American Association for Public Opinion Research

Procedures for Evaluating Trends in Public OpinionAuthor(s): D. Garth TaylorSource: The Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 44, No. 1 (Spring, 1980), pp. 86-100Published by: Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Association for PublicOpinion ResearchStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2748591Accessed: 23/01/2009 14:07

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay 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 athttp://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 printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with thescholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform thatpromotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Oxford University Press and American Association for Public Opinion Research are collaborating with JSTORto digitize, preserve and extend access to The Public Opinion Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

Procedures for Evaluating Trends in Public Opinion

D GARTH TAYLOR

HIS PAPER shows how to use the percentage difference models described by Davis (1976) and by Grizzle et al. (1969) to analyze trends in public opinion data. The first part of the paper is an attempt to persuade the reader that most of the interesting theories of public opinion change can be thought of as statistical models which make formal predictions about percentages or percentage differences. The next part shows how to choose the appropriate model (or theory) to describe the change by examining a series of goodness-of-fit tests. Finally, a few detailed examples show the application of the method to patterns of change in public opinion data which are difficult to describe, both verbally and statistically.

Change and Change Models in Public Opinion Research

Trend analysis in public opinion research begins with a theory of change (or lack of change) to be tested or a data set (usually consist- ing of a series of percentages or percentage differences) to be de- scribed as showing a "significant" or "nonsignificant" pattern of

Abstract This article expresses a variety of theories of public opinion change in terms of a formal model for analyzing public opinion data. Statistical criteria are proposed whereby models of varying complexity can be accepted or rejected. The observation is made that certain substantive theories of change are more parsimonious than others in terms of their statistical predictions. The model for analyzing change presented here is based on the premise that the most parsimonious theories should be accepted or rejected first.

D Garth Taylor is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Chicago and Senior Study Director at the National Opinion Research Center.

Public Opinion Quarterly ? 1980 by The Trustees of Columbia University Published by Elsevier North Holland, Inc. 0033-362X/80/0044-086/$1.75

EVALUATING TRENDS IN PUBLIC OPINION 87

change. Usually the researcher has both. In our experience, an array of possible theories can be used to describe a set of data, and the ultimate theoretical conclusion depends on the most parsimonious statistical model which can be used to describe the data.

It is important to recognize the predictions about the statistical patterns in public opinion data which are made in various theories of change. Following are some examples of theories of change that have appeared recently in the literature, and their associated statistical predictions.

Theory 1: Plus (a change, plus c'est la meme chose. This is a theory that things don't really change. Statistically, the prediction is that a set of propor- tions only departs randomly from a fixed value or that a series of percentage differences are not statistically different from zero. For instance, Sullivan et al. (1979) claim that within a proper framew9rk for conceptualization and measurement, survey research shows that the level of tolerance in America has not changed in recent decades.

Theory 2: Social statics. The key proposition here is that differences endure. Some recent examples in the literature are studies of enduring regional and cultural differences (Reed, 1972; Glenn and Simmons, 1967), enduring class differences in political behavior (Alford, 1963), and the enduring effects of education (Hyman et al., 1975). Each study argues that, controlling for other changes in the society, the correlations between certain sets of variables remain constant.

Theory 3: Regular processes described by transitive verbs in gerund form. Studies on assimilating blacks into the electoral process (Converse, 1972), massifying or differentiating social differences (Glenn, 1967) and di- minishing social class differentials (Mayer, 1959) are in this category. Each study suggests steady, gradual change in intergroup differences-in some theories the differences are growing, while in others the differences are diminishing. The point is the regularity of the process of change and the suggestion that the data might be described by a linear pattern of increasing or decreasing differences in the population.

Theory 4: Social catastrophe. Analyses of fertility expectations (Blake, 1974), confidence in national leaders (Smith et al., 1979), and attitudes toward foreign involvements (Gallup, 1972) all argue that trends in these measures change erratically as the result of sudden developments in the world eco- nomic or political situation. The public opinion measures show a great deal of statistically significant "bounce," and the hypothesis is that the change can- not be described by any of the preceding, simpler models.

In analyzing a set of public opinion data, we typically want to know which theory describes the change observed in the data. More for- mally, this question becomes, which of the statistical models associ- ated with the four theories most parsimoniously describes the data?

88 D GARTH TAYLOR

The next section illustrates the procedures used to decide this ques- tion.

Statistical Procedures

The steps in the statistical analysis are to derive the trend in public opinion which is predicted under each theory of change and then, using a chi-square goodness-of-fit test, decide which theory provides the best and most parsimonious fit to the data. In this exposition the analyses will all be focused on describing trends in intergroup dif- ferences in public opinion (i.e., the object of attention is the pattern of change in a series of percentage differences). The procedures de- scribed here can be simplified to study trends in percentages.

Table 1 shows the trend from 1965 to 1973 in support for abortion among Protestants (excluding Baptists) and Catholics. We note that in 1965 both groups were predominantly opposed to abortion for the

Table 1. The Trend in Religious Differences in Response to the Question: "Tell me whether or not you think it should be possible for a pregnant woman to obtain a legal

abortion if the family is poor and cannot afford another child."

Data

Surveya AIP0721 SRS870 AIP0788 GSS72 GSS73 Date 12/65 11/65 9/69 3/72 3/73 Protestantsb

Percent No 80.6 79.4 75.3 51.5 42.8 (N) (803) (807) (815) (756) (755)

Catholics Percent No 83.8 83.2 82.6 62.1 60.3 (N) (853) (327) (356) (364) (358)

Statistical Analysis

Category difference (Base =Protestant) Hypothesis Model X2 df p Decision

Catholic a) no difference d = 0 94.4 5 <.05 reject b) constant difference d = dp 29.6 4 <.05 reject c) linear change d = a + bx .3 3 >.05 accept

reduction from linear term 29.3 1 <.05 significant

Final Model Catholic: d = -1.34 + .021 (year-1900)

a SRS870 is a survey conducted by the Survey Research Service of the National Opinion Research Center. GSS refers to General Social Surveys, conducted by the National Opinion Research Center, funded by the National Science Foundation. AIP0721 and AIP0788 are surveys conducted by the American Insititue of Public Opinion (Gallup).

b Protestants, not including Baptists.

EVALUATING TRENDS IN PUBLIC OPINION 89

stated reason (if the family is poor and cannot afford another child), and the religious difference is small (about 3 percent). By 1973 both groups were more in favor of abortion and the religious differences are greater (about 17 percent.) Which theory adequately and par- simoniously describes the pattern of religious differences shown in Table 1?

To answer this question we need to determine: (a) the pattern in the data predicted under each theory; (b) the appropriate statistical pro- cedure for deriving the predicted percentage differences under each model; and (c) the closeness (goodness-of-fit) between the predicted and observed percentage differences for each model.

The Plus qa change theory predicts that the percentage difference is actually zero in each survey year and that the differences observed in Table 1 are nothing more than random sampling fluctuations. In this case, the predicted percentage difference is supplied by the theory-each difference should be zero-and so there is no further statistical estimation required. We will learn that this theory does not fit the data in Table 1 very well. The exact goodness-of-fit test is described below.

The social statics theory predicts that the religious difference is constant-that there is some true, nonzero value for the religious difference which characterizes each survey and that the pattern of differences is really random fluctuation around this true difference. The intuitive solution is to take the average of the percentage dif- ferences as the pooled estimate of the "true" difference. For full statistical power, however, it is more efficient to take a weighted average of the survey results, where the results for any survey are weighted proportionally to the amount of confidence we place in the accuracy of that survey.

There are several reasons for weighting the results for each survey proportionate to the amount of confidence we have in that survey. It can be the case, although it is not in Table 1, that surveys at different times differ greatly in the number of cases in the sample. It is an accepted standard of survey procedure that proportions from a larger sample should be given greater weight in reckoning the significant pattern in the data. We also note that there are two Gallup surveys and three NORC surveys represented in the time series in Table 1. These surveys may differ in the efficiency of the sampling procedures, in the size of the sample clusters, or in other procedures such as interviewer training or interviewer instructions which will have impli- cations for the effective sample size (and hence error variance) of the survey results (Hansen, 1951; Glenn, 1975; Newman, 1976). The most efficient estimate of the constant true score predicted by the

90 D GARTH TAYLOR

social statics theory for describing the data in Table 1 is a weighted estimate of the pooled percentage difference for the five surveys (Goodman 1963).

The procedure for estimating the weighted pooled percentage dif- ference is as follows:

1. Compute the percentage difference and the variance of the percentage difference for each year. According to textbook formulas the percentage difference is Pi - P2 and the variance of the percentage difference is the sum of the variances for each percentage. The variance of a percentage is (p* (1-p))IN where N is the number of cases the percentage is based on.

If the data are not from a probability sample or if there are other reasons to suspect the quality or effective sample size of the data, the place to quantify this reservation is in the estimate of the variance of the percentages for that survey. The formula for pooling the results of the surveys assigns less weight to the less reliable surveys.

2. The weights for pooling the percentage differences are inversely pro- portional to the variance of the percentage difference. The weights are arrived at by taking the reciprocal of the variance for each percentage difference and dividing this by the sum of the reciprocals of the variance for each percentage difference, i.e.:

w - = Vk (1) 1

k Vk

where W indexes the weights, V indexes the variances and k indexes the number of surveys pooled for the weighted average.

3. The pooled weighted percentage difference is the sum of the weight for each conditional D times the difference for conditional D.

Dp= X Wk *Dk (2) k

The variance of Dp can be used to assess the statistical significance of the pooled weighted average. This statistic is:

VP = X (Wk)2 * Vk (3) k

In sum, the social statics theory predicts that each percentage difference is only randomly different from the weighted pooled per- centage difference. The statistical test for this conclusion will be given below (the model does not fit the data in Table 1).

The third theory, the transitive gerund theory, predicts that the

EVALUATING TRENDS IN PUBLIC OPINION 91

percentage differences are regularly becoming larger or smaller. The rhetoric of this theory is easily stated in a linear regression format: the predicted percentage difference at any time is equal to a constant plus some factor adjusted for the amount of time elapsed between obser- vations:

D =a +b * (Time) (4)

where D indexes the predicted percentage difference. In the linear regression analysis of the predicted percentage dif- ferences, the same considerations apply as earlier regarding the im- portance of weighting the results of each survey inversely propor- tional to the variance of the percentage difference for that survey. Some explanations of how to do this appear in statistics texts under discussions of weighted least squares or heteroscedasticity (Won- nacot and Wonnacot, 1970). In the language of regression analysis, the goal is to minimize the weighted squared deviations from the regression line, where the weights are defined as before in Eq. (1). The formulas for a weighted least squares analysis of the model in Eq. (4) are:

b =_k *(Dk -D) * (Tk - T) (5)

X W * (T k - 7T)2 k

a =D -b*T (6)

where Wk = the weight for each percentage difference as before

Dk = the percentage difference in the kth survey

D = the simple mean of the Dk Tk = the time (year and month) of the

kth survey T = the mean of the Tk

The two important substantive comments to make about this proce- dure are: (1) the difference between these estimates and the regular regression results is the presence of the weights in the numerator and denominator of Eq. (5); and (2) the same weighted least squares principles apply to more complex models for describing nonlinear patterns of change.

The transitive gerund theory predicts that the percentage dif- ferences in Table 1 are predicted (within sampling error) by a regres- sion model such as the one shown in Eq. (4). It turns out that this is the theory which is appropriate for describing the data in Table 1-the religious differences are growing gradually larger.

92 D GARTH TAYLOR

Before describing the goodness-of-fit tests that are used to choose be- tween theories of change, it is useful to consider what the catastrophe theory would have predicted for the pattern of differences in Table 1. The catastrophe theory predicts that there are significant fluctuations in the data which are not captured by a constant difference model or a linear trend model for the percentage differences. Since a linear change model subsumes the constant difference model (the constant difference model is a linear change model with b = 0), the prediction of the catastrophe theory is essentially that the linear change model does not fit. We will see that the linear change model does fit the data in Table 1 and so the catastrophe theory is not appropriate there.

The chi-square test for the goodness of fit for any model compares the observed percentage differences with the percentage differences predicted under the model. The number of degrees of freedom for the chi-square is equal to the number of surveys being compared minus the number of parameters estimated in the model for the predicted percentage differences. Under the plus qa change theory there are k tables (in our notation) and the theory provides the only parameter required for the analysis-the hypothesis is that all differences are equal to zero. Therefore there are k degrees of freedom for the plus ga change hypothesis. The social statics theory uses the data to estimate 1 parameter, the pooled weighted percentage difference and so there are k-i degrees of freedom for this test. The transitive gerund theory estimates two parameters-the slope and intercept of the regression equation-and so there are k-2 degrees of freedom here. The social catastrophe predicts that the linear regression model does not fit and so there is no further estimation for this theory: if the linear model fits we accept the transitive gerund theory, if it does not fit we accept the catastrophe theory.

Once the predicted values are calculated, the goodness of fit of the theory is assessed using the following chi-square formula:

2 E (Dk -Ek)2 df = (k -p) (7) k Vk

where k = the number of tables being compared Dk = the observed percentage difference in the

kth table Ek = the expected percentage difference in the

kth table under some model p = the number of parameters estimated for

the model Vk = the variance of the observed percentage

difference in the kth table

EVALUATING TRENDS IN PUBLIC OPINION 93

The expected percentage difference is subtracted from the observed value, the difference is squared and divided by the variance of the observed percentage difference, and the results are added over the number of surveys available.

Table 2 summarizes the models that are being tested, the predicted values under each theory of change, and the chi-square calculation for each goodness-of-fit test.

The sequence of parameters estimated and models tested is an extremely important aspect of the general procedure presented here for evaluating trends in public opinion. The four theories of opinion change were not initially presented as a sequence or hierarchy of hypotheses. Indeed, they are substantively different interpretations of the process of change in public opinion. However, it is important to recognize that from a statistical point of view, the theories are or- dered in their complexity in at least two ways: as we move down the list the later theories require a greater number of parameters to be estimated in order to "explain" the patterns in the data; and, the theories constitute a nested hierarchy of hypotheses. We have already noted that the later theories "subsume" the earlier theories. For instance, if the plus qa change theory fits the data, then the social statics theory will also fit because the "no difference" theory is the same as a "constant difference" theory with the difference equal to zero. Thus, the principle of parsimony becomes important as the basis for our choice of theories to explain the data. The goal of the se- quence of statistical tests is to choose the theoretical model which most parsimoniously describes the data. If the simplest theory does not "fit" (i.e., if the chi-square is too large given the number of degrees of freedom), then we move on to test the next most complex model, and so on. The series of models is organized in such a way

Table 2. A Summary of the Predicted Percentage Differences and the Chi-Square Test Under Each Hypothesis for Describing Change in Public Opinion Data

Predicted Values for

Hypothesis Each Table X2 DF

1. Zero difference Zero I (Dk - zero)2 (k) A Vk

2. Constant Weighted E (Dk - pool)2 (k-i) average k Vk

3. Linear change Weighted least I (Dk - b)k2 (k-2) squares estimate k Vk

94 D GARTH TAYLOR

that each successive model requires one more parameter to be esti- mated and hence uses up one more degree of freedom in explaining the data. The difference in chi-squares between successive models is the test of significance (evaluated on one degree of freedom) for the additional parameter that was required for the more complicated model.

Thus, a sequence of tests that begins with the "no difference" model and tests the goodness of fit of each successive model and the significance of the parameter which is added for each successive model produces an unambiguous procedure for arriving at the most parsimonious model for describing a series of percentage differences in public opinion data. This sequence of tests is shown in Figure 1.

Final Model Model Hypothesis (check for outliers) Type

No difference accept_ X2 N. S. =0 1 (df = kA)

I reject

Constant value accept X2 N. S. (df = k-i)

Test reduction x2 Significant-.D= constant 2 from No difference <

reject model on one df N.S. D = constant 2a borderline signif icance

accept 2 Linear trend- t X N. S. (df = k-2)

Tsfrom Constant x Significant-mD = a + b * (time) 3 difference model N.S. - -Borderline linear 3a

reject on one df trend

Test reduction x2 from Significant- Substantial linear 3b Constant difference model component on one df N.S. -Nonlinear trend 4

Explore further nonlinear or multiple linear mode Is

Figure 1. Decision Rules for Evaluating Trends in Public Opinion

EVALUATING TRENDS IN PUBLIC OPINION 95

There are seven possible outcomes for the sequence of tests pro- posed here. If one accepts the hypothesis that all differences could be zero (the plus qa change theory) then one arrives at Model Type 1. If one finds that the "no difference" theory does not fit the data but the "constant difference" does, then one accepts the social statics expla- nation. Because of the character of the chi-square distribution, it is possible that the "constant difference" model is required to fit the data, but the pooled weighted percentage difference is only of margi- nal statistical significance. This is determined by subtracting the chi- square for the "no difference" model from the chi-square for the "constant difference" model and assessing the difference in chi- square on one degree of freedom. This is the test of significance of the pooled percentage difference. If the Dp is significant, we arrive at model type 2, if it is not we choose model type 2a. A similar set of procedures applies for testing the "linear change" model. The model may fit the data or it may not (in which case we accept the catas- trophe theory). If the model does fit, then we assess the significance of the linear term (i.e., the slope) by subtracting chi-square and testing for significance on one degree of freedom. If the linear model does not fit, there is still the possibility that there is a significant linear component to the change in the percentage differences. This is examined using the same difference in chi-squares. If the linear model does not fit the data, but the chi-square reduction for the linear component is significant then we choose model 3b.

In the next part of the paper we will apply the decision rules to some examples of trends to be analyzed in public opinion. At the end of the section are a few further details and caveats of a methodolog- ical nature.

Some Examples

For the data in Table 1, the decision rules lead to the adoption of the linear change model (type 3). The sequence of chi-square tests is shown in the section of the table labeled "statistical analysis." The "no difference" and "constant difference" models do not fit, the "linear change" model does fit, and the reduction from the linear term is highly significant. The final model states that the religious difference changed by about 2.1 percentage points a year between 1965 and 1973 (b = .021).

Table 3 shows the percentage of men and women approving of abortion if the woman became pregnant as a result of rape. In each survey the sex difference is not very large and the sign of the dif- ference varies depending on the year. Both these factors conspire to

96 D GARTH TAYLOR

Table 3. The Trend in Sex Differences in Response to the Question: "Tell me whether or not you think it should be possible for a pregnant woman to obtain a legal abortion if she

became pregnant as a result of rape."

Data .

Surveya SRS870 GSS72 GSS73 GSS74 Date 11/65 3/72 3/73 3/74 Male

Percent No 40.4 20.8 15.6 14.5 (N) (675) (751) (673) (668)

Female Percent No 40.2 21.0 17.2 12.6 (N) (715) (761) (778) (752)

Statistical Analysis

Category Difference (Base =Male) Hypothesis Model x2 df p Decision

Female a) no difference d = 0 1.8 4 >.05 accept

Final Model Female: d = 0

a SRS870 is a survey conducted by the Survey Research Service of the National Opinion Research Center. GSS refers to General Social Surveys, conducted by the National Opinion research Center, funded by the National Science Foundation.

make the "no difference" model the appropriate one for describing the data.

Table 4 shows the trend in the percent favoring abortion in case of rape for three educational groups. For polytomous variables, we follow Davis's strategy (1976) and choose one category as the base category, analyzing the trend in the difference between the base category and each of the nonbase categories in the percent favoring abortion. In our example "less than high school education" is the base category. The statistical analysis shows that we accept a differ- ent model for each of the nonbase categories.

For the difference between high school and less than high school education, the chi-square for the "constant difference" model is 10.7 with 3 degrees of freedom. This chi-square would be insignificant if we had applied correction factors to the variances of the percentages to account for the clustering effects in the construction of the survey samples. The simple route to the chi-square correction is to divide the chi-square by some factor between 1.2 and 2 before assessing the significance of any comparison (Kish, 1965:162; Kish, 1957:159; Taylor, forthcoming). The exact correction factor depends on the particulars of the survey but an extremely conservative procedure is always to divide the chi-squares by 2 before the significance test.

Looking at the trend in the college vs. less than high school dif-

EVALUATING TRENDS IN PUBLIC OPINION 97

Table 4. The Trend in Educational Differences in Response to the Question: "Tell me whether or not you think it should be possible for a pregnant woman to obtain a legal

abortion if she became pregnant as a result of rape."

Data

Survey SRS870 GSS72 GSS73 GSS74 Date 11/65 3/72 3/73 3/74 Education category

Less than high school Percent No 50.9 33.3 26.8 18.6 (N) (709) (589) (519) (473)

High school graduate Percent No 35.7 16.4 13.2 12.2 (N) (342) (477) (470) (426)

College Percent No 23.0 9.0 7.9 9.8 (N) (330) (442) (458) (469)

Statistical Analysis

Category Difference (Base = <HS) Hypothesis Model X2 df p Decision

High school a) no difference d = 0 102.8 4 <.05 reject graduate b) constant difference d = dp 10.7 3 *

College a) no difference d = 0 273.4 4 <.05 reject b) constant difference d = dp 34.1 3 <.05 reject c) linear change in

difference d = a + bx 14.4 2 <.05 reject reduction from linear term 19.7 1 <.05 significant

Final Model High school graduate d = -.125 = .0130 College d = -.189 c= .0122

d = -1.54 + .0187 (year-1900)

ference, we see the final model is type 3b. The linear model of change does not fit, but there is a substantial linear component to the pattern of percentages. Therefore neither of the final models reported is adequate for describing the pattern in the data.- The constant dif- ference is an inappropriate model because there is change over time in the percentage difference. The linear change model is inappropriate because there are significant deviations from the linear trend. The appropriate strategy for the analyst in this situation would be to explore further models or to construct a verbal explanation of the pattern of the percentage differences which takes account of the results shown in Table 4.

OUTLIERS

After applying the decision rules in Figure 1, it is a good idea to examine the data for outliers before reporting a final model. When

98 D GARTH TAYLOR

comparing surveys over time, outliers are a distinct possibility. "Wild observations" can come from slight differences in question wording or interviewer instructions, differences in sampling procedures from study to study or among survey organizations, or from mechanical errors in processing older studies with incomplete documentation. There is no single, unambiguous procedure for spotting outliers, but the following rule is consistent with the statistical literature (Anscombe and Tukey, 1963; Tukey, 1962): An individual observation may be considered an outlier if the chi-square for the deviation of that observation from the modeled estimate is too large. Therefore, the chi-square test for an outlier is:

X2 (1 df) = (Dk-Ek)2 (8) Vk

The sampling correction should be applied to this formula, and so we might summarize the decision rule as follows: an observation should be studied more carefully and possibly rejected from the analysis if the corrected chi-square for the deviation of that observa- tion from the modeled estimate is significant at the .01 level (6.6 or greater).

ANOTHER METHODOLOGICAL PROBLEM

When applying the decision rules it is possible to arrive at a nega- tive chi-square for the contribution of an added parameter. In this case the chi-square should be taken as zero for purposes of the analysis. This is not due to rounding error or a fault in the logic of the system; rather, the reason lies in the distribution theory for the statistics and the fact that the methods we propose here are "ap- proximate" methods.

Conclusion

The purpose of this paper is not to invent new statistical proce- dures. Rather, the goal is to take the weighted least squares model for percentage differences (Davis, 1976; Grizzle et al., 1969) and link the steps in this model to a series of theories which might be used to describe change in public opinion data. Like most calls for applied statistics in substantive research, we emphasize the ordering of hy- potheses and the use of significance tests to unambiguously choose between alternative explanations.

EVALUATING TRENDS IN PUBLIC OPINION 99

The discussion addresses the question of how to find the most parsimonious description of a series of percentage differences. But the principles of the analysis apply to any statistic that is relevant to public opinion research (the only limitation being that the statistic to be analyzed must have a variance that can be calculated.) Thus, the procedures can be used to find the most parsimonious model for a series of percentages (although the hypothesis that all the percentages are equal to zero is not of much interest.) Likewise, by analyzing trends in the logarithms of odds ratios, we are simply committing ourselves to a particular series of hypotheses in testing log linear models (Davis, 1975). Finally, other studies of trends in gamma statistics (e.g., Verba et al., 1976) might well have used some variant of the decision rules suggested here to analyze the data.

References

Alford, R. L. 1963 "The role of social class in American voting behavior," Western

Political Quarterly 16:180-94. Anscombe, F. J., and J. Tukey

1963 "The examination and analysis of residuals," Technometrics 5: 141-60.

Blake, Judith 1966 "Ideal family size among white Americans," Demography 3:154-73. 1974 "Can we believe recent data on birth expectations in the United

States?" Demography 11:25-44. Converse, P. E.

1972 "Change in the American Electorate," in Angus Campbell and Philip Converse (eds.), The Human Meaning of Social Change. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Davis, James A. 1975 "The log linear analysis of survey replications," in Kenneth Land

and Seymour Spilerman (eds.), Social Indicator Models. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

1976 "Analyzing contingency tables with linear flow graphs," Sociologi- cal Methodology. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Gallup, George 1972 The Gallup Poll: Public Opinion 1935-1971. New York: Random

House. Glenn, Norval

1967 "Massification and differentiation: some trend data from national surveys," Social Forces, 46:172-80.

1975 "Trend studies with available survey data: opportunities and pit- falls," in J. Southwick (ed.), Survey Data for Trend Analysis. Williams College Center, Roper Public Opinion Research.

Glenn, Norval, and J. L. Simmons 1967 "Are regional cultural differences diminishing?" Public Opinion

Quarterly 31:176-93.

100 D GARTH TAYLOR

Goodman, Leo 1963 "On methods for comparing contingency tables," Journal of the

Royal Statistical Society (A) 126:94-108. 1976 "The relationship between modified and usual multiple regression

approaches to the analysis of dichotomous variables," Sociological Methodology. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Grizzle, James E., C. Frank Starmer, and G. Koch 1969 "Analysis of categorical data by linear models," Biometrics

25:489-504. Hansen, Morris, W. Hurwitz, E. Marks, and W. Mauldin

1951 "Response errors in surveys," Journal of the American Statistical Association 46:147-90.

Hyman, H. H., J. Wright, and J. Reed 1975 The Enduring Effects of Education. Chicago: University of Chicago.

Kish, Leslie 1957 "Confidence intervals for clustered samples," American Sociologi-

cal Review 22:154-65. 1965 Survey Sampling. New York: Wiley.

Mayer, K. 1959 "Diminishing class differentials in the United States," Kyklos

XIII:605-28. Newman, Karen

1976 "The use of AIPO surveys: to weight or not to weight," in James A. Davis (ed.), Studies of Social Change Since 1948 Volume 1. Chicago: National Opinion Research Center.

Nie, N., S. Verba, and J. Petrocik 1976 The Changing American Voter. Cambridge: Harvard University

Press. Reed, John Shelton

1972 The Enduring South. Lexington, Mass.: D.C. Heath. Smith, Tom W., D Garth Taylor, and Nancy Mathiowetz

1979 "Public opinion and public regard for the federal government," in A. Barton and C. Weiss (eds.), Making Bureaucracies Work. Beverly Hills, California: Sage.

Sullivan, John L., James E. Pierson, and George Marcus 1979 "Political intolerance: the illusion of progress," Psychology Today

12:87-91. Taylor, D Garth

forth- "Analyzing qualitative data," in P. Rossi, J. Wright, and A. Ander- com- son (eds.), The Handbook of Survey Research. New York: Aca- ing demic Press.

Tukey, John 1962 "The future of data analysis," Annals of Mathematical Statistics

33:1-67. Wonnacot, R. J., and T. H. Wonnacot

1970 Econometrics. New York: Wiley.