When it comes to public opinion polling I often feel like I can trust a survey conducted by a large corporation such as the New York Times and CBS News as long as its not an obvious marketing scheme. Because of this I choose a survey that was reported on in the first week of April about a brightening outlook on the U.S. economy. The reason I picked this specific article is that I am skeptical as to how confident Americans are of Mr. Obama, taking into consideration that he had only spent a few months in the white house. I am also somewhat surprised by the other anomalies reported in this poll such as that fact that only 31 percent had a favorable view of the Republican Party. Does this survey use a quality sample and is it conducted fairly or are the numbers simply misleading? Is there a way to find out or do we just have to trust the reporter? Using The 20 Questions A Journalist Should Ask About a Poll, I examine just how useful this article is and what could have been done to lend more credibility to the poll.
A few things that the journalists excelled at included providing a comparison with past polls (only ones they had done in this case), using a study with a large sample base, and quoting follow-up interviews to the poll. They also stated that the poll was conducted by telephone with 998 adults and that the margin of sampling error was plus or minus three percentage points. Because the study was conducted at the same time that Mr. Obama was in Europe, it was able to capture how Americans felt at the time about being represented by Mr. Obama and how much Americans perceived that leaders of other countries would respect him. In terms of the 20 questions, I found that these journalists did a relatively good job in answering the important questions such as who did the poll, what was the sampling error, how many people were interviewed, how were the interviews conducted, and what kinds of questions were asked. Many of the answers given to these questions were very solid and easy to find.
Unfortunately there were several holes in the story including the title. The poll actually had more to do with politics and the approval ratings of democrats (specifically Mr. Obama) and republicans than the brightening outlook on the economy. Because it was clearly stated in the article we knew this was a phone survey and therefore it was only able to reach the people who were at home with a phone. We also know that 998 adults were surveyed but we don’t know how the people were chosen other than the fact that they answered their telephone; for this we just have to trust The New York Times and CBS. Another unknown to the average audience is why the poll is being conducted. The article states that they have been doing the poll for 25 years, which undoubtedly lends credibility to the study, but we still don’t know exactly why the poll was conducted. Further this article doesn’t make known that there were over 100 questions asked, making this a lengthy phone survey.
For the most part I agree with this article and would assume that the statistics fairly represent Americans. There seems to be a good method in place for tracking the responses based on what party the respondent voted for. Also, in the actual survey they dug a little deeper by asking about social class, age, race, gender, work status, etc. The article did a rather good job of staying independent and sticking to only the statistics gathered in the survey. It was fascinating to see the statistics regarding specific initiatives such as that 74% said they supported tax increases on those making $250k or more.
One downside I see is that there is an overwhelming amount of data here and nearly all of it implies that Mr. Obama is the reason for American’s growing optimism. This particular position doesn’t match up with some of the other results, such as that 70 percent of the respondents are concerned that someone in their household will be out of work in the next 12 months. Toward the end they leveled out their argument by saying that Americans strongly support Mr. Obama but not all of his initiatives. I would rewrite the story to highlight that there is growing optimism that Mr. Obama will steer the economy in the right direction. Overall the survey seemed to have much more credibility than was expressed in this article. While I appreciate the optimism, I would prefer to have more of the facts about how the survey was conducted along with some reference to similar surveys by other agencies that have been done.
Works Cited:
ADAM NAGOURNEY and MEGAN THEE-BRENAN. (2009, April 7). Poll Finds Brightening Outlook on U.S. Economy :[National Desk]. New York Times (Late Edition (east Coast)), p. A.1. Retrieved May 6, 2009, from ProQuest National Newspapers Core database. (Document ID: 1674574971).
Gawiser, S. R., & Witt, G.E “20 Questions A Journalist Should Ask About A Poll.” Retrieved online from the National Counclil on Public Polls (www.ncpp.org).
Posted 10 months, 1 week ago. Add a comment
All three of the readings for today captured my attention and helped me to get a better understanding of the functioning forces behind public opinion. Because we are talking about social characteristics I found many of the principles to be very easy to apply to my own life and inline with my past experiences. In some cases the concepts seemed so obvious and other times I felt like I knew why things were a certain way but needed an explanation as to why. One argument I will make from recent personal experience is that in the sales business, and especially with computers, the way you stereotype customers as well as the way they stereotype you can determine how many sales you make. The second argument I make is along the same lines as Ariely’s article and has to do with the volunteer Coast Guard Auxiliary.
While working at a local computer repair and sales shop I might argue that I’ve gained more social knowledge than that of computers and how they operate. Unlike the story about Golomb, the car salesmen talked about in The Warren Harding Error, I often observe my boss stereotyping people the minute they walk in the door. They also stereotype him. Somewhat like Walter Lippmann said, “There is neither time nor opportunity for intimate acquaintance. Instead, we notice a trait which marks a well-known type, and fill in the rest of the picture by means of stereotypes we carry about in our heads” (Glynn et. al, 173). One differentiation I’ve seen is when someone either well dressed or a pretty, single women comes into the store. When this happens a more intimate acquaintance takes place that either strips away the initial stereotype or reinforces it. Because it is a small business I had a lot of trouble in the beginning trying to understand how much to charge people, after awhile it became a challenge to try and guess how much my boss was going to charge people based on their stereotype.
I’ve found the reverse to also be true in two different ways. When a customer walks into the store and is greeted in the same friendly manner by more than one employee they are likely to actively select the technician who best fits their stereotype for what a computer technician should look and talk like. Sometimes if they don’t get that person the first time they will ask if they can talk with someone else. While it seems easy to argue that their selection is based on how much they perceive we know about the topic, it is evident that more is at play here. When a customer has to decide if they trust us enough to leave their computer at the shop to be repaired I’ve seen a noticeable difference in who is trusted and who is not. A few months ago a very well qualified male technician was hired who had shoulder length hair, smelled like cigarettes and was somewhat unsocial upon meeting someone for the first time. Often customers would come in and try and work with this person only to decide that they would rather take their computer somewhere else. In some cases these actions are justified because they simplify and regulate human interaction; however, other times they lead to lost sales and complete misunderstandings.
Last quarter I had the pleasure of working with the local division of the Coast Guard Auxiliary, which is made up of volunteers who’s only paycheck is the satisfaction they get from helping out their local community as well as their country. Much like Ariely talks about, these people (mainly retired veterans) volunteer at a moments notice to assist the enlisted Coast Guard or participate in homeland security patrols. Ever since Congress passed a bill that gives the Auxiliary funding for boats and other tools they need for the job, they have been credited with saving many lives as well as helping to compensate for the added responsibilities put on the Coast Guard since 9/11. This is one time that I would say the government has greatly benefited from the social norm of serving your country. Ever since the somewhat recent economic downturn however, the Auxiliary has had a very hard time recruiting members to join. Even with market incentives such as the government paying for gas and maintenance for personal watercraft, airplanes, or helicopters, few people are getting excited about helping out.
To help with this, the local Auxiliary commander is slowly turning to the younger generations to try and fill in the gaps. Again, as Ariely talks about, he is returning to social norms rather than market norms to try and rebuild a community who is interested in volunteering their time to create a safer environment. This is manifested in a recent copy of their newsletter which in my mind plays off somewhat of fear element that if we don’t participate in homeland security we will be much more vulnerable to an attack. The other major social norm that is at play here is pride and a sense of duty. I would argue that many of the loyal Auxiliarist would be much more willing to shoot at a fleeing drug boat than the government salaried U.S. customs agent talked about in Ariely’s article. While attending the meetings I experienced first hand how dedicated some of the auxiliarist are to serving their community. Many of them work full-time jobs and spend their weekends out patrolling their local lakes and oceans.
When it comes to interpreting others opinions or manifestations of their attitude, I find that some sociological perspectives such as stereotyping are very obvious yet their effects are extremely complex. It may be easy to realize that stereotyping plays some sort of a role in peoples opinion, but determining how exactly it is going to play out becomes very difficult. One of the most interesting things that was talked about in chapter five was opinion leaders and how they influence others directly or by reinforcing views that were already in place. Those who are in command of the auxiliary are undoubtedly opinion leaders who pay close attention to issues and policies related to homeland security and influence others as to how they should act. From a sociological perspective I would argue that opinion leaders constitute the fabric of our society even if they are going against social norms. Without their influence we likely would be much less motivated to participate at a meaningful social level.
While it may be hard to measure collective behavior or social processes, I often find in my own life that the way people act in groups or when they represent a group can be much more significant than the way they act individually. I definitely agree with Thomas Scheff; social scientists need to better understand the social bonds that hold us together in order to fully comprehend human behavior and public opinion. As I described in the first section of my paper, stereotypical social interaction can play a major role in the everyday life of a salesmen (or computer technician). On a much larger scale, the difference between implementing market norms or falling back on social norms can cause people to participate at several different levels.
Posted 10 months, 2 weeks ago. Add a comment
Back to Main Site