Political Behavior

, Volume 12, Issue 3, pp 217–242 | Cite as

Fact or artifact revisited: Survey instrument effects and pocketbook politics

  • Richard R. Lau
  • David O. Sears
  • Tom Jessor


Sears and Lau (1983) presented evidence that apparent self-interest effects can be, and have been, generated in political surveys by question order artifacts. This evidence was based in part on a tabulation of published reports of self-interest effects in the NES series, specifically on the political effects of personal financial situation. From another analysis of the NES data, Lewis-Beck (1985) concluded, to the contrary, that personal finances have in fact had a consistent effect on voting preferences, without significant contamination from such artifacts. We here argue that his analysis inappropriately defines the conditions for possible contamination. We first lay out a theory of when such contamination effects might occur. We then repeat our analysis, taking into consideration both his observations and our own reappraisal of our procedures. We obtain results consistent with our original position, although the results are confounded by different types of questions appearing disproportionately in contaminated and uncontaminated conditions. However, the 1984 election appears to be a special case, in which self-interest effects were strong and relatively uncontaminated. We then report a split ballot experiment that is not confounded by item content, and find results consistent with our original position. However this methodological debate may be resolved, on the larger question of whether people's economic self-interest has major political implications, the evidence seems clear. In cases not contaminated by item order, which we would take to be the most appropriate test of self-interest effects, personal finances have on the average had only a small effect on political responses.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bishop, G. F., Oldendick, R. W., and Tuchfarber, A. (1984). What must my interest in politics be if I just told you “I don't know”?Political Opinion Quarter 48: 510–519.Google Scholar
  2. Brody, R. A., and Sniderman, P. M. (1977). From life space to polling place: The relevance of personal concerns for voting behavior.British Journal of Political Science 7: 337–360.Google Scholar
  3. Feldman, S. (1984). Economic self-interest and the vote: Evidence and meaning.Political Behavior 6: 229–252.Google Scholar
  4. Fiorina, M. P. (1981).Retrospective Voting in American National Elections. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Green, D. P. (1988).Self-interest, public opinion, and mass political behavior. Dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  6. Kinder, D. R., and Kiewiet, D. R. (1979). Economic discontent and political behavior: The role of personal grievances and collective economic judgments in congressional voting.American Journal of Political Science 23: 495–527.Google Scholar
  7. Kinder, D. R., and Kiewiet, D. R. (1981). Sociotropic politics: The American case.British Journal of Political Science 11: 129–161.Google Scholar
  8. Kinder, D. R., and Sears, D. O. (1981). Prejudice and politics: Symbolic racism versus racial threats to the good life.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 40: 414–431.Google Scholar
  9. Kinder, D. R., and Sears, D. O. (1985). Public opinion and political action. In G. Lindzey and E. Aronson (eds.),The Handbook of Social Psychology, vol. II, 3rd ed., pp. 659–741, New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  10. Kuklinski, J. H., and West, D. M. (1981). Economic expectations and voting behavior in United States House and Senate elections.American Political Science Review 75: 436–447.Google Scholar
  11. Lau, R. R. (in press). Political motivation and political cognition. In R. Sorrentino and E. T. Higgins (eds.),Handbook of Motivation and Cognition: Foundation of Social Behavior, vol. 2. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  12. Lau, R. R., and Sears, D. O. (1981). Cognitive links between economic grievances and political responses.Political Behavior, 3, 279–302.Google Scholar
  13. Lau, R. R., Sears, D. O., and Jessor, T. (1989). Survey instrument effects and pocketbook politics. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
  14. Lewis-Beck, M. S. (1985). Pocketbook voting in U.S. national election studies: Fact or artifact?American Journal of Political Science 29: 348–356.Google Scholar
  15. Lewis-Beck, M. S. (1986). Comparative economic voting: Britain, France, Germany, Italy.American Journal of Political Science 30: 315–346.Google Scholar
  16. Lewis-Beck, M. S. (1988).Economics and Elections: The Major Western Democracies, Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  17. Miller, A. H., and Wattenberg, M. P. (1985). Throwing the rascals out: Policy and performance evaluations of presidential candidates, 1952–1980.American Political Science Review 79: 359–372.Google Scholar
  18. Schuman, H., Kalton, G., and Ludwig, J. (1983). Context and contiguity in survey questionnaires.Public Opinion Quarterly 47: 112–115.Google Scholar
  19. Schuman, H., and Presser, S. (1981).Questions and Answers in Attitude Surveys. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  20. Sears, D. O., and Allen, H. M., Jr. (1984). The trajectory of local desegregation controversies and whites' opposition to busing. In N. Miller and M. B. Brewer (eds.),Groups in Contact: The Psychology of Desegregation (pp. 123–151). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  21. Sears, D. O., and Citrin, J. (1985).Tax Revolt: Something for Nothing in California (enlarged edition). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Sears, D. O., and Funk, C. L. (1990). Self-interest in Americans political opinions. In J.J. Mansbridge (ed.), Beyond Self-interest. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  23. Sears, D. O., and Jessor, T. (1981). Mob-like behavior by the mass electorate: The case of Proposition 13. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, New York.Google Scholar
  24. Sears, D. O., and Lau, R. R. (1979). Personal impact, governmental performance, and policy attitudes: A preliminary analysis of the 1979 CPS Study. Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  25. Sears, D. O., and Lau, R. R. (1983). Inducing apparently self-interested political preferences.American Journal of Political Science 27: 223–252.Google Scholar
  26. Sears, D. O., Lau, R. R. Tyler, T., R., and Allen, H. M., Jr. (1980). Self-interest vs. symbolic politics in policy attitudes and presidential voting.American Political Science Review 74: 670–684.Google Scholar
  27. Shanks, J. M., and Miller, W. E. (1985). Policy direction and performance evaluation: Complimentary explanations of the Reagan elections. Paper delivered at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  28. Turner, C. F., and Martin, E. (eds.) (1984).Surveying Subjective Phenomena, vol. 1. New York: Russell Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard R. Lau
  • David O. Sears
  • Tom Jessor

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations