1971 Survey Question Order and the Political Party Preferences of College Students and Their Parents.pdf

7/28/2019 1971 Survey Question Order and the Political Party Preferences of College Students and Their Parents.pdf

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/1971-survey-question-order-and-the-political-party-preferences-of-college-students 1/12

American Association for Public Opinion Research

Survey Question Order and the Political Party Preferences of College Students and TheirParentsAuthor(s): Daniel H. Willick and Richard K. AshleySource: The Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 35, No. 2 (Summer, 1971), pp. 189-199

Published by: Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Association for Public Opinion ResearchStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2748020 .

Accessed: 19/01/2011 10:58

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aapor. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

American Association for Public Opinion Research and Oxford University Press are collaborating with JSTOR

to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Public Opinion Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oup

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aapor

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2748020?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp



http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2748020?origin=JSTOR-pdf


http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oup



SURVEY QUESTION ORDER

AND THE POLITICAL PARTYPREFERENCES OF COLLEGESTUDENTS AND THEIR PARENTS*

BY DANIEL H. WILLICK ANDRICHARD K. ASHLEY

On severalsurveys ollege studentswere asked to reporttheirown politicalpartypreference nd thatof theirparents.The order n which thesequestionswereasked tangibly ffectedtudents' eports f their own partypreference.In addition, theirpartypreferenceswere found to be ratherchangeable.These findings all into questionmethodsfrequently sed to studythe trans-missionof partypreference romparents to children as well as some of theconclusionswhich re based on them.

Daniel H. Willick is an assistantprofessor f sociology t theUniversity fCalifornia at Santa Barbara. Richard K. Ashley s a graduate student tudy-ing political science at the Massachusettsnstituteof Technology.

C ONVENTIONAL WISDOM, accepted ymost f thosewhostudy American political socialization, is that the stability ofAmerican democracy is, in large part, due to the fact that chil-dren take on thepolitical partypreferenceoftheirparents.The

repeated assertion of this finding by the most prestigiousnames associ-ated with the behavioral study of politics has led to its acceptance asdogma.' More specifically, the established findings for the UnitedStates are:

. A majority of parental pairs agree on preferredpolitical partypreference;

* This paper has benefitedfromcommentsby ProfessorFred I. Greenstein andthe anonymousreviewers f Public Opinion Quarterly.We would also like to thankMiss MaryPat Kennedyfor her researchassistance.

The researchwas aided by a grantfromtheAcademic Senate of the University fCalifornia at Santa Barbara and by a grant of computer time fromthe U.C.S.B.

ComputerCenter.1V. 0. Key, Jr.,Public Opinion and American Democracy,New York, Knopf,1961,ch. 12; Robert Lane and David Sears,Public Opinion, Englewood Cliffs,N.J.,Prentice-Hall,ch. 3; Herbert Hyman,Political Socialization,New York,Free Press,1959, ch. 4; Philip Converseand Georges Dupeux, "PoliticizationoftheElectorate nFrance and the United States,"Public Opinion Quarterly,Vol. 26, 1962, pp. 1-23;Fred Greenstein,Childrenand Politics,New Haven, Yale University ress,1965, pp.



190 WILLICK AND ASHLEY

2. Mostchildren akeon theparty referencef theirparentsbythetimethey re ngrammar chool;

3. Politicalparty referencescquiredduring hildhood re resistanttochange nd usuallymaintained hroughoutdult life.These findingsregenerally ccepted s applying o all segmentsf theAmerican opulation, ncluding ollegestudents.2

This articleholdsup toscrutinyome oftheacceptedknowledge on-cerning hesocializationof political partypreference. ndergraduatecollege students eadily change theirreportedpartypreferences.hismeans that theydo not maintain theirpartypreferencen as stable amanner as otherstudieswould lead one to believe. Furthermore,hey

do not accepttheirparents'partypreferencesn the arge proportionsexpected.

SURVEYS OF COLLEGE STUDENTS

In early1968,as partof a pilot studyof political partypreference,400 studentswalking bout the campus at the University f Californiaat Santa Barbara wereapproachedmoreorless randomly y student n-terviewersnd asked several questions.Two hundred studentswereasked:

i. What syour olitical arty reference?2. What sthepolitical arty referencefyour ather?3. What sthepolitical arty referencefyourmother?

The other 00 studentswereasked thesamequestions, nlywiththeor-der rotated o thattheir wnparty reference as asked ast. Attheendof the nterviewach respondentwas askedwhether e had been inter-viewedand asked the same questionsrecently. his was done to pre-cludecounting he ame students wice.$ able i shows hatbothgroups

71-75; David Easton and Robert Hess, "The Child's Political World," MidwestJournalof Political Science,Vol. 6, 1962, p. 245.

2 For example, see Rose K. Goldsen et al., What College StudentsThink, Prince-ton, N.J., Van Nostrand,1960, pp. 100-104, r Philip Nogee and MurrayB. Levin,"Some Determinants of Political Attitudesamong College Voters,"Public OpinionQuarterly,Vol. 22, 1958,pp. 455-458.

An exceptionto this generalization s the Maccoby,Matthews, nd Morton study,whichreports hat highereducationleads to much defectionfromparental candidateand partypreferences. ee Eleanor Maccoby, Richard Matthews, nd Anton Morton,"Youth and Political Change," Public Opinion Quarterly,Vol. i8, 1954,pp. 36-39.

3 There are severalproblemswith thistechnique.Of course there s no guaranteethat these students are representative f the undergraduate student body at theUniversity f California at Santa Barbara or the population of college students nthe United States.Also, our technique is limited by the factthatwe relyon studentsto report their parents' party preferencesrather than questioning the parentsdirectly. inally,studentsmayhave discussed the survey mong themselves nd thiscould have affected he responsesof thosewho engaged in such a discussion beforebeing questioned.



PARTY PREFERENCES OF STUDENTS AND PARENTS 191

TABLE 1

POLITICALPARTYPREFERENCES:FIRST SURVEY"

Party referencef:

Father Mother Student

Question rder Question rder Question rderStudent'sParents' Student'sParents' Student'sParents'

Party reference First First First First First First

Democrat 44.0% 41.5% 47.5% 44.0% 34.5% 19.0%(88) (83) (95) (88) (69) (38)

Republican 36.0 38.0 34.5 33.0 28.0 18.5(72) (76) (69) (66) (56) (37)

Other 2.5 3.5 1.0 4.5 4.0 6.5(5) (7) (2) (9) (8) (13)

Independent,none, no response,undecided, or don'tknow 17.5 17.0 17.0 18.5 33.5 56.0

(35) (34) (34) (37) (67) (112)Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

(200) (200) (200) (200) (200) (200)

a Unlikethe other urveys eported n in this article he first urvey xcludedrespondents who reported that one or both of their parents were dead or were notcitizens. Judging from the results of the two phone surveys (see tables 3 and 4)thisomission probably did not affect he results n any significantmanner.

werevery imilar n theparty referenceshey eported or heirparentsbutdifferentn thepartypreferenceshey eported or hemselves. tu-dentswho were askedtheirparents'partypreferencesirstwere morelikelyto reportthemselves s havingno partypreference han thoseasked theirown partypreference irst. further reakdown f resultsin Table 2 showsthatamongstudentswhoreported hat bothparents

had thesame party reference,hosewhowere skedtheirparents' ref-erences irst eremuch ess ikely oreport hesameparty referencestheirparents hanthosewho were asked theirown preference irst.

This firsturvey eemedto showthatstudentswhowere askedtheirparents'partypreferences irst nd reportedbothparentsto have thesamepreferencewere answering o as to disassociate hemselves romtheirparents' hoice.Two moresurveyswere carriedout to investigatethispossibility.

During thefallof 1968all students resentn a lowerdivision ntro-

ductory ociology lassweregivena lengthy uestionnaire o fill ut inclass. ts primary urposewas to recruit ubjectsfor smallgroupsex-periment eingrunby another ociologist. n the astpage appearedaquestion boutpoliticalparty reference:

Political arty reference:Democrat




TABLE 2

POLITICAL PARTY PREFERENCES OF PARENTS AND STUDENTS:FIRST SURVEY

Party referencesfParents

Samea DifferentQuestion rder Question rder

Student'sarty Student's Parents' Student's Parents'Preference First First First First

Same as parents 68.8% (95) 38.3% (54)Same as father nly 50.0% (31) 39.0% (23)Same as mother

only 17.7 (11) 28.8 (17)Differentrom othparentsb 31.2 (43) 61.7 (87) 32.2 (20) 32.2 (19)

Total 100.0% (138) 100.0% (141) 99.9% (62) 100.0% (59)

a This meansbothparentswerereported o be Democrats r Republicans rmembers f thesamethird arty rnotreportedo be the members fany partyat all (i.e., ndependent,one,undecided,on'tknow, oresponse).

bNot onlydoes thiscategorynclude nstances uchas students Democrat ndbothparents re Republican, ut talso includes ases such s student s Democratand bothparents re independent,rstudent s independentnd bothparents reRepublican.

RepublicanAmerican ndependentPartyPeace and Freedom Party-O.ther

(specify)

Studentswere also asked to give theirname, address, nd telephonenumber; 238 questionnaireswere collected. Several months later afemaleresearch ssistantphoned the studentswho had filledout the

questionnaire nd stated:May I speak to (first nd last name of the student as listedon the ques-tionnaire)? My name is Mary Pat Kennedy. I'm a student at U.C.S.B.and am doing some researchon politics. Your name has been selected aspartofmy ampleand I'd liketoaskyouthree hort uestions.

Those who had filled ut thequestionnaires ere upposedtobe dividedup into two groupsequivalent n sexand party reference,s statedonthequestionnaire.Half ofthe tudentswere o be asked:

What isyourfather's olitical party reference?What isyourmother's olitical party reference?What isyourpolitical party reference?

The otherhalf of the studentsweretobe asked the same questionswiththeorderrotated.

Unfortunately,ue to a clericalerror, hosewho answered he ques-




tionnairewerenot divided ntoequivalentgroups.One groupwas argerand had proportionatelymore males thanthe othergroup. (However,

tables will be presentedn a mannerwhichmitigates istortion ue tothe differencesn thetwogroups.)Because of thisclericalerror nd touseslightly ifferentuestionwordings, secondphonesurveywasrun.4An additionalfactorwhich rgued nfavor fa secondphonesurveywasthat hefirsturveymayhavebeen affectedycampaigning orpresiden-tialprimarylections nd thefirst honesurveymayhavebeenaffectedbythe 968presidential lection.

The secondquestionnairewas distributed uring ne class ession falowerdivision ntroductoryociology lass duringApril of 1969.The

purported urpose ofthequestionnairewas to tap student pinionre-garding urriculum eform n thesociology epartment. tudentswereasked to givetheirname,address, nd phonenumber.They were alsoasked to fill n a blank labeled "PoliticalPartyPreference:319students eturned uestionnaires. ne month ater thesamefemaleresearch ssistant alled studentswhohad filled ut thequestionnaire.The same ntroduction"May I speakto,etc.")wasusedasbefore.How-ever, hequestionwordingwaschanged lightlyrom hefirsthonesur-vey o as tobe identicalto thewording sed in thefirstn-campus ur-vey.Half the tudentswere sked:

Whatsyour olitical arty reference?What sthepolitical arty referencefyour ather?What sthepolitical arty referencefyourmother?

The otherhalfofthestudentswere skedthesamequestions xcept hatthequestion bout"yourpoliticalparty reference" asasked ast.Thistime, hosewhofilled utquestionnaireswerecorrectlyivided ntotwogroups s identical s possible n terms fsexandparty reference.

It washoped that,becauseofthe nterveningimeand differingon-texts,the studentswould not know that their answerswere beingcomparedwiththeearlierquestionnaire.None ofthestudents honedever ndicated n awareness hatthiscomparisonwas beingmade.5Wehoped thetwophone surveyswould allowus to testour interpretationofthevery irsturvey.6We expected ofind hat tudentswhoreported

4 It should be pointedout thatthe twophonesurveysre subjectto all theproblemslisted in footnotethree.Additionally,there is no guarantee that all the

studentspresent n the two introductoryociologyclasseswhere the original ques-tionnaireswere passed out completedand returnedthe questionnaires.5 However, therewere several instanceswhere roommateswere phoned and the

last roommateto be phoned knew what three questions would be asked. If therewas discussionafterthe first oommate was phoned it would be as if all subsequentroommatesphoned were asked parents' preferencesfirst. f anything,this acts toreduce the effectfvarying uestionorder.

6 On both phone surveyswe were able to reach a very arge percentageof those




TABLE 3

POLITICALPARTYPREFERENCES:FIRST AND SECOND PHONESURVEYS

Party reference

Father Mother Student

Question rder Question rder Question rderStudent'sParents' Student'sParents' Student'sParents'

Party reference First First First First First First

FIRST SURVEYDemocrat 41.4% 35.9% 52.5% 35.9% 48.5% 38.5%

(41) (28) (52) (28) (48) (30)Republican 48.5 53.8 37.4 55.1 19.2 19.2

(48) (42) (37) (43) (19) (15)Other 1.0 - 1.0 1.3 4.0 5.1

(1) (1) (1) (4) (4)Independent,

none,undecided,don'tknow,no response 9.1 10.2 9.1 7.7 28.3 37.2

(9) (8) (9) (6) (28) (29)Total 100.0% 99.9% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

(99) (78) (99) (78) (99) (78)SECOND SURVEY

Democrat 43.7% 37.4% 39.4% 41.7% 37.3% 30.2%(62) (52) (56) (58) (53) (42)

Republican 47.2 52.5 51.4 50.4 25.4 18.7(67) (73) (73) (70) (36) (26)

Other - .7 - .7 1.4 4.3(1) (1) (2) (6)

Independent,none, ndecideddon'tknow,noresponse 7.7 6.5 6.3 5.8 35.9 46.8

(11) (9) (9) (8) (51) (65)Parents eador nota

citizen 1.4 2.9 2.8 1.4(2) (4) (4) (2)

Total 100.0% 100.0% 99.9% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%(142) (139) (142) (139) (142) (139)

bothparents s havingthe samepartypreferences ould tend to disso-ciate themselves rom heirparents' preferencewhen theyknewtheywerebeing comparedto theirparents i.e.,were askedparents'prefer-

encesfirst n thephonesurvey.)7Table 3 reports heparty references ivenbythestudents ontacted

who filled utquestionnaires:irsthone urvey,wnpreferenceirst,5%; parent'spreferenceirst, 3.6%; secondphone survey,9.3%and 86.9%,respectively.

7 It would be useful o repeat hequestionnaire-phoneurvey rocedureskingparental oliticalparty referencen both thequestionnairend the aterphone




TABLE 4

STUDENTS'POLITICALPARTYPREFERENCESAS EXPRESSEDONQUESTIONNAIRESND Two PHONESURVEYS"

Political arty referencefParentsSurvey)

Sameb DifferentQuestion rder Question rder

Student'sarty Student's Parents' Student's Parents'PreferencenQues- First First First Firsttionnaireompared

toSurvey

FIRST PHONE

SURVEYNo change 85.3% (64) 66.7% (42) 70.8% (17) 73.3% (11)Changes:

From same asparents todifferent 5.3 (4) 22.2 (14)

From differentfromparentstosame 2.7 (2) 4.8 (3)

Other changes 6.7 (5) 6.3 (4) 29.2 (7) 26.7 (4)Total 100.0% (75) 100.0% (63) 100.0% (24) 100.0% (15)

SECOND SURVEYNo change 76.4% (81) 70.9% (78) 75.0% (27) 65.5% (19)Changes:

From same asparentstodifferent 6.6 (7) 19.1 (21)

From differentfromparentstosame 9.4 (10) 6.4 (7)

Other changes 7.5 (8) 3.6 (4) 25.0 (9) 34.5 (10)Total 99.9% (106) 100.0% (110) 100.0% (36) 100.0% (29)

a This table excludes studentswho answered the questionnairebut could not becontacted forthe phone survey.b Both parents were reported to be Democrats or Republicans or membersof

the same thirdparty or not reportedto be the membersof any party at all (i.e.,independent, none, undecided,don't know,no response)

during hetwophonesurveys. able 4,whichcompares tudent eportsoftheir wnpartypreferencen thequestionnairewith their eportedpartypreferencen thephonesurvey,ndicates largeamountofshift-ing.Between 14 and 34 percent ofthestudents ive a differentnswer

on the phonesurvey rom he one theygaveon thequestionnaire. heresults fbothphone surveys lso show thatamongstudents eportingthattheir arentshavethesameparty reference,hosewhowere sked

surveyto see whether the question order on the phone survey affects eports ofparentalpreference.




theirparents' referencesirsti.e.,knewtheir wnpreference as beingcompared o theirparents')weremuch more ikely o shift heirprefer-

ence awayfrom heir arents' arty hoice than those tudentswho wereasked their wn preference irsti.e., did not knowtheywerebeing com-pared to theirparentswhen they ave their wn party hoice). Table 4clearlyshows that college students t the University f California atSanta Barbara do not hold their oliticalparty referencesn as stable amanner s would be predicted rom he conventionalwisdom bout po-litical ocialization. t also shows hat heorder nwhich uestions boutownand parentalparty referencere asked affectsheanswers ivenre-garding ne's own preference.

QUESTION ORDER AND RESPONSE

One explanation for the effect f question orderon students'ex-pressedparty referencess that students ftenfeelthat t is importantto appear independent f theirparents.8 his explanation s plausibleif one assumes hat the students uestionedwererelatively uncertain"of theirown partypreference hile theywere more"certain" of theirparents'partypreferences.n otherwords, nder theparents-firstues-tionorder t was easy for tudents o appear independentby reportingtheir wnpartypreference s differentrom heirparents'preferences,while under the student-firstuestion order it was hard for thestudents o appear independentby reporting heirparents'partypref-erences s differentrom heir wn.

One must not conclude that those studentswho changed theirre-ported partypreference, resumably ecause they cted to appear in-dependent ftheir arents,were"lying."To accept uchan explanationwouldbe to assume that the studentswerecarryingne personalparty

preference roundin theirhead which could be tappedbytheproperquestions i.e., ask the student'spreference efore skinghis parents'preferences). ather, we believe that the studentswho changedtheirresponseweregiving "truthful"nswer.Their party references ereflexible nd dependedon the udgments heymade about the contexttheywere onfronted ith. ucha perspective, hencoupledwith here-ported findingsbout thegreat variability hrough imeof individualresponses o survey uestions, ffers complexand important rea forfurthernvestigation.9t should be notedthat n theearlierdaysofpoll-

8Of course, the fact that all our surveys used student interviewersmay haveheightened the pressurerespondentsfelt to appear independentfromtheir parents.The use of non-studentnterviewersmight ead to different esults.

9Philip Converse, The Nature of Belief Systemsn Mass Publics," pp. 2o6-261 nDavid Apter,ed., Ideology and Discontent,New York,Free Press, 1964. Work on thesocial psychology f the experimentshould also be considered in this regard. Forinstance, see M. T. Orne, "On the Social Psychology f the Psychological Experi-




ing therewas a keener nterestn such ssues.'l n fact,n 1944Rugg andCantrilwarned of "thedanger of interpretingny generalopinion on

the basis of less than a pattern f questionswhich place thatopinionsquarely n a number fcontexts nd surround t withvarying ontin-gencies ust as it usually s neverydayife.""

TRANSMISSION OF PARTY PREFERENCE FROM

PARENTS TO CHILDREN

While our surveys upportthe acceptedfinding hatmostchildrenhad parentswho agreedon party reference,'2hey aisesome doubtsa-bout thefinding hatmost hildren akeon theparty reference ftheir

parents.Table 5 focuses n studentswhoreport hat theirparents rebothDemocrats r bothRepublicans. t shows hat hosewhowere skedtheir arents'preferencesirstsuallydo notreport he samepreferenceas theirparents.On the other hand, thosewho were askedtheirownpreference irstonfirm heestablishedfinding. uestionorderclearlyaffectshe ikelihoodofreporting he sameparty references parents.

The majorevidence n favor f theproposition hatmostAmericanstake on theparty referencef their arents whentheparents re bothDemocrats rbothRepublicans) is found n a series fnational samplesurveys arriedout by theSurveyResearchCenterof theUniversityfMichigan.EveryMichigan urvey hathasaskedquestions boutrespon-dent andparentalparty referencessksrespondent referencemmedi-ately beforeparental preference.13his question orderwas the onewhichresulted n our collegestudents eporting he highest evel of a-greementwith theirparental partypreferences. ne wonderswhatwould haveoccurred f theMichigan surveys ad reversed he questionorder.'4

ment: With Particular Reference to Demand Characteristics nd Their Implica-tions,"AmericanPsychologist, ol. 17, 1962,pp. 776-783.Also see Robert Rosenthal,ExperimenterEffects n Behavioral Research, New York, Appleton-Century-Crofts1966, ch. ii.

10For example, see Hadley Cantril, Gauging Public Opinion, Princeton,N.J.,PrincetonUniversity ress, 1944, nd StanleyL. Payne,The Artof Asking Questions,Princeton,N.J.,PrincetonUniversity ress,1951.

11Donald Rugg and Hadley Cantril, "The Wording of Questions," p. 25 inCantril,op. cit.

12 Per cent of the U.C.S.B. college students nterviewedwho reportboth parentsas being either Democratsor Republicans: first urvey, wn preference irst, 9.5%,

parents' preferencefirst, 0.5%; firstphone survey,own preferencefirst, 9.7%,parents' preferencefirst, 4.4%; second phone survey, 9% and 73.4%, respectively.13 This was found in the Michigan SurveyResearch Center election studies of

1952,1958, 1964, nd 1968.14 A recent national sample of high school seniorsand their parents shows much

agreementbetweenthe political party preferences f students nd theirparents. SeeM. Kent Jenningsand Richard G. Niemi, "The Transmission of Political ValuesfromParent to Child," AmericanPolitical Science Review, Vol. 62, 1968, pp. 169-




4 M t r r g -̂2 ^- ? ,

Et i a S y R R g

3 t O < J : ! * 4

2 ,>2 0<ae -n -w^ n^%

& a C S S WN ?~oo C C7

[ ]S = e H X ? 2 ,




Ofcourse, t snotsafe oassume hatfindingsathered none collegecampusare applicable to theentireAmericanvoting ge populationor

evento all American ollegestudents.15owever,recentwork eemstoindicatethattherewillbe a trend omore ndependence n thepart ofvoters.

Hess and Torney report hatamonggrammar chool children theproportion fchildrenwhoreport hattheywould vote ndependentlyofpartisan ffiliations arge nd increaseswith ge."1'6 hey report hatteachers reoverwhelminglypposed tochildren referringparticularpartymerely ecause theirparentsprefert.l7 They also report hat sthehigher child'sgrade evel, he ess ikelyhe is tobelieve that t sap-

propriate ochoose a partymerely ecause hisparentsbelong to t.18 Ifweassume hatmore ducationmeansmore ndependence nparty ffili-ation, henwith ncreasingducational evels nthefutureweshould ex-pect lessinheritance fpartypreferenceromparents.Additionally, tappearsthat thepressure or ndependenceproduced byhigher duca-tion s currentlyeingheightened.Gallup reports trend oward argerproportions fcollege tudents o report hemselvess Independents o-liticallyn the1966-1969 eriod.'9

The evidencepresented n this rticle alls ntoquestion themethodsand thefindingsf many tudies f theacquisitionofpoliticalparty re-ference.We believe thatthis rea ofstudy s inneed offreshpproachesandrenewed mpirical tudy.

184, and Kenneth P. Langton,Political Socialization, New York, Oxford UniversityPress, 1969,Appendix B. This studymitigates the problems of question order andrecall by asking both studentsand their parents their party perference.However,Jenningsand Niemi note lesser partisanship among students than among theirparents op. cit.,p. 174).

15 t is important to bear in mind that most of the respondents n our studywere tooyoungtovote.16Robert Hess and JudithTorney, The Development of Political Attitudes in

Children,Garden City,N. Y., AnchorBooks, 1968,p. ioi and Table 23. Greenstein,op. cit.,p. 73, also reportsthe same finding or upper SES children n New Haven.

17 Hess and Torney,op. cit.,p. 97.18 Ibid.19"Gallup Poll," Los Angeles Times, December 14, 1969, SectionE, pp. io0 1.

Documents

1971 Survey Question Order and the Political Party Preferences of College Students and Their Parents.pdf