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.
Public Opinion and Foreign Policy in the United States, China, India, Australia, and South Korea, 2006 (ICPSR 4650)
Principal Investigator(s): Chicago Council on Global Affairs; Asia Society; East Asia Institute (EAI)
The Chicago Council undertakes a large-scale public opinion study every two years that compares American and international public opinion on a wide range of important international issues. A significant part of each biennial survey is additionally dedicated to examining a timely theme. The theme of the 2006 survey was, "The Rise of China and India."
This data collection presents a unique comparison of international attitudes on how the emergence of China and India as economic dynamos and claimants to great power status will affect the global economy, international security, and politics. Moreover, this study sought to assess American public opinion (Part 1, Public Opinion Survey, United States) on a variety of challenges facing the United States today including international terrorism, nuclear proliferation, conflict in the Middle East, the rising economic and political power of Asia, economic competition from abroad, and threats to energy supplies and the environment. This data collection also provides an understanding of how the Chinese (Part 2, Public Opinion Survey, China) and Indian (Part 3, Public Opinion Survey, India) publics view their nations' international challenges and opportunities and their respective roles as emerging great powers. Parallel surveys were also conducted in Australia (Part 4, Public Opinion Survey, Australia) in conjunction with the Lowy Institute for International Policy, and in South Korea (Part 5, Public Opinion Survey, South Korea) in conjunction with the East Asia Institute.
Demographic variables include race, age, gender, religious affiliation, highest level of education, and political identification.
Data in this collection are available only to users at ICPSR member institutions. Please log in so we can determine if you are with a member institution and have access to these data files.
Chicago Council on Global Affairs, Asia Society, and East Asia Institute (EAI). Public Opinion and Foreign Policy in the United States, China, India, Australia, and South Korea, 2006. ICPSR04650-v1. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2008-07-18. http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR04650.v1
Persistent URL: http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR04650.v1
This study was funded by:
- John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation (06-87067-000-GSS)
- Robert R. McCormick Foundation
- Korea Foundation
Scope of Study
Subject Terms: Annan, Kofi, arms trade, Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation, attitudes, beliefs, biological weapons, cultural influences, democracy, economic aid, economic conditions, economic growth, energy supplies, environment, European Union, foreign aid, foreign policy, free trade, genocide, global warming, globalization, human rights, immigration, international conflict, international cooperation, International Court of Justice, international development, international monetary system, international trade, Iraq War, jobs, leadership, military intervention, military strength, nuclear energy, nuclear fuels, nuclear weapons, oil industry, peace keeping forces, political influences, public opinion, social influences, tariffs, technological change, technology transfer, terrorist threat, torture, trade agreements, treaties, United Nations, war, war crimes, World Bank, World Health Organization, World Trade Organization
Date of Collection:
- 2006-06-23--2006-07-09 (United States Public Opinion Survey)
- 2006-07-10--2006-07-21 (China Public Opinion Survey)
- 2006-07-09--2006-07-27 (India Public Opinion Survey)
- 2006-06-19--2006-07-06 (Australia Public Opinion Survey)
- 2006-06-16--2006-07-07 (South Korea Public Opinion Survey)
Unit of Observation: individual
Universe: Adults, aged 18 and older living in the United States, China, India, and Australia, and aged 19 and older living in South Korea.
Data Types: survey data
Data Collection Notes:
The field report, located in the User Guide, is for the United States only. For additional information, users can refer to the Web sites for the Chicago Council of Global Affairs and the Asia Society.
The full question text can be found in the User Guide.
The survey for the United States was fielded using a randomly selected sample from a large-scale, nationwide research panel. This panel was, itself, randomly selected from the national population of households having telephones and subsequently was provided Internet access for the completion of surveys (but the sample was not limited to those who already had Internet access). The distribution of the sample in the Web-enabled panel closely tracked the distribution of United States Census counts for the United States population on age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, geographical region, employment status, income, education, etc. The panel was recruited using stratified random-digit-dial (RDD) telephone sampling. Households that agreed to participate in the panel were provided with free Web access and an Internet appliance, which used a telephone line to connect to the Internet and used the television as a monitor.
The sample for China was nationally representative of adults aged 18 or older, and was drawn by a stratified multistage sampling method. All 31 provinces were divided into three strata according to their geographical location and their Human Development Index (HDI). The sample was weighted to represent the 2005 China Census. Individuals who were illiterate or who had no formal education were excluded.
The sample for India was a representative stratified random sample of all adults, aged 18 or older. Individuals who were illiterate or who had no formal education were excluded. The sample drew from 97 percent of the population geographically and 98 percent demographically across 526 parliamentary areas of the country. Due to issues concerning inaccessibility, respondents in the northeastern part of the country, representing 2 percent of the population and 3 percent of parliamentary areas, were not polled.
The Australian sample was a nationally representative stratified sample of all adults, aged 18 or older, drawn using an RDD sampling method. Quotas were set for each state, age group, and sex. Interviews were conducted by telephone using an RDD sampling method until all sample quotas were filled.
The South Korean sample was drawn from 15 of the 16 administrative divisions of South Korea based on a multistage quota sampling method. The national population was categorized into 16 groups by administrative divisions, 5 groups by age, and 2 groups by sex. The quota of samples was then calculated by region, age, and sex, based on the 2005 Korean Census. Households were randomly selected in every region according to the quota. In the final step, weights were applied to the dataset in order to match the sampling quota by region, sex, and age more precisely.
Weight: All five datasets contain multiple weights. Please see the User Guide for details regarding the weights used in the United States, China, and India datasets. Additional information may be found via the Web site for the Chicago Council on Global Affairs.
Mode of Data Collection: face-to-face interview, telephone interview
Extent of Processing: ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection:
- Standardized missing values.
- Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.
Original ICPSR Release: 2008-01-23
- 2008-07-18 The East Asia Institute has been added as a principal investigator.
- Citations exports are provided above.
Export Study-level metadata (does not include variable-level metadata)
If you're looking for collection-level metadata rather than an individual metadata record, please visit our Metadata Records page.