See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/228198122

The Role of Communication in Public Opinion Processes:

Understanding the Impacts of Intrapersonal, Media, and
Social Filters

Article in International Journal of Public Opinion Research · July 2009

DOI: 10.1093/ijpor/edm014

CITATIONS READS

46 7,946

5 authors, including:

Lindsay H. Hoffman Carroll J Glynn

University of Delaware The Ohio State University
38 PUBLICATIONS 1,193 CITATIONS 74 PUBLICATIONS 2,441 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Tiffany Thomson
The Ohio State University
10 PUBLICATIONS 398 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Lindsay H. Hoffman on 03 January 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Journal of Public Opinion Research Vol.  No. 
ß The Author . Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The World Association
for Public Opinion Research. All rights reserved.
doi:./ijpor/edm Advance Access publication  July 

THE ROLE OF COMMUNICATION IN

PUBLIC OPINION PROCESSES:
UNDERSTANDING THE IMPACTS
OF INTRAPERSONAL, MEDIA, AND
SOCIAL FILTERS

Lindsay H. Hoffman, Carroll J. Glynn,

Michael E. Huge, Rebecca Border Sietman, and
Tiffany Thomson

ABSTRACT
This study examined multiple factors associated with the process of public opinion
including relevant predispositions, media use, interpersonal discussion, and percep-
tions of community opinion in order to test a theoretical model of public opinion.
We conceptualized these factors as intrapersonal, media, and social ‘filters’ within the
public opinion process. To test the impact of these filters, we conducted a survey with
two independent samples—the first sample was collected during the introduction
phase of a community ballot issue and the second just a week before the issue vote.
Findings indicate all three filters impacted public opinion regarding the ballot issue.
Within these filters, important subprocesses were analyzed to better understand each
filter’s contribution to the formation of public opinion. Ordinary least squares (OLS)
regression equations used to test the proposed process model revealed that the
intrapersonal filter accounted for a substantial amount of the overall variance in public
opinion, but that media and social filters were also important predictors. Results
highlight the importance of communication variables in the formation of public
opinion.

The study of the public opinion process in social science literature often
includes psychological (attitudes and beliefs), social (group discussion and
norms), and political (elite perspectives presented in the media) components.
Communication has received less attention as a central variable in this process,
but scholars have long argued that opinions develop through a dynamic

This article was first submitted to IJPOR May , . The final version was received April , .
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC OPINION RESEARCH

discourse between cognitive and social components (e.g. Davison, ; Price
& Roberts, ; Van Leuven & Slater, ; Kinder, ; Glynn, ).
While communication is often seen as imbedded in the process, it is clear that
its role should be specifically investigated and examined across multiple levels,
ranging from individual predispositions and interpersonal influence to media
content and use.
Public opinion researchers often focus only on one level of the process at a
single point in time, examining how individuals form opinions (e.g. Price,
; Pan & Kosicki, ), conform to majority pressure (e.g. Asch, ;
Moscovici, ; Blanton & Christie, ), or are influenced by mass media
presentations of public opinion (e.g. Mutz & Soss, ; Moy, McCoy, Spratt,
& McCluskey, ; Tsfati, ). However, when conceptualizing public
opinion as a process, these various components should be examined together
as they overlap and intertwine to form public opinion. The purpose of this
study is to simultaneously examine multiple factors associated with the process
of public opinion—including relevant predispositions, media use, interpersonal
discussion, and perceptions of community opinion—in order to arrive at
a more comprehensive understanding of the overall opinion formation process.
The public opinion process can be conceptualized as interactions among
various influential factors. We conceptualize these factors as intrapersonal,
media, and social ‘filters,’ and propose a series of hypotheses specific to each
filter. We also examine the filters together as predictors of favorability toward
a local community issue.

PUBLIC OPINIO N AS A PROCESS

Although the idea of public opinion as a process has been elucidated by
numerous scholars (Bryce, ; Foote & Hart, ; Davison, ; Price &
Roberts, ; Price, ; Noelle-Neumann, ; Crespi, ), few have
proposed empirical models for examining the process. Noelle-Neumann (,
) has been credited with developing a theory that integrates mass
communication effects and public opinion,1 but few scholars have attempted to
apply a design that taps into each part of the public opinion process described
above.2 Our conceptual model of the public opinion process is based on the
theoretical contributions of Davison (), Price and Roberts (), and
Crespi (). By examining multiple components of the public opinion
process in one model, we are able to observe the impacts of these factors at
two different points in the process. We assessed this process in the context

1
Although some have argued that Noelle-Neumann excluded the role of communities, organizations, and
reference groups (Glynn & McLeod, ).
2
However, see Davison () for a technique on simulating the public opinion process through role-
playing games.
 PUBLIC OPINION FILTERS 
of a community school levy-and-bond ballot issue—both at early-stage
development and at the issue’s culmination.

DEVELOPING A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Three models that acknowledge the overlapping and interactive effects of
different predictive factors guide the present study. Davison’s () model
of communication examines the interplay between public and private
discussions and appears to be the basis for several contemporary perspectives
about the public opinion process, including work by Price and Roberts (),
Noelle-Neumann (), and Crespi () (see Glynn, ). According to
Davison, an issue develops momentum when an idea is communicated from
one person to another; only widely discussed topics will develop into public
issues. In this sense, public opinion does not just appear, but rather takes root
in interpersonal discussion, eventually developing into a social force.
Price and Roberts () divide the public opinion process into inter-level
relations among individuals, groups, and organizations over time.
Communication is central to the process, even at the intrapersonal level,
where the relationship between cognitions and behavior can be conceptualized
as a ‘continuing dialectic’ (p. ). According to Price and Roberts (),
information obtained from both media and social sources is integrated with old
information as public opinion evolves. Individuals incorporate new opinion-
related information with old cognitions, selecting which new ideas to
incorporate and which to dismiss or ignore.
Finally, Crespi’s () model of public opinion includes () interactions
among predispositions and perceptions of the external world at the
intrapersonal level; () the collective opinions that emerge from communicat-
ing these individual opinions through discussion and the media; and () the
legitimization or enactment of those opinions. This explication across multiple
levels enables scholars to view public opinion as a process, preventing fallacies,
such as reification or reductionism, that have plagued researchers in the past
(for further discussion on these issues, see Allport, , Price, , p. ).
Building upon these theoretical models, our model focuses on three
sources of influence: () the central role of predispositions and interests (i.e.
‘intrapersonal filters’); () the vital function of the media as disseminators of
public opinion and issue specific information (i.e. ‘media filters’); and () the
importance of interpersonal political discussion in giving an issue momentum
and strengthening opinion, as well as supplying additional relevant information
(i.e. ‘social filters’). For most issues, there are almost infinite number of
possible perspectives that could be considered as public opinion takes shape,
yet it is only a limited number of these perspectives that will ultimately
affect the public opinion process. How are the few selected from the many?
Each source of influence inherently filters out certain information while
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC OPINION RESEARCH

allowing other ideas to become integrated with the overall opinion framework.
Specifically, these filters sort out what is most important, conferring salience
on certain aspects of a given issue. Filters also capture the temporal nature of
public opinion by acknowledging that the process of public opinion formation
occurs over time and progresses through various stages. Yet as public opinion
evolves, the impact of different filters is not entirely lost. In this way, public
opinion is iteratively shaped and transformed as it moves through each stage,
or filter. From Davison’s and Price and Roberts’ models, we incorporate the
essential components of interpersonal and mediated communication. Crespi’s
model provides us with a temporal framework from which to analyze the
process of public opinion, and also includes predispositions. With these
perspectives in mind, our model incorporates the main influence of each of
these key filters as well as the interactions between them. In other words, we
will attempt to demonstrate that intrapersonal cognitions, media exposure, and
interpersonal discussion are often intricately intertwined in their influence on
the formation of public opinion.
Figure  presents our conceptualization of the public opinion process,
with communication as a driving force behind the model. This model
demonstrates that, following issue introduction, the intrapersonal filter is
activated. Individuals think through the issue, assimilating information in line
with their own predispositions and interests, often basing these considerations
on relevant individual factors. These factors could include demographic
characteristics, such as income or the presence of children in one’s household,
or on relatively stable attitudes, such as political ideology or attitudes toward
tax increases. As an issue progresses and approaches a focusing event, such
as an election, media coverage and interpersonal discussion increase, and
subsequent awareness of an issue also increases (Downs, ). In addition,
opinions are simultaneously shaped and strengthened by perceptions gained
through discussion and media use. Each of these components has the potential
to influence ‘public opinion,’ operationalized as the expression of opinions
around a focusing event.

INTRAPERSONAL FILTERS
Explication of public opinion first requires assessment of the emergence
of individual opinions that are activated when an issue is introduced
(Crespi, ). Zaller () refers to these activated cognitions as ‘political
predispositions . . . which regulate the acceptance or nonacceptance of the
political communications the person receives,’ (p. ). In the early stages of
opinion development, individuals likely have little issue-specific knowledge
on which to base their views, and might rely more heavily on predispositions
that are associated with the topic at hand.
 PUBLIC OPINION FILTERS 
Issue
introduction Increasing

Time

Demographics
Issue
Intrapersonal filters awareness
Predispositions
Issue interest

Media
Coverage
Social filters Media filters
Issue discussion Exposure & attention
Perceived
community Discussion
support

Opinion
Focusing event strength
Issue culmination

Public opinion

Figure  A model of the public opinion process

In the present study, these predispositions are defined as social and

economic consequences as well as personal importance of a local ballot issue
on increasing funding for local schools. Predispositions, in this sense, involve
both issue-specific and loosely associated attitudes about school funding.
In our model, predispositions and issue interest compose the intrapersonal
filter, which impacts an individual’s selection of what is most important about
a given issue. We include issue interest as an important component, as those
who are more interested in an issue are more likely to express their own
opinions relevant to the issue (Crano, ) and seek out other views via the
media (Poindexter & McCombs, ). The intrapersonal filter is a powerful
component of our model, as it impacts how individuals think about an issue.
At this first filter, we hypothesize:
H1a: Issue interest will be associated with respondents’ favorability
toward the ballot issue.
H1b: Issue interest will be associated with respondents’ opinion strength
regarding the ballot issue.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC OPINION RESEARCH

Demographic variables such as age, income, and political ideology could

also help explain early differences in public opinion. Our model operationa-
lizes demographic influence primarily as a means of statistical control, but
their influence will also be assessed.

MEDIA FILTERS
Public opinion has been defined as a collection of views regarding an issue that
affects many (Corbett, ). Issue-relevant information often is delivered
via mass media, which simultaneously act as a channel for information
dissemination as well as another filter within the public opinion process; media
outlets choose between many options when determining precisely which issues
to cover. The direct impact of the media filter is that those who are exposed to
this selected information have the opportunity to obtain more knowledge
about an issue.
Although a person may not perceive all issues reported in the media as
having great personal importance, he or she may see an issue as being
important to other people, creating ‘collective issue salience’ (Mutz & Soss,
, p. ). In addition, ‘attitudes may shift when people learn of others’
views because knowing the opinions of others induces people to think of
arguments that might explain those others’ positions,’ (Mutz, , p. ).
Ultimately, media coverage that reflects the views of mass others may not
directly change individuals’ opinions, but it can encourage them to reassess
their own views in light of this new information. The more attention people
pay to an issue, the more developed their own opinions are likely to become.
In other words, issue-specific media attention will be associated with
respondent favorability and opinion strength regarding the issue:
H2a: The attention respondents pay to media coverage about the issue
will be associated with respondents’ issue favorability.
H2b: The attention respondents pay to media coverage about the issue
will be associated with respondents’ opinion strength.
Additionally, the ‘quasi-statistical sense’ of Noelle-Neumann’s ()
spiral of silence theory suggests that attention to media will be associated
with perceptions of public opinion. Although her work is rooted in the
‘dual climate’ of public opinion, which presumes that media misrepresent
public opinion (Scheufele & Moy, ), we hypothesize simply that the two
will be associated:
H2c: The attention respondents pay to media coverage about the issue
will be associated with respondents’ perceptions of community support
for the issue.
 PUBLIC OPINION FILTERS 
SOCIAL FILTERS: INTERPERSONAL DISCUSSION
Discussion about an issue often occurs throughout the process, and like media
use, can be influential in developing opinion strength. Political discussion
is characterized by all kinds of political talk, as long as the conversation is
voluntarily carried out without any specific agenda (Kim, Wyatt, & Katz,
). Research suggests that frequency of such discussion contributes to a
number of politically desirable outcomes, such as greater political knowledge
and participation (Scheufele, ; Kwak, Williams, Wang, & Lee, ;) as
well as greater preparation for deliberation (Dutwin, ). Additionally,
political discussion leads to higher-quality opinions through greater opinion
strength (Kim et al., ), long hailed as an important consideration in
evaluating public opinion (e.g. Allport, ; Schwarz, Groves, & Schuman,
). Political discussion is also a direct way for individuals to assess the
views of those in their community. We expect frequency of discussion to
influence one’s opinion and increase opinion strength:
H3a: Frequency of discussion about the issue will be associated with
respondents’ issue favorability.
H3b: Frequency of discussion about the issue will be associated with
respondents’ opinion strength.
Similar to the logic presented for Hc, we propose that individuals who
monitor their environment through interpersonal discussion will also develop
perceptions of community support for the issue. As outlined by Scheufele
and Moy (), media are one component of the quasi-statistical sense,
while interpersonal discussion and observation are the other:
H3c: Frequency of discussion about the issue will be associated with
respondents’ perceptions of community support for the issue.

