Version 03 Codebook ------------------- CODEBOOK INTRODUCTION FILE 1998 POST-ELECTION STUDY (1998.T) AMERICAN NATIONAL ELECTION STUDY, 1998 CODEBOOK Center for Political Studies Institute for Social Research The University of Michigan BIBLIOGRAPHIC CITATION Sapiro, Virginia, Steven J. Rosenstone, and the National Election Studies. NATIONAL ELECTION STUDIES, 1998: POST-ELECTION STUDY [dataset]. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, Center for Political Studies [producer and distributor], 1999. These materials are based on work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant Nos. : SBR-9707741, SBR-9317631, SES-9209410, SES-9009379, SES-8808361, SES-8341310, SES-8207580, and SOC77-08885. Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in these materials are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the National Science Foundation. TABLE OF CONTENTS Note: >> sections in the codebook introduction and codebook appendix can be navigated in the machine-readable files by searching ">>" . INTRODUCTORY MATERIALS (File INT1998.CBK) ---------------------- >> INTRODUCTION: 1998 STUDY DESCRIPTION >> 1998 SURVEY CONTENT AND ADMINISTRATION >> 1998 SAMPLING INFORMATION >> 1998 WEIGHT DOCUMENATION >> 1998 SAMPLING ERROR >> NOTES ON CONFIDENTIAL VARIABLES >> 1998 FILE STRUCTURE AND INFORMATION >> 1998 CODEBOOK INFORMATION >> 1998 PROCESSING INFORMATION >> NES STAFF AND TECHNICAL PAPERS, 1998 >> NES 1997 PILOT STUDY REPORTS >> 1998 VARIABLE DESCRIPTION LIST VARIABLE DOCUMENTATION (File NES1998.CBK) ---------------------- 1998 variables APPENDIX MATERIALS (File APP1998.CBK) ------------------ 1998 MASTER CODES: >> 1998 TYPE OF RACE >> 1998 CANDIDATE NUMBERS >> 1998 PARTY-CANDIDATE >> 1998 MOST IMPORTANT PROBLEMS >> 1998 PARTY DIFFERENCES >> 1998 RELIGIOUS IDENTIFICATION >> 1998 OCCUPATION CODE (1990 CENSUS) >> 1998 INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (1990 CENSUS) >> 1998 ETHNICITY/NATIONALITY >> 1998 CENSUS DEFINITIONS - 1990 CENSUS >> 1998 FREQUENCY ADDENDUM >> INTRODUCTION: 1998 STUDY DESCRIPTION The NES/CPS American National Election Study 1998 was conducted by the Center for Political Studies of the Institute for Social Research, under the general direction of Principal Investigators Virginia Sapiro and Steven Rosenstone. Kathy Cirksena was the Project Manager and Michael Horvath was the Study Manager for the National Election Studies. This is the twenty-fifth in a series of studies of American national elections produced by the Center for Political Studies and the Survey Research Center. It is the eleventh such study to be conducted under the auspices of National Science Foundation Grants providing long-term support for the National Election Studies. The 1998 National Election Study was funded under grant number SBR-9707741. Since 1978 the NES election studies have been designed under the supervision of a National Board of Overseers. Board members during the planning of the 1998 National Election Study included: Larry Bartels, Princeton University; Gary Cox, University of California, San Diego; Charles Franklin, University of Wisconsin - Madison; Robert Huckfeldt, Indiana University; Jon Krosnick, Ohio State University; David Leege, University of Notre Dame; Warren E. Miller, Arizona State University, ex officio; Wendy Rahn, University of Minnesota; W. Phillips Shively, University of Minnesota; Laura Stoker, University of California, Berkeley; and John Zaller, the University of California at Los Angeles. 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 1998 Study Planning Committee, chaired by Wendy Rahn, University of Minnesota, included Larry Bartels, Princeton University; Gary Jacobson, University of California, San Diego; William Jacoby, University of South Carolina; Kimberly Kahn, Arizona State University; David Leege, University of Notre Dame; Sam Popkin, University of California, San Diego; Virginia Sapiro, University of Wisconsin - Madison; Laura Stoker, University of California, Berkeley. A pilot study was carried out in September of 1997 for the purpose of developing new instrumentation for the 1998 Election Study. New or improved items were tested in the areas of mobilization and non-electoral participation, group-based politics, response latency, and religion and politics. Data from the 1997 Pilot Study are available through the Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR 2282), or from the NES web site (www.umich.edu/~nes). Results from the pilot study (as summarized in Pilot Study Reports which are listed in this codebook) were used by the Planning Committee in formulating recommendations to the Board about study content for the 1998 Election Study. The Principal Investigators, Board of Overseers, and project staff note with sadness that this is the last National Election Study with which Warren E. Miller was associated before his death in February, 1999. He was a leader in every study from 1952 on, and he shepherded the transformation of these studies into a national social science resource. His important work lives on. >> 1998 SURVEY CONTENT AND ADMINISTRATION SURVEY CONTENT The Board of Overseers balanced a number of considerations in selecting content for the Post-Election Survey. There was, as always, the necessity of maintaining continuity with past surveys. All congressional time-series items were evaluated by the Board, and input was solicited from the research community about whether each should be used for the 1998 Study. The items that fall into the time-series, or "core" category, are: campaign attention; media exposure; House candidate recall; feeling thermometer ratings of congressional candidates and groups; likes and dislikes of congressional candidates; registration and turnout; vote for Representative, Senator and Governor; Presidential traits and affects; Presidential performance items; most important problem; campaign activities; system support and efficacy items; approval of performance of Congress; House Representative performance rating; incumbency status of House Candidates; retrospective and prospective economic evaluations (national and individual); strength of the US position in the world and isolationism; liberal-conservative scale ratings of self, President and parties; party identification; interest in politics and public affairs; how often Respondent discusses politics; political knowledge/recognition items; seven- point issue scales with placements; views on abortion, school prayer and the death penalty; items of moral traditionalism and egalitarianism; measures of religiosity; and the standard and extensive battery of demographic questions. A number of questions are new or relatively new to the Study. Some came from the piloting work described above-- e.g., the Congressional Traits section (allowing comparative evaluation of the president and congress), Role of Religion and Religious Institutions in Society and Politics, and the question on late-term abortions. This survey also included a range of items relating to the the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal, and some new questions on key issues, such as school vouchers, foreign imports, and immigration. It should be noted that the impeachment of President Clinton occurred during the field period. SURVEY ADMINISTRATION: MIXED-MODE STRATEGY NES election studies are traditionally based on personal rather than telephone interviewing in order to preserve the quality of sampling and survey response. Given questions that have been raised within the research community about the relatively high expense of face-to-face interviewing compared with the more widely-used telephone mode, the NES Board of Overseers authorized a series of efforts to investigate possibilities for maximizing the use of telephone interviewing. The 1996 Post-Election Study included a mode experiment, in which cases were assigned to either telephone or face-to-face mode at the sample segment level. Every effort to retain randomly assigned cases in their assigned mode in that study. In 1998 a panel of experts was assembled by the Board to investigate the results of that mode experiment as well as other empirical evidence available to determine their implications for future administration of NES studies. That panel will report to the Board during 1999. In the interim, the Board of Overseers authorized the 1998 Election Study to be conducted in a "mixed mode" to maximize telephone interviewing without accepting the sacrifices in quality of sampling coverage that result from random digit dialing strategies. SURVEY ADMINISTRATION: CONTACT AND CANDIDATE INFORMATION NES and DST collaborated to develop a set of contact protocols to most efficiently utilize this mixed mode strategy. Initial face-to-face contact was made with as many respondents and informants as possible. During this initial contact, interviewers attempted to complete the screening and household listing at the doorstep and to make an appointment to conduct a telephone interview with the selected respondent. Interviewing materials, such as the Respondent Book and Ballot Card were left for the respondent at this time. If a respondent was unable or unwilling to do an interview by telephone, arrangements were made to conduct the interview face-to-face. Candidate information (names, gender and candidate codes) were "pre-loaded" into the application to be used during the interview. The pre-loaded information is included in the released data. However, since paper candidate lists are no longer utilized as field materials, there is no "Candidate List" appended to this codebook, although the term 'Candidate List' continues to be used in the codebook as a reference to the candidate information available to the interviewer (CAPI preload). RESPONSE RATE Final result codes for the total sample were used to calculate two kinds of response rates as presented in the table below. The summary response rate (the ratio of completed interviews to the total number of potential respondents) for the study was 63.9%. The completion rate (the ratio of cases in which some responsible member of the housing unit was reached to the total number of potential respondents) for the study was 92.1%. (Note: Result codes for the full sample are included in the Study nonresponse or 'bias' file.) The administration of this survey posed special difficulties that will require further investigation, and will be the subject of future technical reports. Budgetary restrictions required that the target number of interviews (1,500) be lower than was the case in previous studies. In the end, the response rate was somewhat lower than NES has experienced in the past for a number of reasons. The mixed-mode strategy creates some inefficiencies in data collection. Increases in the number of locked buildings, gated communities, and seasonally-occupied dwelling units affected response rate. Finally, it is likely that interviewing during the time period that encompassed the presidential impeachment and related scandal news reduced people's willingness to respond to political surveys. The response rate difficulties became apparent early in the field period. The field and study staff implemented a number of strategies to bolster response rates, including using the most experienced interviewers possible, and raising the respondent incentives. At the outset of the field period, the respondent incentive was $10. On November 25 it was raised to $30, and on December 4 it was raised to $50. Two options for increasing the number of interviews were rejected. First, no additional sample lines were added because, while this would have increased the number of respondents, it would have also lowered the response rate. Second, although in some past studies the field period has been extended into the new year to allow the interviewers to pursue the remaining resistant cases, in 1998, given the likely effects of the impeachment of the President on the quality of election-related survey responses, especially in light of the likely per case expense, this option was not taken. FIELD ADMINISTRATION INFORMATION Response Rate: 63.9% Completion rate: 92.1% Avg. Length of Interview: 65.9 min No. of Respondents: 1281 The response rate is calculated as: IWS/(Sample N)-(NER+NS) The completion rate is calculated as: (Sample N-(NC+NS+NER))/Sample N -(NS+NER) where NS = Nonsample NER = No Eligible respondent IWS = Total interviews NC = No Contact. WEIGHTING The 1998 Post-Election Study data include analysis weight V980002. This weight was created for the primary purpose of correcting for under- representation in study data of younger and less-educated respondents, and is post-stratified to match the Current Population Study (CPS) estimate of the distribution of age group by education level. It is the product of a within-household selection weight, a household-level nonresponse adjustment factor, and the person-level post-stratification factor already described. The nonresponse adjustment factor compensates for differential response rates by Census Region and metropolitan status. Full information about construction of the weight is found in the section "1998 WEIGHT DOCUMENTATION". >> 1998 SAMPLING INFORMATION Sampling Section Survey Research Center Institute for Social Research University of Michigan March 1999 1998 NATIONAL POST-ELECTION STUDY SAMPLE DESIGN STUDY POPULATION ---------------- The study population for the 1998 National Post-election Study (NES) is defined to include all United States citizens of voting age on or before the 1998 Election Day. Eligible citizens must have resided in housing units 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 the 3rd of November 1998. MULTI-STAGE AREA PROBABILITY SAMPLE DESIGN ------------------------------------------ The 1998 NES is based on a multi-stage area probability sample selected from the Survey Research Center's (SRC) 1990 National Sample design. Identification of the 1998 NES sample respondents was conducted using a four stage sampling process--a primary stage sampling of U.S. Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) or New England County Metropolitan Areas (NECMAs) and non-MSA 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 1990 SRC National Sample, from which the 1998 NES sample was drawn, is provided in the SRC publication titled 1990 SRC National Sample: Design and Development. The 1998 NES sample design called for an entirely new cross-section sample to be drawn from the 1990 SRC National Sample; no panel component was included in 1998. The 1990 SRC National Sample is a multi-stage area probability sample. Since the 1998 NES sample was drawn from the 1990 SRC National Sample, the first stages of selection for the 1998 NES Sample correspond to the first stages of selection for the 1990 SRC National Sample. SELECTION STAGES FOR THE 1998 NES SAMPLE: 19990 SRC NATIONAL SAMPLE Primary Stage Selection The selection of primary stage sampling units (PSUs) for the 1990 SRC National Sample, which depending on the sample stratum are either MSAs, New England County Metropolitan Areas (NECMAs), single counties, independent cities, county equivalents or groupings of small counties, is based on the county-level 1990 Census Reports of Population and Housing (1). Primary stage units were assigned to 108 explicit strata based on MSA/NECMA or non-MSA/NECMA status, PSU size, Census Region and geographic location within region. Twenty-eight of the 108 strata contain only a single self-representing PSU, each of which is included with certainty in the primary stage of sample selection. The remaining 80 nonself-representing strata contain more than one PSU. From each of these nonself-representing strata, one PSU was sampled with probability proportionate to its size (PPS) measured in 1990 occupied housing units. The full 1990 SRC National Sample of 108 primary stage selections was designed to be optimal for surveys roughly three to five times the size of the 1998 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 PSUs such as a one-half sample or a three-quarter sample partition. Each of the partitions represents a stratified subselection from the full 108 PSU design. The 1998 NES sample of 44 PSUs is a stratified random subsample of PSUs from the "A" half-sample partition of the 1990 SRC National Sample. Because of the small size of this NES sample, both the number of PSUs (selected primary areas) and the secondary stage units (area segments) in the National half-sample were reduced by subselection for the 1998 NES sample design. The 18 self-representing areas in the 1990 SRC National half-sample were all retained for the 1998 NES sample (8 of these remained self-representing in the 1998 NES and 10 represent not only their own MSA but their "pair" among the twenty additional self-representing primary areas of the full 1990 SRC National Sample design). Nineteen of the 26 nonself-representing half-sample MSAs and 7 of the 14 half-sample non-MSAs were retained by the subselection for the 1998 NES sample (or 26 of 40 NSR PSUs). Table 1 identifies the 44 PSUs in the 1998 NES sample by MSA status and Region and also indicates the number of area segments used for the 1998 NES sample (see next section on second stage selection). Table 1: PSU Name and Number of Area Segments in the 1998 NES Sample Showing 1990 SRC National-Sample Stratum and MSA Status ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ National Sample PSU | National Sample PSU Name | # of 1998 NES | | Segments ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | | | Eight Largest Self-representing PSUs | | | 120 | New York, NY MSA | 12 190 | Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA MSA | 12 130 | Chicago, IL MSA | 9 121 | Philadelphia, PA-NJ MSA | 7 131 | Detroit, MI MSA | 6 150 | Washington DC-MD-VA MSA | 6 110 | Boston, MA NECMA | 6 171 | Dallas and Ft Worth, TX CMSA | 6 | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | | | Ten Remaining Largest MSA PSUs | | | 170 | Houston, TX MSA | 6 191 | Seattle-Tacoma, WA CMSA | 6 141 | St Louis, MO-IL MSA | 6 152 | Baltimore, MD MSA | 6 122 | Nassau-Suffolk, NY MSA | 6 194 | Anaheim-Santa Ana, CA MSA | 6 132 | Cleveland, OH MSA | 6 154 | Miami-Hialeah, FL MSA | 5 (2) 181 | Denver, CO MSA | 6 196 | San Francisco, CA MSA | 6 | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | | | Nonself-representing MSAs: Northeast | | | 211 | New Haven-Waterbury-Meriden, | 6 | CT NECMA | 6 213 | Manchester-Nashua NH NECMA | 6 220 | Buffalo, NY MSA | 6 226 | Atlantic City, NJ MSA | 6 | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | | | Nonself-representing MSAs: Midwest | | | 230 | Milwaukee, WI MSA | 6 236 | Madison, WI MSA | 6 239 | Steubenville-Wheeling, OH (3) | 6 240 | Des Moines, IA MSA | 6 | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | | | Nonself-representing MSAs: South | | | 250 | Richmond-Petersburg, VA MSA | 6 255 | Columbus, GA-AL MSA | 6 257 | Jacksonville, FL MSA | 6 258 | Lakeland, FL MSA | 6 260 | Knoxville TN MSA | 6 262 | Birmingham, AL MSA | 6 273 | Waco, TX MSA | 6 274 | McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX MSA | 6 | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | | | Nonself-representing MSAs: West | | | 280 | Salt Lake City-Ogden etc, UT MSA | 6 292 | Fresno, CA MSA | 6 293 | Eugene-Springfield, OR MSA | 6 | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | | | Nonself-representing Non-MSAs: | | Northeast | | | 320 | Elk County, PA | 6 | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | | | Nonself-representing Non-MSAs: Midwest | | | 332 | Switzerland County, IN | 6 340 | Steele County, MN | 6 | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | | | Nonself-representing Non-MSAs: South | | | 351 | Harrisonburg IC, VA | 6 354 | Whitfield County, GA | 6 370 | Jim Wells County, TX | 6 | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | | | Nonself-representing Non-MSAs: West | | | 381 | Sandoval County, NM | 6 | | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total Number of Segments 279 Second Stage Selection of Area Segments The second stage of the 1990 SRC National Sample, used for the 1998 NES sample, was selected directly from computerized files that were extracted for the selected PSUs from the 1990 U.S. Census summary file series STF1-B. These files (on CD Rom) contain the 1990 Census total population and housing unit (HU) data at the census block level. The designated second-stage sampling units (SSUs), termed "area segments", are comprised of census blocks in both the metropolitan (MSA) primary areas and in the rural areas of non-MSA primary areas. Each SSU block or block combination was assigned a measure of size equal to the total 1990 occupied housing unit count for the area. SSU block(s) were assigned a minimum measure of 72 1990 total HUs per MSA SSU and a minimum measure of 48 total Hus per non-MSA SSU. Second stage sampling of area segments was performed with probabilities proportionate to the assigned measures of size (PPS). For the 1998 NES sample the number of area segments used in each PSU varies. In the self-representing (SR) PSUs the number of area segments varies in proportion to the size of the primary stage unit, from a high of 12 area segments in the self-representing New York and Los Angeles MSA PSUs, to a low of 6 area segments in the smaller self-representing PSUs such as Cleveland, Miami-Hialeah or Nassau-Suffolk MSAs. All nonself-representing (NSR) PSUs were represented by 6 area segments each. A total of 279 NES area segments were selected as shown in Table 1. Third Stage Selection of Housing Units: 1998 NES Sample For each area segment selected in the second sampling stage, a listing had been 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 1998 NES sample was systematically selected from the housing unit listings for the sampled area segments. The 1998 NES sample design was selected from the 1990 SRC National Sample to yield an equal probability sample of 2557 listed housing units. The 1998 NES sample drawn was slightly smaller than the expected required sample size of 2577 lines based on the assumptions detailed in Table 2 below. Additional "reserve" sample was not drawn from the entire sample design; a decision was made that if additional reserve sample was required to meet interview goals, it would be drawn instead from a selected subsample of segments rather than across all segments. The overall probability of selection for 1998 NES cross-section sample of households was f=0.000023100 or 0.23100 in 10,000. The equal probability sample of households was achieved for the 1998 NES sample 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 used to select the PSU and area segment (Kish, 1965). Fourth Stage Respondent Selection: 1998 NES Sample Within each sampled 1998 NES occupied housing unit, the SRC interviewer prepared a complete listing of all eligible household members. Using an objective procedure described by Kish (1949) a single respondent was then selected at random to be interviewed. Regardless of circumstances, no substitutions were permitted for the designated respondent. 1998 NES SAMPLE DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS, SPECIFICATIONS AND OUTCOME -------------------------------------------------------------- The 1998 Post-election Study sought a total of 1500 interviews. It was estimated that this would require a NES sample draw of 2577 housing units. This assumed an occupancy/growth rate of 0.86, an eligibility rate of 0.94 and a response rate of 0.72. These assumptions were based on the 1994 NES Cross-section Sample field experience. The overall 1998 NES Post-election sample design specifications, assumptions and outcomes are set out in Table 2, below. 2557 listed sample lines were actually selected for the 1998 NES study (resulting in 2568 sample households). There was no Panel component in 1998 and no reserve sample was selected. Selected sample lines having mailable addresses were sent to the Telematch for name and telephone number matching prior to release for field contact. The 1998 NES Study design called for maximum use of telephone interviewing after initial face-to-face screening in the field to locate eligible households/respondents. It was hoped that this would maximize interviewing field efficiency and minimize the necessity to send traveler field personnel into the primary areas not staffed by permanent field personnel. A comparison of the 1998 NES design specifications and assumptions to the outcome figures in Table 2 indicates that, although the assumed eligibility rate was met in the sample outcome, the occupancy rate estimation in the design was higher than that encountered and response rate specification in the design was much higher than that actually achieved. This, of course, resulted in fewer interviews taken than specified in the sample design. Table 2: 1998 Post-election Survey Sample Design Specifications and Assumptions Compared to Sample Outcome | 1998 NES Design | 1998 NES Sample | Specification | Outcome ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Completed Interviews | 1500 | 1281 Response Rate | 0.72 | 0.638 Eligible Sample Households | 2083 | 2008 Eligibility Rate | 0.94 | 0.944 Occupied Households | 2216 | 2127 Occupancy/growth Rate | 0.86 | 0.828 Total Sample Lines | 2577 | 2568 The study design for the 1998 NES Post-election Study called for initial contact to be made by field staff in a face-to-face screening effort to determine eligibility. This was to be followed by either an in-person or telephone interview--with the intention of obtaining as many interviews as possible by phone in an effort to reduce field costs. Screening and interviewing began on November 4, 1998--the day after election day. The data collection period continued through December 22, 1998. 1281 interviews were obtained. Table 3 shows the outcome for the 1998 Post Election Survey by interview mode. Table 3. 1998 Post-election Survey: Interviews by Data Collection Mode | Total | Telephone | Face-to-Face ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Interviews | 1281 | 991 | 290 NOTES ----- (1) Office of Management and Budget (OMB) June 1990 definitions of MSAs, NECMAs, counties, parishes, independent cities. These, of course, differ in some respects from the primary stage unit (PSU) definitions used in the 1980 SRC National Sample so will not be strictly comparable to the 1996 NES Panel PSUs--particularly in New England where MSAs were used as PSUs in the 1980 National Sample and NECMAs were used as PSUs in the 1990 National Sample (2) One selected segment (023) was in a former trailer park that had no housing units to be listed in January 1996; all had been destroyed in 1992 by hurricane "Andrew" and there were no plans to rebuild. (3) In the 1990 SRC National Sample, U.S. Census Region boundaries were maintained for purposes of stratification at the Primary Stage of selection. Since some MSA definitions cross Region boundaries, such MSAs were split and the MSA counties recombined in ways that maintained the Region boundary. This PSU actually contains the Ohio counties from both the Steubenville-Wierton, OH-WV MSA (Jefferson County, OH) and the Wheeling, WV-OH MSA (Belmont County, OH) and although it is made up of MSA counties--it is not a cohesive MSA by OMB 1990 definition. >> 1998 WEIGHT DOCUMENTATION WEIGHTED ANALYSIS OF 1998 NES DATA ---------------------------------- The 1998 NES data set includes a person-level analysis weight which incorporates sampling, nonresponse and post-stratification factors. 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. CONSTRUCTION OF ANALYSIS WEIGHTS -------------------------------- Sample Selection Weight The area probability sample design for the 1998 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 (variable 980035). The use of the respondent selection weight is strongly encouraged, despite past evaluations which have shown these weights to have little significant impact on the values of NES estimates of descriptive statistics. Household Nonresponse Adjustment Factor Nonresponse adjustment factors were constructed at the household level. Nonresponse adjustment cells for the 1998 NES sample were formed by crossing PSU type (largest MSAs, other MSAs, or non-MSA) by the four Census regions (Northeast, Midwest, South, and West). A nonresponse adjustment factor equal to the inverse of the response rate in each cell was applied to the interview cases. Table 4. Computation of Nonresponse Adjustment Weights--1998 NES Sample PSU Type | Census Region | Response Rate (%) | Nonresponse | | | Adjustment Factor ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Large MSAs | Northeast | 47.53 | 2.104 | Midwest | 60.63 | 1.649 | South | 55.37 | 1.806 | West | 57.00 | 1.754 | | | Smaller MSAs | Northeast | 61.01 | 1.639 | Midwest | 73.94 | 1.353 | South | 65.88 | 1.518 | West | 74.22 | 1.347 | | | Non MSAs | Northeast | 66.67 | 1.500 | Midwest | 72.99 | 1.370 | South | 67.12 | 1.490 | West | 69.62 | 1.436 Post-stratification Factor The 1998 NES weights are post-stratified to 1998 CPS proportions for seven (7) age by four (4) education categories. There are actually 27 post-stratification cells because for the youngest age group (18-21) the highest two education categories (some college/college graduate) are combined. Table 5 shows the weighted estimates and proportions for the 27 cells for the 1998 CPS and the weighted 1998 CPS and NES percents. The Post-stratification adjustment is computed by dividing the CPS percent by the 1998 NES percent based on the nonresponse adjusted selection weight. The final two columns show the NES weighted totals using the final post-stratified analysis weight and the resulting percents which match the CPS percents. FINAL ANALYSIS WEIGHTS ---------------------- The final analysis weight is the product of the household level non-response adjustment factor, the number of eligible persons, and a person-level post-stratification factor. The final analysis weight for the 1998 NES sample (V980002) is scaled to sum to 1281, the total number of respondents. These weights were constructed using the 1998 NES Post-Election data set. Table 5: 1998 NES Sample Weight: Post-stratification Factor Age Education n 1998 1998 Prelim. Post NES Final Level CPS CPS 1998 Strat. wtd NES wtd Est.in % NES adjust n % 000s (4) wtd % ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 18-21 < High Sch. 18 3,787.9 2.069 1.595 1.297 26.5 2.1 Graduation High School 29 4,409.7 2.408 2.747 0.877 30.8 2.4 Graduate Some 50 5,477.1 2.991 5.240 0.571 38.3 3.0 College/ College Grad. 22-29 < High Sch. 17 2,331.6 1.273 1.097 1.161 16.3 1.3 Graduation High School 43 8,120.4 4.435 3.318 1.336 56.8 4.4 Graduate Some College 51 9,119.7 4.981 4.292 1.160 63.8 5.0 College 37 6,397.4 3.494 2.951 1.184 44.8 3.5 Graduate 30-39 < High Sch. 22 3,653.8 1.996 1.804 1.106 25.6 2.0 Graduation High School 89 13,743.3 7.506 6.563 1.144 96.2 7.5 Graduate Some College 83 10,969.6 5.991 6.302 0.951 76.7 6.0 College 81 10,422.0 5.692 6.846 0.831 72.9 5.7 Graduate 40-49 < High Sch. 18 3,469.3 1.895 1.596 1.187 24.3 1.9 Graduation High School 93 12,547.9 6.853 7.352 0.932 87.8 6.9 Graduate Some College 73 11,050.4 6.035 5.546 1.088 77.3 6.0 College 99 10,766.3 5.880 7.574 0.776 75.3 5.9 Graduate 50-59 < High Sch. 18 3,695.1 2.018 1.409 1.432 25.8 2.0 Graduation High School 49 9,175.9 5.012 3.681 1.361 64.2 5.0 Graduate Some College 50 6,247.0 3.412 4.064 0.840 43.7 3.4 College 71 6,972.5 3.808 5.591 0.681 48.8 3.8 Graduate 60-69 < High Sch. 31 4,486.2 2.450 2.504 0.978 31.4 2.5 Graduation High School 45 7,105.3 3.881 3.287 1.180 49.7 3.9 Graduate Some College 26 3,516.0 1.920 1.919 1.000 24.6 1.9 College 37 3,543.6 1.935 2.892 0.669 24.8 1.9 Graduate 70 + < High Sch. 45 7,686.8 4.198 2.631 1.595 53.8 4.2 Graduation High School 43 7,636.0 4.170 2.896 1.440 53.4 4.2 Graduate Some College 33 3,770.2 2.059 2.128 0.968 26.4 2.1 College 30 2,994.5 1.635 2.173 0.753 21.0 1.6 Graduate Totals 1281 183,080.0 100.0 100.0 1281.0 100.0 NOTES ----- (4) Because U.S. citizenship is required for NES eligibility, the CPS counts used for post-stratification include only U.S. citizens. >> 1998 SAMPLING ERROR PROCEDURES FOR SAMPLING ERROR ESTIMATION ---------------------------------------- The 1998 NES sample design is based on a stratified multi-stage area probability sample of United States households. Although smaller in scale, the NES sample design is very similar in it basic structure to the multi-stage designs used for major federal survey programs such as the Health Interview Survey (HIS) or the Current Population Survey (CPS). The survey literature refers to the NES, HIS and CPS samples as complex designs, a loosely-used term meant to denote the fact that the sample incorporates special design features such as stratification, clustering and differential selection probabilities (i.e., weighting) that analysts must consider in computing sampling errors for sample estimates of descriptive statistics and model parameters. This section of the 1998 NES sample design description focuses on sampling error estimation and construction of confidence intervals for survey estimates of descriptive statistics such as means, proportions, ratios, and coefficients for linear and logistic linear regression models. Standard analysis software systems such SAS and SPSS assume simple random sampling (SRS) or equivalently independence of observations in computing standard errors for sample estimates. In general, the SRS assumption results in underestimation of variances of survey estimates of descriptive statistics and model parameters. Confidence intervals based on computed variances that assume independence of observations will be biased (generally too narrow) and design-based inferences will be affected accordingly. SAMPLING ERROR COMPUTATION METHODS AND PROGRAMS Over the past 50 years, advances in survey sampling theory have guided the development of a number of methods for correctly estimating variances from complex sample data sets. A number of sampling error programs which implement these complex sample variance estimation methods are available to NES data analysts. The two most common approaches to the estimation of sampling error for complex sample data are through the use of a Taylor Series Linearization of the estimator (and corresponding approximation to its variance) or through the use of resampling variance estimation procedures such as Balanced Repeated Replication (BRR) or Jackknife Repeated Replication(JRR). New Bootstrap methods for variance estimation can also be included among the resampling approaches. See Rao and Wu (1988). 1. Taylor series linearization method: When survey data are collected using a complex sample design with unequal size clusters, most statistics of interest will not be simple linear functions of the observed data. The linearization approach applies Taylor's method to derive an approximate form of the estimator that is linear in statistics for which variances and covariances can be directly and easily estimated (Woodruff, 1971). SUDAAN and Stata are two commercially available statistical software packages that include procedures that apply the Taylor series method to estimation and inference for complex sample data. SUDAAN (Shah et al., 1996) is a commercially available software system developed and marketed by the Research Triangle Institute of Research Triangle Park, North Carolina (USA). SUDAAN was developed as a stand-alone software system with capabilities for the more important methods for descriptive and multivariate analysis of survey data, including: estimation and inference for means, proportions and rates (PROC DESCRIPT and PROC RATIO); contingency table analysis (PROC CROSSTAB); linear regression (PROC REGRESS); logistic regression (PROC LOGISTIC); log-linear models (PROC CATAN); and survival analysis (PROC SURVIVAL). SUDAAN V7.0 and earlier versions were designed to read directly from ASCII and SAS system data sets. The latest versions of SUDAAN permit procedures to be called directly from the SAS system. Information on SUDAAN is available at the following web site address: http://www.rti.org. Stata (StataCorp, 1997) is a more recent commercial entry to the available software for analysis of complex sample survey data and has a growing body of research users. Stata includes special versions of its standard analysis routines that are designed for the analysis of complex sample survey data. Special survey analysis programs are available for descriptive estimation of means (SVYMEAN), ratios (SVYRATIO), proportions (SVYTOT) and population totals (SVYTOTAL). Stata programs for multivariate analysis of survey data currently include linear regression (SVYREG), logistic regression (SVYLOGIT) and probit regression (SVYPROBT). Information on the Stata analysis software system can be found on the Web at: http://www.stata.com. 2. Resampling methods: BRR, JRR and the bootstrap comprise a second class of nonparametric methods for conducting estimation and inference from complex sample data. As suggested by the generic label for this class of methods, BRR, JRR and the bootstrap utilize replicated subsampling of the sample data base to develop sampling variance estimates for linear and nonlinear statistics. WesVar PC (Brick et al., 1996) is a publicly available software system for personal computers that employs replicated variance estimation methods to conduct the more common types of statistical analysis of complex sample survey data. WesVar PC was developed by Westat, Inc. and is distributed along with documentation free of charge to researchers from Westat's Web site: http://www.westat.com/wesvarpc/. WesVar PC includes a Windows-based application generator that enables the analyst to select the form of data input (SAS data file, SPSS for Windows data base, dBASE file, ASCII data set) and the computation method (BRR or JRR methods). Analysis programs contained in WesVar PC provide the capability for basic descriptive (means, proportions, totals, cross tabulations) and regression (linear, logistic) analysis of complex sample survey data. WestVar Complex Samples 3.0 is the latest version of WestVar PC that is licensed and distributed by SPSS. Information on the latest developments can be obtained at http://www.spss.com. These new and updated software packages include an expanded set of user friendly, well-documented analysis procedures. Difficulties with sample design specification, data preparation, and data input in the earlier generations of survey analysis software created a barrier to use by analysts who were not survey design specialists. The new software enables the user to input data and output results in a variety of common formats, and the latest versions accommodate direct input of data files from the major analysis software systems. Readers who are interested in a more detailed comparison of these and other survey analysis software alternatives are referred to Cohen (1997). Sampling Error Computation Models Regardless of whether linearization or a resampling approach is used, estimation of variances for complex sample survey estimates requires the specification of a sampling error computation model. NES data analysts who are interested in performing sampling error computations should be aware that the estimation programs identified in the preceding section assume a specific sampling error computation model and will require special sampling error codes. Individual records in the analysis data set must be assigned sampling error codes which identify to the programs the complex structure of the sample (stratification, clustering) and are compatible with the computation algorithms of the various programs. To facilitate the computation of sampling error for statistics based on 1998 NES data, design-specific sampling error codes will be routinely included in all public-use versions of the data set. Although minor recoding may be required to conform to the input requirements of the individual programs, the sampling error codes that are provided should enable analysts to conduct either Taylor Series or Replicated estimation of sampling errors for survey statistics. Table 6 defines the sampling error coding system for 1998 NES sample cases. Two sampling error code variables are defined for each case based on the sample design primary stage unit (PSU) and area segment in which the sample household is located. Sampling Error Stratum Code (V980103, first two digits). The Sampling Error Computation Stratum Code is the variable which defines the sampling error computation strata for all sampling error analysis of the NES data. Each self-representing (SR) design stratum is represented by one sampling error computation stratum. Pairs of similar nonself-representing (NSR) primary stage design strata are "collapsed" (Kalton, 1977) to create NSR sampling error computation strata. Since there was an uneven number of nonself-representing MSA and non-MSA strata used in the 1998 NES, and since it was felt that a nonself-representing MSA PSU should be paired with a non-MSA PSU, one of each of these PSUs stands alone within its Sampling Error Stratum Code. For the 1990 SRC National Sample design controlled selection and a "one-per-stratum" PSU allocation are used to select the primary stage of the 1998 NES national sample. The purpose in using controlled selection and the "one-per-stratum" sample allocation is to reduce the between-PSU component of sampling variation relative to a"two-per-stratum" primary stage design. Despite the expected improvement in sample precision, a drawback of the "one-per-stratum" design is that two or more sample selection strata must be collapsed or combined to form a sampling error computation stratum. Variances are then estimated under the assumption that a multiple PSU per stratum design was actually used for primary stage selection. The expected consequence of collapsing design strata into sampling error computation strata is the overestimation of the true sampling error; that is, the sampling error computation model defined by the codes contained in Table 6 will yield estimates of sampling errors which in expectation will be slightly greater than the true sampling error of the statistic of interest. SECU - Stratum-specific Sampling Error Computation Unit code (V980103, last digit) is a half sample code for analysis of sampling error using the BRR method or approximate "two-per-stratum" Taylor Series method (Kish and Hess, 1959). Within the SR sampling error strata, the SECU half sample units are created by dividing sample cases into random halves, SECU=1 and SECU=2. The assignment of cases to half-samples is designed to preserve the stratification and second stage clustering properties of the sample within an SR stratum. Sample cases are assigned to SECU half samples based on the area segment in which they were selected. For this assignment, sample cases were placed in original stratification order (area segment number order) and beginning with a random start entire area segment clusters were systematically assigned to either SECU=1 or SECU=2. In the general case of nonself-representing (NSR) strata, the half sample units are defined according to the PSU to which the respondent was assigned at sample selection (with the exception of the two unpaired NSR strata mentioned above). That is, the half samples for each NSR sampling error computation stratum bear a one-to-one correspondence to the sample design NSR PSUs. The particular sample coding provided on the NES public use data set is consistent with the "ultimate cluster" approach to complex sample variance estimation (Kish, 1965; Kalton, 1977). Individual stratum, PSU and segment code variables may be needed by NES analysts interested in components of variance analysis or estimation of hierarchical models in which PSU-level and neighborhood-level effects are explicitly estimated. Table 6 shows the sampling error stratum and SECU codes to be used for the paired selection model for sampling error computations for any 1998 NES analyses. Strata 01 through 27 reflect the half sample 1990 National Sample design used for the 1998 NES cross-section sample. It can be seen from this table that the three-digit 1998 SE code is comprised of, first, the two-digit SE Stratum code followed by the one-digit SECU code. Table 6: 1998 NES Post-Election Study Sampling Error Codes SE SECU SE PSU Segment #s Total Stratum Code Rs ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 01 1 011 120 015, 031, 047, 063, 15 079, 099 2 012 120 007, 023, 039, 055, 12 071, 087 02 1 021 190 007, 023, 039, 055, 12 071, 087 2 022 190 015, 031, 047, 063, 13 079, 095 03 1 031 130 012, 028, 044, 060 11 2 032 130 004, 020, 036, 052, 14 068 04 1 041 121 002, 018, 034, 050 8 2 042 121 010, 026, 042 8 05 1 051 131 016, 032, 048 18 2 052 131 008, 024, 040 12 06 1 061 150 007, 023, 039 7 2 062 150 015, 031, 047 12 07 1 071 171 010, 026, 042 8 2 072 171 002, 018, 034 9 08 1 081 110 004, 020, 036 8 2 082 110 012, 028, 044 8 09 1 091 170 007, 011, 019, 027, 32 031, 039 2 092 154 003, 007, 011, 015, 6 019 10 1 101 122 008, 012, 016, 024, 18 028, 032 2 102 152 004, 012, 016, 020, 24 028, 032 11 1 111 141 004, 008, 016, 020, 20 024, 032 2 112 132 001, 005, 009, 013, 22 017, 021 12 1 121 191 001, 005, 009, 017, 36 021, 025 2 122 181 001, 005, 009, 013, 24 017, 021 13 1 131 194 004, 008, 016, 020, 16 024, 032 2 132 196 002, 006, 010, 014, 13 018, 022 14 1 141 220 001, 005, 009, 013, 44 017, 021 2 142 226 002, 006, 010, 014, 26 018, 022 15 1 151 211 003, 007, 011, 015, 15 019, 023 2 152 213 004, 008, 012, 016, 12 020, 024 16 1 161 230 002, 006, 010, 014, 55 018, 022 2 162 236 002, 006, 010, 014, 36 018, 022 17 1 171 239 001, 005, 009, 013, 21 017, 021 2 172 240 002, 006, 010, 014, 27 018, 022 18 1 181 262 002, 006, 010, 014, 61 018, 022 2 182 255 004, 008, 012, 016, 17 020, 024 19 1 191 257 004, 008, 012, 016, 25 020, 024 2 192 258 002, 006, 010, 014, 25 018, 022 20 1 201 273 003, 007, 011, 015, 17 019, 023 2 202 274 002, 006, 010, 014, 20 018, 022 21 1 211 260 003, 007, 011, 015, 23 019, 023 2 212 250 003, 007, 011, 015, 34 019, 023 22 1 221 292 001, 005, 009, 013, 21 017, 022 2 222 293 003, 007, 011, 015, 33 019, 023 23 1 231 280 002, 010, 018 15 2 232 280 006, 014, 022 26 24 1 241 320 006, 014, 022 20 2 242 320 002, 010, 018 18 25 1 251 332 004, 008, 012, 016, 55 020, 024 2 252 340 001, 005, 009, 013, 45 017, 021 26 1 261 351 001, 005, 009, 013, 68 018, 021 2 262 354 004, 008, 012, 016, 22 020, 024 27 1 271 370 001, 005, 009, 013, 59 017, 021 2 272 381 001, 005, 009, 013, 55 017, 021 Total: 1281 Generalized Sampling Error Results for the 1998 NES To assist NES analysts, the PC SUDAAN program was used to compute sampling errors for a wide-ranging example set of proportions estimated from the 1998 NES Post-election Survey data set. For each estimate, sampling errors were computed for the total sample and for twenty demographic and political affiliation subclasses of the 1998 NES Post-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 7. The mean value of deft, the square root of the design effect, was found to be 1.103. The design effect was primarily due to weighting effects (Kish, 1965) and did not vary significantly by subclass size. Therefore the generalized variance table is produced by multiplying the simple random sampling standard error for each proportion and sample size by the average deft for the set of sampling error computations. Incorporating the pattern of "design effects" observed in the extensive set of example computations, Table 7 provides approximate standard errors for percentage estimates based on the 1998 NES. To use the table, examine the column heading to find the percentage value which best approximates the value of the estimated percentage that is of interest.(5) 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 7 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. Table 7: Generalized Variance Table 1998 NES Post-election Survey APPROXIMATE STANDARD ERRORS FOR PERCENTAGES For percentage estimates near: Sample 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% n or 60% or 70% or 80% or 90% The approximate standard error of the percentage is: 100 5.52 5.40 5.06 4.41 3.31 200 3.90 3.82 3.57 3.12 2.34 300 3.18 3.12 2.92 2.55 1.91 400 2.76 2.70 2.53 2.21 1.66 500 2.47 2.42 2.26 1.97 1.48 600 2.25 2.21 2.06 1.80 1.35 700 2.08 2.04 1.91 1.67 1.25 800 1.95 1.91 1.79 1.56 1.17 900 1.84 1.80 1.68 1.47 1.10 1000 1.74 1.71 1.60 1.40 1.05 1100 1.66 1.63 1.52 1.33 1.00 1200 1.59 1.56 1.46 1.27 0.96 1300 1.53 1.50 1.40 1.22 0.92 NOTES ----- (5) 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. REFERENCES ---------- Alegria, M., Kessler, R., Bijl, R., Lin, E., Heeringa, S.G., Takeuchi, D.T., Kolody, B. (1998). To appear in The Unmet Need for Treatment. Proceedings of a Symposium of the World Psychiatric Association, Sydney, Australia, October, 1997. Binder, D.A. (1983), "On the variances of asymptotically normal estimators from complex surveys," International Statistical Review, Vol. 51, pp. 279-292. Brick, J.M., Broene, P., James, P., & Severynse, J. (1996). "A User's Guide to WesVar PC." Rockville, MD: Westat, Inc. Cochran, W.G. (1977). Sampling Techniques. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Cohen, S.B. (1997). "An evaluation of alternative PC-based software packages developed for the analysis of complex survey data," The American Statistician, Vol. 51, No. 3, pp. 285-292. Goldstein, H. (1987). Multi-level Models in Educational and Social Research. London: Oxford University Press. Kalton, G. (1977), "Practical methods for estimating survey sampling errors," Bulletin of the International Statistical Institute, Vol 47, 3, pp. 495-514. Kish, L. (1949). "A procedure for objective respondent selection within the household," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 44, pp. 380-387. Kish, L. (1965), Survey Sampling. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Kish, L., & Frankel, M.R. (1974), "Inference from complex samples," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, B, Vol. 36, pp. 1-37. Kish, L., Groves, R.M., & Krotki, K.P. (1975). "Sampling errors for fertility surveys." Occasional Paper No. 17. Voorburg, Netherlands: World Fertility Survey, International Statistical Institute. Kish, L., & Hess, I. (1959), "On variances of ratios and their differences in multi-stage samples," Journal of the American Statistical Association, 54, pp. 416-446. LePage, R., & Billard, L. (1992), Exploring the Limits of Bootstrap. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Mahalanobis, P.C. (1946), "Recent experiments in statistical sampling at the Indian Statistical Institute," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Vol 109, pp. 325-378. McCullagh, P.M. & Nelder, J.A. (1989). Generalized Linear Models, 2nd Edition. Chapman and Hall. London. Rao, J.N.K & Wu, C.F.J. (1988.), "Resampling inference with complex sample data," Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83, pp. 231-239. Rosenstone, Steven J., Kinder, Donald R., Miller, Warren E., & the National Election Studies "Sample Design: Technical Memoranda, 1994 Election Study" pp. 882-905 in Rosenstone, Steven J., Kinder, Donald R., Miller, Warren E., & the National Election Studies, AMERICAN NATIONAL ELECTION STUDY, 1994: POST-ELECTION SURVEY (ENHANCED WITH 1992 AND 1993 DATA) (Computer file). Conducted by University of Michigan Center for Political Studies. 2nd ICPSR ed. Ann Arbor MI: University of Michigan, Center for Political Studies, and Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (producer), 1995. Ann Arbor MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research (distributor), 1995. Rust, K. (1985). "Variance estimation for complex estimators in sample surveys," Journal of Official Statistics, Vol. 1, No. 4. SAS Institute, Inc. (1990). SAS/STAT User's Guide, Version 6, Fourth Ed., Vol. 2. Cary, NC: SAS Institute, Inc. Shah, B.V., Barnwell, B.G., Biegler, G.S. (1996). SUDAAN User's Manual: Software for Statistical Analysis of Correlated Data. Research Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle Institute. Skinner, C.J., Holt, D., & Smith, T.M.F. (1989). Analysis of Complex Surveys. New York: John Wiley & Sons. SPSS, Inc. (1993). SPSS for Windows : BASE System User's Guide, Release 6.0. Chicago, Il: SPSS Inc. Stata Corp. (1997). Stata Statistical Software: Release 5.0. College Station, TX: Stata Corporation. Wolter, K.M. (1985 ). Introduction to Variance Estimation. New York: Springer-Verlag. Woodruff, R.S. (1971), "A simple method for approximating the variance of a complicated estimate," Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 66, pp. 411-414. Yamageuchi, K. (1991). Event History Analysis. Applied Social Research Methods Series, Vol. 28. Newbury Park, CA/London: Sage Publications. >> NOTES ON CONFIDENTIAL VARIABLES Starting with the 1986 Election Study, occupation code variables have been released in somewhat less detail than in preceding studies. Datasets now include a two-digit code with 71 categories corresponding to Census Bureau occupational groupings. In addition, beginning in 1992 Prestige scoring of Census occupational codes have not been released. Those who have need of the full occupation codes or prestige scores for their research should contact the NES project staff for information about the conditions under which access to these data may be provided. Similarly, the National Election Studies have not included information for census tracts or minor civil divisions since 1978. Permission to use more detailed geographic information for scholarly research may be obtained from the Board of Overseers. Further nformation is available from NES project staff. In addition, coding of the new religious denomination variable is in some cases based on variables containing textual responses. These variables are restricted for reasons of confidentiality, but access may be provided to legitimate scholars under established NES procedures. OPEN-ENDED MATERIALS Traditionally, the Election Studies have contained several minutes of open-ended responses (for example, the congressional 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. >> 1998 FILE STRUCTURE The data file for the AMERICAN NATIONAL ELECTION STUDY, 1998: POST-ELECTION SURVEY is constructed with a single logical record for each respondent. The LRECL for the raw (ASCII) data file is 1410 and there are 739 variables for 1281 respondents. Codebook marginals are unweighted. NOTE ON "DATASET NUMBER" AND "VERSION NUMBER" OF THE 1998 POST The 1998 Post is the first NES dataset to include a machine-readable NES "Dataset number" and "Version number". NES "Dataset number" ------------------- In early 1999, each unique dataset in the NES archive was assigned a "Dataset number". The NES 1998 Post-Election Study dataset is the first dataset to have its dataset number (1998.T) included in the machine-readable ASCII data (variable VDSETNO) and documented in the codebook and SAS/SPSS data definition files. In addition to the 1998 Post, dataset numbers for datasets from all archived NES studies are included in the NES "VERSION TABLE" described below. "Versions" of NES datasets -------------------------- The term "dataset" used by NES refers to the following associated components: 1- ASCII data file (.dat file) 2- SAS and SPSS data definition files (.sas, .sps files) 3- Codebook files (.cbk file(s)) ^^ Components of the initial release of a dataset will be identified as version 01. According to this system, a corrected component of a specific dataset is called a new "VERSION" of that component and is assigned a new "Version Number." Because the initial release of a dataset is sometimes followed by corrections to one or more components, a labeling method has been implemented to identify the release version of the datset component(s). In practice, the version label will allow the analyst to easily verify if he or she has the most up to date components for that dataset. The version number of a particular component file is written as the first information in the machine-readable component file: 1) In the ASCII data file (.dat file), the version number of that data file is written in each record in columns 1-2. 2) In the SAS and SPSS data definition files, the version number of the file** is written in the very first line as a comment similar to the following: * Version 01 SAS DATA DEFINITION FILE ; or: * Version 01 SPSS DATA DEFINITION FILE 3) In the codebook file**, the version number is written as the first line similar to the following example: Version 01 Codebook NES Dataset "Version Table" -------------------------- The NES Web site (www.umich.edu/~nes) includes an NES Dataset "Version Table" which can be used to identify the latest version of component files for released NES datasets. _______________ ^^NOTE: A codebook usually comprises 3 files, an 'intro' file, variable file, and appendix file **NOTE: Since SAS and SPSS data definition files (.sas and .sps files) are identified together as a single component, a new "version" of either signifies a new "version" of both, even if only one data definition file required correction. The "Note" field in the NES VERSION TABLE will indicate if only one file has actually been corrected. Similarly, since most codebooks are released as 3 files, a correction to any one of the codebook files results in a new "version" of all 3 codebook files at once. Again, the "Note" field in the NES VERSION TABLE will indicate if only one codebook file has actually been corrected. (All 3 codebook files will include the version number in the first line of the machine-readable file, as indicated above.) >> 1998 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. >> 1998 PROCESSING INFORMATION The data collection was processed according to standard processing procedures. The data were checked for illegal or inconsistent code values which, when found, were corrected or recoded to missing data values. Consistency checks were performed. Annotation was added by the processors for explanatory purposes. >> NES STAFF AND TECHNICAL PAPERS, 1998 1. Sanchez, Maria. (July 1982) "7-Point Scales." 2. Shanks, J. Merrill, Maria Sanchez, and Betsy Morton. (March 1983). "Alternative Approaches to Survey Data Collection for the National Election Studies." 3. Lake, Celinda. (September 1983) "Similarity and Representativeness of 1983 Pilot Samples." 4. Lake, Celinda. (November 1983) "Comparison of 3-point, 5-point, and 7-point Scales from the CATI Experiment 1982 Election Study." 5. NES Staff. (December 1983) "1980 Precinct Data Returns Project." 6. Lake, Celinda. (February 1984) "Coding of Independent/Independents and Apoliticals in the Party Identification Summary Code and Apoliticals in the Rolling Cross-Section." 7. Morchio, Giovanna and Maria Sanchez. (February 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." 8. Morchio, Giovanna and Maria Sanchez. (March 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." 9. Traugott, Santa. (June 1984) "Two Versions of the Abortion Question." 10. Sanchez, Maria.(July 1984) "Branching versus 7-point scale measurements." 11. NES Staff. (August 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." 12. NES Staff. (August 1984) "Questions and Versions in NES Continuous Monitoring, 1984: A Report to the Board of Overseers, National Election Studies." 13. NES Staff. (n.d) "Years of Schooling." 14. NES Staff. (n.d) "Newspaper Code." 15. Traugott, Santa. (n.d.) "The Political Interest Variable on the 1984 Election Study." Unpublished Staff Memo to NES Planning Committee. 16. Sanchez, Maria and Giovanna Morchio. (n.d.) "Probing Don't Know Answers -- Do We Always Want to Do This?" 17. NES Staff. (February 1985) "Progress of the Rolling Cross Section." 18. Bowers, Jake. (February 1995) NES Pilot Study Efforts to Measure Values and Predispositions. 19. Traugott, Santa. (February 1985) "Some Analysis of Hard-to-Reach Rolling Thunder Respondents." 20. Traugott, Santa. (April 1985) "Sample Weighting in NES Continuous Monitoring, 1984: A Report to the Board of Overseers, National Election Studies." 21. Traugott, Santa. (April 1985). "Sample Weighting in NES Pre-Post Election Survey,1984: A Report to the Board of Overseers, National Election Studies." 22. Brehm, John. (June 1985) "Report on Coding of Economic Conditions Series in the 1984 Pre-Post Election Study" 23. Brehm, John. (July 1985). "Question Ordering Effects on Reported Vote Choice." 24. Traugott, Santa. (July 1985) "Assessment of Media Measures in RXS." 25. Traugott, Santa. (July 1985) "Assessment of Media Measures in Pre-Post" 26. Brehm, John. (August 1985). "Analysis of Result Code Disposition for Continuous Monitoring by Time in Field: Report to the Board of Overseers, National Election Studies." 27. Morchio, Giovanna, Maria Sanchez and Santa Traugott. (November 1985). "Mode Differences: DK Responses in the 1984 Post-Election Survey: A Report to the Board of Overseers, National Election Studies." 28. Morchio, Giovanna and Santa Traugott. (February 1986) "Congressional District Assignment in an RDD Sample: Results of 1982 CATI Experiment." 29. Brehm, John and Santa Traugott. (March 1986) "Similarity and Representativeness of the 1985 Pilot Half-samples." 30. Gronke, Paul. (September 1986) "NES Question C2: R's Party Registration." 31. Brehm, John. (March 1987) "How Representative is the 1986 Post-Election Survey?" 32. Morchio, Giovanna. (May 1987) "Trends in NES Response Rates." 33. Brehm, John. (December 1987) "Who's Missing? an Analysis of NonResponse in the 1986 Election Study: A Report to the Board of Overseers, National Election Studies." 34. Traugott, Santa. (August 1989) "Validating Self-Reported Vote: 1964-1988." 35. Belli, Robert, Traugott, Santa, and Steven J. Rosenstone. (November, 1994) "Reducing Over-Reporting of Voter Turnout: An Experiment using a Source Monitoring Framework." 36. Traugott, Santa and Giovanna Morchio. (March 1990) "Assessment of Bias Due to Attrition and Sample Selection in the NES 1989 Pilot Study." 37. "Post-Stratified Cross-Sectional Analysis Weights for the 1992, 1994 and 1996 NES data." (April 1998) Prepared by the Sampling Section Division of Surveys and Technologies. 38. Gronke, Paul. (May 1990) "Assessing the Sample Quality of the 1988 Senate Election Study: A response to Wright." 39. Presser, Stanley, Michael W. Traugott and Santa Traugott. (November 1990). "Vote 'Over' Reporting in Surveys: The Records or the Respondents?" 40. Bloom, Joel. (March 1991) "Sources of Pro-incumbent Bias in NES Survey Estimates for U.S. House Races since 1978: A Second Look." 41. Mayer, Russell. (November 1991) "Identifying Bias in Voting Models." 42. Traugott, Michael W., Santa Traugott and Stanley Presser. (May 1992) "Revalidation of Self-Reported Vote." 43. Rosenstone, Steven J., Margaret Petrella and Donald R. Kinder. (April 1993) "The Consequences of Substituting Telephone for Face-to-Face Interviewing in the 1992 National Election Study." 44. Luevano, Patricia. (March 1994) "Response Rates in the National Election Studies, 1948-1992." 45. Traugott, Santa and Steven J. Rosenstone. (Nov. 1994) "Panel Attrition Among the 1990-1992 Panel Respondents." 46. Traugott, Santa and Steven J. Rosenstone. (Nov. 1994) "Demographic Characteristics of Respondents to the 1980, 1984 and 1988 NES Pre-Election Studies by Week of Interview." 47. Traugott, Santa. (Nov. 1994) "Candidate Traits Used in NES Studies, 1979-1994." 48. Traugott, Santa. (Nov. 1994) "Affects Towards Candidates Used in NES Studies, 1979-1994." 49. Traugott, Santa. (Nov. 1994) "Candidate Placements Used in NES Studies, 1968-1994." 50. Sheng, Shing-Yuan. (Jan. 1995) "NES Measurements of Values and Pre-Dispositions, 1984-1992." 51. Traugott, Santa. (Feb. 1995) "NES Question Batteries: Measuring Values and Dispositions, 1983-1994." 52. Tolleson-Rinehart, Sue, et.al. (May 1994) "The Reliability, Validity, and Scalability of Indicators of Gender Role Beliefs and Feminismin the 1992 National Election Study: A Report to the ANES Board of Overseers." 53. Heeringa, Steve. (April 1998) "The Surveycraft CATI system's 'Random Number Generation' features and their Effects on Analysis of the 1997 NES Pilot "Group threat" Experiment." 54. Traugott, Santa and Giovanna Morchio. (March 1990) "Assessment of bias due to attrition and sample selection in the NES 1989 Pilot Study." >> NES 1997 PILOT STUDY REPORTS Bowers, Jake. Black Threat and Christian Fundamentalist Threat: A National Election Study 1997 Pilot Study Report. Burden, Barry C. and Janet M. Box-Steffensmeier. Vote Likelihood and Institutional Trait Questions in the 1997 NES Pilot Study. Carman, Christopher and Christopher Wlezien. Ideological Evaluations of Government Institutions and Policy. Freedman, Paul and Ken Goldstein. Partial Birth Abortion Item, 1997 Pilot Study. Rahn, Wendy and Christina Wessel. Perceptions of the Partisan Homogeneity of Social Groups: A Report to the NES Board of Overseers. Sapiro, Virginia. Pro-Life People or Opponents of Abortion? Pro-Choice People or Supporters of Abortion? A Report on the NES 1997 Pilot Study. Sapiro, Virginia. The Impact of "Groups Talk" A Report on the NES 1997 Pilot Study. Wald, Kenneth D., et al. Evaluation of the New Religious Items on the NES 1997 Pilot Study: A Report to the NES Board. Wlezien, Christopher. Liberal-Conservative Evaluations of Groups. Wong, Cara. Group Closeness: 1997 National Election Study Pilot Report. >> 1998 VARIABLE DESCRIPTION LIST Note: as in this Variable Description List, the variable names in the SAS and SPSS data definition files have a "V" prefix, e.g. "V980003", "VICPSR98" etc.; however in the codebook's variable documentation (file nes1998.cbk) the "V" prefix is omitted (980003,ICPSR98). IDENTIFICATION AND WEIGHTS Variable Name Item Description -------- --------- --------------------------------------------------- VVERSION Process.1 VERSION NUMBER VDSETNO Process.2 NES DATASET NUMBER VICPSR98 Process.3 ICPSR ARCHIVE NUMBER V980001 Process.4 1998 CASE ID V980002 Process.5 POST-STRATIFIED SAMPLE WEIGHT ADMINISTRATIVE AND FIELD VARS Variable Name Item Description -------- --------- --------------------------------------------------- V980003 Admin.1 MONTH OF INTERVIEW V980004 Admin.2 DAY OF INTERVIEW V980005 Admin.3 # OF DAYS AFTER ELECTION DAY V980006 Admin.4 BEGINNING TIME (LOCAL) V980007 Admin.5 ENDING TIME (LOCAL) V980008 Admin.6 LENGTH OF INTERVIEW IN MINUTES V980009 Admin.7 INTERVIEWER'S INTERVIEW NUMBER V980010 Admin.8 DATE OF BEINNING VQ FILE V980011 Admin.9 DATE OF ENDING VQ FILE V980012 Admin.10 FLAG - CHANGE IN VQ VERSION V980013 Admin.11 PAYMENT AMOUNT V980013a Admin.11a PAYMENT MODE V980013b Admin.11b PAYMENT DATE V980014 Admin.12 WAS INTERVIEW TAPE RECORDED V980015 Admin.13 VERIFICATION INDICATOR V980016 Admin.14 EVALUATION INDICATOR V980017 Admin.15 REFUSAL CONVERSION INDICATOR V980018 Admin.16 WAS PERSUASION LETTER SENT V980018a Admin.16a PERSUASION LETTER REQUESTED V980018b Admin.16b PERSUASION LETTER SENT V980019 Admin.17 TYPE OF PERSUASION LETTER SENT V980020 Admin.18 NUMBER OF TELEPHONE CALLS V980021 Admin.19 NUMBER OF FACE TO FACE CALLS V980022 Admin.20 TOTAL NUMBER OF CALLS (PHONE+FTF) MADE BY IWR V980023 Admin.21 CODE FOR FINAL RESULT OF INTERVIEW V980024 Admin.22 BEGINNING MODE--PERSONAL OR PHONE V980025 Admin.23 ENDING MODE -- PERSONAL OR PHONE V980026 Admin.24 FLAG - CHANGE IN IW MODE V980027 Admin.25 SAMPLE RELEASE V980028 Admin.26 LANGUAGE OF INTERVIEW COVERSHEET Variable Name Item Description -------- --------- --------------------------------------------------- V980029 CSheet.1 FLAG - MISSING COVERSHEET V980030 CSheet.2 COLOR OF COVERSHEET V980031 CSheet.3 CS -SOURCE OF HOUSEHOLD LISTING V980032 CSheet.4 CS - SELECTION TABLE V980033 CSheet.5 CS - PERSON # SELECTED AS R V980034 CSheet.6 CS - TOTAL # OF PERSONS IN HH V980035 CSheet.7 CS - TOTAL # OF ELIGIBLE ADULTS V980036 CSheet.8 CS - HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITION CODE V980037 CSheet.9 CS - NUMBER OF CHILDREN UNDER 6 YRS OLD V980038 CSheet.10 CS - NUMBER OF CHILDREN 6-9 YRS OLD V980039 CSheet.11 CS - NUMBER OF CHILDREN 10-13 YRS OLD V980040 CSheet.12 CS - NUMBER OF CHILDREN 14-17 YRS OLD V980041 CSheet.13 CS - SUMMARY - Number of Children in HH V980042 CSheet.14 CS - TYPE OF HOUSING UNIT V980043 CSheet.15 CS - GATEKEEPER REQUIRED TO ACCESS HU V980044 CSheet.16 CS - GATEKEEPER DESCRIPTION V980045 CSheet.17 CS - CONTACT DESC: INITIAL REFUSAL? V980046 CSheet.18 CS - CONTACT DESC: BROKEN APPOINTMENT? V980047 CSheet.19 CS - RESISTANCE TO INTERVIEW? V980048 CSheet.20 CS - REASON FOR RESISTANCE: WASTE TIME V980049 CSheet.21 CS - REASON FOR RESISTANCE: VERY ILL V980050 CSheet.22 CS - REASON FOR RESISTANCE: TOO BUSY V980051 CSheet.23 CS - REASON:STRESSFUL FAMILY SITUATION V980052 CSheet.24 CS - REASON RESISTANCE: CONFIDENTIALTY V980053 CSheet.25 CS - REASON FOR RESISTANCE: INV OF PRIVACY V980054 CSheet.26 CS - REASON FOR RESISTANCE: NONE GIVEN V980055 CSheet.27 CS - REASON FOR RESISTANCE: OTHER NOTE: IWR observation is at end of survey vars (not coversheet) INTERVIEWER DESCRIPTION Variable Name Item Description -------- --------- --------------------------------------------------- V980056 IWR.1 INTERVIEWER OF RECORD ID V980057 IWR.2 SUPERVISOR ID V980058 IWR.3 INTERVIEWER GENDER V980059 IWR.4 INTERVIEWER EDUCATION V980060 IWR.5 INTERVIEWER RACE V980061 IWR.6 INTERVIEWER ETHNICITY V980062 IWR.7 INTERVIEWER LANGUAGES V980063 IWR.8 INTERVIEWER YEARS EXPERIENCE V980064 IWR.9 INTERVIEWER AGE (BRACKETTED) CANDIDATE AND TYPE RACE INFORMATION Variable Name Item Description -------- --------- --------------------------------------------------- V980065 Cand.1 RACE TYPE: HOUSE V980065a Cand.1a RACE TYPE: HOUSE OUTSIDE CD) V980066 Cand.2 RACE TYPE: SENATE V980066a Cand.2a RACE TYPE: SENATE (OUTSIDE CD) V980067 Cand.3 RACE TYPE: GUBERNATORIAL V980067a Cand.3a RACE TYPE: GUBERNATORIAL (OUTSIDE CD) V980068 Cand.4 DEMOCRATIC HOUSE CANDIDATE CODE V980068a Cand.4a DEMOCRATIC HOUSE CANDIDATE CODE (OUTSIDE CD) V980069 Cand.5 DEMOCRATIC HOUSE CANDIDATE GENDER V980069a Cand.5a DEMOCRATIC HOUSE CANDIDATE GENDER (OUTSIDE CD) V980070 Cand.6 DEMOCRATIC HOUSE CANDIDATE NAME V980070a Cand.6a DEMOCRATIC HOUSE CANDIDATE NAME (OUTSIDE CD) V980071 Cand.7 REPUBLICAN HOUSE CANDIDATE CODE V980071a Cand7a REPUBLICAN HOUSE CANDIDATE CODE (OUTSIDE CD) V980072 Cand.8 REPUBLICAN HOUSE CANDIDATE GENDER V980072a Cand.8a REPUBLICAN HOUSE CANDIDATE GENDER (OUTSIDE CD) V980073 Cand.9 REPUBLICAN HOUSE CANDIDATE NAME V980073a Cand.9a REPUBLICAN HOUSE CANDIDATE NAME (OUTSIDE CD) V980074 Cand.10 DEMOCRATIC SENATE CANDIDATE CODE V980074a Cand.10a DEMOCRATIC SENATE CANDIDATE CODE (OUTSIDE CD) V980075 Cand.11 DEMOCRATIC SENATE CANDIDATE GENDER V980075a Cand.11a DEMOCRATIC SENATE CANDIDATE GENDER (OUTSIDE CD) V980076 Cand.12 DEMOCRATIC SENATE CANDIDATE NAME V980076a Cand.12a DEMOCRATIC SENATE CANDIDATE NAME (OUTSIDE CD) V980077 Cand.13 REPUBLICAN SENATE CANDIDATE CODE V980077a Cand.13a REPUBLICAN SENATE CANDIDATE CODE (OUTSIDE CD) V980078 Cand.14 REPUBLICAN SENATE CANDIDATE GENDER V980078a Cand.14a REPUBLICAN SENATE CANDIDATE GENDER (OUTSIDE CD) V980079 Cand.15 REPUBLICAN SENATE CANDIDATE NAME V980079a Cand.15a REPUBLICAN SENATE CANDIDATE NAME (OUTSIDE CD) V980080 Cand.16 DEMOCRATIC GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE CODE V980080a Cand.16a DEMOCRATIC GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE CODE (OUTSIDE CD) V980081 Cand.17 DEMOCRATIC GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE GENDER V980081a Cand.17a DEMOCRATIC GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE GENDER (OUTSIDE CD) V980082 Cand.18 DEMOCRATIC GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE NAME V980082a Cand.18a DEMOCRATIC GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE NAME (OUTSIDE CD) V980083 Cand.19 REPUBLICAN GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE CODE V980083a Cand.19a REPUBLICAN GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE CODE (OUTSIDE CD) V980084 Cand.20 REPUBLICAN GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE GENDER V980084a Cand.20a REPUBLICAN GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE GENDER (OUTSIDE CD) V980085 Cand.21 REPUBLICAN GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE NAME V980085a Cand.21a REPUBLICAN GUBERNATORIAL CANDIDATE NAME (OUTSIDE CD) SAMPLING INFORMATION Variable Name Item Description -------- --------- --------------------------------------------------- V980086 Sample.1 ICPSR ST CODE - INTERVIEW LOCATION V980087 Sample.2 FIPS ST CODE - INTERVIEW LOCATION V980088 Sample.3 1996 STATE ABBREV AND CONG DISTR V980089 Sample.4 1996 STATE AND CD V980090 Sample.5 CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT NUMBER V980091 Sample.6 DID R VOTE OUTSIDE OF IW CONGR DISTRICT V980092 Sample.7 STATE AND CD FOR VOTERS OUT OF CD V980093 Sample.8 FIPS STATE AND COUNTY V980094 Sample.9 PRIMARY AREA NAME V980095 Sample.10 PRIMARY AREA CODE V980096 Sample.11 SEGMENT NUMBER V980097 Sample.12 NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLD UNITS V980098 Sample.13 CENSUS R V980099 Sample.14 BELT CODE V980100 Sample.15 POPULATION IN 1000S V980101 Sample.16 CENSUS SIZE OF PLACE V980102 Sample.17 CENSUS TRACT/ED INDICATOR V980103 Sample.18 1996 SAMPLING ERROR CODE V980104 Sample.19 1990 CENSUS NECMA/SMSA V980105 Sample.20 1990 CENSUS CMSA V980106 Sample.21 1990 CENSUS TRACT 1 V980107 Sample.22 1990 CENSUS TRACT 2 SUMMARY DESCRIPTIONS/CALCULATIONS Variable Name Item Description -------- --------- --------------------------------------------------- V980108 Summary.1 WRONG CD ADMINISTERED IN PRE-FLAG V980108a Summary.1a INCORRECT TYPE RACE/CANDIDATE PRELOAD V980109 Summary.2 Section timing - Section A V980110 Summary.3 Section timing - Section B V980111 Summary.4 Section timing - Section C V980112 Summary.5 Section timing - Section D V980113 Summary.6 Section timing - Section E V980114 Summary.7 Section timing - Section F V980115 Summary.8 Section timing - Section G V980116 Summary.9 Section timing - Section H V980117 Summary.10 Section timing - Section J V980118 Summary.11 Section timing - Section K V980119 Summary.12 Section timing - Section M V980120 Summary.13 Section timing - Section N V980121 Summary.14 Section timing - Section P V980122 Summary.15 Section timing - Section X V980123 Summary.16 Section timing - Section Y Note: Length of IW is item Admin.6 SURVEY SECTION A Variable Name Item Description -------- --------- --------------------------------------------------- V980201 A1 HOW INTERESTED WAS R IN THE CAMPAIGNS THIS YEAR V980202 A2 HOW MANY DAYS IN PAST WEEK DID R READ THE NEWSPAPER V980203 A3 DOES R HAVE CABLE OR SATELLITE TV V980204 A4 HOW MANY DAYS IN PAST WEEK R WATCHED THE NAT NEWS ON TV V980205 A5 DAYS R WATCH LOCAL NEWS LAST WEEK V980206 A6 DID R LISTEN TO SPEECHES/DISCUSSIONS ON THE RADIO? V980207 A7 R LISTEN TO POLITICAL TALK RADIO V980208 A7a FREQ R LISTEN TO POLITICAL TALK RADIO V980209 A8 DOES R HAVE ACCESS TO THE INTERNET OR WORLD WIDE WEB? V980210 A8a DID R SEE ANY INFORMATION ABOUT CAMPAIGN ON INTERNET? V980211 A9 DOES R DISCUSS POLITICS WITH FAMILY/FRIENDS? V980212 A9a FREQUENCY OF POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS V980213 A9b FREQ PAST WEEK POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS W/ FRIENDS/FAMILY V980214 A10 DID R VOTE FOR PRESIDENT IN THE 1996 ELECTION V980215 A10a WHO DID R VOTE FOR IN THE 1996 PRESIDENTIAL RACE V980216 A11 DOES R APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE OF CLINTON HANDLING JOB V980217 A11a/b DOES R STRGLY APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE OF CLINTON V980218 A12 DOES R APP/DISAPP OF CLINTON'S HANDLING OF THE ECON V980219 A12a/b DOES R STRGLY APP/DISAPP OF CLINTON'S HANDLING OF ECON V980220 A13 DOES R APP/DISAPP OF CLINTON'S HANDLING OF FOR RELAT V980221 A13a/b DOES R STRGLY APP OR DISAPP CLINTON'S FORGN RELAT SURVEY SECTION B Variable Name Item Description -------- --------- --------------------------------------------------- V980222 B1 DID R CARE ABOUT RESULT OF HOUSE ELECTION V980223 B2 DOES R REMEMBER NAMES OF HOUSE CANDS IN R'S DISTRICT V980224 B2a1 R'S RECALL OF NAME OF HOUSE CANDIDATE (FIRST MENTION) V980225 B2a2 R'S RECALL OF PARTY OF HOUSE CANDIDATE (FIRST MENTION) V980226 B2a3 #1 HOUSE CAND RECALL- ACTUAL PARTY V980227 B2a4 #1 HOUSE CAND RECALL- ACCURACY V980228 B2b1 R'S RECALL OF NAME OF HOUSE CANDIDATE (SECOND MENTION) V980229 B2b2 R'S RECALL OF PARTY OF HOUSE CANDIDATE (SECOND MENTION) V980230 B2b3 #2 HOUSE CAND RECALL- ACTUAL PARTY V980231 B2b4 #2 HOUSE CAND RECALL- ACCURACY V980232 B2c1 R'S RECALL OF NAME OF HOUSE CANDIDATE (THIRD MENTION) V980233 B2c2 R'S RECALL OF PARTY OF HOUSE CANDIDATE (FIRST MENTION) V980234 B2c3 #3 HOUSE CAND RECALL- ACTUAL PARTY V980235 B2c4 #3 HOUSE CAND RECALL- ACCURACY V980236 B3 DOES R APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE OF CONGRESS V980237 B3a/b DOES R STRONGLY APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE OF CONGRESS V980238 B4a CLINTON FEELING THERMOMETER V980239 B4b1 DEMOCRATIC HOUSE CANDIDATE FEELING THERMOMETER V980240 B4b2 REPUBLICAN HOUSE CANDIDATE FEELING THERMOMETER V980241 B4c1 THERMOMETER DEM SEN CAND V980242 B4c2 THERMOMETER REP SEN CAND V980243 B4d AL GORE FEELING THERMOMETER V980244 B4e NEWT GINGRICH FEELING THERMOMETER V980245 B4f GEORGE BUSH JR FEELING THERMOMETER V980246 B4g DAN QUAYLE THERMOMETER V980247 B4h STEVE FORBES FEELING THERMOMETER V980248 B4i KEN STAR FEELING THERMOMETER V980249 B4j PAT BUCHANAN FEELING THERMOMETER V980250 B4k ELIZABETH DOLE FEELING THERMOMETER V980251 B4m RICHARD GEPHARDT FEELING THERMOMETER V980252 B4n PAUL WELLSTONE FEELING THERMOMETER V980253 B4o JOHN MCCAIN FEELING THERMOMETER V980254 B4p BILL BRADLEY FEELING THERMOMETER V980255 B4q BOB KERREY FEELING THERMOMETER V980256 B4r JOHN KERRY FEELING THERMOMETER V980257 B4s GARY BAUER FEELING THERMOMETER V980258 B4t JOHN ASHCROFT FEELING THERMOMETER V980259 B4u HILLARY CLINTON FEELING THERMOMETER V980260 B5a DEMOCRATIC PARTY FEELING THERMOMETER V980261 B5b REPUBLICAN PARTY FEELING THERMOMETER V980262 B5c BLACKS FEELING THERMOMETER V980263 B5d THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT FEELING THERMOMETER V980264 B5e CONSERVATIVES FEELING THERMOMETER V980265 B5f GAY MEN AND LESBIANS FEELING THERMOMETER V980266 B5g LABOR UNIONS FEELING THERMOMETER V980267 B5h LIBERALS FEELING THERMOMETER V980268 B5j POOR PEOPLE FEELING THERMOMETER V980269 B5k RICH PEOPLE FEELING THERMOMETER V980270 B5m WHITES FEELING THERMOMETER V980271 B5n COLLEGE-EDUCATED PEOPLE FEELING THERMOMETER V980272 B5p BUSINESS FEELING THERMOMETER V980273 B5q CONGRESS FEELING THERMOMETER V980274 B5r NEWS MEDIA FEELING THERMOMETER SURVEY SECTION C Variable Name Item Description -------- --------- --------------------------------------------------- V980275 C1 WAS THERE ANYTHING R LIKED ABOUT DEM HOUSE CANDIDATE? V980276 C1a1 #1 MENTION - R LIKE OF DEMOCRATIC HOUSE CANDIDATE V980277 C1a2 #2 MENTION - R LIKE OF DEMOCRATIC HOUSE CANDIDATE V980278 C1a3 #3 MENTION - R LIKE OF DEMOCRATIC HOUSE CANDIDATE V980279 C1a4 #4 MENTION - R LIKE OF DEMOCRATIC HOUSE CANDIDATE V980280 C1a5 #5 MENTION - R LIKE OF DEMOCRATIC HOUSE CANDIDATE V980281 C2 WAS THERE ANYTHING R DISLIKED ABOUT DEM HOUSE CAND? V980282 C2a1 #1 MENTION - R DISLIKE OF DEMOCRATIC HOUSE CANDIDATE V980283 C2a2 #2 MENTION - R DISLIKE OF DEMOCRATIC HOUSE CANDIDATE V980284 C2a3 #3 MENTION - R DISLIKE OF DEMOCRATIC HOUSE CANDIDATE V980285 C2a4 #4 MENTION - R DISLIKE OF DEMOCRATIC HOUSE CANDIDATE V980286 C2a5 #5 MENTION - R DISLIKE OF DEMOCRATIC HOUSE CANDIDATE V980287 C3 WAS THERE ANYTHING R LIKED ABOUT REPUB HOUSE CANDIDATE? V980288 C3a1 LIKE #1 REPUB HOUSE CANDIDATE V980289 C3a2 LIKE #2 REPUB HOUSE CANDIDATE V980290 C3a3 LIKE #3 REPUB HOUSE CANDIDATE V980291 C3a4 LIKE #4 REPUB HOUSE CANDIDATE V980292 C3a5 LIKE #5 REPUB HOUSE CANDIDATE V980293 C4 WAS THERE ANYTHING R DISLIKED ABOUT REPUB HOUSE CAND? V980294 C4a1 #1 MENTION - R DISLIKE OF REPUBLICAN HOUSE CANDIDATE V980295 C4a2 #1 MENTION - R DISLIKE OF REPUBLICAN HOUSE CANDIDATE V980296 C4a3 #3 MENTION - R DISLIKE OF REPUBLICAN HOUSE CANDIDATE V980297 C4a4 #4 MENTION - R DISLIKE OF REPUBLICAN HOUSE CANDIDATE V980298 C4a5 #1 MENTION - R DISLIKE OF REPUBLICAN HOUSE CANDIDATE V980299 C5 DOES R KNOW IF EITHER HOUSE CAND IS THE INCUMBENT? V980300 C5a CODE-CAND IDENTIFIED AS INCUM-2 CAND RACE V980301 C6 IF ONLY 1 CANDIDATE RAN - WAS THAT CANDIDATE INCUMBENT? V980302 C6a CODE-CAND IDENTIFIED AS INCUM-1 CAND RACE SURVEY SECTION D Variable Name Item Description -------- --------- --------------------------------------------------- V980303 D1 DID R VOTE IN 1998? V980304 D1a WAS R REGISTERED? V980305 D2 IS R REGISTERED TO VOTE IN COUNTY? V980306 D2a (IF NOT REGISTERED IN COUNTY) WHAT COUNTY REGISTERED? V980307 D2b (OUT OF COUNTY) STATE OF REG- CODE V980307a D2c DATA CHECKPOINT: DID R VOTE IN CD OF IW? V980307b D2d DATA CHECKPOINT: R VOTE OUTSIDE OF STATE AND CD V980308 D3 DID R VOTE ON NOV 3RD OR BEFORE THAT? V980309 D3a (IF BEFORE NOV 3) HOW LONG BEFORE NOV 3RD? V980310 D4 DID R VOTE IS PERSON OR BY ABSENTEE BALLOT? V980311 D5 DID R VOTE FOR U.S. HOUSE CANDIDATE? V980312 D5a/D5aa R'S VOTE- U.S. HOUSE CANDIDATE- CODE V980313 D5b PARTY OF HOUSE VOTE V980314 D5x CKPOINT: SENATE RACE IN STATE OF IW? V980314a D5x1 CKPOINT: SENATE RACE IN STATE OF VOTE? V980315 D6 DID R VOTE FOR A SENATE CANDIDATE V980316 D6a/D6aa R'S SENATE VOTE- CODE V980317 D6b PARTY OF SENATE VOTE V980318 D6x CKPOINT: GUBERNATORIAL RACE IN STATE OF IW? V980318a D6x1 CKPOINT: SENATE RACE IN STATE OF VOTE? V980319 D7 DID R VOTE FOR GOVERNOR V980320 D7a/D7aa R GUBERNATORIAL VOTE- CODE V980321 D7b PARTY OF GUBERNATORIAL VOTE V980322 D8 (IF R DID NOT VOTE) DID R PREFER CAND FOR U.S. HOUSE? V980323 D8a (IF R DID NOT VOTE) WHICH HSE CAND DID R PREFER -CODE V980324 D8b PARTY OF NONVOTER HOUSE PREFERENCE SURVEY SECTION E Variable Name Item Description -------- --------- --------------------------------------------------- V980325 E0 DATA CKPT: RUNNING INCUMBENT IN RACE? V980326 E1 DOES R APPROVE/DISAPPROVE OF RUNNING HOUSE INCUMBENT? V980327 E1a/b STRENGTH OF R'S APPROVAL/DISAPPROVAL OF HOUSE INCUMBENT V980328 E2 HOW WELL HAS INCUMBENT KEPT IN TOUCH WITH DISTRICT? V980329 E3 DOES R KNOW THE NO. YRS THAT INCUM HAS BEEN IN HOUSE? V980330 E3a (IF YES) HOW MANY YEARS HAS INCUMBENT BEEN IN HOUSE? V980331 E3b (IF DK) HAS INCUM BEEN IN HOUSE LESS/ABOUT/MORE 12 YRS? V980332 E4 HOW OFTEN DOES R THINKHOUSE INCUMBENT SUPPORTS CLINTON? V980333 E4a (IF MORE THAN HALF) ALMOST ALWAYS? V980334 E4b (IF LESS THAN HALF) ALMOST NEVER? V980335 E5 DOES R FAVOR 12-YEAR TERM LIMIT ON MEMBERS OF CONGRESS V980336 E6 R'S PARTY IDENTIFICATION V980337 E6a/b STRENGTH OF R'S PARTY IDENTIFICATION V980338 E6c (IF R IS INDEP/NO PREFERENCE) R CLOSER TO ONE PARTY V980339 E6x SUMMARY - PARTY ID SURVEY SECTION F Variable Name Item Description -------- --------- --------------------------------------------------- V980340 F1 HOW MUCH DOES R FOLLOW GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS? V980341 F2(1) MOST IMPORTANT PROBLEM - #1 V980342 F2(2) MOST IMPORTANT PROBLEM - #2 V980343 F2(3) MOST IMPORTANT PROBLEM - #3 V980344 F2(4) MOST IMPORTANT PROBLEM - #4 V980345 F3 CKPT: # MENTIONS MOST IMPORTANT PROB V980346 F4 CHOICE - MOST IMPORTANT PROBLEM V980347 F5 GOVT PERFORMANCE ON MOST IMP PROBLEM V980348 F6 PARTY PERFORMANCE ON MOST IMP PROBLEM SURVEY SECTION G Variable Name Item Description -------- --------- --------------------------------------------------- V980349 G1 WAS R CONTACTED BY ANY POLITICAL PARTY? V980350 G1a WHICH PARTY CONTACTED R? V980351 G2 DID ANYONE ELSE CONTACT R ABOUT CAND IN THE ELECTION? V980352 G2a(1) WHICH CAND WAS R ASKED TO SUPPORT (1) V980353 G2a(2) WHICH CAND WAS R ASKED TO SUPPORT (2) V980354 G3 DID ANYONE TALK TO R ABOUT REGISTERING TO VOTE? V980355 G4 DID RELIG/MORAL GROUP CONTACT R ABOUT R'S VOTE? V980356 G5 CAMPAIGN INFORMATION AVAILABLE AT R'S PLACE OF WORSHIP? V980357 G5a DID R' CLERGY GIVE ADVICE TO R ON HOW TO VOTE? V980358 G5b(1) WHICH CANDIDATE DID R' CLERGY RECOMMEND - #1 MENTION V980359 G5b(2) WHICH CANDIDATE DID R' CLERGY RECOMMEND - #2 MENTION V980360 G5b(3) WHICH CANDIDATE DID R' CLERGY RECOMMEND - #3 MENTION V980361 G6 R TALK TO OTHERS ABOUT VOTING FOR/AGAINST PARTY/ CAND? V980362 G7 DID R WEAR BUTTON, PLACE A SIGN, PUT A STICKER ON CAR? V980363 G8 DID R ATTEND ANY MEETINGS, SPEECHES, RALLIES FOR CAND? V980364 G9 DID R WORK FOR ANY ONE OF THE PARTIES OR CANDIDATES? V980365 G10 DID R CONTRIBUTE MONEY TO A CAND RUNNING FOR OFFICE? V980366 G10a WHICH PARTY THE CANDIDATE THAT R CONTRIBUTED TO BELONG? V980367 G11 DID R GIVE MONEY TO A POLIT CAND DURING ELECTION YEAR? V980368 G11a WHICH PARTY DID R CONTRIBUTE MONEY TO? V980369 G12 DID R GIVE $ TO OTHER GROUP THAT SUPPORTED/OPP CAND? SURVEY SECTION H Variable Name Item Description -------- --------- --------------------------------------------------- V980370 H1 DOES R THINK THERE ARE IMP DIFF BETWEEN REPS AND DEMS? V980371 H1a1 IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE: #1 MENTION V980372 H1a2 PARTY REFERENCE #1 - IMP PARTY DIFF V980373 H1b1 IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE: #2 MENTION V980374 H1b2 PARTY REFERENCE #2 - IMP PARTY DIFF V980375 H1c1 IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE: #3 MENTION V980376 H1c2 PARTY REFERENCE #3 - IMP PARTY DIFF V980377 H1d1 IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE: #4 MENTION V980378 H1d2 PARTY REFERENCE #4 - IMP PARTY DIFF V980379 H1e1 IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE: #5 MENTION V980380 H1e2 PARTY REFERENCE #5 - IMP PARTY DIFF V980381 H1f1 IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE: #6 MENTION V980382 H1f2 PARTY REFERENCE #6 - IMP PARTY DIFF V980383 H2 WHICH PARTY WOULD DO A BET JOB OF DEALING WITH CRIME V980384 H2a WHICH PARTY WOULD DO A BET JOB OF HANDLING THE ECONOMY V980385 H2b WHICH PARTY HANDLE ENVIRONMENT BEST V980386 H2c WHICH PARTY WOULD BETTER HANDLE FOREIGN AFFAIRS V980387 H2d WHICH PARTY PROTECT SOC SECURITY BEST V980388 H3 WHICH PARTY BEST FOR AM FAMILIES V980389 H4a HAS CLINTON EVER MADE R FEEL ANGRY V980390 H4a1 HOW OFTEN HAS CLINTON MADE R FEEL ANGRY V980391 H4b HAS CLINTON EVER MADE R FEEL HOPEFUL V980392 H4b1 HOW OFTEN HAS CLINTON MADE R FEEL HOPEFUL V980393 H4c HAS CLINTON EVER MADE R FEEL AFRAID V980394 H4c1 HOW OFTEN HAS CLINTON MADE R FEEL AFRAID V980395 H4d HAS CLINTON EVER MADE R FEEL PROUD V980396 H4d1 HOW OFTEN HAS CLINTON MADE R FEEL PROUD V980397 H4e DISGUSTED - CLINTON AFFECT V980398 H4e1 HOW OFTEN DISGUSTED CLINTON AFFECT V980399 H5a R'S SELF-PLACEMENT ON LIBERAL/CONSERVATIVE SCALE V980400 H5a1 HOW CERTAIN IS R OF SELF-PLACEMENT ON LIB/CON SCALE V980401 H5aa IF R HAD TO CHOOSE, WOULD R BE LIB OR CON V980402 H5x SUMMARY- SELF-PLACEMENT LIB-CON V980403 H5b R'S PLACEMENT OF CLINTON ON LIBERAL-CON SCALE V980404 H5b1 HOW CERTAIN PLACEMENT OF CLINTON ON LIB/CON SCALE V980405 H5c GORE PLACEMENT LIB-CON SCALE V980406 H5c1 CERTAIN- GORE LIB-CON PLACEMENT V980407 H5d R'S PLACEMENT OF DEM HSE CAND ON LIB/CON SCALE V980408 H5d1 HOW CERT IS R OF PLACE OF DEM HSE CAND ON LIB/CON SCALE V980409 H5e R'S PLACEMENT OF REP HSE CAND ON LIB/CON SCALE V980410 H5e1 HOW CERTAIN PLACEMT OF REP HSE CAND ON LIB/CON SCALE V980411 H5f R'S PLACEMENT OF DEMOCRATIC PARTY ON LIB/CON SCALE V980412 H5g R'S PLACEMENT OF REPUBLICAN PARTY ON LIB/CON SCALE SURVEY SECTION J Variable Name Item Description -------- --------- --------------------------------------------------- V980413 J1 COUNTRY IN RIGHT DIRECTION/WRONG TRACK V980414 J2 IS R BETTER OR WORSE OFF FINANCIALLY THAN A YEAR AGO V980415 J2a/b IS R MUCH BETTER/WORSE OFF FINANCIALLY THAN A YEAR AGO V980416 J3 DOES R THINK R WILL BE BETTER/WORSE OFF FINANC NEXT YR V980417 J3a/b DOES R THINK MUCH BETTER/WORSE OFF FINANC NEXT YR V980418 J4 R THINK ECON HAS GOTTEN BETTER/WORSE OVER PAST YEAR V980419 J4a/b R THINK ECON HAS GOTTEN MUCH BETTER/WORSE OVER PAST YR V980420 J5 R EXPECT ECON TO GET BETTER/WORSE OVER THE NEXT YEAR V980421 J5a/b R EXPECT ECON TO GET MUCH BETTER/WORSE OVER THE NEXT YR V980422 J6 ECON BETTER/WORSE SINCE CLINTON TOOK OFC V980423 J6a/b ECON HOW MUCH BETTER/WORSE SINCE CLINTON V980424 J7 WHO MOST RESPONSIBLE FOR ECON CONDITION V980425 J8 IS R INVESTED IN STOCK MARKET V980426 J9 BETTER ONE PARTY OR SPLIT CONTROL V980427 J10 DOES R THINK THE POLIT SYSTEM SHOULD REMAIN TWO PARTY? V980428 J11 SOCIETY SHOULD SEE TO EQUAL OPPORTUNITY V980429 J12 TOO FAR PUSHING EQUAL RIGHTS V980430 J13a DOES R CONSIDER CLINTON MORAL V980431 J13b DOES R THINK THAT CLINTON CARES ABOUT PEOPLE LIKE R V980432 J13c DOES R CONSIDER CLINTON KNOWLEDGEABLE V980433 J13d DOES R CONSIDER CLINTON HONEST V980434 J13e DOES R CONSIDER CLINTON STRONG LEADER V980435 J14a GORE TRAIT- MORAL V980436 J14b GORE TRAIT- REALLY CARES V980437 J14c GORE TRAIT- KNOWLEDGEABLE V980438 J14d GORE TRAIT- HONEST V980439 J14e GORE TRAIT- STRONG LEADER V980440 J15a CONGRESS TOO LIBERAL/CONSERVATIVE 1 V980441 J15a1 CONGRESS TOO LIBERAL/CONSERVATIVE 2 V980442 J15b CONGRESS DOESN'T ACCOMPLISH MUCH V980443 J15c CONGRESS TOO INVOLVED IN PARTISAN POL V980444 J15d CONGESS DOESN'T CARE WHAT ORDIN THINK SURVEY SECTION K Variable Name Item Description -------- --------- --------------------------------------------------- V980445 K1 CREDIT FOR BUDGET SURPLUS V980446 K2 ETHNIC GROUPS- DISTINCT CULTURE/MELT POT V980447 K3 FAVOR/OPPOSE ENGLISH OFFICIAL LANGUAGE V980448 K4a R'S SELF-PLACEMENT ON WOMEN'S RIGHTS SCALE V980449 K4b R'S PLACEMENT OF CLINTON ON WOMEN'S RIGHTS SCALE V980450 K4c R'S PLACEMENT OF GORE ON WOMEN'S RIGHTS SCALE V980451 K4d DEM HSE CAND PLACEMENT EQUAL ROLE SCALE V980452 K4e REP HSE CAND PLACEMENT EQUAL ROLE SCALE V980453 K4f DEM PARTY PLACEMENT EQUAL ROLE SCALE V980454 K4g REP PARTY PLACEMENT EQUAL ROLE SCALE V980455 K5 R'S OPINION ON THE ISSUE OF SCHOOL PRAYER V980456 K5a STRENGTH OF R'S POSITION ON SCHOOL PRAYER V980457 K6a R'S SELF-PLACEMENT ON GUAR JOB/STANDARD OF LIVING SCALE V980458 K6b R'S PLACE OF CLINTON ON GUAR JOB/STD OF LIVING SCALE V980459 K6c GORE- GUAR JOB/STD LIV SCALE V980460 K6d DEM HSE CAND- GUAR JOB/STD LIV SCALE V980461 K6e REP HSE CAND- GUAR JOB/STD LIV SCALE V980462 K7a R'S SELF-PLACE ON AID TO BLACKS SCALE V980463 K8a R'S SELF-PLACEMENT ON SERVICES/SPENDING SCALE V980464 K8b R'S PLACEMENT OF CLINTON ON SERVICES/SPENDING SCALE V980465 K8c GORE- SERVICES/SPEND SCALE V980466 K8d R'S PLACEMENT OF DEM HSE CAND ON SERVICE/SPENDING SCALE V980467 K8e R'S PLACEMENT OF REP HSE CAND ON SERV/SPENDING SCALE V980468 K8f R'S PLACEMENT OF DEM PARTY ON SERVICES/SPENDING SCALE V980469 K8g R'S PLACEMENT OF REP PARTY ON SERVICES/SPENDING SCALE V980470 K9 DOES R FAVOR AFFIRM ACTION IN HIRING AND PROMOTION? V980471 K9a/b DOES R FAVOR/OPPOSE AFFIR ACTION STRONGLY / NOT V980472 K10 RELIGIOUS GROUPS STAY IN/OUT OF POLITICS V980473 K11 RELIGION DIVIDES/ RELIGIOUS TAKE ACTION V980474 K12 HOW MUCH OF THE TIME R TRUSTS NEWS MEDIA V980475 K13a GORE OFFICE - KNOWLEDGE V980476 K13b REHNQUIST OFFICE - KNOWLEDGE V980477 K13c YELTSIN OFFICE - KNOWLEDGE V980478 K13d GINGRICH OFFICE - KNOWLEDGE V980479 K14 DOES R RECALL WHICH PARTY WAS IN MAJORITY IN THE HOUSE? V980480 K15 DOES R RECALL WHICH PARTY WAS IN MAJORITY IN SENATE? V980481 K16 OFFICIALS SHD HAVE HIGHER MORAL STDS V980482 K17 R FAVOR/OPPOSE SCHOOL VOUCHER SYSTEM V980483 K17a/b HOW MUCH FAVOR/OPP SCHOOL VOUCHER SYSTEM SURVEY SECTION M Variable Name Item Description -------- --------- --------------------------------------------------- V980484 M1 HAS US POS IN THE WRLD GROWN STR/WEAKER IN THE PAST YR V980485 M2 HOW WILLING SHOULD THE US BE TO USE MILITARY FORCE V980486 M3 HOW WILLING- HUMANITARIAN AID V980487 M4 HOW WILLING- AID TO WORLD ECON CRISES V980488 M5 SHOULD THE US NOT CONCERN ITSELF WITH PROBLEMS ABROAD V980489 M6 SHOULD NO. IMMIGRANTS SHOULD BE INCREASE/DECREASED? V980490 M7 DOES R FAVOR/OPPOSE LIMITING IMPORTS? V980491 M8 VIETNAM OBJECTORS SHOULD HAVE SERVED V980492 M9 IS RELIGION AN IMPORTANT PART OF R'S LIFE V980493 M10 HOW MUCH GUIDANCE DOES RELIGION PROVIDE IN R'S LIFE V980494 M11 HOW FREQUENTLY DOES R PRAY V980495 M12 HOW FREQUENTLY DOES R READ THE BIBLE V980496 M13 R'S VIEW ON WHETHER THE BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD V980497 M14a R'S SELF-PLACEMENT ON ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION SCALE V980498 M14b GORE -SCALE ENVIR REGULATION V980499 M14c DEM HSE CAND- SCALE ENVIR REGULATION V980500 M14d REP HSE CAND- SCALE ENVIR REGULATION V980501 M14e R'S PLACEMENT OF DEM PARTY ON ENVIRO REGULATION SCALE V980502 M14f R'S PLACEMENT OF REP PARTY ON ENVIRO REGULATION SCALE V980503 M15 DOES R FAVOR OR OPPOSE THE DEATH PENALTY? V980504 M15a/b HOW STRONGLY FAVOR /OPPOSE DEATH PENALTY? V980505 M16a R'S SELF-PLACEMENT ON ABORTION ISSUE V980506 M16b GORE- ABORTION SCALE V980507 M16c R'S PLACEMENT OF DEM HOUSE CANDIDATE ON ABORTION ISSUE V980508 M16d R'S PLACEMENT OF REP HOUSE CANDIDATE ON ABORTION ISSUE V980509 M16e R'S PLACEMENT OF DEM PARTY ON ABORTION ISSUE V980510 M16f R'S PLACEMENT OF REP PARTY ON ABORTION ISSUE V980511 M17 FAV/OPP LATE-TERM ABORTION BAN V980512 M17a/b STRENGTH FAV/OPP LATE-TERM ABORTION BAN SURVEY SECTION N Variable Name Item Description -------- --------- --------------------------------------------------- V980513 N1 IRISH ETC. NO SPECIAL FAVORS- BLACK NTHR V980514 N2 BLACKS HAVE GOTTEN LESS THAN DESERVE V980515 N3 SHOULD ADJUST MORAL BEHAVIOR TO CHANGE V980516 N4 R OPINION: WE SHOULD BE MORE TOLERANT- OTHER MORAL STDS V980517 N5 MORE EMPHASIS ON TRADITIONAL FAM TIES V980518 N6 SHOULD BE MORE TOLERANT OF OTHER MORALS V980519 N7 MARITAL INFIDELITY ALWAYS WRONG V980520 N8 R PLACMENT- VOTING MAKES DIFF SCALE V980521 N9 HOW MUCH ATTENTION DOES GOVT PAY TO PEOPLE IN DECISIONS V980522 N10 DOW MUCH DOES R THINK ELECTIONS MAKE GOVT PAY ATTENTION V980523 N11 OPINION: POLITICS AND GOVT ARE TOO COMPLICATED V980524 N12 OPINION: PUBL OFFICIALS DON'T CARE WHAT PEOPLE THINK V980525 N13 R OPINION: PEOPLE LIKE R DON'T HAVE MUCH SAY IN GOVT V980526 N14 HOW MANY OF THE PEOPLE IN GOVT ARE CROOKED? V980527 N15 HOW MUCH OF TAX MONEY DOES R THINK THE GOVT WASTES? V980528 N16 HOW MUCH OF THE TIME R TRUSTS GOVT TO DO WHAT IS RIGHT V980529 N17 IS GOVT RUN BY A FEW BIG INTERESTS OR BENEFIT OF ALL? V980530 N18 US DOESN'T NEED POLITICAL PARTIES V980531 N19 DOES R THINK THAT MOST PPLE WOULD TRY TO TAKE ADVANT V980532 N20 DOES R THINK THAT MOST PEOPLE CAN BE TRUSTED SURVEY SECTION P Variable Name Item Description -------- --------- --------------------------------------------------- V980533 P1 SHOULD CLINTON RESIGN V980534 P2 SHOULD CLINTON BE IMPEACHED V980535 P3 APP/DIS CONGRESS HANDLE CLINTON SCANDAL V980536 P3a/b STRNGTH APP/DIS CONGRSS ON CLINTON SCAND V980537 P4 APPROVE/DISAPP MEDIA ON CLINTON SCANDAL V980538 P4a/b STRENGTH APP/DIS MEDIA ON CLINTON SCAND V980539 P5 CLINTON MATTER PUBLIC OR PRIVATE ISSUE V980540 P6 IS KENNETH STARR IMPARTIAL OR PARTISAN SURVEY SECTION X (RELIGIOUS IDENTIFICATION) Variable Name Item Description -------- --------- --------------------------------------------------- V980541 X1 DOES R ATTEND RELIGIOUS SERVICES V980542 X1a DOES R CONSIDER HIMSELF/HERSELF PART OF A CHURCH V980543 X2 HOW FREQUENTLY DOES R ATTEND RELIGIOUS SERVICES V980544 X2a DOES R ATTEND RELIGIOUS SERVICES MORE THAN ONCE/WEEK V980545 X3 (INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT) DOES R ATTEND WORSHIP V980546 X3a RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION OF R'S PLACE OF WORSHIP V980547 X3b R'S RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION V980548 X4 (PROTESTANT) R'S CHURCH/DENOMINATION V980549 X4(1) DENOMINATION OTHER SPECIFY V980550 X4a WITH WHAT BAPTIST GROUP IS R'S CHURCH AFFILIATED V980551 X4b (BAPTIST) IS R'S CHURCH LOCAL OR AFFIL V980552 X4c WITH WHAT LUTHERN GROUP IS R'S CHURCH AFFILIATED V980553 X4d WITH WHAT METHODIST GROUP IS R'S CHURCH AFFILIATED V980554 X4e WITH WHAT PRESBYTERIAN GROUP IS R'S CHURCH AFFILIATED V980555 X4f WITH WHAT REFORMED GROUP IS R'S CHURCH AFFILIATED V980556 X4g WITH WHAT BRETHREN GROUP IS R'S CHURCH AFFILIATED V980557 X4h BY "CHRISTIAN" DOES R MEAN DISCIPLES OF CHRIST V980558 X4i WHAT CHURCH OF CHRIST GROUP IS R'S CHURCH AFFIL V980559 X4j WITH WHAT CHURCH OF GOD GROUP IS R'S CHURCH AFFILIATED V980560 X4k (HOLINESS OR PENTECOSTAL) WHAT IS THE NAME/AFFIL V980561 X4kx 'OTHER' TEXTS - BLANKED V980562 X4m (NOT PROT/CATH/JEWISH) WHAT IS THE NAME/AFFIL V980563 X4m(1) (R NOT ALRY IDENT AS CHRST) IS THAT CHRISTIAN? V980564 X6a/b (JEWISH) ORTHODOX, CONSERV, OR REFORMED V980565 X7 IS R OFFICIALLY A MEMBER OF A PLACE OF WORSHIP V980566 X8 TYPE OF R'S CHRISTIANITY V980567 X8a CHRISTIANITY TYPE - OPEN V980568 X9 IS R A BORN-AGAIN CHRISTIAN V980569 X10 RELIGION SUMMARY SURVEY SECTION Y (DEMOGRAPHICS/PERSONAL INFORMATION) Variable Name Item Description -------- --------- --------------------------------------------------- V980570 Y1a R'S MONTH OF BIRTH V980571 Y1b R'S YEAR OF BIRTH V980572 Y1c AGE OF RESPONDENT V980573 Y2 R'S MARITAL STATUS V980574 Y3 HIGHEST GRADE R HAS COMPLETED V980575 Y3a HAS R EARNED A HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA/PASSED THE GED V980576 Y3b HIGHEST DEGREE R HAS EARNED V980577 Y3x SUMMARY - RESPONDENT EDUCATION V980578 Y5 ASSIGNED EMPLOYMENT SERIES V980579 Y6 R'S EMPLOYMENT STATUS- FULL V980579a Y7 R'S EMPLOYMENT STATUS 1 CATEGORY V980580 Y9 (UNEMPLOYED) HAS R EVER WORKED FOR PAY V980581 Y10/Y10a (UNEMPLOYED) PAST OCCUPATION CODE (2 DIGIT) V980581a Y10x(1) (UNEMPLOYED) PAST OCCUPATION (BLANKED) V980582 Y10x(2) (UNEMPLOYED) PAST OCCUPATION COLLAPSED (1 DIGIT) V980583 Y10x(3) (UNEMPLOYED) PAST OCCUPATION PRESTIGE V980584 Y10b (UNEMPLOYED) PAST BUSINESS/INDUSTRY CODE V980585 Y10c (UNEMPLOYED) WAS R SELF-EMPLOYED V980586 Y10d (UNEMPLOYED) DID R WORK FOR THE GOVERNMENT V980587 Y10e (UNEMPLOYED) HAS R WORKED FOR PAY IN THE LAST 6 MOS V980588 Y10f (UNEMPLOYED) HOURS PER WEEK R WORKED V980589 Y10g (UNEMPLOYED) IS R LOOKING FOR WORK V980590 Y10h (UNEMPLOYED) HOW WORRIED IS R ABOUT FINDING WORK V980591 Y11 (RETIRED) MONTH OF RETIREMENT V980592 Y11a (RETIRED) YEAR OF RETIREMENT V980593 Y12/Y12a (RETIRED) PAST OCCUPATION CODE (2 DIGIT) V980593a Y12x(1) (RETIRED) PAST OCCUPATION (BLANKED) V980594 Y12x(2) (RETIRED) PAST OCCUPATION (BLANKED) COLLAPSED (1 DIGIT) V980595 Y12x(3) (RETIRED) PAST OCCUPATION PRESTIGE V980596 Y12b (RETIRED) PAST BUSINESS/INDUSTRY CODE V980597 Y12c (RETIRED) WAS R SELF-EMPLOYED V980598 Y12d (RETIRED) DID R WORK FOR THE GOVERNMENT V980599 Y12e (RETIRED) HAS R WORKED FOR PAY IN THE LAST SIX MONTHS V980600 Y12f (RETIRED) HOURS PER WEEK R WORKED V980601 Y12g (RETIRED) IS R CURRENTLY WORKING FOR PAY V980602 Y12h (RETIRED) IS R LOOKING FOR WORK V980603 Y12j (RETIRED) HOW WORRIED IS R ABOUT FINDING WORK V980604 Y13 (DISABLED) HAS R EVER WORKED FOR PAY V980605 Y14/Y14a (DISABLED) PAST OCCUPATION CODE V980605a Y14x(1) (DISABLED) PAST OCCUPATION CODE (BLANKED) V980606 Y14x(2) (DISABLED) PAST OCCUPATION CODE COLLAPSED (1 DIGIT) V980607 Y14x(3) (DISABLED) PAST OCCUPATION PRESTIGE V980608 Y14b (DISABLED) PAST BUSINESS/INDUSTRY CODE V980609 Y14c (DISABLED) WAS R SELF-EMPLOYED V980610 Y14d (DISABLED) DID R WORK FOR THE GOVERNMENT V980611 Y14e (DISABLED) HAS R WORKED FOR PAY IN THE LAST SIX MONTHS V980612 Y14f (DISABLED) HOURS PER WEEK R WORKED V980613 Y14g (DISABLED) IS R CURRENTLY WORKING FOR PAY V980614 Y14h (DISABLED) IS R LOOKING FOR WORK V980615 Y14j (DISABLED) HOW WORRIED IS R ABOUT FINDING WORK V980616 Y15 (HOMEMAKER/STUDENT) IS R CURRENTLY WORKING FOR PAY V980617 Y15a (HOMEMAKER/STUDENT) HAS R WORKED FOR PAY IN LAST 6 MOS V980618 Y16/Y16a (HOMEMAKER/STUDENT) PAST OCCUPATION CODE V980618a Y16x(1) (HOMEMAKER/STUDENT) PAST OCCUPATION CODE (BLANKED) V980619 Y16x(2) (HOMEMAKER/STUDENT) PAST OCCUPATION COLLAPSED (1 DIGIT) V980620 Y16x(3) (HOMEMAKER/STUDENT) PAST OCCUPATION PRESTIGE V980621 Y16b (HOMEMAKER/STUDENT) PAST BUSINESS/INDUSTRY CODE V980622 Y16c (HOMEMAKER/STUDENT) WAS R SELF-EMPLOYED V980623 Y16d (HOMEMAKER/STUDENT) DID R WORK FOR THE GOVERNMENT V980624 Y16f (HOMEMAKER/STUDENT) HOURS PER WEEK R WORKED V980625 Y16h (HOMEMAKER/STUDENT) IS R LOOKING FOR WORK V980626 Y16j (HOMEMAKER/STUDENT) HOW WORRIED IS R ABOUT FINDING WORK V980627 Y7/Y7a (WORKING NOW) OCCUPATION CODE V980627a Y7x(1) (WORKING NOW) OCCUPATION CODE (BLANKED) V980628 Y7x(2) (WORKING NOW) OCCUPATION CODE COLLAPSED (1 DIGIT) V980629 Y7x(3) (WORKING NOW) OCCUPATION PRESTIGE V980630 Y7b (WORKING NOW) BUSINESS/INDUSTRY CODE V980631 Y7c (WORKING NOW) IS R SELF-EMPLOYED V980632 Y7d (WORKING NOW) DOES R WORK FOR THE GOVERNMENT V980633 Y7e (WORKING NOW) HOURS PER WEEK R WORKS V980634 Y7f (WORKING NOW) IS R SATISFIED WITH NUM HRS R WORKS/WEEK V980635 Y7g (WORKING NOW) HOW WORRIED IS R ABOUT LOSING JOB V980636 Y7h (WORKING NOW) WAS R OUT OF WORK IN THE LAST SIX MONTHS V980637 Y7j (WORKING NOW) DID R HAVE REDUCT IN WRK HRS LAST 6 MOS V980638 RC1 STACKED OCCUPATION CODE V980638a RC1a STACKED OCCUPATION (BLANKED) V980639 RC2 STACKED OCCUPATION COLLAPSED V980640 RC3 STACKED OCCUPATION PRESTIGE V980641 RC4 STACKED INDUSTRY CODE V980642 RC5 STACKED- R WORK FOR SELF/OTHERS V980643 RC6 STACKED- R EMPLOYED BY GOVERNMENT V980644 RC7 STACKED- NUMBER OF HOURS WORKED V980645 RC8 STACKED- WORRIED ABOUT LOSING/FINDING JOB V980646 RC9 STACKED- (UNEMP/DISAB) HAD JOB IN LAST 6 MOS. V980647 RC10 STACKED- (R/UN/DIS) LOOKING FOR WORK V980648 RC11 UN/DIS) EVER WORKED FOR PAY V980649 Y18 DO ANY OF R'S HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS BELONG TO A LABOR UNION V980650 Y18a R'S HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS WHO BELONG TO A LABOR UNION V980651 Y19 (INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT) IS R THE ONLY HH MEMBER 14+ V980652 Y20 R'S FAMILY INCOME IN 1995 V980653 Y20a/Y21 R'S OWN INCOME IN 1995 V980654 Y22(1) R'S ETHNIC/NATIONALITY GROUP -- MENTION 1 V980655 Y22(2) R'S ETHNIC/NATIONALITY GROUP -- MENTION 2 V980656 Y22(3) (INTERVIEWER CHECKPOINT) # OF ETHNIC/NAT GRPS R MENT V980657 Y22a ETHNIC/NAT GROUP WITH WHICH R MOST CLOSELY IDENTIFIES V980658 Y22b WERE BOTH OF R'S PARENTS BORN IN THE UNITED STATES V980659 Y23 IS R OF SPANISH/HISPANIC ORIGIN OR DESCENT V980660 Y23a CATEGORY OF HISPANIC ORIGIN THAT BEST DESCRIBES R V980661 Y26 HOW LONG HAS R LIVED IN R'S PRESENT CITY V980662 Y27 HOW LONG HAS R LIVED IN R'S PRESENT HOUSE V980663 Y28 DOES R OWN A HOME OR PAY RENT V980664 Y29 DOES R HAVE CHILDREN V980665 Y29a HOW MANY CHILDREN R HAS <6 YRS OLD V980666 Y29a1 NO. CHILDREN <6 WITH R AT LEAST HALF TIM V980667 Y29b HOW MANY CHILDREN R HAS 6-18 YRS OLD V980668 Y29b1 NO. CHILDREN 6-18 W/ R AT LEAST HALF TIM V980669 Y30 CKPOINT: IS R ENDING IW FTF OR PHONE? INTERVIEWER OBSERVATION Variable Name Item Description -------- --------- --------------------------------------------------- V980670 Z0 IWR: NUMBER OF TIMES R CONTACTED HU V980671 Z0a IWR: WHY DI DR CONDUCT FTF V980672 Z1 IWR OBSERVATION: R GENDER V980673 Z2 IWR OSERVATION: R RACE V980674 Z3 IWR OSERVATION:OTHERS PRESENT DURING IW V980675 Z4 IWR OBSERVATION: R COOPERATION V980676 Z5 IWR OBSERVATION: R LEVEL INFORMATION ABT POLITICS V980677 Z6 IWR OBSERVATION: R APPARENT INTELLIGENCE V980678 Z7 IWR OBSERVATION: R SUSPICIOUSNESS V980679 Z8 IWR OBSERVATION: R INTEREST IN IW V980680 Z9 IWR OBSERVATION: R SINCERITY V980681 Z10 IWR OBSERVATION: R REPORT INCOME ACCURATELY V980682 Z10a IWR OBSERVATION: ESTIMATED INCOME V980683 Z11(1) IWR OBSERVATION: #1 R REACTIONS TO IW V980684 Z11(2) IWR OBSERVATION: #2 R REACTIONS TO IW V980685 Z11(3) IWR OBSERVATION: #3 R REACTIONS TO IW V980686 Z11(4) IWR OBSERVATION: #4 R REACTIONS TO IW V980687 Z11(5) IWR OBSERVATION: #5 R REACTIONS TO IW Note: there are no variables V980688-980690 V980691 Z12 IWR OBSERVATION: R DIFFICULTY W/BOOKLET V980692 Z13 IWR OBSERVATION: REASONS FOR DIFFICULTY W/BOOKLET V980693 Z14 IWR OBSERVATION: DID R STATE PROBLEM W/BKLET V980694 Z15 IWR OBSERVATION: HOW MUCH OF THE BOOKLET WAS A PROBLEM V980695 Z16 IWR TELEPHONE OBSERV: DID R HAVE BOOKLET V980696 Z17 IWR TEL OBSERV: HOW SURE THAT R HAD BOOKLET V980697 Z18 IWR TEL OBSERV: R DIFFICULTY W/BOOKLET V980698 Z19 IWR TEL OBSERV: HOW MUCH DIFFICULTY W/BKLET V980699 Z20 IWR TEL OBSERV: WHY DID IT SEEM DIFFICULTY W/BKLET V980700 Z21 IWR TEL OBSERV: WHY NO BOOKLET V980701 Z22 IWR TEL OBSERV: DID R USE BKLET MID-IW V980702 Z23 IWR TEL OBSERV: DID NO BOOKLET INTERFERE W/ IW RANDOMIZATION Variable Name Item Description -------- --------- --------------------------------------------------- V980703 Rand.A12/13 Order of A12-A12a/b and A13-A13a/b V980704 Rand.B4b1 Position of Democratic House candidate in thermometers V980705 Rand.B4b2 Position of Democratic House candidate in thermometers V980706 Rand.B4c1 Position of Democratic Senate candidate in thermometers V980707 Rand.B4c2 Position of Democratic Senate candidate in thermometers V980708 Rand.B4d Position of Al Gore in thermometers V980709 Rand.B4e Position of Newt Gingrich in thermometers V980710 Rand.B4f Position of George Bush Jr. in thermometers V980711 Rand.B4g Position of Dan Quayle in thermometers V980712 Rand.B4h Position of Steve Forbes in thermometers V980713 Rand.B4i Position of Ken Starr in thermometers V980714 Rand.B4j Position of Pat Buchanan in thermometers V980715 Rand.B4k Position of Elizabeth Dole in thermometers V980716 Rand.B4m Position of Richard Gephardt in thermometers V980717 Rand.B4n Position of Paul Wellstone in thermometers V980718 Rand.B4o Position of John McCain in thermometers V980719 Rand.B4p Position of Bill Bradley in thermometers V980720 Rand.B4q Position of Bob Kerrey in thermometers V980721 Rand.B4r Position of John Kerrey in thermometers V980722 Rand.B4s Position of Gary Bauer in thermometers V980723 Rand.B4t Position of John Ashcroft in thermometers V980724 Rand.B4u Position of Hillary Clinton in thermometers V980725 Rand.B5a/b Position of Democratic Party in thermometers V980726 Rand.B5c Position of Blacks in thermometers V980727 Rand.B5d Position of the Religious Right in thermometers V980728 Rand.B5e Position of Conservatives in thermometers V980729 Rand.B5f Position of Gay Men and Lesbians in thermometers V980730 Rand.B5g Position of Labor Unions in thermometers V980731 Rand.B5h Position of Liberals in thermometers V980732 Rand.B5j Position of Poor People in thermometers V980733 Rand.B5k Position of Rich People in thermometers V980734 Rand.B5m Position of Whites in thermometers V980735 Rand.B5n Position of College Educated People in thermometers V980736 Rand.B5p Position of Business in thermometers V980737 Rand.B5q Position of the U.S. Congress in thermometers V980738 Rand.B5r Position of the News Media in thermometers V980739 Rand.C1-C4 Position of Dem Party and Rep Party Likes/Dislikes V980740 Rand.C5 Order of Dem candidate name and Rep candidate name V980741 Rand.F6 Order of F6 "Republican Party" and "Democratic Party" V980742 Rand.H2 Position of "crime" in party performance series V980743 Rand.H2a Position of "handling the nation's economy" V980744 Rand.H2b Position of "handling the problems of pollution" V980745 Rand.H2c Position of "handling foreign affairs" V980746 Rand.H2d Position of "Social Security" in party performance V980747 Rand.H2-H2d Order of "Republican Party" and "Democratic Party" V980748 Rand.H4a Position of of "angry" in Clinton affects series V980749 Rand.H4b Position of of "hopeful" in Clinton affects series V980750 Rand.H4c Position of of "afraid" in Clinton affects series V980751 Rand.H4d Position of of "proud" in Clinton affects series V980752 Rand.H4e Position of of "disgusted" in Clinton affects series V980753 Rand.H5d/e Position of Demo and Repub cands in Liberal/Cons V980754 Rand.H5f/g Position of Dem party, Repub party in Liberal/Conserv V980755 Rand.J13-15 Order of exec level (Clinton, Gore) traits series V980756 Rand.J13a Position of "is moral" in J13 Clinton traits series V980757 Rand.J13b Position of "really cares about people" in J13 V980758 Rand.J13c Position of "is knowledgeable" in J13 V980759 Rand.J13d Position of "is honest" in J13 Clinton traits series V980760 Rand.J13e Position of "provides strong leadership" in J13 V980761 Rand.J14a Position of "is moral" in J14 Gore traits series V980762 Rand.J14b Position of "really cares about people" in J14 V980763 Rand.J14c Position of "is knowledgeable" in J14 V980764 Rand.J14d Position of "is honest" in J14 Gore traits series V980765 Rand.J14e Position of "provides strong leadership" in J14 V980766 Rand.J15a Selection of "too liberal"/"too cons" Congr trait V980767 Rand.J15b Position of "doesn't get much accomplished" in J15 V980768 Rand.J15c Position of "too involved in partisan politics" in J15 V980769 Rand.J15d Position of "doesn't care what ordinary Am think" V980770 Rand.K4d/e Position of Dem and Repub candidates in Women's Role V980771 Rand.K4f/g Position of Dem and Repubparties in Women's Role V980772 Rand.K6d/e Position of Dem and Repub cands in Guar Jobs V980773 Rand.K8d/e Position of Dem and Repub candidates in Serv/Spend V980774 Rand.K8f/g Position of Dem and Repub parties in Serv/Spend V980775 Rand.M14c/d Position of Dem and Repub candidates in Serv/Spend V980776 Rand.M14e/f Position of Dem and Repub parties in Serv/Spend