Colloborative Research on Social Influence in an Election Campaign

本研究探讨公民生活、工作和娱乐的社会背景如何转化为选举活动中投票行为的社会影响。由此产生的问题包括：在社区或工作群体中，什么机制促进了政治选择的同质性或异质性？工作、娱乐或社区生活的社会背景如何过滤来自大众媒体或其他人的政治相关信息的感知？什么样的社会互动机制会增强或抑制社会对政治选择的影响？在政治竞选的高度动态的背景下，社会背景的政治影响是如何随着时间的推移而演变的？在竞选期间，什么机制支配着社会对政治选择影响的变化过程？为了解决这些问题，调查人员在1984年大选之前、期间和之后对印第安纳州南本德的1500名选民进行了三次小组调查。还完成了对答复者确定为政治讨论伙伴的近1 000人的补充调查。这项调查采用了与传统做法明显不同的研究设计和抽样技术。在过去的四十年里，利用全国随机抽样调查技术，对大众政治行为，特别是投票行为进行了广泛的科学研究。目前的调查在两个重要方面与这种方法不同。首先，研究地点是一个特定的城市社区。其次，抽样设计随机选择受访者，但在有目的地选择社会和经济构成系统不同的社区。每个社区内的高采样率使调查人员能够表征每个社区环境。这种设计被认为在投票行为研究中是独一无二的，因为它提供了对选民直接社会环境的社会、态度、经济和政治特征的直接、全面的衡量。这些程序产生的数据集提供了通常的国家选举研究所没有的分析机会。在选民选择或政策态度的决定因素中，受访者的社会背景测量可以直接引入分析。可以评估个人财产与被调查者所在社区的社会构成所产生的政治影响相比的相对重要性。例如，大量证据表明，工人阶级受访者的投票选择不仅受到其工人阶级成员身份的严重影响，还受到其居住地区工人阶级家庭集中程度的严重影响。社会背景对投票行为的经典影响可以通过南本德提供的数据集来详细说明。是什么样的社会互动机制促使工人阶级对工人阶级个体成员的影响被观察到的放大？是他们政治讨论网络的构成吗？是他们工作小组的组成吗？是他们社区内其他社会分裂的同质性——种族、宗教、民族？这些问题可以用这些数据提出，并给出近似的答案。

This investigation addresses the issue of how the social context in which citizens live, work, and play is transformed into social influence on voting behavior in an election campaign. Questions that follow from this include: What mechanisms promote homogeneity or heterogeneity in political choice in neighborhoods or work groups? In what ways do the social contexts of work, recreation, or neighborhood life filter the perception of politically relevant information coming from the mass media or other persons? What mechanisms of social interaction enhance or inhibit social influences on political choice? In the highly dynamic context of a political campaign, how does the political influence of social context evolve over time? What mechanisms govern the changing course of social influence on political choice during a campaign? To address these questions the investigators have undertaken a three wave panel survey of 1,500 voters in South Bend, Indiana, before, during, and after the 1984 election campaign. A supplemental survey of almost 1,000 persons identified by respondents as political discussion partners was also completed. This survey employed a research design and sampling technique that differed markedly from traditional practice. Extensive scientific study of mass political behavior, especially voting behavior, has been undertaken over the past four decades utilizing national random sample survey techniques. The current investigation differs from this methodology in two important respects. First, the research site is a particular urban community. Second, the sampling design randomizes respondent selection, but within purposefully chosen neighborhoods that differ systematically in social and economic composition. A high sampling rate within each neighborhood allows the investigators to characterize each neighborhood environment. This design is believed to be unique in the study of voting behavior in that it provides for direct, comprehensive measurement of the social, attitudinal, economic, and political characteristics of the voter's immediate social milieu. The data set resulting fom these procedures provides analytic opportunities unavailable in the usual national election studies. In the determinants of voter choice or policy attitudes, measurements of respondents' social contexts may be introduced directly into the analysis. The relative importance of individual properties compared with the political influence arising from the social composition of the respondent's neighborhood can be assessed. For example, a body of evidence suggests that vote choice by working class respondents is heavily influenced not only by their working class membership but also by the concentration of working class families in their living areas. This classic effect of social context on voting behavior can be specified in extraordinary detail with the data set now available from South Bend. What mechanisms of social interaction drive this observed amplification of working class influence on individual members of the working class? Is it the composition of their political discussion networks? Is it the composition of their work groups? Is it the homogeneity of other social cleavages within their neighborhoods - - race, religion, ethnicity? Such questions can be raised, and given answers in first approximation, with these data.