journal article Jan 01, 2007

The Effect of Survey Mode and Sampling on Inferences about Political Attitudes and Behavior: Comparing the 2000 and 2004 ANES to Internet Surveys with Nonprobability Samples

View at Publisher Save 10.1093/pan/mpm003
Abstract
Since the inception of the American National Election Study (ANES) in the 1940s, data have been collected via face-to-face interviewing in the homes of members of area probability samples of American adults, the same gold-standard approach used by the U.S. Census Bureau, other federal agencies, and some nongovernment researchers for many of the most high-profile surveys conducted today. This paper explores whether comparable findings about voters and elections would be obtained by a different, considerably less expensive method: Internet data collection from nonprobability samples of volunteer respondents. Comparisons of the 2000 and 2004 ANES data (collected via face-to-face interviewing with national probability samples) with simultaneous Internet surveys of volunteer samples yielded many differences in the distributions of variables and in the associations between variables (even controlling for differences between the samples in reported interest in politics). Accuracy was higher for the face-to-face/probability sample data than for the Internet/volunteer sample data in 88% of the possible comparisons. This suggests that researchers interested in assuring the accuracy of their findings in describing populations should rely on face-to-face surveys of probability samples rather than Internet samples of volunteer respondents.
Topics

No keywords indexed for this article. Browse by subject →

References
20
[1]
Verba (1995) 10.2307/j.ctv1pnc1k7
[2]
College sophomores in the laboratory: Influences of a narrow data base on social psychology's view of human nature.

David O. Sears

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 10.1037/0022-3514.51.3.515
[4]
Converse (1964)
[5]
Chang LinChiat , and Krosnick Jon A. 2002. Comparing self-administered computer surveys and auditory interviews: An experiment. Paper presented at the American Association for Public Opinion Research Annual Meeting, St. Petersburg, FL.
[6]
Our measure of “true” turnout was taken from http://elections.gmu.edu/voter_turnout.htm, where the numerator is the number of voters and the denominator is the voting-eligible population, which excludes noncitizens and ineligible felons and includes eligible citizens living overseas or living in institutional settings in the United States (e.g., college dorms or group homes). This causes some unavoidable noncomparability with the surveys. For example, the Internet samples could have included noncitizens and convicted felons who were not in jail; the face-to-face samples could also have included felons but did not include American citizens who were overseas or who were living in institutional settings in the United States; and none of the survey samples included people who did not speak/read English. Therefore, we should not expect exact matches of the survey samples with true turnout rates.
[7]
Saris (1998)
[8]
When these analyses were conducted comparing the truth with each candidate's share of all votes (rather than just of the two-party vote) and the vote margin, comparable results were obtained.
[9]
Since “Male” and “Black” are dummy variables, we compared the differences in the predicted probabilities of having a value of 0 compared to having a value of 1. We did not calculate effect sizes for education or age because the constructs were measured by a series of dummy variables with a reference category, rendering our approach of examining the interquartile range nonimplementable.
[10]
Both the CPS and ANES data were collected from U.S. citizens only. The Internet survey samples may have included residents who were not U.S. citizens.
[11]
The maximum weights for YouGov and the 2004 ANES were 13.82 and 3.03, respectively. The minimum weights were .10 and .36, respectively. In all surveys, weights were constructed only from demographic characteristics of the respondents. It may also be possible to weight post hoc based on the election result and actual turnout figures.
[12]
Information about the YouGov methodology was obtained via personal communication with Stephan Shakespeare, Director of Public Opinion Research.
[13]
Telephone surveys could achieve higher response rates at higher costs. However, there are several structural characteristics of telephone interviewing (e.g., cell phone usage, answering machines, caller ID) that reduce response rates regardless of expenditure.
[14]
The maximum weights for the Harris and the 2000 ANES preelection surveys were 5.00 and 3.20, respectively. The minimum weights were .20 and .34, respectively. The maximum weights for the Harris and 2000 ANES postelection surveys were 5.00 and 3.15, respectively. The minimum weights were .20 and .29, respectively.
[15]
A portion of the 2000 ANES was conducted via telephone using RDD sampling methods. These cases are excluded in the analyses that follow.
[16]
Wolfinger (1980)
[17]
Erikson (2007)
[18]
Rossi (1983)
[19]
For all statistical analyses using ANES data, cases were modeled as being clustered by primary sampling unit (PSU). In analyses pooling ANES and Internet data, each Internet case was treated as a separate PSU to permit proper representation of the clustering of the face-to-face cases.
[20]
Some respondents may have provided data during multiple months between September and November and during previous waves. However, YouGov did not inform us about who these respondents were. Consequently, we could not predict actual vote choice with variables measured during the preelection survey.
Metrics
208
Citations
20
References
Details
Published
Jan 01, 2007
Vol/Issue
15(3)
Pages
286-323
License
View
Cite This Article
Neil Malhotra, Jon A. Krosnick (2007). The Effect of Survey Mode and Sampling on Inferences about Political Attitudes and Behavior: Comparing the 2000 and 2004 ANES to Internet Surveys with Nonprobability Samples. Political Analysis, 15(3), 286-323. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpm003