Abstract
This paper evaluates the two most common methods of measuring voter time-of-decision—the recall method and the panel method—and asks whether the two methods are consistent with each other. Using data from the National Annenberg Election Survey collected during the 2008 U.S. presidential election, the findings suggest that these two methods measure different concepts, and thus cannot be used interchangeably. Furthermore, discrepancies between the two methods suggest that the accepted model of early, campaign, and late decision-making should be adjusted to account for a fourth group of voters that never changes their vote intention, but does not truly commit to that intention until later in the campaign. The concept of uncommitted early deciders is offered to describe this group, created by combining the two methods.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
In Fournier et al’s (2004) study, the campaign’s length in Canada was only 36 days.
617 replicates were released during the third wave, 635 in the fourth, and 653 in the fifth.
Because a Democratic nominee wasn’t decided until June 6, 2008, it was decided to eliminate everyone who completed the third wave before this date.
Because the fourth wave includes the last week of the campaign, it would not have been possible to differentiate whether people who completed the fourth wave within the last week were in fact campaign or late deciders.
The household recruitment rate (RECR) is the percent of respondents recruited using RDD telephone methods who agreed to be in the Knowledge Networks sample; the RECR was 21.0% for the third wave, 21.2% for the fourth wave, and 21.0% for the fifth wave. Of those in the Knowledge Networks sample who were asked to complete the survey, the final cooperation rate was 74.3% for the third wave, 73.1%, for the fourth wave, and 69.1% for the fifth wave.
The wording of this question varies somewhat among studies. The ANES survey has changed the wording of this question at least eight times (see Plumb (1986) for question variations through 1980). The current version asks “How long before the election did you decide that you were going to vote the way you did?” (American National Elections Studies 2010), Fournier et al’s (2004) study asked “When did you decide that you were going to vote X?” (p. 664); Chaffee and Rimal (1996) asked “When would you say you finally decided for sure which way you were going to vote for president?” (p. 288); Plumb’s (1986) study, based on the 1980 National Election Panel Study data, asked “When did respondent reach vote decision?” (p. 310).
This method cannot account for those respondents who changed their minds after an interview, then switched back to their original candidate choice before being interviewed again. These respondents would be coded as consistent. This is, however, the methodology used in time-of-decision studies.
Party strength was measured with a 4 point scale ranging from 0 (does not identify with either party) to 3 (very strongly identifies with either party) (M = 2.03, SD = 0.89).
A knowledge scale was constructed by using survey items that asked respondents to state their positions on the issues of gay marriage, the war in Iraq, and abortion, and items that asked whether they knew which candidate held a position closer to their own position on each issue. Respondents were asked, “which presidential candidates’ views are most like your own?” A scale ranging from 0 to 3 was created which indicated how many times the respondent correctly matched their own views with those of the candidate(s) (M = 1.59, SD = 1.02). While not a traditional measure of knowledge, it is a more relevant measure of knowledge for the 2008 election since it measures respondents’ ability to correctly locate the candidates’ issue stances. Additionally, because the survey was conducted via the internet, there was concern that asking the traditional, more general knowledge question would be less valid because respondents would be more likely to look up the answers online if they knew that their knowledge was being tested. The items used for this measure made it less obvious in the survey that the respondents’ knowledge was being tested.
In the fourth wave, respondents were asked, “from which of the following sources have you heard anything about the presidential campaign?” Respondents had the choice of TV news programs, newspapers, TV talk shows, Internet sites, radio, and news magazines. The total number of sources from which they received information from was summed, creating a scale from 0 to 6 sources (M = 3.56, SD = 1.46).
References
American National Election Studies. (2010). The ANES guide to public opinion and electoral behavior. Accessed 15 April 2009 from http://www.electionstudies.org/nesguide/toptable/tab9a_3.htm
Berelson, B., Lazarsfeld, P. F., & McPhee, W. N. (1954). Voting: A study of opinion formation in a presidential campaign. Chicago: University of Chicago.
Berrens, R. P., Bohara, A., Jenkins-Smith, H., Silva, C., & Weimer, D. L. (2003). The advent of internet surveys for political research: A comparison of telephone and internet samples. Political Analysis, 11(1), 1–22.
Bowen, L. (1994). Time of voting decision and use of political advertising: The Slade Gorton-Brock Adams senatorial campaign. Journalism Quarterly, 71(3), 665–675.
Brody, R. A., & Rothenberg, L. S. (1988). The instability of partisanship: An analysis of the 1980 presidential election. British Journal of Political Science, 18(4), 445–465.
Callegaro, M. (2008). Social desirability. In P. J. Lavrakas (Ed.), Encyclopedia of survey research methods (pp. 825–826). Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American voter. New York: John Wiley.
Chaffee, S. H., & Choe, S. Y. (1980). Time of decision and media use during the Ford-Carter campaign. Public Opinion Quarterly, 44(1), 53–69.
Chaffee, S. H., & Rimal, R. N. (1996). Time of vote decision and openness to persuasion. In D. Mutz, P. M. Sniderman, & R. A. Brody (Eds.), Political persuasion and attitude change (pp. 267–291). Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.
Chang, L., & Krosnick, J. A. (2002). RDD telephone vs. internet survey methodology for studying American presidential elections: Comparing sample representativeness and response quality. Paper presented at the 2002 American Political Science Association Annual Meeting and at Westat.
Dalton, R. J. (2000). The decline of party identifications. In R. J. Dalton & M. P. Wattenberg (Eds.), Parties without partisans: Political change in advanced industrial democracies (pp. 19–36). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dalton, R. J. (2007). Partisan mobilization, cognitive mobilization and the changing American electorate. Electoral Studies, 26(2), 274–286.
Dalton, R. J., & Wattenberg, M. P. (2000). Parties without partisans: Political change in advanced industrial democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fournier, P., Nadeau, R., Blais, A., Gidengil, E., & Nevitte, N. (2004). Time-of-voting decision and susceptibility to campaign effects. Electoral Studies, 23(4), 661–681.
Hayes, B. C., & McAllister, I. (1996). Marketing politics to voters: Late deciders in the 1992 British election. European Journal of Marketing, 30(10/11), 127–139.
Hillygus, D. S., & Shields, T. G. (2008). The persuadable voter: Wedge issues in presidential campaigns. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Jamieson, K. H., & Cappella, J. N. (2008). Echo chamber: Rush Limbaugh and the conservative media establishment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Katz, E. (1971). Platforms and windows: Broadcasting’s role in election campaigns. Journalism Quarterly, 48(20), 304–314.
Krosnick, J. A., & Chang, L. (2001). A comparison of the random digit dialing telephone survey methodology with internet survey methodology as implemented by Knowledge Networks and Harris Interactive. Paper presented at the 2001 annual meeting of the American Association of Public Opinion Research, Montreal, Canada.
Lazarsfeld, P. F., Berelson, B., & Gaudet, H. (1944). The people’s choice. New York: Columbia University Press.
Mendelsohn, H., & O’Keefe, G. (1976). The people choose a president: Influences on voter decision making. New York: Praeger.
Murray, S. (2008, Nov 5). 2008 could mark highest voter turnout rate since 1968. The Wall Street Journal Online. http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/11/05/2008-could-mark-highest-voter-turnout-rate-since-1968/. Accessed 15 April 2009.
Nie, N. H., Virba, S., & Petrocik, J. R. (1976). The changing American voter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Nir, L., & Druckman, J. N. (2008). Campaign mixed-message flows and timing of vote decision. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 20(3), 326–346.
Norris, P., Curtice, J., Sanders, D., Scammell, M., & Semetko, H. A. (1999). On message: Communicating the campaign. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pew Research Center for the People and the Press (2008a, July 10). McCain’s enthusiasm gap, Obama’s unity gap: Likely rise in voter turnout bodes well for democrats. http://people-press.org/reports/pdf/436.pdf. Accessed 15 April 2009.
Pew Research Center for the People and the Press (2008b, Nov 13). High marks for the campaign, a high bar for Obama republicans want more conservative direction for GOP. http://people-press.org/report/471/high-bar-for-obama. Accessed 15 April 2009.
Plumb, E. (1986). Validation of voter recall: Time of electoral decision making. Political Behavior, 8(4), 302–312.
Pool, I. (1963). The effect of communication on voting behavior. In W. Schramm (Ed.), The science of human communication (pp. 23–64). New York: Basic Books.
Prior, M. (2005). News vs. entertainment: How increasing media choice widens gaps in political knowledge and turnout. American Journal of Political Science, 49(3), 577–592.
Prior, M. (2007). Post broadcast democracy: How media choice increases inequality in political involvement and polarizes elections. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Sunstein, C. (2002). Republic.com. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Westen, D. (2007). The political brain: The role of emotion in deciding the fate of the nation. New York: Public Affairs.
Whitney, D. C., & Goldman, S. B. (1985). Media use and time of vote decision: A study of the 1980 presidential election. Communication Research, 12(4), 511–529.
Zaller, J. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Zaller, J. (2004). Floating voters in U.S. presidential election, 1948–2000. In P. M. Sniderman & W. E. Saris (Eds.), Studies in public opinion (pp. 166–212). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Diana Mutz, Richard Johnston, and Michael Delli Carpini for their support and comments throughout this project. Also, gratitude is extended to the many colleagues who have provided advice on this article.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kogen, L., Gottfried, J.A. I Knew it All Along! Evaluating Time-of-Decision Measures in the 2008 U.S. Presidential Campaign. Polit Behav 34, 719–736 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-011-9182-9
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-011-9182-9