Search

This research note considers how to track long-term trajectories of political discontent in Britain. Many accounts are confined to using either survey data drawn from recent decades or imperfect behavioral measures such as voting or party membership as indicators of political disengagement. We instead develop an approach that provides the long view on political disaffection. We first consider time-series data available from repeated survey measures. We next replicate historic survey questions to observe change in public opinion relative to earlier points in time. Finally, we use Stimson's (1991) dyad-ratios algorithm to construct an over-time index of political discontent that combines data from multiple poll series. This reveals rising levels of political discontent for both specific and diffuse measures of mass opinion. Our method and findings offer insights into the rising tide of disillusionment afflicting many contemporary democracies.

Cross-national data production in social science research has increased dramatically in recent decades. Assessing the comparability of data is necessary before drawing substantive conclusions that are based on cross-national data. Researchers assessing data comparability typically use either quantitative methods such as multigroup confirmatory factor analysis or qualitative methods such as online probing. Because both methods have complementary strengths and weaknesses, this study applies both multigroup confirmatory factor analysis and online probing in a mixed-methods approach to assess the comparability of constructive patriotism and nationalism, two important concepts in the study of national identity. Previous measurement invariance tests failed to achieve scalar measurement invariance, which prohibits a cross-national comparison of latent means (Davidov 2009). The arrival of the 2013 ISSP Module on National Identity has encouraged a reassessment of both constructs and a push to understand why scalar invariance cannot be achieved. Using the example of constructive patriotism and nationalism, this study demonstrates how the combination of multigroup confirmatory factor analysis and online probing can uncover and explain issues related to cross-national comparability.

Democratic responsiveness concerns the degree to which government policies match public preferences. Responsiveness studies typically use national surveys to characterize public opinion, but whether poll questions overlap with the policy agenda is unknown. The first of two empirical analyses presented here, with hundreds of issues on the national agenda in the United States from 1947 to 2000, reveals that public opinion is mostly unrelated to policy outcomes. The picture appears to be even more ominous-that is, opinion and policy are negatively related-on highly salient issues that attract media attention. A second study revisiting published work confirms that responsiveness patterns look different depending upon whether studies of opinion-policy connections (a) begin with survey data and then examine policy developments, or (b) begin with national legislative agenda issues and then examine survey data. Thus, conclusions about democratic responsiveness depend upon the issues that are examined, and often opinion surveys do not include questions about tangible public policy options. In that sense, future changes in democratic responsiveness might go undetected because scholars often lack data on what goes into the denominator of democracy.

This study examines the role of information in shaping public opinion in the context of support for education spending. While there is broad public support for increasing government funding for public schools, Americans tend to underestimate what is currently spent. We embed a series of experiments in a nationally representative survey administered in 2012 ( n = 2,993) to examine whether informing citizens about current levels of education spending alters public opinion about whether funding should increase. Providing information on per-pupil spending in a respondent's local school district reduces the probability that he or she will express support for increasing spending by 22 percentage points on average. Informing respondents about state-average teacher salaries similarly depresses support for salary increases. These effects are larger among respondents who underestimate per-pupil spending and teacher salaries by a greater amount, consistent with the idea that the observed changes in opinion are driven, at least in part, by informational effects, as opposed to priming alone.

Survey institutes recently have changed their measurement of generalized trust from the standard dichotomous scale to an 11-point scale. Additionally, numerous survey institutes use different question wordings: where most rely on the standard, fully balanced question (asking if "most people can be trusted or that you need to be very careful in dealing with people"), some use minimally balanced questions, asking only if it is "possible to trust people." By using two survey-embedded experiments, one with 12,009 self-selected respondents and the other with a probability sample of 2,947 respondents, this study evaluates the generalized trust question in terms of question wording and number of scale points used. Results show that, contrary to the more commonly used standard question format (used, for example, by the American National Election Studies and the General Social Survey), generalized trust is best measured with a minimally balanced question wording accompanied with either a seven- or an 11-point scale.