Search

We report on the results of a survey we conducted on the Japanese public's attitudes toward astronomy. This survey was conducted via an online questionnaire, with 2000 responses received. Based on these data, we present what kind of interest the general public in Japan has in astronomy. We also conducted a questionnaire survey of those involved in communicating astronomy to the public, in order to examine how they differ from the general public. The results suggest that while there are clear differences between these groups in terms of their engagement in astronomy, there is also continuity between them when looking at their attributes in more detail. The data presented in this paper could help us to promote the communication of astronomy to the public. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

When and how can researchers synthesize survey data with analyses of social media content to study public opinion, and when and how can social media data complement surveys to better inform researchers and policymakers? This paper explores how public opinions might differ between survey and social media platforms in terms of content and audience, focusing on the test case of opinions about autonomous vehicles. The paper first extends previous overviews comparing surveys and social media as measurement tools to include a broader range of survey types, including surveys that result from public deliberation, considering the dialogic characteristics of different social media, and the range of issue publics and marginalized voices that different surveys and social media forums can attract. It then compares findings and implications from analyses of public opinion about autonomous vehicles from traditional surveys, results of public deliberation, and analyses of Reddit posts, applying a newly developed computational text analysis tool. Findings demonstrate that social media analyses can both help researchers learn more about issues that are uncovered by surveys and also uncover opinions from subpopulations with specialized knowledge and unique orientations toward a subject. In light of these findings, we point to future directions on how researchers and policymakers can synthesize survey and social media data, and the corresponding data integration techniques, to study public opinion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The issue of public support for a democratic form of government in countries undergoing a political transition is approached from two perspectives. On a substantive level, in countries that have experienced dramatically different forms of government in a relatively short period of time, the meaning of democracy for the mass public may be subject to considerable variation across individuals. Related to the rationale underlying citizen views of democracy as a form of government is the methodological issue of the impact that different alternatives to democracy have on levels of support for democracy as measured through standard `best form of government' survey items. Capitalizing on a variation in response choices for two identical `best form of government' questions included in a 1994 survey of the Nicaraguan mass public, this paper explores the consequences of pitting `democracy' against abstract and `name-brand' alternatives. The paper finds that the methodological choice of which alternatives to use alongside the democracy option has a substantial effect on what citizens view as their `preferred form of government'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Most research examining partisan media effects uses individual differences in exposure to news sources to predict attitude change. In this paper, we improve upon this approach by using variations in cable news coverage to predict subsequent changes in viewer impressions of the candidates. This approach allows us to examine the distinct effects of in-party and out-party candidate coverage. Content analyses and survey data show that partisan media effects result from coverage of the opposition candidate, and not from coverage of the like-minded candidate. Specifically, during the 2008 presidential election, increased coverage of Obama (McCain) on Fox News (MSNBC) made viewers less favorable toward Obama (McCain). Meanwhile, coverage of McCain (Obama) on Fox News (MSNBC) had minimal effects on viewer impressions. These results suggest that media effects persist even during an era dominated by selective exposure. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Who do citizens blame for the recent European economic crisis? In this paper, we test theories about blame attribution with respect to the economic crisis. We argue that blame for the crisis is partially conditioned by partisan bias and framings of the crisis as being related to globalization. We test the argument with new survey data and a survey experiment from Spain. In the experiment, respondents receive different framings of the economic crisis which are endorsed by different political parties and non-partisan organizations. We obtain the following findings: (i) blame for who is responsible for the economic crisis is greatly affected by partisanship; (ii) making globalization as a cause of the crisis salient exonerates the government of blame, but only for co-partisans of the government; and (iii) citizens are willing to blame other globalization-related factors for the crisis, in particular, European governments and blame the domestic government less. The results expand our understanding of public opinion dynamics during major economic recessions and also suggest conditions under which 'scapegoating' globalization can occur. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

For decades, numerous surveys have asked Americans the “Most Important Problem” (MIP) question: “What do you think is the most important problem facing this country today?” Global warming and the environment have rarely been cited by more than a small number of respondents in these surveys in recent years, which might seem to suggest that these have not been the most important issues to Americans. This paper explores the possibility that an additional method of assessing the public's priorities might support a different conclusion. Three experiments embedded in national surveys (two done via the Internet, the other done by telephone) show that when asked the traditional MIP question, respondents rarely mentioned global warming or the environment, but when other respondents were asked to identify the most serious problem that will face the world in the future if nothing is done to stop it, global warming and the environment were the most frequently mentioned problems. Furthermore, a large majority of Americans indicated that they wanted the federal government to devote substantial effort to combating problems that the world will face in the future if nothing is done to stop them. Thus, future surveys might include both versions of the MIP question to more fully document Americans’ priorities. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Exploring the micromotivations (Williams, 1979, 1988; Aguiar, 1991) or internal reasons (Williams, 1979; Lupia, McCubbins, & Popkin, 2000) that mold public preferences for either democracy or authoritarianism, this paper aims to discuss the types of rationality that lie behind people's choices in survey studies in Latin America. From this perspective, we examine the balance between survey respondents' evaluation of democratic government and their views of the efficacy of democracy to solve their country's problems, and their joint impact on the molding of citizens' preferences for a particular type of government. Results show that satisfaction with how democratic government performs stands out as one of the reasons underlying individuals' preferences for democracy. Also the belief that democracy does not solve the problems significantly determines the people's choice. Conclusions favor the hypothesis that, in the region, a utilitarian rationality prevails over an axiological rationality (Weber, 1922; Boudon, 1996) in the way citizens form preferences for or against democracy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Web surveys are becoming increasingly popular, as reflected in the growing research on web survey methodology (e.g., Couper 2000; Couper, Traugott, and Lamias 2001; Crawford, Couper, and Lamias 2001; Dillman and Bowker 2001; Dillman et al. 1998; Tourangeau, Couper, and Steiger 2001). Despite this spate of recent research, it is still not entirely clear if the techniques used to increase response rates in paper and telephone surveys will directly translate to web surveys. Yet understanding which techniques increase response rates in web surveys is increasingly important. Researchers are faced with decreasing response rates in surveys (Smith 1995; Steeh 1981), as well as increased competition with marketers and spammers on the Internet, for the cooperation of respondents (one recent study predicts that by 2006 e-mail users will receive over 1,400 spam messages per year [Tynan 2002]). Without such knowledge, web surveys may become less useful as a tool for survey research. Previous research on web surveys has focused on such areas as coverage and sampling error, effects of multiple follow-ups, controlling survey access, and survey appearance. Very little research has been conducted on how the process by which members of the sample are contacted affects the probability of response. In our review of the literature, we did not discover any studies examining aspects of the e-mail contact, with the exception of a study by Cook, Heath, and Thompson (2000). The meta-analysis of 68 web surveys by those researchers indicates that personalized contacts have a positive impact on response rates... [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Findings from analyses presented in this paper, using data from a Roper survey, suggest that the role of attitudes toward homosexuals should be at the center of future explorations of the relationship between the media coverage of AIDS and public opinion. While the available data are limited, our analyses raise the possibility that anti-gay attitudes constrain the ability of the media to effectively communicate information about risk factors and how the disease is transmitted. Researchers need to explore the possibility that anti-gay attitudes stand between media information and public knowledge and public opinion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent studies of the U.S. Congress have demonstrated a substantial difference between the level of partisan polarization displayed by legislators’ votes and that shown in citizens’ survey responses about those votes. Perhaps public polarization would increase if citizens were more attentive to political debates in Congress. Using natural variation in citizens’ levels of political information, I show that citizens who are informed about the partisan alignment of issues have a preference distribution similar to that of Congress, even after the sample is reweighted to resemble the entire public in their political, social, and demographic characteristics via matching. In contrast, using a survey experiment, I show that cue and argument treatments only partially reduce the discrepancy between the views expressed by the public and the voting behavior of Congress on the same issues. Both experimental and observational studies have significant limitations for measuring counterfactuals involving public opinion, and so our understanding of the polarization gap remains unfortunately limited. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Much has been learned about why some citizens are tolerant and others are not. However, the subfield has not reached agreement as to how these attitudes ought to be measured, and at least three competing measurement approaches currently exist: (1) the fixed-group approach, championed by the General Social Survey; (2) the “least-liked” group approach, invented by Sullivan, Piereson, and Marcus (1982); and (3) an approach focusing not on groups but on support for restrictive public policies (e.g., Davis 2007). Although a few measurement studies have been published, generally research in this subfield has shown little concern about how different dependent variables overlap (or do not overlap). Measurement issues thus stand as an important impediment to advancing our understanding of the causes and consequences of political intolerance. This article considers the connections between political intolerance and general support for civil liberties. Most generally, I discover that different measures seem to be measuring somewhat different constructs, and that researchers therefore should not assume that different aspects of tolerance and support for civil liberties are interchangeable. These findings have important substantive implications for democratic theory: general support for civil liberties seems to be a policy preference legitimately contested within democratic politics, whereas political intolerance is a form of exceptionalism in which the political freedoms of particular groups and ideologies are targeted. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]