Information

Survey Kits for Political Affiliation?

Survey Kits for Political Affiliation?


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Are there any widely used suites for measuring a subject's political views? Looking for something commonly cited beyond web quiz time sink quality.


America's Top Fears 2019

The Chapman University Survey of American Fears Wave 6 (2019) provides an in-depth examination into the fears of average Americans. In July of 2019, a random sample of 1,219 adults from across the United States were asked their level of fear about eighty-eight different phenomena including crime, the government, the environment, disasters, personal anxieties, technology, and many others.


How Politically Biased Are Colleges? New Study Finds It’s Far Worse Than Anybody Thought.

It’s no secret that the majority of the faculty at our colleges and universities lean heavily to the left and generally support the Democratic Party’s agenda, and study after study over the last few decades has shown that ideological and political imbalance to be growing increasingly more dramatic. A new study has produced perhaps the most eye-opening findings yet.

An extensive study of 8,688 tenure-track professors at 51 of the 66 top-ranked liberal arts colleges in the U.S. published by the National Association of Scholars found that the ratio of faculty members registered as Democrats compared to those registered Republican is now a stunning 10.4 to 1. If two military colleges that are technically described as “liberal arts colleges” are removed from the calculations, the ratio is 12.7 to 1.

The researcher, Mitchell Langbert, Associate Professor of Business at Brooklyn College, found that nearly 40% of the colleges in the study had zero faculty members who were registered Republican. Not a single one. Nearly 80% of the 51 colleges had so few Republican faculty members that they were statistically insignificant.

Here’s how Langbert leads into his study of what he describes as the “troubling” political homogeneity of faculty at our leading liberal arts colleges:

In this article I offer new evidence about something readers of Academic Questions already know: The political registration of full-time, Ph.D.-holding professors in top-tier liberal arts colleges is overwhelmingly Democratic. Indeed, faculty political affiliations at 39 percent of the colleges in my sample are Republican free—having zero Republicans. The political registration in most of the remaining 61 percent, with a few important exceptions, is slightly more than zero percent but nevertheless absurdly skewed against Republican affiliation and in favor of Democratic affiliation. Thus, 78.2 percent of the academic departments in my sample have either zero Republicans, or so few as to make no difference.

My sample of 8,688 tenure track, Ph.D.–holding professors from fifty-one of the sixty-six top ranked liberal arts colleges in the U.S. News 2017 report consists of 5,197, or 59.8 percent, who are registered either Republican or Democrat. The mean Democratic-to-Republican ratio (D:R) across the sample is 10.4:1, but because of an anomaly in the definition of what constitutes a liberal arts college in the U.S. News survey, I include two military colleges, West Point and Annapolis. If these are excluded, the D:R ratio is a whopping 12.7:1.

When Langbert broke down the political affiliations by field, he found some clear and rather unsurprising trends: by far the highest imbalance is found in the more ideological fields, in particular the social sciences and humanities:

The STEM subjects, such as chemistry, economics, mathematics, and physics, have lower D:R ratios than the social sciences and humanities. The highest D:R ratio of all is for the most ideological field: interdisciplinary studies. I could not find a single Republican with an exclusive appointment to fields like gender studies, Africana studies, and peace studies. As Fabio Rojas describes with respect to Africana or Black studies, these fields had their roots in ideologically motivated political movements that crystallized in the 1960s and 1970s.

Langbert found the following ratio of Democrats to Republicans in the key academic fields (ordered from most biased to most balanced):

  • Communications – 108 to 0 (no registered Republicans)
  • Anthropology – 56 to 0 (no registered Republicans)
  • Religion – 70:1
  • English – 48.3:1
  • Sociology – 43.8:1
  • Art – 40.3:1
  • Music – 32.8:1
  • Theater – 29.5:1
  • Classics – 27.3:1
  • Geoscience – 27:1
  • Environmental – 25.3:1
  • Language – 21.1:1
  • Biology – 20.8:1
  • Philosophy – 17.5:1
  • History – 17.4:1
  • Psychology – 16.8:1
  • Poli Sci – 8.2:1
  • Computers – 6.3:1
  • Physics – 6.2:1
  • Mathematics – 5.6:1
  • Professional – 5.5:1
  • Economics – 5.5:1
  • Chemistry – 5.2:1
  • Engineering – 1.6:1

So how did we get here? Langbert notes that this trend toward an increasingly uniformly left-leaning faculty has spanned decades, both in the United States and Britain. “More than a decade ago, Stanley Rothman and colleagues provided evidence that while 39 percent of the professoriate on average described itself as Left in 1984, 72 percent did so in 1999,” Langbert writes. “They find a national average D:R ratio of 4.5:1.7 More recently, Anthony J. Quain, Daniel B. Klein, and I find D:R ratios of 11.5:1 in the social science departments of highly ranked national universities.”

Langbert’s findings show that the ratio is now almost 13:1 if the military colleges, which probably shouldn’t be categorized as liberal arts, are excluded from the equation. Langbert offers some examples of why this disturbingly homogeneous faculty is so problematic in academia (footnotes removed):

Political homogeneity is problematic because it biases research and teaching and reduces academic credibility. In a recent book on social psychology, The Politics of Social Psychology edited by Jarret T. Crawford and Lee Jussim, Mark J. Brandt and Anna Katarina Spälti, show that because of left-wing bias, psychologists are far more likely to study the character and evolution of individuals on the Right than individuals on the Left. Inevitably affecting the quality of this research, though, George Yancey found that sociologists prefer not to work with fundamentalists, evangelicals, National Rifle Association members, and Republicans. Even though more Americans are conservative than liberal, academic psychologists’ biases cause them to believe that conservatism is deviant. In the study of gender, Charlotta Stern finds that the ideological presumptions in sociology prevent any but the no-differences-between-genders assumptions of left-leaning sociologists from making serious research inroads. So pervasive is the lack of balance in academia that more than 1,000 professors and graduate students have started Heterodox Academy, an organization committed to increasing “viewpoint diversity” in higher education. The end result is that objective science becomes problematic, and where research is problematic, teaching is more so.

In his explanation of his methods for conducting the study, Langbert notes that he found that 23.4% of tenure-track professors from the 51 colleges were unregistered with either the Democratic or Republican parties. He explains that he did not try to deduce their political leanings because it is “not possible to accurately measure” the political affiliations of those who list themselves as independent or unaffiliated. Citing a 2014 Gallup study that found that an equal percentage of Democrats and Republicans believe a third party is needed, Langbert reasons that there “seems little reason to believe that one party or ideology is more strongly associated with non-affiliation.”


Filter by survey type

All our sample survey template questions are expert-certified by professional survey methodologists to make sure you ask questions the right way–and get reliable results. You can send out our templates as is, choose separate variables, add additional questions, or customize our questionnaire templates to fit your needs.

How else can a sample survey help you? Our sample survey examples—or customizable survey templates that span every use case, can allow you to overcome writer’s block and help you identify the questions you want to ask the most. Plus, by looking through an example of a survey, you’ll get a sense for the question types you can use, how you can order the questions, and the ways you can apply survey logic.


Republicans and Democrats Don’t Just Disagree About Politics. They Have Different Sexual Fantasies.

Justin Lehmiller is a research fellow at The Kinsey Institute. He is author of the blog Sex & Psychology and the book Tell Me What You Want: The Science of Sexual Desire and How It Can Help You Improve Your Sex Life.

