Surveys of Political Behavior by Students in Course

Citation preview

SURVEYS o r POLITICAL behavior by students in course

lay Ross Crates S e lle r vuuu -

A d isserta tio n submitted In p a rtia l fu lfillm en t o f the requirements for the degree of Doctor of philosophy In the Department of p o lit ic a l Science In the Graduate College o f the State U niversity o f Iowa August, 1950

ProQuest Number: 10902143

All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is d e p e n d e n t upon the quality of the copy subm itted. In the unlikely e v e n t that the a u thor did not send a c o m p le te m anuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if m aterial had to be rem oved, a n o te will ind ica te the deletion.

uest ProQuest 10902143 Published by ProQuest LLC(2018). C opyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States C o d e M icroform Edition © ProQuest LLC. ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 4 8 1 0 6 - 1346

T

\ ^ o 1-5 A!

ACKNQWL EDCJMENTS

I have been Influenced and helped by several persons In g ettin g a t th is work. than words can s ta te .

To a few 1 owe more

To Dr. Jack Johnson, A ssociate

Professor of P o lit ic a l Solenoe and chairman o f the com­ m ittee for th is d isserta tio n , 1 owe the o rig in a l con­ ception of th is subject as a dootoral th e s is , and the power whioh comes to a man from the confidence and gen­ uine understanding of another. I t i s some years now sinoe I was student on the campus at the State U niversity of Iowa,

With the

passing of years, many of the lesson s taught and epito­ mized by my teachers there have gradually acquired clearer and more in s iste n t meaning.

I derived most o f my origin al

motivation from the la te Professor Benjamin P. Shambaugh and Professor Ethan P. A llen, now at the U niversity o f Kansas.

My conception of the c r it ic a l sig n ifica n ce of

the behavioral aspect of p o lit ic s and government began to ^C grow when I liste n e d to the lectu res of Professor Kirk

(9

Porter.

I t was primarily from the quiet precepts and

uncompromising examples of Professor Porter and Professor John E. Briggs that there germinated, a fte r severe? years, II

a re a liz a tio n of the in effa b le n ecessity o f developing the habits o f d iscip lin ed , s c ie n t if ic thinking and care­ fu l, step-by-step research, i f anything o f substance i s to be accomplished.

Equally Important, the calm con fi­

dence and evangelical class-room zeal of Professor Gteorge F, Robeson had such a profound e ffe c t on my educational and so cia l philosophy that the Idea has fastened upon me that, through such means as are described in th is work, more sane and sound governments can be had even in a world that has none too brave a look about i t . I t gives me particular pleasure to acknowledge the

great help and support I have had from Professor Nonnen

C. Meier,

of the Department of Psychology.

In my pilgrim ­

age toward an understanding o f p o lit ic s through an alysis of I t s symbolic and psychological aspects, whence my steps had been directed by reading Thurman Arnold and Harold Lasswell, Professor Meier has been a strong moral support as w ell as technical adviser. I t Is understood that the debt which I owe to a ll

these scholars creates in them no r e sp o n sib ility for

my mistakes, in th is d isserta tio n or elsewhere, but only cred it for whatever thing of merit I may accomplish.

ill

Also, I t should b© understood th at, i f there i s any merit in th is work, or In any of my work, the cred it i s shared with my w ife.

Her encouragement, advice and

mechanical a ssista n ce in th is Instance are Just examples o f her constant h elp fu ln ess. The sampling survey i s a so cia l a c t iv it y , a cooperative a c t iv it y . one person.

I t i s not the work, ord in arily, of

Many students have helped me in th is work,

and many more w ill help me in the future, I hope.

They

have undertaken the task with refreshing cu rio sity and appreciation of the value of the long, thankless work of interview ing and ta lly in g .

In th is, there may be a small

omen of a growing w ill to b en efit from the so cia l scien ces.

iv

FOREWORD

The national p o llin g agencies need not pause and consider that i t i s time for them to overhaul th e ir procedures because of the revolutionary and breath-taking d isclosu res in th is report.

The d e ta ils of the business

o f opinion surveying become d aily more sp ecia lized and tech n ica l.

M illion s of man-hours have gone in to sampling

surveys in the United S tates.

This experience i s not to

be countered by a few hundred hours put in by one neophyte. The th e s is of th is d isserta tio n i s that e ffe c tiv e contributions to the science of p o lit ic a l behavior, and to the methodology of such a science, can re su lt from sampling surveys conducted by students in course on co lleg e and uni­ v e r sity campuses of America.

I t is hoped that the illu s t r a ­

tion s of methods and findings contained in th is report w ill encourage teachers of courses in public opinion to Include f ie ld and laboratory work by th eir students as a routine part of the course.

Such procedure, i t i s submitted, makes

public opinion concrete to the student and shows him how we can increase our knowledge of p o litic a l behavior.

I t may

help in recruiting new research workers In th is expanding v

f ie ld .

At the same time, i t can Increase our knowledge

of p o lit ic a l behavior. I t Is admitted, however, that for these methods to r e a liz e th e ir greatest effectiv en ess for the advancement of the science of p o lit ic a l behavior, a further step must follow .

Once the sampling surveys have become routine In

course work, they must be knit into large cooperative sur­ veys follow ing ca refu lly planned experiment designs.

Some

suggestions along th is lin e are brought out in th© la s t chapter of th is d isse rta tio n .

I t is noted, hopefully, that

some progress In t h is d irection is being made. The la ten ess of the hour for solving the problem of the democratic Industrial society adds to the urgency of th is work.

There i® Just one thing of which our society

stands in more te r r ib le need than It does of adequate methods and to o ls to In vestigate so cia l processes. to use these to o ls .

That is the w ill

This i s a hackneyed thought, yet i t Is

a crazy fact that we are spending b illio n s for the develop­ ment of atomic power when I t Is quite clear th a t our main problem has been our in a b ility to r e a liz e th e so cia l rami­ fic a tio n s of the power we have already created. The sampling survey Is certain ly one of our basic to o ls .

Since we s t i l l haven*t the w ill to spend hundreds vi

of m illio n s of d o lla rs in using and developing these to o ls, i t i s imperative that a l l the research resources that we have should he used to develop as e f f ic ie n t and powerful instruments as p o ssib le, and to popularize th e ir use and knowledge of th e ir p o te n tia litie s*

v li

y a b lk o f G o n m m page

AoKnowledgraent $

.................................................................

II

Foreword......................... ................................................................

v

Table of Contents

.

v lli

Table of T a b l e s .......................................................................... x t l Introduction

.................................

A* The Roots of p o lit ic a l Behavior .

.

1 *

B. The Opinion Sampling Survey, I t s Problems and I t e P otential I t l e e ......................................... G* The Meed for In te r-In stitu tio n a l coopera­ tio n and C o o r d in a t io n ..................................

1 7 28

Chapter I Design of Three Questionnaires and Execution by Students In Course ................................................................. A* General Considerations In Developing Ques­ tion s and Questionnaires • •

36 38

B. October, 1948, P o l l ......................................... Delineation of Substantive Problems Surveyed • • • » • • • • . Explanation and Evaluation of Ques­ tionnaire .................................................................

42

0. Deo ember, 1948, P o l l ........................................ D elineation of substantive Problems S u r v e y e d ................................................................. Explanation and Evaluation of Ques­ tionnaire ........................................

56

D* April, 1949, p o ll • D elineation of Substantive problems S u r v e y e d ........................................ Explanation and Evaluation of Ques­ tionnaire ........................................

61

v lll

42 46

56 58

61 66

page

E. Interviewing Instructions pertaining to Instrument E x e c u t i o n .........................................

*71

Chapter II Design of two Samples and Execution by students In Course . A. Basic Considerations in S election o f Sample D e s i g n s

33 .

33

0,

October, 1948, p o l l ............................................... 9*7 97 Explanation o f s t r u c t u r e ........................ Actual Execution of Sample, October 26-28 . 103 C haracteristics of Sample . . . . . . 106

0.

December, 1948, P o ll.........................................................109

D. April, 1949, p o l l .........................................................I l l Explanation of Structure # , 111 Actual Execution of Sample, April 23-28 . 123. C haracteristics of Sample . . . . . 125 Chapter III Fall poll Bindings5 Development and A nalysis.

.

.

A* The processing of Results . . . . . S electing Breakdowns and V ertical Forme for Tables............................................................. 131 Editing, C lassifyin g, and Coding Tabulating. . . . . . . . . B. Analysis and Interpretation of Finding®, October p o ll............................................................. 144 R e lia b ility and V alidity . . . . . predicting voting Behavior............................. 152 Comparison o f P otential Voters for Dewey and Truman in Precinct 76 . • . The p o ten tial Voters In Precinct 76, the Others, and A ll T o g e t h e r .............................173 Reasons Given In Miami ana Outside for Favoring City-County Merger. • •

277

fa b le 4?

Reasons Given in Miami and Outside for Opposing City-County Merger. . •

278

Table 48

Opinion on Most In flu e n tia l Local In terest Group, by Voting EHgiMlit&t

283

fa b le 49

Opinion on Protection of Gambling by Law-Enforcing A uthorities, by Raoe and by Voting E lig ib ilit y • • .

286

Reasons Given by Shose Registered to Vote and by Others for Favoring Licensed Gambling....................................

289

Reasons Given by Those Registered to Vote and by Others for Opposing Licensed G am bling.................................

292

Opinion on State Revenue Needs, by Race, and by Dwelling Class of Neighborhood............................

295

Table 50

Table 51

Table 52

Table 53 Understanding of gross Receipts fay and Choice o f OiWua"ted’™lncbmV versus Transactions Tax, by Race and by Dwelling Class of Neighborhood . . . Table 34

Understanding of gross Receipts Tax and Choice o f Oraduated Income’ ver­ sus Transactions Tax, by ;2dunational Background Classes

xv

299

300

1

INTRODUCTION A, The Roots of P o liti c a l Behavior

O II I .I

. i i w i i mi Billly win IIy I■

1 »• •

',T ,W

No c i v iliz a ti o n ever e x iste d except in th e w rinkled te x tu re of the fo reb raln s of a group of In d i­ v id u a ls.

Many so c ia l p sy ch o lo g ists see the s tru c tu re of

so c iety as determined by th e m atrices of electro -ch em ical synaptic re s is ta n c e s th a t govern i t s in d iv id u al members. P o litic a l behavior, li k e any o th e r, must be based upon th e re a c tio n s of in d iv id u als to the stim u li in th e ir environments, in terms of the a ttitu d e s o r p re d isp o s itio n s which govern th e d isp o s itio n of these stim u li w ith in th e nervous systems of the in d iv id u a ls . In order to study o o lit lc a l behavior, th e re fo re , i t i s necessary to study th ese c o n s te lla tio n s or webs of a ttitu d e s and the way they are a ffe c te d by new stim u li in th e so c ia l environment.

In such a complicated so ciety as

ours, most of the stim u li to which we re a c t in such a way as to a ffe c t so c ia l policy a re symbolic In c h a ra c te r.

In

consequence, the most Important sin g le aspect of th e study of th e stim u li a f f e c tin g p o l i t i c a l behavior i s communi­ ca tio n s a n a ly s is .

The a ttitu d e s people have ar© th e r e s u lt

la rg e ly of th e experiences they have had* In such a so ciety

2

as ours th e ir so c ia l a ttitu d es are to a great extent the r e su lt o f the communications to which they have been exposed. An Increasing number of so c ia l s c ie n tis ts see the structure o f so ciety as primarily the system o f learned individual deferences toward key symbols used in communi­ cation .

A key symbol is one representing a leader, I n s ti­

tu tio n , or thing that ranks r e la tiv e ly high in the so cia l hierarchy of p restig e .

A ll symbols, as stim u li, tend to

produce p o sitiv e or negative responses of varying In ten sity , depending upon the punishing or rewarding experiences with which they are associated , or that are associated with s t i l l other symbols with which they are associated .

Because of

these a sso cia tio n s, certain symbol-patterns come to govern the responses to others when they are used In conjunction. This makes p o ssib le the hierarchical organization of indi­ viduals and groups into in s titu tio n s . In th is view, the h ierarchical relation sh ip s of key symbols are a ltered as new symbols are associated with them and old ones are itflthdrawn.

P o litic a l behavior can

be considered p rofitab ly as behavior toward or a ffe ctin g those key symbols whose p restig e, or vaiu e-attrlb u tion s, determine the organization of a society.

The ’’value*5 of

a symbol, or of any stimulus, refers to the in te n sity and

3 d irection o f i t s stimulatory e ffe c t, r e la tiv e to the past experiences of the individual. When new symbols with new values com© to b© associated with certain key symbols, the capacity of the key symbols as stim uli to produce d eferen tial responses i s decreased or increased.

In other words, th eir p o lit ic a l

power has been Increased or decreased. The p o lit ic a l process la the process by which p o lit ic a l power Is changed.

The problem o f ascertaining

the p o lit ic a l process within a given se t of con trolling relationships may thus be treated as the problem of ascer­ taining how new symbols of d ifferen t value ( I . e . , producing responses of d iffe r in g in te n sity or direction) come to be associated In the minds o f individuals and groups of Indi­ viduals with the various key symbols high In the so cia l hierarchy of p restig e. These changes and e ffe c ts may be charted by se r ie s of measurements of the following phenomena: 1. The symbol environment of groups and sub­ groups, both masses and e l it e s , through sampling th eir channels of communication with instruments for measuring atten tion shown to various key symbols and the type of symbols associated with them. 2. The atten tion given by these publics to the channels and sub-channels, absolutely and r e la tiv e ly ,

4 and the p restige o f the channels with the p u b lics. J5* The changes in response to key symbols within various groups* both mass and elite* when the key symbols are associated with the particular types of symbols and symbol-pat terns a ctu a lly found in a sso cia tio n with them in the channels o f communication used by the groups con­ cerned. 4.

The actual change in response to key symbols

which resu lts from th is process. Techniques have been developed to a certain extent for making a l l of these measurements.

The f ir s t

i s taken care of by p o lit ic a l content a n a ly sis, the second by readership research and audience research, the third by controlled experiments (the use of rh eostatic and other e le c tr ic a l devices for measuring d irection and in te n sity of response to particular content has opened new v is ta s h ere), and the fourth by w ritten or verbal responses to stim uli provided by the in vestigator (as In the use o f a ttitu d e sca les or opinion questionnaires) or by obser­ vation of overt behavior in response to stim ulation pro­ vided by the so cia l environment. The study of p o lit ic a l behavior la so inseparable from the study of other human behavior that the student naturally finds that some of the basic research reports

5 an& techniques which ha needs to us© have been developed w ithin a variety of academic d isc ip lin e s that staked out th eir claims long before any s c ie n t if ic surveys had beeh run. A ll of the measurements noted above are essen­ t i a l to the development of a knowledge o f p o lit ic a l pro­ cesses or of p rin cip les of p o lit ic a l behavior that have p red ictive value, and the central u t i l i t y of knowledge i s for predicting events in order to control them. By measur­ ing the s h ifts in responses to symbols within a group, on© may keep track of the actual s h ifts in fundamental p o lit ic a l power that occur.

I f enough of these s h ifts

can be measured under sim ilar conditions or conditions of known difference, the orderly relationship s between events, public opinion, and p o lit ic a l behavior (corresponding resp ectively to stimulus, personality or a ttitu d e structure, and response) can be s c ie n t if ic a lly established. However, i t is the nature of the a ttitu d e s, the structures through which new stim uli from new events are filte r e d , however they are formed, that determines what p o lit ic a l behavior w ill resu lt from an ©vent. A p redictive science of p o lit ic a l behavior requires that large amounts of data be acquired concerning the tendencies to react which characterize groups of people In whom we are interested.

6

These tendencies to react cannot be measured d ir e c tly , but can only be measured and c la s s if ie d In t e n s of stimulus-respons© rela tio n sh ip s.

Since most of the

sig n ifica n t stim u li are symbolic In character anyway, I t is quit© fe a sib le to sample the stim ulus-respons 0 charac­ t e r i s t i c s of a group of people simply by gaining verbal responses to verbal stim u li.

I t la d esirab le, of course,

and sometimes necessary, to esta b lish the behavioral cog­ nates of verbal responses.

As a further check upon the

v a lid ity of response, or i t s value for predicting some behavior, I t Is valuable to esta b lish the elements of typ ica l behavior patterns in the group being measured. I t i s also extremely Important to be certain of the exact nature of the stimulus which produces the response. As the w riter sees I t , th is completes the theo­ r e tic a l J u stific a tio n for the use of the opinion sampling survey as a technique of research by the student of p o lit ic a l behavior.

? B. The Opinion Sampling Survey, I t s Froblama, and I t s P o te n tia litie s There Is nothing new about the use of th is tech­ nique for th is purpose, of course.

For forty or f i f t y X years, straw p o lls have been conducted by newspapers. From 1920 to 193® the f ie ld wag dominated by the Literary D igest.

This was also a period of development and wide­

spread use of the questionnaire for advertising, marketing, and so cia l research.

2

By the early 1930*0 clo se a tten tion

was being paid to such problems as the phrasing of ques­ tions and obtaining a “representative** sample of respon­ dents.

By 1934 one organization, the Psychological Corpo­

ration of Henry G* Link, was conducting careful studies on brand-buying behavior with a HPsychologlcal Brand Barometer*?. Men from the f ie ld s of marketing and advertising research began then to apply th e ir techniques to the measure­ ment of p o lit ic a l and social opinions.

F irst and foremost

among them was Dr. George Gallup. Dr. Gallup began experiments with nation-wide p o lls on p o lit ic a l and so cia l Issues in February, 1934. The American In stitu te of Public Opinion was organized th e follow ing year. The Fortune p o lls were inaugurated In 1935 by Paul f . Cherington and HTLmo B. Roper, dr. The Crossley p o ll was launched during the 1930 presidential campaign, and since then numerous other agencies sp ecial­ izin g in opinion census-taking have appeared. (3)

8 The Immediate cause of the g reat development which followed in sampling of p o l i t i c a l and aooial opinions was th e s tr ik in g success of th e se new p o lls a.nd the M at­ te r in g f a ilu r e of the L ite ra ry D igest p o ll In p re d ic tin g th e outcome of th e 1936 p r e s id e n tia l election*

This wag

seen to he due to th e d if fe re n t methods employed In samp­ lin g opinion*

Whereas the methods used hy the L ite ra ry

D igest scarcely considered th e question of the represen­ ta tiv e n e ss of the sample a t a l l , but simply c o lle c te d b a llo ts by th e m illio n , th e new p o lls were guided by the thinking of experts in sampling theory. T heir main c o n trib u tio n was in s tr a tif y in g the population fo r c e rta in fa c to rs th a t a re considered to be re la te d to the opinions to be measured, and then se le c tin g samples of th is population by quotas from these s tr a ta in the p roportions which the population in a stratum bears to the to ta l population or u n iv erse considered,

^he b asic fac­

to rs for which th e American I n s t i t u t e of p u b lic Opinion normally has sampled in th e p ast a re 1) s ta te or geograph­ ic a l sectio n , 2) degree of u rb an iz atio n , 3) negro-white c h a r a c te r is tic s , 4) economic s ta tu s (flot simply income le v e l) , 5) non-farm c h a r a c te r is tic s , 6) sex, and ?) age 4 ( in a rough way).

Quotas coverin g th ese c h a r a c t e r !s tie s ,

based upon the b e st a v a ila b le s t a t i s t i c s for the area

o concerned, a re then assigned to in te rv iew ers who liv e in c o n v e n ie n t'lo c a tio n s from which to f i l l such quotas*

oc­

c a sio n a lly , o th e r c h a r a c te r is tic s a re added, such as educa­ tio n and occupation* Sampling by such procedures, n a tio n a l p o llin g organisation® have succeeded In e s ta b lis h in g a record over th e p a st f if te e n year® o f keeping th e ir average e rro r in B e le c tio n p re d ic tio n s to le s s than four per ce n t. This in ­ dicate® th a t tlie techniques a re r e lia b le and v a lid enough fo r many p r a c tic a l purposes of opinion measurement, although not fo r a l l purpose®.

Also, they a re r e la tiv e ly inexpensive

technique®, and they do permit of s t r a t i f i c a t i o n fo r a number o f fa c to rs . non eth eless, those sampling techniques and o th er aspect® of the p o llin g procedures of these o rg an isatio n s have been under in c re a sin g ly heavy f i r e from v ario u s ex­ pert® In q u a n tita tiv e methods of so c ia l rese arch .

As a

r e s u lt of the d is p a rity between the p o ll findings of the major surveying agencies and the e le c t ion r e s u lts in the November, 1948, e le c tio n s , th ese c r i t i c s have received wide p u b lic ity and strong reenforcement from th e ranks of the lea s well informed,

dome of th e weaknesses th a t have been

pointed out in th e p o llin g procedures used by Gallup, Roper, Crosaley, Ql&ude Robinson, Clyde H art, and th e l a t e Harry

10

F ield , who have r e lie d , in the main, on variation s o f the sampling method outlined above, are so serious that th© 4 per cent figure should be recognized as merely a pragmatic re su lt or empirical measurement of a group of data, rather than as a measure o f probable error that may be applied with assurance in a p articu lar p o llin g operation.

6

B riefly , so far as the sampling method of quota control i s concerned, there are one major and two semi­ major d efects, not to mention some minor ones.

The major

d efect i s that the method Involves assumptions about the relationship of certain v e r ifia b le ch a ra cteristics of a population to i t s experiences, and, therefore, to i t s opinions,which are not n ecessarily valid assumptions. Even When fa cto ria l a n alysis of opinions, in terms of these ch a ra cteristics shows such a correlation, i t would not be lo g ic a l to assume that the ch a ra cteristics were the proxi­ mate causes of the opinions, and yet there i s an unfortunate tendency to make such a further assumption.

The main point,

however, i s that a sample which is representative in certain respects of a whole universe is not n ecessarily c lo se ly representative with respect to the factors actu ally deter­ mining opinion on a given issu e in the public under inves­ tig a tio n .

IX There a re a t le a s t two o th er se rio u s d e fe c ts. In o rd er to s t r a t i f y the population fo r quota sampling, I t Is necessary to have rece n t and accu rate data concerning a l l th e c h a r a c te r is tic s of th e universe fo r which i t Is d e sire d to s tr a tify *

Ag a p r a c tic a l m atter, th ese simply

are not a v a ila b le in many p laces a t many times*

The o th e r

weakness th a t must be mentioned Is th a t th e b ia s o f th e in terv iew er has a s ig n ific a n t opportunity to express i t s e l f in th e a p p lic a tio n of th e necessary d is c re tio n in s e le c tin g respondents who meet th e quota requirem ents. Awareness of th ese d efeo ts, and emphasis on them, has le d in c re asin g ly in recen t years to th e a p p lic a tio n o f s t r i c t l y random measures w ith in population a re a s d is t in ­ guished and s t r a t i f i e d only with resp e ct to general lo c a tio n and degree of u rb an iz atio n .

This method i s known as th e

area sample, or p ro b a b ility sample, or method of s p e c ific assignment (c a llin g a tte n tio n to th e elim in atio n o f i n t e r 7 view er d isc re tio n in the se le c tio n of the in terv iew ees). ptie most ardent advocates of area sampling say th a t, i f rig o ro u sly designed and executed, such a sample w ill contain no b ia s whatever, and w ill be su b ject only to p ro b a b ility e rro r or to b ia s in tru d ed by th e instrum ent, th e in terv iew er, or the circum stances of the interview . I t would seem, however, th a t the method involves assumptions

12

about th e ,r e la tio n s h ip between random lo c a tio n and rep resen ­ ta tiv e n e s s w ith re sp e c t to fa c to rs In environment th a t a f f e c t opinions.

The number and s iz e of primary and sub-campling

u n its might have much to do w ith this* as w ell as th e fin e ­ ness of s t r a t i f i c a t i o n fo r po p u latio n d e n sity .

There has

been much controversy over th e r e la tiv e m erits of area and quota samples.® A le a s widely used sampling method i s c a lle d ’'pin­ p o in tin g ".

© lis i s th e method of sampling opinion In a small

area th a t i s se le c te d as re p re s e n ta tiv e o f a la r g e r u n iv erse with resp ect to the opinion being -sought.

This method may

be used when data a re a v a ila b le fo r the whole universe and fo r a l l or most o f c e rta in sampling u n its w ith in the u n i­ verse on previous expressions of th e opinion being sought* or on overt behavior th a t i s the c r ite r io n by which th e va­ l i d i t y of the opinion data la to be measured, or on some c lo se ly re la te d behavior or expression of opinion.

Gallup

has used i t in h is p re -e le c tio n p o lls , along w ith quota sampling (and experim ental area sampling).

I t was used in

the U n iv ersity of Miami p o lls (d e ta ile d in the chapters follow ing) th a t in v e stig a te d some cognates of choice fo r p resid en t and a ttitu d e s r e la tin g to the e le c tio n of the president in 1948.

I t s c h ie f advantage i s th a t i t i s , in

e f f e c t, a winnowing of sampling u n its of th e p o p u latio n ,

15

u s u a lly on an a re a toasts, In terms o f p a st behavior, e ith e r o f th e p re c ise kind which i t la d esired to sample o r o f a kind clo sely r e la te d to i t . Xt assumes, however, th a t the 9 a ttitu d e g rad ien t fo r which p ast response data a re a v a ila b le i s r e a lly th e same as th a t Involved In th e new measurement. I f a re a l sampling u n its a re involved, i t a lso assumes th a t any environmental (and, consequently, a t t l t u d l n a l ) changes th a t have occurred in them have been ty p ic a l of the environ­ mental changes th a t have been a ffe c tin g the a ttitu d e g rad ien t in question fo r th e whole p o p u latio n .

Tills Is u su a lly th e

case, but in p a r tic u la r in stan ce s i t may not be. Another commonly used type of sample is the f’sys10

te m aticM sample, where each nth u n it i s chosen.

I t I s ea^y

and economical to apply and g en erally provides a p e rfe c tly adequate sample when care la taken to avoid rhythmic e f f e c ts . Xt i s freq u en tly ap plied w ith in a s t r a t i f i e d sectio n of a population as a s u b s titu te fo r or a lte r n a tiv e to tru e ran domination, which la more d i f f I c u l t r -how much more depends on th e type of o p eratio n .

The U niversity of Miami p o lls

repo rted in th is volume a l l used system atic samples w ithin primary sampling u n its . Sampling methodology, more than anything e lse , has given modern opinion surveys th e ir '’s c i e n t i f i c 51 c a s t. However, i t Is f a r from p e rfe c te d .

Perhaps the l a s t word

on t h i s su b ject should be l e f t to Floyd H. A llp o rt. l e t t e r to th e w rite r dated A p ril 21, 1949, he wrote: May I add J u s t a word more about what X th in k the tren d s w ill be. Planned cross seo tio n {pi$ samples have proved t h e i r u n r e lia b ili ty . I be­ lie v e th is i s because they a re cross se ctio n in g on the wrong v a ria b le s . Those who U3© th is method have to make c o rre c tio n s, and c o rre c tio n s are dubious. More ac cu rate is the method of area sample. I t s lo g ic i s b e tte r , but even th is lack s a method fo r giving us a p ic tu re of the dynamics behind opinion. From experiments whloh w© a re making here in th e f i e l d of what determines a t titu d e s , I would p re d ic t th a t the sampling in th e fu tu re might be done on th e b asis of c o lle c tiv e s tru c tu re s upon which th e Issues being p o lle d have a d e f in ite bearing, fo r good or fo r 111. The r e a l dynamics behind public opinion, I th in k , l i e In th e organisa­ tio n s or s tru c tu re s In which the in d iv id u al i s involved, and the sooner we r e a liz e th is and s h if t our a tta c k in th e d ire c tio n o f fin d in g out something about these s tru c tu re s , the effect of th e ir overlap in th e in d iv id u a l, the corw f l i c t s between them, and the I n te r e s ts a tta c h ­ ing to them, th e more quickly w ill our problems be solved. I t w ill be recognised a t once th a t the boundaries of s tru c tu re s a re not sharply coterminous w ith those e ith e r of area as o rd i­ n a rily conceived or with th e socio-economic cross sectio n v a ria b le s employed by th e p o lls te r s . A whole new f ie ld of research i s here in d icated , the':;special promise of which i s , in my opinion, th a t i t w ill give us something much more dynamic and determ inative in n a tio n a l l i f e than th e p rese n t ra th e r surface opinion and a ttitu d e stu d ie s. I th in k our whole view of what a ttitu d e s and opinions a re , anyway, w ill change when th is new d ire c tio n la taken. We might even fin d th a t, though im portant, they are not r e a lly dynamic fa c to rs and must be measured and sampled as one phase of the work In te g ra tin g with o th er kinds of stu d ie s o f the s o c ia l, economic, and p o lit ic a l scene.

In

IS $his quotation i s not Included because the w riter i s sure that Dr* A llport is righ t, but because i t in d ica tes so w ell how far from solved the problem o f opinion sampling may be, when such an authority on a t t i ­ tudes and opinion i s so far from convinced that they are being measured adequately. I f four per cent i s the average error In elec­ tion predictions, there i s good reason to b eliev e that the average error o f the national p o llin g organisations may have been larger in attempting to measure opinion on many issu e s.

Question® about voting in ten tion may in ­

volve many problem®, but they are r e la tiv e ly simple com­ pared with some questions concerning iss u e s.

This i s

p articu larly true when public opinion i s weak, uninformed or unformed, or lacking In structure with respect to some presumed issu e. fhe major p it f a lls In measuring a ttitu d es by mean® of verbal responses to verbal stim uli are discussed in Chapter I under th© heading "CMsner&l Considerations in Developing Questions and Questionnaires#♦

For example,

the inconstancy In response may vary by seven or eight per cent, and in certain oases by 15# or more, when ques­ tion order or wording is a ltered in what would appear su p e r fic ia lly to be a harmless way.

11

10 Furthermore, th© tim ing of q u estio n s may produo© very m isleading r e s u lt s .

The American I n s t i t u t e fo r Public

Opinion, f o r example, su p p lies newspaper fe a tu re s . would be poor journalism i f they were not tim ely .

They Sub­

sc rib in g e d ito rs and p u b lish ers and th© p o ll plan n ers must co n stan tly s tr iv e fo r th is element of tim e lin e s s.

The un­

fo rtu n a te p a rt of I t I s th a t th e b e st time fo r a p o ll from a J o u r n a lis tic standpoint I s fre q u en tly th© worst from a so c ia l s c ie n tif ic stan d p o in t. When some tu rn of events focuses a tte n tio n momen­ t a r i l y upon some se c to r of publlo a f f a i r s , th e underlying and r e la tiv e ly unchanging a ttitu d e s of th e people th a t gov­ ern ro u tin e o rie n ta tio n s toward th is se c to r of a f f a i r s may be d is to rte d o r hidden beneath surface responses which are in p a r t re a c tio n s to th e s u p e rfic ia l asp ects of th e s itu a ­ tio n which render i t tem porarily newsworthy.

I f th e United

Mine Workers have a co n tra c t th a t runs out A pril 30, and i t looks as tnough th e re were going to be a work stoppage, I t may be Hs m a r t J o u r n a l i s t i c a l l y to plan a p o ll d ealing with a ttitu d e s toward s tr ik e s and unions and John L, Lewis fo r the f i r s t p a rt o f May.

12

P o lls a re not only moderately u n re lia b le and li k e ­ ly to be in co n stan t in th e ir e f f e c ts , but they a re frequent­ ly downright In v a lid to a d istu rb in g degree in some of th e

X? answers they g e t.

I f p re s tig e en ters stro n g ly In to th e

answer to a q u estio n , as many as t h i r t y to fo rty per cent of th e respondents may not t e l l th© tr u th .

Id

However* an

even stronger cause of in v a lid ity i s due to th e In v e s ti­ gator*® unwarranted assumption th a t an a t t i t u d e e x is ts on a p a r tic u la r Issu e in a p a r tic u la r person.

In ste a d of

using one o r more f i l t e r questions to determine th e extent of knowledge and opinion on th e m atter in q u estion, th e q u estio n n aire may launch r ig h t out w ith "Does the A tla n tic Pact make war more lik e ly or le s s lik e ly , or n e ith e r, in your opinion?*

How many people have heard of th e A tla n tic

Pact or know what i t Involves?

yBxm a questio n lik e t h i s

i s asked, many people answer because they fe e l th a t they should appear to tak e an in te r e s t in public a f f a ir s , and they in f e r th a t wide-awake, w ell-inform ed c itiz e n s a re expected to have opinions on questions such as th i s . In seeking v a lid r e s u lts from mass opinion measure­ ment, the f i r s t problem Is always to determine th e ex isten ce of a relev an t a t titu d e .

O bjective evidence concerning th©

existence of opinion on c e rta in questions considered by moot w ell-inform ed people to be o f v i t a l lo c a l concern has sug­ gested an hypothesis th a t from one-fourth to o n e -th ird o f the people In-greater Miami tak e no serious I n te r e s t In lo c a l pub­ l i c a ffa ir s , even on th e verbal le v e l. Only a tin y percentage

IB of th© people would seem to have very s c ie n ti f i c reasons fo r t h e i r opinions on many v i t a l m atters of lo c a l p u b lic c h a r a c t e r .^

Probably some o f those who express no opinions

a re merely Inciting in a r tic u la te n e s s , but i t i s probably tru e also th a t some o f those who express opinions a re mere­ ly covering up embarrassment a t fe e lin g s of in f e r io r ity aroused by th e interview s itu a tio n .

In terv iew ers may be

c lo se ly in s tru c te d on th is p o in t, but I t i s not easy to psychoanalyse each respondent w hile th e interview i s in p ro g ress. F ilte r questions may e s ta b lis h th e ex isten ce o f an a t titu d e , but not I t s in te n s ity or d riv e stre n g th . The d riv e stren g th of an a t titu d e i s n a tu ra lly r e la te d to th© value of verbal responses to stim u li on a given a ttitu d e grad ien t as In d ic a to rs of fu tu re behavior.

S tu art Dodd,

fo r example, p o in ts out In h is a r t i c l e M0n P re d ic tin g H e c tio n a o r Other Public Behavior ,f, In th e Winter, 194849, issu e of th e In te rn a tio n a l Journal of Opinion and A ttitu d e Research. I B th a t f a ilu r e to measure in te n s ity of opinion adequately In th e p re -e le c tio n p o lls may have re su lte d In e rro rs in estim atin g tu rn -o u t in terms of personal or p arty id e n tif ic a tio n s .

He co n jectu res!

Suppose fo r argument th a t the p o lls were rig h t In showing about f i f t y per cent of the e le c to r­ a te favoring Dewey and only about fo rty - s ix p er cent favoring Truman. I f , then, only fo rty -fiv e

19 per cent o f th© le s s In te n se ly m otivated Repub­ lic a n s turned out, while f i f t y - f i v e of th e more In ten sely m otivated or prodded Democrats turned out, t h i s te n -p o in t d if f e r e n tia l would convert Dewey’ s expected excess of two m illio n votes in­ to th© a c tu a l two m illio n d e f i c i t . (16) When F ranklin Roosevelt was a candidate fo r P re si­ dent, i t was not d i f f i c u l t to p re d ic t th e e le c tio n outcome on th e b a s is of responses to p re -e le c tio n q u e rie s. A ttitu d e s toward Roosevelt were stro n g ly stru c tu re d , pro or con, In th e minds of most Americans.

Opinion concerning him was

genuine, d e f in ite , not lik e ly to s h if t q u ick ly .

On th e

oth er hand, th e American I n s t i t u t e of P ublic Opinion p o lls show th a t flu c tu a tio n s In th© p o p u la rity of Harry Truman have been g re a t. 1? Dodd, In th e a r t i c l e Ju st mentioned, c ite s four kinds of in d ic a to rs of in te n s ity ; p ast behavior of th e same kind, e f f o rts made along th e lin e of the behavior, group memberships which may c o rre la te w ith the behavior, and a s s e rtio n s o f In ten se opinion. 18 Each s p e c ific In d ica to r used, he says, needs to be scaled, p referab ly by c a rd in al v a ria b le s , so th a t In te n s ity la measured In many equal de­ g rees.

MFor p o lls to do th is b e tte r re q u ire s p r io r research

developing scales by the b est cu rren t techniques, such as a combination of th e Thurstone, L lk e rt, and Guttman te c h nlquea, #

20 Again, th© p o ll a t ©i* may make assum ptions about th© a t titu d e th a t he measures which a re In error*

H© may

wrongly assume, fo r example, th a t the a ttitu d e which i s c a lle d to d riv e stre n g th In th© Interview s itu a tio n by a c e r ta in v erb al stim ulus is s u b s ta n tia lly th a t which w ill Operate to co n tro l behavior in a l a t e r c r ite r i o n s itu a tio n in which he I s In te re s te d .

He may not understand th© a t ­

titu d e which i s c a lle d to dominance in th e in terv iew s itu a ­ tio n , or he may not a p p re c ia te the d iffe re n c e between th e stim ulus he provide© and the stim ulus provided by a l a t e r c r ite r io n s itu a tio n . To i l l u s t r a t e , the a c t of naming one*a choice among the candidates in an im portant e le c tio n Involves a c e rta in degree o f id e n tif ic a tio n w ith th© candidate.

This

i s p a r tic u la r ly tru e in th e case of a candidate fo r th e o f fic e o f P resid en t of the U nited S ta te s.

I f id e n tif ic a tio n

with another Is a punishing experience, however, i t w ill b© avoided, I f p o ssib le .

In the 1948 s itu a tio n , th ere were a

g re a t many New D ealers and former follow ers of Roosevelt, not to mention many non-New Deal Democrats, who considered Truman to be a weak candidate, c e rta in ly by comparison with Roosevelt.

These were people who had formed strong a l ­

leg ian ces to th© Democratic p arty symbol o r to the p o lit ic a l p rin c ip le s of F ran k lin Roosevelt, or to both, and had

21 enjoyed a long p erio d of id e n tif ic a tio n w ith a fig u re o f g reat p re s tig e .

These people presumably did not lik e to

id e n tif y w ith Truman or to be id e n tif ie d w ith him.

The

stim ulus o f the interview s itu a tio n may not have been s u f f ic ie n t to make them break over th is th resh o ld of in ­ h ib itio n and name Truman.

A fter a l l , i t was only a poll*

In th e v o tin g booth, however, the stim ulus was considerably d if f e r e n t.

Whereas th is would not be impor­

ta n t in a case where a ttitu d e s are stro n g ly stru c tu re d and harmonious, i t may have been im portant on November 2, 1948. In th e voting booth the New Pealera and Democrats had to decide whether to accept Truman Or to r e je c t t h e i r p arty or th e ir p o l i t i c a l p r in c ip le s .

A ll evidence In d icated

th a t th© a t titu d e toward Truman was lig h t ly h eld as well as la rg e ly n eg ativ e, even among h is su p p o rters.

Very li k e ­

ly I t was submerged in th© w eightier co n sid eratio n given to th e p arty and the p rin c ip le s of the New Deal when a choice had to be mad®.

I t should be noted, too, th a t no

d ir e c t in te r-p e rs o n a l in flu en ces, such as bystanders, (whose presence In most types of in terv iew s Is to be avoided.) and th e in terv iew er him self, were p resen t in the voting booth. Dodd20c i te s an experiment conducted by P ro fesso r A llen Edwards and h is c la ss In Public Opinion A nalysis a t the U n iv ersity of Washington in S e a ttle in which overt

responses to q u estio n s on v arious iss u e s, the answers to which involved p r e s tig e e f f e c ts , were compared w ith th® answers w ritte n on a se c re t b a llo t which was handed to th© respondent by th e in te rv iew er.

The s e c re t b a llo t y ield ed

only h a lf as many Mdon, t knows” aa th e o v ert responses, and th e d iffe re n c e c o n s is te n tly showed up on th e eld© of th© iss u e th a t had low p re s tig e (such aa opposing a id fo r the aged and v e te ra n s). What was marked down, then, as a l a t e s h if t to Truman or as a proof of inadequate sampling In th e pre­ e le c tio n p o lls , may have been due to o th er causes.

It

seems to have been due in p a rt to f a ilu r e to p re d ic t d if ­ ferences in tu rn o u t between th e supporters of Dewey and Truman.

I t may have been due in p a rt to a f a ilu r e to

ap p reciate the e ffe c ts of unw illingness to id e n tify w ith a p a r tic u la r candidate upon th e response to th e in terv iew ees question a s compared with th e e ffe c t on a c tu a l voting be­ h av io r.

' Enough may already have been said about the

problems of th e opinion sampling survey a s i t stands to ­ day to carry the read er beyond th e p o in t of r e a lis in g the g reat need fo r f u rth e r methodological research to Improve these instrum ents and to th e p o in t of doubting the u t i l i t y of such Instrum ents as to o ls fo r the study of p o lit ic a l

23

behavior.

I f so, perhaps one question w ill re s to re I n te r e s t

In t h i s approach.

What approach to th e study o f p o l i t i c a l

behavior o ffe rs a g re a te r prospect of developing along sc ien ­ t i f i c lin e s , w ith p re d ic tiv e value w ith in known confidence lim it a? The opinion sampling survey described in th e foregoing pages i s , of course, already supplanted by new refinem ents o f design and new conceptions of the problems to be in v e stig a te d .

The tre n d i s well described in a pub­

lis h e d le c tu re by Hen s is L ik e rt th a t was d eliv ered a t th e U niv ersity of P ittsb u rg h in 194?.

21

In th is le c tu r e the

contemporary sample Interview survey was said to be the product of developments in six f ie ld s :

1) sampling (by

the American I n s t i t u t e of P ublic Opinion, th e s t a t i s t i c a l bureaus o f th e U nited S ta te s government, and u n iv e r s itie s granted money fo r p a r tic u la r sampling research es by th e fed eral government)! 2) research design (e s p e c ia lly as a branch of s t a t i s t i c s ) ; 3) a t titu d e measurement (by the in ­ d iv id u al research of L. L. Thurston©, Renals L ik e rt, Louis Guttman, Gardner Murphy, and o th e rs ); 4) m o tivational th eo ry 5) interview ing experience; and 6) content a n a ly s is . The contemporary interview , L ik e rt said, secures data on 1) a ttitu d e s and opinions, 2) personal charac­ t e r i s t i c s , 3) knowledge and m isinform ation about items re ­ la te d to th e problem under study, 4) experience and

24 behavior on m a tte rs re la te d to the study, and 5) motive a underlying a t titu d e s and behavior. P o lls te r s , a t any r a te , are fe e lin g fo r W th e p ulse of democracy” with In creasin g sureness and a re even developing ways of measuring the blood p ressu re of th e body p o litic .

Such phenomena, however, a re only symptomatic of

the condition of our democracy.

They do not t e l l us enough.

The need i s fo r research in to th© whole process of public opinion form ation, not merely fo r the more accu rate measure­ ment of opinions. Th© s o c ia l u t i l i t y of the p o lls has been super­ f i c i a l l y considered by many commentators p rim arily In terms of th e opportunity they provide fo r rendering a r tic u la t e a t le a s t some o f the products of the mass mind. sig n ific an c e I s th is ?

But o f what

The symbols of acquiescence a re

p e rio d ic a lly req u ired to be o ffe re d up on th e a l t a r of Communism in th e Soviet sphere in th e world, Ju st as they were procured to reen fo rce th e symbolism of Nazism in HI Hearts Germany. I f th e re I s any so c ia l u t i l i t y In democracy, th e question of what i s in the minds of the people i s much le s s im portant than th e question of how i t got th e re .

Th© opinion

sampling survey needs to be turned to new problems, such as those in v e stig a te d In th e E rie County stu d ie s and th® Elmira

25 survey*

22

The e f f e c ts of mass communications con tain in g

p o l i t i c a l content need to he described in terms of th e mass r e s p o n s e s . T h e in te ra c tio n of p u b lic a ttitu d e s and e d ito r ia l p o lic y in th© mass media needs to be more c le a rly d e lin e a te d ,

Th© re la tio n s h ip s between group member­

ships and p o l i t i c a l opinion and behavior need thorough in ­ v estig atio n * Of th e so c ia l u t i l i t y of moat of th e p o lls to 24 date John C* Hanney has th is to say: Th© o p eratio n of the p o lls may be p o s itiv e ly harmful, not in in te r f e r in g with 11government by e x p e rts ,Mas more fre q u en tly charged, but in emphasizing the content of the opinion ra th e r than the way in which i t i s formed. . * Popular p a r tic ip a tio n in government is th in and meaningless i f i t i s nothing more than the r e g is te r in g of an opinion* I t becomes meaningful to the ex ten t th a t the opinion I s i t s e l f th e product of inform ation, d iscu ssio n , and p r a c tic a l p o l i t i c a l a c tio n • • . I t is p re c ise ly th is . . . which makes p o l i t i c s an educational experience, developing th e charac­ te r and cap acity of th e c itiz e n s . In the same v ein , Harold La sawe l l has w ritten Th© m erging problem Is the r e a l ity — not only the d ire c tio n and In te n s ity — of pu b lic opinion* On th© whole th e re hag been r e la ­ tiv e ly too much a tte n tio n paid to th e scien­ t i f i c techniques of the continuous p u b lic opinion p o ll and not enough co n sid eratio n has been given to th e problem of achieving p u b lic opinion a d ju sted to p o l i t i c a l r e a l ity . . .

25

No frie n d of democracy w ill b eliev e th a t demo­ c r a tic pro cesses have n e c e ss a rily been stren g ­ thened by improving th e mechanical p ro ficien cy with which we count heads. I t i s not only im­ p o rta n t th a t heads s h a ll be counted but th a t heads s h a ll be used. We need a p u b lic opinion r e a l i s t i c a l l y d ire c te d toward the support of p o lic ie s conducive to the survival of a demo­ c r a tic s o c ie ty . This Is what i s meant by th® r e a l ity value of p u b lic opinion. One view of p u b lic opinion is th a t I t i s c a lle d in to existence by some new event or s e rie s of ©vents which c re a te s a problem fo r a group and which produces a new and recognized te n sio n w ith in the group.

According to

th is view, th e p u b lic opinion process is b a s ic a lly a pro­ cess of re lie v in g such te n sio n s to the p o in t where th e group may be sa id to have “solved** the new problem in a psychological sense, even I f the “solution** i s only a m atter of gradual acceptance of the new s itu a tio n , r a tio n ­ a liz a tio n o f i t , displacem ent of energy In re lie v in g the 2

ten sio n , or some o th e r form of adjustm ent o r accommodation. Following th is hypothesis, th e lo g ic a l approach to th e study of the public opinion process would be as follows*

F ir s t, th e ten sio n areas fo r a group would have

to be located; th a t i s , the ranges of stim u li from t h e i r environments which produced responses In d ic a tin g the ex is­ tence of marked nervous ten sio n xvould have to be marked o ff.

Second, the development o f p a tte rn s of so cial re s ­

ponse to th ese ranges of stim u li, the ten sio n areas In the

m m a t e r i a l a n d symbolic environment, would have to bo o u t-

lined *

B o th o f th e se types o f fa c t-fin d in g can be aooon-

p its h e d by th e use of the opinion sampling survey.

In

f a c t, t h e W a s h i n g t o n P ublic Opinion la b o ra to ry is alread y ranking stu d ies of te n sio n a re a s, follow ing t h i s h y p o th esis, In th e S ta te of W ashington*^ R i n d t t p e n t a l to t h i s a

roach I s the general

hypothesis th a t "ten sio n s p re d ic t b eh av io r ©

V*

o 94*

d *H

H >

o* o

H

Of

OA

SO i-4

04 oy

oi

& 01

® 0, d d p| C£j P {= »d

as 60 d 0 p 0 P 0 H

•

© *-CN SS H &'■**

3* a> P ►

f4 ©

El •H

O

117

p re c in c ts In tig h t d if f e r e n t lo c a tio n s .

The map in th e

pocket of th e hack cover shows th e se p re c in c t lo c a tio n s . By estim atin g th e Negro p o p u latio n fo r each of th e se pre­ c in c t a from th e percentages H a te d , i t was p o ssib le to f ix the Negro po p u latio n o f G reater Miami a t about 52,000. A ll but 2,000 o f th e se were in fiv e of th e e ig h t lo c a tio n s , so only the fiv e were used.

They were sampled p ro p o rtio n a te ly

to th e whole Negro population a t th e fix ed r a tio o f six ­ teen Interview s p er 10,000 people.

The r e s u ltin g Negro

sample I s shown in th e follow ing ta b le : L ocation

P re c in c ts

North Miami Beach, Miami Shores Opa Locka Hialeah L iberty City Edison South C entral (Northwest) Coconut Grove South Miami T otal

,

1,11 2 3,37 15,16,1? 36,36 54,67,83 59,62,70 104,105 103

w

Negro

Negro

0 .6 0.5 2.6 10.3 1.1 31.2

0 0 4 16 0 43

4 .0 1.9 6 0

3 W

In working out th e p re c ise p re c in c ts and a ssig n ­ ments fo r th e w hite sample, follow ing s t r a t i f i c a t i o n by average value o f dw elling, primary co n sid eratio n was given to two fa c to rs :

p ro p o rtio n al re p re se n ta tio n fo r each of

six general se c tio n s of G reater Miami, and th e convenience of th e stu d e n ts.

This meant th a t a compromise of th e se

1X8

facto r* was in e v ita b le , but In th e end th e a re a s near th e U niversity were rep rese n ted only very a l i # i t l y more than areas ten o r tw elve m iles away.

The follow ing ta b le shows

how th e w hite sample was worked out p ro p o rtio n a te ly by seotlons, J u s t a s th e Negro sample was:

Section88 Southwest Northwest Far Northwest N ortheast Ulami Beach Coral Cables

White p o p u latio n [000 am.) 38.3 68.2 68.7 53.7 46.0

W hit, White in Interv terview iews. 136 (Bhxie) 88 (5 jx l6 )

The sample shown in th e ta b le was executed except th a t ei$xt interview s in F recln ct 104 in th e Southwest were su b s titu te d fo r e ig h t in P recin ct 6, with the same aver­ age value of dw elling u n its , in the Far Northwest. The w hite sample was thug s t r a t i f i e d both by dw elling u n it value and by se c tio n .

The f in a l s e le c tio n

of Hw h ite” p re c in c ts was made, w ith in the lim ita tlo n a a lready in d ic a te d ,w ith due regard fo r th e lo c a l addresses of th e stu d en ts, c a rs a v a ila b le , and correspondence of schedules o f persons without c a rs with th e schedules of persona with oars going to a c e rta in se c tio n . In a d d itio n , I t was hoped th a t th e sample could be f a ir ly w ell sc a tte re d in population d en sity groups.

119

There was, however, no o o n tro l fo r po p u latio n d e n s ity . This c o n sid eratio n was subordinated to th e one o f a c c e ss i­ b i l i t y to th e stu d en t In terv iew e rs.

For o o rreo t

d en sity

d is trib u tio n , each o f th e follow ing s t r a t a o f th© w hite sample should have contained 134 Interview s: D ensity p e r square m ile (000 om itted)

White in terv iew s

Under 3 .0 3 .0 to 6.3 6.5 to 10.5 Over 10.6

104 104 128 T otal

536

I t is doubtful th a t th e la c k of re p re se n ta tiv e n e ss in th is aspect a ffe c te d opinions s ig n ific a n tly .

The only lik e ly

place to fin d th e f a c to r s ig n if ic a n t In a ffe c tin g p ercen t­ ages fo r th e e n tir e w hite sample would be In the r e p lie s to th e questions on th e co n so lid atio n issu e , in a d iffe re n c e between Miami and unincorporated a re a s.

The d iffe re n c e

(see Tables 45—47) did not appear to be very s ig n ific a n t. Th© sample w ith in each se le c te d p re c in c t was to be executed by choosing an ap p aren tly re p re se n ta tiv e s tr e e t and p o in t to begin in terv iew in g and proceeding to in te r ­ view some person In every th ir d dw elling u n it, re g a rd le ss of th e type o f u n it, u n t i l th e quota was reached.

Common

sense of th e in te rv iew er was to be applied to avoid doing n early a l l o f th e in terv iew in g in apartment b u ild in g s In

180

a p re c in c t where i t wag obvious th a t few people liv e d in apartm ents, or to avoid th e rev erse o f t h i s s itu a tio n . The “every th ir d dwelling* p ro v isio n was used in order to spread out th e in terv iew s a l i t t l e but s t i l l be co n sid erate o f th e stud en ts, and i n o rd er to tak e the s e le c tio n o f th e dom icile out o f th e students* hands.

I f the in te rv iew er was refu sed ,

or found no one home, he was to go next door. re fu sa ls were e o lla c te d .

No data on

Another requirem ent was th a t h a lf

of th e in terv iew s were to be obtained on n o rth -so u th s tr e e ts and h a lf on east-w est s tr e e ts .

Like th e p ro v isio n Ju st men­

tioned, th i s one was aimed a t reducing in terv iew er b ia s . Xt was made very o le a r th a t a l i s t of addresses must be re ­ turned with th e q u estio n n aire s fo r th© purpose of checking the work. Another r e s t r i c t i o n was th a t a l l Interview ees had to be a t le a s t seventeen years old, and h a l f (no more) had to be over fo rty .

The “h a l f over fo rty * ru le i s one f r e ­

quently ap p lied to the voting population in th© n atio n a t la rg e and in some lo c a l a re a s, but the population la o ld e r in G reater Miami than in the n atio n a t la rg e , and th® pro­ p o rtio n s f i t th e p o pulations sampled.

The in s tru c tio n

should have asked th a t th e interview ees be a t le a s t eighteen years of age, since few who were only seventeen a t th© time of th e p o ll w ill b© re g is te re d in time to vote in November, 1952.

la

Execution of Sample, April f23-28 Assignments were worked out with very d eta iled and painstaking a tte n tio n to the d esires and convenience Of the students, and so as to make the most of both the available transportation among the students and th© lo ca ­ tions of students' liv in g quarters, I f liv in g off-campus. In fa c t, a l l assignment® were worked out as a major lo g ic a l problem o f sample execution.

This ''paid o f f In student

ooope ration. The way the sample worked out, fiv e students oould be awarded quotas of eight interview s Instead of the standard sixteen .

Not a l l of the students who claimed to

be carrying a heavy schedule could be given reduced assign ­ ments •

This resu lted In some (minimum) hardships and de­

fectio n s.

The cards f i l l e d out by the students were sor­

ted Into dormitory and off-campus dw ellers, and each o f these into "oar" and *no oar* groups.

Off-campus dwellers

were then tagged with the precinct numbers for th e ir ad­ dresses.

Those liv in g o ff campus and lacking cars were

then assigned to the precinct in # iic h they liv e d In most cases, being cautioned not to interview in th e ir own neighborhood I f known there,

Precincts so selected were

then marked on a tab le sim ilar to Table 4, and a t a lly was kept of these precincts by section of th e area, so

122

that a constant chart was kept of the further needs o f the sample, both as to sectio n a l s tr a tific a tio n and as to dw elling-place s t r a t if ic a t io n .

Students liv in g o ff

campus who possessed oars were assigned to lo ca tio n s that equalised th e ir travel from th eir homes as far as p ossib le. The schedules of th© dormitory dwellers without cars were scanned to fin d which ones finished c la sse s for the day at the same time as persons with cars going to fa r t e r r ito r ie s .

There persons were assigned lo ca tio n s

that Gould be conveniently reached by the person with a oar on the way to h is te r r ito r y .

These persons with oars

were then given the duty o f picking up certain assigned persons at the U niversity bus stop a fte r th eir la s t cla sses and proceeding to th® precincts assigned.

This worked out

remarkably w ell, although not in a ll oases, of course. Any­ way, students without oars were never assigned to territo ry that could not be reached by bus with one or two tran sfers. Q uestionnaires were d is trib u te d on Saturday, April 25.

At the same time each student was given a small

map, showing h is precinct.

The completed schedules were

due the following Thursday morning.

Uhen that deadline

came, th© white sample was about 25% Incomplete or soon found to be In valid .

The Negro sample was complete.

It

133

took about a week lo n g e r to exeout© the sample as designed. Completed schedules were again spot-checked by telephone to see whether ©heating had occurred.

This I s a

ted io u s procedure, and not always a s a tis f a c to ry one, when telephone numbers a re not secured a t th e tim e o f th e I n te r w4aview. 8? Every tim e a c a ll v e r if ie d an Interview , thanks were conveyed fo r cooperating with "th© U n iv ersity of s la n t Opinion Surveys*.

Whenever th e re was no knowledge of an

Interview a t an address reached by telephone, th e p o s s ib il­ i t y th a t an in te rv iew of th e kind rep o rted might have oc­ curred th e re had to be a s c e rta in e d , and more numbers had to be c a lle d to e s ta b lis h a p a tte rn of v e r if ie d o r not v e r ifle d Interview s.

88

In fo u r cases a p a tte r n of "no Interview * responses was turned up, not to mention o th e rs where the "check* was u n sa tisfa c to ry due to the la rg e Incidence o f apartm ent houses.

80 Two o f th e se cases were cleared up s a tis f a c to r i ly ,

and two were e sta b lish e d a s cheating.

In both of th e l a t ­

te r cases, the p rin c ip a ls turned in complete se ts of in te r* views and ad d resses, but the addresses y ield ed c h ie fly "no Interview " r e p lie s to c a l l s .

One of th ese young men was

& fu ll-tim e stu d en t who was working th ir ty - a l x hours a week in a grocery.

Although he had been assigned th© very

124

p re c in c t where he liv e d and worked, he decided th a t he didn’ t have tim e to do th e work, so he faked I t .

The

Sean’ s Committee on D isc ip lin e of th e School o f Business A dm inistration put him on p ro b atio n .

The o th e r ch eater

had driven out to h is remote p re c in c t, obtained th re e interv iew s, and decided th a t i t was too warm to continue. The next day h© drove two stu d en ts to t h e i r lo c a tio n s , somewhat n ea re r than h is but in th® same general d ire c tio n . However, he did not attem pt any more in terv iew s in h is p re c in c t.

In self-im posed penance for h is deception, he

worked f o r ty - f iv e hours on ta lly in g r e s u lts and was l e t o ff w ith a le c tu r e by th e Dean*a Committee. Because of th e se and o th e r s itu a tio n s ,

90

it

took about a week beyond the deadline to complete th® sample s u b s ta n tia lly a s designed.

M issing assignments

were c a rrie d out by v arious people, in clu d in g th© study d ire o to r.

Almost every in te rv iew er got h a lf o f h is in te r ­

views from people on e ith e r sid e of ag e f o rty , as in stru cted * Hie in s tru c tio n to go to every th ir d house and to in terv iew as many on one aide o f th© s tr e e t as th® o th e r fre -d ft p ©

p o © ft M © * >>

IA

d © © p o tM O f t •H ft r/1 ©o © rH

© a T-t © P 3 M -H

© d o d d 3 ft ©

p o {»

•N © > ©

J4 o ft H © Q > g O P ,H © j4 Q d o o d O ca H {► ft o *

*1

!? 0

Table lij.

Opinion on Outlawing th e Cosanmnist Party* nDo you th in k th e Coraaunist P arty o f .America should'ho outlawed?” R egistered in Dade County, expected to vote*

A ll o th ers in te r T&wmi Dewey Total* viewed* f % $ *

Total i

& Hot f s & ilis r

3*0

2 .5

24

6 .0

3*5

2* In d iffe re n t and no answer

3*0

8*0

6 .6

1 2 .5

0*6

3* Strongly approve

53*0

14-0.5

itf.lj-

3 8 .5

l|l|.*i{.

i|* M ildly approve

9*5

13 .5

9*5

1 1 .0

9*9

1 2*5

1 2 .0

114

8 .0

10*2

disapprove

19*0

2 3 .0

2 2 .7

2I4.5

23*3

Check to ta l

100*0

99.5

1 0 0 .0

1 0 0 .5

99.9

Sample siz e

lOlj.

7i4-

211

102

5* Mild ly disapprove 6 * Strongly

313

■*. Includes o th e r choices and no choice fo r President*

171 by c e rta in r e s u l t s shown In Table ISA*

Arnong the answers

o ffered on the answer sh eet fo r Question 13, — "Bow would you d e sig n a te our p resen t p o lic y toward Russia?" — were both "apoe&geraent" and “compromise'1*

The proportion o f

p o te n tia l Truman and Dewey v o te r s who In d ic a te d one or the other as th® answer was about the same ( 5 8 j# to 60-!$). Both words had been in clu d ed to t e s t the h yp oth esis th a t “appeasement“ would be a more popular ch o ice w ith Dewey adherent p and “compromise" w ith p o te n tia l v o te r s fo r Truman*

The a ctu a l r e s u lt s were s tr ik in g beyond a l l expecta­

tio n s in confirm ing th e h y p o th e sis.

The sharply d if f e r in g

proportions In the Truman and Dewey columns wore alm ost exactly reversed fo r the two answers*

The d iffe r e n c e s

have a T va lu e o f *97. The moat noteworthy th in g about Table 15P i s the very c lo s e agreement between Dewey and Truman supporters

on th e proper a t t itu d e to take toward Russia*

Since they

did not agree on what th e p o lic y was, however, they d is ­ agreed in th e ir judgment on our o f f i c i a l a ttitu d e toward Russia*

A round h a lf of th o se who said th a t they would

vote for Truman thought th at out general a t titu d e toward Russia was what I t ought to have been.

Less than on e-fou rth

or th e p o te n tia l 'Dewey .voters agreed. Approval o f the Suropean Recovery program, or

172

Table 1$ on Policy Toward Russia*

^How would you designate our- present p o licy toward Russia ?H R egistered in Bade County, expected to vote* Truiaan Dewey Total# % 5 £ !t-.o 0*0 2*9 38.0 25*7 21*5 39*0 20.5 30*5

I* 2* 3* 4*

Pro-Russian Appeasement econom ise R estraint o f Russia Si Anti-Russian

22*5

Total $ 1*9 23*1 27*9

/e 0*0

1 7 .5

17*5 13*5

23*0 11*0

20*9

2ti-,5

22*1

12*9

19*5

35*1

8*5 'LOO.O

M

7*1

~i r* r? fp .2 99*5

9*9

64 Ho opinion and

no answer # Check to ta l s iz e

m. others inter-* viewed#

103

100*5 100*0 7k 210

102

St* ’’'What p o licy toward. R ussia would you favor ?8 2*0 0*0 1* Pro-Russian 1*4 2*0 2* Appeasement 2*0 1*4 3*0 1*5 2 8*6 3 # ^ r c a n is e 20*0 25*5 28*5

1 0 0 .0

312 1*6

1^9 27*6

1}* R estraint o f 35*5 19*5

41*3

16*0

44*3 17*6

7*0

5*5

6*7

14*5

9*3

100*5 103

100*0

100*0

100*0 102

100*0

5* Anti-Russian

4 l *0

48*5

20.5

16*3

6* Ho opini on Mid

no answer # Check to ta l s iz e to 11Aa R*j» agree

7k

210

312

51*5 23.0 t\0*5 ll'lv e n ^ t Includes other choices and no choice lor

Sot offered on answer sheet#

173 Marshall Plan, waa about the same In th e pro-Dewey and p ro -fm ra n groups of p o te n tia l v o te rs.

Th© p ro p o rtio n

approving was 61|:l to Q2i%, with 2li% to 23-|% “dead 11 re ­ spond es (not fa m ilia r or no re a c tio n ).

However, p o te n tia l

Truman v o te rs tended toward stro n g er opinions on the sub­ je c t than did r e g is tr a n ts who sa id they would vote fo r Dewey.

F orty-nine per c e rt o f the Deweyites c lu ste re d

in th e "rail&ly* approve and disapprove ca teg o rie s, w hile only 29j$ of th e pro-Truman r e g is tr a n ts were found in th ese categ o ries.

S t a t i s t i c a l l y , th is Is s ig n ific a n t near the

.99 confidence le v e l, but I t Is hard to t e l l what I t s deeper meaning is* Interview® w ith pro-W allace and pro-Thurmond r e g is tra n ts were too few to Include sep arately In the tables*

Data obtained from th ese interview s had no sig n i­

ficance (although they conformed to Hie w r ite r 's ste re o ­ types of Wallace and Thurmond su p p o rters!). Although W&llao© wag opposed to th e European Recovery Program because I t was outsid e of the United N ations, th e pro-W allace sample seamod to favor I t as much as o th er v o te rs. The P o te n tia l V oters in P re cin c t 76, th e O thers, and A ll Together Those who were not p o te n tia l v o ters in P recin ct 76 were c o n s is te n tly l e s s a r t i c u l a t e s or e lse t h e i r s t a t e -

174 Table l6 Opinion m European Recovery 'tm g p m (Marshall Plan). “What Is your opinion o f the Europe an Recovery Program (Marshall Plan}?” R egistered in Bade County* expected to vote*

1 * B et familiar

A ll

Truman ? /•G>

Bewey (rf p

others inter­ Totals viewed* p $

20.5

17.5

18.1

20.5

18.9

2* Indifferent and

Total

%

3*0

!{..Q

3.8

16.5

8.0

approve

38.0

2t|..5

31.1}-

26.5

29.8

If* Mildly approve

23.5

38.0

3 lA

27.5

30.1

6.0

11.0

7 .1

6.0

6 .7

9.5

** rf

8.1

3.0:

6 . 1}.

99.9

100.0

no answer

% Strongly

S* midly disapprove 6*

Strongly disapprove

Check t o t a l

100,5

Sample size

103

io o ,5 Th-

210

102

99.9 312

Includes other ch oices and no choice fo r President*

178 merits were l e s s w e ll reported# than the p o te n tia l v o te r s . In Table 7 and se v e r a l o th ers i t la n ecessary to con sid er f i r s t th e "no answer” category or c a te g o r ie s and, w ith th e aid o f a s l id e r u le , e q u ilib r a te th© p ercentages propor­ tio n a te ly to th e d iffe r e n c e between th e percentage o f an­ swers in t h i s category fo r th e "non-voters'* and the poten­ t i a l voters* Applying t h is method, th e on ly s ig n if ic a n t d i f ­ ference found between th e p o te n tia l v o te r s and ''non-voters* in resp ect to typ e o f occupation was th© s t a r t lin g on© shown in l i n e 2 o f Table 7 ,

This showed 25-J^ among th e

p o te n tia l v o te r s isere employed in " cra fts and tr a d e s”, com­ pared with a mere th ree per cent {Zh% when e q u ilib r a te d ) fo r the ttnon-voters".

There were three p o s s ib le causes o f t h is

sharp d iffe r e n c e ,

f i r s t , th ere might have been a serio u s

error in occu p ation al c l a s s i f i c a t i o n .

A sample check o f

t h is group o f sch ed u les d id not show any sig n s of such an error.

A second p o s s i b i l i t y was th at the ordinary working

man might have been fa r more adequately m otivated to v o te in th e 1948 p r e s id e n tia l e le c t io n , at le a s t in p recin ct 76, than other p erson s.

Thirdly# he might have been stro n g ly

moved to m isrep resen t h is in te n tio n o f v o tin g to the in te r ­ view er. The probable answer to t h i s q u estion can. be de­ rived from Table 26.

I t i s d iscu sse d In se c tio n C, in te r ­

170

p re tin g th e r e s u lt s of th e December p o ll.

I t I s s u f f ic ie n t

to say h ere th a t th® one apparent s ig n ific a n t d iffe re n ce between th® p o te n tia l v o te rs and "non-voters" in occupational c la s s if ic a tio n was probably not genuine. Three out o f four p o te n tia l v o te rs were home­ owners o r liv e d In owner-occupied households.

Only 40$ of

those not r e g is te r e d to v o te in Dad® County and Intending to vote were horne-owners or members of home-owning house­ holds.

th e re I s only about one chance In a b il l i o n th a t

th is d iffe re n c e might be due to chance sampling e rro r. Ac­ tu a lly , i t is probably due mainly to th e fa c t th a t home­ owners must be re g is te re d to vote lo c a lly before they a re e lig ib le fo r homestead exemption ( f 5,000 exemption fo r pro­ perty tax purposes)* No r e lia b le d iffe re n c e s appeared between poten­ t i a l voters and th e o th e rs w ith resp ect to re lig io u s a f f i l ­ ia tio n o r educational background.

There was a t le a s t one

chance in four th a t any one of th e apparent d iffe re n ce s in the percentages fo r th© two columns was th© r e s u lt chance sampling e rro r.

of

The chances a re , nonetheless, th a t

the incidence of P ro te s ta n ts was g re a te r among p o te n tia l lo cal v o ters than among th© '*non-voter s'* (Table

8 );

th a t

th© incidence o f Jews was r e la tiv e ly g re a te r among non­ v o ters in P re cin c t 76 in th is p a r tic u la r © lection; and

177

( a f te r e q u ilib ra tin g th e two sub-samples exclusive of th e “no answerH category) th a t th e p ro p o rtio n of high school graduates was g re a te r among th e '•non-voters* (Tab le 9)* There was no ap?mr©nt d iffe re n c e In the “some college* and college graduate groups. A fter e q u ilib ra tin g the p o te n tia l v o te r and “nonvoter* samples In terms of th© percentages l i s t e d In the “check to ta l* In Table 10, I t was found th a t “non-voters** In p recin ct 76 d iffe re d from p o te n tia l P re cin c t 70 v o te rs in respect to th e reasons fo r t h e i r p references among th© p re s id e n tia l candidates in the follow ing ways:

1

) they

were not a ffe c te d by p arty demands o r p arty lo y a lty (,9 3 T value);

2)

they d id not co n tain any Im portant element lik e

the pro-Truman p o te n tia l v o te rs who were opposed to a change ( .8

I le v e l) ; 3) they probably were not as concerned about

labor Issu es (T value only .7 2 ).

Other d iffe re n ce s were

even more u n re lia b le . The grand t o ta l column In Table 10 sums up the reasons th a t determined p re s id e n tia l p references In th© public mind o f P re c in c t 70 In the 1948 e le c tio n ,

se le c ­

ted from a suggested l i s t , w ith opportunity to name a reason not on the l i s t .

This kind of Inform ation should be gathered

system atically in a number of p laces according to some stan­ dard procedure In every p re s id e n tia l campaign.

173 A fter e q u ilib ra tio n , th e re were no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s ig n ific a n t d iffe re n c e s of opinion between p o te n tia l v o te rs in P recin ct 76 and o th e r interview ees in th e ir opinions as to th© most in f lu e n t ia l n a tio n a l I n te r e s t group* (Table 11 .) The only apparent d iffe re n c e s were in th e "big b u sin e ss’* and ”organised b u sin e ss” c a te g o rie s, sfrtlch need to be lumped together*

Big business and the ambiguous category, ’’orga­

nized b u sin ess”, were se le c te d by 54*3$ of a l l respondents, while 29.8$ se le c te d organized la b o r.

Other groups were

named by fiv e per oent. or l e s s . While 23.3$ of p o te n tia l v o ters in P re cin c t 76 had no re a c tio n to the P re s id e n t’ s C iv il Rights program or were not fa m ilia r w ith i t , 40$ of others interview ed had opinions in th ese “dead" or in e r t c a te g o rie s.

(Table 1 2 .)

The "non-voters" c o n s iste n tly showed a hig h er proportion of in e r t opinion.

Frequently, as h ere, i t was highly s lg n i f i-

cant, s t a t i s t i c a l l y speaking.

110

A fter e q u ilib ra tin g th®

percentages to allow fo r th e d iffe re n ce in th ese ca teg o rie s, no r e a l d iffe re n ce s in a ttitu d e toward th e C iv il Rights Program are d isc lo se d between th e two groups.

The whole

sample was very evenly divided on th is issu e , with 29$ in ­ e rt opinions. P o te n tia l v o te rs in P recin ct 76 showed d is tin c tly le s s enthusiasm fo r Job eq u ality than the o th er respondents,

179 non-voters In Pad© County# (Table 13.) I t by

68i$

”Ncm-voters” favored

to 24$, compared w ith 61$ to 33'§$ fo r th e poten­

t i a l voters*

A fte r e q u ilib ra tio n fo r th e d iffe re n c e in th©

”un-decldedMgroups, th ese percentages a re found to have a T value of .8 9 . vorable by

6 3 ^$

O ver-all opinion on t h i s question was fa­ to 3Qjr$. w ith only six per oent undeoided.

On th e q u estio n of outlawing the Communist P arty of America (Table 14), ”non-voter* opinion was s ig n ific a n tly more in e r t (a t th e .95 T le v e l) than opinion of p o te n tia l voters in P re cin c t 76.

P o te n tia l v o te rs placed themselves

in th e emphatic category, Bstro n g ly approve*, more o ften than did *non-voters*— 4 ?i$ to 38f$, T value

.8 6

— but

the d iffe re n ce i s not r e lia b le when the percentages ar© figured exclusive of th e in e r t c a te g o rie s. population sampled, only

In the whole

disapproved o f outlawing th ©

Communist p a rty , w hile 84.3# approved the Idea (44.4$ Iy w>. and 12.1$ had I n e r t o p inions.

11strong*

The c r i t i c a l lim it of

differen ces in percentages near the mid-value fo r th is sam­ ple siz e i s 9.6$ (w ith .9 T) On th© q u estio n of d esig n atin g our p resen t p o licy toward Russia (Table 15A), i t was found (a t th e .9 T le v e l) , as usual, th a t * n o n - v o t e ra ” In 0ad® County flowed a h ig h er proportion in the ”no opinion and no answer” category than did th e lo c a lly re g is te re d group who Intended to v o te. They

180 also disagreed w ith th e p o te n tia l Bad® County v o ters as to whether th e p o lic y was a ”so f t " or a "hard" one* Th® ♦•non-voting" group put the p o lic y in th e "tougher" c a te ­ g o ries by an in s ig n if ic a n t margin, while the p o te n tia l v o te rs, by a 7-4 margin, placed i t in th e ca teg o rie s o f •*d0 rapromis®% "appeasement % and even "pro-Russian"*

The

d iffe re n ce between th e two groups in th e ir conception of our o f f ic ia l p o lic y toward Russia Is s ig n ific a n t a t w ell above the .9 le v e l.

Respondents as a whole believed th a t

the polloy was a "so ft" one, by a 10-7 margin with a T o f •99*

Only 10$ had no opinion. Again, th e re was a marked d iffe re n ce in w illin g ­

ness o f p o te n tia l P re cin c t 76 v o te rs and "non-voters" to express an opinion on th e qu estio n of what our p o licy to ­ ward Russia should be.

The p ro p o rtio n of I n e r t responses

was more than twic® as high in th e "non-voter” as in th e p o te n tia l v o ter group. above .9 ,

This d iffe re n c e h&a a T value well

"Non-voters" were s lig h tly le s s favorable to a

••tough" p olicy toward Russia than were p o te n tia l v o te rs. This finding was ten d en tio u s, not r e lia b le (.76 T).

Only

of "non-voters” agreed w ith our po licy toward Russia as they saw i t ; most of them considered th e policy too "tough".

The p o te n tia l v o ters did not think the p o licy

was so "tough”; a ls o , they didn*t think i t was a$ "tough”

181 as i t should have been, b a t 40i# did ag ree w ith th e p o lic y . This higher le v e l o f agreement w ith our p o lic y toward Russia th a t p o te n tia l v o te rs showed was s ig n ific a n t a t th e .98 T le v e l. For th e whole sample, th e p ro p o rtio n s were &9M fav o rlm a “touflfc* p o licy (18&# favoring an an tl-R u salan p o lic y ).

fav o rin g a ■spft* p o lley , aad 9 j t not gaylng.

(The standard e r r o r o f th e d iffe re n c e In p ro p o rtio n s fo r the sample e ls e o f 318 I s le s s than 0$ .)

The percentage

agreeing with t h e i r conception of our a t titu d e toward Russia was 35$$. Almost o n e - f ifth of a l l respondents adm itted th a t they were not fa m ilia r with th e M arshall Flan, o r European Recovery program; 18.)

8#

more would not r is k an answer. (Table

The p ro p o rtio n o f “n o n -v o ters’* who were In th e “in ­

d iffe re n t and no answer” category was four tim es as hl$h as th e p ro p o rtio n among th e p o te n tia l v o te rs In Bade County. This d ifferen ce I s s ig n ific a n t a t th e .99 le v e l.

When those

without opinions a re included, p o te n tia l v o te rs showed d is ­ tin c tly more d e f in ite approval of th e European Recovery Plan than did “n o n -v o ters“ in P re cin c t 78.

The percentages

were 63-54$, s ig n ific a n t above

Qn the o th e r

.8

T value.

hand, the p o te n tia l v o te r group a lso showed a h ig h er per­ centage stro n g ly disapproving of th e M arshall plan than

182 did th e o th e r respondent®, s ig n ific a n t above th e .9 level# When those w ithout opinion® a re om itted, both of th e above findings lo se a l l t h e i r s t a t i s t i c a l significance# The e n tir e P re cin c t 70 sample approved th e European Recovery program b y ^ f o i s ^ w l t h 27% I n e r t response®. This was a resounding r e je c tio n o f the view of th e Miami Herald on th is s u b je c t.

Several tim es John S. Knight had

given vent to h is o p p o sitio n to th e European Recovery Pro­ gram in splurgy, h alf-p ag e e d ito ria ls # At th e tim e th is p o ll and th e December p o ll were being conducted, both lo c a l d a lly newspapers, th e Hemtd and th e P ally Mews, were stro n g ly campaigning fo r th e re ­ c a ll of th re e Miami c ity commissioners, Messrs. Charles, Gardner, and Quigg.

The occasion and o ste n sib le reason

for th e r e c a ll move was th e o u stin g by th ese commissioners of th e c ity manager fo r giving a id to C ity Commissioner Palmer in h is campaign fo r th e s h e r i f f 's o f fic e .

Most r e ­

spondents understood what was meant by "recall?, but lg . M of th e re q u e sts fo r r e c a ll of the Ind iv id u al commissioners came from people who oould not give any explanation of th e term# The best-known commissioner. Qulgg. long a stormy fig u re In lo c a l p o l i t i c s , was u n fam iliar to 23.3% o f lo c a l­ ly re g is te re d v o te rs who said th a t they Intended to vote

fo r P re sid e n t.

I ll

' C harles. th e le a s t known by th e po^eiw

t l a l v o ter group. wag u n fa m ilia r to 33.3$.

The 90$ con­

fidence lim it of e rro r for th e former percentage i s 4*9$ and fo r th e l a t t e r is 5.4$.

S ixty per cen t of th e “non-

voter s'* were u n fa m ilia r w ith Qjuiggj 73$ o f th is group ad­ m itted th a t they knew nothing a f C harles.

Note th a t th i s

group wag f a r b e t te r informed on n a tio n a l p o l i t i c a l ques­ tio n s than on th e lo c a l p o l i t i c a l s itu a tio n . Commissioner K atchall was a Joker included to find the v a lid ity of th e opinions expressed. only seven p er cent of respondents: being u n fam iliar w ith him.

He caught

th e o th e rs adm itted

Three people out of 102 in

the “non-voter'* group wanted to r e c a ll him, th e same num­ ber th a t wanted to r e c a ll Commissioner Floyd] D espite th e a s s e rtio n s th a t an aroused pu b lic might soon make th e commissioners re g re t th e ir hlga-handed a c tio n in dism issing the c ity manager (who had campaigned more than once fo r candidates fo r o f fic e supported by th e Herald), i t i s very u n lik e ly th a t th e re was adequate s e n ti­ ment to r e c a ll any commissioners, even i f th e r e c a ll had not been blocked by le g a l proceedings.

Among the p o te n tia l

lo cal v o te rs, only 23.8$ favored re c a llin g Charles and Gardner, and only 27$ favored r e c a llin g Qulgg.

(Only 8$

wanted to r e c a ll Palmar, and 6 .7 $ ,F loyd.} Floyd was

104

approved toy 3-1 among those In th e p o te n tia l v o te r group who gave an opin io n on him; Palmer was approved toy 4-3 In th is group,

C harles was disapproved toy an 11-0 r a tio ,

Qulgg toy 2-1, and Gardner toy 5-2 ,

Those with opinions

who were In th e “n o n -v o ter“ group (27# to 40# of th e to t a l of t h i s group) were a h i t more opposed to a l l of th e com­ m issioners, except p o ssib ly palmer, than were the poten­ t i a l v o te rs.

December P o ll R e lia b ility and V a lid ity The second paragraph in th e su b -sectio n on re ­ l i a b i l i t y and v a lid ity In th e a n a ly sis of th e October p o ll describes th e g ra tlfy in g ly olose degree of correspondence in p er cent of t o t a l sample th a t appeared fo r th e various occupational, educational background, and re lig io u s a f f i l i a ­ tio n groups in th e October and December p o lls .

The fig u re s

fo r secondary and h ig h er educational background a re undoubt­ edly too high, but they c a rrie d a c o n siste n t b ia s in the two p o lls .

Age fig u re s obtained in December (Table 19) c o rre -

spond to those obtained in A pril erro r fo r every age group.

112

w ith in one standard

The only o th er age-group com­

parison a v a ila b le was w ith th e “over six ty " group in th e

P #u o f re g is te r e d Democrats fo r th e pepper se n a to ria l campaign in December and January, 1949-50. There were lit 15.6# of th e "votere* In t h i s c la s s In December, com­ pared to 15.1$ o f re g is te r e d Democrats In th i s c la s s in the l a t e r p o ll, covering th e e n tire G reater Miami a re a . When allow ance i s made fo r th e d iffe re n c e in a lte rn a tiv e s o ffe re d as answers in the December p o ll, the fin d in g s on f a m ilia r ity w ith th e Miami c ity commis­ sioners showed very unusual f i d e l i t y to th o se obtained in October.

In October, th e answer, "indifferent**, was

offered on the answer sheet along w ith "unfam iliar'*. In December, only "unfam iliar" was o ffered , although a new category, "u n certain ", was added.

When th e " in d iffe re n t"

are added to th e "unfam iliar" in the October p o ll, th e to ta l corresponds very c lo s e ly , fo r a l l candidates and in both th e "voter" and non-voter oolumns, w ith the "un­ fam iliar" t o t a l fo r December.

D eviations from l a t e Octo­

ber to December in th e percentages of "voters" l i s t e d as "unfam iliar" (combined w ith " in d iffe re n t" fo r O ctober), for each of the commissioners were?

down 3.7 and 2.0

p o in ts from October, and up 2 .5 , 1 .9 , and 0 .4 p o in ts from October.

For a l l respondents th e d ev iatio n s were;

down

1.7 and 0 .6 p o in ts from October, 0 .0 , and up 2.6 and 3.5 p o in ts from October.

D eviations in th e non-voter group

103

were not so sm all In two oases (down 4 .9 and 11,7 p o in ts from O ctober).

N onetheless, th e fa c t th a t only two de­

v ia tio n s out of f i f t e e n exceeded 5*7 p o in ts , and s ix were le s s than one point*, shows very hiffii r e l i a b i l i t y , f a r b e t te r than could he expected by chance.

Even th e one la rg e devia­

tio n oould be expected,fry chance In th is d is trib u tio n . The q u estio n s In th e October and December p o lls on the Issu e o f e q u a lity o f employment o p p o rtu n itie s y ie ld ­ ed r e s u lts w ith high correspondence. and 26B.)

(Compare Tables 13

I t should be remembered th a t the only d iffe re n c e

in th e October and December samples was th a t in th e l a t t e r p o ll respondents were accepted down to age seventeen In stead of age twenty-one, as in th e October p o ll.

The p rin c ip le

th a t the form o f th e qu estio n w ill not a f f e c t statem ent o f opinion th a t r e la te s d ir e c tly to basic so c ia l a ttitu d e s Is demonstrated In th e se two ta b le s .

The p re -e le c tio n question

was c le a rly loaded, and was Intended to be. in form and worded In c lic h e s .

I t was a b s tra c t

( ”Should a l l Jobs be open

to a l l on an equal b a s is , re g a rd le ss of n a tio n a lity , creed, or ra c e ? 99)

N onetheless, along with th e h i^ i correspondence

of r e s u lts fo r th e two q u estio n s, opinion was uniform ly more favorable in answering th e p o s t-e le c tio n question.

I t read:

flDo you th in k th a t th e Congress meeting in January should pass a law e s ta b lis h in g fe d e ra l p ro te c tio n o f equal employ­ ment o p p o rtu n ities reg ard le ss o f co lo r or r e lig io n ? 93

im In a l l f iv e columns, th e percentages fo r, a g a in st, and “no opinion*1 on t h i s q u estio n v aried from those given to th e October q u estio n by more than 6& point® in only two instances*

th e h ig h e st v a r ia tio n was 6.9 p o in ts .

This w ith

sub-samples as sm all as f i f t y and sev en ty -th ree cases 1 The same shadings o f d iffe re n c e in fe e lin g appeared In th e same columns in answer to each q u estio n . This Is not a l l .

When, one year l a t e r , opinions

of re g is te re d Democrats were requested from th e Whole Miami area on th e issu e of ♦‘p ro te c tio n of equal employment oppor­ tu n itie s by th e n a tio n a l government reg ard le ss o f creed o r c o lo r* — almost id e n tic a l In expression with the question in th e December p o ll — th e answers from th e w hite sample showed even c lo s e r correspondence with those obtained in th is p o ll.

The percentages obtained from s e lf-a lle g e d

•voters* in th e p o ll h ere being analysed and from re g is ­ tered Democrats (w hite) in th© p o ll taken a year l a t e r were, resp e ctiv e ly :

favor — 65.1# and 67.5$, oppose — 26.6#

and 23.1#, no opinion — 8.3# and 9.8#.

Sample six es were

169 and 006, w ith a maximum c r i t i c a l d iffe re n c e in per cent® of about 7.4# w ith a T o f .9 .

No s ig n ific a n t d iffe re n c e s

between Republican and Democratic sentiment on th is issu e were noted in th e October and December p o lls .

In c id e n ta lly ,

a “no opinion* r e s u lt as low as te n p er cent in d ic a te s a

188 high degree o f c r y s ta lli s a ti o n of opinion,

This I s p a r tic ­

u la rly tru e In p o lls , such as th e U n iv ersity of Miami Depart­ ment o f Government•a, which tak e care to p ro te c t th e I n te ­ g rity of th i s percen tag e. In th e d isc u ssio n o f r e l i a b i l i t y and v a lid ity o f the A pril p o ll (C hapter IV, Section A), th e c lo se co rre­ spondence of th e percentages o f w hites who claimed to have voted In th e 1948 p r e s id e n tia l e le c tio n In December ( p ilo t p recin ct p o ll) and A pril (u sin g primary sampling u n its th a t were s t r a t i f i e d by average dw elling values and by d i s t r i c t ) are shown.

Of th o se who claimed to have voted, 62.7# claimed

In th e December p o ll, to have voted fo r Truman* fig u re in th e p re c in c t was 53.4#*

The a c tu a l

The sample of s e lf-a lle g e d

vo ters Included th ir te e n people who claimed to have voted outside o f Dade County; they probably d id not a f f e c t th e percentages much.

She 02.7# i s above th e a c tu a l fig u re fo r

yreolnet 76 w ith 98# r e l i a b i l i t y .

The fig u re s obtained

from the white sample in th e A pril p o ll In answer to th e same question was 61.9# — le s s than 1$ below th e December U m s» .

The a c tu a l fig u re fo r th e whole county was 53.6#.

Since the A pril w hite sample contained 536 oases and was chosen on an e n tir e ly d if fe re n t b a s is , the excessive p o stelect Ion estim ates o f th e Truman vote must be a ttr ib u te d to p re s tig e e f f e c t, p rim a rily .

189 •She f i f t y respondents who said th a t they voted for Dewey a re 29.6$ o f a l l th o se who claimed to have voted, Dewey a c tu a lly receiv ed 35.1# of th e v o te In P re cin c t 76. There i s alm ost a 00# lik e lih o o d th a t th i s d ev iatio n i s due to chance*

Only 1*8$ of respondents adm itted having voted

for Thurmond although 8.1# a c tu a lly voted fo r him In t h i s p recin ct.

Since th e A p ril w hite sample showed an even

sm aller percentage fo r Thurmond (Table 37), I t may be p re­ sumed th a t t h i s was due to a negative p re s tig e effect*

The

sample should have turned up fiv e or s ix v o te rs fo r Wallace Instead of th e th re e i t did show.

Four p er cent o f those

who claimed to have voted would not say fo r whom they voted. The p ro p o rtio n o f th o se who claimed to have voted In Dade County but did not, In fa ct, Is estimated at quite sim ila r fig u re s fo r th e December and A pril p o lls .

Xt i s

somewhat (but u n re lia b ly ) sm aller than the proportion o f those in th e October p o ll who said th a t they were re g is te re d In Dade County and Intended to vote, yet did not a c tu a lly vote le s s than a week l a t e r .

The method of determ ining th a t

64.2# of December respondents were re g is te re d in Dad® County 114 Is explained in t h i s fo o tn o te. Since 68.2# of th e re g is ­ tered population o f P recin ct 76 voted in the 1948 p residen­ t i a l ele c tio n , th i s means th a t 43.8# of th e population sam­ pled In December probably a c tu a lly voted in Dade County,

ISO

Instead of th e 56.5# who claimed to have voted th e re ,

in

eth er words, 121 In ste a d of 186 respondents prob ab ly d id vote In Bade County:

22.4$ of those who claimed in peoem\ her to have voted In Bade County in Hovember probably d id .115 jjg t, The A p ril p o ll showed 22.6$ o f th e t o t a l estim ated s h ite sample re g is te r e d in Dade County who claimed to have voted in th e Hoy ember e le c t ion but did no t, in f a c t.

Since

the 56.5$ fig u re (per cent o f to ta l sample claim ing to have voted in Bade County) obtained in th e December p o ll re q u ire s a 4.9$ to le ra n c e fo r 90$ confidence, those fa ls e ly claim ing to have voted in pad© County mlglit e a sily vary, as a r e s u lt of chance e rro r alone, from 15$ to 29$.

I t was found th a t

27# o f the October sample who claim ed to b© r e g is t e r e d in

Dade County and said they were goin g to vote did n o t,

This

per cent, too, re q u ire s about a fiv e per cent to le ra n ce fo r .9 ?. Applying th e best estim ate o f 22.4$ fa ls e ly claim­ ing to have voted to th e 169 respondents who said th a t they voted In Bade County or elsewhere, i t appears th a t perhaps there were about 145 non-voters in th e sampl©-instead of the 107 who adm itted not v o tin g .

This would mean th a t

roughly 26$ o f non-voters claimed to have voted.

This f ig ­

ure la h ig h ly u n r e lia b le . T h irteen people, o r 7.3$ of those who claimed to have voted, sa id th a t they v o ted o u ts id e o f Bade County,

191 |a October, 7 .4 $ of r e g is tr a n ts wore found to be r e g is te r e d outside of Pad© County. The in e v ita b le u n r e lia b ili ty o f th e small sub samples must co n sta n tly be kept in mind in analyzing and in ­ te rp re tin g th e r e s u lts o f t l i i s n o i l .

U n re lia b ility and con­

fidence lim its a re co n stan tly expressed fo r the p e r c e n ta g e findings analysed in th e r e s t o f th is se c tio n . gfraraoterlatlo. o f Votar Sla.aa.g.t, 1048 P re s id e n tia l E lectio n The 107 adm itted non-voters were asked, "Why did­ n 't you vote?**

U nfortunately, the answers recorded by in ­

terview ers were g en e ra lly u n e x p lic lt and ambiguous.

This

poor interview ing was p a r tly due to the lack of w ritte n In ­ stru c tio n s.

F ifty -e ig h t p er cent said th a t they were "not

re g iste re d % "not e lig ib le * , o r "too young*, th is per cent re q u ire s 6.1$ to le ra n c e .

fb r .8 T,

Other reasons given

for not voting were: re g is te re d , but out of town — 13$, i l l — 11$, poor candidates — 5i$, "too busy* — 4 j$ .

For

the 13$ fig u re , .8 T re q u ire s a 4.2$ to le ra n c e . The 108 respondents who said th a t they voted fo r Truman were asked why. Again poor interview ing (or inadequate in s tru c tio n of in terv iew ers) b lu rre d the s itu a tio n .

One-

th ird said Truman was "the b e s t man", and in terv iew ers pressed no f a r th e r .

Other rea so n s g iv en wore "Democrat"-

192 - 16#, “le s s e r o f two e v i l s ” — 11$#, “fo r th e common man” —9$#, “lik e d Truman’s p o lic ie s ” — 9$#* Perhaps 'the number o f non-voters who blamed t h e i r absence from th e p o lls on “poor c a n d id a te s”, and the r a th e r larg e percentage of Truman “v o te r s ” who simply found him le s s u n d esirab le than the o th e r candidates, could be con­ sidered as supporting th e theory th a t a ttitu d e s toward the candidates in t h i s e le c tio n were not stro n g ly defined or opposed. The q u estio n , “Why, in your opinion, did Truman win?” m s one o f th o se seeking to gauge th e e ffe c t o f th e electio n on th e general p u b lic .

In each c la s s of 11v o te rs ”

and non-voters, 18# had no answer. (Table 17.)

Various

personal q u a lific a tio n s and s u p e r io r itie s over Dewey were mentioned by 28§# o f Truman “v o te rs ”. combined fo r t h i s f i g u r e .)

(Lines 4 and 7 a re

Three secondary reasons given

by Truman “v o te rs ” were Truman’ s appeal fo r th e ordinary man, h is platform and campaign, and h is la b o r support. Other reasons received minor support from th is group.

Dewey

“v o te rs ” spoke o f Truman*s campaign and platform , h is la b o r support, and Republican over-confidence.

The consensus of

the whole sample i s shown by th e order of th e item s in the stub of Table 17.

(Lines 4 and 7 in th e stub might be com­

bined; they would then become th e main re a s o n .)

In order

193 Mai© I ? Seasons Given far Truman Victory#

i n your opinion* d id Truman win?** Truman Dewey voters voters 4/=> %

A ll but Truman voters 4

A ll in ­ terviewed %

1 #.Q

1 8 .0

18.2

1 8 .1

1 3 #0

2 2 ,0

1 8 .2

1 6 ,3

12 .5

2 2 ,0

1 1 .8

12*0

1 5 .0

0 .0

9 .4

1 1 .6

6,o

7.6

10.1

22.0

12.4

9 .8

4*0 4*0

4 .7 4»1

6 .9 4 .0

0 .0

2 ,4

3.3

0.0

2 .4

3*3

4*0

2 .9

5 .5

1 6 .0

1 2 .9

2.5 10.I

Check to ta l

1 0 9 .0

:1 1 8 * 0

1 0 7 .0

1 0 8 .0

lumber o f answers given Sample siz e

116

59

132

298

106

So

1?0

276

1# Soa t t know 2*

Truman*© platform and campaign

% Labor support 4

* Bettor man, le sso r o f two e v ils

5* Appeal fo r ordinary man 34*0 6* Republican, overconfidence 5*5 7* P ersonality and q u a lifi­ cation s superior XQ.5 8 . 1toa er support 4*0 9# Democratic party strength 4*5 10* Poor record o f 4*5 11# l i s t i n g prosperity; 2,0 opposed to change 12* M iscellaneous

194

to assu re 80$ r e l i a b i l i t y , a to le ra n c e o f two to th re e per cent must be given to th e percentages l i s t e d fo r th e various reasons*

The whole add® up to a re sp e c ta b le H a t o f reasons* When th e Truman “v o te r s 9 a re su b tracted from the

consensus, Truman *s platform and campaign i s l e f t a s the main reason fo r h is v ic to ry , followed by su p erio r personal c h a ra c te ris tic s and q u a lific a tio n s , Republican o v er-co n fidenoe, and la b o r support. Truman "v o te rs9 did not agree with Dewey “v o te rs ’* as to the reasons fo r Truman*s success*

The d iffe re n ce s

in percentages in th ese columns fo r the f i r s t seven lin e s in the stub a r e a l l s ig n ific a n t a t the .8 level*

So are

they for th e d iffe re n c e s shown in reasons given by th e Tru­ man “voters** and a l l the others* Table 18 makes a very im portant b e fo re -a n d -a fte r comparison with Table 11*

Table 18 was made up from an­

swers to an open question, while Table 11 was a “o a fe te ria type** question, w ith several suggested answers and opportu­ n ity to name a group not lis te d * tio n s were c lo se ly comparable*

Otherwise, th e two ques­ The only d iffe re n ce in the

samples was th a t th e second p o ll took respondents down to • and Including age seventeen In stea d of twenty-one*

There

were 15$ “donH know** answers in ste a d of the 4&'i obtained in October.

This was probably due p a rtly to the d if f ic u lty

m a * 18 Opij^on^on^9 4 ^

I n f lu e n tia l N ational I n te r e s t Group,

®5ts you: see i t , what m ajor in t e r e s t group e x e rts the g re a t­ e s t in flu en c e on American p o litic s ? "

Truman Dewey v o te rs v o ters 1 ^fa €

A ll o th ers Inter*viewed cf P

A ll in te r ­ viewed p

%b lab o r

SU 5

li.6 . 0

51.0

2. Big b u sin ess

17.0

2 0 .0

26.5

2 1 .7

1 6 .0

1 0 .0

l 6*0

H-.9

3*

D on't know

^

C a p ita lis ts

8 .5

k*o

3.5

S .4

5.

P am ers

5 .5

lp*Q

1 .5

3.o

6#

Small business

0 .0

6 .0

3.5

2 *S

7# Veterans

2 .0

Ip.O

1 .5

2 .2

8t.

5 .5

1 2 .0

5*Q

6 .5

1 0 6 .0

1 0 8 .5

1 0 8 .2

M iscellaneous Check t o t a l

1 0 9 .0

Humber of answers given

116

Sample sis©

106

53 50

130 120

299 276

im

many people had, l a th e December p o ll, in comprehending what was meant by an “I n te r e s t group”, and p a r tly to the unsettlem ent o f a t titu d e s r e s u ltin g from th e unexpected outcome o f th e e le c tio n .

E q u ilib ra tio n of th e two samples

was thus req u ired to make th e o th e r percentages comparable. In A pril, th e “no opinion* category fo r th i s q u estio n drew 3&i$J

In o rd er to e q u ilib r a te th e A pril sample with th e

October sample, i t was a lso necessary to expunge the c a te ­ g ories of “p o litic ia n s '* .

Here, then, a re the e q u ilib ra te d

r e s u lts from a l l th re e p o lls , fo r th e e n tir e samples: October

0

December A pril#

0

%

Labor 29.8 57.6 38.9 Business andfinance 5 4 .2 3 0 .4 38.3 Farmers 4 .5 4 .0 6.8 Veterans 5 .1 2 .6 4 .2 Small b u sin ess g.@ 2.8 E q u ilib rated sample s iz e 29® 235 328 * Includes 13$ Negroes. # Some respondents named more than one group. — — I nclud©d in “m iscellaneous* category. S im ilarly e q u ilib ra te d r e s u lts fo r the sample of Truman “voters* from a l l th re e p o lls show:

Big business and finance Labor E q u ilib rated sample siz e

October %

mi

28 103

December A pril $ 3Q§ 45f 66 30 * 88 09

(The t o t a l sample of “v o ters" in December included 7.3$ who voted o u tsid e of Dade County; In A pril i t included

197 7*3# K egroes.)

For Dewey ’’v o te rs" th e r e s u lt s show; October %

Big b u sin ess and finance Labor E q u ilib rated sample siz e

50 35 71

D ecem ber %

A pril

S6j 49 45

1f

21 46 54

Ihese te x t ta b le s show c le a r ly enough th e e ffe c t on Truman backers in G reater Miami, on Dewey proponents, and on p u b lic opinion in g en eral o f, f i r s t , th e © leotlon, and th en , the f a ilu r e of th e 81st Congress to proceed w ith the fruaan "F air Deal" program.

I t is hard to th in k of

anything e ls e to which th e d r a s tic s h if ts in opinion could be ascrib ed .

A pparently as a r e s u lt of th e e le q tlo n . th e

p o litic a l p r e s tig e o f b ig b u siness f e l l , so f a r as th ese re p re se n ta tiv e G reater Miami re s id e n ts were oonoerned. and th a t of la b o r ro se in equally sen satio n al fashion.

The

Peweyltes a ttr ib u te d le s s slgnificano© to th e e le c tio n i n th is regard, ap p a re n tly , than th e Truman su p p o rters, but in general they showed the same re v e rsa l of opinion.

118

?he

Dewey "voters" d id not change tshelr opinions, ap p aren tly , between December and A p ril, but th e flruroan "voters" appar­ ently were quickly d is illu s io n e d by th e temper of th e Eightyf i r s t Congress and underwent another v io le n t re v e rsa l of Opinion, m entally re s to r in g b ig business to I t s former place Of supremacy.

198

Table® 19 through 28 deal with b asic c h a ra c te rl a t l e s o f v o te r c la s s e s In th e 194® p re s id e n tia l © lection In P re cin c t 76. (Table 23, perhaps, d eals w ith an In s ig n i­ fic a n t c h a r a c te r i s tic .)

Assuming th a t th e re Is no d if f e r ­

ence In th e ages o f Truman and Dewey su p p o rters,a c h isquare t e s t shows a p above .9 fo r Truman d is trib u tio n , and above .8 fo r th e Dewey d is tr ib u tio n .

The hypothesis

appears lik e ly to be c o rre c t. (Table 19.)

By the method

of determ ining th e c r i t i c a l difference® In th e per cen ts shown, th e d iffe re n c e s are not s ig n ific a n t fo r th ese sam­ ples a t the .8

confidence le v e l.

In order to compare th e

“voter" and non-voter groups p ro p erly , i t I s necessary to make allowance f o r th© probably 18# in th e l a t t e r group who were not old enou^i to v o te .

Age 21-30 31-48 46-60 Over 60 Check t o t a l E q u ilib rated sample siz e * Estim ated

The follow ing ta b le does th is ;

“V oters* % 48 22 15 100

169

Non—v o te rs % 304*36f 19# 13$ 100

88*

The r e l i a b i l i t y o f th e fin d in g , shown in the above ta b le , th a t people In th e 21-50 age g:roup were more common among aon-voters (In th e p re s id e n tia l eleo tlo n in P recin ct

199 Table 19 Basic Character1sties of Voter CX&ssea —

Truman Dewey A ll v o te rs v o te rs v o te rs

i

Age

%

Age.# lio n -

v o te rs

T otal

>

$

%

17 - 3 0

1 8 .0

1 2 .5

17.14-

ii-3#o

27.k

31 - k s

Ifi.Q

1*3 .0

1 )4 .9

30.Q

39+0

«■' 60

2 1 .5

2 6 .5

2 2 ,2

1 6 .0

19+7

A b o v e 60

llj-.O

1 8 .5

1 5 .6

1 1 .0

13*9

T o t a l answering

9 9 .5

9 9 .5

1 0 0 .1

1Q0.G

1QQ.G

Mo a n s w e r S a m p le s i z e

o»o#

106

2 . 0# 5o

1 .1 #

169

0 .0# 10?

0 . 7#

276

& Percent f ig u r e s . except f o r nno answer” category^, are p ercen t of those g iv in g answers# #

Percent o f in terv iew ees in the p a r tic u la r v o te r class*

200 than among s e lf- a lle g e d “v o te r s ” i s about .95*

There i s

on© ehano© in fiv e th a t th e rev erse fin d in g In th e 31-45 ag© group I s a random e rro r. Table 20 shows th a t th e Dewey ”v o te r s ” were b e t­ te r educated than th e Truman *v o ters* .

This fin d in g was

more d e fin ite than th e sim ila r in d ic a tio n in th e p re -e le c ­ tio n p o ll.

The d iffe re n c e might have been caused by th e

omission o f th e “no answer« group in fig u rin g percentages fo r th e p o s t-e le c tio n study.

The d iffe re n c e appeared to

be most s ig n ific a n t In the d iv is io n of those who said th a t they had schooling above the secondary le v e l from those who did not — h ere th e d if f e r e n tia l favoring Dewey was 99# re lia b le .

I t was above ,9 T fo r the co lleg e graduate group,

and almost a t th a t le v e l fo r th e high school graduates. Xt i s d isco n certin g to observe th a t th© “v o te rs ” and non-voters do not d i f f e r s ig n ific a n tly a t a l l w ith re ­ spect to th e ir educational background.

This is p a rtly due

to th e g re a te r education of respondents who were not y et old enough to v o te.

I t may a lso be due to a deficien cy in

formal education among th e estim ated 19# of “v o te rs ” who did not a c tu a lly v o te and perhaps were not even re g is te re d . Table 21 f a i l s to bear out th© fig u re s on the re lig io u s a f f i l i a t i o n com position of v o tin g -in te n tio n groups shown in Table 3. The d iffe re n c e s shown a re a l l in the earn© d ire c tio n as th o se In Table 8, but Table 21 shows no

201

Table 20 C h a ra c te ris tic s o f V oter C lasses — Education*# Truman Dov/ev All v o te rs v o te rs v o te rs of $f cl > y*

Lionv o te rs

T otal

%

%

95.5

100*0

964

9 l}..o

9 5 .8

88*0

93.0

8 9 .6

a!t.o

8 7 .5

Finished secondary 69*0

81*5

7 1 .8

6 7 .5

7 0 .2

Education Finished elamenSom secondary

&m& h ig h e r

27.0

!|-9.o

3 2 ,2

3 6 .0

3 3 .6

Degree receiv ed

6 ,5

18*5

9 .6

8 .0

9«o

Total answering

100.0

100.0

1 0 0 .0

100.0

100.0

Eo answer Sample sise

12*5# 106

l}i-.G# 13.8# 5o

169

1 9 . 5# 107

IS.9# 278

#

Percent figures, except for ttno a n s w e r category, are percent of those giving answers,

#

Percent of interviovjees in the particular voter class*

202

Table 21 B&sie C h a m e te ris tic s of V oter Classes — Religion*

B ellglon

Truman Dewey All v o te rs v o te rs v o te rs 000" c la ss (T value

204

fa b le 22

Basle G har& cterlstlcs o f V oter C lasses — ihiriual Family Truman Dewey A ll v o te rs v o te rs v o te rs % % i

Honv o te rs %

Total € &

21*7

44.5

19.S 48 .G

24*5

§3000 - §5000

24.0 5o.5

Above #5000

25.5

44»5

31.4

36.5

Income Below §3000

T otal answering Ho answer Sample siz e

10.5

39.0 33*5

100.0 29.0# 2 .0# 20 .4# 23.5# 26*5# 276 106 169 107 5o 100.0

99.5 100,0

100.0

il

*

Percent f ig u re s , except fo r "no answer” category, are p ercen t of those g iv in g answers*

#

Percent o f interview ees in the p a r tic u la r v o te r class*

£08 of »97).

Non-vot©rs showed a h ig h er pro p o rtio n than ”vot­

ers" in both th e "poor" and "prosperous" groups, by unre­ lia b le margins*

(Some w in ter re s id e n ts, who u su a lly have

hig h er incomes, were included in the sample*)

No r e la tio n

between ais&e of income and voting incidence i s evident. Size of fam ily was apparently not re la te d to voting behavior in t h i s e le c tio n in th is re p re s e n ta tiv e p re c in c t. (Table 2 5 .)

Truman "voters" appear to include

a h ig h er percentage of sin g le people than Uewey "v o ters", but th e re i s one chance in thro© th a t th is is not s ig n if i­ cant*

Only one s t a t i s t i c a l l y s ig n ific a n t d iffe re n c e appears,

and i t i s so hard to fin d a lo g ic a l reason fo r i t th a t i t may be beat to accept the one chance in fiv e th a t i t i s due to chance.

I t showa th a t Dewey drew more of hi® support

from fam ilies of fiv e o r more persons than did Truman. Table 24 shows th e r e la tio n between voting be­ havior In th is e le c tio n In P re cin c t 78 and the type of occupation In which the c h ie f provider in the household was employed.

Wh ere the c h ie f provider was In a p ro fessio n .

Dewey was the very d e f in ite choice (although th e 3-1 r a tio shown was not r e lia b le ) .

Fam ilies whose c h ie f provider was

In business or managerial work bulked f a r la rg e r in Dewey*a support than in Truman1g (la rg e r with .97 T value)*

C rafts

and tra d e s fa m ilie s were fo r Truman overwhelmingly (6-1) -

206

Table 23 Basic C h a ra c te ris tic s o f V oter C lasses —- Size of Family*#

Size o f fam ily die person

Trmmn Dewey A ll v o te rs voters ; v o te rs cf pof pc f A

lionv o ters cf p

T otal p

9*0

2p*0

8*6

9 .0

8 .8

Two persons

25*0

2 5 .0

^ k .l

2 0 .0

23.0

Three persons

2 5 .0

2 7 .0

2 7 .2

30*5

28*3

Four o r fiv e persons

36.5

3 1 .0

32*7

32.5

32*6

5 .0

12*5

6.8

8.0

7.3

1 0 0 .5

99*5

100*0

100.0

100*0

Above fiv e persons Total answering Wo answer Sample s iz e

li-.5# 106

ip*0# 50

i|.*ljr I 69

7.5# 107

5»1|# 276

* Percent figures* except f o r nxio answer* category, are p erce n t o f those g iv in g answers* #

Percent o f in terv iew ees i n the p a r tic u la r v o te r class*

Table % B asle C h a r a c te r is tic s or V oter C la sses

Occupation**

Chief p ro v id er *s occxipation

Trunin Dewey A ll v o te rs v oejfte rs v oitte rs fQ /