IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Reassessing Public Opinion Stability


  • Jason Barabas


Some characterize public opinion as fickle, volatile, or subject to abrupt change. Yet, empirical evidence from Page and Shapiro (1992) reveals the opposite. This study re-examines the issue of public opinion stability because the six-percentage point criterion Page and Shapiro used ignored the true sample sizes and distributions of many surveys. Calculating the precise statistical test for the difference between two independent proportions shows how smaller opinion changes are potentially statistically significant depending on four parameters: the exact magnitude of the change, the sample size, the distribution of the survey responses, and the design effect correction used. Evenly split (near 50/50) smaller samples (near 1,000 respondents) are generally significant at the six-percentage point level. However, evenly split larger samples (2,000+) attain significance at levels below the six-percentage point threshold, typically around differences of five and four percentage points. In unevenly split distributions (90/10), differences of as little as two percentage points can be statistically significant. Analysis of a subset of The Rational Public data as well as Public Opinion Quarterly Poll Trend data reveals that the metric of opinion stability matters. Many cases previously classified as instances of opinion stability become instances of instability when retaining the sample and distribution characteristics.

Suggested Citation

  • Jason Barabas, "undated". "Reassessing Public Opinion Stability," IPR working papers 98-31, Institute for Policy Resarch at Northwestern University.
  • Handle: RePEc:wop:nwuipr:98-31

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    More about this item


    Access and download statistics


    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:wop:nwuipr:98-31. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Thomas Krichel). General contact details of provider: .

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.