ICPSR Logo

This study is provided by ICPSR. ICPSR provides leadership and training in data access, curation, and methods of analysis for a diverse and expanding social science research community.

American National Election Study, 2000: Pre- and Post-Election Survey (ICPSR 3131) RSS

Principal Investigator(s):

Summary:

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 2000 National Election Study (NES) entailed both a pre-election interview and a post-election reinterview. A freshly drawn cross-section of the electorate was taken to yield 1,807 cases. Because the study includes a carefully designed mode experiment, the data represent two presidential studies in 2000, side by side. The core study preserves the past commitment to probability area sampling and face-to-face interviewing: 1,000 respondents were interviewed prior to the election and 694 were reinterviewed face-to-face after the election. Supporting the core study, random-digit dial sampling and telephone interviewing were used: 803 respondents were interviewed by phone prior to the election and 862 respondents were interviewed by phone after the election. As such, the experiment examines the differences between the two modes and provides a preview of what shifting to telephone interviewing will mean for the NES time-series. The content of the 2000 election study reflects its dual purpose as a traditional presidential election year time-series data collection and as a mode study. Many of the substantive themes included in the 2000 questionnaires are a continuation of past topics. Interest in politics and the election was examined through questions regarding interest in the political campaigns, concern about the outcome, attentiveness to the media's coverage of the campaign, and information about politics. Respondents' knowledge of candidates and the political parties was ascertained through questions evaluating the presidential candidates and placement of presidential candidates on various issue dimensions, knowledge of the religious background of the major presidential and vice-presidential candidates, partisanship and evaluations of the political parties, and knowledge of and evaluation of United States House of Representatives and United States Senate candidates. Respondents were also asked about their political participation in the November general election and in other forms of electoral campaign activity, their choice for president, their choice for the United States House of Representatives, and the United States Senate, as well as their second choice for president. Respondents were also queried about President Clinton's legacy and their knowledge of former president George Bush Sr. and his administration. Additional items focused on respondents' perceptions of personal and national economic well-being, their positions on social welfare issues (including government health insurance, federal budget priorities, and the role of government in the provision of jobs and a good standard of living), campaign finance and preference for divided government, social issues (including gun control, abortion, women's roles, the rights of homosexuals, the death penalty, school vouchers, environmental policy), racial and ethnic stereotypes, affirmative action, attitudes toward immigrants, and views on the nation's most important problem. Respondents' values and political predispositions (including moral traditionalism, political efficacy, egalitarianism, humanitarianism, individualism, and trust in government), views on fairness in elections, satisfaction with democracy, and the value of voting were also assessed. Other questions addressed social altruism, social connectedness, feeling thermometers on a wide range of political figures and political groups, affinity with various social groups, and detailed demographic information and measures of religious affiliation and religiosity. Several new concepts were also addressed in the 2000 study and include measures of social trust derived from perceptions of the trustworthiness of neighbors and coworkers. Voter turnout was also investigated with expanded response categories to help respondents be more accurate in determining whether they did in fact vote in November 2000. The concept of political knowledge was also addressed with new instructions encouraging respondents to take their best guess when answering the political knowledge questions. The 2000 study also incorporated a social network battery, based entirely on the perceptions of survey respondents regarding the characteristics of their identified discussants. Two brief but reliable measures of cognitive style, the need for cognition and the need to evaluate, were also included in this study. Another important feature of the 2000 NES is the mode experiment, which supplies the ability to compare interviews taken in person with interviews taken over the phone. This carefully designed mode experiment, driven by theoretical and practical interest, allows scholars to test the consequences of survey mode on data quality and reliability. The 2000 study incorporates numerous experiments that examine the effects of mode: 7-point scales and branching, response order, "don't know" filters, and social desirability. Demographic variables include gender, race, employment status, and length of residency in the community.

Series: American National Election Study (ANES) Series

Access Notes

  • These data are available only to users at ICPSR member institutions. Because you are not logged in, we cannot verify that you will be able to download these data.

Dataset(s)

Study Description

Citation

Burns, Nancy, Donald R. Kinder, Steven J. Rosenstone, Virginia Sapiro, and National Election Studies. American National Election Study, 2000: Pre- and Post-Election Survey. ICPSR03131-v3. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2008-04-11. http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR03131.v3

Persistent URL:

Export Citation:

  • RIS (generic format for RefWorks, EndNote, etc.)
  • EndNote XML (EndNote X4.0.1 or higher)

Funding

This study was funded by:

  • National Science Foundation (SBR-9707742, SBR-9317631, SES-9209410, SES-9009379,SES-8808361, SES-8341310, SES-8207580, SOC77-08885, and 82-00-01)
  • Russell Sage Foundation

Scope of Study

Subject Terms:   candidates, Clinton Administration (1993-2001), congressional elections, economic conditions, domestic policy, foreign policy, government performance, immigration policy, media coverage, national elections, political affiliation, political attitudes, political campaigns, political efficacy, political issues, political knowledge, political participation, political partisanship, presidential elections, public approval, public opinion, public policy, racial attitudes, social issues, social networks, social values, social welfare, trust (psychology), trust in government, voter expectations, voter history, voting behavior

Geographic Coverage:   United States

Time Period:  

  • 2000

Date of Collection:  

  • 2000-09-02--2000-12-21

Universe:   United States citizens of voting age on or before Election Day (November 6, 2000), residing in housing units other than on military reservations in the 48 coterminous states.

Data Types:   survey data

Data Collection Notes:

Further information about this and other National Election Studies is available on the American National Election Studies Web site.

Methodology

Sample:   National multistage area probability sample.

Mode of Data Collection:   personal interview, telephone interview

Version(s)

Original ICPSR Release:  

Version History:

  • 2008-04-11 Stata setup and system files have been added, setup files are missing for V001020a-c and V001021a-c, and variable labels for V001503 and V001504 have been corrected.
  • 2002-02-22 The data file for this collection has been resupplied by the principal investigator, and the three separate codebook files have been merged into one.

Related Publications ?

Variables

Browse Matching Variables

M6ax. Summary gun control
M6ax. Do you think the federal government should make it more difficult for people to buy a gun than it is now, make it easier for people to buy a gun, or keep these rules about the same as they are now? A lot easier/more difficult or somewhat easier/more difficult? SUMMARY: R POSITION ON GUN RESTRICTIONS
M6a. R-gun control scale
M6a. Do you think the federal government should make it more difficult for people to buy a gun than it is now, make it easier for people to buy a gun, or keep these rules about the same as they are now?
M6a2. R-strength less gun control
M6a2. IF R SAYS GOVT SHOULD MAKE IT EASIER TO BUY A GUN: A lot easier or somewhat easier?
M6bx. Summary Gore gun control
M6bx. Where would you place Al Gore? Do you think he would like to make it more difficult for people to buy a gun, make it easier for people to buy a gun, or keep these rules about the same as they are now? A lot easier/more difficult or somewhat easier/more difficult? SUMMARY: GORE POSITION ON GUN RESTRICTIONS
M6cx. Summary Bush gun control
M6cx. Where would you place George W. Bush? Do you think he would like to make it more difficult for people to buy a gun, make it easier for people to buy a gun, or keep these rules about the same as they are now? A lot easier/more difficult or somewhat easier/more difficult? SUMMARY: GW BUSH POSITION ON GUN RESTRICTIONS
M6b. Gore plcmnt-gun control scale
M6b. Where would you place Al Gore? Do you think he would like to make it more difficult for people to buy a gun, make it easier for people to buy a gun, or keep these rules about the same as they are now?
M6c. Bush plcmnt-gun control scale
M6c. Where would you place George W. Bush? Do you think he would like to make it more difficult for people to buy a gun, make it easier for people to buy a gun, or keep these rules about the same as they are now?
M6b1/b2. Gore-strength more/less gun ctl
M6b1/b2. IF R THINKS GORE WOULD LIKE IT EASIER TO BUY A GUN/IF R THINKS GORE WOULD LIKE IT MORE DIFFICULT TO BUY A GUN: A lot easier or somewhat easier?/A lot more difficult or somewhat more difficult?
M6c1/c2. Bush-strength more/less gun ctl
M6c1/c2. IF R THINKS G.W. BUSH WOULD LIKE IT EASIER TO BUY A GUN/IF R THINKS G.W. BUSH WOULD LIKE IT MORE DIFFICULT TO BUY A GUN: A lot easier or somewhat easier? A lot more difficult or somewhat more difficult?
M6a1. R-strength more gun control
M6a1. IF R SAYS GOVT SHOULD MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULT TO BUY A GUN: A lot more difficult or somewhat more difficult?

Utilities

Metadata Exports

If you're looking for collection-level metadata rather than an individual metadata record, please visit our Metadata Records page.

Download Statistics

Found a problem? Use our Report Problem form to let us know.