In this political environment, it’s easy to look at Republicans and Democrats as having next to nothing in common. Regardless of the issue at hand, we see them as wanting completely different things—especially when it comes to issues of sex and sexuality.

From differences in the way they have approached the sexual assault allegations against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh to their views on abortion and same-sex marriage, Democrats and Republicans appear worlds apart.

It’s not just their public policy positions that seem to differ wildly, though.

According to the largest and most comprehensive survey of sexual fantasies ever conducted in the United States, it would appear that there are also political differences in our private sexual fantasies.

I surveyed 4,175 adult Americans from all 50 states about what turns them on and published the findings in a book entitled Tell Me What You Want. As part of this survey, participants were given a list of hundreds of different people, places and things that might be a turn-on. For each one, they reported on how frequently they fantasized about it.

I learned a lot about the nature of sexual desire in modern America, but one of the more intriguing things I uncovered was the political divide in our fantasy worlds.

While self-identified Republicans and self-identified Democrats reported fantasizing with the same average frequency—several times per week—I found that Republicans were more likely than Democrats to fantasize about a range of activities that involve sex outside of marriage. Think things like infidelity, orgies and partner swapping, from 1970s-style “key parties” to modern-day forms of swinging. Republicans also reported more fantasies with voyeuristic themes, including visiting strip clubs and practicing something known as “cuckolding,” which involves watching one’s partner have sex with someone else.

Why do Republicans seem to be drawn to non-monogamy and Democrats to power play in their sexual fantasies?

By contrast, self-identified Democrats were more likely than Republicans to fantasize about almost the entire spectrum of BDSM activities, from bondage to spanking to dominance-submission play. The largest Democrat-Republican divide on the BDSM spectrum was in masochism, which involves deriving pleasure from the experience of pain.

Why is that? Why do Republicans seem to be drawn to nonmonogamy and Democrats to power play in their sexual fantasies?

On the surface, it might be tempting to see this as revealing a fundamental difference in their sexual psychology. However, if you dig a little deeper, you’ll find that while some of the activities that turn Republicans and Democrats on appear vastly different, the underlying processes that drive our sexual fantasies may actually be the same. There’s far more that unites us than divides us when it comes to sexual desire.

What connects Republicans and Democrats, I believe, is that their fantasies are at least partly driven by what they can’t have. As I argue in Tell Me What You Want, the supersized sexual appeal that nonmonogamous and voyeuristic acts hold for Republicans likely stems from the fact that sex outside of marriage and multipartner sex are huge no-nos in a political party that continues to make “traditional marriage” one of the cornerstones of its official platform and regularly funnels federal funds toward abstinence-only sex education. Nothing makes us want to try something like being told you can’t do it. This is why taboos, no matter what they are, often become turn-ons.

This same instinct may also help to explain, in part, the appeal of BDSM to Democrats. Within the Democratic Party, much of what drives the political agenda is the view that inequality is the source of a wide range of social problems. This is regularly seen in the party platform, which recently made multiple mentions of the need to “level the playing field.” It’s not a stretch, then, to suggest that playing with power differentials—especially in BDSM settings, where women and men might not appear to be on equal footing and where the lines of sexual consent might not always be explicit—is taboo in many Democratic circles.

The appeal of the taboo stems from a long-standing principle of psychology known as reactance—which stipulates that when our freedom is threatened and we’re told we can’t do something, we want to do it even more. Many a parent has discovered this principle and used it to their benefit in shaping their children’s behavior through reverse psychology: Frame the desired act as something your child isn’t allowed to do and you just might get what you want.

To be sure, sexual fantasies have complex origins. They aren’t just a product of our political affiliation and what we’re told we can’t or shouldn’t do—there are myriad other factors that contribute to why we develop the turn-ons that we do. But my research suggests that politics certainly seems to play some role.

It’s also worth noting that, while the popularity of nonmonogamy and BDSM fantasies differ by political orientation, the rest of what we want—including specific sexual activities, partners and settings—is strikingly similar.

Whether we identify as Republican, Democrat, independent or something else, we’re not just turned on by taboos, but also by trying new and different things in general. For example, it’s human nature to be titillated by novelty, mixing up what we do, where we do it and whom we do it with. Most of us seek to meet a range of psychological needs in our fantasies, too, such as feeling desired, validated and competent. And the vast majority of us are fantasizing about our current romantic partners far more than we’re fantasizing about Hollywood celebrities, porn stars and politicians.

Incidentally, just about 1 in 10 Republicans and 1 in 10 Democrats reported ever having fantasized about a politician before. Among those who did, it’s worth noting that these fantasies sometimes involved reaching across the aisle, if you catch my drift. When presented with a list of 25 politicians, made up of 11 prominent Democrats and 14 prominent Republicans (as well as a write-in option, in case one’s preferred politician wasn’t represented), 17 percent of Republicans reported fantasizing about Democrats, while 27 pecent of Democrats reported fantasizing about Republicans.

Interestingly, the single most commonly fantasized-about politician among both parties was the same: Sarah Palin (though Republicans were much more likely to have Palin fantasies than Democrats).

Following Palin, the next most frequently mentioned politicians in Republicans’ fantasies were John F. Kennedy, Bill Clinton and Nikki Haley. While, after Palin, Democrats fantasized about Barack Obama, Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton.

(Note that my data were collected in 2014 and 2015 before the Trump presidency began and only into the early days of his campaign. At that time, I received only one fantasy about Donald Trump in the entire dataset.)

So, in this increasingly polarized political season, we should all take a moment to remember there’s at least one area where we’re more alike than we are different. If only Congress could be as bipartisan as we are in our sexual fantasies.


Political Coordinates Test

This free political observance test will allow you to obtain your scores on the two major political scales found in Western democracies. Though there are several other "political coordinates" and "political observance" tests in existence, these tests have commonly been criticized for seeking to trick the respondent into answering in a certain way, for example by applying spin to the questions or framing them in such a way as to provoke emotional reactions in the respondent. By contrast, this test attempts to simply confront you with the questions without any coating or spin.

Question 1 of 36

Homosexual couples should have all the same rights as heterosexual ones, including the right to adopt.

IDR Labs Political Coordinates Test is the property of IDR Labs International. The Political Compass Test is the registered trademark of Pace News Limited. The Vote Compass is the registered trademark of Vox Pop Labs Inc. Neither Pace News Limited nor Vox Pop Labs Inc. have any affiliation with this site.

This test has been made with the aid of professional political analysts and respondents from all sides of the political spectrum. Even so, please keep in mind that tests are merely indicators - a first peek at the system to get you started.

Political Coordinates Tests, whether they are professional or "official" tests used in academic research, or free online tests like this one, are indicators to help give you a cue as to your political standpoint. No test ever devised can designate your political allegiances with complete accuracy or reliability and no Political Coordinates Test can replace familiarizing yourself with the politics of your country in depth.

The authors of this free online political coordinates test are certified in the use of multiple different personality tests and have worked professionally with psychology, political psychology, and personality testing. Prior to using our free online test, please note that the results are provided "as-is", for free, and should not be construed as providing professional or certified advice of any kind. For more on our online political coordinates test, please consult our Terms of Service.


Top 25 Political Survey Questions for Questionnaires

Political survey questions are questions asked to gather the opinions and attitudes of potential voters. Such questionnaires are used by political action committees, city council members, political consultants, school board districts, government agencies, and political candidates.

Political survey questions help you identify supporters and understand what the public needs. Using such questions, a political candidate or an organization can formulate policies to gain support from these people. Such survey questions can help map the political landscape, strategize marketing messages, and increase support from potential voters.

For example, a political candidate wants to understand the beliefs and opinions of his target population. In such a case, political survey questions enable them to gather information that can be used to increase the presence and formulate social and political activities based on this data.

Another example: A political candidate wants to understand the public’s perception and opinion on media accountability. For such reasons, a media accountability survey can be carried out to gather data that can be used to formulate policies to address media accountability. Using such data, the candidate can position themselves better among his potential voters.

Top 25 political survey questions for questionnaires

  1. Are you registered to vote at the current address you reside at?
    1. Yes
    2. No
    1. Yes
    2. No
    1. Democrats
    2. Republicans
    3. Don’t know
    4. I don’t support any party
    1. Certain to vote
    2. Most likely to vote
    3. Probably won’t vote
    4. Skip the primary elections
    5. Don’t know
    6. I won’t vote
    1. News on TV
    2. Articles in the newspapers
    3. Attend events where the candidate is addressing the people
    4. I research all the channels before making my choice
    5. Number of fundraisers the candidate has done in your area
    6. The family upbringing of the candidate
    7. Other
    1. Yes
    2. No
    1. Yes
    2. No
    1. Do you think there should be stricter rules and regulations on the use of money in political campaigns?
      1. Yes
      2. No
      3. Don’t know
      1. Democrat
      2. Independent
      3. Republican
      4. Something else
      5. Don’t know

      Please state your level of agreement for the following:

      1. All ethnicities should be integrated into society
        1. Completely agree
        2. Somewhat agree
        3. Neutral
        4. Somewhat disagree
        5. Completely disagree
        1. Completely agree
        2. Somewhat agree
        3. Neutral
        4. Somewhat disagree
        5. Completely disagree
        1. Completely agree
        2. Somewhat agree
        3. Neutral
        4. Somewhat disagree
        5. Completely disagree
        1. Completely agree
        2. Somewhat agree
        3. Neutral
        4. Somewhat disagree
        5. Completely disagree
        1. Completely agree
        2. Somewhat agree
        3. Neutral
        4. Somewhat disagree
        5. Completely disagree
        1. Completely agree
        2. Somewhat agree
        3. Neutral
        4. Somewhat disagree
        5. Completely disagree
        1. Completely agree
        2. Somewhat agree
        3. Neutral
        4. Somewhat disagree
        5. Completely disagree
        1. Completely agree
        2. Somewhat agree
        3. Neutral
        4. Somewhat disagree
        5. Completely disagree
        1. Completely agree
        2. Somewhat agree
        3. Neutral
        4. Somewhat disagree
        5. Completely disagree
        1. Completely agree
        2. Somewhat agree
        3. Neutral
        4. Somewhat disagree
        5. Completely disagree
        1. Completely agree
        2. Somewhat agree
        3. Neutral
        4. Somewhat disagree
        5. Completely disagree
        1. Completely agree
        2. Somewhat agree
        3. Neutral
        4. Somewhat disagree
        5. Completely disagree
        1. Completely agree
        2. Somewhat agree
        3. Neutral
        4. Somewhat disagree
        5. Completely disagree
        1. Completely agree
        2. Somewhat agree
        3. Neutral
        4. Somewhat disagree
        5. Completely disagree

        Political survey questions can be used in surveys and polls. These are used for various purposes, however, some of the most common points they are used for, are as below:

        • Strategic initiatives – Political survey questions can help politicians to survey their target audience and understand the needs and wants of the public. It is one of the fastest and best methods to give a voice to the voters. Based on the data gathered, strategic initiatives can be started to satisfy the needs and wants of the prospective voters, thus ensuring support required for the elections.
        • Formulating Policies – Political surveys can give you insights into what kind of policies would benefit the overall population. Using such questions, a politician can gauge and draw policies that would help the population and create a better position for them among prospective voters.
        • Creating new laws – Such survey questions used in political research can give voice to the population regarding laws and regulations. It gives them a feeling of being a part of the team proposing the reforms that are addressing critical issues where new laws and regulations are needed or have been overlooked in the past.
        • Strategic political campaigns – Political survey questions are best to use to run strategic political campaigns. Using the data gathered through such surveys can enable the party to understand the geographic concentration of supporters, the intent of supporters, needs, and wants of the constituents. Hence, specific appearances, fundraisers, or speeches addressing the people’s issue in that geographic concentration can be a strategic move for the political candidate to position themselves better.

        Apart from the points mentioned above, political survey questions also shed some light on the strengths and weaknesses of the opponents, insights into creating effective marketing campaigns, and understanding possible outcomes of elections.

        Tips for using political survey questions to create an effective survey

        • Appropriate wording of questions – Political survey questions should be worded appropriately, keeping in mind, they don’t offend anyone on sensitive topics such as gender, religion, race, ethnicity, etc.
        • All survey responses should be anonymous – Respondents will answer more honestly if they are sure the survey won’t capture personal details.
        • Randomize the question order – Changing the order of the questions can reduce bias during the survey as well as give you more accurate results and eradicate survey boredom
        • Pilot runs for the survey – All political surveys should be tested first in internal teams to ensure that all questions are easy to understand, do not create confusion, and offend anyone.

        Choosing the right audience – The target audience is the most important aspect of a political survey. It has to be ensured that the target audience comprises the people from all the required demographics.


        Take the Political Party Quiz to find out where you fit!

        Have you ever wondered where you fit on the political spectrum?

        To help you find out, PBS NewsHour partnered with the Pew Research Center to create a simple quiz that helps calculate your partisan status and how you compare with others based on your age, gender, race and religion. The questions cover a general range of political topics and ask you to rank the importance of each issue.

        Have your students take the quiz and then compare their results as a class, if they feel comfortable. Ask them if they were surprised at all by their results and whether they think the quiz is an accurate depiction of personal political leanings. Students can then compare themselves to others nationally based on gender, race, religion and party affiliation.

        Submit Your Student Voice

        RSS Content

        Listen to an Indigenous man’s story of healing, compassion, and the power of friends and family that helped him overcome his alcoholism, on this Father’s Day. Continue reading &rarr

        Design Ventura invites students ages 13–16 to research, design and create a novel product. Winners have their product manufactured and sold in the museum’s shop. Continue reading &rarr

        In the ongoing discussion of college athletics and compensation, the Supreme Court has released a new ruling Continue reading &rarr

        Hear a proposal to give U.S. national park lands to Native American tribes to manage, as part of reparations for a violent history of settling on their land Continue reading &rarr

        A photographer highlights the community of queer people of color through photos Continue reading &rarr


        Why Conservatives Are Happier Than Liberals

        WHO is happier about life — liberals or conservatives? The answer might seem straightforward. After all, there is an entire academic literature in the social sciences dedicated to showing conservatives as naturally authoritarian, dogmatic, intolerant of ambiguity, fearful of threat and loss, low in self-esteem and uncomfortable with complex modes of thinking. And it was the candidate Barack Obama in 2008 who infamously labeled blue-collar voters “bitter,” as they “cling to guns or religion.” Obviously, liberals must be happier, right?

        Wrong. Scholars on both the left and right have studied this question extensively, and have reached a consensus that it is conservatives who possess the happiness edge. Many data sets show this. For example, the Pew Research Center in 2006 reported that conservative Republicans were 68 percent more likely than liberal Democrats to say they were “very happy” about their lives. This pattern has persisted for decades. The question isn’t whether this is true, but why.

        Many conservatives favor an explanation focusing on lifestyle differences, such as marriage and faith. They note that most conservatives are married most liberals are not. (The percentages are 53 percent to 33 percent, according to my calculations using data from the 2004 General Social Survey, and almost none of the gap is due to the fact that liberals tend to be younger than conservatives.) Marriage and happiness go together. If two people are demographically the same but one is married and the other is not, the married person will be 18 percentage points more likely to say he or she is very happy than the unmarried person.

        The story on religion is much the same. According to the Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey, conservatives who practice a faith outnumber religious liberals in America nearly four to one. And the link to happiness? You guessed it. Religious participants are nearly twice as likely to say they are very happy about their lives as are secularists (43 percent to 23 percent). The differences don’t depend on education, race, sex or age the happiness difference exists even when you account for income.

        Whether religion and marriage should make people happy is a question you have to answer for yourself. But consider this: Fifty-two percent of married, religious, politically conservative people (with kids) are very happy — versus only 14 percent of single, secular, liberal people without kids.

        An explanation for the happiness gap more congenial to liberals is that conservatives are simply inattentive to the misery of others. If they recognized the injustice in the world, they wouldn’t be so cheerful. In the words of Jaime Napier and John Jost, New York University psychologists, in the journal Psychological Science, “Liberals may be less happy than conservatives because they are less ideologically prepared to rationalize (or explain away) the degree of inequality in society.” The academic parlance for this is “system justification.”

        The data show that conservatives do indeed see the free enterprise system in a sunnier light than liberals do, believing in each American’s ability to get ahead on the basis of achievement. Liberals are more likely to see people as victims of circumstance and oppression, and doubt whether individuals can climb without governmental help. My own analysis using 2005 survey data from Syracuse University shows that about 90 percent of conservatives agree that “While people may begin with different opportunities, hard work and perseverance can usually overcome those disadvantages.” Liberals — even upper-income liberals — are a third less likely to say this.

        So conservatives are ignorant, and ignorance is bliss, right? Not so fast, according to a study from the University of Florida psychologists Barry Schlenker and John Chambers and the University of Toronto psychologist Bonnie Le in the Journal of Research in Personality. These scholars note that liberals define fairness and an improved society in terms of greater economic equality. Liberals then condemn the happiness of conservatives, because conservatives are relatively untroubled by a problem that, it turns out, their political counterparts defined.

        Imagine the opposite. Say liberals were the happy ones. Conservatives might charge that it is only because liberals are unperturbed by the social welfare state’s monstrous threat to economic liberty. Liberals would justifiably dismiss this argument as solipsistic and silly.

        There is one other noteworthy political happiness gap that has gotten less scholarly attention than conservatives versus liberals: moderates versus extremists.

        Political moderates must be happier than extremists, it always seemed to me. After all, extremists actually advertise their misery with strident bumper stickers that say things like, “If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention!”

        But it turns out that’s wrong. People at the extremes are happier than political moderates. Correcting for income, education, age, race, family situation and religion, the happiest Americans are those who say they are either “extremely conservative” (48 percent very happy) or “extremely liberal” (35 percent). Everyone else is less happy, with the nadir at dead-center “moderate” (26 percent).

        What explains this odd pattern? One possibility is that extremists have the whole world figured out, and sorted into good guys and bad guys. They have the security of knowing what’s wrong, and whom to fight. They are the happy warriors.

        Whatever the explanation, the implications are striking. The Occupy Wall Street protesters may have looked like a miserable mess. In truth, they were probably happier than the moderates making fun of them from the offices above. And none, it seems, are happier than the Tea Partiers, many of whom cling to guns and faith with great tenacity. Which some moderately liberal readers of this newspaper might find quite depressing.


        1 Introduction

        An extensive and increasing body of literature studies the way in which citizens engage in politics and what might explain differences in their participatory patterns [1–10]. While a majority of these studies focus on individual modes of participation, such as voting, attending demonstrations, or signing petitions, more recent research has emphasised the need to re-consider the ways in which we think about political engagement suggesting to empirically identify either activity- or person-centred classifications: The activity-centred perspective views participation in different dimensions of activity types. For example, studies distinguish formal from informal, online from offline, legal from illegal forms of engagement using factor analysis and related methods [11–15]. The person-centred perspective focuses on citizens combining a variety of individual channels of participation from a virtual toolbox, arguing that citizens assess the best available participatory options and select those tools that they deem to be most effective to achieve their goals [3, 8, 13, 16–25].

        For emphasis, to shed light on how the person-centred perspective differs from investigating individual modes of participation or employing an activity-centred approach and why it is important to study participation in this way, we borrow from the environmental awareness literature: At the individual level, environmental awareness can be measured with numerous indicators, such as usage of public transportation. It is possible to investigate which individual variables (e.g., gender, age, personality traits) drive the use of public transport exploring their effect on this single item. The researcher’s research interest in this example is to explain why citizen chose public transportation. However, environmental awareness might also include items like car usage, cycling, meat consumption and recycling, and some of these indicators may describe the same latent dimension of environmental awareness [26]. The frequency of using public transport, a car or a bike may represent the same latent construct “choice of means of transportation for environmental reasons”. Indeed, it might be desirable to investigate a broader question focusing on the choice of means of transportation for environmental reasons and how gender, age, and personality traits are related to this latent dimensions. This activity-centred perspective allows answering whether and how different latent dimensions of activities are used. However, neither approach reveals adequately why citizens opt different activities simultaneously, i.e., choose particular means of transportation, but also abstain from eating meat to protect environment, and what might explain this. The person-centred approach achieves this by using cluster-analytical methods, such as Latent Class Analysis (LCA), which allows identifying relatively homogeneous groups of citizens who represent certain types of environmentally aware people: For example, the completely unaware, somewhat environmentally conscious people who may select certain green means of transportation, and very environmentally aware citizens, who use green means of transport but might also stay away from eating meat, recycle frequently etc.

        All approaches should be seen as complementary rather than competing, as they offer different perspectives on participation [8, 13, 20]. Depending on the research question and focus, one or the other way of viewing participation may be more appropriate. As this article is interested in uncovering how personality is related to combining several different modes of participation to achieve a goal, we employ a person-centred approach. This is appropriate, because we are interested in individuals’ traits and behaviours and assume that personality is reflected in their participatory behaviour.

        A large number of studies has emphasized the role of personality traits in explaining why people employ different, individual modes of engagement [27–39]. For example, these studies show that open, conscientious, and extroverted people are frequently more vocal about politics and more likely to take part in political activities, while other traits have produced inconsistent results. However, the link between personality traits and citizens combining different individual modes of political participation from their available toolbox has not been studied yet.

        Thus, this article contributes to the broader literature by asking how citizens combine different modes of political participation as a function of their personality. We focus on the German case, as the country is traditionally characterised by high levels of political participation in elections, petitions, demonstration etc. [13, 40] In addition, the German Longitudinal Election Study collected high quality data suitable to conduct LCA. As such, the article moves beyond thinking about participation in simple ways and investigates the more complex, underlying patterns of political participation among various groups of citizens in Germany.

        We begin by discussing the previous literature on political participant types and personality. Next, we present our data and methods. Our results section provides insights to the empirically defined political participant types, then moves on to the effects of personality on the affiliation with these types of participants. We close with a discussion of our results and conclusion outlining the implications for future research.


        Take the Political Party Quiz to find out where you fit!

        Have you ever wondered where you fit on the political spectrum?

        To help you find out, PBS NewsHour partnered with the Pew Research Center to create a simple quiz that helps calculate your partisan status and how you compare with others based on your age, gender, race and religion. The questions cover a general range of political topics and ask you to rank the importance of each issue.

        Have your students take the quiz and then compare their results as a class, if they feel comfortable. Ask them if they were surprised at all by their results and whether they think the quiz is an accurate depiction of personal political leanings. Students can then compare themselves to others nationally based on gender, race, religion and party affiliation.

        Submit Your Student Voice

        RSS Content

        Listen to an Indigenous man’s story of healing, compassion, and the power of friends and family that helped him overcome his alcoholism, on this Father’s Day. Continue reading &rarr

        Design Ventura invites students ages 13–16 to research, design and create a novel product. Winners have their product manufactured and sold in the museum’s shop. Continue reading &rarr

        In the ongoing discussion of college athletics and compensation, the Supreme Court has released a new ruling Continue reading &rarr

        Hear a proposal to give U.S. national park lands to Native American tribes to manage, as part of reparations for a violent history of settling on their land Continue reading &rarr

        A photographer highlights the community of queer people of color through photos Continue reading &rarr


        Filter by survey type

        All our sample survey template questions are expert-certified by professional survey methodologists to make sure you ask questions the right way–and get reliable results. You can send out our templates as is, choose separate variables, add additional questions, or customize our questionnaire templates to fit your needs.

        How else can a sample survey help you? Our sample survey examples—or customizable survey templates that span every use case, can allow you to overcome writer’s block and help you identify the questions you want to ask the most. Plus, by looking through an example of a survey, you’ll get a sense for the question types you can use, how you can order the questions, and the ways you can apply survey logic.


        Political Coordinates Test

        This free political observance test will allow you to obtain your scores on the two major political scales found in Western democracies. Though there are several other "political coordinates" and "political observance" tests in existence, these tests have commonly been criticized for seeking to trick the respondent into answering in a certain way, for example by applying spin to the questions or framing them in such a way as to provoke emotional reactions in the respondent. By contrast, this test attempts to simply confront you with the questions without any coating or spin.

        Question 1 of 36

        Homosexual couples should have all the same rights as heterosexual ones, including the right to adopt.

        IDR Labs Political Coordinates Test is the property of IDR Labs International. The Political Compass Test is the registered trademark of Pace News Limited. The Vote Compass is the registered trademark of Vox Pop Labs Inc. Neither Pace News Limited nor Vox Pop Labs Inc. have any affiliation with this site.

        This test has been made with the aid of professional political analysts and respondents from all sides of the political spectrum. Even so, please keep in mind that tests are merely indicators - a first peek at the system to get you started.

        Political Coordinates Tests, whether they are professional or "official" tests used in academic research, or free online tests like this one, are indicators to help give you a cue as to your political standpoint. No test ever devised can designate your political allegiances with complete accuracy or reliability and no Political Coordinates Test can replace familiarizing yourself with the politics of your country in depth.

        The authors of this free online political coordinates test are certified in the use of multiple different personality tests and have worked professionally with psychology, political psychology, and personality testing. Prior to using our free online test, please note that the results are provided "as-is", for free, and should not be construed as providing professional or certified advice of any kind. For more on our online political coordinates test, please consult our Terms of Service.


        America's Top Fears 2019

        The Chapman University Survey of American Fears Wave 6 (2019) provides an in-depth examination into the fears of average Americans. In July of 2019, a random sample of 1,219 adults from across the United States were asked their level of fear about eighty-eight different phenomena including crime, the government, the environment, disasters, personal anxieties, technology, and many others.


        1 Introduction

        An extensive and increasing body of literature studies the way in which citizens engage in politics and what might explain differences in their participatory patterns [1–10]. While a majority of these studies focus on individual modes of participation, such as voting, attending demonstrations, or signing petitions, more recent research has emphasised the need to re-consider the ways in which we think about political engagement suggesting to empirically identify either activity- or person-centred classifications: The activity-centred perspective views participation in different dimensions of activity types. For example, studies distinguish formal from informal, online from offline, legal from illegal forms of engagement using factor analysis and related methods [11–15]. The person-centred perspective focuses on citizens combining a variety of individual channels of participation from a virtual toolbox, arguing that citizens assess the best available participatory options and select those tools that they deem to be most effective to achieve their goals [3, 8, 13, 16–25].

        For emphasis, to shed light on how the person-centred perspective differs from investigating individual modes of participation or employing an activity-centred approach and why it is important to study participation in this way, we borrow from the environmental awareness literature: At the individual level, environmental awareness can be measured with numerous indicators, such as usage of public transportation. It is possible to investigate which individual variables (e.g., gender, age, personality traits) drive the use of public transport exploring their effect on this single item. The researcher’s research interest in this example is to explain why citizen chose public transportation. However, environmental awareness might also include items like car usage, cycling, meat consumption and recycling, and some of these indicators may describe the same latent dimension of environmental awareness [26]. The frequency of using public transport, a car or a bike may represent the same latent construct “choice of means of transportation for environmental reasons”. Indeed, it might be desirable to investigate a broader question focusing on the choice of means of transportation for environmental reasons and how gender, age, and personality traits are related to this latent dimensions. This activity-centred perspective allows answering whether and how different latent dimensions of activities are used. However, neither approach reveals adequately why citizens opt different activities simultaneously, i.e., choose particular means of transportation, but also abstain from eating meat to protect environment, and what might explain this. The person-centred approach achieves this by using cluster-analytical methods, such as Latent Class Analysis (LCA), which allows identifying relatively homogeneous groups of citizens who represent certain types of environmentally aware people: For example, the completely unaware, somewhat environmentally conscious people who may select certain green means of transportation, and very environmentally aware citizens, who use green means of transport but might also stay away from eating meat, recycle frequently etc.

        All approaches should be seen as complementary rather than competing, as they offer different perspectives on participation [8, 13, 20]. Depending on the research question and focus, one or the other way of viewing participation may be more appropriate. As this article is interested in uncovering how personality is related to combining several different modes of participation to achieve a goal, we employ a person-centred approach. This is appropriate, because we are interested in individuals’ traits and behaviours and assume that personality is reflected in their participatory behaviour.

        A large number of studies has emphasized the role of personality traits in explaining why people employ different, individual modes of engagement [27–39]. For example, these studies show that open, conscientious, and extroverted people are frequently more vocal about politics and more likely to take part in political activities, while other traits have produced inconsistent results. However, the link between personality traits and citizens combining different individual modes of political participation from their available toolbox has not been studied yet.

        Thus, this article contributes to the broader literature by asking how citizens combine different modes of political participation as a function of their personality. We focus on the German case, as the country is traditionally characterised by high levels of political participation in elections, petitions, demonstration etc. [13, 40] In addition, the German Longitudinal Election Study collected high quality data suitable to conduct LCA. As such, the article moves beyond thinking about participation in simple ways and investigates the more complex, underlying patterns of political participation among various groups of citizens in Germany.

        We begin by discussing the previous literature on political participant types and personality. Next, we present our data and methods. Our results section provides insights to the empirically defined political participant types, then moves on to the effects of personality on the affiliation with these types of participants. We close with a discussion of our results and conclusion outlining the implications for future research.


        How Politically Biased Are Colleges? New Study Finds It’s Far Worse Than Anybody Thought.

        It’s no secret that the majority of the faculty at our colleges and universities lean heavily to the left and generally support the Democratic Party’s agenda, and study after study over the last few decades has shown that ideological and political imbalance to be growing increasingly more dramatic. A new study has produced perhaps the most eye-opening findings yet.

        An extensive study of 8,688 tenure-track professors at 51 of the 66 top-ranked liberal arts colleges in the U.S. published by the National Association of Scholars found that the ratio of faculty members registered as Democrats compared to those registered Republican is now a stunning 10.4 to 1. If two military colleges that are technically described as “liberal arts colleges” are removed from the calculations, the ratio is 12.7 to 1.

        The researcher, Mitchell Langbert, Associate Professor of Business at Brooklyn College, found that nearly 40% of the colleges in the study had zero faculty members who were registered Republican. Not a single one. Nearly 80% of the 51 colleges had so few Republican faculty members that they were statistically insignificant.

        Here’s how Langbert leads into his study of what he describes as the “troubling” political homogeneity of faculty at our leading liberal arts colleges:

        In this article I offer new evidence about something readers of Academic Questions already know: The political registration of full-time, Ph.D.-holding professors in top-tier liberal arts colleges is overwhelmingly Democratic. Indeed, faculty political affiliations at 39 percent of the colleges in my sample are Republican free—having zero Republicans. The political registration in most of the remaining 61 percent, with a few important exceptions, is slightly more than zero percent but nevertheless absurdly skewed against Republican affiliation and in favor of Democratic affiliation. Thus, 78.2 percent of the academic departments in my sample have either zero Republicans, or so few as to make no difference.

        My sample of 8,688 tenure track, Ph.D.–holding professors from fifty-one of the sixty-six top ranked liberal arts colleges in the U.S. News 2017 report consists of 5,197, or 59.8 percent, who are registered either Republican or Democrat. The mean Democratic-to-Republican ratio (D:R) across the sample is 10.4:1, but because of an anomaly in the definition of what constitutes a liberal arts college in the U.S. News survey, I include two military colleges, West Point and Annapolis. If these are excluded, the D:R ratio is a whopping 12.7:1.

        When Langbert broke down the political affiliations by field, he found some clear and rather unsurprising trends: by far the highest imbalance is found in the more ideological fields, in particular the social sciences and humanities:

        The STEM subjects, such as chemistry, economics, mathematics, and physics, have lower D:R ratios than the social sciences and humanities. The highest D:R ratio of all is for the most ideological field: interdisciplinary studies. I could not find a single Republican with an exclusive appointment to fields like gender studies, Africana studies, and peace studies. As Fabio Rojas describes with respect to Africana or Black studies, these fields had their roots in ideologically motivated political movements that crystallized in the 1960s and 1970s.

        Langbert found the following ratio of Democrats to Republicans in the key academic fields (ordered from most biased to most balanced):

        • Communications – 108 to 0 (no registered Republicans)
        • Anthropology – 56 to 0 (no registered Republicans)
        • Religion – 70:1
        • English – 48.3:1
        • Sociology – 43.8:1
        • Art – 40.3:1
        • Music – 32.8:1
        • Theater – 29.5:1
        • Classics – 27.3:1
        • Geoscience – 27:1
        • Environmental – 25.3:1
        • Language – 21.1:1
        • Biology – 20.8:1
        • Philosophy – 17.5:1
        • History – 17.4:1
        • Psychology – 16.8:1
        • Poli Sci – 8.2:1
        • Computers – 6.3:1
        • Physics – 6.2:1
        • Mathematics – 5.6:1
        • Professional – 5.5:1
        • Economics – 5.5:1
        • Chemistry – 5.2:1
        • Engineering – 1.6:1

        So how did we get here? Langbert notes that this trend toward an increasingly uniformly left-leaning faculty has spanned decades, both in the United States and Britain. “More than a decade ago, Stanley Rothman and colleagues provided evidence that while 39 percent of the professoriate on average described itself as Left in 1984, 72 percent did so in 1999,” Langbert writes. “They find a national average D:R ratio of 4.5:1.7 More recently, Anthony J. Quain, Daniel B. Klein, and I find D:R ratios of 11.5:1 in the social science departments of highly ranked national universities.”

        Langbert’s findings show that the ratio is now almost 13:1 if the military colleges, which probably shouldn’t be categorized as liberal arts, are excluded from the equation. Langbert offers some examples of why this disturbingly homogeneous faculty is so problematic in academia (footnotes removed):

        Political homogeneity is problematic because it biases research and teaching and reduces academic credibility. In a recent book on social psychology, The Politics of Social Psychology edited by Jarret T. Crawford and Lee Jussim, Mark J. Brandt and Anna Katarina Spälti, show that because of left-wing bias, psychologists are far more likely to study the character and evolution of individuals on the Right than individuals on the Left. Inevitably affecting the quality of this research, though, George Yancey found that sociologists prefer not to work with fundamentalists, evangelicals, National Rifle Association members, and Republicans. Even though more Americans are conservative than liberal, academic psychologists’ biases cause them to believe that conservatism is deviant. In the study of gender, Charlotta Stern finds that the ideological presumptions in sociology prevent any but the no-differences-between-genders assumptions of left-leaning sociologists from making serious research inroads. So pervasive is the lack of balance in academia that more than 1,000 professors and graduate students have started Heterodox Academy, an organization committed to increasing “viewpoint diversity” in higher education. The end result is that objective science becomes problematic, and where research is problematic, teaching is more so.

        In his explanation of his methods for conducting the study, Langbert notes that he found that 23.4% of tenure-track professors from the 51 colleges were unregistered with either the Democratic or Republican parties. He explains that he did not try to deduce their political leanings because it is “not possible to accurately measure” the political affiliations of those who list themselves as independent or unaffiliated. Citing a 2014 Gallup study that found that an equal percentage of Democrats and Republicans believe a third party is needed, Langbert reasons that there “seems little reason to believe that one party or ideology is more strongly associated with non-affiliation.”


        Why Conservatives Are Happier Than Liberals

        WHO is happier about life — liberals or conservatives? The answer might seem straightforward. After all, there is an entire academic literature in the social sciences dedicated to showing conservatives as naturally authoritarian, dogmatic, intolerant of ambiguity, fearful of threat and loss, low in self-esteem and uncomfortable with complex modes of thinking. And it was the candidate Barack Obama in 2008 who infamously labeled blue-collar voters “bitter,” as they “cling to guns or religion.” Obviously, liberals must be happier, right?

        Wrong. Scholars on both the left and right have studied this question extensively, and have reached a consensus that it is conservatives who possess the happiness edge. Many data sets show this. For example, the Pew Research Center in 2006 reported that conservative Republicans were 68 percent more likely than liberal Democrats to say they were “very happy” about their lives. This pattern has persisted for decades. The question isn’t whether this is true, but why.

        Many conservatives favor an explanation focusing on lifestyle differences, such as marriage and faith. They note that most conservatives are married most liberals are not. (The percentages are 53 percent to 33 percent, according to my calculations using data from the 2004 General Social Survey, and almost none of the gap is due to the fact that liberals tend to be younger than conservatives.) Marriage and happiness go together. If two people are demographically the same but one is married and the other is not, the married person will be 18 percentage points more likely to say he or she is very happy than the unmarried person.

        The story on religion is much the same. According to the Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey, conservatives who practice a faith outnumber religious liberals in America nearly four to one. And the link to happiness? You guessed it. Religious participants are nearly twice as likely to say they are very happy about their lives as are secularists (43 percent to 23 percent). The differences don’t depend on education, race, sex or age the happiness difference exists even when you account for income.

        Whether religion and marriage should make people happy is a question you have to answer for yourself. But consider this: Fifty-two percent of married, religious, politically conservative people (with kids) are very happy — versus only 14 percent of single, secular, liberal people without kids.

        An explanation for the happiness gap more congenial to liberals is that conservatives are simply inattentive to the misery of others. If they recognized the injustice in the world, they wouldn’t be so cheerful. In the words of Jaime Napier and John Jost, New York University psychologists, in the journal Psychological Science, “Liberals may be less happy than conservatives because they are less ideologically prepared to rationalize (or explain away) the degree of inequality in society.” The academic parlance for this is “system justification.”

        The data show that conservatives do indeed see the free enterprise system in a sunnier light than liberals do, believing in each American’s ability to get ahead on the basis of achievement. Liberals are more likely to see people as victims of circumstance and oppression, and doubt whether individuals can climb without governmental help. My own analysis using 2005 survey data from Syracuse University shows that about 90 percent of conservatives agree that “While people may begin with different opportunities, hard work and perseverance can usually overcome those disadvantages.” Liberals — even upper-income liberals — are a third less likely to say this.

        So conservatives are ignorant, and ignorance is bliss, right? Not so fast, according to a study from the University of Florida psychologists Barry Schlenker and John Chambers and the University of Toronto psychologist Bonnie Le in the Journal of Research in Personality. These scholars note that liberals define fairness and an improved society in terms of greater economic equality. Liberals then condemn the happiness of conservatives, because conservatives are relatively untroubled by a problem that, it turns out, their political counterparts defined.

        Imagine the opposite. Say liberals were the happy ones. Conservatives might charge that it is only because liberals are unperturbed by the social welfare state’s monstrous threat to economic liberty. Liberals would justifiably dismiss this argument as solipsistic and silly.

        There is one other noteworthy political happiness gap that has gotten less scholarly attention than conservatives versus liberals: moderates versus extremists.

        Political moderates must be happier than extremists, it always seemed to me. After all, extremists actually advertise their misery with strident bumper stickers that say things like, “If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention!”

        But it turns out that’s wrong. People at the extremes are happier than political moderates. Correcting for income, education, age, race, family situation and religion, the happiest Americans are those who say they are either “extremely conservative” (48 percent very happy) or “extremely liberal” (35 percent). Everyone else is less happy, with the nadir at dead-center “moderate” (26 percent).

        What explains this odd pattern? One possibility is that extremists have the whole world figured out, and sorted into good guys and bad guys. They have the security of knowing what’s wrong, and whom to fight. They are the happy warriors.

        Whatever the explanation, the implications are striking. The Occupy Wall Street protesters may have looked like a miserable mess. In truth, they were probably happier than the moderates making fun of them from the offices above. And none, it seems, are happier than the Tea Partiers, many of whom cling to guns and faith with great tenacity. Which some moderately liberal readers of this newspaper might find quite depressing.


        Top 25 Political Survey Questions for Questionnaires

        Political survey questions are questions asked to gather the opinions and attitudes of potential voters. Such questionnaires are used by political action committees, city council members, political consultants, school board districts, government agencies, and political candidates.

        Political survey questions help you identify supporters and understand what the public needs. Using such questions, a political candidate or an organization can formulate policies to gain support from these people. Such survey questions can help map the political landscape, strategize marketing messages, and increase support from potential voters.

        For example, a political candidate wants to understand the beliefs and opinions of his target population. In such a case, political survey questions enable them to gather information that can be used to increase the presence and formulate social and political activities based on this data.

        Another example: A political candidate wants to understand the public’s perception and opinion on media accountability. For such reasons, a media accountability survey can be carried out to gather data that can be used to formulate policies to address media accountability. Using such data, the candidate can position themselves better among his potential voters.

        Top 25 political survey questions for questionnaires

        1. Are you registered to vote at the current address you reside at?
          1. Yes
          2. No
          1. Yes
          2. No
          1. Democrats
          2. Republicans
          3. Don’t know
          4. I don’t support any party
          1. Certain to vote
          2. Most likely to vote
          3. Probably won’t vote
          4. Skip the primary elections
          5. Don’t know
          6. I won’t vote
          1. News on TV
          2. Articles in the newspapers
          3. Attend events where the candidate is addressing the people
          4. I research all the channels before making my choice
          5. Number of fundraisers the candidate has done in your area
          6. The family upbringing of the candidate
          7. Other
          1. Yes
          2. No
          1. Yes
          2. No
          1. Do you think there should be stricter rules and regulations on the use of money in political campaigns?
            1. Yes
            2. No
            3. Don’t know
            1. Democrat
            2. Independent
            3. Republican
            4. Something else
            5. Don’t know

            Please state your level of agreement for the following:

            1. All ethnicities should be integrated into society
              1. Completely agree
              2. Somewhat agree
              3. Neutral
              4. Somewhat disagree
              5. Completely disagree
              1. Completely agree
              2. Somewhat agree
              3. Neutral
              4. Somewhat disagree
              5. Completely disagree
              1. Completely agree
              2. Somewhat agree
              3. Neutral
              4. Somewhat disagree
              5. Completely disagree
              1. Completely agree
              2. Somewhat agree
              3. Neutral
              4. Somewhat disagree
              5. Completely disagree
              1. Completely agree
              2. Somewhat agree
              3. Neutral
              4. Somewhat disagree
              5. Completely disagree
              1. Completely agree
              2. Somewhat agree
              3. Neutral
              4. Somewhat disagree
              5. Completely disagree
              1. Completely agree
              2. Somewhat agree
              3. Neutral
              4. Somewhat disagree
              5. Completely disagree
              1. Completely agree
              2. Somewhat agree
              3. Neutral
              4. Somewhat disagree
              5. Completely disagree
              1. Completely agree
              2. Somewhat agree
              3. Neutral
              4. Somewhat disagree
              5. Completely disagree
              1. Completely agree
              2. Somewhat agree
              3. Neutral
              4. Somewhat disagree
              5. Completely disagree
              1. Completely agree
              2. Somewhat agree
              3. Neutral
              4. Somewhat disagree
              5. Completely disagree
              1. Completely agree
              2. Somewhat agree
              3. Neutral
              4. Somewhat disagree
              5. Completely disagree
              1. Completely agree
              2. Somewhat agree
              3. Neutral
              4. Somewhat disagree
              5. Completely disagree
              1. Completely agree
              2. Somewhat agree
              3. Neutral
              4. Somewhat disagree
              5. Completely disagree

              Political survey questions can be used in surveys and polls. These are used for various purposes, however, some of the most common points they are used for, are as below:

              • Strategic initiatives – Political survey questions can help politicians to survey their target audience and understand the needs and wants of the public. It is one of the fastest and best methods to give a voice to the voters. Based on the data gathered, strategic initiatives can be started to satisfy the needs and wants of the prospective voters, thus ensuring support required for the elections.
              • Formulating Policies – Political surveys can give you insights into what kind of policies would benefit the overall population. Using such questions, a politician can gauge and draw policies that would help the population and create a better position for them among prospective voters.
              • Creating new laws – Such survey questions used in political research can give voice to the population regarding laws and regulations. It gives them a feeling of being a part of the team proposing the reforms that are addressing critical issues where new laws and regulations are needed or have been overlooked in the past.
              • Strategic political campaigns – Political survey questions are best to use to run strategic political campaigns. Using the data gathered through such surveys can enable the party to understand the geographic concentration of supporters, the intent of supporters, needs, and wants of the constituents. Hence, specific appearances, fundraisers, or speeches addressing the people’s issue in that geographic concentration can be a strategic move for the political candidate to position themselves better.

              Apart from the points mentioned above, political survey questions also shed some light on the strengths and weaknesses of the opponents, insights into creating effective marketing campaigns, and understanding possible outcomes of elections.

              Tips for using political survey questions to create an effective survey

              • Appropriate wording of questions – Political survey questions should be worded appropriately, keeping in mind, they don’t offend anyone on sensitive topics such as gender, religion, race, ethnicity, etc.
              • All survey responses should be anonymous – Respondents will answer more honestly if they are sure the survey won’t capture personal details.
              • Randomize the question order – Changing the order of the questions can reduce bias during the survey as well as give you more accurate results and eradicate survey boredom
              • Pilot runs for the survey – All political surveys should be tested first in internal teams to ensure that all questions are easy to understand, do not create confusion, and offend anyone.

              Choosing the right audience – The target audience is the most important aspect of a political survey. It has to be ensured that the target audience comprises the people from all the required demographics.


              Republicans and Democrats Don’t Just Disagree About Politics. They Have Different Sexual Fantasies.

              Justin Lehmiller is a research fellow at The Kinsey Institute. He is author of the blog Sex & Psychology and the book Tell Me What You Want: The Science of Sexual Desire and How It Can Help You Improve Your Sex Life.

              In this political environment, it’s easy to look at Republicans and Democrats as having next to nothing in common. Regardless of the issue at hand, we see them as wanting completely different things—especially when it comes to issues of sex and sexuality.

              From differences in the way they have approached the sexual assault allegations against Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh to their views on abortion and same-sex marriage, Democrats and Republicans appear worlds apart.

              It’s not just their public policy positions that seem to differ wildly, though.

              According to the largest and most comprehensive survey of sexual fantasies ever conducted in the United States, it would appear that there are also political differences in our private sexual fantasies.

              I surveyed 4,175 adult Americans from all 50 states about what turns them on and published the findings in a book entitled Tell Me What You Want. As part of this survey, participants were given a list of hundreds of different people, places and things that might be a turn-on. For each one, they reported on how frequently they fantasized about it.

              I learned a lot about the nature of sexual desire in modern America, but one of the more intriguing things I uncovered was the political divide in our fantasy worlds.

              While self-identified Republicans and self-identified Democrats reported fantasizing with the same average frequency—several times per week—I found that Republicans were more likely than Democrats to fantasize about a range of activities that involve sex outside of marriage. Think things like infidelity, orgies and partner swapping, from 1970s-style “key parties” to modern-day forms of swinging. Republicans also reported more fantasies with voyeuristic themes, including visiting strip clubs and practicing something known as “cuckolding,” which involves watching one’s partner have sex with someone else.

              Why do Republicans seem to be drawn to non-monogamy and Democrats to power play in their sexual fantasies?

              By contrast, self-identified Democrats were more likely than Republicans to fantasize about almost the entire spectrum of BDSM activities, from bondage to spanking to dominance-submission play. The largest Democrat-Republican divide on the BDSM spectrum was in masochism, which involves deriving pleasure from the experience of pain.

              Why is that? Why do Republicans seem to be drawn to nonmonogamy and Democrats to power play in their sexual fantasies?

              On the surface, it might be tempting to see this as revealing a fundamental difference in their sexual psychology. However, if you dig a little deeper, you’ll find that while some of the activities that turn Republicans and Democrats on appear vastly different, the underlying processes that drive our sexual fantasies may actually be the same. There’s far more that unites us than divides us when it comes to sexual desire.

              What connects Republicans and Democrats, I believe, is that their fantasies are at least partly driven by what they can’t have. As I argue in Tell Me What You Want, the supersized sexual appeal that nonmonogamous and voyeuristic acts hold for Republicans likely stems from the fact that sex outside of marriage and multipartner sex are huge no-nos in a political party that continues to make “traditional marriage” one of the cornerstones of its official platform and regularly funnels federal funds toward abstinence-only sex education. Nothing makes us want to try something like being told you can’t do it. This is why taboos, no matter what they are, often become turn-ons.

              This same instinct may also help to explain, in part, the appeal of BDSM to Democrats. Within the Democratic Party, much of what drives the political agenda is the view that inequality is the source of a wide range of social problems. This is regularly seen in the party platform, which recently made multiple mentions of the need to “level the playing field.” It’s not a stretch, then, to suggest that playing with power differentials—especially in BDSM settings, where women and men might not appear to be on equal footing and where the lines of sexual consent might not always be explicit—is taboo in many Democratic circles.

              The appeal of the taboo stems from a long-standing principle of psychology known as reactance—which stipulates that when our freedom is threatened and we’re told we can’t do something, we want to do it even more. Many a parent has discovered this principle and used it to their benefit in shaping their children’s behavior through reverse psychology: Frame the desired act as something your child isn’t allowed to do and you just might get what you want.

              To be sure, sexual fantasies have complex origins. They aren’t just a product of our political affiliation and what we’re told we can’t or shouldn’t do—there are myriad other factors that contribute to why we develop the turn-ons that we do. But my research suggests that politics certainly seems to play some role.

              It’s also worth noting that, while the popularity of nonmonogamy and BDSM fantasies differ by political orientation, the rest of what we want—including specific sexual activities, partners and settings—is strikingly similar.

              Whether we identify as Republican, Democrat, independent or something else, we’re not just turned on by taboos, but also by trying new and different things in general. For example, it’s human nature to be titillated by novelty, mixing up what we do, where we do it and whom we do it with. Most of us seek to meet a range of psychological needs in our fantasies, too, such as feeling desired, validated and competent. And the vast majority of us are fantasizing about our current romantic partners far more than we’re fantasizing about Hollywood celebrities, porn stars and politicians.

              Incidentally, just about 1 in 10 Republicans and 1 in 10 Democrats reported ever having fantasized about a politician before. Among those who did, it’s worth noting that these fantasies sometimes involved reaching across the aisle, if you catch my drift. When presented with a list of 25 politicians, made up of 11 prominent Democrats and 14 prominent Republicans (as well as a write-in option, in case one’s preferred politician wasn’t represented), 17 percent of Republicans reported fantasizing about Democrats, while 27 pecent of Democrats reported fantasizing about Republicans.

              Interestingly, the single most commonly fantasized-about politician among both parties was the same: Sarah Palin (though Republicans were much more likely to have Palin fantasies than Democrats).

              Following Palin, the next most frequently mentioned politicians in Republicans’ fantasies were John F. Kennedy, Bill Clinton and Nikki Haley. While, after Palin, Democrats fantasized about Barack Obama, Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton.

              (Note that my data were collected in 2014 and 2015 before the Trump presidency began and only into the early days of his campaign. At that time, I received only one fantasy about Donald Trump in the entire dataset.)

              So, in this increasingly polarized political season, we should all take a moment to remember there’s at least one area where we’re more alike than we are different. If only Congress could be as bipartisan as we are in our sexual fantasies.


              Watch the video: Ideologies of political parties in the United States. US government and civics. Khan Academy (May 2022).