Version 01 Codebook ------------------- CODEBOOK INTRODUCTION FILE 1988 PRE-POST STUDY (1988.TV) AMERICAN NATIONAL ELECTION STUDIES 1988 PRE-POST STUDY PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR WARREN E. MILLER AND THE NATIONAL ELECTION STUDIES CENTER FOR POLITICAL STUDIES UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN NES ARCHIVE NUMBER 9196 BIBLIOGRAPHIC CITATION, ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF ASSISTANCE AND DATA DISCLAIMER ALL MANUSCRIPTS UTILIZING DATA MADE AVAILABLE THROUGH THE CONSORTIUM SHOULD ACKNOWLEDGE THAT FACT AS WELL AS IDENTIFY THE ORIGINAL COLLECTOR OF THE DATA. IN ORDER TO GET SUCH SOURCE ACKNOWLEDGMENT LISTED IN SOCIAL SCIENCE BIBLIOGRAPHIC UTILITIES, IT IS NECESSARY TO PRESENT THEM IN THE FORM OF A FOOTNOTE OR A REFERENCE. THE BIBLIOGRAPHIC CITATION FOR THIS DATA COLLECTION IS: MILLER, WARREN E., AND THE NATIONAL ELECTION STUDIES. AMERICAN NATIONAL ELECTION STUDY, 1988: PRE- AND POST-ELECTION SURVEY COMPUTER FILE. ANN ARBOR, MI: CENTER FOR POLITICAL STUDIES, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, 1989 ORIGINAL PRODUCER. ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN: INTER-UNIVERSITY CONSORTIUM FOR POLITICAL AND SOCIAL RESEARCH, 1989 PRODUCER AND DISTRIBUTOR. THE ICPSR COUNCIL URGES ALL USERS OF THE ICPSR DATA FACILITIES TO FOLLOW SOME ADAPTATION OF THIS STATEMENT WITH THE PARENTHESES INDICATING ITEMS TO BE FILLED IN APPROPRIATELY OR DELETED BY THE INDIVIDUAL USER. THE DATA (AND TABULATIONS) UTILIZED IN THIS (PUBLICATION) WERE MADE AVAILABLE (IN PART) BY THE INTER-UNIVERSITY CONSORTIUM FOR POLITICAL AND SOCIAL RESEARCH. THE DATA FOR AMERICAN NATIONAL ELECTION STUDY, 1988: PRE- AND POST-ELECTION SURVEY WERE ORIGINALLY COLLECTED BY WARREN E. MILLER AND THE NATIONAL ELECTION STUDIES. NEITHER THE COLLECTOR OF THE ORIGINAL DATA NOR THE CONSORTIUM BEARS ANY RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ANALYSES OR INTERPRETATIONS PRESENTED HERE. IN ORDER TO PROVIDE FUNDING AGENCIES WITH ESSENTIAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE USE OF ARCHIVAL RESOURCES AND TO FACILITATE THE EXCHANGE OF INFORMATION ABOUT ICPSR PARTICIPANTS' RESEARCH ACTIVITIES, EACH USER OF THE ICPSR DATA FACILITIES IS EXPECTED TO SEND TWO COPIES OF EACH COMPLETED MANUSCRIPT OR THESIS ABSTRACT TO THE CONSORTIUM. PLEASE INDICATE IN THE COVER LETTER WHICH DATA WERE USED. TABLE OF CONTENTS Note: >> sections in the codebook introduction and codebook appendix can be navigated in the machine-readable files by searching ">>". INTRODUCTIORY MATERIALS (file int1988.cbk) ----------------------- >> 1988 STUDY DESCRIPTION INTRODUCTION >> 1988 SURVEY CONTENT AND ADMINISTRATION >> 1988 SAMPLING INFORMATION >> 1988 VOTE VALIDATION STUDY >> 1988 ELECTION ADMINISTRATION SURVEY >> 1988 STAFF AND TECHNICAL PAPERS >> 1987 NES PILOT STUDY REPORTS >> DESCRIPTION OF REVALIDATION OF 1988 VOTE (1991) >> 1988 CODEBOOK INFORMATION >> 1988 ICPSR PROCESSING INFORMATION >> 1988 VARIABLE DESCRIPTION LIST CODEBOOK -------- 1988 variables APPENDICES (file app1988.cbk) ---------- >> 1980 CENSUS DEFINITIONS >> 1988 PARTY/CANDIDATE MASTER CODE >> 1988 CANDIDATE NUMBER MASTER CODE >> 1988 IMPORTANT PROBLEMS CODE >> 1988 OCCUPATION RECODES >> 1980 CENSUS OCCUPATION CODE >> 1980 CENSUS INDUSTRY CODE >> 1988 ICPSR NATIONALITY AND ETHNIC CODE >> 1988 ICPSR STATE AND COUNTRY CODE >> CITIES WITH POPULATION OF 25,000 OR MORE, 1988 Study >> 1998 STATE PRIMARY BALLOT CARDS >> 1988 CAMPAIGN ISSUES MASTER CODE >> 1988 PARTY DIFFERENCES CODE >> 1988 LIBERAL/CONSERVATIVE MASTER CODE >> 1988 STUDY DESCRIPTION INTRODUCTION THE NES/CPS AMERICAN NATIONAL ELECTION STUDY 1988 WAS CONDUCTED BY THE CENTER FOR POLITICAL STUDIES OF THE INSTITUTE FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH, UNDER THE GENERAL DIRECTION OF WARREN E. MILLER. SANTA TRAUGOTT IS THE DIRECTOR OF STUDIES. HEATHER HEWITT MANAGED THE STUDY FOR THE SURVEY RESEARCH CENTER'S FIELD OFFICE. GIOVANNA MORCHIO OF THE NES PROJECT STAFF PREPARED THE DATA FOR RELEASE. THIS IS THE TWENTIETH IN A SERIES OF STUDIES OF AMERICAN NATIONAL ELECTIONS PRODUCED BY THE POLITICAL BEHAVIOR PROGRAM OF THE SURVEY RESEARCH CENTER AND THE CENTER FOR POLITICAL STUDIES, AND IT IS THE SIXTH SUCH STUDY TO BE CONDUCTED UNDER THE AUSPICES OF NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION GRANTS (SOC77-08885 AND SES-8341310) PROVIDING LONG-TERM SUPPORT FOR THE NATIONAL ELECTION STUDIES. SINCE 1978 THE NES ELECTION STUDIES HAVE BEEN DESIGNED BY A NATIONAL BOARD OF OVERSEERS, THE MEMBERS OF WHICH MEET SEVERAL TIMES A YEAR TO PLAN CONTENT AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE MAJOR STUDY COMPONENTS. BOARD MEMBERS DURING THE PLANNING OF THE 1988 NATIONAL ELECTION STUDY INCLUDED: MORRIS P. FIORINA, HARVARD UNIVERSITY, CHAIR; RICHARD A. BRODY, STANFORD UNIVERSITY; STANLEY FELDMAN, UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY; EDIE N. GOLDENBERG, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN; GARY C. JACOBSON, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO; STANLEY KELLEY, JR., PRINCETON UNIVERSITY; DONALD R. KINDER, THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN; THOMAS MANN, THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION; DOUGLAS RIVERS, THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT LOS ANGELES; RAY WOLFINGER, THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT BERKELEY; WARREN E. MILLER, ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY, EX OFFICIO; AND STEVEN J. ROSENSTONE, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, EX OFFICIO. AS PART OF THE PLANNING PROCESS, A SPECIAL PLANNING COMMITTEE WAS APPOINTED, A PILOT STUDY CONDUCTED, AND STIMULUS LETTERS SENT TO THE MEMBERS OF THE SCHOLARLY COMMUNITY SOLICITING INPUT ON STUDY PLANS. THE 1988 STUDY PLANNING COMMITTEE INCLUDED SEVERAL BOARD MEMBERS (KINDER, CO-CHAIR; KELLEY; MILLER, EX OFFICIO; AND ROSENSTONE, EX-OFFICIO AND CO-CHAIR) AND TWO OTHER SCHOLARS (KATHLEEN KNIGHT, UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON, AND JOHN ZALLER, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES. THE PLANNING COMMITTEE BEGAN MEETING IN FEBRUARY OF 1987. A TWO-WAVE PILOT STUDY WAS CARRIED OUT IN MAY AND JUNE OF 1987 FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEVELOPING NEW INSTRUMENTATION FOR THE 1988 ELECTION STUDY. THE PILOT STUDY RESPONDENTS WERE A SUBSAMPLE OF 1986 ELECTION STUDY RESPONDENTS, AND THE 1986 DATA FOR THESE RESPONDENTS IS PART OF THE RELEASED DATASET. NEW ITEMS WERE TESTED IN THE AREA OF MORALITY, FOREIGN POLICY ATTITUDES, SYSTEM SUPPORT AND POLITICAL EFFICACY. A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THE STUDY WAS DEVOTED TO EXPERIMENTS DESIGNED TO FURTHER UNDERSTANDING OF THE SURVEY RESPONSE. DATA FROM THE PILOT STUDY ARE AVAILABLE THROUGH THE INTER-UNIVERSITY CONSORTIUM FOR POLITICAL AND SOCIAL RESEARCH (ICPSR 8713). RESULTS FROM THE PILOT STUDY WERE USED BY THE PLANNING COMMITTEE IN FORMULATING RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE BOARD ABOUT STUDY CONTENT FOR THE 1988 ELECTION STUDY. THE 1988 NATIONAL ELECTION STUDY HAD TWO OTHER MAJOR COMPONENTS. THIS DOCUMENT DESCRIBES THE TRADITIONAL PRE- AND POST-PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION SURVEY PANEL. THE OTHER MAJOR COMPONENTS WERE: A STUDY OF THE PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATING PROCESS, FOCUSED ON THE MARCH 8 (SUPER-TUESDAY) PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY ELECTION; AND A STUDY OF SENATE ELECTIONS, CONDUCTED SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH THE POST-ELECTION SURVEY. THE SENATE ELECTIONS STUDY WAS CONDUCTED BY TELEPHONE. THE SUPER-TUESDAY STUDY IS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE THROUGH THE ICPSR (9093); THE SENATE STUDY IS AVAILABLE AS ICPSR 9219. >> 1988 SURVEY CONTENT AND ADMINISTRATION SURVEY CONTENT. THE BOARD OF OVERSEERS BALANCED A NUMBER OF CONSIDERATIONS IN SELECTING CONTENT FOR THE PRE- AND POST-PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION SURVEY PANEL. THERE WAS, AS ALWAYS, THE NECESSITY OF MAINTAINING CONTINUITY WITH PAST SURVEYS, SO THAT MEASURES THAT HAVE REACHED THE TIME-SERIES OR "CORE" STATUS COULD BE MAINTAINED. ALL "CORE" ITEMS WERE EVALUATED BY THE BOARD, AND INPUT WAS SOLICITED FROM THE USER COMMUNITY ABOUT WHETHER EACH SHOULD BE RETAINED. THE CORE ITEMS FOR THE PRE-ELECTION STUDY INCLUDE: CAMPAIGN ATTENTION; LIKES AND DISLIKES OF THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES; MEDIA ATTENTIVENESS; REAGAN APPROVAL; FEELING THERMOMETER RATINGS OF CANDIDATES AND PARTIES; RETROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC EVALUATIONS (NATIONAL AND INDIVIDUAL); TRAITS AND AFFECTS FOR BUSH, DUKAKIS AND JACKSON; LIBERAL-CONSERVATIVE SCALE (WITH PROXIMITIES); PARTY IDENTIFICATION, 7-POINT ISSUE SCALES WITH PLACEMENTS; FEDERAL BUDGET PREFERENCES; VIEWS ON ABORTION; VOTE INTENTION; AND THE STANDARD AND EXTENSIVE BATTERY OF DEMOGRAPHIC QUESTIONS. POST-ELECTION STUDY CORE ITEMS ARE: CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE LIKES AND DISLIKES; THERMOMETER RATINGS OF CANDIDATES AND GROUPS; RECALL; CONTACT WITH CONGRESSPERSON OR CANDIDATE; VOTE; MOST IMPORTANT PROBLEM; CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES; SYSTEM SUPPORT AND EFFICACY ITEMS; QUESTIONS ABOUT RACIAL ATTITUDES; BATTERIES OF LIKERT TYPE (AGREE-DISAGREE) MEASURES OF VALUES AND PREDISPOSITIONS; AND A GROUP CLOSENESS QUESTION. A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS ARE NEW OR RELATIVELY NEW TO THE PRE- AND POST-ELECTION SURVEYS. SOME CAME FROM THE PILOTING WORK DESCRIBED ABOVE, OTHERS WERE REINSTATED AT THE URGING OF THE NES SCHOLARLY COMMUNITY, AND OTHERS WERE DESIGNED TO REFLECT TOPICAL CONCERNS OF THE CAMPAIGN. ITEMS IN THIS NEW CONTENT CATEGORY IN THE PRE-ELECTION STUDY ARE: EVALUATIONS OF THE PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARY CANDIDATES; THE RESPONDENT'S PRIMARY VOTE; HOW SERIOUSLY THE RESPONDENT EVALUATES THE BUDGET DEFICIT AND WHETHER H/SHE WOULD PAY MORE IN TAXES; A SEVEN-POINT SCALE ON HEALTH INSURANCE; FOREIGN POLICY ATTITUDE ITEMS; A REINSTATED ITEM ON EQUAL RIGHTS FOR WOMEN; A QUESTION ON SERIOUSNESS OF THE DRUG PROBLEM IN THE UNITED STATES; AND A SECTION DEALING WITH EVALUATIONS OF THE REAGAN PRESIDENCY. THE POST-ELECTION "NEW CONTENT" INCLUDES: EVALUATIONS OF THE REAGAN PRESIDENCY (SEE SURVEY ADMINISTRATION); RECALL OF THE 1984 PRESIDENTIAL VOTE; PARENTAL PARTY IDENTIFICATION; EVALUATION OF BUSH AND DUKAKIS ON THE ISSUES OF ENVIRONMENT AND CRIME; A QUESTION ABOUT THE DEATH PENALTY; AND NEW SYSTEM SUPPORT AND POLITICAL EFFICACY ITEMS. SURVEY ADMINISTRATION. TWO BASIC DESIGN PARAMETERS WERE SET BY THE BOARD THAT RELATE TO SURVEY ADMINISTRATION: 1) IN THE PRE-ELECTION WAVE, THE SURVEY WAS TO BE ADMINISTERED IN TWO-WEEK "QUARTERS." 2) BOTH SURVEYS WERE TO BE ADMINISTERED IN TWO FORMS, SO THAT A MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF CONTENT COULD BE INCLUDED. BOTH OF THESE PARAMETERS ARE EXPLAINED BELOW. INTERVIEW TARGET PERIODS. IF ONE THINKS THAT THERE IS SOME AMOUNT OF VOTE DECISION-MAKING THAT IS RELATIVELY LATE, THEN ONE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A MEASURE THAT IS NOT CONTAMINATED BY DIFFICULTY OF OBTAINING INTERVIEW, FOR VOTE-DECISION BY TIME-OF- INTERVIEW. THAT IS, IF THE ENTIRE SAMPLE IS RELEASED IMMEDIATELY AND THE MOST RELUCTANT AND HARD-TO-REACH RESPONDENTS ARE SYSTEMATICALLY INTERVIEWED LATER IN THE INTERVIEW PERIOD THAN ARE MORE AMENABLE RESPONDENTS, AND IF THE HARDER-TO-REACH RESPONDENTS ALSO DECIDE LATER (OR DIFFERENTLY) THAN OTHER RESPONDENTS, THEN THE VOTE-DECISION BY TIME-OF-INTERVIEW RELATIONSHIP IS CONFOUNDED. THIS LOGIC LED THE BOARD TO DECIDE THAT THE SAMPLE SHOULD BE ADMINISTERED IN FOUR TWO-WEEK QUARTERS. THE FIELD PERIOD BEGAN ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6. THE FIRST QUARTER ENDED MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 19TH. THE SECOND QUARTER WAS SEPTEMBER 20TH-OCTOBER 3RD; THE 3RD QUARTER WAS OCTOBER 4TH-OCTOBER 17TH; AND THE LAST QUARTER WAS OCTOBER 17TH-OCTOBER 31. NOVEMBER 1-NOVEMBER 7 WAS LEFT FOR "CATCH-UP" INTERVIEWS. IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT INTERVIEWS WITH SELECTED RESPONDENTS THAT COULD NOT BE TAKEN IN THE SAMPLE QUARTER ASSIGNED TO THEM WERE NONETHELESS TAKEN, USUALLY LATER IN THE STUDY PERIOD. 80% OF ALL INTERVIEWS WERE TAKEN WITHIN THE TARGET PERIOD. VARIABLE V880039 RECORDS INFORMATION ABOUT TARGET PERIOD ASSIGNMENT AND SUCCESS. ONE QUARTER OF EACH SEGMENT (SEE SAMPLING INFORMATION) AS ASSIGNED TO EACH TWO-WEEK TARGET PERIOD. FORMS. TWO FORMS WERE USED IN BOTH PRE- AND POST-ELECTION SURVEYS, CONTAINING SOME QUESTION-WORDING EXPERIMENTS AND SOME QUESTION-ORDERING EXPERIMENTS. (SEE TABLE 1A AT THE END OF THIS SECTION FOR A MAPPING OF QUESTIONS BY FORM.) FOR THE PRE-ELECTION STUDY, HALF THE SAMPLE WAS ASSIGNED TO FORM A, AND THE OTHER HALF TO FORM B. FORM ASSIGNMENT WAS THE SAME IN THE POST AS IN THE PRE, ALTHOUGH A FEW POST-ELECTION RESPONDENTS WERE INADVERTENTLY ADMINISTERED THE WRONG FORM. THEY ARE TRACEABLE IN VARIABLE V880040. IT IS CRITICAL TO NOTE THE INTERACTION OF THE REAGAN RETROSPECTIVE EVALUATION ITEMS WITH THE FORM ASSIGNMENT. THIS SECTION WAS PARTICULARLY LENGTHY. IN ORDER NOT TO MAKE EITHER THE PRE- OR THE POST-ELECTION INSTRUMENT UNACCEPTABLY LONG, AND ALSO TO STUDY THE EFFECTS OF POST-ELECTION MEDIA ANALYSIS OF THE PRESIDENCY, THE REAGAN EVALUATION ITEMS WERE SPLIT BETWEEN THE TWO WAVES AND THE TWO FORMS AS FOLLOWS: FORM A RESPONDENTS WERE ADMINISTERED PART 1 OF THE REAGAN RETROSPECTIVE ITEMS IN THE PRE-ELECTION STUDY. THEY RECEIVED PART 2 OF THE REAGAN RETROSPECTIVE IN THE POST-ELECTION STUDY. FORM B RESPONDENTS WERE ADMINISTERED PART 2 OF THE REAGAN RETROSPECTIVE IN THE PRE-ELECTION WAVE, AND PART 1 IN THE POST-ELECTION SURVEY. NOTE THAT PART 1 ITEMS WERE ADMINISTERED TO HALF THE RESPONDENTS IN THE PRE-ELECTION SURVEY AND TO THE OTHER HALF OF THE RESPONDENTS IN THE POST-ELECTION SURVEY, AND SIMILARLY FOR PART 2 ITEMS. THE STUDY STAFF HAS BUILT, AND ICPSR HAS RETAINED, MEASURES COMBINING PRE- AND POST-ELECTION ADMINISTRATIONS OF EACH REAGAN RETROSPECTIVE VARIABLE. THESE COMBINED VARIABLES APPEAR IN THE POST-ELECTION SECTION OF THE DATASET, VARIABLES V880898-V880923 AND 881002-881043. (PLEASE SEE TABLE 1A BELOW FOR CLARIFICATION.) THE CODEBOOK DOCUMENTS THESE SITUATIONS WITH AN A OR B AND PRE- OR POST- NOTATION IN THE VARIABLE NAME. THE ORIGINAL PRE-ELECTION VARIABLES HAVE BEEN DELETED FOR THE ICPSR RELEASE DATASET. THE OTHER MAJOR USAGE OF THE TWO FORMS WAS TO CONDUCT AN EXPERIMENT IN SURVEY RESPONSE. STANDARD LIKERT BATTERIES ON VALUES (I.E., EGALITARIANISM, RACISM) WERE ADMINISTERED AS USUAL, TOGETHER AS ONE BATTERY, IN FORM A OF THE POST-ELECTION SURVEY. IN FORM B, THESE ITEMS WERE SPLIT UP AND SCRAMBLED. THE PURPOSE OF THE EXPERIMENT IS TO DETERMINE WHETHER SCALE OR INDEX RELIABILITIES RESULT FROM INHERENT ITEM CONSISTENCIES, OR BECAUSE OF RESPONSE SET DEVELOPED BY RESPONDENTS, AS THEY GO THROUGH A SIMILAR SET OF ITEMS. THE VERSION OF THESE ITEMS THAT APPEARS IN THE ICPSR RELEASE OF THE DATA ARE COMBINED FROM BOTH FORMS; USERS SHOULD BE AWARE, HOWEVER, OF THE DIFFERENCES IN ADMINISTRATION BETWEEN FORMS FOR THESE ITEMS. BOTH THE DATA MAP AND CODEBOOK FLAG THESE VARIABLES WITH (A & B) NOTATION. SEVERAL OTHER POINTS ABOUT THE SURVEY ADMINISTRATION NEED FURTHER ELABORATION: 1) AS USUAL, THERE WERE A FEW ERRONEOUSLY SELECTED RESPONDENTS. IN THE TWO OF THE THREE INSTANCES LISTED BELOW, THE REASON FOR THE INCORRECT SELECTION WAS IMPROPER NUMBERING OF THE KISH SELECTION TABLE (SEE SAMPLING INFORMATION) BY THE INTERVIEWER. THE WRONGLY SELECTED RESPONDENTS WERE NOT SELECTED ON THE BASIS OF WHO WAS MOST AVAILABLE. NEVERTHELESS, FOR THOSE ANALYSTS WHO WISH TO DELETE THESE CASES, THEIR PRE-ELECTION CASE ID#S ARE: 00253, 00316, 00362. 2) IN THE POST-ELECTION SURVEY, RESPONDENTS ARE ASKED LENGTHY SERIES OF QUESTIONS ABOUT THEIR PARTICULAR CONGRESSPERSONS AND SENATORS. INTERVIEWERS MUST PRE-EDIT QUESTIONNAIRES TO FILL IN THE NAMES APPROPRIATE FOR THE STATE AND CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT IN WHICH THE RESPONDENT IS LIVING (OR WAS LIVING DURING THE PRE-ELECTION INTERVIEW). INTERVIEWERS ARE SENT "CANDIDATE LISTS" FOR EACH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT IN THE SAMPLE SEGMENTS IN WHICH THEY ARE INTERVIEWING. EACH CANDIDATE AND SENATOR ON THAT LIST IS ASSIGNED A PARTICULAR NUMBER THAT REFLECTS HIS OR HER INCUMBENCY STATUS AND PARTY. (SEE CANDIDATE NUMBER MASTER CODES) PARTICULAR QUESTIONS IN THE SURVEY REQUIRE THE INSERTION BY THE INTERVIEWER DURING PRE-EDITING OF THE NAMES OF CANDIDATES WITH SPECIFIC NUMBERS. SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, Q. B1, THE FEELING THERMOMETER. THE CANDIDATE LISTS USED BY THE INTERVIEWERS, WHICH SHOW WHICH CANDIDATES ARE ASSOCIATED WITH WHICH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT AND WITH WHICH NUMBERS THEY ARE TAGGED, CAN BE FOUND IN THE APPENDICES, NOTE 3 OF THIS DOCUMENTATION. OCCUPATION CODING. IN THE 1988 ELECTION STUDY, THE OCCUPATION CODING IS BASED ON THE 1980 CENSUS BUREAU THREE DIGIT OCCUPATION CODE. STARTING WITH THE 1986 ELECTION STUDY, WE HAVE RELEASED THESE VARIABLES IN SOMEWHAT LESS DETAIL THAN IN YEARS PAST. THE DATASET INCLUDES A TWO-DIGIT CODE WITH 71 CATEGORIES CORRESPONDING TO CENSUS BUREAU OCCUPATIONAL GROUPINGS. THOSE WHO HAVE NEED OF THE FULL OCCUPATION CODE FOR THEIR RESEARCH SHOULD CONTACT THE NES PROJECT STAFF FOR INFORMATION ABOUT THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH ACCESS TO THESE DATA MAY BE PROVIDED. OTHER CONFIDENTIALITY RECODING. FOR SOME YEARS, THE NATIONAL ELECTION STUDIES HAVE NOT RELEASED INFORMATION FOR CENSUS TRACTS OR MINOR CIVIL DIVISIONS. THIS YEAR, INFORMATION ABOUT NEWSPAPERS READ BY FEWER THAN 10 PERSONS, AND/OR PUBLISHED IN RELATIVELY SMALL GEOGRAPHIC AREAS, HAS BEEN SUPPRESSED. PERMISSION TO USE THE MORE DETAILED GEOGRAPHIC OR NEWSPAPER INFORMATION FOR SCHOLARLY RESEARCH MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE BOARD OF OVERSEERS. MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THIS IS AVAILABLE FROM NES PROJECT STAFF. OPEN-ENDED MATERIALS. TRADITIONALLY, THE ELECTION STUDIES HAVE CONTAINED SEVERAL MINUTES OF OPEN-ENDED RESPONSES (FOR EXAMPLE, THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES LIKES AND DISLIKES). THESE QUESTIONS ARE PUT INTO MASTER CODES BY THE SRC CODING SECTION. OTHER SCHOLARS HAVE DEVELOPED ALTERNATIVE OR SUPPLEMENTAL CODING SCHEMES FOR THE QUESTIONS (FOR EXAMPLE, THE LEVELS OF CONCEPTUALIZATION, RELEASED AS ICPSR #8151). THE BOARD OF OVERSEERS WISHES TO ENCOURAGE THESE EFFORTS BUT IN WAYS THAT RESPECT THE NES AND SRC OBLIGATION TO PROTECT THE PRIVACY AND ANONYMITY OF RESPONDENTS. CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH INDIVIDUALS MAY HAVE ACCESS TO TRANSCRIBED VERSIONS OF THESE QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN WORKED OUT AND THOSE INTERESTED SHOULD CONTACT THE NES PROJECT STAFF FOR FURTHER DETAILS. TABLE 1A QUESTION LAYOUT BY FORM PRE-ELECTION WAVE FORM A FORM B QUESTION CONTENT Q# VAR# Q# VAR# ----------------------------------------------------------- GOV. HELP BLACKS/OTHR 880332- 880340- MINORITIES 7-PT SCALE L6A-H 880339 L7A-H 880347 REAGAN RETROSPECTIVE 881002- PART 1 P1-P13X 881043 NOT ASKED REAGAN RETROSPECTIVE NOT ASKED 880898- PART 2 Q1-Q5X 880923 POST-ELECTION WAVE FORM A FORM B QUESTION CONTENT Q# VAR# Q# VAR# ----------------------------------------------------------- REAGAN RETROSPECTIVE NOT ASKED 881002- PART 1 N1-N13B 881043 (INCLUDES DATA FROM PRE: P1-P13X) REAGAN RETROSPECTIVE K1-K5X 880898- NOT ASKED PART 2 880923 (INCLUDES DATA FROM PRE: Q1-Q5X) EQUALITARIANISM L1A-F 880924- SCRAMBLED 880924- 880929 IN L & M 880929 POLITICAL EFFICACY M1A-H 880936- SCRAMBLED 880936- 880944 IN L & M 880944 TRADITIONAL MORALITY M4A-D 880951- SCRAMBLED 880951- 880954 IN L & M 880954 RACISM M11A-E 880961- SCRAMBLED 880961- 880964 IN L & M 880964 NATIONALISM M15A-C 880972- SCRAMBLED 880972- 880974 IN L & M 880974 TABLE 1B STUDY TOTALS FOR PRE AND POST ELECTION SURVEYS PRE-ELECTION RESPONSE RATE QUARTER 1 .752 QUARTER 2 .730 QUARTER 3 .701 QUARTER 4 .641 - - - - - - - - - - - - OVERALL .705 LENGTH OF INTERVIEW 68.0 MIN NO. OF RESPONDENTS 2040 POST-ELECTION: NUMBER AND CUMULATIVE PERCENT OF INTERVIEWS BY TIME AFTER NOV. 8TH NOV. 8- NOV. 21 970 55% NOV. 22-DEC.05 486 82 DEC.6-DEC.19 244 96 DEC. 20-JAN.2 40 98 JAN.3-JAN.16 34 99 JAN.16-JAN.30 1 100 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - TOTAL NO. OF RESPONDENTS 1775 RESPONSE RATE: .870 LENGTH OF INTERVIEW 60.2 MINUTES >> 1988 SAMPLING INFORMATION STUDY POPULATION THE STUDY POPULATION FOR THE 1988 NES IS DEFINED TO INCLUDE ALL UNITED STATES CITIZENS OF VOTING AGE ON OR BEFORE THE 1988 ELECTION DAY. ELIGIBLE CITIZENS MUST HAVE RESIDED IN HOUSING UNITS, OTHER THAN ON MILITARY RESERVATIONS, IN THE FORTY-EIGHT COTERMINOUS STATES. THIS DEFINITION EXCLUDES PERSONS LIVING IN ALASKA OR HAWAII AND REQUIRES ELIGIBLE PERSONS TO HAVE BEEN BOTH A UNITED STATES CITIZEN AND EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE ON OR BEFORE 8 NOVEMBER 1988. MULTI-STAGE AREA PROBABILITY SAMPLE DESIGN THE 1988 NES IS BASED ON A MULTI-STAGE AREA PROBABILITY SAMPLE SELECTED FROM THE SURVEY RESEARCH CENTER'S (SRC) NATIONAL SAMPLE DESIGN. IDENTIFICATION OF THE 1988 NES SAMPLE RESPONDENTS WAS CONDUCTED USING A FOUR STAGE SAMPLING PROCESS--A PRIMARY STAGE SAMPLING OF U.S. STANDARD METROPOLITAN STATISTICAL AREAS (SMSA'S) (SEE CENSUS DEFINITIONS IN APPENDIX) AND COUNTIES, FOLLOWED BY A SECOND STAGE SAMPLING OF AREA SEGMENTS, A THIRD STAGE SAMPLING OF HOUSING UNITS WITHIN SAMPLED AREA SEGMENTS AND CONCLUDING WITH THE RANDOM SELECTION OF A SINGLE RESPONDENT FROM SELECTED HOUSING UNITS. A DETAILED DOCUMENTATION OF THE SRC NATIONAL SAMPLE IS PROVIDED IN THE SRC PUBLICATION ENTITLED 1980 SRC NATIONAL SAMPLE: DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT. PRIMARY STAGE SELECTION THE SELECTION OF PRIMARY STAGE SAMPLING UNITS (PSU'S) (2), WHICH DEPENDING ON THE SAMPLE STRATUM ARE EITHER SMSA'S, SINGLE COUNTIES OR GROUPINGS OF SMALL COUNTIES, IS BASED ON THE COUNTY-LEVEL 1980 CENSUS REPORTS OF POPULATION AND HOUSING. PRIMARY STAGE UNITS WERE ASSIGNED TO 84 EXPLICIT STRATA BASED ON SMSA/NON-SMSA STATUS, PSU SIZE, AND GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION. SIXTEEN OF THE 84 STRATA CONTAIN ONLY A SINGLE SELF-REPRESENTING PSU, EACH OF WHICH IS INCLUDED WITH CERTAINTY IN THE PRIMARY STAGE OF SAMPLE SELECTION. THE REMAINING 68 NONSELF-REPRESENTING STRATA CONTAIN MORE THAN ONE PSU. FROM EACH OF THESE NONSELF-REPRESENTING STRATA, ------------------ (1) PREPARED BY THE SAMPLING SECTION OF THE SURVEY RESEARCH CENTER. (2) IN SRC PUBLICATIONS AND SURVEY MATERIALS, THE TERM "PRIMARY AREA" IS USED INTERCHANGEABLY WITH THE MORE COMMON "PRIMARY STAGE UNIT" TERMINOLOGY. ONE PSU WAS SAMPLED WITH PROBABILITY PROPORTIONATE TO ITS SIZE (PPS) MEASURED IN 1980 OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS. THE FULL SRC NATIONAL SAMPLE OF 84 PRIMARY STAGE SELECTIONS WAS DESIGNED TO BE OPTIMAL FOR SURVEYS ROUGHLY TWO TIMES THE SIZE OF THE 1988 NES. TO PERMIT THE FLEXIBILITY NEEDED FOR OPTIMAL DESIGN OF SMALLER SURVEY SAMPLES, THE PRIMARY STAGE OF THE SRC NATIONAL SAMPLE CAN BE READILY PARTITIONED INTO SMALLER SUBSAMPLES OF PSU'S. EACH OF THE PARTITIONS REPRESENTS A STRATIFIED SUBSELECTION FROM THE FULL 84 PSU DESIGN. THE SAMPLE FOR THE 1988 NES IS SELECTED FROM THE "ONE-HALF" PARTITION OF THE 1980 SRC NATIONAL SAMPLE. THE "ONE-HALF SAMPLE" INCLUDES 11 OF THE 16 SELF-REPRESENTING SMSA PSU'S AND A STRATIFIED SUBSAMPLING OF 34 (OF THE 68) NONSELF-REPRESENTING PSU'S OF THE SRC NATIONAL SAMPLE. TABLE 2 IDENTIFIES THE PSU'S FOR THE 1988 NATIONAL ELECTION STUDY BY SMSA STATUS AND REGION. SECOND STAGE SELECTION OF AREA SEGMENTS THE SECOND STAGE OF THE 1980 NATIONAL SAMPLE WAS SELECTED DIRECTLY FROM COMPUTERIZED FILES THAT WERE PREPARED FROM THE 1980 CENSUS SUMMARY TAPE FILE SERIES (STF1-B). THE DESIGNATED SECOND-STAGE SAMPLING UNITS (SSU'S), TERMED "AREA SEGMENTS", ARE COMPRISED OF CENSUS BLOCKS IN THE METROPOLITAN PRIMARY AREAS AND ENUMERATION DISTRICTS (ED'S) IN THE RURAL NON-SMSA'S AND RURAL AREAS OF SMSA PRIMARY AREAS. EACH SSU BLOCK, BLOCK COMBINATION OR ENUMERATION DISTRICT WAS ASSIGNED A MEASURE OF SIZE EQUAL TO THE TOTAL 1980 OCCUPIED HOUSING UNIT COUNT FOR THE AREA (MINIMUM = 50). SECOND STAGE SAMPLING OF AREA SEGMENTS WAS PERFORMED WITH PROBABILITIES PROPORTIONATE TO THE ASSIGNED MEASURES OF SIZE. A THREE-STEP PROCESS OF ORDERING THE SSU'S WITHIN THE PRIMARY AREAS PRODUCED AN IMPLICIT STRATIFICATION OF THE AREA SEGMENTS IN THE SECOND STAGE SAMPLING FRAME, STRATIFIED AT THE COUNTY LEVEL BY GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION AND POPULATION. AREA SEGMENTS WERE STRATIFIED WITHIN COUNTY AT THE MINOR CIVIL DIVISION (MCD) LEVEL BY SIZE AND INCOME, AND AT THE BLOCK AND ED LEVEL BY LOCATION WITHIN THE MCD OR COUNTY. (FOR DETAILS, REFER TO THE SRC PUBLICATION, 1980 NATIONAL SAMPLE: DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT.) SYSTEMATIC PPS SAMPLING WAS USED TO SELECT THE AREA SEGMENTS FROM THE SECOND STAGE SAMPLING FRAME FOR EACH COUNTY. IN THE SELF-REPRESENTING (SR) PSU'S THE NUMBER OF SAMPLE AREA SEGMENTS VARIED IN PROPORTION TO THE SIZE OF THE PRIMARY STAGE UNIT, FROM A HIGH OF B=18 AREA SEGMENTS IN THE SR NEW YORK SMSA TO A LOW OF B=7 AREA SEGMENTS IN THE SMALLER SR PSU'S SUCH AS SAN FRANCISCO. A TOTAL OF B=6 AREA SEGMENTS TABLE 2 PSU'S IN THE 1988 NES PRE- AND POST-ELECTION SURVEY BY: SMSA STATUS AND REGION REGION SMSA STATUS NON SELF-REPRESENTING SELF-REPRESENTING NON-SMSA'S SMSA'S SMSA'S ------------------------------------------------------------ NORTH- NEW YORK, NY-NJ BOSTON, MA* SCHUYLER, NY EAST PHILADELPHIA, PITTSBURGH, PA* PA-NJ BUFFALO, NY NEW HAVEN, CT ATLANTIC CITY, NJ MANCHESTER, NH NORTH CHICAGO, IL ST. LOUIS, MO* SANILAC, MI CENTRAL DETROIT, MI MILWAUKEE, WI PHILLIPS, KS DAYTON, OH MOWER, MN DES MOINES, IA GRAND RAPIDS, MI FORT WAYNE, IN STEUBENVILLE, OH SOUTH HOUSTON, TX* BULLOCH, GA BALTIMORE, MD* HALE, TX BIRMINGHAM, AL MONROE, AR COLUMBUS, GA-AL BEDFORD, TN MIAMI, FL ROBESON, NC LAKELAND, FL MCALLEN, TX WHEELING, WV KNOXVILLE, TN RICHMOND, VA WEST LOS ANGELES, CA SEATTLE, WA ELDORADO- SAN FRANCISCO, CA DENVER, WY ALBINE, CA ANAHEIM, CA CARBON, WY FRESNO, CA EUGENE, OR ------------------ NOTE: THE PSU'S MARKED WITH AN ASTERISK (*) ARE SELF-REPRESENTING FOR SAMPLE DESIGNS THAT USE THE TWO-THIRDS OR LARGER PORTION OF THE SAMPLE. FOR THE HALF-SAMPLE DESIGN, ONLY 6 OF THE 16 SELF-REPRESENTING AREAS REMAIN SELF-REPRESENTING. THE OTHER TEN SELF-REPRESENTING PSU'S ARE PAIRED AND ONLY FIVE ARE USED IN THE HALF-SAMPLE DESIGN, EACH REPRESENTING BOTH ITSELF AND THE PSU IT IS PAIRED WITH. WAS SELECTED FROM EACH OF THE A=39 NONSELF-REPRESENTING (NSR) PSU'S (EXCEPT HOUSTON WHICH HAD 7 SEGMENTS SELECTED). A TOTAL OF 303 SEGMENTS WERE SELECTED, 68 IN THE SIX SELF-REPRESENTING PSU'S AND 235 IN THE NONSELF-REPRESENTING PSU'S. THIRD STAGE SELECTION OF HOUSING UNITS FOR EACH AREA SEGMENT SELECTED IN THE SECOND SAMPLING STAGE, A LISTING WAS MADE OF ALL HOUSING UNITS LOCATED WITHIN THE PHYSICAL BOUNDARIES OF THE SEGMENT. FOR SEGMENTS WITH A VERY LARGE NUMBER OF EXPECTED HOUSING UNITS, ALL HOUSING UNITS IN A SUBSELECTED PART OF THE SEGMENT WERE LISTED. THE FINAL EQUAL PROBABILITY SAMPLE OF HOUSING UNITS FOR THE 1988 NES WAS SYSTEMATICALLY SELECTED FROM THE HOUSING UNIT LISTINGS FOR THE SAMPLED AREA SEGMENTS. IN ORDER TO DISTRIBUTE THE INTERVIEWS EVENLY ACROSS THE PRE-ELECTION PERIOD, THE SAMPLE WAS DIVIDED INTO QUARTERS: (1) SEPTEMBER 6-19; (2) SEPTEMBER 20-OCTOBER 3; (3) OCTOBER 4-17; (4) OCTOBER 18-31. (NOVEMBER 1-NOVEMBER 7 WAS "CLEAN-UP" WEEK). ONCE AN INTERVIEW WAS RELEASED FOR A GIVEN QUARTER, IT COULD BE TAKEN DURING ANY SUBSEQUENT QUARTER, ALTHOUGH 80% WERE ACTUALLY ADMINISTERED DURING THE ASSIGNED QUARTER. THE SAMPLE FROM EACH QUARTER INCLUDED ALL SAMPLE SEGMENTS. EACH QUARTER SAMPLE COULD STAND ALONE AS A PROBABILITY SAMPLE. THE OVERALL PROBABILITY OF SELECTION FOR 1988 NES HOUSEHOLDS WAS F=.00003800 OR .38 IN 10,000. THE EQUAL PROBABILITY SAMPLE OF HOUSEHOLDS WAS ACHIEVED BY USING THE STANDARD MULTI-STAGE SAMPLING TECHNIQUE OF SETTING THE SAMPLING RATE FOR SELECTING HOUSING UNITS WITHIN AREA SEGMENTS TO BE INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL TO THE PPS PROBABILITIES (SEE ABOVE) USED TO SELECT THE PSU AND AREA SEGMENT. FOURTH STAGE RESPONDENT SELECTION WITHIN EACH SAMPLED HOUSING UNIT, THE SRC INTERVIEWER PREPARED A COMPLETE LISTING OF ALL ELIGIBLE HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS. USING AN OBJECTIVE PROCEDURE DESCRIBED BY KISH (3) A SINGLE RESPONDENT WAS THEN SELECTED AT RANDOM TO BE INTERVIEWED. REGARDLESS OF CIRCUMSTANCES, NO SUBSTITUTIONS WERE PERMITTED FOR THE DESIGNATED RESPONDENT. ------------------ (3) L. KISH, "A PROCEDURE FOR OBJECTIVE RESPONDENT SELECTION WITHIN THE HOUSEHOLD" JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN STATISTICAL ASSOCIATION, VOL. 44 (1949): PP. 380-387. SAMPLE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS THE TARGETED COMPLETED INTERVIEW SAMPLE SIZE FOR THE 1988 NES PRE- AND POST-ELECTION SURVEY WAS N=2000 CASES. IN THE ORIGINAL SAMPLE SIZE COMPUTATION, THE FOLLOWING ASSUMPTIONS WERE MADE: RESPONSE RATE = .72, COMBINED OCCUPANCY/ELIGIBILITY RATE = .87, AND NEW CONSTRUCTION UPDATE INFLATION FACTOR = 1.03. THESE ASSUMPTIONS WERE DERIVED FROM SURVEY EXPERIENCE IN THE 1984 NES PRE-POST ELECTION SURVEY. TABLE 3 PROVIDES A FULL DESCRIPTION OF THE ORIGINAL SAMPLE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS. TABLE 3 ORIGINAL SAMPLE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS AND ACTUAL SAMPLE DESIGN OUTCOMES ORIGINAL ACTUAL -------- ------ COMPLETED INTERVIEWS 2000 2040 RESPONSE RATE .72 .705 ELIGIBLE SAMPLE HOUSEHOLDS 2778 2893 OCCUPANCY/ELIGIBILITY RATE* .87 .826 FINAL SAMPLE HU LISTINGS 3193 3503 SAMPLE GROWTH FROM UPDATE** 1.03 1.046 SAMPLE LISTINGS FROM FRAME 3100 3349 ------------------ * ELIGIBILITY (.97) X OCCUPANCY (.90) **SINCE THE UPDATING PROCESS PRODUCES ABOUT A 3% INCREASE IN SAMPLE LINES OVER THE COUNT SELECTED FROM THE NATIONAL SAMPLE SYSTEM, THE UPDATE INFLATION FACTOR WAS SET AT 1.03 SAMPLE DESIGN OUTCOMES IN COMPARING THE FIRST COLUMN OF TABLE 3 WITH THE SECOND COLUMN, IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE SAMPLE GROWTH FROM THE UPDATE PROCEDURE WAS SLIGHTLY HIGHER THAN EXPECTED. HOWEVER, THE ORIGINAL SAMPLE DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS OVERESTIMATED THE ACTUAL RESPONSE AND OCCUPANCY/ELIGIBILITY RATES. THE ASSUMPTIONS FOR RESPONSE RATE AND OCCUPANCY/ELIGIBILITY RATE WERE BASED ON THE RATES OBTAINED IN THE 1984 PRE-ELECTION SURVEY. THE ACTUAL OCCUPANCY/ELIGIBILITY RATE FOR THE 1988 PRE-ELECTION SURVEY (.826) WAS CLOSER TO THE RATE OBTAINED IN THE 1986 POST-ELECTION SURVEY (.835) THAN THE 1984 RATE OF .87. THE RESPONSE RATE FOR 1988 (.705) WAS BETWEEN THE 1984 RATE OF .72 AND THE 1986 RATE OF .677. THE RELEASE OF THREE RESERVE REPLICATES OF 83 SAMPLE LISTINGS EACH ALLOWED THE NUMBER OF SAMPLE LISTINGS TO BE ADJUSTED DURING THE INTERVIEW PERIOD TO REFLECT THE ACTUAL RESPONSE AND OCCUPANCY/ELIGIBILITY RATES. THEREFORE, THE NUMBER OF INTERVIEWS OBTAINED, 2040, WAS CLOSE TO THE TARGET OF 2000 INTERVIEWS. WEIGHTED ANALYSIS OF 1988 NES DATA THE AREA PROBABILITY SAMPLE DESIGN FOR THE 1988 NES RESULTS IN AN EQUAL PROBABILITY SAMPLE OF U.S. HOUSEHOLDS. HOWEVER, WITHIN SAMPLE HOUSEHOLDS A SINGLE ADULT RESPONDENT IS CHOSEN AT RANDOM TO BE INTERVIEWED. SINCE THE NUMBER OF ELIGIBLE ADULTS MAY VARY FROM ONE HOUSEHOLD TO ANOTHER, THE RANDOM SELECTION OF A SINGLE ADULT INTRODUCES INEQUALITY INTO RESPONDENTS' SELECTION PROBABILITIES. IN ANALYSIS, A RESPONDENT SELECTION WEIGHT SHOULD BE USED TO COMPENSATE FOR THESE UNEQUAL SELECTION PROBABILITIES. THE VALUE OF THE RESPONDENT SELECTION WEIGHT IS EXACTLY EQUAL TO THE NUMBER OF ELIGIBLE ADULTS IN THE HOUSEHOLD FROM WHICH THE RANDOM RESPONDENT WAS SELECTED. THE USE OF THE RESPONDENT SELECTION WEIGHT IS STRONGLY ENCOURAGED, DESPITE PAST EVALUATIONS THAT HAVE SHOWN THESE WEIGHTS TO HAVE LITTLE SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE VALUES OF NES ESTIMATES OF DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS. THE CURRENT POLICY OF THE NATIONAL ELECTION STUDIES IS NOT TO INCLUDE IN PUBLIC USE DATA SETS SPECIAL ANALYSIS WEIGHTS DESIGNED TO COMPENSATE FOR NONRESPONSE OR TO POST-STRATIFY THE SAMPLE TO KNOWN POPULATION DISTRIBUTION CONTROLS. ANALYSTS INTERESTED IN DEVELOPING THEIR OWN NONRESPONSE OR POST-STRATIFICATION ADJUSTMENT FACTORS MUST REQUEST ACCESS TO THE NECESSARY SAMPLE CONTROL DATA FROM THE NES BOARD. SAMPLING ERRORS OF 1988 NES ESTIMATES SAMPLING ERROR CALCULATION PROGRAMS THE PROBABILITY SAMPLE DESIGN FOR THE 1988 NATIONAL ELECTION STUDY PERMITS THE CALCULATION OF ESTIMATES OF SAMPLING ERROR FOR SURVEY STATISTICS. FOR CALCULATING SAMPLING ERRORS OF STATISTICS FROM COMPLEX SAMPLE SURVEYS, THE OSIRIS STATISTICAL ANALYSIS AND DATA MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE SYSTEM OFFERS THE PSALMS AND REPERR PROGRAMS. PSALMS IS A GENERAL PURPOSE SAMPLING ERROR PROGRAM THAT INCORPORATES THE TAYLOR SERIES APPROXIMATION APPROACH TO THE ESTIMATION OF VARIANCES OF RATIOS (INCLUDING MEANS, SCALE VARIABLES, INDICES, PROPORTIONS) AND THEIR DIFFERENCES. REPERR IS AN OSIRIS PROGRAM THAT INCORPORATES ALGORITHMS FOR REPLICATED APPROACHES TO VARIANCE ESTIMATION. BOTH BALANCED REPEATED REPLICATION (BRR) AND JACKKNIFE REPEATED REPLICATION (JRR) ARE AVAILABLE AS PROGRAM OPTIONS. THE CURRENT VERSION OF REPERR IS BEST SUITED FOR ESTIMATING SAMPLING ERRORS AND DESIGN EFFECTS FOR REGRESSION AND CORRELATION STATISTICS. SAMPLING ERROR CODES AND CALCULATION MODEL ESTIMATION OF VARIANCES FOR COMPLEX SAMPLE SURVEY ESTIMATES REQUIRES A COMPUTATION MODEL. INDIVIDUAL DATA RECORDS MUST BE ASSIGNED SAMPLING ERROR CODES THAT REFLECT THE COMPLEX STRUCTURE OF THE SAMPLE AND ARE COMPATIBLE WITH THE COMPUTATION ALGORITHMS OF THE VARIOUS PROGRAMS. THE SAMPLING ERROR CODES FOR THE 1988 NES ARE INCLUDED AS VARIABLE 24 IN THE ICPSR DATA SET. THE ASSIGNED SAMPLING ERROR CODES ARE DESIGNED TO FACILITATE SAMPLING ERROR COMPUTATION ACCORDING TO A PAIRED SELECTION MODEL FOR BOTH TAYLOR SERIES APPROXIMATION AND REPLICATION METHOD PROGRAMS. TABLE 4 PROVIDES A DESCRIPTION OF HOW INDIVIDUAL SAMPLING ERROR CODE VALUES ARE TO BE PAIRED FOR SAMPLING ERROR COMPUTATIONS. THIRTY (30) PAIRS OR STRATA OF SAMPLING ERROR COMPUTATION UNITS (SECU'S) ARE DEFINED. EACH SECU IN A STRATUM PAIR INCLUDES CASES ASSIGNED TO A SINGLE SAMPLING ERROR CODE VALUE. THE EXCEPTIONS ARE THE SECOND SECU IN STRATUM 27, WHICH IS COMPRISED OF CASES ASSIGNED SAMPLING CODE VALUES 36 AND 55, AND THE SECOND SECU IN STRATUM 29, WHICH IS COMPRISED OF CASES WITH SECU'S 61 AND 63. TABLE 4 1988 PRE- AND POST-ELECTION SURVEY PAIRED SELECTION MODEL FOR SAMPLING ERROR COMPUTATIONS PAIR (SECU) (SECU) (STRATUM) 1 OF 2 2 OF 2 CODES CODES ------------------------------------------------------------ 1 103 104 2 105 106 3 99 100 4 101 102 5 95 96 6 97 98 7 93 94 8 91 92 9 89 90 10 83 84 11 81 82 12 77 78 13 75 76 14 73 74 15 2 6 16 7 8 17 14 16 18 17 18 19 19 21 20 24 28 21 63 65 22 30 33 23 37 43 24 40 48 25 42 45 26 50 51 27 52 36 + 55 28 57 64 29 60 61 + 63 30 67 68 GENERALIZED SAMPLING ERROR RESULTS FOR THE 1988 NES TO ASSIST 1988 NES ANALYSTS, THE OSIRIS PSALMS PROGRAM WAS USED TO COMPUTE SAMPLING ERRORS FOR A WIDE-RANGING EXAMPLE SET OF MEANS AND PROPORTIONS ESTIMATED FROM THE 1988 NES PRE-ELECTION SURVEY DATA SET. FOR EACH ESTIMATE, SAMPLING ERRORS WERE COMPUTED FOR THE TOTAL SAMPLE AND FOR FIFTEEN DEMOGRAPHIC AND POLITICAL AFFILIATION SUBCLASSES OF THE 1988 NES PRE-ELECTION SURVEY SAMPLE. THE RESULTS OF THESE SAMPLING ERROR COMPUTATIONS WERE THEN SUMMARIZED AND TRANSLATED INTO THE GENERAL USAGE SAMPLING ERROR TABLE PROVIDED IN TABLE 5. INCORPORATING THE PATTERN OF "DESIGN EFFECTS" OBSERVED IN THE EXTENSIVE SET OF EXAMPLE COMPUTATIONS, TABLE 5 PROVIDES APPROXIMATE STANDARD ERRORS FOR PERCENTAGE ESTIMATES BASED ON THE 1988 NES. TO USE THE TABLE, EXAMINE THE COLUMN HEADING TO FIND THE PERCENTAGE VALUE THAT BEST APPROXIMATES THE VALUE OF THE ESTIMATED PERCENTAGE THAT IS OF INTEREST.