Interpretation... How do we reach these conclusions?

Counterbalance · Feb 18, 2002

Really not sure where to post this one either. Looks like the catch-all “Free Thoughts” wins again.

~~~

The following was taken from a textbook on introductory statistics.

“Here are two wordings for the same question. The first question was asked by presidential candidate Ross Perot, and the second by a Time/CNN poll, both in March 1993:

A. Should laws be passed to eliminate all possibilities of special interest giving huge sums of money to candidates?

B. Should laws be passed to prohibit interest groups from contributing to campaigns, or do groups have a right to contribute to the candidates they support?

One of these questions drew 40% favoring banning contributions; the other drew 80% with this opinion.

Which question produced the 40% and which got 80%?

Explain why the results were so different.”

~~~

P.S. This discussion is not expected to stay on the subject of the rights of interests groups.

thx,

Counterbalance

Hoth · Feb 19, 2002

I'd bet A got 80% and B got 40% in favor of banning.

It's all in the language. In A, it's talking about "huge sums of money"... calling it "huge" is going to get people to react negatively to it. It's also reminding people that they don't have huge sums of money themselves, and "special" in front of interests also makes sure people feel separated from the group they're supposed to want to stop.

In B, it's phrased as a question of rights. Nobody wants to deny the rights of others. In B there's no money involved, it's the "right" to "contribute" to people they "support". Also "prohibit" sounds worse than "eliminate", because "prohibit" implies people trying to do something being actively restrained from exercising their free will.

Counterbalance · Feb 20, 2002

Thanks, Hoth. Here's what the book supplies as an answer:

"Form A would draw the higher response favoring the ban. It is phrased to produce a negative reaction: 'giving huge sums of money' vs. 'contributing,' and giving 'to candidates' rather than 'to campagins.' Also, form B presents both sides of the issue, allowing for special interest groups to have "a right to contribute."

Not only have you pinpointed what the text suggests is correct, or most likely true, but added a bit besides. Nice!

If you're interested, (and if you don't have the same book at home,

, how about having a go at this one:

Comment on each of the following as a potential sample survey question. Is this question clear? Is it slanted toward a desired repsonse?

A "Does your family use food stamps?"

B "Which of the following best represents your opinion on gun control?

1. The government should confiscate our guns.

2. We have the right to keep and bear arms."

C "A national system of health insurance should be favored because it would provide health insurance for everyone and would reduce administrative costs."

D "In view of escalating environmental degradation and incipient resource depletion, would you favor economic incentives for recycling of resource-intensive consumer goods?"

~~~

Counterbalance

Hoth · Feb 24, 2002

A "Does your family use food stamps?"

Seems clear enough to me. It's a simple question and I'm not quite sure how you could influence someone to give the wrong answer for that.

B "Which of the following best represents your opinion on gun control?
1. The government should confiscate our guns.
2. We have the right to keep and bear arms."

That's really strongly slanted towards getting people to answer "2". Everyone wants rights and no one wants their posessions confiscated.

C "A national system of health insurance should be favored because it would provide health insurance for everyone and would reduce administrative costs."

Well, that's not a question. That's an argument in favor of national health care but there's no question.

D "In view of escalating environmental degradation and incipient resource depletion, would you favor economic incentives for recycling of resource-intensive consumer goods?"

Of course, the desired answer there is "yes". It presents an argument in favor of the yes position but no counter-argument, so it's obvious bias. Of course the question could be clearer if it actually said specified little details like what in the world "resource-intensive consumer goods" are and what sort of economic incentives and what this "escalating environmental degradation" amounts to.