[Add] Social distance measure

[JamesPHoughton]

Skitka, Linda J., Christopher W. Bauman, and Edward G. Sargis. 2005. “Moral Conviction: Another Contributor to Attitude Strength or Something More?” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 88 (6): 895–917.

Social distance. Our measure of social distance was an adaptation of measures developed by Byrnes and Kiger (1988) and Crandall (1991). Participants were asked the degree that they agreed or disagreed with different completions to the stem “I would be happy to have someone who did not share my views on (their identified most important issue) . . .”; sentence completions were “as President of the U.S.,” “as Governor of my state,” “as a neighbor,” “to come and work at the same place I do,” “as a room mate,” “to marry into my family,” “as someone I would personally date,” “as my personal physician,” “as a close personal friend,” “as the owner of a store or restaurant I frequent,” “as the teacher of my children,” and “as my spiritual advisor.” Participants responded on 7-point radio button scales with the point labels of very much agree, moderately agree, slightly agree, uncertain, slightly disagree, moderately disagree, and very much disagree. Scores on these items were averaged to create a global index of social distance, with higher values reflecting greater social dis- tance. This scale had a Cronbach’s alpha of .95 with this sample.

> Ryan, Timothy J. 2014. “Reconsidering Moral Issues in Politics.” The Journal of Politics 76 (2): 380–97

[Grid] How well do each of the following phrases describe how you feel toward
people who disagree with you about this issue? ... warm toward them; cold toward them; angry at them; disgusted with them; afraid of them; respect for them;
frustration with them; sad about them; appreciative of them
Not at all
Slightly
Somewhat
Very
Extremely

Mutz, Diana C., and Jeffery J. Mondak. 2006. “The Workplace as a Context for Cross-Cutting Political Discourse.” The Journal of Politics 68 (1): 140–55.

Tolerance: Average of responses to six questions asked with respect to the group named by the respondent. "I'm going to read you a list of groups in politics. As I read it please follow along and think about which of these groups you like the least. If there is some other group you like even less than the groups I read, please tell me the name of that group. Communists, white supremacists, homosexuals, militia groups, abortion rights activists, pro-life activists, neo-Nazis, religious fundamentalists, atheists, the Ku Klux Klan and feminists. Which of these groups do you like the least, or is there some other group you like even less?" All items were answered on a 1 to 4 agree-disagree scale: “[Named group] should be banned from being president of the United States/should be outlawed/should be allowed to make a speech in your town/city./should be allowed to hold public rallies in your town/city./should be allowed to teach in the public schools./should have their phones tapped by our government.”

Survey Title

"Super Special Survey" <- note, this is just a placeholder name - replace it with the name of the actual survey.

Survey Source

Survey Overview

Aggregation/scoring function

Tasks

• Create a new folder in surveys w/ descriptive, easy-to-read name superSpecialSurvey/
• Create SurveyJS .json file (e.g. superSpecialSurvey/superSpecialSurvey.json)
  • Change the default completion page to a blank page ("showCompletedPage": false)
• Create a .bib file citing your references for the survey (always: superSpecialSurvey/references.bib)
• Create file with function to aggregate survey data (e.g. superSpecialSurvey.score.js)
• Create a cypress test of the survey (e.g. superSpecialSurvey.cy.jsx)
  • Include a line to take a screenshot at the end of every page
• Create a readme markdown file to document (always: superSpecialSurvey/README.md)
  • Include relevant screenshots
• Update the package minor version
• Rebuild the package using npm run build to update SHAs
• Create PR and link to this issue

[JamesPHoughton]

Other examples:

Aggregation of: (1) How comfortable are you having close personal friends who are $OTHERPARTYs? Not at all comfortable / Not too comfortable / Somewhat comfortable / Extremely comfortable (2) How comfortable are you having neighbors on your street who are $OTHERPARTYs? (3) Suppose one of your children was getting married. How would you feel if he or she married a $OTHERPARTY? Not upset at all / Not too upset / Somewhat upset / Extremely upset. (Levendusky, Matthew S., and Dominik A. Stecula. 2021. “We Need to Talk: How Cross-Party Dialogue Reduces Affective Polarization.” In Elements in Experimental Political Science. Cambridge University Press.)

How comfortable are you having friends who are [outgroup members]? (Kamin, Julia. 2022. “Social Cohesion Impact Measurement (SCIM) Framework Overview.” Civic Health Project. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_nsLJNgWZVaNSq71PFpAHx7YM488FvTPIPFYWsytwus.)

"""(i) How comfortable are you having close personal friends who are [Democrats/Republicans]?
(ii) How comfortable are you having neighbors on your street who are [Democrats/Republicans]? (b) Scale
(i-ii) 101-point scale from “Not comfortable at all” to “Moderately comfortable” to “Extremely
comfortable”"" (Jan G. Voelkel, Michael N. Stagnaro, James Chu, Sophia Pink, Joseph S. Mernyk, Chrystal Redekopp, Matthew Cashman, James N. Druckman, David G. Rand, and Robb Willer. 2021. “Megastudy Identifying Successful Interventions to Strengthen Americans’ Democratic Attitudes.”)"

"we formed an index of three measures of comfort with out-partisans (social distance): how upset (not at all upset to extremely upset) participants would feel if their son or daughter married a member of the outparty and how comfortable they were of having outparty friends and neighbors (not at all comfortable to extremely comfortable)" (Santoro, Erik, and David E. Broockman. 2022. “The Promise and Pitfalls of Cross-Partisan Conversations for Reducing Affective Polarization: Evidence from Randomized Experiments.” Science Advances 8 (25): eabn5515.)

We elicited participants’ willingness to engage in personal contact by asking participants to state their level of agreement to the statement that they do not want to have a person with opposing views in their social envi-ronment. "I would like this person to be in my personal environment. (rev.)" (Fang, Ximeng, Sven Heuser, and Lasse S. Stötzer. 2023. “How In-Person Conversations Shape Political Polarization: Quasi-Experimental Evidence from a Nationwide Initiative.” In Econtribute. https://www.econtribute.de/RePEc/ajk/ajkdps/ECONtribute_270_2023.pdf.)