Mass Media and Public Opinion

October 20, 2009

Reading Reaction Paper 2

It’s All about Timing

Herbert Asher’s chapter five reading focuses on the methods of collecting poll data and conducting interviews.  Asher thoroughly describes the three basic ways of collecting polling information.  One of the ways to do so is through self-administered questionnaires.  The most common form of self-administered questionnaires is mailed questionnaires, for a variety of reasons.  Asher writes, “Because mailed surveys are self-administered by the respondent, no interviewers must be trained and supported, dramatically reducing costs,” (Asher, 102).  The only intermediary in the process, thusly, is the postal service, which is conceivably far cheaper to use than it is to pay multiple surveyors.  The second basic way to collect polling information is by telephone interviews.  A major advantage of telephone interviews, Asher writes, is that unlike mailed questionnaires, surveys can be completed in often a couple days or less, providing reaction to an event almost instantaneously (2007).  The third way of gathering polling information is by personal interview.  Personal interviews are often conducted because they provide the most complete information and generally have the highest response rate of the three information-gathering procedures.

The topic of chapter ten from Gawiser and Witt’s reading regards the importance of timing related to polling data.  Gawiser and Witt note that the media conducts surveys that immediately follow news events now more than ever.  Despite the fact that “instant polls” were unpopular in the 1970’s, “they have become a staple of presidential campaign coverage,” (Gawiser and Witt, 81).  The conclusion of the chapter describes the importance of knowing when interviews were conducted, prior to analyzing any poll.  This information, they write, helps put the poll results in context (1994).

My thoughts from this reading were of complete agreement with Gawiser and Witt.  I, too, think that timeliness is all-important when understanding why any number of respondents may answer survey questionnaires.  I know that the media has a tremendous influence on how individuals form their reactions to a newsworthy event.  Shortly following media coverage of an event, I think it is safe to assume that people will develop a more opinionated stance on the issue that did not exist in them before.  However, I think it is also safe to assume that given a significant delay between the time the event is covered by the media and the time a questionnaire is administered, people become less opinionated and their responses may vary quite dramatically.  I am in complete compliance with Gawiser and Witt that timing is crucial when collecting polling information.

An example of a real-life application of self-administered questionnaires was conducted by Don Dillman in 1978.  He intended to boost response rates for mail questionnaires by using a process called the total design method (Weisberg, 120).  TDM (total design method) involves paying attention to detail on behalf of questionnaire construction and survey implementation.  His questionnaires were made in a 6 x 8 inch booklet, with tasteful covers that would appeal to most potential respondents.  On the inside of the booklet, he prepared about a one-page letter that explained the importance of the data he was hoping to get.  One week after the questionnaires were first distributed, a postcard follow-up was mailed.  Two weeks later, a second questionnaire was sent to those who did not respond to the first.  Finally, a third questionnaire was sent four weeks after the initial one to those that had still not responded.  Dillman admitted that the procedure was rather expensive; however, he did see his response rate soar to 70% by the time the study was completed- a 20% increase from two weeks into the experiment, and about a 35% increase from sending the survey out just one time (1996).  This research suggests that mailed surveys are not always effective at yielding a lot of data, but persistency can help tremendously in that department.

Weisberg, Herbert F. “An Introduction to Survey Research.” Books.google.com. Web. 19 Oct. 2009.

Making Focus Groups the Focal Point

Don Stacks’ “Focus Group” reading provides information on how focus groups are assembled and conducted. He also details why focus groups are a popular method to conduct research for PR use. “The focus group is found in public relations primarily because it can be conducted quickly and fairly inexpensively,” (Stacks, 2009). Another major reason that focus groups are often exercised is to potentially better understand the results of a survey. He writes that a more in-depth analysis of a given survey is generally the by-product of a focus group, in which information from a variety of people can often explain dissimilarities in survey data (2009). Despite the love that focus groups regularly receive, Stacks warns the reader of some of the data stemming from them. Most focus groups contain volunteer subjects, who have volunteered for the fact that they are interested in the survey. “In most focus group situations, at least two and often three different focus groups are conducted to ensure that what one group says is similar to what a second group says,” (Stacks, 2009). If the research question is not tailored in a way to evoke responses representative of a certain demographic or psychographic, only then can the data be effectively measured.

Chapter three of “Polling and the Public” is about similar issues in focus group surveys. In it, Asher describes the impact of context and wording in focus group questioning. According to Asher, (2007) question wording is probably the most familiar pitfall to consumers regarding public opinion research. As a rule of thumb, conductors of surveys should avoid questions that contain double negatives at all costs. “Seemingly straightforward questions that employ relatively simple language can seem ambiguous to some respondents,” (Asher, 57-58). Confusion or discontent with question wording can often lead to responses unreflective of volunteers’ actual feelings.

I recall having some of my own discontent regarding some questions that were asked to me in a focus group that I took part in last year. For extra credit in my psychology class, I chose to attend a focus group held by members of a local television program. The network was a broadcaster of a wide range of music news and music videos. Joined by about ten others, we watched a host of music video clips and later filled out a questionnaire about what we thought of them. For the most part, the questions seemed relevant to the topic at hand, but some of them did not seem so. For instance, we were asked how we felt about the clothing and the level of provocation regarding the individuals in the music videos shown. I found these questions to be rather irrelevant because as broadcasters of the videos, they do not produce each video, and so the questions seemed more suited for a survey regarding the actual production of the videos. It was disinteresting to me to answer how I felt about these issues because the network should choose to show videos from genres and artists that they desire, regardless of the content, I feel.

Frank Luntz writes in his pollingreport.com column titled, “Voices of Victory,” about the usefulness of focus group research in politics. According to Luntz, (1994) focus groups are so important to today’s politics because unlike traditional quantitative research, focus groups are concerned with understanding attitudes, instead of simply measuring them. No other president in history in United States history has been more committed to focus group research than Bill Clinton, Luntz writes (1994). One of his more popular focus group studies was conducted to see how potential voters would respond to the knowledge that President Clinton “dodged the draft” during the Vietnam War- information that was not at that time known to most of the general public. Clinton’s political supporters found that most respondents that claimed they would vote for him prior to this knowledge still would vote for him in the upcoming election. However, roughly 6% of the respondents from this group admitted that they now opposed the idea of voting Clinton into presidency (Luntz, 2009). In looking at these results, it is understandable that Clinton, as well as his political supporters, largely remained as secretive to this fact as possible, so that his poll results could be as favorable as possible. During President Clinton’s first year in office, his pollster conducted more focus groups than those of Bush in Bush’s first four years as president.