AMERICAN NATIONAL ELECTION STUDY, 1994: POST-ELECTION SURVEY [ENHANCED WITH 1992 AND 1993 DATA] (ICPSR 6507)

Brief Introduction

This is the latest addition to the collection of American National Election Studies which have been conducted since 1952. As a continuing component of the midterm election studies sequence, this study is stocked with a wealth of data on many aspects of Congressional politics in 1994. In addition, due to a unique sampling frame, this study also contains respondents interviewed in both 1992 and 1993 --- making this study of enormous importance for anyone who would like to understand the dynamics of public opinion and behavior during the first two years of the Clinton administration.

Study Summary

Steven J. Rosenstone, Donald R. Kinder, Warren E. Miller, and the National Election Studies

This study is part of a time-series collection of national surveys fielded continuously since 1952. The election studies are designed to present data on Americans' social backgrounds, enduring political predispositions, social and political values, perceptions and evaluations of groups and candidates, opinions on questions of public policy, and participation in political life. The 1994 National Election Study is a post-election interview in which approximately 42 percent of the cases are comprised of empaneled respondents first interviewed in AMERICAN NATIONAL ELECTION STUDY, 1992: PRE- AND POST-ELECTION SURVEY [ENHANCED WITH 1990 AND 1991 DATA] (ICPSR 6067) and later in AMERICAN NATIONAL ELECTION STUDY: 1992-1993 PANEL STUDY ON SECURING ELECTORAL SUCCESS/1993 PILOT STUDY (ICPSR 6264). The other 58 percent of the cases are a freshly drawn cross-section sample. The panel component of the study is designed to exploit the special features of the 1992-1994 elections: a minority president struggling to forge a majority coalition in the face of a strong third-party challenge, and the replacement in 1992 of fully one-quarter of the House of Representatives. Coming at the end of this period, the 1994 Election Study provides insights into how electoral coalitions form and decay, and how new members of the House secured -- or did not secure -- their districts. The design themes became especially salient in the aftermath of the November 8 election, when control of the Congress shifted to the Republican Party for the first time since 1952. Survey questions included the now-standard National Election Studies battery of congressional evaluations supplemented by questions on term limits, the respondent's representative's vote on President Bill Clinton's crime bill, and whether the respondent felt that his or her representative cared more about prestige and influence for himself/ herself than about solving the problems of the congressional district. The content for the 1994 Election Study reflects its dual purpose, both as the traditional presidential election year time-series data collection and as the third wave of a panel study. In addition to the standard demographic items, respondents were asked their positions on the following substantive themes: interest in the campaign, media exposure, presidential performance evaluation, measures of partisanship (party likes/dislikes and party identification), which party would better handle certain public problems, summary evaluations (feeling thermometers) on major political figures and social groups, and recent voting behavior. Respondents were also asked their views on issues such as defense spending, assistance to Blacks, the trade-off between spending and services, health insurance, the role of women, recent proposals to reform welfare, preferences on federal budget allocations, and evaluations of retrospective and prospective national and personal economic trends. They were also queried on the extent of their participation in the campaign and their values regarding egalitarianism, attitudes toward race, school prayer, and abortion.

UNIVERSE: All United States citizens of voting age on or before November 3, 1992 (for those interviewed in 1992 and 1993), or on or before November 8, 1994 (for those interviewed in 1994), residing in housing units other than on military reservations in the 48 coterminous states.

SAMPLING: National multistage area probability sample.

NOTE: A total of 1,795 citizens were interviewed in the nine weeks after the November 8, 1994, election. Forty percent of these interviews were completed during the first week, and 68 percent were completed by the end of the third week. Of the total 1,795 respondents, 759 were initially interviewed in the 1992 Pre-Post Election Study, and 635 of these 759 panel respondents had also been interviewed (by telephone) in the 1993 Pilot Study. All variables retain their original numbers from when they first appeared in either AMERICAN NATIONAL ELECTION STUDY, 1992: PRE- AND POST-ELECTION SURVEY [ENHANCED WITH 1990 AND 1991 DATA] (ICPSR 6067) or AMERICAN NATIONAL ELECTION STUDY: 1992-1993 PANEL STUDY ON SECURING ELECTORAL SUCCESS/1993 PILOT STUDY (ICPSR 6264). The only exceptions are V7000, which was TIME SERIES WEIGHT in the 1992 study and which is now V6, and V7001, which was TYPE OF INCUMBENT in the 1992 study, which is now V7000. Variables from 1992 and 1993 have been padded with missing data values for all 1994 cross-section respondents.

EXTENT OF COLLECTION: 1 data file + machine-readable documentation (text) + SAS data definition statements + SPSS data definition statements + data collection instrument + machine-readable frequencies

EXTENT OF PROCESSING: CONCHK.PR/ MDATA.PR/ FREQ.ICPSR/ UNDOCCHK.ICPSR/ UNDOCCHK.PR/ CDBK.ICPSR/ DDEF.ICPSR/ REFORM.DATA

DATA FORMAT: Logical Record Length with SAS and SPSS data definition statements.

Part 1: Main Data File
File Structure: rectangular
Cases: 1,795
Variables: 2,204
Record Length: 3,476
Records Per Case: 1

Part 2: Frequencies File
Record Length: 132

Part 3: SAS Data
Definition Statements
Record Length: 80

Documentation: machine-readable only To check on documentation click HERE.

To check on data click HERE.

Back to Caltech ICPSR page click HERE.

Last updated by me on May 30, 1995. Please let me know if you have any comments or suggestions. Michael Alvarez (rma@crunch.caltech.edu)