The left-right dimension plays an important role in a wide range of political science studies, and analyses are sometimes based on responses to open-ended survey questions about the meaning of left and right. Due to a considerable non-response to these questions on the 2008 German General Social Survey, the value of the data needs to be evaluated, and response analysis is recommended before Germany’s ideological beliefs are analysed. This paper investigates whether or not respondents’ personality traits, cognitive abilities and socialisation, motivation, and left-right self-placement affect response behaviour to our open-ended questions. We found several explanatory variables: a left-right self-placement, its ideological direction, an Eastern German socialisation background, a high level of education and a strong political interest. These findings indicate that, in addition to methodological issues, substantial variables matter in response behaviour in technical terms, and ideological analysts should consider if their findings can be generalised for the entire German population.
AlfordJRHibbingJR (2007) Personal, Interpersonal, and Political Temperaments. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science614: 196–212.
2.
AndrewsM (2005) Who Is Being Heard? Response Bias in Open-ended Responses in a Large Government Employee Survey. In: Methods A-ASoSR (ed.) 60th Annual Conference of the American Association for Public Opinion Research. Miami Beach FL: AAPOR - ASA Section on Survey Research Methods3760–66.
3.
BorgIZuellC (2012) Write-in Comments in Employee Surveys. International Journal of Manpower33: 206–20.
4.
BrugidouMMandranNMoineMSalomonAC (2004) Méthode et stratégie d’analyse des questions ouvertes du panel électoral français. Bulletin de Methodologie Sociologique82: 5–26.
5.
CarneyDRJostJTGoslingSDPotterJ (2008) The Secret Lives of Liberals and Conservatives: Personality Profiles, Interaction Styles, and the Things They Leave Behind. Political Psychology29: 807–40.
6.
ConversePEPierceR (1986) Political Representation in France. Cambridge MA and London: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
7.
CorbettaPCavazzaNRoccatoM (2009) Between Ideology and Social Representations: Four Theses Plus (a new) One on the Relevance and the Meaning of the Political Left and Right. European Journal of Political Research48: 622–41.
8.
CostaPTMcCraeRR (1992) NEO-PI-R Professional Manual. Odessa Fl: Psychological Assessment Resources.
9.
CredéMHarmsPNiehorsterSGaye ValentineA (2012) An Evaluation of the Consequences of Using Short Measures of the Big Five Personality Traits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology102: 874–88.
10.
DengelS (2005) Untertan, Volksgenosse, Sozialistische Persönlichkeit. Politische Erziehung im Deutschen Kaiserreich, dem NS-Staat und der DDR. Frankfurt and New York: Campus Verlag.
11.
DeutschELindonDWeillP (1966) Les familles politiques - Aujourd’hui en France. Paris: Les Editions de Minuit.
12.
FuchsDKlingemannHD (1990) The Left-Right Schema. In: JenningsMKVan DethJW (eds) Continuities in Political Action: A Longitudinal Study of Political Orientations in Three Western Democracies. Berlin: de Gruyter, 203–34.
13.
FuchsHW (1997) Bildung und Wissenschaft in der SBZ/DDR 1945 bis 1989. Hamburg: Hochschule der Bundeswehr (series Beiträge aus dem Fachbereich Pädagogik).
14.
GabrielOW (2005) Wächst zusammen, was zusammen gehört? In: GabrielOWFalterJWHans RattingerH (eds) Wächst zusammen, was zusammengehört? Stabilität und Wandel politischer Einstellungen im wiedervereinigten Deutschland. Baden-Baden: Nomos, 385–423.
15.
GeerJG (1988) What Do Open-ended Questions Measure?Public Opinion Quarterly52: 365–71.
16.
GoldbergLR (1963) A Model of Item Ambiguity in Personality Assessment. Educational and Psychological Measurement23: 467–92.
17.
GrovesRMPresserSDipkoS (2004) The Role of Topic Interest in Survey Participation Decisions. Public Opinion Quarterly68: 2–31.
18.
HarknessJAVan De VijverFJRMohlerPP (2003) Cross-cultural Survey Methods. Hoboken NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
19.
HarmanRP (2011) Understanding Survey Comment and the Characteristics of Nonresponders. Cambridge: Proquest, Uni Dissertation Publisher.
20.
HollandJLChristianLM (2009) The Influence of Topic Interest and Interactive Probing on Responses to Open-ended Questions in Web Surveys. Social Science Computer Review27: 197–212.
InglehartRKlingemannHD (1976) Party Identification, Ideological Preference and the Left-Right Dimension among Western Mass Publics. In: BudgeICreweIFarlieD (eds) Party Identification and Beyond. Essex: John Wiley & Sons, 243–73.
23.
JohnOPNaumannLPSotoCJ (2008) Paradigm Shift to the Integrative Big Five Trait Taxonomy. History, Measurements, and Conceptual Issues. In: JohnOPRobinsRWPervinLA (eds) Handbook of Personality. Theory and Research. New York: Guilford Press, 114–58.
24.
JohnsonTPO’RourkeDBurrisJLittleRJA (2002) Culture and Survey Nonresponse. In: GrovesRMDillmanDAEltingeJL. (eds) Survey Nonresponse. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 55–69.
25.
JohnsonTPKulesaPChoYIShavittS (2005) The Relation between Culture and Response Styles. Evidence from 19 Countries. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology36: 264–77.
26.
KörnerAGeyerMBrählerE (2002) Das NEO-Fünf-Faktoren Inventar (NEOFFI). Validierung anhand einer deutschen Bevölkerungsstichprobe. Diagnostica48: 19–27.
27.
KrosnickJA (1999) Survey research. Annual Review of Psychology50: 537–67.
28.
LangFRLüdtkeOAsendorpfJ (2001) Testgüte und psychometrische Äquivalenz der deutschen Version des Big Five Inventory (BFI) bei jungen, mittelalten und alten Erwachsenen. Diagnostica47: 111–12.
29.
MarcusBSchützA (2005) Who Are the People Reluctant to Participate in Research? Personality Correlates of Four Different Types of Nonresponse as Inferred from Self- and Observer Ratings. Journal of Personality73: 959–84.
30.
McCraeRR (1996) Social Consequences of Experiential Openness. Psychological Bulletin120: 323–37.
31.
MessickSFrederiksenN (1958) Ability, Acquiescence, and “Authoritarianism”. Psychological Reports4: 687–97.
32.
NarayanSKrosnickJA (1996) Education Moderates Some Response Effects in Attitude Measurement. Public Opinion Quarterly60: 58–88.
33.
OnesDSViswesvaranC (1996) Bandwidth-fidelity Dilemma in Personality Measurement for Personnel Selection. Journal of Organizational Behavior17: 609–26.
34.
OzerDJBenet-MartinezV (2006) Personality and the Prediction of Consequential Outcomes. Annual Review of Psychology57: 401–21.
35.
PoppingR (2012) Human or Machine Coding of Open-ended Questions. Bulletin de Methodologie Sociologique115: 79–88.
36.
PotterC. (2001) Left-Right Self-placement in Western Europe: What Responses and Non-responses Indicate. Madison: University of Wisconsin (paper presented for the Political Behaviour Group).
37.
RammstedtBJohnOP (2007) Measuring Personality in One Minute or Less: A 10-item Short Version of the Big Five Inventory in English and German. Journal of Research in Personality41: 203–12.
38.
RammstedtBGoldbergLRBorgI (2010) The Measurement Equivalence of Big-Five Factor Markers for Persons with Different Levels of Education. Journal of Research in Personality44: 53–61.
39.
RammstedtBKemperCJ (2011) Measurement Equivalence of the Big Five: Shedding further Light on Potential Causes of the Educational Bias. Journal of Research in Personality45: 121–25.
40.
RogelbergSGConvayJMSederburgMESpitzmüllerCAzizSKnightWE (2003) Profiling Active and Passive Nonrespondents to an Organizational Survey. Journal of Applied Psychology88: 1104–14.
41.
ScholzEZuellC (2012) Item Non-response in Open-ended Questions: Who Does Not Answer on the Meaning of Left and Right?Social Science Research41: 1415–28.
42.
SchwarzNStrackF (1985) Cognitive and Affective Processes in Judgments of Subjective Well-being: A Preliminary Model. In: BrandstatterEKirchlerE (eds) Economic Psychology. Linz: R.Tauner, 439–47.
43.
SpitzmüllerCGlennDN (2006) Organizational Survey Response: Previous Findings and an Integrative Framework. ZUMA-Nachrichten Spezial10: 139–62.
44.
StoopIAL (2005) The Hunt for the Last Respondent. Den Haag: Social and Cultural Plannung Office.
TourangeauRRipsLJRasinskiK (2000) The Psychology of Survey Response. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.
47.
Van HielAMervieldeI (2004) Openness to Experience and Boundaries in the Mind: Relationships with Cultural and Economic Conservatives Beliefs. Journal of Personality72: 659–86.
48.
WasmerMScholzEBlohmM (2010) Konzeption und Durchführung der ‘Allgemeinen Bevölkerungsumfrage der Sozialwissenschaften’ (ALLBUS) 2008. GESIS, Technical Report (2010/04). Bonn: GESIS.
49.
YangYHarknessJAChinTYVillarA (2010) Response Styles and Culture. In: HarknessJABraunMEdwardsBJohnsonTLybergLMohlerPPPennellBESmithT (eds) Survey Methods in Multinational, Multiregional, and Multicultural Contexts. Hoboken NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 203–23.
50.
ZuellCScholzE (2012) Assoziationen mit den politischen Richtungsbegriffen “links” und “rechts” im internationalen Vergleich: Kategorienschema für die Codierung offener Angaben. GESIS-Technical Report. Köln: GESIS.
