Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-768ffcd9cc-mqrwx Total loading time: 0.23 Render date: 2022-12-04T05:24:26.717Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true
  • English
Political Analysis Political Analysis

Article contents

Panel Effects in the American National Election Studies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 January 2017

Larry M. Bartels
Larry M. Bartels*
Affiliation:
Princeton University
Get access Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Parallel panel and fresh cross-section samples in recent National Election Study surveys provide valuable leverage for assessing the magnitude of biases in statistical analyses of survey data due to panel attrition and panel conditioning. My analyses employing a variety of typical regression models suggest that substantial panel biases are likely to be fairly rare in these data, even when panel and cross-section respondents have markedly different characteristics. However, two of the dependent variables considered here—campaign interest and turnout—do appear to be sufficiently sensitive to panel effects to warrant significant discounting or adjustment of panel data. I propose adjustments for panel effects in both cross-sectional and dynamic analyses, based upon variants of the “fractional pooling” (Bartels 1996) and “two-stage auxiliary instrumental variables” (Franklin 1990) methods.

Type
Research Article
Information
Political Analysis , Volume 8 , Issue 1 , 1999 , pp. 1 - 20
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 by 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.)

References

Achen, Christopher H. 1975. “Mass Political Attitudes and the Survey Response.” American Political Science Review 69: 1218–1223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Achen, Christopher H. 1983. “Toward Theories of Political Data.” In Political Science: The State of the Discipline, ed. Finifter, Ada W. Washington, DC: American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
Achen, Christopher H. 1986. The Statistical Analysis of Quasi-Experiments. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. 1993. “Messages Received: The Political Impact of Media Exposure.” American Political Science Review 87: 267–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. 1996. “Pooling Disparate Observations.” American Journal of Political Science 40: 905–942.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. 1998. “Partisanship and Voting Behavior, 1952-1996,” Unpublished manuscript. Princeton, NJ: Department of Politics and Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University.Google Scholar
Becketti, Sean, Gould, William, Lillard, Lee, and Welch, Finis. 1988. “The Panel Study of Income Dynamics After Fourteen Years: An Evaluation.” Journal of Labor Economics 6: 423–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berelson, Bernard R., Lazarsfeld, Paul F., and McPhee, William N. 1954. Voting: A Study of Opinion Formation in a Presidential Campaign. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Brehm, John. 1993. The Phantom Respondents: Opinion Surveys and Political Representation. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Efron, Bradley, and Gong, Gail. 1983. “A Leisurely Look at the Bootstrap, the Jackknife and Cross-Validation.” American Statistician 37: 36–48.Google Scholar
Finkel, Steven E. 1993. “Reexamining the ‘Minimal Effects’ Model in Recent Presidential Campaigns.” Journal of Politics 55: 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franklin, Charles H. 1990. “Estimation Across Data Sets: Two-Stage Auxiliary Instrumental Variables Estimation (2SAIV).” Political Analysis 1: 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heckman, James J. 1976. “The Common Structure of Statistical Models of Truncation, Sample Selection, and Limited Dependent Variables and a Simple Estimator for Such Models.” Annals of Economic and Social Measurement 5: 475–92.Google Scholar
Heckman, James J. 1979. “Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Error.” Econometrica 47: 153–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnston, Richard, Blais, André, Brady, Henry E., and Crête, Jean. 1992. Letting the People Decide: Dynamics of a Canadian Election. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press.Google Scholar
Just, Marion R., Crigler, Ann N., Alger, Dean E., Cook, Timothy E., Kern, Mantague, and West, Darrell M. 1996. Crosstalk: Citizens, Candidates, and the Media in a Presidential Campaign. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lazarsfeld, Paul F., Berelson, Bernard, and Gaudet, Hazel. 1948. The People's Choice. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Markus, Gregory B. 1982. “Political Attitudes During an Election Year: A Report on the 1980 NES Panel Study.” American Political Science Review 76: 538–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, R. G. 1974. “The Jackknife: A Review.” Biometrika 61: 1–15.Google Scholar
Mooney, Christopher Z., and Duval, Robert D. 1993. Bootstrapping: A Nonparametric Approach to Statistical Inference. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, Thomas E. 1980. The Mass Media Election: How Americans Choose Their President. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Patterson, Thomas E., and McClure, Robert D. 1976. The Unseeing Eye: The Myth of Television Power in National Elections. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.Google Scholar
Traugott, Santa. 1996. “Effects of Panel Attrition and Forms Assignment in the 1995 Pilot Study.” Technical Report 52, The National Election Studies. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Wiley, David E., and Wiley, James A. 1970. “The Estimation of Measurement Error in Panel Data.” American Sociological Review 35: 112–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zaller, John, and Hunt, Mark. 1995. “The Rise and Fall of Candidate Perot: The Outsider Versus the Political System—Part II.” Political Communication 12: 97–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
71
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Panel Effects in the American National Election Studies
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Panel Effects in the American National Election Studies
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Panel Effects in the American National Election Studies
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *