Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Political Psychology Data from a 26-wave Yearlong Longitudinal Study (2019–2020) Cover

Political Psychology Data from a 26-wave Yearlong Longitudinal Study (2019–2020)

Journal of Open Psychology Data
Volume 9 (2021): Issue 1
By: Mark J. Brandt,  Felicity M. Turner-Zwinkels and  Emily Kubin  
Open Access
|Jul 2021

Full Article

(1) Overview

Collection Date(s)

2019–2020, United States of America.

Background

The dynamics of political attitudes are of interest to social scientists because they help us understand if attitude change is possible and under what conditions this occurs. Moreover, these dynamics can help scholars understand the underpinnings of political attitudes. Much of the work on political attitudes uses data that makes the study of attitude change dynamics difficult. Although scholars often go beyond cross-sectional data, longitudinal data often comes from different participants at each time point (such as in the World Values Survey, American National Election Studies, or the General Social Survey) or from the same participants with time points approximately 1 year apart (such as the Longitudinal Internet Studies for the Social Sciences Panel and the New Zealand Attitudes and Values Survey). Although this is valuable data, if attitudes change at a faster rate, or have dynamics that occur over shorter time periods, they cannot be detected in such studies. Moreover, many longitudinal studies in this domain only include 2 or 3 time points, making it difficult to observe some types of dynamic processes (e.g., [9]; although for exceptions see Longitudinal Internet Studies for the Social Sciences Panel and the New Zealand Attitudes and Values Survey). Here we aimed to collect data that would provide a more fine-grained look at the dynamic processes underlying the maintenance and change of political attitudes.

We included measures of constructs that would have broad interest to social scientists, including political attitudes and identities [2], perceived threats and stresses [6], political engagement [3], and social distance from political groups [5]. Each of these constructs have a long tradition in the political psychological literature. Our study aims to provide data about their variation over the course of one year. We also included items related to the COVID-19 pandemic, which overlapped with the end of our study. This makes it possible to assess COVID-19-related attitudes over a part of the study.

(2) Methods

The methods for this data collection were preregistered. There are three preregistrations associated with the project. The first preregisters the procedure and original measures used in the study. It was completed prior to the start of data collection, and is available here: https://osf.io/7h5ds. The second preregistration documents measures of behavioural intentions we added after data collection began, and was completed in December 2019. It is available here: https://osf.io/7r4bk. The third preregistration documents measures we added related to COVID-19. It was completed in March 2020 after data collection had started. It is available here: https://osf.io/rxcqf.

There were changes to the study that are not documented with preregistrations (noted below). These include a measure related to climate policy (added for Wave 2–26) and two attention check items in two different waves.

Sample

Participants were recruited on Prolific (see Procedure below for details) using quota sampling based on vote choice in the 2016 U.S. elections. In the first wave, we had 552 participants from the United States (M age = 34.7, SD = 12.4, Range [18, 73]; 278 women, 271 men, 2 indicated their gender was not listed). Our average response rate across the waves was 75%, SD = 8%, Range [63%, 93%]. The sample size for each wave and for all pairwise combination of waves is in Table 1. The number of waves completed by each participant is visualized in Figure 1. The sample size based on the 2016 U.S. election vote is in Table 2.

Table 1

Sample sizes per wave and pairwise sample sizes for each wave combination.

WAVE1234567891011121314151617181920212223242526
1552510503487471454449442435421416420397403398411381391394381400369373381348348
2510485470454437431424420409403411388393385400372379384372387360359368339337
3503468452437434429418404400405382388381393366375378367383357358363336333
4487448434427419408402394398376384374389361369375365380350352358332328
5471435427417410395391391374377371386359367367361376347353359328328
6454417412399388385390369373365375353359359355368346349349321320
7449413401393386389369371365374356358361357367343345349323322
8442407396386394371373367376354361364356367344347351325322
9435387386384368369363373352362364354369343339346317319
10421389384363367364367350352355354365337341342317315
11416387366368364367356357357353360337340342321315
12420376380375381360363365362369343347348324320
13397370357365346345349343351331328336307304
14403376378358357360354364341342347319318
15398374358356359350361338338343314316
16411364363364359365339342351320317
17381355353344352333336343314309
18391363349357338334342319314
19394354360340339344317315
20381360335342337312310
21400350351357326325
22369333338309313
23373345316315
24381328327
25348314
26348
jopd-9-54-g1.png
Figure 1

Histogram of number of waves completed.

Table 2

Sample size per 2016 vote choice.

TARGET NACHIEVED NPROLIFIC OPTION
223223Did not vote/Prefer not to say or NA
161161Trump
166168Clinton

Materials

The materials for all of the waves are stored with the data. In addition, the materials are posted at the OSF page for the project (https://osf.io/x94rc).

Participants completed measures related to their positions on political issues, political identifications, political interest, presidential approval, feelings of internal threat (e.g., stress), feelings of external threat (e.g., from the economy), and social distance from political groups at each wave of the study. At the first wave, participants also completed demographic measures and reported their vote choice from the 2016 presidential election. This latter item is used to assess the correspondence between the prescreening measure provided by Prolific and our participants own self-report in the current study.

We preregistered that we may add items throughout the course of the study. In total we added seven new items to the survey. 1: We added an issue about climate change at Wave 2 that remained in the study until the end. 2: We added an item about the importance of the July 4th holiday in Waves 4 and 9 to help us test preregistered hypotheses about the effect of the holiday on political prejudice (see preregistrations for that study here https://osf.io/26bua/registrations). 3: We added an attention check item as the last item in both Waves 12 and 15. 4: We added behavioral intention items in Wave 17, 20, 23, and 26. 5–7: Finally, we added three items relevant to the COVID-19 pandemic in the last four waves. All items are listed in Table 3.

Table 3

Item summary.

NAME (TYPE)VARIABLERESPONSE OPTIONSWAVE
def (issue)Should federal spending on defense be increased, decreased, or kept the same?1. Greatly decrease defense spending
2.
3.
4. Keep defense spending about the same
5.
6.
7. Greatly increase defense spending.
8. Don’t Know
9. I haven’t thought much about it		All Waves
crime (issue)Should federal spending for dealing with crime be increased, decreased, or kept the same?1. Greatly decrease spending for dealing with crime
2.
3.
4. Keep spending for dealing with crime about the same
5.
6.
7. Greatly increase spending for dealing with crime.
8. Don’t Know
9.I haven’t thought much about it		All Waves
terror (issue)Should federal spending on the war on terrorism be increased, decreased, or kept the same?1. Greatly decrease war on terror spending
2.
3.
4. Keep war on terror spending about the same
5.
6.
7. Greatly increase war on terror spending.
8. Don’t Know
9. I haven’t thought much about it		All Waves
poor (issue)Should federal spending on aid to the poor be increased, decreased, or kept the same?1. Greatly decrease aid to the poor
2.
3.
4. Keep aid to the poor about the same
5.
6.
7. Greatly increase aid to the poor
8. Don’t Know
9. I haven’t thought much about it		All Waves
health (issue)Should federal spending on healthcare be increased, decreased, or kept the same?1. Greatly decrease healthcare spending
2.
3.
4. Keep healthcare spending about the same
5.
6.
7. Greatly increase healthcare spending
8. Don’t Know
9. I haven’t thought much about it		All Waves
econ (issue)Should federal spending to stimulate the economy be increased, decreased, or kept the same?1. Greatly decrease economic stimulus
2.
3.
4. Keep economic stimulus about the same
5.
6.
7. Greatly increase economic stimulus
8. Don’t Know
9. I haven’t thought much about it		All Waves
abort (issue)Which one of the opinions below best agrees with your view of abortion?1. By law, abortion should never be permitted.
2. The law should permit abortion only in case of rape, incest, or when the woman’s life is in danger.
3. The law should permit abortion for reasons other than rape, incest, or danger to the woman’s life, but only after the need for the abortion has been clearly established.
4. By law, a woman should always be able to obtain an abortion as a matter of personal choice.
5. Don’t Know
6. I haven’t thought much about it		All Waves
unemploy (issue)Should federal spending on benefits for the unemployed be increased, decreased, or kept the same?1. Greatly decrease benefits for the unemployed
2.
3.
4. Keep benefits for the unemployed about the same
5.
6.
7.Greatly increase benefits for the unemployed
8. Don’t Know
9. I haven’t thought much about it		All Waves
blkaid (issue)Should federal spending to improve the social and economic position of blacks be increased, decreased, or kept the same?1. Greatly decrease aid to blacks
2.
3.
4. Keep aid to blacks about the same
5.
6.
7. Greatly increase aid to blacks
8. Don’t Know
9. I haven’t thought much about it		All Waves
adopt (issue)Do you favor or oppose laws that prevent gay or lesbian couples from adopting children, or haven’t you thought much about it?1. Favor strongly
2.
3.
4. Neither favor nor oppose
5.
6.
7. Oppose strongly
8. Don’t Know
9. I haven’t thought much about it		All Waves
imm (issue)Should federal spending to control immigration be increased, decreased, or kept the same?1. Greatly decrease spending on immigration control
2.
3.
4. Keep spending on immigration control about the same
5.
6.
7. Greatly increase spending on immigration control
8. Don’t Know
9. I haven’t thought much about it		All Waves
vaccines (issue)Do you favor or oppose laws that require parents to vaccinate their children using common vaccines (e.g., polio, tetanus, measles, flu)?1. Favor strongly
2.
3.
4. Neither favor nor oppose
5.
6.
7. Oppose strongly
8. Don’t Know
9. I haven’t thought much about it		All Waves
guns (issue)Should the federal government 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?1. Make it much more difficult
2.
3.
4. Keep the rules the same
5.
6.
7. Make it much easier
8. Don’t Know
9. I haven’t thought much about it		All Waves
djt (approval)Do you approve or disapprove of the job Donald Trump is doing as president?1. Strongly approve
2. Approve
3. Disapprove
4. Strongly disapprove
5. Don’t know
6. I haven’t thought much about it		All Waves
interest (interest)How interested are you in politics?1. Very uninterested
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7. Very interested		All Waves
friends_1 (prejudice)How willing would you be to be friends with people from the following groups? Liberals1. I absolutely would not
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7. I absolutely would
8. Don’t know
9. I haven’t thought much about it		All Waves
friends_2 (prejudice)How willing would you be to be friends with people from the following groups? Conservatives1. I absolutely would not
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7. I absolutely would
8. Don’t know
9. I haven’t thought much about it		All Waves
friends_3 (prejudice)How willing would you be to be friends with people from the following groups? Moderates1. I absolutely would not
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7. I absolutely would
8. Don’t know
9. I haven’t thought much about it		All Waves
friends_4 (prejudice)How willing would you be to be friends with people from the following groups? Republicans1. I absolutely would not
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7. I absolutely would
8. Don’t know
9. I haven’t thought much about it		All Waves
friends_5 (prejudice)How willing would you be to be friends with people from the following groups? Democrats1. I absolutely would not
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7. I absolutely would
8. Don’t know
9. I haven’t thought much about it		All Waves
tense (internal threat)At this moment, I feel tense.1. Fully disagree
2.
3.
4. Neither agree nor disagree
5.
6.
7. Fully agree		All Waves
death (internal threat)I have an intense fear of death1. Fully disagree
2.
3.
4. Neither agree nor disagree
5.
6.
7. Fully agree		All Waves
ewry (external threat)I worry that I myself or someone from my family will be worse off financially in the near future.1. Fully disagree
2.
3.
4. Neither agree nor disagree
5.
6.
7. Fully agree		All Waves
values (external threat)The values in our country have gone seriously off track.1. Fully disagree
2.
3.
4. Neither agree nor disagree
5.
6.
7. Fully agree		All Waves
climate (issue)Do you think the federal government should be doing more about climate change, should be doing less, or is it currently doing the right amount?1. Doing more about climate change
2.
3.
4. Doing the right amount
5.
6.
7. Doing less about climate change
8. Don’t Know
9. I haven’t thought much about it		Waves 2 – Wave 26
fourth (holiday)I find it important to celebrate the 4th of July.1. Fully disagree
2.
3.
4. Neither agree nor disagree
5.
6.
7. Fully agree		Wave 4 (some participants),
Wave 9
ideo (identification)When it comes to politics, do you think of yourself as a liberal, conservative, moderate, or haven’t you thought much about this?1. Strongly liberal
2. Liberal
3. Slightly liberal
4. Moderate, middle of the road
5. Slightly conservative
6. Conservative
7. Strongly conservative
8. Don’t know
9. I haven’t thought much about it		All Waves
partyid (identification)Do you think of yourself as a Republican, a Democrat, an Independent, or haven’t you thought much about this?1. Strongly Democrat
2. Democrat
3. Independent, lean Democrat
4. Independent
5. Independent, lean Republican
6. Republican
7. Strongly Republican
8. Don’t know
9. I haven’t thought much about it		All Waves
check (attention check)We are using this question to check your attention. Please select “Don’t know”.1. Strongly Democrat
2. Democrat
3. Independent, lean Democrat
4. Independent
5. Independent, lean Republican
6. Republican
7. Strongly Republican
8. Don’t know
9. I haven’t thought much about it		Wave 12
check (attention check)This question is checking your attention. Please select “I haven’t thought much about it”.1. Strongly Democrat
2. Democrat
3. Independent, lean Democrat
4. Independent
5. Independent, lean Republican
6. Republican
7. Strongly Republican
8. Don’t know
9. I haven’t thought much about it		Wave 15
beh_att_1How likely would you be to sign a petition in support of the following issues?
…increase aid to the poor		1. Very unlikely to sign petition
2.
3.
4. Neither likely nor unlikely to sign the petition
5.
6.
7. Very likely to sign the petition.
8. Don’t Know		Waves 17, 20, 23, 26
beh_att_2How likely would you be to sign a petition in support of the following issues?
…increase spending to stimulate the economy		1. Very unlikely to sign petition
2.
3.
4. Neither likely nor unlikely to sign the petition
5.
6.
7. Very likely to sign the petition.
8. Don’t Know		Waves 17, 20, 23, 26
beh_att_3How likely would you be to sign a petition in support of the following issues?
… increase spending on healthcare		1. Very unlikely to sign petition
2.
3.
4. Neither likely nor unlikely to sign the petition
5.
6.
7. Very likely to sign the petition.
8. Don’t Know		Waves 17, 20, 23, 26
beh_identityIn the next Presidential election, how likely are you to vote for the candidate from the Democratic Party or the Republican Party?1. Very likely to vote for the Democratic candidate
2. Likely to vote for the Democratic candidate
3. Somewhat likely to vote for the Democratic candidate
4. Equally likely to vote for the Democratic as the Republican candidate
5. Somewhat likely to vote for the Republican candidate
6. Likely to vote for the Republican candidate
7. Very likely to vote for the Republican candidate
8. I would vote for another party, namely: ….
9. Don’t know		Waves 17, 20, 23, 26
virusthreatHow concerned are you about the coronavirus (COVID-19)?1. Not at all concerned
2.
3.
4. Somewhat concerned
5.
6.
7. Very concerned		Waves 23–26
quarantineDo you favor or oppose laws that prohibit travel to and from regions in the United States with coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreaks (i.e. a quarantine)?1. Favor strongly
2.
3.
4. Neither favor nor oppose
5.
6.
7. Oppose strongly
8. Don’t Know
9. I haven’t thought much about it		Waves 23–26
sickleaveDo you favor or oppose laws that would require all businesses to pay for their employee’s sick leave?1. Favor strongly
2.
3.
4. Neither favor nor oppose
5.
6.
7. Oppose strongly
8. Don’t Know
9. I haven’t thought much about it		Waves 23–26
votereport (voting)Who did you vote for in the 2016 presidential election?1. Donald Trump
2. Hillary Clinton
3. A different candidate
4. I did not vote
5. I planned to vote, but I forgot
6. I do not remember who I voted for		Wave 1
gender (demographics)To which gender identity do you most identify?1. Female
2. Male
3. Not Listed
4. Prefer not to answer		Wave 1
ethnic (demographics)I identify my ethnicity as: (select all that apply)1. Asian
2. Black/African
3. Caucasian
4. Hispanic/Latinx
5. Native American
6. Pacific Islander
7. Not listed
8. Prefer not to answer		Wave 1
edu (demographics)What is the highest degree or level of school you have completed? If currently enrolled, highest degree received.1. No schooling completed
2. Nursery school to 8th grade
3. Some high school, no diploma
4. High school graduate, diploma or the equivalent (for example: GED)
5. Some college credit, no degree
6. Trade/technical/vocational training
7. Associate degree
8. Bachelor’s degree
9. Master’s degree
10. Professional degree
11. Doctorate degree		Wave 1
inc (demographics)What is your household income? That is, the total income of everyone living in your residence.1. Less than $20,000
2. $20,000 to $34,999
3. $35,000 to $49,999
4. $50,000 to $74,999
5. $75,000 to $99,999
6. Over $100,000		Wave 1
age (demographics)What is your age?Wave 1
state (demographics)What state do you currently live in?Wave 1
relig (demographics)What is your present religion, if any?1. Protestant
2. Roman Catholic
3. Mormon
4. Orthodox such as Greek or Russian Orthodox
5. Jewish
6. Muslim
7. Buddhist
8. Hindu
9. atheist
10. agnostic
11. something else
12. nothing in particular		Wave 1

The issue positions, political interest, presidential approval, feelings of internal threat, feelings of external threat, and political prejudice items were completed first and in a random order. For the purposes of the randomization, the five political prejudice items were treated as one item and the order of the five targets were randomized within that one item. The two political identification items came next and were presented in a random order. The remaining measures in Wave 1 were presented last and in the order they appear in Table 3. The behavioral intention items were presented last and in a random order. The COVID-19 items were presented in the order they appear in Table 3 and before the block of items containing political identification items.

Procedures

Participants were recruited on Prolific, an online service that facilitates the crowdsourcing of research participants (for an overview see [7]). The first wave of the study started on 8 May 2019. For the first wave, the survey was left open until the three quotas (described below) were fulfilled (1 day). For the 2nd–26th wave the survey was left open for one week. A new survey was posted every 2 weeks. This means that there is somewhere between a one week and two week gap between each wave for each participant. The final wave started data collection on 22 April 2020.

We opened the task on Prolific to 550 participants with the expectation of having between 250 and 500 participants at each individual wave. Prolific allows us to target people based on their self-reported vote in the 2016 election. For the first wave, we collected data from participants in proportion to their vote choice and the population-level outcome of this election (see Table 2). The target Ns and achieved Ns are reported in Table 2. This was done to increase the diversity of political opinions within the sample. The study was additionally limited to people reporting the United States as their nationality and who had an approval rate 90 or higher.

Participants were paid £0.35 for completing the first wave (~4 minutes) and for completing each of the next four follow-up waves (~3 minutes). Every fifth wave, participants were paid £0.02 more per survey, so that the payment at the final survey was £0.45. If they completed all 26 surveys, participants earned £10.20. This is approximately £7.75/hour (~$9.63/hour). The US Federal minimum wage is $7.25/hour and the average state/territory minimum wage (after removing states/territories with no minimum wage) is $9.24/hour. Participants continued participation was incentivized by offering bonuses. For every wave completed (26 possibilities in total), participants received a virtual ticket. After 6 months and then again at the end of the study, we conducted a drawing for five £10 bonuses and one £50 bonus. The total cost of the study was £5151.64.

Quality Control

Prolific data quality is high [8] and they have procedures in place to prevent bots and repeat participants [1]. Participants were paid fair rates given the length of the study and we included incentives for completing as many waves as possible.

In addition, we checked attention rates with attention checks at Wave 12 and 15. We observed high rates of attention. All participants passed the check in Wave 15. In Wave 12, 10 of 416 participants did not pass the check (4 participants had missing data on the attention check item and were not counted as passed nor failed).

We also checked the correspondence between people’s self-reported votes in the 2016 election given to Prolific and given to us. Correspondence was high (91% match). The largest mismatch was from people who told Prolific they had not voted for neither Trump nor Clinton, but who reported to us that they voted for either Clinton (n = 19) or Trump (n = 14). The remaining mismatches were largely people who told Prolific they had either voted for Trump or Clinton, but who reported to us that they voted for a different candidate besides Trump or Clinton (n = 2), did not vote (n = 9), or planned to vote, but forgot (n = 2). Only one participant reported to Prolific that they voted for Clinton and reported to us that they voted for Trump. No participants reported to Prolific that they voted for Trump and reported to us that they voted for Clinton. Given that fallibility of people’s memories, including for their vote choice, these results indicate a relatively high correspondence (e.g., 91% is higher than many reported estimates, e.g., [4])

Ethical issues

Ethical approval was granted by Tilburg University. Data were anonymized by removing potential identifying information, including IP addresses and open-ended responses.

(3) Dataset description

Object name

  • codebook1.html: codebook

  • yllanon.csv: cleaned data file in long format

  • matrix and demographics.R: for computing information in this data paper and creating the histogram

  • response rates.R: for computing information in this data paper

  • Materials – Qualtrics Format (folder): all materials in Qualtrics format

  • Materials – Word Format (folder): all materials in Word format

Data type

Primary data, codebook, materials, code

Format names and versions

.csv, .html, .R, .qsf, .docx

Data Collectors

Mark Brandt, designed study, collected data, Tilburg University

Felicity Turner-Zwinkels, designed study, Tilburg University

Language

English

License

CC-by

Repository location

https://osf.io/3pwvb/

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/3PWVB

Publication date

01/05/2020

(4) Reuse potential

This data can be reused to test hypotheses related to political attitudes and their change overtime. This could include, for example, if political identification is an antecedent or cause of social distance from political groups, if perceived threat is associated with right-wing or left-wing attitudes, and how stable political attitudes are overtime. The items regarding feelings of threat and anxiety may also be of use to researchers studying these topics. We purposely included items and constructs that have been the focus of investigations in the past, making it possible to conceptually replicate such findings. Lastly, given that there are relatively few datasets with such a longitudinal structure, it may also serve as an interesting teaching tool.

Acknowledgements

We thank Jin Goh for his feedback on the COVID-19 items.

Funding information

This project has received funding from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement No 759320).

Competing Interests

The authors have no competing interests to declare.

Author Contributions

  • Designed study, collected data, cleaned data, documented data, wrote paper

  • Designed study, edited paper

  • Cleaned data, documented data, edited paper

Peer Review Comments

Journal of Open Psychology Data has blind peer review, which is unblinded upon article acceptance. The editorial history of this article can be downloaded here:

PR File 1

Peer Review History. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/jopd.54.pr1

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5334/jopd.54 | Journal eISSN: 2050-9863
Journal RSS Feed
Language: English
Published on: Jul 9, 2021
Published by: Ubiquity Press
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 1 issue per year
Keywords:
Politics,
Attitudes,
Identities,
Social Distance,
Threat,
Stress,
Political Psychology,
Open data,
COVID-19

© 2021 Mark J. Brandt, Felicity M. Turner-Zwinkels, Emily Kubin, published by Ubiquity Press
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Volume 9 (2021): Issue 1Next article