Charisma and the 1952 Campaign - Coursework Example

Charisma and the 1952 Campaign Instructions: Answer all questions using Question and Answer format. 1. Who conducted the current study? This current study is conducted by James C. Davies of the California Institute of Technology. 2. What is (are) the source(s) of study funding, if any? This paper is sponsored by the Committee on Political Behavior of the Social Science Research Council. The grant money was provided by the Carnegie Corporation. 3. What is the overall purpose of this study? The overall purpose of the study is to determine the level of influence charisma, as defined by the author, had in the 1952 Presidential Campaign. This campaign was between Eisenhower and Stevenson. The author attempted to do this by creating a narrow definition of what a charismatic voter was like. He then tried to determine which voters could be labeled “charismatic” voters based on how they reported viewing each candidate. 4. State the conceptual definition of a charismatic follower? The conceptual definition of a charismatic follower delves into personality. The author described a charismatic follower as someone who hates uncertainty and ambiguity. This person cares about what a leader does less than they just want a leader to do something. The charismatic follower needs to have other people support their opinions because they are inherently unsure of themselves. Charismatic followers fixate on an individual leaders presentation more than they look to the leader’s qualifications or actual accomplishments. 5. State the operational definition of a charismatic follower? The operational definition of a charismatic follower is someone that expresses some sort of super-human characteristics to the candidate they plan to support. 6. How was the data collected? The data were collected via telephone interviews. 1799 individuals were interviewed via telephone. All individuals where homeowners. 1644 individuals were then re-interviewed and asked specifically why they were supporting their chosen candidate. They were each asked four questions about the candidate they were supporting and four questions about the candidate they were not supporting. 7. State the research hypotheses and their corresponding null hypotheses. The hypotheses are: The individual with charismatic tendencies is less able to tolerate indecision and crisis. Null-Equally or more tolerant of crisis and indecision. He is less able to maintain ambiguous perceptions-the phenomena he observes must be classified. He is, in other words, more likely to make categorical judgments. Null-Equally or more able to maintain ambiguous perceptions. He is more likely to believe that other people share his opinions and act as he acts. Null-Equally or less likely to believe others to share his opinion. He is less likely, because to his preoccupation with leaders, to have strong ties to political parties. Null-Equally or more likely to have strong ties to political parties 8. What are (is) the concepts measured? The concepts measured are party loyalty, perceived importance of charismatic leadership and importance of charismatic voters in the American political system. 9. What is the unit of analysis? The unit of analysis in this study is politically active registered voters. 9. Did the author risk making an ecological fallacy over the course of his analysis? Explain. The ecological fallacy that the author nearly commits is the equation of a personality type with being a charismatic voter. In the beginning of the study, it sounds as though the author is saying that all people that look to a certain type of leadership and behave a certain way will all vote for the same person if that person displays the appropriate qualities. He saves himself by explaining that charisma is not able to be isolated from other factors that influence the way a person votes. The author comes close to creating a stereotype of the charismatic voter, but then clearly shows that having charismatic tendencies does not determine how a person will vote all the time. 11. What type of sample is employed in the study? Briefly, describe the sample and sample design? The sample was drawn using area probability techniques. This sampling technique involves forming a sample from geographic areas where the probability is already known. As was stated earlier, the sample was of 1799 adults that were homeowners in the United States. They were interviewed twice by telephone. 12. What is the study population? The study population is American adults that are homeowners. 13. Why Democrats were omitted from table I on page 1091? Democrats were omitted from this table because there were no Democrats that could be determined to be charismatic followers of Adlai Stevenson. Only Republicans were shown to be charismatic followers of any candidate. 14. Could you point out at least two instances where the author used statistical control techniques? The first was to disallow 222 interviews from the Far West because data were required from the post election questionnaire that was not available to these citizens in a timely manner. This would have possibly affected the reliability of the whole study. The second statistical control was the elimination from the pool of “charismatic voters” ones that were originally included because they included specific verbiage as outlined in the analysis instructions but did not otherwise indicate the respondent as a “charismatic voter”. 255 of these surveys were eliminated from the “charismatic voter” pool. 15. What are the results? Which research hypotheses, if any, were supported by the data (hint, cf. section VI)? The first hypothesis concerning a charismatic voter’s aversion to crisis or indecision was supported by the data. Charismatic voters were far more likely to support a strong, decisive response to the Korean conflict than other voters. The second hypothesis was supported by data as well. The third hypothesis was not supported by the data. The difference was shown to inconsequential. The fourth hypothesis was shown to be supported by the data. 16. What are the limitations that Davies acknowledged regarding the study? Davis acknowledges that the most obvious weakness regarding the study is the process of determining if a person’s answers should put them into the “charismatic” classification or not. A panel of three judges was trained using a detailed guide sheet. The judges were also shown to evaluate consistently with one another, so any variance in their decisions would be statistically insignificant. 17. What are other possible biases or limitations of the study not mentioned by Davies? The population sample is very limiting. The only people to respond were homeowners with a telephone. This eliminated people in rural areas with little or no telephone service, individuals that rented their homes and people that were not listed in telephone directories. This would have skewed the entire population sample away from women, minorities and the poor. Read More