Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T04:02:32.989Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Difference Between Self-Reported and Perceived Survey Measures and the Implications for Political Socialization Research*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 January 2016

Joris Boonen ,
Ellen Quintelier  and
Marc Hooghe
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Within research on the political influence that social network members exert on one another, some studies rely on information obtained directly from different members in the network separately (self-reported measures), while others rely on information obtained from one key informant within the social network (measures based on perception). We investigate the difference between these self-reported and perceived measures by analyzing the correspondence of voting intentions within the family. On the one hand, we examine this correspondence using information obtained from only one family member. On the other hand, we use the self-reported measures obtained from all family members separately. We use data from the Parent-Child Socialization Study (PCSS), a survey conducted among 2,085 mothers, fathers and children in the Flemish region of Belgium (2012). Our analyses suggest that using perceptual measures could lead researchers to different or even opposite conclusions than using self-reported measures from all individual respondents.

Type
Research Notes
Information
Political Science Research and Methods , Volume 5 , Issue 2 , April 2017 , pp. 367 - 378
Copyright
© The European Political Science Association 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Joris Boonen is a doctoral researcher at the Centre for Political Research, University of Leuven and a lecturer in research methods at Zuyd University of Applied Sciences in Maastricht ([email protected]). Ellen Quintelier is a postdoctoral researcher at the Centre for Political Research, University of Leuven, Parkstraat 45, Box 3602 3000 Leuven, Belgium ([email protected]). Marc Hooghe is a professor of Political Science at the Centre for Political Research, University of Leuven, Parkstraat 45, Box 3602 3000 Leuven, Belgium ([email protected]).

References

Acock, Alan C., and Bengtson, Vern L.. 1980. ‘Socialization and Attribution Processes: Actual Versus Perceived Similarity Among Parents and Youth’. Journal of Marriage and the Family 42(3):501–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brady, Henry E., and Sniderman, Paul M.. 1985. ‘Attitude Attribution: A Group Basis for Political Reasoning’. American Political Science Review 79(4):1061–1078.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chan, T. Wing, and Clayton, Matthew. 2006. ‘Should the Voting Age Be Lowered to Sixteen? Normative and Empirical Considerations’. Political Studies 54(3):533–558.Google Scholar
Deschouwer, Kris. 2009. The Politics of Belgium: Governing a Divided Society . Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Durrant, Gabriele B. 2009. ‘Imputation Methods for Handling Item‐Nonresponse in Practice: Methodological Issues and Recent Debates’. International Journal of Social Research Methodology 12(4):293–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitzgerald, Jennifer, and Curtis, K. Amber. 2012. ‘Partisan Discord in the Family and Political Engagement: A Comparative Behavioral Analysis’. Journal of Politics 74(1):129–141.Google Scholar
Hooghe, Marc, Quintelier, Ellen, Verhaegen, Soetkin, Boonen, Joris, and Meeusen, Cecil. 2012. ‘Parent-Child Socialization Study (PCSS) 2012’. University of Leuven: Belgium.Google Scholar
Hooghe, Marc, and Boonen, Joris. 2015. ‘The Intergenerational Transmission of Voting Intentions in a Multiparty Setting: An Analysis of Voting Intentions and Political Discussion Among 15-Year-Old Adolescents and Their Parents in Belgium’. Youth & Society 47(1):125–147.Google Scholar
Howe, Paul. 2010. Citizens Adrift. The Democratic Disengagement of Young Canadians. Vancouver: The University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Huckfeldt, Robert. 2001. ‘The Social Communication of Political Expertise’. American Journal of Political Science 45(2):425–438.Google Scholar
Huckfeldt, Robert, Morehouse Mendez, Jeanette, and Osborn, Tracy. 2004. ‘Disagreement, Ambivalence, and Engagement: The Political Consequences of Heterogeneous Networks’. Political Psychology 25(1):65–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jennings, M. Kent, Stoker, Laura, and Bowers, Jake. 2009. ‘Politics Across Generations: Family Transmission Reexamined’. The Journal of Politics 71(3):782–799.Google Scholar
Jennings, M. Kent, and Niemi, Richard G.. 1971. ‘The Division of Political Labor Between Mothers and Fathers’. American Political Science Review 65(1):69–82.Google Scholar
Jennings, M. Kent, and Niemi, Richard G.. 1974. The Political Character of Adolescence: The Influence of Families and Schools. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Jennings, M. Kent, and Niemi, Richard G.. 1981. Generations and Politics: A Panel Study of Young Adults and Their Parents. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kroh, Martin, and Selb, Peter. 2009. ‘Inheritance and the Dynamics of Party Identification’. Political Behavior 31(4):559–574.Google Scholar
Levine, Jeffrey. 2005. ‘Choosing Alone? The Social Network Basis of Modern Political Choice’. In Alan S. Zuckerman (ed.), The Social Logic of Politics. Personal Networks as Contexts for Political Behavior . 132–151. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Morehouse Mendez, Jeanette M., and Osborn, Tracy. 2010. ‘Gender and the Perception of Knowledge in Political Discussion’. Political Research Quarterly 63(2):269–279.Google Scholar
Mutz, Diana C. 2002a. ‘The Consequences of Cross-Cutting Networks for Political Participation’. American Journal of Political Science 46(4):838–855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mutz, Diana C. 2002b. ‘Cross-Cutting Social Networks: Testing Democratic Theory in Practice’. American Political Science Review 96(1):111–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mutz, Diana C. 2006. Hearing the Other Side: Deliberative Versus Participatory Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Niemi, Richard G. 1974. How Family Members Perceive Each Other: Political and Social Attitudes in Two Generations. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Nieuwbeerta, Paul, and Wittebrood, Karin. 1995. ‘Intergenerational Transmission of Political Party Preference in The Netherlands’. Social Science Research 24(3):243–261.Google Scholar
Tedin, Kent L. 1976. ‘On the Reliability of Reported Political Attitudes’. American Journal of Political Science 20(1):117–124.Google Scholar
Westholm, Anders. 1999. ‘The Perceptual Pathway: Tracing the Mechanisms of Political Value Transfer Across Generations’. Political Psychology 20(3):525–551.Google Scholar
Witschge, Tamara. 2004. ‘Online Deliberation: Possibilities of the Internet for Deliberative Democracy’. In Peter M. Shane (ed.), DemocracyOnline: The Prospects for Political Renewal Through the Internet, 109–122. New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Whitbeck, Les B., and Gecas, Viktor. 1988. ‘Value Attributions and Value Transmission Between Parents and Children’. Journal of Marriage and the Family 50(3):829–840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zuckerman, Alan S., Dasović, Josip, and Fitzgerald, Jennifer. 2007. Partisan Families: The Social Logic of Bounded Partisanship in Germany and Britain. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar