1932

Abstract

One of the major developments in political science in the past decade has been the rise of experiments and surveys on political elites. Yet, the increase in the number of elite studies has outpaced our collective understanding of best practices and how we know a good elite experiment when we see one. In this article, we discuss some of the challenges in the study of political elites—from who counts as an elite to how to best utilize elite experiments in the context of broader research designs. We also offer recommendations on questions of access, recruitment, and representativeness, as well as designs that researchers can use to study “eliteness” without access to elites.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051120-013649
2022-05-12
2024-03-29
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/polisci/25/1/annurev-polisci-051120-013649.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051120-013649&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Arceneaux K, Dunaway J, Soroka S. 2018. Elites are people, too: the effects of threat sensitivity on policymakers’ spending priorities. PLOS ONE 13:e0193781
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Auerbach AM, Thachil T. 2020. Cultivating clients: reputation, responsiveness, and ethnic indifference in India's slums. Am. J. Political Sci 64:471–87
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Axelrod R. 1976. Structure of Decision: The Cognitive Maps of Political Elites Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  4. Baekgaard M, Christensen J, Dahlmann CM, Mathiasen A, Petersen NBG. 2019. The role of evidence in politics: motivated reasoning and persuasion among politicians. Br. J. Political Sci 49:1117–40
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bahador B, Entman R, Knüpfer C. 2019. Who's elite and how the answer matters to politics. Political Commun 36:195–202
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bansak K, Hainmueller J, Hopkins DJ, Yamamoto T. 2018. The number of choice tasks and survey satisficing in conjoint experiments. Political Anal 26:112–19
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Banuri S, Dercon S, Gauri V. 2019. Biased policy professionals. World Bank Econ. Rev 33:310–27
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bayram AB. 2017. Due deference: cosmopolitan social identity and the psychology of legal obligation in international politics. Int. Organ 71:S137–63
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bellemare C, Bissonnette L, Kröger S. 2014. Statistical power of within and between-subjects designs in economic experiments Disc. Pap. 8583 Inst. Stud. Labor, Bonn, Ger.
  10. Blair G, Cooper J, Coppock A, Humphreys M. 2019. Declaring and diagnosing research designs. Am. Political Sci. Rev 113:838–59
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Broockman DE, Ferenstein G, Malhotra N 2019. Predispositions and the political behavior of American economic elites: evidence from technology entrepreneurs. Am. J. Political Sci 63:212–33
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Broockman DE, Skovron C. 2018. Bias in perceptions of public opinion among political elites. Am. Political Sci. Rev 112:542–63
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Brutger R, Kertzer JD, Renshon J, Tingley D, Weiss CM 2022. Abstraction and detail in experimental design. Am. J. Political Sci In press
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Busby J, Kafura C, Monten J, Tama J 2020a. Multilateralism and the use of force: experimental evidence on the views of foreign policy elites. Foreign Policy Anal 16:118–29
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Busby J, Kafura C, Smeltz D, Tama J, Monten J et al. 2020b. Coming together or coming apart? Attitudes of foreign policy opinion leaders and the public in the Trump era Policy Brief, Chicago Counc. Glob. Aff. Chicago, IL:
  16. Bussell J. 2020. Shadowing as a tool for studying political elites. Political Anal 28:469–86
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Butler DM, Crabtree C 2021. Audit studies in political science. Advances in Experimental Political Science JN Druckman, DP Green 42–55 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Butler DM, Kousser T. 2015. How do public goods providers play public goods games?. Legis. Stud. Q 40:211–40
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Butler DM, Nickerson DW. 2011. Can learning constituency opinion affect how legislators vote? Results from a field experiment. Q. J. Political Sci. 6:55–83
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Butler DM, Powell EN. 2014. Understanding the party brand: experimental evidence on the role of valence. J. Politics 76:492–505
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Carey JM, Helmke G, Nyhan B, Sanders M, Stokes S 2019. Searching for bright lines in the Trump presidency. Perspect. Politics 17:699–718
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Carnes N, Lupu N. 2015. Rethinking the comparative perspective on class and representation: evidence from Latin America. Am. J. Political Sci 59:1–18
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Carnevale JJ, Inbar Y, Lerner JS. 2011. Individual differences in need for cognition and decision-making competence among leaders. Pers. Indiv. Diff 51:274–78
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Clifford S, Sheagley G, Piston S. 2021. Increasing precision without altering treatment effects: repeated measures designs in survey experiments. Am. Political Sci. Rev 115:1048–65
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Costa M. 2017. How responsive are political elites? A meta-analysis of experiments on public officials. J. Exp. Political Sci 4:241–54
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Cronbach LJ, Shapiro K. 1982. Designing Evaluations of Educational and Social Programs San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
  27. Dahlberg S. 2007. Web-based expert surveys QoG Work. Pap., Göteberg Univ Sweden:
  28. Dal Bó E, Finan F, Folke O, Persson T, Rickne J 2017. Who becomes a politician?. Q. J. Econ 132:1877–914
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Dietrich S, Hardt H, Swedlund HJ. 2021a. Elite experiments: strengthening scholarship while bridging the gap. Duck of Minerva Blog June 10. https://www.duckofminerva.com/2021/06/elite-experiments-strengthening-scholarship-while-bridging-the-gap-2.html
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Dietrich S, Hardt H, Swedlund HJ. 2021b. How to make elite experiments work in international relations. Eur. J. Int. Relat 27:2596–621
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Distelhorst G, Hou Y. 2017. Constituency service under nondemocratic rule: evidence from China. J. Politics 79:1024–40
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Dynes AM, Hassell HJG, Miles MR, Preese JR. 2021. Personality and gendered selection processes in the political pipeline. Politics Gender 17:53–73
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Efrat A. 2015. Cross-national interviewing at international conferences: how to make the most of a unique research opportunity. Int. Stud. Perspect 16:302–11
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Fatas E, Neugebauer T, Tamborero P. 2007. How politicians make decisions: a political choice experiment. J. Econ 92:167–96
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Fenno RF. 1978. Home Style: House Members in Their Districts Boston: Little, Brown
  36. Findley MG, Harris AS, Milner HV, Nielson DL. 2017a. Who controls foreign aid? Elite versus public perceptions of donor influence in aid-dependent Uganda. Int. Organ 71:633–63
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Findley MG, Kikuta K, Denly M. 2021. External validity. Annu. Rev. Political Sci 24:365–93
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Findley MG, Laney B, Nielson DL, Sharman JC. 2017b. External validity in parallel global field and survey experiments on anonymous incorporation. J. Politics 79:856–72
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Flavin P, Hartney MT. 2017. Racial inequality in democratic accountability: evidence from retrospective voting in local elections. Am. J. Political Sci 61:684–97
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Franco A, Malhotra N, Simonovits G, Zigerell L. 2017. Developing standards for post-stratification weighting in population-based survey experiments. J. Exp. Political Sci 4:161–72
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Friedman JA, Lerner JS, Zeckhauser R. 2017. Behavioral consequences of probabilistic precision: experimental evidence from national security professionals. Int. Organ 71:803–26
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Fuhrmann M, Horowitz MC. 2015. When leaders matter: rebel experience and nuclear proliferation. J. Politics 77:72–87
    [Google Scholar]
  43. George AL. 1969. The “operational code”: a neglected approach to the study of political leaders and decision-making. Int. Stud. Q 13:190–222
    [Google Scholar]
  44. George AL, George JL. 1964. Woodrow Wilson and Colonel House: A Personality Study New York: Dover
  45. Gerring J, Oncel E, Morrison K, Pemstein D. 2019. Who rules the world? A portrait of the global leadership class. Perspect. Politics 17:1079–97
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Gift T, Monten J. 2021. Who's out of touch? Media misperception of public opinion on US foreign policy. Foreign Policy Anal 17:128–39
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Gigerenzer G, Kurzenhaeuser S 2005. Fast and frugal heuristics in medical decision making. Science and Medicine in Dialogue: Thinking Through Particulars and Universals R Bibace, JD Laird, KL Noller, J Valsiner 3–15 Westport, CT/Boston: Praeger/Greenwood
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Godwin RK. 1979. The consequences of large monetary incentives in mail surveys of elites. Public Opin. Q 43:378–87
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Goemans HE, Gleditsch KS, Chiozza G. 2009. Introducing Archigos: a dataset of political leaders. J. Peace Res 46:269–83
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Goldstein K. 2002. Getting in the door: sampling and completing elite interviews. PS Political Sci. Politics 35:669–72
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Grose CR. 2014. Field experimental work on political institutions. Annu. Rev. Political Sci 17:355–370
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Grose CR 2021. Experiments, political elites and political institutions. Advances in Experimental Political Science J Druckman, DP Green 149–64 New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Grossman G, Michelitch K. 2018. Information dissemination, competitive pressure, and politician performance between elections: a field experiment in Uganda. Am. Political Sci. Rev 112:280–301
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Gulzar S. 2021. Who enters politics and why?. Annu. Rev. Political Sci 24:253–75
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Hafner-Burton EM, Hughes DA, Victor DG. 2013. The cognitive revolution and the political psychology of elite decision making. Perspect. Politics 11:368–86
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Hafner-Burton EM, LeVeck BL, Victor DG, Fowler JH. 2014. Decision maker preferences for international legal cooperation. Int. Organ 68:845–76
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Hafner-Burton EM, Victor DG, LeVeck BL. 2016. How activists perceive the utility of international law. J. Politics 78:167–80
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Hemker J, Rink A. 2017. Multiple dimensions of bureaucratic discrimination: evidence from German welfare offices. Am. J. Political Sci 61:786–803
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Hertel-Fernandez A, Mildenberger M, Stokes LC 2019. Legislative staff and representation in Congress. Am. Political Sci. Rev 113:1–18
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Heß M, Von Scheve C, Schupp J, Wagner A, Wagner GG 2018. Are political representatives more risk-loving than the electorate? Evidence from German federal and state parliaments. Palgrave Commun 4:1–7
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Hoffmann-Lange U 2007. Methods of elite research. The Oxford Handbook of Political Behavior RL Dalton, HD Klingemann 910–27 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Hoffmann-Lange U. 2008. Studying elite versus mass opinion. The Sage Handbook of Public Opinion Research W Donsbach, MW Traugott 53–63 Los Angeles: Sage
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Humayun F. 2021. The punisher's dilemma: domestic opposition and foreign policy losses Work. Pap., Yale Univ. New Haven, CT:
  64. Jamison J, Karlan D, Schechter L 2008. To deceive or not to deceive: the effect of deception on behavior in future laboratory experiments. J. Econ. Behav. Organ 68:477–88
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Jost T, Meshkin K, Schub R. 2022. The character and origins of military attitudes on the use of force. Int. Stud. Q In press
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Karpowitz CF, Monson JQ, Preese JR. 2017. How to elect more women: gender and candidate success in a field experiment. Am. J. Political Sci 61:927–43
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Keller FB. 2016. Moving beyond factions: using social network analysis to uncover patronage networks among Chinese elites. J. East Asian Stud 16:17–41
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Kennedy C, Hartig H 2019. Response rates in telephone surveys have resumed their decline Pew Res. Cent https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/02/27/response-rates-in-telephone-surveys-have-resumed-their-decline/
  69. Kertzer JD. 2022. Reassessing elite-public gaps in political behavior. Am. J. Political Sci In press
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Kertzer JD, Busby J, Monten J, Tama J, Kafura C 2021a. Elite misperceptions and the domestic politics of conflict Work. Pap., Harvard Univ Cambridge, MA:
  71. Kertzer JD, Holmes M, LeVeck BL, Wayne CN. 2022. Hawkish biases and group decision-making. Int. Organ In press
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Kertzer JD, Renshon J, Yarhi-Milo K. 2021b. How do observers assess resolve?. Br. J. Political Sci 51:308–30
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Kertzer JD, Tingley D. 2018. Political psychology in international relations: beyond the paradigms. Annu. Rev. Political Sci 21:319–39
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Krcmaric D, Nelson SC, Roberts A 2020. Studying leaders and elites: the personal biography approach. Annu. Rev. Political Sci 23:133–51
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Lasswell HD 1952. The elite concept. The Comparative Study of Elites: An Introduction and Bibliography HD Lasswell, D Lerner, CE Rothwell 6–21 Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Leeper TJ, Hobolt SB, Tilley J. 2020. Measuring subgroup preferences in conjoint experiments. Political Anal 28:207–21
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Lin-Greenberg E. 2021. Soldiers, pollsters, and international crises: public opinion and the military's advice on the use of force. Foreign Policy Anal 17:orab009
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Lin-Greenberg E, Pauly R, Schneider J 2022. Wargaming for political science research. Eur. J. Int. Relat 28:83109
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Linde J, Vis B. 2017. Do politicians take risks like the rest of us? An experimental test of prospect theory under MPs. Political Psychol 38:101–17
    [Google Scholar]
  80. List JA, Mason CF. 2011. Are CEOs expected utility maximizers?. J. Econom 162:114–23
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Loewen PJ, Rubenson D, Wantchekon L 2010. Help me help you: conducting field experiments with political elites. Ann. Am. Acad. Political Soc. Sci 628:165–75
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Lupia A, McCubbins MD. 1998. The Democratic Dilemma: Can Citizens Learn What They Need to Know? New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Maestas C, Neeley GW, Richardson LE Jr 2003. The state of surveying legislators: dilemmas and suggestions. State Politics Policy Q 3:90–108
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Mahdavi P 2017. Scraping public co-occurrences for statistical network analysis of political elites. Political Sci. Res. Methods 7:385–92
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Malesky E, Schuler P, Tran A. 2012. The adverse effects of sunshine: a field experiment on legislative transparency in an authoritarian assembly. Am. Political Sci. Rev 106:762–86
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Malhotra N, Monin B, Tomz M. 2019. Does private regulation preempt public regulation?. Am. Political Sci. Rev 113:19–37
    [Google Scholar]
  87. McDermott R 2011. Internal and external validity. The Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science JN Druckman, DP Green, JH Kuklinski, A Lupia 27–40 New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  88. McDermott R. 2013. The ten commandments of experiments. PS Political Sci. Politics 46:605–10
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Meisel JH. 1962. The Myth of the Ruling Class: Gaetano Mosca and the “Elite.” Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich.
  90. Miller WE, Stokes DE. 1963. Constituency influence in congress. Am. Political Sci. Rev 57:45–56
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Mintz A, Redd SB, Vedlitz A. 2006. Can we generalize from student experiments to the real world in political science, military affairs, and international relations?. J. Confl. Resolut 50:757–76
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Miratrix LW, Sekhon JS, Theodoridis AG, Campos LF. 2018. Worth weighting? How to think about and use weights in survey experiments. Political Anal 26:275–91
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Moyser G, Wagstaffe M 1987. Studying elites: theoretical and methodological issues. Research Methods for Elite Studies G Moyser, M Wagstaffe 1–24 Boston: Allen & Unwin
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Mummolo J, Peterson E. 2019. Demand effects in survey experiments: an empirical assessment. Am. Political Sci. Rev 113:517–29
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Nair D. 2021.. “ Hanging out” while studying “up”: doing ethnographic fieldwork in international relations. Int. Stud. Rev 23:1399–27
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Nathan NL, White A 2021. Experiments on and with street-level bureaucrats. Handbook of Advances in Experimental Political Science J Druckman, DP Green 509–25 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Neumann IB. 2012. At Home with the Diplomats: Inside a European Foreign Ministry Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press
  98. Nyhan B, Reifler J. 2015. The effect of fact-checking on elites: a field experiment on US state legislators. Am. J. Political Sci 59:628–40
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Ofosu G. 2019. Do fairer elections increase the responsiveness of politicians?. Am. Political Sci. Rev 113:963–79
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Oldendick RW, Bardes BA. 1982. Mass and elite foreign policy opinions. Public Opin. Q 46:368–82
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Ortmann A, Hertwig R. 2002. The costs of deception: evidence from psychology. Exp. Econ 5:111–31
    [Google Scholar]
  102. Page BI, Bartels LM, Seawright J. 2013. Democracy and the policy preferences of wealthy Americans. Perspect. Politics 11:51–73
    [Google Scholar]
  103. Palacios-Huerta I, Volij O 2009. Field centipedes. Am. Econ. Rev 99:1619–35
    [Google Scholar]
  104. Pereira MM. 2021. Understanding and reducing biases in elite beliefs about the electorate. Am. Political Sci. Rev 115:130824
    [Google Scholar]
  105. Poole KT, Rosenthal H. 1997. Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll Call Voting New York: Oxford Univ. Press
  106. Potters J, van Winden F. 2000. Professionals and students in a lobbying experiment: professional rules of conduct and subject surrogacy. J. Econ. Behav. Organ 43:499–522
    [Google Scholar]
  107. Putnam R. 1976. The Comparative Study of Political Elites Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall
  108. Ramey AJ, Klingler JD, Hollibaugh GE. 2016. Measuring elite personality using speech. Political Sci. Res. Methods 7:1–22
    [Google Scholar]
  109. Renshon J. 2015. Losing face and sinking costs: experimental evidence on the judgment of political and military leaders. Int. Organ 69:659–95
    [Google Scholar]
  110. Renshon J, Yarhi-Milo K, Kertzer JD 2022. Democratic reputations in crises and war. J. Politics In press
    [Google Scholar]
  111. Ricart-Huguet J. 2019. The historical turn in the comparative study of political elites. Newsl. Organ. Sect. Comp. Politics Am. Political Sci. Assoc 29:86–93
    [Google Scholar]
  112. Rivera SW, Kozyreva PM, Sarovskii EG. 2002. Interviewing political elites: lessons from Russia. PS Political Sci. Politics 35:683–88
    [Google Scholar]
  113. Rodríguez-Teruel J, Daloz JP 2018. Surveying and observing political elites. The Palgrave Handbook of Political Elites H Best, J Higley 93–113 London: Palgrave Macmillan
    [Google Scholar]
  114. Roth AE. 1986. Laboratory experimentation in economics. Econ. Philos 2:245–73
    [Google Scholar]
  115. Saunders EN. 2011. Leaders at War: How Presidents Shape Military Interventions Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press
  116. Saunders EN. 2017. No substitute for experience: presidents, advisers, and information in group decision making. Int. Organ 71:S219–47
    [Google Scholar]
  117. Saunders EN. 2022. Elites in the making and breaking of foreign policy. Annu. Rev. Political Sci 25:21940
    [Google Scholar]
  118. Sedlmeier P, Gigerenzer G. 1989. Do studies of statistical power have an effect on the power of studies?. Psychol. Bull 105:309–16
    [Google Scholar]
  119. Shaffer R, Pinson LE, Chu JA, Simmons BA 2020. Local elected officials’ receptivity to refugee resettlement in the United States. PNAS 117:31722–28
    [Google Scholar]
  120. Sharpe D, Adair JG, Roese NJ 1992. Twenty years of deception research: a decline in subjects’ trust?. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull 18:585–90
    [Google Scholar]
  121. Sheffer L, Loewen P. 2019. Electoral confidence, overconfidence, and risky behavior: evidence from a study with elected politicians. Political Behav 41:31–51
    [Google Scholar]
  122. Sheffer L, Loewen PJ, Soroka S, Walgrave S, Sheafer T 2018. Nonrepresentative representatives: an experimental study of the decision making of elected politicians. Am. Political Sci. Rev 112:302–21
    [Google Scholar]
  123. Sherman GD, Lerner JS, Josephs RA, Renshon J, Gross JJ 2016. The interaction of testosterone and cortisol is associated with attained status in male executives. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol 110:921–29
    [Google Scholar]
  124. Stolwijk S, Vis B. 2020. Politicians, the representativeness heuristic and decision-making biases. Political Behav 43:1411–32
    [Google Scholar]
  125. Teele DL, Kalla J, Rosenbluth F. 2018. The ties that double bind: social roles and women's underrepresentation in politics. Am. Political Sci. Rev 112:525–41
    [Google Scholar]
  126. Teigen M, Karlsen R. 2019. Influencing elite opinion on gender equality through framing: a survey experiment of elite support for corporate board gender quotas. Politics Gender 16:792–815
    [Google Scholar]
  127. Tetlock PE, Lebow RN. 2001. Poking counterfactual holes in covering laws: cognitive styles and historical reasoning. Am. Political Sci. Rev 95:829–43
    [Google Scholar]
  128. Tingley DH. 2011. The dark side of the future: an experimental test of commitment problems in bargaining. Int. Stud. Q 55:521–44
    [Google Scholar]
  129. Tomz M, Weeks J, Yarhi-Milo K. 2020. Public opinion and decisions about military force in democracies. Int. Organ 74:119–43
    [Google Scholar]
  130. van der Meij L, Schaveling J, van Vugt M. 2016. Basal testosterone, leadership and dominance: a field study and meta-analysis. Psychoneuroendocrinology 72:72–79
    [Google Scholar]
  131. Vis B, Stolwijk S. 2020. Conducting quantitative studies with the participation of political elites: best practices for designing the study and soliciting the participation of political elites. Qual. Quantity 55:1281–317
    [Google Scholar]
  132. Walgrave S, Sevenans J, Van Camp K, Loewen PJ. 2018. What draws politicians’ attention? An experimental study of issue framing and its effect on individual political elites. Political Behav 40:547–69
    [Google Scholar]
  133. Yarhi-Milo K. 2018. Who Fights for Reputation in International Politics? Leaders, Resolve, and the Use of Force Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  134. Yarhi-Milo K, Kertzer JD, Renshon J. 2018. Tying hands, sinking costs, and leader attributes. J. Confl. Resolut 62:2150–79
    [Google Scholar]
  135. Zaller JR. 1992. The Nature and Origins of Mass Public Opinion Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  136. Zuckerman H. 1972. Interviewing an ultra-elite. Public Opin. Q 36:159–75
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051120-013649
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051120-013649
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error