Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Rolling off the Tongue into the Top-of-the-Head: Explaining Language Effects on Public Opinion

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Political Behavior Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Growing evidence shows that mass opinion varies by interview language, yet modest theory exists to explain this result. I propose a framework where language impacts survey response by making some political concepts more mentally accessible. I claim that concepts vary by how associated they are with certain languages, which means people are more likely to acquire a construct when it is tied to the tongue one speaks. Hence, recalling concepts from memory should be easier when the language a construct is linked to matches the tongue one interviews in, thereby intensifying people’s opinions. I test my theory by manipulating the interview language in two U.S. surveys of English/Spanish bilingual Latino adults. I generally find that language influences the accessibility of concepts. For example, subjects report higher opinion levels for concepts that are tied more to their interview language, such as American identity among English interviewees. Subjects who interview in English are also less likely to refuse completing items measuring knowledge about U.S. politics, and more likely to answer them quickly. Items reflecting constructs that are highly labile (e.g. anti-Obama affect) or very crystallized (e.g., partisanship) do not display these patterns. I then rule out that language effects are mostly mediated by a heightened sense of anxiety, anger, pride or efficacy that emerges when bilingual subjects interview in one of their languages.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In turn, “hubristic” pride results from attributions to internal, stable, uncontrollable causes (e.g., I won because I’m always great). I focus on “authentic” pride because respondents do control the concepts they retrieve and use to form opinions.

  2. Stereotype threat might also mediate the impact of language via depletion of people’ executive functioning (Steele et al. 2002), a possibility that future research should further explore.

  3. 37 % of subjects report usually completing GfK surveys in Spanish, while 63 % usually complete them in English.

  4. 31 % of subjects report usually completing GfK surveys in Spanish, while 69 % usually complete them in English.

  5. Subjects completed these items when they first enrolled to GfK’s respondent panel. As might be expected (Abrajano and Alvarez 2010; Alba and Nee 2003), about half of bilinguals in both samples are foreign-born and Mexican origin, with the median education in both samples being “some college.” See table A in the supporting information (SI) for more characteristics and any nuances between them across samples.

  6. Table B (SI) reports a non-linear regression predicting assignment to an experimental condition as a function of several covariates, suggesting my treatment was effectively randomized. Table C (SI) shows these covariates are balanced across my experimental cells. These results imply that my bilingual respondents are alike in all respects, save for the interview language treatment.

  7. A full comparison of both treatments can be found in table D (SI).

  8. The response times I analyze are indexed in seconds, rather than milliseconds, because GfK can only collect response times in seconds at this time. This will make it harder to uncover any accessibility effects by language.

  9. For Study 1: Latino identity (α = .54); National origin identity (α = .86); American identity (α = .81). For Study 2: Latino identity (α = .54); National origin identity (α = .87); American identity (α = .74).

  10. In both studies, most of the concepts that I measure are theorized to be linked to English. I did this by design, since U.S. polls typically ask about American constructs, which are tied to English. Still, as I describe in the text, I measure one Spanish-linked construct often asked about in U.S. academic surveys (i.e., national origin identity), and designed two items tapping knowledge about Latin American history in order to better test my hypotheses.

  11. Since my knowledge items are dichotomous, I report average tetrachoric correlations (rho) rather than alphas (α). For Study 1: Traditional U.S. knowledge (average rho = .58); Latino knowledge (average rho = .54).

  12. For Study 2: Traditional U.S. knowledge (average rho = .37); Latin American knowledge (average rho = .53).

  13. One might expect these items to precede my opinion measures. But asking people about their efficacy and emotions right after my language manipulation risks an artificial increase in the correlation between interview language and emotions, which works against finding mediation effects (e.g., the more variance in anxiety that interview language explains, the less variance in anxiety to explain opinions). Also, gauging opinions should have a trivial effect on measuring efficacy and emotion, since any sense of these has already occurred by the time opinions are reported.

  14. The point of these efforts, then, is not to create translations that are exact in length, word for word. Such a strategy is likely to yield translations of similar length, but with different and often grammatically incorrect meanings (Jacobson et al. 1960). Instead, the aim is to develop translated items that mean the same thing to different people (Pérez 2009).

