改进社会科学研究中圣经解释的测量方法

IF 1.3 1区 哲学 Q2 POLITICAL SCIENCE
Stephen T. Mockabee, A. R. Lewis
{"title":"改进社会科学研究中圣经解释的测量方法","authors":"Stephen T. Mockabee, A. R. Lewis","doi":"10.1017/s1755048323000160","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Asking about people's views of the Bible in a single survey question has become the prevailing way to understand the mass public's religious beliefs. Nevertheless, the standard survey items raise questions about what is being measured. The questions used to measure one's views of the Bible are often double-barreled and leave considerable room for interpretation. In this paper, we assess the measurement error in the standard three-category question from the American National Election Study (ANES) by developing new items to gauge what it might mean to a respondent to select one of the three options in the standard Bible question. Using original data from two online surveys, we demonstrate that there is substantial measurement error in the standard ANES item. Analyses also show that our new items predict responses to the standard ANES item and are potent predictors of political attitudes—often performing better than the widely used three-category question.","PeriodicalId":45674,"journal":{"name":"Politics and Religion","volume":"67 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Improving the measurement of biblical interpretation in social science research\",\"authors\":\"Stephen T. Mockabee, A. R. Lewis\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/s1755048323000160\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Asking about people's views of the Bible in a single survey question has become the prevailing way to understand the mass public's religious beliefs. Nevertheless, the standard survey items raise questions about what is being measured. The questions used to measure one's views of the Bible are often double-barreled and leave considerable room for interpretation. In this paper, we assess the measurement error in the standard three-category question from the American National Election Study (ANES) by developing new items to gauge what it might mean to a respondent to select one of the three options in the standard Bible question. Using original data from two online surveys, we demonstrate that there is substantial measurement error in the standard ANES item. Analyses also show that our new items predict responses to the standard ANES item and are potent predictors of political attitudes—often performing better than the widely used three-category question.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45674,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Politics and Religion\",\"volume\":\"67 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Politics and Religion\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1755048323000160\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Politics and Religion","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s1755048323000160","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在一个调查问题中询问人们对圣经的看法已经成为了解大众宗教信仰的普遍方式。然而,标准的调查项目提出了关于测量内容的问题。用来衡量一个人对圣经的看法的问题往往是双重的,给解释留下了相当大的空间。在本文中,我们通过开发新项目来评估被调查者在标准圣经问题中选择三个选项中的一个可能意味着什么,从而评估美国全国选举研究(ANES)标准三类问题中的测量误差。使用来自两个在线调查的原始数据,我们证明了在标准ANES项目中存在很大的测量误差。分析还表明,我们的新题目预测了对标准ANES题目的反应,并且是政治态度的有力预测指标——通常比广泛使用的三类问题表现得更好。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Improving the measurement of biblical interpretation in social science research
Asking about people's views of the Bible in a single survey question has become the prevailing way to understand the mass public's religious beliefs. Nevertheless, the standard survey items raise questions about what is being measured. The questions used to measure one's views of the Bible are often double-barreled and leave considerable room for interpretation. In this paper, we assess the measurement error in the standard three-category question from the American National Election Study (ANES) by developing new items to gauge what it might mean to a respondent to select one of the three options in the standard Bible question. Using original data from two online surveys, we demonstrate that there is substantial measurement error in the standard ANES item. Analyses also show that our new items predict responses to the standard ANES item and are potent predictors of political attitudes—often performing better than the widely used three-category question.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
13.30%
发文量
34
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊介绍: Politics and Religion is an international journal publishing high quality peer-reviewed research on the multifaceted relationship between religion and politics around the world. The scope of published work is intentionally broad and we invite innovative work from all methodological approaches in the major subfields of political science, including international relations, American politics, comparative politics, and political theory, that seeks to improve our understanding of religion’s role in some aspect of world politics. The Editors invite normative and empirical investigations of the public representation of religion, the religious and political institutions that shape religious presence in the public square, and the role of religion in shaping citizenship, broadly considered, as well as pieces that attempt to advance our methodological tools for examining religious influence in political life.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信