(4) NEXT, LOCATE THE APPROXIMATE SAMPLE SIZE BASE (DENOMINATOR FOR THE PROPORTION) IN THE LEFT-HAND ROW MARGIN OF THE TABLE. TO FIND THE APPROXIMATE STANDARD ERROR OF A PERCENTAGE ESTIMATE, SIMPLY CROSS-REFERENCE THE APPROPRIATE COLUMN (PERCENTAGE) AND ROW (SAMPLE SIZE BASE). NOTE: THE TABULATED VALUES REPRESENT APPROXIMATELY ONE STANDARD ERROR FOR THE PERCENTAGE ESTIMATE. TO CONSTRUCT AN APPROXIMATE CONFIDENCE INTERVAL, THE ANALYST SHOULD APPLY THE APPROPRIATE CRITICAL POINT FROM THE "Z" DISTRIBUTION (E.G. Z=1.96 FOR A TWO-SIDED 95% CONFIDENCE INTERVAL HALF-WIDTH). FURTHERMORE, THE APPROXIMATE STANDARD ERRORS IN THE TABLE APPLY ONLY TO SINGLE POINT ESTIMATES OF PERCENTAGES NOT TO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TWO PERCENTAGE ESTIMATES. THE GENERALIZED VARIANCE RESULTS PRESENTED IN TABLE 5 ARE A USEFUL TOOL FOR INITIAL, CURSORY EXAMINATION OF THE NES SURVEY RESULTS. FOR MORE IN DEPTH ANALYSIS AND REPORTING OF CRITICAL ESTIMATES, ANALYSTS ARE ENCOURAGED TO COMPUTE EXACT ESTIMATES OF STANDARD ERRORS USING THE APPROPRIATE CHOICE OF A SAMPLING ERROR PROGRAM AND COMPUTATION MODEL. ------------------ (4) THE STANDARD ERROR OF A PERCENTAGE IS A SYMMETRIC FUNCTION WITH ITS MAXIMUM CENTERED AT P=50%; I.E., THE STANDARD ERROR OF P=40% AND P=60% ESTIMATES ARE EQUAL. TABLE 5 1988 NES PRE-ELECTION SURVEY GENERALIZED VARIANCE TABLE APPROXIMATE STANDARD ERRORS FOR PERCENTAGES FOR PERCENTAGE ESTIMATES NEAR SAMPLE N 50% 40% OR 30% OR 20% OR 10% OR 60% 70% 80% 90% THE APPROXIMATE STANDARD ERROR OF THE PERCENTAGE IS: 100 5.385 5.277 4.933 4.308 3.231 200 3.912 3.824 3.581 3.128 2.343 300 3.278 3.210 3.006 2.260 1.962 400 2.905 2.846 2.661 2.324 1.743 500 2.663 2.603 2.437 2.128 1.593 750 2.294 2.244 2.094 1.657 1.250 1000 2.078 2.039 1.907 1.657 1.250 1500 1.846 1.803 1.688 1.474 1.102 2000 1.722 1.691 1.568 1.368 1.030 2040 1.716 1.685 1.561 1.298 1.020 >> 1988 VOTE VALIDATION STUDY THE VOTE VALIDATION STUDY IS THE RESULT OF A SYSTEMATIC CHECK OF THE REGISTRATION AND/OR VOTING RECORDS OF 1988 ELECTION STUDY RESPONDENTS WHO REPORTED THAT THEY WERE REGISTERED AND WHERE. SIMILAR RECORD CHECKS WERE DONE FOR 1964, 1972, 1974 1976, 1980, 1984, AND 1986 RESPONDENTS. THE MOTIVATION FOR THESE STUDIES CONTINUES TO BE FOUND IN THE DIFFERENCE IN ESTIMATES OF NATIONAL TURNOUT AS DERIVED FROM: 1) AGGREGATING OFFICIAL VOTE TOTALS FROM ELECTION OFFICES ACROSS THE UNITED STATES AND DIVIDING BY THE ESTIMATED NUMBER OF AGE-ELIGIBLE U. S. CITIZENS; AND 2) DIVIDING THE NUMBER OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS WHO ANSWERED THAT THEY VOTED BY THE TOTAL NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS IN THE SURVEY. THE LATTER ESTIMATE IS ALMOST ALWAYS 10-12% LOWER. WHILE SOME PORTION OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO ESTIMATES IS DUE TO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO DENOMINATORS-- I.E., THE POPULATION OF THOSE AGREEING TO BE INTERVIEWED IN A SURVEY IS DEMONSTRABLY DIFFERENT FROM THE POPULATION OF ALL CITIZENS OVER 18-- ANOTHER LARGE PORTION OF THIS DIFFERENCE IS THOUGHT TO BE EXPLAINED BY THE MISREPORTING OF VOTING BEHAVIOR TO INTERVIEWERS BY RESPONDENTS. SOME RESPONDENTS REPORT THAT THEY VOTED WHEN IN FACT THEY HAVE NOT DONE SO. BECAUSE THE INTERVIEW IS A SOCIAL SITUATION AND VOTING IS A NORM, IN ORDER NOT TO REPORT THE VIOLATION OF A NORM, SOME RESPONDENTS PREFER TO TELL INTERVIEWERS THAT THEY VOTED. (SOME MAY BELIEVE THAT THIS IS A MORE REPRESENTATIVE STATEMENT OF THEIR USUAL CIVIC INVOLVEMENT THAN THE HAPPENSTANCE OF THEIR NOT VOTING IN THE MOST RECENT ELECTION.) THE MOTIVATION FOR THE RECORDS CHECK IS NOT SO MUCH TO STUDY THE INTERESTING SOCIAL PHENOMENON OF MISREPORTING AS IT IS TO CLARIFY TO THE ANALYST WHO ACTUALLY DID VOTE AND WHO PROBABLY DID NOT. OVER-REPORT IS AN OBVIOUS PROBLEM FOR ANALYSIS OF PARTICIPATION AND IT MAY ALSO BE A PROBLEM IN THE ANALYSIS OF VOTE CHOICE. THE ONLY WAY TO TELL IF SOMEONE ACTUALLY VOTED IS TO LOOK AT THE VOTING AND REGISTRATION RECORDS IN THE LOCAL ELECTION OFFICE CORRESPONDING TO WHERE THE RESPONDENT LIVES (OR TELLS THE INTERVIEWER THAT HE IS REGISTERED). FOR THE NES ELECTION STUDIES, THIS PROCEDURE WAS USED BY SENDING SRC INTERVIEWERS (IN 1984, 1986 AND 1988, THESE WERE OFTEN FIELD SUPERVISORS) TO PERFORM THE RECORD SEARCH AND INSPECTION. EACH TIME VALIDATION HAS BEEN ATTEMPTED IN THIS MANNER, STAFF HAVE FOUND THAT A SMALL PROPORTION (3-5%) OF RESPONDENTS: A) REPORTED THAT THEY VOTED; AND B) HAVE A REGISTRATION RECORD IN THE ELECTION OFFICE; BUT C) ARE NOT INDICATED IN THE VOTING RECORD AS HAVING VOTED IN THE ELECTION. LEAVING ASIDE THE QUESTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE ERRORS, THE PRESUMPTION IS THAT THESE R'S ACTUALLY DID NOT VOTE. THERE IS ANOTHER SET OF RESPONDENTS WHO REPORTED THAT THEY VOTED BUT FOR WHOM INTERVIEWERS ARE UNABLE TO FIND A REGISTRATION RECORD AT ALL. THE NES STUDY STAFF IS CONVINCED OF THE DILIGENCE AND TENACIOUS PERSISTENCE OF THE SRC REPRESENTATIVES SEARCHING FOR THESE RECORDS, AND BELIEVES THAT FOR THE VERY GREAT MAJORITY OF THIS SET OF RESPONDENTS, THERE IS INDEED NO ONE REGISTERED AT THAT OFFICE, WITH THAT NAME. THE NES STAFF IS NOT NECESSARILY CONVINCED OF HAVING THE RIGHT ADDRESS FOR THIS PERSON, OR THE RIGHT NAME, OR THE RIGHT NAME SPELLED CLOSE ENOUGH TO THE VERSION ON THE REGISTRATION RECORDS, TO ENABLE SUCCESS IN FINDING THE RESPONDENT'S RECORD. THE NES STAFF DOES NOT VALIDATE THE REPORTED REGISTRATION AND/OR VOTE OF EVERY RESPONDENT IN THE STUDY. IT IS ACCEPTED WITHOUT FURTHER CHECK THE REPORT OF THOSE WHO SAID THEY ARE NOT REGISTERED. AND THE RECORDS CANNOT BE CHECKED OF THOSE WHO DIDN'T GIVE THEIR NAME. IN RARE INSTANCES, AN ELECTION OFFICE WILL REFUSE ACCESS TO RECORDS AND RESPONDENTS SERVED BY THESE OFFICES ALSO CANNOT BE VALIDATED. THE VOTE VALIDATION PORTION OF THE DATAFILE CONTAINS A NUMBER OF SUMMARY VARIABLES REPORTING THE RESULTS OF THE RECORD CHECK. THE SUMMARY VARIABLE V881147 ASSIGNS A VALUE OF VOTING OR NOT VOTING TO EVERY RESPONDENT IN THE STUDY. WHERE STAFF WAS UNABLE OR DID NOT CHECK THE RECORDS, RESPONDENT'S SELF-REPORT WAS ASSIGNED. IT IS THIS VARIABLE THAT REPRESENTS, IN THE STUDY STAFF'S VIEW, THE MAXIMUM CLARIFICATION POSSIBLE OF WHETHER OR NOT THE RESPONDENT ACTUALLY VOTED IN THE 1988 ELECTION OF 2040 CASES IN THE 1988 ELECTION STUDY, 1413 WERE EARMARKED FOR VALIDATION. THE 1413 FIGURE INCLUDES 252 OF THE 265 CASES WITH NO POST INTERVIEW IN 1988. OF THE 2040 TOTAL RESPONDENTS, 375 WERE NOT VALIDATED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 19 - NO NAME* 3 - OFFICE REFUSED** 11 - R DK IF REGISTERED; NOT REQUIRED TO REGISTER 342 - NOT REGISTERED*** * 11 OF THESE HAD NO POST INTERVIEW ** 2 OF THESE HAD NO POST INTERVIEW *** OF 344 IN THIS CATEGORY, 2 ALSO HAD NO NAME AND ARE INCLUDED IN THE 19 WITH NO NAMES IN ADDITION, 35 CASES EARMARKED FOR VALIDATION COULD NOT BE VERIFIED BECAUSE THE R WAS NOT REGISTERED AT HIS/HER SAMPLE LOCATION AND THE IWR CHECKED RECORDS AT THE ELECTION OFFICE SERVING THE SAMPLE LOCATION INSTEAD OF THE ELECTION OFFICE OF R'S ASSERTED REGISTRATION. THESE CASES ARE DESIGNATED CODE 9 IN V1118. >> 1988 ELECTION ADMINISTRATION SURVEY THE ELECTION ADMINISTRATION DATASET IS PART OF THE 1988 VOTE VALIDATION STUDY. IN ORDER TO BETTER UNDERSTAND THE RESULTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL VOTER RECORD SEARCH CONDUCTED FOR RESPONDENTS TO THE 1988 PRE-POST ELECTION SURVEYS, AN INTERVIEW WAS CONDUCTED WITH THE ELECTION ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL IN CHARGE OF THE ELECTION OFFICE PERTAINING TO THE SAMPLE SEGMENT IN WHICH RESPONDENTS LIVED. INTERVIEWS WERE OBTAINED WITH OFFICIALS IN 120 OFFICES. THIS INTERVIEW USED A STRUCTURED QUESTIONNAIRE THAT WAS DESIGNED TO GATHER INFORMATION IN THREE AREAS: 1) HOW REGISTRATION AND VOTING RECORDS ARE KEPT AND UPDATED; 2) CONVENIENCE OF REGISTRATION IN THE JURISDICTION AND 3) INTERVIEWER EVALUATION OF OFFICE ORGANIZATION, EFFICIENCY AND COOPERATION. A NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS IN THE 1988 ELECTION STUDY WERE NOT VALIDATED FOR ANY OF SEVERAL REASONS; FOR EXAMPLE, THEY REPORTED THAT THEY WERE NOT REGISTERED AND DID NOT VOTE; AND/OR THEY DID NOT PROVIDE THEIR NAME; AND/OR THEY WERE REGISTERED AT SOME PLACE OUTSIDE OF THE ANES SAMPLE AREAS. IN THESE CASES, OFFICE DATA WAS ATTACHED TO RESPONDENTS BASED ON THEIR SAMPLE ADDRESS. >> 1988 NES STAFF AND TECHNICAL PAPERS BREHM, JOHN. (1985A) "REPORT ON CODING OF ECONOMIC CONDITIONS SERIES IN THE 1984 PRE-POST ELECTION STUDY: A REPORT TO THE BOARD OF OVERSEERS, NATIONAL ELECTION STUDIES." WORKING PAPER NO. 8. ANN ARBOR: CPS, JUNE 1985. BREHM, JOHN. (1985B) "ANALYSIS OF RESULT CODE DISPOSITION FOR CONTINUOUS MONITORING BY TIME IN FIELD: REPORT TO THE BOARD OF OVERSEERS, NATIONAL ELECTION STUDIES." WORKING PAPER NO. 7. ANN ARBOR: CPS, AUGUST 1985. BREHM, JOHN. (1985C) "QUESTION ORDERING EFFECTS ON REPORTED VOTE CHOICE." UNPUBLISHED MEMO, JULY 1985. BREHM, JOHN. (1987A) "HOW REPRESENTATIVE IS THE 1986 POST-ELECTION SURVEY?" MEMO TO BOARD OF OVERSEERS, NATIONAL ELECTION STUDIES, MAY 1987. BREHM, JOHN. (1987B) "WHO'S MISSING? AN ANALYSIS OF NONRESPONSE IN THE 1986 ELECTION STUDY: A REPORT TO THE BOARD OF OVERSEERS, NATIONAL ELECTION STUDIES." WORKING PAPER NO. 10. ANN ARBOR: CPS, DECEMBER 1987. BREHM, JOHN AND SANTA TRAUGOTT. (1986) "SIMILARITY AND REPRESENTATIVENESS OF THE 1985 PILOT HALF-SAMPLES." MEMO TO THE NES 1985 PILOT STUDY COMMITTEE MARCH, 1986. LAKE, CELINDA. (1983A) "SIMILARITY AND REPRESENTATIVENESS OF 1983 PILOT SAMPLES." MEMO TO NATIONAL ELECTION STUDIES 1984 PLANNING COMMITTEE, SEPTEMBER 1983. LAKE, CELINDA. (1983) "COMPARISON OF 3-POINT, 5-POINT, AND 7-POINT SCALES FROM THE CATI EXPERIMENT 1982 ELECTION STUDY." MEMO TO NES BOARD OF OVERSEERS, NOVEMBER 1983. LAKE, CELINDA. (1984) "CODING OF INDEPENDENT/INDEPENDENTS AND APOLITICALS IN THE PARTY IDENTIFICATION SUMMARY CODE AND APOLITICALS IN THE ROLLING CROSS-SECTION." MEMO TO BOARD OF OVERSEERS, NATIONAL ELECTION STUDIES. FEBRUARY 1984. MORCHIO, GIOVANNA. (1987) "TRENDS IN NES RESPONSE RATES." MEMO TO NES BOARD OF OVERSEERS. MORCHIO, GIOVANNA AND MARIA SANCHEZ. (1984) "CREATION OF A FILTER VARIABLE TO BE USED WHEN ANALYZING QUESTIONS ABOUT CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATES IN THE 1982 INTEGRATED PERSONAL/ISR CATI/BERKELEY CATI DATASET: A REPORT TO THE BOARD OF OVERSEERS, NATIONAL ELECTION STUDIES." WORKING PAPER NO. 1, ANN ARBOR: CPS, FEBRUARY 1984. MORCHIO, GIOVANNA AND MARIA SANCHEZ. (1984) "COMPARISON OF THE MICHIGAN METHOD OF DISTRICT ASSIGNMENT ON THE TELEPHONE WITH THE PERSONAL INTERVIEW SIMULATED DATA: A REPORT TO THE BOARD OF OVERSEERS, NATIONAL ELECTION STUDIES." WORKING PAPER NO. 2. ANN ARBOR: CPS, MARCH 1984. MORCHIO, GIOVANNA, MARIA SANCHEZ AND SANTA TRAUGOTT. (1985) "MODE DIFFERENCES: DK RESPONSES IN THE 1984 POST-ELECTION SURVEY: A REPORT TO THE BOARD OF OVERSEERS, NATIONAL ELECTION STUDIES." WORKING PAPER NO. 9. ANN ARBOR: CPS, NOVEMBER 1985. MORCHIO, GIOVANNA AND SANTA TRAUGOTT. (1986) "CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT ASSIGNMENT IN AN RDD SAMPLE: RESULTS OF 1982 CATI EXPERIMENT." MEMO TO THE 1986 PILOT PLANNING COMMITTEE. FEBRUARY 1986. NES STAFF. (1984) "QUESTIONS AND VERSIONS IN NES CONTINUOUS MONITORING, 1984: A REPORT TO THE BOARD OF OVERSEERS, NATIONAL ELECTION STUDIES." WORKING PAPER NO. 3. ANN ARBOR: CPS, AUGUST 1984. NES STAFF. (1984) "WEEKLY FIELD REPORT FOR THE NATIONAL ELECTION STUDIES CONTINUOUS MONITORING, JAN. 11-AUG. 3, 1984: A REPORT TO THE BOARD OF OVERSEERS, NATIONAL ELECTION STUDIES." WORKING PAPER NO. 4. ANN ARBOR: CPS, AUGUST 1984. NES STAFF. (1985) "PROGRESS OF THE ROLLING CROSS SECTION." MEMO TO NES BOARD OF OVERSEERS, FEBRUARY 1985. NES STAFF. (UNDATED) "YEARS OF SCHOOLING." UNPUBLISHED STAFF MEMO. NES STAFF. (UNDATED) "NEWSPAPER CODE." UNPUBLISHED STAFF MEMO. TRAUGOTT, SANTA. (1984) "TWO VERSIONS OF THE ABORTION QUESTION." UNPUBLISHED STAFF MEMO TO THE NES BOARD OF OVERSEERS, JUNE 1984. TRAUGOTT, SANTA. (1985) "SAMPLE WEIGHTING IN NES CONTINUOUS MONITORING, 1984.: A REPORT TO THE BOARD OF OVERSEERS, NATIONAL ELECTION STUDIES," WORKING PAPER NO. 5. ANN ARBOR: CPS, APRIL 1985. TRAUGOTT, SANTA. (1985) "SAMPLE WEIGHTING IN NES PRE-POST ELECTION SURVEY, 1984: A REPORT TO THE BOARD OF OVERSEERS, NATIONAL ELECTION STUDIES," WORKING PAPER NO. 6. ANN ARBOR: CPS, APRIL 1985. TRAUGOTT, SANTA. (1985) "ASSESSMENT OF MEDIA MEASURES IN RXS." UNPUBLISHED STAFF MEMO, JULY 1985. TRAUGOTT, SANTA. (1985) "ASSESSMENT OF MEDIA MEASURES IN PRE-POST" UNPUBLISHED STAFF MEMO, JULY 1985. TRAUGOTT, SANTA. (UNDATED) "THE POLITICAL INTEREST VARIABLE ON THE 1984 ELECTION STUDY." UNPUBLISHED STAFF MEMO TO NES PLANNING COMMITTEE. TRAUGOTT, SANTA. (1985) "SOME ANALYSIS OF HARD-TO-REACH ROLLING THUNDER RESPONDENTS." UNPUBLISHED STAFF MEMO TO NES BOARD OF OVERSEERS, FEBRUARY 1985. >> 1987 PILOT STUDY REPORTS CONOVER, PAMELA JOHNSTON AND STANLEY FELDMAN. MEASURING PATRIOTISM AND NATIONALISM. CONOVER, PAMELA JOHNSTON AND DAVID LOWERY. PILOT STUDY QUESTIONS ON WELFARE/POVERTY. CRAIG, STEPHEN AND RICHARD NIEMI. POLITICAL EFFICACY AND TRUST. SEPTEMBER 25, 1987. FELDMAN, STANLEY. EVALUATION OF NEW EQUALITY ITEMS. SEPTEMBER 29, 1987. KNIGHT, KATHLEEN. MEASUREMENT OF LIBERAL/CONSERVATIVE IDENTIFICATION. SEPTEMBER 23, 1987. NIEMI, RICHARD, CHARLES HADLEY, AND HAROLD STANLEY. NATIONAL AND STATE PARTY IDENTIFICATION. SEPTEMBER 25, 1987. NIEMI, RICHARD AND HERB WEISBERG. 1987 PILOT STUDY "FORCE CHOICE" PARTY IDENTIFICATION QUESTION EXPERIMENT. SEPTEMBER 25, 1987. PEFFLEY, MARK AND JON HURWITZ. REPORT ON FOREIGN POLICY ITEMS, 1987 PILOT STUDY. SHINGLES, RICHARD. REPORT ON MEASURES OF EFFICACY AND TRUST. SEPTEMBER 28, 1987. MEMORANDUM. REPORT. NEW MEASURES OF SUBJECTIVE POLITICAL EFFICACY AND POLITICAL TRUST. SEPTEMBER 28, 1987. ADDENDUM TABLE 4. SUPPLEMENTS 1, 2, 3. STOKER, LAURA L. MORALITY AND POLITICS: CONDUCT AND CONTROL. A REPORT ON NEW ITEMS IN THE 1987 NATIONAL ELECTION PILOT STUDY. SEPTEMBER 1987. TATE, KATHERINE. WHITES' PERCEPTIONS OF GROUP ECONOMIC DIFFERENCES. SEPTEMBER 28, 1987. ZALLER, JOHN AND STANLEY FELDMAN. FRAME OF REFERENCE AND THE SURVEY RESPONSE. FELDMAN AND ZALLER MEMORANDUM, SEPTEMBER 27, 1987. >> DESCRIPTION OF REVALIDATION OF 1988 VOTE (1991) This dataset consists of the results of a revalidation of voting and registration as reported by respondents to the 1988 Election Study. The re-looking up of these records was carried out in conjunction with the 1990 Vote Validation Study. It was done in order to measure the error in the vote validation process itself. The vote validation study carried out in July-August of 1991 was the eighth time that NES has done a voter validation study. Previous validations were done for the 1964, 1976, 1978, 1980, 1984, 1986, and 1988 Post Election Studies. The voter validation study is carried out by sending name and address information for respondents who say they are registered to vote, to a Survey Research Center field interviewer, who is instructed to check with the local office at which respondents report being registered for the purpose of locating the registration records of these respondents and to ascertain whether or not the records show that the respondents voted in the most recent general election. It is important to note that the search is conducted by people who are trained in survey methods but not in records management, and who may themselves vary in terms of their understanding of the records, their pertinacity, the thoroughness by which every avenue in the records is explored, and so on. It was recommended to the NES Board of Overseers that revalidation of the 1988 Election Study would be an appropriate and modest first step in determining the extent to which vote validation findings are related to the process itself.(1) Accordingly, the Board decided that 1988 respondents should be validated at the same time as the 1990 respondents, to the extent that offices scheduled to be visited for the 1990 respondents also encompassed the 1988 respondents. The procedures and forms used for the 1988 respondents were identical to those used for the 1990 respondents. The 1990 forms and procedures are similar to, but distinct from, those used in 1988. In most cases, the SRC field personnel who did the lookups in 1990 were not the same people who did the 1988 lookups. If there are interviewer effects, these would show up as different interviewers conduct record checks on the same people in the same offices. A. The "Office" Variables In order to conduct elections honestly, lists of eligible voters are generated by each election office, with each voter assigned to one and only one precinct. Therefore, for the purpose of registration and voting, an individual must be associated with one and only one address, belonging in one and only one electoral jurisdiction. Since NES respondents come from a national area probability sample, a large number of different election offices are included in the validation study, usually over 100. ------------------------- (1) Presser, S., Traugott, M. and Traugott, S. "Extending Methodological Development of Survey Response Errors for Voting." Memo to the Board of Overseers, Feb. 1991. The jurisdiction of these election offices is usually the county but in New England and a few other states, registration and voting records are maintained at a local level, including townships. Because of the diversity in record keeping and access across these many offices, the vote validation dataset has two conceptual parts. The most obvious part is the results of the record check for individual respondents. The other part, the office variables, may perhaps be labeled "contextual" data, for these variables describe the search procedure and the records themselves. We include the variables describing the records and the search procedure because the relationship between the respondent's report and what is found or not found in official records is not necessarily a straightforward one. One view of the matching process is that the official records are always correct, and that in the event of discrepancy, the respondent must have "misreported" his or her behavior. Another view is that the records themselves are but another form of measurement of a particular behavior, and as such, are subject to measurement error. So, for example, the computerized transcription of poll records, which are the records which have been checked in most offices, could be inaccurate. The situation is made more complex by the fact that there appears to be an irreducible minimum proportion of respondents for whom a record of registration cannot be located at all, and logically, it is difficult if not impossible to say that this negative finding demonstrates beyond doubt that respondents are not registered. It is always possible that with a "better" search, a more accurate spelling of the person's name, a correct understanding of where the person is actually registered, the record would have been located. We think the user needs information not only about what we have found, but what the records themselves are like, and what the search was like, so that the user can make some evaluation of whether record-respondent discrepancies cluster in-particular patterns of record keeping or search.