5 results
18 - Surveying political extremists
-
- By Timothy P. Johnson, University of Illinois, Chicago , Allyson L. Holbrook, University of Illinois, Chicago, Keith Atterberry, University of Illinois, Chicago
- Edited by Roger Tourangeau, Brad Edwards, Timothy P. Johnson, University of Illinois, Chicago, Kirk M. Wolter, University of Chicago, Nancy Bates
-
- Book:
- Hard-to-Survey Populations
- Published online:
- 05 September 2014
- Print publication:
- 28 August 2014, pp 379-398
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction
Collecting survey data from political extremists (or persons affiliated with extremist political groups) presents a set of unique challenges. Many of these challenges are faced by researchers investigating other hard-to-survey populations (e.g., political extremists are rare, difficult to identify, and under some circumstances may be reluctant to participate in research), but not in combination as they are with this particular group of potential respondents. In this chapter, we first develop a working definition of political extremism. We next provide an overview of the challenges faced by researchers who want to study political extremism and examine some of the strategies employed by investigators when attempting to study political extremists. Finally, we examine some of the ethical issues involved in conducting survey research with persons who espouse extremist political ideologies.
Defining “political extremism”
“Political extremists” have multiple self-identities and it is a challenge to develop an operational definition that adequately covers this diversity. In practice, political extremism at the individual level has been defined in two primary ways. First, it is often viewed in terms of the behaviors associated with it. For example, van Es and Koenig (1976) see political extremism as the use of coercion to force change in political institutions and authority. Political extremists, then, have sometimes been defined as those who engage in these behaviors or who advocate them. Secondly, others have defined political extremists in terms of the attitudes or beliefs that they hold. In his Dictionary of Political Thought, Scruton (1982) suggests that political extremism involves pushing ideas to their limits, intolerance of competing viewpoints, confronting and eliminating opposition, and demonstrating a disregard for the rights of others. Similarly, Midlarsky (2011, p. 7) provides a definition of political extremism that integrates both beliefs and behaviors, which he suggests is:
the will power by a social movement in the service of a political program typically at variance with that supported by existing state authorities, and for which individual liberties are to be curtailed in the name of collective goals, including the mass murder of those who would actually or potentially disagree with that program.
5 - Individual Differences That Affect the Quality of Learning in Doctoral Candidates
- from Part A - Dispositions Toward Quality of Learning
- Edited by John R. Kirby, Queen's University, Ontario, Michael J. Lawson, Flinders University of South Australia
-
- Book:
- Enhancing the Quality of Learning
- Published online:
- 05 June 2012
- Print publication:
- 21 May 2012, pp 93-114
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
Contributors
-
- By Helen Askell-Williams, Christiane Baadte, Carl Bereiter, John Biggs, Sid Bourke, M. Anne Britt, Kate Cain, Robert H. Cantwell, Noel Entwistle, Allyson Fiona Hadwin, Denyse V. Hayward, Allyson Holbrook, Sandra Hübner, Amy Johnson, Panayiota Kendeou, John R. Kirby, Michael J. Lawson, Christoph Mengelkamp, Stephen P. Norris, Matthias Nückles, Linda M. Phillips, Alexander Renkl, Augusto Riveros, Jean-François Rouet, Marlene Scardamalia, Jill J. Scevak, Richard F. Schmid, Wolfgang Schnotz, Neil H. Schwartz, Keith E. Stanovich, Maggie E. Toplak, Gregory Trevors, Richard F. West, Bozena White, Philip H. Winne
- Edited by John R. Kirby, Queen's University, Ontario, Michael J. Lawson, Flinders University of South Australia
-
- Book:
- Enhancing the Quality of Learning
- Published online:
- 05 June 2012
- Print publication:
- 21 May 2012, pp xiii-xiv
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
10 - Attitude Change Experiments in Political Science
-
- By Allyson L. Holbrook, University of Illinois at Chicago
- Edited by James N. Druckman, Northwestern University, Illinois, Donald P. Greene, Yale University, Connecticut, James H. Kuklinski, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, Arthur Lupia, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
-
- Book:
- Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science
- Published online:
- 05 June 2012
- Print publication:
- 06 June 2011, pp 141-154
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
The importance of attitudes and the processes by which they are formed and changed is ubiquitous throughout political science. Perhaps the most obvious example is research exploring citizens' attitudes toward candidates, how these attitudes are influenced by political advertising and other persuasive messages, and how these attitudes influence decisions and behavior (see McGraw's chapter in this volume). Attitudes toward candidates are fundamental to the democratic process because they help voters make vote choices, perhaps the most basic way in which citizens can express their opinions and influence government (e.g., Rosenstone and Hansen 1993). Other key attitudes in the political domain include attitudes toward specific policies that also help voters make important decisions about voting, vote choice, and activism (e.g., Rosenstone and Hansen 1993). Attitudes toward institutions such as political parties and government entities also influence people's view of government. Finally, attitudes toward other groups in society (e.g., African Americans, women) may help determine support for specific policies (e.g., Transue 2007). Thus, attitudes play a central role in many of the democratic processes studied by political scientists reviewed in this volume (e.g., Gadarian and Lau; Hutchings; Lodge and Tabor; McGraw; Nelson; Wilson and Eckel).
6 - Survey Response Styles Across Cultures
- Edited by David Matsumoto, San Francisco State University, Fons J. R. van de Vijver, Universiteit van Tilburg, The Netherlands
-
- Book:
- Cross-Cultural Research Methods in Psychology
- Published online:
- 05 June 2012
- Print publication:
- 11 October 2010, pp 130-176
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
-
Summary
Introduction
Survey reports are susceptible to multiple forms of measurement error (Sudman & Bradburn, 1974; Tourangeau, Rips, & Rasinski, 2000). In this chapter, we consider some of the potential processes through which culture may be implicated in measurement error. In particular, we focus on cultural variability in several common survey response styles, including socially desirable responding (SDR), acquiescent response style (ARS), and extreme response style (ERS). Awareness of response styles is particularly important in the conduct of cross-cultural research. Systematic variance in response style behaviors across racial, ethnic, or national groups may be mistakenly interpreted as cultural differences (or similarities) in the substantive measures being compared (Johnson & van de Vijver, 2003; Keillor, Owens, & Pettijohn, 2001; Middleton & Jones, 2000; Si & Cullen, 1998). Response styles also may suppress or inflate associations among variables (Wells, 1961) differentially across cultural groups. Thus, the potential for cultural variability in survey reporting has direct implications for many academic disciplines that rely on survey research for measurement purposes, as well as for applied researchers working across many substantive fields. This review integrates evidence and experiences from many of these disciplines regarding three of the most common forms of response style that vary across cultures. Three types of evidence are considered: (a) evidence of differences across racial and ethnic groups within nations, (b) evidence of differences across countries, and (c) evidence of associations between direct measures of cultural values and each response style. We also consider the potential cultural mechanisms underlying these processes. Methodological issues relevant to the measurement of response styles and proposed methods to compensate for cultural heterogeneity in these reporting processes are reviewed as well.
Culture and socially desirable responding
A widely studied topic in research methodology, SDR continues to be a serious concern in survey measurement because of its potential to introduce response bias (Johnson & van de Vijver, 2003; Paulhus, 1991; Tourangeau & Yan, 2007). SDR is the systematic tendency to give answers that make the respondent look good (Paulhus, 1991). Understanding how social desirability is viewed and pursued in different cultural contexts and groups is key to the validity of cross-cultural research efforts and many other research efforts involving self-reports. In general, research findings indicate that compared with individualists, collectivists have a greater tendency to give responses that make the self look good. This finding has emerged in multiple studies and has been shown across nations, across racial and ethnic groups within nations, and across individual-level cultural variables.