DUTCH PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION STUDY 1986 An enterprise of the Dutch Political Science Community C. van der EIJK G. A. IRWIN B. NIEMOLLER with the assistance of J.M.A. van Dijk J.J.M. van HOLSTEYN T.J. aan de KERK J.N. TILLIE Published by Steinmetz Archives Dutch Interuniversity Election Study Workgroup May 1983 First published 1988 Copyright Dutch Interuniversity Election Study Workgroup 1988 Printed by Kaal Boek, Amsterdam Published by Steinmetz Archive/SWIDOC CIP-Gegevens Eijk, C. van der Dutch parliamentary election study 1986: an enterprise of the Dutch Political Science Community / C. van der Eijk, G.A. Irwin, B. Niemoller. - Amsterdam : Steinmetz Archive, 1988 (Steinmetz archive codebooks ; no. 6) ISBN 90-71684-08-3 SISO 393.37 UDC [324:328](492)"1986" Subject heading: elections ; The Netherlands. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF ASSISTANCE All manuscripts utilizing the data documented in this codebook should identify the original collector of the data. All users are urged to follow some adaptation of the following statement with the parentheses indicating items to be inserted or deleted as appropriate: "The data (and tabulations) utilized in this (publication) were originally collected for the Dutch Parliamentary Election Study 1986 by C. van der Eijk, G.A. Irwin and B. Niemoller on behalf of the Dutch Interuniversity Election Study Workgroup. This study has been made possible by grants from the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of the Interior, the Social and Cultural Planning Office, the Netherlands Organization for the Advancement of Pure Research (ZWO), the Department of Political Science (FSW-A) of the University of Amsterdam and the University of Leiden. The original collectors of the data do not bear any responsibility for the analyses or interpretations published here." In order to provide funding agencies with essential information about the use of data collected with their assistance, each user of the data is expected to send two copies of each completed manuscript to the original collectors: Interuniversity Election Study Workgroup (NKO) c/o Department of Political Science University of Amsterdam Oude Zijds Achterburgwal 237 1012 DL Amsterdam The Netherlands and to the distributor of the data: Steinmetz Archives Herengracht 410-412 1017 BX Amsterdam The Netherlands SUMMARY OF CONTENTS PART 1 GENERAL INFORMATION - Introduction and Study Design - Funding and Organization - Fieldwork and Dataprocessing - Sampling and Response Information - File information - Codebook information PART 2 VARIABLE DESCRIPTION LIST PART 3 DOCUMENTATION OF VARIABLES PART 4 APPENDICES - Appendix 1 : Type of Interview Record - Appendix 2 : Construction of scale scores - Appendix 3 : Daily newspaper - Appendix 4 : National problems - Appendix 5 : Construction of variables on party-identification - Appendix 6 : Comparability of questions of the 1986 study with those of the 1982, 1981, 1977, 1972 and 1971 studies - Appendix 7 : Typology of household composition - Appendix 8 : Branches of industry - Appendix 9 : Education - Appendix 10: Income - Appendix 11: Disturbances during the interview - Appendix 12: History of fieldwork - Appendix 13: Degree of urbanisation, region and Nodal area code - Appendix 14: Identification number of municipality - Appendix 15: Motivation for party-choice - Appendix 16: Motivation for non-voting - Appendix 17: Union respondent is a member of - Appendix 18: Weighting - Appendix 19: Contextual information with respect to Politicians and Election Results PART 5 FREQUENCIES ADDENDUM PART 6 QUESTIONNAIRES - Questionnaire Wave 1 - Showcards Wave 1 - Questionnaire Wave 2 - Showcards Wave 2 INTRODUCTION AND STUDY-DESIGN The Dutch Parliamentary Election Study 1986 is the seventh of a series of national election studies in the Netherlands. The previous studies have been conducted on the occasion of elections for the Second Chamber of Parliament in 1967, 1971, 1972, 1977, 1981, and 1982. The 1986 study focusses on the elections for the Second Chamber of Parliament of May 21, 1986, which were regular elections, called for because Parliament had served its full term since the previous elections of 1982. The data of all these studies are available for secondary analysis without any restrictions, and can be obtained from Steinmetz Archives in Amsterdam. The 1986 study has been designed as a two-wave, short-term panel study, carried out on the basis of a freshly drawn representative sample of the Dutch electorate at the time of the Parliamentary elections. The first wave of interviews was conducted in the last weeks of March and in April 1986, immediately following the elections for Municipal Councils on March 20, 1986. The second wave of interviews started the day after the Parliamentary Elections of May 21, 1986 and continued through June. In terms of external events the timing of the two waves of interviews can be characterized as follows. All interviews of the first wave were conducted after the results of the Municipal elections had been made public. Owing to three conditions these municipal elections were generally considered as a kind of preview of the parliamentary elections. First, the time-interval between these two elections was only 2 months, second, municipal elections are a national phenomenon owing to the fact that they take place on the same day in virtually all municipalities of the country, and third, in spite of occasional local parties, the choice-options for municipal councils resemble closely those for parliamentary elections. The distiction between pre and post election interviews happens to coincide with a distinction before and after the Tchernobyl nuclear accident, owing to the fact that fieldwork for the first wave had just been concluded when this accident occurred and became known to the public (newspapers in the Netherlands carried the story of the accident for the first time on April 30, 1986). Finally, the first wave of interviews can be considered not only as a pre- election study, but to a large extent also as a pre-campaign study. Although it is impossible to set a sharp and unequivocal date for the start of the campaign for the Parliamentary elections, it is generally accepted that the campaign proper started after the completion of the fieldwork of the first wave. The second wave of interviews was conducted after the elections, and also after their results had become public. The outcome of the Parliamentary elections of May 21, 1986 is reported in Appendix 19 in this codebook. The questionnaires for the 1986 election study have been designed by a supervisory board the composition of which is listed below. In addition to series of questions which have been proposed by researchers from various institutions, the questionnaires contain a large number of questions which were also included in previous elections studies, thus allowing for ample opportunities for over-time comparisons. Information pertaining to such replications and comparability with earlier studies is reported in Appendix 6 of this codebook. To limit costs, the published documentation of the 1986 election study exists only in the form of this English language codebook. The original Dutch version of question wordings and response alternatives can, however, easily be retrieved by means of facsimiles of the actual questionnaires, which have been included in this volume. A number of results from analyses on the basis of data documented in this codebook have been reported in the following publications: J.J.M. van Holsteyn, G.A.Irwin, C.van der Eijk (eds.) De Nederlandse Kiezer '86, Amsterdam, Swidoc, 1987. C.van der Eijk and Ph.van Praag jr (eds.) De strijd om de meerderheid. De verkiezingen van 1986, Amsterdam, CT Press, 1987. G.A.Irwin, C.van der Eijk, J.M.van Holsteyn and B.Niemoller Verzuiling, issues, kandidaten en ideologie in de verkiezingen van 1986, Acta Politica, vol.22, nr.2, 1987, pp.129-179. C.van der Eijk, G.A.Irwin and B.Niemoller The Dutch Parliamentary Elections of May 1986, Electoral Studies, vol.5, nr.3, 1987, pp.289-296. Information with regard to additional analyses which have been published after the printing of this codebook may be obtained from the study directors. In addition to the fresh-sample election study which is documented in this codebook, the Parliamentary Election Study Workgroup conducted two smaller survey-studies as well, each of which is documented in a separate codebook. The first of these additional studies is a new wave of interviews of the panel which started as a fresh sample in the 1981 Parliamentary Election Study, which was interviewed three times in 1981, and once in 1982. After the 1986 interview this panel will not be approached any more for further interviews. This panel-study is documented in a separate codebook: Dutch Parliamentary Panel Election Study, 1981-1986. The second additional study consists of a series of telephone interviews with a stratified sample, which has been drawn in such a manner to include from all parties (irrespective their actual size or electoral support) a roughly equal number (about 70) of probable voters. This stratified-sample study has been documented in a separate codebook: Dutch Parliamentary Election Study 1986: Stratified Sample. FUNDING AND ORGANIZATION The 1986 Election Study has been made possible by grants from the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of the Interior, the Social and Cultural Planning Office, and the Netherlands Organization for the Advancement of Pure Research (ZWO). Additional grants, manpower and computing facilities were contributed by the Department of Political Science (FSW-A) of the University of Amsterdam, and by the University of Leiden. As of 1971, all parliamentary election studies in the Netherlands have been conducted under the auspices of an inter-university workgroup comprising the political science and political-sociology departments of Dutch universities. In 1986 the following institutions were represented in this workgroup: the University of Amsterdam, the Free University of Amsterdam, the University of Leiden, the Catholic University of Nijmegen, the Catholic University of Brabant, the Erasmus University of Rotterdam, the University of Twente and the University of Groningen. The general coordination, planning and execution of the study were conducted by the Universities of Amsterdam and Leiden. The inter-university election study workgroup was represented by a supervisory board consisting of Ph.C. Stouthard (Catholic University of Brabant), J.J.A. Thomassen (University of Twente), G.A. Irwin (University of Leiden), C.P. Middendorp (Erasmus University of Rotterdam), P. de Guchteneire (Steinmetz Archives), C. van der Eijk and B. Niemoller (both University of Amsterdam). This board is responsible for the design and planning of the study. Study directors for the 1986 election study were C. van der Eijk, G.A. Irwin and B. Niemoller. Other members of the study staff were J.M.A. van Dijk, J.J.M. van Holsteyn, T.J. aan de Kerk en J.N. Tillie. The fieldwork of the study has been conducted by INTER/VIEW (currently Burke) in Amsterdam under supervision of the study directors. Data processing and cleaning have been performed by the study staff (in particular J.M.A. van Dijk, T.J. aan de Kerk and J.N. Tillie), with the assistance of Steinmetz Archives (J. van 't Hoff). The painstaking work of preparing this documentation has largely been executed by J.N.Tillie and T.J. aan de Kerk. FIELD WORK AND DATA PROCESSING Fieldwork The fieldwork of the study, and the coding of open questions, has been conducted by INTER/VIEW (currently Burke) in Amsterdam under supervision of the study directors. Interviewers have been instructed by means of small telephone conferences consisting of one person of the staff of INTER/VIEW, one of the study directors or one of their assistants, and a number of interviewers. These conferences were supported by extensive printed instructions mailed to the interviewers before the telephone conferences. To promote further that interviewers would be sufficiently familiar with the structure and contents of the questionnaire, they were requested to complete the questionnaire themselves before the telephone instructions. Coding Coding of open ended questions has been performed by the coding staff of INTER/VIEW on the basis of coding schemes and instructions provided by the study directors. Coding schemes are documented in appendices in this volume. Cleaning Cleaning of the data has been performed by the study staff during data processing. Consistency checks have been performed with respect to wild-codes, routing inconsistencies, change of person interviewed between the two waves, etc. Corrections have only been made after consulting the original questionnaires in the form as they have been returned by the interviewers. Incorrect data-entries have been corrected, as well as those entries where it was possible to establish unequivocally that the interviewer had made mistakes in recording the answers (for instance by writing down information concerning the head of household at places where similar questions were asked concerning the respondent, or concerning the partner of the respondent, etc.). In cases where the interviewer had evidently made a mistake, but where the correct code could not be established without doubt, missing data codes have been used to replace the obviously incorrect original data. Variables added. The dataset of the Dutch Parliamentary Election Study 1986 contains a number of variables which have been inserted by the study staff after the cleaning of the raw data. These variables, which do not replace any of the original information from the questionnaires, have been added to the file for the convenience of the analyst. This has been done for a number of scale scores and typologies, which summarize multiple scores on separate variables, and for a number of frequently used recodings. The construction of these additional variables is documented partly in the section on 'DOCUMENTATION OF VARIABLES', and, when extensive, in separate appendices in this volume. SAMPLING AND RESPONSE INFORMATION In order to obtain a 'fresh' sample of the 1986 electorate, the same procedure has been employed as in the 1981 and 1982 Parliamentary Election Studies. First of all a sample of households is drawn, subsequently one elector per household has been selected for interviewing. The sample of households has been drawn from the mail-delivery register ("postafgiftenpuntenbestand"). Gross sample size has been set at 3000, and the minimum number of addresses to be sampled for each municipality in the sample (cluster size) has been set to four, the latter guideline being maintained to keep travel-time and hence, costs, within acceptable limits. The sampling procedure starts with a selection of municipalities to be included in the sample, and deciding how many maildelivery points should be drawn in each of the selected municipalities. To make the sample as much as possible a self-weighting one, each mail delivery point in the country should have an equal probability to be drawn in the sample. As the total number of these points is known for the entire country, dividing this number by 3000 yields a quantity (say k) which indicates the total number of mail delivery points te be represented by a single one in the sample. As the clustersize has been set to 4, all municipalities containing at least 4k mail delivery points will be included in the sample, these are the self- selective municipalities. Each of these will be represented in the gross sample by a number of mail delivery points equal to the total number of such points in the municipality, divided by k. With respect to the non- self-selective municipalities, they are listed, ordered according to province and subsequently in order of their standard identification number. Added to this list are the modulus-k remainders of the numbers of mail delivery points of the self-selective municipalities. A cumulative total of the numbers of mail delivery points in these municipalities is added to this list. This entire group of smaller municipalities contains a total of, say, n*k mail delivery points. Consequently, as a group they should be represented by n such points in the sample. Owing to the clustersize of 4, only n/4 municipalities of this list will be selected; this selection itself is achieved by systematic sampling from the cumulated list of totals with a random start and an interval of n/4. This procedure guarantees that the probability of these smaller municipalities to be included in the sample is proportional to the number of mail delivery points they contain, and, owing to the ordering according to province, that the relative size of provinces will be reflected in the sample. After this selection of municipalities, the required number of individual mail delivery points for each is drawn by a random sampling procedure from that section of the register of mail delivery points which pertains to the municipality in question. This register is maintained by the postal service. The total number of mail delivery points sampled in this manner was 2988. To each of these a letter of introduction was mailed, explaining the nature of the study and announcing that an interviewer would come along, while also containing a telephone number for those persons who would like to have more information. Although maildelivery points are supposed to coincide closely with separate households, occasionally two or more households belong to the same maildelivery point. In such cases, each of these households (to a maximum of three) has been included in the sample. Due to this phenomenon the sample comprised 3093 households/addresses to be visited by interviewers. From each household, one person was to be selected at random (by a fixed and predetermined random procedure) from all those who were eligible to vote at the elections for the Second Chamber of May 21, 1986. This randomly selected person is the prospective respondent. No substitution by another person in the same household or by someone in a different household was allowed in case of refusal, no-contact or other factors precluding an interview to be conducted. To increase response it was decided first of all to instruct interviewers that at least two recalls in addition to the first attempt had to be made befor a case could be put aside as nonresponse. In a further attempt, many cases of no success received an additional letter from the study staff explaining the purpose of the interview, emphasizing the importance of a high response, and announcing that another interviewer would visit them. This letter also listed a telephone number to be used either for making an appointment for a specific time, or for making clear that another visit would not be appreciated at all. A number of cases were not approached for a second try in this manner, mainly because prospects for success were rated to be extremely remote (serious illness of prospective respondent, principled refusal, etc.), or because they constituted incorrect inclusions in the sample (foreigners or mail delivery points without occupants). VAR171 and VAR382 comprise the relevant information with respect to the ease or difficulty encountered before conducting the interview. A final step has been to employ a special team of the most qualified interviewers to approach cases which either could not be approached in time for a second try by an interviewer, or which had been approached during the second try, but without success owing to apparently temporary reasons. As this extra, final approach could not be effectuated any more before election day, it was decided to approach these cases for an interview after the elections. In this interview the questionnaires of the first and the second wave would be used back-to-back. For obvious reasons, this necessitated the deletion of a few questions from the interviews for these cases (questions which can only be asked before the elections, such as vote-intention, or expectation of the outcome, and questions which were included in (almost) identical form in both questionnaires, of these only one of the two was used in this combined interview). The respondents who have been subjected to this single, extra long interview are identified by a special code in VAR003; they have been assigned missing-data ('inap') codes for those questions which had to be deleted from this combined interview. The sample is not designed as a sample of the electorate. The sample is drawn from maildelivery points, i.e. households, after which only a single person is selected per household. Notwithstanding the obvious distinction between households (and their composition in term of voters) and electors, the sample may still be interpreted as a sample from the electorate, beit not as a self-weighting one. The slightly unequal distribution of (different kinds of) voters over households will cause some discrepancies between the composition of the electorate and that of the prospective respondents. These discrepancies could simply be overcome by weighting for the number of persons in a household who are eligible to vote (18+ years); this information has been stored in VAR099. Such a simple weighting would suffice in terms of the sample of prospective respondents, but not necessarily for the sample of respondents who have actually been interviewed. Various sources of non-response may possibly aggravate, or compensate or over-compensate the possible biases resulting from sampling households rather than voters. A more complicated weighting procedure is required to reduce any discrepancies which may exist between the composition of the electorate and that of the actual sample. Such a weighting has been performed by the study-staff on the basis of a sex- cohort-urbanization comparison of the entire electorate and the realized sample. The resulting weighting coefficients have been stored on VAR384 and VAR385; a detailed account of the procedure which has been used is given in Appendix 18. An account of the fieldwork in terms of response and non-response follows hereafter. # mail delivery points selected: 2988 # households comprised in these addresses: 3093 (maximum of 1 respondent to be selected per household) Summary of nonresponse for first wave 1986 original raw sample 3093 incorrect inclusions: -uninhabited dwelling 156 -foreigners 165 ------ gross sample 2772 = 100.0% response (1st+2nd try+combined interview)1630 = 58.8% illness, etc. 134 = 4.8% no contact 201 = 7.3% refusals and other causes 807 = 29.1% Summary of nonresponse for second wave 1986 # of respondents from wave 1 1630 wrong person interviewed 28 ------ 1602 = 100.0% response (1st+2nd try+combined interview)1360 = 84.9% Geographical distribution of response and nonresponse Reported below is the distribution of response and nonresponse, broken down according to a few geopgraphical characteristics: degree of urbanization, province, region and size of municipality. The frequency-distributions for the response are, of course, identical to those reported in the 'DOCUMENTATION OF VARIABLES' part of this codebook, VAR173 to VAR176. Region (for definition of categories, refer to Appendix 13) code category gross response nonresponse sample freq. % freq. % 01 I 550 307 55.8 243 44.2 02 II 762 424 55.6 338 44.4 03 III 307 195 63.5 112 36.5 04 IV 510 305 59.8 205 40.2 05 V 643 399 62.1 244 37.9 Total 2772 1630 58.8 1142 41.2 Degree of urbanization (for definition of categories, refer to Appendix 13) code category gross response nonresponse sample freq. % freq. % 01 A1 - - - - - 02 A2 8 6 75.0 2 25.0 03 A3 71 41 57.7 30 42.3 04 A4 169 111 65.7 58 34.3 05 B1 192 122 63.5 70 36.5 06 B2 368 225 61.1 143 38.9 07 B3 390 232 59.5 158 40.5 08 C1 66 39 59.1 27 40.9 09 C2 227 128 56.4 99 43.6 10 C3 165 99 60.0 66 40.0 11 C4 283 148 52.3 135 47.7 12 C5 394 230 58.4 164 41.6 13 C6 439 249 56.7 190 43.3 Total 2772 1630 58.8 1142 41.2 Province code category gross response nonresponse sample freq. % freq. % 01 Groningen 119 72 60.5 47 39.5 02 Friesland 112 66 58.9 46 41.1 03 Drente 76 57 75.0 19 25.0 04 Overijssel 176 116 65.9 60 34.1 05 Gelderland 322 180 55.9 142 44.1 06 Utrecht 177 102 57.6 75 42.4 07 Noord-Holland 532 291 54.7 241 45.3 08 Zuid-Holland 594 331 55.7 263 44.3 09 Zeeland 70 40 57.1 30 42.9 10 Noord-Brabant 375 242 64.5 133 35.5 11 Limburg 198 117 59.1 81 40.9 12 Flevoland 21 16 76.2 5 23.8 Total 2772 1630 58.8 1142 41.2 Size of municipality code category gross response nonresponse sample freq. % freq. % 01 <=5000 74 47 63.5 27 36.5 02 5000-10000 248 146 58.9 102 41.1 03 10000-20000 483 307 63.6 176 36.4 04 20000-50000 640 369 57.7 271 42.3 05 50000-100000 451 262 58.1 189 41.9 06 =>100000 437 250 57.2 187 42.8 07 The Hague 96 60 62.5 36 37.5 08 Rotterdam 130 70 53.8 60 46.2 09 Amsterdam 213 119 55.9 94 44.1 Total 2772 1630 58.8 1142 41.2 FILE INFORMATION The data from the Dutch Parliamentary Election Study 1986 can be obtained from Steinmetz-Archives in Amsterdam (NL) or from ICPSR in Ann Arbor (USA). The data can be obtained in one of the following formats * SPSS-system file, containing 1630 cases and 384 variables. Fully labelled, including missing data definitions, etc. * logical record file containing 1 record per respondent, each record containing 635 bytes of information. * a utility file containing labels for variables, values, missing data codes, which can be used to regenerate a SPSS system file from either the card-image or the logical record file, or, alternatively, to edit in such a way that it can serve to label a datafile in a different format than SPSS. This utility file contains only normal ASCII code. In addition to the data described in this codebook a small dataset can be obtained from Steinmetz Archives on floppy disk, containing 3093 records, each of which represents one of the cases of the households comprised in the sample of mail delivery points. For each of these records the following variables have been coded: fieldwork status after the first wave of interviews, fieldwork status after the second wave of interviews, fieldwork status in terms of the extra effort resulting in combined interviews, identification number of municipality, province, region and size of municipality. The fieldwork status variables distinguish between over- inclusion (uninhabited address, or address without persons eligible to vote), various reasons for no-contact, refusals and other causes of no- success, and successful interviews. This little file is ASCII coded and can be used for more detailed analyses of nonresponse than can be reported here. This file can be referred to as the Sample-history dataset of the Dutch Parliamentary Election Study 1986, and is released and distributed under the same conditions as the main study. CODEBOOK INFORMATION The example below is a reproduction of information appearing in the codebook for a typical variable. The small printed numbers between brackets do not appear in the codebook, but are references to the descriptions which follow this example. --------------------------------------------------------------------- VAR109 Employment status of respondent (2) MD=98 99 (3) (1) REF109 COL 191-192 (4) WAVE 1 QUEST. P5 (5) (7) 01. employed by government 217 13.3 (8) 02. employed-private employee (10) 432 26.5 (9) 03. self-employed 104 6.4 04. employed-elsewhere 27 1.7 05. was employed-disabled 45 2.8 06. was employed-unemployed 53 3.3 07. was employed-retired 200 12.3 08. was employed-other 57 3.5 09. never employed-study 58 3.6 10. never employed-unemployed 9 .6 11. never employed-other 57 3.5 98. NA 19 1.2 99. INAP (VAR108, code 2) 352 21.6 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 --------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Indicates variable and reference numbers. A variable and a reference number are assigned to each item in the study. The variable numbers refer to variable-name of this information in a SPSS-system file, the reference number to the logical record file, and could be used if such a logical- record file were to be used for creating an OSIRIS datafile. Should the data be subset by an SPSS procedure, the variable numbers would not be affected and remain the same as those in the codebook. 2. Indicates the variable label used in the SPSS system file and listed in the "VARIABLE DESCRIPTION LIST". The labels are included in the utility file (refer to section File Information) and can be edited at will for making a labeled version of the data in a different format than SPSS. 3. Indicates the designation of missing data. In this example values greater than or equal to six are missing data (MD=GE 6). Alternative statements for other variables can be of the following formats: "MD=0", "MD=0 or GE 9", "MD=none", etc. Some analysis software packages require that certain types of data which the user desires to exclude from analysis be designated as 'missing data', e.g. inappropriate, unascertained, unascertainable or ambiguous data categories. Although these categories are defined as missing data categories, this does not mean that a user should not or cannot use these codes in a substantive role if he or she so desires. 4. Indicates the location by column(s) of this variable when the data are in card image. 5. Indicates question number in the relevant questionnaire, serves as reference-key to the facsimiles of the questionnairres reproduced in this codebook. 6. Indicates any contingency associated with the variable. Also listed is a translation of the full question text to describe the variable. The original Dutch wording of the question text can be retrieved from a facsimile of the questionnaire included in this volume. 7. Indicates an additional comment or explanation appended to the variable description. 8. Indicates the absolute and relative frequency of occurrence of each value. 9. Indicates the values occurring in the data for this variable. 10. Indicates the textual definitions of the codes. Abbrevations commonly used in the code definitions are: DK (don't know), NA (not ascertained) and INAP (inappropriate). These value labels are also included in the utility file, and can be edited at will for making a labeled version of the data in a different format than SPSS. VARIABLE DESCRIPTION LIST WAVE QUEST.* VAR. DESCRIPTION NO. NO. - - 001 study number - - 002 respondent identification number - - 003 type of interview record __________________________ ! ! ! FIRST WAVE OF INTERVIEWS ! !__________________________! POLITICAL INTEREST AND COMMUNICATION 1 1 004 reads about national news? 1 2 005 talks about national problems? 1 3 006 reads about foreign news? 1 4 007 is interested in politics? 1 1-4 008 political interest score 1 5 009 daily newspaper 1st answer 1 5 010 daily newspaper 2nd answer 1 5 011 daily newspaper 3rd answer 1 6 012 frequency watching tv newscast 1 7 013 most reliable: daily paper or tv news? NATIONAL PROBLEMS OF IMPORTANCE TO RESPONDENT 1 8 014 most important national problem 1 8 015 second important national problem 1 8 016 third important national problem 1 8 017 fourth important national problem 1 8 018 fifth important national problem PARTY IDENTIFICATION AND MEMBERSHIP 1 9a 019 resp is an adherent of a party 1 9b 020 party resp is an adherent of 1 9c 021 resp is convinced adherent 1 9d 022 resp is no adherent but attracted to 1 9e 023 party resp is attracted to 1 9a-9e 024 strength of identification 1 9b,9e 025 direction of identification 1 10a 026 is respondent member of a party? 1 10b 027 party respondent is a member of 1 10c 028 has resp ever been a member of a party? GOVERNMENT POLICY 1 11a 029 effect govt policy on economic situation 1 11b 030 effect of govt policy on employment 1 11c 031 effect govt policy on r's finances 1 12 032 satisfaction with government 1 11a-12 033 policy satisfaction score POLITICAL ISSUES - ABORTION 1 13a 034 abortion - perception of CDA 1 13a 035 abortion - perception of PvdA 1 13a 036 abortion - perception of VVD 1 13a 037 abortion - perception of D66 1 13a 038 abortion - respondent's preference POLITICAL ISSUES - NUCLEAR ENERGY 1 13b 039 nuclear plants - perception of CDA 1 13b 040 nuclear plants - perception of PvdA 1 13b 041 nuclear plants - perception of VVD 1 13b 042 nuclear plants - perception of D66 1 13b 043 nuclear plants - resp's preference 1 13b 044 closing nuclear plants - yes or no? POLITICAL ISSUES - DIFFERENCES IN INCOME 1 13c 045 income differences - perception of CDA 1 13c 046 income differences - perception of PvdA 1 13c 047 income differences - perception of VVD 1 13c 048 income differences - perception of D66 1 13c 049 income differences - resp's preference VOTING BEHAVIOR 1986 MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS 1 14a 050 did vote in 86 municipal elections? 1 14b 051 party voted for in 86 munic. elections VOTE INTENTION SECOND CHAMBER 1986 1 15a 052 does r intend to vote in 86 parl electns 1 15b 053 party respondent intends to vote for 1 15c 054 vote intention if obligated to vote IMPORTANCE PARTY AND MP CHARACTERISTICS 1 16 055 importance of political principles of pty 1 16 056 importance of first candidate pty list 1 16 057 importance of pty's election programme 1 16 058 importance of entire list of candidates 1 16 059 importance of size of party 1 16 060 importance of pty's campaign performance 1 16 061 importance of pty's standing in polls 1 16 062 importance of pty's stand on emanc women 1 17 063 better represented by mp from own area? 1 18 064 better represented by male or female mp? SYMPATHY FOR PARTIES AND POLITICIANS 1 19 065 sympathy score PvdA 1 19 066 sympathy score VVD 1 19 067 sympathy score D66 1 19 068 sympathy score PPR 1 19 069 sympathy score CPN 1 19 070 sympathy score CDA 1 19 071 sympathy score SGP 1 19 072 sympathy score GPV 1 19 073 sympathy score RPF 1 19 074 sympathy score Centrumpartij 1 19 075 sympathy score EVP 1 20 076 sympathy score Ruud Lubbers 1 20 077 sympathy score Joop den Uyl 1 20 078 sympathy score Ed Nijpels 1 20 079 sympathy score Hans van Mierlo 1 20 080 sympathy score Bert de Vries 1 20 081 sympathy score Wim Kok 1 20 082 sympathy score Hans Wiegel COALITION PREFERENCES 1 21 083 r prefers D66 in cabinet 1 21 084 r prefers VVD in cabinet 1 21 085 r prefers PvdA in cabinet 1 21 086 r prefers CDA in cabinet 1 21 087 preferred government coalition 1 22 088 does it matter who are in the coalition? EXPOSURE TO POLLS, EXPECTATION OF ELECTION OUTCOME 1 23 089 exposed to election polls in media? 1 24 090 accuracy of election polls 1 25a 091 will PvdA win or lose compared to 1982? 1 25b 092 will CDA win or lose compared to 1982? 1 25c 093 will VVD win or lose compared to 1982? 1 25d 094 will D66 win or lose compared to 1982? 1 25e 095 will CDA-VVD coalition retain majority? BACKGROUND DATA 1 P1 096 sex of respondent 1 P1 097 age of respondent 1 P1 098 number of persons in household 1 P1 099 number of persons >18 years in household 1 P1 100 status of respondent in household 1 P1 101 typology of household composition 1 P2 102 respondent's birthday - day 1 P2 103 respondent's birthday - month 1 P2 104 respondent's birthday - year 1 P2 105 electoral cohort of respondent 1 P3 106 marital status OCCUPATION OF RESP, SPOUSE, H of H and FATHER of RESP 1 P3a 107 respondent is housewife 1 P4 108 does housewife also have paying job? 1 P5 109 employment status of respondent 1 P6 110 profession and function of respondent 1 P6 111 branch of industry resp's job is in 1 P6 112 number of staff respondent employs 1 P7 113 nr. of hours per week respondent works 1 P8 114 was respondent employed previously? 1 P9 115 former profession and function of resp 1 P9 116 branch of industry resp's former job 1 P9 117 number of staff in resp's previous job 1 P10 118 would resp like regular employment? 1 P11 119 employment of father in r's adolescence 1 P11a 120 employer of father of respondent 1 P12 121 profession and function of father of r 1 P12 122 branch of industry father's job was in 1 P12 123 number of staff father of resp employed 1 P12a 124 head of hhold is the respondent 1 P13 125 employment status of head of household 1 P14 126 profession and function of head of hhold 1 P14 127 branch of industry h of hh's job is in 1 P14 128 number of staff head of hhold employs 1 P15 129 former profession and function h of hh 1 P15 130 branch of industry h of hh's former job 1 P15 131 number of staff h of hh formerly employed EDUCATION AND SUBJECTIVE CLASS 1 P16 132 education of respondent 1 P17 133 education of father of respondent 1 P17a 134 recapitulation concerning h of hh 1 P18 135 education of head of household 1 P19 136 social class - self image RELIGION 1 P20a 137 is r religious? 1 P20b 138 religious affiliation 1 P21 139 sect in dutch ref. church r belongs to 1 P22 140 calvinist denomination-sect r belongs to 1 P23 141 attendance of religious services 1 P24 142 religion respondent is brought up in 1 P25a 143 recapitulation concerning partner of r 1 P25b 144 religious affiliation of partner 1 P25c 145 sect in D. Ref.Church partner belongs to 1 P25d 146 calvin. denom.-sect partner belongs to 1 P25e 147 partner's attendance of relig. services 1 P25f 148 religion partner is brought up in POLITICAL PREFERENCE OF PARENTS 1 P26a 149 discussed pol. at home when adolescent 1 P26b 150 recalls party preference of father? 1 P26c 151 party pref. of father during adolescence 1 P26d 152 recalls party preference of mother? 1 P26e 153 party pref. of mother during adolescence INCOME 1 P27a 154 income of respondent's household 1 P27b 155 recapitulation concerning partner 1 P27c 156 who earns higher income, r or partner? 1 P28 157 health insurance - head of household 1 P29 158 is respondent or h of hh houseowner? MISCELLANEOUS - - 159 start of first interview - - 160 end of first interview - - 161 interviewer identification nr. - wave 1 - - 162 date of first interview - day - - 163 date of first interview - month - - 164 present at interview - children under 6y - - 165 present at interview - children over 6y - - 166 present at interview - spouse-partner - - 167 present at interview - other relatives - - 168 present at interview - other adults - - 169 disturbing influences - 1st answer - - 170 disturbing influences - 2nd answer - - 171 history of fieldwork for this case - - (172) the dataset does not contain a variable named VAR172 - - 173 degree of urbanisation - - 174 size of municipality - - 175 province - - 176 region - - 177 identification number of municipality ___________________________ ! ! ! SECOND WAVE OF INTERVIEWS ! !___________________________! INTEREST IN CAMPAIGN 2 1 178 reads about campaign news 2 2 179 watched election debate on tv VOTING BEHAVIOR 1986 2 3 180 did vote in 86 parliam. elections? 2 4 181 party voted for in 86 elections 2 5 182 party choice - first reason 2 5 183 party choice - second reason 2 5 184 reason pty choice - retro- prospective 2 5 185 reason pty choice - issue relevance 2 5 186 reason pty choice - alternate coding 2 6 187 party choice - when decided 2 7 188 previous voting behavior of voters 2 8 189 previously voted for: 1st answer 2 8 190 previously voted for: 2nd answer 2 8 191 previously voted for: 3rd answer 2 8 192 previously voted for: 4th answer 2 9 193 considered not to vote in 1986 2 9a 194 did hesitate about party choice 2 10 195 party considered as alternative choice 2 11 196 didn't vote - first reason 2 11 197 didn't vote - second reason 2 12 198 didn't vote - when decided 2 13 199 preferred party of non-voters VOTING BEHAVIOR OF PARTNER 1986 2 14a 200 r has partner 2 14b 201 partner did vote in 86 parl elects 2 15 202 pty partner voted for in 86 parl elects VOTING BEHAVIOR IN 1982 2 16 203 resp did vote in 1982 parl elects 2 17 204 pty resp voted for in 1982 parl elects POLITICAL ISSUES - EUTHANASIA 2 18a 205 euthanasia - perception of CDA 2 18a 206 euthanasia - perception of PvdA 2 18a 207 euthanasia - perception of VVD 2 18a 208 euthanasia - perception of D66 2 18a 209 euthanasia - respondent's preference POLITICAL ISSUES - INCOME DIFFERENCES 2 18b 210 income differences - perception of CDA 2 18b 211 income differences - perception of PvdA 2 18b 212 income differences - perception of VVD 2 18b 213 income differences - perception of D66 2 18b 214 income differences - resp's preference POLITICAL ISSUES - NUCLEAR ENERGY 2 18c 215 nuclear plants - perception of CDA 2 18c 216 nuclear plants - perception of PvdA 2 18c 217 nuclear plants - perception of VVD 2 18c 218 nuclear plants - perception of D66 2 18c 219 nuclear plants - resp's preference 2 18d 220 closing nuclear plants - yes or no? POLITICAL ISSUES - NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS 2 19 221 nuclear weapons - first item 2 19 222 nuclear weapons - second item 2 19 223 nuclear weapons - third item 2 19 224 nuclear weapons - fourth item 2 19 225 nuclear weapons - fifth item 2 19 226 nuclear weapons - opinion score 2 20 227 nuclear weapons - perception of CDA 2 20 228 nuclear weapons - perception of PvdA 2 20 229 nuclear weapons - perception of VVD 2 20 230 nuclear weapons - perception of D66 2 21 231 signed anti-cruise missile petition? EXPECTATIONS OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 2 22a 232 expected effect CDA-VVD govt r's financ 2 22b 233 expected effect CDA-PvdA govt r's financ 2 23a 234 expectation general prosperity in 4 yrs 2 23b 235 expect effect CDA-VVD govt genrl prosp 2 23c 236 expect effect CDA-PvdA govt genrl prosp POLITICAL ISSUES - ECONOMY AND SOCIAL SECURITY 2 24 237 priority:reduce deficit or reduce unempl 2 25a 238 reduction unempl benefits - agree? 2 25b 239 differentiation unempl benefits - agree? EXPERIENCE OF UNEMPLOYMENT - RESP. AND OTHERS 2 26 240 has been unempl recently - respondent 2 26 241 has been unempl recently - partner 2 26 242 has been unempl recently - others in hh 2 26 243 has been unempl recently - relatives 2 26 244 has been unempl recently - friends 2 26 245 has been unempl recently - acquiantences POLITICAL KNOWLEDGE 2 27 246 photo a - Van Mierlo 2 27 247 party of Van Mierlo 2 27 248 function of Van Mierlo 2 27 249 photo b - Beckers 2 27 250 party of Beckers 2 27 251 function of Beckers 2 27 252 photo c - Terpstra 2 27 253 party of Terpstra 2 27 254 function of Terpstra 2 27 255 photo d - Ruding 2 27 256 party of Ruding 2 27 257 function of Ruding 2 27 258 political knowledge score FAITH IN PROSPECTIVE PREMIERS 2 28 259 faith in Den Uyl as premier 2 28 260 faith in Lubbers as premier 2 28 261 faith in Nijpels as premier LEFT AND RIGHT IN POLITICS 2 29 262 left-right selfrating 2 30 263 left-right rating of PvdA 2 30 264 left-right rating of VVD 2 30 265 left-right rating of D66 2 30 266 left-right rating of PPR 2 30 267 left-right rating of CPN 2 30 268 left-right rating of CDA 2 30 269 left-right rating of SGP 2 30 270 left-right rating of PSP 2 30 271 left-right rating of GPV 2 30 272 left-right rating of RPF 2 30 273 left-right rating of Centrumpartij 2 30 274 left-right rating of EVP POLITICAL EFFICACY AND CYNICISM 2 31a 275 political efficacy - item 1 2 31b 276 political efficacy - item 2 2 31c 277 political efficacy - item 3 2 31d 278 political efficacy - item 4 2 31a-31d 279 political efficacy score 2 32a 280 political cynicism - first item 2 32b 281 political cynicism - second item 2 32c 282 political cynicism - third item 2 32a-32c 283 political cynicism score CIVIC COMPETENCE AND CIVIC POLITICAL PARTICIPATION 2 33 284 chance of acting against unjust bill 2 34a 285 did contact cabinet ministers 2 34b 286 did contact member of parliament 2 34c 287 did sign a petition 2 34d 288 did try to activate interest group 2 34e 289 did try to activate radio or tv 2 34f 290 did try to activate political pty 2 34g 291 did contact mayor or alderman 2 34h 292 did contact city councillor 2 34i 293 did join civic action group 2 34j 294 did join demonstration 2 34k 295 did try to activate newspaper 2 34l 296 did lodge a complaint 2 34m 297 did contact department official 2 34a-34m 298 civic participation score 2 35 299 number of campaign activities UNION MEMBERSHIP 2 36a 300 resp is a member of a union 2 36b 301 union resp is a member of 2 36c 302 resp's union affiliated with FNV or CNV 2 37 303 others in hhold member of a union 2 38 304 resp is a member of profess. org. NEW SOCIAL MOVEMENTS: SYMPATHY AND PARTICIPATION 2 39a 305 sympathy score-environmentalist movem. 2 39b 306 sympathy score anti-nucl power movem. 2 39c 307 sympathy score peace movem. 2 39d 308 sympathy score women's movem. 2 39e 309 sympathy score squatter's movem. 2 40a 310 join actions of environmentalist movem. 2 40b 311 join actions of anti-nucl power movem. 2 40c 312 join actions of peace movem. 2 40d 313 join actions of women's movem. 2 40e 314 join actions of squatter's movem. PROBABILITY OF EVER VOTING FOR VARIOUS PARTIES 2 41 315 probability of future vote for PvdA 2 41 316 probability of future vote for VVD 2 41 317 probability of future vote for D66 2 41 318 probability of future vote for PPR 2 41 319 probability of future vote for CPN 2 41 320 probability of future vote for CDA 2 41 321 probability of future vote for SGP 2 41 322 probability of future vote for PSP 2 41 323 probability of future vote for GPV 2 41 324 probability of future vote for RPF 2 41 325 probability of future vote for Centrump. 2 41 326 probability of future vote for EVP TRAIT-EVALUATIONS OF POLITICIANS 2 42a 327 rating of Den Uyl-compassionate 2 42a 328 rating of Den Uyl-decisive 2 42a 329 rating of Den Uyl-reliable 2 42a 330 rating of Den Uyl-willing to compromise 2 42b 331 rating of Lubbers-compassionate 2 42b 332 rating of Lubbers-decisive 2 42b 333 rating of Lubbers-reliable 2 42b 334 rating of Lubbers-willing to compromise 2 42c 335 rating of Nijpels-compassionate 2 42c 336 rating of Nijpels-decisive 2 42c 337 rating of Nijpels-reliable 2 42c 338 rating of Nijpels-willing to compromise 2 42d 339 rating of Van Mierlo-compassionate 2 42d 340 rating of Van Mierlo-decisive 2 42d 341 rating of Van Mierlo-reliable 2 42d 342 rating of Van Mierlo-willing to comprom. 2 42e 343 rating of Kok-compassionate 2 42e 344 rating of Kok-decisive 2 42e 345 rating of Kok-reliable 2 42e 346 rating of Kok-willing to compromise 2 42f 347 rating of De Vries-compassionate 2 42f 348 rating of De Vries-decisive 2 42f 349 rating of De Vries-reliable 2 42f 350 rating of De Vries-willing to compromise 2 42g 351 rating of Wiegel-compassionate 2 42g 352 rating of Wiegel-decisive 2 42g 353 rating of Wiegel-reliable 2 42g 354 rating of Wiegel-willing to compromise 2 42h 355 rating of ideal leader-compassionate 2 42h 356 rating of ideal leader-decisive 2 42h 357 rating of ideal leader-reliable 2 42h 358 rating of ideal leader-willing to compr. RESPONDENT'S VIEW OF RELIGION IN SOCIETY 2 43 359 should there be confessional parties? 2 43 360 should there be confessional unions? 2 43 361 should there be confessional schools? 2 43 362 should there be confessional radio or tv? 2 44 363 is religion a good guide in politics 2 43-44 364 confessional attitude score 2 45 365 r believes in christian faith 2 45a 366 focus of religious attitudes 2 46a 367 r prefers relig or secul nursing homes 2 46b 368 r prefers relig or secul elem schools 2 47 369 confess schools refuse homsex teachers? MISCELLANEOUS - - 370 start of second interview - - 371 end of second interview - - 372 interviewer identification nr. - wave 2 - - 373 date of second interview - day - - 374 date of second interview - month - - 375 present at interview - children under 6y - - 376 present at interview - children over 6y - - 377 present at interview - spouse-partner - - 378 present at interview - other relatives - - 379 present at interview - other adults - - 380 disturbing influences 1st answer - - 381 disturbing influences 2nd answer - - 382 history of fieldwork this case 2nd wave - - 383 nodal area code - - 384 weighting factor 1 - - 385 weighting factor 2 * Explanation of symbols: - :information from not-numbered-items on questionnaire VAR001 Study number MD=none REF001 COL 1-6 WAVE 1 WAVE 2 VAR002 Respondent identification number MD=none REF002 COL 7-11 WAVE 1 WAVE 2 VAR003 Type of Interview record MD=none REF003 COL 12 WAVE 1 WAVE 2 1. 1st and 2nd interview 1205 73.9 2. only 1st interview 273 16.7 3. combined interview 152 9.3 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR004 Reads about national news? MD=7 8 REF004 COL 13 WAVE 1 QUEST. 1 First I would like to ask you some questions about the news in the newspapers. When there is Dutch news in the newspapers, for example about governmental problems, how often do you read this type of news? Could you respond according to this card? 1. always 530 32.5 2. often 289 17.7 3. now and then 451 27.7 4. seldom or never 241 14.8 5. doesn't read papers 117 7.2 7. DK 2 .1 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR005 Talks about national problems? MD=7 8 REF005 COL 14 WAVE 1 QUEST. 2 When there is a discussion in a group about problems in this country, do you generally join in the discussion, do you listen with interest, do you not listen, or do you have no interest? 1. joins conversation 815 50.0 2. listens with interest 598 36.7 3. doesn't listen 206 12.6 7. DK 9 .6 8. NA 2 .1 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR006 Reads about foreign news? MD=7 8 REF006 COL 15 WAVE 1 QUEST. 3 When there is foreign news in the newspaper, for example about tensions or discussions between different countries, how often do you read such news? Could you respond according to this card? 1. always 377 23.1 2. often 361 22.1 3. now and then 496 30.4 4. seldom or never 281 17.2 5. doesn't read papers 112 6.9 8. NA 3 .2 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR007 Is interested in politics? MD=7 8 REF007 COL 16 WAVE 1 QUEST. 4 Are you very interested in political topics, fairly interested or not interested? 1. very interested 260 16.0 2. fairly interested 920 56.4 3. not interested 444 27.2 7. DK 4 .2 8. NA 2 .1 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR008 Political interest score MD=none REF008 COL 17 WAVE 1 QUEST. 1-4 0. 180 11.0 1. 594 36.4 2. 384 23.6 3. 309 19.0 4. 163 10.0 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR009 Daily newpaper 1st answer MD=97 98 REF009 COL 18-19 WAVE 1 QUEST. 5 Which newspapers do you read almost daily? VAR010 Daily newpaper 2nd answer MD=98 99 REF010 COL 20-21 WAVE 1 QUEST. 5 99. INAP (no second answer) VAR011 Daily newpaper 3rd answer MD=98 99 REF011 COL 22-23 WAVE 1 QUEST. 5 99. INAP (no third answer) VAR012 Frequency watching tv newscast MD=7 8 REF012 COL 24 WAVE 1 QUEST. 6 Could you indicate on this card how often each week you watch the evening NOS (television-)news? 1. almost daily 1257 77.1 2. 3-4 times per week 231 14.2 3. 1-2 times per week 89 5.5 4. less than once a week 24 1.5 5. owns no tv set 26 1.6 7. DK 1 .1 8. NA 2 .1 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR013 Most reliable: daily paper or tv news? MD=7 8 REF013 COL 25 WAVE 1 QUEST. 7 Which of these two presents the news the most reliably in your view, the newspaper that you read or the NOS-news? 1. daily paper 319 19.6 2. tv newscast 887 54.4 3. doesn't read paper 83 5.1 4. owns no tv set 23 1.4 7. DK 303 18.6 8. NA 15 .9 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR014 Most important national problem MD=GE 91 REF014 COL 26-27 WAVE 1 QUEST. 8 And now I would like to ask you what in your opinion are the most important problems in our country? VAR015 Second important national problem MD=GE 91 REF015 COL 28-29 WAVE 1 QUEST. 8 99. INAP (no second answer) VAR016 Third important national problem MD=GE 91 REF016 COL 30-31 WAVE 1 QUEST. 8 99. INAP (no third answer) VAR017 Fourth important national problem MD=GE 91 REF017 COL 32-33 WAVE 1 QUEST. 8 99. INAP (no fourth answer) VAR018 Fifth important national problem MD=GE 91 REF018 COL 34-35 WAVE 1 QUEST. 8 99. INAP (no fifth answer) VAR019 Respondent is an adherent of MD=7 8 a party REF019 COL 36 WAVE 1 QUEST. 9a Many people think of themselves as being adherents of a particular political party, but there are also people who do not regard themselves as adherent of one of the political parties. Do you regard yourself as an adherent of a political party, or is this not the case? 1. adherent 660 40.5 2. not adherent 960 58.9 7. DK 10 .6 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR020 Party respondent is an adherent of MD=GE 92 REF020 COL 37-38 WAVE 1 QUEST. 9b Of which party? 01. PvdA 269 16.5 02. CDA 178 10.9 03. VVD 128 7.9 04. D66 13 .8 05. CPN 8 .5 06. PPR 4 .2 07. PSP 12 .7 08. SGP 17 1.0 09. GPV 10 .6 10. RPF 5 .3 11. Centrumpartij 3 .2 12. EVP 1 .1 60. other party 7 .4 92. refused to answer 3 .2 97. DK 2 .1 99. INAP (VAR019, codes 2-7) 970 59.5 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR021 Respondent is convinced adherent MD=7 8 9 REF021 COL 39 WAVE 1 QUEST. 9c Would you call yourself a convinced adherent of this party, or do you not consider yourself to be a convinced adherent? 1. convinced adherent 374 22.9 2. not convinced adherent 261 16.0 7. DK 13 .8 8. NA 7 .4 9. INAP (VAR020, codes 92-99) 975 59.8 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR022 Respondent is no adherent but attracted MD=7 8 9 to REF022 COL 40 WAVE 1 QUEST. 9d Is there a party to which you feel more attracted than to other parties? 1. yes, attracted 648 39.8 2. not attracted 283 17.4 7. DK 29 1.8 8. NA 10 .6 9. INAP (VAR019, code 1) 660 40.5 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR023 Party respondent is attracted to MD=GE 92 REF023 COL 41-42 WAVE 1 QUEST. 9e Which party is that? 01. PvdA 251 15.4 02. CDA 177 10.9 03. VVD 101 6.2 04. D66 39 2.4 05. CPN 5 .3 06. PPR 11 .7 07. PSP 28 1.7 08. SGP 6 .4 09. GPV 2 .1 10. RPF 8 .5 11. Centrumpartij 1 .1 12. EVP 1 .1 60. other party 8 .5 92. refused to answer 3 .2 97. DK 5 .3 98. NA 2 .1 99. INAP (VAR022, codes 2-9) 982 60.2 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR024 Strength of identification MD=8 9 REF024 COL 43 WAVE 1 QUEST. 9a-9e 0. no identification 283 17.4 1. don't know whether attracted 39 2.4 2. attracted, no adherent 629 38.6 3. attracted, dk adherent 9 .6 4. adherent, not convinced 261 16.0 5. adherent, dk whether convinced 20 1.2 6. adherent, convinced 374 22.9 8. NA1 (adherent, dk which party) 5 .3 9. NA2 (attracted, dk which party) 10 .6 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR025 Direction of identification MD=GE 92 REF025 COL 44-45 WAVE 1 QUEST. 9b,9e 01. PvdA 520 31.9 02. CDA 355 21.8 03. VVD 229 14.0 04. D66 52 3.2 05. CPN 13 .8 06. PPR 15 .9 07. PSP 40 2.5 08. SGP 23 1.4 09. GPV 12 .7 10. RPF 13 .8 11. Centrumpartij 4 .2 12. EVP 2 .1 60. other party 15 .9 92. refused to answer 6 .4 97. DK 7 .4 98. NA 2 .1 99. INAP (VAR022, codes 2,7,8) 322 19.8 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR026 Is respondent member of a party? MD=7 8 REF026 COL 46 WAVE 1 QUEST. 10a Are you a member of a political party, or not? 1. member 128 7.9 2. no member 1501 92.1 7. DK 1 .1 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR027 Party respondent is a member of MD=97 98 99 REF027 COL 47-48 WAVE 1 QUEST. 10b Which party ? 01. PvdA 27 1.7 02. CDA 20 1.2 03. VVD 18 1.1 04. D66 4 .2 05. CPN 2 .1 06. PPR 2 .1 07. PSP 3 .2 08. SGP 7 .4 09. GPV 5 .3 10. RPF 3 .2 12. EVP 1 .1 13. other party 5 .3 98. NA 31 1.9 99. INAP (VAR026, codes 2 or 7) 1502 92.1 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR028 Has respondent ever been a member of MD=7 8 9 a party? REF028 COL 49 WAVE 1 QUEST. 10c Have you ever been a member of a political party, or not? 1. yes 115 7.1 2. no 1373 84.2 8. NA 14 .9 9. INAP (VAR026, code 1) 128 7.9 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR029 Effect government policy on economic MD=7 8 situation REF029 COL 50 WAVE 1 QUEST. 11a I would now like to ask a few questions concerning what you think about the policies that the government has followed during the past four years. First the GENERAL ECONOMIC SITUATION, do you think that governmental policies have had a positive, negative, or hardly any effect? 1. positive effect 843 51.7 2. negative effect 246 15.1 3. hardly any effect 381 23.4 7. DK 147 9.0 8. NA 13 .8 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR030 Effect of government policy on MD=7 8 employment REF030 COL 5 WAVE 1 QUEST. 11b And EMPLOYMENT IN THE NETHERLANDS, do you think that governmental policies have had a positive, negative, or hardly any effect? 1. positive effect 601 36.9 2. negative effect 350 21.5 3. hardly any effect 572 35.1 7. DK 97 6.0 8. NA 10 .6 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR031 Effect government policy on respon- MD=7 8 dent's finances REF031 COL 52 WAVE 1 QUEST. 11c And your PERSONAL FINANCIAL SITUATION, has this been positively, negatively or hardly effected by governmental policies? 1. positive effect 189 11.6 2. negative effect 623 38.2 3. hardly any effect 749 46.0 7. DK 64 3.9 8. NA 5 .3 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR032 Satisfaction with government MD=7 8 REF032 COL 53 WAVE 1 QUEST. 12 With the help of this card, could you indicate how satisfied or unsatisfied you are with what the government has done during the past four years? 1. very content 47 2.9 2. content 600 36.8 3. not content 488 29.9 4. discontent 360 22.1 5. very discontent 99 6.1 7. DK 35 2.1 8. NA 1 .1 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR033 Policy satisfaction score MD=none REF033 COL 54 WAVE 1 QUEST. 11a-12 0. low 588 36.1 1. 333 20.4 2. 277 17.0 3. 335 20.6 4. high 97 6.0 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR034 Abortion - perception of CDA MD=97 98 REF034 COL 55-56 WAVE 1 QUEST. 13a There are many political affairs in the news which are discussed or written about. I would like to ask you a few questions about such affairs. First ABORTION: the voluntary termination of pregnancy. Some people think that the government should forbid abortion in all circumstances, other people think that every woman should have the right to decide for herself whether or not she wants an abortion. Of course there are also people who have an intermediate opinion. Suppose we place the persons who would like to forbid abortion in all circumstances at the left of this line (at number 1) and the persons who think every woman has the right to decide for herself at the other end (at number 7). First I shall ask you to indicate the position of a number of political parties on this line. If you don`t know what position a party has on this issue, do not hesitate to tell me so] Can you place the CDA on this line? 01. forbid abortion 384 23.6 02. 386 23.7 03. 323 19.8 04. 185 11.3 05. 61 3.7 06. 26 1.6 07. woman decides 20 1.2 97. DK 241 14.8 98. NA 4 .2 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR035 Abortion - perception of PVDA MD=97 98 REF035 COL 57-58 WAVE 1 QUEST. 13a How about the PvdA? 01. forbid abortion 38 2.3 02. 40 2.5 03. 57 3.5 04. 124 7.6 05. 204 12.5 06. 387 23.7 07. woman decides 484 29.7 97. DK 293 18.0 98. NA 3 .2 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR036 Abortion - perception of VVD MD=97 98 REF036 COL 59-60 WAVE 1 QUEST. 13a How about the VVD? 01. forbid abortion 61 3.7 02. 88 5.4 03. 133 8.2 04. 242 14.8 05. 225 13.8 06. 274 16.8 07. woman decides 260 16.0 97. DK 344 21.1 98. NA 3 .2 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR037 Abortion - perception of D66 MD=97 98 REF037 COL 61-62 WAVE 1 QUEST. 13a How about D66? 01. forbid abortion 26 1.6 02. 32 2.0 03. 48 2.9 04. 164 10.1 05. 232 14.2 06. 297 18.2 07. woman decides 232 14.2 97. DK 592 36.3 98. NA 7 .4 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR038 Abortion - respondent's preference MD=97 98 99 REF038 COL 63-64 WAVE 1 QUEST. 13a And where would you place yourself on this line? 01. forbid abortion 167 10.2 02. 110 6.7 03. 87 5.3 04. 183 11.2 05. 136 8.3 06. 189 11.6 07. woman decides 561 34.4 97. DK 42 2.6 98. NA 3 .2 99. INAP (VAR003, code 3) 152 9.3 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR039 Nuclear plants - perception of CDA MD=97 98 99 REF039 COL 65-66 WAVE 1 QUEST. 13b Here you have another showcard. As you may know some people fear that within the foreseeable future a shortage of energy in the world will occur. One means of fulfilling this need is to build NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS. Some people therefore believe that the Netherlands should quickly increase the number of such plants. On the other hand, others consider the dangers too great and think that no nuclear power plants should be built at all. Can you place the CDA on this line? 01. more nuclear plants 389 23.9 02. 335 20.6 03. 217 13.3 04. 144 8.8 05. 43 2.6 06. 58 3.6 07. no nuclear plants 49 3.0 97. DK 240 14.7 98. NA 3 .2 99. INAP (VAR003, code 3) 152 9.3 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR040 Nuclear plants - perception of PvdA MD=97 98 99 REF040 COL 67-68 WAVE 1 QUEST. 13b How about the PvdA? 01. more nuclear plants 74 4.5 02. 51 3.1 03. 35 2.1 04. 73 4.5 05. 98 6.0 06. 296 18.2 07. no nuclear plants 617 37.9 97. DK 230 14.1 98. NA 4 .2 99. INAP (VAR003, code 3) 152 9.3 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR041 Nuclear plants - perception of VVD MD=97 98 99 REF041 COL 69-70 WAVE 1 QUEST. 13b How about the VVD? 01. more nuclear plants 462 28.3 02. 282 17.3 03. 151 9.3 04. 150 9.2 05. 57 3.5 06. 50 3.1 07. no nuclear plants 54 3.3 97. DK 269 16.5 98. NA 3 .2 99. INAP (VAR003, code 3) 152 9.3 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR042 Nuclear plants - perception of D66 MD=97 98 99 REF042 COL 71-72 WAVE 1 QUEST. 13b How about D66? 01. more nuclear plants 35 2.1 02. 40 2.5 03. 105 6.4 04. 268 16.4 05. 223 13.7 06. 188 11.5 07. no nuclear plants 101 6.2 97. DK 513 31.5 98. NA 5 .3 99. INAP (VAR003, code 3) 152 9.3 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR043 Nuclear plants -respondent's preference MD=97 98 99 REF043 COL 73-74 WAVE 1 QUEST. 13b And where would you place yourself on this line? 01. more nuclear plants 190 11.7 02. 139 8.5 03. 132 8.1 04. 223 13.7 05. 108 6.6 06. 125 7.7 07. no nuclear plants 497 30.5 97. DK 58 3.6 98. NA 6 .4 99. INAP (VAR003, code 3) 152 9.3 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR044 Closing nuclear plants - yes or no? MD=7 8 9 REF044 COL 75 WAVE 1 QUEST. 13b At the moment two nuclear power plants are in use in the Netherlands, in Dodewaard and in Borssele. Do you feel that these nuclear power plants should continue to be used or are you of the opinion that they should be shut down? 1. stay in operation 890 54.6 2. close nuclear plants 550 33.7 8. NA 38 2.3 9. INAP (VAR003, code 3) 152 9.3 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR045 Income differences - perception of CDA MD=97 98 99 REF045 COL 76-77 WAVE 1 QUEST. 13c Here is another showcard. Some people think that the DIFFERENCES IN INCOMES IN OUR COUNTRY should stay as they are. Other people think that these differences should become much smaller. Can you place the CDA on this line? 01. against levelling 275 16.9 02. 302 18.5 03. 304 18.7 04. 212 13.0 05. 72 4.4 06. 35 2.1 07. pro levelling 24 1.5 97. DK 250 15.3 98. NA 4 .2 99. INAP (VAR003, code 3) 152 9.3 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR046 Income differences - perception of PvdA MD=97 98 99 REF046 COL 78-79 WAVE 1 QUEST. 13c How about the PvdA? 01. against levelling 44 2.7 02. 31 1.9 03. 25 1.5 04. 46 2.8 05. 126 7.7 06. 407 25.0 07. pro levelling 593 36.4 97. DK 201 12.3 98. NA 5 .3 99. INAP (VAR003, code 3) 152 9.3 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR047 Income differences - perception of VVD MD=97 98 99 REF047 COL 80-81 WAVE 1 QUEST. 13c How about the VVD? 01. against levelling 602 36.9 02. 324 19.9 03. 121 7.4 04. 93 5.7 05. 31 1.9 06. 29 1.8 07. pro levelling 43 2.6 97. DK 231 14.2 98. NA 4 .2 99. INAP (VAR003, code 3) 152 9.3 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR048 Income differences - perception of D66 MD=97 98 99 REF048 COL 82-83 WAVE 1 QUEST. 13c How about D66? 01. against levelling 26 1.6 02. 41 2.5 03. 134 8.2 04. 299 18.3 05. 256 15.7 06. 176 10.8 07. pro levelling 48 2.9 97. DK 491 30.1 98. NA 7 .4 99. INAP (VAR003, code 3) 152 9.3 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR049 Income differences - respondent's MD=97 98 99 preference REF049 COL 84-85 WAVE 1 QUEST. 13c And where would you place yourself on this line? 01. against levelling 215 13.2 02. 149 9.1 03. 120 7.4 04. 195 12.0 05. 174 10.7 06. 209 12.8 07. pro levelling 355 21.8 97. DK 50 3.1 98. NA 11 .7 99. INAP (VAR003, code 3) 152 9.3 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR050 Did vote in 1986 municipal elections? MD=7 8 REF050 COL 86 WAVE 1 QUEST. 14a Did you vote in the MUNICIPAL ELECTION on March 19 or not? 1. yes 1316 80.7 2. no 310 19.0 8. NA 4 .2 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR051 Party voted for in 1986 municipal MD=GE 92 elections REF051 COL 87-88 WAVE 1 QUEST. 14b Which party did you vote for? 01. PvdA 436 26.7 02. CDA 318 19.5 03. VVD 201 12.3 04. D66 53 3.3 05. CPN 14 .9 06. PPR 16 1.0 07. PSP 25 1.5 08. SGP 23 1.4 09. GPV 10 .6 10. RPF 9 .6 11. Centrumpartij 4 .2 12. EVP 2 .1 60. other party 181 11.1 92. refused to answer 17 1.0 97. DK 6 .4 98. NA 1 .1 99. INAP (VAR050, codes 2,8) 314 19.3 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR052 Does respondent intend to vote in 1986 MD=7 8 9 parliamentary elections? REF052 COL 89 WAVE 1 QUEST. 15a As you may know, elections for the SECOND CHAMBER will be held in May this year. Do you intend to vote or not, or do you not know yet? 1. intends to vote 1338 82.1 2. doesn't intend to 69 4.2 7. DK 66 4.0 8. NA 5 .3 9. INAP (VAR003, code 3) 152 9.3 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR053 Party respondent intends to vote for MD=GE 92 REF053 COL 90-91 WAVE 1 QUEST. 15b Which party do you intend to vote for? 01. PvdA 498 30.6 02. CDA 319 19.6 03. VVD 196 12.0 04. D66 57 3.5 05. CPN 10 .6 06. PPR 14 .9 07. PSP 22 1.3 08. SGP 19 1.2 09. GPV 10 .6 10. RPF 12 .7 11. Centrumpartij 2 .1 12. EVP 2 .1 60. other party 5 .3 92. refused to answer 13 .8 97. DK 156 9.6 98. NA 3 .2 99. INAP (VAR052, codes 2-9) 292 17.9 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR054 Vote intention if obligated to vote MD=GE 92 REF054 COL 92-93 WAVE 1 QUEST. 15c Suppose you were obligated by law to vote. Which party would you vote for? 01. PvdA 42 2.6 02. CDA 19 1.2 03. VVD 10 .6 04. D66 8 .5 05. CPN 1 .1 06. PPR 1 .1 07. PSP 2 .1 08. SGP 1 .1 09. GPV 2 .1 11. Centrumpartij 1 .1 14. invalid 5 .3 15. blank 8 .5 60. other party 2 .1 92. refused to answer 4 .2 95. not on principle 2 .1 97. DK 28 1.7 98. NA 4 .2 99. INAP (VAR052, codes 1,9) 1490 91.4 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR055 Importance of political principles of MD=7 8 party REF055 COL 94 WAVE 1 QUEST. 16 I shall mention some factors that may be of importance in your decision concerning which party to vote for. Would you indicate for each one whether it is very important, important, not very important or absolutely unimportant in the determination of your choice. a. The basic principles of the party 1. very important 412 25.3 2. important 830 50.9 3. not very important 245 15.0 4. not important at all 48 2.9 7. DK 89 5.5 8. NA 6 .4 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR056 Importance of first candidate party MD=7 8 list REF056 COL 95 WAVE 1 QUEST. 16 b. The electoral leader 1. very important 210 12.9 2. important 654 40.1 3. not very important 558 34.2 4. not important at all 152 9.3 7. DK 51 3.1 8. NA 5 .3 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR057 Importance of party's election MD=7 8 programme REF057 COL 96 WAVE 1 QUEST. 16 c. The election platform (manifesto) 1. very important 444 27.2 2. important 811 49.8 3. not very important 250 15.3 4. not important at all 52 3.2 7. DK 68 4.2 8. NA 5 .3 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR058 Importance of entire list of candidates MD=7 8 REF058 COL 97 WAVE 1 QUEST. 16 d. The list of candidates 1. very important 96 5.9 2. important 611 37.5 3. not very important 695 42.6 4. not important at all 154 9.4 7. DK 64 3.9 8. NA 10 .6 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR059 Importance of size of party MD=7 8 REF059 COL 98 WAVE 1 QUEST. 16 e. The size of the party 1. very important 201 12.3 2. important 579 35.5 3. not very important 554 34.0 4. not important at all 231 14.2 7. DK 59 3.6 8. NA 6 .4 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR060 Importance of party's campaign MD=7 8 performance REF060 COL 99 WAVE 1 QUEST. 16 f. How the party comes over in the campaign 1. very important 165 10.1 2. important 564 34.6 3. not very important 548 33.6 4. not important at all 283 17.4 7. DK 61 3.7 8. NA 9 .6 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR061 Importance of party's standing in polls MD=7 8 REF061 COL 100 WAVE 1 QUEST. 16 g. How a party stands in the opinion polls 1. very important 94 5.8 2. important 381 23.4 3. not very important 575 35.3 4. not important at all 505 31.0 7. DK 70 4.3 8. NA 5 .3 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR062 Importance of party's stand on MD=7 8 emancipation of women REF062 COL 101 WAVE 1 QUEST. 16 h. The attitude of a party with respect to the emancipation of women. 1. very important 250 15.3 2. important 678 41.6 3. not very important 392 24.0 4. not important at all 215 13.2 7. DK 89 5.5 8. NA 6 .4 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR063 Better represented by mp from own area? MD=7 8 REF063 COL 102 WAVE 1 QUEST. 17 Do you think that your interests can be better represented in the Second Chamber by someone who comes from your own area than by someone who comes from another area, or do you think that for the representation of your interests it does not matter from what area of the country a member of parliament comes? 1. better mp own area 252 15.5 2. does not matter 1323 81.2 7. DK 49 3.0 8. NA 6 .4 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR064 Better represented by male or female mp? MD=7 8 REF064 COL 103 WAVE 1 QUEST. 18 And do you think your interests can be better represented by a man or by a woman or does it not matter to you? 1. male mp better 123 7.5 2. female mp better 129 7.9 3. does not matter 1339 82.1 7. DK 37 2.3 8. NA 2 .1 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR065 Sympathy score PvdA MD=997 998 REF065 COL 104-106 WAVE 1 QUEST. 19 There are many political parties in our country. I would like to know how you view some of these parties. On this card is a scale from 0 to 100 that we call the `feeling thermometer scale'. We use it as follows: If you feel warmly toward a particular party or like it, you give it a score between 51 and 100. Naturally, you give it more points according to how warmly you feel toward the party. On the other hand, if you feel negative toward the party or don't like it, you give it a score somewhere between 0 and 49. The more you dislike it the fewer points you give. If you feel neither warmly or cooly toward toward a party you give it a score of 50. If you feel you know too little about a party, just say so and we will go on to the next party. First I would like to ask about the Labor Party (PvdA). Where would you place this party on the feeling thermometer? 000. low 62 3.8 001. 1 .1 004. 1 .1 005. 7 .4 006. 1 .1 007. 2 .1 008. 1 .1 010. 84 5.2 012. 1 .1 015. 6 .4 016. 1 .1 020. 67 4.1 022. 1 .1 025. 19 1.2 030. 101 6.2 035. 9 .6 040. 111 6.8 045. 20 1.2 047. 1 .1 048. 1 .1 049. 3 .2 050. 204 12.5 051. 2 .1 052. 3 .2 055. 22 1.3 058. 1 .1 060. 137 8.4 064. 1 .1 065. 17 1.0 067. 1 .1 070. 110 6.7 071. 1 .1 075. 43 2.6 080. 202 12.4 085. 27 1.7 087. 1 .1 089. 1 .1 090. 147 9.0 093. 1 .1 095. 19 1.2 096. 1 .1 098. 2 .1 099. 1 .1 100. high 131 8.0 997. DK 43 2.6 998. NA 12 .7 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR066 Sympathy score VVD MD=997 998 REF066 COL 107-109 WAVE 1 QUEST. 19 000. low 86 5.3 001. 5 .3 003. 3 .2 004. 2 .1 005. 15 .9 007. 1 .1 008. 1 .1 009. 1 .1 010. 100 6.1 012. 3 .2 015. 7 .4 020. 127 7.8 023. 1 .1 025. 15 .9 030. 141 8.7 032. 1 .1 035. 15 .9 036. 1 .1 040. 203 12.5 045. 19 1.2 049. 1 .1 050. 216 13.3 051. 2 .1 052. 3 .2 054. 1 .1 055. 28 1.7 060. 181 11.1 061. 1 .1 062. 1 .1 065. 14 .9 070. 120 7.4 075. 30 1.8 077. 1 .1 078. 1 .1 079. 1 .1 080. 94 5.8 083. 1 .1 085. 11 .7 090. 72 4.4 095. 7 .4 099. 1 .1 100. high 22 1.3 997. DK 62 3.8 998. NA 12 .7 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR067 Sympathy score D66 MD=997 998 REF067 COL 110-112 WAVE 1 QUEST. 19 000. low 27 1.7 002. 1 .1 003. 1 .1 004. 2 .1 005. 2 .1 006. 1 .1 010. 50 3.1 015. 9 .6 020. 50 3.1 023. 1 .1 025. 10 .6 030. 85 5.2 033. 1 .1 035. 10 .6 040. 146 9.0 045. 10 .6 046. 1 .1 048. 2 .1 049. 5 .3 050. 333 20.4 051. 1 .1 052. 3 .2 053. 1 .1 055. 38 2.3 060. 260 16.0 065. 28 1.7 066. 1 .1 070. 181 11.1 075. 28 1.7 078. 2 .1 080. 83 5.1 085. 7 .4 088. 1 .1 090. 32 2.0 095. 1 .1 098. 1 .1 099. 4 .2 100. high 11 .7 997. DK 188 11.5 998. NA 12 .7 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR068 Sympathy score PPR MD=997 998 REF068 COL 113-115 WAVE 1 QUEST. 19 000. low 118 7.2 001. 2 .1 002. 3 .2 003. 1 .1 004. 1 .1 005. 17 1.0 009. 2 .1 010. 145 8.9 015. 9 .6 020. 128 7.9 025. 10 .6 030. 130 8.0 035. 3 .2 040. 160 9.8 041. 1 .1 045. 16 1.0 049. 1 .1 050. 181 11.1 051. 4 .2 052. 1 .1 055. 12 .7 057. 1 .1 060. 143 8.8 065. 10 .6 070. 84 5.2 075. 16 1.0 080. 47 2.9 085. 11 .7 090. 24 1.5 095. 3 .2 099. 1 .1 100. high 5 .3 997. DK 328 20.1 998. NA 12 .7 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR069 Sympathy score CPN MD=997 998 REF069 COL 116-118 WAVE 1 QUEST. 19 000. low 350 21.5 001. 9 .6 002. 6 .4 003. 2 .1 005. 40 2.5 008. 1 .1 010. 211 12.9 014. 1 .1 015. 10 .6 020. 142 8.7 025. 14 .9 030. 116 7.1 035. 9 .6 040. 101 6.2 045. 9 .6 049. 2 .1 050. 168 10.3 051. 1 .1 052. 1 .1 055. 11 .7 060. 87 5.3 065. 10 .6 070. 46 2.8 075. 13 .8 080. 37 2.3 082. 1 .1 085. 1 .1 090. 14 .9 095. 1 .1 099. 1 .1 100. high 2 .1 997. DK 201 12.3 998. NA 12 .7 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR070 Sympathy score CDA MD=997 998 REF070 COL 119-121 WAVE 1 QUEST. 19 000. low 56 3.4 001. 3 .2 002. 1 .1 004. 1 .1 005. 8 .5 006. 2 .1 007. 2 .1 008. 2 .1 010. 87 5.3 012. 1 .1 015. 6 .4 017. 1 .1 019. 1 .1 020. 92 5.6 025. 10 .6 030. 98 6.0 035. 8 .5 038. 1 .1 039. 1 .1 040. 119 7.3 045. 20 1.2 048. 2 .1 049. 1 .1 050. 192 11.8 052. 1 .1 055. 21 1.3 057. 1 .1 059. 2 .1 060. 166 10.2 062. 1 .1 063. 1 .1 065. 37 2.3 070. 177 10.9 075. 33 2.0 076. 1 .1 078. 1 .1 080. 185 11.3 085. 16 1.0 090. 133 8.2 095. 10 .6 099. 4 .2 100. high 72 4.4 997. DK 41 2.5 998. NA 12 .7 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR071 Sympathy score SGP MD=997 998 REF071 COL 122-124 WAVE 1 QUEST. 19 000. low 218 13.4 001. 3 .2 002. 2 .1 003. 1 .1 004. 3 .2 005. 31 1.9 006. 1 .1 007. 2 .1 008. 1 .1 010. 176 10.8 015. 6 .4 020. 150 9.2 025. 8 .5 030. 86 5.3 035. 10 .6 040. 124 7.6 045. 14 .9 050. 170 10.4 051. 1 .1 054. 1 .1 055. 12 .7 060. 76 4.7 065. 6 .4 070. 39 2.4 075. 6 .4 080. 29 1.8 090. 14 .9 099. 4 .2 100. high 11 .7 997. DK 413 25.3 998. NA 12 .7 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR072 Sympathy score GPV MD=997 998 REF072 COL 125-127 WAVE 1 QUEST. 19 000. low 221 13.6 001. 3 .2 002. 1 .1 003. 4 .2 004. 3 .2 005. 32 2.0 006. 1 .1 008. 1 .1 009. 2 .1 010. 182 11.2 015. 17 1.0 020. 135 8.3 025. 11 .7 030. 102 6.3 035. 13 .8 040. 109 6.7 045. 12 .7 050. 152 9.3 055. 12 .7 060. 66 4.0 065. 8 .5 070. 39 2.4 075. 5 .3 080. 30 1.8 085. 5 .3 088. 1 .1 090. 11 .7 095. 1 .1 099. 1 .1 100. high 11 .7 997. DK 427 26.2 998. NA 12 .7 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR073 Sympathy score RPF MD=997 998 REF073 COL 128-130 WAVE 1 QUEST. 19 000. low 250 15.3 001. 5 .3 002. 5 .3 003. 3 .2 004. 2 .1 005. 31 1.9 006. 2 .1 008. 2 .1 010. 190 11.7 013. 1 .1 015. 13 .8 017. 1 .1 020. 122 7.5 025. 10 .6 030. 82 5.0 035. 10 .6 040. 84 5.2 045. 13 .8 048. 1 .1 050. 126 7.7 051. 1 .1 055. 7 .4 056. 1 .1 060. 41 2.5 065. 8 .5 070. 20 1.2 075. 5 .3 080. 14 .9 082. 1 .1 085. 2 .1 088. 1 .1 089. 1 .1 090. 16 1.0 095. 1 .1 099. 5 .3 100. high 8 .5 997. DK 533 32.7 998. NA 12 .7 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR074 Sympathy score Centrumpartij MD=997 998 REF074 COL 131-133 WAVE 1 QUEST. 19 000. low 1151 70.6 001. 18 1.1 002. 4 .2 003. 4 .2 004. 1 .1 005. 23 1.4 008. 1 .1 010. 126 7.7 015. 5 .3 020. 43 2.6 025. 4 .2 030. 28 1.7 035. 2 .1 040. 24 1.5 045. 1 .1 049. 1 .1 050. 30 1.8 052. 2 .1 055. 3 .2 060. 12 .7 070. 3 .2 075. 1 .1 080. 3 .2 090. 1 .1 095. 1 .1 099. 2 .1 100. high 2 .1 997. DK 122 7.5 998. NA 12 .7 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR075 Sympathy score EVP MD=997 998 REF075 COL 134-136 WAVE 1 QUEST. 19 000. low 267 16.4 001. 6 .4 002. 3 .2 003. 3 .2 004. 1 .1 005. 47 2.9 006. 1 .1 007. 1 .1 010. 215 13.2 015. 8 .5 017. 1 .1 019. 1 .1 020. 124 7.6 025. 14 .9 027. 1 .1 030. 80 4.9 035. 8 .5 040. 125 7.7 045. 11 .7 049. 1 .1 050. 167 10.2 052. 1 .1 055. 9 .6 057. 1 .1 060. 81 5.0 065. 5 .3 070. 30 1.8 075. 8 .5 080. 14 .9 085. 1 .1 090. 8 .5 099. 5 .3 100. high 2 .1 997. DK 368 22.6 998. NA 12 .7 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR076 Sympathy score Ruud Lubbers MD=997 998 REF076 COL 137-139 WAVE 1 QUEST. 20 I would also like to ask you how warmly or cooly you feel about a number of politicians. First we mention Ruud Lubbers. Where would you place him on the feeling thermometer? 000. low 53 3.3 001. 2 .1 003. 1 .1 004. 1 .1 005. 12 .7 006. 1 .1 007. 1 .1 010. 44 2.7 015. 4 .2 019. 1 .1 020. 52 3.2 025. 6 .4 030. 39 2.4 035. 2 .1 040. 55 3.4 045. 4 .2 049. 1 .1 050. 195 12.0 055. 9 .6 056. 1 .1 060. 149 9.1 065. 17 1.0 070. 166 10.2 075. 47 2.9 080. 263 16.1 082. 1 .1 085. 35 2.1 086. 1 .1 090. 255 15.6 095. 24 1.5 099. 3 .2 100. high 146 9.0 997. DK 27 1.7 998. NA 12 .7 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR077 Sympathy score Joop den Uyl MD=997 998 REF077 COL 140-142 WAVE 1 QUEST. 20 000. low 93 5.7 001. 2 .1 002. 1 .1 003. 1 .1 005. 16 1.0 006. 1 .1 010. 87 5.3 015. 5 .3 020. 80 4.9 025. 14 .9 030. 76 4.7 035. 5 .3 038. 1 .1 040. 134 8.2 045. 11 .7 049. 1 .1 050. 201 12.3 051. 2 .1 055. 16 1.0 058. 3 .2 060. 184 11.3 065. 19 1.2 068. 1 .1 070. 180 11.0 075. 39 2.4 080. 193 11.8 085. 23 1.4 089. 1 .1 090. 102 6.3 092. 1 .1 095. 14 .9 097. 1 .1 100. high 82 5.0 997. DK 28 1.7 998. NA 12 .7 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR078 Sympathy score Ed Nijpels MD=997 998 REF078 COL 143-145 WAVE 1 QUEST. 20 000. low 113 6.9 001. 3 .2 002. 4 .2 003. 2 .1 005. 23 1.4 006. 3 .2 008. 1 .1 010. 129 7.9 012. 1 .1 015. 9 .6 018. 1 .1 020. 135 8.3 025. 18 1.1 027. 1 .1 030. 139 8.5 035. 12 .7 039. 2 .1 040. 193 11.8 045. 17 1.0 049. 2 .1 050. 239 14.7 051. 3 .2 054. 1 .1 055. 17 1.0 059. 1 .1 060. 183 11.2 065. 17 1.0 070. 142 8.7 075. 24 1.5 079. 2 .1 080. 85 5.2 085. 7 .4 090. 32 2.0 095. 2 .1 098. 1 .1 099. 1 .1 100. high 12 .7 997. DK 41 2.5 998. NA 12 .7 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR079 Sympathy score Hans van Mierlo MD=997 998 REF079 COL 146-148 WAVE 1 QUEST. 20 000. low 40 2.5 002. 1 .1 005. 6 .4 006. 1 .1 008. 1 .1 010. 45 2.8 015. 6 .4 019. 1 .1 020. 57 3.5 025. 12 .7 030. 78 4.8 035. 6 .4 040. 168 10.3 041. 1 .1 045. 14 .9 048. 1 .1 049. 2 .1 050. 297 18.2 051. 2 .1 055. 26 1.6 056. 1 .1 057. 1 .1 060. 268 16.4 065. 25 1.5 070. 189 11.6 075. 33 2.0 080. 127 7.8 085. 9 .6 090. 42 2.6 099. 1 .1 100. high 6 .4 997. DK 151 9.3 998. NA 12 .7 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR080 Sympathy score Bert de Vries MD=997 998 REF080 COL 149-151 WAVE 1 QUEST. 20 000. low 71 4.4 001. 2 .1 002. 2 .1 003. 1 .1 004. 2 .1 005. 14 .9 006. 1 .1 008. 2 .1 010. 69 4.2 015. 7 .4 020. 79 4.8 025. 7 .4 030. 90 5.5 032. 1 .1 035. 11 .7 040. 151 9.3 042. 1 .1 045. 13 .8 049. 1 .1 050. 229 14.0 052. 1 .1 055. 26 1.6 057. 1 .1 059. 1 .1 060. 172 10.6 063. 1 .1 065. 16 1.0 068. 1 .1 069. 1 .1 070. 165 10.1 075. 19 1.2 080. 109 6.7 085. 5 .3 090. 39 2.4 095. 3 .2 099. 2 .1 100. high 3 .2 997. DK 299 18.3 998. NA 12 .7 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR081 Sympathy score Wim Kok MD=997 998 REF081 COL 152-154 WAVE 1 QUEST. 20 000. low 68 4.2 001. 1 .1 002. 2 .1 003. 1 .1 005. 9 .6 007. 2 .1 009. 2 .1 010. 81 5.0 012. 1 .1 015. 5 .3 020. 64 3.9 025. 9 .6 030. 77 4.7 031. 1 .1 035. 3 .2 040. 111 6.8 045. 13 .8 049. 3 .2 050. 182 11.2 051. 2 .1 055. 18 1.1 058. 1 .1 059. 1 .1 060. 160 9.8 061. 1 .1 065. 21 1.3 070. 168 10.3 075. 51 3.1 080. 182 11.2 085. 23 1.4 087. 1 .1 090. 165 10.1 092. 1 .1 093. 1 .1 095. 11 .7 099. 4 .2 100. high 88 5.4 997. DK 84 5.2 998. NA 12 .7 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR082 Sympathy score Hans Wiegel MD=997 998 REF082 COL 155-157 WAVE 1 QUEST. 20 000. low 77 4.7 001. 1 .1 002. 1 .1 003. 2 .1 005. 10 .6 006. 1 .1 008. 2 .1 009. 1 .1 010. 61 3.7 011. 1 .1 015. 6 .4 019. 1 .1 020. 63 3.9 025. 8 .5 030. 89 5.5 035. 11 .7 036. 1 .1 040. 91 5.6 045. 15 .9 049. 3 .2 050. 178 10.9 055. 23 1.4 056. 3 .2 058. 1 .1 060. 165 10.1 063. 1 .1 065. 25 1.5 068. 2 .1 070. 207 12.7 072. 1 .1 075. 51 3.1 080. 187 11.5 085. 24 1.5 090. 151 9.3 095. 16 1.0 098. 1 .1 099. 2 .1 100. high 83 5.1 997. DK 52 3.2 998. NA 12 .7 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR083 Respondent prefers D66 in cabinet MD=8 9 REF083 COL 158 WAVE 1 QUEST. 21 After the May elections, a new cabinet must be formed. Here are the names of 4 parties. Which combination of two or more of these parties would you most like to form the government? Could you place a circle around this combination? 0. not mentioned 895 54.9 1. mentioned 562 34.5 8. NA 21 1.3 9. INAP (VAR003, code 3) 152 9.3 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR084 Respondent prefers VVD in cabinet MD=8 9 REF084 COL 159 WAVE 1 QUEST. 21 0. not mentioned 747 45.8 1. mentioned 710 43.6 8. NA 21 1.3 9. INAP (VAR003, code 3) 152 9.3 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR085 Respondent prefers PvdA in cabinet MD=8 9 REF085 COL 160 WAVE 1 QUEST. 21 0. not mentioned 598 36.7 1. mentioned 859 52.7 8. NA 21 1.3 9. INAP (VAR003, code 3) 152 9.3 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR086 Respondent prefers CDA in cabinet MD=8 9 REF086 COL 161 WAVE 1 QUEST. 21 0. not mentioned 444 27.2 1. mentioned 1013 62.1 8. NA 21 1.3 9. INAP (VAR003, code 3) 152 9.3 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR087 Preferred government coalition MD=GE 19 REF087 COL 162-163 WAVE 1 QUEST. 21 01. CDA-VVD 459 28.2 02. PvdA-CDA 320 19.6 03. CDA-VVD-D66 68 4.2 04. PvdA-CDA-D66 70 4.3 05. PvdA-D66 303 18.6 06. CDA-D66 42 2.6 07. CDA-PvdA-VVD-D66 18 1.1 08. VVD-D66 21 1.3 09. VVD-PvdA 74 4.5 10. VVD-CDA-PvdA 30 1.8 11. VVD-D66-PvdA 39 2.4 19. only 1 party mentioned 13 .8 98. NA 21 1.3 99. INAP (VAR003, code 3) 152 9.3 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR088 Does it matter who are in the coalition? MD=7 8 9 REF088 COL 164 WAVE 1 QUEST. 22 Does it make much difference to you personally, a little, or no difference at all which parties become a part of the government? 1. much 1060 65.0 2. little 281 17.2 3. not at all 116 7.1 7. DK 21 1.3 9. INAP (VAR003, code 3) 152 9.3 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR089 Exposed to election polls in media? MD=7 8 9 REF089 COL 165 WAVE 1 QUEST. 23 Prior to the elections many opinion polls are held to discover how people are planning to vote. How often during the last weeks have you noticed such polls in the newspaper or on radio and television? Was that almost never the case, occassionally, several times, or very often? 1. never 197 12.1 2. occasionally 364 22.3 3. several times 543 33.3 4. often 335 20.6 7. DK 38 2.3 8. NA 1 .1 9. INAP (VAR003, code 3) 152 9.3 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR090 Accuracy of election polls MD=7 8 9 REF090 COL 166 WAVE 1 QUEST. 24 How good in your opinion is the picture that the opinion polls give of the support for the various parties? Is that very good, good, moderate, bad or very bad? 1. very good 68 4.2 2. good 747 45.8 3. mediocre 451 27.7 4. poor 44 2.7 5. very poor 12 .7 7. DK 153 9.4 8. NA 3 .2 9. INAP (VAR003, code 3) 152 9.3 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR091 Will PvdA win or lose compared to 1982? MD=7 8 9 REF091 COL 167 WAVE 1 QUEST. 25 Of course, no one can know for sure, but what do you think will be the result of the elections for the Second Chamber? a. Do you think that the PvdA, in comparison with the elections of 1982 will make gains, suffer losses, or remain the same? 1. will win 1280 78.5 2. will lose 20 1.2 3. will stay even 112 6.9 7. DK 66 4.0 9. INAP (VAR003, code 3) 152 9.3 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR092 Will CDA win or lose compared to 1982? MD=7 8 9 REF092 COL 168 WAVE 1 QUEST. 25 b. And the CDA? 1. will win 311 19.1 2. will lose 348 21.3 3. will stay even 751 46.1 7. DK 67 4.1 8. NA 1 .1 9. INAP (VAR003, code 3) 152 9.3 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR093 Will VVD win or lose compared to 1982? MD=7 8 9 REF093 COL 169 WAVE 1 QUEST. 25 c. And the VVD? 1. will win 42 2.6 2. will lose 1233 75.6 3. will stay even 113 6.9 7. DK 87 5.3 8. NA 3 .2 9. INAP (VAR003, code 3) 152 9.3 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR094 Will D66 win or lose compared to 1982? MD=7 8 9 REF094 COL 170 WAVE 1 QUEST. 25 d. And D66? 1. will win 706 43.3 2. will lose 174 10.7 3. will stay even 396 24.3 7. DK 198 12.1 8. NA 4 .2 9. INAP (VAR003, code 3) 152 9.3 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR095 Will CDA-VVD coalition retain majority? MD=7 8 9 REF095 COL 171 WAVE 1 QUEST. 25e And do you think that the two parties that form the current government, CDA and VVD, together will retain their majority in the Second Chamber or will they lose it? 1. keep majority 710 43.6 2. lose majority 531 32.6 7. DK 235 14.4 8. NA 2 .1 9. INAP (VAR003, code 3) 152 9.3 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR096 Sex of respondent MD=8 REF096 COL 172 WAVE 1 QUEST. P1 What is the composition of the household you are living in? 1. male 764 46.9 2. female 865 53.1 8. NA 1 .1 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR097 Age of respondent MD=none REF097 COL 173-174 WAVE 1 QUEST. P1 17. 17 years . . . 93. 93 years VAR098 Number of persons in household MD=none REF098 COL 175 WAVE 1 QUEST. P1 1. one person 370 22.7 2. two persons 535 32.8 3. three persons 260 16.0 4. four persons 317 19.4 5. five persons 114 7.0 6. six persons 22 1.3 7. seven persons 6 .4 8. eight persons 4 .2 9. nine or more persons 2 .1 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR099 Number of persons >=18 years in household MD=none REF099 COL 176 WAVE 1 QUEST. P1 1. one person 405 24.8 2. two persons 1008 61.8 3. three persons 143 8.8 4. four persons 55 3.4 5. five persons 15 .9 6. six persons 4 .2 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR100 Status of respondent in household MD=8 REF100 COL 177 WAVE 1 QUEST. P1 1. head of household 552 33.9 2. housewife 524 32.1 3. both h of hh and hwf 471 28.9 4. daughter 30 1.8 5. son 43 2.6 6. someone else 9 .6 8. NA 1 .1 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR101 Typology of household composition MD=98 REF101 COL 178-179 WAVE 1 QUEST. P1 98. NA VAR102 Respondent's birthdate - day MD=98 REF102 COL 180-181 WAVE 1 QUEST. P2 What is your date of birth? 98. NA VAR103 Respondent's birthdate - month MD=98 REF103 COL 182-183 WAVE 1 QUEST. P2 What is your date of birth? 01. January 142 8.7 02. February 138 8.5 03. March 164 10.1 04. April 137 8.4 05. May 140 8.6 06. June 143 8.8 07. July 128 7.9 08. August 137 8.4 09. September 136 8.3 10. October 108 6.6 11. November 140 8.6 12. December 113 6.9 98. NA 4 .2 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR104 Respondent's birthdate - year MD=70 REF104 COL 184-185 WAVE 1 QUEST. P2 What is your date of birth? 00. 1900 01. 1901 . . 67. 1967 68. 1968 92. 1892 95. 1895 96. 1896 97. 1897 98. 1898 99. 1899 70. NA VAR105 Electoral cohort of respondent MD=none REF105 COL 186-187 WAVE 1 QUEST. P2 00. cohort of 1986 93 5.7 01. cohort of 1982 35 2.1 02. cohort of 1981 148 9.1 03. cohort of 1977 165 10.1 04. cohort of 1972 185 11.3 05. cohort of 1971 185 11.3 06. cohort of 1967 158 9.7 07. cohort of 1963 84 5.2 08. cohort of 1959 55 3.4 09. cohort of 1956 73 4.5 10. cohort of 1952 87 5.3 11. cohort of 1948 48 2.9 12. cohort of 1946 160 9.8 13. older cohorts 154 9.4 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR106 Marital status MD=8 REF106 COL 188 WAVE 1 QUEST. P3 Are you unmarried, married, or previously married? 1. unmarried 374 22.9 2. married 1005 61.7 3. has been married 246 15.1 8. NA 5 .3 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR107 Respondent is housewife MD=8 REF107 COL 189 WAVE 1 QUEST. P3a 1. housewife,no h of hh 524 32.1 2. housewife as well as h of hh 471 28.9 3. not housewife 635 39.0 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR108 Does housewife also have paying job? MD=8 9 REF108 COL 190 WAVE 1 QUEST. P4 Do you have paid employment in addition to your house-work? 1. yes 172 10.6 2. no 352 21.6 9. INAP (VAR107, code 2,3) 1106 67.9 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR109 Employment status of respondent MD=98 99 REF109 COL 191-192 WAVE 1 QUEST. P5 01. employed by government 217 13.3 02. employed-private employee 432 26.5 03. self-employed 104 6.4 04. employed-elsewhere 27 1.7 05. was employed-disabled 45 2.8 06. was employed-unemployed 53 3.3 07. was employed-retired 200 12.3 08. was employed-other 57 3.5 09. never employed-study 58 3.6 10. never employed-unemployed 9 .6 11. never employed-other 57 3.5 98. NA 19 1.2 99. INAP (VAR108, code 2) 352 21.6 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR110 Profession and function of respondent MD=98 99 REF110 COL 193-194 WAVE 1 QUEST. P6 What is your trade or profession and what is your function? In what type of company or organization are you employed? Is this a position of leadership? IF YES: How many persons do you directly or indirectly supervise? 01. manager =>10 employe 5 .3 02. manager <10 employee 67 4.1 03. higher professional 11 .7 04. farmer-marketgardenr 17 1.0 05. higher level employe 34 2.1 06. middle level employe 249 15.3 07. lower level employee 198 12.1 08. skilled labourer 112 6.9 09. unskilled labourer 87 5.3 98. NA 19 1.2 99. INAP (VAR109, codes 5-11,99) 831 51.0 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR111 Branch of industry respondent's job is MD=98 99 in REF111 COL 195-196 WAVE 1 QUEST. P6 98. NA 99. INAP (VAR109, codes 5-11,99) VAR112 Number of staff respondent employs MD=98 99 REF112 COL 197-198 WAVE 1 QUEST. P6 00. none 01. one person . . 97. ninety seven or more 98. NA 99. INAP (VAR109, codes 5-11,99) VAR113 Number of hours per week respondent MD=98 99 works REF113 COL 199-200 WAVE 1 QUEST. P7 For how many hours per week are you employed? 01. one hour . . 80. eighty hours or more 98. NA 99. INAP (VAR109, codes 5-11,99) VAR114 Was respondent employed previously? MD=7 8 9 REF114 COL 201 WAVE 1 QUEST. P8 Have you previously been employed? 1. yes 278 17.1 2. no 64 3.9 7. DK 1 .1 8. NA 9 .6 9. INAP (VAR108, codes 1,9) 1278 78.4 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR115 Former profession and function of MD=98 99 respondent REF115 COL 202-203 WAVE 1 QUEST. P9 You have previously been employed. In what position did you work? In what type of company or organization were you employed? Was this a position of leadership? IF YES: How many persons did you directly or indirectly supervise? 01. manager =>10 employee 7 .4 02. manager <10 employee 34 2.1 03. higher professional 4 .2 04. farmer-marketgardenr 13 .8 05. higher level employee 14 .9 06. middle level employee 142 8.7 07. lower level employee 202 12.4 08. skilled labourer 94 5.8 09. unskilled labourer 127 7.8 98. NA 24 1.5 99. INAP (VAR109, codes 1-4,9-11 or 969 59.4 VAR114, codes 2,7) ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR116 Branch of industry resp's former job MD=98 99 REF116 COL 204-205 WAVE 1 QUEST. P9 98. NA 99. INAP (VAR109, codes 1-4,9-11 or VAR114, codes 2,7) VAR117 Number of staff in resp's previous job MD=98 99 REF117 COL 206-207 WAVE 1 QUEST. P9 00. none 01. one person . . 97. ninety seven or more 98. NA 99. INAP (VAR109, codes 1-4,9-11 or VAR114, codes 2,7) VAR118 Would respondent like regular MD=7 8 9 employment? REF118 COL 208 WAVE 1 QUEST. P10 Would you like to be employed regularly? 1. yes 259 15.9 2. no 544 33.4 7. DK 18 1.1 8. NA 29 1.8 9. INAP (VAR109, codes 1-4) 780 47.9 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR119 Employment of father in r's adolescence MD=7 8 REF119 COL 209 WAVE 1 QUEST. P11 When you were about 12 years old, was your (foster) father employed in a profession or company? 1. employed incl part-time 1505 92.3 2. not employed-disabled 17 1.0 3. not employed-unemployed 13 .8 4. not employed-retired 7 .4 5. not employed-study 1 .1 6. no father 68 4.2 7. DK 15 .9 8. NA 4 .2 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR120 Employer of father of respondent MD=7 8 9 REF120 COL 210 WAVE 1 QUEST. P11a Was your (foster) father employed by the government, a salaried employee elsewhere, or self-employed? 1. employed by government 265 16.3 2. employed-private employer 744 45.6 3. self-employed 451 27.7 7. DK 1 .1 8. NA 48 2.9 9. INAP (VAR119, codes 2-7) 121 7.4 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR121 Profession and function of father of r MD=98 99 REF121 COL 211-212 WAVE 1 QUEST. P12 What was then the trade or profession of your (foster) father? What was his position? In what type of company or organization was he employed? Was this a position of leadership? IF YES: How many persons did he directly or indirectly supervise? 01. manager =>10 employe 48 2.9 02. manager <10 employee 205 12.6 03. higher professional 12 .7 04. farmer-marketgardenr 162 9.9 05. higher level employe 55 3.4 06. middle level employe 232 14.2 07. lower level employee 185 11.3 08. skilled labourer 326 20.0 09. unskilled labourer 270 16.6 98. NA 14 .9 99. INAP (VAR119, codes 2-7) 121 7.4 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR122 Branch of industry father's job was in MD=98 99 REF122 COL 213-214 WAVE 1 QUEST. P12 98. NA 99. INAP (VAR119, codes 2-7) VAR123 Number of staff father of resp employed MD=98 99 REF123 COL 215-216 WAVE 1 QUEST. P12 00. none 01. one person . . 97. ninety seven or more 98. NA 99. INAP (VAR119, codes 2-7) VAR124 head of hhold is the respondent MD=8 REF124 COL 217 WAVE 1 QUEST. P12a respondent is head of household? 1. h. of h. is the respondent 1023 62.8 2. h. of h. isn't respondent 607 37.2 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR125 Employment status of head of household MD=98 99 REF125 COL 218-219 WAVE 1 QUEST. P13 Can you indicate, with the help of this card, what the present occupation of the HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD is, or which situation applies to him? 01. empld by government 108 6.6 02. empld-private emple 244 15.0 03. self-employed 97 6.0 04. employed-elsewhere 4 .2 05. was employed-disabld 36 2.2 06. was empld-unemployed 24 1.5 07. was employed-retired 68 4.2 08. was empld-other 7 .4 09. never empld-study 2 .1 10. never empld-unempld 3 .2 11. never empld-other 9 .6 98. NA 5 .3 99. INAP (VAR124, code 1) 1023 62.8 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR126 Profession and function of head of hhold MD=98 99 REF126 COL 220-221 WAVE 1 QUEST. P14 What is the occupation of the head of household? In what type of company or organization is the head of household employed? Is this a position of leadership? IF YES: How many persons does he directly or indirectly supervise? 01. manager =>10 employe 16 1.0 02. manager <10 employee 45 2.8 03. higher professional 7 .4 04. farmer-marketgardenr 27 1.7 05. higher level employe 19 1.2 06. middle level employe 131 8.0 07. lower level employee 71 4.4 08. skilled labourer 81 5.0 09. unskilled labourer 55 3.4 98. NA 6 .4 99. INAP (VAR125, codes 5-11,99) 1172 71.9 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR127 Branch of industry h. of h.'s job is in MD=98 99 REF127 COL 222-223 WAVE 1 QUEST. P14 98. NA 99. INAP (VAR125, codes 5-11,99) VAR128 Number of staff head of hhold employs MD=97 98 99 REF128 COL 224-225 WAVE 1 QUEST. P14 00. none 01. one person . . 97. ninety seven or more 98. NA 99. INAP (VAR125, codes 5-11,99> VAR129 Former profession and function h. of h. MD=98 99 REF129 COL 226-227 WAVE 1 QUEST. P15 The HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD was previously employed. In what position did he work? In what type of company or organization was the head of household employed? Was this a position of leadership? IF YES: How many persons did he directly or indirectly supervise? 01. manager =>10 employe 4 .2 02. manager <10 employee 6 .4 03. higher professional 2 .1 04. farmer-marketgardenr 3 .2 05. higher level employe 7 .4 06. middle level employe 30 1.8 07. lower level employee 13 .8 08. skilled labourer 39 2.4 09. unskilled labourer 30 1.8 98. NA 1 .1 99. INAP (VAR125, codes 1-4,9-99) 1495 91.7 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR130 Branch of industry h of hh's job is in MD=98 99 REF130 COL 228-229 WAVE 1 QUEST. P15 98. NA 99. INAP (VAR125, codes 1-4,9-99) VAR131 Number of staff h of hh's employs MD=98 99 REF131 COL 230-231 WAVE 1 QUEST. P15 00. none 01. one person . . 97. ninety seven or more 98. NA 99. INAP (VAR125, codes 1-4,9-99) VAR132 Education of respondent MD=98 REF132 COL 232-233 WAVE 1 QUEST. P16 Can you say what your highest level of education is? 01. la 264 16.2 02. lb 170 10.4 03. lv 256 15.7 04. u 260 16.0 05. uv 74 4.5 06. m 166 10.2 07. mv 123 7.5 08. hbo 188 11.5 09. s 25 1.5 10. h 87 5.3 98. NA 17 1.0 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR133 Education of father of respondent MD=97 98 REF133 COL 234-235 WAVE 1 QUEST. P17 And can you say what the highest level of education of your (foster) father is (was)? 01. la 710 43.6 02. lb 126 7.7 03. lv 173 10.6 04. u 104 6.4 05. uv 37 2.3 06. m 72 4.4 07. mv 70 4.3 08. hbo 82 5.0 09. s 24 1.5 10. h 39 2.4 97. DK 179 11.0 98. NA 14 .9 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR134 Recapitulation concerning head of MD=none household REF134 COL 236 WAVE 1 QUEST. P17a 1. h. of h. is resp 1023 62.8 2. h. of h. is father respondent 54 3.3 3. h. of h. is other person 553 33.9 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR135 Education of head of household MD=97 98 99 REF135 COL 237-238 WAVE 1 QUEST. P18 Could you say, with the help of this card, what the highest level of education of the HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD is? 01. la 64 3.9 02. lb 70 4.3 03. lv 98 6.0 04. u 74 4.5 05. uv 31 1.9 06. m 38 2.3 07. mv 66 4.0 08. hbo 61 3.7 09. s 12 .7 10. h 34 2.1 97. DK 1 .1 98. NA 4 .2 99. INAP (VAR134, code 1,2> 1077 66.1 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR136 Social class - self image MD=7 8 REF136 COL 239 WAVE 1 QUEST. P19 One sometimes speaks of the existence of various social classes or groups. If you were to assign yourself to a particular social class, which would that be? 1. upper class 33 2.0 2. upper middle class 228 14.0 3. middle class 712 43.7 4. upper working class 177 10.9 5. working class 417 25.6 7. DK 54 3.3 8. NA 9 .6 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR137 Is respondent religious? MD=7 8 REF137 COL 240 WAVE 1 QUEST. P20a Do you consider yourself religious? 1. yes 969 59.4 2. no 636 39.0 7. DK 23 1.4 8. NA 2 .1 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR138 Religious affiliation MD=7 8 REF138 COL 241 WAVE 1 QUEST. P20b Do you consider yourself a member of a particular church or religious community? IF YES: which ? 1. Roman Catholic 505 31.0 2. Dutch Reformed 235 14.4 3. Calvinist 95 5.8 4. other religion 68 4.2 5. no religion 720 44.2 7. DK 2 .1 8. NA 5 .3 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR139 Sect in Dutch Reformed church MD=7 8 9 respondent belongs to REF139 COL 242 WAVE 1 QUEST. P21 To which group within the Dutch Reformed Church do you belong? 1. 'Vrijzinnig' 43 2.6 2. 'Midden Orthodox' 25 1.5 3. 'Gereformeerde Bond' 26 1.6 4. 'Confessioneel' 26 1.6 5. other 15 .9 6. none 85 5.2 7. DK 13 .8 8. NA 2 .1 9. INAP (VAR138, codes 1,3-8) 1395 85.6 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR140 Calvinist denomination-sect r belongs to MD=7 8 9 REF140 COL 243 WAVE 1 QUEST. P22 To which denomination within the Calvinist religion do you belong? 1. 'Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland' 59 3.6 2. 'Gereformeerde Kerken vrijgem-art31' 12 .7 3. 'Ned Gereformeerde Kerken' 7 .4 4. 'Christelijk Ger Kerken' 4 .2 5. 'Geref Gemeenten' 10 .6 6. 'Oud Geref Gemeent' 1 .1 7. DK 1 .1 8. NA 1 .1 9. INAP (VAR138, codes 1,2,4-8) 1535 94.2 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR141 Attendance of religious services MD=7 8 9 REF141 COL 244 WAVE 1 QUEST. P23 How often do you attend religious services? 1. at least once a week 299 18.3 2. at least once a month 156 9.6 3. several times a year 215 13.2 4. never 226 13.9 7. DK 2 .1 8. NA 10 .6 9. INAP (VAR138, codes 5,7) 722 44.3 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR142 Religion respondent is brought up in MD=7 8 REF142 COL 245 WAVE 1 QUEST. P24 Were you brought up in a particular religion or denomination? AND IF SO: in which one? 1. Roman Catholic 686 42.1 2. Dutch Reformed 330 20.2 3. Calvinist 139 8.5 4. other religion 90 5.5 5. no religion 377 23.1 8. NA 8 .5 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR143 Recapitulation concerning partner of r MD=none REF143 COL 246 WAVE 1 QUEST. P25a 1. respondent has partner 1116 68.5 2. respondent has no partner 514 31.5 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR144 Religious affiliation of partner MD=7 8 9 REF144 COL 247 WAVE 1 QUEST. P25b Does your partner belong to a particular church or religious community? 1. Roman Catholic 399 24.5 2. Dutch Reformed 165 10.1 3. Calvinist 69 4.2 4. other religion 41 2.5 5. no religion 428 26.3 7. DK 6 .4 8. NA 8 .5 9. INAP (VAR143, code 2) 514 31.5 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR145 Section in Dutch Ref.church partner MD=7 8 9 belongs to REF145 COL 248 WAVE 1 QUEST. P25c Does your spouse belong to a particular group within the Dutch Reformed Church? 1. 'Vrijzinnig' 28 1.7 2. 'Midden Orthodox' 17 1.0 3. 'Gereformeerde Bond' 22 1.3 4. 'Confessioneel' 23 1.4 5. other 4 .2 6. none 56 3.4 7. DK 11 .7 8. NA 4 .2 9. INAP (VAR144 code 1, 3-9) 1465 89.9 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR146 Calvin. denom.-sect partner belongs to MD=7 8 9 REF146 COL 249 WAVE 1 QUEST. P25d To which of the Reformed (Calvinist) churches, communities, or denominations does your spouse belong? 1. 'Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland' 46 2.8 2. 'Gereform. Kerken vrijgem-art31' 7 .4 3. 'Ned Gereformeerde Kerken' 2 .1 4. 'Christelijk Ger Kerken' 2 .1 5. 'Geref Gemeenten' 7 .4 6. 'Oud Geref Gemeenten' 1 .1 7. DK 2 .1 8. NA 2 .1 9. INAP (VAR144, code 1,2,4-9) 1561 95.8 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR147 Partner's attendance of relig. services MD=7 8 9 REF147 COL 250 WAVE 1 QUEST. P25e How often does your spouse attend religious services? 1. at least once a week 209 12.8 2. at least once a month 115 7.1 3. several times a year 158 9.7 4. never 190 11.7 7. DK 1 .1 8. NA 1 .1 9. INAP (VAR144, codes 5-9) 956 58.7 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR148 Religion partner is brought up in MD=7 8 9 REF148 COL 251 WAVE 1 QUEST. P25f Was your spouse raised in a particular religion or denomination? IF YES: Which? 1. Roman Catholic 485 29.8 2. Dutch Reformed 204 12.5 3. Calvinist 103 6.3 4. other religion 55 3.4 5. no religion 244 15.0 7. DK 8 .5 8. NA 17 1.0 9. INAP (VAR143, code 2) 514 31.5 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR149 Discussed pol. at home when adolescent MD=7 8 REF149 COL 252 WAVE 1 QUEST. P26a May I ask you a few questions concerning the period when you were between 10 and 16 years old? Were political topics discussed very often, often, not often or not at all in your home? 1. very often 137 8.4 2. often 245 15.0 3. not often 636 39.0 4. not at all 543 33.3 7. DK 68 4.2 8. NA 1 .1 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR150 Recalls party preference of father? MD=7 8 REF150 COL 253 WAVE 1 QUEST. P26b Do you know which party your father preferred THEN? 1. yes 1205 73.9 2. no 182 11.2 7. DK 238 14.6 8. NA 5 .3 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR151 Party pref. of father during MD=GE 92 adolescence REF151 COL 254-255 WAVE 1 QUEST. P26c Which party was that? 01. PVDA 319 19.6 02. CDA 142 8.7 03. VVD 121 7.4 04. D66 6 .4 05. CPN 32 2.0 06. PPR 3 .2 07. PSP 5 .3 08. SGP 24 1.5 09. GPV 10 .6 30. KVP 272 16.7 31. ARP 95 5.8 32. CHU 63 3.9 33. AR-CHU 1 .1 34. SDAP 43 2.6 35. DS70 2 .1 36. Boerenpartij 3 .2 37. RKSP 11 .7 38. NSB 2 .1 39. PVDV 4 .2 40. Vrijheidsbond 1 .1 41. Liberale Partij 4 .2 42. VSB 1 .1 43. VD 5 .3 44. OSP 1 .1 45. Indo Eur. Verbond 1 .1 46. VHP 2 .1 47. PDI 1 .1 48. D66-VVD 1 .1 49. SP 1 .1 50. SP-Belgium 1 .1 51. CHU-Liberaal 1 .1 53. PVDA-KVP 1 .1 92. refused to answer 5 .3 95. blanco 1 .1 98. NA 25 1.5 99. INAP (VAR150, codes 2,7) 420 25.8 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR152 Recalls party preference of mother? MD=7 8 9 REF152 COL 256 WAVE 1 QUEST. P26d And do you know which party your mother preferred THEN? 1. yes 1126 69.1 2. no 229 14.0 7. DK 274 16.8 8. NA 1 .1 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR153 Party pref. of mother during MD=GE 92 adolescence REF153 COL 257-258 WAVE 1 QUEST. P26e Which party was that? 01. PVDA 271 16.6 02. CDA 145 8.9 03. VVD 93 5.7 04. D66 14 .9 05. CPN 21 1.3 06. PPR 3 .2 07. PSP 8 .5 08. SGP 26 1.6 09. GPV 12 .7 30. KVP 278 17.1 31. ARP 90 5.5 32. CHU 72 4.4 33. AR-CHU 1 .1 34. SDAP 30 1.8 36. Boerenpartij 3 .2 37. RKSP 11 .7 38. NSB 2 .1 39. PVDV 2 .1 40. Vrijheidsbond 2 .1 41. Liberale Partij 2 .1 43. VD 2 .1 45. Indo Eur. Verbond 1 .1 46. VHP 2 .1 47. PDI 1 .1 49. SP 1 .1 50. SP-Belgium 1 .1 51. CHU-Liberaal 1 .1 52. ARP-VVD 1 .1 92. refused to answer 5 .3 95. blanco 1 .1 98. NA 25 1.5 99. INAP (VAR152, codes 2,7) 503 30.9 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR154 Income of respondent's household MD=97 98 REF154 COL 259-260 WAVE 1 QUEST. P27a On this card are some income levels. Could you indicate in which of the categories the net income of your household falls? Please indicate the total net income of all of the family members together, after deduction of taxes and the like. Extra income from overtime and income of children must be included. Child payments, welfare payments, social security, and pensions also count as income. IN CASE RESPONDENT COMPLAINS OR HESITATES: This question is very important for this research. I can guarantee you that this remains COMPLETELY SECRET, but for scientific research it is importanthat the information from all respondents be collected. 01. a 164 10.1 02. b 141 8.7 03. c 132 8.1 04. d 145 8.9 05. e 140 8.6 06. f 100 6.1 07. g 118 7.2 08. h 152 9.3 09. i 70 4.3 10. j 117 7.2 11. k 79 4.8 12. l 65 4.0 97. DK 81 5.0 98. NA 126 7.7 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR155 Recapitulation concerning partner MD=none REF155 COL 261 WAVE 1 QUEST. P27b 1. r has no partner 514 31.5 2. r has partner 1116 68.5 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR156 Who earns higher income, r or partner? MD=97 98 99 REF156 COL 262-263 WAVE 1 QUEST. P27c Could you indicate which of the situations on this card apply to you and your spouse? 01. r nor p has income 19 1.2 02. only r has income 255 15.6 03. only p has income 281 17.2 04. p's income >>> r's 139 8.5 05. p's income > r's 69 4.2 06. p's income = r's 69 4.2 07. p's income <<< r's 148 9.1 08. p's income < r's 51 3.1 97. DK 22 1.3 98. NA 63 3.9 99. INAP (VAR155, code 1) 514 31.5 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR157 Health insurance -head of household MD=7 8 REF157 COL 264 WAVE 1 QUEST. P28 Is the head of household required by law to have health insurance? 1. yes 1080 66.3 2. no 539 33.1 7. DK 3 .2 8. NA 8 .5 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR158 Is respondent or h. of h. houseowner? MD=7 8 REF158 COL 265 WAVE 1 QUEST. P29 Do you (or does the head of household) own the house in which you live? 1. yes 766 47.0 2. no 855 52.5 7. DK 3 .2 8. NA 6 .4 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR159 Start of first interview MD=9998 REF159 COL 266-269 WAVE 1 9998. NA VAR160 End of first interview MD=9998 9999 REF160 COL 270-273 WAVE 1 9998. NA 9999. INAP (VAR003, code 3) VAR161 Interviewer identification number MD=0 REF161 COL 274-279 WAVE 1 VAR162 Date of first interview - day MD=98 99 REF162 COL 280-281 WAVE 1 98. NA 99. INAP (VAR003, code 3) VAR163 Date of first interview - month MD=98 99 REF163 COL 282-283 WAVE 1 03. March 562 34.5 04. April 733 45.0 05. May 66 4.0 98. NA 117 7.2 99. INAP (VAR003, code 3) 152 9.3 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR164 Present at interview - children under MD=8 9 6 years REF164 COL 284 WAVE 1 Would you indicate here who besides the respondent was present during the interview? Would you also indicate: - if they followed the conversation completely or in part, that is to say listened actively. - if they intruded into the interview, that is to say offered an own opinion, corrected the respondent, offered suggestions, etc.? 0. not present 1192 73.1 1. didn't listen 104 6.4 2. did listen 10 .6 3. did participate 4 .2 8. NA 168 10.3 9. INAP (VAR003, code 3) 152 9.3 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR165 Present at interview - children over MD=8 9 6 years REF165 COL 285 WAVE 1 0. not present 1116 68.5 1. didn't listen 118 7.2 2. did listen 78 4.8 3. did participate 14 .9 8. NA 152 9.3 9. INAP (VAR003, code 3) 152 9.3 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR166 Present at interview - spouse-partner MD=8 9 REF166 COL 286 WAVE 1 0. not present 840 51.5 1. didn't listen 121 7.4 2. did listen 292 17.9 3. did participate 119 7.3 8. NA 106 6.5 9. INAP (VAR003, code 3) 152 9.3 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR167 Present at interview - other relatives MD=8 9 REF167 COL 287 WAVE 1 0. not present 1197 73.4 1. didn't listen 31 1.9 2. did listen 44 2.7 3. did participate 11 .7 8. NA 195 12.0 9. INAP (VAR003, code 3) 152 9.3 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR168 Present at interview - other adults MD=8 9 REF168 COL 288 WAVE 1 0. not present 1200 73.6 1. didn't listen 30 1.8 2. did listen 34 2.1 3. did participate 14 .9 8. NA 200 12.3 9. INAP (VAR003, code 3) 152 9.3 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR169 Disturbing influences - 1st answer MD=8 9 REF169 COL 289 WAVE 1 Were there any other disturbing influences during the interview, such as a television set or radio that was on, other persons who arrived for a visit, etc.? 8. NA 9. INAP (VAR003, code 3) VAR170 Disturbing influences - 2nd answer MD=8 9 REF170 COL 290 WAVE 1 9. INAP (VAR003, code 3, no second answer) VAR171 History of fieldwork for this case MD=none REF171 COL 291 WAVE 1 0. 1471 90.2 1. extra effort needed 159 9.8 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR172 The dataset does not contain a variable named VAR172. VAR173 Degree of urbanisation MD=none REF173 COL 292-293 WAVE 1 02. A2 6 .4 03. A3 41 2.5 04. A4 111 6.8 05. B1 122 7.5 06. B2 225 13.8 07. B3 232 14.2 08. C1 39 2.4 09. C2 128 7.9 10. C3 99 6.1 11. C4 148 9.1 12. C5 230 14.1 13. C6 249 15.3 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR174 Size of municipality MD=none REF174 COL 294 WAVE 1 1. <=5000 47 2.9 2. 5000-10000 146 9.0 3. 10000-20000 307 18.8 4. 20000-50000 369 22.6 5. 50000-100000 262 16.1 6. =>100000 250 15.3 7. The Hague 60 3.7 8. Rotterdam 70 4.3 9. Amsterdam 119 7.3 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR175 Province MD=none REF175 COL 295-296 WAVE 1 01. Groningen 72 4.4 02. Friesland 66 4.0 03. Drenthe 57 3.5 04. Overijssel 116 7.1 05. Gelderland 180 11.0 06. Utrecht 102 6.3 07. Noord Holland 291 17.9 08. Zuid Holland 331 20.3 09. Zeeland 40 2.5 10. Noord Brabant 242 14.8 11. Limburg 117 7.2 12. Flevoland 16 1.0 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR176 Region MD=none REF176 COL 297 WAVE 1 1. Randstad 307 18.8 2. West 424 26.0 3. North 195 12.0 4. East 305 18.7 5. South 399 24.5 ---- ----- 1630 100.0 VAR177 Identification number of municipality MD=none REF177 COL 298-300 WAVE 1 VAR178 Reads about campaign news MD=7 8 9 REF178 COL 301 WAVE 2 QUEST. 1 I would like to begin with a question about the election campaign for the parliamentary election on May 21. If there was news about the campaign in the newspaper, how often did you read such news? Could you respond according to this card? 1. always 271 20.0 2. often 290 21.4 3. now and then 448 33.0 4. seldom or never 264 19.5 5. doesn't read papers 81 6.0 7. DK 2 .1 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR179 Watched election debate on tv MD=7 8 9 REF179 COL 302 WAVE 2 QUEST. 2 During the evening before the election a television debate was held in which the leaders of the three largest political parties participated. Did you watch this debate between Den Uyl, Lubbers, and Nijpels? 1. yes 758 55.9 2. no 591 43.6 7. DK 5 .4 8. NA 2 .1 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR180 Did vote in 1986 parliamentary MD=7 9 elections? REF180 COL 303 WAVE 2 QUEST. 3 Did you vote in the parliamentary election on May 21, or not? 1. yes,voted 1263 93.1 2. no,did not vote 91 6.7 7. DK 2 .1 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR181 Party voted for in 86 elections MD=GE 91 REF181 COL 304-205 WAVE 2 QUEST. 4 For which party did you vote? 01. PvdA 440 32.4 02. CDA 403 29.7 03. VVD 211 15.6 04. D66 87 6.4 05. CPN 8 .6 06. PPR 20 1.5 07. PSP 21 1.5 08. SGP 15 1.1 09. GPV 14 1.0 10. RPF 11 .8 11. Centrumpartij 3 .2 12. EVP 7 .5 60. other party 15 1.1 92. refused to answer 8 .6 99. INAP (VAR180, codes 2-7) 93 6.9 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 99. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR182 Party choice - first reason MD=GE 91 REF182 COL 306-307 WAVE 2 QUEST. 5 Why did you vote for this party? 99. INAP (VAR181, codes 92,99) VAR183 Party choice - second reason MD=GE 91 REF183 COL 308-309 WAVE 2 QUEST. 5 99. INAP (VAR182, codes 91-99) VAR184 Reason pty choice -retro- prospective MD=9 REF184 COL 310 WAVE 2 QUEST. 5 1. pure retrospective 138 10.2 2. mainly retrospective 5 .4 3. mixed 52 3.8 4. mainly prospective 5 .4 5. pure prospective 190 14.0 8. else 857 63.2 9. INAP 109 8.0 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR185 Reason party choice - issue relevance MD=9 REF185 COL 311 WAVE 2 QUEST. 5 VAR186 Reason party choice - alternate coding MD=98 99 REF186 COL 312-313 WAVE 2 QUEST. 5 VAR187 Party choice - when decided MD=7 8 9 REF187 COL 314 WAVE 2 QUEST. 6 When did you decide to vote for this party? Was this during the last DAYS before the election, the last WEEKS before the election, a few MONTHS beforehand, or did you know even LONGER beforehand for which party you would vote? 1. last days 153 11.3 2. last weeks 118 8.7 3. last few months 126 9.3 4. much earlier 863 63.6 7. DK 1 .1 8. NA 2 .1 9. INAP (VAR180, codes 2,7) 93 6.9 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR188 Previous voting behavior of voters MD=7 8 9 REF188 COL 315 WAVE 2 QUEST. 7 Have you always voted for this party or have you at times voted for another party than this one? 1. always this party 625 46.1 2. sometimes other prty 601 44.3 3. not entitled to vote 25 1.8 7. DK 5 .4 8. NA 7 .5 9. INAP (VAR180, codes 2,7) 93 6.9 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR189 Previously voted for: 1st answer MD=GE 92 REF189 COL 316-317 WAVE 2 QUEST. 8 For which other party (or parties) have you voted? 01. PvdA 153 11.3 02. CDA 105 7.7 03. VVD 106 7.8 04. D66 85 6.3 05. CPN 28 2.1 06. PPR 28 2.1 07. PSP 24 1.8 08. SGP 7 .5 09. GPV 2 .1 10. RPF 6 .4 11. Centrumpartij 1 .1 12. EVP 2 .1 15. blank 8 .6 60. other party 46 3.4 92. refused to answer 2 .1 98. NA 5 .4 99. INAP (VAR188, codes 1,3,7,9) 748 55.2 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 99. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR190 Previously voted for: 2nd answer MD=GE 92 REF190 COL 318-319 WAVE 2 QUEST. 8 02. CDA 6 .4 03. VVD 13 1.0 04. D66 22 1.6 05. CPN 6 .4 06. PPR 9 .7 07. PSP 13 1.0 08. SGP 3 .2 09. GPV 2 .1 10. RPF 3 .2 12. EVP 1 .1 60. other party 11 .8 99. INAP (VAR189, code 99, no 2nd 1267 93.4 answer) ---- ----- 1356 100.0 99. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR191 Previously voted for: 3rd answer MD=GE 92 REF191 COL 320-321 WAVE 2 QUEST. 8 05. CPN 1 .1 06. PPR 2 .1 07. PSP 3 .2 12. EVP 3 .2 60. other party 3 .2 99. INAP (VAR190, code 99, no 3rd 1344 99.1 answer) ---- ----- 1356 100.0 99. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR192 Previously voted for: 4th answer MD=GE 92 REF192 COL 322-323 WAVE 2 QUEST. 8 60. other party 1 .1 99. INAP (VAR191, code 99, no 4th 1355 99.9 answer) ---- ----- 1356 100.0 99. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR193 Considered not to vote in 1986 MD=7 8 9 REF193 COL 324 WAVE 2 QUEST. 9 And did you seriously consider voting for a different party at the recent parliamentary election? 1. yes 275 20.3 2. no 981 72.3 7. DK 2 .1 8. NA 5 .4 9. INAP (VAR180, codes 2,7) 93 6.9 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR195 Party considered as alternative choice MD=GE 92 REF195 COL 326-327 WAVE 2 QUEST. 10 Which party was that? 01. PvdA 60 4.4 02. CDA 78 5.8 03. VVD 18 1.3 04. D66 62 4.6 05. CPN 11 .8 06. PPR 8 .6 07. PSP 11 .8 08. SGP 1 .1 09. GPV 4 .3 10. RPF 4 .3 11. Centrumpartij 1 .1 12. EVP 5 .4 60. other party 3 .2 92. refused to answer 2 .1 97. DK 4 .3 98. NA 8 .6 99. INAP (VAR194, codes 2,7,9) 1076 79.4 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 99. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR196 Didn't vote -first reason MD=GE 91 REF196 COL 328-329 WAVE 2 QUEST. 11 Why did you not vote? 99. INAP (VAR180, codes 1,7) 99. INAP (Panel attrition) VAR197 Didn't vote -second reason MD=GE 91 REF197 COL 330-331 WAVE 2 QUEST. 11 99. INAP (VAR196, codes 91,99) 99. INAP (Panel attrition) VAR198 Didn't vote -when decided MD=7 8 9 REF198 COL 332 WAVE 2 QUEST. 12 When did you decide that you definitely would not vote? Was that during the last DAYS before the election, the last WEEKS before the election, a few MONTHS beforehand or did you know even LONGER beforehand that you would not vote? 1. last days 26 1.9 2. last weeks 14 1.0 3. last few months 6 .4 4. much earlier 33 2.4 7. DK 9 .7 8. NA 3 .2 9. INAP (VAR180, codes 1,7) 1265 93.3 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR199 Preferred party of non-voters MD=GE 92 REF199 COL 333-334 WAVE 2 QUEST. 13 Suppose that you had in fact voted, for which party would you have voted? 01. PvdA 23 1.7 02. CDA 22 1.6 03. VVD 8 .6 04. D66 8 .6 07. PSP 1 .1 08. SGP 1 .1 09. GPV 1 .1 10. RPF 1 .1 11. Centrumpartij 1 .1 60. other party 1 .1 92. refused to answer 4 .3 97. DK 19 1.4 98. NA 1 .1 99. INAP (VAR180, codes 1,7) 1265 93.3 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 99. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR200 R has partner MD=8 9 REF200 COL 335 WAVE 2 QUEST. 14a Are you married or living with someone? 1. partner 938 69.2 2. no partner 416 30.7 8. NA 2 .1 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR201 Partner did vote in 86 parl MD=GE 3 elections REF201 COL 336 WAVE 2 QUEST. 14b Did your spouse (or partner) vote at the May 21 parliamentary election or not? 1. yes,voted 847 62.5 2. no,did not vote 82 6.0 7. DK 2 .1 8. NA 9 .7 9. INAP (VAR200, code 2) 416 30.7 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR202 Party partner voted for in 86 parl MD=GE 92 elections REF202 COL 337-338 WAVE 2 QUEST. 15 For which party did your spouse (or partner) vote? 01. PvdA 273 20.1 02. CDA 256 18.9 03. VVD 147 10.8 04. D66 48 3.5 05. CPN 6 .4 06. PPR 7 .5 07. PSP 14 1.0 08. SGP 11 .8 09. GPV 8 .6 10. RPF 6 .4 11. Centrumpartij 2 .1 12. EVP 1 .1 60. other party 9 .7 92. refused to answer 6 .4 97. DK 51 3.8 98. NA 11 .8 99. INAP (VAR201, codes 2,7,9) 500 36.9 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 99. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR203 Resp did vote in 1982 parl elects MD=7 8 9 REF203 COL 339 WAVE 2 QUEST. 16 The PREVIOUS election for the Second Chamber was held in 1982. Did you vote in that election or not? 1. yes,voted 1177 86.8 2. no,did not vote 104 7.7 3. not yet entitled to vote 60 4.4 7. DK 13 1.0 8. NA 2 .1 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR204 Pty resp voted for in 1982 parl elects MD=GE 92 REF204 COL 340-341 WAVE 2 QUEST. 17 For which party did you vote THEN? 01. PvdA 416 30.7 02. CDA 309 22.8 03. VVD 244 18.0 04. D66 70 5.2 05. CPN 17 1.3 06. PPR 15 1.1 07. PSP 26 1.9 08. SGP 20 1.5 09. GPV 9 .7 10. RPF 13 1.0 11. Centrumpartij 2 .1 12. EVP 7 .5 60. other party 1 .1 92. refused to answer 8 .6 97. DK 17 1.3 98. NA 5 .4 99. INAP (VAR203, codes 2,3,7) 177 13.1 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 99. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR205 Euthanasia - perception of CDA MD=97 98 99 REF205 COL 342-343 WAVE 2 QUEST. 18a There are many political affairs in the news which are discussed or written about. I would like to ask you a few questions about such affairs. I will begin with a question about EUTHANASIA; the action of a doctor to end the life of a person at the latter's request. At the moment this is forbidden by law and some people feel this should remain so. Others feel that a doctor should always be allowed to end a life if the patient so requests. Of course there are also people whose opinion lies somewhere in between. Suppose that the people who would like to see euthanasia forbidden are at one end at this line (at number 1) and the people who feel that a doctor should always be allowed to end a life upon a patient's request are at thether end of the line (at number 7). I will ask you first to place some political parties on the line. And then to place yourself. If you do not know what the view is of a party on this issue, just say so. Can you place the CDA on this line? 01. forbid euthanasia 268 19.8 02. 391 28.8 03. 246 18.1 04. 175 12.9 05. 64 4.7 06. 23 1.7 07. request patient:allow 25 1.8 97. DK 164 12.1 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 99. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR206 Euthanasia - perception of PvdA MD=97 98 99 REF206 COL 344-345 WAVE 2 QUEST. 18a How about the PvdA? 01. forbid euthanasia 37 2.7 02. 38 2.8 03. 51 3.8 04. 104 7.7 05. 208 15.3 06. 406 29.9 07. request patient:allow 266 19.6 97. DK 245 18.1 98. NA 1 .1 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 99. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR207 Euthanasia - perception of VVD MD=97 98 99 REF207 COL 346-347 WAVE 2 QUEST. 18a How about the VVD? 01. forbid euthanasia 61 4.5 02. 52 3.8 03. 75 5.5 04. 143 10.5 05. 210 15.5 06. 318 23.5 07. request patient:allow 239 17.6 97. DK 258 19.0 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 99. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR208 Euthanasia - perception of D66 MD=97 98 99 REF208 COL 348-349 WAVE 2 QUEST. 18a How about D66? 01. forbid euthanasia 18 1.3 02. 20 1.5 03. 58 4.3 04. 152 11.2 05. 218 16.1 06. 275 20.3 07. request patient:allow 137 10.1 97. DK 474 35.0 98. NA 4 .3 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 99. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR209 Euthanasia - respondent's preference MD=97 98 99 REF209 COL 350-351 WAVE 2 QUEST. 18a And where would you place yourself on this line? 01. forbid euthanasia 178 13.1 02. 95 7.0 03. 80 5.9 04. 214 15.8 05. 195 14.4 06. 266 19.6 07. request patient:allow 289 21.3 97. DK 37 2.7 98. NA 2 .1 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 99. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR210 Income differences - perception of CDA MD=97 98 99 REF210 COL 352-353 WAVE 2 QUEST. 18b And now a similar card. At the one end of the line are the people (or parties) who feel that the DIFFERENCES IN INCOME should become greater and at the other end are the people (or parties) who feel that the differences in incomes should become smaller. First I will ask you again to place some of the political parties on this line with respect to this issue and then again yourself. Can you place the CDA on this line? 01. larger differences 70 5.2 02. 173 12.8 03. 306 22.6 04. 440 32.4 05. 123 9.1 06. 52 3.8 07. smaller differences 18 1.3 97. DK 172 12.7 98. NA 2 .1 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 99. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR211 Income differences - perception of PvdA MD=97 98 99 REF211 COL 354-355 WAVE 2 QUEST. 18b How about the PvdA? 01. larger differences 25 1.8 02. 41 3.0 03. 31 2.3 04. 46 3.4 05. 112 8.3 06. 359 26.5 07. smaller differences 600 44.2 97. DK 140 10.3 98. NA 2 .1 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 99. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR212 Income differences - perception of VVD MD=97 98 99 REF212 COL 356-357 WAVE 2 QUEST. 18b How about the VVD? 01. larger differences 363 26.8 02. 365 26.9 03. 185 13.6 04. 133 9.8 05. 63 4.6 06. 36 2.7 07. smaller differences 21 1.5 97. DK 187 13.8 98. NA 3 .2 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 99. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR213 Income differences - perception of D66 MD=97 98 99 REF213 COL 358-359 WAVE 2 QUEST. 18b How about D'66? 01. larger differences 6 .4 02. 28 2.1 03. 87 6.4 04. 305 22.5 05. 267 19.7 06. 195 14.4 07. smaller differences 53 3.9 97. DK 411 30.3 98. NA 4 .3 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 99. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR214 Income differences - resp's preference MD=97 98 99 REF214 COL 360-361 WAVE 2 QUEST. 18b And where would you place yourself on this line? 01. larger differences 48 3.5 02. 87 6.4 03. 138 10.2 04. 336 24.8 05. 177 13.1 06. 245 18.1 07. smaller differences 295 21.8 97. DK 30 2.2 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 99. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR215 Nuclear plants - perception of CDA MD=97 98 99 REF215 COL 362-363 WAVE 2 QUEST. 18c And finally the same with respect to the issue of NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS. As you may know some people fear that within the foreseeable future a shortage of energy in the world will occur. One means of fulfilling this need is the building of nuclear power plants. At the one end of this line are the people (or parties) who feel that the Netherlands should quickly increase the number of such plants. At the other end are the people (or parties) who consider the dangers too great and think that no nuclear power plants should be built at all. First I will ask you again to place the parties on this line with respect to this issue and then again yourself. Can you place the CDA on this line? 01. more nuclear plants 129 9.5 02. 210 15.5 03. 314 23.2 04. 341 25.1 05. 147 10.8 06. 67 4.9 07. no nuclear plants 30 2.2 97. DK 116 8.6 98. NA 2 .1 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 99. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR216 Nuclear plants - perception of PvdA MD=97 98 99 REF216 COL 364-365 WAVE 2 QUEST. 18c How about the PvdA? 01. more nuclear plants 37 2.7 02. 27 2.0 03. 18 1.3 04. 35 2.6 05. 49 3.6 06. 215 15.9 07. no nuclear plants 866 63.9 97. DK 107 7.9 98. NA 2 .1 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 99. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR217 Nuclear plants - perception of VVD MD=97 98 99 REF217 COL 366-367 WAVE 2 QUEST. 18c How about the VVD? 01. more nuclear plants 292 21.5 02. 297 21.9 03. 233 17.2 04. 202 14.9 05. 91 6.7 06. 40 2.9 07. no nuclear plants 27 2.0 97. DK 173 12.8 98. NA 1 .1 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 99. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR218 Nuclear plants - perception of D66 MD=97 98 99 REF218 COL 368-369 WAVE 2 QUEST. 18c How about D66? 01. more nuclear plants 12 .9 02. 32 2.4 03. 68 5.0 04. 209 15.4 05. 216 15.9 06. 279 20.6 07. no nuclear plants 145 10.7 97. DK 392 28.9 98. NA 3 .2 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 99. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR219 Nuclear plants - resp's preference MD=97 98 99 REF219 COL 370-371 WAVE 2 QUEST. 18c And where would you place yourself on this line? 01. more nuclear plants 50 3.7 02. 73 5.4 03. 96 7.1 04. 205 15.1 05. 118 8.7 06. 160 11.8 07. no nuclear plants 616 45.4 97. DK 35 2.6 98. NA 3 .2 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 99. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR220 Closing nuclear plants - yes or no? MD=7 8 9 REF220 COL 372 WAVE 2 QUEST. 18d At the moment two nuclear power plants are in use in the Netherlands, in Dodewaard and in Borssele. Do you feel that these nuclear power plants should continue to be used or are you of the opinion that they should be shut down? 1. stay in operation 668 49.3 2. close nuclear plants 654 48.2 8. NA 34 2.5 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR221 Nuclear weapons - first item MD=7 8 9 REF221 COL 373 WAVE 2 QUEST. 19 As you may know, the Netherlands is a member of NATO and in a number of places in the Netherlands nuclear weapons are stored. Now there are different ways of thinking about these nuclear weapons. Some feel that the Netherlands should definitely not cooperate any longer, others feel that the Netherlands must simply fulfill her existing tasks within NATO, and others feel that the nuclear arsenal should be strengthened. I shall read you a number of statements and ask you to indicate on this card to what extent you agree or disagree with the statement. 1. Whatever other countries do, the Netherlands must remove all nuclear weapons from her territory. 1. fully agree 330 24.3 2. agree 269 19.8 3. don't agree 133 9.8 4. disagree 401 29.6 5. fully disagree 188 13.9 7. DK 35 2.6 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR222 Nuclear weapons - second item MD=7 8 9 REF222 COL 374 WAVE 2 QUEST. 19 2. The Netherlands must, if necessary independently of the otherATO countries, set a good example and reduce the number of nuclear weapons on her territory. 1. fully agree 296 21.8 2. agree 486 35.8 3. don't agree 104 7.7 4. disagree 335 24.7 5. fully disagree 100 7.4 7. DK 35 2.6 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR223 Nuclear weapons - third item MD=7 8 9 REF223 COL 375 WAVE 2 QUEST. 19 3. The Netherlands must strive to have NATO reduce its nuclear weapons, whether or not the Soviet Unions does so also. 1. fully agree 265 19.5 2. agree 469 34.6 3. don't agree 126 9.3 4. disagree 326 24.0 5. fully disagree 118 8.7 7. DK 48 3.5 8. NA 4 .3 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR224 Nuclear weapons - fourth item MD=7 8 9 REF224 COL 376 WAVE 2 QUEST. 19 4. The Netherlands must strive to have NATO reduce its nuclear weapons only if the Soviet Union does so also. 1. fully agree 183 13.5 2. agree 448 33.0 3. don't agree 118 8.7 4. disagree 405 29.9 5. fully disagree 152 11.2 7. DK 49 3.6 8. NA 1 .1 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR225 Nuclear weapons - fifth item MD=7 8 9 REF225 COL 377 WAVE 2 QUEST. 19 5. The Netherlands must strive to have NATO increase its nuclear arsenal in order to be able to negotiate with the Soviet Union from a favourable position. 1. fully agree 46 3.4 2. agree 172 12.7 3. don't agree 156 11.5 4. disagree 517 38.1 5. fully disagree 401 29.6 7. DK 62 4.6 8. NA 2 .1 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR226 Nuclear weapons - opinion score MD=9 REF226 COL 378 WAVE 2 QUEST. 19 0. 284 20.9 1. 197 14.5 2. 201 14.8 3. 210 15.5 4. 239 17.6 5. 225 16.6 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR227 Nuclear weapons - perception of CDA MD=7 8 9 REF227 COL 379 WAVE 2 QUEST. 20 I have here a card with the statements that I have just read you. Examine these five statements and I shall ask you to indicate for some of the political parties which statement best represents the position of that particular party. Which statement best represents the position of the CDA? 1. first statement 40 2.9 2. second statement 94 6.9 3. third statement 140 10.3 4. fourth statement 726 53.5 5. fifth statement 182 13.4 7. DK 171 12.6 8. NA 3 .2 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR228 Nuclear weapons - perception of PvdA MD=7 8 9 REF228 COL 380 WAVE 2 QUEST. 20 And which the PvdA? 1. first statement 801 59.1 2. second statement 251 18.5 3. third statement 94 6.9 4. fourth statement 28 2.1 5. fifth statement 28 2.1 7. DK 152 11.2 8. NA 2 .1 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR229 Nuclear weapons - perception of VVD MD=7 8 9 REF229 COL 381 WAVE 2 QUEST. 20 And which the VVD? 1. first statement 22 1.6 2. second statement 65 4.8 3. third statement 107 7.9 4. fourth statement 437 32.2 5. fifth statement 483 35.6 7. DK 237 17.5 8. NA 5 .4 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR230 Nuclear weapons - perception of D66 MD=7 8 9 REF230 COL 382 WAVE 2 QUEST. 20 And which D66? 1. first statement 123 9.1 2. second statement 319 23.5 3. third statement 262 19.3 4. fourth statement 183 13.5 5. fifth statement 23 1.7 7. DK 440 32.4 8. NA 6 .4 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR231 Signed anti-cruise missile petition? MD=7 8 9 REF231 COL 383 WAVE 2 QUEST. 21 This past fall the peace movement collected signatures for the so- called `peoples petition' against the deployment of cruise missiles. Did you sign this petition or not? 1. signed 518 38.2 2. did not sign 798 58.8 7. DK 40 2.9 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR232 Expected effect CDA-VVD govt r's financ MD=7 8 9 REF232 COL 384 WAVE 2 QUEST. 22a If you consider the next four years and think about YOUR OWN FINANCIAL SITUATION during this period, do you think that a CABINET CONSISTING OF CDA AND VVD would have a favourable influence, an unfavourable influence or hardly any influence on your OWN financial situation? 1. positive effect 280 20.6 2. negative effect 370 27.3 3. hardly any effect 639 47.1 7. DK 65 4.8 8. NA 2 .1 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR233 Expected effect CDA-PvdA govt r's financ MD=7 8 9 REF233 COL 385 WAVE 2 QUEST. 22b And do you think that a CABINET CONSISTING OF CDA AND PVDA in the coming four years would have a favourable influence, an unfavourable influence or hardly any influence on YOUR OWN FINANCIAL SITUATION? 1. positive effect 294 21.7 2. negative effect 382 28.2 3. hardly any effect 585 43.1 7. DK 93 6.9 8. NA 2 .1 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR234 Expectation general prosperity in 4 yrs MD=7 8 9 REF234 COL 386 WAVE 2 QUEST. 23a Do you think that GENERAL PROSPERITY IN THE NETHERLANDS will be larger in four years than it is now, smaller than it is now, or about the same as it now is? 1. larger 443 32.7 2. smaller 177 13.1 3. about the same 644 47.5 7. DK 89 6.6 8. NA 3 .2 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR235 Expect effect CDA-VVD govt genrl prosp MD=7 8 9 REF235 COL 387 WAVE 2 QUEST. 23b Do you think that a CABINET CONSISTING OF CDA AND VVD would have a favourable influence, an unfavourable influence or hardly any influence on the development of GENERAL PROSPERITY in the Netherlands? 1. positive effect 623 45.9 2. negative effect 225 16.6 3. hardly any effect 408 30.1 7. DK 99 7.3 8. NA 1 .1 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR236 Expect effect CDA-PvdA govt genrl prosp MD=7 8 9 REF236 COL 388 WAVE 2 QUEST. 23c And do you think a CABINET CONSISTING OF CDA AND PVDA would have a favourable influence, an unfavourable influence, or hardly any influence on the development of GENERAL PROSPERITY in the Netherlands? 1. positive effect 343 25.3 2. negative effect 409 30.2 3. hardly any effect 485 35.8 7. DK 118 8.7 8. NA 1 .1 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR237 Priority:reduce deficit or reduce MD=7 8 9 unemployment REF237 COL 389 WAVE 2 QUEST. 24 Two of the biggest problems in the Dutch economy are UNEMPLOYMENT and the GOVERNMENT BUDGET DEFICIT, the fact that the government spends more money that it takes in. Many people are of the opinion that it is not possible to solve these two problems simultaneously. Which should in your opinion take precedence during the coming four years: the reduction of unemployment or the reduction of the budget deficit? 1. reduce unemployment 951 70.1 2. reduce deficit 252 18.6 3. can-will not choose 120 8.8 7. DK 32 2.4 8. NA 1 .1 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR238 Reduction unempl benefits - agree? MD=7 8 9 REF238 COL 390 WAVE 2 QUEST. 25a Recently the Second Chamber has discussed the revision of the system of social welfare and security. One of the proposals is the reduction of benefits for the unemployed. With respect to this proposal for reduction of unemployment benefits, do you agree completely, agree, disagree, or disagree completely? 1. fully agree 57 4.2 2. agree 311 22.9 3. disagree 514 37.9 4. fully disagree 390 28.8 7. DK 79 5.8 8. NA 5 .4 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR239 Differentiation unempl benefits -agree? MD=7 8 9 REF239 COL 391 WAVE 2 QUEST. 25b According to the same proposal older unemployed persons should receive higher benefits than younger unemployed. What do you think of this? Do you agree completely, agree, disagree, or disagree completely? 1. fully agree 265 19.5 2. agree 641 47.3 3. disagree 256 18.9 4. fully disagree 111 8.2 7. DK 83 6.1 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR240 Has been unempl recently - respondent MD=8 9 REF240 COL 392 WAVE 2 QUEST. 26 Have you or anyone with whom you are in direct personal contact been involuntarily unemployed within the last four years? You may give your answer with the assistance of this card. You may give more than one response. - myself - my spouse or partner - other members of the household - family members - friends - acquaintances - none of these - do not know/will not say. 0. no,other person yes 576 42.5 1. yes 129 9.5 2. no, others neither 630 46.5 8. NA 21 1.5 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR241 Has been unempl recently - partner MD=8 9 REF241 COL 393 WAVE 2 QUEST. 26 0. no,other person yes 647 47.7 1. yes 58 4.3 2. no, others neither 630 46.5 8. NA 21 1.5 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR242 Has been unempl recently - others in hh MD=8 9 REF242 COL 394 WAVE 2 QUEST. 26 0. no,other person yes 681 50.2 1. yes 24 1.8 2. no, others neither 630 46.5 8. NA 21 1.5 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR243 Has been unempl recently - relatives MD=8 9 REF243 COL 395 WAVE 2 QUEST. 26 0. no,other person yes 368 27.1 1. yes 337 24.9 2. no, others neither 630 46.5 8. NA 21 1.5 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR244 Has been unempl recently - friends MD=8 9 REF244 COL 396 WAVE 2 QUEST. 26 0. no,other person yes 492 36.3 1. yes 213 15.7 2. no, others neither 630 46.5 8. NA 21 1.5 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR245 Has been unempl recently - acquaintences MD=7 8 9 REF245 COL 397 WAVE 2 QUEST. 26 0. no,other person yes 406 29.9 1. yes 299 22.1 2. no, others neither 630 46.5 8. NA 21 1.5 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR246 Photo A - Van Mierlo MD=7 8 9 REF246 COL 398 WAVE 2 QUEST. 27 Here you have the photographs of a number of politicians. Would you examine these and tell me for each what his or her name is, from which party he or she comes, and what his or her position is within this party? 1. correct answer 1119 82.5 2. incorrect answer 23 1.7 7. DK 204 15.0 8. NA 10 .7 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR247 Party of Van Mierlo MD=7 8 9 REF247 COL 399 WAVE 2 QUEST. 27 1. correct answer 1156 85.3 2. incorrect answer 35 2.6 7. DK 154 11.4 8. NA 11 .8 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR248 Function of Van Mierlo MD=7 8 9 REF248 COL 400 WAVE 2 QUEST. 27 1. correct answer 953 70.3 2. incorrect answer 84 6.2 8. NA 319 23.5 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR249 Photo B - Beckers MD=7 8 9 REF249 COL 401 WAVE 2 QUEST. 27 1. correct answer 709 52.3 2. incorrect answer 54 4.0 7. DK 564 41.6 8. NA 29 2.1 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR250 Party of Beckers MD=7 8 9 REF250 COL 402 WAVE 2 QUEST. 27 1. correct answer 621 45.8 2. incorrect answer 222 16.4 7. DK 483 35.6 8. NA 30 2.2 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR251 Function of Beckers MD=7 8 9 REF251 COL 403 WAVE 2 QUEST. 27 1. correct answer 692 51.0 2. incorrect answer 50 3.7 8. NA 614 45.3 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR252 Photo C - Terpstra MD=7 8 9 REF252 COL 404 WAVE 2 QUEST. 27 1. correct answer 841 62.0 2. incorrect answer 50 3.7 7. DK 441 32.5 8. NA 24 1.8 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR253 Party of Terpstra MD=7 8 9 REF253 COL 405 WAVE 2 QUEST. 27 1. correct answer 837 61.7 2. incorrect answer 124 9.1 7. DK 370 27.3 8. NA 25 1.8 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR254 Function of Terpstra MD=7 8 9 REF254 COL 406 WAVE 2 QUEST. 27 1. correct answer 581 42.8 2. incorrect answer 96 7.1 8. NA 679 50.1 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR255 Photo D - Ruding MD=7 8 9 REF255 COL 407 WAVE 2 QUEST. 27 1. correct answer 796 58.7 2. incorrect answer 106 7.8 7. DK 427 31.5 8. NA 27 2.0 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR256 Party of Ruding MD=7 8 9 REF256 COL 408 WAVE 2 QUEST. 27 1. correct answer 841 62.0 2. incorrect answer 141 10.4 7. DK 349 25.7 8. NA 25 1.8 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR257 Function of Ruding MD=7 8 9 REF257 COL 409 WAVE 2 QUEST. 27 1. correct answer 837 61.7 2. incorrect answer 103 7.6 8. NA 416 30.7 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR258 Political knowledge score MD=9 REF258 COL 410 WAVE 2 QUEST. 27 0. 343 25.3 1. 274 20.2 2. 237 17.5 3. 241 17.8 4. 261 19.2 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR259 Faith in Den Uyl as premier MD=97 98 99 REF259 COL 411-412 WAVE 2 QUEST. 28 Could you indicate with the assistance of this card how you feel about different persons who might lead the new government. Would you indicate for each of these persons how much trust you would have in him as prime minister? 01. no faith at all 323 23.8 02. 220 16.2 03. 165 12.2 04. 157 11.6 05. 180 13.3 06. 172 12.7 07. very much faith 115 8.5 97. DK 21 1.5 98. NA 3 .2 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 99. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR260 Faith in Lubbers as premier MD=97 98 99 REF260 COL 413-414 WAVE 2 QUEST. 28 01. no faith at all 67 4.9 02. 83 6.1 03. 98 7.2 04. 132 9.7 05. 149 11.0 06. 329 24.3 07. very much faith 472 34.8 97. DK 24 1.8 98. NA 2 .1 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 99. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR261 Faith in Nijpels as premier MD=97 98 99 REF261 COL 415-416 WAVE 2 QUEST. 28 01. no faith at all 429 31.6 02. 251 18.5 03. 228 16.8 04. 204 15.0 05. 122 9.0 06. 60 4.4 07. very much faith 27 2.0 97. DK 33 2.4 98. NA 2 .1 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 99. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR262 Left-right selfrating MD=97 98 99 REF262 COL 417-418 WAVE 2 QUEST. 29 It is often said of political beliefs that they are LEFTIST OR RIGHTIST. Here you have a scale that runs from LEFT TO RIGHT. When you think of your own political beliefs, where would you place a check? 01. left 72 5.3 02. 86 6.3 03. 168 12.4 04. 126 9.3 05. 162 11.9 06. 188 13.9 07. 173 12.8 08. 186 13.7 09. 59 4.4 10. right 67 4.9 97. DK 67 4.9 98. NA 2 .1 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 99. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR263 Left-right rating of PvdA MD=97 98 99 REF263 COL 419-420 WAVE 2 QUEST. 30 It is also said of political parties that they are LEFTIST OR RIGHTIST. Here you see the parties named. Would you place a check by each party in the box that you feel indicates the degree to which the party is to the LEFT OR RIGHT? 01. left 365 26.9 02. 260 19.2 03. 350 25.8 04. 174 12.8 05. 54 4.0 06. 16 1.2 07. 11 .8 08. 12 .9 09. 6 .4 10. right 14 1.0 97. DK 94 6.9 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 99. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR264 Left-right rating of VVD MD=97 98 99 REF264 COL 421-422 WAVE 2 QUEST. 30 01. left 20 1.5 02. 12 .9 03. 26 1.9 04. 31 2.3 05. 62 4.6 06. 102 7.5 07. 139 10.3 08. 342 25.2 09. 258 19.0 10. right 241 17.8 97. DK 123 9.1 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 99. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR265 Left-right rating of D66 MD=97 98 99 REF265 COL 423-424 WAVE 2 QUEST. 30 01. left 37 2.7 02. 69 5.1 03. 152 11.2 04. 268 19.8 05. 322 23.7 06. 176 13.0 07. 88 6.5 08. 31 2.3 09. 7 .5 10. right 11 .8 97. DK 195 14.4 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 99. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR266 Left-right rating of PPR MD=97 98 99 REF266 COL 425-426 WAVE 2 QUEST. 30 01. left 293 21.6 02. 335 24.7 03. 195 14.4 04. 107 7.9 05. 52 3.8 06. 35 2.6 07. 17 1.3 08. 13 1.0 09. 13 1.0 10. right 7 .5 97. DK 289 21.3 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 99. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR267 Left-right rating of CPN MD=97 98 99 REF267 COL 427-428 WAVE 2 QUEST. 30 01. left 765 56.4 02. 182 13.4 03. 53 3.9 04. 35 2.6 05. 19 1.4 06. 15 1.1 07. 18 1.3 08. 10 .7 09. 18 1.3 10. right 21 1.5 97. DK 219 16.2 98. NA 1 .1 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 99. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR268 Left-right rating of CDA MD=97 98 99 REF268 COL 429-430 WAVE 2 QUEST. 30 01. left 17 1.3 02. 11 .8 03. 12 .9 04. 8 .6 05. 67 4.9 06. 175 12.9 07. 262 19.3 08. 285 21.0 09. 217 16.0 10. right 195 14.4 97. DK 107 7.9 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 99. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR269 Left-right rating of SGP MD=97 98 99 REF269 COL 431-432 WAVE 2 QUEST. 30 01. left 36 2.7 02. 33 2.4 03. 39 2.9 04. 26 1.9 05. 44 3.2 06. 49 3.6 07. 70 5.2 08. 153 11.3 09. 224 16.5 10. right 308 22.7 97. DK 374 27.6 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 99. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR270 Left-right rating of PSP MD=97 98 99 REF270 COL 433-434 WAVE 2 QUEST. 30 01. left 410 30.2 02. 299 22.1 03. 122 9.0 04. 51 3.8 05. 49 3.6 06. 30 2.2 07. 20 1.5 08. 10 .7 09. 16 1.2 10. right 23 1.7 97. DK 326 24.0 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 99. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR271 Left-right rating of GPV MD=97 98 99 REF271 COL 435-436 WAVE 2 QUEST. 30 01. left 23 1.7 02. 18 1.3 03. 22 1.6 04. 15 1.1 05. 43 3.2 06. 62 4.6 07. 90 6.6 08. 144 10.6 09. 256 18.9 10. right 313 23.1 97. DK 369 27.2 98. NA 1 .1 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 99. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR272 Left-right rating of RPF MD=97 98 99 REF272 COL 437-438 WAVE 2 QUEST. 30 01. left 30 2.2 02. 18 1.3 03. 22 1.6 04. 21 1.5 05. 51 3.8 06. 42 3.1 07. 78 5.8 08. 129 9.5 09. 222 16.4 10. right 263 19.4 97. DK 477 35.2 98. NA 3 .2 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 99. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR273 Left-right rating of Centrumpartij MD=97 98 99 REF273 COL 439-440 WAVE 2 QUEST. 30 01. left 238 17.6 02. 28 2.1 03. 15 1.1 04. 15 1.1 05. 21 1.5 06. 16 1.2 07. 17 1.3 08. 16 1.2 09. 41 3.0 10. right 547 40.3 97. DK 393 29.0 98. NA 9 .7 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 99. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR274 Left-right rating of EVP MD=97 98 99 REF274 COL 441-442 WAVE 2 QUEST. 30 01. left 62 4.6 02. 83 6.1 03. 91 6.7 04. 88 6.5 05. 84 6.2 06. 68 5.0 07. 94 6.9 08. 115 8.5 09. 116 8.6 10. right 149 11.0 97. DK 405 29.9 98. NA 1 .1 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 99. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR275 Political efficacy - item 1 MD=7 8 9 REF275 COL 443 WAVE 2 QUEST. 31 I shall read you a number of statements. Would you tell me for each statement if according to you it is so or not so? Members of parliament do not care about the opinions of people like me. 1. agree 509 37.5 2. disagree 733 54.1 7. DK 114 8.4 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR276 Political efficacy - item 2 MD=7 8 9 REF276 COL 444 WAVE 2 QUEST. 31 Political parties are only interested in my vote and not in my opinions. 1. agree 607 44.8 2. disagree 666 49.1 7. DK 83 6.1 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR277 Political efficacy - item 3 MD=7 8 9 REF277 COL 445 WAVE 2 QUEST. 31 People like me have absolutely no influence on governmental policy. 1. agree 649 47.9 2. disagree 632 46.6 7. DK 74 5.5 8. NA 1 .1 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR278 Political efficacy - item 4 MD=7 8 9 REF278 COL 446 WAVE 2 QUEST. 31 So many persons vote in elections that my vote does not matter. 1. agree 119 8.8 2. disagree 1204 88.8 7. DK 33 2.4 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR279 Political efficacy score MD=9 REF279 COL 447 WAVE 2 QUEST. 31 0. 85 6.3 1. 326 24.0 2. 293 21.6 3. 285 21.0 4. 367 27.1 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR280 Political cynicism - first item MD=7 8 9 REF280 COL 448 WAVE 2 QUEST. 32 Some people say that there is much to criticize in politics, others say that it is not so serious. I shall ask you some questions about this sort of thing. Could you say whether you completely agree, agree, disagree, or completely disagree with the following statements? Although they know better, politicians promise more than they can deliver. 1. fully agree 320 23.6 2. agree 830 61.2 3. disagree 162 11.9 4. fully disagree 18 1.3 7. DK 26 1.9 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR281 Political cynicism - second item MD=7 8 9 REF281 COL 449 WAVE 2 QUEST. 32 Ministers and state secretaries are primarily concerned about their personal interests. 1. fully agree 115 8.5 2. agree 314 23.2 3. disagree 737 54.4 4. fully disagree 106 7.8 7. DK 84 6.2 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR282 Political cynicism - third item MD=7 8 9 REF282 COL 450 WAVE 2 QUEST. 32 One is more likely to become a member of parliament because of one's political friends than because of one's ability. 1. fully agree 117 8.6 2. agree 381 28.1 3. disagree 573 42.3 4. fully disagree 105 7.7 7. DK 179 13.2 8. NA 1 .1 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR283 Political cynicism score MD=9 REF283 COL 451 WAVE 2 QUEST. 32 0. 157 11.6 1. 567 41.8 2. 386 28.5 3. 246 18.1 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR284 Chance of acting against unjust bill MD=7 8 9 REF284 COL 452 WAVE 2 QUEST. 33 Suppose the Second Chamber were considering a bill that you felt was extremely unjust or wrong, how great is the chance that you would attempt to do something about it. Is this chance according to you, very great, great, small, or very small? 1. very great 40 2.9 2. great 209 15.4 3. small 429 31.6 4. very small 658 48.5 7. DK 18 1.3 8. NA 2 .1 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR285 Did contact cabinet ministers MD=7 8 9 REF285 COL 453 WAVE 2 QUEST. 34 On this card are a number of possibilities for what you might do if the Second Chamber were considering a bill that you felt to be unjust or wrong. Would you examine these possibilities and indicate which of these you have ever used? Contact a minister 1. used 33 2.4 2. not used 1303 96.1 7. DK 12 .9 8. NA 8 .6 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR286 Did contact member of parliament MD=7 8 9 REF286 COL 454 WAVE 2 QUEST. 34 Contact a member of the Second Chamber 1. used 91 6.7 2. not used 1249 92.1 7. DK 9 .7 8. NA 7 .5 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR287 Did sign a petition MD=7 8 9 REF287 COL 455 WAVE 2 QUEST. 34 Participate in a petition drive 1. used 629 46.4 2. not used 715 52.7 7. DK 7 .5 8. NA 5 .4 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR288 Did try to activate interest MD=7 8 9 group REF288 COL 456 WAVE 2 QUEST. 34 Involved an organization 1. used 130 9.6 2. not used 1210 89.2 7. DK 8 .6 8. NA 8 .6 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR289 Did try to activate radio or tv MD=7 8 9 REF289 COL 457 WAVE 2 QUEST. 34 Sought assistance from radio, television 1. used 31 2.3 2. not used 1307 96.4 7. DK 8 .6 8. NA 10 .7 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 VAR290 Did try to activate political pty MD=7 8 9 REF290 COL 458 WAVE 2 QUEST. 34 Tried to gain assistance from a political party 1. used 102 7.5 2. not used 1237 91.2 7. DK 8 .6 8. NA 9 .7 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR291 Did contact mayor or alderman MD=7 8 9 REF291 COL 459 WAVE 2 QUEST. 34 Contact the mayor or alderman 1. used 125 9.2 2. not used 1212 89.4 7. DK 7 .5 8. NA 12 .9 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR292 Did contact city councillor MD=7 8 9 REF292 COL 460 WAVE 2 QUEST. 34 Contact a member of the municipal council 1. used 153 11.3 2. not used 1186 87.5 7. DK 7 .5 8. NA 10 .7 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR293 Did join civic action group MD=7 8 9 REF293 COL 461 WAVE 2 QUEST. 34 Participate in an action group 1. used 163 12.0 2. not used 1175 86.7 7. DK 8 .6 8. NA 10 .7 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR294 Did join demonstration MD=7 8 9 REF294 COL 462 WAVE 2 QUEST. 34 Participate in a demonstration 1. used 251 18.5 2. not used 1091 80.5 7. DK 8 .6 8. NA 6 .4 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR295 Did try to activate newspaper MD=7 8 9 REF295 COL 463 WAVE 2 QUEST. 34 Involved a newspaper 1. used 66 4.9 2. not used 1270 93.7 7. DK 8 .6 8. NA 12 .9 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR296 Did lodge a complaint MD=7 8 9 REF296 COL 464 WAVE 2 QUEST. 34 Send a letter of appeal 1. used 124 9.1 2. not used 1212 89.4 7. DK 8 .6 8. NA 12 .9 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR297 Did contact department official MD=7 8 9 REF297 COL 465 WAVE 2 QUEST. 34 Contact someone from a ministry 1. used 59 4.4 2. not used 1273 93.9 7. DK 9 .7 8. NA 15 1.1 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR298 Civic participation score MD=99 REF298 COL 466 WAVE 2 QUEST. 34 00. 559 41.2 01. 356 26.3 02. 182 13.4 03. 99 7.3 04. 60 4.4 05. 31 2.3 06. 20 1.5 07. 17 1.3 08. 10 .7 09. 8 .6 10. 5 .4 11. 6 .4 12. 1 .1 13. 2 .1 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 99. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR299 Number of campaign activities MD=7 8 9 REF299 COL 468 WAVE 2 QUEST. 35 During the campaign that precedes an election, parties undertake all sorts of activities. We have here a list of such activities. Would you say HOW MANY of these things you have done DURING THE RECENT CAMPAIGN FOR THE PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION for a political party? 0. none of these 969 71.5 1. one activity 255 18.8 2. two activities 83 6.1 3. three activities 23 1.7 4. four activities 14 1.0 5. five activities 4 .3 6. six activities 8 .6 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR300 Resp is a member of a union MD=7 8 9 REF300 COL 469 WAVE 2 QUEST. 36a Are you yourself a member of a labor union? 1. member 269 19.8 2. not member 1082 79.8 7. DK 2 .1 8. NA 3 .2 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR301 Union respondent is a member of MD=97 98 99 REF301 COL 470-471 WAVE 2 QUEST. 36b Of which union are you a member? 99. INAP (VAR300, codes 2,7,8) 99. INAP (Panel attrition) VAR302 Resp's union affiliated with FNV or CNV MD=7 8 9 REF302 COL 472 WAVE 2 QUEST. 36c Could you say whether this union is part of the FNV, the CNV or of neither? 1. FNV 158 11.7 2. CNV 44 3.2 3. neither FNV or CNV 35 2.6 7. DK 7 .5 8. NA 5 .4 9. INAP (VAR301, codes 97,98,99) 1107 81.6 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 VAR303 Others in h.h. member of a union MD=7 8 9 REF303 COL 473 WAVE 2 QUEST. 37 Are there other members of your household who are members of a union? 1. member 188 13.9 2. not member 1138 83.9 7. DK 15 1.1 8. NA 15 1.1 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR304 Resp is a member of profess. org. MD=7 8 9 REF304 COL 474 WAVE 2 QUEST. 38 Are you a member of a professional or business organization? 1. member 140 10.3 2. not member 1180 87.0 7. DK 11 .8 8. NA 25 1.8 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR305 Sympathy score-environmentalist movem. MD=7 8 9 REF305 COL 475 WAVE 2 QUEST. 39 I will mention to you some organizations and movements about which we would like to have your opinion. With the assistance of this card would you indicate how much sympathy you have IN GENERAL for their goals. The environmental movement 1. much sympathy 872 64.3 2. some sympathy 412 30.4 3. no sympathy 50 3.7 7. DK 20 1.5 8. NA 2 .1 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR306 Sympathy score anti-nucl power movem. MD=7 8 9 REF306 COL 476 WAVE 2 QUEST. 39 The anti-nuclear power movement 1. much sympathy 540 39.8 2. some sympathy 468 34.5 3. no sympathy 332 24.5 7. DK 16 1.2 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR307 Sympathy score peace movement. MD=7 8 9 REF307 COL 477 WAVE 2 QUEST. 39 The peace movement 1. much sympathy 655 48.3 2. some sympathy 461 34.0 3. no sympathy 226 16.7 7. DK 14 1.0 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR308 Sympathy score women's movement. MD=7 8 9 REF308 COL 478 WAVE 2 QUEST. 39 The women's movement 1. much sympathy 218 16.1 2. some sympathy 580 42.8 3. no sympathy 531 39.2 7. DK 27 2.0 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR309 Sympathy score squatter's movement. MD=7 8 9 REF309 COL 479 WAVE 2 QUEST. 39 The squatter's movement 1. much sympathy 31 2.3 2. some sympathy 257 19.0 3. no sympathy 1050 77.4 7. DK 18 1.3 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR310 Join actions of environmentalist movem. MD=7 8 9 REF310 COL 480 WAVE 2 QUEST. 40 I shall again mention these organizations and movements and you can indicate with the assistance of this card whether you have ever participated in one of their activities, or if this is not so, if it is possible that you will participate in one of their activities, or that you will never participate in one of their activities. The environmental movement 1. has participated 134 9.9 2. will join 402 29.6 3. will not join 754 55.6 7. DK 59 4.4 8. NA 7 .5 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR311 Join actions of anti-nucl power movem. MD=7 8 9 REF311 COL 481 WAVE 2 QUEST. 40 The anti-nuclear power movement 1. has participated 166 12.2 2. will join 247 18.2 3. will not join 899 66.3 7. DK 38 2.8 8. NA 6 .4 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR312 Join actions of peace movement. MD=7 8 9 REF312 COL 482 WAVE 2 QUEST. 40 The peace movement 1. has participated 180 13.3 2. will join 291 21.5 3. will not join 833 61.4 7. DK 46 3.4 8. NA 6 .4 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR313 Join actions of women's movement. MD=7 8 9 REF313 COL 483 WAVE 2 QUEST. 40 The women's movement 1. has participated 45 3.3 2. will join 138 10.2 3. will not join 1138 83.9 7. DK 29 2.1 8. NA 6 .4 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR314 Join actions of squatter's movement. MD=7 8 9 REF314 COL 484 WAVE 2 QUEST. 40 The squatter's movement 1. has participated 25 1.8 2. will join 32 2.4 3. will not join 1272 93.8 7. DK 20 1.5 8. NA 7 .5 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR315 Probability of future vote for PvdA MD=97 98 99 REF315 COL 485-86 WAVE 2 QUEST. 41 Some people are quite certain that they will always vote for the same party and that it is unthinkable that they will ever vote for another party. Others reconsider in each case to which party they will give their vote. I shall mention a list of parties. Would you indicate for each of them how probable it is that you will ever vote for that party? Mention to me the number of the respective box on this card. If you do not know a party or you yourself do not know, just say so and we shall go to the next party. 01. certainly never 406 29.9 02. 89 6.6 03. 92 6.8 04. 37 2.7 05. 55 4.1 06. 50 3.7 07. 55 4.1 08. 98 7.2 09. 90 6.6 10. some time certainly 358 26.4 97. DK 26 1.9 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 99. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR316 Probability of future vote for VVD MD=97 98 99 REF316 COL 487-488 WAVE 2 QUEST. 41 01. certainly never 523 38.6 02. 128 9.4 03. 114 8.4 04. 50 3.7 05. 76 5.6 06. 85 6.3 07. 60 4.4 08. 70 5.2 09. 159 4.4 10. some time certainly 59 11.7 97. DK 32 2.4 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 99. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR317 Probability of future vote for D66 MD=97 98 99 REF317 COL 489-490 WAVE 2 QUEST. 41 01. certainly never 319 23.5 02. 81 6.0 03. 86 6.3 04. 88 6.5 05. 154 11.4 06. 143 10.5 07. 140 10.3 08. 127 9.4 09. 88 6.5 10. some time certainly 66 4.9 97. DK 64 4.7 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 99. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR318 Probability of future vote for PPR MD=97 98 99 REF318 COL 491-492 WAVE 2 QUEST. 41 01. certainly never 643 47.4 02. 128 9.4 03. 107 7.9 04. 72 5.3 05. 69 5.1 06. 64 4.7 07. 53 3.9 08. 62 4.6 09. 43 3.2 10. some time certainly 31 2.3 97. DK 84 6.2 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 99. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR319 Probability of future vote for CPN MD=97 98 99 REF319 COL 493-494 WAVE 2 QUEST. 41 01. certainly never 887 65.4 02. 113 8.3 03. 55 4.1 04. 38 2.8 05. 34 2.5 06. 42 3.1 07. 31 2.3 08. 35 2.6 09. 23 1.7 10. some time certainly 35 2.6 97. DK 63 4.6 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 99. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR320 Probability of future vote for CDA MD=97 98 99 REF320 COL 495-496 WAVE 2 QUEST. 41 01. certainly never 332 24.5 02. 73 5.4 03. 67 4.9 04. 47 3.5 05. 81 6.0 06. 80 5.9 07. 94 6.9 08. 129 9.5 09. 152 11.2 10. some time certainly 269 19.8 97. DK 30 2.2 98. NA 2 .1 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 99. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR321 Probability of future vote for SGP MD=97 98 99 REF321 COL 497-498 WAVE 2 QUEST. 41 01. certainly never 876 64.6 02. 114 8.4 03. 74 5.5 04. 43 3.2 05. 40 2.9 06. 