Search

Many social identities (e.g., race, ethnicity) are measured using mark-all-that-apply (MATA) questions because they allow survey respondents to account for the multiple, nonexclusive ways in which they identify themselves. We test the use of MATA measures of sexual orientation and gender identity and compare them with forced choice (FC), an alternative format using a series of yes-or-no questions. Respondents, including an oversample of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer (LGBQ) individuals, participated in a 2 × 3 factorial survey experiment. For the first factor, we hypothesize that respondents randomly assigned to FC will report a higher count of identities than those assigned to MATA. For the second factor, we hypothesize that increased topic salience will help LGBQ respondents in particular to overcome poor question design. Findings suggest that MATA and FC measure comparably when question writing best practices are followed, but topic salience can yield higher data quality when poorly formatted questions are used.

This article examines empirically ideas initially proposed in speculative work by Ervin and Stryker dealing with what could be understood about human social behavior and interaction by bringing together self-esteem and identity theories. Necessary to that task is distinguishing between two key and often conflated concepts of identity theory, salience and prominence. We argue that role-specific self-efficacy, embedded in self-esteem theory, is a precedent and a product of the identity theory model and global self-efficacy is a link from role-identities to the self-concept through the impact of global self-efficacy on prominence. Findings support a hypothesized feedback loop from role-specific self-efficacy to prominence to salience and back to role-specific self-efficacy.

This chapter ties together the preceding chapters, organizing them in terms of shared methodological topics—item and unit nonresponse, measurement and socially desirable responding, and interaction and interactional problems in the survey interview—and highlighting potential areas of future research. A common thread connecting the preceding chapters, inequality and its effect on each of the methodological topics, is traced and discussed. Feelings of powerlessness, marginalization, and stigmatization emerge as important potential causes of item nonresponse, measurement error, and other types of survey errors. As inequality is a primary focus of sociological theory and research, the need for sociological understandings in survey methodology is emphasized. Extensions and additional theories and perspectives that may be fruitfully applied to survey methodological problems are also discussed.

The nature of religious change and the future of religion have been central questions of social science since its inception. But empirical research on this question has been quite American-centric, encouraged by the conventional wisdom that the United States is an outlier of religiosity in the developed world, and, more pragmatically, by the availability of survey data. The dramatic growth in the number and reach of cross-national surveys over the past two decades has offered a corrective. These data have allowed research on religious trends in the United States, Canada, and Europe, putting American trends into comparative relief. This research synthesis reviews the past quarter century of cross-national comparative survey research on religious behavior, focusing on religious service attendance as a commonly measured behavior that is arguably more equivalent across societies and cultures than other measures of religiosity. The lack of evidence for religious revival is highlighted, noting instead declining rates of attendance in the United States and Canada, and either declining rates or low "bottomed-out" stability in Western Europe, most of Eastern Europe, and Australia and New Zealand. Finally, countries in Latin America, Africa, and Asia are discussed to the extent that research allows, before a call for future research-in these places in particular-is made in order to correct for the Western and Christian focus of much of the research on cross-national religious trends.

Survey findings suggest that predominantly Muslim countries are among the most religious in the world and validate commonly held, but overly simplistic, perceptions of Muslims as extremely and uniformly religious. Existing research has demonstrated that survey estimates can give a distorted view of the reality of levels of religious practice; however, it has thus far focused exclusively on traditionally Christian, advanced Western democracies. To address this oversight, the veracity of self-reported religious practice in the Muslim world is tested using Pakistan, the Palestinian territories, and Turkey as cases for study. Comparing estimates of prayer from conventional surveys with those from time diaries, marginal rates of overreporting are estimated for each country by sex. The time-use measure of prayer is then imputed for the conventional survey data set to estimate overreporting at the respondent level and to predict overreporting using a measure of religious identity importance. Findings suggest that overreporting of prayer occurs in each country considered, although more consistently for women than for men. Moreover, religious identity importance is strongly correlated with overreporting of prayer, suggesting that a similar mechanism may promote the measurement error for overreported prayer in the Muslim world and overreported church attendance in the West.

This paper proposes an explanation of the overreporting of voting participation based in Stryker's identity theory (1980) , integrating the social pressure approach of Bernstein, Chadha, and Montjoy (2001) . A set of logistic regression models is estimated to predict the propensity to overreport using indicators of extensive and intensive commitments to a political identity. Models are tested using vote verification data from five years of the American National Election Studies (1978, 1980, 1984, 1988, and 1990). Identity commitments are strongly predictive of overreporting and conventional understandings of social desirability fail to predict overreporting. Findings suggest that a conceptualization of self-reported voting as a measure of identity may provide a better explanation for why respondents overreport their voting in terms of extensive and intensive commitments to a political identity.