Empanelled cases were augmented in 1958 and 1960 with respondents selected in houses from which panel respondents had moved. Maximum of 5 interviews with each respondent; complete panels 1956-1958, 1958-1960, 1956-1958-1960.

Stability of partisanship and issue attitudes.

STUDY CONTENT HIGHLIGHTS:
The pre-election survey for the 1956 study contained questions determining attitudes toward political parties, candidates, and various specific issues, as well as personal data and some political history. The post-election interview concentrated on the actual vote and reasons for the vote, obtained further personal data, and in addition asked non-political attitudinal questions of a subsample numbering 579.

The interview schedules of the 1958 study contained both closed and open-ended questions ascertaining a wide range of information. The study measured political attitudes in general as well as more specific attitudes and behaviors pertinent to the 1958 congressional election. The survey obtained data on the respondent's actual vote and the reasons for the vote, including attitudes toward political parties and candidates, as well as the respondent's political history. It also obtained data on specific and foreign policy issues such as government involvement in housing and public utilities, and United States aid to anti-Communist nations. The study also ascertained the financial situation of the family unit and other demographic information.

The pre-election interview of the 1960 study, contained questions ascertaining information about the long-term influences upon electoral choice and about the election-specific short-term forces that were in operation in 1960. The long-term influences explored in the pre-election interview included a number of factors important in political socialization, such as the respondent's education, occupation, financial situation, life cycle status, geographic and social mobility, and military service. The direction and intensity of the respondent's party identification and the reasons for any past changes in this identification were also the subject of questions designed to tap these long-term influences on behavior.

In order to determine the nature of the short-term forces which might influence voting behavior, respondents in the pre-election interview were asked their opinions on political issues which were important in 1960, such as civil rights, domestic spending for social services, and foreign aid. Questions about agricultural matters and labor concerns were asked of farmers and labor union members, respectively. The respondent's perceptions and evaluations of the presidential and vice-presidential candidates and the two major parties were obtained. In addition, questions designed to reveal changes in the respondent's attitudes toward the candidates and parties were included.

In 1960, the survey instrument contained a series of questions used to measure the respondent's sense of political efficacy and citizen duty. Also included was a series of items designed to measure the extent to which the respondent would trust certain groups to endorse an acceptable candidate for office. Finally, the pre-election interview asked the respondent to predict the 1960 presidential election outcome, to predict their likelihood of voting, to identify the candidate for whom they would vote, and to give the reason for that electoral preference.

In the post-election interview the emphasis was placed upon ascertaining behavior with respect to the election and the reasons for that behavior. The respondent's interest in the election and exposure to media were explored. In particular, respondents were asked questions about their participation in political activities, and about their reactions to the televised Kennedy-Nixon debates. In order to assess the effect of Kennedy's religion on electoral choice, a series of questions were included, in addition to questions which directly asked the respondent about religion as a factor in the 1960 election. Finally, the post-election questionnaire included a series of questions designed to measure the respondent's sense of personal competence.

STUDY DESIGN HIGHLIGHTS:
As a presidential election-year survey, the 1956 study included both pre-election and post-election interviews. The 1958 study respondents were interviewed only once, after the election. In the 1960 study, one pre-election interview and one post-election interview were conducted with each respondent, with the exception of 125 respondents who were given only the pre-election interview, and 22 respondents who were given only the post-election interview. Respondents who were given only one interview have been coded "NA" or "INAP" in those variables for which no data were available.