JGSS研究論文集[3](2004.3)

Japanese General Social Surveys*
Beginning and Development

IWAI, Noriko

Faculty of Business Administration
Osaka University of Commerce

January 2004
4th edition* The first edition of this paper was presented at the JGSS International Symposium
June 21-22, 2003, Osaka University of Commerce, Higashi-Osaka, Japan.
The second edition was presented at the Thematic Lecture Series “Survey Researches in
East Asia,” Nov. 21-22, 2003 at Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, Korea.
The third edition was presented at the Thematic Lecture on Japanese and Korean
Social Surveys, Dec. 24, 2003 at Institute of Sociology, Academic Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan.

JGSS研究論文集[3](2004.3)

1. Introduction
The Japanese General Social Surveys (JGSS) Project is the first attempt in Japan to
conduct a nationwide general social survey on a regular basis and to provide its data forsecondary analyses without delay for use by social scientists in Japan and overseas. This
innovative project has been undertaken by the Institute of Regional Studies, Osaka Universityof Commerce, and the Institute of Social Science, University of Tokyo.
The JGSS project endeavors to supply survey data which makes time-series analyses
and international comparisons possible, as does the U.S. GSS. It aims to collect information
essential for understanding Japanese society: values, attitudes and behavioral patterns of theJapanese people. To make analyses in various fields of study possible, JGSS surveys covera wide range of topics: the respondents’ family structure, working conditions, income,occupations of respondents, those of parents and spouses, political affiliations, family life,
life/death, religion, leisure, experience of trauma, criminal victimization, etc.
Like GSS data, JGSS survey data does not always give detailed information in a
specific area; rather, JGSS data aims to provide non-specific and general information that canbe utilized by scholars in various fields of the social sciences. JGSS data thus promotes
studies and discussions of many different themes. In order to obtain high quality data, the
JGSS project team thoroughly scrutinizes its survey methods. Two pilot surveys wereconducted prior to JGSS-2000, the first full-scale survey. JGSS data is open to academia
and is accessible through the Social Science Japan (SSJ) Data Archive of the Institute ofSocial Science, University of Tokyo.
This paper consists of five parts: 1) circumstances in which the JGSS project started; 2)
the research organization of the project team; 3) JGSS timetable; 4) utilization of the JGSS
data sets; and 5) characteristics of the research designs for the JGSS. Many of thesecharacteristics are unique to Japanese survey situations.

2. Beginning of the JGSS Project
Hundreds of surveys are conducted every year by the Japanese government, local
governments, the mass media, non-profit/profit organizations, and/or academics in Japan.
While they publish distributions of responses and results of analyses, their data are seldom
available for secondary analyses, even for research purposes. It has been the custom ofJapanese researchers or groups of researchers to keep their data to themselves and limit its
usage. Therefore, being able to analyze the data of a nationwide survey has been theprivilege of a limited number of scholars and their graduate students.
Looking at the rapid development of databases and data archives in U.S. and European
academic circles, there has been a growing request among Japanese researchers for archiving
data as common property. This request was especially urged by scholars who had studied at
U.S. universities and had the experience of using survey data sets available through data
-1-

JGSS研究論文集[3](2004.3)

archives. Prof. KABASHIMA, Ikuo of the University of Tokyo released data sets of voting
and political opinions to academic circles; it is called Leviathan Databank. Prof. MIYAKE,
Ichiro of Kansai University also released data sets of political opinions.
Then, the Faculty of Social Information of Sapporo Gakuin University founded anarchive of information on surveys conducted by members of the Japanese Sociological
Association. This archive, which is called the Social and Opinion Research Database, also
provides 16 data sets for secondary analyses. In 1998 the aforementioned SSJ Data Archiveof the University of Tokyo was founded, which stores data sets deposited not only by
individual researchers but also by research institutes of private firms. However, comparedwith data archives in Europe and the U.S., Japanese archives lacked comprehensive data fromgeneral social surveys on Japanese society for time-series analyses by social science
researchers.
To this end, a joint project was launched by the Institute of Regional Studies, Osaka
University of Commerce, and the Institute of Social Science, University of Tokyo, with thefollowing objectives:(1)
To collect and build cumulative data on general social surveys in Japan in a regularand consistent manner, thus enabling a time-series analysis;(2)
To provide data for secondary analyses to researchers and university students in social
science fields; and,(3)
To provide data in a format useful for international comparative studies, research, andreports.
The joint project team commenced the preliminary study for the JGSS project in theautumn of 1998. In March 1999, the JGSS project obtained five years of financial support
from the Japanese government. The Institute of Regional Studies (IRS) at Osaka Universityof Commerce was designated as a "Gakujutsu-Frontier Suishinkyoten" (a key institute on thefrontiers of academic projects) by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science andTechnology, which subsidizes the project. The JGSS project became a 5-year (1999-2003)
academic project in which the Japanese General Social Surveys are designed and carried out
at IRS in collaboration with the Institute of Social Science at the University of Tokyo. Itsdata sets are distributed by SSJ Data Archive, Information Center for Social Science Research
on Japan, Institute of Social Science, the University of Tokyo.

3. Research Organization
The project is headed by Prof. TANIOKA, Ichiro (Osaka University of Commerce) andProf. NITTA, Michio (University of Tokyo). It is directed by Prof. IWAI, Noriko (Osaka
University of Commerce) and Prof. SATO, Hiroki (University of Tokyo) with Ms. OSAWA,
Minae (Osaka University of Commerce) as Project Manager. The JGSS project office islocated at Osaka University of Commerce in Higashi-Osaka City, Japan.
-2-

JGSS研究論文集[3](2004.3)

Although the core team members remain the same, members vary from survey tosurvey. The team consists of scholars from Osaka University of Commerce and the
University of Tokyo as well as researchers from both public and private educational/research
institutions to cover various fields of study of sociology, social psychology, economics,
management, marketing, education, laws, communication, linguistics, demography, statistics,
and information science. Table 1 shows the current members of the JGSS project team.

Table 1

Project Members of JGSS-2003

Criminology, Sociological
Methodology
Human Resources
NITTA, Michio
Management
Social Psychology, Family
IWAI, Noriko
Principal
Sociology
Investigators
Human Resources
SATO, Hiroki
Management
Sociology
KIMURA, Masafumi
Project
Communication
SUGITA,
HizuruMembers
Marketing
OHASHI, Masahiko
Laws
OKUNO, Hisao
Linguistics
KOISO, Kaoru
Sociology of Education
SANO, Shigeru
TASAKI, Kimitsukasa Economic History
SHINOHARA, Kenichi Management
TOYOYAMA, Munehiro Economic Policy
Community Development
YAN, Heping
Economic History
LIN, Miauh-Yin
Stratification
ISHIDA, Hiroshi
Statistics
MAKITA, Naoki
Sociology of Education
SATO, KaoriSHINOZAKI, Takehisa Labor Economics
Social Psychology
IKEDA, KenichiSociology of Education
HONDA, Yuki
Demography
ANZO, Shinji
Statistics
INABA, Taichi
Sociology of Education
IWAI, Hachiro
Demography
KOJIMA, Hiroshi
NISHIMURA, Yukimitsu Sociology of Education

Directors

TANIOKA, Ichiro

NAKAO, Keiko
TAKAHASI, Kazuko
YASUNO, Tomoko
YASUDA, Tokio
Project
JGSS Executive Secretary
Administration and Project Manager
OfficeOffice Staff

Stratification
Information Science
Social Psychology
Mathematical Sociology

OSAWA, Minae
NAKAO, Rie
HIGUCHI, Tamaki
NISHIO, Hitomi
KONO, Tomomi-3-

Osaka University of Commerce
Institute of Social Science, Universityof Tokyo
Osaka University of Commerce
Institute of Social Science, Universityof Tokyo
Osaka University of Commerce

Institute of Social Science, Universityof Tokyo

University of Tokyo
Meiji University
Kobe University
Kyoto University
National Institute of Population andSocial Security Research, Ministry of
Health, Labour and WelfareTokyo Metropolitan University

Keiai University
Chuo University
Koshien University
Osaka University of CommerceJGSS研究論文集[3](2004.3)

4. JGSS Schedule
The JGSS schedule is shown in Table 2. In 1999 two pilot surveys were conducted to
scrutinize the survey methods to be employed in the full-scale survey. The first full-scale
survey, JGSS-2000, was conducted from the end of October to the end of November 2000.
In the autumn of 2001, the second survey, JGSS-2001, was conducted. JGSS-2002 wasconducted in 2002 and its data is now being processed. The data sets of the two pilot
surveys, JGSS-2000, and JGSS-2001 have already been released from the SSJ Data Archive.
The field operation of JGSS-2003 has been completed and the contents of the returned
questionnaires are now being checked.
In June 2003 JGSS International Symposium was held at Osaka University ofCommerce. A new challenging stage for JGSS project is now developing from thesymposium, the details of which I will discuss in the last section of this paper.
Table 2 JGSS Schedule
March
1999

1st Pilot Survey conducted

November1999

1st Pilot Survey data released
2nd Pilot Survey conducted

Survey area: Osaka Prefecture and Tokyo Metropolitan area
(20 survey points each)
Sample population: Males and females aged 20-69
Sampling method
Osaka Prefecture: Two-stage stratified random samplingTokyo Metropolitan area: Two-stage random sampling
Survey administration: Both face-to-face interview and placement(self-administered) method
Valid responses (Rates):
Osaka Prefecture: 151 (43.3%)
Tokyo Metropolitan Area: 159 (43.8%)
Characteristics: By split-balloting,1) Examined survey contents using two forms of selfadministered questionnaires.
2) Examined order of administration: interview and placement
From SSJ Data Archive http://www.iss.u-tokyo.ac.jp/ssjda/
Survey area: Nationwide (81 points)
Sample population: 1,200 males and females over 18 years old
Sampling method: Two-stage stratified random sampling
Survey administration: Both face-to-face interview and placement(self-administered) method
Valid responses (Rates): 790 (65.0%)
Characteristics: By split-balloting,1) Examined survey contents using two forms of self-administeredquestionnaires.
2) Examined effects on the response rate of the timing of the incentive (book coupons); whether it was prepaid, or promised.

1st Pilot Survey Codebook published
March
Survey area: Nationwide (300 points)
November JGSS-2000 survey conducted
Sample population: 4,500 males and females 20-89 years of age
2000
Sampling method: Two-stage stratified random sampling *Survey administration: Both face-to-face interview and placement(self-administered) method
Valid responses (Rates): 2,893 (64.9%)
From SSJ Data Archive
March
2nd Pilot Survey data released
2001
2nd Pilot Survey Codebook publishedhttp:// jgss.daishodai.ac.jp
JGSS Website opened* Described in detail in Appendix.
-4-

JGSS研究論文集[3](2004.3)

November
2001

JGSS-2001 survey conducted

March
2002

JGSS-2000 data released
JGSS-2000 Codebook published
JGSS-Monographs published
JGSS-2000 book published

April
2002
November
2002

JGSS-2002 survey conducted

JGSS-2001 data released
JGSS-2001 Codebook publishedJGSS Monographs publishedJGSS Paper Competition
June 21-22 JGSS International Symposium
November JGSS-2003 survey conducted
2003
March
2003

Survey area: Nationwide (300 points)
Sample population: 4,500 males and females 20-89 years of age
Sampling method: Two-stage stratified random sampling
Survey administration: Both face-to-face interview and placement(self-administered) method
Survey contents: similar to JGSS-2000 with some alteration
Valid responses (Rates): 2,790 (62.4%)
From SSJ Data Archive
Japanese Values and Behavioral Patterns Seen in the Japanese
General Social Survey, Iwai, N. and Sato, H. (eds.), Yuhikaku.
Survey area: Nationwide (341 points)
Sample population:5,000 males and females 20-89 years of age
Sampling method: Two-stage stratified random sampling
Survey administration: Both face-to-face interview and placement(self-administered) method
Survey contents: Except for replicating core questions, contents altered
Valid responses (Rates): 2,953 (62.2%)
From SSJ Data Archive

At Osaka University of Commerce
Survey area: Nationwide (489 points)
Sample population: 7,200 males and females 20-89 years of age
Sampling method: Two-stage stratified random sampling
Survey administration: Both face-to-face interview and placement(self-administered) method
Survey contents: Two forms of self-administered questionnaire
1) Replicating core questions and topical modules
2) Some core questions and those on social network
At Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, Korea

Thematic Lecture Series: Survey
Researches in East Asia
Statistical Activity Encouraging From Japanese Statistical Association
Award received
December Thematic Lecture on Japanese and At Institute of Sociology, Academic Sinica, Taiwan
2003
Korean Social Surveys
JGSS-2002 data released
From SSJ Data ArchiveMarch
JGSS-2002 Codebook published
2004
JGSS Monographs published
Report on JGSS International
Symposium publishedJGSS Paper Competition
JGSS-2003 data released
From SSJ Data ArchiveMarch
JGSS-2003 Codebook published2005(planned) JGSS Monographs publishedJGSS Paper Competition
Survey area: Nationwide
November JGSS-2005 survey conducted
Sample population: Males and females 20-89 years of age
2005
Sample size: Undecided(planned)
Sampling method: Two-stage stratified random sampling
Survey administration: Both face-to-face interview and placement(self-administered) method
Survey contents: Undecided
March
JGSS data (Cumulative) released From SSJ Data Archive
2006
Cumulative Codebook released(planned)-5-

JGSS研究論文集[3](2004.3)

5. Use of Data
Data Availability and Documentation
The JGSS project is planned so that its survey data is released without delay foreducational and academic purposes. The data set is released in March each year,
approximately 18 months after each survey. Information on survey administration, which isessential to secondary analysis, can easily be obtained on the website (http://jgss.daishodai.ac.jp.)
or from the published Codebook.
JGSS Website
The JGSS website provides such information as project summary, survey schedule,
survey questions, sampling and administration methods, responses, and how to obtain
information such as survey data in both Japanese and English. The website also has asubject index: by selecting a topic of interest, a visitor is led to the relevant JGSS variables,
corresponding survey question(s) and data (frequency distribution of responses). The site is
updated in March every year when a new data set is released.
JGSS Codebook
The JGSS Codebook is published in March each year when the data set is released(edited by Institute of Regional Studies, Osaka University of Commerce, and Institute ofSocial Science, University of Tokyo).
Distribution of JGSS Data
Frequency distribution of the JGSS data can be seen on the JGSS website. Data sets
can be obtained for academic purposes by researchers at universities and research institutes,
graduate students, and college students guided by professors, from the SSJ Data Archive of
the Japan Sociological Information Center, Institute of Social Science, University of Tokyo(http://www.iss.u-tokyo.ac.jp/ssjda/). Users are obliged to observe a written oath on
confidentiality of data, rules on usage, publication, etc.
Users
An increasing number of researchers and students are using JGSS data for educationaland research purposes. Table 3 shows the names of data sets released each year and thenumber of users. As of December 24 2003, the total number of data sets used amounts to
1,185 which include 53 used in classes or seminars. The data sets are used not only in Japanbut also overseas (the U.S., Germany, Hong Kong and Australia). Japanese or other Asian
graduate students who study abroad intend to use JGSS for their Ph.D. theses and foreign
students who study in Japan intend to use JGSS for their Master’s or Ph.D. theses. JGSS
data sets are utilized in courses or seminars in several fields of study, such as sociology,
psychology, education, economics, political science and information science. Some of the-6-

JGSS研究論文集[3](2004.3)

courses and seminars which have made use of data sets include economics, education,
journalism, political opinions, statistics, data analyses, psychostatistics, behaviormetrics,
sociological methodology, applied sociological methodology, information system, economic
information system, micro data analyses, applied micro economics and so on.
Data files of JGSS-2000 and 2001 will be soon available from the Inter-university
Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICSPR) in the U.S., and Zentralarchiv fur
empirische Sozialforschung (ZA) in Germany. JGSS data sets are now being processed forrelease. It is expected that a substantial number of research papers will be produced using
the JGSS data sets, and the project thereby will contribute to deeper understanding ofJapanese society.
Table 3 Total Number of JGSS Data Sets Used in Academic Years
Academic Year: April-March
Available JGSS Data Sets

Total No. of Data Sets

2000
1st Pilot

2001
1st Pilot
2nd Pilot

11

284

2002
2003.4.1-12.24
1st Pilot
1st Pilotnd
2 Pilot
2nd Pilot
JGSS-2000
JGSS-2000
JGSS-2001
376
514

Total
1st Pilot
2nd Pilot
JGSS-2000
JGSS-2001
1185

No. of Class/Seminar*
2
9
20
22
53
(no. of students in class/seminar*)
(4)
(239)
(316)
(252)
(811)
No. of Foreign Users
1
3
11
7
22
No. of Foreign Users in Japan**
0
5
2
9
16
* Excluding classes whose instructors have not submitted a list of students with their signatures yet.
** Foreign graduate students or researchers studying in Japan.

JGSS Monograph and Book
A collection of monographs written by the JGSS project members was published in
March 2002 and 2003. Its publication is also scheduled for March 2004 and 2005. In
exchange for cleaning the data set, project members have the privilege of analyzing JGSS data
sets prior to their release.
In the spring of 2002, JGSS co-principal investigators edited a book in which every
member of the project team wrote a short monograph for their own field of study based on theanalyses of JGSS-2000. As a whole, the book portrays values and behavioral patterns ofJapanese people from a variety of perspectives: family, gender, work situations, social
stratification, voting behavior and political opinions, victimization of crimes and social norms,
environment of information technology, enjoying life, and attitudes toward life and death.
The title of the book is Japanese Values and Behavioral Patterns Seen in the Japanese GeneralSocial Survey (Iwai and Sato [eds.], 2002).
Publications and Presentations by the User Community
The results of analyses of JGSS data are also reported at various academic societies andoverseas conferences, such as the Japan Sociological Society, Japan Society of Family-7-

JGSS研究論文集[3](2004.3)

Sociology, the Japanese Society of Social Psychology, Japanese Association of Sociological
Criminology, Population Association of Japan, Communication Association of Japan, Society
for the Study of Human Animal Relations, the Behaviormetric Society of Japan, Information
Processing Society of Japan, Association for Natural Language Processing, the American
Sociological Association, International Conference on Improving Surveys, Asian Studies
Conference Japan, the Academy of Korean Studies Colloquium and so on.
Some instructors who had led a seminar on sociological methodology edited andpublished a collection of student papers written for the seminar (Nishimura, 2002;Takenoshita,
2002;Fujimoto, 2002).
Although only a short time has passed since the release of data sets, a number of papers
written by JGSS project members and other users have appeared in peer-refereed professional
journals. A list of publications and presentations which made use of JGSS data sets isreported on the JGSS website and in an appendix of codebooks and monographs.
JGSS Paper Competition
Getting a hint from the GSS student paper competition, the JGSS project team decided
to hold the JGSS paper competition for the purpose of increasing active users of the JGSS
data sets. The steering committee of the JGSS project (co-directors and co-principal
investigators) acted as judges. Winners of the JGSS Paper Competition 2003 were honoredwith at the JGSS International Symposium held in June this year. Winning papers will be
printed in the JGSS monographs published in March 2004. On the success of the first trial,
the project team decided to hold the JGSS Paper Competition annually from now on.
6. Characteristics of the Research Designs for the JGSS
1）Combination of Interview and Placement
It is unusual to combine interview and placement for a survey in Japan. The
nationwide and repeated surveys mostly adopt only one method, either interview or placement.
The interview method has been adopted in the Study on the Japanese National Character(1953, 1958, 1963, 1968, 1973, 1978, 1983, 1988, 1993, 1998) conducted by the Institute of
Statistical Mathematics, the Social Stratification and Social Mobility Survey (SSM1955,
SSM1965, SSM1975, SSM1985, SSM1995) conducted by a group of sociologists, and theAttitude Surveys on Japanese (1973, 1978, 1983, 1988, 1993, 1998) conducted by the
Research Institute of Broadcasting Culture, Nihon Hoso Kyokai (NHK). On the other hand,the placement method has been adopted in some of the governmental surveys including theJapanese National Fertility Survey (1940, 1957, 1962, 1967, 1972, 1977, 1982, 1987, 1992,
1997, 2002; excluding 1952 which was conducted by interview) conducted by the National
Institute of Population and Social Security Research, Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare,and the National Family Research (NFRJ98) conducted by the National Family ResearchCommittee of Japan Society of Family Sociology.
-8-

JGSS研究論文集[3](2004.3)

Taking a hint from the General Social Survey and the National Survey of Families andHouseholds (NSFH), both of which incorporate the self-administered questionnaire in theinterview session, we planned to combine both methods for JGSS. But in our case, theself-administered questionnaire is regarded not as a part but as the equivalent to the interview
session. Considering the survey conditions in Japan, which I will discuss in the next section,
we planned to set the average time for the interview session and for the self-administeredquestionnaire as 20 minutes respectively, so that the total time would be around 40 minutes.
We allocated questions which are complicated or have many branch questions such as a
respondent’s work situations, household composition, or marital history, to be asked in theinterview. On the other hand, questions on opinions and attitudes to which respondents tend
to make socially desirable responses if they are asked in a face-to-face situation were includedin the self-administered questionnaire.
In the 1st pilot survey, we examined whether a subject would agree both to beinterviewed and to do a self-administered questionnaire. We also examined the order ofadministration of these two methods by split-balloting. In half of the sample, a subject was
asked to have an interview session first and to complete a self-administered questionnaire later.
The interviewer would visit the subject again on a promised date to pick it up. In the otherhalf of the sample, a subject was asked to answer the self-administered questionnaire first andthe interviewer would visit the subject on a promised date to pick it up and conduct theinterview session then. We gave instructions to interviewers that they could change theorder, if the subject showed a preference.
We found that people seldom stopped their cooperation in the middle of the survey, sothat it is possible to combine two methods. In addition, it was found that respondents tended
to prefer to be interviewed first; in 58.7% of the completed cases, respondents had theinterview first.
In the 2nd pilot survey, we left the order of administration to interviewers. They
decided the order based upon their preferences and the subject’s request. In 3 out of 4 cases,
the interview was conducted first.
Based on these results, we decided to combine an interview and a self-administeredquestionnaire and to leave the order to interviewers.

2) Length of Time for Interview and Self-administered Questionnaire
Japanese people in general do not have a strong motivation to assert their opinions or
attitudes in interviews, so obtaining their cooperation for a survey is relatively difficult.
People are also concerned about the amount of time the survey will take. It is difficult to getcooperation from a subject if the subject is informed that the interview session would takeover half an hour. In reality, some respondents, especially elderly respondents, continue toanswer the interview for well over forty minutes without reluctance, once they agree to-9-

JGSS研究論文集[3](2004.3)

cooperate. But it is important to incline subjects to cooperate with the survey in the firstplace.
Considering these situations, we planned to combine a 20 minutes interview and aself-administered questionnaire which would also take around 20 minutes. We thought itlikely that subjects could be persuaded with these figures if they ask about the time the survey
would take. Having a pretest with people who varied in educational background, the project
team completed questionnaires for interview and for placement, both of which took about 20
minutes.
Table ４ shows the average time for the interview for each survey. You may noticethat the mean time of the interview increased from 23.3 minutes to 28.6 minutes in the 2nd
pilot survey. Although the number of questions asked in the interview increased only
slightly from the 1st pilot survey to the 2nd pilot survey (Table ５), the construction of somequestions in the 2nd pilot survey was more complex and took more time. The number ofquestions in the interview session further increased to 108 in JGSS-2000 and to 111 in
JGSS-2001. At the time of conducting JGSS-2002, we noticed that the project teamcrammed too many questions into the questionnaire and extended the interview time. It is nolonger possible to announce that the interview will take around 20 minutes.
Table ４ Average Time of the Interview for JGSS
1 Pilot
2nd Pilot JGSS-2000 JGSS-2001 JGSS-2002 JGSS-2003*
20
25
27
26
29
--20
20
30
30
30
--23.3
28.6
28.3
28.4
29.0
17.8
10
13
10
10
10
9
50 (7)
99 (2)
99 (3)
120 (3)107 (1)30 (1)
stMediumMode
MeanMinimum
Maximum

Number in parentheses is the number of respondents.
*Figures for JGSS-2003 are obtained from a pre-test with 15 people with various educational
background and age.

Table ５ Number of Question Items and Variables in the Interview
1st Pilot
2nd Pilot JGSS-2000 JGSS-2001 JGSS-2002 JGSS-2003
No. of items
101
104
108
111
110
56
No. of variables
216
341
371
363
357
237
Table ６ Number of Items and Variables in Self-administered Questionnaire
1st Pilot
2nd Pilot JGSS-2000 JGSS-2001 JGSS-2002 JGSS-2003
A
B
A
B
A
B
No. of items
144 140 152 152
153
155
160
153 251*
No. of variables 165 161 180 180
186
189
260
250 505*For respondents whose social network includes 4 different persons for each of 3 different spheres.

-10-

JGSS研究論文集[3](2004.3)

Considering also the fact that the response rate has decreased from 64.9% in
JGSS-2000 to 62.4% in JGSS-2001, the project team decided to decrease the number ofquestions asked in the interview for JGSS-2002. In conducting JGSS-2002, we wrote in a
letter of requesting cooperation to subjects stating that it would take 20 to 30 minutes for theinterview and about 20 minutes for the self-administered portion. The inclusion of thisinformation might have a negative effect on cooperation.
The field operation of JGSS-2003 has just been completed. Although we used only
one form of self-administered questionnaire for JGSS-2000, 2001 and 2002, we used two
forms in JGSS-2003. The structure of the Form B questionnaire which focuses on the
respondent’s social network and political opinions is complicated. Therefore, its first part isdone through an interview and the interviewer instructs the respondent which questions
should be answered depending on the respondent’s social network. Because of thiscomplication and the extended time necessary for completing Form B, the project team
decided to shorten the interview session substantially. In a pretest of JGSS-2003, theaverage time for the interview session was 18 minutes. The average time for completing
Form A was 20 minutes.
In sum, the length of time for interview and placement sets a very severe limit to thenumber of questions included in each questionnaire.
3) Response Rates and Incentives
One of the characteristics of the JGSS is that the incentive for respondents is prepaid.
Two book coupons worth 1,000 yen are enclosed with a letter of request for cooperation
which is sent to respondents several days before an interviewer will come. By providing
incentives in advance, we attempt to activate the norms of reciprocity in a respondent.
Providing a reasonable amount of monetary incentive to a respondent in advance has
been reported to be effective in Europe and U.S. studies most of which examined results for
postal surveys (Iwai and Inaba, 2001). Although there are only a few studies of this kind inJapan, the director of the JGSS, Prof. TANIOKA conducted an experiment with postal
surveys in 1991. His results showed that enclosing a book coupon worth 300 yen was much
more effective than providing a chance for entering a lottery. KOJIMA, Hideo of Ibaraki
University also showed that a response rate for a condition in which a 100 yen stamp had been
enclosed was higher by 9% than the response rate for a condition with no stamp enclosed.
In order to examine whether response rates really differ according to the timingof providing incentives in Japan, we conducted an experiment in the 2nd pilot survey by using
a split-ballot method. At half of the survey points (40 points), we enclosed book coupons
worth 1,000 yen with a letter of request for cooperation (pre-paid condition). At the rest of
the survey points (41 points), we only promised in a letter of request for cooperation toprovide book coupons worth 1,000 yen on completion of the interview and theself-administered questionnaire (promised condition).
-11-

JGSS研究論文集[3](2004.3)

Table ７ Timing of Providing Incentives and Response Rates for the First Targets
2nd Pilot
2000
2001
2002
1st Pilot
Tokyo
Osaka
Book Coupon Promised Promised Promised Pre-paid Pre-paid Pre-paid Pre-paid
Pen Set------------Anytime
Response Rate 46.4%* 49.5%* 60.5%
73.0%
64.9%
63.1% 62.3%*** Procedures of sampling for the 1st pilot survey are different from those for other surveys.
** A formula of calculation for JGSS-2002 is different from the one for other surveys.

Table ８ Proportion of Refusal, Temporary Absence or Other Reasons for Non-response for
the First Targets

2nd Pilot
Promised Pre-paid
Refusal
22.6
14.8
Temporary Absence
11.0
7.1
Change/Missing of Address, Decease
5.1
4.4
Other Reasons for Non-response
3.9
3.9

2000

2001

2002

21.1
7.1
5.2
5.1

20.9
9.4
7.0
4.0

24.4
9.2
6.7
4.1

The response rate for the promised condition was 60.5%, while the rate for the pre-paidcondition was 73.0%. The timing of providing incentives did show a substantial effect on a
respondent’s cooperation. The response rate of people living in 13 major cities increased
from 42% in a promised condition to 61% in a pre-paid condition. Those for people living
in other cities increased from 58% to 73%, and from 67% to 70% for people living in towns
and villages. It should be noted that the difference in response rates between the two
conditions might be amplified, since the allocation of conditions was skewed unintentionally.
Pre-paid conditions happened to be allocated significantly more in survey points of other
cities and significantly less in those of towns and villages. After controlling effects of such
unexpected factors, we found that pre-paid incentives tend to somewhat increase response
rates of certain groups of people: those who were politically conservative and those who had
their spouse pass away.
In analyzing the effects of the timing of providing incentives, we also examined
whether the timing had any influence on the quality of responses and their distributions.
There are not many studies on these points even in Europe and the U.S. Although the resultsof those few studies are not always consistent, it is pointed out that the number of “no answer”
tends to decrease and respondents tend to write more for open-ended questions whenmonetary incentives are provided (not necessarily in advance). In the above-mentioned
study, KOJIMA pointed out that there was no tendency for respondents to make sociallydesirable responses by being provided with a 100 yen stamp.
Our analyses showed that pre-paid incentives tend to increase somewhat the proportion-12-

JGSS研究論文集[3](2004.3)of the “don’t know answer” for several questions, but with no increase in the proportion of“no answer.”
Based on the above results, we decided to provide incentives in advance to all
respondents from JGSS-2000. The response rate for JGSS-2000 was 64.9% and 63.1% in
JGSS-2001. Although these figures are higher than the response rate for the promised
condition in the 2nd pilot survey, the effect of providing incentives in advance was not
remarkable and there seems to be a decreasing trend of response rates. In conducting
JGSS-2002, we decided to give respondents an additional gift to express our gratitude forhis/her cooperation. A set of three pens of different colors was provided. The timing ofgiving the pen set was determined by the interviewer depending on the circumstances of eachcase. The response rate of JGSS-2002 further decreased somewhat. This down trend of
the response rates of JGSS might be in accordance with a down trend of response rates offace-to-face interview surveys observed in the past twenty years in Japan (Tamano, 2003).
For example, the response rates of the surveys even by the government which have been
conducted annually decreased from 77.4% in 1980 to 69.3% in 2000 (“Shakai Ishiki
nikansuru Yoron Chosa [Opinion Survey on Social Attitudes]”).
Table ８ shows the proportion of refusal, temporary absence, change/missing ofaddress or decease, or other reasons for non-response among the first target group in eachsurvey. Between JGSS-2001 and 2002, the proportion of refusal increased by 3.5%. This
steep climb of refusals is suspected to correspond to the construction of the nation-wide
network of the register of names and addresses by the government in summer of 2002, justbefore the survey of JGSS-2002 started. The introduction of this system raised a number ofarguments regarding the risk of leaking one’s privacy. Although we promised to safeguard
the privacy of respondents in the letter of request, people might become more concerned withprotecting their privacy then.
In conducting JGSS-2003, we made a decision not to provide incentives in advance.
This change was caused mainly by strong requests from interviewers of the survey company.
Although interviewers were informed of the results of the 2nd pilot survey which indicated aclear effect of the pre-paid incentives on a respondent’s cooperation, they have felt that some
respondents are offended by the pre-paid incentives and little room has been left forinterviewers to persuade respondents to cooperate with the survey. Interviewers want tomake an effort to persuade respondents in a promised condition of incentives.
In the JGSS project, interviewers are asked to record the circumstances of each of the
non-response cases in detail by filling out a questionnaire themselves. By analyzing thesedata of JGSS-2002, 6 people got angry with the pre-paid incentive and 14 people complained
about it. Although the proportion of these people among the non-respondents is less than
1%, we made a decision not to provide book coupons in advance for JGSS-2003 so as tomaintain interviewers’ motivation to persuade interviewees for their cooperation. Presently
we are in a process of checking the contents of the returned questionnaires of JGSS-2003.
-13-

JGSS研究論文集[3](2004.3)

4) Replications vs. Innovation
Selection of Questions
At the outset of the 1st Pilot Survey, the project team selected questions for the JGSS
questionnaire based on the following criteria.
(1)
Questions which have been asked frequently in GSS and in other well-known surveys
in Japan.
(2)
Questions which are deemed useful for analyzing Japanese society.
(3)
Questions which are deemed necessary for time-series analyses or future sociologicalstudies.
The 1996 GSS Cumulative Codebook was used as a base. After examining all thequestions used in the GSS, we selected questions which are especially important and haveappeared frequently in the five GSS surveys since 1990. Reflecting the differences between
the U.S. and Japanese societies, JGSS includes far fewer questions relating to religion andrace.
We also examined thoroughly questions asked in Japanese surveys which wererepeatedly conducted nationwide by the government, private firms or groups of researchers.
Especially, the following surveys provided us valuable information: The Study on theJapanese National Character (1953, 1958, 1963, 1968, 1973, 1978, 1983, 1988, 1993, 1998;
Hayashi, 1999) conducted by the Institute of Statistical Mathematics, Ministry of Education,
Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan, the Social Stratification and Social
Mobility Survey (SSM;1955, 1965, 1975, 1985, 1995) conducted by a group of sociologists,
the Attitude Surveys on Japanese (1973, 1978, 1983, 1988, 1993, 1998; NHK,2000) and the
ISSP(the International Social Survey Programme) International Comparative Survey(annually from 1993) conducted by the Research Institute of Broadcasting Culture, Nihon
Hoso Kyokai, the World Values Survey (1981-84,1989-93,1995-98;1999) conducted by
Dentsu Communication Institute and the Leisure Development Center, and the National
Fertility Survey in Japan (1940, 1952, 1957, 1962, 1967, 1972, 1977, 1982, 1987, 1992,
1997) and the National Survey on Family in Japan (1993,1998) conducted by the National
Institute of Population and Social Security Research, Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare.
Consequently, the JGSS questionnaire involved various question fields including but
not limited to: working environments, family, political opinions, social network, social
stratification, religion, leisure activities, and experiences of victimization. Table 9 showsbatteries of core replicating questions and topical modules which were asked in JGSS-2000 to
2002 and to be asked in JGSS-2003. In the codebook of each survey, we make a list ofreferences for each question; we list the name of the survey which uses an identical or asimilar question to the JGSS question.
Some questions are repeated every year, some several times, and some only once.
This is determined according to necessity, circumstance, and the future prospects as viewed
by all researchers in the JGSS project team, which is comprised of sociologists, social-14-

JGSS研究論文集[3](2004.3)

psychologists, economists, demographers, and statisticians from various public and private
universities and institutions.

Questionnaire of JGSS-2000
In addition to the core questions, the questionnaire of JGSS-2000 included the following
topical questions or modules: attitudes toward the death penalty, the revision of the Juveniles
Act, adolescent prostitution, life after death, one’s own grave, organ donation, and thepresence and meanings of pets in a household.

Questionnaire of JGSS-2001
The questions contained in JGSS-2001 were basically identical to those in JGSS-2000.
There was only a minor change. The question on the revision of the Juveniles Act wasomitted, since the Act had been revised before the enforcement of JGSS-2001. On the other
hand, a question on Japan Sports Advancement Lottery (toto) and those on experiences caring
for family members or relatives by the respondent and his/her spouse were included.
Because of the identical features of JGSS-2000 and 2001, students and researchers can easily
merge these two data files for their analyses.

Questionnaire of JGSS-2002
Topical questions and modules included in questionnaires of JGSS-2000 and 2001
were replaced by new questions in JGSS-2002. More than a year before the enforcement of
JGSS-2002, co-principal investigators called for batteries of questions and modules tomembers of the JGSS project. Members who wanted to include questions or modules wereasked to submit questions themselves, the rationale for their inclusion, and references. The
steering committee of the JGSS project (co-directors and co-principal investigators) made thefinal decision on the replacement of questions. New topical questions and modules are as
follows: allergy disease of the respondent and family members, names of the newspapers towhich the respondent subscribes, kinds of volunteer activities done by the respondent andtime spent for it, habits of gambling, habits in purchasing goods in relation to ecology, pastexperiences of studying English and the respondent’s proficiency, and attitudes toward
educational qualifications and the legalization of casinos.
Some questions which had been asked in the interview session were also replaced.
Questions on the respondent’s detailed educational background and the household’s expenses
for housing and for school were included.
Interesting modules on social networks and political opinions were submitted by threemembers of the project team. The steering committee made a decision to include thesemodules not in JGSS-2002 but in JGSS-2003, since the structure of the questionnaire would-15-

JGSS研究論文集[3](2004.3)

Table 9 Core Replicating Questions and Topical Modules*
Present job
Side job
First job
Last job
Education
IncomeMarital status

I
N
Spouse’s job/education/income
T
E Father’s/mother’s education
R Household composition
V Sibling composition
I Political opinions
E Marital history
W Year of children’s birthParents’ jobs at age 15
Place of residence at age 15
Housing: area, ownershipSocial status
Labor union
Job training
Topical Modules

S
E
L
F

Happiness/satisfaction
Marital happiness
Health condition/trauma
State of finances
Social Stratification
Religion
Gender role attitudes
Ideal no./sex of children
Spouse’s health/housework

JGSS-2000

2001

JGSS-2002

x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x

x
x
+channels
x
x
x
x
x
x
x

x
x
+channels
x
x
x
x
x
x
x

+spouse’s siblings+spouse’s siblings

x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x

x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
---

JGSS-2003
Form A
Form B
x
x
----x
x
x
x
x
x
--------xxownershipx
membership---

Major, Housing costs Time/means for commuting
Holidays, Local characteristics
School expenses

x
x
x
x
x
x
xx
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x

x
x
x
x
x
x
xx
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x

x
x
x
x
x
x
xx
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
+which paper
x
--x
x
xx
x

A Last name of husband＆wife
D
Political opinions
M
Group membership
I
Trust in people/organizations
N
I Leisure activities
S Violence
T Drinking/smoking
E Reading books/newspaper
R Use of information technology
E Morality: sex behavior, porno
D Euthanasia
Nonnative
Ecology
Aging/social security
Attitudes to grave, Pets JGSS-2000 plus Allergy disease
Topical Modules

x
--x
x
x
x
xx
x
--x
x
x
x
x
x
x
+which paper
x
--x
xx
xx
x

x
--health onlyxx--x------xxx----------------x---

Allergy disease Social network
Death penalty, Adolescent Care experiences Volunteer activity(talk over trouEnglish study
prostitution, Juveniles Act (self/spouse),
Ecology & consuming Consuming,Bul- bles,work matFemale governor, Donator Japan Sports Ad- Meaning of schooling lying,Community ters, politics),
Surrogate mom Political opinof organ, Victimization of vancement Lot- English study
violence, Life after death tery (toto)
ions
CasinoGamble/casino* x: related questions, xx: many questions, +: in addition to x, ---: not asked.
-16-

JGSS研究論文集[3](2004.3)

become more complicated by including these modules. It was also decided that a sample
size of the JGSS-2003 would be increased and two different forms of questionnaires would be
used for placement by split-balloting the sample of JGSS-2003. The three members who
had submitted modules on social networks and political opinions were assigned to a project
team which is responsible for making the questionnaire which contains social network
modules and conducting a pilot survey in advance of the full-scale survey. The pilot survey
was conducted October 2002.
Questionnaire of JGSS-2003
JGSS co-principal investigators called for batteries of questions and modules again tomembers of the JGSS project in the summer of 2002. By this time, some members of the
project team were replaced and the project team expanded to include new members whose
major fields are marketing, linguistics, law, human rights, and area studies. These members
submitted questions or modules with their rationale and references. The steering committee
made a final decision on which questions to be included in the form A questionnaire byplacement for the JGSS-2003.
On the other hand, the form B questionnaire includes the modules on social networks
and political opinions. Respondents are asked about his/her social network in three different
spheres of life separately; to whom he/she talks over troubles of life, matters of work, andpolitics. To accommodate this module, the number of not so essential core questions
included in questionnaires for the JGSS-2003 was further reduced for both placement andinterview.

5) Wording and Scales
In the first and second pilot surveys, the project team examined the effects of wording,the forms of scales, and the number of choices to be presented on responses. Even if the
JGSS questionnaires models those of the GSS, we should have considered possible
differences in response patterns between the U.S. and Japan. Therefore, we prepared two
different forms of questionnaires to be used in the placement method. Table 10 shows thenumber of questions common to Form A and B, those specific to Form A and those specificto Form B in each of the two pilot surveys. The questionnaire for the interview method isTable 10 Number of Questions in Forms A and B of the Self-administered Questionnaire
2nd Pilot Survey
1st Pilot Survey
A
B
AB
No. of questions common to A and B
89
89
104
104
No. of questions specific to A
55--48--No. of questions specific to B
--51
--48
Total No. of questions
144
140
152
152
No. of valid responses
147
163
410
380
-17-

JGSS研究論文集[3](2004.3)

only one form. Form A contained questions whose wording or scales are observed
frequently in the GSS questionnaires. On the other hand, Form B contained questions whose
wording or scales are used frequently in surveys conducted in Japan. By using a split-ballot
method, Form A was distributed to a half of the sample, and Form B was distributed to therest of the sample. The survey questions for JGSS-2000, the first full-scale survey, wereconstructed taking into consideration the following findings (Iwai, 2000; Iwai, 2001; Sugita
and Iwai, 2001).

Wording of Categories
In the GSS questionnaires, the following scale has been often used for asking
respondent’s opinions; a scale whose categories are “strongly agree,” “agree,” “disagree,” and“strongly disagree.” However, in questionnaires used in Japanese surveys, this scale seldom
appears; instead, a scale with categories are “agree,” “somewhat agree,” “somewhat
disagree,” and “disagree” is used.
Figure 1 shows the distribution of responses for Form A and Form B. While
responses for Form A concentrate on the central two categories, the distribution of Form B
spreads normally. The scale used in Form B seems proper for the JGSS self-administeredquestionnaire.
(%)

Fig.1a Form A

50

43.2

40

46.3

28.7

30
20

20

0

39.7

40

30

10

Fig.1b Form B

(%)
50

5.9
3.4
Strongly
agree

1.2
Agree

Disagree Strongly
disagree

14.2

15.8

10

1.6

0

NA

Agree

Somewhat Somewhat Disagree
agreedisagreeNA“When a marriage is troubled and unhappy, it is generally better for the children if the couple gets divorced.”

Inclusion/Exclusion of a Choice of “Depends”
In making a questionnaire, Japanese researchers tend not to include a choice of“depends” in a list of choices, since this choice attracts a large proportion of responses. GSS
avoids this problem by not showing this choice to a respondent at the interview; but if
respondents say “depends” or “don’t know,” these answers are given codes afterward
respectively in a coding process.
In the JGSS, most questions on opinions and attitudes are planned to be included in aself-administered questionnaire not in an interview questionnaire. In order to examine theeffects of the inclusion of the choice “depends,” we included “depends” in Form A andexcluded it from Form B. The question itself is “Do you think it desirable for three
generations (older people, their married children, and grandchildren) to share a home?”-18-

JGSS研究論文集[3](2004.3)

80

Fig. 2a. Form A

(%)

60
40

(%)
80

40
13.9

20

0.0
undesirable

31.3

20

0
desirable

65.5

60

50.0

36.1

Fig. 2b. Form B

depends

3.2

0

NA

desirable

undesirable

NA“Do you think it desirable for three generations (older people, their married children, and grandchildren) to share a home?”

Figure 2 shows the distribution of responses for Form A and for Form B. While a ratio of“desirable” responses to “undesirable” ones does not significantly differ between Form A andB, half of the responses concentrate on a category of “depends” in Form A.
A similar question has been asked in GSS: “As you know, many older people share ahome with their grown children. Do you think this is generally a good idea or a bad idea?”
The proportion of “depends” is 19.4% and that of “don’t know” is 1.2% in the 1998 GSS.
The scale used in Form B seems proper for the JGSS self-administered questionnaire.

Inclusion/Exclusion of a Choice of “Don’t Know”
A choice of “don’t know” also attracts a large proportion of responses. For examining
this point, we included “don’t know” in Form A and excluded it from Form B. The effect of
this inclusion differs depending of the topic of questions.
(%)
80
60
40
20
0

Fig. 3a. Form A

(%)
80
60
40
20
0

62.4
27.3
10.0
Yes

0.2

No

Don't
know

NA

Fig. 3b. Form B
79.7
17.6
2.6
Yes

No

NA

“When a person has a fatal disease (that cannot be cured), do you think doctors should be allowed by law to
end the patient’s life by some painless means if the patient and his/her family request it?”(%)

Fig. 3c. Form A

(%)
50

36.8

40

50
40

29.0

30
20
10

8.5

Fig. 3d. Form B
44.2
32.4

30
11.2

20

12.7
1.2

0.5

10

8.9

11.8
1.3

1.3

0

0
Far
Below Average Above
Far
below average
average above
averageaverage

Don't
know

NA

Far
Below Average Above
Far
below average
average above
averageaverage“Compared with Japanese families in general, what would you say about your family income?”

-19-

NA

JGSS研究論文集[3](2004.3)

The proportion of “don’t know” accounts for about 30% for questions which calls forsome knowledge on the law: the revision of Juveniles Act, the death penalty, euthanasia, andpornography (Figure 3a). On the other hand, the proportion of “don’t know” decreases forquestions on respondent’s subjective evaluations of the household’s income and household’s
income when the respondent was 15 years old (15%; Figure 3c). However, in both cases,
the shape of the distribution of responses for other categories does not differ regardless of
inclusion/exclusion of “don’t know.” As a result, we decided to include a choice of “don’tknow” for questions relating to the law and exclude it for other questions in the questionnaireof JGSS-2000.

Use of Symmetrical or Unsymmetrical scales
In the GSS questionnaires, unsymmetrical scales have been used for questions on the
respondent’s health condition or degree of happiness or satisfaction. Those scales arecontrived to have more categories on the positive side. On the other hand, most Japanesestudies use symmetrical scales for these questions with equal number of categories on thepositive and on the negative sides.
Figure 4 shows the distribution of responses for Form A (unsymmetrical) and for Form
B (symmetrical). The distribution for an unsymmetrical scale tends to be better balanced
than the distribution for a symmetrical scale. The conclusion to use this scale will be
discussed in the following section.
(%)

Fig. 4a. Form A

50
40
30
20
10

50

42.2

40

32.7

0
Good

Somewhat
good

38.7

Poor

14.7

20

0.0
Very goodFig. 4b. Form B
36.3

30

14.1

11.0

(%)

10

8.7

0
Good

NA

Somewhat Inbetween Somewhat
good
poor

1.1

0.5

Poor

NA

“How would you rate your health condition?”

Spelling out Categories: every category or only both ends
In the GSS questionnaires, choices for questions are not always spelled out. There aresome questions for which respondents are asked to choose one point from a scale whose
categories are spelled-out only on both ends.
Figure 5 shows the distribution of responses for Form A (scale) and for Form B(spelled-out). The distribution for a question with a scale tends to be better balanced than the
distribution for a question with spelled-out choices.
Considering the results of comparisons between symmetrical and unsymmetrical scales
and between a scale and spelled-out choices, the JGSS project team decided to use asymmetrical scale whose categories are spelled-out only on both ends for JGSS-2000.
-20-

JGSS研究論文集[3](2004.3)

d

2

4

3

ati
is s
D
5

sfie

d

1.5

13.4

NA

3.9

0.8
NA

e
isfi
sat
y
er
1V

4.9

16.3

Dissatisfied

10.5

10
0

27.9

37.6

Somewhatdissatisfied

17.3

Fig. 5b. Form B

(%)

Can't
choose

30
20

40
30
20
10
0

36.1

29.8

SomewhatsatisfiedFig. 5a. Form A(%)

Satisfied40“How much satisfaction do you get from the following areas of life? Your non-work activities.”

Although unsymmetrical scales tended to show a better-balanced distribution, the distribution
for symmetrical scales was not especially skewed. In addition, symmetrical scales are easier
to handle for statistical analyses than unsymmetrical scales.

Number of Choices: 3 choices or 5 choices
Figure 6 shows the distribution of responses for a question with three choices and for aquestion with five choices. The shapes of these two distributions are similar to each other.
However, the proportion of “don’t know” is smaller for a question with five choices than for
one with three choices (17.1% < 24.6%). Questions with five choices seem proper for the
JGSS self-administered questionnaire.
60

Fig. 6a. Form A(%)

Fig.6b. Form B

(%)
60

57.8

0.5
About
right

Shouldbe muchharsher

Don't
know

NA

17.1

14.2

20

0.2
Too
harshly

28.9

24.6

16.8

20
0

38.9

40

40

0.3

0.3

Too
harshly

A little
tooharshly

0.3

0
About
right

Should Should
be muchbeharsher harsher

Don't
know

NA

“Do you think the courts have dealt too harshly or not harshly enough with criminals in the past few years?”

Inclusion of a Middle-choice: 4 choices or 5 choices
In the GSS questionnaire, questions on opinions or attitudes are sometimes asked withfour choices and sometimes asked with five choices including a middle choice (“cannot
choose” or “undecided”). Figure 7 shows the distribution of responses for a question withfive choices and for a question with four choices.
Being presented with five choices, a large proportion of respondents has chosen the
middle choice. While the proportion of non-responses does not differ by the inclusion of the
middle choice, the proportion of the pros and cons differ substantially in some questions.
Examining responses to questions regarding division of gender roles, the proportion of theapproval to the disapproval tends to be larger for a question with five choices than one with-21-

JGSS研究論文集[3](2004.3)(%)

Fig. 7a. Form A

60

60

48.0

Fig. 7b. Form B

(%)

42.4
40

40
19.5

20

24.7

19.5
6.3

6.1

Somewhat
agree

Can't
chooseSomewhatdisagreeDisagree

9.2
1.1

0.5

0

0
Agree

22.6

20

Agree

NA

Somewhat Somewhat Disagree
agreedisagreeNA“Without a doubt, a woman’s happiness lies in a marriage.”

50

Fig. 8a. Form A

(%)

40

34.6

30

20

20

11.2

8.5

13.7

0.5

0.2

0
Upper
class

Upper
middleclass

Middleclass

Lower
middle
class

46.8

40

31.2

30
10

Fig. 8b. Form B

50 (%)

Lower
class

Don't
know

NA

10

20.8

20.3
10.3

1.6

0.3

Upper Upper Lower Lower Don't
class middle middle class know
class classNA0“If the following five categories are used to describe the Japanese society of today, which would you say you belong to?”four choices. Being presented with five choices, the proportion of the disapproval tends tobe very small. Concerning questions on opinions or attitudes, presenting four choices
without a middle choice seems proper for the JGSS self-administered questionnaire.
Figure 8 shows the distribution of responses for a question on a respondent’s
identification with a certain social stratum. Without a middle choice (“middle of the
middle”), the proportion of “don’t know” increases (20.3% > 13.7%). With the question ofsocial stratum identification, five choices including “middle of the middle” seems proper for
the JGSS self-administered questionnaire.

Order of Presenting Choices
In the GSS questionnaires, choices are presented in decreasing order, such as from“heavy” to “light” or from “good” to “evil.” In order to examine the effect of ordering
choices, we presented choices in decreasing order for Form A and in increasing order forForm B.
Figure 9 shows the distribution of responses for a question on the respondent’s
subjective feeling of the tax burden. The proportion of the dominant response is further
expanded when the dominant category comes first.
Figure 10 shows the distribution of responses for a question on the true character of thehuman being. The distribution of responses for a scale with decreasing order is skewed to
the “good” side to a greater extent than the distribution for a scale with increasing order. It
seems proper to present choices in increasing order (a dominant category comes last or in the-22-

JGSS研究論文集[3](2004.3)

(%)
60

0.0

10.3

0.8

0.5

So

NA

no
w

Do

n'
tk

hig

h

igh
t
ew
ha
th
igh

w
To

o

lo

NA

kn
ow

lo
w

Do
n' t

So
m

ew

To
o

ha
tl
ow

igh
t
Ab
o

ut
r

th
igh

hi
gh

ew
ha

o

0.8

0

0

So
m

18.4

20

11.5

1.0

tr

0.7

26.3

So
m

11.0

w

20

To

42.9

40

26.6

lo

40

Fig. 9b. Form B

TooFig. 9a. Form A
49.3

Ab
ou

(%)

m
ew
ha
t

60

“Do you think the amount of income tax you have to pay is high?”

40
30
20
10
0
cal
asi
1B

Fig. 10a. Form A

(%)

40
30
20
10
0

30.7
14.1

oo
ly g

18.0

17.6
11.5
2.7

d

2

3

4

5

3.7

l
6
evi
ally
c
i
as
7B

1.7
NA

c
as i
1B

Fig. 10b. Form B

(%)

31.3
4.7

ally

l
e vi

20.8 15.8

10.8

10.5

3.9
2

3

4

5
7B

d
6
goo
lly
a
c
asi

2.1
NA

“What do you think of human nature?”rear) for the JGSS questionnaire.
Figure 11 shows the distribution of responses for a question on the ideal sex of a child,provided that one has only one child. The proportion of preferring a girl does not differ
significantly by the order of presenting choices. In this case, considering the naturalness ofthe order, we decided to present “boy” first for JGSS-2000.
Fig. 11a. Form A(%)
60

Fig. 11b. Form B

(%)
60

56.1

40.7

58.4

40

40

20

38.2

20
3.2

3.4

0

0
Boy

Girl

NA

Girl

Boy

NA

“If you were to have only one child, would you prefer a boy or a girl (a girl or a boy)?”

Multiple-choice or Open-ended
Religion is one of the central topics asked in the GSS questionnaires. Considering themuch smaller impact of religion on society and everyday life of the Japanese, we planned toinclude only a few questions regarding religion in the JGSS questionnaire. Previous studies
show that a considerable number of Japanese people have a religion of the family even though
they do not practice it at all. Therefore, it is necessary to ask respondents not only whether
they have a religion or not, but also whether they have a religion of the family or not even if-23-

JGSS研究論文集[3](2004.3)

they do not practice it.
In the first and second pilot surveys, we examined the effect of the form of the question
on responses. Both in Form A and Form B, we first asked the following question: “Do you
follow a religion?” with choices of “Yes,” “Although not practiced, I have a family religion,”or “No.” For those people who follow a religion or have a family religion, we asked
respondents to circle the religion in a list in Form A. In Form B we asked respondents toname the religion. Whether the second question is a multiple-choice or an open-ended
question did show a significant effect on the responses for the first question. While theproportion of “having a family religion” is smaller in Form B (open-ended) than in Form A(multiple-choice), that of “no” is larger in Form B than in Form A. This kind of effect might
not appear if we ask this question in interview. However, asking one’s religion is a delicate
question, so that it should be included in the self-administered questionnaire.
We decided to use an open-ended question for one’s religion. It is because theproportion of “no” in the JGSS pilot surveys was not necessarily smaller compared withresults of other surveys and we can obtain more information with an open-ended question.
Use of a Frequency or a Relative Scale
The division of housework between spouses has been measured in many different ways,
such as asking the amount time spent doing housework by each spouse, asking the frequencyof housework done by each spouse, or asking the proportion of sharing between spouses
directly. The last scale was used in the GSS questionnaire.
In the two pilot surveys, we examined the difference in results between measuring witha frequency scale and measuring with a relative scale. In both Form A and B, we asked
respondents about their frequency of doing housework (cooking evening meals, doing laundry,
shopping for groceries and cleaning the house respectively). Then in Form A, we asked the
respondent about the frequency of housework done by the respondent’s spouse. In Form B,
we asked the respondent about the proportion of sharing with six categories (exclusively bywife, mostly by wife but sometimes by husband, sharing equally, mostly by husband but
sometimes by wife, exclusively by husband, by others).
There was no difference in a respondent’s frequency of doing housework between two
forms. Results from frequency scales and from a relative scale are roughly equivalent toeach other. For the JGSS-2000, we decided to use a frequency scale for the respondent andfor the respondent’s spouse, since this scale is more informative than a relative scale.
In conclusion, we made the following decisions for the JGSS-2000.
a) Not to use the word “strongly,” but use the word “somewhat” if necessary.
b) Not to include “depends” in a list of choices.
c) For questions regarding the laws, the choice of “don’t know” is included in a list of
choices; for other questions, “don’t know” is excluded.
-24-

JGSS研究論文集[3](2004.3)

d) Use a symmetrical scale whose ends categories are spelled-out.
e) Use a five-point scale rather than a three-point scale.
f) For questions on opinions and attitudes, use a four-point scale without a middle choice;for a question on social stratum identification, include a middle choice (“middle of the
middle.”)g) Present a dominant category last or in the rear.
h) Use an open-ended question (not a multiple-choice question) for asking religion.
i) Use a frequency scale for asking about the respondent’s and spouse’s performance ofhousework, rather than a relative scale.
Therefore, the scales we use in the JGSS are not always comparable with those used in
the GSS.

7. Conclusion and Coming Development
Thus far, the JGSS project team has conducted two pilot surveys and four full-scalenational surveys during the last five years. The team has been cleaning the data from thesesurveys and has already released four data sets to academic circles for the purpose of
education and research. The team has edited and published four volumes of codebooks, twomonographs, and one book. The total number of data sets used amounts to more than eleven
hundreds. Users have written course papers, master’s or doctor’s theses and papers for
professional journals by analyzing the data sets both in Japan and overseas. Members of the
project team feel that we have produced a certain effect on education and research in the fieldof social sciences in Japan. Now there is an atmosphere among social scientists that survey
data should be scheduled to be released to academic circles for the use of secondary analyses.
Japan has become a nation which not only uses data sets collected by social scientists in othercountries, but also provides Japanese data sets for users in other countries. The JGSS project
undoubtedly contributes to the advancement of this process.
As mentioned earlier, from the JGSS International Symposium held in June 2003, a
new challenge for JGSS has arisen. In November 2003, principal investigators of East Asiansocial surveys from China, Taiwan, Japan and Korea gathered at Sungkyunkwan University
in Seoul for the Thematic Lecture Series, “Survey Researches in East Asia,” and theWorkshop on East Asian Studies organized by Sociology Department and Survey ResearchCenter of the university. At the workshop all parties expressed mutual interest in carryingout a comparative study in East Asia by incorporating a set of common modules of questions
into the regular surveys of each existing survey. The specifically Asian effort was felt
necessary as similar attempts of international comparisons have often been dominated by thewestern countries in respect with the choice of topics, administration techniques and so on.
Out of the workshop a steering committee of East Asian Social Surveys was formed.
In December 2003, principal investigators of KGSS, JGSS and Taiwan Social Change-25-

JGSS研究論文集[3](2004.3)

Survey (TSCS) again met in Taipei for the Thematic Lecture on Japanese and Korean Social
Surveys organized by Institute of Sociology and Center for Survey Research, Academia
Sinica. The committee agreed upon the summary of schedules for the collaborative study,
and the survey year was set to be 2006.
Thus, a new perspective has developed for the JGSS Project during the final year of thefirst 5-year period of the project. The project team will continue to devote themselves to thesurvey data collection and analyses, while actively participating in the comparative studies
with our East Asian counterparts.

[Appendix]
Sampling Design of JGSS-2000
Survey Area: Nationwide
Population: Males and Females 20-89 years of age
Sample Size: 4,500
Number of Sampling Spots: 300 points
Sampling Method: Two-stage stratified random sampling
Form of Register: Register of electors
1. Stratify the population
By Region (6) and
By Population size of cities/districts (3)1）13 Big Cities： Sapporo, Sendai, Chiba, Tokyo Metropolitan Area, Yokohama, Kawasaki,
Nagoya, Kyoto, Osaka, Kobe, Hiroshima, Kitakyushu, Fukuoka
2）Other Cities
3）Suburban Districts
2. Allocate 4,500 samples to each stratum according to the size of the population aged 20-89.
3. Sampling of SpotsPrimary Sampling Unit: Primary Unit (about 50 households) used for the 1995 Census
The number of sampling spots for each stratum is adjusted so that the number of the sampling
individuals in each spot would be around 15.
The interval of sampling the spot is computed for each stratum based on the following formula:(No. of primary units) /(No. of sampling spots)
From a list of primary units for each stratum (units are ordered according to the code ofcites/wards/towns and villages made by the Ministry of Home Affairs), sample the necessary
number of spots starting from a random starting point.

-26-

JGSS研究論文集[3](2004.3)

4. Sampling of Individuals
Using a register of electors, sample 15 individuals as the first targets and sample another 5 individuals
as supplementary targets for each spot starting from a random starting point.
Sampling Interval: 21 for a city whose population is over 40,000
11 for a city/suburban district whose population is less than 40,000
5. Use of the Supplementary Targets
When the first targeted individual has passed away, changed address or whose address isunidentifiable, use a supplementary target starting from the top of the list of supplements.
6. Interviewers fill out a question sheet for every non-response case.
The Number of Population, Target Sample Size and the Number Sampling Spots for Each Stratum
By population
13 big cities
Other cities
Suburban districts
Total
size
By Region
2,102,960
6,020,350
3,739,209
11,862,519
Hokkaido/Tohoku
90 （6）
285（19）180 （12）555（37）
10,700,400
16,508,164
3,740,719
30,949,283
Kanto
495（33）765（51）180 （12）1,440（96）1,634,257
11,290,158
4,906,146
17,830,561
Chubu
75 （5）
525（35）225 （15）825（55）
4,195,429
9,523,335
2,110,274
15,829,038
Kinki
195（13）450（30）105 （7）750（50）834,684
5,528,151
2,824,111
9,186,946
Chugoku/Shikoku
45 （3）
255（17）135 （9）435（29）1,742,678
5,407,678
3,611,327
10,761,683
Kyushu75 （5）
255（17）165 （11）495（33）
21,210,408
54,277,836
20,931,786
96,420,030
Total Population
2,535（169）
990 （66）
4,500（300）
No.of samples (spots) 975（65）Number of Valid Responses: 2,893
Response Rate: 64.9%[References]
Barnes, Bob, 1992, "Studies of Non-respondents in OPCS Household Surveys, Using Census Data: Past Studies
and Future Plans," Survey Methodology Bulletin, 30, pp.21-25.
Brennan, Mike, Janet Hoek, and Craig Astridge, 1991, "The Effect of Monetary Incentives on the Response Rate
and Cost-effectiveness of a Mail Survey," Journal of Market Research Society, Vol. 33, No.3, pp.229-241.
Brennan, Mike, 1992, "The Effect of a Monetary Incentive on Mail Survey Response Rates: New Data," Journalof Market Research Society, Vol. 34, No.2, pp.173-177.
Brennan, Mike, and Janet Hoek, 1992, "The Behavior of Respondents, Nonrespondents, and Refusers across Mail

-27-

JGSS研究論文集[3](2004.3)

Surveys," Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 56, pp.530-535.
Church, Allan H., 1993, "Estimating the Effect of Incentives on Mail Survey Response Rates: a Meta-analysis,"
Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 57, pp.62-79.
Davis, James A. and Smith, Tom W., and Marsden, Peter V., 2001, General Social Surveys, 1972-2000:
Cumulative Codebook, Chicago: NORC.
Dentsu Communication Institute and the Leisure Development Center (eds.), 1999, Sekai 23 kakoku Kachikan
Databook (Databook of Values in 23 Countries), Doyukan.
Goyder, John, 1994, "An Experiemnt with Cash Incentives on a Personal Interview Survey,"Journal of Market
Research Society, Vol. 36, No.4, pp360-366.
Harkness, Janet and Peter Mohler, 1998, "Two Experiments with Incentives on Mail Surveys in Germany,"
Survey Methods Centre Newsletter （Social & Community Planning Research）, Vol.18, No.2, pp.15-20.
Hayashi, Chikio, 2001, Nihonjin no Kokuminsei Kenkyu (Studies on Japanese National Character), Nansosya.
Hayashi, Hideo, 1980,”A Review of Mail Surveys conducted in Japan and the U.S.,” Marketing Researcher,
No.17, pp.16-34.
Hopkins, Kenneth D., and Arlen R. Gullickson, 1992, "Response Rates in Survey Research: a Meta-analysis of theEffects of Monetary Gratuities," Journal of Experimental Education, Vol.61, No.1, pp.52-62.
Inaba, Akihide, 2000, “Sampling and Characteristics of Data”, National Family Research（ＮＦＲ98）, No.1,
pp.10-17.
Iwai, Noriko, 2000, “Examining Forms of Question by a Split-ballot Method,” in the Institute of Regional Studies,
Osaka University of Commerce, and the Institute of Social Science, University of Tokyo (eds.), JGSS 1st
Pilot Survey Codebook, pp.15-36.
Iwai, Noriko, 2001, “Japanese General Social Surveys (JGSS) and Measurements of Family and Gender
Attitudes: Results of the 1st Preliminary Survey,” Japanese Journal of Family Sociology, 12(2)pp.261-270.
Iwai, Noriko and Inaba, Taichi, 2001, “Response Rate of the JGSS 2nd Pilot Survey and Analyses of
Non-respondents,” in the Institute of Regional Studies, Osaka University of Commerce, and the Institute ofSocial Science, University of Tokyo (eds.), JGSS 2nd Pilot Survey Codebook, pp.13-22.
Kojima, Hideo, 1992, “On a Mail Survey in Educational Research,”Studies in Teaching Strategies, Ibaraki
University,11, pp.29-38.
Kojima, Hideo, 1993, “A Practice of a Mail Survey Based on TDM,”Bulletin of the Faculty of Education:
Humanities and Social Sciences Edition, Ibaraki University, 42, pp.185-194.
Kojima, Hideo and Shinohara, Sugao, 1998, “Characteristics and Response Bias of Early, Middle, and Late
Respondents in a Mail Survey,” Bulletin of the Faculty of Education: Humanities and Social Sciences
Edition, Ibaraki University, 47, pp.195-205.
Kojima, Hideo and Shinohara, Sugao, 2000, “A Study on Mail Survey Methodology,”Bulletin of the Faculty of
Education: Humanities and Social Sciences Edition, Ibaraki University, 49, pp.171-184.
Kojima, Hideo, Nakamura, Tomoko and Shinohara, Sugao, 2000, “A Study on Factors Affecting Response Rates
in Mail Surveys,” Studies in Teaching Strategies, Ibaraki University, 19.
Lincoln, J. and Kalleberg, A., "Work Organization and Workforce Commitment: A Study of Plants and-28-

JGSS研究論文集[3](2004.3)

Employees in the U.S. and Japan," American Sociological Review, vol.50, pp. 738-760.
Lynn, Peter, Bridget Taylor and Lindsay Brook, 1997, "Incentives, Information and Number of Contacts: Testing
the Effects of These Factors on Response to a Panel Survey," Survey Methods Centre Newsletter （Social& Community Planning Research）, Vol.17, No.3, pp.7-12.
Lynn, Peter, and Patrick Sturgis, 1997, "Boosting Survey Response through a Monetary Incentive and Fieldwork
Procedures: an Experiment," Survey Methods Centre Newsletter （Social & Community PlanningResearch）, Vol.17, No.3, pp.18-22.
Lynn, Peter, Katarina Thomson and Lindsay Brook, 1998, "An Experiment with Incentives on the British Social
Attitudes Surveys," Survey Methods Centre Newsletter （Social & Community Planning Research）,
Vol.18, No.2, pp.12-14.
Mangione, Thomas W., 1995, Mail Surveys: Improving the Quality, Sage Publications, Inc. (Translated into
Japanese by Hayashi, Hideo and Murata Harumichi, Yuso Chosaho no Jissai: Chosa niokeru
Hinshitsukanri no Know-how, 1999, Doyukan).
Nakao, Keiko, 1999, “Methodological Issues on Japanese General Social Surveys (JGSS)（4）Issues incomparative studies in comparison with GSS,” Proceedings of the 72th Annual Meeting of the Japan
Sociological Society, p.22.
Nomura Research Institute, 1998, Kawariyuku Nihonjin: Seikatsusha 1mannin nimiru Nihonjin no Ishiki to Kodo
(Changing Japanese: Values and Behavioral Patterns Seen in 10,000 People), Nomura Research Institute.
Nomura Research Institute, 2001, Zoku: Kawariyuku Nihonjin : Seikatsusha 1mannin nimiru Nihonjin no
Kachikan/Shohikodo (Changing Japanese: 2nd Edition: Values and Behavioral Patterns of Consumers
Seen in 10,000 People), Nomura Research Institute.
Nicolaas, Gerry and Peter Lynn, 1998, "The Use of Respondent Incentives in Surveys," Survey Methods Centre
Newsletter （Social & Community Planning Research）, Vol.18, No.2, pp.3-8.
Rasinski, K. A., 1989, "The Effort of Question Wording on Public Support for Government Spending,"Public
Opinion Quarterly, vol.53, pp.388-394.
Research Institute of Broadcasting Culture, Nihon Hoso Kyokai (NHK), 2000, Gendai Nihonjin no Ishiki Kozo:
dai 5 han (Structures of Attitudes of Contemporary Japanese: the 5th Edition), Nihon Hoso Syuppan
Kyokai.
Schuman, H. and Scott, J., 1989, "Response Effect Over Time : Two Experiments," Sociological Method &Research, vol.17, No.4, pp.398-408.
Singer, Eleanor, John Van Hoewyk, Nancy Gebler, Trivellore Raghunathan and Katherine McGonagle, 1999,"The Effect of Incentives on Response Rates in Interviewer-Mediated Surveys," Journal of Official
Statistics, Vol.15, No.2, pp.217-230.
Singer, Eleanor, 1998, "The Effect of Incentives on Response Rates in Interviewer-Mediated Surveys," Survey
Methods Centre Newsletter （Social & Community Planning Research）, Vol.18, No.2, pp.9-11.
Smith, Tom W., 1983, "The Hidden 25 Percent: An Analysis of Nonresponse on the 1980 General Social Survey,"
Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 47, pp.386-404.
Smith, Tom W., 1984, "Recalling Attitudes : An Analysis of Retrospective Questions on the 1982 GSS," Public
Opinion Quarterly, vol.48, pp.639-649.

-29-

JGSS研究論文集[3](2004.3)

Smith, Tom W., 1987, "That Which We Call Welfare by Any Other Name Would Smell Sweeter : An Analysis of
the Impact of Question Wording on Response Patterns," Public Opinion Quarterly, vol.51, pp.75-83.
Smith, Tom W., 1990, "Timely Artifacts: A Review of Measurement Variation in the 1972-1989 GSS,"GSS
Methodological Report, No.56, National Opinion Research Center.
Smith, Tom W., 1993, "Little Things Matter: A Sampler of How Differences in Questionnaire Format Can Affect
Survey Responses," GSS Methodological Report, No.78, National Opinion Research Center.
Sugita, Hizuru and Iwai, Noriko, 2001, “Examining Forms of Questions by a Split-ballot Method,” in the Instituteof Regional Studies, Osaka University of Commerce, and the Institute of Social Science, University ofTokyo (eds.), JGSS 2nd Pilot Survey Codebook, pp.23-43.
Sweet, James, Bumpass, Larry, and Call, Vaughn, 1988, “The Design and Content of the National Survey of
Families and Households,” NSFH Working Paper 1, Center for Demography and Ecology, University of
Wisconsin-Madison.
Sweet, James and Bumpass, Larry, 1989, “Conducting a Comprehensive Survey of American Family Life: The
Experience of the National Survey of Families and Households,” NSFH Working Paper 12, Center for
Demography and Ecology, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Sweet, James, 1990, “Differentials in the Length of the NSFH Interview,” NSFH Working Paper 21, Center for
Demography and Ecology, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Sweet, James, 1990, “NSFH Experience with the Use of Self-Administered Questionnaires,” NSFH Working
Paper 22, Center for Demography and Ecology, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Tamano, Kazushi, 2003, “Difficulties in Social Survey and the Task for Sociologists,” Japanese Sociological
Review, 53 (4) pp.537-551.
Tanioka, Ichiro, 1993, “Study of New Technique to Raise the Responding Rate of Social Research by Mail“ The
Review of Osaka University of Commerce, 95, pp.99-118.
Yamaguchi, Kazuo, 2002, “The Difficulty of Social Research from an American Research Perspective,” JapaneseSociological Review, 53 (4) pp.552-565.
Yu, Julie and Harris Cooper, 1983, "A Quantitative Review of Research Design Effects on Response Rates to
Questionnaires," Journal of Marketing Research, Vol.20, pp.36-44.

-30-