Originally published in Contemporary Psychology: APA Review of Books, 1994, Vol 39(2), 225. Reviews the book, The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion by John Zaller (1992). The author's commendable effort to specify a model of mass opinion formation offers readers an introduction to the prevailing vi

The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion.

At a time when lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals—often referred to under the umbrella acronym LGBT—are becoming more visible in society and more socially acknowledged, clinicians and researchers are faced with incomplete information about their health status. While LGBT populations often are combined as a single entity for research and advocacy purposes, each is a distinct population group with its own specific health needs. Furthermore, the experiences of LGBT individuals are not uniform and are shaped by factors of race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, geographical location, and age, any of which can have an effect on health-related concerns and needs. While some research about the health of LGBT populations has been conducted, researchers still have a great deal to learn. To help assess the state of the science, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) asked the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to assess current knowledge of the health status of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender populations; to identify research gaps and opportunities; and to outline a research agenda to help NIH focus its research in this area. A committee of experts was convened by the IOM to consider this task, and its findings are presented in its report, The Health of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender People: Building a Foundation for Better Understanding.

The Health of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender People: Building a Foundation for Better Understanding

An extensive literature addresses citizen ignorance, but very little research focuses on misperceptions. Can these false or unsubstantiated beliefs about politics be corrected? Previous studies have not tested the efficacy of corrections in a realistic format. We conducted four experiments in which subjects read mock news articles that included either a misleading claim from a politician, or a misleading claim and a correction. Results indicate that corrections frequently fail to reduce misperceptions among the targeted ideological group. We also document several instances of a “backfire effect” in which corrections actually increase misperceptions among the group in question.

/pdf/when-corrections-fail-the-persistence-of-political-gwsn4g73q2.pdf

When Corrections Fail: The Persistence of Political Misperceptions

Many surveys of the U.S. household population are experiencing higher refusal rates. Nonresponse can, but need not, induce nonresponse bias in survey estimates. Recent empirical findings illustrate cases when the linkage between nonresponse rates and nonresponse biases is absent. Despite this, professional standards continue to urge high response rates. Statistical expressions of nonresponse bias can be translated into causal models to guide hypotheses about when nonresponse. causes bias. Alternative designs to measure nonresponse bias exist, providing different but incomplete information about the nature of the bias. A synthesis of research studies estimating nonresponse bias shows the bias often present. A logical question at this moment in history is what advantage probability sample surveys have if they suffer from high nonresponse rates. Since postsurvey adjustment for nonresponse requires auxiliary variables, the answer depends on the nature of the design and the quality of the auxiliary variables.

Nonresponse Rates and Nonresponse Bias in Household Surveys

This study examines if Facebook, one of the most popular social network sites among college students in the U.S., is related to attitudes and behaviors that enhance individuals' social capital. Using data from a random web survey of college students across Texas (n = 2,603), we find positive relationships between intensity of Facebook use and students' life satisfaction, social trust, civic engagement, and political participation. While these findings should ease the concerns of those who fear that Facebook has mostly negative effects on young adults, the positive and significant associations between Facebook variables and social capital were small, suggesting that online social networks are not the most effective solution for youth disengagement from civic duty and democracy.

/pdf/is-there-social-capital-in-a-social-network-site-facebook-11f1qusu65.pdf

Is There Social Capital in a Social Network Site?: Facebook Use and College Students' Life Satisfaction, Trust, and Participation

This book is the most comprehensive analysis ever written about the American public's factual knowledge of politics. Drawing on extensive survey data, including much that is original, two experts in public opinion and political behavior find that many citizens are remarkably well informed about the details of politics, while equally large numbers are nearly ignorant of political facts. And despite dramatic changes in American society and politics, citizens appear no more or less informed today than half a century ago. Michael X. Delli Carpini and Scott Keeter demonstrate that informed persons are more likely to participate, better able to discern their own interests, and more likely to advocate those interests through political actions. Who, then, is politically informed? The authors provide compelling evidence that whites, men, and older, financially secure citizens have substantially more knowledge about national politics than do blacks, women, young adults, and financially less-well-off citizens. Thus citizens who are most disadvantaged socially and economically are least able to redress their grievances politically. Yet the authors believe that a broader and more equitably informed populace is possible. The challenge to America, they conclude, lies in providing an environment in which the benefits of being informed are clearer, the tools for gaining information more accessible, and the opportunities to learn about politics more frequent, timely, and equitable.

What Americans Know about Politics and Why It Matters

Critics of public opinion polls often claim that methodological shortcuts taken to collect timely data produce biased results This study compares two random digit dial national telephone surveys that used identical questionnaires but very different levels of effort: a "Standard" survey conducted over a 5-day period that used a sample of adults who were home when the interviewer called, and a "Rigorous" survey conducted over an 8-week period that used random selection from among all adult household members Response rates, computed according to AAPOR guidelines, were 606 percent for the Rigorous and 360 percent for the Standard study Nonetheless, the two surveys produced similar results Across 91 comparisons, no difference exceeded 9 percentage points, and the average difference was about 2 percentage points Most of the statistically significant differences were among demographic items Very few significant differences were found on attention to media and engagement in politics, social trust and connectedness, and most social and political attitudes, including even those toward surveys

Consequences of Reducing Nonresponse in a National Telephone Survey

Declining contact and cooperation rates in random digit dial (RDD) national telephone surveys raise serious concerns about the validity of estimates drawn from such research. While research in the 1990s indicated that nonresponse bias was relatively small, response rates have continued to fall since then. The current study replicates a 1997 methodological experiment that compared results from a "Standard" 5-day survey employing the Pew Research Center's usual methodology with results from a "Rigorous" survey conducted over a much longer field period and achieving a significantly higher response rate. As with the 1997 study, there is little to suggest that unit nonre- sponse within the range of response rates obtained seriously threatens the quality of survey estimates. In 77 out of 84 comparable items, the two surveys yielded results that were statistically indistinguishable. While the "Rigorous" study respondents tended to be somewhat less politically engaged, they did not report consistently different behaviors or attitudes on other kinds of questions. With respect to sample composition, the Standard survey was closely aligned with estimates from the U.S. Census and other large government surveys on most vari- ables. We extend our analysis of nonresponse to include comparisons with the hardest-to-reach respondents and with respondents who termi- nated the interview prior to completion. SCOTT KEETER is with the Pew Research Center. COURTNEY KENNEDY is with the Pew Research Center and the Joint Program in Survey Methodology. MICHAEL DIMOCK is with the Pew Research Center. JONATHAN BEST is with Princeton Survey Research Associates International. PEYTON CRAIGHILL is with ABC News. Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center, originated this research project in 1997 and directed the replication study in 2003. The project has benefited from the contributions of numerous Pew staff members, including Carroll Doherty, Elizabeth Mueller Gross, Nilanthi Samaranayake, Nicole Speulda, Jason Owens, and Kate DeLuca. Several other people provided valuable advice in the design of the study. An advisory committee chaired by

Gauging the Impact of Growing Nonresponse on Estimates from a National RDD Telephone Survey

A New Engagement

Foreword/Acknowledgements Acknowledgements 1. Introduction 2. Coming of Age in a Post Boomer World 3. Engagement in Public Life 4. Through the Looking Glass 5. Generational Pathways to Participation 6. Where do Young People Stand Politically? 7. Civic Engagement, Political Engagement and Generational Change Appendix Notes Bibliography Index

A New Engagement?: Political Participation, Civic Life, and the Changing American Citizen

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Scott Keeter

Author Tools

Chat about Author