Many thanks for this, and also the contribution of Jeff Evans.
Before I explore either, I just put my own thoughts down.
1)The claim by Kornbrot was given without any references. This is not the
scientific way.
By all means make claims, narrow or wide, but it surely is a responsibility
of the person making them to provide evidence.
2) Kornbrot's claim was very wide:
"Psychological research has consistently show that the correlation between
attitudes expressed in questionniares is, at best, very loosely correlated
with behaviour".
Now Polls/questionnaires on voter intentions, taken some time before
elections, even fairly close to the date, may not always give a good
indication of outcome, indeed I can vaguely remember occasions when this was
indeed true, and of course political party canvassing is carried out under
the assumption that poll results may not necessarily translate into actual
voting . Further, such polls I would think make up a significant proportion
of the total number of polls made. It might therefore be true, taking all
polls, that the correlation is not very good.
Whether that be so or not, clearly there are different categories of polls,
of which voter intention is one example. And intuitively, one might expect a
good correlation with actual outcome in some types of polls, and a less good
or even poor correlation with other types of poll.
So I am not expecting to find some universal 'psychological failing' that
ensures that generally speaking, peoples intentions do not translate into
the corresponding action. But I'll try to keep an open mind.
That being said, I will tomorrow follow up on your link and the reference
kindly given by Jeff Evans.
Many thanks,
John Barker
I'll follow up if the serious internet connection problems besetting me at
the moment allow.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Culbert, John" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 8:24 PM
Subject: Re: What is the explanation for the difference/
John Barker asked:
> Now some members of Radstats are no doubt thoroughly familiar with the
evidence on the value of questionnaires. However, some may not be, and I
certainly am not.
>So could Professor Kornbrot kindly give me and others a reference or
two so
we can explore this issue?
And of course in any other members can supply evidence, that would be
useful.
In the absence of Prof Kornbrot clarifying what she had in mind - I
imagine this is an allusion to the view about the possible inconsistency
of attitude and behaviour that goes back to the classic (1934) work of
La Piere re attitudes and behaviour expressed by hoteliers to a Chinese
couple.
Not being well versed in the literature on this a Google search led me
to the following JSTOR article reviewing the issue -
Attitudes and Behavior
Howard Schuman; Michael P. Johnson
Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 2. (1976), pp. 161-207.
Stable URL:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=03600572%281976%292%3C161%3AAAB%3E2.0.C
O%3B2-K
This might be of interest?
John
-----Original Message-----
From: email list for Radical Statistics [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of John Barker
Sent: 12 February 2007 09:28
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: What is the explanation for the difference/
I do not seem to have received any response to my e-mail of 28th
January
(copied below).
I would be very grateful for some response now.
John Barker
------
Dear all,
This thread started when on 20th December I drew attention to an
apparent
discrepancy in evidence about Indian fertility in the UK.
However, a subsequent posting has shown that there is another apparent
disrepancy, this time between two quite clear claims, one specific, one
more
general.
In the paper by Penn and Lambert to which I originally referred, we
read:
"It is generally accepted that attitudes towards ideal family size
closely
correlate with actual patterns of fertility".
But Professor Kornbrot, in her posting of 30th December stated:
"Psychological research has consistently show that the correlation
between
attitudes expressed in questionniares is, at best, very loosely
correlated
with behaviour.
Now Penn and Lambert give references for their claim, although I find
that
one reference has the wrong provenance. But Professor Kornbrot does not
give
references.
Now some members of Radstats are no doubt thoroughly familiar with the
evidence on the value of questionnaires. However, some may not be, and I
certainly am not.
So could Professor Kornbrot kindly give me and others a reference or two
so
we can explore this issue?
And of course in any other members can supply evidence, that would be
useful.
Yours sincerely,
John Barker
******************************************************
Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
message will go only to the sender of this message.
If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
to [log in to unmask]
Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list are the views of the sender
and cannot be assumed to be representative of the range of views held by
subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group. To find out more about
Radical Statistics and its aims and activities and read current and past
issues of our newsletter you are invited to visit our web site
www.radstats.org.uk.
*******************************************************
Email has been scanned for viruses by Altman Technologies' email
management service - www.altman.co.uk/emailsystems
******************************************************
Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
message will go only to the sender of this message.
If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
to [log in to unmask]
Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list are the views of the sender and
cannot be assumed to be representative of the range of views held by
subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group. To find out more about Radical
Statistics and its aims and activities and read current and past issues of
our newsletter you are invited to visit our web site www.radstats.org.uk.
*******************************************************
******************************************************
Please note that if you press the 'Reply' button your
message will go only to the sender of this message.
If you want to reply to the whole list, use your mailer's
'Reply-to-All' button to send your message automatically
to [log in to unmask]
Disclaimer: The messages sent to this list are the views of the sender and cannot be assumed to be representative of the range of views held by subscribers to the Radical Statistics Group. To find out more about Radical Statistics and its aims and activities and read current and past issues of our newsletter you are invited to visit our web site www.radstats.org.uk.
*******************************************************