20 1.5 07. 15 1.1 08. 16 1.2 09. 9 .7 10. some time certainly 32 2.4 97. DK 117 8.6 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 99. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR322 Probability of future vote for PSP MD=97 98 99 REF322 COL 499-500 WAVE 2 QUEST. 41 01. certainly never 759 56.0 02. 131 9.7 03. 76 5.6 04. 58 4.3 05. 46 3.4 06. 36 2.7 07. 48 3.5 08. 39 2.9 09. 33 2.4 10. some time certainly 40 2.9 97. DK 90 6.6 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 99. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR323 Probability of future vote for GPV MD=97 98 99 REF323 COL 501-502 WAVE 2 QUEST. 41 01. certainly never 899 66.3 02. 117 8.6 03. 73 5.4 04. 39 2.9 05. 30 2.2 06. 22 1.6 07. 10 .7 08. 14 1.0 09. 15 1.1 10. some time certainly 26 1.9 97. DK 110 8.1 98. NA 1 .1 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 99. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR324 Probability of future vote for RPF MD=97 98 99 REF324 COL 503-504 WAVE 2 QUEST. 41 01. certainly never 913 67.3 02. 122 9.0 03. 72 5.3 04. 28 2.1 05. 27 2.0 06. 21 1.5 07. 7 .5 08. 9 .7 09. 11 .8 10. some time certainly 23 1.7 97. DK 123 9.1 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 99. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR325 Probability of future vote for MD=97 98 99 Centrumpartij. REF325 COL 505-506 WAVE 2 QUEST. 41 01. certainly never 1238 91.3 02. 18 1.3 03. 8 .6 04. 4 .3 05. 8 .6 06. 1 .1 07. 1 .1 08. 1 .1 09. 2 .1 10. some time certainly 13 1.0 97. DK 60 4.4 98. NA 2 .1 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 99. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR326 Probability of future vote for EVP MD=97 98 99 REF326 COL 507-508 WAVE 2 QUEST. 41 01. certainly never 896 66.1 02. 139 10.3 03. 77 5.7 04. 40 2.9 05. 42 3.1 06. 24 1.8 07. 12 .9 08. 12 .9 09. 9 .7 10. some time certainly 12 .9 97. DK 93 6.9 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 99. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR327 Rating of Den Uyl-compassionate MD=97 98 99 REF327 COL 509-510 WAVE 2 QUEST. 42 I have here a card on which a number of characteristics are listed which people may possess to a greater or lesser degree. Would you indicate for the politicians I shall name to what extent they possess these characteristics. - Socially concerned - Resolute - Reliable - Willing to compromise 01. very low 61 4.5 02. 59 4.4 03. 82 6.0 04. 134 9.9 05. 205 15.1 06. 362 26.7 07. very high 385 28.4 97. DK 68 5.0 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 99. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR328 Rating of Den Uyl-decisive MD=97 98 99 REF328 COL 511-512 WAVE 2 QUEST. 42 01. very low 61 4.5 02. 133 9.8 03. 188 13.9 04. 248 18.3 05. 265 19.5 06. 247 18.2 07. very high 144 10.6 97. DK 69 5.1 98. NA 1 .1 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 99. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR329 Rating of Den Uyl-reliable MD=97 98 99 REF329 COL 513-514 WAVE 2 QUEST. 42 01. very low 137 10.1 02. 158 11.7 03. 158 11.7 04. 218 16.1 05. 182 13.4 06. 247 18.2 07. very high 192 14.2 97. DK 63 4.6 98. NA 1 .1 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 99. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR330 Rating of Den Uyl-willing to compromise MD=97 98 99 REF330 COL 515-516 WAVE 2 QUEST. 42 01. very low 106 7.8 02. 153 11.3 03. 208 15.3 04. 209 15.4 05. 261 19.2 06. 207 15.3 07. very high 119 8.8 97. DK 92 6.8 98. NA 1 .1 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 99. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR331 Rating of Lubbers-compassionate MD=97 98 99 REF331 COL 517-518 WAVE 2 QUEST. 42 01. very low 48 3.5 02. 60 4.4 03. 119 8.8 04. 216 15.9 05. 326 24.0 06. 345 25.4 07. very high 187 13.8 97. DK 54 4.0 98. NA 1 .1 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 99. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR332 Rating of Lubbers-decisive MD=97 98 99 REF332 COL 519-520 WAVE 2 QUEST. 42 01. very low 20 1.5 02. 12 .9 03. 32 2.4 04. 81 6.0 05. 172 12.7 06. 489 36.1 07. very high 495 36.5 97. DK 54 4.0 98. NA 1 .1 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 99. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR333 Rating of Lubbers-reliable MD=97 98 99 REF333 COL 521-522 WAVE 2 QUEST. 42 01. very low 50 3.7 02. 69 5.1 03. 86 6.3 04. 153 11.3 05. 263 19.4 06. 388 28.6 07. very high 292 21.5 97. DK 52 3.8 98. NA 3 .2 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 99. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR334 Rating of Lubbers-willing to compromise MD=97 98 99 REF334 COL 523-524 WAVE 2 QUEST. 42 01. very low 28 2.1 02. 46 3.4 03. 98 7.2 04. 202 14.9 05. 312 23.0 06. 389 28.7 07. very high 192 14.2 97. DK 86 6.3 98. NA 3 .2 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 99. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR335 Rating of Nijpels-compassionate MD=97 98 99 REF335 COL 525-526 WAVE 2 QUEST. 42 01. very low 203 15.0 02. 197 14.5 03. 246 18.1 04. 279 20.6 05. 205 15.1 06. 93 6.9 07. very high 36 2.7 97. DK 93 6.9 98. NA 4 .3 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 99. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR336 Rating of Nijpels-decisive MD=97 98 99 REF336 COL 527-528 WAVE 2 QUEST. 42 01. very low 146 10.8 02. 184 13.6 03. 255 18.8 04. 294 21.7 05. 212 15.6 06. 127 9.4 07. very high 40 2.9 97. DK 96 7.1 98. NA 2 .1 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 99. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR337 Rating of Nijpels-reliable MD=97 98 99 REF337 COL 529-530 WAVE 2 QUEST. 42 01. very low 186 13.7 02. 184 13.6 03. 239 17.6 04. 266 19.6 05. 202 14.9 06. 145 10.7 07. very high 35 2.6 97. DK 96 7.1 98. NA 3 .2 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 99. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR338 Rating of Nijpels-willing to compromise MD=97 98 99 REF338 COL 531-532 WAVE 2 QUEST. 42 01. very low 90 6.6 02. 113 8.3 03. 178 13.1 04. 262 19.3 05. 265 19.5 06. 210 15.5 07. very high 115 8.5 97. DK 119 8.8 98. NA 4 .3 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 99. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR339 Rating of Van Mierlo-compassionate MD=97 98 99 REF339 COL 533-534 WAVE 2 QUEST. 42 01. very low 12 .9 02. 33 2.4 03. 76 5.6 04. 222 16.4 05. 311 22.9 06. 330 24.3 07. very high 92 6.8 97. DK 278 20.5 98. NA 2 .1 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 99. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR340 Rating of Van Mierlo-decisive MD=97 98 99 REF340 COL 535-536 WAVE 2 QUEST. 42 01. very low 22 1.6 02. 43 3.2 03. 102 7.5 04. 274 20.2 05. 312 23.0 06. 239 17.6 07. very high 72 5.3 97. DK 290 21.4 98. NA 2 .1 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 99. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR341 Rating of Van Mierlo-reliable MD=97 98 99 REF341 COL 537-538 WAVE 2 QUEST. 42 01. very low 27 2.0 02. 37 2.7 03. 83 6.1 04. 243 17.9 05. 294 21.7 06. 288 21.2 07. very high 94 6.9 97. DK 288 21.2 98. NA 2 .1 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 99. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR342 Rating of Van Mierlo-willing to comprom. MD=97 98 99 REF342 COL 539-540 WAVE 2 QUEST. 42 01. very low 11 .8 02. 32 2.4 03. 82 6.0 04. 261 19.2 05. 320 23.6 06. 261 19.2 07. very high 88 6.5 97. DK 297 21.9 98. NA 4 .3 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 99. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR343 Rating of Kok-compassionate MD=97 98 99 REF343 COL 541-542 WAVE 2 QUEST. 42 01. very low 44 3.2 02. 43 3.2 03. 58 4.3 04. 92 6.8 05. 159 11.7 06. 369 27.2 07. very high 438 32.3 97. DK 150 11.1 98. NA 3 .2 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 99. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR344 Rating of Kok-decisive MD=97 98 99 REF344 COL 543-544 WAVE 2 QUEST. 42 01. very low 31 2.3 02. 28 2.1 03. 52 3.8 04. 107 7.9 05. 230 17.0 06. 408 30.1 07. very high 334 24.6 97. DK 163 12.0 98. NA 3 .2 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 99. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR345 Rating of Kok-reliable MD=97 98 99 REF345 COL 545-546 WAVE 2 QUEST. 42 01. very low 52 3.8 02. 66 4.9 03. 82 6.0 04. 175 12.9 05. 243 17.9 06. 311 22.9 07. very high 242 17.8 97. DK 183 13.5 98. NA 2 .1 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 99. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR346 Rating of Kok-willing to compromise MD=97 98 99 REF346 COL 547-548 WAVE 2 QUEST. 42 01. very low 54 4.0 02. 73 5.4 03. 137 10.1 04. 237 17.5 05. 273 20.1 06. 227 16.7 07. very high 135 10.0 97. DK 214 15.8 98. NA 6 .4 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 99. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR347 Rating of De Vries-compassionate MD=97 98 99 REF347 COL 549-550 WAVE 2 QUEST. 42 01. very low 48 3.5 02. 67 4.9 03. 116 8.6 04. 201 14.8 05. 276 20.4 06. 212 15.6 07. very high 78 5.8 97. DK 357 26.3 98. NA 1 .1 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 99. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR348 Rating of De Vries-decisive MD=97 98 99 REF348 COL 551-552 WAVE 2 QUEST. 42 01. very low 37 2.7 02. 64 4.7 03. 148 10.9 04. 218 16.1 05. 294 21.7 06. 161 11.9 07. very high 60 4.4 97. DK 373 27.5 98. NA 1 .1 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 99. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR349 Rating of De Vries-reliable MD=97 98 99 REF349 COL 553-554 WAVE 2 QUEST. 42 01. very low 57 4.2 02. 71 5.2 03. 113 8.3 04. 199 14.7 05. 233 17.2 06. 230 17.0 07. very high 85 6.3 97. DK 367 27.1 98. NA 1 .1 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 99. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR350 Rating of De Vries-willing to compromise MD=97 98 99 REF350 COL 555-556 WAVE 2 QUEST. 42 01. very low 31 2.3 02. 61 4.5 03. 96 7.1 04. 235 17.3 05. 262 19.3 06. 224 16.5 07. very high 61 4.5 97. DK 383 28.2 98. NA 3 .2 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 99. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR351 Rating of Wiegel-compassionate MD=97 98 99 REF351 COL 557-558 WAVE 2 QUEST. 42 01. very low 79 5.8 02. 102 7.5 03. 128 9.4 04. 214 15.8 05. 274 20.2 06. 287 21.2 07. very high 137 10.1 97. DK 135 10.0 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 99. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR352 Rating of Wiegel-decisive MD=97 98 99 REF352 COL 559-560 WAVE 2 QUEST. 42 01. very low 36 2.7 02. 36 2.7 03. 42 3.1 04. 105 7.7 05. 197 14.5 06. 443 32.7 07. very high 367 27.1 97. DK 130 9.6 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 99. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR353 Rating of Wiegel-reliable MD=97 98 99 REF353 COL 561-562 WAVE 2 QUEST. 42 01. very low 63 4.6 02. 57 4.2 03. 81 6.0 04. 180 13.3 05. 256 18.9 06. 362 26.7 07. very high 223 16.4 97. DK 133 9.8 98. NA 1 .1 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 99. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR354 Rating of Wiegel-willing to compromise MD=97 98 99 REF354 COL 563-564 WAVE 2 QUEST. 42 01. very low 42 3.1 02. 52 3.8 03. 104 7.7 04. 251 18.5 05. 313 23.1 06. 299 22.1 07. very high 146 10.8 97. DK 147 10.8 98. NA 2 .1 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 99. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR355 Rating of ideal leader-compassionate MD=97 98 99 REF355 COL 565-566 WAVE 2 QUEST. 42 And the ideal political leader, to what extent should he possess these characteristics? 01. very low 10 .7 02. 4 .3 03. 5 .4 04. 40 2.9 05. 148 10.9 06. 381 28.1 07. very high 712 52.5 97. DK 55 4.1 98. NA 1 .1 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 99. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR356 Rating of ideal leader-decisive MD=97 98 99 REF356 COL 567-568 WAVE 2 QUEST. 42 01. very low 9 .7 02. 2 .1 03. 5 .4 04. 18 1.3 05. 69 5.1 06. 340 25.1 07. very high 856 63.1 97. DK 55 4.1 98. NA 2 .1 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 99. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR357 Rating of ideal leader-reliable MD=97 98 99 REF357 COL 569-570 WAVE 2 QUEST. 42 01. very low 10 .7 02. 2 .1 03. 4 .3 04. 15 1.1 05. 36 2.7 06. 208 15.3 07. very high 1025 75.6 97. DK 54 4.0 98. NA 2 .1 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 99. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR358 Rating of ideal leader-willing to compr. MD=97 98 99 REF358 COL 571-572 WAVE 2 QUEST. 42 01. very low 17 1.3 02. 20 1.5 03. 41 3.0 04. 124 9.1 05. 247 18.2 06. 293 21.6 07. very high 547 40.3 97. DK 63 4.6 98. NA 4 .3 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 99. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR359 Should there be confessional parties? MD=7 8 9 REF359 COL 573 WAVE 2 QUEST. 43 Some people feel that political parties should be completely separated from religion. Others feel that political parties should in fact be based upon religion. In that regard they think about a general Christian party or separate Roman Catholic or Protestant parties. What do you think? Please indicate with the assistance of this card. And I would like to ask the same question with respect to labor unions, schools, and broadcasting organizations. 1. should be secular 778 57.4 2. should be interconfessional 412 30.4 3. should be confessional 96 7.1 7. DK 69 5.1 8. NA 1 .1 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR360 Should there be confessional unions? MD=7 8 9 REF360 COL 574 WAVE 2 QUEST. 43 1. should be secular 884 65.2 2. should be interconfessional 296 21.8 3. should be confessional 91 6.7 7. DK 83 6.1 8. NA 2 .1 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR361 Should there be confessional schools? MD=7 8 9 REF361 COL 575 WAVE 2 QUEST. 43 1. should be secular 568 41.9 2. should be interconfessional 398 29.4 3. should be confessional 326 24.0 7. DK 61 4.5 8. NA 3 .2 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR362 Should there be confessional radio or tv MD=7 8 9 REF362 COL 576 WAVE 2 QUEST. 43 1. should be secular 648 47.8 2. should be interconfessional 337 24.9 3. should be confessional 280 20.6 7. DK 89 6.6 8. NA 2 .1 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR363 Is religion a good guide in politics MD=7 8 9 REF363 COL 577 WAVE 2 QUEST. 44 Do you completely agree, agree, disagree, or completely disagree with the following statement? `FAITH IS A GOOD GUIDE IN POLITICS' 1. fully agree 131 9.7 2. agree 358 26.4 3. disagree 454 33.5 4. fully disagree 340 25.1 7. DK 70 5.2 8. NA 3 .2 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR364 Confessional attitude score MD=9 REF364 COL 578 WAVE 2 QUEST. 43-44 0. 430 31.7 1. 232 17.1 2. 185 13.6 3. 141 10.4 4. 140 10.3 5. 228 16.8 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR365 Respondent believes in christian faith MD=7 8 9 REF365 COL 579 WAVE 2 QUEST. 45 Do you consider yourself a believer in the Christian sense? 1. yes 771 56.9 2. no 564 41.6 7. DK 17 1.3 8. NA 4 .3 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR366 Focus of religious attitudes MD=97 98 99 REF366 COL 580-581 WAVE 2 QUEST. 45a On this card are seven boxes. On the one side stands `In the final analysis faith concerns only a good relationship with God', and on the other side `In the final analysis a religious life should concern itself with the people around us and with society'. Could you indicate to me to what extent you agree with the one or the other statements? 01. focus on God 72 5.3 02. 19 1.4 03. 36 2.7 04. 207 15.3 05. 100 7.4 06. 126 9.3 07. focus on society 171 12.6 97. DK 37 2.7 98. NA 7 .5 99. INAP (VAR365, codes 2,7) 581 42.8 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 99. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR367 R prefers relig or secul nursing homes MD=7 8 9 REF367 COL 582 WAVE 2 QUEST. 46a Suppose it were necessary for you or a member of your family to be admitted to a NURSING HOME, what would you personally choose: a nursing home that was separate from religion, a nursing home that was based upon religious principles or does it not make any difference to you? 1. not religious 371 27.4 2. on religious basis 417 30.8 3. doesn't matter much 546 40.3 7. DK 18 1.3 8. NA 4 .3 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR368 R prefers relig or secul elem schools MD=7 8 9 REF368 COL 583 WAVE 2 QUEST. 46b Suppose you had to choose an ELEMENTARY SCHOOL for your child, what would you personally choose: an elementary school separate from religion, an elementary school based upon religious principles or does it not make any difference to you. 1. not religious 454 33.5 2. on religious basis 560 41.3 3. doesn't matter much 326 24.0 7. DK 14 1.0 8. NA 2 .1 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR369 Confess schools refuse homsex teachers? MD=7 8 9 REF369 COL 584 WAVE 2 QUEST. 47 Should, in your opinion, religiously based schools have the right to refuse homosexual teachers or not? 1. yes 242 17.8 2. no 1023 75.4 7. DK 90 6.6 8. NA 1 .1 ---- ----- 1356 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 274 VAR370 Start of second interview MD=9998 9999 REF370 DECK 09 COL 585-588 WAVE 2 LOC 585 WIDTH 4 9998. NA 9999. INAP (VAR003, code 2) VAR371 End of second interview MD=9998 9999 REF371 COL 589-592 WAVE 2 9998. NA 9999. INAP (VAR003, code 2) VAR372 Interviewer identification nr. - wave 2 MD=0 REF372 COL 593-600 WAVE 2 VAR373 Date of second interview - day MD=98 99 REF373 COL 601-602 WAVE 2 VAR374 Date of second interview - month MD=8 9 REF374 COL 603 WAVE 2 5. May 569 41.9 6. June 769 56.7 7. July 4 .3 8. NA 15 1.1 ---- ----- 1357 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 273 VAR375 Present at interview - children under MD=8 9 6 years REF375 COL 604-605 WAVE 2 0. not present 1134 83.6 1. didn't listen 95 7.0 2. did listen 9 .7 3. did participate 1 .1 8. NA 118 8.7 ---- ----- 1357 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 273 VAR376 Present at interview - children over 6y MD=8 9 REF376 COL 606-607 WAVE 2 0. not present 1081 79.7 1. didn't listen 98 7.2 2. did listen 56 4.1 3. did participate 19 1.4 8. NA 103 7.6 ---- ----- 1357 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 273 VAR377 Present at interview - spouse-partner MD=8 9 REF377 COL 608-609 WAVE 2 0. not present 833 61.4 1. didn't listen 180 13.3 2. did listen 214 15.8 3. did participate 65 4.8 8. NA 65 4.8 ---- ----- 1357 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 273 VAR378 Present at interview - other relatives MD=8 9 REF378 COL 610-611 WAVE 2 0. not present 1139 83.9 1. didn't listen 36 2.7 2. did listen 30 2.2 3. did participate 6 .4 8. NA 146 10.8 ---- ----- 1357 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 273 VAR379 Present at interview - other adults MD=8 9 REF379 COL 612-613 WAVE 2 0. not present 1146 84.5 1. didn't listen 24 1.8 2. did listen 35 2.6 3. did participate 6 .4 8. NA 146 10.8 ---- ----- 1357 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 273 VAR380 Disturbing influences 1st answer MD=8 9 REF380 COL 614 WAVE 2 8. NA 9. INAP (VAR003, code 2) VAR381 Disturbing influences 2nd answer MD=8 9 REF381 COL 615 WAVE 2 8. NA 9. INAP (VAR003, code 2, no second answer) VAR382 History of fieldwork this case 2nd wave MD=9 REF382 COL 616 WAVE 2 0. 1326 97.7 1. extra effort needed 31 2.3 ---- ----- 1357 100.0 9. INAP (Panel attrition) 273 VAR383 Nodal area code MD=none REF383 COL 617-619 WAVE 1 WAVE 2 VAR384 Weighting factor 1 MD=none REF384 COL 620-627 WAVE 1 VAR385 Weighting factor 2 MD=none REF385 COL 628-635 WAVE 2 APPENDIX 1 : Type of Interview Record _____________________________________ ! ! ! This appendix is used in conjunc- ! ! tion with VAR003. ! !_____________________________________! The dataset contains three different kinds of records. Most cases (1205) have been interviewed in both the first and the second wave of interviews. In principle, these cases have answered all questions of the two questionnaires (reproduced in facsimile in this codebook), with the obvious exception of questions skipped because of routing. These cases have code 1 on VAR003. A second group of cases (273) consists of those respondents which have been interviewed in the first wave (before the elections), but not in the second wave (after the elections). They constitute panel attrition from wave 1 to wave 2. For all variables pertaining to the questionnaire of wave 2, these cases have been assigned 'INAP' missing data codes. These cases have code 2 on VAR003. A third group of cases (152) consists of respondents who have been interviewed once, after the elections, but where the questionnaire used was basically a combination of the questionnaires of waves 1 and 2. They are referred to as the 'combined interview group' (see also the section on Sampling and Response Information in the part of this codebook dealing with GENERAL INFORMATION, pp. 11-17). Owing to the fact that this combined interview took place after the elections, a few questions could not be asked anymore, and were consequently deleted. Furthermore, a few questions which were included in both questionnaires of waves 1 and 2, were asked only once in this combined interview. Owing to all of this, this group has answered most questions of both questionnaires. For variables pertaining to questions which have been omitted for this group, these cases have been assigned 'INAP' missing data codes. These variables are: VAR038 to VAR049, VAR052 to VAR054, VAR083 to VAR095, VAR160 and VAR162 to VAR170. These cases have code 3 on VAR003. Of this group of people who were subjected to a combined interview, 1 respondent had to break off the interview after the questions pertaining to the regular first-wave questionnaire had been asked. Consequently, this case has been coded 'INAP' for all later variables. APPENDIX 2: Construction of scale scores _________________________________________ ! ! ! This appendix is used in conjunction ! ! with VAR008, VAR033, VAR226, VAR258, ! ! VAR279, VAR283, VAR298 and VAR364. ! !_________________________________________! 1. Introduction At various places the questionnaires contain series of questions (items), each of which can be considered as operationalisations of a single construct. The well-known construct of 'sense of political efficacy' might serve as an example. A series of four questions has been included in the questionnaires to tap this attitude. In many instances the researcher will assess the homogeneity of these four items, and, if possible, combine them into a single score to be used in subsequent analyses. To facilitate the use of the data we have performed tests for homogeneity (that is, uni-dimensionality), and constructed scores which have been included in the datafile. In this appendix we report the construction of such scores of homogeneous sets of items on: - political interest - policy satisfaction - nuclear weapons opinion - political knowledge - political efficacy - political cynicism - civic participation - confessional attitude All these sets of variables have been analysed with a stochastic cumulative scaling model, known as Mokken-scaling*. The results are reported below in terms of difficulties (i.e. proportion of the sample providing a 'positive' response), and coefficients of homogeneity, H and H(i). The first of these coefficients yields information respecting the (unidimensional) scaleability of the entire set of items, the second reports the (unidimensional) scaleability of each item vis-a-vis the other items combined. In general the following guidelines for using these coefficients are used: H < .30 or H(i) < .30 no scale / non-scale item .40 > H >= .30 or .40 > H(i) >= .30 weak scale / weak item .50 > H >= .40 or .50 > H(i) >= .40 medium scale / medium item H >= .50 or H(i) >= .50 strong scale / strong item Three cautionary remarks should be made: * Different scale-definitions are possible The definitions of a scale, and hence of a scale-score hinges on the decision which of the manifest responses are considered as expression of the construct to be measured (or in other words, which responses are defined as 'positive'). The dichotomisation positive-negative responses can usually be made in various ways, each of which will yield its own coefficient of scaleability, and its own distribution of scores. The scale-definitions used here are conventional ones, i.e. definitions which have proved to be useful in previous research in the Netherlands, and which make sense a-priori as definitions of the construct under consideration. Of course this doesn't preclude the possibility that for specific purposes other dichotomisations than those reported here might be preferable. (The same is true for the set of items used in the scale-analysis: for specific purposes it might be useful to consider a smaller, or a larger number of items than proposed here). * Only 'simple' scale-analyses have been performed Only scaleability in terms of the coefficients H and H(i) has been assessed. No analyses have been made as to whether the sets of items conform to the assumption of holomorphism, nor has the robustness of the scales for various subgroups of the population been assessed. Researchers who are interested in an analysis of the exact nature of the relationship between the items and the construct to be measured, and/or in analyses on differential scaleability for different kinds of respondents, should perform more detailed scale-analyses themselves (for literature: see note 1). * Not all sets of items have been scaled The analyses performed and reported here have been undertaken to facilitate the use of the data. However, no claim is made that all sets of items which might form a scale have been tested in this respect. For a number of scales it is possible to include more items than reported here. The reason for not doing so is to maintain comparability with similar scales in the election studies of 1981 and 1982. The analyst is therefore encouraged to perform scale-analysis for sets of items not included in this appendix. In the following section we will describe the results of our scale-analyses. Scales scores have only been constructed and included in the dataset if the scale conforms to the requirement that H > .30 and H(i) > .30. An explanation of how to read the results of the analyses is provided below only once, for the political interest scale . All other reported results can be interpreted in an analogous way. 2. Political Interest In the interviews four questions relating to political interest have been asked. These questions concerned self-exposure to national and foreign news in newspapers, participation in political discussions and a subjective rating of political interest. Scale-analysis yields the following results: codes of 'positive' item responses difficulty H(i) ------- ----------- ------------ ------ VAR004 1 .33 .62 VAR005 1,2 .87 .75 VAR006 1,2 .45 .66 VAR007 1 .16 .60 Scale coefficient for entire set of four items: H=.64. Political interest score constructed, named VAR008, range 0-4. The information above refers to: - the variables used in the analysis. The exact text of the questions can be found elsewhere in this codebook (the variable-documentation part), together with a listing of the possible answers and their codes, and the distribution of cases over these possible answers. - the codes of the answers which were designated as indicative for political interest (see column 'positive responses'). All other responses together constitute the 'negative' responses. - the scaleability of the set, and of the separate items. As H=.64 the items constitute together a strong scale; the H(i) values indicate that all items fit very well in this scale. - the proportion of the sample which answered positively on each of the items (see column 'difficulty'); on VAR004 for example, 33% answered positively (i.e. code 1). The results of the scale-analysis allow the construction of a score (VAR008) by counting the number of times a respondent has given a 'positive' response on the items concerned. As there are four items under consideration, no less than 0 and no more than 4 'positive' answers could have been given. Hence the score ranges from 0 to 4. The distribution of respondents over the values of this scores is provided in the variable- documentation part of this codebook. 3. Policy Satisfaction The questionaire of the first interview contains 4 questions in which respondents are asked to evaluate government policy (VAR029-VAR032). 'Positive' are those answers which indicate satisfaction with government policy, or the evaluation that government policy has been benificial to economic development, to employment, or to one's own financial situation. codes of 'positive' item responses difficulty H(i) ------- ----------- ------------ ------ VAR029 1 .52 .63 VAR030 1 .37 .57 VAR031 1 .12 .45 VAR032 1,2 .40 .58 Scale coefficient for entire set of four items: H=.57. Policy satisfaction score constructed, named VAR033, range 0-4. 4. Nuclear Weapons Opinion In the interviews the respondents have been asked to indicate how strongly they (dis)agree with five statements concerning Dutch policy on nuclear armaments (see the variable-documentation part of the codebook, VAR221 to VAR225). Various ways for dichotomising the items (i.e. for defining the 'positive' responses) are possible. First of all, positive responses can be defined as those favoring nuclear disarmament, or as those favoring a balance of deterence viewpoint. Alternatively, for each of the two poles of the opinion continuum there are four possible ways of defining the positive response for an item, as the items are all 5-point scales. Starting from either of the poles of the continuum a number of different dichotomisations has been tested, each of which has a similar outcome: the items constitute a medium or strong scale. Below, only one of these will be reported, where 'positive' is defined as support for nuclear disarmament irrespective of the Soviet Union's (dis)armament. codes of 'positive' item responses difficulty H(i) ------- ----------- ------------ ------ VAR221 1,2 .37 .67 VAR222 1,2 .48 .69 VAR223 1,2 .45 .68 VAR224 4,5 .34 .62 VAR225 5 .25 .62 Scale coefficient for entire set of five items: H=.66. Nuclear weapons opinion score constructed, named VAR226, range 0-5. 5. Political Knowledge In the interviews the respondents were presented a sheet with 4 photographs of politicians, and were asked to say who the person in question is, which party he or she belongs to, and what his or her function is (see variable-documentation part of the codebook, VAR246 to VAR257). Of all 12 variables a scale can be constructed which performs rather well, and which would yield a score ranging from 0 to 12. As a score with such a wide range has its drawbacks for subsequent analyses (especially for tabular analyses), a somewhat different scale has been tested for here. First of all, a series of 4 new variables has been constructed from the original 12 variables. These new variables are dichotomous; code 1 is assigned if and only if the respondent gives the correct answer to all three questions pertaining to a single picture (i.e. name, party, and function correct); code 0 has been assigned in all other cases. These new variables, here referred to as A through D, have been subjected to scale- analysis. The results are summarized below: diffi- item 'positive' responses culty H(i) ------ --------------------- ------- ------ A (van Mierlo) name+party+function correct .56 .79 B (Mrs. Beckers) idem .32 .65 C (Mrs. Terpstra) idem .29 .64 D (Ruding) idem .38 .63 Scale coefficient for entire set of four items: H=.67. Political knowledge score constructed, named VAR258, range 0-4. 6. Political Efficacy A set of four items designed to tap (the sense of) political efficacy has been asked in the interviews (see the variable documentation part of this codebook, VAR275-VAR278). Scale-analysis yields the following results: codes of 'positive' item responses difficulty H(i) ------- ----------- ------------ ------ VAR275 2 .45 .60 VAR276 2 .41 .59 VAR277 2 .39 .57 VAR278 2 .74 .79 Scale coefficient for entire set of four items: H=.62. Political efficacy score constructed, named VAR279, range 0-4. 7. Political Cynicism Three items on cynicism have been included in the questionnaire (see the variable-documentation part of this codebook, VAR280 to VAR282). Scale analysis yields the following results: codes of 'positive' item responses difficulty H(i) ------- ----------- ------------ ------ VAR280 1,2 .71 .78 VAR281 1,2 .26 .54 VAR282 1,2 .31 .53 Scale coefficient for entire set of 3 items: H=.59. Political cynicism score constructed, named VAR283, range 0-3. 8. Civic Participation In the interviews the respondents were asked if they had ever engaged in a number of forms of civic participation (see the variable-documentation part of this codebook, VAR285 to VAR297). The responses are inherently of a dichotomous nature, hence the problem of defining 'positive' responses is reduced to deciding on how to handle DK-responses. The scale-analysis reported below assigned such missing data to the negative response category, together with the 'not used' response. The resulting scale is rather weak (H=.41). It should be noted however, that the extreme skewness of many of the items (for 10 items the proportion of positive responses is under .10) might affect scaleability in a negative sense. Furthermore, the large category of zero- scores on the scale can obscure the distinctions between separate, but correlated, subdimensions, if those would exist. For these reasons the scale score provided in the dataset should be used with some caution; if the participation domain itself is the subject of investigation, the analyst is advised to analyse the dimensionality of these items in more depth. codes of 'positive' item responses difficulty H(i) ------- ----------- ------------ ------ VAR285 1 .02 .36 VAR286 1 .06 .35 VAR287 1 .39 .54 VAR288 1 .08 .41 VAR289 1 .02 .46 VAR290 1 .06 .42 VAR291 1 .08 .39 VAR292 1 .09 .41 VAR293 1 .10 .39 VAR294 1 .15 .41 VAR295 1 .04 .44 VAR296 1 .07 .35 VAR297 1 .04 .39 Scale coefficient for entire set of 13 items: H=.41. Civic participation score constructed, named VAR298 range 0-13. 9. Confessional Attitude In the interviews a series of five items has been presented to the respondents concerning religion as a guide in politics and whether or not social institutions should be confessional or secular in character (see the variable-documentation part of this codebook, VAR359 to VAR363). Dichotomisation can be performed in various ways, each of which yields a scale: support for separate confessional institutions, support for confessional or interconfessional institutions, or support for secular institutions. Not all dichotomisations yield equally strong scales, nor are they equivalent as to the skewness of the resulting score. The scale reported below is one of the strongest ones that can be constructed with these items, and has a reasonably uniform distribution of scores. It can be interpreted as support for some kind of religious organisation of social institutions, either confessional or interconfessional. codes of 'positive' item responses difficulty H(i) ------- ----------- ------------ ------ VAR359 2,3 .31 .70 VAR360 2,3 .24 .74 VAR361 2,3 .44 .74 VAR362 2,3 .38 .65 VAR363 1,2 .30 .57 Scale coefficient for entire set of five items: H=.68. Confessional attitude score constructed, named VAR364, range 0-5. * See: R.J. Mokken, A theory and procedure of scale analysis, The Hague, Mouton, 1971; and B. Niemoller and W.H. van Schuur, Stochastic models for unidimensional scaling: Mokken and Rasch, in: D. McKay, N. Schofield and P. Whiteley (eds.), Data analysis and the social sciences, London, Frances Pinter, 1983, pp.120-170. APPENDIX 3: Daily newspaper ________________________________________ ! ! ! This appendix is used in conjunction ! ! with VAR009-VAR011. ! !________________________________________! In the questionnaire of WAVE 1 the following question has been asked: "Which newspapers do you read almost daily?" Up to three different answers have been coded. This appendix contains, first of all, a description of the coding categories used, and secondly the frequency distributions of the coded variables. Codes 01 to 07 refer to national, general-public daily newspapers, the other codes refer to regional or local daily newspapers, or to newspapers directed at specific publics (e.g. code 28). Occasionally, the same code has been used for different newspapers, for instance, code 11 refers to 'Alkmaarsche Courant' and to 'Noord-Hollands Dagblad'. In such cases the various titles refer to different members of a single 'family' of newspapers, which are identical in their coverage of international and national news, and differ only from each other in a limited section of local news. Code Newspaper 01 telegraaf 02 het nieuws van de dag 03 de volkskrant 04 trouw 05 nrc-handelsblad 06 het parool 07 algemeen dagblad 08 het vrije volk 11 noord-hollands dagblad 11 alkmaarsche courant 12 leidsch dagblad 12 alphens dagblad 13 veluws dagblad 13 amersfoortsche courant 14 arnhemse courant 15 haarlems dagblad 15 beverwijkse courant 15 ijmuider courant 16 haagsche courant 16 het binnenhof 17 brabants dagblad 18 brabants nieuwsblad 19 cobouw 20 dagblad voor coevorden 20 dagblad vh oosten 21 dagblad voor noord limburg 22 dagblad voor de scheepvaart 23 gelders- en overijsselse courant 23 sallands dagblad 23 zutphens dagblad 23 deventer dagblad 24 de dortenaar 25 hoogeveens dagblad 25 emmer courant 25 drentse en asser courant 26 economische dagblad 27 helmonds dagblad 27 eindhovens dagblad 28 financieel dagblad 29 friesch dagblad 30 gelderlander 32 gooi en eemlander 33 goudsche courant 34 leeuwarder courant 35 leidse courant 36 limburgsch dagblad 37 nederlands dagblad 38 noord veluws dagblad 38 tielse courant 38 nieuwe apeldoornse courant 38 de vallei 39 nieuwe noord-hollandse courant 40 nieuwe zeister courant 40 utrechts nieuwsblad 41 nieuwsblad voor het noorden 42 nieuwsblad voor het zuiden 43 noordooster 43 winschoter courant 44 reformatorisch dagblad 45 rotterdams nieuwsblad 46 rijn en gouwe 47 de stem 48 twentsche courant 48 overijssels dagblad 49 hengelose dagblad 49 twentsch dagblad Tubantia 50 de typhoon 51 de waarheid 52 (prov.) zeeuwse courant 53 zwolsche courant 54 limburger 90 other papers 97 reads no paper 98 no answer, no other paper 99 inappropiate (no second or third answer) Frequencies VAR009-VAR011 VAR009 VAR010 VAR011 Code Code Code 1. 235 1. 5 1. 1 2. 24 2. 3 2. - 3. 147 3. 23 3. 1 4. 25 4. 5 4. 2 5. 64 5. 31 5. 4 6. 41 6. 16 6. 2 7. 114 7. 33 7. 9 8. 30 8. 13 8. 1 11. 6 11. 4 11. - 12. 13 12. 7 12. 2 13. 10 13. 4 13. - 14. 7 14. 4 14. 1 15. 12 15. 8 15. 2 16. 37 16. 8 16. 3 17. 32 17. 7 17. 1 18. 13 18. 3 18. - 19. 1 19. 1 19. - 20. 3 20. 1 20. - 21. 13 21. 3 21. 2 22. - 22. - 22. - 23. 18 23. 9 23. 1 24. 12 24. 2 24. 1 25. 12 25. 2 25. - 26. - 26. - 26. - 27. 40 27. 9 27. 3 28. - 28. 1 28. 4 29. 9 29. 3 29. - 30. 41 30. 6 30. 1 32. 19 32. 10 32. 1 33. 4 33. 3 33. - 34. 39 34. 3 34. 2 35. 1 35. - 35. - 36. 24 36. 6 36. 1 37. 6 37. 3 37. - 38. 8 38. 2 38. - 39. 1 39. - 39. 1 40. 23 40. 10 40. 2 41. 43 41. 17 41. - 42. 24 42. 8 42. 1 43. 6 43. - 43. - 44. 13 44. 2 44. - 45. 17 45. 1 45. - 46. 8 46. - 46. - 47. 29 47. 8 47. 4 48. 18 48. 4 48. 2 49. 28 49. 7 49. 1 50. 1 50. 1 50. - 51. 1 51. - 51. - 52. 15 52. 6 52. - 53. 10 53. 4 53. - 54. 47 54. 2 54. 3 90. 69 90. 28 90. - 97. 214 97. - 97. - 98. 3 98. 1077 98. 277 99. - 99. 217 99. 1294 ---- ---- ---- 1630 1630 1630 Appendix 4: National problems ________________________________________ ! ! ! This appendix is used in conjunction ! ! with VAR014-VAR018. ! !________________________________________! In the questionnaire of WAVE 1 the following question has been asked: "Now I would like to ask you: in your opinion, what are the most important problems in our country?" Up to five different answers have been coded. This appendix contains, first of all, a description of the coding categories used, and secondly the frequency distributions of the coded variables. 01 Agricultural policy, agricultural problems, including: - destruction of fruit and vegetables - agricultural problems - agricultural policy etc. 02-07 Taxes 02 Taxes too high, including: - VAT - road tax - excise - legacy-duties - mortgage relief too low. 03 Taxes too low, including: see 02. 04 Evasion of social security levies by employers ("kop- pelbazen"). 05 Evasion of social security levies by employees ("zwart werken", "beunhazerij"). 06 Evasion of social security levies otherwise / tax eva- sion in general. 07 Other references to taxes. 08-10 Foreign relations 08 Common Market, Europe, including: - (too much) influence of the Common Market - leveling within the EEC - Common Market policy. 09 Developmental aid, relations with the Third World. 10 Other references to foreign relations. 11 Culture and recreation, including: - recreation - sports - not enough facilities for recreation - too few playgrounds for children - other cultural problems. 12-13 Defense, war and peace 12 Nuclear armaments in general, nuclear assignments for the Dutch armed forces, cruise missiles. 13 Defense in general, including: - defense policy - too much money spent on defense - too little money spent on defense - subversion in the armed forces - NATO - armaments - peace - war. 14 Democratisation, including: - civic participation in public administration ("medezeggenschap") - worker's participation in industry - inequality of power - differences between classes - need for further democratisation. 15-18 Economical and financial problems 86 15 Governmental spending too high; governmental budget deficits; need for cuts in government expenditures. 16 Governmental spending for unjustified or unimportant purposes; too much attention for economical prosperity instead of well-being; wrong investments; governmental waste; complaining about budget cuts in specific areas. 17 Economic growth; lack of economic growth; economic stagnation. 18 Other economical or financial problems, including: - business-climate - influence of multinationals - capital growth sharing by workers ("vermogensaanwasdeling") - regional economic problems - problems of shopkeepers. 86 Reduction of working hours per week ("arbeidstijd (duur)verkorting), part time jobs, etc 19-24 Energy problems 19 Nuclear power, nuclear powerstations (general), Including: - nuclear waste 20 Growth of, introduction of nuclear power, nuclear powerstations. 21 Protest, resistance against nuclear power, or of nuclear powerstations (anti-nuclear movement). 22 Energy in general, concern about energy, availability of energy. 23 Shortage of energy, exhaustion of raw materials. 24 Other references to energy, including: - energy prices - dependency on oil-sheiks etc. 25 Ethical problems, 82,87 including: - (racial) discrimination and other injustice (except when 82 or 87 is more appropriate) - change of mentality - prevailing attitudes are a problem (dissatisfaction, lack of interest, people are too exacting, change of mentality is needed) - too little tolerance, too little freedom. 82 Fascism, Racism, Anti-semitism 87 Discrimination (without further references or qualifications) 26-28 Law and order 85,89 26 Crime, including: - aggression, violence, vandalism, bank robberies, juvenile delinquency. 27 Demonstrations, riots, protest. 28 Other law and order problems, including: - (better) protection of law and order - subversion of authority - too lenient behaviour of the police - too light punishments - rightlessness. 85 Riot-police behaviour ("optreden Mobiele Eenheid"). 89 Strikes, walk-outs, labour disputes 29-33 Income and prices 86 29 Prices, inflation, price policy, price increases, everything becomes more expensive, the cost of living. 30 Price and wage policy. 31 Differences in income; mention of either too low, or too high wages for specifically mentioned groups. 32 Incomes, wages, salaries. 33 Other references to income and prices. 86 Reduction of working hours per week ("arbeidstijd- (duur)verkorting), part time jobs, etc 34 Squatting ("kraken", "krakers", "kraakbeweging") 35-37 Social work 35 Care for the elderly, problems of the elderly. 36 Care for other specifically mentioned groups, for instance handicapped people. 37 Other references to social work, including: - welfare work - problems of social work. 38-40 Environmental pollution 38 The issue of refuse, dumping of dangerous or toxic waste. (for the problem of nuclear waste: see 19) 39 Environmental pollution, including: - water - air. 40 Other references to environmental pollution. 41-46 Minorities 41 Favoritism towards ethnical minorities (immigrant workers, South-Molluccans, gypsies, etc.). 42 Discrimination against ethnical minorities. 43 Ethnical minorities in general. 44 Favoritism towards Dutch minorities. 45 Discrimination against Dutch minorities. 46 Dutch minorities in general. 47 Education and science, including: - education - education at school - scientific research - improvement of education - better opportunities for study - too little day-release courses, retraining - limited entry-quota by universities, etc. - school fees - career-planning. 48-52 Political problems 48 Low quality of political parties, politicians, political system, including: - too much talk, indecision - politics is unintelligible - the government itself is a problem; the government should go, the cabinet should go - finding (getting) a good government, recruiting cabinet-ministers - government policy; the government lacks firmness; no proper governance - obsolete laws, obsolete political system - political parties don't keep promises - formation of a (coalition) government. 49 Lack of cooperation, including: - too many political parties, splinter groups - not enough co”peration among political parties - polarization between parties. 50 Red tape, bureaucracy, including: - red tape, bureaucracy, over- organization, corruption. 51 Any mention of a specific political party / politi- cian / political organization. 52 Other political problems, including: - political dissatisfaction, lack of political interest, uninterested voters, low turn-out - influence of abject ideologies - we're drifting too far to the left/right. 53 Religious problems, including: - ecclesiastical problems - godlessness, atheism, apostasy, Sunday observance. 54-55 Town and country planning 54 Overpopulation, population policy. 55 Other references to town and country planning, including: - town and country planning - environmental conditions, lack of space, not much living room - loss of nature by building houses, roads, etc. - conservation of nature - regional development. 56-59 Welfare services, welfare legislation, welfare benefits 56 Welfare benefits are too high / too expensive. 57 Welfare benefits are too low. 58 Administration of welfare services, existing welfare regulations, including: - incorrect administration of welfare services (possibility of "oneigenlijk gebruik") - discrimination of specifically mentioned groups referring to welfare legislation. 59 Welfare services in general, including: - good social security - need for lowering of retirement age - social problems etc. 60 Government subsidies, including: - subsidy policy - too many / too few subsidies etc. 61-62 Traffic 61 Public transportation. 62 Other references to traffic, including: - traffic, traffic problems - too many cars - traffic safety, too many accidents - not enough roads, bad roads, road system insufficient - parking problems. 63 Welfare state ("verzorgingsstaat") 64-70 Public health 64 Public health, financial problems, including: - too high costs of hospitalisation, nursing - too little money available for hospitalisation, nursing. 65 Narcotics, addicts, government policy regarding drug- addiction. 66 Abortion in general. 67 Increasing the possibilities for obtaining abortion. 68 Restriction of the possibilities for obtaining abortion. 69 Euthanasia. 70 Public health in general, including: - birth control - hospitals understaffed - nursing - public health - heart surgery - consumption of alcohol etc. 71-73 Women's emancipation 71 Pro-emancipation. 72 Against emancipation. 73 Remarks on women's emancipation or discrimination of women in general (without sufficient information to be classified as pro or con emancipation) 74-76 Employment 88 74 Unemployment, unemployment in specifically mentioned regions, closing down of firms and businesses. 75 Shortage of certain kinds of workers, foreign workers are recruited despite unemployment. 76 Other references to employment. 88 Youth-unemployment, poor prospects of the young to find employment etc. 77-80 Housing shortage 77 Housing shortage: quantitative, including: - housing shortage, housing, public housing, house building - shortage of housing for one-person households, bachelors, one-parent families. 78 Housing shortage: qualitative, including: - shortage of good housing, housing not fit to live in - slum clearance, urban redevelopment - too many high-rise buildings. 79 Housing shortage: financial, including: - rent too high - housing too expensive - unjust distribution of housing. 80 Other references to housing. 82 description inserted between categories 25 and 26 85 description inserted between categories 28 and 29 86 description inserted between categories 18 and 19 and categories 33 and 34 87 description inserted between categories 25 and 26 88 description inserted between categories 76 and 77 89 description inserted between categories 28 and 29 90-99 Closing categories 90 There are no problems. 91 Uncodable response. 97 don't know. 98 not ascertained. 99 inappropriate (i.e. no second, third, fourth or fifth answer). Frequencies VAR014-VAR018 Code. VAR014 VAR015 VAR016 VAR017 VAR018 1. 13 5 - - - 2. 9 5 2 - 1 3. - - - - - 4. - - - 1 - 5. - - 1 - - 6. - 1 1 1 - 7. 8 3 1 1 - 8. - 1 - - - 9. 3 2 1 - - 10. 3 - 1 2 - 11. 4 1 2 - 1 12. 157 68 19 5 5 13. 14 14 7 5 1 14. 1 1 1 1 - 15. 53 44 16 3 - 16. 28 12 9 2 1 17. 13 14 7 1 - 18. 40 27 10 9 - 19. 29 37 9 2 - 20. - - - - - 21. 2 2 - - - 22. - 2 3 1 - 23. - - - - - 24. 8 6 3 - - 25. 46 30 15 4 2 26. 84 82 39 7 3 27. 6 5 2 2 - 28. 8 13 6 - 1 29. 8 12 2 1 - 30. 4 3 6 1 - 31. 19 11 9 2 - 32. 4 4 2 - - 33. 3 4 2 - - 34. 1 6 1 - - 35. 10 17 7 - 1 36. 1 - 1 1 1 37. - 3 2 2 - 38 - 4 1 1 - 39. 24 35 15 5 - 40. 14 20 10 4 - 41. 5 2 1 2 - 42. 5 7 1 1 1 43. 32 38 29 3 - 44. - - - 1 1 45. 3 7 2 - - 46. 4 2 - - - 47. 19 25 12 6 - 48. 27 17 6 2 - 49. 3 3 1 1 - 50. 4 2 5 - - 51. 8 7 1 1 - 52. 14 14 12 1 - 53. 2 2 1 - - 54. 7 1 2 - - 55. 1 5 4 1 - 56. 4 4 1 - - 57. 17 15 5 1 - 58. 7 10 8 2 - 59. 45 78 35 13 4 60. - 1 4 2 - 61. - 1 - - - 62. 1 3 2 1 - 63. - - 1 - - 64. - 11 5 2 - 65. 13 18 12 3 - 66. 11 21 12 3 - 67. - - - - - 68. - - - - - 69. 45 40 22 12 1 70. 5 13 8 4 2 71. 1 - - - - 72. - 1 - - - 73. 1 1 - 1 - 74. 593 206 83 16 3 75. 1 3 - - - 76. 37 21 13 2 1 77. 4 10 4 - - 78. - 1 - - - 79. - 1 2 - - 80. 1 4 5 1 - 82. 5 9 8 3 1 85. - - - - - 86. 9 8 5 2 - 87. 13 24 6 - 1 88. 23 20 9 2 - 89. 1 - - - - 90. 5 - - - - 91. 5 3 3 1 - 97. 26 - - - - 98. 6 435 608 386 121 99. - 42 479 1090 1477 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 1630 1630 1630 1630 1630 Appendix 5: Construction of variables on party-identification ________________________________________ ! ! ! This appendix is used in conjunction ! ! with VAR019 to VAR025 ! !________________________________________! The questionnaires contain a serie of questions on what traditionally has been called 'party-identification'. The information in the datafile consists of a number of variables in which the answers of the respondents have been re-ordered and structured differently than in the questionnaire in order to facilitate the use of these variables. This appendix explains the relation between the original questions and the constructed variables. TEXT OF QUESTIONS USED questionnumber ! text of question WAVE 1 ! ! 9A ! A. Many people think of themselves as being ! adherents of a particular political par- ! ty, but there are many other people who ! do not regard themselves as such. ! How about you, do you regard yourself as ! an adherent of a political party, or ! don't you? ! ! 1. R is adherent (GO TO B) ! 2. R is no adherent (GO TO D) ! 7. DK (GO TO D) ! 9B ! B. Of which party ? ! ! 01. PvdA ! 02. CDA ! 03. VVD ! 04. D66 ! 05. CPN ! 06. PPR ! 07. PSP ! 08. SGP ! 09. GPV ! 10. RPF ! 11. Centrumpartij ! 12. EVP ! 13. other party ! 14. INVALID (EXIT) ! 97. DK (EXIT) ! 98. NA (EXIT) ! 9C ! C. Would you call yourself a convinced ad- ! herent of that party, or do you consider ! yourself not to be a convinced adherent? ! ! 1. R is convinced adherent ! 2. R is not convinced adherent ! 7. DK ! 8. NA ! ! 9D ! D. Is there any party to which you feel ! more attracted than to other parties, or ! not? ! ! 1. yes (GO TO E) ! 2. no (EXIT) ! 7. DK (EXIT) ! 8. NA (EXIT) ! 9E ! E. Which party is that ? ! ! 01. PvdA ! 02. CDA ! 03. VVD ! 04. D66 ! 05. CPN ! 06. PPR ! 07. PSP ! 08. SGP ! 09. GPV ! 10. RPF ! 11. Centrumpartij ! 12. EVP ! 13. other party ! 96. refuses to say which party ! 97. DK ! 98. NA STRENGTH OF IDENTIFICATION (VAR024) ----------------------------------------------------------- !code! label ! assigned if ! !----!-------------!----------------------------------------! ! 0 ! no identi- ! ! ! ! fication ! (D EQ 2) ! !----!-------------!----------------------------------------! ! 1 ! DK whether ! ! ! ! attracted ! (D EQ 7 OR 8) ! !----!-------------!----------------------------------------! ! 2 ! attracted, ! ! ! ! no adherent ! (A EQ 2) AND (D EQ 1) AND (E LE 13) ! ! ! ! ! !----!-------------!----------------------------------------! ! 3 ! attracted, ! ! ! ! DK whether ! (A EQ 7 OR 8) AND (D EQ 1) AND ! ! ! adherent ! (E LE 13) ! !----!-------------!----------------------------------------! ! 4 ! adherent, ! ! ! ! not con- ! (C EQ 2) ! !----!-------------!----------------------------------------! ! 5 ! adherent, ! ! ! ! DK whether ! (C EQ 7 OR 8) ! !----!-------------!----------------------------------------! ! 6 ! adherent, ! ! ! ! convinced ! (C EQ 1) ! !====!=============!========================================! ! 8 ! NA1 ! !----!-------------!----------------------------------------! ! 9 ! NA2