Graphic associative test of attitudes as a convenient implicit measurement tool for mass polls
- Авторлар: Chernozub O.L.1
-
Мекемелер:
- Institute of Sociology of FCTAS RAS
- Шығарылым: Том 23, № 1 (2023)
- Беттер: 122-141
- Бөлім: Sociological lectures
- URL: https://journal-vniispk.ru/2313-2272/article/view/323038
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-2272-2023-23-1-122-141
- ID: 323038
Дәйексөз келтіру
Толық мәтін
Аннотация
Several latest elections and referendums were marked by the dramatic failure of electoral forecasts based on mass polls. To respond to the dissatisfaction of the public and politicians, alternative approaches like prediction markets, Implicit Attitude Test (IAT), expectationbased forecasts and so on were developed. IAT proves to be one of the most efficient ways to enrich the forecasting models and improve their accuracy. The problem is that the original form of IAT implies too rigid rules to be applied in the traditional mass poll. As a thorough laboratory-style measurement of nervous reactions to stimuli, IAT requires a special environment, for instance, nothing should disturb or distract respondents from performing experimental tasks. Such an environment is difficult to provide during the mass poll’s fieldwork; thereby, researchers usually implement IAT on small samples. This article presents the Graphic Associative Test of Attitude (GATA) as a tool for mass polls. It is the IAT’s functional analog developed by the author and tested in a wide range of preelectoral mass polls in Russia. GATA is easy to use even with inexperienced interviewers, and its simple and intuitive-clear tasks do not create additional barriers for respondents and do not decrease the response rate. At the same time, in a reliable way, GATA identifies implicit factors of behavior and helps to improve the accuracy of forecast. As a theoretical research, this study proves the ‘dual attitude’ concept of the structural theory of attitude.
Авторлар туралы
O. Chernozub
Institute of Sociology of FCTAS RAS
Хат алмасуға жауапты Автор.
Email: 9166908616@mail.ru
кандидат социологических наук, ведущий научный сотрудник Центра комплексных социальных исследований Института социологии Krzhizhanovskogo St., 24/35-5, Moscow, 117218, Russia
Әдебиет тізімі
- Alwin D.F. Feeling thermometers versus 7-point scales: Which are better? Sociological Methods and Research. 1997; 25 (3).
- Anson I.G., Hellwig T. Economic models of voting. Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences: An Interdisciplinary, Searchable, and Linkable Resource. Wiley; 2015.
- Arcuri L., Castelli L., Galdi S. et al. Predicting the vote: Implicit attitudes as predictors of the future behavior of decided and undecided voters. Political Psychology. 2008; 29.
- Arrow K., Forsythe R., Gorham M. et al. The promise of prediction markets. Science. 2008; 320.
- Atanasov P. et al. Distilling the wisdom of crowds: Prediction markets versus prediction polls. Academy of Management Proceedings. 2015. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMBPP.2015.15192abstract.
- Baskakova Yu. Techniques and methods of political forecasting in the 2016-2018 elections. Elections after the Crimea. Fedorov V. (Ed). Moscow; 2018. (In Russ.).
- Celli F., Stepanov E.A., Poesio M., Riccardi G. Predicting Brexit: Classifying agreement is better than sentiment and pollsters. Proceedings of the Workshop on Computational Modeling of People’s Opinions, Personality, and Emotions in Social Media. Osaka; 2016.
- Choma B.L., Hafer C.L. Understanding the relation between explicitly and implicitly measured political orientation: The moderating role of political sophistication. Personality and Individual Differences. 2009; 47.
- Chernozub O.L. The two-component model of behavior factors: Evidences of orthogonality of explicit and implicit factors. RUDN Journal of Sociology. 2022; 22 (1).
- Chernozub O.L. Implicit factors and inconsistency of electoral behavior: from a theoretical concept to an empirical phenomenon. Monitoring of Public Opinion: Economic and Social Changes. 2020; No4.
- Chernozub O.L. Implicit factors and inconsistency of electoral behavior: From attitude to behavior. Monitoring of Public Opinion: Economic and Social Changes. 2020; 5.
- Etkind A.M. The color test of attitude. General Psychodiagnostics. Moscow; 1987. (In Russ.).
- Himmelfarb S., Eagly A.H. Orientations to the study of attitudes and their change. S. Himmelfarb, A.H. Eagly (Eds.). Readings in Attitude Change. New York; 1974.
- Fishbein M., Ajzen I. Predicting and Changing Behavior: The Reasoned Action Approach. New York-Hove; 2011.
- Ganser C., Riordan P. Vote expectations at the next level. Trying to predict vote shares in the 2013 German Federal Election by polling expectations. Electoral Studies. 2015; 40.
- Gayo-Avello D. A meta-analysis of state-of-the-art electoral prediction from Twitter data. Social Science Computer Review. 2013; 31.
- Graefe A. Accuracy of vote expectation surveys in forecasting elections. Public Opinion Quarterly. 2014; 78.
- Graefe A. Political Markets. Sage Handbook of Electoral Behavior; 2016.
- Green D.Ph. On the dimensionality of public sentiment toward partisan and ideological groups. American Journal of Political Science. 1988; 32 (3).
- Greenwald A.G., Poehlman T.A., Uhlmann E.L., Banaji M.R. Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: III. Meta-analysis of predictive validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2009; 97 (1).
- Greenwald A.G., Smith C.T., Sriram N., Bar-Anan Y., Nosek B.A. Implicit race attitudes predicted vote in the 2008 U.S. Presidential Election. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy. 2009; 9.
- Jacoby W.G. Feeling thermometers. Candidate Evaluation Conference Proceedings. 1994. URL: http://www.electionstudies.org/conferences/1994Candidate/1994Candidate_Jacoby.pdf.
- Kennedy C. et al. An Evaluation of 2016 Election Polls in the United States. URL: https://www.aapor.org/getattachment/Education-Resources/Reports/AAPOR-2016-ElectionPolling-Report.pdf.aspx.
- Kiesler Ch.A., Collins B.E., Miller N. Attitude Change. A Critical Analysis of Theoretical Approaches. New York; 1969.
- Kou S.G., Sobel M.E. Forecasting the vote: A theoretical comparison of election markets and public opinion polls. Political Analysis. 2004; 12.
- Leigh A., Wolfers J. Competing Approaches to Forecasting Elections: Economic Models, Opinion Polling and Prediction Markets. IZA Discussion Papers. No. 1972. Bonn; 2006.
- Lewis-Beck M.S., Stegmaier M. Economic models of voting. The Oxford Handbook of Political Behavior. Ed. by J. Dalton, H.-D. Klingemann. Oxford University Press; 2007.
- Lupton R.N., Jacoby W.G. The Reliability of the Anes Feeling Thermometers: An optimistic assessment. Presentation at the 2016 Annual Meetings of the Southern Political Science Association. San Juan-Puerto Rico; 2016.
- Lüscher M. The Luscher Color Test. New York; 1990.
- Mamonov M.V., Gavrilov I.V., Vyadro M.A. Imitational features of the 2018 presidential elections and their impact on the next electoral cycle: Results of public opinion polls. Monitoring of Public Opinion: Economic and Social Changes. 2018; 4. (In Russ.).
- Markert С. Test Your Emotions. Wellingborough; 1980.
- Mercer A., Deane C., McGeeney K. Why 2016 election polls missed their mark? URL: http:// www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/why-2016-election-polls-missed-their-mark.
- Metaxas P.T., Mustafaraj E., Gayo-Avello D. How (not) to predict elections: Privacy, security, risk and trust. 2011 IEEE Third International Conference on Social Computing. Boston; 2011.
- Murr A.E. The wisdom of crowd: Applying Condorcet’s jury theorem to forecasting US presidential elections. International Journal of Forecasting. 2015; 31.
- O’Keefe D.J. Persuasion: Theory and Research. Sage; 1990.
- Perugini M. Predictive models of implicit and explicit attitudes. British Journal of Social Psychology. 2005; 44.
- Roccato M., Zogmaister C. Predicting the vote through implicit and explicit attitudes: A field research. Political Psychology. 2010; 31.
- Rogers T., Aida M. Why Bother Asking? The Limited Value of Self-Reported Vote Intention. Harvard Kennedy School of Government. Faculty Research Working Paper Series. 2012. URL: http://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:hrv:hksfac:7779639.
- Rothschild D., Wolfers J. Forecasting Elections: Voter Intentions versus Expectations. 2012. URL: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1884644.
- Sturgis P., Baker N., Callegaro M. at al. Report of the Inquiry into the 2015 British General Election Opinion Polls. London; 2016.
- Tumasjan A., Sprenger T.O., Sandner P.G., Welpe I.M. Predicting elections with Twitter: What 140 characters reveal about political sentiment. Proceedings of the 4th International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media. AAAI Press; 2010.
- Vandenberghe F. On the coming end of sociology. Canadian Review of Sociology = Revue Canadienne de Sociologie. 2019; February. https://doi.org/10.1111/cars.12238.
- Whiteley P. Four reasons why the polls got the U.S. election result so wrong. URL: http:// www.newsweek.com/polls-2016-us-elections-trump-potus-hillary-clinton-520291.
- Wilcox C., Sigelman L., Cook E. Some like it hot: Individual differences in responses to group feeling thermometers. Public Opinion Quarterly. 1989; 53 (2).
- Yarygin G., Yarygin O. Modeling of electoral process: From conceptual model to computer simulation. Azimuth of Science and Research. 2016; (1). (In Russ.).
Қосымша файлдар