BRINGING THE PROCESS TOGETHER

In many mass communication and public opinion studies, individual factors,
media content and use, and social contexts often are studied independently
rather than as a process. However, these components should be seen as
ongoing subprocesses that collectively lead to the formation of a public’s
opinion about various issues (Van Leuven & Slater, ). Public opinion is
inherently a social process in which individuals are continually adjusting their
opinions through discussion and attention to media (Price & Roberts, ).
One of the most prominent themes to emerge in the vast literature on
public opinion is the role communication plays through discussion, debate,
and collective decision-making (Price, ). Because of the central role of
communication in this process, we incorporate both interpersonal and mass
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC OPINION RESEARCH

communication—along with individual considerations—as key elements of the

public opinion process.
Moreover, we acknowledge that perceptions of public opinion can
influence individuals’ opinions, thus contributing to the overall process of
public opinion (e.g. Noelle-Neumann, ; Mutz & Soss, ; Moy,
Domke, & Stamm, ). Thus, perceptions of community support for the
issue—which we conceptualize as existing at the intersection of each filter—
will be entered into the final model as a predictor of favorability toward the
ballot issue and opinion strength:
H4: Each filter (i.e. intrapersonal, media, and social) will contribute to
the formation and strength of public opinion.
Finally, we aim to examine the relative influence of each filter at both the
introduction and culmination of the local issue:
RQ1: Will the impacts of the three filters on opinion formation differ
between Time 1 and Time 2?

METHODS
We examined this process in the context of a proposed bond/levy issue for
a suburban Midwestern school district in Columbus, Ohio. The district, which
was comprised of a  square-mile area at the time of the study, had recently
experienced a substantial population influx, with the number of students
growing from  in  to  in .3 The proposed ballot issue sought
financial support to build new schools, purchase land, and update buses,
technology, and textbooks.
Although some research has attempted to investigate public opinion
longitudinally (cf., Shamir & Shamir, ), most rely on data collected at one
point in time, reducing the study of public opinion to a one-shot, static view
of individual opinions (e.g. Major, ; Moy, Domke, & Stamm, ).
An additional problem is the rarity of having adequate lead-time to gather
baseline measures of public opinion (Mutz & Soss, ). We were afforded
this atypical opportunity through close attention to the proposed ballot issue
before it came to public attention.
In order to obtain a process-oriented understanding of public opinion,
we measured public opinion at two different stages. Time  (T) coincided
with the introduction of the issue to the general public and occurred before
a great deal of media coverage or interpersonal discussion took place.
Data from this introductory period served as a baseline measure with which

3
Information obtained from  data on the school district’s web site.
 PUBLIC OPINION FILTERS 
we could compare information obtained from our second time of data
collection.
Time  (T) collection occurred—as we will demonstrate—after a
significant increase in interpersonal discussion, issue awareness and interest,
as well as shifts in perceptions of community support. In other words, we had
a unique opportunity to examine early opinion development as well as the
status of public opinion near its definitive focusing event—in this case,
the vote on the ballot issue. By capturing two collections of survey data,
we present antecedents, covariates, and outcomes of a public opinion process.

PROCEDURE
The main instrument was an independent-samples telephone survey collected
at the beginning and end of the issue attention cycle surrounding a local ballot
issue. A survey research center at The Ohio State University conducted these
surveys using random digit dialing (RDD). The first set of data was collected
during the last week of January , while the second set of data was
collected between February  and March , , just before the election.4

INDEPENDENT VARIABLES
Respondents were asked about components of the proposed filters, including
demographic variables, predispositions, media use, frequency of discussion, as
well as perceptions of the opinions of others in the community.5 In addition to
standard demographic questions regarding gender and level of education,
we were interested in: () age, as older residents who are on a fixed income
and no longer have school-aged children may be less likely to support tax
increases; () number of school-aged children in the household, as those with
children attending school have a vested interested in improved educational
facilities and resources; () income, as those with higher incomes—and, most
likely, higher property values—have more to lose with the introduction of new
or increased taxes; and () political ideology, as those who are more fiscally
conservative tend to favor less taxation, while those who are more liberal tend
to support increased education spending. With these considerations in mind, it
is necessary that we statistically control for these demographic characteristics.

4
The response rate was calculated using the American Association for Public Opinion Research Response
Rate  formula. For T, , randomly generated telephone numbers were dialed as many as  times. Of
these numbers,  were found to be valid numbers, and interviews were completed in . percent of the
cases. For T,  valid numbers were found. From these households, interviews were completed in .
percent of the cases. The margin of sampling error for each sample was
. percent. Though the
calculated response rate for our sample is somewhat low, recent work by Keeter, Miller, Kohut, Groves, &
Presser () demonstrates that such response rates typically do not result in a significant loss of data
quality.
5
All question wording can be found in the Appendix.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC OPINION RESEARCH

TABLE  Descriptive statistics of major variables

Min–Max Time  (T) Time  (T)
Mean SD Mean SD
Independent variables
Relevant predispositions – . (.) . (.)
Issue awareness – . (.) . (.)
Issue interest – . (.) . (.)
Perceived community support – . (.) . (.)
Discussion frequency – . (.) . (.)
Issue-specific media use – . (.) . (.)
(Attention  Exposure)
Political ideology – . (.) . (.)
(Liberal—Conservative)
Dependent variables
Favorability toward issue – . (.) . (.)
Opinion strength – . (.) . (.)

At the outset of the public opinion process, it is important to acknowledge

that people hold certain predispositions toward most issues. These inclinations
provide individuals with a starting point or anchor from which to begin
forming their own opinions (Helson, ). We assessed relevant predisposi-
tions by asking respondents about the perceived benefits of the issue for their
families and their community if the ballot issue were to pass. We also inquired
about the anticipated benefits of the school district updating buildings and
technology, as well as anticipated financial stress resulting from passage of
the issue. In other words, we asked respondents to evaluate possible
advantages and disadvantages of making improvements to schools in the
local school district. After appropriate score reversing, a higher score on this
index indicates a more positive predisposition toward school levies and related
ballot issues. Seven items were averaged to create an index of relevant
predispositions toward the ballot issue (Cronbach’s ¼ . at T and .
at T). To gauge salience of the issue at the intrapersonal level, we asked
respondents to estimate their own level of issue awareness and interest
(see Table  for all descriptive statistics).
Respondents were also asked to indicate how many of the last seven days
they were exposed to various media outlets—three local newspapers, one
metro newspaper, and local television news (i.e. – scale for each outlet).
Respondents were then asked to indicate how much attention they paid to
stories regarding the ballot issue (from  ¼ ‘none’ to  ¼ ‘a lot’). The exposure
scores were multiplied by the level of issue attention respondents reported to
arrive at a measure of issue-specific media use. These scores were then
averaged to create an index of issue specific media use.
 PUBLIC OPINION FILTERS 
We measured respondents’ perceptions of community support6 of the issue
by asking, ‘If a poll were taken today, in your estimation, what would be the
percentage of members of this community who would be in favor of the school
levy?’7 The frequency with which respondents discussed the issue was assessed
with a question that asked how often they talked to others about the issue.
Specifically, we asked respondents, ‘How frequently do you talk to others
about the proposed school levy?’

DEPENDENT VARIABLES
The outcome variable measured how favorable respondents were toward
the ballot issue. Response options ranged on a five-point scale from ‘very
unfavorable’ to ‘very favorable,’ with higher values representing more
favorability (Scale: –; MT ¼ ., SD ¼ .; MT ¼ ., SD ¼ .).
We also asked respondents about their voting intentions if they were at least
somewhat likely to vote. Because this issue reached its culmination at the
ballot box, it might at first seem more appropriate to use the voting measure
as the criterion variable. We are, however, interested in the process of public
opinion, which includes those individuals who do not intend to vote.
In order to measure opinion strength, we obtained each respondent’s
deviation from the midpoint answer of support for the ballot issue (i.e. halfway
between the most and least supportive options) and used this absolute value as
a quantification of opinion strength. In other words, those who said they were
‘very supportive’ or ‘not at all supportive’ held strong opinions, while those
who were ‘moderately supportive’ held relatively weaker opinions. With this
measure, we are able to observe the strength of personal opinions (Scale: –;
MT ¼ ., SDT ¼ .; MT ¼ ., SDT ¼ .).

RESULTS
The independent-samples telephone survey consisted of  residents of the
school district (NT ¼ , NT ¼ ). Fifty-eight percent of respondents
were female, with an average reported age of . years (SD ¼ .).
The mean household income was approximately $,. About  percent
reported having one or more children under  in their household, with an
average of . children (SD ¼ .). The sample also leaned toward

6
Perceived community support is used as a dependent variable in analyzing the subprocesses specific to
media and social filters, as discussion and media use can impact these filters. Perceived community support
is used as an independent variable in the overall model, which incorporates all three filters in predicting
public opinion.
7
Research has suggested that asking for percentage estimates is more useful than asking whether ‘most’
people agree or disagree, because this method leads to artificial calculations of perceptions (Tipton,
Prichard, & Prichard, ).
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC OPINION RESEARCH

Time 1

Not at all
Somewhat
Very

Time 2

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Question wording: ‘How aware are you of the proposed ballot issue?’

Figure  Levels of issue awareness at Times  and d 

a conservative political ideology. With a more conservative ideology coded as

, moderate as , and liberal as , we calculated a mean ideology of .
(SD ¼ .) across both survey points. As might be expected, issue awareness
[t(.) ¼ ., p < .] and interest [t(.) ¼ ., p < .] significantly
increased as the election approached (see Figures  and ). Overall opinion
strength was also significantly greater at T when compared with T,
t(.) ¼ ., p < .. Ultimately, the ballot issue was passed by a slim
margin in the actual vote.

INTRAPERSONAL FILTER
At the intrapersonal level, key demographic variables were associated with
overall favorability toward the ballot issue at both times of the survey. As seen
in Table , both age and length of residence were negatively associated with
issue favorability. On the other hand, the number of children in a respondent’s
household and a respondent’s interest in the issue were positively correlated
with favorability toward the ballot issue.
Though the observed correlations are not remarkably strong, it is worth
noting that the relationship between several demographic variables and issue
favorability differed between T and T of the survey. The correlation
between income and issue favorability weakened and became nonsignificant
between T and T. The relationship also weakened for level of education.
Additionally, political ideology was less strongly correlated with issue
favorability at T for both liberals and conservatives. This finding suggests

8
According to official Election Board results, , residents ( percent of registered voters) cast a vote
on the levy/bond issue with  (. percent) voting for and  (. percent) voting against.
 PUBLIC OPINION FILTERS 

Time 1
Not at all
Not Very
Slightly
Moderately
Very
Time 2

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Question wording: ‘How interested are you in the proposed ballot issue?’

Figure  Levels of issue interest at Times  and 

TABLE  Bivariate correlations between issue favorability and intrapersonal

filter variables
Time  Time 
Age .** .**
Gender . .**
Income .** .
Number of children .** .**
Length of residence .** .**
Education .** .*
Liberal .* .
Conservative .* .
Issue Interest .** .**
Note: Except for issue interest, independent samples t-tests revealed no significant differences between
listed variables at T and T.
**p < ., *p < ..

that while some demographic attributes were connected to issue favorability at

both times, there was temporal variation with other demographic traits. For
income, education, and political ideology, the correlation with issue
favorability existed at the outset of the issue, but weakened as the culmination
of the issue approached. In other words, respondents seemed to rely more on
certain personal constants when issue attention and interest were lower. By
dummy coding for time (T ¼ ; T ¼ ) and restructuring our data to include
both survey time points in one file, we will be able to further test the temporal
variation of these and other key independent variables.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC OPINION RESEARCH

TABLE  Effect of intrapersonal filter (Ordinary least squares regressions)

Respondent favorability Opinion strength
b S.E. b S.E.
Relevant predispositions .*** . . .
Issue interest .# . .*** .
Number of children in home . . . .
Age .* . .* .
Gender . . . .
Education .# . . .
Income . . . .
Identified as liberal . . . .
Identified as conservative . . . .
Time  vs. Time  . . .* .
Predispositions  Time . . . .
Issue interest  Time . . .# .
Model fit Adjusted R ¼ . Adjusted R ¼ .
Note: All coefficients are unstandardized.
***p < ., **p < ., *p < ., #p < ..

Our first hypothesis stated that relevant predispositions would be

associated with favorability and opinion strength toward the ballot issue.
While controlling for key demographic variables listed above, relevant
predispositions were found to be a strong predictor of favorability toward
the ballot issue and a marginally important predictor of opinion strength.
The overall demographic and predisposition model accounted for  percent
of the variance in predicting issue favorability, though this relationship
changed little over time (i.e. between T and T; see Table ). The dummy
coded time variable was not a significant predictor of issue favorability, nor
did this variable contribute anything of significance to the model when
interaction terms were created with time, issue interest and the index of
relevant predispositions. While the influence of predispositions and issue
interest is apparent, this relationship did not seem to change as the issue
progressed, suggesting a temporally stable relationship between intrapersonal
variables and issue favorability.
The same predictors were used in a model estimating the opinion strength
of respondents. Demographics and relevant predispositions accounted for
about  percent of the overall variance in respondents’ opinion strength, with
issue interest and a measure of the effect of the passage of time significantly
contributing to the model. There was also a marginally significant interaction
between respondents’ interest in the ballot issue and the passage of time,
indicating that opinions became stronger over time among those who were
relatively more interested in the ballot issue. Demographics and relevant
 PUBLIC OPINION FILTERS 
TABLE  Effect of media filter (ordinary least squares regressions)
Respondent favorability Opinion strength Perceived community
support
b S.E. b S.E. b S.E.
Issue specific .* . .** . .** .
media attention
Time  vs. . . . . .** .
Time 
Media attention  . . . . . .
Time
Model fit Adjusted R ¼ . Adjusted R ¼ . Adjusted R ¼ .
Note: All coefficients are unstandardized.
***p < ., **p<., *p < ., #p < ..

predispositions seemed to have a stable effect on favorability toward the ballot

issue as well. While it appears that there was a temporal moderation of the
impact of issue interest on opinion strength, the overall influence of time at
the intrapersonal filter appears to be minimal.

MEDIA FILTER
Although it was not surprising that overall media use was similar at T and
T [t(.) ¼ ., p ¼ .], we found that issue-specific media use also did
not increase between samples, t(.) ¼ ., p ¼ .. We anticipated an
increase in issue-specific media use to help explain the previously discussed
temporal increase in issue awareness and interest. Our second hypothesis
predicted that respondents’ attention to media coverage of the issue would be
linked with the strength of their favorability and opinion strength toward the
ballot issue. In line with this prediction, those who reported that they paid
relatively more attention to stories about the ballot issue had a significantly
less favorable opinion of the ballot issue and significantly stronger opinions.
Similar to the intrapersonal filter, there was no interaction between time and
media use, indicating that the impact of the media filter did not significantly
change between T and T (Table ).

SOCIAL FILTERS
The characteristics of interpersonal discussion also differed between T and
T. There was a significant increase in the overall amount of conversation
involving the ballot issue between periods of data collection, as borne out by
an independent-samples comparison, t(.) ¼ ., p < .. Our third set
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC OPINION RESEARCH

TABLE  Effect of social filter (Ordinary least squares regressions)

Respondent favorability Opinion strength Perceived community
support
b S.E. b S.E. b S.E.
Discussion . . .** . . #
.
frequency
Time  vs. . . .# . .** .
Time 
Discussion . . . . . .
freq.  Time
Model fit Adjusted R ¼ . Adjusted R ¼ . Adjusted R ¼ .
Note: All coefficients are unstandardized.
***p < ., **p < ., *p < ., #p < ..

of hypotheses predicted a relationship between interpersonal discussion of the

issue and issue favorability, opinion strength, and perceptions of community
support, as information obtained through the social filter is the most direct
reflection of community opinion. Analysis revealed that frequency of
discussion was not a significant predictor of issue favorability, even when
controlling for the influence of time. Discussion frequency was significantly
associated with opinion strength, as those who talked more about the issue
held stronger opinions. There was however, no temporal interaction between
discussion frequency and opinion strength. The association between discussion
frequency and perceptions of community support was marginal, and there was
no significant interaction between discussion and time in terms of impacting
perceptions of community support. It appears that discussing the issue led to
stronger opinions and the perception that the community was slightly less
supportive of the issue. Because no significant interactions were found
between variables within the social filter and time, we can discern that the
influence of discussion for this issue was relatively stable over time.

TESTING THE PROCESS MODEL

The final hypothesis predicted that each filter would contribute to the overall
opinion formation process. This hypothesis tests our central thesis that each
of these components will significantly contribute to the overall model.
We also examined what changes in variance took place between T and T.
To address this issue, we included key variables from each filter as predictors,
as well as the dummy coded time variable (T ¼ , T ¼ ). We included
three cross-filter interaction terms (e.g. discussion x media attention) to assess
possible synergies between filters. While controlling for the influence of time,
 PUBLIC OPINION FILTERS 
TABLE  Simultaneous effect of all filters (ordinary least squares regressions)
Respondent favorability Opinion strength
b S.E. b S.E.
Intrapersonal filter
Time  vs. Time  . . .# .
Relevant predispositions .*** . . .
Issue interest .* . .*** .
R (F value) . (.)*** . (.)***
Media filter
Media attention .# . .** .
R (F value) . (.)# . (.)**
Social filter
Discussion frequency . . .* .
Perceived community .* . .* .
support
R (F value) . (.)# . (.)**
Interactions
Predispositions  . . . .
Media attention
Predispositions  .# . . .
Discussion
Media attention  . . . .
Discussion
R (F value) . (.) . (.)
Note: All coefficients are unstandardized.
***p < ., **p < ., *p < ., #p < ..

the intrapersonal filter, media filter and social filter each contributed to an
improvement in the fit of the model, though the significance of the media and
social filters’ contributions were marginal.
As seen in Table , elements of the intrapersonal filter by far accounted
for the most variance. Within the media filter, an increase in issue-specific
media use led to a marginal decrease in favorability toward the issue. Within
the social filter, greater perceived community support led to a significant
increase in favorability toward the issue. Of the three interaction terms,
relevant predispositions and frequency of discussion combined to increase
favorability toward the issue.
Each of the three filters also impacted overall opinion strength. Greater
issue interest led to increased opinion strength, as did increased media
attention and discussion frequency. Perceived community support, on the
other hand, was negatively associated with opinion strength, indicating that
those who thought their community was more supportive of the issue held
weaker opinions than those who thought the community was less supportive
of the issue.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC OPINION RESEARCH

Research question  addressed the possibility of differential impacts of the

three filters on opinion formation between Time  and Time . We assessed
this by building interaction terms consisting of each of the key predictor
variables and the dummy coded time variable. Analysis revealed that none of
the three filters significantly interacted with the time variable in explaining
additional variance in respondents’ favorability toward the ballot issue.
Possible reasons for this lack of a temporal effect are discussed below.

DISCUSSION
This study examined public opinion at two key points during the progression
of a community issue. Using OLS regression for our main analyses, we
examined a variety of influences that contributed to public opinion. We did
this by examining three filters—intrapersonal, media, and social—that affect
the public opinion process. Moreover, we incorporated communication
variables throughout our process model in response to calls for examining
communication as a central component of this process (e.g. Davison, ;
Price & Roberts, ; Glynn, ). The implications of each of the three
filters are detailed below.
At the intrapersonal level, we found that relevant predispositions and
issue interest were the best predictors of issue favorability. In examining
subprocesses of the intrapersonal filter, we found that demographic
characteristics were correlated with issue favorability, though there was
variability between periods. Future research should further test this finding,
which suggests that individual considerations could be more salient at the
introduction of an issue, but become less important as the issue becomes
more public. It is possible that when issue culmination approaches,
predominant information and influence processes shift away from the internal
(i.e. intrapersonal) toward the external (i.e. media use, discussion). Though
our regression analyses do not bear this conclusion out for this particular
study, it is possible that this lack of temporal influence is attributable to
the issue at hand. In many communities, school levy and bond issues are
a recurrent phenomenon, and opinions may be relatively stable from the
outset.
Though the intrapersonal filter held strongest sway over respondents’
issue favorability, there were still significant impacts to be found within the
media and social filters. Interestingly, the more attention respondents paid to
media reports regarding the ballot issue, the less likely they were to favor the
passage of the issue. At the same time, increasing media attention also led
to stronger opinions, and these relationships persisted even when matched
against other key variables in a multiple regression context. Our study also
reveals interesting results regarding the influence of interpersonal discussion
 PUBLIC OPINION FILTERS 
on perceived community support, such that respondents who talked more
frequently to others about the issue perceived less community support for the
issue (although this was marginally significant). These results suggest that,
at least in the present example, media use and discussion frequency led people
to perceive less community support for the ballot issue, even though the
majority of voters agreed to pass the initiative. Future research should more
closely examine how communication influences such perceptions.
While we must acknowledge that the intrapersonal filter explains a large
portion of the variance in the present study, this is not an unexpected
or unprecedented result. Much political science research, for example, has
claimed that – percent of voting behavior variance is explained by party
identification alone (e.g. Finkel, ). What many researchers aim to uncover
is the elusive – percent of unexplained variance, even if it is smaller in
comparison with what is explained by intrapersonal factors, such as party
identification. This research intended to explain the additional variance
accounted for by other factors—namely communication—that have an
effect on the variance in opinion. Because our work is rooted in that of
Davison () and Price and Roberts (), among others, it was essential
to parse out the effects of communication, which drives the public opinion
process. Indeed, we did find that communication had a significant effect on
this process. Though the variance explained by the intrapersonal filter was
indeed largest, the contribution of communication was not insignificant.
In fact, our analyses could be considered a conservative approach; future
research might explore whether the variance explained by the intrapersonal
filter might be ‘activated’ by information and communication (Finkel, ;
Gelman & King, ), and thus explained by media and interpersonal filters
after all.
We should acknowledge limitations of our survey. Media attention to
the issue, as revealed by respondents’ self-reports, was relatively low. Had the
survey taken place during a statewide or presidential election, we might have
seen more of a difference between respondents who were attending or not
attending to the campaign through media use and discussion. Findings also
indicate that opinions regarding the ballot issue may have been relatively stable
between the two survey points (T and T). It was our attempt to survey
a group of people who had little familiarity with an issue. While there were
obvious impacts of media and social filters over time, it is possible that a more
novel or rare issue would generate more temporal variance in terms of
predicting issue favorability and opinion strength. It is in such circumstances
that change over time is best assessed. This balance between obtaining
a widely varying sample and catching respondents before they have been
exposed to a stimulus is a paradox faced by many survey researchers,
particularly those interested in the media. We feel that our approach provides
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC OPINION RESEARCH

insight into the public opinion process, as well as a framework from which
other researchers can draw in developing a more holistic model of the public
opinion process.
Although our sample was representative of the community we were
studying, it was certainly not representative of all communities, as respondents
in the community tended to be wealthy, white, and conservative. For this
reason, the community could have been somewhat homogeneous in beliefs,
predispositions, and opinions, making it difficult to generalize the results to
a larger population. Furthermore, we examined opinions and perceptions
about only one issue. Results may have varied if the issue were, for example,
a presidential election, which generates more media coverage and interpersonal
discussion. And finally, although the present cross-sectional independent-
samples survey serves as an improvement over previous cross-sectional studies,
it should be noted that a panel study—examining the same group of people
from T to T—could more directly assess causality.

CONCLUSION
By surveying the public at two points in time, and including time as a key
independent and moderating variable, we believe our results serve as robust
support for our model of the public opinion process. Our regression model,
which incorporated three operationalized filters of public opinion, also
included interaction terms that captured the important synergistic effects
of the combinations of those filters.
Myriad factors influence the public opinion process, and these factors can
play a different role at different times the process. In-depth analyses of each
component are invaluable contributions to the literature and should continue.
In order to obtain a more holistic view of the public opinion process, however,
we combined those subprocesses into a more comprehensive model. In this
sense, we were able to make conclusions about the relative effects of each filter
or component of the public opinion process while adequately controlling for
other factors. Results indicate that individual characteristics are dominant
during the formative phase of the public opinion process. Yet as time goes by,
increasing media coverage and more frequent discussion may exert a stronger
influence on public opinion. In furthering the filter analogy, we might suggest
that as media and social influence are introduced, the intrapersonal filter
becomes more ‘porous,’ such that predispositions and demographics have less
of an impact on the public opinion process when media and social filters
are taken into account.
Although there are undoubtedly multiple sources of influence, at its core,
public opinion is rooted in communication processes. As Price ()
succinctly argued, ‘Whether viewed in philosophical, political, sociological,
 PUBLIC OPINION FILTERS 
or psychological terms, [public opinion] remains fundamentally a commu-
nication concept’ (p. ). The present study not only viewed public opinion as
a communication concept, but also tested the unique aspects of communica-
tion in an advanced model to parse out competing effects. Future research
should apply this model to broader events and more heterogeneous
communities to test whether these findings hold true.

REFERENCES
Allport, G. W. (). Personality: A psychological interpretation. New York: Social
Science Research Council.
Asch, S. E. (). Studies of independence and conformity: A minority of one
against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs, , .
Blanton, H., & Christie, C. (). Deviance regulation: A theory of action and
identity. Review of General Psychology, , –.
Bryce, J. (). The American commonwealth (Vol. III). London: Macmillan & Co.
Corbett, M. (). American public opinion: Trends, processes, and patterns. New York:
Longman.
Crano, W. (). Vested interest, symbolic politics, and attitude-behavior
consistency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, , –.
Crespi, I. (). The public opinion process: How the people speak. Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Davison, W. P. (). The public opinion process. Public Opinion Quarterly, ,
–.
Davison, W. P. (). A public opinion game. Public Opinion Quarterly, , –.
Downs, A. (). Up and down with ecology: The issue attention cycle. The Public
Interest, , –.
Dutwin, D. (). The character of deliberation: Equality, argument, and the
formation of public opinion. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, ,
–.
Finkel, S. E. (). Reexamining the ‘minimal effects’ model in recent presidential
campaigns. Journal of Politics, , –.
Foote, N. N., & Hart, C. W. (). Public opinion and collective behavior. In
M. Sherif & M. O. Wilson (Eds.), Group relations at the crossroads (pp. –).
New York: Harper & Bros.
Gelman, A., & King, G. (). Why are American presidential election campaign
polls so variable when votes are so predictable? British Journal of Political Science,
, –.
Glynn, C. J. (). Public opinion as a social process. In S. Dunwoody, D. McLeod,
L. B. Becker & G. M. Kosicki (Eds.), The Evolution of key mass communication
concepts (pp. –). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Glynn, C. J., & McLeod, J. M. (). Implications of the spiral of silence theory for
communication and public opinion research. In K. R. Sanders, L. L. Kaid &
D. Nimmo (Eds.), Political Communication Yearbook  (pp. –). Carbondale,
IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC OPINION RESEARCH

Helson, H. (). Adaptation level theory: An experimental and systematic approach to

behavior. New York: Harper & Row.
Keeter, S., Miller, C., Kohut, A., Groves, R. M., & Presser, S. (). Consequences
of reducing nonresponse in a national telephone survey. Public Opinion Quarterly,
, –.
Kim, J., Wyatt, R. O., & Katz, E. (). News, talk, opinion, participation: The part
played by conversation in deliberative democracy. Political Communication, ,
–.
Kinder, D. R. (). Communication and opinion. Annual Review of Political Science,
, –.
Kwak, N., Williams, A. E., Wang, X. R., & Lee, H. (). Talking politics and
engaging politics: An examination of the interactive relationships between structural
features of political talk and discussion engagement. Communication Research, ,
–.
Major, A. M. (). Correlates of accuracy and inaccuracy in the perception of
the climate of opinion for four environmental issues. Journalism and Mass
Communication Quarterly, , –.
Moscovici, S. (). Social influence and conformity. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson
(Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. , p. –). New York: Random
House.
Moy, P., McCoy, K., Spratt, M., & McCluskey, M. R. (). Media effects on
public opinion about a newspaper strike. Journalism and Mass Communication
Quarterly, , –.
Moy, P., Domke, D., & Stamm, K. (). The spiral of silence and public opinion
on affirmative action. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, , –.
Mutz, D. C. (). Mechanisms of momentum: Does thinking make it so?
The Journal of Politics, , –.
Mutz, D. C., & Soss, J. (). Reading public opinion: The influence of
news coverage on perceptions of public sentiment. Public Opinion Quarterly, ,
–.
Noelle-Neumann, E. (). Return to the concept of the powerful mass media.
Studies of Broadcasting, , –.
Noelle-Neumann, E. (). The spiral of silence: Public opinion–Our social skin.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Pan, Z., & Kosicki, G. M. (). Assessing news media influences on
the formation of whites’ racial policy preferences. Communication Research, ,
–.
Poindexter, P. M., & McCombs, M. E. (). Revisiting the civic duty to keep
informed in the new media environment. Journalism & Mass Communication
Quarterly, , –.
Price, V. (). Social identification and public opinion: Effects of communicating
group conflict. Public Opinion Quarterly, , –.
Price, V. (). Public Opinion. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Price, V., & Roberts, D. F. (). Public opinion processes. In C. Berger &
S. Chaffee (Eds.), Handbook of communication science (pp. –). Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
 PUBLIC OPINION FILTERS 
Scheufele, D. A. (). Talk or conversation? Dimensions of interpersonal discussion
and their implications for participatory democracy. Journalism and Mass
Communication Quarterly, , –.
Scheufele, D. A., & Moy, P. (). Twenty-five years of the spiral of silence:
A conceptual review and empirical outlook. International Journal of Public Opinion
Research, , –.
Schwarz, N., Groves, R. M., & Schuman, H. (). Survey methods. In
D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology
(th ed., Vol. , p. –). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Shamir, J., & Shamir, M. (). The anatomy of public opinion. Ann Arbor:
The University of Michigan Press.
Tipton, L., Prichard, P., & Prichard, N. (1987, August). Public opinion as collective
coorientation. Paper presented at the meeting of the Association for Education in
Journalism and Mass Communication, San Antonio, TX.
Tsfati, Y. (). Media skepticism and climate of opinion perception. International
Journal of Public Opinion Research, , –.
Van Leuven, J. K., & Slater, M. D. (). How publics, public relations, and the
media shape the public opinion. Public Relations Research Annual, , –.
Zaller, J. (). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.

APPENDIX: SURVEY QUES TION AND RESPONSE

WORDING
ISSUE AWARENESS, INTEREST, AND FAVORABILITY
How aware are you of the school levy on the March ballot that was proposed
by the Olentangy Board of Education in order to build three elementary
schools and a middle school, as well as purchase buses, textbooks and
technology? Would you say you are you very aware, slightly aware, or not
at all aware?—Very aware; Slightly aware, Not at all aware; Refused;
Don’t know.
Regardless of your awareness of the issue, how interested would you say
you are in the proposed school levy? Would you say you are very interested,
moderately interested, slightly interested, not very interested, or not at all
interested?—Very interested; Moderately interested; Slightly interested; Not
very interested; Not at all interested; Refused; Don’t know.
And when you think about others in your community, how interested do
you think they are in this levy issue? Would you say they are very interested,
moderately interested, slightly interested, not very interested, or not at all
interested?—Same options as above.
How favorable are you toward the school levy? Would you say you are
very favorable, favorable, neutral, unfavorable, or very unfavorable?—Very
favorable; Favorable; Neutral; Unfavorable; Very unfavorable; Refused;
Don’t know.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC OPINION RESEARCH

When you think about others in your community, how favorable do

you think they are toward this levy? Would you say they are very
favorable, favorable, neutral, unfavorable, or very unfavorable?—Same options
as above.
How likely is it that you will vote on this issue when it appears on the
ballot March nd? Is it very likely, somewhat likely, somewhat unlikely,
or very unlikely?—Very likely; Somewhat likely; Somewhat unlikely; Very
unlikely; Refused; Don’t know.

PREDISPOSITIONS
How beneficial do you think the passing of this levy would be to you and your
family? Would it be very beneficial, moderately beneficial, slightly beneficial,
hardly beneficial, or not at all beneficial?—Very beneficial; Moderately
beneficial; Slightly beneficial; Hardly beneficial; Not at all beneficial; Refused;
Don’t know.
How beneficial do you think the passing of this levy would be for your
community? Would it be very beneficial, moderately beneficial, slightly
beneficial, hardly beneficial, or not at all beneficial?—Same options as above.
How likely is it that the proposed levy would cause financial stress for you
and your family? Is it very likely, somewhat likely, somewhat unlikely, or very
unlikely?—Very likely; Somewhat likely; Somewhat unlikely; Very unlikely;
Refused; Don’t know.
The School Board has proposed the levy to build three elementary schools
and a middle school, as well as purchase buses, textbooks and technology.
In your opinion, how likely is it that the designated money will be used for the
proposed school construction, updated materials and new buses? Would you
say it is very likely, somewhat likely, somewhat unlikely, or very unlikely?—
Same options as above.
How important do you think it is to improve school facilities by updating
existing structures and building new schools? Would you say it is very
important, somewhat important, somewhat unimportant, or very unimpor-
tant?—Very important; Somewhat important; Somewhat unimportant; Very
unimportant; Refused; Don’t know.
How important do you think it is to update technology and
classroom materials in schools? Would you say it is very important, somewhat
important, somewhat unimportant, or very unimportant?—Same options as
above.
How important do you think it is to have more buses to transport students
to school? Would you say it is very important, somewhat important, somewhat
unimportant, or very unimportant?—Same options as above.
 PUBLIC OPINION FILTERS 
ISSUE SUPPORT
If a poll were taken today, in your estimation what would be the percentage of
members of this community who would be [in favor of/opposed to] the school
levy?—Open, no options.
Do you think that, overall, people in this community have recently
changed their opinion to be [more/less] favorable on this issue?—Yes;
No; Refused; Don’t know.
How likely are you to vote [against/in favor of] the passing of the
Olentangy school levy on March nd? Would you say it is very likely,
somewhat likely, somewhat unlikely, or very unlikely?—Very likely; Somewhat
likely; Somewhat unlikely; Very unlikely; Refused; Don’t know.

MEDIA USE
The next few questions will be about how much attention you pay to local
newspapers and television. I will read a list of different media. For each one,
please tell me how many days out of the last seven days you have read the
newspaper or watched the news. Now I will ask you how much attention you
pay to these news sources in general. Please respond after I read this list again
and tell me if you pay a lot, some, a little, or no attention to each source.—
A lot; Some; A little; None; Refused; Don’t know.
Regarding stories about the Olentangy school levy, tell me if you pay a lot,
some, a little or no attention to stories about the levy in these news sources.
[List of local media sources.]

ISSUE DISCUSSION
How frequently do you talk to others about the proposed school levy? Would
you say you talk about it very frequently, somewhat frequently, somewhat
infrequently, very infrequently, or never?—Very frequently; Somewhat
frequently; Somewhat infrequently; Very infrequently; Never; Refused;
Don’t know.

DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
In what year were you born?
Including yourself, how many adults,  years or older, live in your household
most of the year?
How many children,  years of age or younger, live in your household?
How many months have you lived in your current residence?
Do you own or rent your residence?—Own; Rent; Refused; Don’t know
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PUBLIC OPINION RESEARCH

Now we’d like to ask you about your education. What is the highest grade
or year of school you have completed?—Elementary school; High school;
Some college; Associates certificate; Bachelor’s degree; Some graduate school;
Master’s degree; Doctorate/advanced degree; Refused; Don’t know.
These days, many people are so busy they can’t find time to register to
vote, or move around so often they don’t get a chance to re-register. Are you
currently registered to vote in your precinct or election district?—Yes;
No; Refused; Don’t know.
When it comes to politics, some people think of themselves as liberal, and
others think of themselves as conservative. How would you describe yourself,
are you . . . —Liberal; Conservative; Moderate/middle of road/neither;
Refused; Don’t know.
And, approximately what was your total household income from all
sources, before taxes for ?

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE
Lindsay Hoffman is a doctoral candidate in the School of Communication at the
Ohio State University and will be assistant professor at the University of Delaware
beginning Fall . Carroll Glynn is a professor and director of the School of
Communication at Ohio State. Michael Huge is a research associate at Ohio State.
Tiffany Thomson is a doctoral candidate at Ohio State. Rebecca Border Sietman is an
assistant professor of Communication Arts and Director of Debate at Cedarville
University.
Address correspondence to Carroll Glynn, School of Communication, B Derby
Hall,  N. Oval Mall, Columbus, OH,  USA, E-mail: glynn.@osu.edu

View publication stats