(2) Information about the records, and the search process, was coded from several sources. First, the SRC interviewer who did the records check administered a brief (10-15 minute) -questionnaire to an official in the records office asking specifically about how the records were organized. The purpose of this interaction was for the interviewer to gain information to enable her to conduct the records search efficiently. Second, as the interviewer went on to fill out the forms recording the results of individual record checks, that is, to actually use the records that had been described, her (2) This view has been evolving within NES for some period of time. The following technical reports, papers and other memoranda trace this development: Traugott, S., (1989) Validating Self-Reported Vote, 1964-1988; Presser, S; Traugott, S. and Traugott M. (1990) "Vote 'Over' Reporting in Surveys: The Records or the Respondents"; and Traugott, S. and Morchio, G. "1990 Vote Validation" (1991). Any of these papers or reports are available by contacting NES project staff. understanding of the records often changed, sometimes by the discovery of additional sources not originally described to her. These discoveries were annotated on the forms themselves, rather than on the office interview. The NES staff reviewed all of the individual record check forms from a particular office in conjunction with the election official's questionnaire. A third source of information, used somewhat tentatively because of the possibility of change in the intervening time, was the previous interviews conducted in the same office. (NES has been in the same sample frame since 1984, and many of these offices have been visited three previous times.) These interviews were used to elucidate points that were not clear. Finally, for between 20-30% of the offices, various points remained unclear and the offices and/or the SRC interviewers were called by the NES staff for further information. All of these sources were used in the coding of the office variables (V882103-V882149). The chief focus of the office variables is in what sources were actually used by the interviewer, and how they were used. We do not describe in detail all of the records that the office keeps. These office variables differ in focus from previous codings of office variables, where the interest was in describing the office records themselves, rather than those used. The reason for this is that as we read through the materials, we were struck by how frequently sources which were theoretically available were not used because they were not readily accessible. For example, the office might have a computerized system for keeping track of registrants. But, it is in another building, and we don't have access to it on anything but printouts. Or, the computer is "down." Often, poll books are stored off-site, and offices are reluctant to retrieve them for our inspection, claiming. that "everything on them is on the computer." Hence, while we attach the office interview schedule itself as part of the documentation, the user should be aware that the office variables are not a direct transcription from this questionnaire, but rather address the somewhat different question of what sources were actually used. B. The Lookup Process If election offices share a common central mission, that of conducting elections without fraud, they also display a bewildering variety of terms for similar procedures, to say nothing of widely different procedures to achieve the same ends. There are places with numerous versions of sophisticated computer tracking, and places with one set of poll ledgers. The supervisors of these offices can be highly professional, or, in one or two cases, obvious political appointees. Some offices boast the latest in computer technology, including digitized signatures and bar codes over which a wand can be passed to register that a person has voted; while others make do with signatures and initials on the original registration card. We have validated in jurisdictions having voters numbering in the millions and thousands of precincts and in places where there is one precinct with several hundred registrants. Each year we face the difficulty of trying to -.rain survey interviewers in how to diagnose the intricacies of records management in the offices they are likely to encounter, so that they can use ALL the sources potentially available to them efficiently in the actual lookup process. In 1984, we hit upon the strategy of conducting an interview with an election official, prior to actually looking up the records, so that the look-up person would have a detailed idea of what records were available to her. Each time we do this, we struggle to improve this office questionnaire so that it will better lead the naive interviewer through the maze of different office procedures. Although NES staff is somewhat removed from the complexities of each individual office, we try to write some general instructions to guide the interviewers in the lookup process. For this study, the task of the interviewer was described to them as first finding a record that they were reasonably sure was the respondent's; then, ascertaining what the record showed about whether the respondent voted or did not vote in the general elections of 1990 and 1988. It was explained that all offices maintain a list of who is registered in their jurisdiction. From this master list, all offices send to each polling place a list in some form of who is eligible to vote at that voting place. When people vote, some mark is made to indicate that they done so (to reduce the possibility of fraud, following the time honored rule of one person, one vote.) Information about whether a person did or did not vote may or may not be posted back to the master office list of who is registered. There are many variations on this scheme: for example, some offices divide the master list (which is on cards) into precinct binders and send these out to the polls where they are marked.) Thus, the master list is also the poll book. However, the general outline is simple. Based on this general outline, and assuming that most offices post vote information back to the registration record, interviewers were to look first at the master registration record for evidence that R had voted. If the record did not show that R voted, they were to look at the original poll books, to the extent they were available, for some further indication of vote. (Historiographers will recognize the distinction between primary and secondary sources, one that has been slow to dawn on us as survey researchers.) One example will illustrate the importance of primary sources. An interviewer happened to be a registered voter in a county where she was looking up records. She noted that many more respondents appeared to have voted in 1990 than in 1988. She thought this was strange. Accordingly, she looked up her own record for 1988, and found that the computer did not show her as voting, although she had. It didn't show her son or husband as voting either, although they voted with her. The original poll records, however, showed she and her family as voting. It turned out that there had been a sizeable transcription error in 1988, in this office. As the NES staff evaluated what we received back from interviewers, both record check forms and election official interviews, it was clear that in many offices, original sources were not used, either because they were not made available to the interviewer (sometimes they are destroyed after information has been posted to the computer) or because the interviewer did not press for access to these sources. Also, some interviewers went about their task in a way exactly contrary to instructions, i.e., they looked first at the poll records, and then searched the registration records for people they couldn't locate. The trouble with this strategy is that some nontrivial proportion of people are not registered to vote in the precinct in which they were interviewed; rather they vote somewhere else in the same jurisdiction. Starting with the poll books means considerably more going back and forth between registration records and poll records; in this process, it is much more difficult for the interviewer with a sizeable number of cases in an office to keep track of exactly which sources she has or has not used in a particular case. (3) C. Contents of the Dataset The present dataset is very similar in structure to the 1990 vote validation dataset; containing variables about the results of the individual respondent lookup as well as about the lookup procedure itself. A few variables from the 1988 vote validation are included; these are the results of the lookup, i.e., whether or not a registration record was found and whether or not the respondent appears to have voted in 1988. There are 2040 records in the 1988 Revalidation dataset, one record for each respondent in the 1988 Pre-Election Study. We have "padded" the vote validation dataset by adding records with missing data codes for 1988 respondents who were not validated. The dataset which we are releasing now has variables from several sources. These are: 1. Variables about the individual respondents from the 1988 Election Study, including self-reported vote and registration. All variables which were generated for the coversheet, with the exception of name, address and geographic information, are included. 2. Variables from the individual record check form filled out by the interviewer in the election office. These are variables 882003-882046. 4. Variables describing the sources used and the search procedure in the election records office in which the respondent's record was looked up. (Variables 882103-882149). There will be no further release of the office level information. While this is a "stand-alone" dataset, most users will find it most useful merged back into the 1988 Election Study. Merging should be relatively simple because there is one record for the vote validation dataset for each record in the 1988 Pre-Election Study. (3) In fairness to the interviewers, we should say that our interviewers are entirely dependent on the good will of the people assisting them in any given office. Often, these people had an understandable interest in minimizing the time devoted to helping our interviewer and the interviewers were reluctant to press them with timeconsuming requests for original sources. In retrospect, the NES staff needed to do much more to prepare the offices and the interviewers about resources would be needed to complete the lookup task. MEMBERSHIP OF THE NES BOARD OF OVERSEERS February, 1991 Stanley Feldman State University of New York, Stony Brook Morris J. Fiorina Harvard University Mary Jackman University of California, Davis Gary Jacobson University of California, San Diego David Leege Notre Dame University Thomas Mann The Brookings Institution Douglas Rivers Stanford University John Zaller University of California, Los Angeles PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS Warren E. Miller Arizona State University Donald R. Kinder University of Michigan Steven J. Rosenstone University of Michigan STUDY STAFF Associated with the 1991 Panel/Pilot Study Santa Traugott NES Project Manager Thomas M. Ivacko Study Manager, NES Fran Eliot Research Assistant, NES Zoanne Blackburn Study Manager, SRC/Telephone Facility >> 1988 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. >> 1988 ICPSR PROCESSING INFORMATION THE DATA COLLECTION WAS PROCESSED ACCORDING TO THE STANDARD ICPSR PROCESSING PROCEDURES FOR CLASS I DATA COLLECTIONS. THE DATA WERE CHECKED FOR ILLEGAL OR INCONSISTENT CODE VALUES WHICH, WHEN FOUND, WERE EITHER CORRECTED OR RECODED TO MISSING DATA VALUES. EXTENSIVE CONSISTENCY CHECKS WERE PERFORMED. STATEMENTS BRACKETED IN "<" AND ">" SIGNS IN THE BODY OF THE CODEBOOK WERE ADDED BY THE PROCESSORS FOR EXPLANATORY PURPOSES. >> 1988 VARIABLE DESCRIPTION LIST ICPSR VARIABLES VERSION NES VERISON NUMBER DSETNO NES DATASET NUMBER 880001 ICPSR ARCHIVE NUMBER- 9196 880004 RESPONDENT PRE-ELECTION CASE ID SAMPLING INFORMATION 880005 PRIMARY AREA CODE 880006 PRIMARY AREA NAME 880007 SEGMENT NUMBER 880008 CENSUS REGION 880009 POSTAL STATE ABBREVIATION AND CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT NUMBER 880010 FIPS STATE CODE 880011 FIPS STATE AND COUNTY CODE 880012 ICPSR STATE CODE 880013 ICPSR STATE AND CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT CODE 880014 TRACT/ENUMERATION DISTRICT INDICATOR 880015 1980 CENSUS TRACT 880016 1980 CENSUS ENUMERATION DISTRICT 880017 1980 CENSUS PLACE CODE 880018 FIPS 1980 SMSA CODE 880019 FIPS 1980 SCSA CODE 880020 SIZE OF PLACE OF INTERVIEW 880021 ACTUAL POPULATION OF PLACE OF INTERVIEW 880022 1980 BELT CODE 880023 1980 MINOR CIVIL DIVISION 880024 SAMPLING ERROR CODE 880025 SELECTION TABLE PRE-ELECTION INFORMATION 880026 INTERVIEWER'S ID NUMBER 880027 REFUSAL CONVERSION INDICATOR 880028 PERSUASION LETTER REQUESTED 880029 FINAL CALL NUMBER 880030 FINAL RESULT CODE 880031 IF R IS FEMALE, HAS R LEGALLY CHANGED HER NAME 880032 PHONE NUMBER OBTAINED 880033 INTERVIEWER'S RACE 880034 INTERVIEWER'S ETHNICITY 880035 INTERVIEWER'S AGE, BRACKETED 880036 INTERVIEWER'S YEARS OF WORK, BRACKETED 880037 INTERVIEWER'S SEX 880038 INTERVIEWER'S EDUCATION, BRACKETED 880039 INTERVIEW QUARTER CODE 880040 FORM TYPE 880041 INTERVIEW PRIMARY AREA 880042 INTERVIEWER'S INTERVIEW NUMBER 880043 DATE COMPLETED - MONTH 880044 DATE COMPLETED - DAY 880045 LENGTH OF INTERVIEW 880046 LENGTH OF POST-EDITING 880047 BEGINNING TIME - LOCAL POST-ELECTION INFORMATION 880048 RESPONDENT POST-ELECTION CASE ID 880049 INTERVIEWER'S ID NUMBER 880050 TYPE OF CONGRESSIONAL RACE 880051 TYPE OF SENATE RACE 880052 FORM TYPE 880053 REFUSAL CONVERSION INDICATOR 880054 PERSUASION LETTER REQUESTED 880055 FINAL CALL NUMBER 880056 FINAL RESULT CODE 880057 CHECKPOINT: R'S PHONE NUMBER/PHONE STATUS DIFFERENT 880058 PHONE NUMBER OBTAINED 880059 IS R'S NUMBER LISTED IN THE PHONE DIRECTORY 880060 IS PHONE LISTED IN R'S NAME 880061 IS THERE A REASON THAT WE SHOULD NOT INTERVIEW R BY TELEPHONE 880062 INTERVIEWER'S INTERVIEW NUMBER 880063 DATE COMPLETED - MONTH 880064 DATE COMPLETED - DAY 880065 LENGTH OF INTERVIEW 880066 LENGTH OF PRE-EDITING 880067 LENGTH OF POST-EDITING 880068 BEGINNING TIME - LOCAL 880069 DID R REFUSE INTERVIEW INITIALLY 880070 DID R BREAK ANY APPOINTMENTS R'S RESISTANCE TO INTERVIEW 880071 WAS THERE RESISTANCE TO THE INTERVIEW FROM R 880072 NOT INTERESTED, DOESN'T VOTE 880073 SURVEYS WASTE OF TIME, PREVIOUS BAD EXPERIENCE 880074 VERY ILL 880075 "TOO BUSY" 880076 STRESSFUL FAMILY SITUATION 880077 CONFIDENTIALITY 880078 FIRST INTERVIEW TOO LONG 880079 DIDN'T LIKE FIRST INTERVIEW 880080 DIDN'T LIKE FIRST INTERVIEWER 880081 NO REASON GIVEN 880082 OTHER REASON GIVEN FOR R'S RESISTANCE 880083 WAS R SUSPICIOUS 880084 WAS R HOSTILE 880085 WAS R RUDE 880086 WAS R THREATENING 880087 IF NON-INTERVIEW, WAS R POLITE BUT FIRM 880088 OTHER RESISTANCE REASON 880089 WAS THANK YOU LETTER SENT TO R HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION 880090 NUMBER OF PERSONS IN HOUSEHOLD 880091 NUMBER OF ELIGIBLE ADULTS 880092 NUMBER OF CHILDREN UNDER SIX YEARS OLD 880093 NUMBER OF CHILDREN SIX TO NINE YEARS OLD 880094 NUMBER OF CHILDREN TEN TO THIRTEEN YEARS OLD 880095 NUMBER OF CHILDREN FOURTEEN TO SEVENTEEN YEARS OLD 880096 HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION R'S INTEREST IN AND PREDICTIONS FOR CAMPAIGN 880097 R'S INTEREST IN THE CAMPAIGN 880098 R'S PREDICTION OF WINNER IN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION 880099 DOES R THINK PRESIDENTIAL RACE WILL BE CLOSE 880100 WHICH PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE DOES R THINK WILL CARRY R'S STATE 880101 DOES R THINK THE PRESIDENTIAL RACE WILL BE CLOSE IN R'S STATE 880102 DOES R CARE WHICH PARTY WINS THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION BUSH AS CANDIDATE 880103 IS THERE ANYTHING ABOUT BUSH THAT WOULD MAKE R VOTE FOR HIM 880104 REASONS R WOULD VOTE FOR BUSH - FIRST MENTION 880105 REASONS R WOULD VOTE FOR BUSH - SECOND MENTION 880106 REASONS R WOULD VOTE FOR BUSH - THIRD MENTION 880107 REASONS R WOULD VOTE FOR BUSH - FOURTH MENTION 880108 REASONS R WOULD VOTE FOR BUSH - FIFTH MENTION 880109 IS THERE ANYTHING ABOUT BUSH THAT WOULD MAKE R VOTE AGAINST HIM 880110 REASONS R WOULD VOTE AGAINST BUSH - FIRST MENTION 880111 REASONS R WOULD VOTE AGAINST BUSH - SECOND MENTION 880112 REASONS R WOULD VOTE AGAINST BUSH - THIRD MENTION 880113 REASONS R WOULD VOTE AGAINST BUSH - FOURTH MENTION 880114 REASONS R WOULD VOTE AGAINST BUSH - FIFTH MENTION DUKAKIS AS CANDIDATE 880115 IS THERE ANYTHING ABOUT DUKAKIS THAT WOULD MAKE R VOTE FOR HIM 880116 REASONS R WOULD VOTE FOR DUKAKIS - FIRST MENTION 880117 REASONS R WOULD VOTE FOR DUKAKIS - SECOND MENTION 880118 REASONS R WOULD VOTE FOR DUKAKIS - THIRD MENTION 880119 REASONS R WOULD VOTE FOR DUKAKIS - FOURTH MENTION 880120 REASONS R WOULD VOTE FOR DUKAKIS - FIFTH MENTION 880121 IS THERE ANYTHING ABOUT DUKAKIS THAT WOULD MAKE R VOTE AGAINST HIM 880122 REASONS R WOULD VOTE AGAINST DUKAKIS - FIRST MENTION 880123 REASONS R WOULD VOTE AGAINST DUKAKIS - SECOND MENTION 880124 REASONS R WOULD VOTE AGAINST DUKAKIS - THIRD MENTION 880125 REASONS R WOULD VOTE AGAINST DUKAKIS - FOURTH MENTION 880126 REASONS R WOULD VOTE AGAINST DUKAKIS - FIFTH MENTION R'S ATTENTION TO CAMPAIGN/MEDIA 880127 HOW OFTEN DID R DISCUSS POLITICS IN THE PAST WEEK 880128 HOW OFTEN DID R WATCH NEWS ON TV IN THE PAST WEEK 880129 HOW MUCH ATTENTION DID R GIVE TO THE PRESIDENTIAL 880129 CAMPAIGN NEWS ON TV 880130 HOW OFTEN DID R READ A DAILY NEWSPAPER IN THE PAST WEEK 880131 WHICH PAPER DID R READ - FIRST MENTION 880132 WHICH PAPER DID R READ - SECOND MENTION 880133 WHICH PAPER DID R READ - THIRD MENTION 880134 DID R READ ABOUT THE CAMPAIGN IN ANY NEWSPAPER 880135 HOW MUCH ATTENTION DID R GIVE TO THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN NEWS IN THE NEWSPAPER 880136 DID R READ ABOUT THE CAMPAIGN IN ANY MAGAZINES 880137 HOW MUCH ATTENTION DID R GIVE TO THE PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN NEWS IN MAGAZINES 880138 DID R LISTEN TO CAMPAIGN SPEECHES OR DISCUSSIONS ON THE RADIO 880139 HOW MANY CAMPAIGN SPEECHES/DISCUSSIONS ON THE RADIO DID R LISTEN TO R'S ASSESSMENT OF REAGAN AS PRESIDENT (PRE-ELECTION) 880140 R APPROVES/DISAPPROVES OF REAGAN'S HANDLING OF HIS JOB AS PRESIDENT 880141 HOW STRONGLY DOES R APPROVE/DISAPPROVE OF REAGAN'S HANDLING OF HIS JOB REPUBLICAN/DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES 880142 WHICH REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE DOES R THINK WOULD MAKE THE BEST PRESIDENT 880143 DOES R THINK BUSH WOULD MAKE A BETTER PRESIDENT THAN ANY OTHER REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE 880144 DOES R THINK REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE NAMED IN Q. D1 WOULD MAKE A BETTER PRESIDENT THAN BUSH 880145 WHICH DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE DOES R THINK WOULD MAKE THE BEST PRESIDENT 880146 DOES R THINK DUKAKIS WOULD MAKE A BETTER PRESIDENT THAN ANY OTHER DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE 880147 DOES R THINK THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE NAMED IN Q. D2 WOULD MAKE A BETTER PRESIDENT THAN DUKAKIS R'S PARTICIPATION IN PRIMARY/CAUCUS 880148 DID R VOTE IN CAUCUS/PRIMARY ELECTION 880149 DID R VOTE IN REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY/CAUCUS 880150 WHICH REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE DID R VOTE FOR IN STATE CAUCUS/PRIMARY 880151 WHICH DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE DID R VOTE FOR IN STATE PRIMARY/CAUCUS FEELING THERMOMETERS - POLITICAL FIGURES 880152 FEELING THERMOMETER - ROBERT DOLE 880153 FEELING THERMOMETER - MARIO CUOMO 880154 FEELING THERMOMETER - GEORGE BUSH 880155 FEELING THERMOMETER - MICHAEL DUKAKIS 880156 FEELING THERMOMETER - PAT ROBERTSON 880157 FEELING THERMOMETER - TED KENNEDY 880158 FEELING THERMOMETER - RONALD REAGAN 880159 FEELING THERMOMETER - LLOYD BENTSEN 880160 FEELING THERMOMETER - DAN QUAYLE 880161 FEELING THERMOMETER - MIKHAIL GORBACHEV 880162 FEELING THERMOMETER - JESSE JACKSON 880163 FEELING THERMOMETER - OLIVER NORTH 880164 FEELING THERMOMETER - DEMOCRATIC PARTY 880165 FEELING THERMOMETER - REPUBLICAN PARTY PROBE INDICATORS FOR PRE-ELECTION SECTION D 880166 WAS QUESTION D1 PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880167 WAS QUESTION D2 PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880168 WAS QUESTION D4A PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880169 WAS QUESTION D4B PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880170 WAS QUESTION D4C PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880171 WAS QUESTION D4D PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880172 WAS QUESTION D4E PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880173 WAS QUESTION D4F PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880174 WAS QUESTION D4G PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880175 WAS QUESTION D4H PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880176 WAS QUESTION D4J PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880177 WAS QUESTION D4K PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880178 WAS QUESTION D4M PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880179 WAS QUESTION D4N PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880180 WAS QUESTION D5A PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880181 WAS QUESTION D5B PROBED BY INTERVIEWER WHAT R LIKES/DISLIKES ABOUT DEMOCRATIC PARTY 880182 WHETHER R LIKES ANYTHING ABOUT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY 880183 WHAT R LIKES ABOUT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY-FIRST MENTION 880184 WHAT R LIKES ABOUT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY-SECOND MENTION 880185 WHAT R LIKES ABOUT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY-THIRD MENTION 880186 WHAT R LIKES ABOUT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY-FOURTH MENTION 880187 WHAT R LIKES ABOUT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY-FIFTH MENTION 880188 WHETHER R DISLIKES ANYTHING ABOUT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY 880189 WHAT R DISLIKES ABOUT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY-FIRST MENTION 880190 WHAT R DISLIKES ABOUT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY-SECOND MENTION 880191 WHAT R DISLIKES ABOUT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY-THIRD MENTION 880192 WHAT R DISLIKES ABOUT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY-FOURTH MENTION 880193 WHAT R DISLIKES ABOUT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY-FIFTH MENTION WHAT R LIKES/DISLIKES ABOUT REPUBLICAN PARTY 880194 WHETHER R LIKES ANYTHING ABOUT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY 880195 WHAT R LIKES ABOUT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY-FIRST MENTION 880196 WHAT R LIKES ABOUT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY-SECOND MENTION 880197 WHAT R LIKES ABOUT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY-THIRD MENTION 880198 WHAT R LIKES ABOUT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY-FOURTH MENTION 880199 WHAT R LIKES ABOUT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY-FIFTH MENTION 880200 WHETHER R DISLIKES ANYTHING ABOUT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY 880201 WHAT R DISLIKES ABOUT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY-FIRST MENTION 880202 WHAT R DISLIKES ABOUT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY-SECOND MENTION 880203 WHAT R DISLIKES ABOUT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY-THIRD MENTION 880204 WHAT R DISLIKES ABOUT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY-FOURTH MENTION 880205 WHAT R DISLIKES ABOUT REPUBLICAN PARTY-FIFTH MENTION R'S PERSONAL FINANCIAL SITUATION 880206 DOES R FEEL BETTER/WORSE OFF FINANCIALLY THAN A YEAR AGO 880207 HOW MUCH BETTER/WORSE OFF DOES R FEEL 880208 WILL R BE BETTER/WORSE OFF FINANCIALLY A YEAR FROM NOW 880209 WILL R BE MUCH OR SOMEWHAT BETTER/WORSE OFF A YEAR FROM NOW 880210 HAS R'S INCOME STAYED AT/ABOVE/BELOW THE COST OF LIVING 880211 HOW MUCH HAS R'S INCOME RISEN ABOVE/FALLEN BEHIND THE COST OF LIVING 880212 HAS FEDERAL ECONOMIC POLICY MADE A DIFFERENCE ON R'S FINANCIAL POSITION 880213 HOW MUCH BETTER/WORSE HAS IT MADE R R'S FEELINGS ABOUT CANDIDATE: BUSH 880214 WHETHER BUSH MAKES R ANGRY 880215 WHETHER BUSH MAKES R HOPEFUL 880216 WHETHER BUSH MAKES R AFRAID OF HIM 880217 WHETHER BUSH MAKES R PROUD R'S FEELINGS ABOUT CANDIDATE: DUKAKIS 880218 WHETHER DUKAKIS MAKES R ANGRY 880219 WHETHER DUKAKIS MAKES R HOPEFUL 880220 WHETHER DUKAKIS MAKES R AFRAID OF HIM 880221 WHETHER DUKAKIS MAKES R PROUD R'S FEELINGS ABOUT CANDIDATE: JACKSON 880222 WHETHER JACKSON MAKES R ANGRY 880223 WHETHER JACKSON MAKES R HOPEFUL 880224 WHETHER JACKSON MAKES R AFRAID OF HIM 880225 WHETHER JACKSON MAKES R PROUD R'S ASSESSMENT OF REAGAN'S HANDLING OF ECONOMY (PRE-ELECTION) 880226 R APPROVES/DISAPPROVES OF REAGAN'S HANDLING OF THE ECONOMY 880227 HOW STRONGLY DOES R APPROVE/DISAPPROVE OF REAGAN'S HANDLING OF THE ECONOMY POSITIONS ON LIBERAL/CONSERVATIVE SCALE 880228 LIBERAL/CONSERVATIVE SCALE-R 880229 IF R HAD TO CHOOSE, WOULD R CONSIDER SELF A LIBERAL/ CONSERVATIVE 880230 SUMMARY: R'S LIBERAL/CONSERVATIVE PLACEMENT 880231 LIBERAL/CONSERVATIVE SCALE-DUKAKIS 880232 LIBERAL/CONSERVATIVE SCALE-BUSH 880233 LIBERAL/CONSERVATIVE SCALE-JACKSON 880234 LIBERAL/CONSERVATIVE SCALE-REPUBLICAN PARTY 880235 LIBERAL/CONSERVATIVE SCALE-DEMOCRATIC PARTY 880236 LIBERAL/CONSERVATIVE SCALE-REAGAN 880237 LIBERAL/CONSERVATIVE SCALE-FEDERAL GOVERNMENT R'S OPINION ON NATIONAL/STATE ECONOMIC CONDITIONS IN THE PAST YEAR 880238 HOW DOES R FEEL THE COUNTRY IS DOING 880239 DOES R THINK UNEMPLOYMENT HAS GOTTEN BETTER/ WORSE/STAYED THE SAME IN THE PAST YEAR 880240 HOW MUCH BETTER/WORSE IS UNEMPLOYMENT 880241 DOES R THINK THAT INFLATION HAS GOTTEN BETTER/ WORSE/STAYED THE SAME IN THE PAST YEAR 880242 HOW MUCH BETTER/WORSE IS INFLATION 880243 DOES R THINK THE NATION'S ECONOMY HAS GOTTEN BETTER/ WORSE/STAYED THE SAME IN THE PAST YEAR 880244 HOW MUCH BETTER/WORSE IS THE NATION'S ECONOMY 880245 DOES R THINK FEDERAL ECONOMIC POLICY HAS MADE THE ECONOMY BETTER/WORSE/NOT MADE MUCH DIFFERENCE 880246 HOW MUCH BETTER/WORSE HAS FEDERAL POLICY MADE THE ECONOMY 880247 DOES R SEE THE ECONOMY GETTING BETTER/WORSE/STAYING ABOUT THE SAME IN THE NEXT YEAR 880248 DOES R FEEL THE BUDGET DEFICIT IS A VERY/SOMEWHAT/NOT SERIOUS PROBLEM 880249 WOULD R PAY MORE TAXES TO REDUCE THE BUDGET DEFICIT 880250 DOES R THINK THE STATE'S ECONOMY HAS GOTTEN BETTER/ WORSE/STAYED THE SAME IN THE PAST YEAR 880251 HOW MUCH BETTER/WORSE IS THE STATE ECONOMY R'S OPINIONS ON FOREIGN RELATIONS - PAST YEAR 880252 DOES R THINK THE UNITED STATES' POSITION HAS GROWN STRONGER/WEAKER/STAYED THE SAME IN THE PAST YEAR 880253 DOES R THINK THE REPUBLICANS/DEMOCRATS COULD BETTER KEEP THE U.S. OUT OF WAR IN THE NEXT FOUR YEARS 880254 DOES R AGREE/DISAGREE U.S. SHOULD STAY OUT OF PROBLEMS IN OTHER PARTS OF THE WORLD 880R'S ASSESSMENT OF REAGAN'S HANDLING OF FOREIGN RELATIONS (PRE-ELECTION) 880255 R APPROVES/DISAPPROVES OF REAGAN'S HANDLING OF FOREIGN RELATIONS 880256 HOW STRONGLY DOES R APPROVE/DISAPPROVE OF REAGAN'S HANDLING OF FOREIGN RELATIONS PROBE INDICATORS FOR PRE-ELECTION SECTIONS G AND H 880257 WAS QUESTION G1A PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880258 WAS QUESTION G1B PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880259 WAS QUESTION G1C PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880260 WAS QUESTION G1D PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880261 WAS QUESTION G2A PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880262 WAS QUESTION G2B PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880263 WAS QUESTION G2C PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880264 WAS QUESTION G2D PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880265 WAS QUESTION G3A PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880266 WAS QUESTION G3B PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880267 WAS QUESTION G3C PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880268 WAS QUESTION G3D PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880269 WAS QUESTION H7 PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880270 WAS QUESTION H8 PROBED BY INTERVIEWER R'S PARTY IDENTIFICATION 880271 R'S PARTY IDENTIFICATION 880272 STRENGTH OF R'S PARTY IDENTIFICATION 880273 R CLOSER TO REPUBLICAN/DEMOCRATIC PARTY 880274 SUMMARY: R'S PARTY IDENTIFICATION QUALITIES DESCRIBING CANDIDATE: BUSH 880275 HOW WELL DOES "INTELLIGENT" DESCRIBE BUSH 880276 HOW WELL DOES "COMPASSIONATE" DESCRIBE BUSH 880277 HOW WELL DOES "MORAL" DESCRIBE BUSH 880278 HOW WELL DOES "INSPIRING" DESCRIBE BUSH 880279 HOW WELL DOES "PROVIDES STRONG LEADERSHIP" DESCRIBE BUSH 880280 HOW WELL DOES "DECENT" DESCRIBE BUSH 880281 HOW WELL DOES "REALLY CARES ABOUT PEOPLE LIKE YOU" DESCRIBE BUSH 880282 HOW WELL DOES "KNOWLEDGEABLE" DESCRIBE BUSH 880283 HOW WELL DOES "HONEST" DESCRIBE BUSH QUALITIES DESCRIBING CANDIDATE: DUKAKIS 880284 HOW WELL DOES "INTELLIGENT" DESCRIBE DUKAKIS 880285 HOW WELL DOES "COMPASSIONATE" DESCRIBE DUKAKIS 880286 HOW WELL DOES "MORAL" DESCRIBE DUKAKIS 880287 HOW WELL DOES "INSPIRING" DESCRIBE DUKAKIS 880288 HOW WELL DOES "PROVIDES STRONG LEADERSHIP" DESCRIBE DUKAKIS 880289 HOW WELL DOES "DECENT" DESCRIBE DUKAKIS 880290 HOW WELL DOES "REALLY CARES ABOUT PEOPLE LIKE YOU" DESCRIBE DUKAKIS 880291 HOW WELL DOES "KNOWLEDGEABLE" DESCRIBE DUKAKIS 880292 HOW WELL DOES "HONEST" DESCRIBE DUKAKIS QUALITIES DESCRIBING CANDIDATE: JACKSON 880293 HOW WELL DOES "INTELLIGENT" DESCRIBE JACKSON 880294 HOW WELL DOES "COMPASSIONATE" DESCRIBE JACKSON 880295 HOW WELL DOES "MORAL" DESCRIBE JACKSON 880296 HOW WELL DOES "INSPIRING" DESCRIBE JACKSON 880297 HOW WELL DOES "PROVIDES STRONG LEADERSHIP" DESCRIBE JACKSON 880298 HOW WELL DOES "DECENT" DESCRIBE JACKSON 880299 HOW WELL DOES "REALLY CARES ABOUT PEOPLE LIKE YOU" DESCRIBE JACKSON 880300 HOW WELL DOES "KNOWLEDGEABLE" DESCRIBE JACKSON 880301 HOW WELL DOES "HONEST" DESCRIBE JACKSON POSITION ON MORE/LESS GOVT SERVICES/SPENDING SCALE 880302 GOVERNMENT SERVICES/SPENDING SCALE-R 880303 GOVERNMENT SERVICES/SPENDING SCALE-DUKAKIS 880304 GOVERNMENT SERVICES/SPENDING SCALE-BUSH 880305 GOVERNMENT SERVICES/SPENDING SCALE-JACKSON 880306 GOVERNMENT SERVICES/SPENDING SCALE-FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 880307 GOVERNMENT SERVICES/SPENDING SCALE-REPUBLICAN PARTY 880308 GOVERNMENT SERVICES/SPENDING SCALE-DEMOCRATIC PARTY 880309 GOVERNMENT SERVICES/SPENDING SCALE-REAGAN POSITION ON MORE/LESS DEFENSE SPENDING SCALE 880310 DEFENSE SPENDING SCALE-R 880311 DEFENSE SPENDING SCALE-DUKAKIS 880312 DEFENSE SPENDING SCALE-BUSH 880313 DEFENSE SPENDING SCALE-JACKSON 880314 DEFENSE SPENDING SCALE-FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 880315 DEFENSE SPENDING SCALE-REPUBLICAN PARTY 880316 DEFENSE SPENDING SCALE-DEMOCRATIC PARTY 880317 DEFENSE SPENDING SCALE-REAGAN POSITION ON GOVT-FUNDED INSURANCE SCALE 880318 GOVERNMENT-FUNDED INSURANCE SCALE-R 880319 GOVERNMENT-FUNDED INSURANCE SCALE-DUKAKIS 880320 GOVERNMENT-FUNDED INSURANCE SCALE-BUSH 880321 GOVERNMENT-FUNDED INSURANCE SCALE-REPUBLICAN PARTY 880322 GOVERNMENT-FUNDED INSURANCE SCALE-DEMOCRATIC PARTY POSITION ON GOVT GUARANTEED LIVING/JOB SCALE 880323 GUARANTEED STDRD OF LIVING/JOB SCALE-R 880324 GUARANTEED STDRD OF LIVING/JOB SCALE-DUKAKIS 880325 GUARANTEED STDRD OF LIVING/JOB SCALE-BUSH 880326 GUARANTEED STDRD OF LIVING/JOB SCALE-JACKSON 880327 GUARANTEED STDRD OF LIVING/JOB SCALE-FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 880328 GUARANTEED STDRD OF LIVING/JOB SCALE-REPUBLICAN PARTY 880329 GUARANTEED STDRD OF LIVING/JOB SCALE-DEMOCRATIC PARTY 880330 GUARANTEED STDRD OF LIVING/JOB SCALE-REAGAN 880331 INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: FORM A OR B POSITION ON IMPROVING SOC/ECON STATUS OF BLACKS SCALE 880332 SOCIAL/ECONOMIC STATUS OF BLACKS SCALE-R 880333 SOCIAL/ECONOMIC STATUS OF BLACKS SCALE-DUKAKIS 880334 SOCIAL/ECONOMIC STATUS OF BLACKS SCALE-BUSH 880335 SOCIAL/ECONOMIC STATUS OF BLACKS SCALE-JACKSON 880336 SOCIAL ECONOMIC STATUS OF BLACKS SCALE-FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 880337 SOCIAL ECONOMIC STATUS OF BLACKS SCALE-REPUBLICAN PARTY 880338 SOCIAL/ECONOMIC STATUS OF BLACKS SCALE-DEMOCRATIC PARTY 880339 SOCIAL/ECONOMIC STATUS OF BLACKS SCALE-REAGAN POSITION ON IMPROVING SOC/ECON STATUS OF MINORITIES SCALE 880340 SOCIAL/ECONOMIC STATUS OF MINORITIES SCALE-R 880341 SOCIAL/ECONOMIC STATUS OF MINORITIES SCALE-DUKAKIS 880342 SOCIAL/ECONOMIC STATUS OF MINORITIES SCALE-BUSH 880343 SOCIAL/ECONOMIC STATUS OF MINORITIES SCALE-JACKSON 880344 SOCIAL/ECONOMIC STATUS OF MINORITIES SCALE-FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 880345 SOCIAL/ECONOMIC STATUS OF MINORITIES SCALE- REPUBLICAN PARTY 880346 SOCIAL/ECONOMIC STATUS OF MINORITIES SCALE- DEMOCRATIC PARTY 880347 SOCIAL/ECONOMIC STATUS OF MINORITIES SCALE-REAGAN INCREASE/DECREASE SPENDING ON FEDERAL BUDGET PROGRAMS (SEE ALSO VARIABLES 377-386) 880348 INCREASE/DECREASE SPENDING ON SOCIAL SECURITY 880349 INCREASE/DECREASE SPENDING ON FOOD STAMPS 880350 INCREASE/DECREASE SPENDING ON AID TO CONTRAS 880351 INCREASE/DECREASE SPENDING ON STAR WARS 880352 INCREASE/DECREASE SPENDING ON FIGHTING THE DISEASE AIDS DEMOCRATS/REPUBLICANS CUT SOC SECURITY/RAISE TAXES 880353 WHICH PARTY IS MORE LIKELY TO CUT SOCIAL SECURITY 880354 WHICH PARTY IS MORE LIKELY TO RAISE TAXES PROBE INDICATORS FOR PRE-ELECTION SECTION L 880355 WAS QUESTION L8A PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880356 WAS QUESTION L8B PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880357 WAS QUESTION L8C PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880358 WAS QUESTION L8D PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880359 WAS QUESTION L8E PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880360 WAS QUESTION L9 PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880361 WAS QUESTION L10 PROBED BY INTERVIEWER R'S OPINION ON CHANCES OF GETTING IN WAR 880362 DOES R THINK CHANCES OF GETTING INTO A WAR HAVE INCREASED/DECREASED/HAVEN'T CHANGED 880363 HOW MUCH HAVE CHANCES INCREASED/DECREASED R'S OPINION ON U.S.-SOVIET ARMS AGREEMENTS 880364 R APPROVES/DISAPPROVES OF U.S.-SOVIET ARMS AGREEMENTS 880365 HOW STRONGLY DOES R APPROVE/DISAPPROVE R'S OPINION ON U.S. MILITARY IN MIDDLE EAST 880366 R FAVORS/OPPOSES AMERICAN MILITARY FORCES IN THE MIDDLE EAST TO PROTECT OIL SHIPMENTS 880367 HOW STRONGLY DOES R FAVOR/OPPOSE POSITION ON COOPERATION WITH RUSSIA SCALE 880368 COOPERATION WITH RUSSIA SCALE-R 880369 COOPERATION WITH RUSSIA SCALE-DUKAKIS 880370 COOPERATION WITH RUSSIA SCALE-BUSH 880371 COOPERATION WITH RUSSIA SCALE-JACKSON 880372 COOPERATION WITH RUSSIA SCALE-FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 880373 COOPERATION WITH RUSSIA SCALE-REPUBLICAN PARTY 880374 COOPERATION WITH RUSSIA SCALE-DEMOCRATIC PARTY 880375 COOPERATION WITH RUSSIA SCALE-REAGAN R'S OPINION ON LIMITS ON IMPORTS 880376 R FAVORS/OPPOSES LIMITS ON FOREIGN IMPORTS INCREASE/DECREASE SPENDING ON FEDERAL BUDGET PROGRAMS (SEE ALSO VARIABLES 348-352) 880377 INCREASE/DECREASE SPENDING ON PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT 880378 INCREASE/DECREASE SPENDING ON FINANCIAL AID FOR COLLEGE STUDENTS 880379 INCREASE/DECREASE SPENDING ON ASSISTANCE FOR THE UNEMPLOYED 880380 INCREASE/DECREASE SPENDING ON SPACE AND SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH 880381 INCREASE/DECREASE SPENDING ON PROGRAMS THAT ASSIST BLACKS 880382 INCREASE/DECREASE SPENDING ON CHILDCARE 880383 INCREASE/DECREASE SPENDING ON PUBLIC SCHOOLS 880384 INCREASE/DECREASE SPENDING ON CARE FOR THE ELDERLY 880385 INCREASE/DECREASE SPENDING ON THE HOMELESS 880386 INCREASE/DECREASE SPENDING FOR THE WAR ON DRUGS POSITION ON WOMEN'S RIGHTS SCALE 880387 WOMEN'S RIGHTS SCALE-R 880388 WOMEN'S RIGHTS SCALE-DUKAKIS 880389 WOMEN'S RIGHTS SCALE-BUSH 880390 WOMEN'S RIGHTS SCALE-REPUBLICAN PARTY 880391 WOMEN'S RIGHTS SCALE-DEMOCRATIC PARTY 880392 WOMEN'S RIGHTS SCALE-REAGAN R'S OPINIONS ON DRUG PROBLEM 880393 HOW IMPORTANT IS THE DRUG PROBLEM IN THE U.S. 880394 WILL BUSH/DUKAKIS DO BETTER JOB OF SOLVING THIS PROBLEM R'S OPINION ON ABORTION 880395 R'S POSITION ON ABORTION R'S OPINION ON PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION (PRE-ELECTION) 880396 DOES R EXPECT TO VOTE IN NOVEMBER 880397 WHO WILL R VOTE FOR IN THE ELECTION FOR PRESIDENT 880398 HOW STRONG IS R'S PREFERENCE FOR PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE 880399 INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: FORM A OR B PROBE INDICATORS FOR PRE-ELECTION SECTION N 880400 WAS QUESTION N1A PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880401 WAS QUESTION N1B PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880402 WAS QUESTION N1C PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880403 WAS QUESTION N1D PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880404 WAS QUESTION N1E PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880405 WAS QUESTION N1F PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880406 WAS QUESTION N1G PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880407 WAS QUESTION N1H PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880408 WAS QUESTION N1J PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880409 WAS QUESTION N1K PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880410 WAS QUESTION N3 PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880411 WAS QUESTION N3A PROBED BY INTERVIEWER PERSONAL INFORMATION ABOUT R 880412 R'S RACE 880413 R'S SEX 880414 R'S AGE 880415 R'S DATE OF BIRTH - MONTH 880416 R'S DATE OF BIRTH - YEAR 880417 R'S RECODED AGE 880418 R'S MARITAL STATUS R'S EDUCATION 880419 HIGHEST GRADE OF SCHOOL COMPLETED BY R 880420 DOES R HAVE A HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA 880421 R'S HIGHEST COLLEGE DEGREE 880422 SUMMARY: R'S EDUCATION 880423 INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: R IS MARRIED OR LIVING WITH PARTNER EDUCATION OF R'S SPOUSE 880424 HIGHEST GRADE OF SCHOOL COMPLETED BY SPOUSE 880425 DOES SPOUSE HAVE HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA 880426 SPOUSE'S HIGHEST COLLEGE DEGREE 880427 SUMMARY: SPOUSE'S EDUCATION R'S OCCUPATION SECTION 880428 R'S PRESENT EMPLOYMENT STATUS 880429 SUMMARY: R'S WORKING STATUS 880430 HAS R (UNEMPLOYED) EVER WORKED FOR PAY 880431 WHEN DID R RETIRE 880432 HAS R (DISABLED) EVER WORKED FOR PAY 880433 IS R (HOMEMAKER/STUDENT) WORKING NOW 880434 HAS R (HOMEMAKER/STUDENT) WORKED IN LAST SIX MONTHS OCCUPATION - R WORKING OR TEMPORARILY LAID OFF 880435 R'S PRESENT OCCUPATION - CENSUS OCCUPATION CODE 880436 R'S PRESENT OCCUPATION - COLLAPSED CENSUS OCCUPATION CODE 880437 R'S PRESENT OCCUPATION - CENSUS INDUSTRY CODE 880438 IS R SELF-EMPLOYED 880439 IS R EMPLOYED BY FEDERAL/STATE/LOCAL GOVERNMENT 880440 NUMBER OF HOURS PER WEEK R WORKS 880441 IS R SATISFIED WITH NUMBER OF HOURS WORKED 880442 HOW WORRIED IS R ABOUT JOB SECURITY 880443 INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: IS R WORKING NOW 880444 WAS R OUT OF WORK WITHIN THE LAST SIX MONTHS 880445 HAS R HAD TO TAKE A PAY CUT/REDUCE HOURS WITHIN THE LAST SIX MONTHS OCCUPATION - R UNEMPLOYED, RETIRED OR DISABLED 880446 R'S LAST OCCUPATION - CENSUS OCCUPATION CODE 880447 R'S LAST OCCUPATION - COLLAPSED CENSUS OCCUPATION CODE 880448 R'S LAST OCCUPATION - CENSUS INDUSTRY CODE 880449 ON R'S LAST REGULAR JOB, WAS R SELF-EMPLOYED 880450 WAS R EMPLOYED BY FEDERAL/STATE/LOCAL GOVERNMENT 880451 DID R WORK WITHIN THE LAST SIX MONTHS 880452 NUMBER OF HOURS PER WEEK R WORKED 880453 INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: IS R UNEMPLOYED 880454 IS R DOING ANY WORK FOR PAY AT THE PRESENT TIME 880455 IS R LOOKING FOR WORK AT THE PRESENT TIME 880456 HOW WORRIED IS R ABOUT NOT BEING ABLE TO FIND A JOB OCCUPATION - R HOMEMAKER OR STUDENT 880457 R'S LAST OCCUPATION - CENSUS OCCUPATION CODE 880458 R'S LAST OCCUPATION - COLLAPSED CENSUS OCCUPATION CODE 880459 R'S LAST OCCUPATION - CENSUS INDUSTRY CODE 880460 WAS R SELF-EMPLOYED ON LAST JOB 880461 WAS R EMPLOYED BY FEDERAL/STATE/LOCAL GOVERNMENT 880462 NUMBER OF HOURS PER WEEK R WORKED ON LAST JOB 880463 IS R LOOKING FOR WORK AT THE PRESENT TIME 880464 HOW WORRIED IS R ABOUT NOT BEING ABLE TO FIND A JOB R'S OCCUPATIONAL DATA - STACKED 880465 R'S PRESENT/LAST OCCUPATION - CENSUS OCCUPATION CODE 880466 R'S PRESENT/LAST OCCUPATION - COLLAPSED 1980 CODE 880467 R'S PRESENT/LAST OCCUPATION - CENSUS INDUSTRY CODE 880468 R SELF-EMPLOYED 880469 EMPLOYED BY FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT 880470 NUMBER OF HOURS WORKED PER WEEK 880471 IS R WORRIED ABOUT JOB SECURITY 880472 HAS R (UNEMPLOYED/RETIRED/DISABLED) HAD A JOB IN THE PAST SIX MONTHS 880473 IS R (UNEMPLOYED/RETIRED/DISABLED) LOOKING FOR WORK AT PRESENT TIME 880474 HAS R (UNEMPLOYED/DISABLED) EVER DONE ANY WORK FOR PAY 880475 INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: R IS MALE AND MARRIED/ PARTNERED WIFE/PARTNER OF R OCCUPATION 880476 IS R'S WIFE/PARTNER WORKING NOW 880477 INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: IS R MARRIED AND FEMALE HUSBAND/PARTNER OF R OCCUPATION SECTION 880478 HUSBAND/PARTNER'S PRESENT EMPLOYMENT STATUS 880479 SUMMARY: HUSBAND/PARTNER'S WORKING STATUS 880480 HAS HUSBAND/PARTNER (UNEMPLOYED) EVER DONE ANY WORK FOR PAY 880481 WHEN DID HUSBAND/PARTNER RETIRE 880482 HAS HUSBAND/PARTNER (DISABLED) EVER DONE ANY WORK FOR PAY 880483 IS HUSBAND/PARTNER (HOMEMAKER/STUDENT) DOING ANY WORK FOR PAY AT THE PRESENT TIME 880484 HAS HUSBAND/PARTNER (HOMEMAKER/STUDENT) WORKED FOR PAY IN THE LAST SIX MONTHS OCCUPATION - HUSBAND WORKING OR TEMPORARILY LAID OFF 880485 HUSBAND/PARTNER'S PRESENT OCCUPATION - CENSUS OCCUPATION CODE 880486 HUSBAND/PARTNER'S PRESENT OCCUPATION - COLLAPSED CENSUS OCCUPATION CODE 880487 HUSBAND/PARTNER'S PRESENT OCCUPATION - CENSUS INDUSTRY CODE 880488 IS HUSBAND/PARTNER SELF-EMPLOYED 880489 IS HUSBAND/PARTNER EMPLOYED BY FEDERAL/STATE/LOCAL GOVERNMENT 880490 NUMBER OF HOURS PER WEEK HUSBAND/PARTNER WORKS 880491 IS HUSBAND/PARTNER SATISFIED WITH NUMBER OF HOURS WORKED 880492 HOW WORRIED IS HUSBAND/PARTNER ABOUT JOB SECURITY 880493 INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: IS HUSBAND/PARTNER WORKING NOW 880494 WAS HUSBAND/PARTNER OUT OF WORK WITHIN THE LAST SIX MONTHS 880495 HAS HUSBAND/PARTNER HAD TO TAKE A PAY CUT/REDUCE HOURS WITHIN THE LAST SIX MONTHS OCCUPATION - HUSBAND UNEMPLOYED, RETIRED OR DISABLED 880496 HUSBAND/PARTNER'S LAST OCCUPATION - CENSUS OCCUPATION CODE 880497 HUSBAND/PARTNER'S LAST OCCUPATION - COLLAPSED CENSUS OCCUPATION CODE 880498 HUSBAND/PARTNER'S LAST OCCUPATION - CENSUS INDUSTRY CODE 880499 WAS HUSBAND/PARTNER SELF-EMPLOYED ON LAST JOB 880500 WAS HUSBAND/PARTNER EMPLOYED BY FEDERAL/STATE/LOCAL GOVERNMENT ON LAST JOB 880501 WAS HUSBAND/PARTNER EMPLOYED IN THE LAST SIX MONTHS 880502 NUMBER OF HOURS PER WEEK HUSBAND/PARTNER WORKED 880503 INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: IS HUSBAND/PARTNER UNEMPLOYED 880504 IS HUSBAND/PARTNER DOING ANY WORK FOR PAY AT THE PRESENT TIME 880505 IS HUSBAND/PARTNER LOOKING FOR WORK AT THE PRESENT TIME 880506 HOW WORRIED IS HUSBAND/PARTNER ABOUT NOT BEING ABLE TO FIND A JOB HUSBAND/PARTNER OF R OCCUPATIONAL DATA - STACKED 880507 HUSBAND'S PRESENT/LAST OCCUPATION - CENSUS OCCUPATION CODE 880508 HUSBAND'S PRESENT/LAST OCCUPATION - COLLAPSED 1980 CODE 880509 HUSBAND'S PRESENT/LAST OCCUPATION - CENSUS INDUSTRY CODE 880510 IS/WAS HUSBAND SELF-EMPLOYED 880511 IS/WAS HUSBAND EMPLOYED BY FEDERAL/STATE/LOCAL GOVERNMENT 880512 HUSBAND - NUMBER OF HOURS WORKED PER WEEK 880513 HUSBAND - WORRIED ABOUT JOB SECURITY 880514 HAS HUSBAND (UNEMPLOYED/RETIRED/DISABLED) HAD A JOB IN THE PAST SIX MONTHS 880515 IS HUSBAND (UNEMPLOYED/RETIRED/DISABLED) LOOKING FOR WORK AT THE PRESENT TIME 880516 HAS HUSBAND (UNEMPLOYED/DISABLED) EVER DONE ANY WORK FOR PAY LABOR UNION POSITION 880517 DOES ANYONE IN R'S HOUSEHOLD BELONG TO A LABOR UNION 880518 WHO BELONGS TO A LABOR UNION 880519 INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: IS R ONLY FAMILY MEMBER AGE 14 OR OLDER R'S FAMILY POSITION AND SOCIAL CLASS 880520 FAMILY/HOUSEHOLD INCOME BEFORE TAXES 880521 R'S INCOME BEFORE TAXES 880522 DOES R THINK OF SELF AS BELONGING TO A SOCIAL CLASS 880523 DOES R THINK OF SELF AS MIDDLE OR WORKING CLASS 880524 DOES R THINK OF SELF AS AVERAGE OR UPPER MIDDLE/ WORKING CLASS 880525 SUMMARY: R'S SOCIAL CLASS 880526 DOES R FEEL CLOSE TO MIDDLE/WORKING CLASS R'S RELIGIOUS PREFERENCE AND PRACTICE 880527 R'S RELIGIOUS PREFERENCE AND DENOMINATION 880528 IS RELIGIOUS PREFERENCE MENTIONED BY R CHRISTIAN 880529 DOES R CONSIDER SELF A BORN-AGAIN CHRISTIAN 880530 HOW OFTEN DOES R ATTEND CHURCH/SYNAGOGUE 880531 DOES R ATTEND CHURCH/SYNAGOGUE ONCE A WEEK OR MORE OFTEN 880532 DID R WATCH/LISTEN TO RELIGIOUS PROGRAMS ON TV/RADIO DURING THE PAST WEEK 880533 HOW OFTEN DID R WATCH/LISTEN TO RELIGIOUS PROGRAMS R'S ETHNIC IDENTITY 880534 WHAT DOES R CONSIDER HIS/HER MAIN ETHNIC GROUP (OTHER THAN AMERICAN) - FIRST MENTION 880535 WHAT DOES R CONSIDER THEIR MAIN ETHNIC GROUP (OTHER THAN AMERICAN) - SECOND MENTION 880536 NUMBER OF ETHNIC GROUPS R MENTIONED 880537 WITH WHICH GROUP DOES R MOST CLOSELY IDENTIFY 880538 WERE R'S PARENTS BORN IN THIS COUNTRY 880539 CHECKPOINT: DID R MENTION SOME HISPANIC GROUP 880540 IS R OF SPANISH OR HISPANIC ORIGIN/DESCENT 880541 CATEGORY THAT BEST DESCRIBES R'S HISPANIC ORIGIN PERSONAL INFORMATION: R'S PARENTS 880542 R'S FATHER'S MAIN OCCUPATION - CENSUS OCCUPATION CODE 880543 DID R'S MOTHER HAVE A JOB 880544 R'S MOTHER'S MAIN OCCUPATION - CENSUS OCCUPATION CODE PERSONAL INFORMATION: R'S COMMUNITY 880545 R'S BIRTHPLACE 880546 WHERE DID R GROW UP 880547 COMMUNITY TYPE R GREW UP IN 880548 HOW LONG HAS R LIVED IN PRESENT CITY/TOWN/TOWNSHIP/ COUNTY 880549 WHERE DID R LIVE BEFORE - CITY 880550 WHERE DID R LIVE BEFORE - STATE OR COUNTRY 880551 HOW LONG HAS R LIVED IN THIS HOUSE/APARTMENT 880552 DOES R/R'S FAMILY OWN OR RENT R'S HOME CONDITIONS OF PRE-ELECTION INTERVIEW 880553 OTHERS PRESENT AT INTERVIEW 880554 R'S COOPERATION 880555 R'S LEVEL OF INFORMATION ABOUT POLITICS/PUBLIC AFFAIRS 880556 R'S APPARENT INTELLIGENCE 880557 WAS R SUSPICIOUS BEFORE INTERVIEW 880558 R'S INTEREST IN THE INTERVIEW 880559 R'S SINCERITY 880560 DID R REPORT INCOME CORRECTLY 880561 INTERVIEWER'S ESTIMATE OF R'S FAMILY INCOME 880562 WAS INTERVIEW CONDUCTED IN ENGLISH 880563 LANGUAGE IN WHICH INTERVIEW WAS CONDUCTED (IF OTHER THAN ENGLISH) POST-ELECTION SURVEY CONGRESSIONAL CAMPAIGN 880564 R'S INTEREST IN THE CAMPAIGN 880565 DOES R REMEMBER THE CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATES 880566 NUMBER OF CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE - CANDIDATE 1 880567 FROM WHICH PARTY WAS THE CANDIDATE - CANDIDATE 1 880568 COLLAPSED CODE FOR CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE 1 880569 R'S KNOWLEDGE OF CANDIDATE'S NAME AND PARTY - CANDIDATE 1 880570 NUMBER OF CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE - CANDIDATE 2 880571 FROM WHICH PARTY WAS THE CANDIDATE - CANDIDATE 2 880572 COLLAPSED CODE FOR CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE 2 880573 R'S KNOWLEDGE OF CANDIDATE'S NAME AND PARTY - CANDIDATE 2 880574 NUMBER OF CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE - CANDIDATE 3 880575 FROM WHICH PARTY WAS THE CANDIDATE - CANDIDATE 3 880576 COLLAPSED CODE FOR CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE 3 880577 R'S KNOWLEDGE OF CANDIDATE'S NAME AND PARTY - CANDIDATE 3 880578 INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: U.S. SENATE RACE IN STATE? SENATE CAMPAIGN 880579 DOES R REMEMBER THE SENATE CANDIDATES 880580 NUMBER OF SENATE CANDIDATE - CANDIDATE 1 880581 FROM WHICH PARTY WAS THE CANDIDATE - CANDIDATE 1 880582 COLLAPSED CODE FOR SENATE CANDIDATE 1 880583 R'S KNOWLEDGE OF CANDIDATE'S NAME AND PARTY - CANDIDATE 1 880584 NUMBER OF SENATE CANDIDATE - CANDIDATE 2 880585 FROM WHICH PARTY WAS THE CANDIDATE - CANDIDATE 2 880586 COLLAPSED CODE FOR SENATE CANDIDATE 2 880587 R'S KNOWLEDGE OF CANDIDATE'S NAME AND PARTY - CANDIDATE 2 880588 NUMBER OF SENATE CANDIDATE - CANDIDATE 3 880589 FROM WHICH PARTY WAS THE CANDIDATE - CANDIDATE 3 880590 COLLAPSED CODE FOR SENATE CANDIDATE 3 880591 R'S KNOWLEDGE OF CANDIDATE'S NAME AND PARTY - CANDIDATE 3 FEELING THERMOMETER: POLITICAL FIGURES 880592 FEELING THERMOMETER - GEORGE BUSH 880593 FEELING THERMOMETER - MICHAEL DUKAKIS 880594 FEELING THERMOMETER - JESSE JACKSON 880595 FEELING THERMOMETER - JIMMY CARTER 880596 FEELING THERMOMETER - DEMOCRATIC U.S. SENATE CANDIDATE 880597 FEELING THERMOMETER - REPUBLICAN U.S. SENATE CANDIDATE 880598 FEELING THERMOMETER - U.S. SENATE INCUMBENT - CANDIDATE 1 (TERM IS NOT UP) 880599 FEELING THERMOMETER - U.S. SENATE INCUMBENT - CANDIDATE 2 880600 FEELING THERMOMETER - U.S. SENATE INCUMBENT - CANDIDATE 3 880601 FEELING THERMOMETER - DEMOCRATIC HOUSE CANDIDATE 880602 FEELING THERMOMETER - REPUBLICAN HOUSE CANDIDATE 880603 FEELING THERMOMETER - INDEPENDENT/THIRD PARTY HOUSE CANDIDATE FEELING THERMOMETER: GROUPS IN SOCIETY 880604 FEELING THERMOMETER - LABOR UNIONS 880605 FEELING THERMOMETER - FEMINISTS 880606 FEELING THERMOMETER - CIVIL RIGHTS LEADERS 880607 FEELING THERMOMETER - PEOPLE ON WELFARE 880608 FEELING THERMOMETER - WOMEN 880609 FEELING THERMOMETER - CONSERVATIVES 880610 FEELING THERMOMETER - POOR PEOPLE 880611 FEELING THERMOMETER - CATHOLICS 880612 FEELING THERMOMETER - BIG BUSINESS 880613 FEELING THERMOMETER - BLACKS 880614 FEELING THERMOMETER - EVANGELICAL GROUPS ACTIVE IN POLITICS 880615 FEELING THERMOMETER - FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 880616 FEELING THERMOMETER - LIBERALS 880617 FEELING THERMOMETER - HISPANICS 880618 FEELING THERMOMETER - THE MILITARY 880619 FEELING THERMOMETER - THE ELDERLY 880620 FEELING THERMOMETER - ENVIRONMENTALISTS 880621 FEELING THERMOMETER - U.S. SUPREME COURT 880622 FEELING THERMOMETER - ILLEGAL ALIENS 880623 FEELING THERMOMETER - PALESTINIANS 880624 FEELING THERMOMETER - OPPONENTS OF ABORTION 880625 FEELING THERMOMETER - WHITES 880626 FEELING THERMOMETER - JEWS 880627 FEELING THERMOMETER - HOMOSEXUALS 880628 FEELING THERMOMETER - CONGRESS 880629 FEELING THERMOMETER - CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALISTS R'S VOTE - 1984 880630 DID R VOTE IN 1984 ELECTION 880631 WHO DID R VOTE FOR IN 1984 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION QUALITIES DESCRIBING CANDIDATES: BUSH/DUKAKIS 880632 HOW WELL DOES "TOUGH ON CRIME AND CRIMINALS" DESCRIBE GEORGE BUSH 880633 HOW WELL DOES "CARES ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT" DESCRIBE GEORGE BUSH 880634 HOW WELL DOES "TOUGH ON CRIME AND CRIMINALS" DESCRIBE MICHAEL DUKAKIS 880635 HOW WELL DOES "CARES ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT" DESCRIBE MICHAEL DUKAKIS PROBE INDICATORS FOR POST-ELECTION SECTION B 880636 WAS QUESTION B1A PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880637 WAS QUESTION B1B PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880638 WAS QUESTION B1C PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880639 WAS QUESTION B1D PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880640 WAS QUESTION B1E PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880641 WAS QUESTION B1F PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880642 WAS QUESTION B1G PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880643 WAS QUESTION B1H PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880644 WAS QUESTION B1J PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880645 WAS QUESTION B1K PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880646 WAS QUESTION B1M PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880647 WAS QUESTION B1N PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880648 WAS QUESTION B2A PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880649 WAS QUESTION B2B PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880650 WAS QUESTION B2C PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880651 WAS QUESTION B2D PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880652 WAS QUESTION B2E PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880653 WAS QUESTION B2F PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880654 WAS QUESTION B2G PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880655 WAS QUESTION B2H PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880656 WAS QUESTION B2J PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880657 WAS QUESTION B2K PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880658 WAS QUESTION B2M PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880659 WAS QUESTION B2N PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880660 WAS QUESTION B2P PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880661 WAS QUESTION B2Q PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880662 WAS QUESTION B2R PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880663 WAS QUESTION B2S PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880664 WAS QUESTION B2T PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880665 WAS QUESTION B2U PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880666 WAS QUESTION B2V PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880667 WAS QUESTION B2W PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880668 WAS QUESTION B2X PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880669 WAS QUESTION B2Y PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880670 WAS QUESTION B2Z PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880671 WAS QUESTION B2AA PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880672 WAS QUESTION B2BB PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880673 WAS QUESTION B2CC PROBED BY INTERVIEWER R'S LIKES/DISLIKES ABOUT HOUSE CANDIDATE: DEMOCRATIC 880674 IS THERE ANYTHING R LIKES ABOUT DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE FOR HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 880675 WHAT R LIKES ABOUT HOUSE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE - FIRST MENTION 880676 WHAT R LIKES ABOUT HOUSE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE - SECOND MENTION 880677 WHAT R LIKES ABOUT HOUSE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE - THIRD MENTION 880678 WHAT R LIKES ABOUT HOUSE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE - FOURTH MENTION 880679 WHAT R LIKES ABOUT HOUSE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE - FIFTH MENTION 880680 IS THERE ANYTHING R DISLIKES ABOUT DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE FOR HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 880681 WHAT R DISLIKES ABOUT HOUSE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE - FIRST MENTION 880682 WHAT R DISLIKES ABOUT HOUSE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE - SECOND MENTION 880683 WHAT R DISLIKES ABOUT HOUSE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE - THIRD MENTION 880684 WHAT R DISLIKES ABOUT HOUSE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE - FOURTH MENTION 880685 WHAT R DISLIKES ABOUT HOUSE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE - FIFTH MENTION R'S LIKES/DISLIKES ABOUT HOUSE CANDIDATE: REPUBLICAN 880686 IS THERE ANYTHING R LIKES ABOUT REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE FOR HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 880687 WHAT R LIKES ABOUT HOUSE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE - FIRST MENTION 880688 WHAT R LIKES ABOUT HOUSE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE - SECOND MENTION 880689 WHAT R LIKES ABOUT HOUSE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE - THIRD MENTION 880690 WHAT R LIKES ABOUT HOUSE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE - FOURTH MENTION 880691 WHAT R LIKES ABOUT HOUSE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE - FIFTH MENTION 880692 IS THERE ANYTHING R DISLIKES ABOUT REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE FOR HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 880693 WHAT R DISLIKES ABOUT HOUSE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE - FIRST MENTION 880694 WHAT R DISLIKES ABOUT HOUSE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE - SECOND MENTION 880695 WHAT R DISLIKES ABOUT HOUSE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE - THIRD MENTION 880696 WHAT R DISLIKES ABOUT HOUSE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE - FOURTH MENTION 880697 WHAT R DISLIKES ABOUT HOUSE REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE - FIFTH MENTION IMPORTANT ISSUES - HOUSE CAMPAIGN 880698 IMPORTANT ISSUES TO R IN CAMPAIGN FOR HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES - FIRST MENTION 880699 IMPORTANT ISSUES TO R IN CAMPAIGN FOR HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES - SECOND MENTION 880700 IMPORTANT ISSUES TO R IN CAMPAIGN FOR HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES - THIRD MENTION 880701 INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: HAS R MENTIONED ISSUES 880702 ISSUE MOST IMPORTANT TO R IN CAMPAIGN 880703 INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: TYPE OF RACE, ONE OR TWO CANDIDATES 880704 DID R PREFER ONE OF THE CANDIDATES BECAUSE OF THIS ISSUE 880705 CANDIDATE R PREFERRED 880706 PARTY OF CANDIDATE NAMED 880707 INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: TYPE OF RACE, ONE OR TWO CANDIDATES R'S KNOWLEDGE OF INCUMBENTS - HOUSE CAMPAIGN 880708 TWO HOUSE CANDIDATES RUNNING: WAS EITHER CANDIDATE ALREADY IN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 880709 TWO HOUSE CANDIDATES RUNNING: WHICH CANDIDATE WAS ALREADY IN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 880710 TWO HOUSE CANDIDATES RUNNING: PARTY OF CANDIDATE ALREADY IN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 880711 ONE HOUSE CANDIDATE RUNNING: WAS CANDIDATE ALREADY IN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 880712 ONE HOUSE CANDIDATE RUNNING: CANDIDATE NUMBER CODE 880713 ONE HOUSE CANDIDATE RUNNING: PARTY OF CANDIDATE 880714 INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: DISTRICTS IN WHICH HOUSE INCUMBENT RAN CONTACT WITH U.S. HOUSE INCUMBENT 880715 DID R HAVE ANY CONTACT WITH INCUMBENT 880716 DID R MEET INCUMBENT PERSONALLY 880717 DID R ATTEND MEETING/GATHERING WHERE INCUMBENT SPOKE 880718 DID R TALK WITH INCUMBENT'S STAFF/OFFICE 880719 DID R RECEIVE SOMETHING IN MAIL FROM INCUMBENT 880720 DID R READ ABOUT INCUMBENT IN NEWSPAPER/MAGAZINE 880721 DID R HEAR INCUMBENT ON RADIO 880722 DID R SEE INCUMBENT ON TELEVISION 880723 R HAD CONTACT WITH INCUMBENT IN OTHER WAYS 880724 DOES R KNOW ANYONE WHO HAD CONTACT WITH INCUMBENT 880725 INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: DISTRICT IN WHICH HOUSE INCUMBENT HAD OPPOSITION CONTACT WITH U.S. HOUSE CANDIDATE - DISTRICTS WITH RUNNING INCUMBENT 880726 DID R HAVE ANY CONTACT WITH CANDIDATE 880727 DID R MEET CANDIDATE PERSONALLY 880728 DID R ATTEND MEETING/GATHERING WHERE CANDIDATE SPOKE 880729 DID R TALK WITH CANDIDATE'S STAFF/OFFICE 880730 DID R RECEIVE SOMETHING IN MAIL FROM CANDIDATE 880731 DID R READ ABOUT CANDIDATE IN NEWSPAPER/MAGAZINE 880732 DID R HEAR CANDIDATE ON RADIO 880733 DID R SEE CANDIDATE ON TELEVISION 880734 R HAD CONTACT WITH CANDIDATE IN OTHER WAYS 880735 DOES R KNOW ANYONE WHO HAD CONTACT WITH CANDIDATE CONTACT WITH U.S. HOUSE INCUMBENT - DISTRICTS WITH NO INCUMBENT RUNNING 880736 DID R HAVE ANY CONTACT WITH CANDIDATE 880737 DID R MEET CANDIDATE PERSONALLY 880738 DID R ATTEND MEETING/GATHERING WHERE CANDIDATE SPOKE 880739 DID R TALK WITH CANDIDATE'S STAFF/OFFICE 880740 DID R RECEIVE SOMETHING IN MAIL FROM CANDIDATE 880741 DID R READ ABOUT CANDIDATE IN NEWSPAPER/MAGAZINE 880742 DID R HEAR CANDIDATE ON RADIO 880743 DID R SEE CANDIDATE ON TELEVISION 880744 R HAD CONTACT WITH CANDIDATE IN OTHER WAYS 880745 DOES R KNOW ANYONE WHO HAD CONTACT WITH CANDIDATE 880746 DID R HAVE ANY CONTACT WITH CANDIDATE 880747 DID R MEET CANDIDATE PERSONALLY 880748 DID R ATTEND MEETING/GATHERING WHERE CANDIDATE SPOKE 880749 DID R TALK WITH CANDIDATE'S STAFF/OFFICE 880750 DID R RECEIVE SOMETHING IN MAIL FROM CANDIDATE 880751 DID R READ ABOUT CANDIDATE IN NEWSPAPER/MAGAZINE 880752 DID R HEAR CANDIDATE ON RADIO 880753 DID R SEE CANDIDATE ON TELEVISION 880754 R HAD CONTACT WITH CANDIDATE IN OTHER WAYS 880755 DOES R KNOW ANYONE WHO HAD CONTACT WITH CANDIDATE VOTING SECTION: VOTERS 880756 DID R VOTE IN 1988 ELECTION 880757 WAS R REGISTERED TO VOTE IN THIS ELECTION 880758 IS R REGISTERED TO VOTE AT CURRENT ADDRESS 880759 IS R REGISTERED TO VOTE IN THIS STATE 880760 IN WHAT STATE IS R REGISTERED 880761 INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: IS R REGISTERED TO VOTE IN STATE OF INTERVIEW 880762 DID R VOTE FOR PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE IN 1988 ELECTION 880763 WHO DID R VOTE FOR IN 1988 ELECTION 880764 WAS R'S PREFERENCE STRONG FOR THIS PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE 880765 WHEN DID R REACH VOTE DECISION 880766 DID R VOTE FOR HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES CANDIDATE 880767 FOR WHICH HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES CANDIDATE DID R VOTE 880768 R'S VOTE FOR HOUSE CANDIDATE - PARTY 880769 WAS R'S PREFERENCE STRONG FOR HOUSE CANDIDATE 880770 INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: WAS THERE A SENATE RACE IN R'S STATE 880771 DID R VOTE FOR A SENATE CANDIDATE 880772 FOR WHICH SENATE CANDIDATE DID R VOTE 880773 R'S VOTE FOR SENATE CANDIDATE - PARTY VOTING SECTION: NON-VOTERS 880774 DID R PREFER ONE CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT 880775 WHOM DID R PREFER FOR PRESIDENT 880776 HOW STRONG WAS R'S PREFERENCE FOR PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE 880777 DID R PREFER A CANDIDATE FOR HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 880778 WHICH HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES CANDIDATE DID R PREFER 880779 PARTY OF HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES CANDIDATE PREFERRED BY R NON-CAMPAIGN CONTACTS WITH U.S. HOUSE INCUMBENT 880780 DID R OR FAMILY MEMBER EVER CONTACT U. S. HOUSE INCUMBENT/OFFICE 880781 REASON FOR CONTACT WITH HOUSE INCUMBENT - TO EXPRESS OPINION 880782 REASON FOR CONTACT WITH HOUSE INCUMBENT - TO SEEK INFORMATION 880783 REASON FOR CONTACT WITH HOUSE INCUMBENT - TO SEEK HELP WITH PROBLEM 880784 DID R GET RESPONSE FROM HOUSE INCUMBENT/OFFICE 880785 HOW SATISFIED WAS R WITH RESPONSE FROM INCUMBENT 880786 DOES R KNOW ANYONE ELSE WHO HAD CONTACT WITH U.S. HOUSE INCUMBENT 880787 DID PERSON/GROUP GET RESPONSE FROM HOUSE INCUMBENT/ OFFICE 880788 HOW SATISFIED WAS PERSON/GROUP WITH RESPONSE FROM INCUMBENT R'S ASSESSMENT OF U.S. HOUSE INCUMBENT 880789 R APPROVE/DISAPPROVE OF INCUMBENT'S HANDLING OF JOB 880790 STRENGTH OF R'S APPROVAL/DISAPPROVAL OF INCUMBENT'S HANDLING OF JOB 880791 HOW HELPFUL WOULD HOUSE INCUMBENT BE WITH ANOTHER PROBLEM 880792 ANYTHING SPECIAL DONE BY HOUSE INCUMBENT FOR DISTRICT/PEOPLE 880793 HOW WELL DOES U.S. REPRESENTATIVE KEEP IN TOUCH WITH DISTRICT 880794 DOES R AGREE/DISAGREE WITH WAY REPRESENTATIVE VOTED 880795 DOES R REMEMBER A BILL REPRESENTATIVE VOTED ON 880796 DID R AGREE/DISAGREE WITH WAY REPRESENTATIVE VOTED 880797 DOES R SEE IMPORTANT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PARTIES PARTY DIFFERENCES 880798 IMPORTANT PARTY DIFFERENCES: PARTY PREFERENCE - FIRST MENTION 880799 PARTY DIFFERENCE CONTENT - FIRST MENTION 880800 IMPORTANT PARTY DIFFERENCES: PARTY PREFERENCE - SECOND MENTION 880801 PARTY DIFFERENCE CONTENT - SECOND MENTION 880802 IMPORTANT PARTY DIFFERENCES: PARTY PREFERENCE - THIRD MENTION 880803 PARTY DIFFERENCE CONTENT - THIRD MENTION 880804 IMPORTANT PARTY DIFFERENCES: PARTY PREFERENCE - FOURTH MENTION 880805 PARTY DIFFERENCE CONTENT - FOURTH MENTION 880806 IMPORTANT PARTY DIFFERENCES: PARTY PREFERENCE - FIFTH MENTION 880807 PARTY DIFFERENCE CONTENT - FIFTH MENTION 880808 IMPORTANT PARTY DIFFERENCES: PARTY PREFERENCE - SIXTH MENTION 880809 PARTY DIFFERENCE CONTENT - SIXTH MENTION 880810 DOES R THINK ONE PARTY MORE CONSERVATIVE AT NATIONAL LEVEL 880811 WHICH PARTY DOES R THINK IS MORE CONSERVATIVE IMPORTANT NATIONAL PROBLEMS 880812 HOW OFTEN DOES R FOLLOW GOVERNMENT/PUBLIC AFFAIRS 880813 WHAT IS MOST IMPORTANT NATIONAL PROBLEM - 1ST MENTION 880814 WHAT IS MOST IMPORTANT NATIONAL PROBLEM - 2ND MENTION 880815 WHAT IS MOST IMPORTANT NATIONAL PROBLEM - 3RD MENTION 880816 INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: HAS R MENTIONED ANY PROBLEMS 880817 WHAT IS THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT NATIONAL PROBLEM 880818 HOW GOOD A JOB IS GOVERNMENT DOING WITH THIS PROBLEM 880819 WHICH PARTY WOULD GET GOVERNMENT TO DEAL WITH THIS PROBLEM PARTY CONTACTS WITH R DURING THE CAMPAIGN 880820 DID A POLITICAL PARTY WORKER CONTACT R DURING CAMPAIGN 880821 WHICH PARTY(S) CONTACTED R DURING CAMPAIGN 880822 DID ANYONE ELSE CONTACT R DURING CAMPAIGN 880823 WHICH CANDIDATE DID THE CONTACT ASK R TO SUPPORT - 1ST MENTION 880824 WHICH CANDIDATE DID THE CONTACT ASK R TO SUPPORT - 2ND MENTION R'S POLITICAL ACTIVITIES 880825 DID R TRY TO INFLUENCE OTHER'S VOTE CHOICES 880826 DID R WEAR A BUTTON, PUT A STICKER ON THE CAR, OR PUT UP A SIGN 880827 DID R ATTEND ANY POLITICAL MEETINGS OR RALLIES 880828 DID R WORK FOR PARTY OR CANDIDATE R'S POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS 880829 DID R USE $1 POLITICAL CONTRIBUTION OPTION ON FEDERAL INCOME TAX RETURN 880830 DID R CONTRIBUTE MONEY TO AN INDIVIDUAL CANDIDATE 880831 R GAVE MONEY TO CANDIDATE FROM WHICH PARTY 880832 DID R GIVE MONEY TO SPECIFIC POLITICAL PARTY 880833 WHICH PARTY DID R GIVE MONEY TO 880834 DID R GIVE MONEY TO ANY OTHER GROUP SUPPORTING/ OPPOSING CANDIDATES 880835 WAS R CONTACTED ABOUT REGISTERING OR VOTING 880836 DID R RECEIVE REQUESTS THROUGH MAIL FOR POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS 880837 HOW MANY MAIL REQUESTS DID R GET 880838 DID R CONTRIBUTE MONEY BECAUSE OF MAIL REQUESTS 880839 DID R RECEIVE PHONE REQUESTS FOR POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS 880840 HOW MANY PHONE REQUESTS DID R RECEIVE 880841 DID R GIVE MONEY BECAUSE OF PHONE REQUESTS 880842 DID R RECEIVE PERSONAL REQUEST FOR POL. CONTRIBUTION 880843 HOW MANY PERSONAL REQUESTS DID R RECEIVE 880844 DID R GIVE MONEY BECAUSE OF PERSONAL REQUESTS R'S OPINIONS ON VARIOUS SOCIAL/POLITICAL ISSUES CIVIL RIGHTS/POSITION OF BLACKS 880845 DOES R THINK CIVIL RIGHTS LEADERS ARE PUSHING TOO FAST/SLOW 880846 HOW MUCH CHANGE DOES R THINK THERE HAS BEEN IN THE POSITION OF BLACKS POWER OF GOVERNMENT 880847 DOES R HAVE AN OPINION ON THE POWER OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 880848 DOES R FEEL THE GOVERNMENT IS/IS NOT TOO POWERFUL 880849 DOES R THINK THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD/SHOULD NOT BECOME MORE POWERFUL 880850 SUMMARY: R'S OPINION ON THE POWER OF THE GOVERNMENT 880851 DOES R THINK THE DEMOCRATS/REPUBLICANS FAVOR A POWERFUL GOVERNMENT IN WASHINGTON LAWS TO PROTECT HOMOSEXUALS AGAINST DISCRIMINATION 880852 DOES R FAVOR/OPPOSE LAWS TO PROTECT HOMOSEXUALS AGAINST JOB DISCRIMINATION 880853 HOW STRONGLY DOES R FAVOR/OPPOSE SUCH LAWS DEATH PENALTY 880854 DOES R FAVOR/OPPOSE THE DEATH PENALTY 880855 HOW STRONGLY DOES R FAVOR/OPPOSE THE DEATH PENALTY AFFIRMATIVE ACTION FOR BLACKS 880856 IS R FOR/AGAINST PREFERENTIAL HIRING/PROMOTION OF BLACKS 880857 HOW STRONGLY DOES R FAVOR/OPPOSE PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT CONCERN ABOUT CONVENTIONAL/NUCLEAR WAR 880858 HOW WORRIED IS R ABOUT THE U.S. GETTING INTO A CONVENTIONAL WAR 880859 HOW WORRIED IS R ABOUT THE U.S. GETTING INTO A NUCLEAR WAR SOUTH AFRICA 880860 DOES R HAVE AN OPINION ABOUT U.S. POLICY TOWARD SOUTH AFRICA 880861 DOES R FAVOR/OPPOSE U.S. PRESSURE ON SOUTH AFRICA 880862 HOW STRONGLY DOES R HOLD THIS OPINION 880863 SUMMARY: R'S ATTITUDE ON POLICY TOWARD SOUTH AFRICA GOVT ENSURANCE OF FAIR TREATMENT TO BLACKS 880864 DOES R HAVE AN OPINION ON THE GOVERNMENT ENSURING THAT BLACKS RECEIVE FAIR TREATMENT IN JOBS 880865 DOES R FEEL THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD/SHOULD NOT ENSURE FAIR TREATMENT TO BLACKS SCHOOL PRAYER 880866 R'S OPINION ON SCHOOL PRAYER 880867 HOW STRONGLY DOES R FAVOR THEIR OPINION 880868 SUMMARY: R'S ATTITUDE TOWARD SCHOOL PRAYER BLACK STUDENT QUOTAS 880869 R IS FOR/AGAINST QUOTAS TO ADMIT BLACK STUDENTS 880870 HOW STRONGLY DOES R FAVOR/OPPOSE QUOTAS RECOGNITION OF POLITICAL FIGURES 880871 DOES R KNOW WHAT JOB/OFFICE TED KENNEDY HOLDS 880872 DOES R KNOW WHAT JOB/OFFICE GEORGE SCHULTZ HOLDS 880873 DOES R KNOW WHAT JOB/OFFICE WILLIAM REHNQUIST HOLDS 880874 DOES R KNOW WHAT JOB/OFFICE MIKHAIL GORBACHEV HOLDS 880875 DOES R KNOW WHAT JOB/OFFICE MARGARET THATCHER HOLDS 880876 DOES R KNOW WHAT JOB/OFFICE YASSER ARAFAT HOLDS 880877 DOES R KNOW WHAT JOB/OFFICE JIM WRIGHT HOLDS R'S KNOWLEDGE OF PARTY REPRESENTATION IN CONGRESS 880878 DOES R KNOW WHICH PARTY HAD THE MOST MEMBERS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES BEFORE THE ELECTION 880879 DOES R KNOW WHICH PARTY HAD THE MOST MEMBERS IN THE SENATE BEFORE THE ELECTION R'S ASSESSMENT OF CONGRESS 880880 DOES R APPROVE/DISAPPROVE OF THE WAY CONGRESS HAS BEEN HANDLING ITS JOB 880881 HOW STRONGLY DOES R APPROVE/DISAPPROVE PROBE INDICATORS FOR POST-ELECTION SECTIONS H AND J 880882 WAS QUESTION H1 PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880883 WAS QUESTION H2 PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880884 WAS QUESTION H3A PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880885 WAS QUESTION H4 PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880886 WAS QUESTION H5 PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880887 WAS QUESTION H6 PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880888 WAS QUESTION H9A PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880889 WAS QUESTION H10 PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880890 WAS QUESTION J2 PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880891 WAS QUESTION J3A PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880892 WAS QUESTION J3B PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880893 WAS QUESTION J3C PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880894 WAS QUESTION J3D PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880895 WAS QUESTION J3E PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880896 WAS QUESTION J3F PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880897 WAS QUESTION J3G PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880898 INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: FORM A OR B VARIABLES 899-923: REAGAN RETROSPECTIVE QUESTIONS R'S EVALUATION OF THE PAST EIGHT YEARS (SEE ALSO VARIABLES 881002-881043) EFFORTS TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT 880899 HAVE EFFORTS TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT INCREASED/ DECREASED/STAYED ABOUT THE SAME 880900 R APPROVES/DISAPPROVES OF INCREASING PROGRAMS TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT 880901 DOES R THINK THESE PROGRAMS SHOULD HAVE INCREASED/ DECREASED/STAYED ABOUT THE SAME 880902 R APPROVES/DISAPPROVES OF DECREASING THESE PROGRAMS 880903 SUMMARY: R'S ATTITUDE ON EFFORTS TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT LEVEL OF SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS 880904 HAVE SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS INCREASED/DECREASED/ STAYED ABOUT THE SAME 880905 R APPROVES/DISAPPROVES OF INCREASE IN SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS 880906 DOES R THINK BENEFITS SHOULD HAVE INCREASED/ DECREASED/STAYED ABOUT THE SAME 880907 R APPROVES/DISAPPROVES OF DECREASE IN BENEFITS 880908 SUMMARY: R'S ATTITUDE ON LEVEL OF SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS LEVEL OF DEFENSE SPENDING 880909 HAS DEFENSE SPENDING INCREASED/DECREASED/STAYED ABOUT THE SAME 880910 R APPROVES/DISAPPROVES OF INCREASE IN DEFENSE SPENDING 880911 DOES R THINK DEFENSE SPENDING SHOULD HAVE INCREASED/DECREASED/STAYED ABOUT THE SAME 880912 R APPROVES/DISAPPROVES OF DECREASED DEFENSE SPENDING 880913 SUMMARY: R'S ATTITUDE ON LEVEL OF DEFENSE SPENDING LEVEL OF SPENDING ON POVERTY 880914 HAS SPENDING ON ASSISTANCE TO THE POOR INCREASED/ DECREASED/STAYED ABOUT THE SAME 880915 R APPROVES/DISAPPROVES OF INCREASED ASSISTANCE FOR THE POOR 880916 DOES R THINK ASSISTANCE TO THE POOR SHOULD HAVE INCREASED/DECREASED/STAYED ABOUT THE SAME 880917 R APPROVES/DISAPPROVES OF DECREASED ASSISTANCE TO THE POOR 880918 SUMMARY: R'S ATTITUDE ON LEVEL OF SPENDING ON POVERTY LEVEL OF SPENDING ON EDUCATION 880919 HAS SPENDING ON PUBLIC SCHOOLS INCREASED/DECREASED/ STAYED ABOUT THE SAME 880920 R APPROVES/DISAPPROVES OF INCREASED SPENDING FOR SCHOOLS 880921 DOES R THINK SPENDING FOR SCHOOLS SHOULD HAVE INCREASED/DECREASED/STAYED ABOUT THE SAME 880922 R APPROVES/DISAPPROVES OF DECREASED SPENDING FOR SCHOOLS 880923 SUMMARY: R'S ATTITUDE ON LEVEL OF SPENDING ON EDUCATION VARS 924-974: QUESTION ORDER EXPERIMENT EQUAL RIGHTS - R AGREE/DISAGREE 880924 SOCIETY SHOULD ENSURE EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TO SUCCEED 880925 WE HAVE GONE TOO FAR IN PUSHING EQUAL RIGHTS 880926 WE SHOULD WORRY LESS ABOUT EQUALITY 880927 IT IS NOT A PROBLEM IF PEOPLE HAVE UNEQUAL CHANCES 880928 WE WOULD HAVE FEWER PROBLEMS IF PEOPLE WERE TREATED MORE EQUALLY 880929 A PROBLEM IN THIS COUNTRY IS THAT WE DON'T GIVE EVERYONE AN EQUAL CHANCE R'S CHOICE OF GOALS FOR THE NATION 880930 R'S CHOICE OF MOST DESIRABLE GOAL FOR THE NATION 880931 R'S CHOICE OF SECOND GOAL FOR OUR NATION IMPORTANCE OF RELIGION TO R 880932 IS RELIGION AN IMPORTANT PART OF R'S LIFE 880933 HOW MUCH GUIDANCE DOES RELIGION PROVIDE TO R'S LIFE 880934 R'S VIEW ABOUT THE BIBLE 880935 HOW OFTEN DOES R PRAY GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS - R AGREE/DISAGREE 880936 PEOPLE WHO DON'T CARE ABOUT AN ELECTION OUTCOME SHOULDN'T VOTE 880937 PEOPLE LIKE ME DON'T HAVE ANY SAY ABOUT GOVERNMENT 880938 PUBLIC OFFICIALS DON'T CARE WHAT PEOPLE LIKE ME THINK 880939 POLITICS ARE SO COMPLICATED A PERSON LIKE ME CAN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING ON 880940 I HAVE A GOOD UNDERSTANDING OF THE ISSUES FACING OUR COUNTRY 880941 I AM WELL-QUALIFIED TO PARTICIPATE IN POLITICS 880942 I COULD DO AS GOOD A JOB IN PUBLIC OFFICE AS MOST OTHERS 880943 I AM BETTER INFORMED ABOUT POLITICS THAN MOST 880944 TAXES SHOULD BE CUT EVEN IF IT PUTS OFF IMPORTANT THINGS TO BE DONE WHAT R MEANS BY LIBERAL/CONSERVATIVE 880945 WHAT R MEANS BY LIBERAL - FIRST MENTION 880946 WHAT R MEANS BY LIBERAL - SECOND MENTION 880947 WHAT R MEANS BY LIBERAL - THIRD MENTION 880948 WHAT R MEANS BY CONSERVATIVE - FIRST MENTION 880949 WHAT R MEANS BY CONSERVATIVE - SECOND MENTION 880950 WHAT R MEANS BY CONSERVATIVE - THIRD MENTION R'S OPINIONS ON MORALITY IN SOCIETY 880951 WE SHOULD ADJUST MORAL BEHAVIOR TO CHANGES IN THE WORLD 880952 WE SHOULD BE MORE TOLERANT OF PEOPLE WITH DIFFERENT MORAL STANDARDS 880953 THERE WOULD BE FEWER PROBLEMS IF MORE EMPHASIS WAS PLACED ON TRADITIONAL FAMILY TIES 880954 NEWER LIFESTYLES ARE CONTRIBUTING TO SOCIETAL BREAKDOWN R'S FEELINGS ABOUT GOVERNMENT IN GENERAL 880955 HOW MUCH OF THE TIME DOES R THINK HE/SHE CAN TRUST GOVERNMENT 880956 HOW MUCH DOES THE GOVERNMENT WASTE OUR TAX DOLLARS 880957 IS GOVERNMENT RUN BY A FEW BIG INTERESTS OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALL 880958 HOW MANY PEOPLE IN GOVERNMENT DOES R THINK ARE CROOKED 880959 HOW MUCH DOES R FEEL ELECTIONS MAKE GOVERNMENT LISTEN TO PEOPLE 880960 HOW MUCH ATTENTION DOES R FEEL GOVERNMENT PAYS TO WHAT PEOPLE THINK R'S OPINIONS ON EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR BLACKS 880961 BLACKS SHOULD OVERCOME PREJUDICE WITHOUT ANY SPECIAL FAVORS 880962 BLACKS HAVE GOTTEN LESS THAN THEY DESERVE OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS 880963 IF BLACKS WOULD TRY HARDER THEY COULD BE JUST AS WELL OFF AS WHITES 880964 GENERATIONS OF SLAVERY AND DISCRIMINATION MAKE IT DIFFICULT FOR BLACKS TO MOVE UP 880965 EQUAL OPPORTUNITY IS IMPORTANT BUT NOT THE GOVERNMENT'S JOB TO GUARANTEE R'S OPINION ON A STRONG MILITARY 880966 IS A STRONG MILITARY OR THE BARGAINING TABLE THE BETTER WAY TO KEEP PEACE 880967 HOW IMPORTANT IS A STRONG MILITARY FORCE FOR DEALING WITH OUR ENEMIES R'S FEELINGS ABOUT BEING AN AMERICAN 880968 HOW GOOD DOES R FEEL SEEING THE AMERICAN FLAG FLY 880969 HOW STRONG IS R'S LOVE FOR HIS/HER COUNTRY 880970 HOW EMOTIONAL DOES R FEEL HEARING THE NATIONAL ANTHEM 880971 HOW PROUD IS R TO BE AN AMERICAN R'S OPINION ON U.S. WORLD POWER/COMMUNIST THREAT 880972 THE U.S. SHOULD REMAIN THE WORLD'S MOST POWERFUL NATION EVEN IF IT MEANS RISKING WAR 880973 ANY COMMUNIST COUNTRY IS A THREAT TO THE U.S. 880974 THE U.S. SHOULD DO EVERYTHING IT CAN TO PREVENT THE SPREAD OF COMMUNISM PROBE INDICATORS FOR QUESTION ORDER EXPERIMENT - FORM A 880975 WAS QUESTION M1A PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880976 WAS QUESTION M1B PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880977 WAS QUESTION M1C PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880978 WAS QUESTION M1D PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880979 WAS QUESTION M1E PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880980 WAS QUESTION M1F PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880981 WAS QUESTION M1G PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880982 WAS QUESTION M1H PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880983 WAS QUESTION M1J PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880984 WAS QUESTION M4A PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880985 WAS QUESTION M4B PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880986 WAS QUESTION M4C PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880987 WAS QUESTION M4D PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880988 WAS QUESTION M11A PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880989 WAS QUESTION M11B PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880990 WAS QUESTION M11C PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880991 WAS QUESTION M11D PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880992 WAS QUESTION M11E PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880993 WAS QUESTION M12 PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880994 WAS QUESTION M13 PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880995 WAS QUESTION M14A PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880996 WAS QUESTION M14B PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880997 WAS QUESTION M14C PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880998 WAS QUESTION M14D PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 880999 WAS QUESTION M15A PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 881000 WAS QUESTION M15B PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 881001 WAS QUESTION M15C PROBED BY INTERVIEWER VARIABLES 1002-1043: REAGAN RETROSPECTIVE QUESTIONS R'S EVALUATION OF THE PAST EIGHT YEARS (ALSO VARIABLES 88899-88923) ANYTHING R LIKES ABOUT WHAT REAGAN HAS DONE AS PRESIDENT 881002 IS THERE ANYTHING R LIKES ABOUT WHAT REAGAN HAS 881002 DONE AS PRESIDENT 881003 WHAT R LIKES ABOUT REAGAN - FIRST MENTION 881004 WHAT R LIKES ABOUT REAGAN - SECOND MENTION 881005 WHAT R LIKES ABOUT REAGAN - THIRD MENTION 881006 WHAT R LIKES ABOUT REAGAN - FOURTH MENTION 881007 WHAT R LIKES ABOUT REAGAN - FIFTH MENTION ANYTHING R DISLIKES ABOUT WHAT REAGAN HAS DONE AS PRESIDENT 881008 IS THERE ANYTHING R DISLIKES ABOUT WHAT REAGAN HAS DONE AS PRESIDENT 881009 WHAT R DISLIKES ABOUT REAGAN - FIRST MENTION 881010 WHAT R DISLIKES ABOUT REAGAN - SECOND MENTION 881011 WHAT R DISLIKES ABOUT REAGAN - THIRD REAGAN 881012 WHAT R DISLIKES ABOUT REAGAN - FOURTH MENTION 881013 WHAT R DISLIKES ABOUT REAGAN - FIFTH MENTION QUALITIES DESCRIBING REAGAN 881014 HOW WELL DOES "INTELLIGENT" DESCRIBE REAGAN 881015 HOW WELL DOES "COMPASSIONATE" DESCRIBE REAGAN 881016 HOW WELL DOES "MORAL" DESCRIBE REAGAN 881017 HOW WELL DOES "INSPIRING" DESCRIBE REAGAN 881018 HOW WELL DOES "PROVIDES STRONG LEADERSHIP" DESCRIBE REAGAN 881019 HOW WELL DOES "DECENT" DESCRIBE REAGAN 881020 HOW WELL DOES "REALLY CARES ABOUT PEOPLE LIKE YOU" DESCRIBE REAGAN 881021 HOW WELL DOES "KNOWLEDGEABLE" DESCRIBE REAGAN 881022 HOW WELL DOES "HONEST" DESCRIBE REAGAN R'S FEELINGS ABOUT REAGAN 881023 HAS REAGAN MADE R FEEL ANGRY 881024 HAS REAGAN MADE R FEEL HOPEFUL 881025 HAS REAGAN MADE R FEEL AFRAID OF HIM 881026 HAS REAGAN MADE R FEEL PROUD UNEMPLOYMENT BETTER/WORSE SINCE 1980 881027 DOES R THINK UNEMPLOYMENT HAS GOTTEN BETTER/WORSE/ STAYED ABOUT THE SAME SINCE 1980 881028 HOW MUCH BETTER/WORSE IS UNEMPLOYMENT INFLATION BETTER/WORSE SINCE 1980 881029 DOES R THINK THAT INFLATION HAS GOTTEN BETTER/ WORSE/STAYED THE SAME SINCE 1980 881030 HOW MUCH BETTER/WORSE IS INFLATION ECONOMY BETTER/WORSE SINCE 1980 881031 DOES R THINK REAGAN'S ECONOMIC POLICIES HAVE MADE THE ECONOMY BETTER/WORSE/NOT MADE MUCH DIFFERENCE 881032 HOW MUCH BETTER/WORSE HAVE REAGAN'S POLICIES MADE THE ECONOMY 881033 HAS R BEEN HELPED OR HURT BY REAGAN'S ECONOMIC PROGRAM U.S. MORE/LESS SECURE FROM FOREIGN ENEMIES 881034 DOES R THINK REAGAN'S POLICIES HAVE MADE THE U.S. MORE/LESS SECURE FROM FOREIGN ENEMIES 881035 HOW MUCH MORE/LESS SECURE IS U.S. BUDGET DEFICIT SMALLER/LARGER SINCE 1980 881036 DOES R THINK THE BUDGET DEFICIT IS SMALLER/LARGER/ STAYED ABOUT THE SAME SINCE 1980 881037 HOW MUCH SMALLER/LARGER IS THE BUDGET DEFICIT GOVERNMENT MORE/LESS HONEST SINCE 1980 881038 DOES R THINK PEOPLE IN GOVERNMENT ARE MORE/LESS HONEST THAN IN 1980 881039 HOW MUCH MORE/LESS HONEST ARE PEOPLE IN GOVERNMENT EFFORTS AGAINST DISCRIMINATION INCREASED/DECREASED 881040 DOES R THINK EFFORTS TO PROTECT BLACKS FROM DISCRIMINATION HAVE INCREASED/DECREASED/STAYED THE SAME SINCE 1980 881041 DOES R APPROVE/DISAPPROVE OF THIS INCREASE/DECREASE OVERALL, R APPROVE/DISAPPROVE OF REAGAN'S PRESIDENCY 881042 OVERALL, DOES R APPROVE/DISAPPROVE OF REAGAN'S HANDLING OF THE PRESIDENCY 881043 HOW STRONGLY DOES R APPROVE/DISAPPROVE PROBE INDICATORS FOR PRE-ELECTION SECTION P 881044 WAS QUESTION P5 PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 881045 WAS QUESTION P6 PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 881046 WAS QUESTION P7 PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 881047 WAS QUESTION P8 PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 881048 WAS QUESTION P9 PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 881049 WAS QUESTION P10 PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 881050 WAS QUESTION P11 PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 881051 WAS QUESTION P12 PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 881052 WAS QUESTION P13 PROBED BY INTERVIEWER PROBE INDICATORS FOR POST-ELECTION SECTIONS N, P & Q 881053 WAS QUESTION N4A PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 881054 WAS QUESTION N4B PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 881055 WAS QUESTION N4C PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 881056 WAS QUESTION N4D PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 881057 WAS QUESTION N5 PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 881058 WAS QUESTION N6 PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 881059 WAS QUESTION N7 PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 881060 WAS QUESTION N8 PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 881061 WAS QUESTION N9 PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 881062 WAS QUESTION N10 PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 881063 WAS QUESTION N11 PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 881064 WAS QUESTION N12 PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 881065 WAS QUESTION N13 PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 881066 WAS QUESTION P1A PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 881067 WAS QUESTION P1B PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 881068 WAS QUESTION P1C PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 881069 WAS QUESTION P1D PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 881070 WAS QUESTION P1E PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 881071 WAS QUESTION Q1A PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 881072 WAS QUESTION Q1B PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 881073 WAS QUESTION Q1C PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 881074 WAS QUESTION Q1D PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 881075 WAS QUESTION Q1E PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 881076 WAS QUESTION Q1F PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 881077 WAS QUESTION Q4A PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 881078 WAS QUESTION Q4B PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 881079 WAS QUESTION Q4C PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 881080 WAS QUESTION Q4D PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 881081 WAS QUESTION Q4E PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 881082 WAS QUESTION Q4F PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 881083 WAS QUESTION Q11A PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 881084 WAS QUESTION Q11B PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 881085 WAS QUESTION Q11C PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 881086 WAS QUESTION Q11D PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 881087 WAS QUESTION Q14A PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 881088 WAS QUESTION Q14B PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 881089 WAS QUESTION Q14C PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 881090 WAS QUESTION Q14D PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 881091 WAS QUESTION Q15A PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 881092 WAS QUESTION Q15B PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 881093 WAS QUESTION Q15C PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 881094 WAS QUESTION Q15D PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 881095 WAS QUESTION Q15E PROBED BY INTERVIEWER 881096 WAS QUESTION Q15F PROBED BY INTERVIEWER R'S IDENTIFICATION WITH GROUPS IN SOCIETY 881097 DOES R FEEL CLOSE TO POOR PEOPLE 881098 DOES R FEEL CLOSE TO LIBERALS 881099 DOES R FEEL CLOSE TO THE ELDERLY 881100 DOES R FEEL CLOSE TO BLACKS 881101 DOES R FEEL CLOSE TO LABOR UNIONS 881102 DOES R FEEL CLOSE TO FEMINISTS 881103 DOES R FEEL CLOSE TO CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALISTS 881104 DOES R FEEL CLOSE TO BUSINESS PEOPLE 881105 DOES R FEEL CLOSE TO YOUNG PEOPLE 881106 DOES R FEEL CLOSE TO CONSERVATIVES 881107 DOES R FEEL CLOSE TO WOMEN 881108 DOES R FEEL CLOSE TO WORKING PEOPLE 881109 DOES R FEEL CLOSE TO WHITES 881110 DOES F FEEL CLOSE TO EVANGELICAL GROUPS ACTIVE IN POLITICS 881111 DOES R FEEL CLOSE TO MIDDLE-CLASS PEOPLE 881112 INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: R MENTIONED MORE THAN ONE GROUP 881113 TO WHICH GROUP DOES R FEEL CLOSEST 881114 DOES R BELONG TO ORGANIZATIONS OF CLOSEST GROUP PARTY IDENTIFICATION OF R'S PARENTS 881115 WAS R'S FATHER DEMOCRAT/REPUBLICAN/INDEPENDENT 881116 WAS R'S MOTHER DEMOCRAT/REPUBLICAN/INDEPENDENT VOTE VALIDATION 881117 ELECTION OFFICE NUMBER 881118 DOES R HAVE A REGISTRATION RECORD IN THIS OFFICE 881119 WAS THE CROSS-REFERENCE FILE CHECKED 881120 WHERE WAS THE REGISTRATION RECORD FOUND 881121 MONTH OF PURGE/APPLICATION 881122 DAY OF PURGE/APPLICATION 881123 YEAR OF PURGE/APPLICATION 881124 INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: PURGE/APPLICATION DATE 881125 DOES R'S NAME ON COVERSHEET LABEL MATCH THE NAME ON THE REGISTRATION RECORD 881126 MONTH OF BIRTH ON REGISTRATION RECORD 881127 YEAR OF BIRTH ON REGISTRATION RECORD 881128 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SELF-REPORTED BIRTHDATE AND BIRTHDATE ON REGISTRATION RECORD 881129 DOES R'S ADDRESS ON COVERSHEET LABEL MATCH THE ADDRESS ON THE REGISTRATION RECORD 881130 R'S PRECINCT/ELECTION DISTRICT NUMBER/DESIGNATION 881131 KINDS OF REGISTRATION RECORDS KEPT BY ELECTION OFFICE 881132 REGISTRATION RECORDS NOT ACCESSIBLE FOR CHECKING 881133 INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: VOTE INFORMATION ON REGISTRATION RECORDS 881134 DOES THE REGISTRATION RECORD INDICATE THAT R VOTED 881135 DO VOTE RECORDS INDICATE R VOTED IN NOVEMBER 1988 GENERAL ELECTION 881136 WHICH VOTE RECORD INDICATED R VOTED 881137 WERE ALL VOTE RECORDS ACCESSIBLE FOR CHECKING 881138 WHICH VOTE RECORDS WERE NOT AVAILABLE FOR CHECKING 881139 MONTH R LAST VOTED 881140 DAY R LAST VOTED 881141 YEAR R LAST VOTED 881142 R'S SELF-REPORTED VOTE 881143 WAS CHECK MADE FOR R'S REGISTRATION VOTING RECORD 881144 SUMMARY: REGISTRATION RECORD FOUND 881145 AVAILABILITY OF VOTING RECORDS 881146 RECORD OF R VOTING - EXCLUDING NO SELF-REPORT 881147 SUMMARY: ASSIGNMENT OF R TO VOTE/NON-VOTE 881148 RECORD OF R VOTING - INCLUDING NO SELF-REPORT ELECTION ADMINISTRATION SURVEY 881149 MONTH OF ELECTION ADMINISTRATION INTERVIEW 881150 DAY OF ELECTION ADMINISTRATION INTERVIEW 881151 LENGTH OF ELECTION ADMINISTRATION INTERVIEW 881152 DISPOSITION OF REGISTRATION RECORDS WHEN OFFICE NOTIFIED PEOPLE MOVED OUT OF JURISDICTION 881153 DISPOSITION OF REGISTRATION RECORDS WHEN OFFICE NOTIFIED OF DEATH OR FELONY CONVICTION 881154 ARE REGISTRATION RECORDS DELETED FROM ACTIVE FILES BECAUSE OF NON-VOTING 881155 ARE PEOPLE FIRST NOTIFIED THAT THEY WILL BE DELETED/PURGED 881156 PROCEDURE FOR PURGING OF RECORDS - FIRST MENTION 881157 PROCEDURE FOR PURGING OF RECORDS - SECOND MENTION 881158 PROCEDURE FOR PURGING OF RECORDS - THIRD MENTION 881159 CAN PEOPLE STAY REGISTERED OR ARE THEY REQUIRED TO RE-REGISTER 881160 TIME INTERVAL FOR DELETION OF RECORDS/NOTICES OF INTENT 881161 DISPOSITION OF RECORDS DELETED BECAUSE OF NON-VOTING 881162 FOR HOW LONG ARE DELETED RECORDS FILED 881163 ARE THESE RECORDS CALLED PURGED/INACTIVE/OTHER 881164 ARE THESE RECORDS ACCESSIBLE 881165 ARE THERE STANDARD PROCEDURES TO CONFIRM CURRENT ADDRESS OF REGISTERED VOTERS 881166 IS THIS RESIDENCY CHECK PERFORMED FOR ALL OR JUST NON-VOTERS 881167 NON-VOTERS: HOW LONG MUST IT HAVE BEEN SINCE LAST VOTED 881168 INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: NON-VOTERS/ALL OTHERS 881169 HOW OFTEN IS RESIDENCY CHECK PERFORMED FOR EVERYONE 881170 DISPOSITION OF RECORD WHEN CHECK DETERMINES CHANGE OF ADDRESS 881171 CAN INACTIVE REGISTRANT VOTE BY SHOWING NEW PROOF OF ADDRESS ON ELECTION DAY 881172 DOES INACTIVE REGISTRANT GO TO VOTING PLACE FOR PREVIOUS OR CURRENT ADDRESS IF THEY WANT TO VOTE ON ELECTION DAY 881173 DOES OFFICE HAVE A MASTER FILE FOR ALL REGISTRATION RECORDS 881174 IS MASTER FILE ON A COMPUTER 881175 IS PRECINCT NUMBER ON THE RECORD OF EACH PERSON 881176 IS EXACT ADDRESS OR PRECINCT NECESSARY TO LOCATE A RECORD 881177 WITH MASTER FILE, CAN REGISTRANT BE IDENTIFIED FROM AN ADDRESS 881178 DOES MASTER FILE INDICATE WHETHER A PERSON VOTED IN A PARTICULAR ELECTION 881179 IS THE ENTRY PROCESS COMPLETE FOR THE 1988 GENERAL ELECTION 881180 IS ANOTHER KIND OF MASTER FILE KEPT 881181 IS OTHER FILE KEPT ON A COMPUTER 881182 IS PRECINCT NUMBER ON THE RECORD OF EACH PERSON 881183 IS EXACT ADDRESS OR PRECINCT NECESSARY TO LOCATE A RECORD 881184 WITH OTHER FILE, CAN REGISTRANT BE IDENTIFIED FROM AN ADDRESS 881185 DOES OTHER FILE INDICATE WHETHER A PERSON VOTED IN A PARTICULAR ELECTION 881186 IS THE ENTRY PROCESS COMPLETE FOR THE 1988 GENERAL ELECTION 881187 INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT: EITHER MASTER OR OTHER FILE INDICATES WHETHER A PERSON VOTED IN A PARTICULAR ELECTION 881188 ANY OTHER REGISTRATION RECORDS THAT CONTAIN INFORMATION ABOUT VOTING PARTICIPATION REGISTRATION RECORDS CONTAIN VOTE INFORMATION 881189 ARE LISTS OF PERSONS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE PROVIDED TO PRECINCTS ON ELECTION DAY 881190 WHAT ARE THESE LISTS CALLED - FIRST MENTION 881191 WHAT ARE THESE LISTS CALLED - SECOND MENTION 881192 ARE THESE LISTS MARKED BY OFFICIALS TO INDICATE THAT SOMEONE VOTED 881193 ARE THESE LISTS SIGNED BY THE VOTERS THEMSELVES 881194 ARE VOTERS REQUIRED TO SIGN A BALLOT APPLICATION/ VOUCHER 881195 ARE FILES OF BALLOT APPLICATIONS KEPT 881196 ARE RECORDS KEPT OF APPLICATIONS FOR ABSENTEE BALLOT 881197 ARE REGISTRATION RECORDS MARKED WHEN AN ABSENTEE BALLOT IS RETURNED REGISTRATION RECORDS DO NOT CONTAIN VOTE INFORMATION 881198 MUST USE VOTING, AND NOT REGISTRATION, RECORDS FOR VOTING INFORMATION 881199 VOTING INFORMATION IS KEPT ON REGISTRATION MASTER FILE/SET OF REGISTRATION RECORDS/OTHER 881200 VOTE RECORDS KEPT IN THIS/OTHER OFFICE 881201 ARE LISTS OF PERSONS ELIGIBLE TO VOTE PROVIDED TO PRECINCTS ON ELECTION DAY 881202 ARE THESE LISTS MARKED BY OFFICIALS TO INDICATE THAT SOMEONE VOTED 881203 ARE THESE LISTS SIGNED BY THE VOTERS THEMSELVES 881204 ARE VOTERS REQUIRED TO SIGN A BALLOT APPLICATION/ VOUCHER 881205 ARE FILES OF BALLOT APPLICATIONS KEPT 881206 ARE RECORDS KEPT OF APPLICATIONS FOR ABSENTEE BALLOT 881207 ARE REGISTRATION RECORDS MARKED WHEN AN ABSENTEE BALLOT IS RETURNED 881208 IS A VOTER'S PRECINCT/ELECTION DISTRICT NEEDED TO FIND A PERSON'S NAME ON THE VOTING RECORDS 881209 IF LACKING A PRECINCT NUMBER, CAN IT BE RETRIEVED FROM THE REGISTRATION RECORD 881210 HOW SOON BEFORE A FEDERAL ELECTION MUST PEOPLE BE REGISTERED TO VOTE 881211 HOW MANY PEOPLE REGISTERED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON ELECTION DAY, NOVEMBER 1988 881212 HOW MANY PEOPLE REGISTERED FOR THE FIRST TIME DURING THE CALENDAR YEAR 1988 881213 APPROXIMATE NUMBER REGISTERED AT THE END OF 1987 881214 APPROXIMATE NUMBER OF REGISTRATION RECORDS PURGED DURING 1988 881215 APPROXIMATE NUMBER OF REGISTERED VOTERS AS OF TODAY 881216 SUMMARY: NUMBER OF NEW REGISTRATIONS DURING 1988 881217 NUMBER OF ELECTION DISTRICTS/PRECINCTS IN THIS JURISDICTION 881218 NUMBER OF POLLING PLACES FOR A GENERAL ELECTION 881219 TIME LAG BETWEEN REGISTRATION AND COMPLETION OF PROCESSING 881220 REGISTRATION AT THIS LOCATION OR AT ANOTHER LOCALE 881221 REGISTRATION ALL YEAR YEAR ROUND/CERTAIN TIMES 881222 IS THIS OFFICE THE ONLY PLACE WHERE PEOPLE CAN REGISTER 881223 IS THIS ALWAYS THE ONLY OFFICE, OR ARE SOME LOCATIONS OPEN TEMPORARILY BEFORE ELECTIONS OTHER LOCATIONS FOR REGISTRATION - YEAR ROUND 881224 PUBLIC LIBRARIES 881225 FIRE STATIONS 881226 SHOPPING MALLS/MARKETS 881227 POST OFFICES 881228 DRIVERS' LICENSE RENEWAL (SEC'Y OF STATE OFFICE) 881229 SHERIFF'S OFFICE/POLICE STATIONS 881230 COURTHOUSE 881231 COLLEGE DORMS/UNIONS 881232 APARTMENT COMPLEX CLUBHOUSE/COMMONS 881233 COMMUNITY CENTERS/SENIOR CITIZENS CENTERS 881234 ATHLETIC CLUB/YMCA 881235 ORGANIZATION MEETING PLACE 881236 CHURCHES/PARISH HALL 881237 SOMEONE'S HOUSE 881238 VOLUNTEERS GOING DOOR-TO-DOOR 881239 SPECIAL MOBILE UNITS 881240 OTHER 881241 OTHER - SPECIFIED OTHER LOCATIONS FOR REGISTRATION - TEMPORARY BEFORE ELECTIONS 881242 CAN PEOPLE REGISTER AT OTHER LOCATIONS OPEN TEMPORARILY BEFORE ELECTIONS 881243 PUBLIC LIBRARIES 881244 FIRE STATIONS 881245 SHOPPING MALLS/MARKETS 881246 POST OFFICES 881247 DRIVERS' LICENSE RENEWAL (SEC'Y OF STATE OFFICE) 881248 SHERIFF'S OFFICE/POLICE STATIONS 881249 COURTHOUSE 881250 COLLEGE DORMS/UNIONS 881251 APARTMENT COMPLEX CLUBHOUSE/COMMONS 881252 COMMUNITY CENTERS/SENIOR CITIZENS CENTERS 881253 ATHLETIC CLUB/YMCA 881254 ORGANIZATION MEETING PLACE 881255 CHURCHES/PARISH HALL 881256 SOMEONE'S HOUSE 881257 VOLUNTEERS GOING DOOR-TO-DOOR 881258 SPECIAL MOBILE UNITS 881259 OTHER 881260 OTHER - SPECIFIED 881261 WHEN ARE THESE OTHER PLACES OPEN 881262 DOES JURISDICTION HAVE DEPUTY REGISTRARS 881263 NUMBER OF DEPUTY REGISTRARS 881264 QUALIFICATIONS FOR DEPUTY REGISTRAR - FIRST MENTION 881265 QUALIFICATIONS FOR DEPUTY REGISTRAR - SECOND MENTION 881266 QUALIFICATIONS FOR DEPUTY REGISTRAR - THIRD MENTION 881267 ARE THERE LIMITS ON THE NUMBER OF DEPUTY REGISTRARS 881268 LIMITS ON THE NUMBER OF DEPUTY REGISTRARS - FIRST MENTION 881269 LIMITS ON THE NUMBER OF DEPUTY REGISTRARS - SECOND MENTION 881270 ARE THERE LIMITS ON WHERE DEPUTY REGISTRARS CAN GO TO REGISTER VOTERS 881271 LIMITATIONS ON WHERE DEPUTY REGISTRARS CAN GO TO REGISTER VOTERS - FIRST MENTION 881272 LIMITATIONS ON WHERE DEPUTY REGISTRARS CAN GO TO REGISTER VOTERS - SECOND MENTION 881273 LIMITATIONS ON WHERE DEPUTY REGISTRARS CAN GO TO REGISTER VOTERS - THIRD MENTION 881274 ARE THERE LIMITS ON THE HOURS DEPUTY REGISTRARS CAN WORK 881275 LIMITATIONS ON THE HOURS DEPUTY REGISTRARS CAN WORK - FIRST MENTION 881276 LIMITATIONS ON THE HOURS DEPUTY REGISTRARS CAN WORK - SECOND MENTION 881277 CAN PEOPLE REGISTER INITIALLY BY MAIL 881278 WHERE DO PEOPLE PICK UP MAIL APPLICATIONS - FIRST MENTION 881279 WHERE DO PEOPLE PICK UP MAIL APPLICATIONS - SECOND MENTION 881280 WHERE DO PEOPLE PICK UP MAIL APPLICATIONS - THIRD MENTION 881281 ARE MAIL APPLICATIONS ON DISPLAY AT THESE PLACES 881282 DAYS OF THE WEEK REGISTRATION OFFICE IS ROUTINELY OPEN - FIRST MENTION 881283 HOURS OF THE DAY REGISTRATION OFFICE IS ROUTINELY OPEN - FIRST MENTION 881284 DAYS OF THE WEEK REGISTRATION OFFICE IS ROUTINELY OPEN - SECOND MENTION 881285 HOURS OF THE DAY REGISTRATION OFFICE IS ROUTINELY OPEN - SECOND MENTION 881286 ARE HOURS EXTENDED BEFORE AN ELECTION 881287 EXTENDED HOURS - DAY OF THE WEEK - FIRST MENTION 881288 EXTENDED HOURS - HOURS OF THE DAY - FIRST MENTION 881289 DURATION OF EXTENDED HOURS - FIRST MENTION 881290 EXTENDED HOURS - DAY OF THE WEEK - SECOND MENTION 881291 EXTENDED HOURS - HOURS OF THE DAY - SECOND MENTION 881292 DURATION OF EXTENDED HOURS - SECOND MENTION 881293 EXTENDED HOURS - DAY OF THE WEEK - THIRD MENTION 881294 EXTENDED HOURS - HOURS OF THE DAY - THIRD MENTION 881295 DURATION OF EXTENDED HOURS - THIRD MENTION 881296 IS THERE A PUBLICATION THAT EXPLAINS REGISTRATION ELIGIBILITY AND PROCEDURES 881297 MAY INTERVIEWER HAVE A COPY 881298 RESIDENCY REQUIREMENT TO REGISTER - DAYS INTERVIEWER NOTES 881299 INTERVIEWER ALLOWED TO HANDLE THE RECORDS 881300 INFORMATION RETRIEVAL WAS DONE BY SOMEONE ELSE OPERATING A COMPUTER 881301 INTERVIEWER'S RATING OF OFFICE ORGANIZATION, ACCESSIBILITY, AND ACCURACY OF RECORDS