Este grupo de trabajo abarca diferentes aspectos metodolÃ³gicos vinculados con la mediciÃ³n de comportamientos, valores y actitudes sociopolÃticas, asÃ como la repercusiÃ³n que dichos aspectos pueden tener en el anÃ¡lisis de la relaciÃ³n entre ellos. En este sentido, tendrÃ¡n cabida en Ã©l ponencias que incorporen elementos asociados al diseÃ±o de investigaciones empÃricas, la operacionalizaciÃ³n de conceptos, o la creaciÃ³n de indicadores e Ãndices de mediciÃ³n tanto de comportamiento polÃtico y electoral, como de actitudes y valores sociopolÃticos. SerÃ¡n bienvenidos tambiÃ©n los trabajos que traten de la adaptaciÃ³n de los indicadores-conceptos (y en su caso, preguntas de cuestionario) al contexto de la investigaciÃ³n comparativa. Tienen su espacio asÃ mismo en este grupo otros aspectos mÃ¡s especÃficos de la metodologÃa de encuestas tales como el impacto del modo de administraciÃ³n del cuestionario (CAPI; PAPI; CAWI, etc.) en la tasa de respuesta o los resultados obtenidos, los sesgos de la no respuesta parcial o total y cÃ³mo (intentar) remediarlos, y otros temas relacionados.
Who answers what and when? The effects of questionnaires in the no answer in the surveys of the CIS barometers.
LucÃa Medina Lindo, Robert Lineira, Jordi MuÃ±oz Mendoza, Guillem Rico Camps
- Analyze the effect of the design of surveys in the answers
- Assess whether the results of surveys shape opinion
The analysis goes through the people that did not answered or stated that they â€œdo not knowâ€ to political surveys.
- Length of the question: the longer, the more no answers. Not conclusive.
- Position in the questionnaire: the later the question comes, the more no answers. Yes, and significant (tiredness effect).
- The more the options a question has as suggestions for answer, the better. Yes.
- Autonomy of the question. The more you have to know about the options, the worse. Yes.
- Central categories. They act as a harbour and make people answer less no. Yes.
Methodological problems in the measurement of the remembrance of oneâ€™s vote: the post-electoral surveys of the CIS.
Jaime Balaguer, MÃ³nica MÃ©ndez Lago
Analyze the bias in the remembrance of oneâ€™s vote through individual data. Why is that that there are biases?
- Around 30% of people state having voted a party that they did not.
Change of option, memory (one option, other non stated), occultation.
- Index of no collaboration
- Interest in politics
- Political knowledge
- Ideological identity
- Moment of the decision
- Doubts about the voting option (no significant)
Conclusion: better to use the pre-electoral survey and not the post-electoral, as the post-electoral has suffered many influences and is of lower quality.
Decided or undecided. An investigation of individualsâ€™ (in)decisions to Catalan independence
Xavier FernÃ¡ndez-i-MartÃn, Toni Rodon
Do people that answer the question about the independence of Catalonia do it honestly?
- Undecided people that dk/na: nonresponse: do not answer, item nonresponse: do now want to answer, uncommitted nonresponse, indecision
- Uncertainly about their preference: social conformity, social ambivalence
- Heterogeneity in the distribution of uncertainly and undecided
- Abstention too high, people hiding preferences
- Spiral of silence
- Cross-pressure. People living in â€adverseâ€ scenarios for their true options
According to the model, there is highest consistency for the â€œyesâ€, high consistency for the â€œnoâ€ and low consistency for the abstention. And the consistency of the â€œyesâ€ is growing along time, then refuting the spiral of silence hypothesis.
Measuring tolerance towards corruption. An application of the unidimensional scaling.
Pablo Cabrera Ãlvarez, Danilo Serani.
What is the relevance of political corruption? There is a tolerance towards political corruption, not blaming or accepting practices ethically refuted. There are several degrees of tolerance: from tacitly accepting corrupt practices to even defending them (e.g. demonstrations in favor of corrupted politicians).
There is a cognitive dissociation where one condemns corruption while, on the other hand, some corruption is tolerated or even defended.
Analysis based on building a Likert scale of corruption tolerance.
- Social nature: Power corrupts man
- Efficacy: It does not matter whether the politician is corrupt, but that he performs well
- Indistinction: Everyone is corrupt, everyone does it.
The scaled proved significant, though the wording of the options could be affecting the final results.
The gender gap in political knowledge: is it all about guessing?
MÃ³nica FerrÃn, Marta Fraile, Gema GarcÃa
Is there really a difference/gap in political knowledge between men and women? Do women really know less about politics than men? Why? Reasons in literature:
- Socialization: politics is a man thing
- Socioeconomic inequalities between men and women make them more prone to be knowledgeable in politics
- The format of questions affects the result. Men are less risk averse and usually answer. Women, more risk averse, would rather not answer than providing a wrong answer.
- Different interests and areas of knowledge.
- Other: surveyor effect, context effect, etc.
XI Congreso de la AECPA (2013)
If you need to cite this article in a formal way (i.e. for bibliographical purposes) I dare suggest:
Peña-López, I. (2013) “XI Congreso de la AECPA (V). Political behaviour and political communication” In ICTlogy,
#120, September 2013. Barcelona: ICTlogy.
Retrieved month dd, yyyy from https://ictlogy.net/review/?p=4122