Page 1 of 189 Version 01 Codebook ------------------- CODEBOOK APPENDIX FILE 1987 PILOT STUDY (1987.PN) USER NOTE: This file has been converted to electronic format via OCR scanning. As as result, the user is advised that some errors in character recognition may have resulted within the text. >> OPEN-END RESPONSES FOR THE 1987 PILOT WAVES 1 AND 2 N.B. 1. The first part of this section is a memo by John Zaller, "Cognitive Responses to Survey Questions" which documents and discusses the coding scheme for the cognitive experiments on the Pilot Study. Those who plan to use these data should, without fail, read this memo. 2. The Zaller memo is followed by the open-end master codes: a) direction of response b) emotional intensity and elaboration of thought c) Frame of reference and content code 3. Numerous variables refer to PF 10. PF 10 is a function key used by CATI interviewers in recording comments of respondents. These side comments have been coded for this study. 4. In Wave 2 variables, respondents who were interviewed in Wave 1 but not re-interviewed in Wave 2 have had data variables padded with O's. This is not explicitly stated in the variable documentation. COGNITIVE RESPONSES TO SURVEY QUESTIONS The 1987 Pilot study carried a series of questions designed to elicit information about what is on people's minds as they respond to survey questions. The basic method was to ask individuals a standard policy question and then to use open-ended probes tofind out what exactly the individual thought about that issue. Everything the respondent said -- including such non-political remarks as "that's a tough question" -- was transcribed as faithfully as possible by the interviewer. ftp://ftp.electionstudies.org/ftp/nes/studypages/1987pilot/APPPIL87.txt 10/29/2009 Page 2 of 189 Three domestic policy items, all core items in the regular NES surveys, were used in this research. They were "job guarantees vs. individuals get ahead on own," "increase/decrease government services," and "special aid for blacks vs. blacks get ahead on owns Half of the respondents were asked to give their thoughts about these issues before choosing one of the closed response options, and the other half were asked to talk about the issue just after stating their opinion. In addition, respondents were asked immediately after the standard Presidential approval item to say why they had answered the question as they had. In most cases, respondents were asked three open-ended probes; respondents who provided answers to these probes were asked one follow-up probe, "Any other comments?" (1) In addition, some respondents talked to themselves as they decided how to choose among the fixed options; when they did so, their "think-aloud" remarks were transcribed by interviewers. Up to four comments were coded in connection with each of the three probes (and its associated follow-up); up to three additional comments were coded for respondents' "think-aloud" comments. Thus, coders were prepared to rate up to (1) See the main section of the codebook for the exact question wording. 15 "comments" for each policy item in this series,2 though in the vast majority of cases, the number of "comments" actually coded was much smaller.(3) Each discrete "comment" has been coded on five separate variables, as follows: DIRECTION OF COMMENT. A one-column variable indicating which side of the issue the comment supported, if any. Codes for this variable also cover cases in which the comment exhibits ambivalence, confusion, or a non-substantive concern. FRAME OF REFERENCE. A one-column variable intended to capture differences in the way individuals conceptualize issues. Some, for example, may conceptualize an issue in light of their own experience or needs, while others may use an abstract or ideological frame of reference. SPECIFIC CONTENT. A two column variable intended to capture the specific content of a comment. Separate content codes have been developed for each of the six frames of reference. INTENSITY. A one-column variable intended to capture the level of emotional or affective intensity associated with each comment. Comments which include strong language -- words or phrases such as "ridiculous," "it really makes me angry when ...," "there's going to be a lot of killing unless someone takes care of this problem..."4 -- are coded as high on intensity. This variable runs (1) no evidence of intensity, (2) some evidence of intensity, (3) clear evidence of intensity. COMPLEXITY. A one-column variable intended to measure the presence or absence of relatively highly developed or elaborated thought. For example, a comment that "blacks needed help to ______________ (2) For a handful of respondents who took an "it depends" option on ftp://ftp.electionstudies.org/ftp/nes/studypages/1987pilot/APPPIL87.txt 10/29/2009 Page 3 of 189 one of the policy items, five follow-up probes were asked; in this case, coders were prepared to code up to 20 comments per policy question, plus up to three additional "think-aloud" comments. (3) Coders were instructed to regard each complete thought as a discrete comment. In Wave 11 of the study, interviewers were asked not only to transcribe respondents' comments, but to judge their degree of coherence or connectedness. These judgments are recorded in Vxxx. (4) Current NES policy absolutely prohibits direct quotation of an individual's open-ended comments. Therefore, all references to respondents' comments in this section, including those that appear in quotation remarks, should be considered as representations of the kinds of things individuals said rather than as direct transcriptions of what any one individual said. These representations are, however, intended to capture as faithfully as possible the tone as well as the content of what people said. The NES policy governing this matter reflects, among other things, the concerns of the Human Subjects Committee of the University of Michigan, where the interviews were conducted. The original data from which these codes were built are available for inspection by interested scholars under the usual NES guidelines. _________________ overcome discrimination in the 1950s and 1950s, but since the Great Society came into being, they really don't need any more help" would e coded as complex; a comment that "blacks don't need any special help" would not. Because of the difficulty of making such judgments at the level of discrete comments, this variable involves only two codes: complexity not present (1 ) or present (2). More complete descriptions of the coding categories appear below. Data on the reliability of coding decisions will be released when it becomes available. >> OPEN-END 1987 Pilot Direction of Comment One-column variable 1. Favors liberal side of issue (more government spending, special aid to blacks, government job guarantees). 2. Favors conservative side of issue (less government spending, no special aid to blacks, each individual gets ahead on own) 3. Mention indicates ambivalence, conflict (e.g., "I see merit in both sides"; "that's a tough question"; "depends"; "both are valid points"). 4. Mention is non-political or non-substantive (e.g., "What I was thinking when I said that was that I still have to get the dishes done before I go to bed") 5. Nothing; don't know (e.g.,"honestly, I don't know what I was thinking about when I said that"). 7. Substantive comments in which no directional thrust is evident; R may or may not have intended directional thrust, but difficult to say what it was ftp://ftp.electionstudies.org/ftp/nes/studypages/1987pilot/APPPIL87.txt 10/29/2009 Page 4 of 189 from written material. 9. NA 0. Inappropriate Frame of Reference One-column variable Individuals may conceptualize questions in many different ways. They may think about an issue as one involving high principle, or they may care about it only as it affects them personally. They may mainly care how it affects racial relations, or they may be concerned only with its impact on a particular program, such as education or environmental protection. The "frame of reference" code described below is an attempt to capture such differences in the way people conceptualize political issues. 1. Abstract. This classification should be used for comments which are abstract, moral or possibly ideological. Comments of this type indicate that respondent may have derived or justified an answer to a specific policy question from general principles of rightness, fairness, justice or some other general consideration. Examples of statements that fall into this category: a. Oppose job guarantees because "people will become lazy if they have guaranteed jobs." b. Oppose more government spending because "government is too large already." c. Oppose special help to blacks "because of racial equality" d. Favor job guarantees because "government has an obligation to take care of everyone." e. Favor special help to blacks because Unless everyone has a fair chance, our society will be unjust." 2. Groups. This category should be used for comments that focus on groups or categories of people. Comments of this type suggest that the respondent views the policy issue in light of its impact on particular groups or classes of people, that is, that groups provide the frame of reference by which he/she evaluates the particular issue. Some examples: a. Favor decreasing level of government services because "businessmen will have to pay for it and they can't afford to" b. Favor increasing level of government services "because elderly people are in such great need" [note, favoring more spending for social security would indicate a "program" frame of reference, as described below]. c. Oppose special help to blacks because "blacks are too demanding" or favor it because "they [blacks] need the help." A comment opposing special help to blacks on the grounds that it was reverse discrimination should be coded as having an abstract frame.