Clinton Makes R Angry 923506 Whether Clinton Makes R Hopeful 923507 Whether Clinton Makes R Afraid 923508 Whether Clinton Makes R Proud IDEOLOGICAL PLACEMENT 923509 Ideological Placement 923510 Interviewer Checkpoint: Ideological Placement 923511 Ideological Placement if Moderate/Middle of Road 923512 Ideological Placement if DK/Haven't Thought Much 923513 Summary: Ideological Placement 923514 Ideological Placement - Bush 923515 Ideological Placement - Clinton 923516 Ideological Placement - Ross Perot 923517 Ideological Placement - The Republican Party 923518 Ideological Placement - The Democratic Party 923519 Whether Political Candidates Should Display Higher Moral Standards Qualities of a True American: 923520 Getting Ahead Through Own Effort 923521 Believing in God 923522 Treating People of All Races Equally 923523 Speaking English R'S OPINION ON NATIONAL ISSUES/PROBLEMS 923524 Racial/Ethnic Groups Should Maintain Distinct Cultures 923525 Those Who Avoided Vietnam Should Have Served Despite Beliefs 923526 Things in This Country Are Going in the Right Direction 923527 Level of Unemployment Has Gotten Better/Worse in Past Year R'S OPINION ON ECONOMIC CONDITIONS 923528 How Much Better/Worse is the Level of Unemployment 923529 Inflation Has Gotten Better/Worse in the Past Year 923530 How Much Better/Worse is Inflation 923531 Nation's Economy Has Gotten Better/Worse in Past Year 923532 How Much Better/Worse is the Nation's Economy 923533 Economy Has Gotten Better/Worse in Last Few Months 923534 How Much Better/Worse is Economy in Past Few Months 923535 Economy Has Gotten Better/Worse Compared to Four Years Ago 923536 How much Better/Worse is Economy Compared to Four Years Ago 923537 Economy Will Get Better/Worse in Next 12 Months 923538 America's Ability to Compete in World Economy Gotten Better/Worse 923539 How Much Better/Worse is America's Ability to Compete in World Economy 923540 Standard of Living Will be Better/Worse 20 Years From Now 923541 Federal Economic Policies Have Made Economy Better/Worse 923542 How Much Better/Worse Have Federal Economic Policies Made Economy 923543 Economic Conditions in State Have Gotten Better/Worse 923544 How Much Better/Worse Are Economic Conditions in State R'S OPINION ON POLITICAL PARTIES Which Party Would Do a Better Job... 923545 ...Handling Economy 923546 ...Handling Foreign Affairs 923547 ...Solving Problem of Poverty 923548 ...Making Health Care More Affordable 923549 ...Cut Social Security Benefits Taxes and the Deficit 923550 Which Party is More Likely to - Raise Taxes 923551 Who is More to Blame for Federal Budget Deficit R'S OPINION ON MILITARY ISSUES 923601 Unites States' World Position Has Grown Weaker/Stronger 923602 Party Best Able to Keep United States Out of War 923603 Should U.S. Maintain Military Power Through High Defense Spending 923604 U.S. Should Not Concern Itself With Problems in Other Parts of World 923605 How Willing Should U.S. be to Use Force to Solve Intl. Problems 923606 How Worried is R About U.S. Getting into a Nuclear War 923607 How Worried is R About U.S. Getting into Conventional War 923608 Did U.S. Do the Right Thing in Sending Military Forces to Persian Gulf 923609 Was One Party Was More in Favor of Military Force in Persian Gulf 923610 Which Party Supported Use of Force in Persian Gulf More Incumbent's Support of Persian Gulf War 923611 INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: Candidate Named 923612 Remembers How Incumbent Voted on Use of Force in Persian Gulf 923613 Did Incumbent Vote For/Against Use of Force 923614 Would R Have Guessed Incumbent Would Vote For/Against Use of Force 923615 Approve/Disapprove of Bush's Handing of War in Persian Gulf 923616 Approve/Disapprove of Bush's Handling of Gulf War Effects of Persian Gulf War 923617 Did Anything Good Come Out of the Persian Gulf War for the U.S. 923618 Good Effects of the Persian Gulf War - First Mention 923619 Good Effects of the Persian Gulf War - Second Mention 923620 Good Effects of the Persian Gulf War - Third Mention 923621 Good Effects of the Persian Gulf War - Fourth Mention 923622 Good Effects of the Persian Gulf War - Fifth Mention 923623 Did Anything Bad Come Out of the War for the U.S. Besides Losing Lives 923624 Bad Effects of Persian Gulf War - First Mention 923625 Bad Effects of Persian Gulf War - Second Mention 923626 Bad Effects of Persian Gulf War - Third Mention 923627 Bad Effects of Persian Gulf War - Fourth Mention 923628 Bad Effects of Persian Gulf War - Fifth Mention 923629 Was the War Worth the Cost 923630 Should the War Have Continued After Kuwait Was Liberated PARTY IDENTIFICATION 923631 Party Identification 923632 Strength of Party Identification 923633 Is R Closer to Republican/Democratic Party 923634 Summary: Party Identification QUALITIES DESCRIBING CANDIDATE: BUSH 923635 How Well Does "Intelligent" Describe Bush 923636 How Well Does "Compassionate" Describe Bush 923637 How Well Does "Moral" Describe Bush 923638 How Well Does "Inspiring" Describe Bush 923639 How Well Does "Provides Strong Leadership" Describe Bush 923640 How Well Does "Really Cares About People Like You" Describe Bush 923641 How Well Does "Knowledgeable" Describe Bush 923642 How Well Does "Honest" Describe Bush 923643 How Well Does "Gets Things Done" Describe Bush QUALITIES DESCRIBING CANDIDATE: CLINTON 923644 How Well Does "Intelligent" Describe Clinton 923645 How Well Does "Compassionate" Describe Clinton 923646 How Well Does "Moral" Describe Clinton 923647 How Well Does "Inspiring" Describe Clinton 923648 How Well Does "Provides Strong Leadership" Describe Clinton 923649 How Well Does "Really Cares About People Like You" Describe Clinton 923650 How Well Does "Knowledgeable" Describe Clinton 923651 How Well Does "Honest" Describe Clinton 923652 How Well Does "Gets Things Done" Describe Clinton GOVERNMENT SERVICES/SPENDING SCALES: 923701 Respondent 923702 George Bush 923703 Bill Clinton 923704 The Republican Party 923705 The Democratic Party 923706 The Federal Government DEFENSE SPENDING SCALES: 923707 Respondent 923708 George Bush 923709 Bill Clinton 923710 The Republican Party 923711 The Democratic Party 923712 The Federal Government HEALTH CARE AND HEALTH INSURANCE 923713 Can R Afford Health Care 923714 Does R Have Health Insurance 923715 Satisfaction With Quality of Available Health Care 923717 Should Government Require Parental Leave JOB ASSURANCE SCALES: 923718 Respondent 923719 George Bush 923720 Bill Clinton 923721 The Republican Party 923722 The Democratic Party 923723 The Federal Government 923724 Governmental Support of Social and Economic Position of Blacks INCREASE/DECREASE SPENDING ON FEDERAL BUDGET PROGRAMS (See also Variables 3811-3819) 923725 Increase/Decrease Federal Spending on Food Stamps 923726 Increase/Decrease Federal Spending on Welfare 923727 Increase/Decrease Federal Spending on AIDS Research 923728 Increase/Decrease Federal Spending on Financial Aid For Students 923729 Increase/Decrease Federal Spending on Programs That Assist Blacks 923730 Increase/Decrease Federal Spending on Solving Problem of Homeless 923731 Increase/Decrease Federal Spending on Programs That Assist Blacks VIEWS ON ABORTION 923732 Respondent's Position on Abortion 923733 Respondent's View of Bush's Position on Abortion 923734 Respondent's View of Clinton's Position on Abortion 923735 Would Respondent Favor/Oppose Parental Consent Law for Teenage Abortions 923736 How Strongly Does Respondent Favor/Oppose Parental Consent Law for Abortions 923737 Would Respondent Favor/Oppose Government Funding for Abortions 923738 How Strongly Does Respondent Favor/Oppose Government Funding for Abortions 923739 Spousal Notification Law for Married Women Seeking Abortion 923740 How Strongly Does Respondent Favor/Oppose Spousal Notification Law VIEWS ON SEXUAL HARASSMENT 923741 Respondent's View of Seriousness of Sexual Harassment in the Work Place 923742 Has Respondent or Anyone Respondent Knows Been Subject to Sexual Harassment in Workplace 923743 Status of Protection for Women From Sexual Harassment in Workplace 923744 Is Respondent More Inclined to Believe the Woman/Man in Sexual Harassment CONGRESSIONAL ISSUES AND PROBLEMS 923745 Should Gov't Provide Child Care Assistance to Low/Mid Income Parents 923746 Dealing With Urban Unrest/Rioting Scale - R 923747 Does Respondent Favor/Oppose Term Limits For Congress 923748 Has Respondent Heard/Read About Problems in Savings and Loan Business 923749 Respondent's View of Who is to Blame for Problems of Savings and Loan Business 923801 Women's Rights Scale - R 923802 Does Respondent Favor/Oppose New Limits on Foreign Imports 923803 Respondent's View of Japanese Business Competition and U.S. Response RESPONDENTS PLANS FOR NOVEMBER ELECTION 923804 Does Respondent Expect to Vote in November 923805 Who Will Respondent Vote for in the Presidential Election 923806 How Strong is Respondent's Preference for Presidential Candidate 923807 If "No" in v 3804: Who Would Respondent Vote for in the Presidential Election 923808 If "No" in v 3804: Strength of Respondent's Preference for President 923809 INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: Respondent Volunteered Ross Perot in V 3807 923810 Was Perot Ever Respondent's First Choice for President INCREASE/DECREASE SPENDING ON FEDERAL BUDGET PROGRAMS (See also Variables 3725-3731) 923811 Increase/Decrease Spending on Social Security 923812 Increase/Decrease Spending on Science and Technology 923813 Increase/Decrease Spending on Child Care 923814 Increase/Decrease Spending on Dealing with Crime 923815 Increase/Decrease Spending on Improving and Protecting the Environment 923816 Increase/Decrease Spending on Government Assistance to the Unemployed 923817 Increase/Decrease Spending on Poor people 923818 Increase/Decrease Spending on Public schools 923819 Increase/Decrease Spending on Aid to Big Cities R'S RELIGIOUS PREFERENCE AND PRACTICE 923820 Is Religion an Important Part of Respondent's Life 923821 Amount of Guidance in Daily Living Provided by Respondent's Religion 923822 How Often Does Respondent Pray 923823 How Often Does Respondent Read the Bible 923824 Respondent's View of the Bible 923825 How Often Does Respondent Watch/Listen to Religious Programs 923826 Does Respondent Attend Religious Services Apart From Weddings/Baptisms/Funerals 923827 Does Respondent Consider Self Part of a Particular Church or Denomination 923828 How Often Does Respondent Attend Religious Services 923829 Does Respondent Attend Religious Services More Than Once a Week Denomination/Affiliation 923830 Does Respondent Consider Self Protestant/Roman Catholic/Jewish 923831 Respondent's Church/Denomination 923832 Respondent's Specific Denominational Affiliation - Baptist 923833 Is Respondent's Church Affiliated With Larger Baptist Group/Strictly Local 923834 Respondent's Specific Denominational Affiliation - Lutheran 923835 Respondent's Specific Denominational Affiliation - Methodist 923836 Respondent's Specific Denominational Affiliation - Presbyterian 923837 Respondent's Specific Denominational Affiliation - Reformed 923838 Respondent's Specific Denominational Affiliation - Brethren 923839 Respondent's Specific Denominational Affiliation - Christian 923840 Respondent's Specific Denominational Affiliation - Church/Churches of Christ 923841 Respondent's Specific Denominational Affiliation - Church of God 923842 Respondent's Specific Denominational Affiliation - Holiness/Pentecostal 923843 Respondent's Specific Denominational Affiliation - Other 923844 Is "Other" Group Mentioned in V 3844 Christian 923845 If Jewish: Is Respondent Orthodox/Conservative/Reform 923846 Description of Respondent's Kind of Christianity 923847 Is Respondent a Born-Again Christian 923848 Is Respondent Officially a Member of a Place of Worship 923849 Does Respondent Participate in Religious Group Outside of Place of Worship 923850 Respondent's Religious Affiliation - Summary PERSONAL INFORMATION 923901 Respondent's Date of Birth - Month 923902 Respondent's Date of Birth - Year 923903 Respondent's Recoded Age 923904 Respondent's Marital Status R'S EDUCATION 923905 Years of Education Completed - R 923906 Did Respondent Get High School Diploma/Pass Equivalency Test 923907 Highest Degree Earned - R 923908 Summary: R's Education EDUCATION OF SPOUSE/PARTNER 923909 INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: Respondent Married/Living with Partner 923910 Years of Education Completed - Respondent's Spouse/Partner 923911 Did Respondent's Spouse/Partner Get High School Diploma/Pass Equivalency Test 923912 Highest Degree Earned - Respondent's Spouse/Partner 923913 Summary: Spouse's Education R'S OCCUPATION SECTION 923914 Respondent's Working Status 923915 Summary: Respondent's Working Status 923916 If Unemployed: Has Respondent Ever Worked for Pay 923917 If Retired: When Did Respondent Retire 923918 If Disabled: Has Respondent Ever Worked for Pay 923919 If Homemaker/Student: Is Respondent Doing Any Work for Pay at Present 923920 If Unemployed Homemaker/Student: Has Respondent Worked for Pay in Last 6 Months 923921 If Working/Temporarily Laid Off: Respondent's Occupation 923922 Collapsed 1980 Occupation Code 923923 Prestige Score 923924 Respondent's Industry/Business 923925 Is Respondent Self-Employed/Works for Someone Else 923926 Is Respondent Employed by Federal/State/Local Government 923927 Number of Hours Worked Per Week by R 923928 Is Respondent Satisfied with Number of Hours Worked 923929 How Worried is Respondent About Losing Job OCCUPATION - R WORKING OR TEMPORARILY LAID OFF 923930 INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: Respondent is Working/Temporarily Laid Off 923931 Was Respondent Out of Work/Laid Off During Last 6 Months 923932 Has Respondent Had Pay Cut/Reduction in Work Hours in Past 6 Months 923933 Respondent's Last Occupation - Collapsed Census Occupation Code 923934 Collapsed 1980 Occupation Code 923935 Prestige Score 923936 Respondent's Last Occupation - Census Industry Code 923937 Was Respondent Self-Employed/Worked for Someone Else 923938 Was Respondent Employed by Federal/State/Local Government 923939 Has Respondent Had a Job in the Past 6 Months 923940 Number of Hours Per Week Respondent Worked OCCUPATION - R UNEMPLOYED, RETIRED OR DISABLED 923941 INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: Employment Status 923942 Is Respondent Doing Any Work for Pay at the Present Time 923943 Is Respondent Looking for Work at the Present Time 923944 How Worried is Respondent About Not Being Able to Find a Job R'S OCCUPATIONAL DATA - STACKED 923945 Respondent's Last Occupation - Census Occupation Code 923946 Respondent's Last Occupation - Collapsed 1980 Occupation Code 923947 Respondent's Last Occupation - Prestige Score 923948 Respondent's Last Occupation - Census Industry Code 923949 Was Respondent Self-Employed/Worked for Someone Else 923950 Was Respondent Employed by Federal/State/Local Government 923951 Number of Hours Respondent Worked in Average Week 923952 Is Respondent Looking for Work at the Present Time 923953 How Worried is Respondent About Not Being Able to Find a Job 923954 Respondent's Present/Last Occupation - Census Occupation Code 923955 Respondent's Current/Former Occupation - Collapsed Code 923956 Respondent's Current/Former/Occupation - Census Industry Code 923957 Was Respondent Self-Employed/Worked for Someone Else 923958 Is/Was Respondent Employed by Federal/State/Local Government 923959 Number of Hours Respondent Works/Worked on Job in Average Week 923960 How Worried is Respondent About Losing Job/Not Being able to Find a Job 923961 Has Respondent (If Unemployed/Disabled) Had a Job in the Last 6 Months 923962 Is Respondent (If Unemployed/Retired/Disabled) Looking for Work at Present Time 923963 Has Respondent (If Unemployed/Permanently Disabled) Ever Done Any Work For Pay OCCUPATION OF SPOUSE/PARTNER 924001 INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: Respondent's Marital Status 924002 Is Respondent's Spouse/Partner Working Now 924003 Summary: Working Status of Respondent's Spouse/Partner 924004 Has Spouse/Partner (If Unemployed) Ever Worked for Pay 924005 When Did Respondent's Spouse/Partner Retire 924006 Has Respondent's Spouse/Partner (If Disabled) Ever Done Any Work for Pay 924007 Is Respondent's Spouse/Partner (If Homemaker/Student) Doing Any Work for Pay 924008 Has Respondent's Spouse/Partner Done Any Work in Last 6 Months for Pay 924009 Present Occupation of Respondent's Spouse/Partner - Census Occupation code 924010 Collapsed 1980 Occupation Code - Respondent's Spouse/Partner 924011 Prestige Score - Respondent's Spouse/Partner 924012 Census Industry Code - Respondent's Spouse/Partner 924013 Respondent's Spouse/Partner was Self-Employed/Worked for Someone Else 924014 Is Respondent's Spouse/Partner Employed by Federal/State/Local Government 924015 Number of Hours Worked by Respondent's Spouse/Partner in Average Week 924016 Does Respondent's Spouse/Partner Work More/Fewer Hours Than He/She Wants 924017 How Worried is Respondent's Spouse/Partner About Losing His/Her Job OCCUPATION - SPOUSE/PARTNER WORKING NOW OR TEMPORARILY LAID OFF 924018 INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: Employment Status of Respondent's Spouse/Partner 924019 Has Respondent's Spouse/Partner Been Out of Work/Laid Off in Last 6 Months 924020 Has Respondent's Spouse/Partner Had Reduction in Hours/Pay in Last Six Months 924021 Census Occupation Code - Respondent's Spouse/Partner 924022 Collapsed Census Occupation Code - Respondent's Spouse/Partner 924023 Prestige Score - Respondent's Spouse/Partner 924024 Census Industry Code - Respondent's Spouse/Partner 924025 Respondent's Spouse/Partner Worked for Someone Else/Was Self-Employed 924026 Was Respondent's Spouse/Partner Employed by Federal/State/Local Government 924027 Has Respondent's Spouse/Partner had a Job in the Last 6 Months 924028 Number of Works Worked By Respondent's Spouse/Partner in Average Week OCCUPATION - SPOUSE/PARTNER UNEMPLOYED, RETIRED OR DISABLED 924029 INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: Employment Status of Respondent's Spouse/Partner 924030 Is Respondent's Spouse/Partner Doing Any Work for Pay as the Present Time 924031 Is Respondent's Spouse/Partner Looking for Work at the Present Time 924032 How Worried is Respondent's Spouse/Partner About Losing His/Her Job 924033 Census Occupation Code - Respondent's Spouse/Partner 924034 Collapsed Census Occupation Code - Respondent's Spouse/Partner 924035 Prestige Score - Respondent's Spouse/Partner 924036 Census Industry Code - Respondent's Spouse/Partner 924037 Respondent's Spouse/Partner Worked for Someone Else/Was Unemployed 924038 Was Respondent's Spouse/Partner Employed by Federal/State/Local Government 924039 Number of Hours Worked by Respondent's Spouse/Partner in Average Week 924040 Is Respondent's Spouse/Partner Looking for Work at the Present Time 924041 How Worried is Respondent's Spouse/Partner About Not Being Able to find a Job SPOUSE/PARTNER'S OCCUPATIONAL DATA - STACKED 924042 Census Occupation Code - Respondent's Spouse/Partner 924043 Collapsed Census Occupation Code - Respondent's Spouse/Partner 924044 Census Industry Code - Respondent's Spouse/Partner 924045 Respondent's Spouse/Partner Works/Worked for Someone Else or Is/Was Unemployed 924046 Was Respondent's Spouse/Partner Employed by Federal/State/Local Government 924047 Number of Hours Worked by Respondent's Spouse/Partner in Average Week 924048 How Worried is Respondent's Spouse/Partner About Losing His/Her Job 924049 Has Respondent's Spouse/Partner Had a Job in the Past 6 Months 924050 Is Respondent's Spouse/Partner Looking For Work at the Present Time 924051 Has Respondent's Spouse/Partner Ever Done Any Work For Pay UNION MEMBERSHIP 924101 Does Anyone in Respondent's Household Belong to a Labor Union 924102 Who in Respondent's Household Belongs to a Labor Union HOUSEHOLD INCOME 924103 INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: Respondent Only HH Member Age 14 or Older 924104 Respondent's Family Income Before Taxes 924105 Respondent's Income Before Taxes Short Form Variables 924106 INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: Respondent Only HH Member Age 14 or Older 924107 Respondent's Family Income Before Taxes 924108 Family Income Category 924109 Was Respondent's Income Before Taxes Above/Below $24,999 924110 Respondent's Income R'S CLASS IDENTITY 924111 Does Respondent Think of Self as Belonging to a Social Class 924112 Does Respondent Think of Self as Middle Class or Working Class 924113 If Middle Class: Is Respondent Average/Upper Middle Class 924114 Summary: Respondent's Social Class 924115 Does Respondent Feel Closer to Middle/Working Class R'S ETHNIC GROUP IDENTITY 924116 Respondent's Main Ethnic/Nationality Group (Other Than American) - 1st Mention 924117 Respondent's Main Ethnic/Nationality Group (Other Than American) - 2nd Mention 924118 INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: Number of Groups Mentioned 924119 Ethnic/National Group R Identifies Most Closely 924120 Both Parents Born in This Country 924121 INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: Hispanic Group Mentioned/Not Mentioned 924122 Is R of Spanish/Hispanic Origin/Descent 924123 Category Best Describing Hispanic Origin R'S BACKGROUND 924124 Birthplace 924125 Where R Grew Up 924126 Occupation of Father - Collapsed Occupation Code 924127 Did Mother Have a Job 924128 Occupation of Mother - Collapsed Occupation Code 924129 Type of Community R Grew Up In 924130 How Long R Has Lived in Present City/Town/Township/County 924131 Where Lived Previously - City 924132 Where Lived Previously - State/Country 924133 Distance to Previous Residence RESIDENCE AND HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION 924134 How Long R Has Lived at Current Residence 924135 Does R/Family Own/Rent Home 924136 Does R Have Any Children 924137 Number of Children Under Age 6 924138 Number of Children Under Age 6 Living With R 924139 Number of Children Between 6-18 Years Old 924140 Number of Children Between Age 6-18 Living With R 924141 Responsible for Raising Any Other Children 924142 How Many Additional Children Live With R 924143 Ending Time of Interview CONDITIONS OF PRE-ELECTION INTERVIEW 924201 Sex 924202 Race 924203 Other Persons Present at Interview 924204 Cooperation 924205 Level of Information About Politics/Public Affairs 924206 Intelligence 924207 Level of Suspicion About the Study Before Interview 924208 Interest in the Interview 924209 Sincerity of Answers 924210 Did R Report Income Correctly 924211 Estimate of Family Income by Interviewer 924212 Interview in English/Translated into Another Language 924213 What Language Was Interview Translated Into 924214 Reaction to Interview - 1st Mention 924215 Reaction to Interview - 2nd Mention 924216 Reaction to Interview - 3rd Mention 924217 Reaction to Interview - 4th Mention 924218 Reaction to Interview - 5th Mention 924219 Reaction to Interview - 6th Mention 924220 Reaction to Interview - 7th Mention 924221 Reaction to Interview - 8th Mention 924222 Reaction to Interview - 9th Mention 924223 Reaction to Interview - 10th Mention PROBE INDICATORS FOR PRE-ELECTION INTERVIEW 924224 George Bush 924225 Bill Clinton 924226 Ross Perot 924227 Dan Quayle 924228 Albert Gore 924229 Anita Hill 924230 Tom Foley 924231 Barbara Bush 924232 Hillary Clinton 924233 Clarence Thomas 924234 Pat Buchanan 924235 Jesse Jackson 924236 The Democratic Party 924237 The Republican Party POST-ELECTION SURVEY 1992 POST-ELECTION INFORMATION 925001 Case ID Number 925002 Sample-Form Indicator 925003 Mode of Interview - Telephone/Personal 925004 Beginning Time of Interview 925005 Date of Interview - Month 925006 Date of Interview - Day 925007 Interviewer's Interview Number 925008 Interview Length in Minutes 925009 Length of Pre-Edit 925010 Length of Post-Edit in Minutes 925011 Total Number of Calls 925012 Result Code SAMPLING INFORMATION 925013 Short/Panel-Form Only: Reasons for Using Short-Form 925014 Is R Living at Sample Address 925015 Recontact: Was Name Obtained 925016 Recontact: Interviewer Checkpoint: Address Obtained 925017 Recontact: If Address Different From Sample Label 925018 Recontact: Was Phone Number Obtained 925019 Recontact: Is Phone Listed in Current Directory 925020 Recontact: Is Phone Listed in Name 925021 Recontact: Does R Have Another Residence 925022 Recontact: Name/Phone of Contact Person for R 925023 Refusal Conversion Indicator 925024 Persuasion Letter Requested 925025 R Payment Offered - Amount 925026 R Payment Paid - Amount 925027 Contact Description: Did R Refuse Initially 925028 Contact Description: Did R Break Any Appointments R's Resistance to Interview 925029 Waste of Time 925030 Very Ill 925031 Too Busy 925032 Stressful Family Situation 925033 Confidentiality 925034 Invasion of Privacy 925035 Other Reason Interviewer Information 925036 Interviewer's ID Number 925037 Supervisor's ID Number 925038 Interviewer's Race 925039 Interviewer's Ethnicity 925040 Interviewer's Age Bracketed 925041 Interviewer's Yrs of Experience - Up to Sept 1, 1992 925042 Interviewer's Gender 925043 Interviewer's Education Geographic Variables 925101 ICPSR State/Congressional District - R Voting Outside Sample Address 925102 Interest in Political Campaigns 925103 Did R Watch Programs About Campaign on TV 925104 Number of Campaign Programs R Watched on TV 925105 Does R Ever Discuss Politics With Family/Friends 925106 How Often R Discusses Politics With Family/Friends 925107 Number of Days in Past Week That R Talked Politics With Family/Friends 925108 How Much R Cared About Outcome of U.S. House Elections 925109 Does R Remember Names of Candidates for U.S. House of Representatives HOUSE CAMPAIGN 925110 Number of House Candidate - 1st Mention 925111 Party of House Candidate - 1st Mention 925112 Collapsed Code: House Candidate - 1st Mention 925113 Knowledge of Names/Parties: House Candidate - 1st Mention 925114 Number of House Candidate - 2nd Mention 925115 Party of House Candidate - 2nd Mention 925116 Collapsed Code: House Candidate - 2nd Mention 925117 Knowledge of Names/Parties: House Candidate - 2nd Mention 925118 Number of House Candidate - 3rd Mention 925119 Party of House Candidate - 3rd Mention 925120 Collapsed Code: House Candidate - 3rd Mention 925121 Knowledge of Names/Parties: House Candidate - 3rd Mention SENATE CAMPAIGN 925201 INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: U.S. Senate Race in State 925202 Does R Remember Names of Candidates for U.S. Senate 925203 Number of Senate Candidate - 1st Mention 925204 Party of Senate Candidate - 1st Mention 925205 Collapsed Code: Senate Candidate - 1st Mention 925206 Knowledge of Names/Parties: Senate Candidate - 1st Mention 925207 Number of Senate Candidate - 2nd Mention 925208 Party of Senate Candidate - 2nd Mention 925209 Collapsed Code: Senate Candidate - 2nd Mention 925210 Knowledge of Names/Parties: Senate Candidate - 2nd Mention 925211 Number of Senate Candidate - 3rd Mention 925212 Party of Senate Candidate - 3rd Mention 925213 Collapsed Code: Senate Candidate - 3rd Mention 925214 Knowledge of Names/Parties: Senate Candidate - 3rd Mention California Senate Race 925215 Does R Remember Names of Candidates in California Senate Race 925216 Number of Senate Candidate: California - 1st Mention 925217 Party of Senate Candidate: California - 1st Mention 925218 Collapsed Code: Senate Candidate - 1st Mention, California 925219 Knowledge of Names/Parties: Senate Candidate, CA - 1st Mention 925220 Number of Senate Candidate: California - 2nd Mention 925221 Party of Senate Candidate: California - 2nd Mention 925222 Collapsed Code: Senate Candidate - 2nd Mention, California 925223 Knowledge of Names/Parties: Senate Candidate, CA - 2nd Mention 925224 Number of Senate Candidate: California - 3rd Mention 925225 Party of Senate Candidate: California - 3rd Mention 925226 Collapsed Code: Senate Candidate - 3rd Mention, California 925227 Knowledge of Names/Parties: Senate Candidate, CA - 3rd Mention 925228 Number of Senate Candidate: California - 4th Mention 925229 Party of Senate Candidate: California - 4th Mention 925230 Collapsed Code: Senate Candidate - 4th Mention, California 925231 Knowledge of Names/Parties: Senate Candidate, CA - 4th Mention FEELING THERMOMETERS: POLITICAL FIGURES AND GROUPS 925301 Feeling Thermometer - George Bush 925302 Feeling Thermometer - Bill Clinton 925303 Feeling Thermometer - Ross Perot 925304 Feeling Thermometer - Democratic U.S. Senate Candidate 925305 Feeling Thermometer - Republican U.S. Senate Candidate 925306 Feeling Thermometer - Democratic U.S. Senate Candidate, California 925307 Feeling Thermometer - Republican U.S. Senate Candidate, California 925308 Feeling Thermometer - Dem/Rep Senator: Term not up in state with race 925309 Feeling Thermometer - Senator #1 925310 Feeling Thermometer - Senator #2 925311 Feeling Thermometer - Democratic House Candidate 925312 Feeling Thermometer - Republican House Candidate 925313 Feeling Thermometer - Retiring Democratic Representative 925314 Feeling Thermometer - Third Party/Independent House Candidate 925315 Feeling Thermometer - James Stockdale FEELING THERMOMETERS: GROUPS 925316 Feeling Thermometer - Labor Unions 925317 Feeling Thermometer - Feminists 925318 Feeling Thermometer - People On Welfare 925319 Feeling Thermometer - Conservatives 925320 Feeling Thermometer - Poor People 925321 Feeling Thermometer - Catholics 925322 Feeling Thermometer - Big Business 925323 Feeling Thermometer - Blacks 925324 Feeling Thermometer - The Women's Movement 925325 Feeling Thermometer - The Federal Government in Washington 925326 Feeling Thermometer - Liberals 925327 Feeling Thermometer - Hispanic-Americans 925328 Feeling Thermometer - The Military 925329 Feeling Thermometer - Environmentalists 925330 Feeling Thermometer - Lawyers 925331 Feeling Thermometer - Illegal Immigrants 925332 Feeling Thermometer - Southerners 925333 Feeling Thermometer - Whites 925334 Feeling Thermometer - Jews 925335 Feeling Thermometer - Gay Men and Lesbians 925336 Feeling Thermometer - Immigrants 925337 Feeling Thermometer - Congress 925338 Feeling Thermometer - Christian Fundamentalists 925339 Feeling Thermometer - Asian-Americans 925340 Feeling Thermometer - The Police R'S LIKES/DISLIKES OF CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATES 925401 Whether R Liked Anything About Democratic Candidate for U.S. House 925402 What R Likes About Democratic Candidate for U.S. House - 1st Mention 925403 What R Likes About Democratic Candidate for U.S. House - 2nd Mention 925404 What R Likes About Democratic Candidate for U.S. House - 3rd Mention 925405 What R Likes About Democratic Candidate for U.S. House - 4th Mention 925406 What R Likes About Democratic Candidate for U.S. House - 5th Mention 925407 Whether R Disliked Anything About Democratic Candidate for U.S. House 925408 What R Dislikes About Democratic Candidate for U.S. House - 1st Mention 925409 What R Dislikes About Democratic Candidate for U.S. House - 2nd Mention 925410 What R Dislikes About Democratic Candidate for U.S. House - 3rd Mention 925411 What R Dislikes About Democratic Candidate for U.S. House - 4th Mention 925412 What R Dislikes About Democratic Candidate for U.S. House - 5th Mention 925413 Whether R Liked Anything About Republican Candidate for U.S. House 925414 What R Likes About Republican Candidate for U.S. House - 1st Mention 925415 What R Likes About Republican Candidate for U.S. House - 2nd Mention 925416 What R Likes About Republican Candidate for U.S. House - 3rd Mention 925417 What R Likes About Republican Candidate for U.S. House - 4th Mention 925418 What R Likes About Republican Candidate for U.S. House - 5th Mention 925419 Whether R Disliked Republican Candidate for U.S. House 925420 What R Dislikes About Republican Candidate for U.S. House - 1st Mention 925421 What R Dislikes About Republican Candidate for U.S. House - 2nd Mention 925422 What R Dislikes About Republican Candidate for U.S. House - 3rd Mention 925423 What R Dislikes About Republican Candidate for U.S. House - 4th Mention 925424 What R Dislikes About Republican Candidate for U.S. House - 5th Mention IMPORTANT ISSUES - HOUSE CAMPAIGN 925425 Most Important Issue - 1st Mention 925426 Most Important Issue - 2nd Mention 925427 Most Important Issue - 3rd Mention 925428 INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: Whether R Mentioned Issues 925429 Most Important Issue to R in U.S. House Campaign 925430 INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: Type of Race/Number of Candidates 925431 Did R Prefer One of the Candidates Because of This Issue 925432 Candidate R Preferred for U.S. House 925433 Party of U.S. House Candidate Named in V 5432 925434 INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: Type of Race/Number of Candidates 925435 Whether Either U.S. House Candidate Was An Incumbent 925436 Candidate Number Code - U.S. House Incumbent 925437 Party of U.S. House Incumbent 925438 If Only 1 House Candidate: Was Candidate Incumbent 925439 If Only 1 House Candidate: Candidate Number Code 925440 Only 1 House Candidate: Party of Candidate 925501 INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: Democratic Candidate PERSONAL CONTACT WITH DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES 925502 R Had Contact With Democratic House Candidate 925503 R Met Democratic House Candidate Personally 925504 R Attended Meeting Where Democratic House Candidate Spoke 925505 R Talked With U.S. House Candidate's Staff/Office 925506 R Received Mail from Democratic House Candidate 925507 R Read About Democratic House Candidate in Newspaper/Magazine 925508 R Heard Democratic House Candidate on Radio 925509 R Saw Democratic House Candidate on TV 925510 R Had Contact With Democratic House Candidate in Other Ways 925511 Does R Know Anyone Who Had Contact With Democratic House Candidate PERSONAL CONTACT WITH REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES 925512 INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: Republican Candidate 925513 R Had Contact With Republican House Candidate 925514 R Met Republican House Candidate Personally 925515 R Attended Meeting Where Republican House Candidate Spoke 925516 R Talked to Republican House Candidate's Staff/Office 925517 R Received Mail From Republican House Candidate 925518 R Read About Republican House Candidate in Newspaper/Magazine 925519 R Heard Republican House Candidate on Radio 925520 R Saw Republican House Candidate on TV 925521 R Had Contact With Republican House Candidate in Other Ways 925522 Does R Know Anyone Who Has Had Contact With Republican House Candidate VOTING SECTION: VOTERS 925601 Did R Vote in Elections in November 925602 Was R Registered to Vote in November Election 925603 Is R Registered to Vote at Current Address 925604 County/State of Voter Registration 925605 INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: R Voted/Did Not Vote 925606 R Voted In Person/By Absentee Ballot 925607 Where Did R Go to Vote in the November Election 925608 Did R Vote for a Candidate for President 925609 Who Did R Vote for in the Presidential Election 925610 Strength of Preference for Presidential Candidate 925611 How Long Before Election Did R Decide How to Vote PRESIDENTIAL VOTE 925612 INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: Presidential Vote Voted for George Bush: 925613 Did R Ever Think of Voting for Clinton/Perot 925614 Which Candidate (Clinton/Perot) Did R Think of Voting for Voted for Bill Clinton: 925615 Did R Ever Think of Voting for Bush/Perot 925616 Which Candidate (Bush/Perot) Did R Think of Voting for Voted for Ross Perot: 925617 Did R Ever Think of Voting for Clinton/Bush 925618 Which Candidate (Clinton/Bush) Did R Think of Voting for 925619 Consideration of Other Candidates - Summary 925620 INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: VOTING RESPONDENT; Registered In/Outside State of IW 925621 Did R Vote For U.S. House Candidate 925622 Who R Voted For in U.S. House Election 925623 Candidate Named - U.S. House of Representatives 925624 Strength of Preference for U.S. House Candidate STATE SENATE RACES 925625 INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: Senate Race in State 925626 Did R Vote for U.S. Senate Candidate 925627 Who R Voted For in U.S. Senate Election 925628 Candidate Named - U.S. Senate 925629 U.S. Senate Candidate R Voted For 925630 Candidate Named - U.S. Senate, California 925631 2nd U.S. Senate Candidate R Voted For - California 925632 2nd Candidate Named - U.S. Senate, California 925633 Did R Prefer One Candidate for President 925634 Presidential Candidate R Preferred 925635 Strength of Preference for Presidential Candidate 925636 Did R Prefer One Candidate for U.S. House 925637 U.S. House Candidate Preferred by R 925638 Candidate Named - U.S. House SPOUSE/PARTNER VOTED 925639 INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: Martial Status 925640 Did Spouse/Partner Vote in November Election CONTACT WITH U.S. HOUSE INCUMBENT 925701 Did R/Family Contact U.S. House Incumbent/Office 925702 Reason for Contact With House Incumbent - Express Opinion 925703 Reason for Contact With House Incumbent - Seek Information 925704 Reason for Contact With House Incumbent - Seek Help On a Problem 925705 Did R Get Response From House Incumbent/Office 925706 Level of Satisfaction With Response From House Incumbent 925707 Does R Know Anyone Else Who Contacted House Incumbent/Office 925708 Did Those Who Contacted House Incumbent Get a Response 925709 Level of Satisfaction of Those Who Contacted House Incumbent 925710 Approval Rating of House Incumbent 925711 Strength of Approval Rating of House Incumbent 925712 Helpfulness of House With Another Problem 925713 Anything Special Done by House Incumbent for District 925714 Is House Incumbent Keeping in Touch with R's District 925715 Has R Heard/Read About U.S. Representatives Writing Bad Checks 925716 Opinion on Bad Checks Written by U.S. Representatives PROBLEMS WITH THE HOUSE BANK 925717 INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: Candidate List Includes House Incumbent 925718 Did House Incumbent Write Any Bad Checks 925719 Did House Incumbent Write A Lot/A Few Bad Checks 925720 Does R Think That Reps Who Wrote Bad Checks Broke Any Laws IMPORTANT NATIONAL PROBLEMS 925721 How Often R Follows Government/Public Affairs 925722 Most Important Problem - 1st Mention 925723 Most Important Problem - 2nd Mention 925724 Most Important Problem - 3rd Mention 925725 INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: Important Problem 925726 The Single Most Important Problem the Country Faces 925727 How Good A Job Government is Doing With This Problem 925728 Political Party Most Likely to Get Gov't to Do Better Job on Problem R'S OPINION ON VARIOUS POLITICAL ISSUES (See also Variables 5922-5938) 925729 Opinion on Less/More Government 925730 Government/Free Market Should Handle Economic Problems 925731 Reason Government Has Become Bigger Over the Years 925732 Better When One Party Controls Both Presidency and Congress PARTY CONTACTS WITH R DURING THE CAMPAIGN 925801 Political Party Contact R to Talk About Campaign 925802 Which Party Contacted R to Talk About Campaign 925803 Anyone Else Contact R About Supporting Specific Candidates 925804 Which Candidate Was R Asked to Support - 1st Mention 925805 Which Candidate Was R Asked to Support - 2nd Mention 925806 Which Candidate Was R Asked to Support - 3rd Mention R'S POLITICAL ACTIVITIES 925807 Did R Try to Influence Someone Else's Vote 925808 Was R Contacted in Order to Influence His/Her Vote 925809 Did R Wear Button/Use Car Sticker/Place Sign in Window During Campaign 925810 Did R Attend Political Meetings/Rallies to Support a Candidate 925811 Was R Invited to Political Rallies/Meetings to Support a Candidate 925812 Did R Do Any Other Work for One of the Parties/Candidates 925813 Was R Asked to do Work for Candidate/Party R'S POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS 925814 Did R Use $ 1 Political Contribution Option on Federal Tax Return 925815 Did R Give Money to a Candidate Running for Public Office 925816 Party of Candidate to Whom R Made Contribution 925817 Did R Give money to a Political Party During Election Year 925818 Political Party to Which R Gave Money 925819 Did R Give Money to Other Group That Supported/Opposed Candidates 925820 Did Anyone Talk to R About Registering to Vote/Voting 925821 Did R Receive Requests Through Mail for Political Contributions 925822 How Many Mail Requests for Political Contributions Did R Receive 925823 Did R Contribute Because of Mail Received 925824 Did R Receive Telephone Requests for Political Contributions 925825 How Many Telephone Requests for Political Contributions Did R Receive 925826 Did R Contribute Because of Telephone Calls 925827 Was R Contacted in Person for Political Contributions 925828 Did R Receive Quite a Few Personal Contacts for Contributions 925829 Did R Contribute Because of Personal Contacts PARTY DIFFERENCES 925901 Does R See Important Differences Between Parties 925902 Important Differences: Party Reference - 1st Mention 925903 Party Difference Content Code - 1st Mention 925904 Important Differences: Party Reference - 2nd Mention 925905 Party Difference Content Code - 2nd Mention 925906 Important Differences: Party Reference - 3rd Mention 925907 Party Difference Content Code - 3rd Mention 925908 Important Differences: Party Reference - 4th Mention 925909 Party Difference Content Code - 4th Mention 925910 Important Differences: Party Reference - 5th Mention 925911 Party Difference Content Code - 5th Mention 925912 Important Differences: Party Reference - 6th Mention 925913 Party Difference Content Code - 6th Mention 925914 Whether One Party is More Conservative at the National Level 925915 Party R Thinks is More Conservative POLITICAL KNOWLEDGE 925916 Job/Political Office Held by Dan Quayle 925917 Job/Political Office Held by William Rehnquist 925918 Job/Political Office Held by Boris Yeltsin 925919 Job/Political Office Held by Tom Foley 925920 Who Has Final Responsibility to Decide Constitutionality of Law 925921 Who Nominates Judges to the Federal Courts OPINIONS ON VARIOUS SOCIAL/POLITICAL ISSUES (See also Variables 5729-5732) 925922 Is R Willing to Pay More Tax to Increase Gov't. Spending Homosexuals 925923 Does R Favor/Oppose Laws Against Job Discrimination of Homosexuals 925924 Strength of Favor/Opposition to Homosexual Job Discrimination Laws 925925 Should Homosexuals Be Allowed to Serve in U.S. Armed Forces 925926 Strength of Opinion on Homosexuals Serving in U.S. Armed Forces 925927 Should Homosexual Couples Be Legally Permitted to Adopt Children 925928 Strength of Opinion on Homosexual Couples Adopting Children Civil Rights 925929 Are Civil Rights Leaders Pushing Too Fast/Going Too Slowly/About Right 925930 Amount of Change in Position of Black People in Past Few Years School Prayer 925931 Does R Favor One Side in Debate Re: Gov't. Integration of Schools 925932 Opinion on Gov't. Integration of Schools Death Penalty 925933 Does R Favor/Oppose Death Penalty For Persons Convicted of Murder 925934 Strength of Favor/Opposition to Death Penalty for Murder Affirmative Action 925935 Is R For/Against Preferential Hiring/Promotion of Blacks 925936 Strength of Opinion on Preferential Hiring/Promotion of Blacks 925937 Does R Take a Side Re: Gov't. Ensuring Fair Treatment 925938 Should Gov't. See to it That Blacks Get Fair Treatment 925939 INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: Panel/Cross-Section R Importance of Foreign Policy Goals: 925940 Securing Adequate Energy Supplies 925941 Preventing Spread of Nuclear Weapons 925942 Reducing Environmental Pollution 925943 Protecting Weaker Nations 925944 Bringing Democracy to Other Nations 925945 Opinion on Issue of School Prayer 925946 Strength of Opinion on School Prayer 925947 Is R For/Against Quotas to Admit Black Students 925948 Strength of Opinion on Quotas 925949 Approval Rating of U.S. Congress 925950 Strength of Approval/Disapproval of U.S. Congress 925951 Which Party Had Most Members in House Before Election 925952 Which Party Had Most Members in Senate Before Election WOMEN'S ISSUES 926001 Attention R Pays to Women's Issues in the News 926002 Does R Think of Self as a Feminist 926003 Is R a Strong Feminist 926004 Best Way for Women to Improve Their Position 926005 Sense of Pride in the Accomplishments of Women 926006 Angry About the Way Women are Treated in Society 926007 Power and Influence of Women Compared to Men 926008 Power and Influence Women Ought to Have Compared to Men 926009 Women's Power/Influence Compared to Men 926010 Power/Influence of Men and Women in Most Families 926011 Men or Women Should Have More Power/Influence in Most Families 926012 How Strongly R Feels About Men's /Women's Power/Influence in Families NATIONAL GOALS 926013 Most Desirable Goal for a Nation 926014 Second Choice for Most Desirable National Goal 926015 Power of the Government in Washington 926016 Gov't. is Getting Too Powerful/Not Getting Too Strong 926017 Gov't. Should Become More Powerful/Stay the Way it is 926018 Party Most Likely to Favor a Powerful Government in Washington DESIRABLE QUALITIES FOR CHILDREN 926019 Independence or Respect for Others 926020 Obedience or Self-Reliance 926021 Curiosity or Good Manners 926022 Being Considerate or Well Behaved 926023 Gov't. Funds to Support Public/Private/Parochial Schools R AGREES/DISAGREES: 926024 Society Should Ensure Equal Opportunity to Succeed 926025 Gone Too Far in Pushing Equal Rights in U.S. 926026 U.S. Better Off if Worried Less About Equality 926027 Not Problem if Some Have More of a Chance in Life 926028 Fewer Problems in U.S. if People Treated Equally 926029 Big Problem in U.S. With Not Giving Equal Chances 926101 Should not Vote if You Don't Care About Outcome 926102 People Like R Have No Say About What Gov't. Does 926103 Public Officials Don't Care What R Thinks 926104 Politics/Government Too Complicated to Understand 926105 Understands Important Political Issues Facing U.S. 926106 Well-Qualified to Participate in Politics 926107 Could Do as Good a Job in Public Office as Others 926108 Better Informed About Politics/Gov't. Than Most R'S DEFINITION OF LIBERAL AND CONSERVATIVE 926109 What "Liberal" Means to R - 1st Mention 926110 What "Liberal" Means to R - 2nd Mention 926111 What "Liberal" Means to R - 3rd Mention 926112 What "Conservative" Means to R - 1st Mention 926113 What "Conservative" Means to R - 2nd Mention 926114 What "Conservative" Means to R - 3rd Mention R AGREES/DISAGREES: 926115 Adjust Morals to Changing World 926116 Tolerate Different Moral Standards 926117 Fewer Problems in U.S. if Emphasis on Family Ties 926118 New Lifestyles Contribute to Breakdown of Society 926119 Sex With Someone Other Than Spouse Always Wrong 926120 Much of the Time Gov't. Can Be Trusted to Do What is Right 926121 Does Government Waste Tax Money 926122 Gov't. Run by Big Interests or For Benefit of all People 926123 Many of the People Running the Government are Crooked 926124 Do Elections Make Gov't. Pay Attention to What People Think 926125 Amount of Attention Gov't. Pays to What People Think When Deciding R AGREES/DISAGREES: 926126 Blacks Should Work Way Up Without Special Favors 926127 Blacks Have Gotten Less Than They Deserve 926128 If Blacks Tried Harder Could Be Well Off as Whites 926129 Difficult for Blacks to Work Out of Lower Class PATRIOTISM 926130 How Does R Feel When He/She Sees the American Flag Flying 926131 How Strong is Love for Country SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE BENEFITS 926132 Are Social Security Benefits Too Low/About Right/Too High 926133 Are Social Security Benefits Much Too Low/High, Somewhat Too Low/High 926134 Does R Favor/Oppose Taxes on Social Security Benefits 926135 Strength of Favor/Opposition Re: Taxing Social Security Benefits 926136 Does R Favor/Oppose Expanding Medicare to Pay for Nursing Home Care 926137 Does R Favor/Oppose Expanding Medicare Strongly/Not so Strongly VOLUNTEERISM AND COMMUNITY SERVICE 926138 Was R Able to Devote Any Time to Volunteer Work in Last 12 Months 926139 Would R Say Most People Can be Trusted or You Can't be Too Careful 926140 Would R Say People Are Helpful or That They Look Out For Themselves 926141 Does R Have Neighbors That He/She Knows and Talks to Regularly 926142 How Many Neighbors Does R Talk to Regularly 926143 Would R be Happy to Serve/Rather Not Serve on a Jury 926144 Has R Worked on Some Community Problem in Last 12 Months 926145 Was R Able to Contribute Money to Church/Charity in Last 12 Months ECONOMIC PROJECTIONS 926146 Will R Be Better/Worse Off/Same Financially 1 Year From Now 926147 Will R Be Much/Somewhat Better/Worse Off Financially 1 Year From Now 926148 Does R Think National Economy Will Get Better/Worse/Stay Same 926149 Will National Economy Be Much/Somewhat Better/Worse 926150 Will What R Pays in Taxes Over Next Year Go Up/Down/Stay Same 926151 Will What R Pays in Taxes Go Up a Lot/a Little 926152 Does R Think There Will Be More/Less/Same Unemployment in 12 Months GROUP IDENTIFICATION 926201 Group R Feels Close To - Poor People 926202 Group R Feels Close To - Asian Americans 926203 Group R Feels Close To - Liberals 926204 Group R Feels Close To - The Elderly 926205 Group R Feels Close To - Blacks 926206 Group R Feels Close To - Labor Unions 926207 Group R Feels Close To - Feminists 926208 Group R Feels Close To - Southerners 926209 Group R Feels Close To - Business People 926210 Group R Feels Close To - Young People 926211 Group R Feels Close To - Conservatives 926212 Group R Feels Close To - Hispanic-Americans 926213 Group R Feels Close To - Women 926214 Group R Feels Close To - Working-Class People 926215 Group R Feels Close To - Whites 926216 Group R Feels Close To - Middle-Class People 926217 INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: Mention of Group 926218 Single Group R Feels Closest to 926219 Organization/Activity Representing Interests of Group(1) 926220 Organization/Activity Representing Interests of Group(2) Work Ethic Scales 926221 Work Ethic Scale - Whites 926222 Work Ethic Scale - Blacks 926223 Work Ethic Scale - Asian Americans 926224 Work Ethic Scale - Hispanic Americans Intelligence Scales 926225 Intelligence Scale - Whites 926226 Intelligence Scale - Blacks 926227 Intelligence Scale - Asian Americans 926228 Intelligence Scale - Hispanic Americans Disposition Scales 926229 Disposition Scale - Whites 926230 Disposition Scale - Blacks 926231 Disposition Scale - Asian Americans 926232 Disposition Scale - Hispanic Americans English as Official Language of U.S. 926233 Does R Favor/Oppose Law Making English Official Language of U.S. 926234 How to Teach Children Who Don't Speak English When Entering School 926235 Foreign Immigrants Permitted to U.S. Increase/Decrease Effect of Hispanics on U.S.: 926236 Improve Culture With New Ideas/Customs 926237 Higher Taxes Due to Demand for Services 926238 Jobs Taken Away From People Already Here 926239 Improve Culture With New Ideas/Customs 926240 Higher Taxes Due to Demand for Services 926241 Take Away Jobs From People Already Here 926242 Should Foreign Immigrants Be Immediately Eligible for Gov't. Services PARTY IDENTIFICATION OF R'S PARENTS 926243 Was R's Father/Stepfather Democrat/Republican/ Independent/Other 926244 Was R's Mother/Stepmother Democrat/Republican/ Independent/Other POST INTERVIEW DESCRIPTION VARIABLES 926245 Ending Time of Interview 926246 Sex 926247 Race 926248 Other Persons Present at Interview 926249 Cooperation 926250 General Level of Information About Politics/Public Affairs 926251 Was Interview Conducted Entirely in English 926252 Language in Which Interview Was Conducted Other Than English PROBE INDICATORS: 926301 George Bush 926302 Bill Clinton 926303 Ross Perot 926304 NAME # 11, 13 or 15: Democratic Senate Candidate 926305 Name # 12, 14 or 16: Republican Senate Candidate 926306 Name # 11a: California Democratic Senate Candidate 926307 Name # 14a: California Republican Senate Candidate 926308 Name # 19, 29: Democratic/Republican Senator 926309 Name, Senator #1: Probe Indicator 926310 Name, Senator #2: Probe Indicator 926311 Name #31, 33 or 35: Democratic House Candidate 926312 Name #32, 34 or 36: Republican House Candidate 926313 Name #41, 42: Democratic/Republican Rep. Retiring 926314 Name #30: 3rd Party/Independent House Candidate 926315 James Stockdale 927000 Time Series Weight Variable 927001 Incumbent Candidate R's Representative in Last Congress ERRATA IN DATA - 1992 Congressional Districts Late in 1994 it became apparent that in some cases of the 1992 NES Study an incorrect congressional district number had been assigned. These errors affect all questions related to House race which are administered according to assigned-CD candidate names. Below is a listing of affected 1992 (pre) case IDs with correct congressional districts, however no data have been changed in the 1992 data as a result. Data users can delete these cases from affected vars if desired. NES plans in 1995 to produce a technical report examining the 1992 incidence of CD misassignment and its possible effects on 1992 NES data. 92 PRE OLD CORRECT CORRECT ID ST/CD ST/CD TYPERACE 0001 3405 3406 12 0006 4404 4406 21 0007 4404 4406 21 0008 3405 3404 12 0056 2103 2101 12 0059 2103 2101 12 0071 3405 3404/3406 12/12 0124 1205 1209 12 0137 3306 3305 12 0167 3306 3305 12 0180 3306 3305 12 0188 4707 4708 12 0211 2103 2101 12 0212 4404 4406 21 0233 1319 1317 12 0249 2310 2312 12 0304 7144 7148 21 0332 2310 2312 12 0345 4707 4708 12 0355 1319 1317 12 0376 3405 3404/3406 12/12 0381 1319 1317 12 0383 7144 7148 21 0428 4707 4708 12 0441 1302 1301 12 0442 1302 1301 12 0452 3405 3404 12 0508 3405 3404 12 0524 4404 4406 21 0587 4707 4708 12 0703 3405 3404 12 0709 3306 3305 12 0710 3306 3305 12 0746 1205 1209 12 0753 7144 7148 21 0757 7144 7148 21 0770 1205 1209 12 0781 4707 4708 12 0808 7144 7148 21 0828 2310 2312 12 0865 3405 3404 12 0866 1319 1317 12 0867 1319 1317 12 0879 3306 3305 12 0932 2310 2312 12 0938 7144 7148 21 0943 2103 2101 12 0945 4404 4406 21 0986 1205 1209 12 0992 1205 1209 12 1007 1319 1317 12 1013 1319 1317 12 1045 4707 4708 12 1058 7144 7148 21 1059 7144 7148 21 1065 1302 1301 12 1068 1302 1301 12 1085 7144 7148 21 1087 7144 7148 21 1092 7144 7148 21 1096 3306 3305 12 1119 7144 7148 21 1122 7144 7148 21 1123 7144 7148 21 1124 7144 7148 21 1125 7144 7148 21 2322 4707 4708 12 2358 4707 4708 12 2468 4707 4708 12 2496 4707 4708 12 2595 4707 4708 12