Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-mwwwr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-02T17:32:47.888Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Does Mode Matter For Modeling Political Choice? Evidence From the 2005 British Election Study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2017

David Sanders ,
Harold D. Clarke ,
Marianne C. Stewart  and
Paul Whiteley
David Sanders*
Affiliation:
Department of Government, University of Essex, Colchester, England CO4 3SQ
Harold D. Clarke
Affiliation:
School of Economic, Political and Policy Sciences, University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX 75083. e-mail: hclarke@utdallas.edu
Marianne C. Stewart
Affiliation:
School of Economic, Political and Policy Sciences, University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX 75083. e-mail: mstewart@utdallas.edu
Paul Whiteley
Affiliation:
Department of Government, University of Essex, Colchester, England CO4 3SQ. e-mail: whiteley@essex.ac.uk
*
e-mail: sanders@essex.ac.uk (corresponding author)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Although political scientists have begun to investigate the properties of Internet surveys, much remains to be learned about the utility of the Internet mode for conducting major survey research projects such as national election studies. This paper addresses this topic by presenting the results of an extensive survey comparison experiment conducted as part of the 2005 British Election Study. Analyses show statistically significant, but generally small, differences in distributions of key explanatory variables in models of turnout and party choice. Estimating model parameters reveals that there are few statistically significant differences between coefficients generated using the in-person and Internet data, and the relative explanatory power of rival models is virtually identical for the two types of data. In general, the in-person and Internet data tell very similar stories about what matters for turnout and party preference in Britain. Determining if similar findings obtain in other countries should have high priority on the research agenda for national election studies.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Political Analysis , Volume 15 , Issue 3 , Summer 2007 , pp. 257 - 285
Copyright
Copyright © The Author 2006. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Political Methodology 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

Authors' note: We thank the U.K. Economics and Social Research Council (ESRC) and Gary Williams, Senior Science Manager at the ESRC, for their generous support of, and interest in, this project. We also thank the editor and anonymous reviewers for helpful comments and suggestions.

References

Adams, James F., Samuel, Merrill III, and Grofman, Bernard. 2005. A unified theory of party competition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alvarez, R. Michael, Sherman, Robert P., and VanBeselaere, Carla. 2003. Subject acquisition for web-based surveys. Political Analysis 11: 23–43.Google Scholar
Baker, Ken, Curtice, John, and Sparrow, Nick. 2002. Internet poll trial: Research report. ICM Research: Unpublished paper.Google Scholar
Berrens, R. P., Bohara, Alok K., Jenkins-Smith, Hank, Silva, Carol, and Weimer, David L. 2003. The advent of Internet surveys for political research: A comparison of telephone and Internet samples. Political Analysis 11: 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brehm, John. 1993. The phantom respondents: Opinion surveys and political representation. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Burnham, Kenneth P., and Anderson, David R. 2002. Model selection and multimodel inference. 2nd ed. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Butler, David, and Stokes, Donald E. 1969. Political change in Britain. New York: St Martin's.Google Scholar
Chang, Lin Chiat, and Krosnick, Jon A. 2003. Comparing oral interviewing with self-administered computerized questionnaires: An experiment. Columbus, OH: Department of Psychology, The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Clarke, Harold D., Sanders, David, Stewart, Marianne C., and Whiteley, Paul. 2004. Political choice in Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Clarke, Harold D., Sanders, David, Stewart, Marianne C., and Whiteley, Paul. 2006. Taking the bloom off New Labour's rose: Party choice and voting turnout in Britain, 2005. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion, and Parties 16: 3–36.Google Scholar
Clarke, Harold D., Sanders, David, Stewart, Marianne C., Whiteley, Paul F., and Twyman, Joe. 2004. The 2001 British election study Internet poll: A methodological experiment. Journal of Political Marketing 3: 29–55.Google Scholar
Couper, Mick P. 2000. Web surveys: A review of issues and approaches. Public Opinion Quarterly 64: 464–94.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Couper, Mick P., Tourangeau, Roger, and Kenyon, Kristin. 2004. Picture this! Exploring visual effects in web surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly 68: 255–66.Google Scholar
Curtin, Richard, Presser, Stanley, and Singer, Eleanor. 2000. The effects of response rate changes on the index of consumer sentiment. Public Opinion Quarterly 64: 413–28.Google Scholar
Curtin, Richard, Presser, Stanley, and Singer, Eleanor. 2005. Changes in telephone survey nonresponse over the past quarter century. Public Opinion Quarterly 69: 87–98.Google Scholar
Dalton, Russell. 2002. Citizen politics: Public opinion and political parties in advanced industrial democracies. 3rd ed. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House Publishers.Google Scholar
Dillman, Don A. 2000. Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method. New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris. 1981. Retrospective voting in American national elections. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Groves, Robert M., and Couper, Mick P. 1998. Nonresponse in household interview surveys. New York: John Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heath, Anthony, Jowell, Roger, and Curtice, John. 2001. Party policies and voter choices. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Holbrook, Allyson L., Green, Melanie C., and Krosnick, Jon A. 2003. Telephone versus face-to-face interviewing of national probability samples with long questionnaires: Comparisons of respondent satisficing and social desirability. Public Opinion Quarterly 67: 79–125.Google Scholar
Institute for Social Research. n.d. The 2000 Canadian election survey: Technical documentation. Toronto, ON: York University.Google Scholar
Johnston, Richard, and Brady, Henry E. 2002. The rolling cross-section design. In The future of election studies, ed. Franklin, Mark and Wlezien, Christopher, 123–36. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Pergamon.Google Scholar
Kaplowitz, Michael D., Hadlock, Timothy D., and Levine, Ralph. 2004. A comparison of web and mail survey response rates. Public Opinion Quarterly 68: 94–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kavanagh, Dennis, and Butler, David. 2005. The British general election of 2005. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Keeter, Scott, Miller, Carolyn, Kohut, Andrew, Groves, Robert M., and Presser, Stanley. 2000. Consequences of reducing nonresponse on a national telephone survey. Public Opinion Quarterly 64: 125–48.Google Scholar
Krosnick, Jon A., and Chang, Lin Chiat. 2001. A comparison of the RDD telephone survey methodology with Internet survey methodology as implemented by Knowledge Networks and Harris Interactive. Columbus, OH: Department of Psychology, The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
Long, J. Scott. 1997. Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Pulzer, Peter. 1969. Political representation and elections in Britain. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Putnam, Robert. 1993. Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Rivers, Douglas. 2006. Sample matching: Representative sampling from Internet panels. Palo Alto, CA: Polimetrix.Google Scholar
Runciman, W. G. 1966. Relative deprivation and social justice. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Schoen, Harald, and Faas, Thorsten. 2005. When methodology interferes with substance: The difference of attitudes towards e-campaigning and e-voting in online and offline surveys. Social Science Computer Review 23: 326–33.Google Scholar
Smith, Tom W. 1995. Trends in nonresponse rates. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 7: 157–71.Google Scholar
Sniderman, Paul, Brody, Richard, and Tetlock, Philip E., eds. 1991. Reasoning and choice: Explorations in political psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Steeh, Charlotte. 1981. Trends in nonresponse rates, 1952-1979. Public Opinion Quarterly 59: 66–77.Google Scholar
Stokes, Donald E. 1963. Spatial models of party competition. American Political Science Review 57: 368–77.Google Scholar
Stokes, Donald E. 1992. Valence politics. In Electoral politics, ed. Kavanagh, Dennis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, Humphrey, Brenner, John, Overmeyer, Gary, Siegel, Jonathan W., and Terhanian, George. 2001. Touchdown! Online polling scores big in November 2000. Public Perspective (March/April):38–9.Google Scholar
Tourangeau, Roger, Rips, Lance J., and Rasinski, Kenneth. 2000. The psychology of survey response. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
VanBeselaere, Carla. 2002. Survey response quality: Shirking behavior in Internet and telephone surveys. Pasadena, CA: California Institute of Technology, School of Social Sciences.Google Scholar
Verba, Sidney, Schlozman, Kay Lehman, and Brady, Henry. 1995. Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Whiteley, Paul, and Seyd, Patrick. 2002. High intensity participation—The dynamics of party activism in Britain. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Whiteley, Paul, Stewart, Marianne C., Sanders, David, and Clarke, Harold D. 2006. The issue agenda and voting in 2005. In Britain votes 2005, ed. Norris, Pippa and Wlezien, Christopher, 146–61. Oxford: Oxford University Press Google Scholar