Amy Corning

Differential Incentives: Beliefs about Practices, Perceptions of Equity, and Effects on Survey Participation

In an effort to counter mounting problems of noncooperation (De Heer and Israels 1992; Groves and Couper 1996), survey organizations are increasingly offering incentives to respondents, sometimes before or during the first request for survey participation. This has traditionally been done in mail surveys, and sometimes only after the person has refused, in an attempt to convert the refusal. In the case of mail surveys, the payment of incentives is one of two design factors that consistently and substantially increase the response rate, the other being the number of contacts (Church 1993; Heberlein and Baumgartner 1978; Yu and Cooper 1983). Incentives are similarly effective in face-to-face and telephone surveys (Singer et al. 1999). There appear to be no deleterious effects of incentives on the quality of survey responses, though further research is needed in this area. Despite these findings, concerns persist about possible unintended consequences of the use of incentives (Singer, Van Hoewyk, and Maher 1998). One concern is that the use of incentives to convert refusals will be perceived as inequitable by cooperative respondents, and, if they learn of the practice, it will adversely affect their attitudes toward surveys and their willingness to cooperate in future surveys (Kulka 1994). This unintended consequence is the focus of the present study. The aim of the study is twofold: to explore the publics reactions to equity issues raised by the use of incentives, and to investigate the effect of such reactions on peoples willingness to participate in surveys. Since many survey organiza-

Collective memory and autobiographical memory: Similar but not the same

Sociologists and psychologists have independently identified the same general period in individual development for the formation of many memories. Yet the cross-disciplinary similarity is rarely recognized, because most psychologists study autobiographical memories of personal events, while sociologists focus on collective memories of national and world events. We examine autobiographical and collective memories together within a large national cross-section survey of Americans. Both types of memory are located primarily in the same broad period, identified here as ages 5–30 years. However, within that period, autobiographical personal memories as measured by cue-word associations typically refer to earlier ages, while collective memories assessed with a standard open-ended question typically refer to somewhat later ages. Other types of questions yield still other memory content and ages. Reconceptualizing the reminiscence bump or critical period reconciles these diverse results.

Emigration, Generation, and Collective Memories: The Presence of the Past for Emigrants from the Former Soviet Union

Research on memory of public events consistently reveals generational effects, where individuals remember best the events from their “critical years” of adolescence and early adulthood—a phenomenon attributed to privileged encoding or retrieval of memories due to primacy of experience. Prior research, however, has not decoupled the youthful period from transitional experiences more generally, raising the question of whether primacy generated by important transitions not tied to youth—such as emigration from one country to another—might also enhance memories. Survey data are used to examine effects of generation on collective memories of public events among a sample of mostly Jewish emigrants from the Soviet Union and its successor states. Evidence points to persistent generational effects, linking memory to adolescence and young adulthood specifically, rather than to primacy of transitional experiences in general. Perspectives that emphasize adolescents’ agentic interpretation, construction of meaning, and decision-making suggest reasons for the link between memories and youth.

The roots of collective memory: Public knowledge of Sally Hemings and Thomas Jefferson

Claims that Thomas Jefferson fathered the children of Sally Hemings, a slave at Monticello, have received support over the past 35 years from revisionist biographies, DNA testing and other evidence. The claims have also been communicated to the general public through novels, films and other popular media. Both those persuaded by the claims and those critical of them assume that collective memory of Jefferson has been changed importantly, and that a considerable portion of the American public accepts the changes, which also include a new focus on Jefferson’s views and actions regarding slavery more generally. But collective memory at the individual level requires some degree of collective knowledge, and after reviewing the nature of memory of Sally Hemings at the cultural level, we explore the extent to which knowledge and belief about a Jefferson—Hemings liaison and Jefferson’s paternity has spread through the American population. We also consider differences in knowledge by race, education, gender and birth cohort. As part of our investigation, we compare the extent of knowledge of Sally Hemings — and the degree to which it carries hints of uncertainty — with what is true for other names and events from the past, including the name of another woman associated with an even more famous American president.