Donald Granberg

When prophecy bends: The preference–expectation link in U.S. presidential elections, 1952–1980.

A locking mechanism for effectuating the locking of individual gun barrels to a wall or gun case which includes at least one rotatable jaw which is in opposition to an opposite jaw. The opposite jaw may be either rotatable or fixed. The configuration of the jaws causes them, when locked, to envelope or encircle the gun barrel thereby locking the gun in place.

Abortion attitudes, 1965-1980: trends and determinants.

Results of surveys sponsored by the National Opinion Research Center between 1965 and 1980 show that approval of abortion increased from an average of 41% for 6 different reasons in 1965 to 68% in 1973, with levels remaining stable through 1977, decreasing to an average of 64% in 1978, and rebounding to the 1973-77 level in 1980. 7% of respondents disapproved of abortion for all 6 of the stated reasons, which ranged from endangerment of the womans health through a married woman wanting no more children. More than half of those approving of abortion do not do so for all reasons, with approval ranging from 90% if the womans health is endangered to 47% if the women is married and wants no more children. Multiple regression analysis of the independent effect of 8 types of factors on abortion attitudes, by themselves and in combination, was conducted. Those favoring and opposing legal abortion do not differ on 11 of 13 values ascribed to child development, but differ on obedience and curiosity, suggesting a more authoritarian attitude toward childrearing and less emphasis on childrens self-reliance among abortion opponents. Education has the strongest effect of the various social and demographic variables examined, with the better educated more likely to favor abortion availability, except among Catholics. Approval of abortion decreases with conservatism regarding various aspects of personal morality. The strongest negative relationship occurs with disapproval of premarital sex and preference for large numbers of children. Political party and ideology are only weakly linked to legal abortion approval. Approval of abortion increases with support for womens rights and basic civil liberties.

Self-Reported Turnout and Voter Validation

Based on unique time series data from 11 election studies (1956-88), about 49 out of 50 Swedes tell the truth when asked whether they voted. Over 99% of the voters say that they voted, but only 74% of the nonvoters say they did not vote. Similar to the results from voter validation studies in the United States, nonvoters in Sweden with characteristics predisposing them to vote are less likely to say they did not vote. Compared to false nonvoters (voted but said they did not), false voters (did not vote but said they did) are more likely to identify with a political party and to have expressed an intention to vote but are also less likely to have actually voted in the prior election.

The Intention-Behavior Relationship Among U.S. and Swedish Voters

The intention-behavior relationship is analyzed with data from 10 U.S. and seven Swedish national election surveys. As expected from Fishbeins theory of reasoned action, the level of consistency between intention and behavior is very high in both nations. Among those whose intention is not compatible with their self-identity and their prior behavior, however, the intention-behavior relationship weakens considerably

The Hawthorne Effect in Election Studies: The Impact of Survey Participation on Voting

Movements of the heavenly bodies are not affected in any discernible way by the fact that there are people on earth recording the apparent movement. Similarly it is almost inconceivable that the planets would alter their orbits because of Keplers discovery and publication of the laws of planetary motion. The social and behavioural sciences are different in that the objects under investigation may behave differently as a result of the research process. This is particularly true when the method involves naturalistic observation, surveys or experiments. When people behave differently because of being research subjects, this is called a Hawthorne effect.

An Anomaly in Political Perception

This article uses two theories of political perception, displacement theory and political cue-theory, to analyze the abortion issue. Although both theories are supported, neither can account for the anomaly of collective misperception of Ted Kennedys position. Experimentally manipulating the salience of politics and religion affected perception of Kennedys position in a way that supported an extended version of political cue theory. Donald Granberg is Professor of Sociology and Research Associate at the Center for Research in Social Behavior, University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, Missouri 65211. The author thanks Randi Mach, John Murphy, Ross DePugh, Robert Arkin, Patricia Shanks, and Diane Chappell for their advice and assistance. The data for the Center for Political Studies 1980 National Election Study were obtained through the Interuniversity Consortium for Political and Social Research at the University of Michigan. The author is solely responsible for analyses and interpretation. Public Opinion Quarterly Vol 49 504-516 C) by the American Association for Public Opinion Research Published by Elsevier Science Publishing Co, Inc. 0033-362X/85/0049-504/

The abortion activists.

2.50 This content downloaded from 157.55.39.45 on Thu, 01 Sep 2016 06:00:20 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms AN ANOMALY IN POLITICAL PERCEPTION 505 with a disliked candidate. The expectation is that people engage in assimilation when attributing a position to a liked candidate, i.e., distort the candidates position in the direction of their own attitude. When people who like the same candidate but hold different attitudes on an issue are compared, there tends to be a strong positive function between their own attitudinal position and the position attributed to the candidate on the same scale. Assuming the candidates position to be constant, this positive function is supportive of the assimilation hypothesis. Similarly, the same theory predicted that people would displace away from their own attitude, i.e., contrast, when attributing a position to a disliked candidate. A negative function between peoples attitudes and their perceptions of a candidates position, among people who dislike the candidate but who take different positions themselves on the issue, would be evidence of contrast (Granberg and Brent, 1974; Heider, 1958; Sherif and Hovland, 1961). Relevant data pertaining to this theory have been analyzed in relation to several U.S. presidential elections, as well as parliamentary elections in Sweden. The tendency of people to assimilate when attributing a position to a preferred candidate or party has been robust. Contrast effects, however, have been weaker, but have occurred in relation to incumbent candidates (Berelson et al., 1954; Brent and Granberg, 1982; Granberg, 1983, 1985a; Kinder, 1978; King, 1978; Page and Brody, 1972; Shaffer, 1981; Sherrod, 1972). Although the tendency for assimilation of a preferred candidate to be stronger than contrast of a nonpreferred candidate was not anticipated, it has a close laboratory analog. In experiments, people find agreement with a liked other far more pleasant than disagreement with a disliked other, even though on logical grounds they are equally well balanced (Insko et al., 1974; Price et al., 1966). Political cue theory asserts that people use relevant cues that are available in estimating a candidates position on an issue. Thus, when people are asked to place a particular candidate on an issue and when they are uncertain, they will use other information which they know as a basis for drawing an inference. Cues that would normally be relevant would include the candidates party affiliation and that partys perceived position, the candidates general ideological reputation, and the candidates position on other issues. In recent election studies, people were asked to place the political parties, as well as the candidates, on several issue scales. Analyses have shown a strong positive correlation between where people place a party on an issue scale and where they place that partys nominee, thus supporting political cue theory. Moreover, when the persons perception of the partys position and the persons own attitude are used to jointly predict the persons perception of a preferred candidate, the party cue variable This content downloaded from 157.55.39.45 on Thu, 01 Sep 2016 06:00:20 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Cross-lagged panel analysis of the relation between attraction and perceived similarity

Presents findings from a 1980 survey undertaken with the cooperation of the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) and the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), conducted among 750 members of each organization (response rates were 63% among NARAL and 57% among NLRC members). NRLC members were found to be more likely to have come from large families, and to prefer and have large families. About 70% of NRLC members are Roman Catholic, compared to 4% of NARAL members and about 28% of the general population. 17% of NARAL members are Jewish, compared to almost no NRLC members and 2% for the general population. Protestants and blacks are relatively underrepresented in both organizations. 9 in 10 NRLC members report that religion is very important to them and that they attend services at least once a week, compared to 1 in 5 NARAL members. NRLC members are more likely to have experienced difficulties becoming pregnant, to have had a miscarriage and to have had an unplanned pregnancy. NARAL members are much more likely to have used birth control pills or to be surgically sterilized. Of those who had had an abortion, among the women surveyed, 94% had joined NARAL and only 6% had joined NRLC. High levels of fertility and fertility aspirations among NRLC members appear to reflect a generally conservative approach to personal morality. NRLC members are much more likely to oppose sex education in schools, and birth control information for teenagers, and to favor stricter public policy on divorce. They are also relatively more likely to be opposed to premarital, extramarital, and homosexual relations, and contraceptive sterilization among married couples. The majority of NLRC members oppose the Equal Rights Ammendment; majority of NARAL supports it. The majority of members of both organizations support political, social and economic equality of women in other respects. Attitudes toward abortion were about as expected, although 7 in 10 NRLC members favored legal abortion if the womans life would be endangered otherwise, and 4 in 10 NARAL members oppose abortion to prevent the birth of a child not of the desired sex. NRLC members are much more likely to be Republicans and describe themselves as conservative. But while more than 8 in 10 NRLC members would oppose a candidate they otherwise support if they disagreed with their abortion stand, fewer than 1/2 the NARAL members say they are 1 issue voters.

The Perception of Ideological Distance

Abstract Cross-lagged panel analyses of the relation between attraction and perceived similarity to Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford were reported. The analyses were based on a panel of U.S. adults for 1972–1974–1976. The cross-lagged analysis involving Nixon was supportive of the causal flow being predominantly from attraction to perceived similarity. This conclusion was sustained in multivariate analysis. For ford, the cross-lagged correlations between attraction and perceived similarity were not significantly different. However, multivariate analyses suggested that the effect of attraction to Ford on perceived similarity to him remained significant even when numerous control variables were used. In contrast, the effect of perceived similarity to Ford on attraction to him was reduced to nonsignificance when controls were entered in regression analyses.

A new version of the Monty Hall Dilemma with unequal probabilities

Data from national election studies in Britain, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the U.S. were analyzed to test hypotheses concerning the perception of ideological distance between parties and candidates. The first hypothesis, derived from Sherifs social judgment theory and Heiders balance theory, was of a U-shaped function between self-placement and the perception of ideological distance. This hypothesis, that extremists would perceive relatively greater distance than moderates, who in turn, would perceive more distance than centrists, was supported in data from each of the four countries. Moreover, this relationship remained significant in the regression analyses of U.S. data when a host of demographic and political variables were controlled. The second hypothesis, that voters would perceive more distance than nonvoters, was supported in bivariate analyses of U.S. data, but the relationship was not significant in the regression analyses. The third hypothesis was that people voting for a candidate outside the political mainstream would perceive less distance between the mainstream candidates than people who voted for the mainstream candidates. Data from the 1968 U.S. election did not support this hypothesis.