Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T19:51:12.541Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

To Participate or Not to Participate: The Link Between Survey Participation, Electoral Participation, and Political Interest

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2017

Robert J. J. Voogt  and
Willem E. Saris
Robert J. J. Voogt
Affiliation:
University of Amsterdam, ASCoR, Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands. e-mail: [email protected]
Willem E. Saris
Affiliation:
University of Amsterdam, ASCoR, Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands. e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Survey participation, electoral participation, and political interest have been given wide attention in the research literature, but no one so far has combined these three variables in one model. Taking the social isolation-hypothesis as our starting point, we developed a model with one factor, social involvement, as the common factor underlying these three types of participation. We reviewed the literature and concluded that we had to include a second underlying factor: attachment to society. Using a new data set, gathered on the occasion of the 1998 Dutch national elections and including validated voter turnout measures, we were able to test the model. After making some adaptions, we found a model with a satisfactory fit. The results show that, by including social involvement and attachment to society as mediating variables, we can reach much higher levels of explained variances of survey and electoral participation than we can with traditional models. The results also add to our understanding of the relationship between survey and electoral participation and political interest.

Type
Research Article
Information
Political Analysis , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , Spring 2003 , pp. 164 - 179
Copyright
Copyright © Political Methodology Section of the American Political Science Association 2003 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, T. W., and Amemiya, Y. 1988. “The Asymptotic Normal Distribution of Estimates in Factor Analyses Under General Conditions.” Annals of Statistics 16:759–771.Google Scholar
Blankenship, A. B. 1977. “Listed Versus Unlisted Numbers in Telephone-Survey Samples.” Journal of Advertising Research 17:39–42.Google Scholar
Brehm, J. 1993. The Phantom Respondents. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Browne, M. W., and Cudeck, R. 1992. “Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit.” Sociological Methods and Research 21:230–258.Google Scholar
Clausen, A. R. 1968. “Response Validity: Vote Report.” Public Opinion Quarterly 32:588–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Couper, M. P. 1997. “Survey Introductions and Data Quality.” Public Opinion Quarterly 61:317–338.Google Scholar
Daniel, W. W. 1975. “Nonresponse in Sociological Surveys: A Review of Some Methods for Handling the Problem.” Sociological Methods and Research 3:291–307.Google Scholar
Day, N. A., Dunt, D. R., and Day, S. 1995. “Maximizing Response to Surveys in Health Program Evaluation at Minimum Costs Using Multiple Methods—Mail, Telephone and Visit.” Evaluation Review 19(4): 436–450.Google Scholar
de Leeuw, E. D. 1992. Data Quality in Mail, Telephone and Face to Face Surveys. Amsterdam: T.T.-Publikaties.Google Scholar
de Leeuw, E. D., and Hox, J. J. 1998. “Nonresponse in Surveys: een Overzicht.” Kwantitatieve Methoden 19:31–54.Google Scholar
de Leeuw, E. D., and van der Zouwen, J. 1988. “Data Quality in Telephone and Face to Face Surveys: A Comparative Meta-Analysis.” In Telephone Survey Methodology, eds. Groves, R. M., Biemer, P. P., Lyberg, L., Massey, J., Nicholls, W. L. II, and Waksberg, J. New York: Wiley, pp. 283–299.Google Scholar
Dillman, D. A., and Tarnai, J. 1988. “Administrative Issues in Mixed Mode Surveys.” In Telephone Survey Methodology, eds. Groves, R. M., Biemer, P. P., Lyberg, L., Massey, J., Nicholls, W. L. II, and Waksberg, J. New York: Wiley, pp. 509–528.Google Scholar
Glasser, G. J., and Metzger, G. D. 1975. “National Estimates of Nonlisted Telephone Household and Their Characteristics.” Journal of Marketing Research 12:359–361.Google Scholar
Goyder, J. 1987. The Silent Minority: Nonrespondents on Sample Surveys. Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Granberg, D., and Homberg, S. 1992. “The Hawthrone Effect in Election Studies: The Impact of Survey Participation on Voting.” British Journal of Political Science 22:240–254.Google Scholar
Groves, R. M. 1989. Survey Errors and Survey Costs. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Groves, R. M., and Couper, M. P. 1998. Nonresponse in Household Interview Surveys. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Groves, R. M., and Lyberg, L. E. 1988. “An Overview of Nonresponse Issues in Telephone Surveys.” In Telephone Survey Methodology, eds. Groves, R. M., Biemer, P. P., Lyberg, L. E., Massey, J. T., Nicholls, W. L. II, and Waksberg, J. New York: Wiley, pp. 191–212.Google Scholar
Herman, J. B. 1977. “Mixed-Mode Data Collection: Telephone and Personal Interviewing.” Journal of Applied Psychology 62:399–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hochstim, J. R. 1967. “A Critical Comparison of Three Strategies of Collecting Data from Households.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 62:976–989.Google Scholar
Hox, J. J., and De Leeuw, E. D. 1994. A Comparison of Nonresponse in Mail, Telephone, and Face-to-Face Surveys.” Quality & Quantity 28:329–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jöriskog, K. G., and Sörbom, D. 1980. PRELIS: A Program for Multivariate Data Screening and Data Summarization. A Preprocessor for LISREL. Mooresville: Scientific Software.Google Scholar
Jöriskog, K. G., and Sörbom, D. 1993. Lisrel 8: Structural Equating Modeling with the SIMPLIS command language. Chicago: Scientific Software International.Google Scholar
Kalton, G. 1983. Introduction to Survey Sampling. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Kraut, R. E., and McConahay, J. B. 1973. “How Being Interviewed Affects Voting: An Experiment.” Public Opinion Quarterly 37:398–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lass, J., Saris, W. E., and Kaase, M. 1997. “Sizes of Different Effects: Coverage, Mode and Nonresponse.” In Eurobarometer—Measurement Instruments for Opinions in Europe, eds. Saris, W. E., and Kaase, M. Mannheim: ZUMA, pp. 73–86.Google Scholar
Leuthold, D. A., and Scheele, R. 1971. “Patterns of Bias in Samples Based on Telephone Directories.” Public Opinion Quarterly 35:249–257.Google Scholar
Locander, W., Sudman, S., and Bradburn, N. 1976. “An Investigation of Interview Method, Threat and Response Distortion.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 71:269–275.Google Scholar
Maas, C., and de Heer, W. 1995. “Response Developments and the Fieldwork Strategy.” Bulletin de Méthodologie Sociologique 48:36–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saris, W. E. 1997. “Comparability Across Mode and Country.” In Eurobarometer—Measurement Instruments for Opinions in Europe, eds. Saris, W. E., and Kaase, M. Mannheim: ZUMA, pp. 125–140.Google Scholar
Saris, W. E., and Hagenaars, J. A. 1997. “Mode Effects in the Standard Eurobarometer Questions.” In Eurobarometer—Masurement Instruments for Opinions in Europe, eds. Saris, W. E., and Kaase, M. Mannheim: ZUMA, pp. 87–100.Google Scholar
Saris, W. E., Satorra, A., and Sörbom, D. 1987. “The Detection and Correction of Specification Errors in Structural Equation Models.” In Sociological Methodology, ed. Clogg, C. C. Washington: ASA, pp. 105–129.Google Scholar
Satorra, A. 1992. “Asymptotic Robust Inferences in the Analysis of Mean and Covariance Structures.” Sociological Methodology 22:249–278.Google Scholar
Smeets, I. 1995. “Facing Another Gap: An Exploration of the Discrepancies between Voting Turnout in Survey Research and Official Statistics.” Acta Politica 30:307–334.Google Scholar
Steeh, C. G. 1981. “Trends in Nonresponse Rates, 1952-1979.” Public Opinion Quarterly 45:40–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sykes, W., and Collins, M. 1988. “Effects of Mode of Interview: Experiments in the UK.” In Telephone Survey Methodology eds. Groves, R. M., Biemer, P. P., Lyberg, L., Massey, J., Nicholls, W. L. II, and Waksberg, J. New York: Wiley, pp. 301–320.Google Scholar
Synodinos, N. E., and Yamada, S. 2000. “Response Rate Trends in Japanese Surveys.” International Journal of Public Opinion Research 12:48–72.Google Scholar
Traugott, Michael W. 1987. “The Importance of Persistence in Respondent Selection for Preelection Surveys.” Public Opinion Quarterly 51:48–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, M. W., and Katosh, J. P. 1979. “Response Validity in Surveys of Voting Behaviour.” Public Opinion Quarterly 42:359–377.Google Scholar
Visscher, G. 1995. Kiezersonderzoek op een Dwaalspoor, Den Haag: SDU.Google Scholar
Visser, P. S., Krosnick, J. A., Marquette, J., and Curtin, M. 1996. “Mail Surveys for Election Forecasting?—An Evaluation of the Colombus Dispatch Poll.” Public Opinion Quarterly 60:181–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Voogt, R. J. J., Saris, W. E., and Niemöller, B. 1998. “Non-Response, and the Gulf Between the Public and the Politicians.” Acta Politica 33:250–280.Google Scholar
Yalch, R. F. 1976. “Pre-election Interview Effects on Voter Turnout.” Public Opinion Quarterly 40:331–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar