Loading…
Seven-point scale rating Asian Americans from hard-working to lazy, in the GSS and the ANES.
AI-matched An AI model grouped these questions and mapped their answers onto shared categories, and a second AI review checked and corrected the grouping and mapping. No person has checked it: compare the question wordings and the answer mapping below before reading the lines against each other.
Latest: 68% answered “Hard-working side (1-3)” in ANES, 2024.
Dashed lines mark changes in how interviews were done, which can shift answers: 1. ANES → mixed mode (2012).
Shares of people whose answer maps onto these categories (non-answers and answers outside the scale are left out), because surveys differ in whether they offer “don’t know.” Each column is one survey wave, evenly spaced rather than to scale in time; hover for exact shares.
Dashed lines mark changes in how interviews were done, which can shift answers: 1. ANES → mixed mode (2012).
Shares of people whose answer maps onto these categories (non-answers and answers outside the scale are left out), because surveys differ in whether they offer “don’t know.” Each point is one survey wave at the middle of its field period. Lines from different surveys are never spliced together.
Groups differ from everyone by 6 points on average across all answers, in ANES.
| Line | Question | Match | How answers map |
|---|---|---|---|
| ANES | Asian Americans rated hardworking or lazy (Now I have some questions about different groups in our society. I’m going to show you a seven-point scale on which the characteristics of the people in a group can be rated. In the first statement a score of 1 means that you think almost all of the people in that group tend to be “hard-working.” A score of 7 means that almost all of the people in the group are “lazy.” A score of 4 means that you think that most people in the group are not closer to one end or the other, and of course you may choose any number in between.)
(Where would you rate) Asian-Americans (on this scale)?
2000 TELEPHONE:
Where would you rate Asian-Americans on a scale of 1 to 7? (where 1 indicates hard working, 7 means lazy, and 4 indicates most blacks are not closer to one end or the other.) Caveat: Same scale; the 2000 telephone mode wording differs slightly | identical | Hard-working → Hard-working side (1-3); 2 → Hard-working side (1-3); 3 → Hard-working side (1-3); 4 → Middle (4); 5 → Lazy side (5-7); 6 → Lazy side (5-7); Lazy → Lazy side (5-7) |
| GSS | Rating Asians as hard-working or lazy Now I have some questions about different groups in our society. I'm going to show you a seven-point scale on which the characteristics of people in a group can be rated. In the first statement a score of 1 means that you think almost all of the people in that group are "rich." A score of 7 means that you think almost everyone in the group are "poor." A score of 4 means you think that the group is not towards one end or another, and of course you may choose any number In between that comes closest to where you think people in the group stand.
B. The second set of characteristics asks if people in the group tend to be hard-working or if they tend to be lazy.
4. Asian Americans? Caveat: Same 7-point scale; GSS intro is shared with a rich/poor item | identical | 1 - hard-working → Hard-working side (1-3); 2 → Hard-working side (1-3); 3 → Hard-working side (1-3); 4 → Middle (4); 5 → Lazy side (5-7); 6 → Lazy side (5-7); 7 - lazy → Lazy side (5-7) |
Dashed lines mark changes in how interviews were done, which can shift answers: 1. ANES → mixed mode (2012).
Groups differ from everyone by 5 points on average across all answers, in ANES.
Dashed lines mark changes in how interviews were done, which can shift answers: 1. ANES → mixed mode (2012).
Subgroup charts are picked automatically. Of every breakdown in the data (party, ideology, age, sex, race, education, income, region, religion, and community type), these two put their groups furthest from everyone’s answers: the gap is averaged across all answer categories and waves, with each group weighted by its share of respondents. Party and ideology count as one choice, so the second chart shows a different kind of split. Groups with an effective sample under 50 in a wave are left out of that wave.