Academic Journals

Want an earful?  Put some academics in a bar, buy the beer, and bring up academic journals. 

Most of the complaints will be about dumb reviewers, which I understand as someone who reviews for several journals.  I no doubt deserve the criticism. 

While not naming names here, I've had an article at a mass comm journal since 2010.  Yes, I've swapped emails with the editor, the last back in 2011, until the editor has stopped responding to my queries.  I've stopped trying, but as I head to AEJMC (our major conference) this week, there's a good chance I might run into the editor. 

(Note how carefully I mask the gender and journal title.  It's not like I need the pub, but I am presenting the article at the conference on the idea that I need to get something useful out of it other than being told that one reviewer has read the piece, liked it, but we're waiting on one really really really really slooooowwwww reviewer to finish up the evaluation).

If I do come across the editor (who I don't know personally), do I ask: "What the hell?"  In my talk, do I slyly slip in some obscure mention of how the article has been sitting for quite a while on the desk of an editor, so that's why it seems a bit dated?  Do I wear a sign that says: JOURNALNAME SUCKS?

Probably none of these.  And yet, I have plenty to consider before I hit the conference Wednesday night.  After all, I'm there till Sunday afternoon.  Pissing someone off, that's a way to spend several days at an academic conference doing PhDweeb stuff.

People Lie

I've written about this extensively, research into how people lie (or fib, or fudge, or exaggerate) in surveys.  The most recent issue of Public Opinion Quarterly has a study that examines viewing of U.S. presidential debates. 

The finding? 

People lie.  Or, at least, they exaggerate about their viewing, not unlike previous studies that find people say they voted when they didn't, or that they inflate how often they consume the news and so on.

In the POQ study, Marcus Prior compared survey questions about debate exposure with, as a benchmark, Nielsen ratings of the vice presidential and presidential debates from 2000 through 2008.  Between 47 and 63 percent of voting-age residents said they watched the presidential debates, about double what the Nielsen ratings say is the more likely number.

But is Nielsen a good benchmark?  Probably so, and Prior addresses this by examining data in different ways to make clear his point -- that surveys make for a lousy way to evaluate exposure to a major political event.  It may be all we have, but one filled with error and inflation, so much so that it may affect studies that seek to understand the consequences of viewing on opinions and voting preferences.


 

Increasing Turnout?

Let 17-year-olds vote?  That's the argument here, not a new one.  Similar, in fact, to questions about whether people should be required to vote (as in Australia).  All are designed, in some fashion, to increase political participation (i.e., voting).

Would lowering the voting age have such an effect?  Probably not.  The question above is about municipal elections, not state or national elections, but by adding 17-year-olds to the mix, you've increased the number of eligible voters, which means the percentage that actually votes would probably go down.  Math is funny that way.

Obscure Knowledge

I've written a lot about surveys that tend to demonstrate a lack of knowledge about the sponsor's area of interest (most recently, here).  And now there's another example, this one about as obscure as it gets.

A new study of more than 3,000 UK adults, as conducted by Nissan, revealed the lack of knowledge and experience many motorists have when it comes to towing caravans.

The research found that 40 per cent of towers surveyed had never had training on how to do it safely. 

I may have stumbled across a growth industry, at least in polls.  If you're a survey outfit, pitch to almost anyone a survey that's sure to show how shocking it is how little people know about that vitally important topic.  The topic itself doesn't matter.  People tend to do poorly on pretty much any knowledge survey.  The important thing is to generate "shocking" findings, get a little publicity, and collect a paycheck from the sponsoring group.

Political Trivia -- Comedy Central Style

I have an iPad but I haven't tried this app, but it's a test of your knowledge of political trivia.  When I get time, I'll give it a try.  Hell, it's free.

Who Wins in November?

It's a standard survey question:  who ya gonna vote for?

Less standard:  who ya think is gonna win?

A new WPost/ABC News poll has both questions.  The one getting attention is the tie, at 47 percent apiece, on who people say they're going to vote for in the presidential election.  In fact most people are settled on their candidate (4 percent of Obama supporters say there's a chance they'll change their mind, 8 percent of Romney supporters say so).  Obama's also ahead in the "enthusiasm" scores.

Less attention is going to the question asking people to predict the outcome.  Six-in-10 say Obama wins come November, and only a third predict a Romney victory.  In the scholarly biz, we talk about wishful thinking, which means we tend to predict our preferred candidate will win.  Yes, I've written about this topic on my own blog, in at least one newspaper column, and in my own academic research. 

It's fascinating that the two candidates are in a tie but there's a significant difference in predictions of who will actually win, leaning heavily toward Obama.  Lemme break this question down a bit more for you.

• Party ID:  87 percent of Dems predict an Obama victory, while only 60 percent of GOPers predict a Romney victory.  For you budding scholars out there, this supports the wishful thinking hypothesis.  It also demonstrates the softness of Romney's support among Republicans.  Oh, among "independents," 51 percent predict an Obama win and 38 percent predict a Romney victory.

• Ideology:  Looks like party identification above, with 52 percent of conservatives expecting Romney to win and 86 percent of liberals predicting an Obama victory.

• Education:  By a small amount, the greater the education, the more likely you are to predict an Obama victory (56 percent predicting Obama at the lowest level of education, 62 percent at the highest level).

• Region:  Respondents in the Northeast were the most likely to predict an Obama victory (68 percent), while in the South 54 percent predicted an Obama win.  It's interesting that even in solid GOP South, over half expect Obama to win.

• Income:  No real effect here, ranging from 58 to 62 percent predicting an Obama victory.  I find this fascinating in that it suggests the 1 percent and the 99 percent are about the same, at least in predicting an election outcome.

• Sex:  No real difference between men and women.

• Religion:  This gets a bit messy.  Among those with no religious convictions, 77 percent expect Obama to win.  White evangelical protestants are the least likely to say Obama wins (31 percent).  No real surprise if you read this in terms of the results above on party ID.

• Previous Voting:  Not surprisingly, 86 percent of the people who voted for Obama in 2008 expect him to do it again in 2012.  Among those who say they voted for McCain last time around, 66 percent expect Romney to win.

What's this tell us?   First, it says I need to find another way to spend my summer afternoon.  Second, it tells us that Romney's support is indeed soft, or softer than he'd like.  Third, it tells us that people really do expect outcomes based on preferences.  There's a danger here, or at least theoretically a danger, when you expect one kind of outcome and you get another.  That could possibly lead to less trust in democracy and voting, at least it's a plausible argument, but I've tinkered with this question and have never found this to actually be the case, even in the tortured 2000 U.S. prez election. 

Fat? Not Me

Fat people think they're healthy.

That's according to a survey, reported here, that finds the following:

Overall, 29% of American respondents were actually obese, with a body mass index of 30 or more. More than half of the obese respondents surveyed (51%) considered themselves to be healthy and 43% thought their diets were good. 

So half of America's fat people think they're doing fine, thank you very much.  Hey, if I'm breathing, I'm healthy.  At least compared to the alternative. Says an expert:

"There is a startling disconnect between what people know about the risk factors associated with diabetes and what they are actually doing to protect themselves from a health and wellness standpoint," said Peter Goldbach, MD, Chief Medical Officer, Health Dialog. 

I've often written here about what people know vs. what people think they know -- the paradox of perceived knowledge vs. actual knowledge -- the above example is more a case of the paradox between what people know about what's risky and how they choose to live.