Cooperative Survey Research

The rise of the Internet has radically altered survey research by changing how we think about sampling, driving down the cost of interviewing, and creating new ways of asking questions. This technology has also opened the way to a new style of cooperatively organized survey research. Projects such as the Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES) and the Cooperative Campaign Analysis Project (CCAP) involve collaborations of dozens of research teams that can collect very large samples and many smaller surveys tailored to the research questions of particular teams. This review examines the organization and key findings of these projects as well as their sampling methodology and its validity. Of particular importance, this article offers a direct comparison of the CCES with actual election results and the American National Election Studies (ANES), showing that the new survey approach yields highly accurate results that replicate the correlation structure of the ANES.

[1]  Christopher H. Achen Measuring Representation: Perils of the Correlation Coefficient , 1977 .

[2]  D. Green,et al.  Tracking Opinion over Time: A method for Reducing Sampling Error , 1999 .

[3]  D. Brady,et al.  Out of Step, Out of Office: Electoral Accountability and House Members' Voting , 2002, American Political Science Review.

[4]  Cindy D. Kam,et al.  Ethnocentrism as a Short-Term Force in the 2008 American Presidential Election , 2012 .

[5]  P. Jones,et al.  Constituents’ Responses to Congressional Roll‐Call Voting , 2010 .

[6]  Brian F. Schaffner,et al.  Residential Mobility, Family Structure, and The Cell-Only Population , 2010 .

[7]  David Lazer,et al.  Who Wants to Deliberate - and Why? , 2009 .

[8]  S. Jessee,et al.  Spatial Voting in the 2004 Presidential Election , 2009, American Political Science Review.

[9]  A. Gerber,et al.  Citizens’ Policy Confidence and Electoral Punishment: A Neglected Dimension of Electoral Accountability , 2011 .

[10]  Gregory A. Huber,et al.  Disagreement and the Avoidance of Political Discussion: Aggregate Relationships and Differences across Personality Traits , 2012 .

[11]  Lilliard E. Richardson,et al.  Public Approval of State Legislatures , 2011 .

[12]  D. Barker,et al.  Representing Red and Blue: How the culture wars change the way citizens speak and politicians listen. , 2012 .

[13]  Warren E. Miller,et al.  Constituency Influence in Congress , 1963, American Political Science Review.

[14]  Sharon L. Lohr,et al.  Sampling: Design and Analysis , 1999 .

[15]  Adam J. Berinsky,et al.  Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk , 2012, Political Analysis.

[16]  D. Brooks,et al.  Assessing Accountability in a Post-Citizens United Era , 2012 .

[17]  Gary King,et al.  Why Are American Presidential Election Campaign Polls So Variable When Votes Are So Predictable? , 1993, British Journal of Political Science.

[18]  Jake Bowers,et al.  Designing multi-level studies: sampling voters and electoral contexts , 2002 .

[19]  Gabriel S. Lenz,et al.  Looking the Part: Television Leads Less Informed Citizens to Vote Based on Candidates’ Appearance , 2011 .

[20]  Morris P. Fiorina,et al.  Representatives, roll calls, and constituencies , 1974 .

[21]  Stephen Ansolabehere,et al.  Validation: What Big Data Reveal About Survey Misreporting and the Real Electorate , 2012, Political Analysis.

[22]  Paul K. Jones,et al.  Auntie Knows Best? Public Broadcasters and Current Affairs Knowledge , 2013 .

[23]  Simon Jackman,et al.  Primary Politics: Race, Gender, and Age in the 2008 Democratic Primary , 2010 .

[24]  Robert S. Erikson,et al.  Constituency Opinion and Congressional Behavior: A Reexamination of the Miller-Stokes Representation Data , 1978 .

[25]  Kim L. Fridkin,et al.  The Role of Candidate Traits in Campaigns , 2011 .

[26]  Carl-Erik Särndal,et al.  Model Assisted Survey Sampling , 1997 .

[27]  Warren E. Miller,et al.  PARTY GOVERNMENT AND THE SALIENCY OF CONGRESS , 1962 .

[28]  B. Silver,et al.  Measurement and Mismeasurement of the Validity of the Self-reported Vote* , 1986 .

[29]  Judy Kruger,et al.  Perceptions of menthol cigarette use among U.S. adults and adult smokers: findings from the 2009 HealthStyles survey. , 2010, Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco.

[30]  Nicholas A. Valentino,et al.  Do Attitudes About Immigration Predict Willingness to Admit Individual Immigrants? A Cross-National Test of the Person-Positivity Bias , 2003 .

[31]  Adam R. Brown Are Governors Responsible for the State Economy? Partisanship, Blame, and Divided Federalism , 2010 .

[32]  Kim L. Fridkin,et al.  Variability in Citizens’ Reactions to Different Types of Negative Campaigns , 2011 .

[33]  D. Rubin,et al.  The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects , 1983 .

[34]  Steven M. Lalonde,et al.  Combined Survey Sampling Inference , 2004, Technometrics.

[35]  The Political Consequences of Uninformed Voters , 2011 .

[36]  Jennifer Jerit How Predictive Appeals Affect Policy Opinions , 2009 .

[37]  Stephen P. Nicholson Polarizing Cues: POLARIZING CUES , 2012 .

[38]  D. Rubin,et al.  Statistical Analysis with Missing Data. , 1989 .

[39]  Lilliard E. Richardson,et al.  Environmental Policy Attitudes: Issues, Geographical Scale, and Political Trust , 2008 .

[40]  William G. Jacoby,et al.  Public Opinion Toward Intergovernmental Policy Responsibilities , 2011 .

[41]  David M. Konisky,et al.  Public Approval ofU.S. State Legislatures , 2012 .

[42]  Douglas Rivers,et al.  Sampling for Web Surveys , 2007, Handbook of Web Surveys.

[43]  Joseph Bafumi,et al.  Leapfrog Representation and Extremism: A Study of American Voters and Their Members in Congress , 2010, American Political Science Review.

[44]  Nicholas A. Valentino,et al.  The Impact of Economic and Cultural Cues on Support for Immigration in Canada and the United States , 2012, Canadian Journal of Political Science.

[45]  Roderick J. A. Little,et al.  Statistical Analysis with Missing Data: Little/Statistical Analysis with Missing Data , 2002 .

[46]  Gregory A. Huber,et al.  Personality and Political Attitudes: Relationships across Issue Domains and Political Contexts , 2010, American Political Science Review.

[47]  D. Campbell,et al.  The Party Faithful: Partisan Images, Candidate Religion, and the Electoral Impact of Party Identification , 2011 .

[48]  Neil Malhotra,et al.  Electoral incentives and partisan conflict in congress: Evidence from survey experiments , 2011 .

[49]  D. O. Sears,et al.  Obama's Race: The 2008 Election and the Dream of a Post-Racial America , 2010 .

[50]  Brian F. Schaffner Racial Salience and the Obama Vote , 2011 .

[51]  Stephen Ansolabehere,et al.  Candidate Positioning in U.S. House Elections , 2001 .

[52]  L. J. Zigerell You Wouldn't Like Me When I'm Angry: List Experiment Misreporting , 2011 .

[53]  Marc J. Hetherington,et al.  Authoritarianism, Threat, and Americans’ Support for the War on Terror , 2011 .

[54]  Brian F. Schaffner,et al.  Does Survey Mode Still Matter? Findings from a 2010 Multi-Mode Comparison , 2011, Political Analysis.

[55]  S. Ansolabehere,et al.  Vote Fraud in the Eye of the Beholder: The Role of Public Opinion in the Challenge to Voter Identification Requirements , 2008 .