Version 01 Codebook ------------------- CODEBOOK INTRODUCTION FILE 1985 PILOT STUDY (1985.PN) USER NOTE: This file has been converted to electronic format via OCR scanning. As as result, the user is advised that some errors in character recognition may have resulted within the text. AMERICAN NATIONAL ELECTION STUDIES 1985 PILOT STUDY (NOV. 11, 1985 - JAN. 15, 1986) Center for Political Studies Institute for Social Research The University of Michigan ICPSR ARCHIVE STUDY NUMBER 8476 TABLE OF CONTENTS Note: >>sections in the codebook introduction and codebook appendix can be navigated in the machine-readable files by searching ">>". INTRODUCTORY MATERIALS (file intpil85.cbk) ---------------------- >> DESCRIPTION OF THE 1985 PILOT STUDY >> CODEBOOK INFORMATION CODEBOOK -------- 1985 variables 1984 variables APPENDICES (file apppil85.cbk) ---------- >> 1985 National Election Studies Working Papers Series >> 1985 Benchmark Frequencies >> 1984 FIPS STATE AND COUNTY NOTE >> 1980 CENSUS DEFINITIONS >> 1984 PARTY/CANDIDATE NOTE >> 1984 NEWSPAPER CODE >> 1984 ECONOMIC CONDITIONS CODE >> 1984 COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY NOTE >> 1984 RECODING IN THE EDUCATION AND OCCUPATION SECTIONS >> OCCUPATION CODES, NES 1984 STUDY >> 1980 CENSUS INDUSTRY CODES >> 1984 NATIONALITY NOTE >> 1984 STATE AND COUNTRY NOTE >> 1984 CITIES NOTE >> 1984 CANDIDATE MASTER CODE >> 1984 PARTY DIFFERENCE NOTE >> 1984 IMPORTANT PROBLEMS NOTE >> 1984 LIBERAL/CONSERVATIVE DIMENSIONS >> DESCRIPTION: NATIONAL ELECTION STUDIES PILOT STUDY, 1985 Beginning in November of 1985 and ending in mid-January of 1986, the Center for Political Studies of the Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, conducted a small pilot study designed to test instrumentation for the 1986 and 1988 National Election Studies. Planning for the study was done throughout 1985 by a special Pilot Committee, composed of several members of the Board of Overseers including Stanley Feldman, University of Kentucky, Morris P. Fiorina, Harvard University, Donald R. Kinder, University of Michigan, Warren E. Miller (ex officio), Arizona State University, Steven J. Rosenstone (Chair), Yale University, and David Sears, University of California at Los Angeles. Other persons contributing to the work of the committee included Pam Conover, University of North Carolina, Ada Finifter, Michigan State University, Shanto Iyengar, State University of New York, and John Zaller, Princeton University. A sample of respondents from the American National Election Study, 1984, was selected for the Pilot Study. Telephone interviews were taken in November and December with 429 respondents; 345 of these respondents were reinterviewed in December and January. Each wave of interviewing employed two questionnaire forms administered to half-samples. A brief description of the sampling and field procedures and the codebook layout appears below. Special content areas emphasized in the pilot study are: political knowledge, group membership, identification of elderly (60+), blacks and women with these broader social groupings, attitudes toward racial issues, and opinions on traditional moral values. The study also includes an experiment in which one-half of the respondents were asked about Reagan-Mondale issue placements immediately after their own placements were elicited while the other half of the respondents were asked to place Reagan-Mondale at the end of the interview, after an interval of several minutes. Other Form A and Form B differences include experiments with response alternatives to civic duty items, with question wording on two items relating to affirmative action, and on an item relating to inflation. A. SAMPLING Respondents in the Pilot Study are a sample of persons who gave us both a Pre and a Post Election personal interview in 1984, who had a known telephone number and for whom there was no contraindication for a telephone interview (such as deafness). Sampling was done from a list of eligible respondents stratified by political interest ("follow public affairs"). From this list of 818 respondents, 15 replicates (mini-samples) were drawn. Replicates 1-10 consist of 46 or 47 cases, and represent the cross-section. Replicates 11-15 consist of 12 or 13 cases and are the oversample of elderly. (See below.) Split-half form A and form B assignments were made randomly. The study includes an oversample of the elderly, in order to insure a total of at least 100 respondents over 60. Variable 857004 distinguishes between cross-section respondents and those R's over 60 who are part of the oversample. The cross section (380 R's in Wave I, 306 R's in Wave II) is self-weighting. To analyze the entire set of 429 respondents in Wave I (345 respondents in Wave II) use of the weight variable 857011 is required, since all respondents were not selected with equal probability. NOTE HOWEVER that the weight is age-specific, so that use of the weight to analyse separately the group of 60+ respondents is not necessary. B. FIELD WORK Wave I field work began November 11 and ended December 13. Wave II field work began December 6 and ended January 16th. Although Wave II field work overlapped with Wave I, no Wave II recontact was attempted until at least 3 weeks had elapsed after the Wave I interview. Table I, below, gives study totals. TABLE I: STUDY TOTALS No. of Othr Resp Form Form X- Over Smple Intws Refs Nonints Rate Lngth A B Sect Samp. Wave I 528 429 35 64 .816 28.5 218 211 380 49 Wave II 429 345 18 66 .804 38.5 171 174 306 39 C. ORGANIZATION OF THE DOCUMENTATION/DATASET 1. Inclusion of 1984 Election study data. All respondents to the Pilot Study had been interviewed twice for the 1984 election study. A number of questions on the Pilot Study had also been asked in the 1984 Election Study also, so that it is possible to compare two or even three measurements for the same item. Additionally, variables from the 1984 study may be useful in the analysis of the 1985 data. In order to facilitate these uses of the 1984 Election Study data, we have merged that data into the Pilot Study datafile. In fact, because the 1984 Election Study consisted of two lengthy interviews, the bulk of the Pilot Study codebook actually repeats the 1984 Election Study documentation, with some excisions, namely the questionnaires, notes and introductory materials. Users who wish to refer to these materials should consult the 1984 Election Study documentation itself, in either the study staff or the Consortium releases. 2. Organization of the data record. The study consists of 1533 variables. There are gaps in the variable numbering sequence. The data layout is as follows: 1984 Pre-Post Election Study data V84000l-V840779 Pilot Study Wave I Data V857001-V857553 Pilot Study Wave II Data V858001-V858648 3. Missing data treatment. In a departure from previous NES practice, non-response on Wave II which is due to the fact that the R did not give us a Wave II interview at all is consistently coded as "9. NA," with the "O. INAP" category reserved for contingency patterns within the interview. Even when 9's on a previous question are padded to O's on followups, the 9's due to "No Wave II" stay as 9's on the followups. This is done to make it easier to treat the 'O. INAP" code as a substantive category when appropriate. >> CODEBOOK INFORMATION The following example from the 1948 NES study provides the standard format for codebook variable documentation. Note that NES studies which are not part of the Time-Series usually omit marginals and the descriptive content in lines 2-5 (except for variable name). Line 1 ============================== 2 VAR 480026 NAME-R NOT VT-WAS R REG TO VT 3 COLUMNS 61 - 61 4 NUMERIC 5 MD=0 OR GE 8 6 7 Q. 17. (IF R DID NOT VOTE) WERE YOU REGISTERED (ELIGIBLE) 8 TO VOTE. 9 ........................................................... 10 11 82 1. YES 12 149 2. NO 13 14 0 8. DK 15 9 9. NA 16 422 0. INAP., R VOTED Line 2 - VARIABLE NAME. Note that in the codebook the variable name (usually a 'number') does not include the "V" prefix which is used in the release SAS and SPSS data definition files (.sas and .sps files) for all variables including those which do not have 'number' names. For example the variable "VERSION" in the codebook is "VVERSION" in the data definition files. Line 2 - "NAME". This is the variable label used in the SAS and SPSS data definition files (.sas and .sps files). Some codebooks exclude this. Line 3 - COLUMNS. Columns in the ASCII data file (.dat file). Line 4 - CHARACTER OR NUMERIC. If numeric and the variable is a decimal rather than integer variable, the numer of decimal places is also indicated (e.g. "NUMERIC DEC 4") Line 5 - Values which are assigned to missing by default in the Study's SAS and and SPSS data definition files (.sas and .sps files). Line 7 - Actual question text for survey variables or a description of non-survey variables (for example, congressional district). Survey items usually include the question number (for example "B1a.") from the Study questionnaire; beginning in 1996 non-survey items also have unique item numbers (for example "CSheet.1"). Line 9 - A dashed or dotted line usually separates question text from any other documentation which follows. Line 10- When present, annotation provided by Study staff is presented below the question text/description and preceding code values. Lines 11-16 Code values are listed with descriptive labels. Valid codes (those not having 'missing' status in line 5) are presented first, followed by the values described in line 5. For continuous variables, one line may appear providing the range of possible values. A blank line usually separates the 'valid' and 'missing' values. Lines 11-16 Marginals are usually provided for discrete variables. The counts may be unweighted or weighted; check the Study codebook introductory text to determine weight usage.