IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/qualqt/v15y1981i3p249-277.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Attitudinal referents, statement items and response set: The effect of using differential item-formats on the structure of an ideological domain

Author

Listed:
  • C. Middendorp
  • G. Vries

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • C. Middendorp & G. Vries, 1981. "Attitudinal referents, statement items and response set: The effect of using differential item-formats on the structure of an ideological domain," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 249-277, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:qualqt:v:15:y:1981:i:3:p:249-277
    DOI: 10.1007/BF00164640
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/BF00164640
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/BF00164640?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. McClosky, Herbert, 1964. "Consensus and Ideology in American Politics," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 58(2), pages 361-382, June.
    2. McClosky, Herbert, 1964. "Consensus and Ideology in American Politics," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 58(2), pages 361-382, June.
    3. McClosky, Herbert, 1958. "Conservatism and Personality," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 52(1), pages 27-45, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. April K. Clark & Michael Clark & Marie A. Eisenstein, 2014. "Stability and Change," SAGE Open, , vol. 4(1), pages 21582440145, March.
    2. Byron Shafer & Richard Spady, 2002. "The issue context of modern American politics: semiparametric identification of latent factors from Discrete data," CeMMAP working papers CWP16/02, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    3. Ashley Jardina & Robert Mickey, 2022. "White Racial Solidarity and Opposition to American Democracy," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 699(1), pages 79-89, January.
    4. Riccardo Ladini & Nicola Maggini, 2023. "The role of party preferences in explaining acceptance of freedom restrictions in a pandemic context: the Italian case," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 57(1), pages 99-123, April.
    5. Cees Van Der Eijk, 2001. "Measuring Agreement in Ordered Rating Scales," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 35(3), pages 325-341, August.
    6. Quinton Mayne & Brigitte Geißel, 2018. "Don’t Good Democracies Need “Good” Citizens? Citizen Dispositions and the Study of Democratic Quality," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 6(1), pages 33-47.
    7. T. Y. Wang & Lu‐huei Chen, 2008. "Political Tolerance in Taiwan: Democratic Elitism in a Polity Under Threat," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 89(3), pages 780-801, September.
    8. Bjørnskov, Christian, 2005. "Political Ideology and Economic Freedom," Working Papers 05-8, University of Aarhus, Aarhus School of Business, Department of Economics.
    9. Christian Weyand, 2013. "Why Political Elites Support Governmental Transparency. Self-Interest, Anticipation of Voters' Preferences or Socialization?," Cologne Graduate School Working Paper Series 04-02, Cologne Graduate School in Management, Economics and Social Sciences.
    10. Nam, Taewoo, 2019. "Understanding the gap between perceived threats to and preparedness for cybersecurity," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 58(C).
    11. Schäfer, Armin, 2011. "Republican liberty and compulsory voting," MPIfG Discussion Paper 11/17, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies.
    12. Michal Shamir & John L. Sullivan, 1985. "Jews and Arabs in Israel," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 29(2), pages 283-305, June.
    13. Seth C. McKee & Antoine Yoshinaka, 2021. "Profiles in party switching: The case of Southern Party activists," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(4), pages 1615-1637, July.
    14. Wayne Eastman & Deirdre Collier, 2012. "The Optimal Bargain between the Elite and the Majority: Party and Managerial Ideologies as Devices to Control Politicians and Managers," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 21(4), pages 475-494, July.
    15. Hassan Shah & Zahir Shah & Wajid Mehmood Khattak, 2019. "Candidates Personality and Voting Preferences in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa," Global Regional Review, Humanity Only, vol. 4(1), pages 29-42, March.
    16. Rebecca Morton & Jean-Robert Tyran & Erik Wengström, 2011. "Income and Ideology: How Personality Traits, Cognitive Abilities, and Education Shape Political Attitudes," Discussion Papers 11-08, University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics.
    17. Shoon Kathleen Murray & Jason Meyers, 1999. "Do People Need Foreign Enemies?," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 43(5), pages 555-569, October.
    18. John R. Alford & John R. Hibbing, 2007. "Personal, Interpersonal, and Political Temperaments," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 614(1), pages 196-212, November.
    19. Margaret A. Abernethy & Wei Li & Yunyan Zhang & Hanzhong Shi, 2023. "Firm culture and internal control system," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 63(3), pages 3095-3123, September.
    20. Matthew Notbohm & Katherine Campbell & Adam R. Smedema & Tianming Zhang, 2019. "Management’s personal ideology and financial reporting quality," Review of Quantitative Finance and Accounting, Springer, vol. 52(2), pages 521-571, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:qualqt:v:15:y:1981:i:3:p:249-277. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.