Public opinion research
In 1996 a paper was published in The Netherlands suggesting that the Dutch population was much less positive about the European integration than the politicians. This paper led to a lot of discussion because the politicians didn´t like this result. There were good reasons for these reactions because the study suggested that approximately 55% of the Dutch population was in favor of maintaining the right of veto for individual countries of the EU while this right in fact already partly had been handed over to the European Union.
The politicians were saying that the result really depends how you formulate the question. They blamed the survey researchers to use suggestive questions.
The politicians were saying that the result really depends how you formulate the question. They blamed the survey researchers to use suggestive questions.
Should we agree with the critic of the politicians?
We formed two groups just by change. They gave comparable answers to the questions of the criticized study. We gave group 1 the same question as in the first study and the other group an alternative suggested by the politicians. The result is presented in the table below.
We formed two groups just by change. They gave comparable answers to the questions of the criticized study. We gave group 1 the same question as in the first study and the other group an alternative suggested by the politicians. The result is presented in the table below.
We see that these two questions about the same issue lead to quite different results. So one may think that the politicians were right that the way the question was formulated led to the negative picture of the opinion of the population towards the EU.
However there are very different possible explanations for the fact that one can get very different opinions of the general public about political issues. This is a well-known discussion between people interested in opinion polls. The most extreme opinion is that people have no opinions about most political issues (Converse 1964). Converse also suggested that one should make a distinction between people with a crystallized opinion and people without such an opinion. His ideas were criticized by Achen (1975) suggesting that the differences could be explained by random errors by respondents and interviewers. Saris, Neijens and De Ridder (1985) suggested that one has to make a distinction between uninformed and informed opinions. Again another explanation is that people have several opinions about political issues and the answer they give depends on the one opinion which is most salient at the moment of the question (Zaller1992).
However there are very different possible explanations for the fact that one can get very different opinions of the general public about political issues. This is a well-known discussion between people interested in opinion polls. The most extreme opinion is that people have no opinions about most political issues (Converse 1964). Converse also suggested that one should make a distinction between people with a crystallized opinion and people without such an opinion. His ideas were criticized by Achen (1975) suggesting that the differences could be explained by random errors by respondents and interviewers. Saris, Neijens and De Ridder (1985) suggested that one has to make a distinction between uninformed and informed opinions. Again another explanation is that people have several opinions about political issues and the answer they give depends on the one opinion which is most salient at the moment of the question (Zaller1992).
Information makes a difference
Around the same time the “mad cow disease” occurred. That suggested to ask the people the following questions:
Around the same time the “mad cow disease” occurred. That suggested to ask the people the following questions:
First of all, we see that in this case where a specific issue is evaluated the don´t know answer is considerably reduced and a large majority chooses for a pro EU opinion. This is what can be expected if people have sufficient information to give a clear opinion. However one could also move the opinions in the opposite direct direction as we have shown by asking about the Dutch policy about soft drugs (the coffee shops) On this topic a majority was in favor of a veto right of The Netherlands if the EU wants to forbid this Dutch policy.
A Conference in Amsterdam
There remained enough questions about this issue to discuss. Therefore I organized a meeting of experts from the US and Europe in Amsterdam. The leading persons in the debate are mentioned below.
A Conference in Amsterdam
There remained enough questions about this issue to discuss. Therefore I organized a meeting of experts from the US and Europe in Amsterdam. The leading persons in the debate are mentioned below.
I can´t mention all discussions that happened during the meetings. We decided that it would be interesting to publish a book with the contributions of the different participants. I accepted to do the coordination but I needed an American co-editor to make it attractive for the American market. When none of the American participants had time to join me I asked Paul Sniderman even though he couldn´t participate in the conference, he was sufficiently involved in the topic to be willing to join me in this effort.
Editing of the book
It was not easy to force all people to hand in their papers. It was even more difficult to convince some people to make adjustments. The most extreme case was John Zaller who delivered a manuscript of 200 pages. This was of course disproportional compared with the other chapters. When I had a meeting in Palo Alto I took a plane to talk with him in Los Angeles. He showed me his new house and we had a nice discussion but I could not convince him. He told me that he could publish a shorter version in a journal therefore he didn´t want to shorten the paper too much. I liked his approach but it was of course impossible. We definitely wanted his paper but not 200 pages. I decided to leave it to the publisher to comment on this. That happened indeed and then he shortened his paper.
It was a pleasure to work with Paul Sniderman on the book. He had a lot of experience on this type of books and we also had interesting discussions on issues of the book. Later he invited us in his house outside San Francisco. I hired a car and with Irmtraud we made the trip through Napa Valley. In the next valley, he told me, I would see his house immediately. When we entered that valley we saw an impressive house mainly of glass and we thought that this could not be of a university professor. So we went on but there was no other house and we returned to that house and enjoyed two nice days with him and his wife.
After publishing this book I thought that I had done enough substantive research and wanted to return to my methodological problems.
It was not easy to force all people to hand in their papers. It was even more difficult to convince some people to make adjustments. The most extreme case was John Zaller who delivered a manuscript of 200 pages. This was of course disproportional compared with the other chapters. When I had a meeting in Palo Alto I took a plane to talk with him in Los Angeles. He showed me his new house and we had a nice discussion but I could not convince him. He told me that he could publish a shorter version in a journal therefore he didn´t want to shorten the paper too much. I liked his approach but it was of course impossible. We definitely wanted his paper but not 200 pages. I decided to leave it to the publisher to comment on this. That happened indeed and then he shortened his paper.
It was a pleasure to work with Paul Sniderman on the book. He had a lot of experience on this type of books and we also had interesting discussions on issues of the book. Later he invited us in his house outside San Francisco. I hired a car and with Irmtraud we made the trip through Napa Valley. In the next valley, he told me, I would see his house immediately. When we entered that valley we saw an impressive house mainly of glass and we thought that this could not be of a university professor. So we went on but there was no other house and we returned to that house and enjoyed two nice days with him and his wife.
After publishing this book I thought that I had done enough substantive research and wanted to return to my methodological problems.