IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/diw/diwwpp/dp491.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Surveying the Left-Right Dimension: The Choice of a Response Format

Author

Listed:
  • Martin Kroh

Abstract

Although left-right items are a standard tool of public opinion research, there remains some difference of opinion on the optimal response format. Two disputes can be identified in the literature: (a) whether to provide respondents with a small or large number of answer categories and (b) whether or not to administer the response scale including a midpoint. This study evaluates the performance of the 101-, 11- and 10-point left-right scales. These scales not only speak to the two disputed aspects of measuring the left-right dimension but are also common instruments in public opinion research. Drawing on data from a split ballot multitrait multi-method experiment carried out in a methodological pretest to the German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP), the analysis shows that the choice of a response format makes a difference in terms of data quality: The 101- and 10- point scales are plagued by method effects. Moreover, an application from electoral research illustrates that the choice of response formats affects substantive interpretations about the nature of the left-right dimension. Since all three scales perform about equally well in terms of the ease of administration, the findings suggest that the 11-point left-right scale should be used in survey research.

Suggested Citation

  • Martin Kroh, 2005. "Surveying the Left-Right Dimension: The Choice of a Response Format," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 491, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    • Handle: RePEc:diw:diwwpp:dp491
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.43287.de/dp491.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Volkens, Andrea, 2002. "Manifesto Coding Instructions (Second Revised Edition)," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Institutions and Social Change FS III 02-201, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    2. Enelow,James M. & Hinich,Melvin J., 1984. "The Spatial Theory of Voting," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521275156.
    3. Ulf Olsson, 1979. "Maximum likelihood estimation of the polychoric correlation coefficient," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 44(4), pages 443-460, December.
    4. 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.
    5. Annette C. Scherpenzeel & Willem E. Saris, 1997. "The Validity and Reliability of Survey Questions," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 25(3), pages 341-383, February.
    6. Achen, Christopher H., 1975. "Mass Political Attitudes and the Survey Response," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 69(4), pages 1218-1231, December.
    7. N/A, 1970. "Note," Review of Radical Political Economics, Union for Radical Political Economics, vol. 2(4), pages 1-1, October.
    8. Stokes, Donald E., 1963. "Spatial Models of Party Competition," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 57(2), pages 368-377, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Martin Kroh, 2006. "An Experimental Evaluation of Popular Well-Being Measures," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 546, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    2. Andos Juhász, 2012. "A Satisfaction-Driven Poverty Indicator: A Bustle around the Poverty Line," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 461, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).

    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. Kroh, Martin, 2007. "Measuring Left-Right Political Orientation: The Choice of Response Format," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 71(2), pages 204-220.
    2. Arianna Degan, 2003. "A Dynamic Model of Voting," PIER Working Paper Archive 04-015, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania, revised 01 May 2004.
    3. Sebastian Galiani & Norman Schofield & Gustavo Torrens, 2014. "Factor Endowments, Democracy, and Trade Policy Divergence," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 16(1), pages 119-156, February.
    4. Haldun Evrenk, 2009. "Three-candidate competition when candidates have valence: the base case," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 32(1), pages 169-169, January.
    5. Catherine E. de Vries, 2007. "Sleeping Giant: Fact or Fairytale?," European Union Politics, , vol. 8(3), pages 363-385, September.
    6. Lesmono, Dharma & Tonkes, Elliot & Burrage, Kevin, 2009. "Opportunistic timing and manipulation in Australian Federal Elections," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 192(2), pages 677-691, January.
    7. Ivo Bischoff & Lars-H. Siemers, 2013. "Biased beliefs and retrospective voting: why democracies choose mediocre policies," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 156(1), pages 163-180, July.
    8. Ryan Bakker & Seth Jolly & Jonathan Polk, 2018. "Multidimensional incongruence and vote switching in Europe," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 176(1), pages 267-296, July.
    9. Scott de Marchi, 1999. "Adaptive Models and Electoral Instability," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 11(3), pages 393-419, July.
    10. M. Roth, 2011. "Resource allocation and voter calculus in a multicandidate election," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 148(3), pages 337-351, September.
    11. Stuart Elaine Macdonald & George Rabinowitz, 1993. "Direction and Uncertainty in a Model of Issue Voting," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 5(1), pages 61-87, January.
    12. Martin Kroh, 2006. "An Experimental Evaluation of Popular Well-Being Measures," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 546, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    13. Maria Gallego & Norman Schofield, 2016. "Do parties converge to the electoral mean in all political systems?," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 28(2), pages 288-330, April.
    14. Jane Green, 2007. "When Voters and Parties Agree: Valence Issues and Party Competition," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 55(3), pages 629-655, October.
    15. Enrique García-Viñuela & Ignacio Jurado & Pedro Riera, 2018. "The effect of valence and ideology in campaign conversion: panel evidence from three Spanish general elections," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 175(1), pages 155-179, April.
    16. Irwin L. Morris & George Rabinowitz, 1997. "Symposium. The Directional Theory of Issue Voting: IV," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 9(1), pages 75-88, January.
    17. David L. Weakliem & Anthony F. Heath, 1994. "Rational Choice and Class Voting," Rationality and Society, , vol. 6(2), pages 243-270, April.
    18. Christopher Hare & Tzu-Ping Liu & Robert N. Lupton, 2018. "What Ordered Optimal Classification reveals about ideological structure, cleavages, and polarization in the American mass public," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 176(1), pages 57-78, July.
    19. Davide Angelucci & Pierangelo Isernia, 2020. "Politicization and security policy: Parties, voters and the European Common Security and Defense Policy," European Union Politics, , vol. 21(1), pages 64-86, March.
    20. Burkhard Schipper & Hee Yeul Woo, 2012. "Political Awareness and Microtargeting of Voters in Electoral Competition," Working Papers 124, University of California, Davis, Department of Economics.

    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:diw:diwwpp:dp491. 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: Bibliothek (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/diwbede.html .

    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.