  15. Indeed, scholars regularly find that Latino identity is more widespread among individuals who have deeper roots in the U.S. and are more conversant in English (Portes and Rumbaut 2006; Abrajano and Alvarez 2010), suggesting a relatively stronger tie between it and the English language.

  16. Although I use a regression approach to estimate my treatment effects, t-tests yield comparable results.

  17. I use one-tailed tests given the explicitly directional nature of my main hypothesis (H1), as well as accumulated lab work showing accessibility effects in specific directions on cognitive outcomes, such as answering questions.

  18. Reflecting prior research (Ross et al. 2002, p. 1041), these findings are largely inconsistent with a social desirability explanation. For example, if social desirability was responsible for these opinion gaps, we should have observed English interviewees express weaker (not stronger) Latino identity than Spanish interviewees.

  19. I used a 30 s threshold for answering knowledge items in Study 1 in order to keep this analysis consistent with an identical one using knowledge items from Study 2, where subjects were explicitly given 30 s to answer each knowledge item. As my analysis will show, knowledge item RTs in Study 1 are largely unaffected by slow responders.

  20. I study refusal rates rather than “don’t know” (DK) rates because people offer DKs for many reasons, including (a) not fully knowing an answer (b) incompletely knowing an answer (Gibson and Caldeira 2009); (c) refraining from guessing an answer (Mondak 2001); and (d) being unmotivated to try answering correctly (Prior and Lupia 2008). Refusal rates are less affected by these problems, so I use them to test my accessibility hypothesis.

  21. Indeed, in Study 1, the two items measuring American identity were positively worded. Not surprisingly in hindsight, the estimated intercept for American identity in Study 1 was about .75, which suggests a high degree of this attachment among Spanish interviewees, making it harder for English interviewees to report an even higher level of this attachment.

  22. This estimate is from an ordered probit model. The three knowledge scale items were: “Whose responsibility is it to determine if a law is constitutional or not?”; “How much of a majority is required for the US Senate and House to override a presidential veto?”; and “How long is the term of office for a United States Senator?”.

  23. Specifically, I estimated an ordered probit model with the following coefficients: Latin American knowledge = −.144 English + .110 > 30 s + .613 English x > 30 s + .464 Education + .015 Age.

  24. Indeed, in both Study 1 and 2 the intercept for this construct is above .80 on a 0–1 range.

  25. Although limited in number, the two reliable RT differences by interview language in Table 2 weakly impact people’s survey responses, further hinting at the role of accessibility in producing these results (see Table E, SI).

  26. Since my RR variables have much more limited variation than my RT scores, I do not further examine whether RR differences subsequently impact knowledge reports.

  27. One might reasonably wonder whether an emotion like pride is conceptually and empirically synonymous with group consciousness, linked fate, or solidarity, since all of these reflect positive feelings to a degree (Dawson 1994; McClain et al. 2009; Sanchez 2006; Leach et al. 2008). True, group attachments can induce pride and other emotions in group members (Mackie et al. 2008). But my conceptualization and measure of pride focus on this feeling among individuals and what each person accomplishes during an interview. Still, I would expect, but cannot test here, that language impacts people’s sense of group consciousness, linked fate, and/or solidarity insofar as these flow from a specific group identity.

  28. A better strategy here is to design a sufficiently powered experiment that blocks subjects’ assigned interview language on their PL or IG, thus retaining the experiment’s causal leverage. I leave this possibility open for future research.

References

  • Abrajano, M. A., & Alvarez, R. M. (2010). New faces, new voices: The Hispanic electorate in America. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Abrajano, M., & Panagopoulos, C. (2011). Does language matter? The impact of Spanish versus English-language GOTV efforts on Latino turnout. American Politics Research, 39(4), 643–663.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alba, R., & Nee, V. (2003). Remaking the American mainstream: Assimilation and contemporary immigration. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bailey, S. C., Hasnain-Wynia, R., Chen, A. H., Sarkar, U., Schoua-Glusberg, A., Lindquist, L. A., et al. (2012). Developing multilingual prescription instructions for patients with limited-English proficiency. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, 23, 81–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baker, C. (2001). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism. New York: Multilingual Matters.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Binder, M., Kogan, V., Kousser, T., & Panagopoulos, C. (2014). Mobilizing Latino voters: The impact of language and co-ethnic policy leadership. American Politics Research, 42(4), 677–699.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brader, T. (2005). Striking a responsive chord: How political ads motivate and persuade voters by appealing to emotions. American Journal of Political Science, 49, 388–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brader, T., & Marcus, G. E. (2013). Emotion and political psychology. In L. Huddy, D. O. Sears, & J. S. Levy (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bullock, J. G., & Ha, S. E. (2011). Mediation analysis is harder than it looks. In J. N. Druckman, D. P. Green, J. H. Kuklinski, & A. Lupia (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of experimental political science. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cho, G. (2000). The role of the heritage language in social interactions and relationships: Reflections from a language minority group. Bilingual Research Journal, 24, 369–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Citrin, J., Wong, C., & Duff, B. (2001). The meaning of American national identity: Pattern of ethnic conflict and consensus. In R. D. Ashmore, L. Jussim, & D. Wilder (Eds.), Social identity, intergroup conflict, and conflict resolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, A. M., & Loftus, E. F. (1975). A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review, 82, 407–428.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crocker, J., & Major, B. (1989). Social stigma and self-esteem: The self-protective properties of stigma. Psychological Review, 96, 608–630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davila, A. (2001). Latinos, inc.: the marketing and making of a people. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawson, M. C. (1994). Behind the mule: Race and class in African-American politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delli Carpini, M. X., & Keeter, S. (1996). What Americans need to know about politics and why it matters. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (2002). Self and social identity. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 161–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellis, C., & Stimson, J. A. (2009). Symbolic ideology in the American electorate. Electoral Studies, 28, 388–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fazio, R. H., Jackson, J. R., Dunton, B. C., & Williams, C. J. (1995). Variability in automatic activation as an unobtrusive measure of racial attitudes: a bona fide pipeline? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(6), 1013–1027.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fazio, R. H., Sanbonmatsu, D. M., Powell, M. C., & Kardes, F. R. (1986). On the automatic activation of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(2), 229–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraga, L. R., Garcia, J. A., Hero, R. E., Jones-Correa, M., Martinez-Ebers, V., & Segura, G. M. (2011). Latino lives: making it home. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garcia, J. A. (2003). Latino politics in America: Community, culture, and interests. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garcia, J. A. (2009). Language of interview: exploring patterns and consequences of changing language during interview. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the western political science association. Vancouver, B.C.

  • Garcia Bedolla, L. (2005). Fluid borders: Latino power, identity, and politics in Los Angeles. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, J. L., & Caldeira, G. A. (2009). Knowing the Supreme Court? A reconsideration of public ignorance of the High Court. The Journal of Politics, 71(2), 429–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godden, D. R., & Baddeley, A. D. (1975). Context-dependent memory in two natural environments: on land and underwater. British Journal of Psychology, 66(3), 325–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grant, H. M., Bredahl, L. C., Clay, J., Ferrie, J., Groves, J. E., McDorman, T. A., & Dark, V. J. (1998). Context-dependent memory for meaningful material: Information for students. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 12, 617–623.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, D., Palmquist, B., & Schickler, E. (2002). Partsian hearts and minds: political parties and the social identities of voters. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The Implicit Association Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1464–1480.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harkness, J. A., Pennell, B. E., & Schoua-Glusberg, A. (2004). Survey questionnaire translation and assessment. In S. Presser, J. M. Rothgeb, M. P. Couper, J. T. Lessler, E. Martin, J. Martin, & E. Singer (Eds.), Methods for testing and evaluating survey questionnaires. Hoboken: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hattam, V. (2007). In the shadow of race: Jews, Latinos, and immigrant politics in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heider, E. R. (1972). Universals in color naming and memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 93(1), 10–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ho, D. E., Imai, K., King, G., & Stuart, E. A. (2007). Matching as nonparametric preprocessing for reducing model dependence in parametric causal inference. Political Analysis, 15, 199–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hong, Y., Morris, M. W., Chiu, C., & Benet-Martinez, V. (2000). Multicultural minds: A dynamic constructivist approach to culture and cognition. American Psychologist, 55(7), 709–720.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huddy, L., Feldman, S., & Cassese, E. (2007). On the distinct political effects of anxiety and anger. In W. N. Neuman, G. E. Marcus, A. N. Crigler, & M. MacKuen (Eds.), The affect effect: Dynamics of emotion in political thinking and behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Imai, K., Keele, L., Tingley, D., & Yamamoto, T. (2011). Unpacking the black box of causality: Learning about causal mechanisms from experimental and observational studies. American Political Science Review, 105(4), 765–789.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson, E., Hideya, K., & Gullahorn, J. E. (1960). Cross-cultural contributions to attitude research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 24(2), 205–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jaspal, R. (2009). Language and social identity: a psychosocial approach. PsychTalk, 64, 17–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, D. (2000). Making Americans: immigration, race, and the origins of the diverse democracy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krosnick, J. A., & Smith, W. R. (1994). Attitude strength. In V. S. Ramachandran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior. San Diego: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leach, C. W., van Zomeren, M., Zebel, S., Vliek, M. L. W., Pennekamp, S. F., Doosje, B., et al. (2008). Group-level self-definition and self-investment: a hierarchical (multicomponent) model of in-group identification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(1), 144–165.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, T., & Pérez, E. O. (2014). The persistent connection between language-of-interview and Latino political opinion. Political Behavior, 36(2), 401–425.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lien, P., Conway, M. M., & Wong, J. (2004). The politics of Asian Americans. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lodge, M., & Taber, C. (2013). The rationalizing voter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mackie, D. M., Smith, E. R., & Ray, D. G. (2008). Intergroup emotions and intergroup relations. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(5), 1866–1880.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marcus, G. E., Neuman, W. R., & MacKuen, M. (2000). Affective intelligence and political judgment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marian, V., & Fausey, C. M. (2006). Language-dependent memory in bilingual learning. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 1025–1047.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marian, V., & Kaushanskaya, M. (2004). Self-construal and emotion in bicultural bilinguals. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 190–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marian, V., & Kaushanskaya, M. (2007). Language context guides memory content. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 925–933.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marian, V., & Neisser, U. (2000). Language-dependent recall of autobiographical memories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129, 361–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martínez, G., Marín, B., & Schoua-Glusberg, A. (2006). Translating from English to Spanish: The 2002 National Survey of Family Growth. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 28, 531–545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McClain, P. D., Carew, J. D., Walton, E, Jr, & Watts, C. S. (2009). Group membership, group identity, and group consciousness: Measures of racial identity in American politics? Annual Review of Political Science, 12, 471–485.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDermott, R. (2011). Internal and external validity. In J. N. Druckman, D. P. Green, J. H. Kuklinski, & A. Lupia (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of experimental political science. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milroy, L. (1982). Language and group identity. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 3, 207–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mondak, J. J. (2001). Developing valid knowledge scales. American Journal of Political Science, 45(1), 224–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mora, G. C. (2014). Making Hispanics: How activists, bureaucrats, and media constructed a new American. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mutz, D. C. (2011). Population-based survey experiments. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Niemi, R. G., Craig, S. C., & Mattei, F. (1991). Measuring internal political efficacy in the 1988 National Election Study. American Political Science Review, 85(4), 1407–1413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pérez, E. O. (2009). Lost in translation? Item validity in bilingual political surveys. The Journal of Politics, 71(4), 1530–1548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pérez, E. O. (2011). The origins and implications of language effects in multilingual surveys: A MIMIC approach with application to Latino political attitudes. Political Analysis, 19(4), 434–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pérez, E. O. (2015a). Speaking in tongues: explaining and anticipating language effects on survey response. Grant proposal submitted to the National Science Foundation.

  • Pérez, E. O. (2015b). The language-opinion connection. In R. M. Alvarez & L. Atkeson (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of polling and polling methods. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Portes, A., & Rumbaut, R. G. (2006). Immigrant America: A portrait. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prior, M., & Lupia, A. (2008). Money, time, and political knowledge: Distinguishing quick recall and political learning skills. American Journal of Political Science, 52, 169–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosch, E. (1975). Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104(3), 192–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, M., Xun, W. Q. E., & Wilson, A. E. (2002). Language and the bicultural self. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(8), 1040–1050.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez, G. R. (2006). The role of group consciousness in Latino public opinion. Political Research Quarterly, 59(3), 435–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schildkraut, D. J. (2005). The rise and fall of political engagement among Latinos: The role of identity and perceptions of discrimination. Political Behavior, 27(3), 285–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sears, D. O. (1986). College sophomores in the laboratory: Influences of a narrow data base on social psychology’s view of human nature. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(3), 515–530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steele, C. M., Spencer, S. J., & Aronson, J. (2002). Contending with group image: the psychology of stereotype and identity threat. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 34, 379–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tourangeau, R., Rips, L. J., & Rasinski, K. (2000). The psychology of survey response. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Tracy, J. L., & Robins, R. W. (2007). The nature of pride. In J. L. Tracy, R. W. Robins, & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), The self-conscious emotions: Theory and research. New York: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trafimow, D., Silverman, E. S., Fan, R. M., & Fun Law, J. S. (1997). The effects of language and priming on the relative accessibility of the private self and the collective self. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 28(1), 107–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tulving, E., & Thomson, D. (1973). Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in episodic memory. Psychological Review, 80(5), 352–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallace, S. J. (2014). Examining Latino support for descriptive representation: the role of identity and discrimination. Social Science Quarterly, 95(2), 311–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Welch, S., Comer, J., & Steinman, M. (1973). Interviewing in a Mexican-American community: An investigation of some potential sources of response bias. Public Opinion Quarterly, 37(1), 115–126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong, J., Ramakrishnan, S. K., Lee, T., & Junn, J. (2011). Asian American political participation: Emerging constituents and their political identities. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zaller, J. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Zaller, J., & Feldman, S. (1992). A simple theory of the survey response: Answering questions versus revealing preferences. American Journal of Political Science, 36(3), 579–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I express my deepest thanks to Cindy Kam for offering candid and constructive advice on this project in its early stages. I am also indebted to Dan Butler and Sophia Jordán Wallace for useful reactions to the first draft of this paper. Finally, for engaging and commenting on later versions of this manuscript, I thank participants in colloquia at Duke University, the Ohio State University, and the University of California – San Diego. The data and code to replicate the results reported in this paper can be found in the Political Behavior data archive in Dataverse.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Science, Vanderbilt University, PMB 505, 230 Vanderbilt Place, Nashville, TN, 37203, USA

    Efrén O. Pérez

Authors
  1. Efrén O. Pérez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Efrén O. Pérez.

Electronic Supplementary Material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 54 kb)

Appendix: Question Wording for Study 1 and Study 2

Appendix: Question Wording for Study 1 and Study 2

Unless otherwise noted, all items below appeared across both studies. Underlined items appeared only in Study 1. Italicized items appeared only in Study 2.

Bilingual Identification Items

  1. (1)

    Would you say you can carry on a conversation in Spanish, both understanding and speaking—(1) very well, (2) pretty well, (3) just a little, or (4) not at all?

  2. (2)

    Would you say you can read a newspaper or book in Spanish—(1) very well, (2) pretty well, (3) just a little, or (4) not at all?

  3. (3)

    Would you say you can carry on a conversation in English, both understanding and speaking—(1) very well, (2) pretty well, (3) just a little, or (4) not at all?

  4. (4)

    Would you say you can read a newspaper or book in English—(1) very well, (2) pretty well, (3) just a little, or (4) not at all?

[ORDER OF LATINO, AMERICAN, AND NATIONAL ORIGIN IDENTITY BATTERIES WAS RANDOMIZED].

Latino Identity Items

  1. (5)

    Being Latino is unimportant to my sense of what kind of person I am.

    1. (1)

      Strongly disagree

    2. (2)

      Somewhat disagree

    3. (3)

      Somewhat agree

    4. (4)

      Strongly agree

  2. (6)

    Overall, being Latino has very little to do with how I think about myself.

    1. (1)

      Strongly disagree

    2. (2)

      Somewhat disagree

    3. (3)

      Somewhat agree

    4. (4)

      Strongly agree

  3. (7)

    Identifying with other Latinos is central to who I am as an individual

    1. (1)

      Strongly disagree

    2. (2)

      Somewhat disagree

    3. (3)

      Somewhat agree

    4. (4)

      Strongly agree

American Identity Items

  1. (8)

    How strongly do you identify as American?

    1. (1)

      Not at all

    2. (2)

      Slightly

    3. (3)

      Somewhat

    4. (4)

      Very much

  2. (9)

    To what extent do you see yourself as a typical American?

    1. (1)

      Not at all

    2. (2)

      Slightly

    3. (3)

      Somewhat

    4. (4)

      Very much

  3. (10)

    In general, being American has very little to do with how I think of myself

    1. (1)

      Strongly disagree

    2. (2)

      Somewhat disagree

    3. (3)

      Somewhat agree

    4. (4)

      Strongly agree

  4. (11)

    Being American is unimportant to who I am as a person

    1. (1)

      Strongly disagree

    2. (2)

      Somewhat disagree

    3. (3)

      Somewhat agree

    4. (4)

      Strongly agree

  5. (12)

    Identifying as American is central to how I see myself

    1. (1)

      Strongly disagree

    2. (2)

      Somewhat disagree

    3. (3)

      Somewhat agree

    4. (4)

      Strongly agree

  6. (13)

    Overall, American identity is not important to my self-image.

    1. (1)

      Strongly disagree

    2. (2)

      Somewhat disagree

    3. (3)

      Somewhat agree

    4. (4)

      Strongly agree

National Origin Identity Items

[ITEMS 14-16 WERE CALIBRATED ACCORDING TO NATIONAL ORIGIN GROUP]

  1. (14)

    I am pleased to be [e.g., Mexican].

    1. (1)

      Not at all

    2. (2)

      Slightly

    3. (3)

      Somewhat

    4. (4)

      Very much

  2. (15)

    I identify as [e.g., Mexican].

    1. (1)

      Not at all

    2. (2)

      Slightly

    3. (3)

      Somewhat

    4. (4)

      Very much

  3. (16)

    In general, how strongly do you think of yourself as [e.g., Mexican]?

    1. (1)

      Not at all

    2. (2)

      Slightly

    3. (3)

      Somewhat

    4. (4)

      Very much

Partisanship and Ideology Items

  1. (17)

    Generally speaking, do you think of yourself as a…

    1. (1)

      Republican

    2. (2)

      Democrat

    3. (3)

      Independent

    4. (4)

      Another party, please specify:

    5. (5)

      No preference

[If item 17 = “Republican”]

  1. (17a)

    Would you call yourself a…

    1. (1)

      Strong Republican

    2. (2)

      Not very strong Republican

[If item 17 = “Democrat”]

  1. (17b)

    Would you call yourself a…

    1. (1)

      Strong Democrat

    2. (2)

      Not very strong Democrat

[If item 17 = “Independent” or “Another party” or “No preference” or “Refused”]

  1. (17c)

    Do you think of yourself as closer to the…

    1. (1)

      Republican Party

    2. (2)

      Democratic Party

  2. (18)

    In general, do you think of yourself as…

    1. (1)

      Extremely liberal

    2. (2)

      Liberal

    3. (3)

      Slightly liberal

    4. (4)

      Moderate, middle of the road

    5. (5)

      Slightly conservative

    6. (6)

      Conservative

    7. (7)

      Extremely conservative

Political Knowledge Items

[ORDER OF KNOWLEDGE ITEMS AND THEIR RESPONSE OPTIONS WAS RANDOMIZED]

[Completion of 19a or 19b was randomized]

  1. (19a)

    In general, thinking about the political parties in Washington, would you say Democrats are more conservative than Republicans, or Republicans are more conservative than Democrats?

    1. (1)

      Democrats are more conservative than Republicans

    2. (2)

      Republicans are more conservative than Democrats

    3. (3)

      I don’t know

  2. (19b)

    In general, thinking about the political parties in Washington, would you say Republicans are more conservative than Democrats, or Democrats are more conservative than Republicans?

    1. (1)

      Republicans are more conservative than Democrats

    2. (2)

      Democrats are more conservative than Republicans

    3. (3)

      I don’t know

  3. (20)

    Whose responsibility is it to determine if a law is constitutional or not?

    1. (1)

      the President

    2. (2)

      Congress

    3. (3)

      the Supreme Court

    4. (4)

      I don’t know

  4. (21)

    How much of a majority is required for the U.S. Senate and House to override a presidential veto?

    1. (1)

      one half plus one vote

    2. (2)

      three-fifths

    3. (3)

      two-thirds

    4. (4)

      three quarters

    5. (5)

      I don’t know

  5. (22)

    What job or office is now held by John Roberts?

    1. (1)

      Secretary of the Treasury Department

    2. (2)

      Vice-President of the United States

    3. (3)

      Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court

    4. (4)

      I don’t know

  6. (23)

    What job or political office does John Boehner now hold?

    1. (1)

      Vice-President of the United States

    2. (2)

      Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives

    3. (3)

      U.S. Ambassador to China

    4. (4)

      I don’t know

  7. (24)

    In June 2012, it was announced that illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. under the age of 16 would be able to live and work here for two years if they met various requirements, including a clean criminal record. What government institution was formally responsible for this policy change?

    1. (1)

      The U.S. Supreme Court

    2. (2)

      The U.S. Congress

    3. (3)

      The Office of the President of the United States

    4. (4)

      I don’t know

  8. (25)

    What job or office does Sonia Sotomayor now hold?

    1. (1)

      Secretary of Homeland Security

    2. (2)

      News reporter for Univision News

    3. (3)

      Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court

    4. (4)

      I don’t know

  9. (26)

    What job or office does Marco Rubio now hold?

    1. (1)

      News reporter for Telemundo News

    2. (2)

      Secretary of Health and Human Services

    3. (3)

      U.S. Senator

    4. (4)

      I don’t know

  10. (27)

    How long is the term of office for a United States Senator? [OPEN-ENDED]

Political Efficacy and Obama Thermometer Rating

  1. (28)

    Sometimes politics and government seem so complicated that a person like me can’t really understand what’s going on.

    1. (1)

      Strongly disagree

    2. (2)

      Somewhat disagree

    3. (3)

      Somewhat agree

    4. (4)

      Strongly agree

  2. (29)

    Using what is called a feeling thermometer, we want you to rate how you feel toward each group or individual below. Ratings between 0 and 49 mean that you feel unfavorable or cool toward the group or individual. Ratings from 51 to 100 mean that you feel favorable or warm toward the group or individual. You can rate the group or individual at the 50 degree mark if you don’t feel warm or cool toward them

Click on the line below to indicate your opinion. You can slide the indicator to the position that best reflects your opinion. If the indicator does not work, you can enter a number in the number box.

Barack Obama

figure a

Self-reported Emotion Items

[ORDER OF ITEMS WAS RANDOMIZED]

  1. (30)

    How anxious do you feel right now, at this moment?

    1. (1)

      Not anxious at all

    2. (2)

      A little anxious

    3. (3)

      Somewhat anxious

    4. (4)

      Very anxious

  2. (31)

    How worried do you feel right now, at this moment?

    1. (1)

      Not worried at all

    2. (2)

      A little worried

    3. (3)

      Somewhat worried

    4. (4)

      Very worried

  3. (32)

    How angry do you feel right now, at this moment?

    1. (1)

      Not angry at all

    2. (2)

      A little angry

    3. (3)

      Somewhat angry

    4. (4)

      Very angry

  4. (33)

    How proud do you feel right now, at this moment?

    1. (1)

      Not proud at all

    2. (2)

      A little proud

    3. (3)

      Somewhat proud

    4. (4)

      Very proud

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pérez, E.O. Rolling off the Tongue into the Top-of-the-Head: Explaining Language Effects on Public Opinion. Polit Behav 38, 603–634 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-015-9329-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-015-9329-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation