There’s a Bigger Difference Between 0 and 1 Than You Think

A few weeks ago I wrote about a study showing that student evaluations of teachers could differ substantially if a scale of 1-6 was used instead of 1-10. Today, I learned that the boffins at Pew Research just finished a similar study. They wanted to test whether responses about political ideology changed depending on whether people were asked to describe themselves on a 0-6 scale vs. a 1-7 scale. Indeed they did:

In all three countries, the 1-7 scale produced higher results for the ideology defined by a low number (which happened to be lefties in this case). The differences weren’t small, either. Take a look at France, where the percentage of lefties increases from 35 percent to 49 percent. That’s a huge difference, and all because the ranking system changed by one digit.

This is a great example of how fragile polling can be. We obsess over things like the margin of error, which might be responsible for a point or two of error, when there are other things that can introduce errors of a dozen points or more. Of course, it’s not really correct to talk about “errors” here since we don’t know what the true value is or whether there even is one. What a study like this shows is probably that (a) lots of people are kind of fuzzy about where they stand, and (b) lots of people aren’t very good at math.

You can see the same sort of thing with question wording. This is especially evident in polls about abortion, where seemingly small changes in question wording can produce differences of ten or twenty points. This is why you should always be skeptical when you see a headline shouting about a big shift in abortion sentiment. If the change really is big, it’s almost certainly because of question wording, not because the American public has really shifted its views significantly.

Anyway, this is a good example of just how hard opinion polling is. Who would have guessed that a tiny change in scale would produce wild results like this?

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest