Political behaviour and political communication
Este grupo de trabajo abarca diferentes aspectos metodológicos vinculados con la medición de comportamientos, valores y actitudes sociopolíticas, así como la repercusión que dichos aspectos pueden tener en el análisis de la relación entre ellos. En este sentido, tendrán cabida en él ponencias que incorporen elementos asociados al diseño de investigaciones empíricas, la operacionalización de conceptos, o la creación de indicadores e índices de medición tanto de comportamiento político y electoral, como de actitudes y valores sociopolíticos. Serán bienvenidos también los trabajos que traten de la adaptación de los indicadores-conceptos (y en su caso, preguntas de cuestionario) al contexto de la investigación comparativa. Tienen su espacio así mismo en este grupo otros aspectos más específicos de la metodología de encuestas tales como el impacto del modo de administración 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 cómo (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.
Lucía Medina Lindo, Robert Lineira, Jordi Muñoz 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 “do not know” 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 one’s vote: the post-electoral surveys of the CIS.
Jaime Balaguer, Mónica Méndez Lago
Analyze the bias in the remembrance of one’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 individuals’ (in)decisions to Catalan independence
Xavier Fernández-i-Martín, 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 ”adverse” scenarios for their true options
According to the model, there is highest consistency for the “yes”, high consistency for the “no” and low consistency for the abstention. And the consistency of the “yes” is growing along time, then refuting the spiral of silence hypothesis.
Measuring tolerance towards corruption. An application of the unidimensional scaling.
Pablo Cabrera Álvarez, 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?
Mónica Ferrín, Marta Fraile, Gema García
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.